Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive372

User refuses to communicate, continues to introduce possible copyvio images and mos issues.
I've reported this twice already, but as of yet, nothing has been done and the user continues to cause issues Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive363. This is the last report with a link to the first. I first took this to village pump but a suggestion was made for me to take it to AN/I. has uploaded many copies and parts of an image which I'm sure are a copyvio (can't find the original, but another editor also agreed these were likely not his own work) yet he's claimed them as his own work. He continues to insert them in to the Seoul Metropolitan Subway which also introduces some formatting issues in addition to the questionable origin of these images. Links to several copies of this image are to be found in the first report. User claims to speak English, but I cannot continue to assume good faith at this point. I've continually used edit summaries, made posts on the article talk page, and made comments on his talk page, but he hasn't responded to a single one of them. Nor does he use edit summaries to do anything except label the photos he uploads. Another editor had previously asked him a question in English but I can find no evidence that he ever answered them. It seems the ONLY conversation he's engaged in, has been in Korean with another Korean editor. He claims to be going to school in Montreal and a native french speaker. Someone who can speak either Korean or French well enough needs to get through to this editor, or he has to prevented from continuing to edit wikipedia since he either refuses to or can't communicate over issues he's creating.--Crossmr (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * These two edits on the same day seem extremely questionable. In one article he tries to introduce improper formatting, and yet in another article he removes it --Crossmr (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm. I speak neither Korean nor French, but I wanted to suggest that we might find somebody who does at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea. I have previously had to hunt down translators to help with editors who do not speak English, and I've found the WikiProjects a helpful way to do so. Elsewhere, I see these individuals are listed as willing translators from Korean. Most active among them seem to be User:Styrofoam1994 and User:PC78. Perhaps if we approached one of them, they might be able to help you open a dialog with this user to clear up questions about his image use. I'd be happy to approach one of them about it, if you'd like, or you can try it yourself. Alternatively, perhaps a French/Korean speaking administrator will come along who can handle things without the need of a go-between. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like PC78 just has a page for holding templates, I'm not sure he actually speaks korean. The other fellow has a notice up about being tied up for a couple weeks. I'll try asking to get started though.--Crossmr (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw the notice on the other fellow's page, but his contribution history suggests he's doing stuff anyway. I hope he has the time to help out. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm a Korean editor and don't see any big problem on the mentioned user. The format looks not good, but I think he intended to put more contents in the spaces. Some of his pictures don't look like professional photos. Admin, BorgQueen can speak Korean. --Appletrees (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The issue with the formatting is that he's changing it away from what's recommended in the MOS as well as what is already established in the article. The problem with the image in question is he claims it as his own work, but the logos from the lines are way too perfect to be his own creation, and he keeps uploading it, both in complete form and cropped sections of it. The bigger issue is that he can't or won't communicate and just continues to insert these things over and over even though they're being removed with explanation.--Crossmr (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In addition when a map he uploaded as his own was deleted as a copyvio Image:Seoulsubway.jpg instead of discussing it or realizing the problem he just uploaded it under a new name which was once again speeded as a copyvio Image:Submapvers.jpg. I'm not denying that he's adding lots of great images to the project that aren't a problem, the problem is when he does something against guidelines or policy, he just keeps doing it over and over no matter how many times someone tries to communicate with him or undoes the edit.--Crossmr (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'am just asking him, in french, to be more precise on the origins of his pictures. Wait and see .... Yves-Laurent (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Its specifically the images in this section. My second post outlines all the various copies and crop jobs on this one questionable image he's claiming as his own work: Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive358.--Crossmr (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I translated Crossmr's comment on his talk page to Korean. I hope that works. I'll keep an eye on his talk page. --Memming (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I know enough french to see he says he made them in illustrator and photoshop. Exactly how did he make them? Did he just cut the logos from another source, or did he perfectly reproduce them? There is still an issue here whether they're cut and pasted or whether or not he perfectly reproduced them by hand, it amounts to the same thing. There is also a formatting issue with the image he keeps trying to insert in to the article. Someone may want to kindly suggest to him that he remove English from his user page as its becoming very apparent at this point that he doesn't speak enough English to communicate effectively in it.--Crossmr (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For the moment, i'am askink him for the pictures. Each thing in its time. Yves-Laurent (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Could you possibly tell him to relax on adding the image to the article? There are more issues than just copyright here. This is where the problem comes in. He can't communicate in english, another editor has an obvious issue with what he's doing, but he just keeps doing it over and over.--Crossmr (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've stumbled through some french to try and get through to him again. Even though you were explaining what the problem was, and it appears asked him for further detail he just kind of ignored what you said and added the image yet again.--Crossmr (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I add a message to him wich explain that the wiki syntax has to be prefered to HTML and that he have to speak with other user instead of always make the same modifications without explanation. I haven't got a lot of free time this week, and four days ago i present an article to FA election in the french wiki. So i think that was my last message with this kid. Yves-Laurent (talk) 11:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks I really appreciate the help. As you can imagine its quite frustrating dealing with someone who keeps doing stuff over and over that you can't communicate with.--Crossmr (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He told me that he will use the wiki syntax for his next edit. A vous les studios Yves-Laurent (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * As well does anyone know if there is an equivalent section for the MOS in french or Korean which explains how to properly format section headers so we can also get him to stop trying to format them with HTML?--Crossmr (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Have a look to the interwiki : fr:Wikipédia:Conventions de style give the basic structure of an article and fr:Projet:Aide/Recommandation/Code HTML told that it's better to use the wiki syntax but it's not an official rule. Yves-Laurent (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No but we have the same encouragement here, and really its a standard. And its already set up with wikiformatting in every article.--Crossmr (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments on the Article

 * (this was posted by Griot as an additional subsection, originally copied from comments on User talk:Griot#Looks like you've been set up) —Random832 16:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I was disappointed to read the article, having talked with her by phone and e-mail. I had nothing to tell her about you at all, nor any of the articles that she was interested in. —Whig (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * We talked for awhile but she did not use anything that we discussed. I don't want to publish details inasmuch as I asked her to maintain the privacy of my real name and she has honored that. I have had no involvement in editing articles pertaining to Ralph Nader nor have I had any prior dealings with you. —Whig (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I exchanged some correspondence with her, but she lost interest when I wouldn't discuss any individual editors (in particular, Griot.) --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Original post
Submitted by: User:Griot

Last week, I was the subject of a tabloid article in the SF Weekly called "Wikipedia Idiots: The Edit Wars of San Francisco" in which author Mary Spicuzza (Wikiname: Marynega) tried to “out” me and obtain my real name. The article explains how she employed her newspaper’s IT systems manager “to work some of his computer nerd magic,” presumably to link my IP address with my name. She then, on the basis of information from the IT manager, “hung out in Griot’s neighborhood” hoping to locate me. Was she trolling with a WIFI detection device looking for my IP address and home location? It’s hard to believe she would just walk around at random looking for me, because of course she doesn’t know what I look like.

Using the resources of a newspaper to unmask a person’s online identity is unconscionable, but there is even more to this tawdry episode. Mary Spicuzza subtitled her story “The Edit Wars of San Francisco.” However, Mary Spicuzza was moved to write her article not by disagreements at Wikipedia about San Francisco topics, but by something altogether more personal, as I will explain.

The cyber-vendetta. Mary Spicuzza wrote, “I first learned about (Griot) during a conversation with my sister, Jeanne... (He) seemed to be on a no-holds-barred campaign to delete her page after he blamed her for making dubious edits to Ralph Nader's page.” Mary Spicuzza doesn’t say that the “page” in question was in fact a Wikipedia article about Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. Another editor nominated this article for deletion on notability grounds; I was one of 16 editors (out of 19) who voted to remove the article from Wikipedia. An article about Spicuzza’s company, Seasons & a Muse, Inc., was also removed. Mary Spicuzza also doesn’t mention that her sister Jeanne was banned on two occasions from Wikipedia for sock-puppeteering at Ralph Nader articles, each time for six months.

After Jeanne Marie Spicuzza’s “page” was removed from Wikipedia, another Spicuzza family member — she describes herself as “21 year old female,” where Jeanne Marie is nearly 40 — began keeping a MySpace blog about me. In her latest entry, she describes herself as “Accomplished,” gives a link to her aunt’s (sister’s?) SF Weekly article, and pronounces it “Awesome!” (The Wikip spamblock feature does not allow My Space links, but trust me.)

(In fairness to Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, author Mary Spicuzza’s sister, it should be noted that Jeanne Marie claims to be unacquainted with Wikipedia. In the Comments section to her sister’s SF Weekly article she wrote, “I do not participate on Wikipedia, nor do I use it as a source” (see comment #10, dated Feb. 13, 2008). However, this statement contradicts author Mary Spicuzza’s claim to have heard about me first from her sister Jeanne; moreover, the quotes Mary Spicuzza used in her article show an understanding of my Wikipedia dealings with Jeanne Marie that Mary could not have acquired on her own.)

The hit is in. On Jan. 23 of this year, Mary Spicuzza joined Wikipedia under the name Marynega and wrote this invitation on my Talk page: “My name is Mary Spicuzza and I’m a reporter with the SF Weekly. I’m working on an article about Wikipedia and I’d love to speak with you. May I give you a call?” Given my history with the Spicuzza family, I let it slide. Next day, Mary Spicuzza wrote invitations to other Wikipedia editors, several of whom, I noticed, had had disagreements with me. She wrote six more times to my Talk page asking for an interview, five more than she wrote anyone else. Never did she mention her connection to Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. She was counting on me not recognizing her name. She only wanted my perspective, she said, “on how San Francisco is represented in the encyclopedia.”

The author clearly misrepresented herself, and it was easy to see why. Mary Spicuzza wanted to make me the subject of a tabloid article, something along the lines of: "At last I tracked down Griot. But should I tell him that I was Jeanne's sister? I pitied him, I really did. Still, he deserved what was coming to him. And I had tracked him this far. It would be a shame not to let him have it. But still, maybe I should wait a bit longer..." The author has trouble distinguishing between investigative journalism and theater.

False portrait of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia editors who manage to slog through “Wikipedia Idiots: The Edit Wars of San Francisco” will not recognize the encyclopedia. In Mary Spicuzza’s rendering, Wikipedia is a free-for-all of constant edit wars, where editors try to embarrass one another and “violations of Wikiquette are rampant.” She holds these views because she sees Wikipedia through her sister’s eyes and because she deliberately sought out people like her sister who had had run-ins with me. If Mary Spicuzza had looked objectively at my work on Wikipedia, she would have seen that 99 percent of what I’ve done here consists of copy editing to make articles easier to read. But Mary Spicuzza had a cyber-vendetta to pursue; her sister’s cyber-honor was at stake.

It gets even weirder. In a very odd twist, Mary Spicuzza’s article quotes her own niece (sister?) SeeknDistroi, who wrote her by e-mail, "Yeah, Griot. ... You disagree with him, he harasses you, you get blocked." I know that SeeknDistroi is a Spicuzza because her Oct. 17 entry at the Matt Gonzalez Talk page is identical to her Oct. 17 entry on her MySpace blog (“Investigation of edit history and User:Griot contributions reveal bad faith. Documentary to follow (how's that for a B-movie, Griot? Or should I say Matt?”). Mary Spicuzza quoted SeeknDistroi, her own niece (sister?), for her tabloid article about me, the evil Griot. How’s that for keeping to journalism ethics and standards?

Right about the time Mary Spicuzza was “hanging out in my neighborhood” looking for me, she wrote my Talk page to tell me what I suspected all along: “Hey Griot, I just wanted to give you a heads up — my editor and I have decided to make you the main focus of my newspaper article. Best, Mary.” We exchanged several messages after that, with me asking “Why me?” I wanted her to come clean about her connection to Jeanne-Marie Spicuzza and the Spicuzza blogger who have been harassing me for six months, but she didn’t do it. Finally, I wrote her a longer message by e-mail explaining that I knew who she was. I copied this message to her editor and managing editor, believing they should know the true motive behind her story. I told her, “Next Christmas Santa Claus is going to put a large lump of coal in your cyberstalking.”

Now a disclosure: Last week I was banned for one week for sock-puppeteering. I would like to apologize to the Wikipedia community for this. I can tell you with complete certainty that it will never happen again because I am not going to edit at Wikipedia anymore. This place makes me tired.

Where to now? I don’t think it matters to user Marynega (Mary Spicuzza) if she is punished at Wikipedia; she joined only to research her article. It doesn’t matter to me either whether she is punished or banned. For me, the larger questions that remained to be answered are:
 * 1) Mary Spicuzza mentions interviewing members of the Wikimedia Foundation (she doesn't, of course, report what they said, as Wikipedia wasn't the real subject of her article). Did they talk about me with her? And if they did, do they have some kind of policy for talking about editors?
 * 2) How safe is a Wikipedian's online identity? Does Mary Spicuzza's "magical computer nerd" have a chance of finding anyone's identity?
 * 3) What are the ethics of a journalist or anyone else pursuing an edit war off Wikipedia, in this case onto the pages of a print newspaper?
 * 4) What are the ethics of a journalist or anyone else misrepresenting themselves on Wikipedia for their own purposes? For example, should someone researching a topic be discouraged from registering if his/her only goal is to conduct private research by interviewing editors?

Documents of interest to this matter:
 * The article: "Wikipedia Idiots: The Edit Wars of San Francisco"
 * Petition to delete the Jeanne Marie Spicuzza article from Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeanne Marie Spicuzza
 * My Talk page (I'd like to get people's take on this): Griot's User Talk
 * Tom Walsh and Will Harper: SF Weekly editors


 * Ummm - I'm not sure how this ties in here, but I just completed this checkuser request tonight - A l is o n  ❤ 07:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Wikipedia editors ...will not recognize the encyclopedia. In Mary Spicuzza’s rendering, Wikipedia is a free-for-all of constant edit wars, where editors try to embarrass one another and “violations of Wikiquette are rampant.”" Very recognisable. Sounds like accurate reporting to me. Relata refero (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Only if you have an axe to grind. did you actually read this hatchet-job, or are you simply projecting? --Calton | Talk 09:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I did. What's your point? Relata refero (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

While I find the account above a little overheated, its basic facts are true and disturbing: a journalist decided to use her position and the resources of her paper to carry on an on-Wiki battle -- by stalking, personal attacks, and, in effect, the real-life equivalent of sockpuppeting by the quoting of a phony and misrepresented witness -- on behalf of her own sister. And it's hard to avoid the conclusion that it was done deliberately and with malice aforethought. This is a textbook lapse of basic journalistic ethics and conflict-of-interest guidelines, and her editors, perhaps looking for yet another gotcha story, fell for it.

In fairness to Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, author Mary Spicuzza’s sister... You don't need to bend over backwards to do that, given her long track regard of sockpuppetry -- which she's denied even when caught red-handed -- and ban evasions. Besides, given that she's posted at SF Weekly's website, she's left behind her IP number with them, and they can compare -- if the paper's management and editors have the slightest shred of intellectual honesty -- that IP number with edits made by the same IP number on Wikipedia. For their covenience, if they're reading this, they can just replace "XXX" with the IP number and see where it leads.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/XXX
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:XXX

Betcha I know what they find. --Calton | Talk 09:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to think that they'll care that their "investigative journalist" used a couple of sockpuppets to get a good story. Sometimes I wonder what happens to people's memories of RW ethical judgments once they spend enough time on here. Relata refero (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Having actual real-world experience of journalism, yeah, I do know that they'll care -- at least about the appearance -- of ethics, especially when the evidence in shoved in their faces, and I can easily dig up examples to back me up. Other than your content-free cynical affect of "the real world", what else do you wonder about? --Calton | Talk 10:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You missed the point, of course. The point was that standard journalistic ethics hardly cover the avoidance of sockpuppetry in order to get a story. (I can dig up examples of deception that are considerably worse. So much for "content-free".) Ours do, but we have different aims.
 * Other things I wonder about are available elsewhere on this board, particularly the persistence of incivility among some of our longer-term accounts. Relata refero (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the issue of whether the Foundation has a policy on talking about editors is worth asking them about. We've had a couple of cases that suggest they don't have one, and I think it's needed, not only when it comes to talking about editors but article subjects too. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 11:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've said it before and i'll say it again, Outing is highly dangerous and will get a wikipedian killed or seriously injured. Also the foundation has a moral duty to protect its editors and atleast in Europe a legal duty to do just that. (Hypnosadist )  15:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Killed? [citation needed] Natalie (talk) 04:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think "killed" is a condition somewhere in between "deleted" and "redacted"(?) Boodlesthecat (talk) 05:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

For reference see Administrators' noticeboard David D. (Talk) 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Fascinating. Ex-user Griot writes "In Mary Spicuzza’s rendering, Wikipedia is a free-for-all of constant edit wars, where editors try to embarrass one another and “violations of Wikiquette are rampant.”" Which pretty accurately sums up what Griot and his dozen or more sock puppets' contribution to the project has been in the course of his residence here. Read through his talk page--he was playing the Mary Spicuzza bit for all he could, blowing it into a major drama, writing volumes when a simple "I don't wish to speak with you" message to Spicuzzacould have ended it nicely. But noooooooooo, he has to turn his user page into an extended onanistic rant, providing ample fuel for Spicuzzi's fires all by himself. All the while lashing out at others rather than take responsibility for what his own bad behavior brought upon his own self. Outed? He outed himself. Well at least we won't be hearing his misogynistic rants anymore; "tawdry journalist"--how mid-20th century! Although in his latest email to me he informed me "It's been a long time since you got laid" and was kind enough to call me "a dried up [bleep]" (ohh, I'm sorry, is that "outing the poor little fella?") Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "Outed? He outed himself" No he didn't, but again i to am not going to defend his appalling behavior. What i want you and this journalist to understand that not every wikipedia editor lives in a nice safe western democracy. Other editors like me edit very controversial topics like Terrorism or Democracy, both which could lead an editor getting hurt if shes in the wrong part of the world. I'm glad this Griot is perm banned, sounds like hes been very disruptive, but there is a bigger issue at stake here. (Hypnosadist )  21:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hypno, I agree entirely with your sentiment. However, I don't think it applies to this case, in which the purported victim is just a boy behaving badly crying wolf and hiding behind a charge of "outing." In fact, from what I recall of the article, all of the info about Griot was gleaned from the public Wiki archives of Griot's own seemingly uncontrollable compulsion to engage in bombast; and I assume the SFN's own bombastic claim of sleuthery via IP address was itself gleaned from Wiki edit histories. Yes of course there are important issues here, but in this case, methinks the "outed" [sic] editor protesteth too much. Was it an unethical use of journalistic resources? I'll leave that for the paper to worry over; the article provided full disclosure in the article itself, and the authors trickiness in getting griot's attention is as old as the journalism game and pretty tame. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of anything he did, I read that article, and it was hardly worthy of making the news. I mean come on, it was just a load of information regarding different Wikipedia policies and Mary's grudge against the user Griot.  Griot shouldn't have acted the way he did, and Mary shouldn't be allowed to continue a career in journalism unless she decides to stop acting childish. Sandwiches99 (talk) 22:58, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm hardly going to stick my neck out to defend Griot as a constructive encylopedist, given his recently uncovered farm of sockpuppets and his long history of combativeness. Still, the most rational explanation of events here is that someone carried a Wikipedia-based grudge against him to the point of using the resources of a major publication to try to belittle and "out" him. Does anyone, anywhere, still have a sense of perspective? The fact that the editors of SF Weekly went along with this is puzzling, at best. Two conclusions: while anyone is free to say anything to the press, it might be worthwhile to have some sort of common-sense policy about what the Foundation will say about specific editors. Secondly, I used to wonder which was the lamer free paper: SF Weekly or the Bay Guardian (formerly a neck-in-neck race). Now there's a clear winner. MastCell Talk 18:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Irony and ArbCom enforcement
Can someone other than myself deal with this? As a result of this AE report I placed on a variety of editing restrictions per WP:ARBPIA. As you can see here, these restrictions included civility supervision. His first comment: this gem, aimed at yours truly. I'm unwilling to block, due to the fact that the comment was directed at myself - can someone else please decide on appropriate action? Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 17:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, the comment certainly was uncalled for, but I'm having a hard time distinguishing whether it's incivility, or just minor disgruntlement. He should certainly be warned about it, though, if he keeps it up, a block might be warranted. Jus tin  (Gmail?)(u) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I think an accusation of abuse of admin tools is incivil, and someone on ArbCom civility parole ought to be more careful. Is WP:AE backed up, or should this report be directed there? Avruch  T 17:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's certainly an assumption of bad faith. Read the terms of the civility supervision - you'll see those aren't permitted. ArbCom restrictions are supposed to be enforced fairly stringently. I brought this here, as opposed to AE, to get a fast response.. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 17:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to give him a one-time pass to vent his frustration about being called on his disruptive editing, which he's just expended; and no more leniency from here on. But a block would certainly not be out of place, either, under the circumstances. The tactic of accusing an admin enforcing policy of being motivated by anti-[Israeli/Palestinian] bias says alot about the accuser, and it's really tired on this particular set of articles. MastCell Talk 18:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, it's not a "tactic" if the admin really does happen to be biased. (And I'm not talking about Moreschi, who I don't know from anything.)  6SJ7 (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah. Then why are you commenting here? MastCell Talk 01:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I was responding to your second sentence, which went beyond the scope of this particular incident. 6SJ7 (talk) 14:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It might be a fine line, but saying something "not nice" isn't the same as being uncivil or what some might consider rude. It's an unfavorable opinion, and a mild one at that. -- Ned Scott 06:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Taulant23, incivility
Pls take a look here, is the reason the barnstar was given tolerable? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Just found out User:Taulant23 is already on civility parole... The Cat and the Owl (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no barnstar on that page, there is a barnstar on this page User talk:Dodona, are you talking about a month old barnstar here?--Crossmr (talk) 23:16, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's that one, Dodona had it on display on his user page for a while but was kind enough to remove it when asked. See duplicate thread further below, . Fut.Perf. ☼ 23:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Latha P Nair
has been adding a link to Comparison of office suites into dozens of articles on application software and technologies. In many cases, the link seems of questionable relevance, since the comparison deals only with current office suites. For example, the addition of the link to the article on the long-defunct CEO (Data General) doesn't seem helpful, nor does it seem useful in Pivot table. The editor is not responsive to concerns raised on their talk page, and has re-added the links after their removal in some cases.

This is a relatively minor matter, so would I be overreacting if I issue a block for say 24 hours to try to force the user to discuss their edits? What other options are available when the editor does not respond to talk page queries?- gadfium 22:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * They have continued to place the link in many more articles. I have rolled back the edits and blocked indefinately until they are willing to discuss their edits.- gadfium 08:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

White Cat
ANI regular User:White Cat is at it again. In keeping with his regular pattern of overreaction when confronted with editors who disagree with him (compounded in this case by the high emotional drama and general juvenalia of the ongoing episodes debate), User:White Cat is "assembling evidence" to "prove" the meatpuppetry of another editor. I think it's a vicious smear, but admin attention would be appreciated, especially since making this kind of very public accusation at arbcom is inappropriate. Relevant link is here and here. Of course, I may be wrong that making sock/meat accusations against other editors at an unrelated arbcom case is not problematic. Eusebeus (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Uh, it's at ArbCom. I think we'll just have to let them deal with this trash. I'm pretty sure they can see this for what it is. --Haemo (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agree with Eusebeus that this appears very inappropriate and that this aggressive behaviour is also typical for White Cat. Incidentally, I had posted to AN regarding the same issue, to little response. User:Dorftrottel 22:50, February 19, 2008
 * What sort of admin action are you looking for? White Cat will not be blocked on ANI for actions on an ArbCom evidence page or workshop without a fight because this is a dangerous precedent. ArbCom can, will and has before considered all behaviour including behaviour during a case. Think the Badlydrawnjeff case. Just leave this to ArbCom because it causes more drama than good to do otherwise. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Some form of oversighting might be needed, but so far no one has requested it. -- Ned Scott 06:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * True but the arbitrators are more than well-equipped to deal with that themselves. Leave it to them. EconomicsGuy (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Beyond his sock allegation, he is accusing just about all the editors he disagrees with of meatpuppetry; I suppose this is primarily the ArbCom's remit, but more eyes are welcome. There are only a few ArbCom members and they are busy. ANI regular? He's only edited an/i 880 times; a bit over 2% of his edits — this is his most edited page after his user and talk pages. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Evidence
 * It should be noted that this user (Jack Merridew) is part of the arbcom discussion, and had an accusation of sock puppetry by User:White Cat. See |here for a graph by Cat on the three users accused of sockpuppetry's edits. ff m  23:22, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism to Fidel Castro
Someone is using template transclusion to vandalize Fidel Castro, as you will see the second you click the wikilink. I caught User:PlantDraft doing this and reverted and warned him, but it appears he has help. Administrator assistance is requested. --Agüeybaná 22:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Related to Higher vandalism I reported above...I've reported him to WP:AIV.  Nate  • ( chatter ) 22:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, but he had assistance from User:Ruddigger. Sockpuppet, probably. Anyway, this has been solved for now. --Agüeybaná 22:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked that one too. There's definitely some socking going on here... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked. Related to User:Poloris's vandalism on Bobby Robson yesterday? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Why should we "obey" this . Because Mr. Fidel Castro is a communist that has ruled Cuba for 5 decades with an iron fist. Wikipedia is just honoring Castro the same way it has an article on Hitler. People proably Vandalize the article of Castro because they are againist his dictaorship he has held since the 1950s. I support these people because they fight for freedom, the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Asking us to "repect" the article, is saying to "respect" Hitler and the Final Solution. I have the right to free speech by the Founding Fathers of the USA. Wikipedia cannot censor me. Its a violation of the First Ammendent. Rio de oro (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a private website, and we are neutral; that means that we neither support nor oppose these people or their actions in their respective articles. You have no right to free speech here. Get used to it. --Agüeybaná 23:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * See WP:FREE. It gives a good explanation of why you have no right to free speech over here. The article about Castro is supposed to be written neutrally, meaning that a person who will read it will not be influenced positively or negatively about Castro-they'll form their own opinion. Having access to unbiased information is one of the best things about democracy. Puchiko (Talk-email) 23:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The vandalism was to a template: Template:Cleanup-rewrite which effects potentially hundreds of Wikipedia articles. It just happened that the Fidel Castro article was the most visible.  Silly rabbit (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It was probably less to do with Castro's politics than someone obtaining lulz from getting large, floating, difficult to remove pictures of wangs on as many WP articles as possible. It's not a new idea by any means... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ridiculous, Rio de oro. Exactly how does adding a penis template to an article constitute fighting for freedom? JuJube (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My toughts exactly, our goal here is to present a neutral biography, not push our own pov because we disagree with the actions of a certain politician. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  23:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well you guys techinally wrong, the servers are in the USA. So its USA law. Get it right you Cubans. --Rio de oro (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Two things, number one I'm not Cuban and I hold no particular POV over the country's political status, and two your last comment can be considered a personal attack, I recommend that you stop your pov-pushing and political trolling before you get blocked for personal attacks. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  00:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter where the servers are, the US constitution says that congress shall not pass laws that restrict the right to free speech; it says nothing about private websites like Wikipedia. Get it right you gringo. --Agüeybaná 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You really are an idiot, Rio de oro. Fire in a crowded theatre mean anything to you?  Can we just block this obvious troll already? JuJube (talk) 08:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Need to reopen Archtransit's sock cases and other actions
Archtransit's short career as a sysop included killing a number of suspected sock reports. In at least one case he deemed a SSP "counterproductive" which another admin later closed as an obvious sock.


 * Suspected sock closes to be reopened
 * Suspected sock puppets/Rohit tripathi60 reclosed -  Mr.  Z- man  01:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Suspected sock puppets/Deanrules reclosed -  Mr.  Z- man  01:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Suspected sock puppets/124.185.79.125 reclosed -  Mr.  Z- man  01:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Suspected sock puppets/Nationmaster reclosed -  Mr.  Z- man  01:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Note this does not presume a different conclusion will be met. It is merely appropriate cleanup after the actions of the user in question. Whoever reviews the last of these four, please note there is evidence examined by Arbcom that suggests at least one of the comments made to it was influenced by Archtransit, and therefore all comments should be set aside in re-evaluating the case.
 * Good thing these where re-opened, as Archtransit's actions have just proven to be wrong. Tiptoety  talk 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I have reopened the above sock closes; someone else needs to review his ANI and other project space actions since January 9 - 10, when his RFA passed and he ceased being scrutinized by the community.
 * Other actions

Can a note be posted below when this is done, and any dubious matters noted and reopened or fixed?

FT2 (Talk 00:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Tiptoety talk 00:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅, all looks okay, as there really is not much project space contributions during that period of time. There are two AfD's that where closed by him during that time though, those being Articles for deletion/Madiun Stadium (which had a clear consensus), and Articles for deletion/Obadiah Newcomb Bush (which had a somewhat clear consensus). I do not see the need to re-open them though. Tiptoety  talk 00:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

New concern, supported the Boeing 747 FAC. I just realized s/he was involved somehow in all those blocks. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 00:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Its looking strongly like Congolese fufu was a sockpuppet of Archtransit. Investigating further, I noticed that one of the accounts in Requests for checkuser/Case/Onequestion identified as a sock of Congolese fufu, 's edits bore a similarity to . FT2 has confirmed that Wikipeace2008 is a match for Archtransit so it would appear all the accounts confirmed as socks by Alison in that check were also Archtransit. WjBscribe 00:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also take a look at this: Requests for checkuser/Case/Profg, and then this edit made by . After blocked, Archtransit blocked Jehochman.   Tiptoety  talk 01:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah -- I've been looking at  for a while as a possible  sock.  He has been found to use socks; it doesn't surprise me to learn that he was involved in these blocks done by Archtransit who appears to be a Dereks1x sock. Easy enough to connect the dots - also please note that a confirmed Dereks1x sock is named  and one of C.f.'s confirmed socks was named .  Further evidence tieing the two sockfarms together.  Tvoz | talk 01:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like we need to start reviewing all of their contributions.....*sigh* Tiptoety  talk 01:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone point me at a list or a category that summarizes all of these? I need to go through a lot of contribs and old FACs. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 01:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * SandyGeorgia, the list of socks identified so far can be found at Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Dereks1x and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Archtransit. Should the two groups be merged under the Dereks1x moniker since Dereks1x is the older of the accounts? --Bobblehead (rants) 01:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Bobblehead. What about the similarity between this and the recent posts to you and Wasted Time R?  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 01:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There's also Suspected sock puppets/Archtransit for the other possible socks. WjBscribe 01:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I suppose you're talking about and this comment, SandyGeorgia? He certainly has the woe is me personality and tenacity that is common with Dereks1x when he get's caught breaking the rules. The most striking similarity is the unsupported accusation of Wasted Time R and I being in collusion together.  The accusations of collusion and sockpuppetry against anyone that doesn't agree with him is something that Dereks1x socks frequently make. There is a lot of similarities between Fairchoice's unblock request and Zzalzzal's unblock request as an example. --Bobblehead (rants) 02:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It probably would be a good idea to consolidate all the socks into a single sock category, though, to allow for an easier time finding any characteristics which may have been displayed earlier in one or more of the accounts used. John Carter (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And the answer from Thatcher is that Zzalzzal is unrelated but peculiar. --Bobblehead (rants) 06:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Since there is some question on the subject, I merely wanted to note that as someone familiar with Dereks1x and company, I am 100% certain that the Dereks1x sock farm and Archtransit are related. I'm not sure where Jayron32 got the "3 months later" mark. Archtransit began editing in earnest quite soon after User:VK35 was indefinitely blocked. · jersyko   talk  13:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Irony. Avruch  T 03:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are we sure that the Dereks1x and Archtransit sock farms are related beyond the coincidental Peace2008/Wikipeace2008 connection? Is there any checkuser evidence? For example, the contribs histories of the socks don't look at ALL alike... Dereks1x's socks mostly edit American political articles (like Obama, Romney, Clinton, etc.) while Archtransit's socks mostly edits Aviation articles. And I am pretty sure Archtransit is British; he worked rather a lot on the Manchester article, for example. Now, aren't we giving ARchtransit a LOT of credit to be able to maintain two separate sock farms that each edit their own completely unrelated sets of articles, one of which appears to be familiar with only American topics, and the other British? I just don't see the connection... --Jayron32. talk . contribs 06:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * LIkewise, Congolese Fufu does not appear to be among the Archtransit camp. I don't see the connection looking at the contribs history again.  Congolesefufu, in terms of geographic articles, edits mostly articles on northeastern US schools (Dartmouth, Seton Hall).  Also, the contribs history is quite full, and seems to overlap the contribs history of Archtransit in such a way as to preclude one person using both accounts, unless he was literally swapping between the two for each edit, and keeping each account editing its own topics.  Nope, still don't see that one.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  06:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at Profg, other than the fact that Fairchoice, a now confirmed Archtransit sock, commented on his checkuser case, appears to edit mostly junk science and snake-oil articles. For a geographic connection, he edited extensively on an obscure Georgia 10th district special election:, which doesn't seem to match Archtranit's farm at all.  There's just no connection in the edit histories, and again, check how that on September 1, while profg was editing some articles, archtransit was busy spamming welcome notices to new members .  Again, no connection seems to exist.  We really need to check these carefully before labeling them as Archtransit socks.  It is easy to go overboard, and find his socks hiding everywhere, but we need to take time and really investigate these. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  06:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Dereks1x also has a history of editing aviation related articles. See confirmed sock . The connection is also based on Thatcher's response to Jersyko noting a similarity between Archtransit and Dereks1x. You should also be aware that Dereks1x socks have previously indicated they live in/are from various non-US countries. --Bobblehead (rants) 07:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Its one thing to claim on a talk page that you are from/not from a certain country. However, when you look at editing patterns, it becomes harder to hide.  Editors always "come home" and most, if not all, editors tend to edit articles in their geographic comfort zone. Its isn't about what the editors claimed; Archtransit's edits of the articles relating to Manchester show a familiarity of someone who knows the city well; likewise Profg familiarity with obscure American elections or Dereks1x's many socks that show close ties to American politics.  The aviation connection is likely coincidental.  Since there is no actual geographic connection among the aviation articles, and there are likely airplane fans or aviation engineers from many places, its hard to pin a real connection on that coincidence.  Also, look at the contribs and editing times.  The assumed sockmaster in each of these cases (Dereks1x, Archtransit, and Profg) were often editing at the same minute and in ways that seem to preclude that they are infact the same human at the keys.  I've linked some evidence that precludes Archtransit and Profg being the same person, as far as the Dereks1x and Archtransit, while they don't directly overlap, consider that Archtransit edited almost exclusively in the time window of 17:00-23:00, while Dereks1x and all of his socks edit almost exclusively in the 01:00-05:00 window.  Are you going to tell me that Dereks1x was blocked, and came back as Archtransit 3 months later, and was careful to edit 5 hours earlier consistantly so no one would notice, and keep it up that way for months?  I mean, even if this guy is a total asshole, he still has a job and other things in his life, right?  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  07:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would say that Profg is unrelated. The different editing times of Archtransit and Congolese fufu can be most easily explained as one editing exclusively from work and one editing exclusively from home.  (And in fact, there is evidence of parallel work and home sock farms here.)  There are other compelling and technical reasons to consider them as confirmed sockpuppets of each other.  It seems very likely that Dereks1x is ultimately behind it all, although it is not necessary to prove that to know that this user is a problem. Thatcher 15:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The mesage I left on Congolese Fufu's page was after a RFCU (You know, the one where Archtransit blocked Jehochman for doing a short block). I guess that if Archtransit appeared in the check, considering what happened, a checkuser would have put 1 and 1 together at that time. So my guess is that both know each other but are not the same. -- lucasbfr  talk 08:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The time difference could be explained if a user's work shift, school schedule changed or if impacted by another when their schedule changed, assuming their timing has remain stable might be in error. Benji boi 11:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayron32 should also compare 's edit times to 's edit times. VK35 edited between 15:00 and 01:00, which, aside from starting 2 hours earlier, conveniently overlaps Archtransit's editing times. Granted, that doesn't show anything more than a possible timezone relationship, but it does show that there was a change in Dereks1x's editing times from when he first started up to Archtransit's creation. As far as the "coming home", if Archtransit wanted to become an admin in order to "protect" his other sockpuppets, he would have been stupid to return to American politics. The editors in the American politics area have picked off 60 of his sockpuppets, there is no way he would have lasted more than a few days if he had edited in that area. --Bobblehead (rants) 15:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * AH! The VK35 account does appear to be a bridge, both temporally and in editing style between the two sock farms. Of particular note, from my point of view, is the new user talk page welcome spam. Look at the July 8 contribs of VK35 and the September 1 contribs of Archtransit . Almost a dead match. Also, looking at the talk-page comments at User talk:VK35 it is clear that VK35 is also a Dereks1x sock. Wow. Has checkuser connected the two sockfarms yet? Do we atleast have a geographic connection (do Dereks1x and Archtransit and/or their sockfarms at least edit from the same country?). That would be the clincher on that one, and it would seem we have probable cause to at least check into that. Any checkusers out there want to look into it? --Jayron32. talk . contribs  16:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * VK35 is currently too old to check. I have been informed by Dmcdevit who checked him that he edited from the same range as the current accounts. Thatcher 17:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Something else I was thinking of. Since both Archtransit and VK35 spent some time "welcoming" new users on a few occasions early in their careers, is it worth looking into to see if these "new users" that they welcomed were in fact part of this sock farm, and not new users at all?  Just an idea to keep an eye on.  They may have been legitimate, but also they may have been a way to "mark" the sock accounts by the sockmaster... --Jayron32. talk . contribs  17:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

[out] Jayron, there are many overlaps in style and focus that illuminate the connection between the ongoing Dereks1x farm - not just Dereks1x himself - and the Archtransit farm: too many for mere coincidence. And it is not just article edits, it is also talk space and various WP pages where he comments and actions in which he participates, like this one. As for the "coming home" issue - this is a dedicated impostor who carefully, and sometimes not so carefully, constructs personas that would appear to be internally consistent and unrelated to the traditional Derek edit areas and one another, but then sometimes one sock would edit the area that another sock specialized in, or one would comment on a particular matter in a certain way that was unmistakable to those of us unlucky enough to be dealing with him. He does research and always labors to create an edit story, but sooner or later one or another edit will catch someone's attention. It rarely has been as obvious as returning to the American politics articles, but is nonetheless easily spotted. At least for the 60 or so Derek socks we've found. As I said before, I am completely sure that there are some lurking in the wings waiting to be activated (I have also thought of the "welcome" edits as possible flags although he hasn't seemed to need that), and others quietly editing away making their histories and friends on various projects, maneuvering toward adminship,  and likely one or more that already have become admins. Probably some more editors who have been blocked are part of this too but they weren't checked for the overlaps. Tvoz | talk 21:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I got all of that. We're already well past that, but thanks for explaining it all again.  What we need to do is look into possible other outlets of this sock farm; to stop it in the future.  That is why I was attempting to steer the direction of the investigation into the welcome spam.  It could be an attempt to flag his own sockfarm for future uses; most of these welcomed accounts have not edited since being welcomed; which is kinda suspicious, like they are lying dormant.  It gives us a list to work from to keep an eye out for future abuse.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  02:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of Wikipedia posted on YouTube
Is there anything we can do about vandals vandalizing articles while recording it, and then posting the video on YouTube? After running a search, I was able to find a couple of said videos, such as here (and nice comment at the top), here, and here. Though, two claim to "test" Wikipedia's vandalism detection, so I'm not sure whether to assume good faith there or not. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * What could we do? We can revert the vandalism... and possibly block the accounts, if we think they're not here to contribute.  Beyond that... --Haemo (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I've found that online as well. You know, it's just vandalism. People just decided to turn a camera on during the process. The most we can do is just fight as we normally do. Jus tin  (Gmail?)(u) 03:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (double ec)I'd say no there's nothing we can or should do. People can videotape themselves vandalizing anything, like graffitiing a street sign. It doesn't really show some kind of weakness on Wikipedia's part, it just shows that the author is an asshole. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Equazcion •✗/C • 03:15, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has no affiliation with youtube or any other public website for that matter and therefore there is nothing that could, or should be done. There are plenty of websites that disparage or criticize Wikipedia - take conservapedia for example. The best we can do is to function normally. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 03:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Eh, not an issue really. Vandalism is always around.  Jmlk  1  7  03:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Boring videos are boring. I'd be more worried if it was funny. -- Ned Scott 06:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest you create a video of yourself reverting the vandalism and blocking the vandal, and post it on YouTube. MastCell Talk 06:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, the first video is of this edit:  AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 08:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I like this comment for the first video: "You are sad and pathetic. Instead of investing your time in making a constructive contribution to humanity, you prefer to destruct other people's work. And then make a video about it like it's something cool to brag about. I've seen a similar intellectual level... on a rock. You are nothing but a waste of Earth's natural resources." · AndonicO  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:navy;">Hail!  14:01, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Best deny them recognition, and proceed as always. AGK (talk) 22:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Bot battles!
What is going on here? One bot (User:Roboto de Ajvol) is going around removing all instances of lmo interwiki. But another bot (User:AlleborgoBot) is going around and re-adding it. . ??? Nobody of Consequence (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Domo oregato <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Equazcion •✗/C • 03:31, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)
 * Damn you!!!! I've been on a roll tonight! You broke my roll! :) <font color="Black">Jus <font color="Red">tin  (Gmail?)(u) 03:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Is the Imo Wikipedia closed or something? User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 03:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Justin:On a roll? I don't get it <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Equazcion •✗/C • 04:01, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)
 * No, It's kind of an in joke. Me and User:AndonicO have been going at it. I shot him a yo mama, he came back with percentages, "I know you are but what am I?"... it got multi-lingual. It seemed to have ended with me using Norwegian to roughly describe that it's over when I say it's over. That'll show him. Then I come here, see the heading "Bot Battles!", and what pops into my head? Oh wait, shot down! You, sir/madam/member of any number of the third genders, have broken my roll. <font color="Black">Jus <font color="Red">tin  (Gmail?)(u) 04:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * About a year ago, or a little more, I saw one of the anti-vandal-bots going at one of the archive bots, and back and forth. I wish I could find the diffs; it was hilarious.  Didn't last long though. Antandrus  (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have notified each bot owner of this section on their home wiki user talk pages. —Random832 05:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry. It was standard pywikipedia interwiki bot. I will try to understand the problem. --ajvol (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I had asked about the same thing, after I saw a slew of lmo.wikipedia links removed from articles on my watchlist. I talked to User:Snowolf, who is an admin over there, and he told me that they decided to remove about 100K bot-generated sub-stubs, many of which were in English or Catalan (as opposed to Lombard). Not sure why another bot is adding the links back, though.  Horologium  (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi all, I update my bot twice a day to the last svn version of pywikipedia bot and seems to work correctly. The article lmo:Algèria exists and there's no reason (imho) to remove its interwiki links. Seems to be an error generated by Roboto de Ajvol. :-/ So, I'm still running my bot. Please keep me updated with this discussion if I have to stop it or if the problem is mine. Thank you all. --Alleborgo (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive edits by Grounded into a double play
User:Grounded_into_a_double_play has basically made no constructive edits since creating his account. One of his first edits was creating the page Space Shuttles which was quickly redirected. Since becoming active again on Febuary 15th nearly every edit has been reverted and pages he creates either redirected or deleted, , ,. He started one AFD that was a speedy keep. Tonight he created a page simply to test the AFD process. He then created a page for content that already existed in another article Dai Shi which is already covered in Villains in Power Rangers: Jungle Fury. He also has a habit of removing anything negative from his talk page, I understand this is not a vioaltion of rules but I think it's shows his attitude twoard other editors , . He now also appears to be stalking me. Even as I'm writing this he is still creating pages that already exist Master Mao Ridernyc (talk) 05:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, this might qualify as WP:GAME and WP:TROLL. Second of all, it absolutely is against the rules to keep creating inappropriate pages. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 05:42, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And he keeps going. Ridernyc (talk) 05:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry if I offended Ridernyc with my actions. I wasn't trying to stalk him as he claimed.  I was trying to give Dai Shi his own article.  I opened up a discussion to see if there is consensus to delete.  Grounded into a double play (talk) 05:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to directly comment, I've said what I have to say and will let your actions speak for themselves. I would however encourage you to stop editing until a conclusion is made here. You have an opportunity here to learn from the advice of others. it's up to you if you listen. Ridernyc (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't Articles for deletion/Dai Shi be covered by the ArbCom injunction, because it is about a television character? Sincerely, --<font face="Times New Roman"> Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles Tally-ho! 05:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (edit conflicted about 500 times) I second Ridernyc's comments that this user is a disruptive editor indeed. I first caught note of him in his disruptive AfD, and gave him a warning (which he, of course, blanked). After that, I tried to undo his user page, which was a cross-space redirect to double play (it's my understanding that user pages can't redirect to article space). A couple of his edits do seem to be in good faith, but for the most part, this user seems to be quite disruptive. I don't think he would quite warrant a block yet, but should he keep it up, I'd endorse one. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 05:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I gave him that final warning for a combination of vandalism and unconstructive edits. Since then he has been avoiding vandalism, but the editing pattern continues to be unconstructive. I tend to be sympathetic to articles about video characters, but he has been trying to write really impossible stubs about them. I think he knows better, and is trying to game us. I dont see how we can block without something more specific to block about, however. DGG (talk) 06:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It does seem that there are some questionable edits, for example — the Dai Shi article that is currently on AfD was created earlier by this editor, who twice removed the db tag him/herself. It would seem to be beneficial to the editor to take a break from editing and do some reading about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, as suggested. — ERcheck (talk) 06:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

While I know the ArbCom injunction is currently in effect, I've been bold and closed the AFD early and redirected (that was what most were saying, other than the user who said "The ArbCom says keep for now"). My reasons are mentioned at the AFD, but to put it here, the show started on Monday. There is no way we can gauge whether or not articles are necessary, particularly when the content is the same. If I am to be lynched for merging an article on a television character, so be it.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In that case it seems your actions are unrelated to notability, so I can't see arbcom getting mad about it. -- Ned Scott 06:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In a related note, I have had to delete various other pages belonging to this new TV series because of copyright violations.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 07:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In another related note, Grounded into a double play has been discovered to be a sockpuppet of long-time banned user EddieSegoura. Thank you Alison :3— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 07:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ - sock of banned editor, User:EddieSegoura - A l is o n  ❤ 07:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I had a feeling something like this was going on, the 10 month break in editing hinted at this. Ridernyc (talk) 07:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My word, that's a name from the past. Eddie Segoura, the exicornt vandal.  I thought he'd given up? Guy (Help!) 19:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He has a very easy to identify MO.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 21:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Needs an eye on
72.76.88.140, now moved on to 72.76.12.248‎, has a negative WP:BLP agenda. Tyrenius (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If unresponsive to your warnings/messages on the talk page, go to WP:AIV after final warning. Since the IP strings are so similar, you can take the liberty of expressing WP:SOCK concerns on the user/talk pages. If it keeps up, an admin could try a string a very short string IP block. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 07:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Waterboarding probation violation
User has already been warned numerous times and knows. Lawrence §  t / e  06:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked; 24 hours now, but it should go to at least 3 days the next time in my opinion. We don't need any more of this incivility in the atmosphere. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * These reports should go to Arbitration enforcement so they can all be addressed and archived in one place. As ever, more administrator eyes on that page would be very welcome. Newyorkbrad (talk) 17:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry! I'll put them there from now on; this was out of force of habit. Lawrence  §  t / e  21:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Zackyusoff
Again and again, seems ignoring whatever my advice, warning, he seems did not change his editing style by BOLD the headings. Sometimes, make too much empty space between one heading to another.

This his editing:

So, i hope someone can deal with this situation. Thank you. --Aleen f 1  06:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You've already done your part - you've asked civily, and pointed the user in the direction of WP:MOS. If the user does continue, it's disruptive to wikipedia, and I would file a WP:AIV after a final warning. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 07:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Wisdom. Your conversations with him on his editing style look completely civil. - <font face="Ravie" size="2px" color="#4D0100">Milk's  <font face="Ravie" size="2px" color="#4D0100">Favorite  <font face="Ravie" size="2px" color="#4D0100">Cookie  14:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * See his latest editing:  He did the same thing again! --Aleen f  1  04:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Dodona
User:Taulant23 who is already on civility parole gave a barnstar to User:Dodona. The first reason is "For your work dealing with shovinist Greek Propaganda". Is it acceptable? I've kindly asked Dodona to remove that wording from his user page but nothing yet. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, I'd say some of the wording is in poor taste - and does not really reflect what that particular barnstar is supposed to signify. Asking for a rephrase would have been my suggestion. Although, I don't think one can actually officially object to another's receipt of a barnstar. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 07:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nothing doing here. Taulant's currently sitting out a block, and has announced his intention to quit. Dodona is a separate case. Looks like he's removed the barnstar, though. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 09:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Can we shut this mirror site down
This site [http://wikipedia.cas.ilstu.edu illegally replicated my old user page from Jun 2005, which I had deleted from Wikipedia later in October 2005. I have not linked my user page, but if I do you will see that there is no notification, attribution, or license reproduced whatsoever. I don't know how to contact the owner of that website but I will take legal action if I have to. The site also illegally replicated most of Wikipedia as it was in Jun 2005. When I began editing Wikipedia I did not agree to this kind of replication, unatributed, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.208.190.96 (talk) 10:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, for one thing, All of Wikipedia's text is licenced under GDFL which allows the copying, redistribution, and modification of all text found on wikipedia as stated in the preamble of the licence text
 * nat.utoronto 10:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * nat.utoronto 10:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * While that is true, the mirror requires a list of editors of that article, or possibly at the very least a link here so the history can be seen. The history in the pages on the mirror do not contain editor names, and I can't see any link back here. I easily could be mistaken here though. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 10:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes the GFDL requires that the authors be attributed (which that site does not). Therefore they are violating the license and legal action can be taken. James086 Talk &#124;  Email 10:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * James and Crustacean are correct. That site is illegal. See Mirrors and forks. It has to be properly attributed with the license or a link to the original source or else it is illegal. I wanted to bring this site to peoples' attention. 76.208.190.96 (talk) 10:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Looking from the RC on that site, no changes have been made since 2005, so someone will have to contact Illinois State University to shut down the site. nat.utoronto 10:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is that we provide dumps for mirroring that don't contain full edit histories. Those need to be downloaded seperately and may not be in sync with the dump. To get around that they need to link back to us but that presents a new problem as shown here if the page has since been deleted and the edit history isn't visible anymore. That said, I've never quite understood why someone would put up a mirror of Wikipedia only to let it sit there without updated content. It defeats the whole purpose of having an encyclopedia as a wiki. EconomicsGuy (talk) 10:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, our dumps are far from correct, GFDL wise. We are asking for a stick to get beaten, here. 76xx, why don't you simply contact them to ask if they could remove (please) your userpage? Civility and good will can go a long way, on the Internet. -- lucasbfr  talk 10:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * the motivation is usually gaining money from the ads on the site.:)  Merkinsmum  10:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you look closely, you'll see that this (ad-free) mirror is hosted by the Illinois State University :) -- lucasbfr  talk 12:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll try to contact the owner(s) of the site if I can. I don't know how yet. I'll look through Mirrors and forks. I want to bring this site to the attention of some more admins. Yes, show it to Jimbo Wales, why not. And I know so many users are not aware that their old user pages are duplicated there. 76.208.190.96 (talk) 11:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

We can't really do anything for you besides offer advice. We don't have any involvement in the copyright status of the page (unless it's one we edited ourselves); nor does Jimbo or the Foundation. We could complain on your behalf, but only the copyright holder (presumably you) can legally enforce the copyright. I'd say the best way to go would be to write a nice email requesting that the page be removed from the database. If you lean on a somewhat trivial (and likely indefensible) copyright claim they could easily tweak the page to conform to the GFDL (i.e. by adding an appropriate attribution notice). — <font face="Arial" color="green">xDanielx T/C\R 00:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

John Payne (singer)
An anonymous editor keeps removing the birth date from this article: 11 times since 11 February. Examples:, ,. I've tried establishing communication through edit summaries and the user's talk page, but to no avail. Can anyone turn their attention to this? Bondegezou (talk) 11:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Have you filed a report at Requests for page protection? Seems a short-term semi-protect could probably take care of this. -- jonny - m  t  12:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Have done so now—thanks for the suggestion. Bondegezou (talk) 13:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've declined the request: that qualifies as vandalism, so the editor should receive a warning. Skip straight to a level 3 warning, and report to AIV after the fourth. · AndonicO  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:navy;">Hail!  14:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I warned already. · AndonicO  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:navy;">Hail!  14:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Whoa there, fellas. An anon IP removing an unreferenced date of birth from a BLP is emphatically not vandalism. Please familiarize yourselves with these two sections of WP:BLP before doing anything ill-advised. If an anon IP is removing an unsourced birthday, that birthday needs to stay removed until properly sourced, and perhaps even then. Mike R (talk) 14:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ack, there I go again editing articles about musicians... Got confused with the removing of birth name (forget stage names exist), and the adding of "LUNATICA" (forget that albums/songs sometimes have vandalism-like names, and sometimes are in CAPS). I'll strike out the warning and apologize... Thanks for noticing Mike. · AndonicO  <sup style="font-family:Times New Roman; color:navy;">Hail!  15:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, I'd read the section about anonymous content deletion, but I hadn't read the note on birthdays. Good to know--thanks for the sharp eye! -- jonny - m  t  17:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying on that point. I'll look out for appropriate citations. Bondegezou (talk) 17:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hacker
The talk page for this is getting ugly and they are edit-warring over the talk page now, let alone the article. The edit history for the talk page contains, for example, a recent change comment of Please fuck off which is clearly uncivil.

The background seems to be that the meaning and usage of the word hacker is heavily disputed per Hacker naming controversy. We now have a morass of POV-forks, as can be seen at Hacker (disambiguation). There seems to be a fair amount of conflict-of-interest and systemic bias.

We have already had some admin action but more is needed. I responded to an RFC earlier but it did little good. I reckon that this entire cluster of disputed articles needs a good going over by editors with a genuine NPOV.

Colonel Warden (talk) 12:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Administrative scrutiny would be welcome; the talk page has been unusable for several weeks (my reaction when I read Colonel Warden's description was "getting ugly?" :-). Note, however, that one of the parties has filed an arbitration case. Nandesuka (talk) 12:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Banford again
Blocked user is evading his block and (mostly) vandalizing Durham (HM Prison). He needs to have a peck of IPs blocked and the articles he is interested in semi-protected. See User talk:Bamford. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems like a solid case for WP:SSP. The evidence is there in black and white (black & white diffs that is). That would be my suggestion. However, the semi-protection would only be appropriate if multiple IPs (one IP or two could just be blocked for repeated abuse) began vandalizing said pages fairly heavily. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 14:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've extended the block on the named account to indefinite for block evasion and disruption, and blocked the active IP for 31 hours. If he switches IP's and continues, let me know or go to WP:RFPP and the page can be temporarily semi-protected. MastCell Talk 17:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, lets hope this is the end. If not, a range block would be a viable option. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 17:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User: Ban Ray
Please could an administrator get the user BanRay to quit harrassing me. He keeps reverting my edits to the Maria Sharapova page, I think just because my vision for the article conflicts with his, and has even tried complaining to others about how my edits are "vandalism", even though they are just simple edits that I think improve the page! Obviously, I could understand him editing PARTS of the page if he disagrees, but reverting the whole thing is uncalled for imo. He has also implied that I am another user, Musiclover565 (see my discussion page) simply because me and him share similar visions for the article. I would really appreciate being able to edit in peace, without having to fear BanRay reverting them. Thank you. 92.1.182.171 (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * 92.1.182.171's edits to the Maria Sharapova article are unencyclopedic, full of uncited commentary and opinion, and, most importantly, against consensus. BanRay is not "harrassing" this user, merely enforcing Wikipedia policy.  Tennis expert (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Seeing that the user has followed my advice and took the case here, I will take a minute to explain the situation. Last month User:Musiclover565 started an edit war with User:Tennis expert over the Maria Sharapova article, when he reverted his edits to the page (Tennis expert's edits were initially proposed on the talk page). Musiclover565 was then approached by several established editors, but continued his disruptive behavior and was eventually blocked.


 * On February 20, User:92.1.182.171, restored Musiclover565's version of the article, reverting a total of 64 edits. The user has also accused me of complaining to other editors, namely User:Milk's Favorite Cookie, who has also left him a warning, but I have never even been in touch with the user, let alone complaining about edits from an anonymous IP.


 * Oh, It might also be worth mentioning that the whole situation smells funny, to put it mildly, as Musiclover565 was using a very similar IP (92.3.230.33 to sign comments on my talk page a month ago. Both IP addresses are allocated to the same internet provider and the same town.


 * I was gonna wait until tomorrow to give you a chance to revert your own disruptive edits, but seeing that another editor has already done that, I will now leave you a level 4 warning and I really hope this will be the last time I will have to address this issue. Take care. <font style="color:#fef;background:black;">Ban <font style="color:#000000;background:white;">Ray 21:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

To add to an earlier complaint (which I don't think got an official admin response), I am now feeling I am being utterly victimised, persecuted and bullied by the user BanRay. He keeps reverting my edits to the Maria Sharapova page, and I just don't think it's fair - my edits are genuinely constructive. He claims I reverted 64 edits, but this is simply untrue - I ONLY edited the Career section, in which edits had only made to the 2008 part - and the only edits there were Fed Cup results which I moved to a different section. Therefore, I reverted no edits, and merely (I believe) improved the Career section. He also keeps claiming I come from the same town as Musiclover565. If this is true (and I highly doubt it is) then it is surely not my fault? Please can this victimising be stopped? Thank you. 92.1.182.171 (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment The user is talking about this complain against me. <font style="color:#fef;background:black;">Ban <font style="color:#000000;background:white;">Ray 23:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Comment And I would also appreciate it if you stopped lying about constant revisions from my side. So far I have only once reverted your edits, the other revisions were carried out by other members. How many people do you need to tell you you're wrong in order to stop?


 * I also believe it might be better to merge this section into the original section above. I'm not gonna do that myself, as an involved party though. Thanks. <font style="color:#fef;background:black;">Ban <font style="color:#000000;background:white;">Ray 23:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies for saying it was you who reverted all my edits, I admit I had not looked at the edit logs properly, and was merely going off the comments you've repeatedly left on my page. Nevertheless, I still feel I am persecuted by you (you issued me a warning because I'd apparently reverted 64 edits, which we've since established is untrue) so therefore, my complaint still stands. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.1.182.171 (talk) 23:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * That is true though and the diff posted by me in the original section proves that. <font style="color:#fef;background:black;">Ban <font style="color:#000000;background:white;">Ray 23:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This dispute is now resolved. As it has now been established, BanRay was mistaken in issuing me a warning, as I did not revert 64 edits. I only removed information from 2003-2007, a category that none of the 64 edits he speaks of falls under. Therefore, unless he provides another basis for which my edits are unacceptable (and I'm presuming he won't, because I have asked him several times and he haven't provided one), his warning is therefore voided by default, and my edits are thus allowed. No hard feelings about your mistake. He can feel free to make any edits to my edits if he so wishes!
 * Thanks. 92.1.182.171 (talk) 23:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Established by whom? <font style="color:#fef;background:black;">Ban <font style="color:#000000;background:white;">Ray 23:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not been established by any person, it's been established by the edit logs which clearly show that none of the 64 edits affected the 2003-2007 sections (the only parts I edited). Do you dispute this? 92.1.182.171 (talk) 00:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, I do. But I'll get back to this tomorrow. It's 2 am here and I don't feel like going through the edit log just to prove an obvious fact. <font style="color:#fef;background:black;">Ban <font style="color:#000000;background:white;">Ray 00:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: 92.1.182.171 is blocked for three days for trolling, disruption and vandalism. <font style="color:#fef;background:black;">Ban <font style="color:#000000;background:white;">Ray 00:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked editor Rastishka/Saintrotter is back using another IP
Have a look. , He's also reverting the templates on his old User:Saintrotter account. Someone should block the IP and protect the Saintrotter user page. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you're convinced, mark the user page with a sock template and open a case at WP:SOCK. Report the IP to WP:AIV with an elaboration on the matter so the admins are aware of deceit. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 21:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Some eyes to Kosovo?
I am tired of composing lengthy arguments on Talk:Kosovo with no reaction on talk, but instead have redlink accounts undo edits within the minute, and this on an article that is actually on arbcom probation. Could some admins watch this current topic more closely please and clamp down on the revert warriors? dab (𒁳) 19:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems as if no administrators are online, or they have just fell asleep. No response here, vandalizing the Kosovo page continues. --Ml01172 (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Admins are on line, and this has been dealt with. The article has been protected for a week. Reach consensus on the talk page, and respond to Dbachmann's concerns as outlined there. If the protection expires and the conflict continues, blocks will be handed out for edit warring. Good day. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 19:56, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It'll probably be unprotected like the last two times. 20:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My friendly non-admin word of advice would be to at least try WP:RFC and mediation - although I'm going to presume this has already been attempted. And the page is semi-protected I see. Are these NPOV reverts or a mixture of this and vandalism? <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 19:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've been working on it a bit. Bearian (talk) 21:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Calling me an idiot

 * 

User:PANONIANCalling me an idiot and reinserting an unsourced map when one sourced is already there.Megistias (talk) 20:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's it? Perhaps you could work this out on your or his/her talk page or the article's talkpage?  Seems a bit early for an ANI report.  What admin intervention are you hoping for?  <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  20:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * His map has no sources and the other one is already there.Megistias (talk) 21:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not disputing your claim. Didn't even look into it, to be honest.  Did you post anything at the user's talkpage?  Did you post anything at the article's talkpage?  ANI comes after other attempts to resolve what is clearly a content dispute.  I agree the other user shouldn't have called you an idiot, but still, there are easier ways to clear this up and both go about your business building the best encyclopedia in the world.  <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  21:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I initiated a discussion in the map page that it has no sources Megistias (talk) 21:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And that was the right thing to do. However, it was only a half hour before posting here.  Pleae be more patient.  I don't see what admin intervention you are seeking, nor do I see any reason to intervene at this point.  Keep editing, perhaps to other articles?  <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  21:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * you are right,i rushed inMegistias (talk) 21:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User willfully violating our image policies
On February 5, User:Alex 8194 was blocked for copyright violations in large part because he refuse to abide by our image use policies. See block log and user's talk page regarding the block. Today, he's at it again. He uploaded Image:ÉDCL.jpg, it as GFDL, even though the image itself shows a copyright tag on it. He also uploaded Image:TAC creator.jpg, similarly it is GFDL, when a casual review of its source shows the image is copyrighted.

It doesn't stop there though.

Earlier today, when I found Image:ÉDCL.jpg I re-tagged the image as fair use, and also tagged it as missing a fair use rationale and informed Alex of the problem. Alex removed the warning tag without fixing the problem. I reverted him and explained on his talk page that this was highly improper and gave him a final warning.

So what does he do? He uploads Image:ÉDCL cast.jpg(duplicate of Image:ÉDCL.jpg) without providing a rationale. I this image as missing a fair use rationale, and inform him that he needs to thoroughly read and understand WP:FURG and urge him to stop working with images until he does. Warnings not withstanding, he removes a missing rationale warning tag yet again without fixing the problem.

He's had many opportunities to correct his behavior, and has been previously blocked on these issues. He's been warned repeatedly, told where to go to get more information, and still the behavior persists. I'm formally requesting this user be blocked until such time as he agrees to abide by our image use policies, especially with regards to copyright and fair use guidelines. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I support a longer block. The first was for 31 hours, and by behavior it seems that he does not want to change his ways, so I propose an indefinite block. -MBK004 01:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * He has uploaded genuinely free pics (see Image:Lovely Himalayan cat.jpg), so there is a small amount of hope that he can be made to understand the difference. I suspect this may be a younger user not getting what people are telling him. See what his reponse was last time. I suggest a week-long or month-long block to get the message through. If he continues after that, then indefinite block. Carcharoth (talk) 01:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'll talk to them a bit later and try to educate them about copyrights. <small style="background:#fff;border:#000 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 02:59, February 21, 2008

User:Walice111
Does anyone else feel that is treating Wikipedia as MySpace or another various free webhost? This user has a userpage that promotes a non-notable wrestling organization started by himself and then he has a ton of wrestling information transcluded on the page. That in itself was questionable, but when I looked at his contributions it was more troubling.
 * He has 557 edits
 * 61 edits are to the article, project and user talk spaces (other than his own)
 * The remaining 496 edits are to his userpage and his talk page.
 * His last edit to anything other than his userspace was October 2, 2007.
 * Of his 61 edits outside his userspace, 2 of those are a result of an inappropriate pagemove, another is page blanking and incivil behavior.

All of this behavior seems troubling, especially the extensive userpage that I would prefer be deleted as inappropriate. Is this someone who needs to be informed of policy or someone here to cause trouble? — <font color="007FFF">Save_Us  †  21:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I could drop him a line, but I might not be the best bearer of bad news. Bearian (talk) 21:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It appears Calton already informed him of this months ago. — <font color="007FFF">Save_Us  †  22:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Some more information about this user is that he has been blocked 5 times now. The first time for vandalism, 31 hours. The other 4 times were repeated copyright violations, the first for 48 hours, escalating to a week, then to a month, and then three months. I feel this user is not going to be productive here at all. — <font color="007FFF">Save_Us  †  22:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually his first edit on my talk page seemed like he was asking me to protect the WWE's page due to vandalism or something of the sorts, not sure what it was about. However I have blocked this user several times for violating WP:FU several times after being warned about it (first he deribelately restored several images on his user space after these were removed and the relevant policy was explained to him, then after receiving the first block he began uploading FU images under a false copyright claim and lastly he repeated the same pattern but modifying the images) all that I can say is that this user has a tendency to completely ignore warnings and even good faith policy explanation. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  22:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Blocked indef for disruptive editing. The day a three-month block expires, he's back with the same behaviour, not a single useful edit to article space, and overall, just not getting the message. He's welcome to appeal, of course, but meanwhile I will blank his user page as an improper use of WMF resources. I won't wheel-war if anyone thinks this is too much, but he shows no sign of reforming. --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 22:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Probably not relevant to the block above but it should be noted that the three-month one expired on February 12 and he continued to only edit within user space. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  22:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I took that into account when imposing the block, and have told him so. --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 22:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I endorse Rodhullandemu's block—this user is clearly having a negative effect on the project, and removing their editing privileges is, unfortunately, the only feasible course of action. I'm tagging this as resolved, on the basis that the issue with the individual editor has been handled, and discussion exhausted; whether Save Us, who initially started the thread, would wish to continue the discussion regarding general misuse of Wikipedia as a "MySpace imitation", I will leave to him—however, I suspect ANI is not the most suitable medium for such a discussion. AGK (talk) 22:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Carlossuarez46‎ in a spell of controversial edits
- this is a content dispute and requires no administrative intervention. Spartaz Humbug! 06:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to draw your attention to the recent edits of user Carlossuarez46. He has been mass editing articles about Greek placenames in Northern Greece adding their (disputed) former Slavic names and tagging them as "Macedonian". Starting at 00:01 UTC today and finishing at 02:48 UTC, so in only 2 hours and 47 minutes, he edited dozens of related articles (some more than once), among others:


 * Slavic toponyms of places in Pella Prefecture (new)
 * Loutrochori, Pella
 * Banya
 * Bania
 * Pella Prefecture (inserted link to pages he himself created or recently modified, multiplying the effort required by other editors to tidy up)
 * List of settlements in the Pella prefecture (reverted to Katharevousa name, because this is what his source had in)
 * Skydra
 * Plevroma
 * Zervi
 * Kosten
 * Kosteno, Greece‎
 * Arnissa
 * Aridaia
 * Slavic toponyms for Greek places‎

And many more which I really don't have time to quote one by one.

As a rule forged with consensus, for cities in Macedonia, all alternative names are not put beside the native name in the first sentence, but later in the article (see Thessaloniki, Florina, Bitola, Skopje). I invite everyone to have a look at the archives of these articles and the revert wars that have occurred for this very issue. In this case, the mere amount of changes makes difficult to maintain the pre-agreed consistency towards all Macedonia articles and it is disruptive. In order for the articles to be sorted out or it probably needs double the time Carlossuarez46 took to make these edits.

May I also note that all this is based on a single source, some book by a known Macedonist, Todor Simovski. This name has been mentioned and challenged in Talk:Slavic toponyms for Greek places but Carlossuarez46 didn't bother even replying to the talk page of this deleted article which himself resurrected and continued to disrupt the remaining articles with data from this very same book.

Although my primary concern is the scale of edits and the lack of prior consultation with his fellow contributors, there is another content issue I personally object to. Simovski uses the word "Macedonian" for the language, while the exact same place name exists in all South Slavic languages, for example Bulgarian. Carlossuarez46 might not understand the difference, Simovski clearly does, and he mentions it this way to promote his agenda.

I have asked Carlossuarez46 to revert more than once, explaining what is the issue and mentioning I will escalate this to AN/I. He came back to me telling me that this is not what the guideline says. When I quoted the guideline, he replied that I'm in denial.

What I'm looking for is a kind of friendly advice or caution for him to refrain from making substantial changes to sensitive articles, without a minimum amount of discussion before. I personally have refrained for changing/putting information I consider important to many articles, for the sole reason of avoiding controversy. Carlossuarez46 might not understand that his edits are controversial, in which case it would be a good idea if he read more Balkan-related articles to accustom himself with the modus operandi.

Having said the above, there are some people who have accused myself as a POV pusher. Although I readily admit I have a bias and that I have had (and still have) quite a few of heated discussions in talk pages, I have persistently refrained from transferring this atmosphere in article space since my primary goal being in Wiki is to contribute to the encyclopaedia. I believe a seasoned editor like Carlossuarez46 should have known better and first at least discuss this issue.--   Avg     21:41, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have a history of friendly disagreement with Carlossuarez46, so I'm surprised. Bearian (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you asking an admin to do? Sorry, it wasn't clear to me above. <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper  |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  22:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As I said ealier on my own talkpage, this is simply ridiculous. This is a trivial content disagreement about a set of harmless, perfectly good faith edits on the part of Carlossuarez. Not the slightest reason to call for admin intervention. The only thing that does warrant admin attention is Avg's blatant incivility and lack of AGF in hurling accusations of "vandalism" and disruption at Carlos ), and his explicit threat of trying to win this dispute through revert-warring "ad nauseam" , a threat that echoes one made earlier in a different debate a couple of days ago . WP:ARBMAC is applicable to such behaviour.
 * Incidentally, most of Carlos' edits couldn't be characterised as controversial under any perspective. He was creating additional redirects from alternative old placenames to the town articles; in several cases the main articles were already mentioning these names anyway, meaning that the redirects would have been expected by policy in any case. I've seen only two or three cases (but I may have missed some) where he added potentially contentious names to articles afresh, and in all of these he has a strong case that this is perfectly legitimate under the relevant guidelines. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with your dissection of this. Therefore, I'm calling it resolved with any future conflicts hopefully going to talkpages, and not ANI.  there is nothing here that an admin needs to do that can't be accomplished elsewhere.  El fin. <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  22:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok then. What I wanted is to clarify if such editing patterns are acceptable. Discussions about which names should be used in articles and where the said names should be placed have been going on for quite some time and this issue has proven quite controversial. I just didn't like the apparent disregard of previous consensus from Carlossuarez46 and I wouldn't bring it here if it weren't for the scale of this whole thing. --   Avg     22:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any links for the previous consensus as you put it? Right now, I view this as not much more than a content dispute, which belongs in many places, but not here. <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  22:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, WP:PLACES says "Use modern English names for titles and in articles. Historical names or names in other languages can be used in the lead if they are frequently used and important enough to be valuable to readers, and should be used in articles with caution.". Also WP:NCGN 2b: Relevant foreign language names (one used by at least 10% of sources in the English language or is used by a group of people which used to inhabit this geographical place) are permitted and should be listed in alphabetic order of their respective languages. --   Avg     22:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It is of course perfectly uncontroversial that the area in which these places are situated had a sizable Slavic-speaking population up into the 20th century. Whether the policy implies that we'd require separate proof for every single village that it had such a population is a matter where people might legitimately disagree. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is exactly the controversial issue Future Perfect. Simovski has put all these villages there to pursue his agenda. And yes we should better have proof that all these were indeed villages with a Slavic majority (not even going to the issue if this Slavic majority felt ethnic Macedonian and not Greek or Bulgarian since Carlos made specific edits that the name is "Macedonian" and not "Slavic"). How would our fellow editors from RoM feel if they saw all villages in RoM with their respective Greek name in the lead?--   Avg     23:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * My understanding of WP:NCGN is that the name must have some type of relevance to be added. When were those cities ever under Modern Macedonia rule? Even if you look at Macedonians (ethnic group), there are only 962 Macedonians in Greece, you're goin to tell me they form some sort of majority in those northern Greek cities for the inclusion to be relevant? I mean if we're going to add their modern Macedonian name because some book gives their name in the Macedonian language, then lets find a book that gives their name in Italian, or Russian, or Swahili while we're at it. El Greco(talk) 01:57, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Spammer sock puppets?


These accounts all have one contribution, to the article Propaganda. After failing to edit-war in an external link which failed WP:EL, the apparent puppet master has moved on to removing other external links to make a WP:POINT. &lt;eleland/talkedits&gt; 23:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

IsaacJewenstein should be blocked for the name alone. <font face="Arial"> Corvus cornix talk  00:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, if this IP address edit isn't totally obvious.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 01:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:195.229.242.154
Somebody please block for his racist edits. <font face="Arial"> Corvus cornix talk  00:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. <font face="Arial"> Corvus cornix  talk  00:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Wikipedia videos
Swift attention to these might be merited. Somebody with a rather naive attitude to copyright seems to have created a heap of links to copyright infringements on Youtube and the like, and badged them in a template series called "Wikipedia videos". Not the kind of thing we want to be associated with this free content project. --TS 01:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've started by deleting the subpages, and then I guess we'll get the template itself. Someone might want to talk to the user in question though. David Fuchs ( talk  ) 01:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Subpages deleted. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Place some messages on the user's talk about WP:EL and surely mention WP:COPYRIGHT, if not already done. Repeated violations can result in a block as it constitutes disruption. That much needs to be made clear. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 02:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:119.11.76.128
User:119.11.76.128 has consistently reverted my attempts to eliminate vandalism from the article, Shakers. Grsz11 (talk) 06:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This doesn't require a full ANI posting. He's had four edits that were pretty much like this. In the future, use vandalism templates to warn the user, then report to WP:AIV for quick action.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 06:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep. WP:AIV after a full set of warnings should do the trick in the future, okay? — Scientizzle 06:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Crum375 meatpuppeting on WP:LAYOUT
Result: Widely acknowledged as true, good luck finding anyone who cares. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin has been edit warring on the layout guideline page. She wants an expansive view of "see also" sections. She started nitpicking the section in December. Earlier this week she made an undiscussed change and it was reverted. Today she inserted disputed text. The text she proposed two days earlier on the talk page had ZERO positive remarks before she edited the page. Two editors told her this was disputed text.,. Her text was removed, and she reverted.. She was called out for edit warring and inserting non-consensus text again. When it was removed again, she made a disruptive WP:POINT removal of the admonition not to make see also into a link farm.. This material has, in one form or another, been in the guideline for nearly two and a half years. When this edit was reverted as POINTy, rather than go through another revert, she had Crum375 come by and perform the edit for her..

This pattern of gaming revert wars by SlimVirgin and Crum375 is well known. Crum375 has never edited this page. Crum375 has never edited this talk page. Quite simply, Crum375 has no dog in that fight and is there to act as a warring proxy so SlimVirgin doesn't cross 3RR. This behavior is the definition of meatpuppetry. This behavior is deliberately gaming 3RR to make a disruptive pointy edit.

Something needs to be done to break up this tag team meatpuppetry. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 08:29, February 17, 2008 (UTC)


 * Admin action suggested? Any misuse of admin powers? Do you seriously want them blocked for meatpuppetry? (I strongly object to the removal of the section that represents a long-standing consensus as well, as would most people, I think, but seriously - meatpuppetry?) Relata refero (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Clearly no abuse of admin powers, but I have to say I'm curious about the pattern of editing you describe. I've seen other similar reports about these editors; I'd be interested to know what the story is here. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have that page, along with most policies and guidelines, on my watchlist, and have been following the issues there. I happen to believe that "See also" contents depend on editor discretion and talk page consensus, not on rigid rules. I made an edit to that effect, noting my opinion in my edit summary. This was not based on any communication or coordination with anyone. If Schmucky has a problem with my edit, the article's talk page is a better place to address it than here. Crum375 (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * SchmuckyTheCat is in fact saying he has a problem with what he perceives as meat-puppetry, rather than merely a problem with that specific page. The problem is that shared interests leads to the appearance of meat-puppetry among people who agree and the appearance of wiki-stalking among those who disagree. One must AGF as much as possible or one will see conspiracies everywhere. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that clarification, Crum. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There are (at least) three issues here. First, as an experienced editor, SlimVirgin must know that WP:3RR doesn't allow her to revert three times, particularly without consensus. (In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique.) After SV reached three reverts, Crum375 appeared. Second, SV often claims "stalking" whenever someone else edits an article for the first time; Crum375 had never edited WP:GTL before. Third, this type of editing is occurring on other guideline and policy pages, for example WP:CITE, where SV even started a section heading naming another editor to discuss sockpuppetry (subsequently changed when I pointed out SV's violation of WP:AGF and WP:TALK ). There appears to be a double standard; the WP:3RR violations and SV's accusations of "wikistalking" and sockpuppetry should stop, and extra eyes are needed on these policy and guideline pages, where ownership tendencies are apparent (reference the numerous past similar issues at WP:V, WP:RS and others). Policy and guideline pages benefit from stability, yet SV edit wars on them to instate her preferred versions. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 16:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Crum375 and SlimVirgin have established this pattern dozens of times before. Edit wars are bad. Meatpuppetry, even the appearance of it, is bad. I don't think it is out of line for administrator intervention to tell these two to stay out of each others edit wars. If one sees the other in "trouble", they can use the talk page to gain consensus rather than continue the poor behavior of edit warring. Two simple and well established rules: 1. Don't edit war. 2. Don't edit war for your friends. Why should this pair be immune to that? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * I think we should assume good faith here, the Crum375 and SlimVirgin accounts do overlap a lot in their editing interests, and invariably back each other up in editing disputes. However, these accounts are probably just two close friends who talk to each other, not the same person. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Tim, I'm not alleging they are the same person. Close friends who talk to each other and whose interests overlap should not be tag team edit warring. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Ah, sorry, I misread your post. I agree that since Crum375 has never made an edit to that page or its talkpage before intervening in this current dispute to revert for his friend, the claim that he "had it on his watchlist" is highly unlikely. I believe that he either followed another editor's contributions to this page, or was contacted directly and asked to intervene. Any other hypothesis is pushing AGF to the point of credulity. Therefore if revert-warring on this guideline continues, SlimVirgin and Crum375 should be regarded as a single account. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Great. Here's witchhunt #3141529. Will (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Requiring editors to play fair isn't a witch hunt. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

That Crum is Slim's meatpuppet most of the time, I think has been said by various people, many times before. Good luck getting anything done about it, though :) 'Meatpuppet' is a controversial word if you think about it, and it's usually used towards new users or those who work on a very limited type of articles.  Merkinsmum  21:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Slim's postings are far more subtle, cogent, and bright than Crum's, so I just can't imagine they're the same person. There's too much stylistic difference. The duckling editing is obvious—Crum will show up whenever she does, on disputes. I basically agree with Merkinsmum and earlier comments: most everybody knows he follows her around, and that they must communicate off-site (which isn't disallowed).


 * But what to do? Admit they have a six-revert rule, and...? *Shrugs.* I mean, really, what can you do? You can't police that stuff.


 * I think it more important that people know Crum's signature. Slim remains herself: an intelligent, informed, and sometimes maddening presence on policy. Crum is a duckling—ignore his edits, because it's always "per her." That's my policy. Marskell (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * "what can you do? You can't police that stuff." If this behavior is recognized and it's bad, then it's blockable. It's disruptive, it's pointy, it's 3RR, it's gaming. 3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement. If Crum and Slim are acting together and they go over 3RR, collectively, then block one or both. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)


 * Are you an admin? Want to watch their edits together? Block on the first breach of 3RR? Feel free. Marskell (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's a recent example from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - Animal Liberation Front references, Crum375's sole contribution to the discussion was a post that began with - "I think SV is right" Tim Vickers (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I guess my point was lost in the shuffle; even without Crum's additions, SlimVirgin edit wars on policy and guideline pages. WP:3RR is not an invitation for SV to revert three times; talk page discussion was underway, and there was no consensus for her version.  The double standard troubles regular editors like me.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The solution is aptly described in User:Dmcdevit/On edit warring: "Block for edit warring, not 3RR." The double standard troubles me too. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It's rather unfortunate to see SandyGeorgia, TimVickers, and Marskell join forces yet again for another attack, and somewhat ironic given the claims of meatpuppetry. Sandy, I thought you and I had agreed to stay out of each other's way. There were 11 editors on that guideline's talk page wanting a change; just because you didn't get your own way doesn't mean there was a conspiracy to deprive you of it. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 05:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice dodge SV. You're defending yourself by putting Sandy on offense based on the content dispute.  What is at issue here is the behavior of serial tag-team edit-warring. Care to comment on the behavior? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * Schmucky, if anyone's behavior needs correction it's yours: you start an ANI thread about me for having posted an edit expressing my view to an article on my watchlist, with an appropriate edit summary. If you don't like my edit, the proper place to address it is on the article's talk page, not here. Crum375 (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not taking your bait to defend myself Crum. You didn't use the talk page.  You dived straight into an edit war to defend SV. This is a pattern that has occurred dozens of times, and I'm calling you on it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * I wasn't "defending" anyone, and I didn't see a need to add anything to the talk page, as my edit summary said all that was needed to explain my view. You, on the other hand, attacked me for my edit, with no evidence to back your assertions, and a complete lack of good faith. That is behavior that requires correction. Crum375 (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Let me try and defuse this.
 * 'No evidence' is absolutely correct, it was just a single example. However, I fancy it's happened to most people who've disagreed with SV on something. I am not currently in a dispute with her, and I certainly know I wouldn't win a dispute that descended to reverts, so it doesn't affect me; but it is true that it appears to be a pattern of behaviour on your part. If that is a mistaken impression, as it well may be, since I haven't studied your behaviour, only noticed it a half-dozen times, I apologise. However, I would be very careful about demanding evidence; I imagine it might be possible to check over a six month period what percentage of times SV reverted to the limit you've turned up to take it over the limit. (There are several alternative methods I can vagely think of.)
 * You have four options: deny you have a tendency to do that, throwing around accusations of bad faith and demanding evidence; say you're concerned that this is generally believed, and say you'll look out for signs of it happening; admit that you have this tendency, and that its because you trust SV to find difficult situations, to make the right calls in those situations, and what's wrong with that; or to just not comment any more, because there's nothing anyone could do. I would strongly recommend the third or fourth options, rather than the first, which might just madden people enough to start thinking about evidence.
 * Now, I go, because there really is nothing to be done here. I knew I should have closed this earlier. Relata refero (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Schmucky, you made 3 reverts of your own in about 10 hours. Takes two to tango. Gimmetrow 06:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, in this case it took 3. But this is a single instance where I am involved with those two. What I pointed out, and what several others have agreed with, is that this is pattern behavior by SV and Crum. That's why it's an incident needing community attention, and not just a one-off dispute. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * And I'm saying that you have your own reversion issues in this very dispute, and you were the only one reverting SV. Gimmetrow 07:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this going anywhere? Everyone knows that Crum follows SV around, everyone knows that SV tends to over-revert because she never "loses" editwars while Crum's around, everyone, apparently except Schmucky, knows that nothing's ever going to be done about it, because its not technically illegal, and because SV's paid dues. Can I close this before people begin snapping at each other worse than they are already? Relata refero (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(od) As he contacted me, I must admit that I came down rather hard on Crum. I don't suggest ignoring the sum of his contributions here and I don't mean to denigrate mainspace contributions he has made independent of Slim. But there is zero daylight between these two editors on policy, and when they do run up to more than three reverts in tandem, it should be called out. (Gimme does point out the obvious: you can't have an edit war alone, Schmucky. My own record, admittedly, is not umblemished on P&Gs.)

"It's rather unfortunate to see SandyGeorgia, TimVickers, and Marskell join forces yet again for another attack." I must address this. TimV and I rarely interact and it would be hard to construct an argument that we conspire. I do, often, wind up on discussion pages with Sandy. But I never, ever follow her to revert disputes. I have never gone to the medical articles she works on, for instance, even when I know she's having difficulty. I make a point of not doing so, precisely because people view us as friends. I've actually been watching the LAYOUT dispute unfold on my watchlist, and haven't commented for this reason. It would be wise, Crum, to adopt a similar strategy. Marskell (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you Marskell for your partial retraction. I believe that editing Wikipedia should be a fun process — I can't see another good reason for investing a lot of effort over a long time for free. If I see an issue that I have a strong opinion about, anywhere on this site, I believe I should be able to contribute, regardless of who else has reverted or edited the entry previously. I do agree that canvassing of others for help, e.g. by putting out a call on IRC or elsewhere, is wrong, especially if the others have no particular interest in the issue. I don't see a problem with like-minded editors working on a given entry, however, if this is something they are interested in and enjoy doing. Crum375 (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem, Crum, is that you seem to suddenly have a strong opinion whenever Slim gets into a revert dispute. Schmucky is right, no doubt: a look at your contribs would turn up dozens of examples of this sort. Between you, she, and Jayjg, there's likely hundreds. A reasonable person is going to call this gaming of 3RR.


 * Simply offering an opinion in support of a wiki-friend is not something I have a problem with, as far as it goes. It's what human beings tend to do. But reverting has specific policy implications. I'd advise, bland as it sounds, that you pause and ask yourself whether you should revert to Slim the next time you notice something like this (or have it pointed out). Maybe, instead, you should just move along and leave it. As I've just discussed with you off-site, I don't think you're insensible to the fact that people view you and Slim as tandem reverters, and I don't think you're unconcerned. Marskell (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Marskell, you need to stop the poison. This is one of several poisonous threads you've either started about me or gleefully joined in. It has been going on ever since I opposed you changing the content policies many months ago. Since then I've had nothing but the drip, drip, drip of toxicity from you, SandyGeorgia, and Tim, and from one or two other of your friends, but especially from you and SG. I would say there's much less harm in following someone's edits to articles than turning up, as you do, to attack people simply because your friend disagrees with them about a content issue or admin action. If I'm wrong about this, I hope you'll prove me wrong in future.


 * That's hopefully all I have to say about this. Crum is a good editor, and a kind, decent, and intelligent human being, who does not deserve the abuse you've heaped on him in this thread. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 19:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not start this thread and I'm not participating gleefully. Schmucky raised a specific concern: gaming 3RR. It's valid, in this case. My first comment re Crum was obviously intemperate, and I did retract in part.


 * Anyway, if you're concerned about people dealing in poison, I'd start at home. Marskell (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If I see an issue that I have a strong opinion about, anywhere on this site, I believe I should be able to contribute, regardless of who else has reverted or edited the entry previously. Thank you for that clarification, Crum, as I may have misunderstood your position previously on other pages, where I have plenty to contribute.  Since SlimVirgin has left inappropriate and threatening warnings on my talk page about "personal attacks" (which have never occurred), it appears that this discussion is very upsetting to her and would best be wrapped up.  It's surprising that an admin considers discussion initiated by someone else on ANI of her three reverts in three hours as a personal attack. I've reviewed this thread and am unable to find any instance of a personal attack by me, but do find examples of failure to assume good faith in SlimVirgin's false accusations. I hope admins reading this will consider the double standard the next time they're inclined to block another editor for edit warring, and I'm dismayed to see that SlimVirgin has continued unfounded accusations on other policy talk pages.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 21:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * SV accused someone who didn't let her get her way of committing a personal attack? I'd say these tactics by SV and Crum are getting old.  Yes, this is an implied warning that this behavior of theirs needs to stop. Cla68 (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think Wikipedia needs a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" policy. I've seen rank and file editors summarily banned for the sort of behavior that gets explained away when people higher up the pecking order do it. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My concern here was not so much the meatpuppetry that was raised originally by Schmucky as the double standard tolerated wrt edit warring. The change to WP:LAYOUT arose out of a content dispute SlimVirgin was having at Keith Mann; expressing concern about an admin edit warring to change guideline/policy when engaged in a content dispute is not WP:LAME. The false accusations of a "personal attack" on my talk page are a new concern; I'd like to see SV use diffs more often to back her allegations.  That another policy change is proposed at WP:V because of content disputes arising in other Animal Liberation Front-related articles is also a concern.  Repeating, more eyes needed on policy and guidelines pages, to help avoid edit warring and ownership issues.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with SandyGeorgia, there is absolutely a double standard regarding the edit warring of olde-tyme-valued-contributers. As a community we need to either decide that's what we want or decide that's what we don't want.  Right now it's not entirely clear (consensus may be changing).  --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sandy, how dare you continue this extreme bad faith? As you know very well, the proposal for change at LAYOUT was not started by me. It was started by Sean's Potato Business supported by CrZTgR and Boracay Bill. All I did was agree with them, because I had seen Threeafterthree a few weeks earlier go systematically through a bunch of articles removing See also links for no reason. He was even removing links that weren't in the article, but that he thought ought to be -- though he didn't add them; he just removed them from See also, citing LAYOUT in the edit summaries. Altogether about 11 editors on that page wanted that change.
 * This is exactly what you did to Zeraeph. Constant needling and personal comments about her to other editors until you got her into a position where she was so upset, she started lashing out at you. Then you used that to get her banned. If you want yet another ArbCom case, Sandy, you're heading in the right direction. I hope instead you'll accept my proposal of yesterday that we simply try to avoid each other instead. It's a big encyclopedia.
 * I've also changed the attack header to this thread. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 23:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reviewing diffs may help refresh memory. Here is the talk page where you started the discussion at WP:GTL about the long-standing guideline during a dispute at Keith Mann.  Please stop the personal attacks on me and repeating the tale that I got Zeraeph banned.  Remember, I didn't want the ArbCom, I didn't want her banned, I wanted escalating sanctions; you put up roadblocks to sanctions, and right after I put up a very generous compromise and then announced I would be busy with my family for several hours, the ANI thread was closed (I believe that was supported by Crum and the thread was closed by Jossi) and the issue went to Arbcom, against my wishes and better judgment, as I knew the evidence and what would ensue.  I'm sure when you write these things, you believe them to be true; please review history and diffs before making unfounded allegations and attacks on me, as the community tires of rehashing old history.  Had you supported or allowed reasonable sanctions, that whole situation might have been avoided. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My reply to the unfounded accusation of personal attacks on my talk page. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) A look at Keith Mann leads me to assess it as being a bit on the hagiographic. That's typical of articles with advocacy wikiprojects standing over them, and unsurprising considering that of the sixteen cited works, six are autobiographical and three are from advocacy groups on his side. But that's neither here nor there. More relevant is that the "see also" references all appear in the big navbox, so either the latter is excessively comprehensive, or the "see also" section is redundant. Guideline or no guideline, something in the current layout of the article ought to give.

What really bugs me is that this is yet another instance of people changing a policy/guideline to gain traction in a dispute. I've been in another of these, with the same people no less, and in my opinion it is destructive of any kind of order within the project. Policies and guidelines should be stable, or else they are useless. WP:BOLD, applied to policies and guidelines, is an invitation to abuses; it makes the "solution" for any dispute over a "rule" spread the dispute to the rule itself. Mangoe (talk) 18:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Like all editors, SlimVirgin and Crum375 sometimes agree, sometimes do not. I've seen them have very serious disagreements about articles in the past. It seems that they are in agreement about WP:LAYOUT. Editors agreeing is not "meatpuppeting". Jayjg <small style="color:DarkGreen;">(talk) 03:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Will someone please provide a link to "SlimVirgin and Crum375 [having] very serious disagreements about articles in the past." Thanks. WAS 4.250 (talk) 03:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Even Dan Tobias and I disagree sometimes. Well, actually we disagree a lot. None of that seems to be to the point. The accusation is that a person-- a friend, an ally, a conspirator, what-have-you-- stepped forward to take over from SlimVirgin when she was about to run over the 3RR limit. That the same person did not assist in some other circumstance is irrelevant; it should not be that we are excused from our sinning because we aren't consistent about it! Mangoe (talk) 04:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 3RR applies to individuals, not groups of people. If Crum agrees with Slim's edits, and disagrees with a person reverting her, then he is not "meatpuppeting" in expressing his beliefs via his edits. A "meatpuppet" is a non-Wikipedian recruited to do a Wikipedian's bidding. Slim and Crum are both longterm independent editors, each with their own unique interests. When two independent editors agree that a particular article version is a better one, it is not a "sin" for them to express that view via their edits. Jayjg <small style="color:DarkGreen;">(talk) 05:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That they may have disagreed in the past, even seriously, isn't relevant to the issue at hand (which is tandem reverting on an article Crum had never edited before), but I'm relieved to see now that both Jayjg and Crum375 have noted that editors sometimes have similar interests and edit similar articles. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 05:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You know, it would be wonderful if I could get every person who ever reverted me on an article they'd never edited before sanctioned as a "meatpuppet". Look here, User:Tiamut did this exact thing to me, just two days ago. I was involved in content disagreement with Nishidani, and suddenly Tiamut shows up to revert for him. But I didn't come running to AN/I, complaining about her being a "meatpuppet". Do you think I should have? Because if this is the new standard, I should have no difficulty getting at least a half dozen people sanctioned as "meatpuppets" over the next month. And then my editing would be so much easier. Jayjg <small style="color:DarkGreen;">(talk) 05:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, how do you feel about SlimVirgin falsely accusing SandyGeorgia of personal attacks? Cla68 (talk) 06:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please do come running to AN/I or to WP:AE. For all we know, there may be some kind of off-wiki coordination, perhaps a mailing list of some sort. Relata refero (talk) 08:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Jayjg, your other examples do not have dozens of previous instances of the exact same tag-teaming behavior that SV and Crum have. I mean, there seems to be a lot of "ho hum, of course they do and it's well known that they do, but who cares" responses here.  SchmuckyTheCat (talk)
 * As I said 48 hours ago, yes, that is the general attitude. Now can I close this thread? Relata refero (talk) 11:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's that a lot of people don't care that it's happening, so much as it's difficult to do much about it. How's about just a polite suggestion to Slim and Crum on this board, that perhaps they could try not to edit in a way that could be and has been frequently seen as meatpuppetry?      Whether it is or not, there's the perception by many that it is, and so maybe they could try to avoid that appearance for much of the time, much as an admin might avoid blocking someone with whom they'd had many previous disputes themselves (to give an unrelated example), as it may appear malicious to the person.  That is assuming people care what others think.  For instance I have people I like on wiki but I wouldn't read their contribs and step in to back them up in every dispute they were having, or the value of my opinion is lessened.  But if I think something really wrong is being done to them I step in, then I think it gives more of the sense of an outside view.  Hope you all get my point lol.  Merkinsmum  14:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Merkinsum, Marskell already covered that (polite suggestion to Slim and Crum about their editing patterns to avoid the perception of tandem reverting) pretty well. I've covered my concern that there's a double standard wrt WP:3RR (that most editors would be blocked for three reverts in three hours when talk page discussion is ongoing and there is no consensus).  Crum375 and Jayjg have both put to bed the issues of ownership and "wikistalking" that sometimes surface when others edit articles SlimVirgin is editing, by clearly stating anyone can edit an article where they have something to contribute.  So the only remaining issue I have here are the false allegations of a personal attack on my talk page, but I have no problem with closing this thread now Relata refero, since I don't expect much to happen on that front and I think this discussion has run its course.  I'm glad these threads aren't being closed precipitously and that discussion can run its course; I've been on the receiving end of threads closed prematurely right after I announced I'd be busy with my family for just a few hours. Since the concerns about meatpuppetry were raised by Schmucky the Cat, I wonder if s/he considers the matter resolved, and whether the thread should be closed ? Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 14:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sandy, if you think Jay and Crum have put the issue to bed, then you are more easily satisfied than I. I merely think that it is unlikely that anyone will be able to do anything about it.
 * About closing the thread, yes, certainly, I'll wait for Schmucky to conclude. Relata refero (talk) 15:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Put to sleep, no. But this conversation has exhausted its usefulness, so I think it best to close. There's a possible thread for WT:3RR in here somewhere. Marskell (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thread started. Marskell (talk) 16:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, it's way past stale. While Jayjg and Crum may be correct according to the letter of our policies that they can purposefuly proxy for SV in a revert war, I think that is seriously against the spirit of collaborative editing, etiquette, & etc. It's no surprise they didn't defend their actions, but chose to attack those raising the issue. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 16:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it okay to use my real name?
Hi,

I would like to know if it's okay with other editors if I use my real name to edit Wikipedia. Jason (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You can edit under any name you like, as long as it is not promotional or offensive. However, you cannot redirect your userpage to an article, and your signature really shouldn't point there either. -  Revolving Bugbear  18:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Go right ahead, I do. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Just one reminder, that you can't uncork the genie. If you use your real name, and things go pear shaped somehow, you cannot magically take back the information about your real name. It's out there. SirFozzie (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Jason Smith, you need to fix your signature to avoid Cross-namespace redirects which are not allowed. Also, given that you claim to be Jason Smith, the actor, you should not edit that article, per Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  19:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It is not OK to use your real name to edit Wikipedia if your real name is also the name of someone famous, unless you are willing to prove it by contacting the Wikimedia Foundation office. Try info-en-q@wikimedia.org.  It is also not forbidden to edit an article about you but it is discouraged, please read the conflict of interest policy. Thatcher 19:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, It's not like everyone knows my name. I'm not a household name like Barry Bonds.  I was only asking if you're allowed to edit Wikipedia if you have an article about yourself.  Jason (talk, profile) 19:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Anyone is allowed to edit, although you might want to steer clear of the article about yourself for various conflict of interests purposes. However, if for whatever reason you think that somehow having you appear by your name here might in the future potentially lead to trouble, as anyone can see anything you do on the internet at any time, you might want to follow Moscow Rules like some of the rest of us do and use a name other than your real one. That is a matter which apparently several other editors have encountered, and I can't know that the same thing might happen to you, but stranger things have happened. By the way, this isn't actually my name either, although "John" is actually my middle name. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure how true that is, Thatcher. U merely says You should not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person or you make it clear that you are not. I've always assumed the on my userpage, making it clear that Tonywalton is not Tony Walton. suffices. If I'm incorrect there let me know and I'll be on to the Foundation straight away to prove my bona fides! Tonywalton Talk 09:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You also might want to avoid using your real name if it's anything similar to this name in an XKCD comic, or if you've changed your name to GoldenPalace.com. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 21:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

T-Rex has some words of wisdom on this. But many Wikipedians use their real names, I used to use my full real name as a signature. Haukur (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Those words of wisdom could equally be taken to mean either "don't use your real name online" or "don't shoot your mouth off online", of course ☺ Tonywalton Talk 14:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * there are so many cranks on wikipedia, I'd suggest you'd be off your rocker to use your real name - I had people contact my place of work and all sorts of shit. Use an alias and don't tempt fate. --Fredrick day (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Question concerning use of AWB
Is there someplace in particular which I can request a review of a user's actions in utilizing AWB? It's my understanding that AWB is not supposed to be used to make controversial edits, and it's possible that this user may be doing that, but it's not at all clear where to go to make that inquiry -- here or on the AWB discussion page, so I've posted on both. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  17:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit warring or making disputed edits using AWB is in violation of the terms for using it. However, you are going to have to provide some diffs and background information before the admins will be able to look into it. If the user is indeed acting inappropriately you are in the right place because the AWB talk page isn't really meant for this sort of thing. EconomicsGuy (talk) 19:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh -- someone on the AWB page said that it was the right place, so I made my case there. I can repeat it here if you think I should, but my purpose is not to forum shop. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  20:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but even there you haven't provided specific diffs showing misuse. We don't need talk page discussions, other than as proof that you've remonstrated with the other editor; on a very busy incident board, we need to be able to directly visit the edits you think are wrong in order to assess them. Thanks. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 20:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't quite understand - am I making the case there or here? The diff that percipitated the conflict between User: Colonies Chris and I was this one, but essentially my complaint is about using AWB to make changes that require individual evaluation and shouldn't be subjected to automated or semi-automated deletion. As such, it's not individual diffs which are pertinent, as much as the user's contribution page, which shows hundred of changes under the same edit summary "sp, date & link fixes".  Since this was the edit summary for the specific diff above, it's not a leap to assume that they have done the same thing in all those edits, unlink dates using AWB.  Since my complaint is about AWB usage, isn't that the data you need? Since you've asked for this information here, I'll put a note on the user's talk page informing them of this discussion as well, but I do wish it could be made clearer where the discussion should ideally take place. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  20:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In response, I'm simply going to re-post here the comment I made on the article's talk page. I was the editor who made the changes that started this discussion, and I protest at the way my good faith edits have been treated. Ed Fitzgerald simply reverted my changes, adding an offensive edit summary, then when I reinstated them along with a request for discussion, he reverted them again without explanation. When I left a message on his talk page threatening to take action against him him under WP:3RR if he did it again, he then accused me of making changes without consensus - which, as has been pointed out, is not necessary for change of this kind. What monstrous arrogance to write "I think we can close the book on this" without ever having asked me why I made the changes I did. They were made through AWB but they are not 'automated' - I made a personal choice to unlink the years, and my opinion deserves respect, even if not agreement.

I will just add that of all the many articles whose bare years I've unlinked (always in the course of making other edits such as spelling corrections or disambiguations), objections to or reversions of those changes can be numbered on the fingers of one hand - see my own talk page for the almost complete lack of any comments on the subject. Colonies Chris (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have something of a conceptual question associated with this: Since not everyone can have AWB - you have to apply for it, and (if I'm understanding the process correctly) an admin has to approve the application -- and since the use of AWB gives you abilities not available to the run-of-the-mill editor, shouldn't the AWB user have the onus to show that they haven't been abusing it when questions arise? If the implication made above that I should provide diffs for every abuse is an indication, giving people AWB provides them with extra-normal capabilities which it is then difficult to show abuse of? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  22:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * AutoWikiBrowser does not give users anything they normaly cannot normally do. All it does is allow for easier repetitive editing. Quercus basaseachicensis (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The capacity to do more repetitve edits than can by done by hand is something that normal (read: non-AWB licensed) users can not do. I think it is undersood that this capacity gives the AWB user greater-than-normal ability, as well as greater-than-normal potential for harm, or else why is there an approval process in place? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  01:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * everything done with AWB can be done by hand. Just like vandalproof the issue is speed, not greater-than-normal ability. AWB just makes doing them easier, it does not give extra abilities. βcommand 02:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I certainly understand that, but my point is that the greater speed enables the user to do significantly more edits, and that means they have a capacity which is significantly greater than a non-AWB user. To me, that means they have a greater-than-normal ability to effect change to Wikipedia, for better or for worse. (This is starting to sound like the discussion about rollback, where the argument was that users with rollback were only doing what they could already do with twinkle (?), so what's the big deal? The big deal, of course, is that the can do it faster so they can do it more, which is the case here as well.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  02:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have made thousands of edits with AWB in the past without a single complaint. If an editor spots an error they usually just correct it. As a "mortal" editor you can't run AWB in bot mode (not without changing the source code anyway) which means that every edit is reviewed before you commit the change. I really don't see the problem with that. If you have a MoS dispute (which seems to be the actual problem) then there is nothing that neither this board nor the AWB talk page can do to help you. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Assume for the moment, just for the sake of argument, that I am correct, and that the user has made thousands of inappropriate edits using AWB in a time period when, manually, at most he or she would be able to do hundreds of the same edits. Are you 'seriously telling me that there's nothing' that an administrator can do about that?  That once a user is given the right to use AWB there is absolutely no way to review their use of it?  That once you've provided a user with this enhanced capacity, that's it, the system washes its hands of the matter? Does that really seem wise? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  09:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is why more info was needed. How are they inappropriate? What consensus is he ignoring? If he is changing articles according to the manual of style then he is free to do so with AWB. EconomicsGuy (talk) 09:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

←AWB usage can be revoked quite easily. Get an admin to remove their name from AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage. Then AWB would block them from using it. The fastest I have ever used AWB was at about 13 edits/minute. An admin can rollback edits from a contributions list faster than that. Also, if you accuse someone of misusing AWB then you should provide evidence of misuse. It's hard to provide evidence that you aren't abusing something but much easier to find the abuse. James086 Talk &#124; Email 09:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, after looking through User:Colonies Chris's edits trying to gather the data you need, it appears to me that I have overreacted. I was lead to assume, from the specific edits made on The Godfather Part 2 and the large number of edits which carried the same general edit summary containing "sp, date & link fixes", that these edits were of the same nature, but in looking through them it seems as if the vast majority were not.  It also seems that the date unlinking being done were not wholesale, but were limited in some way, suggesting that they were specifically targeted by some evaluative criteria.  I do wish that the user had chosen to explain this to me instead of threatening me with 3RR, but the fault here remains mine. I'd like to withdraw my complaint, with apologies.  I'll post an apology on the user's talk page. (I do, however, think that lack of oversight of AWB use is a valid concern, even though I turned out to be wrong about this specific instance.) Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  09:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Apology posted here. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz)  (talk / cont)  10:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks to me like the editor is removing links to individual years. WP:MOSDATE doesn't require such links. While there is some debate over whether context should be evaluated and whether an automatic bot should do this sort of task, this editor is removing these links very slowly. It's likely the editor is verifying everything in preview. Under current bot policy, that's an assisted script, with the editor is taking full responsibility for each edit, and it doesn't need any other approval beyond the approval to use AWB. Gimmetrow 09:53, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Lee Roache article help
Somebody alerted the football project about a vandal doing double redirects. The guy moved Lee Roache to Matthew Barrett (English Footballer) then to Matthew G Barrett. After discussion with the alert editor (User:Kevin McE), I tried to clean up. Matthew G. Barrett seems to have never existed (hoax name). Lee Roache is the correct footy player. I restored this article's text but due to my inexperience (as a new admin) with page moves/redirects/reversals, the article disconnected from the original history (Admins: see here). I'd like a more experienced admin to do it so it is properly cleaned-up/restored and I do not fumble it further. Any help appreciated. Alexf42 19:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Woody! Alexf42 20:24, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Jamesonr
has issues. . Cheers, <font color="#009500">  Dloh <font color="#950095">cierekim'''  04:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Would you care to elaborate? —<font face="Georgia" color="#2F335F">Travis <font color="#888888" size="-1">talk 04:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it would be because of the following: @ Sandbox, @ AFD for Chanyut Chokjanphen, and @ userpage.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 04:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * {Yes, edit conflict) Appears to be very unhappy about the deletion of a soapboxy article (Articles for deletion/Chanyut Chokjanphen). He then put up "articles" with the same attacks as at This version of his user page, since blanked. Seems to have stopped for now. Don't know if anyone things "reason" is a reasonable course of action at this point. Didn't want to go to bed and put leave an unwatched pot simmering. Cheers and goodnight. <font color="#009500">  Dloh <font color="#950095">cierekim'''  04:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems a little petulant over the proposed deletion. I'm going to watch this while you sleep Dlohcierekim. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 04:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Ahh yes, I see. I guess I was too tired to even look at his edits last night. Never mind. —<font face="Georgia" color="#2F335F">Travis <font color="#888888" size="-1">talk 13:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Paul Herget‎ and my talk page
I marked Paul Herget‎ for CSD, but a number of different - and new - users have been both removing the CSD tag and adding comments on my talk page. Adds to my talk page:. I've been removing them, but I could use a hand in dealing with that page. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:54, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Two more additions: . —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 04:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Article's in the bit bucket, editors are in the bing. <small style="background:#fff;border:#8b0000 1px solid;color:#000;padding:0px 3px 1px 4px;white-space:nowrap">east<big style="color:#090">. 718 at 05:05, February 21, 2008
 * Thanks muchly. —  Hello Annyong  (say whaaat?!) 05:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This page and its creation is pure trolling and vandalism, just look at the sources quoted as being used for its creation: " Every piece of evidence in this page is either true or has been prophesied by Nostradamus. We feel that this is a worthy page, as Nostradamus' writings are generally taken seriously." no more is needed to justify its deletion, that is without mentioning that the guy isn't real. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  05:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, I do think the person is real, considering that some of the posts were by an account titled pherget. Just thought I should add that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by OMG007007 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I have also indef blocked a few more involved users, including the original creator of the page (the only one with unrelated edits, mainly vandal fighting), User:Dnvrfantj. Fram (talk) 09:26, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sbkbg‎ COI
User talk:Sbkbg‎ Has now been given two final warnings about removing tags from articles. He keeps removing the notability tag and other tags from WFAL,,. It has pointed out to him over and over again that he has not established notability and since he is DJ working for the station he should not be removing tags himself,. I've really reached the end of my patience with this issue. Ridernyc (talk) 05:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * he has now taken the very mature action of issuing me a vandalism warning. Ridernyc (talk) 05:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already contacted an admin about this user User talk:Ridernyc and am awaiting a reply from the admin. I have had numerous talks to try and get him to stop. he continues to vandalize a page a wrote a few sentences for, by abusing tags. --Sbkbg (talk) 05:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * User talk:Ridernyc is not abusing. He is working in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Because of your WP:COI with an article that is currently a candidate for WP:AFD, your removal of the tags are in bad faith. Bear in mind that issuing ill-conceived or vindicative vandal warnings is also terrible wikietiquette. My recommendation to you would be to allow for the AfD to run its course and concentrate on proving your article is worthy of being noticed. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined  /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 09:15, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, you may want to familiarize yourself with what what vandalism is and is not. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 09:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Akhamenehpour
unsourced POV dispute / disruptive edit warring since 2008-02-01 on and. User interprets all content warnings as a personal attack and has so far ignored/deleted all warnings or call for discussion. Likely ipsock has threatened to puppet disrupt these articles. Article RFP has been denied, user has received multiple 3rr warnings, and one block. – Zedla (talk) 08:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In unrelated developments, he has been indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account, his talk page has been protected, the articles in question have been semi-protected, and all is well in the world. Stifle (talk) 12:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLPN anyone?
If anyone is interested, an objective opinion would be useful at WP:BLPN. Summary: my two edits removed a criticism section that was larger than the entire rest of the article combined (check the article sizes before and after). A POV-pushing IP disagrees. Input is much appreciated. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a comment. The criticism section did seem too long. SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 15:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. If anyone would care to add Mike Lupica to their watchlists, that would be great too.  The over-the-top Lupica hating seems to slowly creep back in over time.  —Wknight94 (talk) 15:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Kenny Sia
, who claims to be Kenny Sia, has been removing assertions critical to him in the article. He claims that there is no conflict of interest as the assertions were not supported (which is true), but I still believe that there is a conflict of interest. I'd like opinions on this, however. --Nlu (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd be inclined to agree with Sia; I would have removed that sentence - (with reference to BLP and original research if challenged.) Yes, he may have a conflict of interest in editing the article, but that shouldn't prevent him removing obvious crap. CIreland (talk) 14:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Regardless of a potential WP:COI, any unsourced material maybe removed on sight, especially in WP:BLP and if the info is potentially controversial. <font color="#660000">Wisdom89  ( <font color="#17001E">T |undefined /  <font color="#17001E">C ) 16:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Requests_for_rollback
Without involving a huge debate one way or the other on the particular case, could a fourth admin review the above request that has been oustanding most of today, and either grant or not grant so it can be archived. Whatever the merits, it seems silly to have the request hanging around for hours with no action, and unfair to the requestor. Thanks. Pedro : <font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> Chat 15:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Took a look, was going to grant it, but John Reaves had already done it hours ago. I don't see what the big deal was. <u style="text-decoration:none;font:100% cursive;color:#060">Neıl  <u style="text-decoration:none;color:#060">☎  15:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Ex-wife or random troll editor --you decide
I arrived at the Andrea Bocelli article as a result of some previous vandalism/disruption. Now there is an editor, who claims to be his ex-wife and insists on adding info about the singer's underwear. A little help please. 2 diffs. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 19:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I've blocked this user in accordance with WP:USERNAME; odds are that this is a random troll and that this is the last we'll hear of this. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:08, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, I think you pasted the wrong link into your first diff. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks SI, and oops that first one was from earlier. . .I've added the correct one. R. Baley (talk) 19:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Club le Shark
The article was created with a semi-protect by a non-admin. How did that happen?-- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see, anyone can add the template. Sorry for the bother. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 02:27, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits
Hi all. After the recent kerfuffle over the Sussexman checkuser case, I took a closer look at Giano's ArbCom election to see if any further sock-puppetry could be seen from some of the SPAs which voted there. It has already been proven by checkuser that User:David Lauder has voted no less than four times there. Unfortunately, I found another account which I initially suspected was connected with someone else.

Given that it was obvious that the account was also set up to make the minimum threshold for franchise and little else, I ran a checkuser on the account, per checkuser policy. This was the result;


 * ✅ - the following:



As checkuser cases go, this was pretty straightforward and was a direct hit. The account User:La voz de su amo was actually used to troll on ETA-related articles, adding information about Sinn Féin. This account created an article that User:R. fiend eventually got into trouble over when he blocked User:Domer48. Trolling and votestacking on ArbCom elections.

The account, User:Sweetfirsttouch was actually used during the ArbCom case when Vintagekits was indefinitely blocked to evade the indef block placed on his account at the time. It was created two days after his indefinite block.

User:Vintagekits was blocked indefinitely by myself last year in a turn of events that ultimately led to the Troubles ArbCom case, in which Vintagekits was unblocked and put on probation.

Placing this here for community input as this is bound to be controversial - A l is o n  ❤ 01:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Not controversial in the slightest, to me. If we're going to be even handed, block evasion is block evasion. It's obvious that VK snookered us all. I am blocking all three accounts per the ArbCom case. SirFozzie (talk) 01:20, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All three accounts now blocked. SirFozzie (talk) 01:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, agreed, not controversial at all. How irritating to lose two editors, VK and David Lauder, in a few days; both were very good content editors when they weren't participating in such shenanigans. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 01:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Controversial? Probably among a certain clique, despite their robust support for Lauder et al's block for essentially the same transgression. Personally, I see no other option now. Though I find it rather tragic. After all the problems, all the discussion and all the effort good editors put into rehabilitating Vk, only for it to be thrown away for such a pointless reason. Rockpock  e  t  07:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I feel particularly hurt over this one. While I was defending his indef block against many of his supporters and under huge pressure (remember all that?), VK just waited the minimum time until his autoblock expired, then he was off again editing away and preparing his backup plan, while everyone agonised over his block. He took us all for a ride. Then he used another account to try to get Ógra Shinn Féin worked into the ETA articles by posing as a Spanish Nationalist. When he was done with that, he used his sock to votestack on ArbCom elections (not just Giano's, but many others) - basically doing what Lauder's socks were doing. Ugh! - A l is o n  ❤ 08:07, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I know. Looking back through that ArbCom, he was denying he had operated sock or meat puppets previously (despite the overwhelming evidence) at the very same time he was operating another sockpuppet. For sheer gall, it is pretty remarkable.
 * This was a good find, Ali, as I hadn't bothered looking for socks, stupidly thinking no-one would be foolish enough to do it again having been caught before. I guess he felt there was no way back from his indef block and thus had nothing to lose by creating a new account. Of course, that likely means that exactly the same thing will happen this time. Rockpock  e  t  09:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunate, but cannot be helped. While I was on Giano's side during the whole Troubles fiasco, there was no denying that VK was problematic, and there is now irrefutable evidence of this.  I actually think this should show Lauder's supporters that Alison is, as she always was, a neutral party to this affair, but it's sad that both ringleaders of the antagonism on the Troubles articles - both good contributors - had to be indefinitely blocked in the end rather than them rehabilitating themselves.  <font face="Book Antiqua" color="black">DEVS EX MACINA  pray 09:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * So what's going to be the outcome here? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 09:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * All the accounts are indef blocked. Vk has the same recourse to appeal as any other blocked editor, should he choose to do so. If he continues to use socks to avoid the block then those will be blocked too. We move on. Rockpock  e  t   —Preceding comment was added at 09:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The reason they should both be blocked indefinitely is that they have both socked abusively. They probably thought they were faced with no other option. Kittybrewster <font color="0000FF">☎  11:04, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * and therein lays the problem. Having respect for the rules and regulations that govern edits here is a basic requirement for keeping your editing rights. Spartaz Humbug! 11:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello everyone. I wonder if I might put forward a suggestion: (1) as of right now, no more sockpuppets for anyone involved in 'the Troubles' ArbCom. All existing sockpuppets to be declared by e-mail (so no public humiliation) to (?) Alison; duplicate accounts to be quietly extinguished by her. Vintagekits, David Lauder, and Counter-revolutionary (I'm not sure whether I should include him) all go away and read a book for two weeks. A line in the sand and general amnesty. (2) Thereafter, any participant in 'the Troubles' ArbCom gives authority to (?) Alison to check their account and/ or any other suspicious account; Alison to have free rein to check any account listed as a participant in 'the Troubles' ArbCom.

Only my suggestion; but it'd be nice to be able to move on from this malarkey. We save two useful contributors and stamp out the abuse going forward. Now shout me down! --Major Bonkers (talk) 15:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * In David's case, if we went through with this (and I am holding my opinion on that, for the moment) I think we would need a full apology for any and all legal threats that he made as well. SirFozzie (talk) 15:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * why why why do we want all this drama - just tell him to fuck off, ban the account and be done with it. I dread to think how many more thousands of manhours this user could waste. --Fredrick day (talk) 16:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * In general, I agree with you, Fredrick, just I don't want to be accused of trying to stomp on possible ways forward. I have trouble determining what to think in a situation where one side Assumes Bad Faith, and the other side takes advantage of Assuming Good Faith. SirFozzie (talk) 16:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem with handing out bans is that, because they are so easy to evade, they are not effective. In their own fields both of these individuals are valued contributors; both of them know that they're not supposed to do this and there is no reason to suppose that, if banned, they won't simply start all over again. So: suggestion - give Alison the list of IP addresses and let her police the participants of 'the Troubles' ArbCom. (Diverting slightly, I'm astonished that ArbCom didn't run a checkuser against all the participants at the time; had they done so, it would have apparently uncovered some of this abuse at that stage.) Personally, I've got no problem with her running a checkuser against me, formally or informally, because I know that I've never edited under a separate account. SirFozzie: thank you for replying. I'm not sure that rubbing DL's nose in it would be helpful. As I understand it, the dispute was of a private nature and didn't involve WP itself; best to let bygones be bygones? PS - I've added a new User box to my User page which you might like to copy.--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, so because bans and blocks are easy to evade, let's not bother blocking or banning anyone ever again ok? I couldn't care less how many articles or how much content anyone has written, when any editor trangresses to the extent we've seen recently it's time to say no more. One Night In Hackney  303  17:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You are misrepresenting what I write. If you want to block or ban these individuals now, fine. Will it be effective? Almost certainly not. However much we might disapprove, it might be more sensible to (try to) apply a remedy which will work rather than impose the strict letter of the law, which won't. Ultimately, all that you or I can do is make our points - the decision isn't in our hands. I also like to think my proposal is slightly more humane, which is a bit of a bonus as far as I'm concerned!--Major Bonkers (talk) 17:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I endose your appeal to unblock willyonwheels. --Fredrick day (talk) 17:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * What remedy do you think will be effective with David Lauder? He was banned by ArbCom for legal threats - and evaded the ban and made more legal threats. He was banned by ArbCom from editing articles about a certain politican and his activities for a year - and he evaded the ban using sockpuppets. ArbCom require him to edit using only one account and when logged in - and he evaded that using multiple accounts and IPs. Please, what possible remedy do you actually think will work? He's ignored every single remedy that's ever been used against him hasn't he? One Night In Hackney  303  17:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Good work Alison. Endorse indef block. --John (talk) 17:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Both these editors will be back, in fact I'm sure they are busy editing from other sock accounts as we speak (Vk admits as much ). If they continue to edit in a policy compliant non-controversial manner there is every chance they will be able to return without anyone ever finding them. If they continue to edit in the manner in a problematic way then their accounts will be discovered and blocked immediately. Such is the game we play with many indef blocked users, I don't see why these two should be treated differently. Rockpock  e  t  17:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite. They will be back. I suggest a pragmatic solution. We insist on a stipulated user name, in these cases User:David Lauder and User:Vintagekits. The users are not allowed any socks, even normally legitimate ones. They also forfeit the normal precautions of checkuser, and may be checkusered at any time. In fact they should expect this to occur randomly and without their knowledge. They accept this as a condition of continued editing. They are placed on a list for this purpose. They may apply to be removed from the list after two years of good conduct, including 3RR, civility etc. They are blocked for one month in the first instance to give everyone else a rest. This period of time also means checkuser will be able to be used in the meantime: too long a block will lose the data. Tyrenius (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC) This is ridiculous. Ban the fuckers and block their socks if they come back. People are forgetting that checkuser is not magic pixie wiki dust. They are also forgetting that ALISON IS NOT GOD (yet). Tyrenius's proposal is an open invitation for smart sockpuppetry: one account at work and one at home and who's to know we're being fooled again? Evading checkuser is not that difficult, guys - ban'em and we can revert all their edits + block the socks (which are inevitable, yes) on behaviour pattern. What, just because sockpuppetry is inevitable we stop banning people? Noo, it doesn't work that way, not least because even if we don't ban them they'll still make socks anyway. Heaven's sakes...Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 10:02, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My only problem with that is that it appears to reward unwillingness to abide by policy. If every abusive sockpuppeteer were allowed to stay on the grounds that they would be back anyway, we'd have something of a problem.  The problems with these guys' behaviour is not only the sockpuppetry, both have been quite disruptive and have caused a lot of aggravation, even given the parallel history of worthwhile contributions. VK has been on the noticeboards on and off pretty much since he arrived, as far as I can see. Guy (Help!) 07:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And how do you suggest we deal with users who blatantly violate other policies, such as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA, attacking other users with profanity and shouting into the bargain? That kind of aggression is something that has at times contributed considerably to the unpleasantness of the Troubles situation, and is part of the problem, not of the solution. An analysis of behaviour patterns and checkuser are not mutually exclusive. Checkuser in this case was obviously not easy to evade, and behaviour patterns were not pinned down. My proposal is no more such an invitation for "smart sockpuppetry" than exists with any other solution. Tyrenius (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand why there are so many attempts to bend over backwards for guys like this. To be sure, their signal-to-noise ratio is higher than that of the typical banned vandal, but if other editors are spending two hours on unproductive administrative work for every hour of "good" encyclopedia editing by David Lauder and Vintagekits, how does that help the project?  If people are going to volunteer their time to build this encyclopedia, we should do all we can to help valuable contributors maximize their efficiency.  Ban editors who cause significant disruption, no matter how much other "good" they do. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 17:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I am inclined to agree with you, as did a number of admins, but ArbCom did not, when it examined the Troubles editors. Perhaps existing practices need to be made more severe. Editors may be indef blocked and then 6 months or a year later be allowed back. If so, then my solution should be implemented. Although I used the present cases as an example, it was really intended for more general application. Tyrenius (talk) 00:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No. Moreschi is right. A lot of us have wasted a huge amount of time and effort trying to mediate The Troubles related articles (notably Alison and SirFozzie) and if we can't tell the people who have wasted ours and everyone else's time through operating sockfarms to just fuck off and not come back then we might as well give up now.  Yes, VK and Lauder were productive editors when they weren't gaming the system, and it;s unfortunate that we have to lose their editing skills, but frankly patience is limited.  Not to mention that I strongly suspect that all the socks in this area haven't been uncovered yet. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 00:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * He may be right in what he says, but not in the way he says it. That creates more poison. Tyrenius (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * At least wikipedia is being fair and unbiased, ie not taking sides, by indef blocking both. Personally I think this should be at arbcom enforcement with say a 3 month ban on each of them with the date reset for sock evasions, isnt that more how arbcom works and both carrot and stick. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:33, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't support yet another last chance. Has anyone else ever been indef blocked three times and still be the subject of a discussion about another chance? What both these editors have demonstrated is that they have no respect for our policies. Last time they were blocked the just went and created another account and used it abusively. They are almost certainly doing exactly the same thing now. We simply can't continue to tolerate that. Lets move on and spend our time on something constructive.  Rockpock  e  t  00:42, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Keep them indef blocked, at least for about 3 months, then ask them to email asking for unblock, along with promises to behave, after that. Socks are fine for everyone to have for unrelated pages if we want, but they shouldn't really be used to back each other up/edit the same pages- used abusively.  Vote stacking on Giano's ArbCom vote, even, took place on both sides.  For now at least, these are excellent blocks all round.  Oh and... it won't be that hard to enforce as they'll be quite easy to spot if they edit the same pages in the same way.  If such people turn up, checkuser at the first sign of disruptive editing etc. Special  Random  (Merkinsmum)  01:48, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems fair enough to me. --Major Bonkers (talk) 09:41, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia as an IM service
This page, User talk:Ajk5055, appears to be two people chatting to eachother by signing into the same account. I am not sure what should be done about this, or even if this is not allowed, so I posted the incident here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by J.delanoy (talk • contribs) 03:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Indef blocked. Tyrenius (talk) 03:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The talk page should probably be blanked of their comments, and then protected if they ignore warnings. <font face="Trebuchet MS">Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments blanked. Let's see if they express any interest in editing properly. Tyrenius (talk) 03:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

<<blanked as a human diginty matter>>

They apparently had a lot of problems trying to use this for chat. Ironically this post talks about how they use cell text messaging, e-mail, AND Skype, but are using a Wikipedia talk page for communications... oh man, I gotta save this. -- Ned Scott 06:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking through the comments I can't help but feel bad for them. This appears to be the communication between parents and their daughter while she's on her way to or already on another continent. In the instances where the page was used there must have been a reason that was the only option, since email certainly would've been easier. I feel like saying "have a heart, IAR". But that's just me. They haven't edited anything other than their talk page, so I don't see the harm. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Equazcion •✗/C • 06:43, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)
 * True. I guess we could leave a note on the talk page recommending a better site or something. Still, funny stuff :D -- Ned Scott 06:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Did Tyrennus warn (or better still, politely steer) them before blocking? Since the talk page history was deleted, I have no way of knowing, but it seems unlikely to me that these people would carry on their conversation if they knew an outsider was not only reading but actively disapproving from a position of authority on the site. This whole section seems a bit inappropriate to me. I don't see why we needed to draw any attention to them (and post excerpts here), let alone block, unless we know that gentle, quiet reminders have already failed. Everyking (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I can assure you that the only other account to edit that user talk page was SineBot. If necessary, I'll undelete the rest of the history, but I don't think we need all of this.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. No offense Ned but it really seems like a personal conversation that the participants aren't necessarily aware is available publicly. Perhaps you wouldn't mind removing your excerpts here. And I agree that an unblock and warning might be appropriate now. Perhaps we can assess their reasons for using that page the way they are, 'cause call me a softy but if it's their only option for communication I frankly think we should allow it. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Equazcion •✗/C • 07:00, 20 Feb 2008 (UTC)
 * My own entertainment aside, it doesn't really matter if they're blocked or unblocked since the only page the edited was the user talk page. Like I noted, they have tons of other ways to communicate, and in the discussions even exchanged e-mails and text messages. There's no reason for them to be using the talk page like that, but we should make sure a message explains to them what's going on. -- Ned Scott 07:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

This reminds me of a ANI report a while back where a similar incident was taking place. I can't remember which account it was, but they were also using the usertalk page as a IM. Maybe it's the same group of people, maybe not, iunno. nat.utoronto 07:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It must be the season for it. I've come across two pages in the last couple of days (User talk:Kragar and User talk:Sullke. In both cases I gave the relevant users the "it's not mySpace" warning - that worked for the latter, but I had to strengthen the warning a couple of times for the former. I have them watchlisted, but they've either gone and got Skype or have moved to another talk page... GBT/C 12:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * And a couple more - User talk:Mcd26, User talk:Shp26‎ and User talk:MCD26. GBT/C 19:36, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * As their whole purpose in being here is to pass messages back and forth, I have no problem with the block. AGF applies to editors attempting to build the encyclopedia. It is part of the buffering between users to help us avoid conflict. Giving second chances is in hope of salvaging editors. We indef block others who have no purpose here but their own amusement. If they want to contribute constructively, then they can let someone know via email. However, i do favor the idea of letting them know that their communications here are available to the whole world. I alos favor removing their comments from this page as a human dignity issue. Will probably boldly do that. <font color="#009500"> Dloh <font color="#950095">cierekim'''  00:34, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Malleus Fatuarum
<div class="boilerplate metadata discussion-archived" style="background-color: #f5f3ef; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.



I am deeply saddened that I feel this is the only effective way of retrieving community discussion on Malleus Fatuarum, but this is necessary in my opinion, because of the behaviour conducted. Malleus has been contributing to en.wp for a long time now (over a year I think) and has become an integral part of discussion on the most prevalent project he is a part of, and some of you may also know him from talks on the requests for adminship mainpage. It is however, with this involvement, that I believe has arisen for the need to notice some of MF's most unreasonable behaviour. He has been categorically and somewhat deliberately been causing unrest by abusive and or irrelevant comments whose aim is to cause either disruption or intentional commenting for attention as shown here and here, which is unnerving and increasingly characteristic. This issue seems to have stemmed from this discussion on MF's talk page (which was ultimately a culmination of events, rather than just a comment left unregardingly on his talk page). I am unsure of how these relations actually began, but I believe, this is most probably the rationale (as Malleus Fatuarum knew from a long time ago on my user page that I was a teenager). I don't know what the discussion is going to grow into, and I was as I say reluctant to post this because of some occasions where MF and I have normal comments, that have even shown some admiration for my work. However, recent comments like shown here (unsure to whether or not I should have posted this now due to the response) and here, where he says he is against all administrators because of his failed RFA - this is becoming increasingly distasteful. Rudget . 17:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would hope this isn't either another sock or a hideous mistake. WP:SSP or WP:RFCU appropriate? And has Malleus Fatuarum been informed? --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 18:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A sock of who? Rudget . 18:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Our radar is a little oversensitive with the whole Dereks1x/Archtransit thing (see above), and people are quick to assume that every contentious or incivil or otherwise suspcious edit means that its another one of their socks. For the record, I have worked with Malleus for some time, and I would HIGHLY doubt he's part of that, or any other sockpuppetry mess (though given how weird the AT mess turned out, not as shocked as I used to be).  However, given my interactions with him in the past, he's a good editor whose comments are rude and incivil at times, but in general he shows no actions that would raise any suspicions that he should be blocked or otherwise sanctioned.  He's a good editor with a short fuse, and I have not seen any real problems from him beyond that.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  18:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * While were on the subject of suspected trolls, I'd like to point the finger of righteous accusation at User:Ronnotel. I've been watching his contributions for some time, and I believe his fatuousness and complete lack of lucidity can only be explained by trolling. Not only is he a raving nutter, but he follows me from page to page. Of chief concern is his bitter sarcasm that render his contributions entirely unreadable. I like to suggest crucification. ;) Ronnotel (talk) 19:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't you punish him for his dog Latin? It should be 'Malleus Fatuus' ('the hammer of fools').--Major Bonkers (talk) 18:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * "The Stupid Hammer"? That doesn't work. "Romanes eunt domus", that's what I say, although "Malleus Fatuarum", IIRC, means "the hammer of stupid women". --<font color="7F007F">Rodhullandemu  (Talk) 18:54, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Women is Feminae, though (insert those nutty lines above the vowels as needed. I have a ninth grade education in Latin). And I believe -arum should be followed by a variant of sum, forming a form of vowel which I can't remember the name, but it should function as an adjective. <font color="Black">Jus <font color="Red">tin  (Gmail?)(u) 19:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I've had my own back and forths and related misunderstandings with MF that I think have worked out civilly and I've grown to appreciate his sense of humor humour. I know that he knows he has a certain level of impatience with bureaucracy, pedantry, and the ilk. And that British English has to go. (Has to gou?) And yes, he seems to have developed a certain distaste for adminship in general (although I know he's smart enough not to overcategorize all admins). Ageist? Perhaps. Perhaps not (for all we now, he's 14. Meh?). I hold Rudget in very high esteem and believe this is a good faith, (perhaps exasperated) post, and I also believe that Malleus is utterly invaluable to this project despite the gruffness, Probably just a bit misunderstood though. It's very difficult to read a post and interpret meaning. I don't know what you're hands are saying anymore than you know what mine are saying as we cannot see each other's faces, gestures, tone etc. It's hard to type with tone, even harder to interpret someone else's without injecting or own POV/head tone into what we think they might be saying. The main problem as I see it? Two very fine editors both work in the same WikiProject and have butted heads a few too many times over topics that are near and dear to them, and they have completely different communication styles. I'd hate to see either editor go, or go ballistic. So a simple suggestion would be live and let live. Life's too short. Find common ground. Insert cliche number 4 here. If you live nearby, perhaps even buy each other a cup o' tea? <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper  |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  19:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Are you saying that Rudget is misinterpreting posts such as this? Epbr123 (talk) 19:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I am not saying that Rudget is misinterpreting anything. That post was inappropriate at best, but meh?  I'm quite clearly saying that they both have frazzled nerves in regards to each other and should both just walk away.   I quite clearly said that I hold Rudget in high esteem and also that both editors are valuable to this project and need to find common ground.  <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   |  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76   |  <font color="#ff0000"> Disclaimer  19:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI: Malleus was informed of this thread by Rudget, and acknowledged the notice. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 19:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I understand that a few examples that Rt. has mentioned are just jokes, but there are more instances of incivility. I don't think we need to block or ban right now, but we should definitely watch out for any more incivility. I've heard the term "civility parole"? Would that fit? <font color="Black">Jus <font color="Red">tin  (Gmail?)(u) 21:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It looks like yet another admin with a thin skin and an overindulgent interpretation of civility requires a large portion of wikidrama to deal with an example of WP:SPADE. Cue another episode of wasted man hours of what is essentially total WP:BOLLOCKS. --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  21:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Me? or Rudget? <font color="Black">Jus <font color="Red">tin  (Gmail?)(u) 23:02, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Rudget. Sorry I had it in my head I was replying to the first post in this section so didn't make it clear. --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  00:22, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Someday someone will have to have a conversation with hammy to find out what exactly his interpretation of civility is, if he ever actually allows that without calling someone a jackass :) <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Equazcion •✗/C • 06:47, 21 Feb 2008 (UTC)
 * Some editors (not necessarily any in this 'event') seem to believe it's nothing less than getting down on one's knees in front of them and pondering the great question in life... spit or swallow? --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  12:03, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Another productively civil response. Nothing short of inspiring. <small style="font:bold 10px Arial;display:inline;border:#009 1px dashed;padding:1px 6px 2px 7px;white-space:nowrap"><font color="#000">Equazcion •✗/C • 22:11, 21 Feb 2008 (UTC)
 * Yet another demonstration that you have no idea what the definition of civil means. Also, according to your edit summary, another example of a demonstrative inability to read. To put perspective on this I'd say that to patently ignore a polite request such as "Please do not modify it" is in fact uncivil behaviour. Now based on logic which would seem to deem you to be a hypocrite. A statement which is not in fact incivility, it's merely stating a fact. Whereas my comment inclusion is based on your dubious precedent, but I'm already accused of incivility anyway so I invoke the right to WP:DGAF.--<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  23:52, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems like a waste of time. If this discussion brings to point the behaviour of Malleus Fatuarum and serves as a past example of a note to look back on, at least this won't have been in vain. Rudget . 15:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

User:Phantomia on Oink's Pink Palace
(contribs) 21:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)}} This one it looks like it falls just outside of 3RR, and there's more to it. , and very likely IP(s) used by him have been trying to keep a link on the page to what someone else called a 'scam site' -- and this site was also noted as one in the Blog by a former admin of Oink (Paine's blog) -- in adition, the link to said blog keeps getting removed by Phantomia. The history of this whole thing is a bit convoluted, but suffice it to say, it's been consented that the link to the blog should stay, as it's been confirmed that it's indeed run by Paine. Furthurmore, Phantomia seems to be a single-purpose account, and his whole "confirmed by Alan" schitck has no reference whatsoever. I don't want to be accused of 3RR myself, so I'm letting it stand the way it is for the moment, but I hope someone can look into it? As you can see, Phantomia has been quite dilligent in trying to keep it to his version. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed per WP:EL; third-party web-sites linking to spam/illegal web-sites under 4.1.1, 4.1.4, 4.1.7, 4.1.8, 4.1.12, specifically.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 01:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And he did it again, though I already reverted it. Yeesh. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reported to WP:AN3.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 14:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like we have a new contender: . I'm applying for the sites for blacklist inclusion.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 19:42, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Reported for blacklist inclusion.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 19:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And blacklisted.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 21:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this'll be read with the resolved (I took it off because apparently it's not), but seems to be Phantomia...I reverted the page all the way back to the 16th -- as it stood now, all the news stuff was taken out and the blocked site still there, etc. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 22:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring at Firefly
User:Netkinetic has been edit-warring over the hatnote at Firefly, asserting that the show is not notable, that it was a failure, and that he has no obligation to establish a consensus to modify that longstanding hatnote directing readers to Firefly (television series). I asked him repeatedly  to take it to the talk page and follow WP:BRD - so much as starting the discussion myself. I was met with assertions about my apparently non-neutral POV because this show is allegedly my favorite (it's not, and that doesn't matter), and he insisted that I'm not allowed to leave him warnings because I'm not an administrator. Could someone please step in and ask him to stop edit warring, replace the deleted part of the hatnote, and leave a note on Talk:Firefly asking contributors to discuss these changes and wait for consensus before changing the hatnote (or edit-warring over it)? He's dancing around the 3RR, but hasn't technically violated it (a point he asserts quite strongly in his defense), but he's clearly violating the spirit of both WP:3RR and WP:BRD. Thanks. --Cheeser1 (talk) 02:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, Cheeser1 has misrepesented facts. Never was he notified that he was "not allowed to leave" warnings on my talk page. His message there and here of 3RR is trying to retrofit a warning where it isn't merited. Additionally, there has been a message left on Firefly disputing this additional link listed without any rationale provided. There are several articles on fireflies, what precisely is the justification for a link on the main Firefly page and the disambiguation page? He's never offered any rationale. What are we left to conclude, given his adherence to leaving a reference when WP:N objectively shows that this is undeserved and not a single poster aside from Cheeser1 has issued a protest? <b style="color:purple;">Netkinetic</b> <sup style="color:green;"> (t / c / @) 03:09, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * WP:N does not govern hatnotes. Furthermore, WP:BRD is the issue at hand, not whether or not the hatnote should be there. You've been edit warring, and only after I started the discussion and dropped you a 3RR warning that you dismissed out of hand did you start replying. I'm more than happy to discuss the content issue at Talk:Firefly, as I requested from the start, but restoring the status quo version of the article (per WP:BRD) and stemming your edit-warring/revert-spree should be the only things up for discussion here. Do you have any reason to explain why you were not adhering to consensus policy? --Cheeser1 (talk) 03:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Please explain why hatnotes are not governed by WP:N, in your expert opinion? That is the issue that seems to be skirted in this discussion. The argument of 3RR is a hallow one without merit. Please reference the "consensus" that agreed to have a hatnote directing attention to a non-notable article from the main Firefly rather than from the disambiguation page, which is standard Wikipedia policy? I'd be curious why this deserves special exemption?<b style="color:purple;">Netkinetic</b> <sup style="color:green;"> (t / c / @) 03:31, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Because no mention of hatnote use in regards to notability can be found at either hatnote or Disambiguation. If such a valid claim was asserted, it would have been backed up with valid discussions where consensus was achieved that hatnote use must fall under notability standards, but there has been none as of yet.
 * A talk page on an article is not an appropriate venue to hold those discussions, either. The burden to provide this proof falls under the initiator, Netkinetic, and he has so far failed to provide adequate citations. While there has been no 3RR vios., I find it disturbing that Netkinetic finds that warnings from non-administrators are worthless, per his comment; no such assertion can be found at WP:VANDAL.  Seicer  (talk) (contribs) 03:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) I agree that Netkinetic's user of otheruses is the most appropriate hatnote use. From WP:Disambiguation:
 * "When there are several articles associated with the same ambiguous term, include a link to a separate disambiguation page. If there is a disambiguation page for the topic and its name consists of the generic topic name with " (disambiguation)" added to it, use the template."
 * — ERcheck (talk) 03:29, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please note that this is not the issue at hand. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:49, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Few ¢...

Reading through WP:HAT and DAB, it seems that there is a bit of gray, especially with multiple hats. It is pretty clear though that a hat for an existing "(disambiguous)" page is, or should be, preferable to adding hats for presumed 2nd or 3rd (or more) choices. The hat is supposed to simplify things at the top of the page, not create clutter.

As far as notability... common sense would be that if there isn't a dab page and there are other articles with the same or a similar title, hat dabs need to be present. That really isn't the case here though.

Digging through the edit history and the talk a few things become clear:
 * 1) There was a proposal to demote the bug in favor of the show. Consensus out of those debates was that the bug is the common usage.
 * 2) The 2nd hat has been brought up and not really hashed out.
 * 3) The 2nd hat has a history of being added and removed with the article being stable (in respect to the hat) fair spans of time in both states.

The back and forth in the edit summaries is brisk, and does strain civility in points. And it does have the hallmarks of edit warring, 3RR or no.

And as Seicer points out, the brush off Netkinetic gave a warning from another editor on his talk page is troubling. More so since Net places like warnings through VandalProof on both IP talks and editor talks.

Net's got a valid point re Firefly, but this has spun beyond that. - J Greb (talk) 04:27, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I would point out that I have repeatedly asserted my willingness to discuss the issue and any points Netkinetic might have. My concern is his conduct, not the changes he wishes to make to the article. --Cheeser1 (talk) 04:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah J Greb. You had no interest in this subject previously. Curious that at this point you interject a note that this is "troubling". The issue at hand is clear cut wherein this page is concerned, that is the bottom line.<b style="color:purple;">Netkinetic</b> <sup style="color:green;"> (t / c / @) 04:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, Netkinetic, this is an ANI report regarding your inappropriate behavior. The troubling nature of that behavior is exactly where uninvolved people are supposed to interject. Feel free to scroll up and read about this noticeboard. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:04, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Inappropriate? Such as ignoring standard polices and guidelines, for instance WP:NPOV, WP:N, etc. If there is an "edit warring", check the history that shows your repeated reverts over the past three days. Does that not violate the spirit of "3RR". My response on my talk page notwithstanding (and that is in large part non-negotiable as long as it is not inflammatory, my response was not) wherein is there anything directed towards you aside from your curious adherence to inclusion of a trivial entry as being noteworthy, when this flies in the face of Wikipedia protocol? It was my inpression that since November 2007, when you were blocked for 3RR, you would have the decorum to consider other points of view. Conversation was handled in the subject lines in the preliminary stage, followed by on the talk page. That is standard, look around, you'll see that common throughout Wikipedia. Now that we have had "consensus" of the appropriate kind solidifying procedure on these pages, the matter has concluded. Regards.<b style="color:purple;">Netkinetic</b> <sup style="color:green;"> (t / c / @) 05:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Netkinetic, please keep in mind that the ANI is a noticeboard for uninvolved, third-parties (administrators mostly) to evaluate a situation and figure out what's going on regarding users' conduct. It is not the place to settle the content/style dispute at hand, nor is it a place for you, an involved non-administrator, to evaluate the situation and users' conduct. I would ask that you step aside and let people respond to this, instead of using the ANI as another place to duplicate this dispute or declare yourself victor. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I also find Netkinetic's attitude troubling. That I also find him right per the solution to the issue at hand is of no consequence to his actions, being right rarely justifies being a jerk about being right, or about doing the right thing. The matter is not urgent, and could've been discussed peaceably on the article talk. Netkinetic asserts that Cheeser's all wrong, but a look at cheeser's links shows Netkinetic couldv'e handled this better. Since Netkinetic won't accept Cheeser's warnings on his page, and blanks them while disregarding them, I'd say the given warning doesn't fall under the standard 'if they blanked it they saw it', as he stated that he disregards its' validity. I'd suggest an Admin warning, and move on. ThuranX (talk) 05:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps there was a lack of tact, I was simply struck with the utter hypocrosy of Cheeser1 posting that bogus "3RR" warning (when 3RR never occured) on my talk page, while casting a blind eye on his own persistent reverts. I find troubling that an editor would exercise his preference for a particular subject (Firefly the USA TV show) by inserting a link that flies in the face of Wikipedia guidelines already renumerated above. If there is a question as to a lack of POV on Cheeser1's part influencing his edits on Firefly, please review the talk page above his and my discussion, and you'll see his active interest in the subject. That said, an admin warning seems to be overkill for this low level of conflict. We have a myraid of WP:IAR and WP:B editors out there with far less tact. The content is what we need to be concerned with here. Regards. <b style="color:purple;">Netkinetic</b> <sup style="color:green;"> (t / c / @) 05:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This is an ANI report regarding your conduct. The content dispute is not in question. I will also state as a matter of fact that I was not the one who inserted the original hatnote link to Firefly (TV series) that Netkinetic removed, and that there is a substantial number of opinions on this matter that consider it a grey area, since this case is not explicitly covered by any hatnote guideline. As another matter of fact, I will point out (as the admins her ought to know) that a 3RR warning comes before the 3RR is violated. --Cheeser1 (talk) 05:34, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Cheeser, the more you speak, the worse you can make yourself look. Netkinetic, no, I think in light of your skirting the 'irritating wikilawyering' line, the warning's just about right. ThuranX (talk) 05:37, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ThuranX, considering your experience with (according to some admins) "Repeated incivility after warning", "deceptive edit summaries", and "Deliberate admitted continuation of uncivil behaviour having been warned"...maybe you have some experience in this area after all. Well we all learn as we go I guess. Regards.<b style="color:purple;">Netkinetic</b> <sup style="color:green;"> (t / c / @) 05:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

(dedent ←)

Yes, it is very cut and dried, and the Net's comments here keep adding to it: he's got a valid content edit that is getting buried by his conduct, to which he's adding blatant incivility for baiting and berating others not involved in the article in question for commenting on his actions (the reason ANI and like pages exist) and posting what reads as a veiled personal attack on one of those comments (ThuranX above).

- J Greb (talk) 12:06, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * A hatnote linking to the dab page is fine. The dab page lists the TV show, which is fine.  Why pick the TV show out of the dozens of things in the dab page?  That is completely arbitrary.  I have reverted to the dab link, on the grounds that this is what dab pages are for.  If there are one or two uses, list them in a hatnote, if there are many, as there are here, then the dab page is the right place.  That said, it's a content dispute and does not need to be here. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If you'd read the complaint, the issue is with edit-warring and incivility (see J Greb's comment right above yours). --Cheeser1 (talk) 16:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, your edit warring is indeed problematic, and your argumentation has tended towards the ad-hominem. I take it that the above is an acknowledgement of this and a commitment to do better, so this thread can probably be closed. Guy (Help!) 22:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)