Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive319

User:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles
This user has been disruptive for quite a while now. His attitude is poor, he is hypocritical at times and more. Some recent examples: It needs to be noted: his AFD keep comments are the same repetitive things. His comments have ranged from "the article is well formatted" to "it has good images" and so on. He simply doesn't understand policies, and rarely thinks things violate policies. Also I believe he is using the Article Rescue Squadron as a way to vote stack. Most of the time when he comments in an AFD, minutes later (or before): he tags the article with a rescue tag. Something needs to be done about him. I will admit he has gotten better a little, but still fails to comprehend many policies and/or chooses to ignore them. RobJ1981 20:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Television series considered the greatest ever (2nd nomination). Part of this was moved from the actual AFD, after it got a bit long. It all started when his AFD keep comment was "it survived a previous AFD" (which he's used as a reason for several AFDs). I put a note to the closing admin, that consensus can change. The CCC policy has been mentioned to Le Grand, but he simply refuses to accept it.
 * Articles for deletion/Veni, Vidi, Vici in popular culture. He made a comment of "please see the I like it essay". He did this in at least one other AFD I believe. Listcruft is a reasonable reason to delete things, but Le Grand refuses to accept it. He is a hypocrite here, as many of his AFD keep comments lean towards I like it.
 * User_talk:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles/Archive_6. People suggest ways he can improve, and he just seems to brush it off.


 * It sounds like you are looking for Requests for comment/User conduct instead of this page. Please follow that process.  GRBerry 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The editor bringing the complaint, and the editor about whom the complaint is made, are on opposite sites of and have tangled before on matters of deleting content one deems "trivia." It is best to discuss and edit these matters in good faith, not to make personal accusations against other editors based on their content editing and policy participation.  If you see a real behavioral issue, here or RFC are appropriate.  But please do not turn content and policy disagreements into conduct matters. Wikidemo 21:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly feel it's a behavior issue. He picks and chooses when he decides to agree with policies or not. He and I don't agree on what should be kept, but I would be somewhat fine with his anti-deletion attitude if he would have actual reasons that aren't just repetitive "I like it" style comments. I've tried to assume good faith with him, however it's nearly impossible as his attitude and behavior is very poor. One other point I want to bring up: his last comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Television series considered the greatest ever (2nd nomination) is in a bit of bad faith. He brings up that I space out my time from editing, and commenting on him. This has no relevance, and I just think he is being paranoid. I don't just plan out when I'm going to edit something. Gaps between when I edit an article, and comment on him isn't a big deal. RobJ1981 13:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Allegations of misconduct have been raised by and against both sides. If someone repeatedly makes an argument you don't like, why not repeat the argument that makes sense to you?  He can do the same.  Are you going to take this to RFC?Wikidemo 16:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking of which I just noticed that you (RobJ1981), User:Eyrian, and User:Dannycali are now proposed for blocking in the Alkivar arbitration case. I've asked Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles to leave a courtesy notice for all three; if that doesn't happen soon somebody should tell them.Wikidemo 16:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If you think he's using the Article Rescue Squadron to canvass for votes, please post your reasons for thinking that on the WikiProject page there. That is not the intent of that project, & your help to keep it from being twisted to that end is appreciated. -- llywrch 19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:PelleSmith
I have problem with this user who disputes sources even after I have attempted to provide evidence of notability. I am trying to avoid getting into an edit war with the editor on the article Recent single origin hypothesis. I want to include a quote from this source, which I believe is a reliable source: Wade is a science journalist for the New York Times which is a well respected newspaper. The book has been recognized and has received good reviews from scientists such as E. O. Wilson and Matt Ridley. The book won the 2007 Science in Society Journalism Awards award. The user is keeps deleting this relevant information Muntuwandi 04:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wade, Nicholas, Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors (2006) ISBN 1594200793
 * This is a content dispute involving interpretations of information in a published source. I might suggest posting a neutral (i.e., not "I'm right and someone's reverting me") call for additional editors to the noticeboard of a WikiProject like WP:WPEB.  Some fresh eyes and new voices might help both of you reach a consensus.  In the meantime, you're both sliding towards 3RR territory, so consider backing off for a while.  The article isn't going anywhere. Dppowell 04:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes this is why I am requesting for external help, much as I would like to be modest, i also have to be honest about my opinion. I may try the WP:WPEB, however project boards have slow responses. Muntuwandi 04:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (e.c.x2)I would suggest soliciting a second opinion at WikiProject Anthropology and calling an immediate ceasefire in the edit war, even if the article is on the wrong version. --Dynaflow   babble  04:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Muntuwandi is purposefully misusing sources that suggest the possibility of "some" cultural universals originating from a common human ancestry in order to claim emphatically that all cultural universals were fully developed in Africa prior to the geographic dispersal of homo sapiens. I welcome other opinions on this matter, but if history has anything to tell us when others also rebuke this editor he will simply ignore them as well in oder to present his twisted version of the facts.PelleSmith 11:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to request self-block

 * User talk:Srtab1 says: " ." Anthony Appleyard 10:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The page has been speedied by User:Penwhale, but the user has not been and will not be blocked as it would serve no useful purpose if the user doesn't want to edit any more, and could catch people in autoblocks otherwise. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well the obvious solution to that one would be to not set theautoblock... Viridae Talk 12:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

non-free images question
Is an image that has a "This image is copyrighted, but the author allows it for any use, commercial or otherwise, so long as it retains attribution", which also contains a "no derivative works" clause, allowable outside the mainspace (i.e. userpages)? I'm specifically referring to Image:Politkovskaya.jpg. The text of the template says "no terms which prohibit derivatives. The license rationale says "No derivatives on text only (images are fine)", but the site is down for me so I can't verify that. Seems to me that "no terms which prohibit derivatives" is pretty unambiguous....it doesn't matter whether its relating to text or images. However, if it's not relating to images, how can it apply to that image? Any thoughts? &rArr;  SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  11:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If it's a free license, it's good for use whereever you like. Now I can't load hro.org, but if it prohibits modifying of text explicitly then that would not seem to prevent modification of images, and the requirement of attribution we can live with.
 * So in summary it looks OK to use, but without seeing the original site to confirm the conditions I can't give you a firm answer. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Copyright law does not work that way. If they do not explicitly permit modifying of images, then modifying of images is forbidden, and the image is not OK to use. --Carnildo 21:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Image uploads by
I stumbled across this user and from what I can tell he's uploaded a fair few copyright violations under GFDL-self licenses. Some examples are Image:Monokini Models.jpg, Image:Magnet Man in Barbados.JPG ( """""THIS MAGNET MAN PIC IS ACTUALLY A FREE/PRESS SHOT FOR ANYONE TO USE FREELY!! MAGNETIC IMAGE RECORDS OWN THE COPYRIGHT AND THERE WAS NO POROBLEM""""""" Why do people interfere so much and judge everyone?????? I can vbe contacted via the label if you want verificiation!!!!

....................and in my opinion, probably violations are Image:Purple Tankini.jpg, Image:Crop Top1.jpg and Image:Microskirt.jpg. Can another set of eyes look over his uploads? –– Lid(Talk) 12:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * CSD them all. As far as I can tell, none are free. See here for an example.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WHAT AN AWFUL SHAME YOU HAVE HAD MAGFNET MANS FREE PRESS PICTURE REMOVED? Can you pleae replace it? I REPRESENT MAGNETIC IMAGE RECORDS ( Magnet Man is our label's number one signed artiste) and Gohan is a genuine FAN of the Recording Artiste Magnet Man, and she ( Gohan)had full permission to use a press picture of MAGNET MAN. She wrote to us for permission. And we were delighted that a real genuine FAN of our Platinum Award winning star has gone to the trouble of researching Magnet Man's 'story so far' and then posted with so much accuracy the information.

I feel that there should be more encouragement when young people do something poisitive and spend their time doing useful stuff such as providing info on WIKIPEDIA.

I would like to thank and congratulate Gohan 2091, well done to her and keep up the good work!! check out www.magnetmanonline.com

plus You Tube Magnet Man - Wanna Flex

or www.myspace.com/themagnetman

List of Mensans
The user keeps adding the name Scott Sonnon to , but the cited reference they add makes no mention of Mensa membership ... in the Edit Summary they provide the URL of a blog entry that claims he's a member, but that's not the URL they keep putting in the article ... they have been warned about unsourced additions, but are ignoring the official policies. &mdash; 15:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * B-ham looks like a single-purpose account, and the article was hopelessly POV. I have stubbed it and requested that he restrict himself to suggesting content supported by reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Block on User:Gtrtretertg546456567
I blocked this account as a vandalism only account. The username is clearly random gibberish as is most of the 8 vandalism edits made in a 4-minute timespan. There were four warnings all of which came after the vandalism spree had ended.

I am a relatively new admin and I rarely block users. I'm curious how other admins would view this situation. On the one side, the vandalism has ended. On the other side, this is clearly a vandalism-only account.

What are your thoughts?

--Richard 16:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * If it only did vandalism then it can be blocked at your discretion. 1 != 2  16:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The name is gibberish and the edits are vandalism. An indefinite block is totally appropriate.  --Haemo 16:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Good block. MastCell Talk 16:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Media Tycoon 1
This user has lodged pretty vicious attacks against two editors: here and here. These call for an extensive block. --David Shankbone  20:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This user is apparently unhappy with our project and severalof our contributers. Perhaps he is related to User:Ericnorcross? . In any event, since he doesn't seem happy here, maybe somebody could point him towards the exit? Jeffpw 20:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Blocked one week for harassment by Elkman, but I'd suggest upgrading to indef as a likely sock of . - auburn pilot  talk  20:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Strongly endorse an indefinite block for this childish and abusive behavior, socking aside. --Haemo 20:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Don't you really mean, "Blocked one week by Elkman for harassment"? (OK, I'm nitpicking.)  I wouldn't have any problems with an indefinite block.  I didn't get a chance to thoroughly review all his contributions before placing the block -- I just wanted to prevent any more harassment and crude insults.  I also didn't place a block notice since he'd probably just call me a predictable three-letter word.  The Ericnorcross contributions date back to June of 2006, so I don't think there's a likely connection, but I'm not ruling it out.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. ;-) - auburn pilot  talk  20:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the discussion here, I've upgraded the block to indefinite. MastCell Talk 20:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I found a pattern of edits to Long Island, Maine between some of the sockpuppets. I also did a Web search and found this page with the telltale line, "I became a vandal and enemies with many of the administrators and veteran editors."  That explains it.  --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks that way. I courtesy blanked the two AfDs, no need to rub his nose in it. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Paul Tibbets and User:Know Ocean 99
Paul Tibbets (who died today) was the pilot who dropped the atomic bomb at Hiroshima. New(?) user Know Ocean 99 wishes to insert the unreferenced claim that Tibbets was a war criminal to his article. I have warned the user against 3rr and they have continued to insert the data. I have been editing the article myself recently and I wish an uninvolved admin to take whatever action they deem necessary to sort this out. Thanks in advance, --John 20:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Wknight94, for your prompt action. --John 21:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There were a significant number of POV pushing edits by anons, so I've semiprotected for a short while, to give those stalwart editors (thanks, folks!) who have been consistently reverting a bit of a break... ++Lar: t/c 02:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Open account
Can an admin please block User:Bosqueschool? This diff explains that it was created as a group account and gives the password. Not surprisingly, at least half of its few edits have been vandalism. Thanks! Pinball22 20:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Done... I left the autoblock off and account creation enabled, so students can make new accounts, but a group account with a compromised password has to go. MastCell Talk 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Beyonce fiance
I've indefinitely blocked as a sock of. Beyonce has pretty much the same axe to grind as KIR (putting a negative spin on Something Awful). KIR was also a member of an online forum and posted the following message the day before Beyonce registered:


 * "They did ban me, for making edits to SA's article that eventually got put into place by other people after they banned me. I have a new IP in a new state now so they can't stop me"

Beyonce has been actively editing Something Awful today, and at the same time of the activity, KIR made the following post on the forum:


 * "''Wafulz keeps editing the article to downplay SA's illegal file sharing and other scandalous shit SA has done. Nevermind that like 10 people on the talk page have told him that it's obvious that he's just trying to manufacture the most positive spin possible.


 * "We should just keep reverting Wafulz's edits... he can't do shit if enough people are editing the article. Wikipedia has a rule that you can't revert an article more than 3 times a day so we can over ride his lame edits if the majority disagrees with him."-Wafulz 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Prot for collusion, anybody? If I get no objections I'll protect the article. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 22:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been semi-protected for a while, but the tag isn't there. Semi-protection seems to have worked so far.-Wafulz 22:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Request block
This IP: 71.61.89.4 is making threats of physical harm:. Thanks, ~ Eliz 81 (C)  22:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * He's been warned; if he does it again, I'll block. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 22:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * From WP:NPA, "Legal threats, death threats, and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning", so that's why I brought it here. Jéské, are you sure that a death threat doesn't warrant a block? I apologize if I'm confused on this issue. ~ Eliz 81 (C)  22:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but threats of physical harm plus a history of homophobic comments? Blocked 48 hours - Alis o n  ❤ 22:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Attempted association of name with profile
A editor has attempted to associate a name with my porfile on the talk page of Violet_Blue(auther):

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Violet_Blue_%28author%29&diff=168604992&oldid=168399311

Given the attacking nature of this edit I am uncomfortable with the use of a real name associated with the edit. As you can see I have removed the name but would like it to be removed from the history as well. Any help would be great. Wikiwikimoore —Preceding comment was added at 22:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

BigGabriel555

 * Already caught using sockpuppets  while referring to me as being a retard and secondary account suspended  .  Was blocked for using 3rr in the past as well as using a sockpuppet.  Was warned multiple times for edit warring.   and continues to engage in edit wars.     UnclePaco 22:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Off-Wiki Canvassing for AfD
It was brought to my attention that has been off-wiki canvassing for this afd on this website. Can an impartial admin keep an eye on this for me? Also of relevance: otrs. ^demon</b><sup style="color:#c22">[omg plz] <em style="font-size:10px;">01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * the afd seems to be going nicely towards its appropriate conclusion none the less. DGG (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Mattisse (again)
Hey guys, I feel harassed by User:Mattisse - wondering if anyone has any suggestions?

This follows from a dispute which is now at the request for mediation stage, detailed further up this page. The most recent events are this:


 * User:Mattisse posts this on my talk page (attacking me as "prolonging disputes", among other things). As it refers to me in the third person (and refers to a "you" who clearly isn't me), I assumed that it was posted on the wrong talk page.
 * Assuming good faith, and assuming that Mattisse is not trolling, I returned the message to him, with a suggestion that it might have been posted on the wrong page.
 * User:Mattisse posts a new message saying he did not understand my last post.
 * So I post another message trying to explain my position.
 * I'm pretty sure I've been quite clear, but User:Mattisse just keeps on posting messages on my talk page saying that he "doesn't understand".

It's beginning to make me suspect that he is not acting in good faith but is trying to provoke me into some kind of uncivil response. Having told him that I will not be resonding to such messages after explaining myself twice, I've been deleting these messages. Am I within my rights? Is there anything I can do to stop further messages of this type? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

PS He seems to have stopped for now. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I left her a note of advice on her talk page. She needs to realize that she's upset with you "prolonging the issue" yet she's continuing it right now by not backing away from your talk page.  So, we'll see how she reacts to that.  (And yes, Mattisse is a she, not a he).  Metros 04:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick response - and sorry for the misogynistic use of "he" when I wasn't sure of Mattisse's gender. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not a problem; many editors do not make their gender known. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin deletes own images in anger
seems to have gotten into a dispute with. He is upset that the PD status of one of his image uploads had been questioned. His response to Liftarn was "are you calling me a liar" and, although Liftarn apologised for any unintentional insult, Moriori has deleted a number of his image uploads including a personal attack against Liftarn in the summary and blanked his user and talk pages. Obviously this is totally unacceptable use of admin tools. I restored the images that are being used in the mainspace (they were on Commons so he could only orphan them, not delete them). The rest of his images are not used in articles but look like they could be pretty valuable. PD and GFDL releases are irrevocable so the deletions are invalid but I thought out of courtesy I would ask him to undelete them rather than undeleting all of them myself. I understand Moriori was upset, but his conduct really is indefensible. Notifying here for further input from uninvolved parties. WjBscribe 16:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Admin tools are not for making a point in a dispute, and certainly not for revoking your own contributions. I strongly urge this admin to reverse these actions. 1 != 2  16:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What is more it seems that Liftarn had made a very reasonable request in a polite manner, calling him an arsehole in you administrative action summaries is incredibly inappropriate. Personal attacks are a nono, but using them as summaries in you admin actions makes this site look like it is ran by children. 1 != 2  16:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * At the very least, the images should be undeleted so people can judge if they really are public domain or not. Evidence should be provided on the image page (eg. a claim that the user took the pictures themselves), or via OTRS. When the uploader is active, it may be polite to ask them first before taking it to Possibly unfree images. In this case, with no evidence that the images are public domain (which is different from GFDL), all the uploader has to do is say "oops, I got it wrong". I think this is different from a case where the original release is under the GFDL as a "self taken" picture (taken by the user). In cases of "self taken" pictures, the original user claimed copyright and released under the GFDL, and the only way that status can be changed is by saying that they were wrong, and they are not the copyright holder and not entitled to release the pictures under the GFDL. I hope this is covered at the latest incarnation of Revocation of GFDL is not permitted. Please note that the claim for these images was public domain, so that essay does not apply here. Carcharoth 16:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Update - now the images have been undeleted, I see they are all user-taken and released into the public domain (I could see the deleted versions of the image page, but couldn't work out how to view the images without actually restoring them). I presume that PD-release is irrevocable, in the same way that GFDL licensing is, but can someone confirm this? The original image that started the dispute is different, in that a different entity (ie. not the user uploading the picture) is said to have released it into the public domain. That, as has been said, does require evidence to be provided. Carcharoth 10:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Absolutely childish. Since this admin appears to have left the project in a huff, I recommend undeleting his images so we can actually (1) use them if the license is valid and (2) verify the proper license if they're not.  --Haemo 16:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree with those steps, and would go a little further and suggest ArbCom take a quick look with an eye toward de-sysopping Moriori. Using the tools in such a childish fashion is totally unacceptable, as is including egregious personal attacks against other users in the indelible deletion summaries. If he comes back with an explanation, apology, contrition, etc then re-sysopping could be considered, but for now I think his admin buttons should be withdrawn until he's calmed down at least. MastCell Talk 17:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I concur with Mastcell. Unacceptable. Liftarn tagged one of Moriori's images for CSD due to unknown copyright status and then apologized for any inconvenience for it and Moriori deletes all of his images and calls Liftarn an "arsehole"? This is totally unaceptable from any editor let alone an administrator, however incidents like these dealing with administrators seem to be becoming more and more common.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Yep. Childish behavior with the admin tools should not be tolerated. This case is pretty clear. Friday (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And another agreement.... Moriori can always ask for them back if they wish, but I wouldn't be comfortable with them having the buttons unchecked after that display.--Isotope23 talk 17:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It wasn't even a CSD, it was a questioning of the public domain status; the image was not put up for deletion and all Moriori needed to do was get the original rights holder to confirm they had released it to the public domain. Personally I would hope Moriori would do the honorable thing. Sam Blacketer 17:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't see a reason to wait for him to fix his mess. We should undo the damage.  I've begun restoring them; they were deleted without a valid reason.  Friday (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead an opened a request at WP:RfArb for ArbCom to look this over quickly and see if desysopping is warranted. Input welcome there. MastCell Talk 17:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And as the response over there has shown, that was premature. Carcharoth 10:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. Thanks. I've withdrawn it. Though I continue to feel pretty strongly that desysopping, in this case, is not premature, it's become evident that ArbCom was not the correct venue. MastCell Talk 16:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

More User:Eleemosynary
I'm starting a new section because the last User:Eleemosynary section, addressing only his edit warring, is marked as "resolved." However, the edit warring is only part of the issue with his reverts &mdash; I'll assume it's "his" for the sake of this discussion &mdash; and the reverts at Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy (and subsequent wikistalking to Michael Mukasey) are only a small part of a long pattern of Eleemosynary's violations and willful misinterpretations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. He has consistently reverted the edits of others as "vandalism," "trolling," etc., if he disagrees with them. On this talk page, a user archived the talk page, (innocently) failing to take care to keep recent (days-old) discussions. User:Steven Andrew Miller reverted this, and Eleemosynary entered into a revert war, calling the reversion "archive vandalism," which is wasn't. I would have preferred Miller had taken this to the talk page first, but it wasn't "vandalism" not to have done so.

This is far from an isolated incident. A look at the edit summaries of both the talk page and the corresponding article (as well as the content of both the talk page and its archives) reveal a long list of accusations and personal attacks on other editors by Eleemosynary. Eleemosynary regularly edits others' comments if he doesn't like them, ironically calling them "personal attacks" (even when they aren't), and citing policy for his regular edits of them (which actually violate WP:TALK and WP:NPA whether or not they are personal attacks).

In addition, he has a long history of homophobic personal attacks against Matt Sanchez (User:Bluemarine   ) which have not been formally addressed. I've tried to give polite warnings (e.g., ) of this, but, as per his M.O., these are reverted as "nonsense, trolling, etc." (He has a right to revert like that on his talk page, but not a right to accuse everyone of pointing out his violations of being a troll.) I have not brought these up here because I'd prefer to deal with these without administrative assistance, but, after dozens upon dozens of unaddressed violations by an unrepentant Eleemosynary, it's clear that polite reminders and peer pressure alone aren't going to get him to start adhering to policy, let alone to be civil. Calbaer 18:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What sort of outcome are you seeking? Perhaps you should consider seeking mediation. If that doesn't work, the next step would probably be to file a request at WP:RfC. Ronnotel 18:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This isn't about a conflict that needs to be settled &mdash; hopefully Miller and Thumperward can do that themselves regarding the archiving issue &mdash; this is about a user continually ignoring policies and guidelines so that he can willfully disrupt the project. I realize that specific instances have gotten him blocked in the past, but if you look at the overall patterns, it doesn't seem like addressing these instances separately as they come is anything less than a waste of everyone's time at this point.  I think it's gotten well past the point of mediation or WP:RfC. Calbaer 18:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And Calbaer's crusade of sophistry goes on... and on... and on. --Eleemosynary 00:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for emphasizing my point. Calbaer 00:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Your "point" can be summarized thusly: "Because I, Calbaer, have been unable to achieve consensus to slant the Scott Thomas Beauchamp page to my partisan whim, I will use lies (charges of "homophobic taunts" and "Wikistalking"), sophistry, and "concern trolling" to try to have Eleemosynary blocked.  And, because I, Calbaer, don't have a leg to stand on, I don't want any mediation or RfC to get in my way."  Not surprising. --Eleemosynary 00:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Putting words into another person's mouth while simultaneously denigrating their position is highly uncivil. Please stop. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  01:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are misrepresenting my actions, once again. Please stop.  You also appear to be goading.  That's not gonna work. --Eleemosynary 01:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the words he puts into my mouth are rather ironic, seeing as one of my motivations behind not reporting the homophobic taunts and other violations of policies was because Eleemosynary was, at one point, the only user providing balance, representing the "other side" to the debate. Now that users like Thumperward are involved in the article, there's no longer any positive role played by Eleemosynary.  I know that balance isn't a justification for treating disruptions differently than I might otherwise, but that, along with wanting to avoid unnecessarily bothering administrators, was a motivation for my trying to deal with Eleemosynary's behavior on talk pages rather than here on prior occasions. Calbaer 01:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Never was a "homophobic taunt" made by me re: Matt Sanchez. I mentioned his previous career, and one of his professional sobriquets.  As Sanchez has been proven an unreliable source, and was trying to crowbar his OR into the article, his history was worth mentioning.  This issue was dealt with on the Beauchamp Talk page (between me and several editors), my Talk page (between me and Ronnotel), and this page some time ago.  Because you were not able to use your constant lie -- "Eleemosynary used a homophobic taunt" -- to have me blocked or banned, you are rehashing the argument, perhaps hoping that "the twelfth time's the charm."  You also may want to check your edit history: you have reported me on prior occasions, with the same "homophobic taunt" lie, with the same result.  I'm going to be watching the Scott Thomas Beauchamp page for some time, and editing constructively, as I have been.  That's something you're going have to deal with.  But feel free to issue as many bogus "incident reports" as you wish. --Eleemosynary 02:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, interesting edit. Thanks for letting us see the seething behind all this. --Eleemosynary 00:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I explicitly drew attention to my word choice change in the edit summary (unlike, say, this edit), so it's no great victory for you to have "discovered" this and no purpose in emphasizing it yet again. I used the wrong word, and if you view it as "seething," parapraxis, or a personal attack, so be it. Calbaer 01:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I view it as a "drawing back of the veil." --Eleemosynary 02:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For those who don't want to follow the links I gave, Eleemosynary twice reverted Sanchez's edits, giving the reasons "discredited porn star" and "gay porn actor" in the edit summaries; I pointed out on his talk page that these explicitly violated WP:NPA. However, he multiple times after that called Sanchez "dirty Sanchez," even after being told this was a homophobic violation of WP:NPA. And while I've mentioned Eleemosynary in the context of already reported occurrences here, I have not previously reported him to WP:AN/I, also contrary to his claims. In any event, I have difficulty seeing how such a pattern of general violations and attacks &mdash; at Sanchez, at me, at Miller, of multiple Wikipedia policies &mdash; could be "mediated," since they're not disputes; they're one user making a nuisance of himself, having come to the conclusion that he can break any rules he hasn't been blocked for before (and even some of those he has). Calbaer 04:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * To revise my above comments, apparently Calbaer feels "the 13th time's the charm." "Dirty Sanchez" is not a "homophobic slur," no matter how much Calbaer wishes to make the case.  It's a practice equally applicable to heterosexuals.  The nickname, in context, has to do with Sanchez's well-documented career.  (Do a Google search on "Matt Sanchez" and "Dirty Sanchez," for more on this.)  But Calbaer has been screaming "homophobic slur!" for weeks, even though other editors have pointed out it's not one.   And, again, this issue was dealt with on the Beauchamp Talk page (between me and several editors), my Talk page (between me and Ronnotel), and this page some time ago.  I've agreed to stop using the nickname, but appparently Calbaer wishes to keep employing it.  [Please note:  these comments will also apply the next 73 times Calbaer makes this complaint.] --Eleemosynary 04:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please point to any edit in which "other editors have pointed out it's not one." You're the only one who's made the claim that it's not.  The Google search reveals others who, like you, have maligned Sanchez.  Just because a slur has gained currency among hateful, partisan websites does not make it acceptable on Wikipedia.  If "you can Google it" were a valid defense to any violation of Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia would be in a lot of trouble.  (By the way, if anyone's in doubt that it's homophobic, I think this edit will remove any doubt.) Calbaer 06:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe "the 14th time's the charm." See above comments. --Eleemosynary 06:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way, although Calbaer states above that he "has not previously reported [me] to WP:AN/I" for the exact same comments, he did so one week ago, just as dishonestly. [ . Either he has an extremely short memory, or he's lying.  Ronnotel and I spoke about the issue, and I agreed to stop using Sanchez's nickname here.  I have not used it since.  Now, it seems Calbaer wants to disrupt the page by rehashing things that were settled.  It's not easy to assume good faith with this one.  --Eleemosynary 07:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As I said before, "while I've mentioned Eleemosynary in the context of already reported occurrences here, I have not previously reported him to WP:AN/I." Please stop saying that's a lie when the evidence you linked to indicates that that's precisely what happened.  And, again, please provide evidence to your claim that anyone (aside from you) said that your "nickname" for Matt Sanchez was not a slur and/or not homophobic.  Yes, I said I'd ignore your past if you changed, but your attacks and policy violations have not yielded, so I felt it was finally time to discuss them here.  Anyhow, as much as attempting serious replies to your statements may seem like a waste of my time, your responses illuminate that your attitude has not changed (and illustrate the veracity of your prior statements), which I think is useful to counter your argument that your past policy violations are "settled" rather than part of a long pattern of disrupting Wikipedia. Calbaer 17:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * 15. --Eleemosynary 18:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Enough already - both of you. The next person to speak is going to lose their Halloween candy for good! Ronnotel 18:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel harrassed.
by User:Gnome Economics. Reported here Editor_assistance/Requests already but I don't know how fast this is and I don't know if I can take much more of this. --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 20:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Other than the one brief exchange on his/her talk page, what sort of harassment are you enduring? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This insulting personal attack:

and note to this deletion. It just needs to stop. --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 21:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And this comment wasn't a personal attack on your part? <b style="color:green;">IrishGuy</b> <sup style="color:blue;">talk 21:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't say my hands were clean and this is clear from Editor_assistance/Requests. But I was close to, amongst other things, throwing my keyboard across the room. I'm here to write an encyclopedia, not be patronised. I know there are ups and downs but I've never seen anything as appalling as this before. --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 21:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just ignore them. Flipping out and name-calling doesn't help the situation; my advice to both of you is just to leave one another alone.  This isn't harassment, this is a tiff between two adults who should know better.  --Haemo 21:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) Maybe I'm missing something but it appears this whole issue is over one brief exchange that you initiated. It's not real fair to begin a confrontation and then claim that you're being harassed when the other party is just responding to you.  Needing to get the last word in does not equate to being harassed.  —Wknight94 (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I didn't want to get into a big argument. When he deleted an image I'd uploaded because it lacked a Fair Use Rationale, and I asked him why he just didn't ask for one- which has now been provided- I was met with this, then this , then this , I begin to wonder why were are here. When I use NP Watcher and new editors complain that I've CSD'd their pages, I will at least take a little time to explain why, and what they can do to remedy the problem, if it can be saved. That's my philosophy- cooperation. I'm prepared to give it, and I hope to receive it. But if I receive neither cooperation nor support, then perhaps I shouldn't be here. Shame. I was hoping to achieve 5000 good mainspace edits before Christmas. Sorry I'm not as robust in health or attitude as others, but then, perhaps I'm too old for all of this and expected too much. I did manage to afford some milk & sugar today, however, so at least I got some coffee this morning. --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 21:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you look at the dates, you'll see who said what first. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And I object to being called a "career flouncer". I'm not gay, but it could be taken as an anti-gay insult. I don't need this. --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 21:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It appears that you made the first personal attack saying "...Have a happy life, short though it may be. Sanctimonious prat." Gnome Economics merely replied "TTFN". <b style="color:green;">IrishGuy</b> <sup style="color:blue;">talk 21:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed. I'd be quite willing to block both of them. Raymond Arritt 21:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just make sure you get the beer while we watch. Sorry to not take this seriously, but these two are...well....deserving of each other?   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 21:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am also uneasy with the blatant forum shopping. Rodhullandemu posted this to JoshuaZ‎'s talk page, Editor_assistance/Requests as well as here...all basically asking for the other editor to be blocked. <b style="color:green;">IrishGuy</b> <sup style="color:blue;">talk 21:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Block the user filing the complaint for a short time. That seems to be the way to minimize disruption. - Jehochman  Talk 21:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Exactly how does that minimise disruption? It would be a punitive block, nothing else. And that won't do. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I reported to Editor_assistance/Requests but I wasn't sure how long it would take to get a response. I put a request on JoshuaZ‎'s talk page because he witnessed the original exchange and sent me a helpful email. He's not here so I won't say what it said, but it was helpful to me. And I don't remember asking for a block, and I wouldn't have done because I'd prefer not to raise the stakes, and that would have been punitive, not protective. --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 22:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How about you leave the other user alone and stop shopping around for somebody to block them, and we'll not block you. Is that a deal? - Jehochman  Talk 22:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't subscribe to "Have you stopped beating your wife?"-type questions, and you know very well that such a block would be indefensible. You either block both of us or neither of us. I repeat: I have not asked for a block. Just protection. --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 22:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

RH&E, back off from them; if they continue to harass without a single reply or revert from you, we will bury them. Jehochman, RH&E has a point - you've no defensible reason to block either of them at the moment, so threatening a block is both pointless and sabre-rattling to no good end. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would strongly recommend that both Rod and Gnome steer clear from each. Simply don't get involved. That means don't talk to each other, don't edit the same articles (presumably if anything really really needs tagging their are many other editors other than Gnome who would do it). Can we go back to writing the encyclopedia now? JoshuaZ 23:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the last 2 sensible replies. I'll do what I can. Now can anyone lend me 25p for a packet of digestives? --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (talk - contribs) 23:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What pray is the point of issuing recommendations to User:Gnome Economics in this thread when Rodhullandemu hasn't even informed him/her that he/she's being discussed on ANI? Bishonen | talk 10:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

User:Caesarjbsquitti's soapbox at Talk:feminism
In a campaign to expose "that feminism was [not] concerned about gender inequalities [... and is] a type of half-truth not yet identified" User:Caesarjbsquitti has been trolling Talk:Feminism. Apologies for the square brackets - this user's syntax is not English. I'm not sure if he is confused or if he's being disruptive but here are some of his soapy posts at the page:

On November 1st he added this comment which is both soapboxy and flambaiting. He added these two lines in particluar: "an interest in 'women's only' interest reflect a somewhat "selfish" or "lesbian" perspective of the matter. Is someone against war because it kills women, or that it kills men nd women ?" and "no doubt some of feminism was the work of the devil in that it involved a great deal of manipulation of statistics, terminology, and logic that were part of the reliable sources that were quoted and used to promote this false philosophy." After this Caesar was reminded by myself and by User:Lquilter of WP:NOT and WP:SOAP. Caesar's response was "I do not believe the world is ready yet to accept the truth about feminism."

This is not the first time that this user has behaved like this at Talk:feminism

This behaviour is at least a year old - I haven't template warned Caesarjbsquitti since he is an experienced editor but WP:NOT and WP:SOAP were pointed out to him at least 5 times in the past 3 or 4 days.. As I mentioned, this user is experienced, and should know what is improper use of WP's talk-space, baring that in mind I consider this use of a talk page to be disruptive--<font color="grey" size="2">Cailil   talk 23:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Cailil's evidence checks out. The behavior seems to have been ongoing for at least 4 days.  I have therefore blocked the account for 4 days in hopes that will be enough time for the editor to reconsider their participation and return to proper editing.  If there is a recurrence, I recommend a longer block next time.  Please do not reverse this block without prior discussion.  I welcome a review and will abide by the consensus. - Jehochman  Talk 14:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have run across this editor on scientific articles, where he sometimes makes eccentric and unreferenced contributions that wind up being removed. These scientific edits are not evidence that he is disputatious, but just evidence that he feels unconstrained by any need to supply reliable sources. EdJohnston 16:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruption on General (United States)
A situation has developed on General (United States) where a user, who previously wanted this article merged, has gone against community consensus and merged material from General of the Armies, General, and Lieutenant General (United States) all one one article. Since the merger was turned down by the community, the user has copied the info on all three articles, now having all of them appear as quasi-mergers, POV forks. As I am at the limit of 3RR I will revert no longer, but this is blatant policy violation, among them WP:CON, and WP:OWN. A full investigation can be found under Talk:General_%28United_States%29. Adminstrators, please take action as this has gone beyond a content dispute and has exploded into out-right disruption. -OberRanks 04:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As the other party to this dispute, I agree that an administrator might need to get involved. See [] for information on the dispute. OberRanks reverted my edits for invalid reasons. Then I explained why his reasons were invalid, and restored my edits. Then he ignored my explanation and reverted again. And that's been repeated a few times now. It appears that he's unwilling to follow Wikipedia's policy and resolve disputes by discussion, so someone might have to ban him. OberRanks is already being monitored by the administrator User:Neil as a result of past conduct, so I also contacted Neil specifically about this. - Shaheenjim 04:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The user has since claimed I have not expressed why this is against the rules here. To spell it out exactly: "Creating three copies of exactly the same article under Lieutenant General, General and General of the Armies against a merger vote is against policy." Also of interest is that the user is now calling for a WP:BAN on me since I have challenged his edits and asked for the opinion of others. -OberRanks 04:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's just a repeat of the original invalid reason. It doesn't address my specific explanation of why it's invalid, and it's still invalid, as my explanation explains. - Shaheenjim 04:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You circumvented a failed merge vote, merged articles anyway, and then tried to create the illusion of consensus by maintaining three articles under different names of the same merged text. When I asked others to comment, you followed me to the talk pages of others, such as User talk:Neil, then asked admins to ban me from this site.  Lastly we have a personal attack in an edit history  where you call me "self centered" (please note nowhere in my edits did I ever call you a name or make personal comments about your behavior).  I think the reason why this isnt get more attention is thats its the middle of the night in the USA and early morning in UK where most of serious admins are located. So I will back off from this for two or three days and see what others come up with. But,for the record, we have violations of WP:CON, WP:OWN, and now WP:NPA.  I will adhere to WP:CIV and state that perhaps you mean well and we can work together to make this article better.  But I urge you to stop this kind of behavior. -OberRanks 06:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The first and third parts of that post are just repeats of the original invalid reason. They don't address my specific explanation of why it's invalid, and they's still invalid, as my explanation explains. I won't bother addressing the second part where you become hysterical about being called self centered. - Shaheenjim 06:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think a ban is in order here. There's no need for admin intervention in what is basically a content dispute.   I notice there's a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history, which you are both engaged in, and I think the best solution is to continue that.  There's no need for it to spiral onto other pages.   Neil   ☎  09:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Month-long edit war on Dari (Afghanistan): suggesting a temporary user-block of Anoshirawan
Hi, guys!

Today I came across an edit war between the users Bejnar and Anoshirawan on the page Dari (Afghanistan). During the last month, Anoshirawan and Bejnar had an edit war on the question wether Dari was just a dialect or a language, which seems to have some ethnic or nationalist implications. They had countless reverts from this here to that one (and maybe even earlier, but I didn't have the nerve to check). I reverted to Bejnar's version, as he took pains to argue for it and as it seemed linguistically more sound, and asked both to refer to the talk page before continuing their bickering. Bejnar responded on my own talk page and showed to be very positive and constructive, although exasperated - while Anoshirawan just continued his edit war, cool guy.

I suggest to give a mild warning to Anoshirawan who seems to have a record already: block him for a couple of days or whatever you admins deem fit, and send him some suggestions on how to avoid edit wars. It might also be good to block the article for a short time, just to break that chain of re-re-re-edits. In my opinion, it should be frozen on Bejnar's, not Anoshirawan's version, reasons already given. Cheers! -- Kavaiyan   &lt;°)))o&gt;&lt;  05:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment - Bejnar version has a reasonable looking reference but not Anoshirawan's. See comparison   Anoshirawan should be given the opportunity to make the edit if a reliable source can be cited.  If it is done, then an explanation of the debate can be included in the article.  Miesbu 16:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Reversionvandalismbot not approved yet making edits
isn't approved, yet it's making edits. It also doesn't look like Cobi's. -- slakr \ talk / 06:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Bluemarine evading block, now posting as User:MattSanchez
, who was indefinitely blocked a few days ago, is evading his block, and is posting under another account he's used in the past:. He seems to be in attack mode, as evidenced by this, which he left on my Talk page today. --Eleemosynary 06:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * He's been blocked. --Eleemosynary 10:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User: 87.84.100.98
Continually vandalising. See user page for details.

Latest vandalism is on the Grafting page Kennedygr 10:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Now blocked. WP:AIV is the more usual place to report such vandalism. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Noted that address. Kennedygr 10:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC) --

User:Jeck2x
I think an upload ban is in order. This user has been uploading like crazy, and his "own" images doesn't have metadata as proof that those photos are his. Also I suspect this is the same guy engaging in a slow-motion edit war at the Manila article for the infobox photo. -- Howard  the   Duck  10:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Another Pair Of Eyes Please
I deleted User:Beano ni/UserBoxes/NIFlagInWiki on the basis of it being a recreation of User:Beano ni/UserBoxes/NIFlagInWikipedia where consensus was found for deletion at this MFD. The user is now asking for restoration (in a calm and pleasent fashion) per this. My rationale is that moving the text from This user opposes the ongoing campaign to remove the Northern Ireland flag from Wikipedia to This user opposes efforts to remove the Northern Ireland flag from Wikipedia does not address the spirit of the MFD under which it was deleted. To move from campaign to efforts seems to me to be too similar in spirit to restore. Sorry to bring it here, but I have promised the user a third opinion. Pedro : Chat  11:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I'm not supposed to post here, I don't know if this is for Admin's only or not, but I just want to leave a quick note to highlight that I think the change from "the ongoing campaign" to "efforts" is significant enough to warrant separate consideration firstly because it removes any implication that the actions had sinister motivations and secondly because it is non-specific (i.e. from the campaign to efforts generally). beano 12:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Pedro that the new wording still does not address the spirit of the MfD. I suggest that Beano express his opinion with text on his user page, rather than using a user box. Chaz Beckett 12:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I deleted it as a recreation, as well, before he re-made it the third time. I have to say that the box still falls under the reasons it was deleted.  нмŵוτн τ  13:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree that re-wording the userbox is not sufficient. Please consider that a content dispute isn't likely to belong is a userbox - ever.  Nothing precludes you writing an essay about what you feel the problem is in your userspace. Shell babelfish 14:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe this is sufficent community support of the deletion. I have advised the editor and marked this thread as resolved. Pedro :  Chat  14:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for protection of Japanese expansionism
While Eugenics in Showa Japan is now protected by user:Maxim and under a request for mediation, I ask for the same protection for Japanese expansionism as the same user: user:Azukimonaka is on his way to start another war edit. In my request for mediation I linked the two articles and I think the two cases can be solved at once. --Flying tiger 14:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

CarloPlyr440, again
was blocked twice in October for uploading images without fair-use rationales. Then he stepped it up to another level by uploading copyrighted or fair-use images and claimed to own the copyright. That earned him a week-long block. Well, he did it again on October 23 ... I just happened to catch via a recent-changes patrol that on October 23, he uploaded an image that he claimed was free when it was actually a station logo--one whose copyright is obviously owned by the station.

I'm here asking that he be blocked long-term ... for a month at least, though I won't object if it's indef. This guy clearly does not understand that what he's doing could put the whole project in serious danger. Blueboy96 16:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * WBRC happens to be on my watchlist (grew up watching that station), so I fixed the rationale for Image:New Wbrc Logo.jpg moments before the above post. However, it does appear has been sufficiently warned to stop improperly uploading images. I have no problem with a long term block; I just wish we could disable image uploads in the same way we can disable email. - <font color="#0000cd">auburn <font color="#EF6521">pilot   talk  16:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes; see clear messages here and here. We have given them second, third, and now fourth-chances. I support at least a month-long block, and indef is not unreasonable at this point. — Satori Son 17:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for one month. - <font color="#0000cd">auburn <font color="#EF6521">pilot  talk  18:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio problems and protection at Louisdale, Nova Scotia
Louisdale, Nova Scotia has had copyright violation problems dating back to early 2006. I realized this after two editors started conflicting over the history of the community. I've deleted all revisions since early 2006 because they contained copyright violations. I've protected the page for a week because of the conflict. I've asked experienced members of WikiProject Nova Scotia to coordinate a rewrite, supervise the article, and/or mentor the editors. I will have no objection to any other admin unprotecting the article provided a couple experienced editors are willing to supervise the article. I'm not reliably available right now, so am posting this permission publicly in advance. GRBerry 17:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Aggressive revert warring, severe incivility
(previously active under the IP ) appears to be quite determined that the most recent album by the band Korn should be listed in italics in the respective band template (see the history of Template:Korn), even though the record in question was verifiably left untitled by the group and as such is clearly to be listed without italics, as per WP:MUSTARD. This has been repeatedly pointed out to Ash48GotdaLife, yet to no avail and their replies and talk page messages were quite often very rude and also lacked a conclusive rationale for these repeated reverts.

It's a silly thing, but given that user's activities appear to be fairly focused on this issue, along with the severe incivility, I'd rather post here first, before taking this to WP:RFP, have the template locked from general day-to-day editing and then go through more stages of dispute resolution with this character. - Cyrus XIII 17:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

This user was indefinitely blocked by myself earlier this year after multiple breaches of the 3RR. I unblocked them to participate in the arbitration over liancort rocks which was recently closed. A condition of the unblock was that they would comply with a strict 1RR. Since then they have received multiple warnings (see their talk) and have been blocked twice. I feel that they are not improving as an editor and following the most recent discussion at AN3 concerning their most recent block I feel that enough is enough. I would very much appreciate feedback on whether we should now reinstate the indef block. Spartaz Humbug! 18:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Please block the user indefinitely. Positive things can be said about this user, and I have not lost good faith completely. However -- as Spartaz says enough is enough. Ultra-nationalistic users such as the one mentioned here (and another one who has been banned for a year) have done an incredible amount of damage in the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese history and culture articles. Honest editors should not have to put up with the ultranationalist cabal that has waged a totally lame war on the Korean articles of this project for 2-3 years. Users such as this have done some good things, but they have totally ruined the atmosphere in the Korean articles. On Friday Jimbo wrote that we should not have to put up with these anti-project users any longer. I think Jimbo wasreferring to users such as Goodfriend100 and several other ultranationalist disruptors. Let's take a tougher stance on the incredible amount of disruption and foolishness that takes place in the Korean articles, especially. Let's show them the door. Please forgive me for using an anon IP for this message, but as I mentioned the atmosphere is totally poisonous and has been for a looooong time -- I fear some kind of retribution on me and my contributions if I use my username here. Why should we put up with this? 74.12.78.124 18:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I strongly endorse an indefblock. This user has a long-standing history of edit warring. Wikipedia should not tolerate this. I urge the community to consider this user banned. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Likewise. I'll upgrade my initial block to indefinite, pending any objections. <font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny 19:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I think Spartaz has a point elsewhere, and Goodfriend100 seems to indicate that s/he wasn't aware that the 1RR restriction was still in force, as the arb case was concluded. (Although it would have been smart to seek clarification of this before edit warring.)  I say block Goodfriend100 for 3 days now for edit warring.  Also, make it crystal clear that the 1RR restriction is continuing indefinitely (or until further notice), and, for anything other than obvious vandalism, s/he should report rather than revert.  -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks   20:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I respectfully disagree with But Seriously Folks as per the reasons I have listed above. How many good editors have been chased away by this user and his nationalist cabal? We are long past the point at which we should give the user one more chance. This user and others like him/her are making a mockery of wikipedia and there here is no end in sight to the ongoing blatant disregard and ceaseless disrespect for Wikipedia policies and members of the wikipedia editing community. Wikipedia is not a nationalist battleground. Please re-institute the indefblock. 74.12.78.124 20:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * This user has received multiple last chances, and was warned at the start of his last one-week ban that any further edit warring would result in an indef ban. Even so, he chose to edit war on one of the most controversial articles immediately. Even if he wasn't aware of the 1RR, he reverted three times on that article, and going up to immediately hit your limit for the day (without summaries, without discussion) is still not constructive editing. He is interleaving his "I've learned my lesson" comments with "I haven't done anything wrong" (which is kind of contradictory) and has done so on all of his previous blocks as well. We're into double digits on his block count now. --Cheers, Komdori 21:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Looking at his talk page in his responses, it is painfully clear he does not consider what he did (undoing actions of other editors repeatedly) to be edit warring, and that if unblocked he would thus clearly do the same action again. Furthermore, he suggests that he was not bound by the 1RR because he was undoing vandalism (in all cases the changes clearly being a content dispute).  It seems that if he were to be given an eleventh chance, he'd gladly do it all over again and we'd be back here in a few days. --Cheers, Komdori 21:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Most likely, but then there won't be any question that the restrictions applied. I agree, by the way, that this was a content dispute, not vandalism. -- <font color="White">But |<font color="White">seriously |<font color="White">folks   23:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I have crossed paths with this editor several times. The last few times he was brought here for discussion of an indef block I didn't leave any comments in the hope that he truly was improving.  However, I really don't see this being the case considering his actions following the expiration of each of his blocks.  I would suggest the indefinite block go in place not for the most recent violation of the 1RR imposition, but for his latest example of continual editing warring and violation of WP:OWN, as he showed his tendency to refuse changes to be put forth by others.  He was very much aware that any more edit warring would land him an indefinite block, even after the arbcom case was over, since during the most recent block several actually mentioned    that to him on his talk page--at least one doing so after the arbcom case was finished.  Furthermore, the editor himself offered to have an indefinite block be placed on him if he ever edit warred again.  Then when his block expired, he did.  — LactoseTI T 23:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You never want to get rid of the carrot for good behavior. I recommend against indefinite block. 4 months, ok. 6 months, whatever. 9 months, really? but ok. This is assuming the user does edit using full sentences and not profanity. WP6 00:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose an indefinite block, if this is in response to Goodfriend's two recent reverts at Goguryeo. The reverts were on edits made by this annon IP which are as follows. In these edits, stable contents built upon a very difficult consensus were unilaterally deleted with no discussion whatsoever. I believe reverting the changes were made in good faith and contributed to maintaining the integrity and stability of the article, and do not constitute edit warring. Cydevil38 01:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to 74.12.78.124's assertion of ultranationalism - I strongly ask that the admins and editors here to take a look into articles on Goguryeo in other respectable encyclopedias and reliable sources, and perhaps you can see what's seriously wrong here. Both LactoseTI and Komdori have been making claims just recently that "Goguryeo is a part of Chinese history", but what reliable sources back their claims? What about LactoseTI's unilateral categorization of An Jung-geun, a Korean national hero, as a terrorist? Why INSIST that An Jung-geun was a terrorist, when it is very obviously offensive to Koreans and "independent activist" or "political assassin" are good enough definitions for this individual? Can Goodfriend's reverts be really defined as ultranationalism when he was restoring material where supportive western(i.e. non-Korean) reliable sources are abound? Please have the courtesy of taking the time to look at other secondary and tertiary sources on this subject, and decide for yourselves where the extremism(e.g. ultranationalism) really lies. Cydevil38 01:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * One revert perhaps, but the second one, when knowing he was already on notice to not edit war after the anon reverted him? Then, a third as he reverts another editor after that?  We've got about a dozen blocks in five months (including two with the editor on vacation), essentially all for the same reason: edit wars on the same articles.  This after several administrators actually do so much hand holding as to come in and say, essentially, "Your block is about to end, here's a reminder--don't edit war again or you will be permanently banned." Blocks of increasing duration have failed to elicit a whit of change, and at this point giving more and more chances simply shows the hollowness of any further threat.  Looking at his editing history I see essentially no constructive edits to any articles, just reverts or re-insertion of text that someone else reverts.  If we want to avoid a permanent ban, perhaps a topic ban, such as all articles dealing with Asia.  I feel bad because I think that often the editor means well, but loses self control when it comes to edits about this topic.  One might say the majority of his edits are about Asia, but then so are the majority of his edits involved in edit warring.  This is at least the third time we've been here discussing the appropriateness of a permanent ban for this editor. — LactoseTI T 01:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Komdori's report cannot be used against me because it shows nothing about me edit warring at all. Simply undoing an anon user's deletion of text in the articles doesn't mean that I'm edit warring. I explained above (with links) that the diffs don't even match.
 * Also, Komdori and LactoseTI are making this into a bigger problem than it is. Instead of watching me behave for a week or two, they immediately make an excuse about a couple reverts that I did, and now they are accusing me of "edit warring", which I definitely did not do. They are twisting their comments as if I was violating policies immediately after my one week ban. That is not true. I would like to ask you to put all this up at ANI because I'm just disappointed how Komdori and LactoseTI are so bold with accusing me when they don't even have any significant proof.
 * LactoseTI keeps trying to hammer in that I was edit warring. I was NOT! I am really shocked at how boldly this editor lies about my reverts. ALL the reverts were isolated from each other and NONE of them had to do with the same person or the same information continuesly. Also, how can I be edit warring when I'm restoring information that was previously deleted? I know I'm starting to rant, but it makes me angry when others lie about what I did. {written by Good friend100, posted by Heimstern} 19:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This user is a chronic violator of 3RR. An indef or a year-long block is due for good. Tons of users have been banded for much less disruptive behavior than his. <span style="font-family:palatino,times;">Hermeneus (user/talk) 20:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll describe the diffs that Komdori posted that he thought I was edit warring.


 * First diff shows that I undid an anon user's deletion of several important sentences in the article.


 * Second diff shows that I restored the word "major" to the article when describing Goguryeo as a "major regional power". It certainly was a major power, and I saw no reason for an anon to delete that so I undid that as well.


 * Do the diffs even include the same reverts? No. Did I repeatedly undo relevent edits without discussing? No. These two diffs are the diffs that Komdori listed on his report and frankly, his argument is extremely weak. His base of action comes only from the fact that I was on 1RR parole. However, the reverts were isolated and the report doesn't show a clear case of edit warring so the 1RR can't apply. I only reverted once on each completely separate edit. Also, some of the administrators were correct in assuming that the length of the 1RR parole was not clarified. I was aware of the 1RR parole after the one week ban. Yes, I was going to ask Spartaz about it, but then I got blocked. Good friend100 19:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thing that has lighted upon me is that I have made reverts and undid anon users' deletions in the past. Yet Komdori or LactoseTI have not taken those previous reverts to 3RR. Why? I interpret their prejudice in filing reports as a bold attempt to hammer me out of Wikipedia. Really, after the one week ban, I began to edit normally, and when I got blocked, frankly, I couldn't pull out of my head of any recent edit warring I had done out of the few edits (save Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)) I had made after the one week ban. But what they are trying to do is not just vigilante justice to help hunt down bad seeds. They have taken this to a personal level to indef block me, which I really see as not fair on their part. Regardless of my trail of edit warring, they should assume good faith until the last moment (that is, up to the point where I get indef banned for edit warring). For all the other blocks, they were right about me edit warring. But for this block, it isn't. The report on me is just wrong.

When I related this information to Komdori, he said he was simply keeping an eye on me, since I have been a troublemaker in the past. I agree that he can keep an eye on me, I don't mind. But picking on a couple isolated reverts and trying to formulate a ban on me using those small reverts is just going overboard. Am I ranting again? I'm sorry if you feel that I'm spitting nonsense out of my mouth. But again, wouldn't you get angry if somebody starts to talk about your conduct when they don't have hard evidence that you were breaking the rules? I'm simply trying to explain my side of the story about the diffs and all. Thank you, Heimstern, for providing a vehicle for me to get my comments through. Good friend100 19:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
 * So where are we on this? Are admins willing to make Good friend100's block indefinite? Perhaps more importantly, are admins willing to unblock if this happens? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagree with Indef at this time. Run him through ArbCom again (or RfC/RfM) if necessary. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 06:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking I'll take you up on that ArbCom suggestion. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse me to write this with my ip address but I don't want to get in a trouble to be a next prey of the notorious JPOV pushers like Komdori, LactoseT1, Endroit, Op2 and others. Their hatred feelings against Koreans have been noteworthy on every Korean related articles. They tend to suddenly jump into articles regardless of the previous discussions and start reverting edits without any consensus. If other editors requested them to add verifiable sources, they simply reject as if the other party was proclaiming completely ridiculous ideas and they were judges. With their disruptive behaviors, editors who really engaged in the article were out of the league. I also have seen them being frequent subjects of 3RR report, incident reports, and arbitration cases. They always insist that they have a NPOV and push the other party to have a KPOV, but that is a blatant lie. Since I've not seen any good contribution done by them. I think administrators shouldn't listen attentively to the people who have so many edit wars with Korean editors. If Good friend100 was really blamed to be a disruptive user, they all might be equally responsible for the blame. Their goal is to kick out Good friend100, or other Korean users out of here. Japanese editors are so eager to push their POV every wiki place.

Good friend100 has been engaging in a variety of Korean history related articles from being distorted by them. I thank him with my heart for at least one person trying to protest against the JPOV pusher's irrational behaviors. I haven't met with any of them because I have to protect myself from being a target. I object to to the idea of Good friend100 indefinitely being blocked. The JPOV editors are always skillfully getting away from any punishment, and it is very weird to me. Please mind that Japanese editors are over 9 times than Korean editors any Wiki place. In my thought, Good friend100 didn't violate 1RR patrol rule. Komdori is so cunning to take advantage of Good friend100's situation. That action can hardly refers to a good faith.--72.79.54.106 11:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Once we take out the users who already have a beef with Good friend100, there does not appear to be a clear consensus for an indefinate block at this time by independant reviewers. While I fully appreciate the difficulties that this editor has caused on Korean articles the point of independant review is to ensure that a ban is fair and appropriate & I'm not seeing a clear consensus for this to be effected at this time. I'm inclined to suggest that we go back to an earlier suggestion which is to reaffirm the 1RR restriction and unblock Good friend100. If they can stick to this, then well and good and after a suitable period of good behaviour (say 6 months) they can apply on ANI to have their 1RR probation lifted. They can then reblocked indefinitely immediately they breach this probation. Does this seem a reasonable compromise that everyone can agree to? I also see no point taking this back to arbcom. The user has just been through an arbitration case and I really don't see the point of dragging this out any further. If they behave they can continue to edit. If they misbehave they get kicked immediately. it seems to me that there is nothing to adjudicate from this. I'm willing to mentor and monitor their conduct if closer oversight is required. Spartaz Humbug! 11:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz, I agree with your decision to give Goodfriend100 a last chance. Hopefully, Goodfriend100 will make good use of it. Cydevil38 11:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Suggestion, not decision. Spartaz Humbug! 12:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * If I'm too close to the situation (as several other users both for and against him are, along with WPC who's handful of edits all essentially are clustered right around his comment here), I'd be happy to recuse myself. In any case, one thing that concerns me to a certain extent which I think is at the core of the issue and still has not really been addressed: he has explicitly stated that he does not believe he was edit warring, and by extension would not hesitate to edit in the same manner again.  One cannot discount an edit as "unworthy" simply because it comes from an anonymous ip.  To then continue by reverting Cydevl's contribution just illustrates his general attitude toward editing.  To address a point of confusion of whether or not he knew his 1RR parole was still in place, he also explicitly offered to have himself blocked permanently if he ever edit warred again.  After 10 blocks for edit warring over the span of a few months, he should at least know the basic definition.  If not--if he gets blocked twice even after receiving "last chance, you will be blocked permanently if you edit war again" notices--there really isn't much hope.  There is perhaps some lack of communication here since it seems people keep plainly stating to him that he will be blocked permanently if he acts in a certain manner again, and he keeps plainly stating that he will continue to do (and does) that very action again.
 * If a permanent block or topic ban are inappropriate, one suggestion might be to expand the 1RR to be 1RR collectively per day, instead of per article as it hasn't been effective (since he has received two blocks when on it already). Recently this editor has been going around hitting his 1RR limit on many articles and then stopping editing for the day, making a large percentage of the edits reverts.  For someone prone to edit warring, this shouldn't be tolerated any more than someone going around and hitting their "limit" of three reverts per day.  I'm not suggesting this to be vindictive (ignore the suggestion if you like), but it might give the editor pause to consider if what is being written is really worth reverting.  I really don't have much of a problem with Good friend, and I think he could make some valid contributions if he can gain a bit of self-control (he edited much less disruptively before his first few blocks), but it has been tiring over the past few months to have disruption after disruption. — LactoseTI T 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia either needs a better way to handle edit warriors or the community needs to find a way to use the existing methods better. This has gone on for far too long and will apparently be allowed to continue going on. All right, one more chance for Good friend100, but further edit warring should lead to an immediate indefblock and to arbitration if the block doesn't stand. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Just one clarification: Are we in agreement that Good friend100 is in fact still under his 1RR parole? I had assumed that the parole was indefinite, much as the block that it replaced was. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, I wouldn't even think about unblocking without this in place. I'm going to leave this up a little longer before enforcing this. Spartaz Humbug! 06:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Good friend100's block by AGK for the 1RR violation has expired and Good friend100 has sought guidence on the terms of the editing restrictions. I have written up my views on this on his talk page . Does anyone disgaree with these terms? Otherwise, he is free to edit based on these. Spartaz Humbug! 21:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

robertchristgau.com spam - 2000 links
Sheffield Steel talkstalk 18:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC) Please review this collection of over 2000+ outbound links from Wikipedia. This person is apparently a semi-notable music reviewer, but there are dozens of notable music reviewers. On most album infoboxes, we'll list reviews from major organizations. I found an IP adding these links while doing some RC patrol, and then found all these. As we don't link to personal sites on any music reviews besides this site, shouldn't these all be removed as spam? • Lawrence Cohen  06:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC) All my dozen removals are now undone by myself, pending review here by uninvolved admins. My concern is that we apparently offer no other "personal" websites of other reviewers on these articles which I can see. So, by including robertchristgau.com in the infobox on 2000+ articles, we are by defacto giving this person weight on the level of Rolling Stone, and other major music news outlets. That seems oddly wrong, and the links look and feel like spam in this vein. • Lawrence Cohen  06:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC) OK, sorry for the confusion. I didn't initially realize the scope of respect in music journalism this fellow has, and have researched it more off of Wikipedia. Someone can tag this resolved. • Lawrence Cohen  13:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As it's the music critic's website and not my site, how can these be considered personal sites? Or do you just don't like someone having a different opinion of a band than you do? I won't say anything in favor of one view or another, but album articles should represent a world-wide view and not just blind praise of the band being reviewed. (72.153.117.99 06:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC))
 * As just mentioned on Cohen's talkpage, Christgau is a veteran music reviewer who is published online and in print, including Esquire and the Village Voice. Cohen began to arbitrarily remove links to Christgau's reviews from articles after being challenged by the above IP over accusations of vandalism and linkspamming. Posting here instead of engaging the IP in meaningful conversation (at Talk:Korn) shows an alarming tendency to forgo good faith consideration. The question whether to include links to any of Christgau's reviews is an editorial one, it can be and should be solved without administrative intervention. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The same argument could be made for excluding film reviews by Roger Ebert. I think that it is difficult to make a fair judgment on these links unless you are familiar with the field of music journalism or are thoroughly acquainted with Christgau's career and the syndication of his review columns. Coincidentally, AN/I is not the best noticeboard for recruiting editors with the requisite background in dealing with music-related content disputes. I suggest you try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Whilst I would normally be wary about linking to personal review sites, given Christgau's standing in the music journalism world, I can't really see a problem with these links.  E LIMINATOR JR  07:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You don't get music critics more important than Christgau. These links are on the same level of importance as IMDb, BoxRec, etc. <small style="background:#fff;border:#ccc 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 17:02, 10/31/2007
 * I couldn't agree more. Given Christgau's credentials, his web site can hardly be considered a "personal website". This may not be the best place for this discussion but the mass removals are unneeded. RxS 21:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleemosynary
Eleemosynary is edit warring on two different articles: Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy & Michael Mukasey. The first article was placed under protection do to the editor's edit warring, and Eleemosynary has now followed me to Michael Mukasey, and article that he has no previous edits on, and is reverting my edits just to mess with me. &mdash; Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * His persecution complex notwithstanding, Steven Andrew Miller is misstating the facts. --Eleemosynary 06:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Discuss edits on the articles talk page. Tiptoety 06:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that both editors have violated WP:3RR. Tiptoety 06:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have in the past, but not at present. Please check the recent history again. --Eleemosynary 10:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I have blocked Steven Andrew Miller for 24 hours for a clear three revert rule breach at Michael Mukasey. Eleemosynary has three reverts on this article and should not revert it again. He also has two reverts on Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy but this page is now protected. If he edits disruptively then he may be blocked, but not at the moment. Sam Blacketer 10:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This is something new? Eleemosynary has a bad habit of edit warring. I'd block even for the three reverts. One is not entitled to 3 reverts per day. The fact that he's edit warring on a wide scale, constitutes disruption. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  11:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And you'd be wrong to issue the block. 1) I have no "habit" of edit warring.  2) You have no say as to what any editor is "entitled" to, and are as bound by Wiki policy as I am.  3) Your claim that I'm "edit warring on a wide scale" is a lie.  I realize you're having major issues with Jimmy Wales these days, but try not to take that out on me. --Eleemosynary 00:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not my "say". Read the policy. WP:3RR explicitly states that users are not entitled to three reverts per day, and you well know this. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  01:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't make "three reverts a day," nor have I ever claimed I was entitled to. And none of those reversions were "disruptive," to quote the policy.  You have a history of misrepresenting my actions both on and off-Wiki, so you'll forgive me for not assuming good faith with you.--Eleemosynary 01:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No, I won't. Assuming good faith is policy. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  04:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * But your abuse of it, as I believe your off-site actions have done, frees me from assuming you're acting in good faith. I'd be happy to get some more admins to weigh in on this.  Sound good? --Eleemosynary 05:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry, my off site actions? Yes, lets please get some more admins to weigh in on this. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Son of the Defender  05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There are issues other than the two Miller mentioned. Since section this is listed as "resolved," I've brought up these issues under "More User:Eleemosynary." Calbaer 19:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Why am I not surprised? --Eleemosynary 00:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Block of admin User:Dbachmann
I don't think there's anything else to discuss here, really. Neil  ☎  11:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like User:Dbachmann has been blocked by User:Penwhale while he was trying to enforce policy at Race of Ancient Egyptians. He isn't requesting immediate unblock but he is requesting that various actions be taken. Please see his talk page for details. Requests include: *consider resetting my block to expire at 13:43, or unblock me on parole of not touching the disputed article until 20:29 today. *either way, take the case of Race of Ancient Egyptians to WP:AN/I for wider review: dedicated trolling accounts make reasonable editing impossible, admin intervention is necessary. Hit everyone with sticks until morale improves. Would uninvolved admins please pursue this case. Thanks. --Folantin 08:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've crossed paths with Dbachmann in the past, and unfortunately I get the impression that he seems to be willing to use his admin tools in disputes he's involved in. He did unambiguously break 3RR in a content dispute, and on top of this he used his admin rollback to do so. He also appears to be making sharp and unneccesary personal attacks towards Penwhale, the blocking admin. Unfortunately, this block was probably warranted. -- krimpet ⟲  08:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Erm, Dbachmann was trying to ensure articles adhered to Wikipedia policy. Plus - correct me if I'm wrong- but I thought blocks were supposed to be preventive rather than punitive. --Folantin 09:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) DBachmann is one of the strongest defenders of the encyclopaedia against nationalst trolls of all stripes. I think that needs to be said, repeatedly, and remembered. Relata refero 09:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Using admin rollback on trolling edits may not be 100% ideal, but admins do it all the time and I've never seen anybody cite it as a reason to block that admin before. As for the 3RR, it's a fair cop, though should a hardworking admin's very first 3RR error get as much as 24 hours, really? That also is a new sight to me. Anyway, keeping dab blocked for the full 24 hours would be punitive after his own parole suggestion, see his talkpage. Penwhale doesn't seem to be editing. I've called for him on his page and on irc (where he's lurking, but I think not personally present). Unless I hear from Penwhale in 5 minutes, I'm unblocking on the conditions dab himself suggests. Bishonen | talk 09:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Absolutely, endorse unblock. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Unblocked. Bishonen | talk 09:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Yeah, good unblock. The block only serves a punitive purpose now given that Dbachman has offered to stay away from the page.  Ry an P os tl et hw ai te  09:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmph! This place gets dafter by the moment. Giano 09:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My dear friends, I don't think a mere 5 minutes is a proper discussion. See this proposal by User:Daniel, "You don't unblock a problem user without discussion with the blocking [administrator]...Period". Any administrator who does so may face temporary desysopping at the direction of Jimmy Wales or the Arbitration Committee."  Please restore the block until there is a consensus to unblock. This block wasn't a mistake, nor was it placed in bad faith. - Jehochman  Talk 09:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Post-close clarification: For the record, I have never said I support that proposal, and never also in this circumstance. I have actually no opinion on the block, or unblock. My proposal at that RfAr is an attempt to clarify the ArbCom's stance on Jimbo's edict-like comment.  Daniel  00:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid you'll have to place a request for my desysopping here to get any action on that from the ArbCom, Jehochman. Jimbo Wales, indeed, may desysop me without a request—we'll have to wait and see—but he doesn't after all intervene in the day-to-day running of the place very often. The ArbCom is your best bet. Bishonen | talk 10:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC).
 * Oh, noodles! not another case. At least you tried to contact him and waited for one or two comments, and this is hardly a sneaky vandal we're talking about. - Jehochman  Talk 10:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is anyone calling Dbachmann a "problem user"? I don't think so. Rather, he's a very productive and helpful admin. While he may have violated 3RR (I haven't checked), he should be given an opportunity to correct his mistake. I don't think this block was made with Wikipedia's best interests in mind, and I support the decision to shorten it.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 09:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec.) The preceding version of the proposal Jehochman linked to sums up what is actual long-standing good practice: administrators should not unblock users blocked by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended." Which is precisely what happened here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also support a decision to shorten the block, but I think we should wait, let's say, 60 minutes to get a consensus, not 5 minutes and just two additional opinions. This is a high traffic board.  Wait an hour for deeper snow. - Jehochman  Talk 09:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec) It was a short 24-hour block for 3RR (and that might be disputed) of a good editor and productive admin, not a block of a problem user. There is a world of difference between that and an indefinite block and proposed community ban of a problematic COI editor (Sadi Carnot). The former can be resolved with a short discussion, and the latter should have had further discussion before an unblock took place. The point about the 3RR is that it can be removed once the editor has agreed to stay away from the page as Ryan said "The block only serves a punitive purpose now given that Dbachman has offered to stay away from the page." The alternative viewpoint is that, as a strictly defined block (limited to 24 hours), 3RR blocks are best left in place if unblocking may cause drama (but then who can predict that?). The deeper snow comment is relevant, but how deep does snow have to be to overcome time considerations (appearing to unblock hastily)? Carcharoth 09:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not extremely happy with the unblock (which was first posted on my talk page a little under 2 hours ago -- and that was 5:00AM time that bishonen posted on my talk. I never thought that someone might assume that I wasn't hanging around to deal with the unblock issue. Unblocking after only a 12-minute wait period isn't something that I feel should have been done, but I'm not going to wheel war over this. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 10:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

←I support the unblock. Dbachmann is not a troll or vandal, he has agreed to avoid the article in question. I don't know if he has or hasn't violated 3RR. Yes he was incivil toward Penwhale but I doubt that it is a trend or ongoing problem. James086 Talk &#124; Email 09:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have seen many established editors here who make solid contributions to the Wiki get blocked for violating the 3RR rule. I have not seen them unblocked after a 5 minute discussion. These sort of actions make users think that there is a two tier system here, with admins getting a free pass for their transgressions. It makes one think that, in spite of all the blather one reads on Rfas, adminship is, indeed, a big deal. Jeffpw 09:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. Short discussion followed by strong actions seems to be a trend around here recently. Please, before anything drastic is done, allow decent conversation. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 10:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You cannot reasonably expect an administrator to be online 24/7. I was informed of the actions when I woke up just a few minutes ago (which is 6:30 AM), so I feel slighted by that. - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 10:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Another reason that things should not be done in such rapid succession. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 10:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Feh. No suggestion of ill faith on anybody's part, no suggestion that Dbachmann wants to escalate this, Penwhale was offline and there was no pressing reason to retain the block as there is an adequate explanation for the behaviour identified.  I suspect that someone was gaming the system here to try to make drama, but I've not really looked into it.  Anyway, I propose we archive this thread, file it under "nobody's perfect" and move on, since there's clearly no need to escalate this any further. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann has been IMHO a troublesome admin in the past. However, he does do good work as well. Race of ancient egyptians is a shithole of an article, as evidenced by the recent edit wars that have brought it onto AN/I at least two, and possibly three times in the last 7 days. As much as I dislike his admin practices and editing behavior, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. P.S. we should also delete that article, start it anew from a blank stub, and require every single edit be sourced before it is included. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT Jester    Son of the Defender  11:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No, forget it, I do not consent to this archive. This is absurd. An admin that barely made it in his RfA due to lack of mainspace experience decides to make-up new mainspace rules, such as blocking for rollback. Someone should have the courage to say something about that, and I'm glad Bishonen did. El_C 17:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've made my stand and responses, and you're just trying to flare things up again. Do not instigate this further; dab and I have talked and came to an understanding (and this was before you started complaining on here and my talk page). - Penwhale &#124; Blast him / Follow his steps 23:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow. El_C 02:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * El C, I don't know what the problem is but from my perspective you seem to be frequently adding only brief and vague responses to legitimate questions or statements. We're not mind readers here.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive user: Davkal
Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · [ logs] · block user · [ block log]) has been disruptively editing Wikipedia and has set himself up as an attack account for people who dare to edit in paranormal/pseudoscience articles that disagree with him, he vandalizes user pages, edit wars, mischaracterizes good faith warnings as harassment, makes unfounded accusations, and generally causes a lot of distress everywhere he goes at Wikipedia. The arbcomm found he was a disruptive editor and he hasn't improved one bit. I request a community ban. ScienceApologist 21:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The userpage "vandalism" looks more like a misplaced comment to the user. --Ali&#39;i 21:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Could you clarify what you mean by your comment Ali'i? Which comment are you talking about?
 * Sure, but e kala mai for interrupting. ScienceApologist said that with this edit, Davkal was "vandaliz[ing] user pages". It actually looks more like a misplaced comment to the user. Sometimes people post comments on a person's userpage rather than on their talk page. It's actually a fairly common occurance. Mahalo. --Ali&#39;i 12:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * With regards to Davkal, he has been nothing but trouble. He has accused me of being both a sock puppet and a meat puppet of ScienceApologist, of which I am certainly not.  A checkuser can be run to quell any doubts about the sock issue and SA and I simply share similar interests.  Davkal has continued to edit disruptively all over the List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts talk page in order to exclude a long standing source of information from the article.  It appears that his method of editing is to try to exhaust other editor's patience in order to achieve his point.  I requested a 3RR review against him due to his insistance on adding irrelevant information and continuing to insert a disputed tag but it did not result in a block but in the page being protected.  He shows no sign of wanting to achieve consensus on the article and would rather continue to, for lack of a better word, rant about how much he distrusts the source and the author.  The two other editors working on the page EPadmirateur and Hgilbert have been much more civil throughout the process of working towards a consensus but Davkal has been unable to remain civil.  After being warned by both OrangeMarlin twice and once myself, he deleted the warnings from his page because he deemed them harassment.  He even copied nearly the exact same warning I put on his page and put it onto mine, as you can see from this and then accused me again of being a sock puppet of SA.  He has an extensive history of disruptive editing, as SA mentioned, which has culminated in 6 separate blocks.  Even after all of these blocks, he has shown little change in his editing styles.  It is time so show this editor the door.  Baegis 22:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Baegis makes great play of the fact that he's not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of scienceapologist. Well he's certainly a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of someone. His first edits were to an RFC []! And then a few days later he jokes with Dave Souza on his talk page about his seeming familiarity with all things wiki[]. His first words to me on the List of pseudosciences talk page was to tell me to leave []. And he has since accused me ov vandalism [], for trying to uphold the an arbcom decision. He now seems to spend his time almost exclusively following ScienceApologist around wiki gang editing to avoid 3RR, including removing legitimately placed disputed tags from the list of pseudosciences article (added because there was a clear dispute involving at least three editors on either side - even though this was always presented as only me against the world - which was the same dispute that resurfaces constantly on that article because it has never been resolved). Not only does he follow ScienceApologist about, he seems to know SA's mind very well: well enough to make a change to SA's entry here as if he almost knew what SA was thinking[]. SA also has a long history of using sockpuppets, while at the same time vehemently denying it - at one point he had three on the go at the EVP page at the same time and when he was finally caught still tried to blame a student of his editing from his home PC! This is not about my behaviour at all, but about an organised group of editors who have tried to hijack many articles about the paranormal - generally threatening, abusing, and harassing any editor who stands up to them, and who, after failing to get the arbcom on the paranormal to back up their spurious arguments have taken to trying to eliminate all the editors who oppose them one by one. SA is currently trying to have both editors he is currently in dispute with (myself and martinphi) banned from wiki. I urge you to look at SA's past history - including his recent total rejection of the arbcom he initiated, and to view this request here in the light of that.
 * I am certainly not blameless, but since my worst indiscretions were well over a year ago, I have tried to bring things to the talk page where the response has almost always been to simply turn the the discussion onto me and to threaten me endlessly. My recent edit on the list of pseudosciences talk page resulted in about three such threats within a few days.Davkal 23:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Davkal, you say you aren't blameless. Ok, we all know you edit war, and you aren't civil.  The ArbCom knows.  I like you, and I know that one of these days you're going to get a permanent ban if you continue to edit as you do.  So, would you be willing to change your editing style?  —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 00:17, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
 * You know it's bad when Martinphi says that Davkal is a problem! ScienceApologist 00:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * If I could have a sensible conversation with an admin, or someone neutral here (someone who is not obviously a supporter of the gang of editors I have been in dispute with) to discuss a sensible way to take this forward then I would welcome that opportunity. The problem though, as witnessed in your recent RFC, is that all we really get are the same group of editors whose suggestions consist mainly of telling us to doff our caps and accept the truth of what Scienceapologist, for example, are telling us. The recent paranormal arcbcom demonstrated that on a significant number of policy issues we were correct. The recent point here, made by a member of the Rational Skeptics group and a mediator []group illustrates what I feel I am up against. As does the recent stuff on the list of pseudosciences. Three threats of bans as soon as I make a reasonable point (that many many have agreed with over the course of this dispute) and then an accusation of bullying when I respond by suggesting another editor's behaviour may be worthy of a ban.
 * As noted, then, I would welcome the opportunity to discuss my behaviour seriously with someone who knows wiki policy, and can suggest a way forward, but I cannot accept that I have to put up with constant harassment and incivility. There is a general problem with civility in Wiki, and in the world of paranormal Wiki there is virtually no such thing. Witness this recent edit from SA []. That's the kind of thing I don't feel I should have to put up with every day of my life just because I think articles on the paranormal should not be any less neutral than any other article.
 * So, if someone would care to discuss my edit history over the passed week or so, and genuinely let me know what is unacceptable and what is not then I will do all I can to follow their recommendations in good faith. I also feel, however, that there are others here who need to go down this same route.Davkal 00:39, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Here is the kind of thing that is just a commonplace when dealing with ScienceApologist. First, he demands that we identify the source of a picture []. Then, he uses that attribution to tag the article as spam []. And then accuses another editor of trying to hijack the whole of wiki []. And all this really because an arbcom ruling means that the caption for a picture doesn't support his POV as much as he would like.[] Davkal 02:29, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, as Ali'i pointed out, Davkal may have not meant to vandalize OM's user page. But what he did insert was surely a personal attack against SA and I.  I won't address the puppet accusations in any great detail because they are completely baseless.  With regards to my first edit being on an RFC, well, who cares?  I thought that RFC's were for community input.  Just because I was a brand new editor I wasn't supposed to comment?  And yes, I made a joke with Dave that I was a bit familiar with everything because I have always been tinkering with WP without a user name.  I corrected a few misspellings here, a broken link here, revert a little vandalism, all very minor stuff.  So I was familiar with how things worked when I finally registered my user name.  Contrary to your belief, I do not follow SA around and "gang edit" articles.  We just have similar interests.  The articles that we have worked on together are dwarfed by the amount of articles that SA has worked on that I haven't or vice versa (a lot heavier on SA's side).  You are making this claim from two articles, List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts and Electronic voice phenomena, and my comments on an IfD regarding an image used at the EVP article.  And yes, I knew how to change the link in SA's evidence because I read it, clicked on the link, and saw that it did not link to the findings of fact regarding your disruptive editing style.  So I fixed it because I knew that is where SA was going with the statement.  My words to you on LOPAPC (which was actually my 2nd comment to you, the first mentioning how your proposed title change was not a good idea) must be read in the context of what Simeos mentioned above, in which he cautioned you twice about your behavior.  Taken out of context they make me look like a rabble-rouser.  Read in the correct context I am merely echoing another editors concerns.


 * I don't know enough about SA to know about the use of sock's in previous discussions but it is hardly relevant to your current behavior. If SA has had sock's in the past, I am sure punishment will come, especially since it is addressed in the current Arbcom between MartinPhi and SA.  However, I would like to say that SA made an extremely bold series of edits in the EVP article that have improved the article significantly.  It is not hijacking, but improving the article.  I am not sure what you mean exactly by having editors tell you to doff your caps to SA but from everything I have seen so far with working with SA, is that 99% of the time SA is completely correct, especially in regard to policy.  Baegis 17:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Davkal seems to disappear and then reappear whenever he/she wants to disrupt something such as an RFA, an arbitration or an attempt to get consensus on improving an article and frequently inserts POV. For instance this user vanishes for a month and then reappears to oppose a RFA. Vanishes for another month and then reappears to support a RFA. Vanishes for another month and then reappears at an arbitration. All relating to article content that this user frequently attempts to drive POV into. This user has been blocked an astonishing 10 times in the past year for edit warring etc. This is clearly a problematic user and has made little positive contributions to the project.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 17:53, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Davkal is now engaged in revert warring at Electronic voice phenomenon. Are there no admins brave enough to tackle this user? ScienceApologist 18:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * ScienceApologist is right engaged in POV pushing on grand scale on the EVP article. He is blatantly ignoring the decisions of the arbcom and he is inserting his own pseudoscientific theories into the article without sources. I am reverting to the stable version of the article that was moving, albeit slowly, towards possible good article status.Davkal 18:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * With all I have read on this discussion thread, I would congratualte any administrator who gave Davkal an indef block. Jeffpw 18:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think everyone should take these accusations with a grain of salt. ScienceApologist has been biting good-faith editors on Talk:Electronic voice phenomena when they politely ask for him to refrain from language, and from looking at the *entire* page (not just cherry picking diffs) it appears both sides are busy throwing choice words at each other. I don't know the history of Davkal, but the confrontational style and behavior of SA makes me unwilling to support a one-sided block. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 19:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, please look at the entire page. The user is a single purpose account who fits the disruptive editor designation almost to the letter. I challenge anyone to show how I am cherry-picking in this complaint. ScienceApologist 19:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I happened to drop in on the EVP article but have had no prior involvement other than to make a note on the talk page regarding how poorly written the article is. If there's a disruptive editor involved, that certainly wouldn't help the quality of the article. I'm especially concerned about the statement "Davkal seems to disappear and then reappear whenever he/she wants to disrupt something such as an RFA, an arbitration or an attempt to get consensus." If this is true and can be supported with diffs, that's a serious matter; if not true, it's still a serious matter because such accusations are not to be made lightly. Raymond Arritt 19:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, having reviewed Davkal's recent contributions, I have placed a block to prevent any more disruption from that user. I'm now going to look through the past arbitrations in respect of the articles he's been editing.  Nothing I've seen in Davkal's history indicates that he is amenable to education or reform, he is a tireless advocate for fringe theories, which is fine in some places but not on Wikipedia, where tireless advocates tend to have the effect of actively impeding progress towards consensus.  I note that there are other editors who have a reasonably sympathetic view of EVP and so on, let's see of they can come to some kind of view as to how it should be covered. I've also left a friendly warning to ScienceApologist, whose zeal for the mainstream can be a source of friction. While sympathising with both his viewpoint and his impatience with POV-pushers, I think this thread is representative of his approach, which could perhaps be a bit more collegial. Hark at me.  Guy (Help!) 19:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to follow up on that, the more I see the more sure I am that Davkal is just in the wrong place. Guy (Help!) 22:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to mostly agree with User:David Fuchs. This is not a clear cut as some think. The two sides of this issue both have issues to work on. Davkal is not the only one that is culpable here. The whole thing reminds me of the East Europe(Digwuren), Sri Lanka, and Middle Eastern areas of wiki where the two sides never learn to get along and are constantly trying to blame the other side and do each other in. I guess now we can add the paranormal group to the EE/SR/ME list. Maybe we should full protect the pages and force the two sides to work things out. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how to hark, much less how to direct it toward anyone. Nonetheless, good block. For Pete's sake, look at Davkal's block log. There's no sort of disruptive behavior he hasn't engaged in at some point. This block was long overdue. MastCell Talk 20:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I always love it when someone is accused of something, and the first thing they do is not deny what they have done, but accuse someone else of something. The SA/Baegis sockpuppet charge is amusing and quite boring--the point of this ANI is not SA or Baegis but it's Davkal.  Let's stick to that discussion.  MastCell makes a valid point--why are we bothering even having this discussion.  Time for Davkal to move along.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 20:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Guy, for a more balanced view for a change. If one looks at ScienceApologist's sock puppet record, it is not at all out of line to suspect more, especially when that user follows SA around and upholds his edits. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * My, but bringing up ScienceApologist's sockpuppetry certainly seems to be a popular method of deflecting unwanted attention these days... it seems to be the equivalent of temporarily raising the terror alert level. MastCell Talk 21:32, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, so now it's just so much background noise. I've been accused of being a sockpuppet so often that I now consider it a badge of honor.  When a POV-warrior accuses me of it, that's precisely the point I know they've run out of logic.  Same here.  Davkal cannot defend himself, because his actions are indefensible.  And I like SA's zeal.   Orange Marlin  Talk• Contributions 19:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with Guy's characterization of the issues. SA's zeal is often gratting, but there is no indication that User:Davkal is an asset to the project.  --Rocksanddirt 21:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think the pseudoscience issues can be distinguished from the Middle Eastern/etc areas of wiki in that there are content guidelines regarding fringe theories specifically. I'm not particularly familiar with the Middle Eastern/etc cases, though, so I won't say much more than that. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  23:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The block is well deserved in this case, such disruptive editors have no place in this project. OTOH, I am concerned about baiting. Many editors become royal pains in the arse when they see that they are talked down, labeled as trolls at every opportunity, their comments refactored or collapsed between archive tags, and other such demonstrations of lack of respect. Editors that engage in these type of baiting, need to become aware that these and not useful, if not actually disruptive. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you saying the members of the opposing side are innocent? I highly doubt it. This is too similar to EE/SR/ME situations. I'd like to know what people who've never edited a single paranormal article on wiki have to say about this. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 23:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No I am saying that both sides are at fault. I would also add, that these editors need to be aware that their behavior is also under scrutinity, and will end up in the same situation as these they bait if they persist. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If both sides are at fault, why is only Davkal blocked? SA has a block history too. — Rlevse  •  Talk  23:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You may want to see the warning placed by Guy in that user's talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The answer is very simple. Davkal was aggressively pushing a POV, SA is aggressively pushing NPOV.  Neither is great editing behaviour, but one is a more pressing problem.  I have advised SA to be less aggressive and more collegial.  We'll see if that has any effect.  I suspect he may accept a steer fomr me that he would not accept form an editor with a long history of advancing fringe theories, so it's worth a shot at least.  Davkal is just in the wrong place.  I'm sure he's a nice guy and kind to his mother, but Wikipedia is sincerely trying to be a neutral encyclopaedia and his input was definitely not helping in that aim. Guy (Help!) 00:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * More broadly, that article (and probably others in similar topics) could do with more involvement from editors in the reality-based community. Looking at the talk page it's clear that there's disproportionate influence from the paranormal/fringe camp. Maybe then SA wouldn't feel so embattled. Raymond Arritt 00:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Then he should ask for help from non-involved editors, Raymond. Feeling constantly embattled is not a good think, as it encourages the wrong behaviors. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I do not believe in such a thing as aggressively pushing NPOV in this case. I see it more as pushing the mainstream point, while obliterating the non-mainstream POV. That makes for poor NPOV. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've jumped into this mid-way as a mediator invited in between both sides at the lone article EVP. It seems to me that paranormal editors like Davkal are baited by editors like SA into edit wars resulting in a general mess. ScienceApologist has a troubling history that should be addressed - practices like where he went on a literal 'rampage' with the article not only reverting others work without disussion but making POV changes without first discussing the issues first, and  where following the previous incident of editing without consensus or discussion (as was accepted on the talk page, and considering the present Arbcom would be the wise and cordial thing to do) he started another dispute over templates of the paranormal. It's this type of stuff that is causing the mess in the first place and although I can't speak for Davkal's editing patterns I can understand at least what this user puts up with from ScienceApologist. It's disappointing Wikipedia attracts crusaders like the LaRouche crowd and RationalSkeptics (who I considered joining as a skeptic myself but decided not to because of the harm I see coming from some associated with this group) who wish to convey their fringe view of subjects changing long standing articles in such a manner that is contrary to the spirit of NPOV. Wikidudeman below, as well as ScienceApologist, and others are active members of this group that have a fringe skeptical view, at odds with the very existence of paranormal terms and articles at Wikipedia; rather than balancing the articles out with a good and pithy criticism section as is standard. This is the ROOT of all of this mess here and at Arbcom. The repeated harassment of paranormal editors is shameful - and should be addressed. At the very least SA should be banned for his actions as well. If the root problems are not addressed this stuff is just going to go on and on. --Northmeister 00:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Your characterization of the paranormal editors as being "harassed" by the mainstream ones is absurd. Would it be best if SA showed saintlike civility and forbearance when faced with aggressive promotion of (let's be frank) physical impossibility? Sure. But sometimes we have to take what we can get. I'd much rather have SA as he is, than leave these articles to be dominated by the paranormalists, resulting in Wikipedia being the target of well-deserved ridicule. Raymond Arritt 00:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If I am wrong - How so? I've seen nothing but this since arriving at EVP and reading up on he history. The recent incidents above are just more of the same - thus the actions of editors in the paranormal community trying to deal with editors on the fringe of science. I wouldn't call trying to change paranormal articles clearly framed as such and understood by the general public as such; mainstream. Although I probably would agree with ScienceApologist opinion on matters paranormal, I'm not about to endorse what is being done to instigate these things - thus my observations on the ROOT of the problem and SA's troubling editorial habits. --Northmeister 00:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Two wrongs do not make a right, Raymond. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * True, they don't. Again, in an ideal world SA would be more patient. But sometimes we have to choose between less-than-ideal worlds. Raymond Arritt 00:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am not so sure that choosing the lesser of two evils is wise in the long run. In any case I see that you have joined Guy in his warning to SA, and hope he will take that to heart. There is a point in which the balance may not be in the project's favor. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

To Quote "northmeister", "At the very least SA should be banned for his actions as well. If the root problems are not addressed this stuff is just going to go on and on." I have to agree. SA should not be getting off scott free here when the other is getting indef blocked. The one doing the baiting is just as guilty as the one who bit. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And what goal would that accomplish? How would banning one of the more productive editors who always strongly, strongly pushes for NPOV and well sourced information help out the WP community?  Sure SA may be short on patience sometimes, but if we all had to deal with some of the editors SA seems to encounter, we would be quite short with them.  SA is not a saint, but I'd take a take someone with an aggressive, no nonsense attitude over a dozen of Davkal's type any day of the week.  Baegis 05:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Evidence of aforementioned charge

 * user is gone for 2 weeks and then returns to oppose my RFA. Davkal opposed because he perceived my being a skeptic as POV or something like that. Davkal stayed about a week and then vanished again until:
 * user appears after over a month of inactivity to support another editors RFA. The editor (Dreadstar) coincidentally made a lot of comments or edits that Davkal agreed with apparently. The editor disappeared again for a month until:
 * The editor returns to comment on a new RFA concerning the disruptive edits of other editors concerning paranormal articles
 *  Wikidudeman  (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You make it sound like all he did during that time was only to edit 3 RFAs, which is simply not true. You also fail to mention that he was one of 24 who opposed your RFA and that it did not succeed. Sounds like sour grapes to me. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 23:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * And that helps in what way, exactly? Guy (Help!) 00:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It's more accurate view than wikidudeman's obviously skewed presentation. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 01:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, Wikidudeman's presentation is not skewed he merely didn't mention the other edits. Lets examine them further:
 * From July 9th until his strong oppose to Wikidudeman's RFA (July 30th) or a total of 22 days, he made 0 edits. None, no talk, nothing.  In his 7 day reappearance, in which he commented on said RFA, he made a total of 13 contributions.  5 of them were in relation to the RFA, and 7 of them to the, you guessed it, EVP articles (talk inclusive).  His one other edit was to give a barnstar to User:RedSpruce, which appears to have been removed since it was given.
 * From August 6th until September 14th (40 days) he did not make a single contribution. He came back on September 15th and made 3 posts on the Dreadstar RFA.  It is interesting to note this because Dreadstar's thank you card continued to be present on Davkal's page when all of his warning's were posted (or harassment as he declared) and subsequently quickly deleted by Davkal.  So it would be safe to say they are friendly.
 * After this one day appearance, Davkal disappeared again until October 16 (32 days) to make 2 contributions to the MartinPhi/SA Arb case. He made a single edit on October 18th and then disappeared for 10 days until he came back on October 27th.  What happened from this date forward is what brought this user to this board.
 * So, yes I think it is quite safe to say that Davkal only appears to cause other's grief or to help out his buddies in someway. While there is no harm in lending your support for an editor's RFA or invoking your right to object to another editor's RFA, since July 9th it is quite clear that Davkal's contributions have been suspect at best.  Disruptive would be the better word for his actions.  And, since he shows no sign of changing, he should not be asked back.  Baegis 05:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Jossi already said nearly everything I might have, and Northmeister certainly brings up interesting issues. I don't happen to agree that baiting is an excuse for what anyone has done. However, one main issue that people should consider here is gang editing against consensus, which has been done many times in the past by the skeptical community (see history of EVP article). They can get away with this because they simply out-number those who wish to give the paranormal an NPOV or positive treatment. Ideally, the two sides would balance out to NPOV, but they do not because of the greater numbers of skeptics. —— Martinphi   ☎ Ψ Φ —— 03:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Gang editing against consensus"? If you're constantly outnumbered by a "gang" of editors who disagree with you, you may want to consider the possibility that your views are not actually supported by a consensus. Just a thought. MastCell Talk 04:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's more like a strong possibility. Baegis 05:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm glad to see this indefinite block. At one period, I tried to keep an eye on Davkal and contain his disruptive editing, but I got burned out on his recalcitrance and aggression. :-( Seeing the ArbCom take him on in the Paranormal RFAr was a relief; but then the committee, with surprising inefficiency (vote in the ArbCom elections!), made a hot and strong finding of fact about Davkal which was not followed up by any remedies: none of the numerous remedies proposed gathered enough support individually, and they were never coordinated into something the arbs could agree on. I despair sometimes... anyway, I'm very glad to see the community move towards its own remedy here. Davkal has wasted enough time for enough productive editors. P. S. He has been blocked for block evasion once, so please keep an eye out for socks.  Bishonen | talk 08:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC).
 * What Bishonen and Guy said. I was so dismayed when the Paranormal Arbcom failed to agree on any remedy for Davkal's behaviour that I stopped contributing to the EVP article rather than work with him further. For the record: " is a disruptive editor, given to personal attacks, lack of civility and failure to extend good faith to other editors." Certainly ScienceApologist would be well advised to adopt a more collaborative approach in future. Perhaps other sanctions may be necessary in his case - although I have no strong feeling on that subject - but such considerations should not distract us from Davkal's actions. It's a shame that Davkal couldn't have become more like Martinphi, a strongly pro-paranormal editor who (in my experience)remains civil and avoids edit-warring. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 15:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin advice needed for ? tagging vandalism
On the articles The Hamsters and Andy Billups anon IPs 86.151.171.40, 86.157.255.254, 84.45.220.163, 81.132.100.115 have been doing a repeated 'leap frog' bad faith and retaliatory  tagging as a result of my involvement in the Drake Circus Shopping Centre article. I was also instrumental in getting Yiwentang blocked. He is actually at least 2 of the above IPs. As the Plymouth Uni Student's Union is seemingly involved as a source of vandals in this debacle the disruption seems to be escalating. I've requested page protection on the above 2 articles (though not on my userpage which has also been vandalised by these editors), but my problem is that I'm now coming up to 3RR with reverting their edits. What I need to know is if reverting these bad faith taggings is akin to reverting vandalism? I don't want to fall afoul of policy in my attempts to protect these articles (both of which easily meet WP:MUSIC). <font color="#000000">WebHamste <font color="#0000ff">r 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Obvious bad-faith tagging *is* vandalism. 3RR does not apply. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 22:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. More news in, now the legal threats begin. 86.157.255.254 just left a message on my user talk page making legal threats for the off-wiki website I maintain. Diff here. This IP I believe is blocked user Yiwentang <font color="#000000">WebHamste <font color="#0000ff">r  22:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for a fortnight. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 22:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict)Add to that the threats made to Hoary on his talk page by 86.151.171.40. Diff here. <font color="#000000">WebHamste <font color="#0000ff">r  22:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll check Hoary; I just extended Yiwen's block to 366 days. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 22:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked IP 2 for two weeks as well for the threat and what appears to be collusion to make threats, given his post there. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 22:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Very many thanks. I can now get on with stuff that actually needs doing :) <font color="#000000">WebHamste <font color="#0000ff">r  22:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've filed a checkuser after The Hamsters was tagged again, on the rationale that a website used as a source is defamatory to Simon Cowell and that the Wikipedia article is a direct copy of said website. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 23:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Could we get some more eyes on The Hamsters? -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 23:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Is there a problem with The Hamsters article? I should also note that The Hamsters website does not contain any defamation. Please be aware that there's a distinct legal difference between "defamation" and "common abuse and "parody". The latter two are quite legal, the former is unlawful. Likewise there ar no copyright violations on the external website, making cover versions of other people's material is quite legal and is standard in the music industry. Likewise I've gone to great pains to make sure that there is no crossover of material from the website to the article. I've made it quite clear on my User page of my interests related to the band. Similarly I'm also aware of WP:COI and make great efforts to make sure I don't contravene it. The article has already been subject to a WP:3PO after which I adjusted parts of the article accordingly. If there's anything else you would like me to address then please feel free to ask/suggest. <font color="#000000">WebHamste <font color="#0000ff">r  23:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There is; one of the tags was an ad hominem attack against you for hosting a pic of Simon Cowell getting peed on. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 23:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not hosting anything. The website in question is an official website. I'm webmaster and put on the site whatever the band ask for therefore it's not me that's responsible. Likewise the website is not itself an attack website. The band are notorious for making humorous comments and points. The images in question have been on the website for nigh on 10 years. In that time there has not been a single complaint either officially or unofficially. It is not in my power to remove it. It's there due to the band's wishes. I suggest you look at the site as a whole rather than making a decision on one very small part. Please also remember that external sites do not have to conform to WP's article or User standards. They only have to comply with WP:EL. The site in question does not breach copyright, neither is it a blog, nor does it breech any of the conditions of WP:EL. <font color="#000000">WebHamste <font color="#0000ff">r  00:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've been removing the speedy tags for that reason. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 18:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Review
A few minutes ago, I blocked 86.140.179.222 for trolling on my talkpage, Andy Billups (thru notability tags), etc. and for using Wikipedia as a vehicle to harass and bring disputes against WebHamster. Since I can be considered involved now, I would like other admins to weigh in on it. -Jéské ( Blah v^_^v ) 02:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Fellowship of Friends
I blocked the IP address range belonging to the Fellowship of Friends headquarters because this address range was being used almost exclusively to edit Fellowship of Friends. I believed this to be a violation of WP:COI. A member of the Fellowship of Friends apparently contacted an WP:ARBCOM member and had the block lifted. That's fine, it wouldn't be the first time I've made a mistake here on the Wikipedia and I lifted the protection on the page as that was placed for COI reasons as well. Anyway, I'd appreciate some eyes on that article to insure the edits over the next little while remain neutral now that the Fellowship of Friends headquarters is once again able to edit the article. Thanks! --Yamla 22:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, in places the conflict of interest is almost not glaringly obvious. They should stick to the Talk page, the article reads like an advert for much of its length. Guy (Help!) 23:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks to JzG for taking a look at this. The edit history of Fellowship of Friends appears to show some extreme examples of COI editing. If there was any admin attention to spare, and if there was a willingness to enforce abstention from editing by COI editors, there is lots that could be done. I note that the item for Fellowship of Friends has been open for some time over at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard and I'm not aware that any admins besides Yamla have participated. To get a flavor of the partisan edits, just perusing some of the responses to the COI report will give you an idea of the unusual logic involved. Critical information published by former members of the FOF group has been kept out of the article. I'd be happy to have neutral editors weigh the case for whether the critical info should be included, which is what would happen if the FOF members were restricted to the Talk page. EdJohnston 00:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, it needs a complete rewrite. I have stubbed it and left a note on the talk page. Guy (Help!) 00:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

it was also discussed here, but that got archived oddly quickly. But it has more of the same. --Thespian 11:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Someone reverted the stub-ification of the article. I have no idea if the person who reverted it has any conflict-of-interest but would assume this is not the case. --Yamla 19:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User: JuJube
I'd like to file a compliant against this user. I sent a reply to the wrong person who was Jujube. I thought JuJube was the person's main account but I was wrong. I was responding to an insult and was trying discretely and restrained, telling him basically I didn't appreciate being insulted and disappointed by having to be more careful in this community because of people like him. Jujube first response was a rude "who the hell are you?" When I told him I got the wrong person but at the same time didn't appreciate his rudeness, he responded with an even ruder "sorry you didn't reach Candyland. you probably shouldn't be surprised when people react harshly to being insulted." I had already told him I got the wrong person and his response was that since I got the wrong person, he reserves the right to be rude to me.

Just looked at the first couple history pages on his talk page and this is a repeated problem and I am not the only one who had a bad experience with him/her: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JuJube&diff=167997856&oldid=167997681 This person has a history of being rude to people. There are civil and polite ways to work out differences and mistakes that happen, which Jujube doesn't follow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardlyreared (talk • contribs) 01:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Just to note, this user's only edits are to my talk page and to his own, and he has yet to leave a message to the "person" he actually wanted to message. I thought this person made an account just to troll me, and this report makes me more convinced of that. JuJube 01:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This comment makes me more convinced. "Candyland is insulting to me because I'm diabetic"? JuJube 01:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've had a quick look - looks like a sock of another user JuJube has "offended" in the past. I'm assuming bad faith here. juJube has done nothing wrong from what i can see. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry 01:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Its kinda funny you say that. I got misdirected from the original person I meant to respond to because I got upset and then even more upset by your responses. If you see my most resent post on your page you will see why you touched a nerve with me. Of course you have no way of knowing given you don't know me but if you did, what you said would have been even more insulting. What the original person said was your typical garden variety homophobic insult. What you said unknowingly touched closer to home. Hardlyreared 01:22, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So why haven't you left that person a message? This report's a waste of time for all involved. JuJube 01:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, another message about or to JuJube and the Hardlyreared account will be indefinitely blocked. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * User:Hardlyreared indef blocked by TigerShark for "obvious attempts at harassing". (I was going to suggest this myself based on the number and size of holes in the original story.) Sheffield Steel talkstalk 15:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Malfunctioning Bot
I have no idea where to report this kind of thing, but I think the WP 1.0 bot is malfunctioning, as it has made over 50 edits to this page within a five minute span, alternatively adding logs for November 1 and October 31. -- Scorpion0422 01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have watched it for a bit and it definitely seems to be malfunctioning, apparently getting itself confused with the date order of edits. It is probably not doing damage that cannot be reversed, but I have erred on the side of caution and blocked it until the operator can have a look. TigerShark 01:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The reason for the confusion is because two versions of the bot were running in parallel. I killed one of them, and will now unblock the bot (I'll keep an eye on it for a while to see how it is doing). I'll make sure this issue won't show up again. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That might have happened because someone ran the bot early and something weird happened. I don't think it's supposed officailly to run till tomorrow. Still, running it early is supposed to be alright. Wonder what happened--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 23:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * One bot instance was started automatically, the second one by me. I did not think they would interfere, I was wrong. I'll take more care from now on. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Violetriga and List of occultists
User:Violetriga has been unilaterally deleting List of occultists and replacing it with a redirect. Her stated concern with biographies of living persons is slightly eccentric, especially given that the list goes back to classical mythology. She has also removed one vandalism warning I sent from her user page; see also her remarks on Talk:List of occultists. User is an admin. - Smerdis of Tlön 03:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Are there actually living people on that list? If so, her concerns are valid. -Jéské ( Blah  v^_^v ) 04:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * There are some, or were some; I have not yet reverted her latest unilateral deletion of the entire page. But the majority of the contents were from figures categorized historically from mythological figures through the twentieth century.  Most of the twentieth century figures were people who had published books in relevant fields, and can be confirmed through their own articles.  The point being that even if there are concerns about individual entries involving living people, it would be relatively trivial to edit those out and leave the rest of the page intact.  The page was organized chronologically by period. - Smerdis of Tlön 04:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * (ec) Yep, there were living people on the list. Yes, their inclusions weren't sourced.  Yes, this is completely unacceptable per WP:BLP, so her actions are reasonable.  In the first test case I picked, the word "occult" doesn't appear in the subject's article.  And she wasn't actually deleting, just redirecting with history intact. So her actions were reasonable.  I see that the page is already protected by another admin, fortunately at a BLP compliant version.  Further discussion can take place at the list's talk page.  GRBerry 04:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me, or are there a ton of babies in that bathwater? BLP doesn't mean blank/delete entire articles when BLP only applies to a part of the article. -- Ned Scott 05:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite right, of course, and that precise thinking, as GRBerry notes, now appears to have prevailed. Whether Violet's redirection, as against a removal simply of the parts of the article that were prospectively BLP-problematic, was reasonable is, of course, an entirely separate question, and one on the disposition of which I rather imagine I differ with GR [of all the admins whom ever I thought I might accuse of (rather minor) overreaching in the name of BLP, Violet, I must say, was surely not one :)], but I don't know that it's one that we need to bother addressing at present, since the issue is, at least in significant part, resolved.  Joe 06:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Can we look at the other side of things now? The actions of were rather inappropriate:
 * 1) Using admin rollback to undo an edit which clearly cited BLP as a reason for content removal
 * 2) Templating me with a vandalism warning
 * 3) Calling me a vandal on the talk page and later listing me at the vandalism noticeboard
 * 4) Threatening me to not do it again or face an RFC

Not a very good way to handle things. violet/riga (t) 10:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Inappropriate deletion of material is well-recognized enough as vandalism to be the subject of specific templates. It's what they're for.  You continued to delete the entire body of the text, including those parts that obviously related to people that were no longer alive, and did not even bother to reply to my comment on the article's talk page after I reverted you the first time.  I don't think I acted inappropriately. - Smerdis of Tlön 11:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Smerdis, this is utter bullshit. Vandalism is a term we reserve for actions that can only possibly be interpreted as bad faith and without reason. Established users almost never do that. So we never call established users vandals. Period. If you genuinely don't understand why an established user has done something, you ask them. Templating established users is moronic in the extreme. It never helps. (BTW Brilliant to see violetriga on the side of the BLP angels - keep up the good work.)--Docg 11:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Our policy on vandalism makes no exceptions for "established users." That said, it may have been overreaction.  Still, responding on the talk page intelligibly after my first reversion (and first comment about it there) might have prevented this whole ruckus. - Smerdis of Tlön 18:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have 7500+ articles on my watchlist - sometimes I miss things, especially when something is added to a talk page a long time after the initial edit. If you had contacted me directly it would have been much better.  violet/riga (t) 21:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think anybody would accuse me of being one of Violetriga's fans, but in this instance I'd say that what Violet did was 100% correct per the letter and the spirit of policy, and the reversion was unacceptable for that reason, as well as unacceptably rude. This may, of course, have been an honest mistake, if so an apology is surely in order.  Guy (Help!) 17:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Her latest and most restrained revision removed all of the twentieth century occultists, including Aleister Crowley, who has been dead for sixty years, and a list of "alleged occultists" which runs from King Solomon to Doctor Faustus. Where in the letter and spirit of policy is this justified? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly part of the spirit is "when in doubt, take it out". (The restrictions on deletion, as oppposed to editing, are more stringent.)  With a reasonably long list for the 20th century, none of it sourced, "when in doubt, take it out" argues for taking everything out first, then readd specific ones as they are sourced.  I note that not only the 20th century ones need sourcing; so do the ancient ones - but since it is safe to say that those from the 19th century and earlier are now dead (reincarnation theories not withstandind), fixing them isn't an urgent WP:BLP issue.  GRBerry 01:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Zorglbot DST issue
User:Zorglbot is not keeping correct daylight saving time. Please review the Revision history of Templates for deletion and you'll see it's run time changed by one hour this week. I reported the issue to the bot owner User:Schutz with suggested resolutions. I reported the issue on the Templates for deletion talk page. – Conrad T. Pino 07:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Does it matter? --Carnildo 08:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe the problem is not that the bot isn't keeping daylight savings time, but that you are. Wikipedia servers do not recognice daylight saving time.  Someguy1221 09:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, no, it's that Zorglbot used to edit at 00:00, but now edits at 01:00. But, per Carnildo, it's really not a huge deal -- it's mostly just archiving. Creating the new pages an hour late might makes things a little disorganized until it's fixed, but again, it's not a huge deal. -- RG<sup style="color:#CC5500;">2 09:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Not every country in the world is still on DST. UTC, for example, no longer is.  Corvus cornix 21:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Revert-only accounts
I (Nanshu) face slow but prolonged edit wars. I've came to think that we need admin intervention.

The articles concerned are Dongyi (talk), Wei Man (talk) and Jizi (talk). The users involved are: Apparently these users are unhappy about my edits. But we are unable to find a compromise because they only revert to their favorite revisions. They don't join the discussions on the corresponding talk pages. (One exception was Korea history. He joined the discussion only once after I warned him/her at his/her user talk page . But he/she reverted again without leaving a comment.)

Among them, Ocleta edits no page other than the above-mentioned three articles. All but one edits by him/her are simple reverts and deletions. I suspect the sole purpose of this revert-only account is to track my edits. Similarly, almost all edits by Kuebie are reverts.

The edit wars continue at really long intervals (more than a week), but it's just because I'm not so active these days. Of course I don't like fruitless edit wars, but I have to revert at least Dongyi, otherwise my fair-use image will be deleted by a hardworking bot. I think it's time to ask admin for help in revolving the current deadlock. Thanks in advance. --Nanshu 13:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I am sorry you're frustrated, but admins do not intervene to resolve content disputes. If this is a case of simple vandalism or disruptive edit warring, you haven't made that clear.  You may wish to look through the procedures for dispute resolution and decide what avenue will best help end the conflict. Shell babelfish 15:15, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry if my point wasn't clear. I don't complain about content disputes here. My point is that the above-mentioned users seemingly have no intention to build a consensus through dialogue. They try to achieve their goals by mass reverts. So I have no way of resolving the conflicts other than seeking admin helps. To confirm my analysis, I mentioned their user contributions. Almost all edits by Ocleta and Kuebie are reverts (and they had never edited in the talk namespace). Doesn't it suffice to say they are disruptive editors?
 * I admit edit wars go very slowly but they last several months. They would be unusual because admins have tackled intense revert wars. But still, I think they violate the spirit of the 3RR. --Nanshu 00:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * At least Ocleta does appear to be a single-purpose account. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 00:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Need A User Banned
I request a ban of User:Russellmba, at very least from the article Northport, New York. Russellmba's edits have been bias, disruptive, vandal-istic, completely ignores messages and warnings, and constantly undoes reverts of his disruptive edits. Russellmba was clearly using several different anonymous IP addresses until User:Addhoc helped out with by semi-protecting the article to avoid his hiding behind IP addresses. Unfortunately that semi-protecting of the article has not stopped the problem.

Russellmba (and what is clearly his anonymous IP edits) has made 51 edits to Northport, New York in the past 2 weeks, completely ignoring explained reverts and discussions telling him to stop 8 times. More recently, he keeps trying to add the name of a real estate housing development to the article. Despite constant reverts, this morning Russellmba added "Northport Bay Estates" (which is in no way important, but it happens be where he lives) to the article for the 12th time. This editor refuses to listen to others, abide by rules, remain unbias, and a host of other disruptive traits. Please BAN this user from editing Northport, New York. Thank you --Fife Club 15:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Look here! I just found that he's added his name as vanity spam to Schiller International University. (apparently his name is Don Russell) using one of the same anonymous IP addresses he's used on the Northport article. This guy clearly edits without good intentions, so please do everybody a favor and just ban him from all of wikipedia.


 * Rethink (not a support or oppose) - even vandals are not usually banned. This editor has not vandalised.  If a block or ban is made, a short block of 24-48 hours is more appropriate than banning because the editor can learn.  Even shoplifters are not executed but fined or jailed for a short time.


 * I only examined the user's last Northport edit and it is here . This edit looks reasonable IF Northport Bay Estates is the main development in the area. (I don't know if it is or not).  I know it is popular to be anti-editor on ANI and jump on the bandwagon but, based on this edit, there's no reason for banning.  If banning is sought as a result of 51 disagreeable edits in 2 weeks, then using this as a standard for all editors is appropriate.Miesbu 16:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The last edit doesn't seem like much at all but this was the 12th time that he's added the name of the housing development where he lives into the article, after being warned 8 times. This is merely the latest in a long 51-edit consistent pattern of totally bias edits.  This last one isn't at all a big deal alone, but it's yet another discussion/warning that he just keeps ignoring.  Should we even have rules?


 * Otherwise I understand about not banning permanently but this is just ridiculous. And now somebody else is erasing content without explaining the reasons, so maybe somebody can freeze that whole article for a whole week or something.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fife Club (talk • contribs) 19:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not anti-editor, but I am anti vanity spammer. This is blatant WP:COI editing, and needs more careful investigation. Guy (Help!) 17:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The user constantly revert wars, but doesn't use edit summaries or talk pages to discuss the problem. In this context, I've indefinitely blocked the account - if another admin wants to unblock that's ok - I won't reblock. Addhoc 20:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User:YoSoyGuapo
User YoSoyGuapo has been stalking me to make edits on an article that I edited previously. On the article King's Daughters‎ (an article about French Canadian pioneer women), he googled the words "kings daughters protstitutes" to come up with a story in modern-day Namibia where a group of prostitutes coincidentally use the name "King's Daughters" for themselves. There is no indication that there is any relation between the Canadian pioneers and the African prostitutes, but he is adding it in anyway. This is not the first time he has done this to me, and I will point out that he has already been blocked indefinitely.

In early September, while YoSoyGuapo was still blocked and requesting reinstatement, he was starting an edit war (using the ID 64.131.205.111) on the Josh Gibson article; he insisted that anecdotal information about Gibson’s home run total (“almost 800”, an unverifiable number bandied about since the 1950s) was much more reliable than the data gathered under the auspices of the Baseball Hall of Fame and published in the book ‘’Shades of Glory’’ by Lawrence Hogan. He resorted to personal attacks against people (accusing me of deliberately “downplaying the achievements of minorities”) and POV arguments, shifting his rationale all along.

Then there was vandalism by an anonymous editor to the talk page of Daughters of the King. The user kept making ethnically insensitive remarks about French Canadian women, dredging up an old discredited legend that the Daughters were prostitutes and referring to them as “fwench” to add to the insult. The remarks were deleted, but a section was added to the article to address the old legend and its refutation.

After Admin User:Wknight94 issued a warning to the anonymous editor that he would be blocked if he continued to troll the talk page, YoSoyGuapo (using his other user id of 64.131.205.111) inserted a comment that the deleted comments were “interesting”. He had followed me to this page in order to take a contrary position. He had no reason to edit the page except to harass me. After further argument on our respective talk pages, he backed off from his comment and offered a couple of links he had googled (at least one of which was already listed in the article’s reference section, thought that was only after having already gone a bit too far initially.

After considerable argument on the Josh Gibson discussion page, a consensus was built that Gibson’s officially recognized stats would be prominently featured, with the anecdotal information would also be mentioned as part of his legend, though with caveats that it could not be verified in any way, either in career totals or season by season breakdowns.

YoSoyGuapo, who had been part of this discussion, created a new infobox (something he had offered to do, and had been agreed to) along with other edits, asking all to “fix and update” the new infobox. He had some erroneous information, some incomplete information, some oddly formatted information, and he had unilaterally gone ahead and place the anecdotal information as primary. I edited the infobox (as per his invitation), correcting (among other things) in good faith, and he reverted nearly every edit without explanation.

He then followed me over to the Daughters of the King article again, and started inserting the aforementioned irrelevancies. I beliebe that he did this just to stalk and harass me.

In an unrelated move, I cleared off my talk page (it had not been updated for some months, and I decided to clean it off), and he inserted a “final warning” that I could be blocked for removing edits from my talk page (he had left some a month or so ago). Again, he is stalking and harassing me.

He has been blocked indefinitely before because of his disruptive actions. I believe that he has not learned the lesson from that block, and am asking that action be taken on him again (in both his IDs) for repeat violations.

-- Couillaud 15:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Earlier today, Couillaud was reported to WP:AIV by User:YoSoyGuapo. I removed the report, advising that the editors should consider dispute resolution. At that time, both editors were toeing the line of 3RR at Talk:King's Daughters‎. Caknuck 16:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * was unblocked by Tony the Marine with a stipulation that he refrain from edit wars like this. I am going to ask for Tony's participation here.  —Wknight94 (talk) 16:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Coullaud actually violated the 3rr and was reported. I did not. He was also given a warning for it.   He has also stalked me going thru my former accounts in order to find out about me.    YoSoyGuapo 20:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * YoSoyGuapo is now re-defining the term "stalking". I looked up his earlier edits to learn that his pattern of abuse has not changed.  To do that is not stalking.  YoSoyGuapo follows my current edits and then makes contrary edits afterward, or links to them at the time.  That is stalking.  When I started this complaint, I mentioned to WKnight94 that it would be YoSoyGuapo's pattern to try to turn the complaint around and claim to be the injured party, and sure enough, he's doing it now.  It has also been his pattern to re-define the terms of the discussion to his own benefit (he kept accusing other editors during the Josh Gibson discussion of "original research" but wouldn't explain how it could be so; in the end, an Admin agreed he was wrong.  I would like him now to explain how he considers my having looked up his earlier edits (some of which helped get him blocked) to be "stalking".  -- Couillaud 22:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The user in question, Yo Soy "Guapo", has been nothing but contentious. First there is his insistence on having his way with the Josh Gibson page, which is based on his (uncited and unreferenced) view of the way things supposedly were in Negro Leagues baseball. But even if his skewed editorial stance on the facts were true, his inadequacies with English and with structure have pretty well trashed the Josh Gibson page. He has messed up the article and likely won't let anyone change it. His continual insistence on having his way, in defiance of discussion - of continuing to restate the same points over and over again, while refusing to address the questions we raise - are classic trolling behavior. Trolls don't care about the facts, they don't even care about the subject in particular, they're just there to foment arguments. And his threats to turn someone in for clearing his own talk page have no basis except either mere ignorance or overt harassment. There is no such rule, much less any authority on his part to enforce such a rule. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 18:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see below. Also Baseball Bugs  the talk page reversions were not concerning Couillaud talk page but the Kings Daughter talk page  YoSoyGuapo 19:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * YoSoyGuapo: Baseball Bugs was referring to your troll of my talk page, when you told me that I couldn't clear my own page, and you were issuing me a "final" warning.  You do remember that one, don't you?  That is the one he was discussing.  You are simply trying to misdirect the discussion.  I am complaining about your trolls to King's Daughters and to my own talk page, NOT your 3RR complaint.  -- Couillaud 22:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * As Couilland indicates above, YoSoyGuapo did, in fact, seem to "warn" Couillaud not to clear his own talk page, as noted here and here . It's a bit ambiguous since it came right after Couillaud had, in fact, cleared his own talk page. YoSoyNoTanGuapo did not make clear what he was talking about. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Wknight94, Thank you for alerting me to the situation. You are right, I did give User:YoSoyGuapo on the condition that he acted in civil manner. I have looked into this outrageous situation as you have recommended in my talk page. I will therefore proceed to comment.

1. User:Couillaud is a valued editor whose knowledge and contributions are well appreciated in Wikipedia. I can understand your frustration in the Josh Gibson issue and I can also understand that User:YoSoyGuapo, wanted to post that Gibson possibly had 800+ homers. The problem here was that you, YoSoyGuapo pushed your observations resulting in revert war which should have been settled instead in the articles talk page. You both should have agreed to simple consensus and I'm sure that you both would have found an agreeable solution. That should have been the end of it. Instead this was the beginning of a war between both of you.

2. User:YoSoyGuapo, I told you when we made the agreement that you should no longer edit under the IP: User:64.131.205.111. However, I see that you have done so in various occasions, especially to the article King's Daughters. This not only can be considered trolling, but not only are you in violation of our agreement but, you maybe be accused of sockpuppteering which is against our policy. I can understand that at times a person may forget to sign in. It has happened to me, but if you use this IP address you will be blocked.

3. User:YoSoyGuapo, User:Couillaud was right in the fact that you should not have inserted the "Namibia" section into the "King's Daughters" since it had nothing to do with the main subject of the article. It could have gone into a "See also" section. However, User:Couillaud I can understand YoSoyGuapo's anger at you taunting his "English" which was out of place.

4. YoSoyGuapo, you cannot warn anyone about clearing thier "talk page". Users are allowed to clear their user pages and your "warning" without authority seems to me a hostile act on your part.

5. YoSoyGuapo, what did I ask you in our agreement? I asked you that you should avoid wars and whenever a situation came up that you should ask for a mediator for a solution. Neither of you did this which has resulted in this senseless war.

I'm going to suggest that both of you put an end to this nonsense. End it right now. YoSoyGuapo lay off the "King's Daughters" article because it seems as if you are stalking Couillaud as a result of the "Josh Gibson" incident and go about editing in other areas where your knowledge is well appreciated. Do not indulge in reverting wars and look for mediation whenever a situation comes up instead of this back and forth arguing which ends up in a hostile situation.

The same goes for you Couillaud, plus refrain yourself from making comments which may offend other users, even if it is done in a third party's talk page. This said, I want you to know that I appreciate your baseball contributions in Wikipedia and that you should not leave. I have been tempted myself many times, but I have overcome worst situations. Tony the Marine 05:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok first of all,  Couillaud  please notify them that I am not the individual who is trolling the King's Daughters Page. You and I both know that isn't me. I commented that the it was humorous in an off brand humor sense. I though am not the person who was trolling the page placing in information. You're grouping me with that person. Secondly you have a personal interest in the King's Daughter because you stated that you are a descendent of the King's Daughters. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wknight94&diff=prev&oldid=168670754 Thirdly you kept deleting the talk page so that it states what you liked it to state. . You did it over 3 times of which I filed a 3rr report. I also filed a W:AI/V report

Personal Attacks

Baseball Bugs and Couillaud have both tried to bate me with personal attacks calling me "Googleman"  stating that I learned English last week  Stating that I am trolling   stating that they are going to do something  for which I said they should  and then giving a sarcastic response  and commenting on my spelling. From going thru my history Coulliard could tell that I am hispanic (especially due to my usage of terms like Hermano and my Username of YoSoyGuapo) he has made comments mocking my heritage stating wikipedia may not have the "cojones" to fix this.

Baseballbugs and Coulliard stated that I haven't been trying to do compromise or tried to show that I won't let others change it, but I've

(1) invited others to participate   (2) filed an RFC  (3) invited others to participate in the conversation and make additions. 

I also made a new compromise by creating 2 sections that show the different statistics.

At this point I simply going to ask any administator to look at the stats that Couliard and Baseball Bugs are challenging. They say it's incorrect but there are over 30 sources provided which support this while they provide 2 sources to provide their point of view. You know I didn't argue. I filed an RFC asked for comments. Placed in a avalanche of sources. I tried to compromise by placing in both the disputed informations on the article. If you look below you can see the sources that I used for support that he had 800 to 952 homeruns rather than the 165 that they (Coulliard and Baseball bugs)stated he had. Feel free to comment on the whether or not he had 800 - 952 homerun or 162.

http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00016050.html

http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00016050.html

http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Josh_Gibson_1911

http://www.toad.net/~andrews/josh.html

http://www.nlbpa.com/gibson__josh.html

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_458633.html

http://www.britannica.com/eb/topic-233289/Josh-Gibson

http://www.psacard.com/articles/article4210.chtml

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06192/701548-341.stm

http://z.lee28.tripod.com/sbnslegends/id1.html

http://www.blackbaseball.com/players/joshgibson.htm

http://library.thinkquest.org/3427/data/gibson.htm

http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00016050.html

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/05/05/SPGQNIL8UR1.DTL

http://www.coe.ksu.edu/nlbemuseum/history/players/gibsonj.html

http://www.nlbpa.com/8feb2003.html

http://www.nlbpa.com/5march2003.html

http://www.nlbpa.com/31oct2002.html

http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/josh-gibson-hof.htm

http://www.mlb.com/mlb/history/mlb_negro_leagues_profile.jsp?player=gibson_josh

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20070802&content_id=2125626&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/detail.jsp?playerId=492568

http://www.explorepahistory.com/hmarker.php?markerId=20

http://www.amazon.com/Josh-Gibson-Life-Negro-Leagues/dp/1566632951/ref=dp_return_1/104-0249862-2980752?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

http://www.aaregistry.com/african_american_history/1346/Josh_Gibson_one_of_baseballs_greatest_hitters http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761582302/Josh_Gibson.html

http://www.baseballhistorian.com/html/american_heroes.cfm?page=30 "In 1933, while playing for the Pittsburgh Crawfords, Josh Gibson batted 512 times, hit 55 homers and drove home an awesome 239 runs. " www.negro-league.columbus.oh.us/gibson.htm http://www.east-buc.k12.ia.us/99_00/BH/jg/jg_bio.htm http://blackathlete.net/artman2/publish/Baseball_20/Past_Meets_Present_Washington_Unveils_The_Josh_Gibson_Exhibit.shtml http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06192/701548-341.stm http://sports.jrank.org/pages/1649/Gibson-Josh.html http://www.tradingcardcentral.com/news/2005/06/16_001.php http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-GibsonJosh.html http://www.blackpast.org/?q=aah/gibson-joshua-josh-1911-1947 http://www.ironcladauthentics.com/baseball/joshgibson/index.asp http://z.lee28.tripod.com/sbnslegends/id1.html http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/4547/gibson.html

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/breaking/s_513337.html http://www.geocities.com/colosseum/arena/5866/gibson.html http://www.psacard.com/articles/article_view.chtml?artid=4596&universeid=314 http://espn.go.com/page2/s/closer/020301.html http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers/detail.jsp?playerId=492568 If you go to the baseball hall of fame website and cilck on career stats you'll see that "Official major league statistics verified by Elias Sports Bureau" not SABR http://www.riverdeep.net/current/2002/02/022502_negroleagues.jhtml http://aol.bartleby.com/65/gi/GibsonJosh.html http://aol.bartleby.com/65/gi/GibsonJosh.html An opinion http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/basn_they_stand_alone/ http://www.blackathlete.net/artman2/publish/BASN_BLACKBOX_54/They_Stand_Alone_Josh_Gibson_Hank_Aaron.shtml http://www.helium.com/tm/339282/there-arguments-greatest-baseball

YoSoyGuapo 19:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For clarification I have it written on my Userpage my alternative ID of. The people who were trolling the King's Daughter talk page are YoSoyGuapo 00:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * After a rant like that, I should just say "I rest my case" and leave it here, but that would leave some necessary things unspoken.


 * First, YoSoyGuapo is indeed the individual I spoke of, in this ID and his alternate ID of 64.131.205.111. His comments have been directly related to arguments we have had on the Josh Gibson article, when he has followed my edits to the King's Daughters article, just trying to keep alive a troll discussion for no reason but to hassle me.  This is the second time he has done so.  His original comment was that the Talk page history was "interesting"; the talk page up to that point had consisted of an anonymous racist troll.  The comments would be put in (no documentation or verifiability, inflamatory language), would be deleted, the anonymous troll would insert it back, claiming "censorship", would be deleted, would repeat his action, etc., until WKnight94 warned that he would block the entire range if the troll continued.  That is what YoSoyGuapo found amusing.  He did not comment on the article itself at all.


 * Second, YoSoyGuapo considers it a "personal attack" that I suggested that his handle would more appropriately be "Googleman". Directly above this post is a list of some 43 links that YSG googled; many of them go to exactly the same web site, and most of them all use the same source, which is to say they consist of no real research, and simply repeat the same mistake over and over again; also, he has no idea how to format these links (or doesn't care), and made it unnecessarily difficult for anyone to read.  As for my criticism of his spelling, he can't spell my user name, nor the name of the country he kept putting an irrelevant link to in the "King's Daughters" article; if you're going to quote a story about Namibia, you should make an effort to spell it correctly.  He is poor at spelling and grammar, and will not take help from anyone on that problem.  As for my use of the word cojones, that's a term I've had in my vocabulary for over 30 years (and used it as a euphemism for "balls"), and I had no idea what his ethnicity is.  Since he thinks that I'm being too officious about my Québecois heritage, he seems to be really stretching to find a way to be ethnically insulted.  Give me a break, please.


 * Third, while YSG DID "invite" others to comment on his changes and to "fix and update" the info box he created, his offers were not sincere. He immediately fought every change suggested, using a shifting logic to try to justify his assertions.  He reverted my most recent edits (all made in good faith) without any comment, and then started stalking me on another article I was editing. Guess which one?  King's Daughters.  He will offer to compromise, but refuses to do so when actually pressed, and his best offer was to write two separate articles on Josh Gibson, one with the statistics currently recognized by the Hall, and his own with indefinite and unverifiable numbers that he feels are more "fair".  He is NOT a very good editor (poor grammar and spelling), and calling him that is NOT a personal attack.  Saying that YoSoyGuapo is bad at spelling and grammar is like saying that Elvis is a dead rock'n'roller.


 * Fourth, when the latest flap on King's Daughters came up, it did so in almost exactly the same way as before, when YoSoyGuapo and I clashed on edits to a Josh Gibson article. The difference this time is, after following me to this article again, he googled an online news story about Namibian prostitutes who call themselves "king's daughters", though there is absolutely no relation to the French Canadian article, and tried to insert it into the discussion and the article itself.  I deleted it as I had the anonymous troll before, and for the same reason:  it is irrelevant to the merits of the article, and is inappropriate, having been set there only to troll for responses.


 * Fifth, YSG is a prior offender, having already been blocked indefinitely for sockpuppetry and having made personal attacks, and through all his self-defense, he has yet to address that issue. The truth is that he had already initiated the edit war on Josh Gibson (which contained personal attacks on his part) as 64.131.205.111 while applying to have the block on his YoSoyGuapo ID lifted.  It seems to me that he failed to learn any lessons from his experience, except how to change the subject.


 * Sixth, besides his unwarrented reverts on Josh Gibson and his trolling on King's Daughters, he also trolled my own talk page. I don't keep my talk page indefinitely, and don't even bother to archive.  I just clear it every now and again.  I did so just recently (in an unrelated move), and he put a "final warning" on my talk page.  He was again following my edits (or stalking me) in order to find and react to this one.


 * He now says his comments were jokes. If he's trying to be funny, he's failing to do so miserably.  I do not believe it's a joke.  I believe from his previous patterns that this is his way of attacking people with whom he disagrees.  I have a complaint in against him at this moment.


 * 3RR? I have left the page alone, though I still maintain that there is no discussion on that talk page related to the merits of the article, which is why the page was cleared earlier with the permission and help of Admin WKnight94; I fail to see how ANYTHING YoSoyGuapo has added to that page is anything but a troll.  He doesn't know the subject; he doesn't know the article that he googled and added to the main article.  I felt justified in removing it as vandalism simply because it was exactly the same kind of crap we had gotten from the anonymous troll before, the only exception being that the anonymous troll never used Google.
 * -- Couillaud 21:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * All I'm going to say is look at all of the personal attacks that were directed toward me in the above. I'm not going to even reply to them.  I'm simply going to also note his attack on me again. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wknight94&diff=168818390&oldid=168799966 "he still can't spell either my name or the country "Namibia". -- Couillaud 21:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)"  and right now with " YoSoyGuapo is bad at spelling and grammar is like saying that Elvis is a dead rock'n'roller."  I'm right now disillusioned with all the attacks.  It is really really personal. I'm going to go on a wikibreak until the new years..  YoSoyGuapo 00:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * All those cites of sites that YoNoGuapo posts, as he did previously, are somehow supposed to "prove" his contention for the numbers. That's not really the issue. It's that he won't answer reasonable questions about why those numbers have any validity vs. actual research that's been done. It's an endless loop on his part, and is classic trolling behavior. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Wknight94, Thank you for alerting me to the situation. You are right, I did give User:YoSoyGuapo on the condition that he acted in civil manner. I have looked into this outrageous situation as you have recommended in my talk page. I will therefore proceed to comment.

1. User:Couillaud is a valued editor whose knowledge and contributions are well appreciated in Wikipedia. I can understand your frustration in the Josh Gibson issue and I can also understand that User:YoSoyGuapo, wanted to post that Gibson possibly had 800+ homers. The problem here was that you, YoSoyGuapo pushed your observations resulting in revert war which should have been settled instead in the articles talk page. You both should have agreed to simple consensus and I'm sure that you both would have found an agreeable solution. That should have been the end of it. Instead this was the beginning of a war between both of you.

2. User:YoSoyGuapo, I told you when we made the agreement that you should no longer edit under the IP: User:64.131.205.111. However, I see that you have done so in various occasions, especially to the article King's Daughters. This not only can be considered trolling, but not only are you in violation of our agreement but, you maybe be accused of sockpuppteering which is against our policy. I can understand that at times a person may forget to sign in. It has happened to me, but if you use this IP address you will be blocked.

3. User:YoSoyGuapo, User:Couillaud was right in the fact that you should not have inserted the "Namibia" section into the "King's Daughters" since it had nothing to do with the main subject of the article. It could have gone into a "See also" section. However, User:Couillaud I can understand YoSoyGuapo's anger at you taunting his "English" which was out of place.

4. YoSoyGuapo, you cannot warn anyone about clearing thier "talk page". Users are allowed to clear their user pages and your "warning" without authority seems to me a hostile act on your part.

5. YoSoyGuapo, what did I ask you in our agreement? I asked you that you should avoid wars and whenever a situation came up that you should ask for a mediator for a solution. Neither of you did this which has resulted in this senseless war.

I'm going to suggest that both of you put an end to this nonsense. End it right now. YoSoyGuapo lay off the "King's Daughters" article because it seems as if you are stalking Couillaud as a result of the "Josh Gibson" incident and go about editing in other areas where your knowledge is well appreciated. Do not indulge in reverting wars and look for mediation whenever a situation comes up instead of this back and forth arguing which ends up in a hostile situation.

The same goes for you Couillaud, plus refrain yourself from making comments which may offend other users, even if it is done in a third party's talk page. This said, I want you to know that I appreciate your baseball contributions in Wikipedia and that you should not leave. I have been tempted myself many times, but I have overcome worst situations. Tony the Marine 05:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User:DemolitionMan, unrepentent edit-warrior
I have recently blocked for 1 week for persistent violation of WP:3RR, disruptive editing, and confirmed (checkuser) sock-puppetry. Despite the escalating blocks, he appears adamant to resume his attempts to insert pro-Indian POV into Indian Rebellion of 1857. I strongly suspect he has attempted to evade his block using User:203.123.144.131 as a sock. In this latest post, he openly boasts that he will be adamant about defending his POV, continues his personal attacks against User:Hserus, and apparently indicates that his previous attempt to engage in mediation was made in bad-faith (e.g. bring on another mediator, IMHO, demonstrates fecklessness w.r.t. mediation). I'm not seeing much hope at reforming this user and am considering an indef block until we see some positive indicators. He has accused me of bias in this case so I'd like another admin opinion on what do to here. Thanks. Ronnotel 17:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I read his latest comment more closely and realized I had missed a blatantly offensive epithet directed at two users. Indef block. Ronnotel 17:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Endorse block. Sadly I do not see in DemolitionMan an editor able to engage properly with others. Sam Blacketer 17:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Informal mediation was attempted and he was openly rude to the mediator, so I think an indef block is the right decision. However, his case is currently being applied to ArbCom (WP:Arb), so you could consider advising the committee of his block. Addhoc 19:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. I have so advised. Ronnotel 20:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, endorse. Was openly rude to me and the other people in the case--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 22:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Taner Akcam
A major BLP violation on Taner Akcam article. About a year ago he was detained in the Canadian border because the border guard had a printed wikipage that said he was a terrorist. --VartanM 17:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Eh, I thought you guys would show a little more sense of urgency on this article, considering that he was detained at least twice because of libelous wikipedia article . I reverted the article but I would still like to see this edit summary deleted. VartanM 19:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm adding the page to my watchlist. I'll be sure to inform someone with more tools if such are needed. In the meanwhile, you can always take urgent reports to WP:BLPN. Sheffield Steel talkstalk 20:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User 202.62.80.3 - apparent extreme hazard
It appears that this anonymous user, whose contribution history consists exclusively of repeated attempts to add the same external link into the SQL page, is far more insidious than a mere spammer. Upon browsing to the page he or she is promoting, beginner-sql-tutorial.com, a seemingly relevant and innocuous URL, AVG intercepted an attempt to run the JS/Psyme virus, which apparently is some sort of trojan downloader. This anonymous user's only contribution has been to submit the same nasty link, which has thus far been reverted 4 times over the course about 2 weeks, most recently today. I urge you to take immediate action to ban this IP, since this appears to be a very serious threat to any unsuspecting Wikipedia user who doesn't happen to have adequate anti-virus protection. Anyone who submits that particular URL or commits a similar offense should swiftly and decisively be attended to with the greatest urgency. - JCLately —Preceding comment was added at 17:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ouch. Blocked for a month as a safety measure while we get this sorted out. Raymond Arritt 17:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Followup: I didn't get a virus warning from AVG, and googling shows that the site is a reasonably well-known tutorial. Does anyone else get warnings when visiting this URL? Raymond Arritt 18:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec):::I was just going to say the same thing... I didn't get an virus warning and resident scan after visiting was clean. I was going to blacklist the link if I could confirm the loader, but now I think not.--Isotope23 talk 18:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I visited the offending URL again, and I'm still getting the same virus alert from AVG. Same thing after clearing my browser cache, too. I have AVG set to auto-update every day, so this was done this morning. I seldom get such warnings from AVG - only once before, and I don't think it was a false positive - so I don't take these lightly. I'm not sure why you can't reproduce the problem, but a Google PR of 1 doesn't exactly qualify as "reasonably well-known" in my book, so I would not be too quick to dismiss this incident. In any case, the anonymous IP in question does look rather suspicious, don't you think? - JCLately 18:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What browser? I was using Firefox 2.0.0.8 under WinXP, and Argyriou below was using Opera. Are you using IE? Raymond Arritt 18:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm using IE 6 SP2, running under Windows XP Pro SP2. - JCLately 18:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No ill results visiting with Opera on WinXP, with Symantec AV running. The only included javascript files are google ad pages. There's a script at the top which may be suspect:

(I've changed the angle brackets around the script tags to parentheses for safety.) Argyriou (talk) 18:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

It is. It triggered my virus alert as well. It appears to be an IFrame exploit. Once I finish debugging, I will tell you what it is trying to do. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"><font color="#000">spryde | <font color="#000">talk  18:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It says exactly this:, which then loads this url: http://superengine.cn/0410/index.php . Whatever it is doesn't look good. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Beat me :) Anyway, it looks like someone has compromised that particular page based on and is trying to drive traffic elsewhere. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"><font color="#000">spryde  | <font color="#000">talk  19:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Tis the results a virus. . Might want to keep this around in case we see other external links that have been compromised like this. FYI, I got it with IE and not Firefox.<small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"><font color="#000">spryde | <font color="#000">talk  19:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That would explain it, I was using Fox. Any objections to blacklisting this site for the time being?  We can always pull it off the list if they resolve this (assuming the site is legit and the target of a malicious code attack)--Isotope23 talk 19:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I might object as it doesn't appear to be the sites fault. Google shows quite a few that would need to be blacklisted. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"><font color="#000">spryde | <font color="#000">talk  19:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I mention that because the site is linked in 14 other places here on Wikipedia.--Isotope23 talk 19:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ugh. I withdraw my objection. I should put a note somewhere to go back and check to see when that code is removed in order to readd the links. <small style="background:#ccc;border:#000 1px solid;padding:0 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap;"><font color="#000">spryde | <font color="#000">talk  19:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I removed the links and I'm going to blacklist it for now. If anyone notices they resolve the issue, just contact me and I'll rollback my removals.--Isotope23 talk 19:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No objections from me to the blacklist for the time being. There has been some talk about the need for logging of entries at WP:SBL. This would be a good example of why logging should be used. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I commented the entry and posted a reason on the talkpage. Let me know if there is somewhere else this needs to be logged.--Isotope23 talk 20:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

New Wikzilla sockpuppet?
New user Williewikka is apparently the latest Wikzilla sockpuppet. As usual, removing sourced material, incivility and is already at 2RR on Eurofighter Typhoon. Currently active and already warned about ongoing activity. Please monitor and possibly checkuser. Askari Mark (Talk) 19:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked.  Citi Cat  <sup style="color:#000000;"> ♫ 20:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

user: mahalath
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Mahalath various mildly disruptive edits..not sure what the policy is in this kind of situation. Alexhard 19:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, the place to start is with a note on the user's talk page, which I have placed. Here's a quick list of warning templates if you need it.  Citi Cat  <sup style="color:#000000;"> ♫  20:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet on Jimbo Wales's page
Suspected sock puppets/Earthenboat - This person appears to be back on as User:Newlyheads. • Lawrence Cohen  21:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up, I have already removed his comment from their twice because it contained an albeit vague legal threat. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Probable Jon Awbrey sock, see Suspected sock puppets/Earthenboat. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

's vandalism and slurs
The report was accidently removed by a bot, so I post it here again. And he hasn't apologized to me yet and rather blames me doing childish behaviors, I abandon a hope from him. I only need a fair justice.

I file a report regarding Sennen goroshi's abusive behaviors. He was once reported here due to his intentional slanders against User:Smoove K, the owner of Heart Corporation in order to avenge his friends on  User:Smoove K. ,, , Wiki is clearly not a place for him to work off his grudges, but he repeatedly does that when he conflicts with other parties. I want to report his disruptive behaviors on 3 matters.
 * 1st : Reverting my talk page to mock of me. I assume his repeated scorns to be regarded vandalism.
 * 2nd: His disruptive behaviors on Korean related articles
 * 3rd: His personal and racial slurs. --Appletrees 11:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

discussion
I have made numerous efforts to resolve this matter on appletrees' talk page, making offers of civility, etc - these offers get no response.

He has demanded that I apologise to him. I don't see the need, and neither do I see any point in me making an apology that will not be sincere. We argued, he complained, I made it clear that I wish for us to both edit in a more civil manner.

I dont wish to waste any more time on this matter Sennen goroshi 16:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Your preach and strong admonition on my talk page cant' be referred as you efforts on civility. You're just excusing your past abusive behaviors on me and my talk page. Even more, you're chiding me how childish I am. That's impressive indeed. I need your apology even if it was not frankly from your heart. Because I know people can't be suddenly changed, I only ask you to show your one effort for the future.--Appletrees 16:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
 * * sigh* This is not the complaints department, try dispute resolution. I've seen the two of you here before, bickering away unconstructively, and it needs to stop. <small style="background:#fff;border:#ccc 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 17:40, 11/1/2007


 * Appletrees, I think that you have misunderstood what about blockpolicy. Blocking is NOT to punish users. If your contribution is read, it desires to punish an user or to only make it apologize., , Please re-read WP:BLOCK and re-consider your own behavior.--Watermint 05:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Watermint, I didn't misunderstand anything. I file a report based on Sennen goroshi's abusive behaviors on several people. After his recent scornful comments on my talk page again, I couldn't help to repost it here. That is my right because I'm one of his victims from his insults. Besides, you are not an administrator and some party might knows well about who you are. According to your contribution history, I can only see your controversial edits and JPOV on "Korean-Japanese related article", so your comments just sounds unreasonable and biased. I expect fair and unbiased comments from administrators or third parties to not engage in Korean-Japanese articles. Before saying something to others, please re-consider what you're doing. Take care.--Appletrees 12:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthermore, it seems that the conduct to him of you are also sufficiently offensive and discriminatory., , , , ..etc,etc..... I wonder why you can blame him unilaterally.--Watermint 18:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You care so much about people irrelevant to you, but don't care about the time information. That was my following response to his insulting comments, that is called "cause and consequence". The threat is done by him, not me. Besides, you have some very impressive and clean(?) history like that. You're not certainly in the position to judge anything because you've engaged in so many edit wars with many one for "your pushing POV" (quotation from your line to somebody) and surely not an administrator.  ,

  , et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, or so forth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talk • contribs) 08:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sennen has a lot of problems with other editors as seen by the complaints on his talk page. Yet he simply deletes these posts for no reason at all. Its clear that this user needs to be at least warned for what he is doing because he keeps engaging in arguments with other users. Good friend100 14:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)