Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive546

Does this constitute a legal threat?
I'm possibly being a bit paranoid because it's on my own talk page, but the sum of the 3 messages left there by User:Legalfactsupdate lead me to believe that if the user hasn't technically made a legal threat yet, then one might be on the way. I have reverted Legalfactsupdate's repeated deletions of any mention of alleged crimes from th Bob Allen article, and warned the user appropriately (I hope) at their talk page. On my talk page, messages have included language like "Many of your sources are loose, inaccurate, and liable in their presentations... We wanted to make sure that your organization has the correct service record and was not involved in someone or some groups propaganda of inaccurate reporting to harm the reputation of this individual", "We are trying to have the subjective off-the-wall or hate groups agenda not be the Wikipedia Record Source and knowingly continue to use such to the torturous interference and slander of Rep. Allen's name, reputation and ability to conduct business", and "Do You have a legal department contact". As of my writing this, the user has again stripped the Bob Allen article of any mention of his arrest and conviction, including the removal of all sources, and has added the following to the article 4 times: This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be added and if present, must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relating to this policy, please report it on the biographies of living persons noticeboard Note also that the user is a single purpose account, and is in violation of 3RR - though if the user's edits don't count as vandalism, I'm also in violation, so my apologies for that. Dawn Bard (talk) 20:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've blocked for the threat, though it seems like crap because the user seems to make up his own words ("Vandalization"? The hell...?). -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 20:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He's making up his own rules for sentence structure, too: "We are trying to have the subjective off-the-wall or hate groups agenda not be the Wikipedia Record Source and knowingly continue to use such to the torturous interference and slander of Rep. Allen's name..." Um, what?  Dawn Bard (talk) 20:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Neglecting, for the moment, the distaste I have for Wikipedia even having an article that is 90% about some poor guy allegedly getting caught soliciting a blow job, I have to say that I don't think that was a legal threat, I think it is quite easy to read that as a good faith request for help, and I think an indef block was too harsh, too quick, and too high handed. And criticizing his grammar looks small and petty. If you think the "threat" was "crap", then why was a block even necessary?  Try talking to the guy first. Or, direct him to WP:OTRS and wash your hands.  Or, leave it out of the article while you discuss on WP:BLPN.  Geez, I'm starting to wonder if we should even have BLP's here at all. Even if all that information is completely sourced, and true, it makes us look unprofessional to have hatchet job articles like that. And it makes us look unprofessional to block people for complaining. And I won't easily forgive you for making me defend a Republican. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The block was hasty. There is nothing wrong with asking for a legal contact and user should have been directed to WP:Contact us. –xenotalk 21:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to note that I did direct the user to WP:Contact us in reply to a message on my talk page and added a talkback message to the user's talk page. The user continued to make the same edits to the article.  Dawn Bard (talk) 21:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. Then on his second query, he could've perhaps been directed to User:Mike Godwin (or Special:Emailuser/Mike Godwin). –xenotalk 21:14, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree - asking for a legal contact is far from issuing a legal threat. This was not a well-considered block. Shereth 21:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Maybe I'm being a WP:DOLT, but it seems like that the user's intent is to threaten legal action, especially taking into account the other edits made by this user. MuZemike 22:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no legal threats being made. Jeremy should reconsider this block immediately. However, this editor's intent should be taken into account here - obvious WP:COI issues are at hand. If he is removing sourced material, then it should be re-added. If these are valid removals (i.e., WP:BLP concerns), then this editor should be lauded, not blocked. Tan  &#124;  39  22:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The material that he keeps removing appears to be sourced. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 23:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No idea if applicable to this case, because I haven't reviewed it; but being sourced is a necessary but not sufficient reason to write something in an article. It also needs to be relevent and in due balance.  People can, in good faith, remove sourced statements for any number of easily justifiable reasons.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  23:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The items being removed are indeed relevant, as they describe a major point in his political career (a conviction for soliciting prostitution), although the article was a bit skewed due to undue weight to the conviction. However, Legalfactsupdate is removing any mention of it altogether. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Cardmaker) 23:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. However, you blocked him for making legal threats of which, again, I see no evidence. Blocking him for such and then arguing that he should remain indefinitely blocked for removing what could plausibly be considered BLP violations is disingenuous. I recommend unblocking with a note discouraging further removal of sourced material and encouraging him to take this up either at the BLP noticeboard or the article talk page, neither of which they previously used. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  00:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There were sources and the information was relevant (albeit not in such volume); how can they be plausibly called BLP vios? Unblocked. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Cardmaker) 01:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

←While the users actions are troublesome and questionable, shouldn't we be focusing on the issues with the article, rather than their behaviour? People don't normally kick up a fuss without due reason. <font face="Verdana" color="blue">Steve Crossin Talk/Help us mediate! 01:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Implicit threat (alleged report to of content to FBI) by unreg. user
The below was posted to Talk:Campantar. I am reporting it here as the last line appears to constitute an implicit threat of legal action (was that an assumption of good faith or what?) and may require further attention by the appropriate person(s);

Regards, -- Muzhogg (talk) 01:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The page he seems to be complaining about does not exist. Also, this appears to be an IP-hopper. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Cardmaker) 01:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably they are talking about Vadama, he just put "iyer" rather than "wiki" in the URL. – Toon (talk)  01:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Why would one put "iyer" in place of "wiki", however? I initially thought it was a typo for "user". -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Cardmaker) 01:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, nevermind. Iyer is directly mentioned in the article; and from the looks of it, users from a similar range have been POV-pushing on Vadama for a while now, which led to an indef-semi on it. Maybe those users and these are one and the same? -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Cardmaker) 01:34, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This may have been the intended link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iyer#Vadama. DKqwerty (talk) 01:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Plausible. Same IPs that were pushing at Vadama also pushed there (in fact, given the history, I'd say that's where they first pushed) and got it semi'd. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Cardmaker) 01:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree that if this is a threat, then it is still easily recognisable as a joke. The guy doesn't spell properly! Debresser (talk) 01:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Bobak's block messages
has designed some custom-made block templates that he uses after blocking vandals, and I believe they are not constructive. Here are some examples:  These sorts of templates go against our guideline of RBI and not feeding the trolls&mdash;everyone knows that a large number of vandals do it because they like to see if they can get us Wikipedia nerds riled up, and responding to them in this fashion just encourages more disruption. Furthermore, they reflect badly on Wikipedia, giving people the impression that Wikipedia is ruled by all-powerful admins who are rude and dismissive like this.

A couple weeks ago User:GnarlyLikeWhoa raised this concern with Bobak (see the discussion here), and Bobak was not very receptive. I also chimed in just today, and Bobak responded by archiving the talk page. Is there any way the community can ask him not to use these kinds of block templates and messages? <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 23:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I use the more humorous blocks in two cases: specific (not range) IP blocks and blatant vandals. I keep all my blocked pages on my watchlist, and I have not seen any uptick in post-ban problems --at least no different than when I used the sterile templates: I receive the same number of personal email insults and talk page vandals (if not a little less). GnarlyLikeWhoa was slightly different, and claimed that I was out of place to note that the IP address of a military base shouldn't be used to vandalize wikipedia (which is wasting tax payer dollars... gee I wonder how he found out the IP was blocked?), and included a veiled e-thug threat (which I tend to see in web forums, not here). It is not the responsibility of an admin to please everyone they ban --as WP:RBI notes, there are opposing views to Rjanag's.  As such, there are fans of my templates (Rjanag isn't one of them, but I respect that).  Honestly, an ANI like this reflects badly on how Wikipedia can be used to punish creativity and put undue pressure where it is not required.  To think, this was all started because I nominated an article for DYK! :-) --Bobak (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * aside I didn't notice this before, but particularly disturbing is this block, which happened 5 days after the user had last edited and the user had never been warned. Because the user's offense was spamming, rather than vandalism, it's also possible that the user just didn't understand Wikipedia's spam and EL guidelines, and Bobak's block message may well have driven away a potentially constructive user. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 00:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Did you look at his contribution history? The ability to request an unblock is still available.  I haven't seen an attempt yet. Or perhaps I could've used the also-popular method of simply not notifying him of the block or doing massive collateral damage with sloppy IP-range blocks (which I think is are much greater problems).  I make a lot of blocks, so if this one is so terrible, you're an Admin, go ahead and unblock --I'm not saying I'm the ultimate authority on that.  Will this negatively affect my DYK nomination? :-p --Bobak (talk) 00:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the user's contribution history, there's no reason for blocking him with a message like this. Yes, he's a commercial spammer who will probably never make any constructive edits, but the sarcasm is still unnecessary. That goes for your blocking templates, too...I think they're funny, but I doubt the blocked users do, and blocking and joking don't mix very well. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:37, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Neither does lawyering and humor, but god knows we try. I can see how the block on Matthewkbaldwin was perhaps too much, so I've lifted it (hurray? Is that a victory?). I got curious so I checked myself: I've instituted somewhere in the range of 700+ blocks, and about half were with the funny templates, and half weren't. I can say, without hesitation (and a user page history to back it) that I have seen no extra uptick in anything since I started letting vandals know that we have the ability to block now and often.  Honestly, I can respect that some of you, like Rjanag, can find this stuff not to your own particular style, but that doesn't mean that those of use who are a bit WP:ROUGE are causing any serious harm to the project --especially without any serious evidence.  As for the blocked users not finding the templates funny... did they before?  Here's an aside: Rjanag, I noticed you've blocked 29 times since you joined the project 9 months ago.  Did you know that if you block 1000 people you get a free toaster? Get cracking. --Bobak (talk) 00:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, no fair. Non-admins can't get free toasters? The Toaster Cabal must be stopped! --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Non-admin view? This is clearly inappropriate. What is the policy basis for a block on the grounds of idiocy? Look, I fight this stuff every day too, and I think a lot of it is pretty funny - but that's an inside joke, not something a professional organisation presents as its outward face. Laughing at misguided fools should only be done behind the curtain - lord knows we could all make the exact same comments in orange boxes on quite a few admin talk pages...
 * Blocking is srs biznes - please keep it that way and use proper templates. Adminship is not a platform for dispensation of ridicule, it's a crappy job. Save the humour for the lunch-room. And idiotic editors need even more love than the normal ones. :) Franamax (talk) 01:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I understand the sentiment here by Bobak, but I would caution against continuing this level of sarcastic commenting at blocks. Sarcasm is a skill that is hard to pull off well when speaking; it is impossible to do so when typing.  In the course of blocking users, there is no need to be rude and insulting.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  04:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse the above comments. Think it if you must - most of us have - but Wikipedia is a highly public site closely watched by the press (amongst others). If you feel tempted in future, I'd recommend a spot of self-flagellation ;) EyeSerene talk 08:03, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would have to agree that Bobak's block messages are highly inappropriate. To me they don't come across as sarcastic, but rather as simple childishness.  Wikipedia already has somewhat of a reputation as a place run by kids, and if hundreds of people are being blocked with Bobak's messages, that bad reputation is just being reinforced.  We need mature admins, not apparently childish ones.  Deli nk (talk) 10:46, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * One thing should be beyond dispute here, I think, is that these messages should never be used on IP talk pages, where an innocent user may be on the receiving end. Personally I feel that they're also inappropriate for registered users.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 13:29, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The community have said plainly more than once that block log entries and user talk notifications of blocks should, except under special circumstances (which don't seem to apply here), be serious, and especially should not mock affected users. One may think that injunction to be unnecessarily rigid, but it is plain that it is one for which a consensus exists, and inasmuch as no encyclopedic purpose is served by the jocularity, there is no reason to act in a fashion inconsistent with it.  Joe 17:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at this just a tiny bit further:
 * Bobak is basically accusing GLW of "wasting taxpayer dollars", implying above that GLW is the vandal associated with usage from a US military IP address. I believe this is the reference ABF from an admin, that's great. I'm unable to find the SPI/CU case establishing the linkage.
 * You know what? None of my taxpayer dollars were wasted, I live in Canada. Why are administrators of an international project pursuing their own notions of waste using the bully pulpit?
 * ArbCom has previously considered this notion of "you're using an American military IP connection, I must expose you!" and arrived at a definition of good-faith concerns. I see no such good-faith in the message to the IP talk page linked above. "Stop wasting taxpayer dollars" is not a valid leadin to a block message. Discussion at the time of the cited AC case was relatively clear that US military personnel have wide latitude, despite the written regulations, to use the Internet (note the exception for "when authorised"). I don't find it acceptable for an administrator of a supposedly international project to bring their own personal view of what constitutes "waste" within their own government onto en:wiki, much less under the official guise of admin status. Besides, use of an IP connection in an idle moment, even if it's for vandalism, costs far-far-far less than a dollar. Far less, micro-pennies maybe.
 * And I've just removed Bobak's year-old "VANDAL IDENTIFICATION" message from the IP talk page in question. If anyone wishes to replace it with a proper template, please do so, but hopefully avoid using the term "vandalicious".
 * I have the uncomfortable feeling that this admin has somehow discovered the golden sword with which to smite their enemies. This is not conduct becoming of a site administrator, it looks more like having fun blasting down the next monster who shows up in the corridor. Franamax (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As an outsider looking in, these blocking templates come across to me as childish and mean-spirited. Humor may be subjective, but I don't see why anyone should be subjected to such puerility. Pastor Theo (talk) 00:10, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with what everyone else is saying here. These "funny" blocks are completely inappropriate and should not be used any more. --ThaddeusB (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 14:30, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Focusing on the wrong problem

 * This entire thread reflects one of the weaknesses of wikipedia - being polite to belligerent users, and being belligerent to those who try to defend wikipedia against vandals. The admin should probably tone down the sarcasm a bit, but frankly they are no more offensive than those sternly-worded boxes with the big red X's in them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:02, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Characterizing the above conversation as belligerent seems quite inaccurate to me. If anything, there is quite a bit of sympathy for Bobak despite disagreement with him over his block messages.  Deli nk (talk) 13:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "...I think they're funny, but I doubt the blocked users do..." News flash: Who cares what the blocked users think? They are blocked because they damaged wikipedia in some way. Whether they get a cute comment or the standard, sternly-worded blocking box, either way they're typically not happy about it. Many times they will blank the page to get rid of those standard messages, and fill the page with rants. So a lot of good it does to "play it straight". Maybe the right thing to do, if you're wanting to take the "coddling" approach, is to re-word those sternly-worded standard messages to express deep regret that we have to do this: "This hurts us more than it does you", or some such. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:31, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked users still go around and talk to their friends. They might grow up and, a few months after their block, realize that yeah, they had it coming. Or they might go tell their friends that Wikipedia is just a bunch of dicks who don't let you have any fun and are rude to you. I wonder which they'll be doing more often after getting one of Bobak's messages/
 * Consensus is clear that he needs to stop using them. The only question now is, as Deli nk asked, whether the templates should be replaced. Personally, I don't think that is workable, since they are not transcluded templates&mdash;it looks like Bobak copied and pasted the code of the regular block messages, because I don't see any user subpages that he could have been subst'ing. I think it should be sufficient just for him to stop using them in the future. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 13:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a bogus argument. The belligerent users out there who go running to wikipedia review and the like, have nearly all been recipients of the standard, sternly-worded message. Rather than picking on this flea, you should be picking on the elephant that the standard messages are. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:53, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Too little, too late. I count 9 editors in good standing above who say they don't want Bobak using these messages anymore. It seems pretty clear to me that a decision has been reached; I don't see much more to discuss, and will just sit back and hope he has gotten the message and doesn't use them in the future (he hasn't used them since this started, so hopefully everything is already resolved). <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 14:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, you've won this little battle, and have accomplished nothing that will benefit wikipedia. Good for you. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey everyone! This crap has been going on for ages and you only notice it now! Here's a message for you, courtesy of a long-time admin:

He delivered this message to four IP users in 2007. Ergo, it is allowed. 129.49.7.125 (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would think a lighthearted message like that would be much more likely to be received positively than the "Bang! You're dead!" standard notices. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Bugs, I seem to recall having briefly tangled with you before in this venue over your penchant for poking fun at those brought to administrator attention. Whether the end result is better or not, and your own opinions on what is lighthearted fun that most people will receive more positively is irrelevant. The point is that we need to deliver a professional message. When an admin makes a block, they're not entitled to deliver their opinion on the supposed idiocy of the user in question. They're "an errand boy, sent by clerks" (or whatever the fat guy said), they're not there to opine on intelligence or fitness for life in general, they are protecting the encyclopedia from damage. That's all, there's no entertainment value included, or perhaps they shouldn't be admins after all.
 * As far as Ryan P's block notices, they were long in the past, but you know what? How 'bout I trot on over and ask for a comment? Franamax (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The argument made was that sarcastic messages will cause blocked users to go tell their friends how lousy wikipedia is. And I say that's a bogus argument. Nearly every indef'd vandal has gotten the standard "Bang! You're dead" message, and all indications are that they go tell their friends how lousy wikipedia is. So instead of only picking on that handful of block messages, you need to also focus on the flaws in the standard message. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, you may well have a point there, but this is not really the place to raise systemic issues. I appreciate your message but in reality I think you're just confusing up a behavioural issue by bringing up a longer-term problem. I personally don't use many of those boilerplate templates, since I have to actually hold down one key whilst typing another, twice, then figure it all out again at the end but the squiggly has to frown at the first one. It's like, totally confusing. I don't think I've ever dropped an actual uw or test or whatever the vandalism template thingy is. I prefer a quiet (and non-humour/sarcasm/acerbic) personal message to vandals, it works 99.5%. But that's a whole different issue - we're talking here about an admin choosing to use their granted powers to make personal commentary about other editors, in the ultimate power situation, the one where they revoke the other editor's privileges. That's just not on. There's a whole IRC channel for admins to let off steam, no need for it to happen on editor talk pages. Franamax (talk) 03:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll admit that some of them are a tad bit over the line. One that I would be tempted to use when indefing would be something like "you've made some good edits at times, so I'm subtracting a day from your indefinite block". It's a good fantasy, anyway. Maybe a good start would be some better illustrations. I like the one with the illustration of a block. That's better than the scary big red X. Maybe for spamming, an actual spam can would be the ticket. It's also important for the block notice to emphasize that they can appeal the block. It already says that, obviously, but maybe that could be illustrated too, with an open cell door or something. (Ain't I creative? A right brain is a terrible thing to waste, you know.) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Like Franamax and others have said, regardless of what its effect on vandals themselves is, it's childish to use your admin position of power to rub everything you can in people's faces. We're supposed to be acting like adults here. I certainly don't want people I know to come in and get the impression that this site their friend/brother/son spends so much time on is run by a bunch of children.
 * As for being creative with block messages...yes, Bobak made the same argument up above. If you really want to exercise your creative juices, I'm sure AFC could find a great outlet for your energy. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 07:08, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Aha, you're the one that made the silly comment about vandals telling their friends about what a terrible place wikipedia is. Yet I would guess that Grawp got the standard message. Lot of good it did. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 11:38, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Replace them?
There seems to be a clear consensus that these block messages are completely inappropriate. According to statements above, they have been used on hundreds of pages. Since these messages may be doing harm to the project, should they be removed or replaced with a more appropriate standard block template? Can a bot do this, perhaps (if necessary)? Deli nk (talk) 12:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree, both with the above that these shouldn't be used and the above suggestion to replace them. Anyone object? –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 13:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I said above that I imagined cleaning them up would not be workable (since they're all copy-paste versions of regular block templates, modified by hand; there's not transcluded, subst'ed, or in any way identifiable to a bot...although I suppose a bot might be able to comb through all of Bobak's user talk contribs) and that I figured it would be enough if Bobak just agrees to stop using them. But if you know a way to replace all of them, be my guest! <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 15:33, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I find the use of sarcasm in these templates disgraceful, antagonistic, and an embarrassment to the project. They do nothing to rehabilitate vandals and encourage them to return to vandalism after the block expires. I'm amending them as we speak. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 15:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That criticism is largely true of the standard templates also. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:36, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. "Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions." –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 16:39, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the messages are not 100% horrible, and could perhaps be made more appropriate. The one about being blocked due to Wikipedia's policy on idiocy is atrocious, however. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 16:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're onto it. Some of them are cute and funny, some are over the line. And every one of the long-term abusers would have gotten the standard block messages, so Xeno's argument is fallacious. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * An administrators' remit is not to be "cute and funny" when blocking vandals. It certainly isn't to be snarky and condescending. We didn't give him the mop so he could moonlight as a comedian. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 16:47, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So you prefer the "serious" way, which spawns the likes of Grawp. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:10, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I partially agree with Bugs here: some of the standard templates are not great. "Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions." is patronizing. But I'm not in favor of Bobak's messages (even though I do find some of them funny). --Akhilleus (talk) 02:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrap-up after replacements
I've gone and amended most or all of the templates. Here are some examples of the text the was removed or replaced with more appropriate language and tone.


 * "Congratulations! You have been blocked from editing with a (length) time-out :-)"
 * Congratulations to Bank of America!
 * Congratulations, a special block for "special people"!
 * Congratulations, non-UC students!
 * Congratulations, users at the online "University of Phoenix":
 * Congratulations, your spat of stupidity has landed this ramblin' wreck of an IP address into Blocksville.
 * Congratulations, you've been "pwn3d"!
 * Congratulations, you've now got the attention of the wrong person!
 * "Lucky for you I give out blocks like they're going out of style"
 * "If/when you continue your vandalism (if/when you return), we'll be more than happy to grant you another vacation, this time for a longer period --at no extra cost-- guaranteed!"
 * ...Now get back to "studying" at the "university"; maybe you can to to the student union or library?
 * ...*Next time, you'll probably get at least a month off.
 * Welcome to Blocksville, population: You.
 * Duration: ????
 * Duration: Too short? We shall see.
 * Duration: You'll figure it out (pwn3d).
 * I guess it should be called Block Haven... Population: You.
 * Block Haven RETURNS!
 * "Haha" blocked for three months.
 * "Stay in school, kids."
 * 1 whole week :-)
 * 3 whole months, kids.
 * 6 month time out for the kids "studying" at the University of Phoenix.
 * All this over an Italian chain restaurant. LOL.
 * and general stupidity
 * Back to studying, LOL.
 * Cinnamon Toast Block!
 * earned a 2 week vacation.
 * FLUSH!
 * for rampant blanking, cry me a river, etc. etc..
 * Have a nice vacation, LOL...
 * I guess they don't raise them as smart down there.
 * idiocy
 * Corndog... You have been blocked indefinitely from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for idiocy.
 * If you're having girl problems, I feel bad for you son/You've got 99 problems and this block is one...
 * You got 99 problems and this block is one!
 * You've got 10,000 problems and this block is one!
 * You've got 2191 problems and a block is one...
 * Is this the first of many? We shall see...
 * LOL.
 * LOL... see you next semester.
 * loooooong length
 * Maybe its you who should "get a life". LOL.
 * Na Na Na Na, Na Na Na Na, Hey Hey-ey, Goodbye!
 * Oh, and stay in school kids, you need it...
 * Playtime's over, you get to go back to work! Lucky you
 * See you in 1 week, kiddies. We'll be happy make the next one longer.  Until then, read a book or something.
 * See you in 2014.
 * see you in three months, kiddies, where the blocks get longer.
 * See you next semester, kiddies.
 * Shouldn't you guys be solving those two wars we're in?
 * Since we clearly haven't been paying enough attention to your vandalism habits, I promise to keep and eye on you ;-)
 * So long, farewell, Auf wiedersehen, good night/I hate to go and leave this pretty sight/So long, farewell, Auf wiedersehen, adieu/Adieu, adieu, to yieu and yieu and yieu!
 * Sorry, we're allergic to crazy
 * Stay in school.
 * Top o'the mornin' to ya, lassie!
 * with a loooong length
 * You have a problem with listening, so why not take several months off, and we'll even grant the option to extend the break!
 * You kids were blocked for 6 months, unfortunately I didn't get the opportunity to make the move --but have a great time in the far north.


 * The above protracted display of behaviour unbecoming of an administrator goes back to May 2008. Bobak was approached in October 2008 over the templates, but brushed aside the concerns. I've half a mind to ask Bobak to step down, but since he has actually received encouragements from several users over these which must have spurred him on ( User talk:Bobak/June 2008 - December 2008, User talk:Bobak/June 2008 - December 2008, User talk:Bobak/June 2008 - December 2008, User talk:Bobak/January 2009 - June 2009 ), I'll just point him to the above consensus not to use this type of tone in his blocking endeavours and use standard blocking templates without additional colour commentary. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 18:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that nothing needs to be done just yet. Since this discussion started he hasn't blocked anyone and hasn't done anything unsavory, and so far I'm taking that as tacit acknowledgement that he understands the consensus here. If he starts using the block messages again I'm sure we can do something more formal about it, but I'm sure he's smart enough not to do that, and as long as he doesn't do it again I don't think there's any need for special action. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 18:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 18:41, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Fixing something that's not a problem

 * Congratualations on fixing something that's not a problem. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:23, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am now under orders from Xeno to stop watching ANI. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:28, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You're under no such orders, but it would certainly be appreciated. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 18:35, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * (ec)To be honest, it's not a bad idea. Bugs, you're a good guy and I've even got one of your funny posts linked from my userpage, but as far as I can tell all you're accomplishing at ANI is stirring up or prolonging drama. Surely there is a more productive and fulfilling use of your time. <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 18:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I raise questions that some people don't want to hear. They label it "drama". I've been told that the most infuriating thing about the issues I raise is that I'm usually right. That's the best kind of compliment I can imagine. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 18:43, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are probably right about that. However, my experience has shown that spending too much time on WP:AN & WP:AN/I warps one's sense of what Wikipedia is about, as well as proving to be, in the long run, not all that productive. Take a break from here, Bugs, & find another part of Wikipedia to contribute to. WP:AN/I will still be here when you come back, with the same troublemakers & jerk Admins; they'll just have different user names. -- llywrch (talk) 20:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Let me be clear that I'm not going to fight any of this ("consensus" of a half-dozen editors reigns supreme), but this ANI is obviously a group of editors with the same opinions, and I do point out that there are a lot of people who feel the way I do: that so-called "fixes" like this are ultimately pointless (storms in a teacup) that do more to harm to productive (non-bureaucratic) editors than any alleged "embarrassment" they save for those unable to have a sense of humor. But carry on... just don't forget that this is a project about compiling information, not silly little crusades. I am not going to take the time to look up the various contribution histories in this discussion, but I hope some of you have done remotely the same amount of work people like Baseball Bugs and I have done --otherwise why participate? --Bobak (talk) 19:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't comment on appropriateness of the blocks as I'm unfamiliar with the cases, but I don't think it's appropriate to condemn the funny messages. I don't know for sure if they're up to par for a Good Humour Barnstar, but they're certainly useful in countertroll situations. After all, Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy; our templates need not take the form of a triplicate form letter together with an OMB tracking number. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 21:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * There's a time and a place for humour. And not all vandals are trolls, some might even become positive contributors with a little coaxing. It's not entirely out of the question. A sarcastic block template isn't likely to bring about that end-result, and is more likely to encourage further vandalism. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 21:29, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The use of sarcasm is absolutely and completely inappropriate in a block message. We should all act like adults (even if we may not be) and administrators especially are expected to always act in a professional manner, acting otherwise reflects badly on our encyclopedia, this project and all of us, and can be grounds for having admin privileges withdrawn. Paul August &#9742; 04:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Calm down --MZMcBride (talk) 04:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * MZ, I think you are reading too much into what I've written here. And perhaps I did not express myself well. I seem to have come off in your eyes as upset, but I'm not. Not that I think my internal state matters all that much, but I'd describe it as serious, placid and firm. Paul August &#9742; 18:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Paul: Blanket bans on humorous or sarcastic ("playful") edit and log summaries really isn't effective or productive. Should administrators be professional? Yes. However, they are also allowed some degree of latitude when dealing with monotonous administrative affairs, esp. as some of these users do dozens or hundreds of actions per month. Like nearly all things, moderation is key. Bobak seems to be too far to one side, but you seem to be too far to the other. There's a healthy balance in between&mdash;with or without italics, adverbs, and threats to remove rights. ;-) --MZMcBride (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As pointed out below, humor is one thing sarcasm is another. Perhaps our definitions of sarcasm differ. Mine: statements involving scorn, contempt, ridicule, jibes, insults, cutting jests, etc. presented in a witty manner. At any rate that's what I'm talking about. That's what I'm describing as inappropriate behavior, especially for administrators. Perhaps we should talk in specifics. Which of the quotes in my reply to Unitanode just below, do you think are appropriate.? Paul August &#9742; 20:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Replied below. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I really think I need to leave ANI for awhile. This nonsense that treating vandals with some kind of faux politesse will help them see the light and become valued contributors seems silly to me. If anything, a spot of humor might do the trick better than some form letter-style block template. Bobak is blocking vandals, so Paul August feels the need to issue a veiled threat of removal of administrator status? Who's running this place anyway? Unitanode  04:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A "spot" of humor is one thing. Taunting a blocked user is another thing entirely.  Powers T 13:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We hold as an ideal that Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit. It is one of our most noble ideals. It is why many of us are here, and why we have been so successful. But unfortunately it is only an ideal &mdash; not a reality. The fact of the matter is, we sometimes find it necessary to block some from editing. But blocking is an admission of failure &mdash; our failure in being able to fully realize one of our most cherished goals. Hence blocking is a sad thing, it is a serious thing, and it should not be done lightly. Humor has its place (a sock puppet, a meat puppet and Jimbo walk into a bar ... ) but not when it comes to blocking. And I find little humor in: "Congratulations! You have been blocked", "Lucky for you I give out blocks like they're going out of style", "You've been put out of your spamming misery" and "You have been blocked indefinitely ... for idiocy." What I do find is sarcasm, insults and ridicule &mdash; these things have no place at all, especially not from administrators.


 * When delivering the last meal to a person on death row, it is simply not on to throw the food in their face.


 * As for my remarks being a "veiled threat", there is nothing veiled about them, and I'm not threatening anything or anyone. What I am trying to do is raise the level of administrative conduct. To remind us all that when we take administrative action we are representing the encyclopedia and this project. That we should all act professionally and with maturity. And to remind us all that everything we do, we do in public, anyone anywhere, now and in the future can view what we are doing. Please try to imagine how this might look say in a New York Times article about Wikipedia: ''Wikipedia's administrators routinely block people from editing for reasons like "idiocy" and with messages like "Congratulations! You have been blocked!"
 * Paul August &#9742; 18:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't particularly like any of the custom block templates ("congratulations, you've been blocked," etc.). The standard ones exist for a reason and should be used primarily unless there's a specific reason not to. (You shouldn't template longtime users, for example.) My comments above mainly concern block reasons left in the logs. Personally, I usually use the tactic of making the log summaries exceptionally vague ("inappropriate behavior," etc.), however I don't have a particular problem with, for example, blocking a "poop" vandal with the reason "THE PLUMBER HAS ARRIVED!" Obviously we shouldn't feed the trolls, but a spot of humor occasionally isn't inappropriate. --MZMcBride (talk) 20:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Now that's funny ;-) and I think we are in agreement. Paul August &#9742; 20:27, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I did not find the custom block templates in question wildly hilarious or anything like that. The biggest problem I had with Paul's response was with what I considered a threat of removal of tools simply for TRYING to be funny in a block template, which I think is all Bobak was doing. It seemed an overreaction to me, that's all. Unitanode  15:33, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Admins often have to act as bouncers. Any club owner will tell you that the best bouncers aren't the muscle-bound types who beat people up like in the movies, but instead are those who usher troublemakers to the exit with so little fuss that the paying customers don't even notice. Unfortunately many of our admins try to act like the big burly types, and many of the rest argue with the paying customers that they should be more tolerant and supportive of the troublemakers. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Excellent analysis. Дигвурен ДигвуровичАллё? 15:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It sounds like the ideal solution, then, is to post no notice at all. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:06, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Barring that, here's what you should do: First, lose the big red in-your-face symbol. Wrap the message in robin's-egg-blue if you want to both highlight it and soften it. Lose the patronizing comment about coming back when you're ready to contribute usefully. Make the message simple and straightforward: "You're blocked until [date-time]" or "You're blocked indefinitely", followed by a link to where the decision was made, and then "If you would like to appeal this block" followed by the normal unblock-template instructions. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:39, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That'll never work. It's too sensible. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Too much drama - I think those messages are funny!  Assuming they're not being given to a brand new user aka biting I don't see a problem.  It's not overly rude (anyone remember the user User:VandalCops) or in violation of NPA.

It's an admin having a bit of fun on the job. Let 'em stay <span style="color:#333;font-face:Trebuchet MS;solid #FAECC8;background-color:#FAF6ED;padding:2px 15px;letter-spacing: 1px;">Naluboutes, NalubotesAeria gloris, Aeria gloris 15:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * They are fine except for the ones that are insulting. We should not be insulting the people we block. Chillum  00:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Per Rjanag, I'm afraid I find these "funny" templates to be completely inappropriate. Humour has its place, but not in formal templates which are only likely to convey an image of an insular, cliquish and hostile community, which is the last sort of image we should be projecting. Gatoclass (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The current standard templates convey that image also. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Need help at RfC: Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)
Talk:David Copperfield (illusionist)

Need some help from admins and possibly also checkusers at the Request for Comment ongoing on this page. It is possible it is being subverted by sockpuppets, there are allegations of conflict of interest, as well as problems with users refactoring posts by others, which may or may not be appropriate due to the personal attacks being thrown around by possible WP:SPAs. There are problems from users on both sides of the debate.

It would be most appreciated if multiple admins/checkusers could take a look into this - additional fresh eyes are needed here. Thank you, Cirt (talk) 04:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems there is a relevant sock investigation case page at Sockpuppet investigations/Karelin7. Cirt (talk) 04:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I had commented in the RfC, I'll defer to other admins and/or checkusers to look into this further. Cirt (talk) 04:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Serial copyvio image case
Can somebody please nuke all images uploaded by. They seem all to be taken from the web, most from a city website, http:www.strumica.gov.mk. I just tagged a few for CSD G9 (File:Old Strumica Law corte .jpg, File:Abba 2009.jpg, File:Strumica Global Mall, Palms and Fountains and the City Park.jpg and several variants), but there are more, all apparently from the same sources. There are also multiple images on Commons. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All local deletions are now deleted, you'll need a commons admin to do the rest. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Numerous Personal Attacks by IP User
I have been forwarded to this page via Wiki user User:Cirt who has kindly been helping me with an ongoing situation, in which an IP user has been posting liable attacks via talk pages, and also has obtained my email address and posting the same context in emails.

The IP user in question has so far used 2 different IP addresses; they are... IP:85.50.127.181 and IP:90.163.33.152. The first incident happened on the main Eurovision Song Contest page. I made reasonable changes to the article; as I had found reliable sources to back up an edit in the article. Within hours of me making this edit; I received a vicious email from a HOTMAIL account. In the email I was subdued to abusive language. I replied to the email sender telling them that if they were to do such an act again, that I would have no other alternative but to report them to the relevant authorities. Everything was quiet until last week, when I made another edit, only this time to the Eurovision Song Contest 2010 article, in which again I had found reliable sourcing to allow me to include the country of Estonia into the confirmed participation list. What happened following this utterly disturbed me. One user, who obviously is the same person, left 2 messages in the Talk:Eurovision Song Contest 2010. The reason I know they are the same person, as they signed their comments using the same tag-line, but with a different IP address included in the tag. The IPs are those as shown above (IP:85.50.127.181 and IP:90.163.33.152). That same user also sent the exact same comments to me via email; again the email address was the same HOTMAIL address as that sent weeks earlier following the main incident as mentioned above.

I would sincerely appreciate it, if you could kindly investigate this situation, and keep me informed as to what action has been taken. I will fully co-operate with this investigation, if you so require me to do so.

Thank you in advance. Kindest Regards (Pr3st0n (Gareth) | Pr3st0n (talk) 04:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC))


 * Were the emails sent directly to you, or through Special:Emailuser? Prodego  <sup style="color:darkgreen;">talk  04:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There should be a law that terminates a discussion (as with Godwin's Law) whenever someone mentions "nationalism". All these accusations of "nationalism" is getting rather absurd. MuZemike 04:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The emails were sent directly to my personal email address. And I agree with MuZemike some law should be brought in.  All I was doing was helping with a wikiproject by supplying valuable information to aid readers; and I get unnecessary abuse from a random IP user whom I have never met or spoken to in my life.  The way they treated me was pure evil and uncalled for. (Pr3st0n (talk) 07:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC))

Allstarecho is Requesting an Unblock


After stating he will not copyvio any other pages (which is what got him blocked in the first place) and that his previous "retirement" is a moot point, ASE is requesting to be unblocked or would like a path to be unblocked. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 02:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you put in a pointer to the recently archived discussion? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, please see here. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 02:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The difficulty is that Allstarecho's comments after he was blocked have tended to suggest that he does not recognize that his copyright violations are wrong; for this reason, his protestations that he will not continue to disregard copyright have not been wholly credible. He could begin to restore this credibility by starting to go through his past contributions and identifying all edits which used stolen text; this, at a bare minimum, would be an essential component of any path to eventual unblocking. CIreland (talk) 03:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This seems a bit pointless - he's identifying himself as "retired", so why the heck is an unblock needed? Ironholds (talk) 03:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Because a retired user can un-retire themselves at any time. CIreland (talk) 03:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is everyone stuck on retirement? ASE has stated before and I have above that retirement is a "moot point".  He wishes to come back, which would mean he isn't retired.  Let's focus on the unblock and not on a retirement that the user has said is "moot". - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 03:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Concur with NeutralHomer; retirement is not and never has been relevant to Allstarecho's blocking or unblocking; really only Allstarecho seemed ever to think it made any difference. CIreland (talk) 03:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * support unblock At this point, I don't think it is imperative that he is kept blocked, given that he has expressed clearly that he understands why he was blocked, and has promised to change his behavior. Blocking him again would be trivial at this point, and he should know he is being closely watched. Making him jump through some arbitrary hoops to get the unblock seems pointless given the ease with which any admin could block him again if he screws up the copyright thing any further. --Jayron32. talk . contribs 03:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Akhilleus has unblocked ASE. He left a lengthy post on ASE's talk page as well.  Shall we call this resolved? - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 03:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict x2) I've unblocked him. The declines seemed excessively wiki-lawyerish to me; Allstarecho wants to edit and promised not to violate copyright anymore. I trust that his contributions will be closely watched, and if anything even smells like a copyright violation, he will be indef blocked again. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. I still think he has an ethical obligation to assist in cleaning up the mess, simply because it's far easier for him than anyone else to identify which edits amongst his very many otherwise excellent contributions were theft. I don't think that's at all an "arbitrary hoop" since someone else is going to have to jump through it if ASE is unwilling. CIreland (talk) 03:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that he has an ethical obligation to assist in cleaning up the mess. I also note that ethical obligations are often unmet on Wikipedia. Since I unblocked him, I'll ask him on his talkpage to help us clean up the copyvios. Since I unblocked him, it's only fair that I help in doing so also. Please give me some pointers--is there an organized effort towards fixing the problem? --Akhilleus (talk) 03:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys has some details. CIreland (talk) 03:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Based upon the massive disruption he made to Wikipedia (knowingly adding copyright violations for years because he disagrees with copyright laws), and especially with his completely unapologetic tone after his block, he needs to stay blocked for a good long while to realize that this kind of behavior is unacceptable. A couple of months minimum is reasonable, or at the very least until all the damage he caused is undone. Akhiklleus should have waited for more input before unblocking, because jumping ahead to do it before there was real discussion or any way to gauge consensus just puts everyone in a bad spot. People have been permanently banned for less than what ASE did. DreamGuy (talk) 03:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If what you are suggesting is done, that would be punishment and that is not what blocks are meant to do. They are preventive not punishment. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 03:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * DreamGuy: maybe you're right. If so, discussion here should establish a consensus against my unblock, and I won't stand in its way. Until then, I hope that community scrutiny will stop further copyvios by Allstarecho, or lead to his block. I don't really care if he apologizes, expresses remorse, or so forth--forced apologies don't strike me as useful. The important thing is that he stops the objectionable behavior. If he doesn't, then he gets blocked again. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:52, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that Akhilleus should have waited for more community input and especially for the opinion of the blocking admin, Moonriddengirl. I find unilateral unblocks of this sort rather uncollegial, I am sorry to say.  Sandstein   05:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have notified Moonriddengirl of this post. I apologize, I should have done that first, as she was the blocking admin...that is my mistake. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 05:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This unblock was a bad call - there was no need to rush and I'm not certain Akhilleus is actually familiar with the situation and how these matters are typically handled. I think that Allstarecho has been the one splitting hairs and wikilawyering since this problem was noticed - quite a few editors have tried to get a straight answer and his responses have been petulant and unhelpful. This issue was so widespread that it required not the usual one, but three pages at the copyvio project for tracking. While I agree that forced apologies are useless, if a contributor shows no remorse and has to be forced to admit they were wrong, isn't that just a useless? I have zero confidence in this unblock and I resent the fact that the unblocking admin's solution is that someone (other than themselves of course) should closely babysit Allstarecho. Shell  babelfish 05:42, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have already said, I will be happy (even as a non-admin) to mentor ASE as necessary and to make sure that his edits are within the letter of the rule and that no copyvio edits are brought in, but I think we need to give ASE a chance to edit first. It is 3:29AM EST, so he isn't online, probably asleep.  Let's let him edit first before going all "bad block" "let's reblock him" on the whole thing.  Remember, AGF. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 07:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm going to guess you're not aware that I assume good faith, usually till my eyes bleed :) Even so, there's a point where it stops being an assumption of good faith and instead becomes turning a blind eye to a problem; that's where I have to get off the bus.  If you're aware of this case, surely you're aware that this wasn't just limited to article space, included difficult to detect copying of just sentences or phrases and that the only response has been "yeah, so what?" until an indef block was in place?  I don't see anything in ASE's response that would make me comfortable that he won't continue the same behavior, maybe not at first, maybe not while he's being watched but I'm confident he would have no qualms repeating the behavior if he thought he could get away with it.  I don't even see anything about him being interested in contributing further, only that he'd rather not be blocked.  I would consider this an excellent example of a block intended to prevent further damage and disruption to the project and the unblock before allowing some semblance of discussion here was unwise. Shell   babelfish 08:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * WP:AGF says, "Unless there is strong evidence to the contrary, assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." The cleanup of this offers plenty of evidence to the contrary. Just yesterday I came upon this edit from April of 2009 while evaluating contributions, pasting several paragraphs of material by Dr. Carl Edwin Lindgren (material which archives to 2004). There can be no question that much of the language was the same; origin seems clear. Keep in mind that Allstarecho was notified of copyright policy several years ago and one of his responses on noting these concerns was to indicate that "Most of these g'damn articles were done in my wiki-infancy. Any newer ones which may be in question, I don't agree that statistical facts (dates, percentages, times and related words to explain such facts) is copyrightable". His primary interest during the whole of this clean-up is arguing about whether the copyright infringements removed from articles were actually placed by him. While he's very vocal when he thinks somebody has removed something in error, I've yet to see him say, "Oh, yes, that one was mine. My bad." Does he still believe that material like this and this, also from April of this year, are not copyrightable? Copyright infringement is a grave misuse of the project, one which can put it in legal jeopardy, and whoever is watching him, Neutralhomer, needs to do so not so much with an assumption of good faith, but from a position of objective scrutiny. Akhilleus, I hope you plan to keep an eye on the situation. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:29, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblock, bad call, particularly without bringing the initial blocking admin into it. I support a reblock - he's never made any statement to indicate what he did was wrong, and has been particularly offensive to those users like Moonriddengirl who take the time and effort to chase people like him. An offensive, disruptive serial copyright violator who now expects us to trust him? By this point good faith has been thrown out the window, and I see no reason to believe he's truly changed - rather I see his apology as not "sorry I violated copyright" but more "sorry I was blocked for violating copyright". Ironholds (talk) 11:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose unblock. Three pages of copyvio's? What's next, unblock User:Primetime? For me this block is not punitive, this block is to protect the encyclopedia. From reading his talk page I am not convinced he will not eventually continue the same behaviour as before. Garion96 (talk) 11:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Glow in the dark bad unblock. This user causes major harm to the project. He doesn't grasp the concept of Intellectual property, nor Copyright, thus demonstrating no respect for authors nor the law. What makes anyone think he gives a damn about this project? He wants back in for his own addictive needs, and for the ego buff he gets from publishing stuff. Unless and until such time as he provides fro us a clear, lengthy essay about his 'awakening' to the rights of authors to have their works protected, and the value of copyright laws in protecting the creative impulse for the larger betterment of society, I see no value in AGF'ing. He's made clear his commitment to actively refuting and ignoring Copyright laws and Wikipedia's policies on the same, and his desperate 'i won't do it again, I swear' is simply insufficient. ThuranX (talk) 12:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Spectacularly wrong unblock, per Moonriddengirl. In April this year he copied literally from one source while citing another. And then he claimed that all copyvios were in the distant past, and that anything more recent is just numbers? Wow. I don't think we need this type of user. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * While the unblock may or may not have been ill-judged, it has been done. The result is that Allstarecho is under severe scrutiny for copyright (and likely any other) violations in his editing - his last chance has been and gone, and the next time he puts principle in these matters before WP policy he is gone permanently. I doubt that Allstarecho would have been allowed to return to editing under any more stringent conditions so, despite it being perhaps a little premature, I think we can close this matter as resolved. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this assessment. It's his duty to clean up the mess he created and it's not formally part of his conditions that he does so. Instead, he can edit away and keep responsible editors occupied trying to spot his new copyvios. That's a denial of service attack on Wikipedia. --Hans Adler (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry but I completely disagree that the matter is resolved. One doesn't set loose the wolf in the hen house and then throw up your hands because its already been done. Shell   babelfish 13:09, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I've AGFed until my eyes not only bled but fell out of my head, and I have to agree that this isn't a good idea at this time. As a very involved admin, I either am biased or appear biased, so I won't argue the point strongly. Since I know where many of the proverbial bodies are buried, I will make a few points that should be considered (and I wish had been considered before an unblock):
 * Let's keep in mind that at least two blatant copyvios remain: Old Mississippi State Capitol and Ole Miss Rebels football. There may be more. Frank  |  talk  13:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Further, keep in mind that many more copyvios were found and removed during the course of this investigation, including, for example, Frank Frost and Pearl, Mississippi, and some were even deleted, such as Alamo Theater (Mississippi) and the article that put us on this path when I found it at Template talk:DYK, Lazy Magnolia Brewing Company.
 * It should be noted that User:Neutralhomer is an unapologetic cheerleader for ASE, given this sarcastic comment shortly after the initial block. I have no problem with liking and supporting a contributor; what I disapproved of in that comment was that either there was no attempt to look at the facts of the matter, or the facts were ignored. To his credit, NH did actually look a bit later and allowed as how he must agree with the community on this one. Now he's back on the other side of the fence. (Sorry if this seems like I'm commenting on the contributor rather than the content; I'm merely pointing out that this is a highly-involved user and providing some context.) Also, it should be revealed that we subsequently discovered a content disagreement we have, but again - I'm confining this to ASE, nothing more. I just think that if it is agreed that mentoring is the right way to go, perhaps a better choice would be someone other than a cheerleader.
 * I think it would be wise to consider the length and severity of these violations, which would require an RfC to fully document, but a short summary can be found in this comment I made at User talk:Moonriddengirl.
 * It's been pointed out that ASE doesn't display what most of us would call a solid understanding of copyright, or what we'd call a desire to comply with policy. Here are just a few diffs in support of that: You can't copyright facts, as usual, facts can't be copyrighted but whatever, you can't copyright fact..., and this one from 2007: While I don't feel text about a public educational institution, especially one my tax dollars help pay for, is copyrighted, I made changes..
 * So, having said all that, if we are allowing the unblock to stand, a whole bunch of editors need to keep careful watch. ASE has repeatedly and forcefully resisted comments that characterize his edits as copyvios, instead choosing to point out that the text is elsewhere also, that someone else put it there, or that it isn't copyrightable. He has not participated even one edit's worth in cleaning up copyright violations since he was blocked, despite requests to do so, and has hampered others' efforts to do so because some of us have been willing to AGF and pay attention. Frank  |  talk  13:11, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmph. Well, as I said, it's entirely possible I made a mistake, and if there is consensus to reverse my unblock (as it appears there might be), I won't stand in its way. I'd just like to note, though, that the discussion on Allstarecho's talk page involved apparent technicalities such as whether he was retired or not, and also whether he was adopting the proper abject attitute of contrition. If the discussion had clearly communicated "your copyvios are so bad there's no way I'll unblock you" then of course I wouldn't have unblocked. I'm glad to see that people are taking copyvios seriously, though--when I've reported blatant plagiarism from copyrighted sources before, I've gotten no response or a shrug. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It might have been appropriate, as a condition of unblocking, and in light of his promise not to violate copyright again, to explain whether he still agrees with these sentiments that he had posted on his talk page shortly after being blocked: Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

First, I'll say it's never been said by me that copyvios were perfectly ok. What I have said is that apparently statistical facts, close paraphrasing and quoting is considered as copyvios, unbeknownst to me. I guess that is my fault for not finding out. However, I have seen many a "copyvio" removed from articles that have been attributed to me when in fact they weren't. Numerous copyvios that have been attributed to me, were nothing more than copyvio content that was already present in an article or in an article that I split to another (see Ole Miss Rebels and Ole Miss Rebels football as an excellent example). I had no idea that I had to go through each and every article I ever came across to make sure it didn't contain copyvio content. Do you do that on every article you've ever come across? I'm sure one or 2 of you do but I'd bet my house that most of you do not. Additionally, during vandalism patrol, yes, I may have reverted vandalism that also included reverting an article back to a "copyvio included" state, but how am I to know that? Seriously? Regardless, any continued block is nothing but punishment, which is whole-heartedly not in line with WP:BLOCK. As I have promised not to add copyvio content anymore, and as I know many an eye is on my edits, continued blocking can be viewed as nothing but punishment from this point. I'm not asking for your respect or your approval of me as a person as that really means nothing to me. I'm just asking that people be fair here. Thanks. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 14:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ugh. more waffling. now it's 'i didn't know', when he clearly did, and 'I didn't meant to', even though he was repeating old mistakes. He's not sorry, and clearly will do it again. He simply doesn't understand the concept of copyright. ThuranX (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * How do you figure I will do it again when I've said probably 20 times: I PROMISE NOT TO ADD COPYVIO CONTENT ANYMORE. I mean, how much more plainer can one be? - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 14:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Speaking of keeping a close watch, may I direct your attention to a thead on the Commons AN from last year. It would be prudent to review his image contributions again to see if there's been any relapse there.  I am at work now or I would.   Hi DrNick ! 14:56, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow, they do come out of the woodwork. Haven't seen you since you started that mess a year ago. That was last year and on a different project which has no baring here. Thanks for your contribution though. Also, see here. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 15:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Allstarecho, with all due respect, I think your final response in that discussion (claiming that other people stole your work) is plenty relevant here. — Gavia immer (talk) 15:33, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I started that mess? You were the one who uploaded those pictures in violation of our policies in the first place, and then lied over and over again about them, attempting to smear the character of those who worked to bring your transgressions to light.  I offered you an explicit opportunity to clean up your own mess; when you declined to do so, I had to spend my own free time scouring the whole damn internet to find enough copyvio sources to convince the Commons admins to delete most of the non-free pictures you uploaded and lied about.  I had to watch videos of Chris Crocker, for crying out loud, because of your flippant attitude toward our copyright policies.  Even now, other editors are slogging though your “contributions”, trying to clean up your mess, and your attitude is not one of contrition, but arrogance.  You have given no indication that you will not continue to be a net negative to the project.  I am astounded that the unblocking administrator has not yet reversed himself.   Hi DrNick ! 17:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

This is a Biedermann und die Brandstifter scenario
Apparently the English name for this play by Max Frisch is The Fire Raisers.
 * (It's also been produced as The Firebugs Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:03, 13 June 2009 (UTC))

When someone uploads a large number of photos and many of them are found to be copyvios, then of course the rest needs to be deleted as well unless there is strong evidence that they are not copyvios. When someone is caught adding large amounts of copyrighted text to Wikipedia, then of course every substantial addition of text by that editor needs to be deleted unless there is strong evidence it's not a copyvio. After all, there are still books and magazines that are not available online.

What I have not seen, and what is absolutely necessary for this unblock to be at all reasonable is:
 * An unequivocal demonstration (as opposed to a mere affirmation) by ASE that he now understands how copyright works.
 * A binding commitment to help clean up his copyvios.
 * A prohibition of any substantial article space edits other than his clean-up work for the time being.

Before he can be allowed to add more than, say, half a sentence per month to any article:
 * The clean-up work must have been finished.
 * He must demonstrate (rather than just assert) that he can add text to articles through methods other than plagiarism. One way to demonstrate this would be a series of assignments in which he has to develop an article on a prescribed obscure topic using a prescribed set of sources, in a short amount of time.

Anything less would be in contradiction to the core principle that Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia. Seeing that it can take several man-hours to properly identify and clean up the damage done in ten minutes by some quick copy-paste operation, and that this thankless work must be done by qualified volunteers – many of whom would prefer to write content for articles of their own choosing – this kind of generous unblock on the whim of an administrator is simply not acceptable. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:55, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've begun to help on the cleanup as can be seen by my contribs - and that's enough as far as "binding". Actions, not words - which has been asked of me and which I am doing.
 * A prohibition from article space edits is unacceptable. What's the point of being on Wikipedia if you can't edit articles. I'm not to be treated like some toddler confined to his playpen.
 * Again, as I had promised not to engage in the activity anymore, which in itself acknowledges the copyvios and that there was a problem, continued blocking only serves as punishment. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 17:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * AllStar, you have earned the perspective that you are a toddler to be supervised everywhere. You got caught breaking a major, bedrock policy built to match the laws of most nations on the planet. Instead of immediately apologizing, you continued for over a year doing it. When you were finally caught again and blocked, you threw a tanrum, took your ball and left. Then you came back, 'unretiring' after the heat was off, a tactic you knew would reduce the actions against you, and then, when confronted, you've done nothing but make empty promises and blame others.
 * You have yet to explain, in your own words, what you did wrong, why it was wrong, why you won't do it again. An Open apology letter to the community would go a long way; taking responsibility for reversing every single copyvio addition you ever made would help too. However, all we get are condescending dismissals of our concerns 'I already SAID i wouldn't do it anymore' is meaningless. It's meaningless because you've made clear that you do not accept the idea of copyright - that the very principles of it aren't valid, they don't apply to you. This can easily be seen in your attitude that 'facts cannot have copyright'. However, they can and do. It's up to you to explain to us why, as part of that open apology.
 * I continue to oppose any unblocking of your account until such time as you give us that, and then commit to making no edits which are not repair, until the entire repair task is completed. ThuranX (talk) 17:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Shouldn't someone reblock him first? Consensus that the unblock was a bad idea seems quite clear. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 18:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * that would be good ,we've got a clear disapproval of the unblock. However, if he gets all the reading he really ought to indulge in about copyright done and the essay up before an admin gets around to it, then it may not be needed. ThuranX (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Since people can't seem to accept my promise not to add copyvio content to articles anymore, and since people can't seem to understand that my promise is also acknowledgement that copyvios are unacceptable, and since people can't seem to understand that my promise is also acknowledgment that I understand copyvios will not be tolerated, I hereby once again, promise not to add copyvios to any article. I also hereby promise to help work on said articles even though I've already said once that I'm already doing that as can be seen by my contribs history. I also apologize to anyone that feels I must go to greater links than a promise: I don't know what else to do to make it right with you but you have my promise. Continued "off with his head" calls are, however, unproductive. Tell me what you want instead of degrading me. Thanks. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 19:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If you'd take your fingers out of yoru ears, and stop shouting 'LalalalaIcanthearyoulalalala', you'd see I was absolutely clear about what I want; it's quite similar to what a few others have asked for. You again make clear that you won't do what's needed to satisfy the community, so I call for an immediate reinstatement of a bad unblock where community consensus supports reinstituting it. ThuranX (talk) 19:54, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As to "actions, not words", I must say I am not too thrilled by this: . I would really like to hear the opinion of an expert whether a gradual process from literal copying to excessively close rephrasing makes the copyvio go away. In any case it's still plagiarism. --Hans Adler (talk) 20:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That last diff isn't mine. And also, related to that, see here where it's obvious I have sought input from an involved administrator on the issue. I mean geez, at least ask me. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 21:02, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My point was that you made a slight rephrasing, someone else made a further slight rephrasing, and it's still blatant plagiarism. My understanding of US copyright law is that this kind of rephrasing is not enough, and basically these are merely typical steps to cover up a copyvio. The only thing I am not sure about is whether lifting two sentences literally is OK. It might be below some threshold. As to your post on Frank's talk page – that one puzzled me, and I am still puzzled that it came before your rephrasing. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It came before my rephrasing because I wanted him to look at it before my rephrasing. Then after asking him about it, I realized even in the state it was in it could be considered as close paraphrasing so I went on and made changes to it. He apparently looked at it after my change or the 2 changes and feels its acceptable via his reply to me. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 21:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Let's look at a proper diff. I am not even sure that "rephrasing" is an appropriate word for this:


 * I have no idea how anybody can think this is acceptable. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Admittedly I'm coming to this conversation later, but in fairness to ASE I'd like to point out one thing: similarities like the ones Hans Adler has found is considered plagiarism only if there is reasonable leeway to rephrase the original language. Just how many different ways can one say, "According to an FBI report released in June 2009 for the 2008 year, Jackson's murder rate ranks 4th in the nation"? Maybe he should have tried harder to put this in different words, but the source for the statement in Wikipedia expresses the information concisely & clearly; apparently without knowledge of the wording of the source, Gavia immer made several edits which made ASE's paraphrase more closely resemble the source. I'm not certain anyone could present this information better. -- llywrch (talk) 19:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's no problem for competent users of the English language such as Moonriddengirl. If this kind of plagiarism is seriously being supported by established users, then the problem is worse than I thought. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In fairness to ASE, he specifically asked me about that rewrite and I responded that it looked OK to me. I would rather he work on the two copyvios that remain blanked (listed above), but I felt the rewrite was better than what it replaced. I might have been wrong, but let's give ASE a little room on this one since I'm one of the protagonisists here. Frank  |  talk  21:01, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Which 2 blanked Frank? I don't see them link above. I've just been working off of WikiProject Copyright Cleanup/Contributor surveys. Thanks. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 21:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm the admin who originally blocked Allstarecho for copyright problems. I didn't know about this thread until just now. I approve of the unblock.

On the one hand, ASE has handled this whole situation quite badly, being defensive and sarcastic and unacceptably rude in at least one case. He hasn't said anything like "I know this was wrong, and I'm sorry." But he has clearly and repeatedly said that he won't do anything else that might violate copyright, and I believe him. (And if I'm wrong, it's not hard to reblock.) Should he own up and apologize? Yeah, I think so, but it's really none of my business. Would it have been easier on everyone if he had? Absolutely. Would I get some satisfaction on seeing him forced to apologize? Perhaps, I mean I'm only human, but that's not a valid use of a block. The preventative block is no longer needed; So long as he isn't copying and pasting questionable content -- and he's not -- he's welcome to contribute constructively. – Quadell (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * We now have a much more clear statement from Allstarecho that he will not repeat the problem and even that he will assist in any cleanup. While I still think some level of supervision is appropriate, that clears up my concerns about leaving the block in place. Shell   babelfish 09:34, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I do not believe him. We do not have a case here of ignorance, but of outright refusal. He's made it his position on copyright clear; it's a matter of principle to him that copyright should not exist or be respected, therefore, I find it hard to believe that he's suddenly converted to a great understanding of the value of protecting the works done by others. I think that what we're going to see, six months to a year out, is an editor who persists in copyright violations via plagiarism, but now does it more subtly, rephrasing half a sentence into the article in one edit, then the other half, then linking them up. He will become a better, more subtle thief of others efforts, not someone truly able to write independently. ThuranX (talk) 14:40, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I see what you're saying, but I suspect you're wrong, and I'd be willing to put money on it. I guess we'll find out in six months or a year. – Quadell (talk) 15:02, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, and thanks for the personal attacks too Thuran, you've made your point well. A thief? Hardly. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 18:07, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually in legal terms you are a thief. Stealing intellectual property, y'see. Ironholds (talk) 00:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In "legal terms," he violated the intellectual property rights of others. Calling him a "thief" is unnecessarily pejorative and doesn't help us, and, in fact, only serves to escalate the drama.  Enough.  user: J  aka justen (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

An update on relevant policies and guidelines
Over the past few months Wikipedia's policy and guideline structure has strengthened with regard to copyright and related issues. Part of the reason was to prevent dramas like the present one. It appears that some of our administrators might not be fully aware of the changes, so highlighting relevant passages. First, Plagiarism has been promoted to guideline. Also please note the following passages. Durova Charge! 17:43, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

From Copyright violations:
 * Dealing with copyright violations:
 * In extreme cases administrators may impose special conditions before unblocking, such as requiring assistance with cleanup by disclosing which sources were used.
 * Which I'm already doing. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 18:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

From Assume good faith:
 * Good faith and copyright
 * When dealing with possible copyright violations, good faith means assuming that editors intend to comply with site policy and the law. That is different from assuming they have actually complied with either. Editors have a proactive obligation to document image uploads, etc. and material may be deleted if the documentation is incorrect or inadequate. Good faith corrective action includes informing editors of problems and helping them improve their practices.
 * Documentation is in the contribs history, no? - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 18:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from posting within the middle of another editor's post. Allstarecho has not complied with a relevant request that I made within the previous thread, yet am not opposing the unblock.  Thanks go to Allstarecho for his cooperation in correcting the problem.  A year ago, similar situations used to cause large amounts of both drama and frustration--as a few editors worked hard to clean up problems without sufficient support from the community.  That's changed now, but since the change is relatively recent it may be possible that not all administrators are aware that our policies have become more robust in this area.  Durova Charge! 18:27, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe "documentation" refers to the sourcing given when you upload the images as to who made them, where they came from, so on. And AGF pretty much flies out the window at this stage in proceedings. AGF is for a new user who's been caught uploading things. AGF is for a new user who made a mistake. AGF is not for a user who was caught, continued doing it because of his own beliefs on copyright law and was then caught again over a year later. Ironholds (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Good faith doesn't apply here; ASE made clear he doesn't believe in the principles behind the laws, that the ideas themselves aren't right. I'm with Ironholds here. The cleanup clause needs to be made explicit in it's application here, ASE's word is not enough for me. Further, I note that ASE refuses to explain the value of copyright, that he's yet to show any contrition, instead acting more like an addict, saying whatever will get his wiki-fix back. I don't have any faith that he's actually changed. ThuranX (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All I'm hearing is the same blah, blah, blah from you. The "off with his head" is getting old from you. Take a deep breath, look at the cleanup work I've been doing, and then go find something constructive to do with an article that could use your attention. Thanks. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 02:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for displaying the sort of attitude we like on Wikipedia - that's really going to swing community consensus in your direction. AGF does not apply in this situation, you've provided no evidence that you've changed and no evidence that you understand why what do you did was wrong - indeed, every statement by you I've seen seems to be designed to avoid saying that violating copyright is actually wrong, instead simply saying that we have a problem with it. If you want us to assume good faith in this situation you have to give something to show you've changed and this is a novel situation, rather than (as Thuran put it) another attempt to claw back a fix. Ironholds (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Which only further says either you and Thuran haven't been paying attention or just aren't listening... I've said many a time that I promise not to do it again. I've also said many a time that my promise acknowledges the problem. I've also said many a time that my promise acknowledges that copyvios are wrong. I don't know how else to put it so I'm done addressing it. I have been active in helping cleanup the articles and I have said over and over and over and over I promise not to do it again. And I assure you that continued belittling of me won't get you whatever it is you're seeking above and beyond what I've already said and done in terms of my actions to correct this matter. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 07:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Your promise only acknowledges one problem - that you got in trouble. You have yet to acknowledge the importance of copyright in the world, or any understanding of why it needs to be respected. All you promises show is that you know you got in trouble for getting caught. Do you understand there's a difference between trying to get out of trouble, and trying to change an offending behavior? What Ironholds and I both want is for you to make a public statement explaining the value of copyright. Demonstrating an understanding of the value of copyright to society would be a big step towards convincing me, and I think Ironholds as well, that you really understand what you are doing wrong when you cut and paste, or mildly reword, someone else's work. You've yet to do that. IF you're confused let me be clear. I'd like to see a 'why plagiarism is wrong and why copyright improves society' essay of contrition from you. ThuranX (talk) 11:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

←I suppose that most people reading this thread (at least if they read the last one) know that I take copyright situations seriously. Just for the record, I have been impressed with User:Allstarecho's contributions to cleanup since his unblocking, which so far seem to be very much on the up and up (I have double-checked some, but not yet all) and which have gone a long way towards increasing my willingness to assume good faith from this point forward. Although I have seen multiple-article infringers blocked and unblocked before, I have never seen one of them actually apply himself to helping out with cleanup. Given his past, it is a good idea that a check be done in the future to be sure that infringement has not resumed (courts of law don't care about WP:AGF; Wikipedia needs to exercise some responsible due diligence with identified problem contributors), but at this point I'm willing to cast my lot with User:Quadell in believing that there may be no future problems here. I would encourage Allstarecho to seek feedback from somebody experienced with these issues if at any point he is unsure about a copyright situation. Better safe than sorry, since the likelihood that future inadvertent infringement could be misconstrued as intentional is high. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Can I have a very quick 1 hour block...
... to help this IP user find their talk page? Or how do we deal with this kind of situation? --Hans Adler (talk) 09:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * What on earth? Unomi (talk) 09:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I can explain the card suit edits. Not sure about the rest.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 09:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Otherwise, this is generally vandalism and should be dealt with through normal block lengths. IP addresses tend not to check talk pages or know what the orange bar is for. That and the ISP is Japanese, as would be the user.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 09:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the third time this IP is doing this, always the four suit articles with about 10 minutes in between. The IP seems to behave similarly on the Japanese Wikipedia, but I think technically it's not vandalism per WP:VAND. --Hans Adler (talk) 09:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll be leaving the user another message in Japanese soon. This may stop him. If not, try listing at WP:AIV by linking to this thread.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 09:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's odd that AIV is specifically only for vandalism, ANI is too slow for such a situation, and that blocking is the only way we have to make users aware of their talk page. It would be great if one could block with an automatic unblock when the user reads (edits?) their talk page. Even better if rollbackers could do this. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:47, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You can try reporting blatantly disruptive behavior to AIV. The worst they can do is decide not to take action on it. It's a judgment call. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Honda
Something a bit odd on Honda could do with a fix.--Cavrdg (talk) 13:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Template vandalism. Tagged, bagged and booted. ➲ redvers throwing my arms around Paris 13:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Kotniski
Removing an RfC for a third time [WP:Link talk]. He was aware that another user was chastised in the talk page for this He was the user chastised, and the decision then was to just let the RfC be killed off by the Bot. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He would be unaware of HansAdler complaint on this page. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The only person who is continually being chastised in that discussion is you. Look, the proposal has been rejected by everyone, your arguments have been comprehensively met, it's time to let it go. If you really insist on having an RfC tag there for another week then all right, have it your way, but I believe it disrupts Wikipedia to allow this sort of self-indulgent attention-seeking. Every tag like this makes it less likely that people watching/viewing the RfC master page will find their way to any of the other RfC discussions, some of which are genuinely important.--Kotniski (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

A mistake on my part, Kotniski is guiltier than I thought. I got him and Hans Adler mixed up - Kotniski it was who removed this already and was asked politely not to do it - now he's done it again. Disruptive behaviour in anyone's book. The content of the RfC has bugger all to do with who should close it. You do not help your case by the "self-indulgent attention-seeking" personal attack - a personal attack on the WP:ANI page! That should be commented on by the admins here. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification. However, I must say that I totally agree with Kotniski's latest re-closing of the RfC. (I don't remember the first, so I can't say whether it came too early or not. I might not have closed if I had been aware of that.) A user with this type of edit statistics:
 * 29 months (since January 2007)
 * 280 article space edits
 * 1 block (1 week) for disruptive editing
 * should not be allowed to keep others from building an encyclopedia. Such a user should not be given a forum for soapboxing about invisible technical details of MOS, where he can demand that other editors learn about various web technologies before disagreeing with him. --Hans Adler (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was unjustly blocked for a week by Ckatz who was involved in the discussion, so what?
 * The self-link feature of Wikimedia was specially formulated for first mention of an articles title. It cannot be described as an "invisible technical details". There is a footnote in WP:link about this "invisible technical details". Again, dishonest straw man, using a plural when it is a singular, and when did I demand others learn anything? I simply suggested that it would be a good foundation on which to come to a conclusion. You are dishonestly describing my contributions - please don't do this. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Goodness me. The sooner that RfC is archived, the better. Seeing it is only going to dissuade other editors from discussing anything, if they suspect that HarryAlffa may be involved. Rather than providing diffs, I'll say that most of HA HarryAlffa's comments in this section seem to be uncivil and/or non-collegial in nature.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 18:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That is an untrue description - so please do point out the things I said which in their context are uncivil. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Could you please avoid the abbreviation HA in this thread? I actually had to follow the link to realise that you couldn't possibly mean me. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Hans, I wasn't thinking. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. It's a useful experience to question my own judgement and try to see everything with different eyes. --Hans Adler (talk) 19:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I provided some diffs in the thread above. Ruslik_ Zero 19:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I am of the view Kotniski acted entirely appropriately in this instance. Orderinchaos 08:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Incivility and non-collegial discussion by User:HarryAlffa
As requested:-


 * 1) [ To Ruslik ] I'm sorry, but you have such a fundamental misunderstanding of the technical aspects that you need to spend a few hours studying HTML & CSS (w3schools is a good start) before you get it. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ruslik's position seems quite clear and logical to me, and seems independent of any knowledge or lack thereof about technical aspects of HTML/CSS.--Kotniski (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You may think so, but it is not. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * i.e. "What you say is your opinion, what I say is the objective truth." Constructive? JamesBWatson (talk) 16:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, a quick negative comment without reading any of the previous discussion? Constructive? I'm only guessing, but am I right? ie. read the previous discussion and the technical aspects will become clear, about which I have demonstrated correctness. HarryAlffa (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) [ To Laser brain ] I'm trying hard to resist making a joke about 60watt bulb-brain :) HarryAlffa (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, was that supposed to pass for an insult? [ ... ] -- Laser brain  (talk)  19:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No insult, just a little pun on your name - the clue was in the word "joke", here's a link so you can look it up. [ ... ] HarryAlffa (talk) 20:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually I requested only uncivil stuff. Which is which? HarryAlffa (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Is that collegial or uncivil, or perfectly acceptable? Note the date. You have mounted your attack on me with text from the 22nd of May. Selective? HarryAlffa (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * [ To Harry Alffa ] I am happy that your finally reached a consensus with yourself, however, I do not think this is enough to change MOS. Ruslik (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

The first words of mine you quoted were "I'm sorry".

Despite all of my patient informative comment from the 7th May, Ruslik on the 22nd of May displayed a fundamental misunderstanding - I said so. What's wrong with that? I then made a simple statement of disagreement with Kotniski's position. What was wrong with that? HarryAlffa (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that JamesBWatson was civil and collegial? I declared my comment a guess, deliberately leaving it wide open to refutation. Do you not think his was a negative comment? Did you read the [previous discussion] as I asked James to? It started on the 7th May, and I provided much technical information, which I was not going to reiterate there, or here. Read it - get back to me. HarryAlffa (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh, more homework for editors who want to disagree with you! But in this case I totally agree. There can't be enough editors reading your output on that page and commenting here afterwards. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Just an impression from an outsider to the situation: Making a "joke" about someone's brain being "60-watt", and then when it (very unsurprisingly) doesn't go well, giving the editor a link to the article joke... is not respectful, professional, nor dignified behavior. It comes across as childish, contemptuous and condescending, and it's very likely to escalate a dispute. If you're in a disagreement with someone, making a joke (or whatever kind of insinuation, fore- or back-handed) that maybe they're dumb is a very, very bad idea. Until you change human nature, that's going to be a sure-fire way to increase the level of bad feelings, heat, drama, etc. I suggest some serious thought about what it means to interact respectfully and collegially. Consider HarryAlffa, if I, in this post, were to suggest that maybe you're offending people because you're too stupid to avoid doing so... how would that come across to you? I do not, in fact, think that you're stupid, but I do think that you've been careless. Again, this is just my impression. Don't take my word for it. Ask around. -GTBacchus(talk) 20:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "'Oh, make the title reiteration a link back to the same article, because then, through the magic of CSS, you've also made it bold. Unless they change it, that is.' You just lost 75% of the people editing here. --Laser brain (talk) 18:29, 22 May 2009 (UTC)"Laser Brain's first contribution to the discussion. Rather terse? Some might say it was uncivil - but not me. I put a smiley face :) to indicate my reply to this was a Joke, I said I was trying to resist making a Joke. I even put  in the wiki-code! To take it as an insult was unreasonable - I replied sarcasticly, no biggy, NOT disrespectful, unprofessional, undignified, childish, contemptuous or condescending. There is a difference between causing offence and taking offence. It was a bad joke we agree, as I indicated by my code-comment. HarryAlffa (talk) 21:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Like I said, it's just my impression. I find it helpful to avoid any references to anyone else's intelligence. Your mileage may vary. The definition of "sarcasm" includes the notion of contempt, which is not consistent with respect, at least not in contexts where that level of familiarity hasn't been established. Bad jokes are best not made. Also, I didn't say you insulted him. That was clearly not your intention. However, look where we are now. If you had simply refrained from making the bad joke, then no offense would have resulted, and at what cost? How many threads like this one are bad jokes worth? We have to live w/ human nature as it is, not as we feel it should be. Something likely to cause offense is best avoided, whether or not taking offense would be sufficiently "reasonable". The more clearly respectful and dignified your tone, the fewer misunderstandings. Seems like a good deal to me. His preceding comment might or might not have been terse, uncivil, whatever. If so, then all the more reason to be especially careful. If someone else is borderline uncivil, then we are challenged to use civility to prevent conflict. Responding with a joke that refers to his intelligence.... didn't work this time. Two people perceived it as coming across rather badly. We may both be unreasonable, but if there are enough of us, then you either adapt, or you spend more and more time dealing with fallout from people not being as reasonably thick-skinned and joke-understanding-and-tolerant as you'd like. Oh, when I wrote "comes across as childish, contemptuous and condescending" I was referring to the "helpful" link to the joke article that you gave him. Guess what percentage of the time that strategy successfully defuses a tense situation. My guess is that it's under 10%. Maybe I'm wrong... -GTBacchus(talk) 01:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is another one, from before the RfC. Demonstrating a complete lack of acknowledging that there might be anyone around who reasonably disagrees with HarryAlffa. It's long, but I promise it's worth reading:

[...] I think the concensus is that the MoS be changed to indicate that self-links are a good idea! HarryAlffa (talk) 16:42, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am happy that your finally reached a consensus with yourself, however, I do not think this is enough to change MOS. Ruslik (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you have anything constructive to contribute? I have made reasoned, well founded, clear discourse on this subject, and have shown that all the problems raised by fellow Wikipedians, are not problems at all. Consensus is built on a system of good reasons, not on a simple vote count; for this reason and my system of good reasons I now declare concensus in favour of using self-links! :) HarryAlffa (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I've now changed the WP:Link to reflect this new consensus. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:35, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

See my Essay on self-links. HarryAlffa (talk) 13:41, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I reverted this change since there is no consensus. Ruslik (talk) 13:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Indeed there isn't; and given how long the existing approach has existed and how widely, a small discussion here between a handful of editors isn't sufficient to overturn that either in policy or in practice. Also despite the pros and cons discussed above (not sure where the weight falls), my gut feeling is still that it's wrong. Links are for linking, not for style. Rd232 talk 14:11, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your main argument seems to be inertia: we've done it like this for ages. This, and a bad gut, are extremely poor "reasons" for disagreeing with something "new". Your last sentence is answered clearly in the discussion above, and in the links provided there. As you feel unable to weigh the pros & cons, how strongly held can your opinion be? Please assimilate the clear advantages I have given, before hardening your will! HarryAlffa (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no consensus for this change (in fact, I'm not sure anyone else agrees with you). A very substantial reason I gave was that a consensus for this change would need to be substantial, eg by listing at WP:VPP and doing an WP:RFC, that kind of thing. And you can't get away from the fact what you are proposing elides form and function in a way which is fundamentally inelegant and confusing. Rd232 talk 14:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I have undone Ruslik's revert. HarryAlffa (talk) 14:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You haven't persuaded anyone (yet); you may or may not be an Alfred Wegener ahead of his time, but that doesn't mean you should get into an edit war. Rd232 talk 14:43, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Mr Herr Alfred Wegener was ahead of his time, and it may appear to someone behind the times that I am ahead of mine, but I'm simply in step with current thinking on markup languages. :) HarryAlffa (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you think of ONE strong reason why it should be banned, or even just discouraged? Only then should it be not recommended, we can't just say stuff for no reason, or we can but we'd look stupid! HarryAlffa (talk) 14:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Look Harry, due to the community nature of WP, policy on WP is made either (a) reflecting existing practice, to clarify it (b) to change existing practice for reasons agreed by a substantial enough part of the community that the policy change is likely to be reflected in practice. Your proposal currently meets neither. You would need to get more widespread input to make this change to the policy. (I think you'd be wasting your time to try, but I could be wrong.) Rd232 talk 15:01, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Look RD, patronise much? WP:Link is not policy. Now to your other points; wait a minute, your whole argument based itself on WP:Link being policy, so you have constructed no argument here!
 * Would it be sensible to say that WP:Link offers good advice? I have demonstrated that using self-links is a good idea. Do you totally discount the strength of reason in a debate? HarryAlffa (talk) 15:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

--Hans Adler (talk) 20:11, 15 June 2009 (UTC) You can infer consensus from silence, sometimes, and I was pushing it a bit to see if anyone objected to me claiming they now thought this a good idea when they had raised previous objections. :) One objector from the 3, so far! HarryAlffa (talk) 12:19, 22 May 2009 (UTC) At what point do we draw a line and simply say, "Enough, Harry." This editor has made little in the way of positive contributions, and any that he has made are far outweighed by the negative ones. He has stonewalled discussions, insulted and belittled productive editors, and (at one point) almost drove off one of the most dedicated editors in the Astronomy section. He cannot take "no" for an answer, and refuses to accept any opinion that does not mirror his own. To be perfectly honest, there is some benefit in Harry bringing his arguments here in that it has perhaps exposed his behaviour pattern to the wider community. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  20:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Were have I stonewalled discussions? I thought Wikipedia was let bygones be bygones? Yet you continually bring up stuff from the past. I'm surprised you haven't brought up my honest mistake in believing sock-puppetery again, as you brought up here: Ckatz 3RR violation. Since when is not agreeing with you a crime? You continually misrepresent what I say in order to use a straw man argument - this tactic I regard as dishonest. Why are you still an Admin, you are not exemplary. HarryAlffa (talk) 21:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Why are you still an Admin, you are not exemplary." Really?  Really?  And you wonder why we are discussing your less than civil behavior? <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 21:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So misrepresenting, quoting out of context and constructing straw men is exemplary? HarryAlffa (talk) 21:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You miss the point. What you are engaging in here are thinly-veiled personal attacks and attempts to discredit another user.  If you want to refute accusations against your own behavior that is perfectly fine, but doing so by attempting to discredit someone else is absolutely unacceptable and merely provides more fuel for the fire; we are discussion your apparent lack of civility, not anyone else's, and you are acting in an incivil manner in the middle of the discussion.  Not helping yourself, here. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 21:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You didn't answer my question? Do you contend that Ckatz has never misrepresented, quoted out of context, or constructed straw men? Who do you think I attacked personally here, and what did I say? You let personal attacks on me slide in the other section above, why the inconsistency? SheffieldSteel gave a list at the top of this sub-section, most of the comments have not addressed these, would it not be more productive to answer some of those, before we get to the rest? HarryAlffa (talk) 22:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did not answer your question because it is not material to this discussion; this ia discussion regarding your incivility, not that of User:Ckatz or anyone else. You are a fan of bringing up logical fallacies (straw men), have you considered ad hominem or red herring?  You seem to have no compunctions about employing them.  Please focus on the question at hand and address the issues being brought up regarding your apparent problems with civility rather than try to distract us by slinging mud at another user. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 22:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Making significant changes to WP style or policy--without proposing it for prior discussion is being very BOLD, and one can normally expect to be reverted.  Sometimes one may want to do it in order to start a discussion (a very appropriate use of BRD) -- I've done that myself once or twice--but then one must take the subsequent objections in a cooperative spirit, even if they are rather sharp, and move to discussing the issue, not the manner of making the or objecting to the change.  (For this particular change, it seems to me that the confusion  to editors who do not understand the convention would seem to obviate the use of the MediaWiki feature.)DGG (talk) 23:18, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have walked away from the discussion referenced herein (as have several others) but here was the final straw for me, in which my attempt at furthering the stalled discussed was called "detestable" and "damn ridiculous", while Harry inferred that I was dishonest and operating in bad faith. This is his modus operandi. -- Laser brain  (talk)  03:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've never seen any good result come from one editor concluding in writing that another editor is acting in bad faith. Never, in hundreds and hundreds of cases. Anyone who does that is pretty much asking for the opposite of dispute resolution. Generally, they're doing this unintentionally, and in the best of faith. However, there's a limit to how long we can keep someone around, if they keep doing that. (Admins can get away with it for a lot longer than other editors, in general, but I've seen it catch up w/ several.) -GTBacchus(talk) 16:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

IP editor removing useful hatnote
An IP editor, variously User:24.149.47.30 or User:128.151.71.16, keeps removing from the article The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (1974 film) the hatnote which directs people to the The Taking of Pelham One Two Three (disambiguation) page, on the very technical grounds that it doesn't fulfill the letter of WP:HAT. Would someone please tell this person that with the release of a major remake right now, there's no particular harm, and potentially some good, that can be done by having that hatnote in place. The IP editor seems to think that the only way to get to the page for the 1974 film is by typing in the full title of the article, and that obviates the need for re-direction of the reader elsewhere, but, in fact, there are numerous ways in which one can have arrived at the page via various links, and for those who get there mistakenly, the hatnote offers a pathway to reach where they want to go, which is presumably the article on the recent film. This is a common sense vs. strict letter of the law thing, and I'm tired of dealing with it. I would appreciate someone else conveying this to the IP so that he'll stop removing the hatnote. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 14:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not even sure that "letter of the law" applies here. Semi-ed for a week in an attempt to get some discussion on talk. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, it is very appreciated. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 15:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the hatnote is a guideline not a policy (which I suspect you know, but the IP may not (tho they look to have edits since 2006 or something). Syrthiss (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Even if it were a policy, making sense trumps fulfilling the letter of anything. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Trolling
I am too pissed off by this IP's posts directed at me to act rationally, and recognizing that (having already flown off the handle in unusual form and offered a feeding which was apparently quite nourishing) can someone take a look at the last four edits in my talk page's history and do something appropriate. I find the latest post incredibly offensive.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If any admin thinks that a 1-week block was excessive, feel free to reduce without consulting first.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Eltrut
User continues depsite several warnings to remove speedy delete templates. The page in specific is Ben Knight, possibly a short term block would be effective or even a visit by admin. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like they have finally gotten it, and placed a hangon instead of removing the db. Syrthiss (talk) 15:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Kim-Zhang-Hong and religion/atheism articles
User appears to be removing/altering information, mostly in articles regarding atheism and religion. For example, with some political figures, he removes "atheist" from the religion box:. While I'm not familiar with the Religious war article, the history indicates that he is adding uncited information and POV. With State atheism, he's adding his own commentary and whatnot.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 15:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Telling them about our policies in this regard might be a good idea. So far noone bother talking to the user directly and unless this is tried, I see no need for admin intervention at this point. Talk to them/warn them. If they turn out to be misguided, guide them. If they turn out to be an ordinary vandal, take it to WP:AIV after issuing enough warnings. Either way, nothing for ANI imho. Regards  So Why  16:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I left them a "NOR" warning and I'll see where it goes from there.--Sandor Clegane (talk) 16:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Animal91X
Despite numerous warnings, this user constantly uploads copyrighted material without adding relevant source or permission details, and all too often trying to claim it as own work. magnius (talk) 17:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User has been blocked indefinitely. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  17:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete unused Rename template
Now that the move template needs to be subst'd, occasionally people try to use this template, Rename, but it does not work, and should be just deleted. 199.125.109.126 (talk) 17:38, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This doesn't belong here, instead try WP:TfD --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Allstarecho, redux (was How far can good faith be stretched?)
<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.

Presented for your consideration, this series of edits:
 * 16 May - Allstarecho uploads a joke image labelled "Upscale Glory Hole" (the image is clearly an IKEA sink or countertop with a part missing)
 * 25 May - Allstarecho adds it to Glory hole with the caption "A glory hole found in an IKEA store restroom"
 * 9 June - removed by User:Mendaliv with the edit summary "this is not a glory hole, but was just humorously labeled as such on Flickr"
 * 14 June - Allstarecho re-adds the image with the edit summary "it's labeled as such at the original source"
 * 15 June - Mendaliv changes caption to add "possible" and summary "tweak description; image description does not say it was from a restroom, nor does it say it was actually a gloryhole"
 * 15 June - Allstarecho removed "possible" with summary "sorry, the original source plainly says in big black bold letters "Ikea Glory Hole". It doesn't say "Possible Ikea Glory Hole". And where else does one find a glory hole besides in a restroom?"
 * 15 June - I remove image
 * 15 June - Allstarecho reverts me with edit summary "the source says it is, take it up with the source if you have an issue with it"
 * 15 June - I revert and Allstarecho does not challenge the edit

I have no doubt that Allstarecho knows that this is not actually an image of a glory hole. Should I assume good faith and pretend otherwise? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a problem, particularly since it continued after the recent unblock. A canonical example of unreliable sourcing is some random person's description at Flickr.  Putting that sort of joke into article space is dubious at best, and edit warring to reinstate it one day after gettting an indefinite block removed does not look good at all.  Is there some missing context to explain this?  Because as this stands it's very disappointing.  Durova Charge! 01:19, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pretty sure that "good faith" is an irrelevant red herring. If someone's behavior is disruptive, it doesn't matter how good their faith is; the behavior has to stop. Stopping to make claims about the goodness or badness of their faith distracts from the important task of simply stopping them. Every time I block a vandal, they might be acting in good faith, and just incredibly stupid. I don't care, so I don't mention their faith. Disruption must be prevented, independent of any considerations about "faith". Just my 2 bits. -GTBacchus(talk) 01:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's it exactly. I have arrived at the theory that even the most notorious vandals, such as that Grawp character, believe in their hearts that they're doing the right thing, or that what they're doing is justified somehow. So in that context, they are indeed acting "in good faith". AGF thus is not really a very helpful concept. The question that should be asked about any edit is not "Was it done in good faith?", but rather "Does it fit within wikipedia guidelines (i.e. verifiable, notable, neutral, etc.)" and "Does it enhance the reader's knowledge?" Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's still a helpful concept insofar as it reminds us to refrain from making motivation-based arguments. Those are weak arguments anyway, because they rest on a necessarily dubious conclusion. If, on the other hand, the AGF concept simply inspires editors to identify behaviors that they believe "excuse" them from an obligation to assume good faith... that's actively harmful. The ideal would be to encourage a culture where arguments about others' motivations are seen as not only irrelevant, but actively distracting and poisonous. The mosquito biting my leg last night was absolutely acting in good faith - no question. If I had justified killing it by claiming it wasn't... that would be very stupid, and it would cause sensible people to question my reasoning, and rightly so. I killed it because it was sucking my blood, and I don't care one bit about its faith. Bugs is entirely correct about the right questions to be asking. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * While hardly claiming to be an expert on glory holes ... I will disclose having been in quite a few sex clubs - it may have been research - and that image easily could be a glory hole from any of them or on someone's private property as a joke or any other number of scenarios, like a porn movie. It certainly looks like one and the words applied there also would infer that use so I would choose to accept it. That bad lighting? Most clubs have utility lighting in addition to the "mood" lighting. If it was a movie set they would likely have needed the lighting for the filming. Sorry, I see this as quibbling over a glory hole and aren't you terribly proud of that? -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   02:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The subject matter is irrelevant: Wikipedia's policy structure allows for an article to exist; policies apply equally. The relevant policies here are WP:V and WP:RS (as well as discouragement from edit warring).  Durova Charge! 03:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Amazing how this thread dealing with Damiens.rf's bad faith and harassment, has now turned into one about my bad faith. The fact is, I went looking for a better "glory hole" image than the one that was being used in the article. I found this alleged "joke image" on Flickr as a free image. I added it to Commons, and put it in the article. Nowhere on the damn Flickr page, at the time anyway as I haven't looked at it recently, does it say "this is a joke image, it's not real, etc". What the Flickr source did say was a big damn in bold title Ikea Glory Hole. So I am supposed to guess and assume it's a some kind of "joke"? And because I didn't, Wikipedia has now fallen to its knees? Seriously, grow up. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 04:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I invite anyone reading this discussion to look at the image, which is perfectly inoffensive in case anyone is concerned about that, and judge for themselves. After having been informed (unnecessarily) that it was a joke, Allstarecho replaced the image, and even reverted an attempt by Mendaliv to qualify it as a "possible" glory hole. Another editor has no trouble recognizing it for what it is. Now the photographer has responded to a query by Mendaliv on Flickr to clarify "mendaliv - It was in the kitchen department at Ikea. There should have been a faucet there to try". Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * When Allstarecho claimed an ongoing wikihounding problem had been occurring for months he received an invitation to provide evidence; he provided no evidence. Instead, other evidence was forthcoming that Allstarecho had edit warred to restore an unreliable claim after his recent unblock from an indef.  This has taken time out from two historic image restorations: one United States Capitol from the War of 1812, the other a portrait of John Quincy Adams.  Will be heading back to serious work now, and hoping this thread ends in a sensible result.  Durova Charge! 06:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Slow down their private eye, go look at my talk page. You will see where such evidence is being gathered. Additionally, I didn't "edit war" as the timeline above shows. Also, your last post was 3 hours ago so if you've been sitting here staring at the screen and this section for 3 hours instead of attending to your historic image restorations, that's all on you. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 06:17, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Part of the problem here is that we are dealing with a case where both parties have rather major issues. I myself have observed some rather antagonistic behaviour by Damiens.rf in completely unrelated areas to the discussion here, extending over some months and I think he even got blocked for it at one point. The behaviour of which Allstar is complaining is *entirely* consistent with what I saw then. On the other hand Allstar doesn't seem to have the highest assumption of good faith either because of the copyright issues and some past stoushes. These sort of situations are always the most difficult to resolve. Orderinchaos 08:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree to a point but on this glory hole thing ASE's assessment that it seems tangential is rather spot-on. I'm not saying it's a purposeful red-herring but the issue here needs to turn back to the initial incivility and, IMHO, WP:Dickishness being displayed towards other editors and apparently the community as a ... whole. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   12:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I raised the glory hole issue in order to demonstrate that there are more issues here than simply Damiens.rf's actions (which I am not condoning). If this seems dickish on my part them so be it. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I wasn't reffering to your raising the glory hole issue as dickish I was pointing out that I agree that ASE's behaviour, while perhaps not model-like is not the main core of the issue. Indeed they seem to be teh model of how we want editors to take on criticism and help amend for issues they have adversely impacted. Your glory hole example above seems a bit of a dispute and I happen to agree that this wasn't just ASE being stubborn or a problem editor. In fact by those actions it shows they desisted. Personally I think a bit of discussion on the talkpage might have helped a bit. In any case their did indeed explain themselves and didn't seem to hound you or the other editor. This would seem like a totally different league compared to Damiens.rf tenditious goading and what smells like bullying/wikistalking. Just because we don't have some rule outlined not to be a jerk and hound other editors doesn't mean experienced editors like Damiens.rf should do so. Personally I felt it may just be an issue with LGBT topics but now it may just be a larger behavioural issue that has gone largely unchecked for months. I don't like digging through distasteful and uncivil comments and I've never had a good experience with them. There are very few editors I can state such a thing about. This glory hole nonsense is rather distracting from some real damage being done to the volunteer community here. We don't encourage editors to act as taskmasters telling others what to fix and how and asking how soon can ___ be deleted? I'll give you X number of days and then the ax falls. Or filling up an article with unneeded fact tags or otherwise making such a stink on an article that admins have to be called in to stop it. It's a toxic approach to editing and makes the atmosphere of building consensus into a battleground instead. We don't need it. -- <u style="font-size:14px; font-family: cursive;color:#8000FF">Banj e  <u style="font-size:14px;font-family: Zapfino, sans-serif;color:deeppink">b oi   15:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Also agree. Check the Australian politics topic as well where he engaged in similar behaviour months ago. Orderinchaos 02:43, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Am I the only one who finds humor in any mention of the word "dickish" in a discussion about glory holes? ;-) Frank  |  talk  20:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is a difficult concept to swallow. Gulp! --<font color="#000000">Web <font color="#ff0000">H <font color="#000000">amster  20:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Whomever placed the image over there ---> certainly has a clue as that's how the image was described and presented originally at Flickr - as a glory hole found in an Ikea store - and is the only reason I uploaded it at Commons (that and because it had the appropriate license). Others, as seen in the timeline above, started removing it from the related article calling it a "joke image" even though it said no such thing remotely close to "this is a joke" at the Flickr source. I've done nothing wrong here and this sub-thread should either be collapsed or moved to its own section as it has nothing to do with the main thread and Damiens.rf's behavior. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 16:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ASE, at this point I can't help but think that you "doth protest too much." Not that I have any personal experiences with using glory holes, but I've seen them, and even the most cursory of glances at that photo pretty clearly indicates that it's a sink. The stainless steel, sharp edges, and very small size should have all been big clues. Fun and games is all well and good, but I cannot at this point believe that you sincerely thought it was an actual photo of an actual glory hole at an IKEA, of all places. It's either that or you have absolutely no ability to actually evaluate sources for their veracity and merely take them on faith. Even if that were the case, though, you should revisit what we have to say about self-published sources, which flickr most certainly is. In the final analysis, it doesn't matter whether you knew it was a joke, whether you simply accept any source you see as accurate, or whether you don't understand the problem with self-published sources, as the end result is the same: something that is factually incorrect that you engaged in a slow-motion edit war over including. Whether or not you were acting in good faith is likewise immaterial, and I for one utterly fail to believe you have acted in good faith on an enormous number of occasions. Sorry to be so harsh, but I'm not really interested in mincing words here: your behaviour throughout the copyvio problem was massively disruptive, and while I don't have time to hunt through your contribs to look for similar issues to the one raised with this photo, based on your patterns of behaviour thus far I would be unsurprised to find more. As someone said somewhere above, it doesn't matter if you are acting in good faith, because the end result is bad, and repetitively so. User:Who then was a gentleman? pointed out yesterday, and I have come to agree somewhat (though not completely) that whether or not Damiens.rf has been stalking you, he has in fact raised some very valid concerns about your behaviour. These are now two separate issues: dealing with his behaviour (for which I hope a permanent ban is coming soon), and dealing with yours--which at this point, especially given your behaviour with the copyvios, I have some difficulty seeing why the solution should be any different. After all, the community consensus was against your unblock, and yet here you are--still refusing to acknowledge your behaviour (albeit a new behaviour this time), and, frankly, acting incredibly disingenuous when called on it. I strongly suggest you re-evaluate your reactions and change your behaviour accordingly. // roux <span style="border:1px solid #4B0082;-moz-border-radius-topright:10px;-moz-border-radius-bottomleft:10px;padding:0px 7px;font-size:30%;">  17:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Roux, I usually respect and value your opinion but on this one, you are wrong and way off base. Frankly, it does not matter whether you believe that I actually thought this was a glory hole or not. What does matter is the facts, which are again: I went looking for a free image to use in the related article to give variety to the imagery presented. I found this free image on Flicker titled Ikea Glory Hole. It also had/has the description at Flickr Found in Ikea. For boys only.. Nowhere does it say "could be" or "possible" or "just kidding" or "this is a joke". I uploaded the image to Commons, because it's a free image. I placed the image in the related article. It was removed by a user proclaiming it as a humorously labeled as glory hole. I went back and looked at the source. Again, nowhere at the source was any such indication that it was in jest, a joke or humor. I re-added it back to the article with a notation that no such "humor" claim was at the source. I'm not a hardware expert and certainly not full of knowledge in regards to what may be a sink from such a vague in regards-to-sinks image. There's nothing else I can say about this. I know what I did and why I did it and nothing I did was wrong or against any policy. - ALLST✰R ▼ echo wuz here @ 18:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Two factual concerns about that object, where it might fail OSHA standards: (1) Possibly sharp edges; and (2) the possibility of a disposal having been installed on the other side. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If I were gonna maybe get banned from Wikipedia, I wouldn't want it to be for edit warring over glory holes, of all things. There's an idea of choosing one's battles, because not all hills are worth dying on. -GTBacchus(talk) 17:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd been avoiding chiming in here, but I've got to say I don't think ASE has done anything wrong in uploading the image and marking it as a gloryhole. However, I strongly object to his position above which suggests he's being accused of wrongdoing in having (mis)identified that image as one of a genuine gloryhole. The problem is ASE's manner of approaching the questioning of something he just happens to have uploaded. I don't think he was wrong to defend his contributions- we'd all likely do the same- but his manner in my view was objectionable as evidenced by the diffs provided by Delicious carbuncle. However, I agree that there's nothing worthy of action (administrative or otherwise) in this specific situation. &mdash;/M endaliv /2¢/Δ's/ 18:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the Flickr version of the joke and this sink from the Ikea site  would be a candidate for what the photo actually portrays. You get stuck in that faucet opening, and you're sunk. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 03:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I've undone Benjiboi's collapsing of this section. It may or may not be relevant to Damiens.rf actions, but it isn't in that topic thread so that's hardly a reason to collapse. It is relevant to earlier discussions about Allstarecho's unblocking, so let's treat it like any other topic here and let it run its course. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As an uninvolved party, I've re-closed it. Seems to have run its course and there's nothing more to discuss - just navel-gazing at this point. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 15:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Jackiestud


User has been repeatedly adding the exact same stuff about Adam and Eve on several articles related to Feminism and is at 3RR on the Feminism article itself (see contribs). MuZemike 20:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See user's additions to Feminist theology, Goddess movement, Christian feminism, Goddess, and more. She's adding the same thing to multiple articles, creating real undue weight issues; no attempt is being made to seek consensus, she is replacing the text even after other users have reverted her and tried to initiate discussions.  It seems like POV pushing, maybe OR or original synthesis, not to mention the etiquette problems.  Dawn Bard (talk) 20:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I tried many times to show that WP already cites Campbell and this very same chapter (see feminism_and_neopaganism), there no orginal synthesis, only etimology, pre historical goddess and teh Bible. No original research at all. Jackiestud (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And I've been trying to discuss this (including the OR issue) with her on my talk page . She's added it to Women in the Bible, adding Goddess as a see also for Dolmen because she read something on the web that mentioned Dolmen and Goddess although our Goddess article won't help readers learn more about Dolmen, etc. There were problems like this in April that led to a short block. Dougweller (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If I may borrow a metaphor, the problem here isn't as much OR but a sort of tunnel vision. An encyclopædia is about a particularly wide field of vision -- to horizon and beyond.  Your edits have concentrated on certain small issues, which you apparently consider particularly important.  It is against the Tao for me to try and convince you that you should neglect these issues, but at the same time, the Tao of Wikipedia is clear about WP:UNDUE, too. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 21:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I'm still AGFing that jackie is working in good faith and may just be a little inexperienced, but I don't know how any of us can make things clearer than we already have. The information is ok (not prooperly cited but ok) it's just being given too much emphasis and is being placed in the wrong articles. The issue we all have with the edits is based on the core policies of WP:V and WP:NPOV (specifically WP:UNDUE). I'm sure if Jackie goes through the policy they'll understand our objections --<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil  <font color="#999999">talk 21:03, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Callil. Thank you very much for your words. No doubt about my good faith. Iam jut trying to make it avaiblable in some of these articles because the are related to the text. So, no maybe not all of these but one or two... Adam and Eve is the correct one, as much as feminism. And I would thank if someone can help me with a better english instead of deletion. Jackiestud (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I dont knwo if you have Campbell´s book, but my text only cites him: Adam was born out of a red clay (and the etimology of his name is red clay, or blood (dam)); a such respected scholar like Campbell is only saying that pre historic religion( and art) worshiped the so called Mother Goddess and this goddess is still there in the Bible. Adam comes from, was born, from this Goddess myth. The Hebrew Goddess book says esaclty the same thing. Jackiestud (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Having found the Truth is all fine and dandy, but this sort of proselytism does not really go well with encyclopædia-building. Dear Jackiestud, please don't do it. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 21:44, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I made a statement on User talk:Awadewit about this. The individual uses a poor quality reference, has bad grammar, and insists on repeating it without discussion with others. How to handle? I don't know. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps some sort of block to prevent further article disruption? :O— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 00:18, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Iam sorry if I disappointed you. I don´t know why does WP offer a whole life abt Joseph Campbell (since this is poor quality reference (sic!), why would Adam ´s etimology (copied from WP) be also of such a poor quality...And by the way, as for my bad grammar,  I coudl very easily improve the text...but anyway, since english is not my mother language, I´d love to see your grammar in portuguese, french (which is my third language)... Jackiestud (talk) 00:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should be primarily editing the Wikipedia of your mother tongue instead of the English Wikipedia. I'm sure you'll be more help to the French and Portuguese projects.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 00:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You know what's interesting Jackiestud? You were blocked for similar reasons at the Portuguese Wikipedia. Edit warring at their articles for chaos theory and mother goddess only over two months ago.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 00:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL, Yes...see above? Maybe I was blocked for the same "REASON" (!!) I could now be blocked here (as you suggested)... You see, lots of "reasons". Feel free to block me... What kind of human being are you? Go read some Campbell...Why do ~you waste yr time with a freak like me...?? Jackiestud (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Jackie that isn't helpful. We've pointed you towards the policies and guidelines that govern how articles are written and what material is included in them. Please read them. And yes I have read Campbell along with many other works hence I see how little weight it deserves in the context of a global overview of the whole subject of feminism, or indeed an article on feminist theology. I've advised you a number of times taht a smaller better sourced version of the material you added would be useful in another article like Feminism and Religion. Also please redact your comment to Ryulong as it is both incivil and a personal attack which against our rules for talk page communication--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil  <font color="#999999">talk 01:16, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * See this? These are the many refused, deleted actions of this editor at the WP-PT (loads of admins expressing their perplexity with your "requirements": http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usu%C3%A1rio_Discuss%C3%A3o:Ryulong. Campbell is cited in MANY feminism related articles all over WP-en (as I offered many links). End of talk for me. Bye, bye. Jackiestud (talk) 01:22, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ottava?? Are you there?? You would love to see his gramar back there on the WP-PT...All admins and denials; you can check for yr self on the oage I linked above (his "talk" page!!!!). See the last msg, the adin says: "Iam sorry, Id didn´t knwo you don´t speak potuguese" (LOL). See?? Can you imagine his grammar?? LOL. What was he doing there? editing??Jackiestud (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC).
 * Jackiestud, stop now. My actions at the Portuguese Wikipedia are of no importance here (because I really don't do anything there unless I've found vandalism here that poured over to the other language projects, which happens every now and then). Your actions here are at question. If you continue to edit war on the English Wikipedia you will be blocked from editing the English Wikipedia. If you cannot act accordingly here, you should stay on the Portuguese Wikipedia.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 02:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, got nervous? Very bad and histerical words words (horrible and disuptive agressive, unethical, rude, unpolite summaries). You should be blocked for personal attacks! I have many articles here on the Wp-en. Many. As for the Wp-pt (since 2006) there are hundreds of articles and NOT A SINGLE COMPLAINT. All of yr requirements there were denied!! All of it. Jackiestud (talk) 02:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (Warning on ANI and user talk page)
 * Jackiestud - you are clearly being too rude in responding to your critics here and elsewhere. This is not appropriate behavior on the english language Wikipedia.  Please review WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:AGF, and edit in a more collaborative and friendly way moving forwards.
 * Regarding your content edits, you appear to be repeatedly reinserting material which a consensus of other editors believes is fringe material, not mainstream, and you are trying to give undue weight to it. This is against policy.  You are also conducting a widespread edit war over that material.  Once you were made aware that many other editors (all of them, on those pages, apparently) do not agree with you including it, you are required to stop reposting it over and over again and to discuss the issue on article talk pages.  You appear instead to primarily be fighting in other venues.
 * This all is very disruptive, taken as a whole.
 * I am assuming good faith and giving you some credit for not having english as your first language. But you are pushing too hard here, and this is not ok.  I or other administrators will block you if you continue this behavior.  You need to calm down your edit tone and respond more politely, and discuss your edits in good faith on article talk pages.
 * This is an encyclopedia, and a project dedicated to building one. Please participate here in an adult and constructive manner.  We expect positive collaboration from all participants.
 * Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * She has also put this into a number of articles. Most of the Adam & Eve stuff, if not all, is hers, but the rest is clearly copy and paste from another article without attribution (the writing, the different forms of citation, and the fact tags point to it being from one of our articles and not written by the editor) - and this breaches our GFDL licence of course. I've asked her about it on her talk page after failing to find the source. Dougweller (talk) 04:59, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And her response was to blank the page. Her right, of course, but not very constructive. I hope she will reply here about the licence issue. Dougweller (talk) 05:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Should we remove that material as a precaution Doug or is that an over-reaction?--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil  <font color="#999999">talk 17:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know, it's a breach of the licence, she says she doesn't know where she got it from. Now she's editing Ochre saying that her stuff comes from another article so it's ok, and citing a mirror (AbsoluteAstronomy) and a couple of websites. Maybe anything goes on some Wikis, but she clearly doesn't undertand ours. Dougweller (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm yeah. So basically even if the info stays the material has to be rewritten to avoid license breach - just great *sigh*.  Ok on a constructive note: it was only added to 3 articles: Goddess, Goddess movement and Feminism (i did a link search on the website ref for the Campbell stuff to confirm this). So I suggest we can salvage and prune what's relevant and verifiable (per WP:DUE and WP:V) and expunge what's breaching the license and any other policy.  Any thoughts?--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil   <font color="#999999">talk 21:32, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me and should improve the articles. We just do it to one, copy to the others with attribution? Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reduced it on Feminism by refocussing on thealogy and it seems like other people want to develop it in other directions. We can use the piece as it develops there as a model for the pieces in other articles?--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil   <font color="#999999">talk 20:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Should also note that she is edit warring at Ochre. I warned her for 3RR, she either didn't bother to count or miscounted and warned me, after which she hit 4RR and I reported her . But I don't want to revert on Ochre again (although we've discovered that we have Red ochre as well so some sort of merge is needed I think). And although I couldn't have been clearer about attributing copy and paste on her talk page and mine, she continues to do it - from History of religions. I did report her for 4RR but just after another editor had done the same, and he combined the reports. Dougweller (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've come across her before and I see no evidence Jackiestud is ever going to understand and comply with core policies. She simply isn't worth all the time and effort employed on chasing up on her all the time. --Folantin (talk) 19:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Jackiestud has been blocked 24h for breaking 3RR →. MuZemike 21:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Any chance we can find her a mentor? If not, I suspect an indef block will be in the near future.  Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I dunno she had at least 4 people say exactly the same thing to her and she ignored the advice repeatedly - echoing Folantin formal mentorship may not prove productive. Her history at other wikis sadly doesn't demonstrate compliance with behavioral policies either. I think we should wait and see what happens when she comes back - if the same problematic behavior occurs lets open up options then--<font color="#999999" size="2">Cailil   <font color="#999999">talk 20:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

66.190.29.150
is edit-warring on several articles & the talk pages of those are full of PAs from him, mainly him accusing others of British POV pusshing. (The funniest one is on Slick tyre where rather than try to get the article's title changed he keeps changing 'tyre' to 'tire' within the article). His talk page is littered with warnings. He hasn't actually gone over 3RR yet, and I'm involved in one of the articles. Dougweller (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to add to this. He is continually posting at Talk:Amesbury Archer in a way that I would call spam more than anything else. I know enough about the subject to be able to work out that he clearly doesn't know anything about it. At the risk of making a personal attack (not my intent here, I just want to tell you how I see it) judging from his methods of ignoring questions raised on the talk page and trying to extend an argument, I think he's only here as a persistent vandal (or WP:troll), not to contribute anything meaningful to articles. This would seem to be backed up by the problems other editors are having with him. I have no intention to hide facts about the article and would only welcome its expansion in a logical and meaningful form, unfortunately his edits seem designed to antagonise other editors so that he can have an argument. His insistence that anyone disagreeing with him is pushing a British POV is totally nonsensical on an article about Ancient History, yet he's doing it. I'm happy to be open about the facts of the Amesbury Archer and have even incorporated some of his views into the article, but his offensive tone, continual PA's and questioning of other editors knowledge and motivations is pathetic. Even got me a bit annoyed for a moment. Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 19:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. The consistent personal attacks and offensive tone has become disruptive on several articles.  He has continued posting personal attacks, I note, after a last warning to stop or else be blocked.  I would suggest we carry through with that.


 * Note that the IP was blocked for 6 months in February 2008 as a sockpuppet of banned User:Ernham (see here. I don't know if that's still relevant, but I think it's worth mentioning. Pfainuk talk 20:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. Ah yes, I've seen this one as well and had half a mind to raise it here.  Clearly someone who knows wiki policies and only seems interested in trying to start pointless arguments.  Sails close on 3RR but doesn't make the 4th edit.  Bizarre, seems to set out to disrupt.  Justin talk 22:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Definite intent to disrupt, I would say, based on attitude and approach. Language changes at Slick tyre ("It is not my problem the first person to start the wiki used the incorrect variant spelling"), removing properly cited material at Falkland Islands ("now like a pack of wild dogs people swarm to push a British POV"), several nasty attacks against Justin ("abusive, british POV pushing wiki stalker"), and so on. --Ckatz <sup style="color:green;">chat <sub style="color:red;">spy  23:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth I think he just likes arguing with people on talk pages. He'll ignore your questions and then accuse you of exactly what he's guilty of, constantly trying to get people to rise to his baits.  At Amesbury Archer it looks to me as if he watched a BBC Timewatch program called Stonehenge Decoded (I think it was broadcast in the States with Carrie Fisher narrating it) and is basing all his arguments off of it, trying to come across as an expert.  I can see from his comments that he knows very little beyond this, and I suspect the same is true at other articles he edits.  It's amusing that one BBC article is Gods truth, but another is totally wrong because it disagrees - but only he is in a position to judge this for us.  That alone shows his intent I think, and leads to his next ploy to start a fight - insulting everyone he can as quickly as possible Ranger Steve (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible to get some sort of consensus here folks? It seems to me that if this user is merely a sockpuppet of an already banned user, then the logic of originally banning him still stands. Different account, same user. No change in ways either! Ranger Steve (talk) 21:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A campaign of systematic vandalism (User:Dr90s and puppets)
<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  18:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC) For over 1 year, a persistent and monothematic vandal (originally calling himself User:Dr90s) has been engaged in a vandalistic campaign on Wikipedia to remove all references to or to downplay as much as possible the achievements of video game designer, Shigeru Miyamoto. The person who is vandalising Wikipedia in this way has used and continues to use sockpuppet accounts to fool other editors into the belief that his edits have broad support. Due to the length of time this vandal has been operating, many of his edits have become semi-ingrained in the articles, and I think this is extremely harmful to Wikipedia as a project. As I mentioned in one of the many SPI reports I have filed on this vandal, I believe these edits skirt the edge of defamation of character. Mr. Miyamoto is a living person and the removal/downplay of his achievements on Wikipedia may adversely affect his professional and personal reputation. As it states at WP:BLP, "[f]rom both a legal and ethical standpoint it is essential that a determined effort be made to eliminate defamatory and other undesirable information from these articles as far as possible."

I do not wish to waste anyone's time and I recognize that the Sock Puppet Investigations is probably the best place to go with matters such as this, but I have a few specific suggestions for partial solutions which can only be achieved through AN/I. Please don't simply disregard or move this request before at least considering the suggestions below (especially those under the heading "ArbCom Sanctions"). In addition, I was wondering if there were any ideas for further actions I could take to try to curb this malicious editor's vandalistic impulses.

Filing SPI reports takes me a very long time (digging up difs of well-disguised vandalism and trying to differentiate between sleeper socks and normal editors), and unfortunately I seem to be the only editor willing to make the report. I am concerned that the people at SPI will soon tire of my constant reports (my most recent report was on June 12, 2009 and the one previous to this was on June 9, 2009). Knowing this editor's pattern of sock-based vandalism as well as I do and knowing this vandal's history of creating sleeper accounts, I always request the use of CheckUser at SPI. This is a powerful tool and the folks at SPI are naturally reluctant to use it every time I request it (according to WP:CHECK it is only to be used "exceedingly rarely"). Unfortunatley, this results in the further ingraining of malicious defamation of Mr. Miyamoto at Wikipedia until the evidence becomes so overwhelming that the use of CheckUser cannot be avoided. This may take months, and unfortunately there is no "clean-up crew" assigned to mitigate the effects of the defamatory edits that have now become part of Wikipedia. As a brief example, I just today cleaned up some vandalism left by a prior sockpuppet that had lingered since November 2008! While I haven't given up on SPI by any means, in this regard at least it is failing to correct the problem insofar as it applies a mere "band-aid" patch to cure deep wound.

To make matters worse, this vandal is extremely adept at dodging blocks, and I know of at least one account that is still active and that was created only hours after the latest June 14, 2009 SPI-imposed mass-blocking of 8 puppets (bringing this user to a total of 26 blocked accounts). This new account is User:Akane7000, and his last edit was yesterday. There is a large record on file at SPI for the puppetmaster and his socks. There are also several older reports that do not show up in the SPI archives. I have not traced this matter to its origin, however to make matters easier for those who wish to examine the full history, I present for your consideration a partial summary of offical action taken so far:
 * June 17, 2008 dif showing original determination of and banning of Dr90s as a puppetmaster account with 1 sock
 * October 19, 2008 AN/I report on confirmed Dr90s sockpuppet User:43.244.132.168 is rejected for lack of jurisdiction
 * December 15, 2008 AN/3RR report on confirmed Dr90s sockpuppet User:Eisai Dekisugi results in 24-hour hard-block for 1 ip-sock
 * December 15, 2008 SPI report on confirmed Dr90s sockpuppet User:Eisai Dekisugi reveals 1 user-sock and 2 ip-socks
 * December 16, 2008 RFP directed at heavy Dr90s puppet vandalism results in Indefinite Full Page Protection for a target article
 * February 18, 2009 SPI report on confirmed Dr90s sockpuppets User:Millionaire01, User:Dailypilot, and User:Sharetowns reveals an additional 9 user-socks
 * June 9, 2009 SPI report on confirmed Dr90s sockpuppet User:Sunglle
 * June 12, 2009 SPI report on confirmed Dr90s sockpuppets User:Thisgift, User:Sergei semenovich1, and User:Honmatrix1 reveals an additional 4 sockpuppets

Thanks for your consideration of this matter. -Thibbs (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom Sanctions
In order to be successful in a request for use of CheckUser, a requesting editor must show that the accused puppet diplays at least one (and preferably several) of the following: or
 * A - Evasion of bans or other remedies issued by the arbitration committee (closed cases only)
 * B - Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents
 * C - Vote fraud for a closed vote where the possible sockpuppet votes affect the outcome
 * D - 3RR violation using socks
 * E - Evasion of community-based bans or blocks
 * F - Request doesn't fit any of the criteria but you believe a check is warranted anyway

Because SPI is a non-arbitration group, my only consistently valid reason to request CheckUser has been Code E. Apparently Codes B and D apply only to the currently accused sock and as this vandal's vandalistic edits are spread over a great number of socks, and as I am usually largely unaware of them all, I am unable to furnish proof of the requisite 24 (i.e. two dozen) vandalistic/3RR-violative edits. Although a Dr90s votestacking (Code C) violation can be seen at this 2008 AfD, the only times the puppetmaster has attempted a Code C recently (e.g. Dec '08 AN/3RR reporting, May '09 AfD voting, etc.), the votes went against him and so he cannot be said to have "affect[ed] the outcome[s]."

I am hoping that the ArbCom can impose a block on User:Dr90s' most recent puppet, User:Akane7000 so that a record can be created on this vandal and so that my future work at SPI in this regard can be streamlined. If it helps my case at all, an earlier report on this vandal was filed with AN/I in October 2008 by retired User:The Prince of Darkness. This report can be found here. Although it is true that this matter may arguably be more properly under the jurisdiction of WP:SPI, I think that an ArbCom ban is warranted in this case and could help with this problem greatly. -Thibbs (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Page Protection
I have considered requesting protection for pages that seem to be particular targets for this vandalistic editor, however I don't believe that accounts like User:Akane7000 will be blocked by mere Semi-protection, and I worry that Full protection may render prior acts of vandalism uncorrectable, and may furthermore be largely ineffective against this kind of vandalism insofar as the underlying theme covers a great number of pages (Mr. Miyamoto has designed a great number of games and references to this are scattered across more than 50 pages). I welcome any sugestions for creative solutions involving page protection. -Thibbs (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Designated Admin
I'm not sure if such a thing is possible, but I was wondering if I could be assigned an administrator to whom I can report all matters involving Dr90s in order to simplify the sockpuppet reporting phase for myself. A previous administrator (User:Hermione1980) who had been a first-hand witness to an earlier round of Dr90s sockpuppeting had volunteered to be the do just this on December 17, 2008 (see relevant difs), however she has since retired (see her "goodbye" dif). I can honestly say that I have no vested interests in the underlying matters on which this vandal is editing. My edit history reflects as much. My only concerns are that a blocked user is evading community sanctions and that a living person (Mr. Miyamoto) is suffering the maligning of his professional and personal character on the pages of Wikipedia. -Thibbs (talk) 16:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, a complex situation at face value, but really, we just have a sockmaster who is pretty persistent, right? Having reviewed the SPI case(s), your contributions, the relevant page histories, and the sock's editing style, I think it's pretty straightforward identification - the duck test is applicable here. I'd be willing to be your go-to guy in this situation. If other admins (and non-admins) concur, I think this is the most reasonable solution. Page protection doesn't seem like an option at this point. FWIW, I blocked the most recent sock Akane. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  16:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This sounds great to me. I'll drop a note requesting non-admin comments at the talkpage of some of the usual haunts for this puppetmaster. I think this will work well. A million thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 18:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Support: I won't pretend to understand all of the procedural stuff that goes on here (though I sympathize with admins for having to put up with all the ridiculous nonsense that the anonymity of the Internet incurs). However, I greatly support anything that will simplify and expedite dealing with Dr90s' persistent POV editing and circumventing of blocks with socks. DKqwerty (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support: I remember dealing with this person before. This seems like the best option as we can't flat out stop them, only catch them in the act. Having a channel open to expedite the process will help keep in step with Dr90s.
 * I don't know what this person's agenda is, but if he's trolling a specific group of articles, then I suggest we get some help monitoring those articles. This may or may not count as canvassing, but would it be alright to post a notice at the Video games project's talk page and its Nintendo task force talk page? The more eyes looking, the easier it will be to identify the socks right? We just need to tell VG project members what to look for and have them direct the activity to Thibbs to analyze it (if that's alright with Thibbs). Any thoughts? (Guyinblack25 talk 15:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC))
 * I'd be happy to help however I can. As long as I'm around, I will gladly discuss the edits of suspicious-looking Dr90s suspects. If I think there is substantial evidence, then I will turn the matter over to Tanthalas39, AN/I, or SPI. I think one of the biggest things is to maintain a level of awareness that this is an ongoing situation. Sadly I'm pretty sure this editor will be around for quite a long time... -Thibbs (talk) 19:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

user:CelticWonder
continues to engage in appropriated behavior such as blatant canvassing and incivility despite previous warnings and a block. Would appreciate if someone could look into this. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 02:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think he's gotten the message at this point. I'm not sure there is any action needed at this time, though a formal warning from an admin might not be a horrible idea.  Hobit (talk) 02:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hobit, I respectfully disagree. Leaving aside the subject line of his communication ("RantMedia to stay in Wikipedia"), I note CelticWonder begins his communication with the following: "As you were previously involved in AfD discussions regarding RantMedia and Sean Kennedy (Author), I respectfully request your attendance to the current Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RantMedia." In fact, he has contacted not a single user involved in the previous AfD for RantMedia - all of whom recommended deletion. Furthermore, CelticWonder's communications greatly favoured those who had previously supported keeping previous incarnations of Sean Kennedy articles. To these concerns, and those brought forth by Juliancolton, I add recent evidence of hounding. Four AfDs that have nothing in common save the participation by either Cameron Scott (first three) and myself (the last), edited consecutively within a 22 minute period:  . Victoriagirl (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * VictoriaGirl, don't be disingenuous. There have been a whole raft of AfD, DRVs and so on on several topics associated with the article presently under discussion. Please list all of them. You have referenced one single AfD that happened 18 months ago, which generated 4 "all of whom" votes. I'd also suggest that people go look at the AfD you mention, as only one contributor made a contribution of any value whatsoever: 2 were "delete per nom" and one was "me too!". AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 14:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, I stand by my comment. While there have been many AfD's relating to Sean Kennedy February 2005, February 2007, April 2007, May 2007 and one deletion review, RantMedia has only been subject to one previous AfD of which I am aware. Does it not follow that the participants in the previous RantMedia AfD be notified about the current RantMedia AfD? In his canvassing, CelticWonder leaves the impression that he did: "As you were previously involved in AfD discussions regarding RantMedia and Sean Kennedy (Author)..." In fact, he didn't contact a single user involved in the previous RantMedia AfD discussion - not even the nominator (the fifth participant). As for those contacted who had taken part in the previous Sean Kennedy AfDs, I stand by my observation that the selective list is weighted in favour of those who supported maintaining the article. And, yes, I am amongst those not contacted. Victoriagirl (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * [spurious comment removed] RANTMEDIA = SEAN KENNEDY. And if you'll notice, the majority of the previous AfD specifically for RantMedia HAVEN'T EDITED RECENTLY. <small style="color:#FFF;display:inline;border:#800 1px solid;padding:2px 6px;white-space:nowrap;background-color:#444">₪—  Ce  lt  ic Wonder  ( T · C ) 16:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)  "

What is this? Personal attacks and such on ANI, that's no good man, please strike that stuff out.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 17:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, CelticWonder, you've stated as much and I have asked for elaboration. Needless to say, I find your response highly offensive. Victoriagirl (talk) 17:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 48h
That last diff was beyond the pale. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * After blocking this user, I realise that some offensive remarks have been struck out at the request of User:Victoriagirl. I am not opposed to unblocking this editor, although I am concerned perhaps that it was only the spotlight of ANI attention that caused this apparent change of heart. I welcome comments from uninvolved admins.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 19:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ...aaand unblocked. At this point, it's best to let them get on with improving articles.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 20:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My change of heart came IMPLICITLY from input of users like User:AllGloryToTheHypnotoad, User:Hobit, and User:Orangemike -- reinstating the notion to me that there actually ARE genuine people on here after all. But to clarify, it came NOT AT ALL from this page.  I wasn't even going to respond to this at all until I saw VG get on here.  Ultimately, I was this || close to using a choice phrase from this page as a response to Wikipedia as a whole and wash my hands on something I was trying to save from what I believe to be unfair and unbased attack, which is what inflamed my model of actions as of late.  I had fought and won to keep PC Club (mostly since it wasn't in there and I cared enough at the time), but I am WAY more adamant about RantMedia (as you all can obviously see).  Nonetheless I thank you for your understanding. ₪—  Ce lt  ic  Wonder  (T·C) " 21:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm pleased that CelticWonder has been unblocked and would have myself suggested that it be done were it not for SheffieldSteel's request for comments from "uninvolved admins" (I'm obviously neither). I wrote CelticWonder asking him to withdraw his comments - and he did. As far as this girl is concerned the matter is closed. Victoriagirl (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats - block review please
Wow, my second legal-threat-related issue of the day. I'm special. Or I'm a shit magnet, one of the two.

Please review this section on my talk page, wherein a brand new editor has made some complaints regarding some issues claimed at Talk:Canadian Children's Rights Council. I have no idea why I was picked for this, I've never dealt with the page before. It appears there are a number of editors involved there with these issues. The latest comments on my talk page are an obvious legal threat, so I've blocked. However, it looks like there's some further issues here that should be looked at, so as I'm unavailable for a few days I'll leave it for further review. If there's a consensus to unblock, feel free - I won't be online to discuss beyond this post. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The block looks good. It is as clear a legal threat as you can get. What do those initials stand for? MuZemike 06:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. On an unrelated note, you'd think that lawyers for a statutory council would write and spell better. Orderinchaos 08:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A CU would probably be more useful than a block, since this is clearly a throwaway sock. Looie496 (talk) 17:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Canadian Children's Rights Council is the article in dispute. In our Talk pages this group is sometimes referred to as the CCRC, though the article doesn't use that abbreviation for them. There is also a Canadian Coalition on the Rights of Children, which has the same initials. A 2008 book by Erica Burman, cited in our article, claims that the Council "usurped the acronym of the Canadian Coalition on the Rights of the Child." (Note that her claim would be more convincing if she used the correct name of the other group). I have no opinion on this, but it may explain some of the sharp remarks by the legal-threateners who are so upset with us. My impression is that the name this organization wants to use for itself is Canadian Children's Rights Council-Conseil Canadien des Droits de l'Enfant, i.e. the English and French names joined by a hyphen. See the article Talk page for more. It is possible that this group has itself been involved in court cases about its name, so if it is a simple matter for us to sort this out, we should do so. They don't seem to object to CanadianCRC as an abbreviation. Within the last month the abbreviation 'CCRC' has been taken out of the article, which is good. But in spite of this, I fully support Tony Fox's block of MSLTT for making legal threats. Backers of the CanadianCRC have already received well-deserved attention at ANI and lots of admin sanctions have been issued. EdJohnston (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

David Paterson
I've semi-protected this for two weeks. I've grown quite tired of the racist vandalism by IP addresses of this page. 18:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Shortride violating WP:MOSTM despite tag
On Template:Time Warner was the completely documented code: Wallpaper But the tag is deleted and the prohibited trademark again forced as: ''Wallpaper*' By User:Shortride with this edit, in blatant violation of WP:MOSTM, and without any decent right to claim good faith. Rules are failures when it becomes so easy to violate them at no cost. 62.147.39.186 (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC) P.S.: it's not his first time at it, too (restoration of ALL-CAPS "TIME" and "TIME for Kids") 62.147.39.186 (talk) 19:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Shortride has been on Wikipedia for only a few months;
 * The issue was easily fixed (indeed, you've fixed it);
 * You posted on Shortride's talk page then came straight here.
 * Thanks for fixing this issue, however your attitude towards Shortride seems quite WP:BITEy. Next time I'd suggest (a) fixing the problem, and (b) dropping a polite note on the editor's talk page explaining the issue. If the editor ignores you, and continues to ignore policy, then come here.
 * Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 19:12, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to respectfully disagree:
 * Shortride has been editing since December 2006 that's not a few months.
 * It'd also be "easy to fix" a vandal replacing birth date 1910 with 1492, that wouldn't make it any more an acceptable behavior.
 * I came straight here because someone wantonly removing such an extensively clear tag documenting rules has no right to the sort of "AGF" or "BITE" laxism under which most vandals spam or damage the encyclopedia for weeks or months before any sort of retribution. And even if you can somehow believe in his good faith, you wouldn't make him any service by allowing him to continue operating under the delusion that there are no rules and that his blatant disregard for even the most explicit tag is anything less than unacceptable.
 * I'd counter-suggest that he should get a one-hour block with summary " blatant violation of WP:MOSTM in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Time_Warner&diff=295338213&oldid=292636102 " so that it's on the record and he can't fool any more people on his next offenses. 62.147.39.186 (talk) 19:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're quite right; somehow I managed to muddle the dates of the later posts with the first post on the talk page. That said, I did check the history of the talk page, and there didn't seem to be any previous posting raising this issue there - yours was the first, and straight after posting you came here without waiting for a reply. Discussing this is doing the editor a service. Incidentally, blocks aren't for "retribution" - they're to prevent disruption. They also don't typically come "out of the blue" - they follow a series of warnings. Right now this editor appears to be oblivious to policy - they've had no warnings, just one post on their talk page and then... whack! Block! Well, hopefully not.
 * I'll leave it to an admin to decide whether this merits a block; for my part I'd suggest discussing it with them first, slapping them second, and only blocking if they persist. For some reason HTML comments do seem to be invisible to many editors - I suspect people mentally parse out anything between.
 * Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 19:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This was a mistake on my part, due to deleting the original, and retyping from memory. I was unaware of the meaning of WP:MOSTM. - Shortride

IP User engaging in racist and homophobic vandalism
IP User 80.177.246.229 has vandalised Hannibal (film) and Torture murder with successive racist and homophobic attacks. I have reversed the offending material. Can Admin. look at a block for the user please? leaky_caldron (talk) 19:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked. As a note, I just happened to see this as I logged in, and this type of report will usually get a quicker response at the administrator's heads-up for vandals board. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 19:18, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * even better than 4 minutes? ;)  leaky_caldron (talk) 19:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It'd be 4 seconds at AIV! <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 19:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 4 seconds? Hardly.  There are times when vandals hang on there for hours before anything is done.  Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No, there are times when reports that are not simple vandalism hang on for hours. Any blatantly obvious vandalism, like this stuff, gets cleaned up within minutes, usually.  The problem is that people use AIV for stuff like complicated sockpuppet investigations, or for tattling on their opponents in a mutual edit war, or for other stuff that AIV is not designed for.  When used as intended, it works.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  21:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Not the case, in my experience, I'll start keeping track of how long it takes things I post there to get resolved, and we can re-address it then. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * In which case maybe WP:Civility final sentence needs to be changed. It points to here, not to AIV. leaky_caldron (talk) 19:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (Cough!) Ahem, WP:AIV, surely?! That's a link to here, which makes me head hurt... Cheers, <b style="color:#000">This flag once was red</b>propagandadeeds 19:21, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops. <b style="color:black;">Black Kite</b> 19:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Black Kite: I don't know. It took 20 minutes and no response at AIV last night after an IP went nuts and decided to go on a vandalism/edit-warring spree on my user talk. I had to ping an admin on IRC to expedite that block, and the subsequent ones after that (block evasion). MuZemike 21:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Monitoring on AIV is sporadic. It all depends on who (if anyone) is watching, which in turn sometimes seems to be a function of the time of day. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And times when AIV seems a little slow, the IRC Channels generally get a response much faster. There's always an admin hanging around there who will gladly take care of something like this.  --Jayron32. talk . contribs  21:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

User:William Allen Simpson
Note: I was refered here from Wikiquette alerts, see this advise. Note: Relisted because of absolute lack of admin input.

You may remember a Wikiquette alert now archived at Wikiquette_alerts/archive64. The issues with WAS have not ended. We regularly intersect and often disagree at Categories_for_discussion. WAS seems uninclined to disagree with me without adding some personal attacks. He has become a bit more careful in these attacks. I'd like to show some examples from after the 3rd-level warning he received here:

"you were chastized at WP:ANI and elsewhere" (which I was not, rather he was) and "A foolish consistency.." (which was part of the wp:wqa discussion resulting in his 3rd-level warning) in the text and the edit summary

"You were roundly excoriated at WP:ANI, WT:CFD, and elsewhere" (which I was not, rather he was) and "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds...." in the text (bold from the original and a similar edit summary

"Obviously, you are having some English as a second language issues here" and "That is currently in the process of being rejected" (referring to another proposal of mine)

"Your failure to understand is not the responsibility of others. Read the policies. Look at recent discussion. Pay attention" to my request "Perhaps you could specify which naming convention you are referring to and why"

"We cannot help the English as a second language issues that you seem to have. Originally, folks tried to help you, but I've long since given up." (I may add that this particular baseless remark deeply insulted me, especially in view of my academic records and real-life experience.) and "I wonder why you only have one edit (under this name) at your advertised native language site? Perhaps you are banned there under another name? We certainly had that problem with others here in the past...." (outright libelous) Debresser (talk) 17:54, 15 June 2009 (UTC) These remarks, when viewed each in their own right, might seem minor or even partially justified (which I assure you they are not). Taken together, they form a pattern of a personal attack aimed at making any intersection with WAS a miserable experience, with the likely purpose of removing my opposition to various of his edits and proposals.

Character witnesses against WAS as an editor with a longstanding tradition of making personal attacks I have gathered previously in this edit. Please also note a very recent block for violating the wp:3rr rule in edit warring.

The following quote put on his talk page in 2006 might be illustrative "Just because you are technically correct does not justify your attitude. You don't own this project, we are all working together. Misunderstandings can be handled in a civilized manner, with both parties being treated respectfully. You don't seem to have much respect for anyone other than yourself." Nothing has changed for the better since 2006...

In general, I think this user is an unbalancing factor in Wikipedia. In short term I would like to ask for some measures ensuring WAS will stop attacking me personally with all kinds of baseless accusations and derogatory comments. Debresser (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin, but I don't think the advice to come here was correct. I have certainly seen people blocked at WQA in spite of refusing to participate in the process.  Here at ANI this issue seems to be falling under the radar. Looie496 (talk) 18:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The WP:WQA page says specifically that WP:WQA can not
 * Give or enforce blocks, bans, or binding disciplinary measures.
 * Mediate longterm, ongoing conflicts between two users.
 * Which seems to be what is needed here. Debresser (talk) 20:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Regardless of any inappropriate actions which William Allen Simpson may have done, Debresser was chastised at WP:ANI, WT:CFD, WP:VP, and elsewhere. It may not have been by a majority of those commenting, but it did include a number of established editors, and he promised not to do any more of what he was chastised for.  — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A promise I have kept. But I really think it would be more correct to say that I have been informed by some editors of the proper ways to make certain improvements. "You were roundly excoriated at WP:ANI, WT:CFD, and elsewhere" is gross exageration and generalisation. Which is insulting, and unrightfully puts me in a black light. Debresser (talk) 02:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems like exaggeration; I reserve comment as to whether you were roundly excoriated at WT:CFD, as I'm one of the excoriators.... — Arthur Rubin  (talk) 02:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The Eastside Sun redux - legal threats/issues?
Okay, now I'm cranky. There are several IPs that have been trying to insert what they say is a "court ordered statement" into the above article for some time now, despite multiple editors' attempts to explain that this is an encyclopedia article and we couldn't really give a flying fuck what a judge in Washington State told the subject it could or couldn't do. I even e-mailed Mike Godwin about it a while back, to no response, which suggests there's no issue on our part.

So what do we get today? The reversion, yet again, and this, which smells like a legal threat to me. Could some other admins please look this over? I'm >< that far from reverting and semiprotecting the article, and blocking the IPs involved for legal threats, but I'd rather have some other views before anything precipitous is done. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked the IP. No question in my mind. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is the case referred to, but fwiw: --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Couldn't get your link to work, SarekOfVulcan, but found this. As the exhibits for case number 07-2-37030-7 were destroyed in June 2008, it seems unlikely to be a current case. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither of your links work - the links likely contain session data. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 21:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks like single-use/session tokens:( From the URL, it's case number 07-2-37030-7, but don't know which court. 21:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry. http://dw.courts.wa.gov/index.cfm, search for "07-2-37030-7" in King County Superior Court. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did a search for Debbie Lamont in the 'Name Search' from this page (hopefully that link will work!). Her (many) cases do not appear to include the Eastside Sun but the information is very limited. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Though there is a 'Judgment Vs Gilday' noted on 03-05-2008. Gilday is name of the owner(?) of the Eastside Sun. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected given that IPs have been inserting inappropriate content ranging from 'Note from Publisher' to the more recent 'court decision' since at least December 2007. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, folks. I couldn't find any court information myself. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If a judge did place an order not to edit this article, then this article would have been protected a while ago per WP:OFFICE (i.e. the WMF would have certainly been notified about this). With that said, judges are not administrators here, they cannot protect/delete/etc articles except through the WMF. I call bullshit. MuZemike 21:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I had gone through this article the last time this issue came up, rewriting, getting rid of cruft & advertisese, but the IP reverted and no one reverted back. I've gone back to that version of the article, which I think is pretty clean, and will keep an eye on it. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Kirkland, Washington was another stomping ground for the IP warrior. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * May I make a guess? It sounds like the judge ordered the Eastside Sun not to write about Lamont (or not to write about her in some specific context)... and she is perhaps under the impression that the order to the Sun extends to Wikipedia.  Perhaps, like many other new users, she doesn't understand that Wikipedia's article on the subject is not the Sun's official web page?  Or, of course, I could be wrong. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure the IPs in question are representatives of the newspaper, actually, if you look back at the edits they've made - there's been some concern regarding promotional edits as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless, they should be directed to raise their concerns to User:MGodwin or WP:OFFICE rather than editing articles. The article space is not the correct forum to raise legal issues.  Lawyers can be reached via telephone and such issues discussed; anyone who seriously has an issue will find a way to do so through the proper channels.  If you have a legal issue with store, you don't spraypaint your issue across the storefront, you contact the owner or his lawyer.  This is no different. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  23:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I may be naïve to this point, but for the sake of argument let's say the judge's ruling explicitly stated, "There shall be no mention of the actions by the plaintiff on Wikipedia." Does a Washington State Superior Court judge even have the jurisdiction to make/enforce such a ruling for a foundation headquartered in California and organized in Florida? DKqwerty (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect the answer is "yes" as long as the entity to which the order is directed is one that has a sufficient connection to Washington state, e.g. residency or a nexus of commerce (is that the term?). In any event, we have Mike to worry about this sort of thing. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I should also note that most of the IP editing are coming from the 75.172.0.0/18 and 206.188.32.0/19 ranges. If a rangeblock cannot suffice due to collateral damage, then perhaps we should consider semi-protection. MuZemike 00:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We already have semi-protected and the IP that made the legal threat has been blocked. Mifter (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I must seriously be lost because this makes absolutely no sense to me. How someone can claim that Wikipedia is required to post information about a gag order regarding one particular person is completely beyond me. Has anything like that ever actually happened? Aside from that, would it be acceptable to delete the false/ridiculous allegations towards me from the talk page? --<font color="purple" face="Comic Sans MS">Susan118  <font color="purple" face="Comic Sans MS">talk  02:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, that was still there? Sorry. Fixed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks! I'd have done it myself, but I wanted to be sure it wouldn't be a problem removing it. Thank you. --<font color="purple" face="Comic Sans MS">Susan118  <font color="purple" face="Comic Sans MS">talk 02:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ted Schmidt
This former article-turned-redirect (about a character from a TV series) has been turned into a new article about a real talent agent. Both and  have been making the same edits to this article. The edits are a significant copyvio of http://www.epluri.com/TSA/TSAstuff/TSAcompanyhistory.html. When I reverted the changes and notified both users, they reinserted the text, claiming that they were Ted Schmidt, and that they were releasing the text into the public domain. I again reverted the changes, and notified both users, via the boilerplate messages, about creating autobiographies, with a note attached to see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for how to properly release their text into the public domain. Thermalsnowball's response was to reinsert the text into the article, and to copy-and-paste commons:Commons:Email templates at the bottom of the article. Once again, I reverted the changes, and left a note on Thermalsnowball's talk page, specifically spelling out what he needed to do. This time around, 72.144.106.128 reinserted the exact same text that Thermalsnowball inserted. I don't think this person/persons is/are getting the picture, can I get someone else to step in? Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reverted to the redirect again, and semiprotected the page for a week. Chances are good they'll either go through the process properly now, or just give up.  I hope the former.  Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 03:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Bonny Eagle High School
Could I get more eyes watching Bonny Eagle High School? There's quite a bit of slanderous vandalism going on there right now due to a news report. Probably not enough to require protection just yet, but it is BLP-violating. I've been doing quite a bit of reverting, but I'm going offline for the evening. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The Eastside Sun redux - legal threats/issues?
Okay, now I'm cranky. There are several IPs that have been trying to insert what they say is a "court ordered statement" into the above article for some time now, despite multiple editors' attempts to explain that this is an encyclopedia article and we couldn't really give a flying fuck what a judge in Washington State told the subject it could or couldn't do. I even e-mailed Mike Godwin about it a while back, to no response, which suggests there's no issue on our part.

So what do we get today? The reversion, yet again, and this, which smells like a legal threat to me. Could some other admins please look this over? I'm >< that far from reverting and semiprotecting the article, and blocking the IPs involved for legal threats, but I'd rather have some other views before anything precipitous is done. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:47, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked the IP. No question in my mind. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know if this is the case referred to, but fwiw: --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Couldn't get your link to work, SarekOfVulcan, but found this. As the exhibits for case number 07-2-37030-7 were destroyed in June 2008, it seems unlikely to be a current case. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Neither of your links work - the links likely contain session data. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 21:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, looks like single-use/session tokens:( From the URL, it's case number 07-2-37030-7, but don't know which court. 21:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry. http://dw.courts.wa.gov/index.cfm, search for "07-2-37030-7" in King County Superior Court. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I did a search for Debbie Lamont in the 'Name Search' from this page (hopefully that link will work!). Her (many) cases do not appear to include the Eastside Sun but the information is very limited. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. Though there is a 'Judgment Vs Gilday' noted on 03-05-2008. Gilday is name of the owner(?) of the Eastside Sun. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:57, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've semi-protected given that IPs have been inserting inappropriate content ranging from 'Note from Publisher' to the more recent 'court decision' since at least December 2007. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, folks. I couldn't find any court information myself. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If a judge did place an order not to edit this article, then this article would have been protected a while ago per WP:OFFICE (i.e. the WMF would have certainly been notified about this). With that said, judges are not administrators here, they cannot protect/delete/etc articles except through the WMF. I call bullshit. MuZemike 21:46, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I had gone through this article the last time this issue came up, rewriting, getting rid of cruft & advertisese, but the IP reverted and no one reverted back. I've gone back to that version of the article, which I think is pretty clean, and will keep an eye on it. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:50, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Kirkland, Washington was another stomping ground for the IP warrior. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 21:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * May I make a guess? It sounds like the judge ordered the Eastside Sun not to write about Lamont (or not to write about her in some specific context)... and she is perhaps under the impression that the order to the Sun extends to Wikipedia.  Perhaps, like many other new users, she doesn't understand that Wikipedia's article on the subject is not the Sun's official web page?  Or, of course, I could be wrong. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly sure the IPs in question are representatives of the newspaper, actually, if you look back at the edits they've made - there's been some concern regarding promotional edits as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless, they should be directed to raise their concerns to User:MGodwin or WP:OFFICE rather than editing articles. The article space is not the correct forum to raise legal issues.  Lawyers can be reached via telephone and such issues discussed; anyone who seriously has an issue will find a way to do so through the proper channels.  If you have a legal issue with store, you don't spraypaint your issue across the storefront, you contact the owner or his lawyer.  This is no different. --Jayron32. talk . contribs  23:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I may be naïve to this point, but for the sake of argument let's say the judge's ruling explicitly stated, "There shall be no mention of the actions by the plaintiff on Wikipedia." Does a Washington State Superior Court judge even have the jurisdiction to make/enforce such a ruling for a foundation headquartered in California and organized in Florida? DKqwerty (talk) 23:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect the answer is "yes" as long as the entity to which the order is directed is one that has a sufficient connection to Washington state, e.g. residency or a nexus of commerce (is that the term?). In any event, we have Mike to worry about this sort of thing. JoshuaZ (talk) 02:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I should also note that most of the IP editing are coming from the 75.172.0.0/18 and 206.188.32.0/19 ranges. If a rangeblock cannot suffice due to collateral damage, then perhaps we should consider semi-protection. MuZemike 00:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We already have semi-protected and the IP that made the legal threat has been blocked. Mifter (talk) 01:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I must seriously be lost because this makes absolutely no sense to me. How someone can claim that Wikipedia is required to post information about a gag order regarding one particular person is completely beyond me. Has anything like that ever actually happened? Aside from that, would it be acceptable to delete the false/ridiculous allegations towards me from the talk page? --<font color="purple" face="Comic Sans MS">Susan118  <font color="purple" face="Comic Sans MS">talk  02:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, that was still there? Sorry. Fixed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks! I'd have done it myself, but I wanted to be sure it wouldn't be a problem removing it. Thank you. --<font color="purple" face="Comic Sans MS">Susan118  <font color="purple" face="Comic Sans MS">talk 02:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ted Schmidt
This former article-turned-redirect (about a character from a TV series) has been turned into a new article about a real talent agent. Both and  have been making the same edits to this article. The edits are a significant copyvio of http://www.epluri.com/TSA/TSAstuff/TSAcompanyhistory.html. When I reverted the changes and notified both users, they reinserted the text, claiming that they were Ted Schmidt, and that they were releasing the text into the public domain. I again reverted the changes, and notified both users, via the boilerplate messages, about creating autobiographies, with a note attached to see WP:Donating copyrighted materials for how to properly release their text into the public domain. Thermalsnowball's response was to reinsert the text into the article, and to copy-and-paste commons:Commons:Email templates at the bottom of the article. Once again, I reverted the changes, and left a note on Thermalsnowball's talk page, specifically spelling out what he needed to do. This time around, 72.144.106.128 reinserted the exact same text that Thermalsnowball inserted. I don't think this person/persons is/are getting the picture, can I get someone else to step in? Thanks, Matt (talk) 01:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Reverted to the redirect again, and semiprotected the page for a week. Chances are good they'll either go through the process properly now, or just give up.  I hope the former.  Cheers.  <i style="color:green;">lifebaka</i>++ 03:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Bonny Eagle High School
Could I get more eyes watching Bonny Eagle High School? There's quite a bit of slanderous vandalism going on there right now due to a news report. Probably not enough to require protection just yet, but it is BLP-violating. I've been doing quite a bit of reverting, but I'm going offline for the evening. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:34, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Navin Shetty Brahmavar
has uploaded over 100 images, claiming the majority of them to be their own work. They appear to come from a variety of different sources, some of which clearly were not made by the user. For instance, File:Kaaranjji main.jpg was clearly a film poster, while File:Dubai-cricket-studium.jpg (source listed as "UNKNOWN", but still claimed as own work) was taken from the air. My usual action in this sort of case is to leave a message asking the user to come clean- if they're honest, I delete the images they direct me to. If not, I delete all of the images, and probably block them. I have contacted the user, but they have not edited in the couple of days since, and I'd hate to leave a load of probable copyvios hanging around. Has anyone got any thoughts? J Milburn (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Give a final warning on uploading copyrighted images (which I guess you have already done). Looking at File:Mantis logo.gif, it is clear that user has understanding of image policies and it is difficult to assume in good faith that the user is perhaps ill informed about the uploads. As for the images, it is quite obvious that most are copyvios. I think it would be appropriate to delete them right away. Leave  Sleaves  20:24, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree, all this user's uploads should be assumed copyvios. – Quadell (talk) 20:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok I agree, some are not my Images and but majority is mine. Will clean it ASAP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Navin Shetty Brahmavar (talk • contribs) 08:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The images have been deleted, and a last warning has been issued. If any of them were genuine, people are welcome to contact me on my talk page. J Milburn (talk) 10:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Troll faking user pages
There's somebody with an odd trollish pattern of faking user and user talk pages. Look at these accounts:



All were recently created, all have only a handful of edits, mostly to their own user page; all have large user talk pages with multiple threads, but the content is all identical and was all mechanically copied over by themselves from an unrelated account, originally from User talk:Staecker/Archive 3, and all of them have user pages copying yet other (unrelated and legitimate) accounts. For instance, User:Shamusogrady copies User:Eskimojoes; User:Midvalleythehornfreak was copying User:Cplakidas, User:Jesusfreak4545 copies User:Neelix, and so on.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Blocked and deleted. Maybe CU could determine if there is one IP of origin. Viridae Talk 09:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks by Maurice27
is continuing his long pattern of personal attacks here and here (note edit summary). He's been blocked quite a few times for similar offenses and I don't see the pattern changing. Given other problems including the edit war on Catalan people, and previous sanctions, I think we need additional eyes on this. Toddst1 (talk) 15:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That's a pretty nasty attack, but it was in response to a 3RR warning for a single revert. Granted, you can violate guidelines against edit warring without making 4 reverts in 24 hours, but he could argue that he was provoked here. Can someone else take a look and see if anything besides warning is necessary here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I commented on his page. I note that he didn't react to the 3RR warning, but instead instantly got inflamed for it being labeled "vandalism" (which, well, he was using an "rv" edit summary)... at any rate, I gave a warning against edit warring AND civility; we'll see what happens. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  15:39, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned over there, I use "rv" for revert, and "rvv" for revert vandalism. And I seconded your warning.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like a good call Tanthalas; it looks like he's definitely in need of a breather but hopefully he can do that himself as opposed to needing a block. Shell  babelfish 15:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks folks for weighing in here. I'm not sure I understand Sarek's comment of only one revert. I see 1, 2, 3, 4, mostly on the 15th, but also on the 11th. This is in the context of a bigger edit war on that page. Toddst1 (talk) 17:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "one revert" was shorthand for "one revert within 24 hours".
 * 20:14, 11 June 2009 UTC - 08:12, 14 June 2009 UTC -- 60 hours
 * 08:12, 14 June 2009 UTC - 11:51, 14 June 2009 UTC -- 3 hours
 * 11:51, 14 June 2009 UTC - 15:40, 15 June 2009 UTC -- 28 hours
 * 15:40, 15 June 2009 UTC - 20:11, 15 June 2009 UTC (your warning) - 4 hours
 * Time since his second revert back -- 35 hours
 * Time since his third revert back -- 95 hours.
 * Hence, not a violation of 3RR, in the strict sense. WP:EDITWAR might apply, if you are correct that this was a content dispute and not vandalism. But 4 edits over 91 hours is not really something I'd stress about -- especially since Maurice had been working for consensus over the past few weeks, and thought it had finally been achieved. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct - I perhaps should have used WP:EW instead of WP:3RR in my warning (now ammended). However this editor has been blocked a number of times for edit warring on catalan-related articles, so I believe the warning was highly appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 20:42, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that it was appropriate, and that he went way over the top in his response, but I can see why he did. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I thank you Sarek for understanding my point. Now, I'll explain you my point of view...


 * I have been accused of "reverting vandalism" for this edit (RV is used) when there are lots of examples where I used RVV here or here. Toddst1 blocked me for claiming that, what this anon was doing was vandalism and I stopped doing it. An administrator SHOULD verify this cases before accusing and Toddst1 DIDN'T.


 * I ACCUSE administrator Toddst1 of harrassing me because I've been the only one warned for the reason he claims when other editors in that article have used "RVV" to revert the anon (here or here). Why was I the only one warned?


 * I ACCUSE administrator Toddst1 of harrassing me because he keeps warning me of breaking 3RR while the anon user is reverting as many times as me (here, here and here). Again, Why was I the only one warned?


 * I ACCUSE administrator Toddst1 of harrassing me because meanwhile I have all the other editors backing me trying to protect the consensus reached, Toddst1 keeps focusing on me as "the uncivil editor who prevents anon users to express their opinion". I counted 37 reverts by anons since 2 May 2009... Who is the one breaking 3RR? Again, Why was I the only one warned?


 * I ACCUSE administrator Toddst1 of harrassing me because despite asking him for help semi-protecting the article against this anon user (who doesn't care about the consensus reached), he hasn't done anything! Other users have asked him to semi-preotect the article as proved here, here or here... What was Toddst1 short and careless answer to all these requests? "That's not vandalism." Toddst1 (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And finally I ACCUSE administrator Toddst1 of harrassing me because he keeps using my block log as a reason to accuse me. My last block occured 29 November 2007. That's a year and half!!! I consider it enough time to consider my log as "clean". Why doesn't he?


 * So, here we are, a bunch of defenseless editors who really discussed for days and weeks in order to find a consensus and a single anon user who is having fun blowing up everything, reverting us, not explaining in talk-page, with the complete permissivity of an administrator who just doesn't care about the sake of the article.


 * Toddst1 has proven today that he was observing and watching the Revision history of Catalan people. As soon as I came close to breaking 3RR, he jumped to my user-page to warn me. He didn't prevent the (close to) 40 reverts by the anon... Just like I was his only interest. He wants me blocked. Why hasn't he done anything to protect the article? Why hasn't he answered to the other editor's requests? Because he only wants to harrass me. Where is the Good Faith assuption? Where is the No personal attacks guideline? NOWHERE!


 * If you want to block me? I can only tell you all to go ahead! I believe that the sake of Wikipedia is far above us all and I keep believing that administrator Toddst1 has reacted negligently in this case and that he has abused of his administrator "power" with me. If he is not interested in protecting wikipedia, he should not be an administrator!


 * I, thank God, live in a free country and, when I see an injustice so flagrant, I don't remain silent. Thanks for reading.--<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"> MauritiusXXVII ( Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede! )   . 22:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Would someone please shut this ridiculousness down? The only reason I even looked at the article was because of this request and the misrepresentation/NPA violations have gone far too long.  Toddst1 (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I just told him to quit with the soapboxing and ACCUSEations and either file a neutral, well-ref'd RFC/U or drop it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Toddst1 (talk) 00:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this is exactly the kind of bickering that puts anybody off wikipedia and, therefore, this will be my one-hit wonder contribution and then I'll leave this sad bickering. But, if the truth be told, I think user Toddst1 should take a deep breath and honestly tell himself wether he is in this dispute with a clear mind or less so, not the least because he is an administrator and he is supposed to abide to some neutrality (and effectiveness, I'd dare to say) standards.

To put a little context, there was a dispute over the Catalan people article (in which I was not even participating at that point). On the one side there was Coentor and on the other Maurice, they were both discussing as politely as it gets about the content, while an anon who refused to discuss or even to articulate his point of view at the talk page, kept adding it at his own risk, absolutely disregarding the discussion going on at the talk page.

Then Todd came in, and, as an administrator, all he did was to block the page (more or less where the anon had left it, therefore olympically ignoring the two main articulated points of view at the talk page) and call for a consensus to be reached. Then he disappeared. That is much less than I would expect from an admin. but I guess it is correct anyway.

In the process, he had given Maurice a warning, while did absolutely nothing about the disturbing anon.

Then protection expired and, finally, a consensus has been reached between at least four editors (including the aforementioned Coentor, Maurice, Cnoguera and myself, all with quite diverse points of view, but willing to compromise in the end). Still, the anon keeps fighting his own war, while refusing to discuss whatsoever.

Now, next thing I hear about userToddst is when one of the parties involved in the consensus building asked him to semiprotect the page in order to block the disruptive anon, so that we can all move on. This is all Todd had to say in return. And this is when an admin. starts to tread so low that you wonder what is the use of admins., if any.

So now it does get worrysome about his will to help the users who are discussing and building the very same consensus he asked for (before he left us in oblivion).

Todd, with all due respect, if all you are going to make is block a contested page in the version with the least support, then give dry replies to one of the civil users and, in the meantime, try to block a third user whom you dont like mostly his past record (including that message he left in your talk page one month ago)...I think a mere bot, not an admin. could do. If you are not going to be a part of the solution, try at least to not be a part of the problem, like when you keep endorsing (not with your words, but with your actions) the disrupting anon, like when you keep tracking the involved users bringing up past grudges.

A bot at least does not have revenge feelings or an ego to be vindicated. And it looks like whatever Maurice told you did sit bad with you and you are devoting your energies rather than in helping the article to improve, in getting one of the consensus-builders blocked, basically because of his past record elsewhere (and because he spoke less than nice to you once or twice).

Now, as I said, I won't be adding more about this. I have better stuff to do in wikipedia than arguing with strangers for the sake of arguing. In any case, Todd, I do hope that I can still sleep tight and walk through wikipedia's manors more or less carefree. In other words, I hope that you have not added me to your "to do" list now because of this post... <font face="Book Antiqua" color="black">MOUNTOLIVE  fedeli alla linea 01:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Accusations of admin abuse, misconduct or bias should be considered carefully
It might not be clear, so I will note that User:Mountolive is posting here in response to a talk page request by User:Maurice27. I will also note that the above accounts are incorrect in a couple of respects, e.g.
 * the statement "My last block occured 29 November 2007. That's a year and half!!!" was missing the clarification "if you ignore my block of 10 May 2009..."
 * the statement "he had given Maurice a warning, while did absolutely nothing about the disturbing anon" ignored the warning that User:Toddst1 did provide at User talk:81.44.100.87. When asked about this point, Mountolive stated that they are not interested in reconsidering their statement above.

Accusations of admin abuse, misconduct or bias should be considered carefully. They should not be blown out of proportion and used as the basis for the sort of polemic written above, apparently without regard to the truth. Clearly in hindsight Toddst1 could have been more willing to admit that his approach was not perfect. I think I've commented enough on the other parties. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 14:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * And I state my claim. Todd did nothing in May regarding the anon. And this question started in May, when, however, he was keen to warn (actually I think he blocked) Maurice. But this question is making me yawn already and I promised not to post here again (unless I get misrepresented, like above).
 * By the way, I never accused him of admin abuse. You said that. Ciao. <font face="Book Antiqua" color="black">MOUNTOLIVE  fedeli alla linea 14:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for providing some specific information. Neither yourself nor Maurice27 made it clear that your concerns were about events a month ago, and given that the original post was about recent events, I'm sure you can understand how readers have responded.
 * As for whether you are accusing Toddst1 of admin abuse per se, or of some other form of misconduct or bias, or simply wish to make vague accusations, I've expanded the section title to encompass what I think you meant by this is when an admin starts to tread so low that you wonder what is the use of admins and he is an administrator and he is supposed to abide to some [ ... ] standards et cetera.
 * You should also make sure you're aware of our policy on assuming good faith. Regards,  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 15:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I just think he made a poor job back then, but everybody can make mistakes, admins too (that is why I said that I guess it is ok what he did, and I think that suffices for my good faith assumption). In this June round, I have found him a bit too trigger happy with Maurice, while kinda loose with the anon.
 * But I do not wish to enter wikimisery, like when an administrator uses |the broad paint in his summary edits (or treads low, as you wish) when referring to my otherwise I think civil comments (with one of those summary edits I have few doubts that a user like, say, Maurice would get blocked). When I see those attitudes is when I just leave. I still intend this to be my last post here, I ask you guys to please don't refer to me in your comments if not really necessary. That way I can leave and devote my time to stuff so much more interesting. Ciao. <font face="Book Antiqua" color="black">MOUNTOLIVE  fedeli alla linea 15:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * About my accusations, I believe I have already explained them clearly here above one by one, but if any admin has still doubts about my accusations or the content of them, I will gladly provide as many explanations as desired.


 * On the other hand, when Toddst1 opened this incident, he forgot to mention to you all that I did ask for help to administrators as early as May 9 at the administrators noticeboard. As you may see in the link, he closed the case only 2 hours later, preventing other administrators to take a look and blocked me for 2 weeks.


 * Since he was informed on May 9 until he gave the first warning to the anon on June 15 (that's 2 days ago), 6 weeks have passed. 6 weeks in which the anon has acted freely! Toddst1 hasn't done anything until I almost broke the 3RR 2 days ago. Instead than giving me (at the noticeboard) or us (at the talk-page) a pausible explanation of what to doas you (SheffieldSteel) just did, he just remained silent.


 * If, (as proven by the timings) administrator Toddst1 wasn't interested in solving this matter at Catalan people, he should not have closed my report in first place, leaving it to other administrators who could have solved this matter more than a month ago by just taking 5 minutes and explaining the editors involved what to do. I may have overreacted in my response to him, but I still believe he just didn't care (again, as proven by the timings) about helping us. And I'm sorry, but I still believe that if an admin who is contacted and asked for help, denies that help, he should not continue being one. Cheers. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"> MauritiusXXVII ( Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede! )   . 17:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I will also ask the admins if the comments describing Mountolive and myself written by administrator Toddst1 and linked by Mountolive here above as |the broad paint in his summary edits are so CLEARLY less offensive not to get administrator Toddst1 blocked without warning for a forthnight as he did to me because of my comments in his talk-page. My comments in his talk-page could also be described as "ill-considered comment" (link), and I DID get blocked without warning and was asked to assume good faith. --<font style="font-family:Monotype Corsiva"> MauritiusXXVII ( Aut Disce, Aut Doce, Aut Discede! )   . 18:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It was certainly clear to this reader that Todd's actions on this issue (i.e. since May) were being discussed, since diffs were given to that effect. So the two minor things you sought to clarify in the complaints are clarified. "without regard for the truth" my eye. Todd eventually says above re the most recent incident:

I perhaps should have used WP:EW instead of WP:3RR in my warning (now ammended[sic]).

Yes, perhaps. If you wanted to give any impression that you were acting in good faith and had a clue what you're doing, perhaps. Or perhaps you should have left alone the editors who were using the talk page to come to a consensus, so that they could continue to do just that.

I hope Toddst is not in the habit of pointing at 18 month old sanctions when labeling something a offense" in a block summary. And I hope this is not all a personal vendetta based on the talk page msg to him that he blocked for on May 10. Since the OP now wants someone to "shut this ridiculousness down", I suggest we close this, since ANI is not for suggesting admin actions require careful consideration (?). 86.44.30.176 (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Several new users with similar pattern of creating nonsense redirects
I see that there are at least 3 new users creating redirects from unlikely search terms. First there is User:PinkKiwi239 with Wiki Challenge redirected to Kiwi Challenge, User:Pbskidz61 with Shit beetle to Dung beetle and several other redirects from unlikely search terms which are synonyms for feces, , , , , and , and then there is User:Piroonangel14  with this, this, this, this, and this as well as a redirect from Fee to Fe [. When I asked for an explanation on their talk pages, so far Piorangel14 has defended the redirects on the grounds "Some people still might use these search terms, though ." I would like to see a checkuser on these new accounts, and advice as to how much discretion they should have to continue creating such redirects from unlikely search terms. I will advise them of this posting. Please watch for other new users on a spree of possibly vandalistic redirect creation. [[User:Edison|Edison]] (talk) 17:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pbskidz61 pointed out on ,my talk page that this page is semiprotected so new accounts cannot post here. Seems like an odd way to do business, and it is unlikely that vandalizs here would long go unnoticed and would be dealt with efficiently. Is the semiprotection always there, and if so why? I suggested that Pbskidz61 could explain the odd redirects on his/her talk page as a stopgap. Edison (talk) 17:29, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * This page was temporarily semiprotected due to vandalism. It is not currently protected. Syrthiss (talk) 17:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * An additional checkuser on User:Perdidymis13 as part of a possible sock farm might be in order given the addition of Feces on the Pupu page    and a vandal edit  to Peepee as well as other related vandal edits. Edison (talk) 17:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppets are, Puppet master is. Thatcher 19:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it appropriate to delete the redirects they have created which seem like unlikely search terms or unlikely misspellings? See which has many consisting of variant spellings in all caps. Edison (talk) 20:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking through the pages edited by the above, also found similar edit pattern by User:PinkVan34: . Edison (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I have been through the contributions of the above accounts and deleted many of the redirects (mostly as pure vandalism, some as implausible typos). If there are any left that should be nuked, tag or list at WP:RFD as appropriate. BencherliteTalk 20:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * If ScienceGolfFanatic has created all these socks and disrupted Wikipedia, is a block or ban appropriate? I will notify the user of this discussion. Edison (talk) 20:52, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Looking through pages vandalized by ScienceGolfFanatic, at Mucus found "booger" edit by SGF and a similar edit earlier, on May 23, by  . Another sock? Too old for CU? Still, there is the "walks like a duck" test. Edison (talk) 21:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Pepperroni seems unrelated. Thatcher 21:06, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Icestorm815 has indefinitely blocked ScienceGolfFanatic and the confirmed socks. I agree with a ban. Edison (talk) 21:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I know I'm coming a bit late to this and I'm not sure if this comment will be noticed but I want to say that I think it's possible the SPI didn't get quite everything. I am the one who turned Peepee from a redirect into a dab page and I have it on my watchlist for that reason.  When I saw the vandalism I figured it was just everyday potty humor.  But for some reason I was curious and started looking around the user's contributions to see if there was more vandalism that needed to be reverted.  I didn't find any, but I did find that the puppetmaster was ScienceGolfFan, who, by coincidence, I happened to have crossed paths with earlier.  This user was originally named User:Dbacvdeifdgthoimjskflan, which is "Davidtomsfan" interlaced with an alphabetic sequence of letters.  Remembering this reminded me of user:Ftuecwkasphaictk, which is User:Tewapack interlaced with "fuck" and "shit" in much the same way.  I had stumbled upon this other user sometime earlier but noticed that he was already blocked and thought nothing of it, and did not tell Tewapack about this likely "attack" account.  I'm bringing this up now because I think that it's possible that User:Ftuecwkasphaictk is yet another sockpuppet of User:ScienceGolfFanatic, even though it didn't turn up on the sockpuppet investigation.  I have to assume that it didnt turn up because it might be using a different IP address.  Even though this user is already blocked, I think it's possible  that there are more users yet unnoticed who are using the IP of Ftuecwkasphaictk but not of ScienceGolfFan (if, indeed, they are different IPs.) Im not familiar with SPI, so it's possible that I am wrong about the IPs and it didnt turn up on the list because blocked users never do.     Again, Ftuecwkasphaictk is already blocked, but there may be more sockpuppets and I just want to bring this to attention if it isnt already too late.   <B>Soap</B> Talk/Contributions 16:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I saw Ftuecwkasphaictk yesterday in the check, but since it was already blocked, it did not show up in my block log, which is where I got the above list from. Thatcher 18:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Delete the pages, please. Would an admin please delete the nonsense redirect pages, so we don't have to go through AFD for all of them? Thanks. Finell (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Which ones? As I said above, I deleted lots yesterday.  If you think there are any I've missed, list them on my talk page and I'll either delete them as vandalism or implausible typos, or take them to WP:RFD (not AFD) if non-speedy-deletable-but-worthy-of-deletion. BencherliteTalk 18:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You can tag dubious redirects for speedy deletion, I would just use the generic template, any that look legit will be kept by the patrolling admin. Thatcher 18:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Warren Kinsella redux
Warren Kinsella, the subject of every Canadian's favourite nexus of contentious Wikipedia editwarring, has now sent me a private e-mail accusing me of libel and requesting my name and address so he can "pursue this matter legally".

[ Private Email redacted  -  please don't post private email ]

I want to stress the following points:
 * 1) At no time did I ever express any form of personal opinion about the subject whatsoever; my very limited involvement with the article has revolved entirely around enforcing WP:COI rules. I have attempted to communicate on the related talk pages — the article and the user talk pages of the anonymous IPs that he was using — that Kinsella was free to discuss his concerns with the article content on the article's talk page for resolution; however, this e-mail is the first response of any kind that I've ever received from him.
 * 2) The current version of the article has previously been listed here for review and been found to be consistent with WP:BLP on more than one occasion. I feel the need to repeat that I have no "preferred" version of the article, and no interest in the subject whatsoever beyond my role as an administrator in ensuring that policy is followed. Accordingly, I have absolutely no objection to content being removed from the article by a neutral party if it's found to be a BLP violation — and, in fact, I'd be perfectly happy to see the article deleted outright, given that it's turning into more trouble than it's worth. But if Kinsella has concerns with the article's content, he needs to follow the proper procedures for resolving it, not vandalism coupled with legal threats.

So again, I need to ask: firstly, can somebody review whether or not the standing version of the article is consistent with BLP? And secondly, what, if anything, should I do about the legal threat apart from the obvious "don't answer his e-mail"? Bearcat (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't answer is really the best thing to do in this situation. Avoid giving up any kind of personal information through your interactions with him or elsewhere, and just ignore it. Ironholds (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with ironholds; Never forward any personal information trough e-mails. While the e-mail does indeed seem to belong to her that does not in any way oblige you to submit personal information; this e-mail is in no jurisdiction a legal instrument to demand information. Hence, i would strongly advice against it.


 * Similary, does the e-mail refer to a wikipedia account? Par WP:NLT issuing legal threats, both on and of Wikipedia, is strictly forbidden. If there is a user account behind this mail it should be indefinitely blocked for violating that guideline. Also, par wikipedia guidelines the subject of an article can contact info-en-q@wikipedia.org at any time to inquire about libel issues; there is no need whatsoever to contact a single editor. Similary, threats should be handled by the wikipedia foundation lawyer. If the e-mail refers to a user its probally best to indef it with a notice towards the WP:NLT page. If not, i should advice you to ignore it altogether.  Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 11:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * He's never edited under a user name, as far as I know, but only through two IP numbers — however, both IP numbers have previously declared themselves to be Kinsella. Bearcat (talk) 15:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Elie plus
Aside from the constant edit warring and insertion of false information knowingly in Samir Geagea, User:Elie plus wrote "NTEKO", which means 'go fuck yourselves' in Arabic on User:Halayc's userpage (now deleted). Admin left him a message twice for an explanation here and here. 'Elie plus' disregarded both messages and kept editing, later using another account, User:LMshe. Stayplus12 (talk) 09:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I am the admin that has been attempting to get a response in the above matter, and would note that Elie plus has subsequently commented on my talkpage - noting that NTEKO is a username used by them on different websites. I have queried this response on their talkpage, as the word was used singularly on another editors userpage. I should be grateful if any Arabic speaking editor could confirm what this word means - if anything. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Johnny_Spasm

 * Johnny_Spasm is continuously reverting a factual, sourced item in the Everlast page, despite repeated warnings. His reasons are 'Will the real slim shady please cut it out.' He has been warned several times and has ignored all warnings, saying he should have called me 'Stan' instead of 'Slim' only, and not addressing the issue. --216.17.75.89 (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is the second time that this IP has been engaged in edit-warring on this article; IP is also currently edit-warring on Ghost Hunters. IP can't get his way, so he calls for the banhammer and reports Johnny Spasm to AIV and now here. MuZemike 18:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't until his 4th revert that he bothered adding a lyrics link to make it a "sourced item". Blocked for 3 hours.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

deletion of sourced info
Take a look at this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Omar_Sharif&diff=296998174&oldid=296994828 Compare my edit to his, I had added several sources and documented info about his lebanese descent and that he may have been born in Greece. He removed all my sourced material and added his own made up text, when I asked him on the talkpage he replyed: "You're welcome to purchase the book and read it" he added a link to amazon.com where no one can see the text inside as a source. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 18:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Background reading: User talk:98.194.124.102, User talk:Xeno –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 18:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * User Supreme Deliciousness had, earlier today, deleted my own sourced information, based on Omar Sharif's own autobigraphy, The Eternal Male, and replaced it with unreliable websites and an obscure book without proper referencing. SD used that obscure book to argue that Omar Sharif "may have been born in Greece".  In the original source that SD had deleted, The Eternal Male, on page 39, Omar Sharif states that he was born in Alexandria, Egypt.


 * I do not have to photocopy the pages of the book for SD's viewing. The Amazon link shows the book's proper referencing information including title, authors, ISBN, etc.  It is up to SD to purchase the book and read it.


 * SD used the same reference, the obscure book, to destroy also earlier today another article I had spent hours building, Stephan Rosti, to prove that he was Hungarian. Previously, SD had used IMDB to prove that Stephan Rosti was Italian.! SD has done the same with the Soad Hosny article.  SD is clearly going around Wikipedia making changes against everyone Egyptian.


 * This arguably racist and vandalizing behavior by SD needs to be brought to an end. (98.194.124.102 (talk) 19:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC))


 * As I said elsewhere, I think mediation would be ideal here... One of you should file a request at WP:MEDCAB. As for the article, if there's two reliable sources, you could mention both and note the discrepancy. –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black; font-family:verdana;">talk 19:26, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Both of you (Supreme and 98.194..) please enter discussion with each other on the article's talk page and do not continue this edit war. This requires no administrator action. Continued edit warring by either side may result in a block. Sancho 19:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of AfD template against WP:GD
User Moshe-paz was warned that deleting the AfD template is against WP policy. I reinstated the template and adviced him that Articles for deletion/Right-wing political support for the 1973 Chilean coup is the right place to voice his views on the deletion proposal. However, he continues to remove the template despite being aware that it is not the way to go. It's crucial that an admin. talk to him as he seems think that my actions are a personal vendetta against his edits. Likeminas (talk) 19:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Richard Symonds
I'm not sure how best to bring this up, but http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=24914&view=findpost&p=178988 does it best. Basically, someone has created a hoax article about me. I've seen the article - reverted vandalism on it - but never read it properly. It contains a lot of half-truths about my life, none of which I particularly want spread about while I'm NN. I remember reverting vandalism on this article, but I certainly didn't create it or involve myself in its creation. I've read the history, and I would very much like it oversighted - but not before anyone who wants to has read the article, as I don't want to be seen as hiding things. It seems to be an amalgamation of myself, the wildlife artist of the same name, and a deceased civil servant. I know Yeanold Viskeretc in real life, but he's not normally someone who would do something like this, I didn't think.

In short - help! I've done nothing wrong but I'm frightened of what's going on on WR. Am I going to lose my adminship? Advice needed, as well as someone uninvolved to oversight the old versions! Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You will be fine. Contact oversight for removal of the appropriate revisions. Love the username btw. Viridae Talk 22:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User has been warned multiple times
I have warned user 75.176.78.4 repeatedly about the content removal. Track record of removing the same content on Adam Stenavich.keystoneridin! (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The only content I see that has removed is this, this, and this.  There is obviously no need for this report to this page, but if he insists on removing the content, you can always report him to WP:AIV.  His/her recent edits seem to be OK though.  <font face="Papyrus"><font color=#9966CC>- <font color=#7B68EE>down <font color=#9966CC>load  <font color=#7B68EE>׀ <font color=#8A2BE2>sign!  21:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Docu signature RFC/U
A RFC/U has been started regarding Docu's refusal to use a normal signature. Please comment there if you wish. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 21:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Jakezing - enough is enough
User:Jakezing has been repeatedly goading User:Max Mux, who has had his behaviour discussed further up the page. As I understand it, Max and Jakezing interacted in articles related to Kosovo, and Jakezing has been following Max over to other articles to taunt him for his own amusement. here he gets involved in other areas Max works in, specifically the British peerage, despite having no activity in the area previously - obvious hounding. here he taunts max on his talkpage, here he seems to partly admit he's doing it just for fun, and he's been warned by multiple users that he's going to get blocked if he keeps it up. Despite this he's largely unconcerned, and doesn't seem to be taking the situation seriously. Based on his previous record (several blocks for personal attacks/harassment, including one indefinite one that was overturned based on promises of good behaviour) I'd like to push for an indefinite block for harassing users and treating WP like a battleground, and preferably a community ban as well. Ironholds (talk) 06:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support indefinite block – highly unpleasant user, clearly harassing/bullying. That diff on Max's talkpage (much as I broadly agree with its content!) is completely out of line, while this, on my talkpage is just rather pathetic. <font color="#00ACF4">╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 06:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support indefinite block - After accusing me of violating WP:NPA because [Please also see here for additional arguments when I've asked him to stop. He has also accused me of violating NPA when I mentioned he should be banned for his behavior. I told him he deserved to be blocked], I've understood this person has absolutely no idea what the word "mature" means. He's also denied baiting Max Mux with the aforementioned edit, citing his addition "as a reply." --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)--( 07:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support indefinite block - Based upon the evidence i would say this is warranted. Making "Promises of good behaviour" to overturn an indef means that a user should improve his behaviour - Instead we see another 2 week block a mere three weeks after this incident. Statements like this and also this clearly show bad intent - man does not comment on a user like this if he or she feels some articles are bad. You come with examples then and start a discussion, and you certainly don't say "User XY makes article's we don't need". As noted in the unblock: "Last Change Unblock". I would say he already had his last change on the two week one. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 08:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support per those above. It is not behaviour which assists with editing an encyclopaedia and merely compounds drama. Orderinchaos 08:13, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support (And therefore endorse Law's block) On its own, I'd think this is a bit of an overreaction but having looked at his block log, it appears he was given a last chance when he was last unblocked. He has clearly blown that. -- Narson ~  Talk  • 10:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment On my talk page, he pointed out that he had also been indef'd (and later unblocked) as the user Cody6. It turns out he was actually indef'd twice as Cody6  and had been unblocked finally, but abandoned that account in favor of the Jakezing account, which was indef'd some months ago for basically the same behavior as today. So this guy has now been indef'd for the fourth time that we know of. I wonder if this one will stick? However, I have to admit that if someone repeatedly asks "Why don't you like me?", as Mux did of Jakezing, they're practically begging for an insulting response. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 13:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Good thing you're not an admin with an attitude like that. Jakezing had been goading him repeatedly, and Max is a foreign language speaker - from my experience (and after looking at the situation as a whole, which I'm forced to assume you haven't done) he meant simply "what is your problem with me" based on Jakezing repeatedly pestering and harassing him. That isn't "begging for an insult" - Jakezing is the one goading people, not Max. Ironholds (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is a good thing I'm not an admin, as I would probably hate the job. I am by no means apologizing for Jakezing. His comments about other users "annoying" him are part of what led to his previous block. And in any language, asking "Why don't you like me?" or "What is your problem with me?" is a leading question that's unlikely to result in a satisfactory answer. Jakezing should have responded with a list of some factual issues. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:27, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Shell Kinney and I both independently denied his request for unblock based on the promise that he would avoid all talk pages. Baseball_Bugs, thanks for that; note, though, that's it's really just one indef block; the second was just done to include a block summary for the first.  Jakezing promised several times early this year that he could change if given the chance.  I don't see much evidence that he is even better than he was.  Mango juice talk 15:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, you're right, it was really just one block, all done on Pearl Harbor Day in 2007. So it's three indef's overall. Cody6 is not currently blocked. The user says he created Jakezing because the Cod6 logon wouldn't work anymore. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Three indefs, four indefs - at that point, does it really matter? I feel for him because he seems genuine but he's not been able to resolve the issues any of the other times he's seemed genuine. Hopefully its just immaturity and he'll be able to come back after a year or two and have things together. Shell   babelfish 15:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think this is the first time I've seen someone so desperate to edit that they are asking for a topic ban from talk pages. That is obviously not appropriate, as it leads to "discussing" changes in the edit summaries instead, and I expect you know how that kind of thing can go. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 15:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support indef block - no more wikidrama. Bearian (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support indef block - How you do anything is how you do everything, and if that is the way he behaves then I say that we have totally no confidence in his contribution to wikipedia, in part or in whole. True or true? Nuff said~! --Dave1185 (talk) 18:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigation seems a bit excessive, unless they're looking for additional "sleeper" socks. Otherwise, it should suffice to block the Cody6 account, which has been virtually inactive since the Jakezing account began. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 21:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support indef block - User was previously blocked several times indef as noted, and although this user promises the behavior will cease. It never does.  This user has had..  let me see here, 8 chances at being good, and he's failed every time.  Block indef and be done with it, he's shown quite clearly he can't change.—  Dæ dαlus <sup style="color:green;">Contribs  03:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: 04:10, June 16, 2009 Law (talk | contribs) blocked Jakezing (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Personal attacks or harassment) – Quadell (talk) 17:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Support indef block – no, no, no, no. Harassment is disallowed on Wikipedia, and we shall not let it continue. — M C  10  &#124;  Sign here!  01:08, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

"Under review by Wikipedia"?
Yesterday, User:Debora999 removed from David Ferguson (impresario), with no edit summary and no attempts to fix the issues. I (with a few others that I thought the article needed as well) and left the standard uw-tdel1 message. In response (among other replies) :"Hmmm... Ms. Smith, it seems there is only one place that a citation is needed. I think I can take care of that. What is the problem here? I've reviewed your activities here and it seems like you must have a personal issue with this individual. Are you aware that you're under review by Wikipedia for your activities? They've flagged your talk page. I'm pretty sure they suspect that you know this person and have a conflict of interest... --deb (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)"Okay, keeping in mind that I haven't touched that article in over four months (due to getting fed up with SPA editors), that most of that article's citations are primary sources and/or sourced solely to the subject's own website, that Debora999 describes herself as "" and that she & I have never previously interacted, I'm ignoring most of that rant. But the last part? I have to think that it would be a good idea for someone—not me—to drop her a line about WP:AGF, at a minimum.

And while I shouldn't have to mention it, I'm happy to state for the record that I don't know Ferguson; so far as I know, I don't know anyone who knows Ferguson; and I've never had any dealings (professional or otherwise) with Ferguson himself or with any of his businesses or organizations. <span style='font:bold 1.2em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think somebody has misunderstood the idea of Editor review. – Toon (talk)  22:15, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That was my thought also, but that bit about "They've flagged your talk page" gave me the willies. <span style='font:bold 1.2em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

To avoid future errors with the template Editor review, it could be helpful to alter the text from "is currently on editor review" to perhaps " has asked for an editor review" or "has requested an editor review". Phoe talk  22:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

You're right, I did misunderstand "editor review" and I am a newbie. But why is this person so concerned with my editing on that particular page? I apologize if it sounded like a rant, but does someone follow you and revert your changes as well, especially when it was so insignificant to you personally? It's frustrating. Anyone from Wikipedia can look at my activities and see that I don't know what the heck I'm doing... sorry Ms. Smith, I forgot a signature, probably more as well. As for that "rant" I tried to delete it before it posted but hit the wrong button and saved it, as the record shows, and the time stamp, I immediately re-edited to remove it--it was simply not meant to be left behind. But, honestly... what IS the problem with that page? I honestly don't get it... I don't even understand why everyone is always arguing here. By the way, I did fix the citation problem on the page, so I'm then allowed to remove that template right? I'm not trying to pick any fights so no need to go to the mattresses... ok--I'm asking for advice here. Oh yeah, Ms. Smith, when I commented about what I thought was a flag on your talk page, I thought I was doing you a favor. Is that why you left me that message on my talk page that stated that I was "under investigation" by Wikipedia? You forgot to mention it was because you started this... I guess they'll let me know if I'm going to get spanked. How does anyone learn this stuff if there's always someone to smack us down for learning it? This is not an ownership situation is it? Are you in the article or a subject of it? If so, I'm sorry for picking on your page, I'm not trying to do anything malicious.deb (talk) 01:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

ok, she didn't say "under investigation" i don't know where i got that from... but why does everything have to sound so freaking scary?deb (talk) 01:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The way most of us learn it is by using what we learned about research in high school and college, combining it with what we learned about working cooperatively with others from our parents and our employers, and supplementing that prior knowledge by reading Wikipedia's rules. Sometimes we mess up, and someone corrects us- then we go read the rule (most people make a habit of linking to them), learn it, and do better next time.  Sometimes we get into real disagreements with other people, and we have to just go do something else until we are less angry.  The first few months, we make a lot of mistakes, and learn a lot.  Even when we've been around for a long time, we still mess up, get corrected, and get into disagreements.  You could probably read the talk pages and talk archives of anyone in this conversation and see lots of examples of mistakes, corrections, disagreements, apologies, negotiations, and compromises.  But writing the encyclopedia is something that anyone with good reading, writing, and interpersonal skills can learn to do well. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * About the problem with the article, as the template indicates, there are multiple issues with the article. You can follow the links given in it to find out more about the problems and how to solve them. Since this has already been disputed, I suggest you discuss on the article's talk page whether or not to remove the templates (after fixing the problems of course) and see what others think. As for the arguments here, that's kind of traditional :D Everyone here likes contributing to Wikipedia and are kind of attached to it so you get heated discussions and debates... but once we develop consensus on what to do, we can move on. It's not like we bear a grudge and keep going on about it. After the matter is resolved,learn from it and forget the rest. <font color="#000080">C h<font color="#0000FF">a <font color="#4169E1">m <font color="#1E90FF">a <font color="#87CEEB">l  talk 02:12, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, one thing at a time:
 * The sum total of what I've written on your talk page is uw-tdel1 and ani. That's it. If you have an issue with the standard templates, then that's your issue with the standard templates.
 * I didn't say anything about you having left off a signature, because I don't care.
 * I strongly object to your saying that I "follow you and revert your changes." That's calling WP:Wikihounding, and I have not done that. I objected to one change you made, and when I edited the page I modified a few things (not just a reversion). That's it. An apology would be nice.
 * The problem with the David Ferguson (impresario) article is just what I said above: too many SPA editors, and too few good citations. If you took out all the primary sources and the refs that link to Ferguson's own web site, then we might have a shot at a decent article. But try to do that and "Wham!" the flying SPA monkeys swoop in. Have you read through all the talk page archives?
 * And once again, no, I am not in the article in any fashion whatsoever. I just hate having this kind of biased and made-up crud in any WP article. <span style='font:bold 1.2em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 04:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Something out of the topic, but if you are sure of SPAs at the article why don't you (and others editing it) do something about it? By your comment, it sounds like they are practically controlling the article. No one can improve an article under such conditions. <font color="#000080">C h<font color="#0000FF">a <font color="#4169E1">m <font color="#1E90FF">a <font color="#87CEEB">l  talk 06:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You can deal with the single user accounts at WP:COI. Finell (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * So far as I can tell, being an SPA is not against any Wikipedia policies, nor does it (by itself) qualify an editor as having a COI. So long as the editors involved claim that they're COI-free and claim they have a NPOV, there's nothing to be done. Or so has been my experience; if someone has a recommendation or experience to the contrary, I'd love to hear it. <span style='font:bold 1.2em "Apple Garamond","Adobe Garamond Pro",Garamond,serif;color:#369;'>Dori ❦ (Talk ❖ Contribs ❖ Review) ❦ 22:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Frank Bruno's Laugh
I'm concerned that this user is engaged in a pattern of trolling and petty harassment. Please review his or her talkpage and contributions. At a minimum, he or she has started his editing career very much off on the wrong foot; very possibly, much worse. I'd appreciate someone else taking a look and implementing whatever action he or she deems appropriate, whether it's a stern warning or an indefinite block. (In my limited inquiries, I have not found any evidence of socking, however.) Thanks, Newyorkbrad (talk) 23:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Long story short, from my point of view. I made a few edits to the reference desk, somebody mentioned suicide, I posted to this board, by post was removed with the summary WP:DENY, I questioned this, Jehochman and I got into a bit of a debate about the way I was spoken to (which we resolved, amicably I believe), Ryulong also reverted me, I had the same discussion with him, he was IMO rude and dismissive, I raised this to him also, he continued to be dismissive and refused to answer, we had a bit of a debate, he was rude to me a bit, I was rude to him a bit, Frank started reverting my comments, I posted to Ryulong suggesting we never contact each other again, he then contacted me again in a rude manner, I responded in a rude manner, Frank reverted me, I asked Frank to review Ryulong's comments as well as mine, Frank told me that Ryulong was more experience than me. Then I got the note from Brad. Frank Bruno&#39;s Laugh (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I was getting the same impression as you, Brad...spends a disproportionate amount of time baiting Ryulong. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * (ecx2 with above) I had noticed FBL's behavior earlier, and held off on blocking for the time. Given the continued baiting, harassment, and refusal to disengage in the conflict, I have blocked indefinitely. Review is welcomed, and should consensus form against the block (or its being lessened), I need not be consulted first. ÷seresin 23:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * My two cents, which took about a dime's worth of time to compose: I have followed this little bit of drama for a few days. Whatever prior opinion one may have of User:Ryulong, he is being attacked by User:Frank Bruno's Laugh. I direct you to:
 * I find it laughable that you quote policies at me, when you have been found guilty by the community of flagrantly breaching policies and punished by having your powers removed. What moral authority do you think you can possibly have, when your reputation is in tatters? If I were you, I would learn to keep my mouth shut a bit more, rather than trying to moralise and stir up more problems.
 * You are, in my opinion, a bully, and that a lot of people are unhappy with your conduct. I am not sure how long you got away with this, but it seems that your conduct has been noted by the community and that you have been dealt with.
 * rm hypocritical comment - Ryulong was recently found guilty of appalling conduct and his conduct towards me has continued to be appalling (making attacks without been prepared to justify (edit summary).
 * This is all from a user with under 100 edits, zero of which are in article space. Note: We've had some interaction on this point; see my talk page, his talk page, or Ryulong's. FBL's trolling is disruptive to the project and harassing of a prolific article-space editor. Frank  |  talk  23:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

The editor is currently requesting an unblock. — Mythdon ( talk  •  contribs ) 23:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Endorse block based on the above links/quotes from Frank, and a look through their edits, R. Baley (talk) 00:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems like a pretty reasonable block to me as well. --MZMcBride (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I have declined the unblock request per their behaviour, and zero consensus for an unblock here. --Stephen 01:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Why do I always seem to stumble across these sorts of accounts. I was very suspicious of this account, and a few others who seem to be playing silly games at the reference desk. I believe there is a long term reference desk troll. Others know more about them than me. Is there anyone who remembers those incidents who'd care to enlighten us who the puppetmaster might be? Jehochman Talk 00:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * is the other account that looks like it might be engaged in some sort of games. Perhaps checkuser to see if it's the same editor as .  Jehochman Talk 00:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Appears . (Yes, Newyorkbrad just ran a checkuser, and didn't blow up the wiki.) Thatcher has already blocked one sock, however. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * was one of the two socks blocked by . That account was also fiddling with the reference desk.  Who here remembers something about the reference desk troll?  Who's the master account? Jehochman Talk 01:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There have been several banned/indef blocked users using socks to screw around/troll on the reference desks in the time I've been contributing there. and  are two of the more memorable/persistent ones. Not sure if either one is involved here, though. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I endorse it too. Seems like a wholly preventative block to me. I honestly wouldn't be suprised if a CheckUser turned up something interesting.-- Koji †  00:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse as well; disruption-only account. BencherliteTalk 00:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Endorse block for all the same reasons mentioned by others. ··· 日本穣 ? · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:16, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Question for the checkusers: Who else do we know who's had a history of attacking Ryulong and gloating over their loss of admin tools?   S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 14:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Is that supposed to be a riddle or a rhetorical question? I don't know, not being able to follow every bit of drama this place serves up.  Other than the two accounts I blocked, there are no other identifiable current or recent sockpuppets.  Are you asking for a recheck so you can use a more precise block template?  I'm not sure there is much value in that. Thatcher 14:44, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I think it's actually a multiple choice question.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 14:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think this was originally targeted as harassment of Ryulong; as I recall, the question was posted elsewhere and FBL didn't like the answer from Ryulong, and that was the first interaction between the two. Frank  |  talk  16:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * )after e/c) Sorry if I was unclear there. I was actually trying to remember one specific user who was sanctioned for harassing Ryulong (I'm pretty sure, on reflection, that it was User:DougsTech), and I wondered whether a Checkuser might be able to find out whether this is a reincarnation. Apparently not, though. S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 16:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Check the history of User:TAway, another sockish account. That page was railing on Ryulong, until the content was removed or deleted.  The page was at MfD for a while.  Jehochman Talk 00:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:RegistrarHistorian
I'm an employee of Dotster, Inc. and I'd like to bring to your attention the user RegistrarHistorian. This user's edits and contributionsto various Domain Registrar sites has been intentionally negatively biased against Dotster. This user originally created a Dotster Wiki page that has since been deleted, and I'm not aware of what the content was, but apparently it was deserving of deletion. Since that time, the user has continued to make negatively biased or false edits about Dotster. Examples include an unnecessary comparison of GoDaddy and Dotster on the Godaddy page that is factually inaccurate (this user has since included a graph to accompany the statement, an edit on the Network Solutions page that, while truthful, does not add to that page, and most recently changed the List of Domain Name Registrars page to move Dotster from its proper spot to the bottom of the list with (service suspended). As for that last part, I don't even know what exactly that means, but it's certainly not true as we're still operating and not suspended.

As a Dotster employee I don't want to be editing these pages and have a conflict of interest, but it appears that this user is specifically targeting Dotster with negative information. I started a discussion on the GoDaddy talk page suggesting that the page be modified to remove the Dotster comparison completely, but I think unless the user is dealt with the issue won't be resolved. Thank you! --Dotsterrep (talk) 20:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have a look, though I'd love a second opinion. Chase me ladies, I&#39;m the Cavalry (talk) 21:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I had a quick look and concur with Dotsterrep, though note that his username violates policy. Hipocrite (talk) 21:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * My understanding is that people have been backing off from that policy recently, the the grounds that it is better for a COI to be explicit than hidden.
 * What part of WP:U does this user name violate? <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 22:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Whoops, I realize you are referring to the OP and not the subject of this thread, in which case you are correct. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 22:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't realize my username violates policy. I'd be happy to change it if you'd point me to what needs changing. --Dotsterrep (talk) 22:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User names should not include company names or otherwise indicate that it is a "role account" - see WP:U for details. You can visit WP:CHU to request a name that meets the policy - thank you for your understanding. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 22:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The edits do seem to focus on negative info about this organisation, plus none of the ones I looked at were sourced at all. I'd be interested to hear Historian's take on it. – Toon (talk)  21:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Serbia edit war
There's an edit war occurring on over whether to include a map that shows Kosovo (which declared independence about 18 months ago) in a different colour from Serbia or as part of the same country. Could some uninvolved administrator please take a look? -- ChrisO (talk) 23:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

WCIU-TV edit war
There's an edit war occuring on over a new digital channel called That TV. Could some involved administrator please take a look? AdamDeanHall (talk) 23:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin Needed to Salt a Couple Articles.


Plucker678 has recreated several articles today that had been speedy deleted. The user has repeatedly removed the CSD tags placed on the pages and has vandalized a couple templates (Template:NYC Morning Drive and Template:New York Radio) as well. I have warned the user and taken this to AIV, but the pages need to be deleted and salted, something I can't do. Please help. - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer •  Talk  • 23:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Fl has blocked Plucker678 indef and salted the articles. Quick! - <small style="border:1px solid #990000;padding:1px;"> NeutralHomer  •  Talk  • 23:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

User:IvoShandor : A short rest may be required
This was brought to our attention in WP:WQA. I will give some background:

These are worth a series of escalating warnings (and I have given him a level 4). However, what concerns me is his reply when a WQA entry was filed: "Did I go a little overboard with the incivility? You bet. And honestly, if my vulgar language and uncivil behavior discourages destructive editors like yourself, then it is by far worth any consequences". Indeed, his posting on my talkpage after the warning a second ago also confirms he will drive off other editors. When an editors purpose of incivility is to dicourage participation, it is becoming disruptive to the project. As such, a little rest would not be punitive, it would be preventative of disruption and other attempts to dissuade editing. ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:37, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * An editor tagged an article that IvoShandor had created for CSD.
 * Ivo removed the tag with the edit summary "this is total bullshit, take it to AFD".
 * Ivo then removed all related notifications from his page with the edit summary "rmv trolling nonsense from asshole" (which is a painful place to keep nonsense).
 * This edit where he calls another editor a "condescending twit", and then today this entire post with the summary "fuck you dick".
 * Although past issues are not necessarily indicative of a pattern, you may wish to peruse this from the archives ( talk→  BWilkins   ←track ) 10:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Block 72 hours - This is really ridiculous, and I mean, I flip out, but not to this regard. This is totally destructive and I feel really sorry for the user who fell victim to this (I read the WQA thread, and am keeping the username anonymous). I usually don't support bans or blocks, but this time, a cool down is necessary.<i style="color:red;">Mitch</i>/<i style="color:black;">HC32</i> 10:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * A "cool down block"? Can't help thinking we have a policy about those... Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment To play devil's advocate here, an even better way to "drive off editors from the project" is to tag things with spurious CSDs and the like. We already have far too many non-contributing wikilawyers who because they find some legalese excuse as to why they can delete something, see it as an opportunity to delete something. Although I'm sure User:IvoShandor has a thick enough skin to not be bothered by this, we do repeatedly see situations where new editors see their first works bitten like this and then disappear forever (and a little guidance to them instead might have solved everything).
 * I can't excuse User:IvoShandor's lack of civility. That's a requirement here, we're expected to stick with it despite provocations and on the whole the project works better with that than without it. However I can certainly understand his frustrations and would hate to see this turn into a wikitarring where the CSD-tagging editor is exonerated as blameless, just because they have the talent to remain polite whilst they're being condescending. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd also question why this is on AN/I and is thus presumedly considered to be a risk of damage to the project, rather than an etiquette issue (perhaps worthy of admonishment, but not risking the technical content in the way that vandalism and the like does). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * edit conflict. ;Persomally I don't think a block would be anything but punative. This is an experianced user that just needs to take a step back and see he is going down the wrong road with his emotions. Is there any other occasions where the same attitude is displayed? That would warrent this charge of driving away editors? This looks like an isolated emotional flare up to me and would be better discussed back at WP:WQA (Off2riorob (talk) 10:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The previous occasion was a year and a half ago. Although it was for what looks like exactly the same attitude. (Off2riorob (talk) 10:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC))
 * I tried to respond, but lost it in an EC I don't want to participate in this escalation, because it is essentially a moot point. A block would only be punitive, but if you feel like it will help then go ahead. I really feel like if this is a pattern for the editor I lashed out at then that editor shouldn't be around. Obviously I'm not going to drive anyone away with a few words behind a computer (which while harsh and mean) were simply words. If I made anyone sad or upset then I am sorry. I've never tried to drive anyone away (and don't think that any serious person would think that this editor is going to be driven away - if they are, thicker skin may be warranted), and like most of us have put up with my fair share of crap around here, not that I haven't dished some out too, but honestly I just call it how I see it. I still think the speedy tag was an uncool move (is it ok to say uncool in place d*ck), and yes I snapped off a little, but the self-righteous posturing of some people around here is really just too much sometimes. --IvoShandor (talk) 11:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We're trying to maintain a collegial atmosphere, here, Ivo. Politeness really does help, really.  To some extent, yes, editors need to have the ability to brush off harsh words sent their way.  The examples linked above, though, seem to go beyond what one should expect to have directed toward oneself in what is supposed to be a collaborative project.  We're all working together here.  Powers T 12:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 *  Warn both  I would say a block is a bit to much for this, on either side. The editor that placed the tag was clearly in error placing it, and from past experience i can tell that Ivo is not the only person who becomes... Annoyed with a wrong tag. That being said i do not agree with the exaggerated response, and i strongly disapprove of the general lack of understanding that this can indeed drive (Especially new) editors away.
 * Still, blocks should be a last resort. I would say that the tagger should get a warning for incorrect tags, and Ivo should get a warning about incivility - and both should stop bickering over this issue. Personally i believe that should solve it; no need to force a block here. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 11:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I suppose it would be escalating the situation to nominate the article for deletion? Right now, it appears to violate WP:DICDEF, but I suppose there is some potential for expansion? Powers T 12:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do - It wouldn't be at all helpful, but I can't wait to read your nomination for it. How can you possibly think that would be a useful way to act? Why are you even suggesting it? Your worthy comment, "We're all working together here." cannot be reconciled with such an action if you have the remotest appreciation of good faith. It's clearly necessary to remind you that "good faith" applies to other people too, not just your own lofty judgement, and that includes Ivo. I know his crime is terrible, and that one day we'll have eradicated the dread scourge of people creating articles here, but in the meantime how about having at least a shred of appreciation for those people who carry on the core business of the encyclopedia: content. A little reminder: articles are created because someone once considered that their content was worth recording. This is not a coconut-shy where one group writes content just so that another group can bask in the pleasure of demonstrating their vast understanding of almighty Policy and finding a way to delete it. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Gosh, maybe that's why I checked here first, Andy. All I meant was that had I encountered this article separately from this discussion, I likely would have sent it to AfD myself, or even speedily redirected it, per policy.  (Unless perhaps if it was brand new (< 1 day old) or had numerous incoming links.)  I admittedly should have checked the creation date before suggesting that an AfD may be in order.  Powers T 14:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Calling somebody an "asshole" is not just incivility, it is a personal attack designed to drive the other editor away. Ivo, will you undertake not to repeat that? If the other editor is being disruptive, calmly report the matter and let somebody deal with it. Jehochman Talk 13:02, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate to dig up old ghosts, but there is a precedent here. IvoShandor, you need to put your temper behind you when you edit and before you press "save". More than a few times it's caused debacle, and there's only so much of it to be tolerated. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 13:42, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 07:27, 26 February 2007 (edit) (undo). In other words more then two years ago. This is not even relevant anymore - if you are going to complain about my CSD tagging, are you going to argue that my first month of tags was way over the top, even though that happened 1.5 years ago? If this behavior happened on regular basis i would agree with that diff, but unless i see something more recent i fail to see the merit of this. Snapping once every 2 years? Regrettable but tolerable i would say. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 13:52, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Er, that was simply the extreme case (and it was extreme). As I mentioned, it's happened quite a number of times. We can see evidence of that here. When a case this extreme exists, I don't think it unreasonable to point towards it in the face of similar conduct 2 years later. It's not irrelevant at all in that light. &mdash; Anonymous Dissident  Talk 13:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * All the evidence i see so far is 1) Evidence over two years old. 2) Evidence generated within a few hour timespan. In fact i think we can count this as two counts of uncivil behavior within a two year timespan. Sure, there were more edits but in case someone gets fired up that happends; it rarely stays to a single edit. Also, do we really need to make a soapbox out of this and start trowing around blocks for a single incident? I completely agree we should keep it friendly around here, but we should not dramatize and scream block as soon as someone steps over the line once. Screaming block, after all, does not really help to establish a friendly atmosphere. :) Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 14:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Ivo did say this..."If I made anyone sad or upset then I am sorry"' and he does appear to have calmly gone off to think about his actions. (Off2riorob (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC))
 * Yes, and in looking through the short history of this little kerfuffle, Bwilkins comes out poorly as well. Condescension is no better than incivility. Unitanode  14:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Pardon me? Where do I "come out poorly"?  An incident is brought to WQA that I consider an extreme situation that possibly warrants admin intervention, and I'm the one coming out poorly?  I have no horse in this race whatsoever, and escalated it properly. ( talk→   BWilkins   ←track ) 20:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Lets not get carried away, this is basically incivility and dispute resolution between Fire 55 and IvoShandor and should go back to WP:WQA . I would say there is nothing to discuss here and move to close the thread. (Off2riorob (talk) 15:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC))


 * I am glad to see this resolved amicably, I apologized personally to the user in question. As for Anonymous Dissident's comments, I addressed self-righteous posturing above, perhaps its something we (incl. myself) should all be cognizant of.--IvoShandor (talk) 04:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Dane Rauschenberg
This article was created on January 24, 2007 by User:Fiddy2 which identified himself as the or his. It is obvious from the comments made on the talk page that he continued to edit until blocked as User:Arric, User:Danerunsalot, User:Runnerguy, and User:Revertedlesbo, making edits that misstate facts and place his "fiddy2" project is its most favorable light. In April and May 2008, User:Fish and karate conducted a mediation which resulted in a version that did a lot to remove the POV and COI elements of the article. The article has remained stable until April 1, 2009, when the following IP addresses started to make edits and leave messages on the talk page that have details that only Dane Rauschenberg could know: The location data are consistent with the travels that Mr. Rauschenberg discusses on his blog.

The problem is that instead of confining the article to past verifiable events, which was mostly resolved by the mediation, these IP editors seek to "plug" Mr. Rauschenberg's new book and an upcoming race that he is organizing in August 2009. Ordinarily, including a new book by the subject of an article would be appropriate for inclusion, but this book is not listed on amazon.com, and the publishing house has only produced two titles, this being one of them. There are no reviews of the book in the mainstream media, and it has all of the trappings of a vanity press situation where Mr. Rauschenberg is the main vendor of his book inventory. (He sells it on his website and sells books at marathon expos.)

A group of editors have been working to keep the article COI-free, but they have been distracted by incivil talk page comments from User:Alansohn (who has not made edits to the article itself since the mediation.)

I am planning to back away for a couple of weeks to let things cool down, but I am concerned that Mr. Rauschenberg, through various IP addresses, continues to use the article as his personal Facebook page. Good luck. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 16:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Racepacket has been involved in a multi-year war relating to the article for Dane Rauschenberg. I don't know who he is and have no opinion for or against the article's subject, but I saw the article at AfD, voted to keep, and then tried to sort through two warring pro- and anti-Rauschenberg factions that have been involved in the article. I have been through the article ensuring that all material is backed by reliable and verifiable sources, including articles about Rauschenberg and his 52-marathon effort from such sources as The Washington Post here, Sports Illustrated here, the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette here and on National Public Radio here, all of which published reports on Rauschenberg, before, during and after his year-long effort. The coverage is independent and in-depth. User:Racepacket doesn't think so and has edit warred for years to get the article deleted. He has already been caught as a sockpuppet at Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket (deleted due to "privacy concerns" related to allegations of physical threats), Suspected sock puppets/Racepacket (2nd) and Requests for checkuser/Case/Racepacket, showing votestacking at Articles for deletion/Dane Rauschenberg and Sockpuppet investigations/Racepacket is awaiting checkuser, with overwhelming evidence showing that User:66.173.140.100 is used by User:Racepacket as one of several "bad hand" accounts to make attack edits on the Rauschenberg article, its talk page and several other articles. Racepacket and his sockpuppets have made several allegations that Rauschenberg will physically assault him and appears to have some sort of personal connection with and grudge against Rauschenberg that he perpetuates using sockpuppets. A very lengthy block or ban of Racepacket will at least deal with half of the problem. Alansohn (talk) 17:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Obivously, I disagree with the above. There is a big difference between removing COI, unverifiable self-serving content and seeking to delete an entire article.  The question here is what to do about a series of IP editors that know offhand whether Rauschenberg was selling books at the San Diego Marathon expo and other details about his life.  Those editors do not want to live with the results of a mediation and do not want an objective verifiable article. In any event, there is no need for incivility. 66.173.140.100 (talk) 21:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I wish that there was some credibility in the claim of being a crusading COI fighter, but the sad fact is that the whole Racepacket family of sockpuppets has been devoted to pushing the POV that Rauschenberg is not notable (despite consensus at AfD even with extensive votestacking) and claims that sources are not reliable (despite clear evidence that the articles are all about him and written independently in major national publications). From your collective descriptions about the article's subject, it is clear that you know and have some sort of contact with him and that this conflict of interest has led you to try to get even with him somehow through this article through a whole range of sockpuppets. Years ago I opened a sockpuppet report which resulted in eight blocks from all the COI factions, both pro- and anti-Rauschenburg. Racepacket has been caught multiple times using sockpuppets with and without usernames, and this is unfortunately continuing despite multiple blocks. It's hard to accept that someone who is so devoted to defaming an individual and abusing Wikipedia policy could claim that other people are being "uncivil". Alansohn (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Because Racepacket has a prior 1 week block for sockpupperty, and has clearly been editing while logged out to try and avoid scrutiny to his edits, blocked for 10 days.
 * Racepacket is further banned from making any edits to for 3 months, under any user name or IP, to be enforced by a one month block and a reset of the 3 month ban timer should he violate the ban. He may make suggestions on the talk page.
 * will be semi-protected for 3 months to prevent logged-out editing by any parties, including Racepacket and associates of Mr. Rauschenberg. Editors who wish to contribute to the article are invited to create an account, provided they respect Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. Thatcher 03:18, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Toddst1 abuse of Adminsitrator privleges
Administrator Toddst1, I believe blocked me in bad faith. I would like to also point out that he is encouraging user Wuhwuzdat by giving him more privleges aimed at blocking users. The article I have been attempting to correct has glaring errors, and erroneous information that directly conflicts the facts in the NTSB report, and quotes copyrighted material from a newspaper article, that was written from the point of view of an unverified witness (WP:POV). The cemetery listed on the article does not exist under the name that is published, and is in a different city that published. The article lists attendees at the funeral that could only be verified by referencing the guest register from the funeral, or getting a notarized statement from someone who attended the service. The only record of attendees is not verified, and comes from copyrighted newspaper and magazine articles.

Admin Toddst1 shows the issue of user Wuhwuzdat using profanity, the "F" word, two different times as resolved. This administrator is friendly with this user, which in my opinon makes him unable to be objective, and is a bit of a conflict of interest in this case. The administrators have only joked with this user about it, (with the exception of one who just said "don't do it again" and have not seriously addressed the issue. Please, someone do something about this.Dfwaviator (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh for christ's sake. Any more of this bullshit, I'm gonna block the user myself. One good read through his talk page tells you everything you need to know about his ability to work in a collaborative atmosphere. I think WP:COMPETENCE applies here. <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">Tan  &#124;  <font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39  01:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * You like to use your user talk page as a blog and a soapbox, I see—both against WP:TALK, of course. Troll, much? MuZemike 02:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I just warned him to stop commenting on other editors, or be blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk)
 * Blocked 48h for continued incivility. Another Plaxico moment. MuZemike 02:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Storm Rider abusing warning process
user:Storm Riderhas serious issues with the West Ridge Academy article. Every time I make an edit], user:Storm Rider immediately reverts] my edit and posts warnings] on my talk page for edit waring. user:Storm Rider even had me blocked] for this, even though I was simply editing the article the same way he was. I contested the block, but by the time I did my ban had already lifted so no one looked into the allegations I have made about Storm Rider. I am requesting that it be reviewed at this time. When I warned this editor about their own violations of Wikipedia policy, the warnings were deleted] and I was banned.

I feel like this issue is more about religion than the accuracy of the article. I was being bullied by user:Storm Rider and I requested mediation] for that reason. The mediation has not been granted, and user:Storm Rider still is dominating the voice of the article, even though user:Storm Rider has very serious] POV issues. I have attempted] to reach a consensus and bring the debate to the talk page, but it is not working. The editor has teamed up with an employee of the subject of the article and not only sought to have me removed from editing completely, but have started using personal insults] and attacks both on the talk page] and on my talk page]. The user has taunted me with warnings of being banned, and quite frankly I am afraid he will be able to do so if I do not get an administrator to step in. There are multiple warnings] from this editor on my talk page - they are bullying, abusive, unwarranted, and need to stop. Please help. --DoyleCB (talk) 04:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * User:William M. Connolley chose to block you for 24 hours. That was his decision so you cannot blame Storm Rider for following the warning templates and requesting that you get blocked.  It was a separate decision by the admin.  Just glancing at your first diff, what's wrong here?  You removed an uncited claim, he added a source for it.  If that's a revert to you that's concerning, you aren't going to get sympathy here.  Is there something wrong with the sources?  Do you now want to remove the sourced statement?  Why?  -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:22, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I don't want it removed. I thought I was cleaning up the article by removing a citation needed box. He added it back and I am fine with the edit. I have a problem with two things. First is the bullying and abuse of reporting practices. When I make an edit it is reverted by Storm Rider, and I issue a warning template the warnings are removed and Storm Rider reports me for abusing the reporting process or for reverting edits if I attempt to change them back. I don't understand why Storm Rider is not subject to the same rules I am. Or why I am unable to report him. Second, his strong COI and neutrality issues. He has taken ownership of the article and has threatened or been uncivil to anyone with a challenging perspective. It's nothing short of harassment. --DoyleCB (talk) 05:30, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A review of Talk:West Ridge Academy and User Talk:DoyleCB shows a long pattern of extremely disruptive editing by DoyleCB, against a consensus of half-a-dozen editors, with no sign of getting a clue even after a 24 hr block. In my opinion this calls for a lengthy block or a topic ban from anything relating to West Ridge Academy. Looie496 (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by A.K.Nole

 * Sockpuppet investigations/The Wiki House/Archive
 * Sockpuppet investigations/The Wiki House/Archive

A.K.Nole has been editing disruptively on the article Jeremy Dunning-Davies, which has been put up for deletion by me. At the discussion on WP:FTN, he has been causing further disruption. Then, seemingly in revenge, he incorrectly claimed on my talk page that my name is a copyright problem because Mathsci is copyrighted by the American Mathematical Society. He changed the redirect page accordingly for Mathsci. However the trade mark for the web version of Mathematical Reviews (MR) is MathSciNet. This has been in place on wikipedia for years now. This user is continuing to change the redirect. (It is true that the joint electronic database for the two AMS publications Mathematical Reviews and Current Mathematical Publications is called MathSci and that the earlier multidisc version of MR, now more or less outmoded, is called MathSci Disc.) He has edited Mathsci and Mathematical Reviews to include faulty information. He has edited wikipedia only for a short time, previously having shared an account abusively with two other users as. He has made very few edits, his main contribution seemingly has been to blank a sourced section of Simutronics. The remarks at my talk page suggest that this user is up to no good. He seems to be harrassing me and I think he should be warned or blocked for disruptive editing. I have made no secret that I am a directeur de recherche in the CNRS, previously having been a tenured staff member in Cambridge University. where I lecture a term per year and am still a fellow of my former college. I do not like this harrassment or baiting by A.K.Nole which seems to be just to prove a WP:POINT. As far as I can tell he is a total non-expert on matters mathematical (I assume for example he has no access to mathscinet). He seems to be editing wikipedia to make my user name illegal, but, as a simple search on google will show, mathsci is used everywhere (e.g. for mathematical forums, mathematics departments, journals, etc). Mathsci (talk) 19:03, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I reject these accusations, which are significantly inaccurate in many ways and largely unsupported.
 * I will address the principal complaint first. User:MathSci alleges that I have "edited Mathsci and Mathematical Reviews to include faulty information".  This is one of the most serious accusations that could be levelled against a contributor and it is quite untrue.  The database (as opposed to its web interface) is called MathSci, and has been since 1999 at least: its name MathSci is a trademark of the American Mathematical Society.  It is available today under that name as an online service and a CD-ROM.  I provided sources for all this here before making any article changes, here, here here and here.  User:Mathsci actually admits this now, having previously denied it here here summary and here, the last of these being at this very section.
 * The sources I adduced, here, here, here and here come from the MathSci products publisher and its two principal vendors (current, not outmoded, one disc, one online). They include two of the three top Google hits for search term "Mathsci".  Hence my initial concern.
 * Copyright was never mentioned by me. MathSci is a trademark of the American Mathematical Society, registered on 6 Feb 1990 (go to USPTO to verify).  Is this a valid username?
 * Minor allegations:
 * Disruption at Jeremy Dunning-Davies -- not by me. There was a BRD cycle and discussion at the talk page.  I proposed a third opinion and User:Mathsci duly took it to WP:FTN.
 * Disruption at WP:FTN -- not by me. I leave it to the community to visit that page and decide who was disruptive.
 * Shared account. A beginner's mistake, resolved at Sockpuppet_investigations/The_Wiki_House.  It is not true to call it abusive.
 * Blanked a sourced section of Simutronics. Not true, it was an unsourced section, see long discussion at the talk page.
 * "total non-expert on matters mathematical". Perhaps, though not as far as I know a crime.  What I can do is to read the sources, and tell the difference between a database and a website.
 * User:Mathsci fails to mention leaving threats to have me blocked here, here and here. This farrago is clearly an attempt to put those threats into operation for having dared to disagree with him.  I reject all the accusations and note that major assertions here are demonstrably untrue.  I invite the community to decide.  A.K.Nole (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It's perfectly clear that the only reason A.K.Nole is editing items related to "Mathsci" is to harass, following on a contentious dispute. This is stalking and shouldn't be tolerated. Looie496 (talk) 21:31, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * "Stalking" is a real-world crime: I reject that accusation completely and call on you to withdraw it. You probably meant "wikistalking", now called "wikihounding" for that very reason: the facts are against that too.  A.K.Nole (talk) 06:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't find Mathsci's user name to be promotional, and I recommend that he ignore the comment about his user name that Nole left on his Talk. EdJohnston (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed - Mathsci should ignore Nole's comment, and I strongly suggest that Nole start ignoring Mathsci. And predicting the possible consequence of an editor's actions is not making threats. Dougweller (talk) 18:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think it is reasonable to ask to ignore an edit like this one. Looie496 (talk) 23:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Regardless of other matters, that edit is correct; mathSci is a database produced by the AMs, available not only on CDs but thru the DIALOG service ,  and this name is much more widely known and has been for many years than the US high school.   I think the disam p. is needed, but if it is used for any one thing, it should redirect to the Web Search service., not the school. If it is used for other specific organizations or sites as well, then a more elaborate disam p. is needed. I do not consider that edit harassment, and changing back to the Redirect was in my opinion wrong.   Needless to say, there is no connection and User:Mathsci is not in the least a promotional username--it is a very widely used phrase. One can trademark even such a phrase when used in a particular context, as here.  DGG (talk) 06:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The edit was inaccurate, because the database refers to two distinct publications as is clearly stated on the AMS website (MR and CMP). As DGG is a professional scientific librarian, he will know that mathematicians use the terms MathSciNet, mathscinet and Mathscinet in real life, not mathsci, Mathsci or MathSci. I certainly used the multidisc set in the early 90's in the Scientific Periodicals Library in Cambridge before the online catalogue became available. By adding "id=" [i.e. id= ] to the citation template, editors on WP can make a direct link to a mathscinet review in articles related to mathematics (this example is from Michael Atiyah), but not to the master database. Mathsci (talk) 09:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

ARBMAC cluebat needed
There's been a renewed bout of Greek-Albanian national edit-warring recently, which needs some treatment under WP:ARBMAC (the original). The main articles affected are currently, , as well as several location articles such as. The main participants are: My impression is that the main troublemakers are I Pakapshem and Sarandioti on the one side and Factuarius on the other: the aggressive edit-warring comes mostly from the two new Albanian users, while a lot of the tendentious editing that has been spurring the conflict has been the responsibility of Factuarius, with Balkanian`s word and the other Greek editors showing a somewhat more constructive approach. The whole situation needs ample use of the discretionary sanctions rule by somebody with a good solid cluebat. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * on the Albanian side:
 * on the Greek side:
 * on the Greek side:
 * on the Greek side:
 * on the Greek side:
 * I'd help, but I'm afraid I'd get whopped by ArbCom's morningstar. Sorry. One ArbComm case is enough for me, and I sincerely apologize to both you and J.delanoy for the horrendous situation. -<font color="32CD32">Jeremy <font color="4682B4">(v^_^v Cardmaker) 21:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'd like to point out that the disruption on location articles began recently, when Sarandioti burst on the scene and I Pakapshem soon after. These articles were more or less stable prior to that.  These appear to be SPAs whose sole purpose is nationalist edit-warring.  They have a battleground mentality, use ethnic insult and aggresively edit war.  The level of disruption in recent days has become intolerable.  It is impossible to have a meaningful discussion as they dismiss any source I bring on spurious and endlessly repeat that wikipedia must only use official data.  Evidence provided below:


 * Edit warring: On June 16th alone, 3R on Cham Albanians, Souliotes
 * Incivility:,  (calling user "greko"),  (michael "white"),   ("nationalist claims"), ,  ("your pseudo nationalism, typical dodging")
 * Battleground mentality:  ("..attempting to hellenise.."),  ("stop your nationalist lies"),  ("Greek source=POV source"),, ,   ("Warm welcome")
 * Assumptions of bad faith: (calling others edits "vandalizing"), ("meat puppets"),  ("vandalising by Athenean"),  ("greek nationalist Athenean"),  (assuming User:Politis is "recruited")
 * Gaming the system, thinks he is entitled to 3R:, ,
 * Endlessly repeating the "OFFICIAL data" (sic) mantra:, , , , , ,
 * Ignores sources or dismisses them on spurious grounds: ,
 * Falsely claims I wrote "majority" when I clearly wrote "minority": ,
 * Continuously threatening to "report" people:, ,
 * Canvassing (in Albanian) ("Greeks are vandalising articles")
 * Canvassing (in Albanian) ("Greeks are vandalising articles")


 * Edit-warring: 3R on Chams, Souliotes on June 16th alone
 * Incivility:  ("greek buddy"),   ("trolling around"),   ("trolling around"),
 * Assuming bad faith:,  ("extreme nationalist POV pushers")
 * Battleground mentality: ,
 * Official data mantra: ,
 * Dismissing sources on spurious grounds:, , , ,
 * Threatening to report people:
 * Gaming the system mentality:
 * Gaming the system mentality:


 * Also worth noting is that I Pakapshem is likely a member [] of this extremist nationalist organization:  ("Movement of National Rebirth").


 * In this thread User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise,, I brought up the idea of having a round-table discussion to settle this matter between editors, but I am now convinced this will be impossible as long as these two editors are allowed to participate. --Athenean (talk) 07:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Athenean, an admin is ALREADY on this issue, check the talkpage of the article Cham Albanians, and stop accusing your fellow editors without even informing them for this. And please stop commenting others and issues you dont know, without their knowledge, that is totally impolite. --Sarandioti (talk) 07:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

And Athenean stop recruiting other editors, to help you. The admin is already on the issue. And stop accusing other people without any point. You and your friends attacked the articles called them POV without even explaining why, and you expect your changes to be accepted? Of course not, they were reverted, and now an admin is on the issue. --Sarandioti (talk) 08:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

You accuse us of things we never even implied. But lets se what Xenovatis, Factuarious and the other greek editors wrote:  And you actually try saying that we are the ones who cause the trouble and that we should be excluded from the discussion? You provided no proof, nothing at all, so why did you expect that your POV changes would be accepted? Anyway matter is already discussed with admin in --Sarandioti (talk) 08:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

At last the Souliotes article is under protection and no one can vandalise it or make POV additions. In Cham Albanians we are all discussing under mediation. All ok. --Sarandioti (talk) 10:14, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just found this thread courtesy of Athenean at Talk:Cham Albanians; I am the "admin" who was dealing with this issue (although Sarandioti is partially mistaken) and am attempting some form of dispute resolution there. I have posted up my personal analysis and comments on the edit war that took place on the Cham Albanians article yesterday in that thread, in case anyone would wish to refer to or comment on it. Future Perfect has got things spot on, by the looks of things. <b style="color:#FF0000;">haz</b> (talk) 20:21, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

UPDATE: user:Yannismarou dished out 48 hour blocks to each of the warriors, with an extra 24 for Balkanian's Word. Xenovatis was coming off a 24 hour block for 3rr - I had run into him for the first time - having returned after a 4 month wikibreak with a flurry of WP:battleground editing. But he's been around for 2 years, 5000 edits. Does this editor have a past, productive history? Jd2718 (talk) 00:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks to Haz both for his mediation efforts and for his very careful and insightful analysis of what was going on (at Talk:Cham Albanians). This detailed documentation will provide any uninvolved administrator with easy reference and sufficient information to base sanction decisions on, should further intervention be necessary after Yannis' blocks expire. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:37, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Fair use images on user page
User:Mabuhelwa is using several fair use images (logos for AIM, Skype, etc.) decoratively in an infobox on his user page. I removed them with an explanation as to why here, he restored them without comment here, I once again removed them and repeated my reasoning here, and the user once again restored them with no explanation here. Can an admin intervene? Thanks.&mdash; TAnthonyTalk 06:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've removed them and left him a message on his user talk page, providing some possible alternates. As far as I'm aware, 3RR would not be applied to removing fair use images from outside of the article space. Perhaps in the future you should try to leave the user a message on his talk page as well.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 07:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Rcool35 and IP edits
User:Rcool35 and his/her multiple IP addresses are continuously making disruptive edits. They continually falsify album ratings by increasing the rating by .5. For example, here a few of Rcool35's edits:, , ,. The following are by multiple IPs, doing the exact same edits: IP 99.147.220.233:, , , , , ; IP 76.193.182.195: ; IP 76.197.240.99: , , , , , ; IP 76.197.249.241: , , , ; more recently, IP 76.193.187.229, among many, many others. It's probably best to indefinitely block Rcool5 and get some sort of a range block as well, or something to stop this deliberate disruptive behavior. —  Σ xplicit  23:42, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, a range block would not work in this case. :(  <font face="Papyrus"><font color=#9966CC>- <font color=#7B68EE>down <font color=#9966CC>load  <font color=#7B68EE>׀ <font color=#8A2BE2>sign!  01:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ...but I do support the blocking of him and his socks. <font face="Papyrus"><font color=#9966CC>- <font color=#7B68EE>down <font color=#9966CC>load  <font color=#7B68EE>׀ <font color=#8A2BE2>sign!  05:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Err, anyone? —  Σ xplicit  04:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Blocked for 48 hours for vandalism. This editor has only received one 24h block before, and their other contributions seem to be in good faith. I don't know what's best to do about the IPs.  S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 13:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The IP problem continues to be persistent—just look at the edit histories at the articles he edits—specifically Hip Hop Is Dead and Nastradamus. Several IPs are continually falsify the album ratings, nearly everyday. I'd rather much be editing other articles than reverting the IP edits every time they come along. —  Σ xplicit  18:59, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I've blocked the most recently used IP address, and reset Rcool35's block to a week. Unfortunately the address used can change quite often, so I've also semi-protected a couple of articles.
 * If this doesn't help, you could request more semi-protection at Requests For Page Protection.
 * In the meanwhile, go ahead and use "reverting vandalism" or "RVV" in your edit summaries - or use your Rollback button - since this is quite clearly vandalism and ought to be labelled as such, and there's no reason why you should get in trouble for making more than three reverts a day trying to fix this sort of stuff.   S HEFFIELD S TEEL TALK 13:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

New user writing selfpromotional business articles.
I wasn't sure if this is the place to report but User talk:Redstonevt is editing and creating spam articles at Redstone Commercial Real Estate. my understanding is a block is in order until the isername is changed. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 15:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The page is Purely informational, and far less promotional than most other 'business' pages. Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redstonevt (talk • contribs) 15:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * NB:User is warned of username policy and is at Usernames for administrator attention. Gsmgm (talk) 15:51, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Page was also a copyright violation of the linked source. :/ Syrthiss (talk) 15:57, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Has asked for a change of name. Dougweller (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, he has a new ID as and is writing the same self-promotional stuff. I don't think he quite gets the point. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, he sure4 doesn't, He wants me to explain how his company is notable. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It's a good thing I saved the info from the article before it got zapped the second time. I might need to use their services someday, and they are the market leader in full-service commercial real estate in Vermont. I know that's true, because they said so. :) Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * In fairness, though, he was left with the impression that his username was the problem. That's not the problem, it's only a symptom. However, he has since been advised to read some policies. That's where the problem is. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really, he says he read them and his article was fine. We just need to research more and verify for him. see below "You recently deleted a page i created for a company, Redstone. You asked me to review the notability and spam guidelines, then promptly deleted the page. I reviewed said guidelines, and i believe the content is all there, and easily verifiable. If there is a better place to continue this discussion, please let me know." oh well hopefully he'll learn. I'm sending you a message on your page with a different question so be looking for it bugs. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 16:31, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw. That's about Articles for deletion/Cemetery of the Holy Rood. Between that, and the above, and the below item, it seems Wednesday is now designated as "Push Your COI Day". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Just as a note, the original username was blocked as a WP:U violation. <b style="color:#0000FF;">Sher</b><b style="color:#6060BF;">eth</b> 17:24, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User has requested a deletion review of the article. See Deletion review/Log/2009 June 17. MuZemike 18:30, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability
For starters, there's the statement, "Redstone is the market leader in full-service commercial real estate in Vermont." You need to find some independent sources that back up that assertion. That wouldn't guarantee that it meets notability standards, but it wouldn't hurt. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:48, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Notability
Here are a list of sources pertaining to that statement and others concerning notability.

Business People Vermont

Business People Vermont

Business People Vermont

The Preservation Trust of Vermont

Vermont Business Magazine

REJournal.com

Vermont Business Magazine

Nathanlgordon (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)