Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive460

User:Lysy making manual copy/edit moves

Lysy (talk · contribs) made manual copy/edit moves in order to revert the move to Kulmerland I had made before (sourced common name in English see talk):

1. 01:39, 4 August 2008 Kulmerland‎ (Manually undoing the frivolous rename. Please use WP:RM as advised before.)
2. 01:39, 4 August 2008 Talk:Kulmerland‎ (Manually undoing the frivolous rename. Please use WP:RM as advised before.)
3. 01:39, 4 August 2008 Talk:Chełmno Land‎ (Manually undoing the frivolous rename. Please use WP:RM as advised before.)
4. 01:39, 4 August 2008 Chełmno Land‎ (Manually undoing the frivolous rename. Please use WP:RM as advised before.)

As the historic Prussian Kulmerland (semi-Polish OR term "Chełmno Land‎") is part of Eastern Europe, and the copy/moves edits break the edit histories as Lysy as an experienced editor surely knows, he should be added to the Arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren for this reckless POV pushing. -- Matthead  Discuß   00:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So that is accepted, then? Should I have listed it at the Vandalism board? Arbitration Enforcement? -- Matthead  Discuß   10:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In the meantime, admin Keith D has fixed the edits. See also User talk:Keith D for comments. -- Matthead  Discuß   15:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not only about the page move but also your conduct. How do you explain this "technical" edit other than deliberately making a plain revert of your rename impossible ? And why had not you followed the proper WP:RM procedure as requested by another user before ? You were all right aware that the rename was a controversial one, yet you had chosen to move the article without WP:RM and use technical tricks to prevent a revert, followed by reporting this incident on me, which was a dirty trick indeed. --Lysy^talk 16:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As said before, Piotrus pioneered this "dirty trick" (your words), and defended it as a legitimate categorization (with the move protection side effect, of course). Look up his contribs how often he did that. I had opposed it to no avail. And, as in Rome, now I did like the Roman. -- Matthead  Discuß   16:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Matthead, I don't think that asking you to file a proper WP:RM request for a controversial rename is a "reckless POV pushing". Your suggestion to rename the article to the German name has been already contested by another editor before, and you've been advised to go for WP:RM instead. Why did not you do it but instead renamed the article yourself ? As to this edit of yours, I have no doubt that you did it on purpose to make a simple revert of your rename impossible. And now you are reporting me ???! :-) --Lysy^talk 13:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As stated on Talk:Kulmerland#Name? and above, the old name "Chełmno Land" is unsourced and original research, it violated WP:V and WP:NOR in the first place, thus the move to the proper English name Kulmerland was and is uncontroversial, no matter how many editors lament it without being able to provide evidence. Wikipedia is not a democracy, just showing up in larger numbers at a Move Request is not the way to do things. Your manual copy&paste moves were reckless and POV pushing, do you want to deny this? As for adding a category to redirects, which equals move protection for regular users, this was and is done many times by User:Piotrus, despite others and I have asked him to stop. Yet he recently did so (twice) in a dispute about the Battle of Annaberg in which he even abused his admin powers by deleting to make way. Basically, both of you violated Wikipedia principles to make something disappear which you seem to dislike: that English use reflects the fact that German place names were used for centuries in what is since 1945 a part of Poland. I am convinced that this falls in the scope of the Arbcom case Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren, in which Piotrus had been edit restricted [1] [2]. -- Matthead  Discuß   14:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the incidents noticeboard, not the article's talk page. I do not dispute the article here, I dispute your conduct. So once again, please explain the purpose of this edit of yours. Do you know what WP:Gaming the system is ? --Lysy^talk 16:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Your conduct, Lysy, is the incident that is supposed to be under scrutineering here. You have not defended yourself yet, you only try to counterattack repeatedly with the same question that is answered already. -- Matthead  Discuß   16:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Already ? Or finally now ? You have just admitted that you're deliberately gaming the system yet you do not see any problem and you hope to get away with that. --Lysy^talk 16:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attack by Kmweber

Resolved

 – no action will ever be taken. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 12:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre took it to ArbCom. --barneca (talk) 14:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

After being told by an Ip address that they thought his actions were disruptive, he called the person a troll. Unsure where to go here, what is appropriate? Don't flame me if I'm in the wrong place. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 12:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't bother. Kurt doesn't have to follow rules. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Right. Let's just give him whatever he wants. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 12:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing we can do, he has immunity. El_C 12:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Heh. I might actually nominate him for adminship. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 12:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd let him self-nominate and see the reception he gets; but seriously, you should ask him first. --Rodhullandemu 12:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Kurt does not have any special immunity here. Why not talk to Kurt first and make sure there isn't actually a reason behind his description? If not, then bring it to an appropriate forum, but it is not fair to start accusing anybody of things without talking to them about it first Fritzpoll (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Which Wikipedia are you editing? I've seen him get away with multiple personal attacks, disruption, incivility, and even off-wiki harassment, and nothing happens. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Will Kurt respond?

Yes he has immunity, as Sceptre pointed out multiple times. He would've been blocked a long time ago if he didn't. And he called the person a troll because the person didn't like his opinion.

I didn't accuse him of it. The evidence is right in the link i provided. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 12:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Come on. The IP's post that was in response to was equally dickish (calling him "too lazy"). If you're a dick to somebody, be a man and expect the same in return. - Merzbow (talk) 12:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a fact that he does cut-and-paste his reasons in this type of thing. And just because he thinks someone was a dick doesnt mean he can be a dick back. Wikipedia is about being civil, not "being a man". Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 12:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about being civil, it's about creating an encyclopedia. Common sense toward that end trumps anything else, proof in point that super-contributors like Giano are allowed to be incivil as long as they continue to be super-productive, a practice which I didn't before but now agree with it. I don't know how productive kmweber is, but sanctioning an incivil response to an equally incivil bait is the kind of petty wikilawyering that aggravates to no end. - Merzbow (talk) 13:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh for Christ's sake. Someone called Kurt a troll, and you want Kurt's wrists slapped because he returned the favor? If you're lying in wait, ready to pounce when he makes a mistake, you should probably wait for something more serious than that. Frankly, some of the comments above have certain troll-like qualities themselves. The proper place to report Kurt, and me, for such shocking incivility is probably WP:WQA. --barneca (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No.

He thought his behavior was disruptive. He did not straight on call him a troll

Kurt did, though. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 12:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Read the edit summary too, Shapiros10. [3] --barneca (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, I read it. But I also went to Kurt's page and saw no mention of this there. As to your question of whether he'll respond, being a scientist, I prefer experimental verification: why not try and see? And where are these disruptions? I ask genuinely, because apart from his RfA participation, very little about him appears to be brought up at AN/ANI. Same for personal attacks and incivility. I see an accusation of off-wiki harrassment on his talkpage, but the actual text of what he writes names no specific editor. Help me out here - I know people don't like Kurt for a lot of things, but some pointers would be helpful Fritzpoll (talk) 12:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom are in posession of evidence of off-wiki harassment. As far as disruption and incivility go, open up any RFA or AFD he's been active on. Sceptre ^(talk) 12:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Kurt has been notified of this discussion. Check his talk. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 12:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, my point was, that he wasn't by you and not before I edit conflicted 4 times trying to post. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

After eight edit conflicts, I've informed Kurt of this thread. D.M.N. (talk) 12:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(multiple ec) Barneca has it about right about right. What's appropriate is not worrying about silly little things like this unless they're actually a problem. Really, it sounds like some of the editors have some kind of grudge with Kmweber. They should probably just leave him alone, in this case. If he does something actually bad, someone else will notice it and do whatever's appropriate. Friday (talk) 12:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I hold no such grudge.

The thing is, Kmweber gets away with more of this stuff than anyone else.

If that was me (or any other user), I'd be blocked. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 12:50, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hang on. The diff in question was on July 31st. It's now August 4th. I question why this has only been brought to ANI now and not when the actual thing occured on July 31st. Also, he's been a little inactive the past few days, so I doubt there will be a reply from him. D.M.N. (talk) 12:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm closing. Nobody will ever take any action against Kurt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shapiros10 (talk • contribs)

We will, when there's something to take action about Fritzpoll (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There is. On more than one occasion, he's harassed people off-wiki in the past two weeks alone. The arbcom are in posession of that evidence. Furthermore, his actions on WP:RFA and WP:AFD clearly show disruption to make a point and refusal to get the point. Just because he hasn't contributed in two days doesn't mean that he gets away with all of it. Enough is enough. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

How is this relevant? If this is true, then it sounds like arbcom is already working on doing whatever needs done. AN/I is not the complaints department. Friday (talk) 13:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom won't do anything regarding Kurt because they aren't "legitimate" in his eyes. Seriously, if I had a dime for every time he said "Arbitrary Committee", I'd be a rich man. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Kurt's views on the Arbitration Committee do not reduce its legitimacy, so they can still act if they wish. Fritzpoll (talk) 13:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Remember what happened the last time ArbCom sanctioned an editor privately, without his defence? Sceptre ^(talk) 13:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Different situation. There, an editor was not notified of the existence of a case, so had no opportunity to defend themselves. If a defendent chooses not to offer evidence in their own defence, when they know a case exists, then that is their problem, not ArbCom's. 13:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, ArbCom won't do anything. Their posession of the logs is more of a courtesy based on current practice. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a forum. Either he breaks a rule or he doesn't and no rules have broken. This is only becoming unnecessary drama. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  13:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(I had a huge speech but after the 10th EC I gave up) Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  13:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Ban proposal

Kmweber doesn't serve any purpose on the encyclopedia but to be a gadfly. Given he routinely disrupts Wikipedia, personally attacks, and is incivil, and with the evidence of off-wiki harassment (q.v. ArbCom, ANI archive 451), there is no reason not to ban him. He doesn't even do anything constructive. Therefore, I propose a ban on him editing Wikipedia. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh, no. He's not that disruptive. He has written many articles. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 13:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes he is that disruptive. Unlike Giano, the bad vastly outweighs the good. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Your grudge is showing. Just let it drop. If arbcom has secret evidence, they'll act on it if/when they think it's appropriate. Friday (talk) 13:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, please stop. When i started this thread, i was just looking for a 12-hr block, not a ban. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 13:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Even a 12 hour block would be inappropriate Sam. But I wouldn't deny that he does need a good long block. But a ban is too much. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  13:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Robert. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 13:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Presence of a grudge does not absolve him. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't. But holding a grudge is disruptive in it's own way. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  13:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't absolve him either. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't, but it makes it hard to make clear decisions. The outcome here is unneeded drama over a 4 day edit. No blocks can be made and no bans either. This is resolved. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  13:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So, because he's not doing it at this exact second, he gets total absolution? No. This is a recurrent problem that is unlikely to stop. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What behavior has changed since Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Kmweber_2 that would warrant a ban, that did not warrant a ban at that time? MBisanz ^talk 13:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki harassment, and continuation of disruption to make a point, incivility, and personal attacks. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So, why not file another RFC, no single thing Kurt's does appears bannable, and ANI is not a conducive forum to lengthy presentation of patterns of behavior. MBisanz ^talk 14:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm opposed to RFCs because they never resolve anything - the only use of RFC is as a stepping stone to ArbCom. As any arbcom remedy on Kurt will be ignored, the use of RFAR and RFC is counterintuitive. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Just file a report with Arbcom if you feel there is a serious need for a ban. But he has done nothing wrong to even warrant a block. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  14:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

corect me if Im wrong, but didnt YOU say that the ArbCom was already investigating this editor? If that is true, and what you are saying re: his editing habits and civility and stlaking are true, then his uppance will come soon enoguh. REgardless, it seems to me that WP:ANI is an inappropriate place to have this debate since it is apparently a longterm dispute that reuqires more extensive intervention that the immediate administrative repsonse that this forum is designed with the capability of having in mind. I think that you should either forward this latest atrocity on the part of this user to ArbCom or file for a WP:WQA or a WP:RFC. Smith Jones (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the memo that harassment, personal attacks, and incivility are fine. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

woah calm down there, mate. no one is saying that what he did id oksay. This is simply the wrong forum for this issue. warbcom or rfc or wqa would be much better. Smith Jones (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sceptre, this: [4] is an indication you need to take a break. This thread should be snow closed, archived, whatever. It is serving no useful purpose. Since we're proposing bans, I propose Sceptre be banned from this page for the rest of the day, or until he regains his composure, whichever comes first. --barneca (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Smith Jones, I was responding to Roger, actually. And WQA and RFC are useless. There's no point in using them. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Roger? Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  14:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I thought that was your name. Your username sure looks like it :/ Sceptre ^(talk) 14:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

<--His name is Robert. Robert Goodermote. Shapiros10 ^{contact me}_{My work} 14:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)(undent)I wish it was Roger. No my name is Robert Edward Goodermote Junior. Last name sounds how it is spelled. Good-er-mote. You aren't the first and will not be the last to call me Roger, so no worries. Sorry I said my response wrong. I am not in the best of shape to be thinking heavily with me missing 5 days of sleep straight and all. But really all I wanted to say was try Arbcom, nothing will come of this conversation here. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  14:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Sam. My information is on my userpage. Rgoodermote^{Not an admin}  14:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:List of Chinese inventions

Hello. I find the attitude of this anonymous poster (116.15.95.30) at Talk:List of Chinese inventions#Anachronism rather disruptive to both Pericles of Athens and me. He thinks he "considers to register an account", but I get the impression this is the last thing he actually wants. He has made wholesale reverts of my "fucking" additions and accuses me of "sinophobic slants" etc. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Sennen goroshi's stalking and disruption

Unresolved

 – Both users instructed to leave one another alone

Resolved

 – That would actually be a resolution. NonvocalScream (talk) 04:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi (talk · contribs) and 203.165.124.61 (talk · contribs) resumes stalking me as one of his long-time disruptive habits. The user has a long history of harassment and stalking of me. At this time, Sennen goroshi is gaming the system with his ISP as if his account and ISP are unrelated. Besides, the user also deceives people as blanking properly cited information from academic sources as leaving nasty edit summaries like "uncited BS removal". "crappy unreliable POV sources removed. use a credible source next time" to Nanking Massacre and "rvv" to Category:Comfort women. Although these lies were discovered quickly, the user did not retract this behavior and continues today. I gave him formal warnings without not knowing the identity because his edits on Nanking Massacre looked like a typical vandalism, so reported to WP:AIV, and the user gave a contradictory lecture at my talk page. I recognized him per his usual pattern of gaming the WP:Civility policy and indeed the anon is Sennen goroshi.[5] On the other hand, admin User:Tanner-Christopher spot his reverting campaign, so gave him a formal warning for his disruptive behaviors and blind reverts. However, he rather visited him as ridiculing 3RR policy like this[6] [7] [8]

The user also wikistaling me today and reverts whatever I edit today which look like he wants to drag me into edit warring and block for 3RR. That scheme was successful once, so I would not deceive it any more. I have enough of this user's disruptive wiki-stalking, harassment, and incivility and so forth. I think this time he should get more that warning because whenever the user is summoned to here for his disruption, he pledges vain promises not to do such things in a disguised politeness in front of admins.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:00, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What is LMAMF? It sounds like a slur or profanity as his usual habit. Sennen goroshi left this as reverting my waring to his talk page.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Stalking? I think not, we both have an interest in articles relating to Japan and Korea (although perhaps different viewpoints on the two nations) - I can edit any article relating to Japan in WW2, war-crimes, Takeshima, or Japanese/Korean food, and I will be more than likely to find you editing the same article. You might not agree with my edits, but they are certainly not intentionally disruptive - they are a mere content dispute. When I was accused of breaking the 3RR, I was rather amused that an admin would count my self reverts towards 3RR and my comments reflected that. Please stop dragging all your content disputes into ANI. By the way, don't make assumptions about my IP, this is my one and only IP. 203.165.124.61 (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

LMAMF? http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=LMAMF.X 203.165.124.61 (talk) 17:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

LMAMF = Leave me alone m*****f***er Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:28, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

LMAMF could also stand for Lick my Anus monkey fucker or Love means all my friends.. the possibilities are endless. 203.165.124.61 (talk) 17:32, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, Caspian blue, do you really think you should be canvassing people regarding this ANI report? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Caspian_blue 203.165.124.61 (talk) 17:34, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

What the clear persona attack and slur. Senne, according to urban dictionary, lmamf means Lick My Asshole Mother Fucker. This is not a VOTE, man, you must read WP:CANVASS. Are you not confident with your past conduct? --Caspian blue (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute, but your disruptive long-time wikistaling, harassment and so forth. Your wikistaling not only me but also several individual, so you have been summoned for that. This needs to be stopped by administrator's intervention.-Caspian blue (talk) 17:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I am shocked !!! according to yahoo finance LMAMF means something totally different http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=LMAMF.X - but then again who would use yahoo finance as a source when you have the ultra reliable urban dictionary at hand?

By the way, why did you get the IDs of people from my talk page, that I have had disputes with and ask them to input on this issue? That is clearly canvassing. 203.165.124.61 (talk) 17:42, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop with the sillyness right now or I will block you for baiting him. I am looking into the other matter. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:44, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, Sennen goroshi calls me "lonely mice" hmmm LMAMF.. Lonely mice all make friends. or something like that 203.165.124.61 (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Deliberately using the slur second time is totally not acceptable. The user should earn a block.--Caspian blue (talk)

Note that edit was before my warning above. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Caspian blue we really need to see some actual evidence of wrongdoing. Evidence of stalking would be him editing a page after you edit, preferably several pages. Evidence of revert warring would be diffs showing us the reverts. He states that some of them were self reverts and he is right in that if he reverts himself then obviously this isn't warring. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course, I would provide enough evidence of his wikistalking and harassement. This report was made in hurry. I previously filed reports on him for his behaviros and death threat, but mine were too lengthy for admins to look into them. You also seem to miss his tendency of lying and such disruptive comment. That slurs are, I think, enough for an immediate block per Wiki policy--Caspian blue (talk) 18:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I cannot see anything that warrants an immediate block. He has a tendency to troll, rise above that. It's not easy for an outsider to spot lying unless you give us evidence that contradicts what he is saying. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, one last message before I go to sleep. I did not make a death threat, I did not call anyone "lonely mice" (that is beyond absurd) and all of this stems from our different perspectives on shared interests and content disputes that we both seem to have. However I am sure that a part of the blame can lay at my feet, I am sure that I could be a little warmer in my attitude and that using a little more tact in my interactions with fellow editors would be welcomed. 203.165.124.61 (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

First of all, I add diffs for his lying of his edit on Nanking Massacre. "uncited BS removal". "crappy unreliable POV sources removed. use a credible source next time" to Nanking Massacre I did not know that http://www.history.ucsb.edu and http://bootheprize.stanford.edu/0506/PWR-Yang.pdf are crappy unreliable POV sources as he alleged. I would be very disapponted at this time that he does not get a proper treatment from admins even though he obviously attacks with such dirty langauges. --Caspian blue (talk) 18:20, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the first one. He removed "Pregnant women were often the target of murder, as they would often be bayoneted in the belly, sometimes after rape." (emphasis mine). The source gives one example of this happening. So assuming good faith, I wouldn't call that one exactly a lie. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:30, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It is shocking that you defend such lie like uncited BS. --Caspian blue (talk) 18:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Look if our article states it happened often but the source states it happened at least once then the claim that it happened often is uncited. I don't agree with the wholesale removal of the section and would have edited it rather than remove it but that doesn't mean he was lying when he stated it was uncited. Now do you have any evidence of stalking or revert warring? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sennen gorosh had not edited Japan-Korea related articles since his attempt at Liancourt Rocks to block Korean editor with his deceptive edit summary.[9][10] So this is clear sign of his resuming wikistalking again. [11][12][13][14] [15][16][17][18] --Caspian blue (talk) 18:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks I shall look into those. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:46, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I find it hard to sleep knowing that these accusations are going on, so I might address a few of the points made - the two articles in question were edited by myself in the past. If they were article that have never been edited by myself, I might have to agree with the wikistalking claims however that is not the case http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=An_Jung-geun&diff=prev&oldid=155260717 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Korean_nationalism&diff=prev&oldid=198189725 . I have stayed away from the Japan/Korea related articles for a while, concentrating on other subjects, but just because I choose to edit them again, does not make me guilty of wikistalking. 203.165.124.61 (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

It's fine go to sleep. Seriously log off. Never let wikipedia disturb your sleep. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Right I see two articles here. One he reverts you after you edit it, and one where you revert him after he edits it. There is nothing to see here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for turning yourself in evidences of the wikistaling.

• Sennen goroshi (talk • contribs • logs)'s vandalism and slurs
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive333#Vandalism_and_incivility

These two past reports on him would be good answers for his long-time wikistaking and harassment to me. this insulting comment would be a definitive definiton telling his past conduct to me.

These diffs are his long-time wikistalking.[19][20][21][22][23] -Caspian blue (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

See the trouble is I clicked on the last one on that list first. And what do i see? An edit war between the two of you in which you appeared to follow him to the article see the page history Did you really think I wouldn't check that? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you did not carefully check on the history of kimchi. You defend his lying and then falsely accuse me that I followed him? Nope. I'm very disappoint at your condoning his disruptive behaviors.--Caspian blue (talk) 19:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

You are right I didn't go back far enough. I apologise for that. In future if you need to show someone is following you then show your edit followed by their first edit. Not the last one after a long edit war. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I usually represent all details and evidence, but doing such takes a lot of time and admins say like "Oh, it past 3 days, or weeks, so it is stale. We assume WP:AGF that he would not do that". Or they say like my writing is too lengthy to read, so I try to be as succinct as possible at this time.--Caspian blue (talk) 20:11, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm marking this a resolved. It's six of one and half a dozen of the other. I shall warn both users to stay clear of one another. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:16, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, and why would I be warned by his disruptions? I will wait further response from others. --Caspian blue (talk) 19:36, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Caspian Blue, you need to nail in the evidence as clearly as possible. Administrators are not willing to help, it is hard for me to follow too. I think sennen goroshi is wikistalking too, but you need to make it clear. If the administrator decide that he is not wikistalking, ask another administrator to warn him because it is obvious that he is not here to contribute in the best intentions. Good friend100 (talk) 03:22, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Note: There's a related thread on WP:AN Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:17, 3 August 2008 (UTC) I was unaware that the user was indefblocked. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

That has been removed as it was posted by an indefblocked user. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:37, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm On closer inspection I see that it was Caspian blue who removed it.[24] Although I agree that indefblocked users should not be allowed to edit it would have been much better had someone else done the removing. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:41, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I can only echo what everyone is saying about Sennon, leaving abusive messages on your talk page and generally trying to stir up trouble. (~~#~)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Fadiga09 (talk • contribs) 2008-08-03T17:05:44 (UTC)

How very very ironic - the above comment was made by user Fadiga 09 commenting on abusive messages - Fadiga 09 is the user who left the following message on my talk page "Haha, your such a laugh, you fucking tosspot, neither us or Arsenal have won it, so that's fine with me, us two are the two biggest clubs to not have won it, so that's fine with me you fucking imbecile, and on the Canizares thing, LISTEN CAREFULLY, HIS CONTRACT ENDED IN JUNE AND IT WAS NOT RENEWED. (Fadiga09 (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC))" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Sennen_goroshi&diff=prev&oldid=225628614 - so excuse me if I don't take your comments about abusive messages too seriously. Sennen goroshi (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sennen goroshi, you might be very proud of yourself as evading the attention on your wrongdoings here by attacking other user?

User:AmeIiorate even offered me an evidence of your disruption like a 3RR violation on Gender neutrality in English with sockpuppeting.[25] He said "I feel this user is socking for malicious purposes. 01:33, 3 August 2008 (UTC)"1st revert 2nd revert 3rd revert while logged in 4th revert but subtly done 5th revert the user also defended themselves You're clearly gaming the system per your contradictory behavior like your filing someone to WP:AN3 who does not have any interaction with him before.[26]. I have not seen any good contributions by Sennen goroshi here. Without him, Wikipedia would be much developed and people would not waste time informing him to be a better person. --Caspian blue (talk) 03:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

In this edit, Sennen goroshi just blindly revert as wikistalking me.[27] He does not regard the naming convention or alphabet order in Japan-Korea related articles as he always proclaims to be kept. If he wants to follow the admins' advice, he should not edit articles that we disputed before. However, the user broke the promise and ignites again with his inconsistent editing.[28][29] I have seen his "fake promise" more than enough. I want a justice.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There was no breach of 3RR, I have never tried to hide my IP address, and there were no instances of more than 3 reverts with a 24 hour period, even when you take into account edits made in and out of account. This is all getting rather tedious, this report has been marked as resolved twice. You are flogging a dead horse. Sennen goroshi (talk) 03:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The person does not think that you did not breach of 3RR. I see your all the same weird agenda on the articles as done to Korean related articles. Two admins already gave you warnings and you pretends to listen to but breaks the suggestion by yourself first. You owe me an apology at least your dirty languages at me two days ago. Well, is the dead horse YOU? As long as your disruption is active, the dead horse appears to gain a revolving life again.--Caspian blue (talk) 03:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I stated this on my talk page and I will state here too to ensure you both see it. No editing each other's talk pages whatsoever. No editing any article that has been edited by the other for a period of five days. Anyone who breaks this gets a block form me. Stay away from each other, or stay away from Wikipedia, the choice is yours. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

For the start, Theresa, you have not been standing on a neutral point of view. Why did I file this report? Several editors provided their opinion on his disruptions and harassment, and you keep ignoring all evidences and even falsely accused that I followed him. If you can't see through the case properly, well, you're not right person that I can reply on. --Caspian blue (talk) 15:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You filed the report to get him blocked. I'm not ignoring evidence and have in fact blocked him for 24 hours for his edit today. But you are being just as disruptive. You are playing a victim and looking to get him in trouble like a child would. Hence my warning to you too. Stay away from him. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the evidences and baiting by him, you said you would equally enforce to either of us according to your rule that only Sennen goroshi agrees with. Sennen gorshi falsely reported me first on your talk page on contrary to his breaking the suggestion first. Per your above blame, if I were in the opposite situation, you would not speak such the personal insult to him. Unfortunately, this unnecessary soap is not solely created by me.--Caspian blue (talk) 17:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't care if you agree with my rule or not. If you edit a page after him, after accusing him of stalking you then you are being disruptive. I have blocked him not you so quit complaining already. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Request for help

Resolved

 – User advised to repost at another board.

After a period of relative calm, recently Anna May Wong has received a series of vandal attacks, possibly from the same person under various guises. See: Anna May Wong History. FWiW, could there be a period of protection established for this article? Bzuk (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC).

Please post this request to Requests for page protection. Chafford (talk) 19:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The featured article generally doesn't get protected. Corvus cornix_talk 19:52, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

This one may need it for a while as it was subjected to a succession of anon attacks; the page now has semi-protection until it clears the main page status. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 20:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC).

Bureaucracy alert! Use form 2390 not form 2389. --Rividian (talk) 20:10, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

No, this is a Featured Article, you'll be wanting form 2390b. And give me back my stapler. --Badger Drink (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Is your stapler a red Swingline by any chance? --SSBohio 19:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

XxJoshuaxX - 3RR and harassment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Per user request, below. seicer | talk | contribs 02:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, as well as my responses A, and B.

This user has repeatedly visted my talk page and asked things that I do not feel are relevant to the project. That part of the situation does not bother me as much as the willfull, repeated, violation of 3RR - which this user has been cautioned about several times previously - (now twice in three days), as well as what I consider to be harassment and/or Wiki-stalking. --Winger84 (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow,this further proves how much you hate me. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 02:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have given a more formal warning to XxJoshuaxX here. I have told him to stop this kind of behavior, especially as it has no relation to Wikipedia and he had been requested by Winger84 not to post to his page. Hopefully this resolves it, Metros (talk) 02:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

No,this doesn't resolve it. It won't be resolved until Winger84 answers my question as to why he hates me. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I suggest both of you move onto other topics. Winger84 has no obligation to provide you an answer as to why he "hates" you, and you do not have an obligation to press for one, either. seicer | talk | contribs 02:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(EC)If he doesn't want to answer you, he doesn't have to. Stop asking questions and edit warring on someone else's talk page. Also, your statement above about the situation not being resolved until you get a response from Winger is not exactly civil, I'd advise you to redact it so it sounds less like a threat. Bottom line, if he doesn't want to answer, leave him alone and go about your own business. Dayewalker (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If he doesn't wanna answer me,then I'm not sure if I wanna be on Wikipedia any longer. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 02:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What?!? Why do I all of a sudden feel like I'm back in junior high school? *sigh* I had come back here to make a note of this, where I have made an attempt to diffuse the situation, but it appears that may be pointless, judging by the above statement.

I need caffeine. Mountain Dew, here I come! --Winger84 (talk) 02:28, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You're going to leave Wikipedia because someone won't tell you why they "hate" you after you annoyed him by asking him (several times over) what the 84 in his user name means? I just want to make sure I understand this... Metros (talk) 02:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Complete uncivil of me here, but don't let the door hit you on the way out...Wildthing61476 (talk) 02:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

With someone who treats their userpage as a MySpace extension (dating status?)... seicer | talk | contribs 02:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have made my case. The user appears to be inclined to believe that I am mistreating him, for reasons unknown. I offered an explaination on an Administrator's talk page that should settle the situation. I am closing this now to avoid further confrontation that is very likely highly unnecessary. --Winger84 (talk) 02:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI. --SSBohio 19:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Troubles with Teleocichla

Unresolved

 – content dispute, advised to seek mediation

Hi All -

I'm having problems with a user who refuses to discuss the changes he makes. He has been involved in several edit wars where he robotically makes the same change over and over again. His changes to Teleocichla for example are unverifiable and constitute his opinion (or original research). I've tried engaging this unregistered user in conversion and discussion but without success. This user is currently using User:71.136.15.211 but his IP address varies and he's also been active on Greg Bahnsen -- where he's been banned (numerous times) for much the same behaviour. I'd appreciate any assistance dealing with this user. MidgleyDJ (talk) 05:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

A) Which user? B) This is a content dispute, we cannot do anything about it until you have tried seeking mediation yourselves. Chafford (talk) 08:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Chafford - Thanks for the reply. The user in question uses a range of IP addresses (currently it's [[User:71.136.15.211]). Is this a content dispute? The number of undescribed species of any given genus is unquantifiable (and thus unverifiable). There could be 10, 2, 169 or 12,678 new undiscovered (and thus undescribed) species of a given genus. To my mind putting a number on this violates both WP:V and WP:OR. The only thing that we can say with that meets WP:V is that X number have been described. I've tried discussing this issue with the user in question (on his various talk pages) and on article talk pages -- but the user never responds and just continues to make the change without any discussion. I'd appreciate your advice on what to do next. MidgleyDJ (talk) 22:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Please Help - Editor Benjiboi Edit-Warring: repeatedly Deleting Sourced NPOV sections of Harvey Milk article

A tiny section exists in the article Harvey Milk addressing Milk's support of Jim Jones during the investigation of the Peoples Temple just before the Jonestown tragedy. It includes, for example, a short 1 sentence mention of Milk's letter to President Jimmy Carter labeling those attempting to extricate relatives from Jonestown as making "bald-faced lies."

Editor Benjiboi has repeatedly deleted the entire section.

I have repeatedly attempted to work with him to craft this otherwise tiny section to meet his complaints. However, even after these several attempts to accomodate his complaints that can be seen in the history here at the Milk page history, he continued to delete the entire section wholesale. He continues to assert effectively that any mention, no matter how small, of Milk's support of the Peoples Temple or attacking of those attempting to extrictate relatives from Jonestown amounts to "undue weight."

Benjiboi then started an Rfc. In response to this Rfc, sevearl editors weighed in that the section should NOT be deleted, including:

“ "I've reviewed the Milk page, the Moscone page, and have worked on the various Jones pages. I disagree that this is being given undue weight. His involvement with, and defense of, Peoples Temple, during and just after their time in California, is relevant." Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"I agree with this writer. Please do not delete. It is true there is no consensus to delete the section emerged." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caramia3403 (talk • contribs)

"Given the context and timing, the Peoples Temple section is far too important in this article to delete or merge. Especially the letter cited in the article attacking people calling for an investigation." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.23.197.82 (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

" This material seems perfectly fine and weighted ect. Please do not be put off by editors who appear to own articles as is the case here. Good luck, --" 72.209.9.165 (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"The Jones section has to stay in a page like this. It's way too big if its true. I don't know why it would be cut. The part about Harvey being scared of him should be added to it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.117.116 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Finally, the entire Peoples Temple involvement, even with Jonestown literally dominating the Bay Area and Milk's key support, is only a tiny (6%) portion of the article, thus there is no undue weight issue. As well, included is only a tiny portion of Milk's involvement with the Temple." - obviously me.

”

After further discussion, the section has now been cut to only 3 sentences.

This editor still continues to delete the entire section wholesale, now 5 times in just a bit over the last 2 days:
1st wholesale deletion by Benjiboi of the entire section in the last day and a half'
2nd wholesale deletion by Benjiboi of the entire section in the last day and a half
3rd wholesale deletion by Benjiboi of the entire section in the last day and a half
4th wholesale deletion by Benjiboi of the entire section in the last day and a half
5th wholesale deletion by Benjiboi of the entire section in the last day and a half

The editor's responses have also repeatedly focused upon the character of the subject of the article (Milk) and not the presentation of encycolpedic content:
--"While this all may true it's hardly that interesting and seems to only be useful in characterizing Milk in some way as a bad judge of character." (Benjiboi)
--"this is an encyclopedia not a smear piece. Milk got support from them, so what? So did other politicians and Milk got support from lots of groups." (Benjiboi)
--"I've seen nothing to convince me that this was anything but a minor blip in Milk's life, and as such, deserves little coverage." (Benjiboi)
--"Milk was afraid of Jones and his people so we can't infer why he wrote it and what may have been said in private elsewhere, or that anything ever was." (Benjiboi)
--The material only "seem to suggest he was showing support for someone he thought was working on humanitarian efforts and who supported LGBT people."(Benjiboi)
--"I'm sorry but this feels like mudslinging to me." (Benjiboi)
--"you're making a big deal out of these rather non-notable incidents"(Benjiboi)

After finally frankly being worn down by these repeated deletions and cutting the section down to three short sentences (a tiny portion of the Milk article), I'm not sure what to do in response to repeated deletions of the entire Peoples Temple investigation section.

Please help with this. Mosedschurte (talk) 12:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

You do realize this is already being discussed on this page here? Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they are completely aware of this having posted there many times. Banjeboi 22:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Madonna Confessions Tour

I would like to complain about another user User talk:Dancefloor royalty who keeps changing the set list on Confessions Tour and other Madonna tour pages. This user keeps disrupting and using unreferenced information which in my opinion is speculation and opinion. I originally added a ref which outlines the official setlist from Madonna's official website. I keep reverting it back to the referenced setlist but Dancefloor Royalty keeps changing it. Can you help please. JWAD (talk)

This is something you should be discussing with each other on the article talk page. Incidentally based on my brief perusal this is a serious candidate for WP:LAME. Exxolon (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's slow edit war. Protected the page for a month. Please come to a consensus on the talk page and use {{editprotected}} to request a change, or use WP:RFPP to request early unprotection. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

All of my edits were clearly justified. Additionally, he is referencing sources from fan sites and message boards which is not viewed as credible by Wikipedia's standards. And there is no official setlist posted for Confessions on Madonna's website. As outlined in my edit summaries, a setlist (and/or running order) is not a DVD or CD tracklisting. You cannot use these as references b/c songs that were performed during the tour may have been omitted for various reasons (for the VHS/LD/DVD recording). Additionally, (as I explained in my edit summaries) there is no song registered/copyrighted/etc. entitled "Future Lovers/I Feel Love" or "Music Inferno". "Future Lovers" samples the bass line of "I Feel Love" and Madonna sung lines from the song during the tour (thus the reason why I changed it from "Future Lovers/I Feel Love" to "Future Lovers (contains excerpts from "I Feel Love)).

Also, Music is performed with the melodies of Music, Disco Inferno (infused together)along with music samples of "Where's the Party" and "Everybody" (as referenced and mentioned by Stuart Price in many interviews). Thus, the reason why I changed "Music Inferno" to "Music" (contains elements of "Where's the Party", "Everybody" and "Disco Inferno"). I believe another song is "Erotica". A special remixed version was made for the tour (the album version is not performed) and I clearly outlined that it was a remix based upon the original recorded demo of the song. Dancefloor royalty (talk) 01:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement of Wikipedia Material

I have contributed to the article Water-fuelled car. However, The Financial Daily, has copied our article, practically word for word without acknowledging our contributions. There are no references according to WP:COPYRIGHT. As an editor, I'm concerned that this copyright will become something of a common practice, whereas (WE) the editors or Wikipedia are no longer credited for our work. What is Wikipedia doing to help editors such as myself combat copyright infringements of our work? For more details, please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Water-fuelled_car#Copyright_infringement. --CyclePat (talk) 19:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, Wikipedia doesn't. It's up to the end-users to take any copyright issues up with the offending party. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:54, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• "The editors are legally entitled to seek compensatory damages. Expect to hear from their lawyers." Let me get this right - you're going to sue a website in Pakistan because they didn't acknowledge the GFDL on this article? Good luck, then. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 19:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Just wow. Perhaps it would be wise to take a slightly less adversarial tone in your approach to the Financial Daily? Granted, it looks like they've nicked our stuff without giving proper credit, and they need to either take it down or post a GFDL notice and author info. But is it necessary to start right off with the legal threats? As far as I can gather, the only contact they've had from any Wikipedia editor so far is a "rude email" telling them they were "busted", sent on August 1. That's only three days ago, and a Friday. It's now only Monday; it may be that the guy who reads their 'Contact Us' messages was away from the office for the weekend (maybe even for a long weekend).

Now CyclePat has drafted a message in talk space that contains explicit legal threats ("The editors are legally entitled to seek compensatory damages. Expect to hear from their lawyers. This violation must be immediately corrected to conform to the terms of agreement stipulated in the use of Wikipedia's GFDL material and international copyright laws to prevent any further legal actions"). Not only is such a threat premature, it's also ridiculous. The company is located in Pakistan, and no doubt has the good sense to realize that such a legal threat is almost certain to be nothing more than hot air. I'm not a lawyer, but anyone with an iota of common sense recognizes that pursuing a copyright infringement suit in this circumstance would be expensive, time-consuming, and never recover even a fraction of what it cost to litigate.

Catch some flies with honey, guys; it works better than vinegar. Ask the editors of the publication politely to remove the material or credit it appropriately. They probably don't (or didn't) know that their writer is a plagiarist, and are likely to be embarrassed about the situation. The Financial Daily staff may know nothing about how Wikipedia works, how to read article histories, or what the GFDL means. They may also want to talk to their writer before taking action. They may need help navigating all of these things—without expert guidance, they may not understand how we know that their reporter copied us, and not the other way around. Right now, all they know for certain is that they have an article that looks like a Wikipedia article, and that there's some random guy from the Internet (sorry, SteveBaker) who's mad at them.

If you're going to start drafting legal threats, do it on your own servers, not on Wikipedia. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you HandThatFeeds, this is in relation to WP:Copyrights and I will look into following our guidelines. Ten of All Trades, Since this matter deals with the article, the talk page is a perfectly acceptable location to talk about this. User JohnCD... I have no problem with the website republishing my comments under GFDL as per the requirements of GFDL. In this case, this website fail to comply with the requirements as stipulated at WP:Copyrights and the GFDL licence. Thank you to Dmack who has provided us with an excellent example letter from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Standard_GFDL_violation_letter. Finally, I see nothing wrong with a legal threats. As you and wikipedia indicates, this is our content and we own the rights. Failure to comply to our copyright is a violation. Again, there is some form of assistance being provided by Wikipedia for this type of infringement. However, it's difficult to find. That is why, I've proposed a change to WP:Copyrights. Please see Wikipedia talk:Copyrights#Please add the following Copyright Infringement criteria. Thank you again, everyone, for your assistance in this matter. --CyclePat (talk) 20:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

P.s.: The website, if you didn't notice is hosted in the United States of America and therefore, the internet provider can be held responsible if no action is taken to removed the copyrighted material. --CyclePat (talk) 20:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, what's up with including a link to a satellite view of the company's offices in your threat letter? Are you planning an aerial bombing campaign? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps one of these with the text of the GFDL printed on them? Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 20:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi TenOdAllTrades. :) ROFL. LOL. (You litterally, I believe just gave me 1 extra year to my life from the excellent laughter. You had me crying here from the humour. Honestly. :D I'm all smiles)... who could of though how funny that is? satellite bombing campaign. Oh! So many inferences... Specially if you knew what I was just trying to find out as a quote. I was actually looking back for a quote in 2003 : The Iraq Invasion. I remember some news reports indicating that within 3 days, the US had invaded most of Iraq. They stormed through with some 300 thousands troops! Unfortunately I couldn't find a reference for that. That wiki article also indicates that Bush started bombing 1 day early. But I was going to say, if they can invade Iraq so fast, surelly you can take down a webpage within 3 days. Anyways, I did eventually find a quote. So I leave you with this Hungarian Proverb, from Wikiquotes, by Minden csoda három napig tart.... "All miracles last 3 days." Meaning: Novelty always wears off eventually. ^{wikiquote:Hungarian proverbs}. --CyclePat (talk) 21:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

CyclePat, I spotted some plagiarised Wikipedia content on a BBC.co.uk article once. I sent a polite email to the editor (at the time, a nice chap called Steve Hermann) asking him to either remove the content or credit Wikipedia. In his reply, he told me he was unaware the writer, who was new, had copied the content. He removed it quickly, dressed down the writer, and thanked me for letting them know. That approach works far better than an angry and strident "IT FIXES IT OR IT GETS SUED". Neıl ☄ 21:03, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It puts the content in the baket, or else .... you know. ThuranX (talk) 21:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

CyclePat, what's wrong with "We're glad you've used our content . . . but you haven't given us credit . . . so please have a look at our GFDL . . ."? If you still don't get any luck then go with a "rude" message. I mean we don't want them to stop using WP, all we want is credit for our work so I'm not sure rudeness is necessary. Zain Ebrahim (talk) 21:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I must concede with Ebrahim. I'm sure a few of you will agree with me that I do have a tendency of sometimes being abrupt. Thank you. And I'll see what waiting a few days does to help this out. --CyclePat (talk) 21:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

More on User:Barryispuzzled

Is there going to be an easy way to prevent the indef-blocked User:Barryispuzzled continuing his general campaign of disruption? It's clear he's fairly determined to continue sockpuppeteering with disruptive and spammy intent: see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/CoolDream, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Sycorax13, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ProsperoX. Apart from trying to remember not to feed the trolls, are there any practical actions we can take to avoid this problem? AndyJones (talk) 19:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Beyond ensuring any sockpuppets are banned as soon as puzzle, probably not much. Nil Einne (talk) 20:14, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough: how do we go about getting them blocked? AndyJones (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Depending on how strong your evidence is and how long this has been going on, I suggest either Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser or Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. The linked pages will give more guidance. Nil Einne (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Merkey

An unregistered account from Orem, Utah, is editing Jeff V. Merkey to further the subject's POV.[30] Jeffrey Vernon Merkey (talk · contribs) is currently blocked.[31] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet or not, some of the edits appear highly inaccurate (see my comments on Talk:Jeff V. Merkey) Nil Einne (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ma timi bina marihalchhu

Not sure if this is the correct place. However, this AfD discussion is being spammed by a number of IP's and SPA's who are voting to keep the article but not substantiating their arguments, and accusing others of "marginalising a small nation" or even racism. Could do with someone to take a look and perhaps intervene. PC78 (talk) 20:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Struck a few of the more obvious duplicate !votes. Tricky area, though - likely to be almost nothing on the Interweb about such a film. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 20:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I added {{notavote}} to the top, hopefully they'll get it. But IPs and new users are allowed a say in the discussion regardless. Cheers. lifebaka++ 20:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't mind them having their say; it's the disruptive nature of some of the comments that's the problem. Thanks for looking into it, though. Hopefully it will calm down a bit. PC78 (talk) 21:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As you say, they can have their say - once per AfD. !Voting many times, and from several IP addresses isn't right. Somebody is trying to disrupt the AfD Mayalld (talk) 22:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil and bias actions from a admin Dreadstar

The administrator Dreadstar posted on my talk page that I was being disruptive for not indenting on talk pages, in a edit war with multipl users where he only focused on actions i have taken, and threatened me unjustly. I told him that my indentations or lack of on talk pages is not a concern though he continued to focus on it. I also said that the admin that they should not be focusing on me especially when one of the users involved in the "Edit war" stated he wished to block my edits. When I felt that he was not acting as a admin should, i asked that he not contact me anymore. He contacted me yet again and became very uncivil. Yami (talk) 22:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

{This comment was copied from my talk page without my even knowing about this report. Dreadstar † 23:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)) Editor behavior is very much my business. I'm not ignoring the other editor's behavior, they seem to be editing civilly and in good faith. I recommend that you put together some very compelling evidence if you plan on making any sockpuppetry accusations against the other editors, and that you retract your unsupported bad faith allegations in the meantime. Right now, you are the one violating Wikipedia policies and Guidelines by edit warring, making accusations, assumptions and showing bias. If you feel I'm biased, then by all means take it up the chain. Dreadstar † 21:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any gross incivility on either side, really. I suggest you two just leave each other alone, in order to avoid escalating the conflict. Cheers. lifebaka++ 22:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Elonka

Resolved

 – The RfC has been undeleted following a snowball overturn at DRV. Any further comments on this issue should be left at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Elonka - thanks. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:59, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

A discussion is going on at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Elonka concerning the deletion of an already certified RFC. Outside views may help resolve the controversy over whether the RFC was properly certified or not. Please post thoughts there, not here. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 13:17, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Ryan Postlethwaite made the decision that the certification was valid, but thebainer overruled him without, seemingly, engaging him in any way. If that is the case, I'd like to make it clear to thebainer that serving on the Committee (despite whatever incidents we've seen recently) is not a special, executive immunity from the rules — on the contrary, serve by example. El_C 13:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

RFC rules are clear that it has to be the same dispute, not different disputes (if it was different disputes, half of the admins on Wikipedia would be at RFC). If Elonka is correct that Ned Scott did not resolve the same dispute as ChrisO, then the RFC would be uncertified and, as it's outside of the 48-hour grace period, deleted. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:36, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

One admin ruled it was the same, and another overruled him, seemingly, without a word, was what I, at least, was referring to. El_C 13:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If you'll forgive me for pointing out the obvious, Elonka is not exactly a neutral party on whether an RfC on her is properly certified. Ryan's take on this is here, and Risker's insightful comments on Bishonen's user talk page are worth a read too in relation to the wider context.[32] -- ChrisO (talk) 13:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering to get an RFC deleted is lame, and only suggests scrutiny is being avoided. If the subject (Elonka) has acted appropriately, then the RFC will bear that out. If she has not, then the RFC will also bear that out. Either way, the RFC needs to exist in the first place. Arbcom members (in this case, Thebainer) have no special jurisdiction over RFCs. RFCs are a community process, wholly seperated from Arbcom actions by design. Was the RFC certified correctly? Whether the dispute was the same dispute or two seperate disputes is a wholly subjective matter. I would say it related to the same root cause, and was therefore appropriately certified, and the RFC should be undeleted and allowed to proceed - preferably, it should be undeleted by Thebainer, but if he is unwilling to do so, or unresponsive, then the place to discuss potentially out of process deletions is Deletion Review. Neıl ☄ 14:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Without checking the deleted revisions, striking a certification on your own RfC, unless clear vandalism, is grounds for blocking. I ask Elonka to immediately restore the RfC and (if the certifications are not on the same dispute) appeal the certification. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:05, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want you to get the wrong idea. Elonka has not struck anything, nor deleted anything. Thebainer deleted the page, apparently at Elonka's request. Jehochman ^Talk 14:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

This deletion was inappropriate. If thebainer does not undo his deletion, then the page should be undeleted. I'm neutral on whether that should go through DRV, or just happen. Nandesuka (talk) 14:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Note Bishzilla re-create RFC talkpage (deleted at Elonka request by Aaron Brenneman—ROARR!) so discussion can take place there. 'shonen written notes to Thebainer and Aaron, no replies. (Aussies! Probably asleep.) bishzilla _ROARR!! 14:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC).

I leave RfC alone for 12 hours and look what happens... I wasn't too thrilled with the certification, but I didn't see anything wrong with it at the time. I'll take a closer look at everything. Wizardman 14:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec x6, to last comment of Jehochman, with a minor network failure at this end) That's what the RfC talk looking like, but after checking the deleted revisions, I came to that conclusion. As an uninvolved admin in regard that particular disputed area, I'm tempted to ban Elonka from the disputed page for the length of ChrisO's page ban, but that might be misconstrued, as Elonka has warned me for violating a 0RR she placed on yet another unrelated area (I think it's the one SA was attempting to certify, but I could be wrong.) As an aside, what is the next step if an admin is involved in multiple disputes with multiple editors, but no third party is attempting to resolve any of the disputes?

It's appropaching the same situation as BetaCommand; there may be no admins who haven't either had a dispute with Elonka or supported her in a dispute against a regular editor, both of which would make taking admin action against her questionable.

The Wikilawyer approach would be to restore the RfC, reset the clock to cover the time during which SAs certification was present, and try again. I suppose the Wikipedia approach would be to ignore this RfC and submit a new one, watching the certifications more carefully.... — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Personally I think the "Wikilawyer approach" is very disappointing. It's not as if people's concerns are magically going to disappear along with the RfC. One would have thought it would be better all round to resolve the issues, not ignore them. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Folks, remember, per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, the first step in dealing with a controversy, is to talk to the editor and try to work things out. Not to jump to an RfC, not to ban without warning, not to block without warning. See WP:BLOCK#Education and warnings, and Wikipedia:New admin school/Dealing with disputes#Things to avoid.

The main reason I objected to the certification of the RfC, is because no one (besides ChrisO) had objected to his most recent ban. No one had expressed good faith concerns, no one tried to work anything out. The RfC was just ChrisO's forum-shopping, since the last time that he objected to a ban, he went to ArbCom, and ArbCom supported the ban.[33] Let's please keep things in perspective: I am not going rogue here, I asked one editor to avoid one article for one month, after he had been clearly disruptive and ignored multiple warnings at a highly contentious article, an article which was well within the scope of discretionary sanctions per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles. There are steps for dealing with dispute resolutions, let's please follow them. --Elonka 17:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again (I seem to keep repeating myself here), I'm not appealing the action you took against me. I believe it to be a symptom of a wider problem which is being manifested across multiple articles. Multiple editors and admins have attested the same concerns. The only place such concerns can be aired in a structured way, away from the AN/I dramafest, is RfC. That's not forum-shopping, that's simple common sense. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

There are steps for dealing with dispute resolutions, let's please follow them. -- Yeah, and RFC is one of the first steps. It was properly certified, as agreed upon by multiple admins. You accuse ChrisO of forum shopping yet you are the one who shopped for admin until you could find one reckless enough to ignore what other admins said and delete the RFC without discussion. The more you protest here the more you prove that you need to go through RFC and the rest of dispute resolution process.

On top of that, your promise during your campaigning for admin status was that you'd avoid controversy and immediately step down if a group of six editors got together and said you had not used your admin power wisely. Nine certified the main clause of RFC before it got deleted and others certified other parts that called your actions into question. Considering that you promised to willingly give up admin status in a situation like this and instead aren't even willing to allow an RFC to remain open, I think trying to point the finger at ChrisO here is a very misplaced tactic. From the look of things on the talk page of the deleted RFC, the DRV and here, many more people think you overstepped your boundaries on this one than just the ones who signed the RFC. DreamGuy (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see how strict textualism helps the community here. Many people raised concerns over the same behavior (whether good, bad, or otherwise is up to personal interpretation), though this took place on different pages. These cases can be seen as "the same" or "different" depending on your own personal views, making appropriate certification rather subjective, in my opinion. It is particularly unfortunate that many people (myself not included) contributed their thoughts to that page, only to see them get wiped shortly thereafter. These people are not to blame for the RfC possibly not meeting, to the letter, the guidelines for certification, but they do bear the burden of having essentially wasted their time making their contributions. Antelan 17:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think deletion review is the next step here, so here. --Random832 (contribs) 17:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Abusive language?

Resolved

 – User warned about no personal attacks. _Gb^T/c 16:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to jump to conclusions, but what 'd you think in this case?
Message by Kirker (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki):
[34] "I have sent a note to this snide arehole Kubura on his own talk page."
"Snide" and "areole"? The latter word reminds me too much on the word "ar*ehole" (the letter "s" is in the place of asterisk). It's hard to assume good faith here.
Such kinds of edits are below the basic level of communication on internet, and especially on Wikipedia.
This users has been on Wikipedia since 26 May 2007, he was supposed to know that by now. He's not "innocent uninformed newbie". Kubura (talk) 14:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest somebody uninvolved point out our civility policy to Kirker. HIBC 15:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Warned user. _Gb^T/c 16:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Arehole? [Falls over laughing. ] All together now: "Preview = Friend!" Bishonen | talk 23:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC).

Khoikhoi block of G-Dett

I'd like to raise here a discussion currently at User:G-Dett's talk page about Khoikhoi's decision to block her for incivility. For background: on another board, a proposal to block User:PalestineRemembered has been under discussion.[35] G-Dett has long been involved in this issue. Most specifically, G-Dett was instrumental in challenging a previous series of allegations from User:Jayjg against PR in which Jayjg had proposed that PR be permanently banned, claiming that PR had copied material from a Holocaust Denial site.[36] This resulted in an arbitration case in which G-Dett's evidence can be seen here, showing that the material could not have come from that site. As shown by the workshop page, the case was eventually closed despite PR's objections and despite other requests that ArbCom evaluate Jayjg's actions in the incident, including his refusal to apologize for or further support his claims.[37]

This could have ended the issue, but in fact it was raised again recently when Jayjg claimed to Ryan Postlethwaite that PR had a "history" with this issue, and was duly called out on it by G-Dett.[38]

Come yesterday, Ryan made his own proposal that PR be banned, citing Jayjg's claims which have in fact been thoroughly challenged without response. G-Dett responded with this comment, beginning "Oh, fucking please." After several additional comments and significant further discussion, User:Khoikhoi arrived and issued a 24 hour block due to the reasoning here. Considering the history, the fact that this was specifically a ban proposal in which Jayjg's actions were very much at issue, the fact that the discussion had gone on, and Khoikhoi's failure to discuss the issue with G-Dett, this strikes me as entirely wrong-headed. I raised the issue to Khoikhoi though he hasn't yet responded. Mackan79 (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've replied on G-Dett's talk page. Khoikhoi 21:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As I've basically stated on G-Dett's talk page, whatever was going on with PR, the fact that Jayjg commented on it did not give G-Dett the right to violate WP:CIVIL (specifically in this diff that Mackan79 has cited). She has been warned multiple times not to do this and been blocked for it. G-Dett was not blocked for opposing the ban of PR or any of her other objections, it was they way she went about it that caused this block. Khoikhoi 21:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

just a stupid question, but.... do you plan to block jayjg and ryan for the spurious ban request against pr? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

As I responded, the issue here is not just opposing PR's block, but the fact that the primary evidence has been repeatedly been dismantled with no response, and yet continues to be repeated by Jayjg, recently to Ryan who had now himself repeated it in this discussion. Besides that, what is the invicility? You seem to claim on G-Dett's talk page that it was to say that Jayjg lied about this incident. Do we immediately, without question or warning, block people for that? If not, this is exactly the discussion, if any, where it needed to be raised. Mackan79 (talk) 22:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

← Ah. OK. Accusing an admin of dishonesty, bias, and rogueness, without ironclad proof, is grounds for a block under the terms of WP:CIVIL and the Israel-Palestine ArbCom case. I'll keep that in mind, having been targeted in the past for much worse than this by some of the players in this particular battleground. Or we could just stop trying to "enforce" WP:CIVIL with demonstrably counterproductive blocks, but I've been beating that drum for awhile now without success. MastCell ^Talk 21:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Would calling this block a fucking joke be considered grounds for blocking in turn? Just checking. Hypothetical question. Whatever, I think I'm resuming my wikibreak, there's far too much random blocking and topic-banning of good-faith editors happening these days. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

G-Dett has a long, long history of incivility towards other editors. She should consider herself fortunate that she has only been blocked for it twice, and for only 24 hours each time. Jayjg has managed to become one of G-Dett's favorite targets, and I think it is long past time she was compelled to stop it. As for Mackan's comments, they raise a series of events from more than a year ago, which G-Dett has used to whack Jayjg over the head every time PalestineRemembered's name is mentioned. In one post alone, G-Dett calls Jay "a full-time propagandist" who makes "deliberately deceptive posts" and "disguises his politics in a high-concept, even baroque form of WP:GAMEsmanship..." [39] In any event, these long-ago events are not the basis for Ryan P.'s proposed ban of PR; his proposal is based on much more recent and ongoing events, as discussed at WP:AN. Mackan's and G-Dett's comments should not be permitted to confuse the issues, to justify continuing attacks on Jayjg, or to obscure the real issue here, which is PR's intractable misconduct as described by Ryan P. 6SJ7 (talk) 22:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I would hope that Khoikhoi reconsiders the block. The point is, there are situations that call for discussion and situations that call for blocks. I see no reason why Khoikhoi couldn't have addressed any problems with G-Dett's comment to her, and they could have discussed it. If Khoikhoi was supported and any claimed violations became more clear, that is where you block. To jump straight into a complex situation where one editor calls another "rogue" or says that the other "lied," particularly in an AN discussion proposing a ban of all places, isn't. This should be true whether you're pro-civility enforcement or not. Mackan79 (talk) 22:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

After a discussion with G-Dett, I've unblocked her on the condition that she not make any more incivil comments and/or personal attacks. Hopefully this specific issue is resolved and we can all move on. Khoikhoi 22:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that's fair. With all due respect for G-Dett (and I do have a lot of respect for her, as she's one of the most eloquent editors I know of), I can understand why you blocked her. I winced when I read her comments on WP:AN. I thought at the time "that's going to earn a block" and I'm not surprised it did. I understand her indignation at the way Jayjg's previous misconceived attempt to ban PR was being dredged up again - I was one of the editors who spoke out against it at the time after I realised something had gone badly wrong. I don't believe Jayjg was acting maliciously ("cock-up before conspiracy"). In the absence of clear proof to the contrary, it's not appropriate to accuse him of misconduct, and God knows we need to lower the temperature on these debates. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

If Jayjg's actions and allegations concerning PR and others haven't been fully examined and commented on by the community, that probably should be done sometime in the appropriate forum. Cla68 (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Old history, frankly. There's no need to rake it up again against either Jay or PR. I think (or at least I hope) that the discussion at the time reminded everyone of the need to be on firm ground when proposing editing bans. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree this is fair, and think Khoikhoi has responded reasonably. What I object to is that he started by blocking, considering the forum and the nature of the discussion, in which G-Dett was specifically responding to a proposal to ban an editor. On an article talk page, fine, but if you propose to ban someone I think you should expect your actions toward that editor to be discussed frankly, particularly with the kinds of accusations involved here. That isn't the place to just start blocking people unless they really fly of the handle, which the continuing discussion showed had not at all happened here. Mackan79 (talk) 00:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Very worrying kind of vandalism

Resolved

 – by User:Reedy

I am really concerned about this edit I just reverted. What should be done here? Regards, —αἰτίας •discussion• 23:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

What a horrible edit. Inexcusable. I blocked the IP for a week, which I'm pretty sure is the longest I've ever blocked an IP. The IP will probably be reassigned before then, but that was a ridiculous post. To answer your question, I'm not sure what else could be done (off-wiki anyway), as we really have no way of knowing who posted that offensive message. Have you checked WHOIS? Keeper ǀ 76 23:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Contrib and reversion have been deleted (well, not restored) —Reedy 23:56, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Even better. Aitias, let me (or Reedy, or ANI) know if that IP returns or "recontributes" such garbage in the future, or if you feel further resolution is needed? Keeper ǀ 76 00:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds okay to me. Thank you, Keeper and Reedy. —αἰτίας •discussion• 00:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As an FYI, apparently I was much too lenient. The block was extended from (my) 1 week to (East718's) 6 months. Either way, very blockable, and good riddance. Keeper ǀ 76 00:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

New user is confessed vandal. Should be blocked ASAP.

Resolved

 – WP:RBI

• 04:08, 5 August 2008 (hist) (diff) N User talk:Treehugga X‎ (← Created page with 'THE TREEHUGGA IS BACK WIKIPEDIA BEWARE')
• 04:06, 5 August 2008 (hist) (diff) User:BillyTFried‎ (Marital Status: Single person|Single and ugly)
• 04:00, 5 August 2008 (hist) (diff) m Ralph Nader‎ (I RUINED THE PAGE>>>> HAHA TREEHUGGA IS SOOOO BACK)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Treehugga_X

BillyTFried (talk) 04:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Damn. that was fast. Thanks. BillyTFried (talk) 04:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef. We don't need to bother with warnings for a clear returning vandal like that. CIreland (talk) 04:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Spammer

Resolved

User:AdamDeanHall‎ has been spamming for two years. Users have explained the rules to him, but he still keeps on spamming. Schuym1 (talk) 04:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What has he been spamming? You do not give us any proof as to what you claim.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You can look at his talk page to see what he has been spamming. Schuym1 (talk) 04:59, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you made the accusation, it's your responsibility to provide the DIFFs. A quick look at his contribs didn't show me anything, and his talk page is way too long for anything to stand out. Please elaborate. Dayewalker (talk) 05:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. He edited afd discussions that have ended, posted rude remarks on talk pages such as saying that a user can't edit certain articles, and removing prods just because he likes the subject of the article. Schuym1 (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have had trouble with those things before, however none of the things you listed are "spamming." If you have a problem with something else he's doing, please provide the DIFFs so we can see exactly what you're talking about. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 05:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

He posted a keep vote to the AfD literally 3 minutes after it closed. It's not like it was days later...he could have had the window open...and someone had already pointed out to him that it was wrong on his talkpage before you decided to template him as well. I also notice the articles of his that you've nominated for deletion have been kept at AfD... so where's the spam? --Smashville^BONK! 05:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

One was keep and one is ongoing. The afd disscussion for the Aladdin character use to have prod that was removed by him because he said that it was his favorite villian. The Aladdin character AFD is non-notable. I made a mistake with the template. Schuym1 (talk) 05:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Schuym1 is mis-using the word "spam" but I think he's talking about things like these recent diffs:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=223314512
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:George_W._Bush&diff=prev&oldid=223321306
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:68.195.105.85&diff=prev&oldid=226802820

CIreland (talk) 05:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What I meant by spam was that he was being disruptive ever since 2006. Schuym1 (talk) 05:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not seeing that he's been making it a habit to edit afd discussions after they've closed. An edit to a single AfD 3 minutes after it was closed could easily be a mistake...not worthy of the vandal3 template warning you left for it in any case. Anyone can remove prods for any reason. Are there any specific talk pages where you're concerned about these rude remarks? --Onorem♠Dil 05:17, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The first two are over a month old and the third is a vandalism warning that he gave an IP 2 weeks ago. --Smashville^BONK! 05:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(ECx4)Probably ought to be made to handwrite the WP:NOT page a dozen times, but it's not 'spamming' in the sense we normally use. It's more like SOAPBOXing and FORUMing with some CIVILITY issues. ThuranX (talk) 05:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention auburnpilot already warned him about the soapboxing. He didn't do it again...so why go after him over the same month old offense? --Smashville^BONK! 05:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I would like to end this because I don't feel like having a bunch of Wikipedia admins getting mad at me. Starting this was pointless. Schuym1 (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring over People's Temple content on Harvey Milk

Mosedschurte (talk · contribs) has been continuously adding and reverting to re-add an entire section on the Jim Jones cult People's Temple and now has expanded to simply revert[40] this material as well as the controversy section on "The outing of Sipple" (Oliver Sipple). An RfC was started to try to end the edit warring and consensus has been that the previous content about the People's Temple was appropriate whereas the entire section was undue. I also expressed that it was bordering on WP:FRINGE. The other issue that came up was that another section, "The outing of Sipple", although well-referenced, is also undue. Complicating things is the proliferation of SPAs. I moved both problematic sections to the talk page and now Mosedschurte is calling me a vandal and reverting. Am I misreading things here? There seems little evidence that the People's Temple incidents were anything more than Milk doing his political duties of getting elected and staying in office. Mosedschurte has also ensured this content is placed in other articles already so I see no reason to inflate in this one. Would appreciate fresh perspective on this. Banjeboi 22:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Benji, you might want to say that this is happening in Harvey Milk. A major problem here is that Milk's article is not at all comprehensive, unfortunately. I hope to fix part of this by expanding the article soon to give weight to the rest of Milk's political career. However, as the article stands now, information about the People's Temple is grossly WP:Undue in the overall political influence Milk had. Had all the time in the world to write all the information possible, it might clear up a lot of these issues... That's what I get for living in a linear dimension. --Moni3 (talk) 22:31, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Lol! added link to section title, sorry! Yes if this were expanded exponentially these sections, in a trimmed form, could serve to add to the article. Likely not as stand-alone sections though. And WP:UNDUE pretty much goes by what the article currently is although even and expanded article wouldn't include much more about the People's Temple which seems to be this user's specialty. It's already in other articles and i don't object to that. Banjeboi 22:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

There area a number of inaccuracies and omissions here, as anyone can see by viewing the editing history of the article Harvey Milk:

(1) Months ago, a tiny section was added to the Harvey Milk article that was entirely sourced and stated in NPOV terms. It merely shortly described Milk's well known support for Jim Jones and the Peoples Temple which was not mentioned in the article. More importantly, it very briefly described Milk's opposition to those calling for a federal investigation of Jonestown through a letter from Milk to President Carter calling those attempting to extricate their relatives "liars," which had received considerable media scrutiny.

(2) Milk's campaign is not only now well-known and public, but in the days after the tragedy killing nearly 1,000 mostly Bay Area citizens, it had already come under considerable press scrutiny just before his death.

(3) In response to concerns from Benjiboi, the section was pared down even further.

(4) The assertion by Benjiboi that "Milk doing [nothing more than] his political duties of getting elected and staying in office" is entirely unsourced, somewhat odd, likely factually incorrect (not that that particularly matters) and irrelevant to the issue of presenting encyclopedic NPOV content.

(5) Benjiboi then started a Request for Comment on the section.

(6) In response to Benjiboi's Rfc, not surprisingly, no consensus developed to delete it. In fact, if anything, most weighed in to keep it. Which makes sense given the extreme gravity of the events and the tiny size of the section.

(7) Today, Bejiboi then began deleting every word of the entire Peoples Temple section in the Harvey Milk article.

(8) Note that the section as it stands mentioned only one of Milk's many letters supporting Jones against investigation and only briefly states that Milk made many supporting statements about the Temple and Jones without even elaborating, lest that be viewed as giving it "undue weight."

(9) In fact, much of the section as it now stands has either been added by Benjiboi or added to address concerns of Benjiboi. Mosedschurte (talk) 22:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I have not been contributing to that section and feel the material presented further up in the article is sufficient. SPA votes, as far as I'm aware, don't count. The section still violates WP:UNDUE, and IMHO, borders on WP:FRINGE. We haven't yet started discussing the sources but they too are borderline acceptable per reliable sourcing policies. Of course, the People's Temple people think his endorsement is notable, but did anyone else. And Milk was a city supervisor while the City's mayor George Moscone and more prominent politicians at the time did the very same things or more, so again, nothing too notable that isn't already covered in the article. Banjeboi 22:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding: "Of course, the People's Temple people think his endorsement is notable, but did anyone else. "

The San Francisco Chronicle, New York Times and San Francisco Examiner are three that come to mind.

Not only that, the section doesn't just describe Milk's endorsement. In the middle of the controvery, after Jones fled to Guyana with 1,000 followers, Milk actually opposed the investigation of Jones, writing none other than President Jimmy Carter that those wishing their relatives would be extricated were spouting "bold-faced lies."

Frankly, in order to address your concerns of "undue weight" -- odd considering the section about the 900+ deaths at Jonesotown literally follows text in the Milk article about a pooper scooper law -- I didn't even include the press accounts of Milk's letters to the government of Guyana directly on the issue, or gushing statements Milk made personally about Jim Jones. Mosedschurte (talk) 23:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I have again removed this section and the Sipple one as well as the RfC has not supported their inclusion. You mention "The San Francisco Chronicle, New York Times and San Francisco Examiner" but I notice none of those are used as citations. Perhaps those citations could be presented for other editors to also verify what they say about this and what weight they put on this in the context of Milk's life. Of all the biographies and overviews of Milk's life this information is rarely mentioned, if at all, and has usually been presented as San Francisco was still reeling from the Jonestown massacre when the Moscone/Milk assassinations occurred. Banjeboi 05:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

You are now 1 revert away from violating the 3 Revert Rule by exceeding the 3 reverts on the Milk article in 24 hours.

This violation is particularly egregious here, where you specifically requested an Rfc for deletion or modification of a sourced NPOV section, no consensus was reached to delete the section and, rather, most appeared specifically NOT to want to delete the section.

That you are now oddly claiming this failure to reach consensus to delete (and, in fact, most said not to) as somehow justifying unilaterally deleting whole sections of the article is not only incorrect and contrary to Wikipedia editing rules, but frankly bizarre. Mosedschurte (talk) 05:40, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

An even further edited down section that before has now been placed in the article.

The fact remains that complaints about "undue weight" in this context have not only been addressed repeatedly, but at this point appear to be non-good faith justifications to repeatedly delete a sourced NPOV section of the article an editor does not like. City Supervisor Milk actively supported one of the most notorious figures in United States history, including making gushing statements about him. He then actually opposed investigations of Jonestown, writing none other than United States President Jimmy Carter that those attempting to extrictate their relatives were spouting "bold-faced lies."

No one is saying that this should dominate the article on City Supervisor Milk, though I'm sure some Jonestown victims relatives would disagree. Rather, it is a tiny section stashed away in the middle of the article.

Thus, there is really not even a good faith argument to be made that this tiny section carries "undue weight" in the article (rather, if anything, the argument might be that it does not elaborate enough). Much less a convincing argument in that regard.

This is why you received no consensus on your Rfc to delete the article.

Please stop unilaterally deleting this small sourced NPOV section in its entirety. At this point, especially after the Rfc, these edits are clearly not made in good faith and are contrary to the principles of Wikipedia article editing. Mosedschurte (talk) 06:21, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll take a look and may weigh in but it sounds like a content dispute, i.e. nothing requiring administrative help. Is there edit warring or any kind of behavior issue? Failure to honor an RfC or consensus is still a content issue unless it gets to the point of active edit warring or incivility. Wikidemo (talk) 06:53, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate it. It does seem like an edit war and has been going on since early June. I started the RfC to stop the warring in the first place. There is also the matter of the SPAs voting, all seem suspect but I'm not sure if checkuser worthy or possibly canvassed offline. Most have made only edits to the RfC. I feel this user won't relent until they get this content inserted so this looks like it will continue until some fresh voices can help sort this out. Is this a good candidate for the WP:FRINGE board instead? Banjeboi 07:02, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

There has been an "edit war", but it has mostly taken the form of Benjiboi repeatedly deleting the entire section after every edit has been made to acommodate his concerns. Please examine the Edit Page of Harvey Milk for repeated examples.

Moreover, after his Rfc to delete the section, Benjiboi received several responses from those not wishing to delete this tiny section:

"I've reviewed the Milk page, the Moscone page, and have worked on the various Jones pages. I disagree that this is being given undue weight. His involvement with, and defense of, Peoples Temple, during and just after their time in California, is relevant." Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:09, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

"I agree with this writer. Please do not delete. It is true there is no consensus to delete the section emerged." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caramia3403 (talk • contribs)

Given the context and timing, the Peoples Temple section is far too important in this article to delete or merge. Especially the letter cited in the article attacking people calling for an investigation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.23.197.82 (talk) 16:06, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

"The Jones section has to stay in a page like this. It's way too big if its true. I don't know why it would be cut. The part about Harvey being scared of him should be added to it." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.215.117.116 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

"Finally, the entire Peoples Temple involvement, even with Jonestown literally dominating the Bay Area and Milk's key support, is only a tiny (6%) portion of the article, thus there is no undue weight issue. As well, included is only a tiny portion of Milk's involvement with the Temple." - obviously me. Mosedschurte (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

In any event, tired of continued edit war wholesale deletions of every sourced NPOV contritubtion made, I have now slashed the section down to 3 short sentences.

If anyone else wishes to add interesting encyclopedic content to the article, I encourage your do so. Do not let the particular obstinancy here discourage such additions. I agree with others that the article leaves the reader wanting to know more about Milk, a thoroughly interesting figure, on a variety of policy issues that are largely glossed over as is. Mosedschurte (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Some mention of the incident should remain in the article, as well as some phrasing indicating that Milk was not a "co-conspirator" in the death of 1000 people, which is a bit how it reads at the moment. Haiduc (talk) 15:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that's the funny or tragic part, really, after this idea was inserted I did look into reliable sources as after years about reading of Milk's life I've never even heard of it. In fact, Milk didn't seem to get any special treatment that all political folks got from Jones but I did research and added some NPOV' and reliably sourced information about this connection. But apparently this user demands an entire section, despite policies of WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV and WP:RS. Banjeboi 21:50, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Help please. This user keeps inserting this information despite concerns and with no consensus to do so,[41] and despite it already being covered - neutrally and with RS's - in the article already. I've been doing slow reverts lately but would like this behavior to stop until they can find consensus. The material is already covered and the addition of this section, I think we're up to a dozen times over the past two months, is disruptive, IMHO. I've pretty much stopped doing any other work on the bio until this stops as it's quite distracting. Banjeboi 02:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment. I guess I should have looked earlier but a similar section has been added on George Moscone; Milk and Moscone were assassinated together but no linsk between their deaths and People's Temple have been shown. I'm not familiar with that bio but being given a whole section I would say the concerns are also of WP:UNDUE. Banjeboi 12:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment: Benjiboi is wrong in claiming that there was no consensus to include the information in the article. After reading the article’s talk page, there did seem to be a consensus to include the material. The material is notable, dozens of reliable sources have commented on it both in a factual manner as well as looking into the controversy involved. Benjiboi, IMO, objects to the material on principal and does not want to see it included regardless of its notability. CENSEI (talk) 19:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • An interesting interpretation but not an accurate one. The consensus seems to be, per the RfC is that the material is sufficiently covered without this added subsection alleging it is somehow greatly significant. So the material is already in there and no need to repeat and expand it with an addition subsection - per WP:UNDUE. There actually doesn't seem to be "dozens" of RS's only a handful which is odd considering there are hundreds about Milk - the subject of this bio and almost none have suggested this is a a big or any controversy at all, hey are passing mentions that he did political type things, (speeches, letters) that every other politician would have have done. i object to the material based on policies that apply to all articles and would like help as this editor shows no signs of wishing to abide by consensus but does show evidence of volume over substance. Banjeboi 22:22, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have my own opinion about the content and about the state of consensus, but could we please urge the primary advocates on each side of this not to edit war with one another? Between them they've done 10 reversions (5 each, and arguably another each) in the past two days, continuing despite this AN/I report and maintaining a constant state of 3RR. That makes it hard, and intimidating, for neutral parties to examine things and weigh in. I don't know that they've been properly warned about edit warring but maybe it's time to go down that path. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 22:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Frankly I'm quite fine cooling off as long as the contested section remain out of the article until consensus to include it is reached. The relevant material is already in the article so this "bonus" section is repeating this content out of context as well. Mosedschurte has been inspired to participate, and call me a vandal amongst other things, only when the section is removed. I'm quite happy, as is evidenced, to give reasoned explanations and discuss policy about what material is relevant and of due weight to be included, just as I've done for months on the article. I only came here when they have continued to edit war after an extended RfC resulted in removal and they kept reinserting an entire undue section knowing it was contested. I would also like clarification on how to treat the SPAs that conveniently have popped up. Agree that this edit war has all but halted most constructive improvements to this article, Mosedschurte seems only interested as painting the subject as somehow deeply involved with the People's Temple/Jim Jones and even their sources don't support this. Banjeboi 22:45, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Benjiboi, continuing to claim that there exists a consensus to exclude the material does not make it so. Three other editors, to my knowledge, have all agreed that the material is significant enough to be included in the article. And for the last time, there are many sources that highlight Milk's relationship to Jones. Remember that no one owns this article. CENSEI (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

CENSEI, agreed, and neither that claiming that consensus exists to include this additional section exists makes it so either. It doesn't. The content is already in the article so repeating it, it its own section, doesn't make sense, and seems quite WP:UNDUE. And more than three editors have agree to include the content, all have, and it's in there. And no, there doesn't seem to be many reliable sources that there is any special connection between these two, at all. If there is some source besides the biographies we're already using please post to the talk page as a new possible source. And yes, I'm well aware of WP:OWN ergo I've asked for other opinions and eyes on this situation. Let's hope the new article about Jones' political support that Wikidemo started will help appease the situation. Banjeboi 00:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where to insert this, and beyond my interest in Peoples Temple articles, I prefer to stay out of this particular dispute. I did add my opinion that the Milk article should contain reference to political connections between Milk and Peoples Temple. Beyond that, I caution Benjiboi against the wholesale grouping of persons whose opinion supported that into a definition of WP:SPA. I most definitely am not a single purpose account and object to his generalization of that. Wildhartlivie (talk) 05:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wildhartlivie, I don't believe I suggested you were a SPA, and in fact appreciated your pointing out that the Sipple content was also undue. After this present issue is cleared up I intend to clean that content and re-add it. I tagged the comments with {{SPA}}, a few with only a single edit to the RfC, so it was clear what comments were coming from where. I've not had to deal with this many SPAs so was looking for guidance. The RfC has now ended and with Wikidemo's intervention this may all be behind us although that also may be naive good faith on my part. Banjeboi 14:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked IP 92.11.166.122 returns as 92.12.228.140; continuing disruption

Yesterday, IP 92.11.166.122 was blocked for a series of disruptive edits, 3RR violations and incivility, concerning articles James Garner and Paul Newman. IP 92.11.166.122 traceroutes to xe-11-0-0-bragg001.loh.as43234.net., stopping at unknown.ripe.net. This morning IP 92.12.228.140 has returned the identical edits and nothing else to those articles. IP 92.12.228.140 traceroutes to xe-10-0-0-bragg001.loh.as43234.net., stopping at unknown.ripe.net. Both of these IPs are within the range of IPs previously identified as connected with banned sockpuppeteer HarveyCarter. Regardless of that connection, these edits have been done around a current block. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the new IP for 24 hours. Cheers. lifebaka++ 11:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

LifeLock COI advertisement

Resolved

 – WP:UAA handles this sort of report, for future reference. _Gb^T/c 11:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/LifeLock
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=LifeLock&diff=229861347&oldid=229855114

WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Edits reverted by Herbythyme (talk · contribs), LifeLock (talk · contribs) softblocked for a username violation. _Gb^T/c 11:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Takeactionmedia (talk · contribs), the previous editor to edit the LifeLock article also softblocked for username violation, as it appears from their website that they carry out marketing for, guess who...LifeLock. _Gb^T/c 12:02, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably should request CU from my point of view. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I wouldn't bother. Keep the article watchlisted to see if any other accounts turn up. _Gb^T/c 12:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Problem with RfC

Hi, there is a repeated problem occurring with a RfC request in Talk:Bajrang_Dal#RfC. I tried to fix it, again the bot is saying RfC error. Can anyone fix it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See User:Messedrocker. MBisanz ^talk 12:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

McCain Hijacking

Resolved

 – Vandalism nuked, templates protected J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

As of right now, the John McCain article seems to be hijacked by external hackers. Not talking vandalism here. This is hacking.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's fixed now, thanks.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, it was on Template:Sisterlinks-author. I went ahead and semi-protected every unprotected template that is transcluded into John McCain. Considering the visibility of this page, and the proximity of the election, I do not think we can afford to have this kind of crap going on. If anyone disagrees, feel free to unprotect. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:41, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Only one you technically missed was {{2008 U.S. presidential election}}, but it redirects to {{United States presidential election, 2008}} anyway so you can hardly be blamed. Fixed that one by just updating the template on the page to bypass the redirect. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

After a glance at the whatlinkshere on that redirect, I protected it anyway. Chick Bowen 03:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's called Hagger vandalism and has nothing to do with his brother, Grawp. And for the record, Hagger is sorry for vandalising John McCain. His intentions were to actually vandalise the article on Barrack Obama, although no one noticed it there. 86.29.131.167 (talk) 15:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter.[42]Ferrylodge (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

What happened on the Barack Obama page? It looked like the whole interface was hacked. 75.179.6.2 (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine here, have you tried clearing your cache by any chance? Might be leftover template vandalism that's cached causing the issue. Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's been fixed now. This is a wiki, such things happen. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 16:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:63.87.6.102 Continuing nuisance and personal attacks

User:63.87.6.102 Is the fixed IP of a well known nuisance editor aka: User:Yamchaken User: 6 synth pop

Previous misconduct includes Vandalism, POV pushing, Removal of content, Inappropriate remarks on talk pages and edit warring. User has had numerous warnings from editors about their conduct:

User talk:63.87.6.102

Recently the IP was banned for vandalism for one week. Concurrently two accounts by the same individual were blocked indefinitely for proven Sock puppetry:

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yamchaken

Now IP ban has expired User has returned to edit warring. I gave individual a WP:3RR warning on their talk page to warn of consequences of continuing this course of conduct. This has resulted in personal homophobic abuse on the talk article which I referred to, this is clearly unacceptable:

"andi064 is very gay. he is cop so he can frisk other men touching there butts and doing other nasty stuff. stay away from this guy at all cost."[43]

Talk:The_Human_League/Archive_1

I have not responded to the abuse, as this will just evolve into a personal dispute. This IP is nothing but a nuisance to Wikipeda and user is obviously is not getting the message from warnings and short blocks. Please consider a longer block and Admin warning for the personal attack. Thanks andi064 ^{T . C} 17:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshirian

Resolved

 – All socks blocked. Yorkshirian's block extended to indefinite

Yorkshirian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was banned for one year as a result of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian. Here is a list of recently discovered sockpuppets, some going back far before the Arbcom case, some recent.

1. Bourbonist (talk · contribs · block log)
2. Coaltarl (talk · contribs · block log)
3. Cradashj (talk · contribs · block log)
4. Cult Fan (talk · contribs · block log)
5. ForeverWhiteRose (talk · contribs · block log)
6. Gennarous (talk · contribs · block log)
7. Il Jacobite (talk · contribs · block log)
8. Meddi (talk · contribs · block log)
9. Ordinaria (talk · contribs · block log)
10. Presente (talk · contribs · block log)
11. S.Azzopardi (talk · contribs · block log)
12. Tatumate (talk · contribs · block log)
13. The Cavendish (talk · contribs · block log)
14. The Renton (talk · contribs · block log)

Obviously, evasion of the Arbcom ban is an issue here, requiring a minimum of a ban timer reset. Any sentiment for a stronger sanction under the circumstances? (I am just bringing the facts to the table.) Thatcher 18:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

How about an extension for each sockpuppet found? In all seriousness, with this many socks created an indef ban might be in order. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

After all this editor has put the project through, I would support an indefinite ban. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Assuming all of the above are confirmed socks, I would easily support an indef ban, myself. Shereth 18:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, pending confirmation. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Errr, what?. Thatcher 18:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(EC) No no no, you can't get out of it that easily. It's not confirmed unless it's  Confirmed and you bloody well know it. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

lol - I think we can safely say  Confirmed here :) - Alison ^❤ 18:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That'll teach me to skim a report at ANI - I missed that Thatcher had filed it and not Wildthing. How embarassing for me. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:53, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey I know the proper channels for checking on sockpuppets, give me SOME credit :) Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No complaints here - but your name was waaaaay over on the right, and his was waaaaay over on the left. Now I'd really feel stupid if you were a checkuser as well. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No check user here, no mop, just your average Wikipedia editor (for now). Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

OK so it looks we are all agreed that an indefinite block is in order. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes - and I've blocked the above-listed socks indef, though I have yet to tag them. Is there a special template for socks evading an arbcom ban? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've upped Yorkshirian's to indef. Don't know about tags Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I've got it - {{Blockedsockpuppet}} will work, I think. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work guys. This fella was the bane of my usership for too long. I had my concerns about a few of these accounts. I have no doubt he'll return again though. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Not completely sure if it's required, but I logged the new block on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yorkshirian just to be sure. - auburnpilot talk 19:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale and I EC'ed with you over that log; I think this can be put to bed. Thanks, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yorkshirian and socks all tagged. Archiving thread. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Topic ban for LotLE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Enough. Too many of you are acting like children here. There's nothing directly needing admin action here, so either take it to WP:RfC, or try to actually resolve the dispute without resorting to needling each other. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

---

Summary

I am respectfully requesting a topic ban for Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (LotLE) from all articles and pages related to Barack Obama and the 2008 US presidential campaign. Starting on May 14, LotLE has been a tendentious, disruptive single purpose account devoted to articles and Talk pages related to Barack Obama, and ANI and AN3 discussions related to those pages. Apparently LotLE is waging a campaign to delete or reduce anything that casts Barack Obama, leading Democratic candidate for president, in a bad light — and obtain administrative sanctions against anyone who disagrees with him, in an effort to get rid of them. Over 60 percent of his edits have served this campaign in this period of 11 weeks. This includes organizations with which Obama has been associated, such as Project Vote and Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now‎ (ACORN).

As Kossack4Truth has observed, LotLE has developed a pattern of "low-level edit-warring coupled with low-level baiting," apparently believing that by staying a few millimeters under the radar, he would avoid community sanctions for his misconduct. As a veteran editor, he is well aware that compiling a comprehensive case against him for this misconduct would be very time-consuming. LotLE has been assisted in this campaign by Scjessey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who shares LotLE's style of low-level edit-warring and low-level baiting, and Wikidemo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who immediately reports here at WP:ANI any less than perfectly civil response from their opponents. Together, they seek to WP:OWN the article by getting rid of anyone who disagrees with them.

LotLE has also developed a habit of using edit summaries to make personal attacks, accusations of sockpuppetry and other rude remarks, not limited to articles related to Barack Obama, as evidenced by the diffs cited below and by these two in particular: [44][45] Generally, if LotLE is involved in one of his many content disputes, and a fairly new account or IP account appears that disagrees with him, that new account is invariably branded as a sockpuppet and his more established adversary in the content dispute is branded as the puppet master. LotLE has been a champion of making these false accusations in article edit summaries and on the article's Talk page, even creating new sections with section headers to announce his false accusations. This is extremely corrosive to the collegial atmosphere on every Talk page where such events have occurred. The targets of LotLE's misconduct are not limited to WorkerBee74 and Kossack4Truth, but also include Noroton (repeatedly), Justmeherenow (repeatedly), Floridianed, Utahredrock and Floorsheim.

The overwhelming evidence

At first, LotLE appeared to simply be reverting whatever K4T did on the article: [46][47][48][49][50] (another inflammatory edit summary)[51][52][53][54] However, here he declared his position: [55] And started reverting such minor, innocuous K4T edits as a sub-header, "Early primaries and caucuses." [56]

First incident of tag team edit warring, taking a tag from a teammate:[57] Continued tag team edit-warring against K4T: [58] Characterizing a fair comment as vandalism and reverting it: [59] More accusations on the Talk page: [60][61] Here, the tag team tactics reached their first fruition. LotLE reported K4T for a 3RR violation: [62] Although K4T hadn't technically violated 3RR, he was blocked for edit warring, demonstrating LotLE's knowledge that users can and should be blocked for violating the spirit, not necessarily the letter, of WP:3RR: [63] More low-level edit warring, often against completely innocuous sub-headers: [64][65][66] Another accusation on the Talk page: [67] More low-level edit-warring: [68]

Here, LotLE momentarily agrees that including some Ayers material is good: [69] More low-level edit-warring: [70][71][72][73][74][75] Another declaration of his position, this time on his own Talk page — apparently any mention of Wright, Rezko or Ayers is "extraneous crap": [76] More low-level edit-warring to pursue this agenda: [77] Again describing material about Rezko, Wright and Ayers as "crap": [78] Carefully cautioning Scjessey to conceal his own political prejudices: [79] Continuing his relentless chopping away at the Wright material: [80][81] A section header on Talk that explicitly says, "That Ayers crap": [82]

More edit warring, all on May 25, and an obvious violation of WP:3RR: [83][84][85][86][87][88] Within hours, he has the chutzpah to report Fovean Author for a 3RR violation: [89][90] His frustration when it's declared to be stale: [91][92] Another declaration of his agenda, notice the edit summary: [93] Attempting to spin-doctor Ayers and Dohrn into a couple of ordinary, harmless, uncontroversial tenured professors: [94] More edit-warring to protect Obama's image: [95]

Here, LotLE begins to develop another facet of his signature style: pedantic nitpicking that calls for ironclad sourcing for every negative word about any person associated with Obama, demanding that such sourcing must be repeatedly cited every time such a word is used. In this example he admits that the cited source uses the word "militancy," but objects to the word "violent" because it wasn't sourced in this particular instance: [96][97][98] Such a position, when LotLE has already seen more than adequate sourcing cited in previous discussions, and when his position is advocated by accusations such as "hatred of the bio subject" and mentioning "rules they find inconvenient"[99][100][101] on the article's Talk page, only serves to increase tensions, further destroy collegiality, and wear down his opponents in his endless content disputes.

Further pressing of his pedantic WP:BLP argument: [[102][103][104] However, at this point LotLE still believed that some mention of Ayers in the Obama biography was appropriate: [105] More low-level edit-warring: [106] Notice the provocative edit summary here, "insanely long": [107] Characterizing single paragraphs about Wright and Ayers as "huge, extraneous digressions": [108] and accusing editors who disagree with him of "fantasizing," [109] making "bloody endless soapbox speeches" [110] and being "so far beyond absurd": [111] Characterizing any significant treatment of Ayers, anywhere on Wikipedia, as a "100+ word monstrosity": [112] Developing another facet of his signature style by claiming, whenever examples are shown from other Wikipedia articles, that all those other articles are bad, but this one is good: [113][114][115] More examples of low-level edit-warring: [116][117][118][119][120]

Advocacy on the Talk page for using existing sub-articles and creating more sub-articles, where any negative material can be hidden from view: [121][122][123][124] and more advocacy for removing or reducing material about Wright and Ayers: [125][126] More edit-warring, [127][128] please note incendiary edit summaries such as "especially silly," [129] and "anti-Obama edit flurry." [130] Starting a new section on the article Talk page entitled "3RR and sockpupputs" (ibid.) to present his accusations (which turned out to be false), rather than in the appropriate venues WP:AN3 and WP:SSP: [131][132][133] More low-level edit-warring, [134][135] in this case to remove another mention of Jeremiah Wright even though the context was appropriate: [136] Starting another new section on Talk to accuse K4T of a WP:OR violation: [137]

Here, LotLE briefly kicks his edit-warring into high gear, violating WP:3RR: [138][139][140][141] More Talk page advocacy of the elimination of negative material: [142] Opposing merges of the related articles, Jeremiah Wright controversy and Obama–Ayers controversy‎, because they provide convenient places to hide negative material about Obama: [143][144] Gloating over K4T's block, enlisting other editors to help him get K4T blocked again, and accusing Justmeherenow of "ranting falsely": [145] Defining consensus in favor more criticism as "mob rule" and throwing in more false accusations about sockpuppetry and canvassing: [146][147] More low-level edit-warring, notice edit summary false accusation about "another sockpuppet of blocked user": [148][149][150]

Creating false WP:SSP report claiming Fovean Author was a sockpuppet of K4T: [151][152][153][154] More gloating on the article Talk page [155] and repeating his false accusations on Realist's Talk page: [156] Falsely reporting (and gloating about) a block of K4T as resulting from a Checkuser: [157][158] Here, his false claim is revealed as false because K4T was blocked for a 3RR violation: [159] Adding WorkerBee74 and IP editors as more suspected socks, for no other reason than that they also opposed LotLE in the content dispute: [160][161][162] Falsely reporting that WB74 is a "new account added June 1" (it's clear from WB74's User Talk page edit history that the account has existed since January): [163] Continuing his false SSP accusations on the article Talk page: [164]

More low-level edit-warring: [165][166] Defining gratuitous XML comments as inappropriate while apparently believing his own gratuitous edit summary comments are not: [167] Deleting another editor's vote in consensus, in an effort to win consensus: [168] Discriminating against IP editors: [169][170][171][172][173][174] Canvassing for support from Wikidemo: [175] Accusing Noroton of lying in his continued pedantry about WP:BLP: [176][177][178] Accusing those who disagree with him of being "radical anti-Obama partisans": [179]

Here's a prime example of LotLE's disruptive presence on the article Talk page:

These endlessly repeated pseudo-arguments passes asinine a long time ago. No matter how many thousands of words a few sock-puppets write about how very much they hate Ayers, it has never been remotely relevant to this article... which is, try to remember, about Barack Obama. Yes there are a bunch of article about Ayers and things he in turn has some connection with. None of that even comes within a stone's throw of relevance here. ... they are welcome to all get their own MySpace pages, which would be relevant places for these rants. None of this has ever been anything other than dissimulation by rabidly anti-Obama partisans who want to pollute a WP article with irrelevant crap.[180]

Accusing those who disagree with him of using the "Chewbacca defense" from South Park: "I was thinking about whether the bad arguments of the Obama loathers here fit better in Argumentum ad misericordiam or Argumentum ad nauseam ..."[181] "It would be a lot easier not to presume bad faith if a few radical anti-Obama partisans wouldn't so obviously display it (even using multiple sock-puppets to do so in one case...)" [182] More low-level edit-warring, the second with an edit summary containing "WTF?" [183][184][185] Trying to cast doubt on reliable sources by saying, "I'm sure that some major news sources are either lying or doing really bad fact checking." [186]

On June 7, LotLE became convinced (more by his own recalcitrance than anything anyone else had said) that no mention of Ayers would be appropriate, again describing anyone who disagreed with him as "anti-Obama partisans": [187] Contemplating more sock reports against K4T: [188] Getting completely ridiculous on the article Talk page: [189] Trying to distance Obama from the controversial priest Michael Pfleger by removing Pfleger's name from the biography: [190][191][192][193][194][195][196] (note edit summary) More discussion of SSP reports on the article Talk page: [197] "A transparently stupid attempt to get even": [198] More low-level edit-warring: [199] An attempt to get WB74 blocked for the same tag-team edit-warring that LotLE and Scjessey are engaged in: [200][201][202] "Puerile game by an actual sockpuppet": [203] "My edits have all been constructive, but it's true I have a low tolerance for BS": [204]

Jesus! A sockpuppet with more blocks in two weeks of having an account than I have in 5 years is accusing me of more BS. You're right, Noroton, I can't be "diplomatic" about that level of bad faith (not that I think your snide insult above is all that constructive either ...) ...I'm confident that the admins who are watching this will keep a close enough eye on the puppet brigades for the next weeks ... as long as K4T/WB74/Andyvphil are off the destruction for a while (with blocks or bans or whatever), I'm sure the article will remain sane.[205]

Regarding a topic ban for WB74, "This is just a SPA and puppet of K4T. 2 months isn't anywhere close to sufficient as a topic ban. But at least it would be a start." [206] Regarding a topic ban for K4T, "Actually, not nearly long enough time, but at least it would be a start. Having a sockpuppet vote 'oppose' just continues the bad faith." [207] Regarding a topic ban for Fovean Author, "Longer would be better, but good start." [208] "All the additions seem to amount to 'throw shuff at the wall and hope something sticks'." [209] Further pursuit of his false SSP accusation against K4T: [210][211][212][213][214]

Acknowledges negative results of one Checkuser against K4T, but keeps pushing for another one: [215] Continues to push sockpuppet accusations at Talk:Barack Obama since the prescribed venues weren't providing sufficient disruption and humiliation to satisfy him: [216][217] "Labored cherry-picking of negative spin": [218] "hoards (ibid.) of socks that keep appearing at the Obama article": [219] "WB74's version is still really thick with obnoxious spin, totally unacceptable!" [220] Fluffing and buffing Obama's anti-war credentials: [221]

Next came the series of extremely inflammatory comments that K4T was blocked for three days for warning LotLE about:

Two or three editors who want to get more anti-Obama language into the article for no purpose other than being explicitly anti-Obama. ... Workerbee74—who has happily been blocked for a few days (not long enough, but it's a start)—simply wants the article to be as negative, even slanderous, as possible, apparently out of a political antipathy to its subject. ... our only choice is to simply disregard and ignore any comments by him/her. Noroton seems primarily concerned with an avenue for his/her long political essays (probably 30k words on the topic by now, far in excess of every other editor; probably all others combined). ...... It's all moot though, however, since there are 2-1/2 editors who will never be satisfied that wording is long enough or condemnatory enough. Dont' feed the trolls. [222]

"Commentary alleging contradiction in positions in unencyclopedic," apparently because it might put Obama in a negative light: [223][224] Removing part of K4T's warning, calling it "absurdly confrontational": [225] Advocating a longer term topic ban for K4T: [226] Now that he has achieved his short-term goal, he issues a hollow apology for any disruption he might have caused with his constant baiting, and awaits his next opportunity: [227] Anticipating arrival of a new editor who disagrees with him, and issues an anticipatory sockpuppet accusation: [228] Recognizing and removing "hostile baiting" by another editor after months of failing to recognize and remove his own hostile baiting: [229] Removing a National Journal ranking of Obama as "most liberal senator": [230]

Please stop the attack language and belligerence, Noroton! Every single argument you have made have been addressed dozens, if not hundred, of times. At a certain point, it is true, other editors cannot be bothered to repeat the exact same obvious point in response to a hundredth repetition of the exact same argument by you. You don't "win" by writing more words than anyone else can possibly manage, especially when the last time anything even slightly new occurred in those words was weeks ago. There are only three categories of editors who have discussed this: (1) You; (2) Editors who want much, much more discussion of Rezko in this article, but who have been banned for edit warring, sock-puppetry, incivility, and so on; (3) Everyone else, all of whom want less material on Rezko, but who have mostly conceded to having as much as is there now. The train has left the station.[231]

Attempting to distance Obama from ACORN because it might cast Obama in a negative light: [232][233] Whitewashing the ACORN article despite reliable sourcing: [234][235][236][237][238][239][240][241][242][243][244] More mockery and accusations at Talk:Barack Obama and elsewhere, this time directed at Bdell555: [245][246][247][248][249][250][251][252] "The majority of Noroton's very long descriptions are simply examples of guilt-by-association, most of them reaching quite far to find the alleged association." [253] Defiance about his "Guilt by association" section header: [254] After successfully getting opponents blocked or making them so disgusted that they voluntarily withdrew, LotLE triumphantly reduced the Rezko material to one sentence: [255] Removing a reliable source because it casts Obama in a negative light: [256]

This edit looks like extremely bad faith to me. After a month of discussion in which virtually every editor strongly opposed such long and POV description, Justmeherenow inserts a brand new, long, contentious, and poorly written paragraph. Maximally oppose allowing this material.[257]

Attempting to get WB74 blocked for sockpuppetry or topic banned, for actions which don't rise to the level of LotLE's own disruptive misconduct:

While it is true the WorkerBee74 has primarily edited the Obama talk page rather than the main article, the manner in which he does so is aimed solely at creating conflict and disruption. Nearly every edit he makes violates WP:CIVIL, and he games the system by, for example, proposing a "poll" on edit decisions, then voting with multiple socks. Those edits he does make to article space are essentially uniformly contentious additions of material rejected by other editors; these are sometimes accompanied by talk page comments that he has decided his arguments won on the talk page (not sure if putting something on the talk page for a contentions and WP:BLP-violating edit makes it better or worse). We have been through so many rounds of dealing with the disruption, then having it resume as soon as the latest block is over. I simply don't see that it is possible for discussion on the Obama talk page to function in a cooperative fashion while WorkerBee74 is permitted to edit there, a topic ban is long overdue.[258]

To Admins: Please note that in this very ANI report, the same IP range that was previously identified as a sockpuppet of WorkerBee74 is used to defend WB (while claiming to be third party comment). Moreover, just above, Die4Dixie seems to be claiming that this ANI is against him/her, which suggests to me that this is another example when WB forgot which login s/he was posting under.[259]

Scolding Floridianed for caustic comments in edit summaries — a practice LotLE himself engages in on a regular basis: [260][261] "Let us just start ignoring the provocations and sophistry of the SPA who wants to stick in disparaging/libelous violations of WP:BLP.": [262]

Another effort to remove any mention of Michael Pfleger — please note the edit summary referring to my "interesting edit focus" on gay rights articles, possibly gay bashing: [263] Accusing me on my User Talk page of "largely restoring material added by WorkerBee74, who has been repeatedly banned for edit-warring, and has used frequent sock-puppet accounts over her/his edit career": [264] (Floridianed was kind enough that I had restored WB74's reverted edits exactly once.) Note inflammatory edit summary here which I refuse to repeat: [265] Repeating unproven sockpuppet accusations at ArbCom: [266] Curious bystander (talk) 18:11, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My conclusion and an invitation for your comments

At last, we reach LotLE's completely unsupportable, recently concluded WP:BLP complaint here at WP:ANI: [267][268][269][270][271][272] Continuing to push for action on his WP:BLP complaint on July 31: [273]

All of my comments had a foundation that was cast in reinforced concrete. I cited, quoted and linked the relevant section of the United States Code and the relevant United States Supreme Court controlling precedent. Noroton's sources were also ironclad, and since he had previously engaged in all of the Ayers discussions, LotLE had already seen them; so when he claimed that Noroton's statements had no sourcing, he was lying. This was a dishonest, deliberately misleading attempt to win a content dispute with the BLP hammer. Since K4T was topic banned for filing an ANI report and an AN3 report that resulted in no admin action, and for months of disruptive conduct, it set the precedent. LotLE should also be topic banned for committing essentially the same offenses.

I am particularly troubled by what may be a display of homophobia in LotLE's edit summary about my "interesting edit focus." Wikipedia cannot tolerate bigotry. Someone in a position like mine has developed a sharp eye for low-level baiting and tormenting, and LotLE's entire history of misconduct is a prime example. We have also seen that LotLE is a vigorous advocate of lengthy blocks and topic bans for disruptive accounts, but only if the disruptive account disagrees with him in a content dispute. "Live by the sword, die by the sword," they say. Finally, when the topic ban came for K4T, he protested that his last few days of edits had been completely innocuous and without incident. That only seemed to enrage the community against him even more.

It has taken four days of my spare time to assemble all these diffs, compare them with K4T's and reach the conclusion that LotLE has been at least as disruptive as K4T. Please do not dismiss this as "stale"; it takes that long just to compile the entire case against him. Other editors and admins are encouraged to invest the same amount of time if they doubt me, and topic ban LotLE from all articles related to Barack Obama or the 2008 presidential campaign for the next six months. I now await the inevitable volley of retaliatory false accusations, claiming that I am a sockpuppet of K4T, or WB74, or some other editor with whom LotLE has had a content dispute. Curious bystander (talk) 17:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Gee. Can you summarise this in 200 words or less, and include the most pertinent diffs only? Few people are going to read all the above and click through to check every one of the 230(!) diffs you have given. "Please make your comments concise. Administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes." and so on. Neıl ☄ 17:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a newbie here and do not really trust my own judgment in determining which ones are the most pertinent. However, I've tried to put them in blockquotes — so look for those. In the alternative, you could just start at the top and read until you're tired of it, and click on diffs until you're tired of it, and allow that to make up your mind for you. The evidence supporting this topic ban is overwhelming, and it's important to clearly convey that fact. People are unlikely to take the word of a newbie like me for that when dealing with a five-year editor like LotLE, so I have presented all of the evidence. The community is completely unaware of the depth and duration of LotLE's misconduct because K4T, Noroton and WB74 haven't been nearly as diligent as Wikidemo in reporting the misconduct of people who disagree with them. Best regards — Curious bystander (talk) 18:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Summary SPA whose practical entire edit-history has involved lawyering to keep material derogatory to Barack Obama in his article, writes too-long ANI post agitating for topic ban on editor who disagrees with them. Dispute resolution is thataway. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 18:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

"Practical entire edit history" includes roughly 60 percent edits on articles related to gay rights (and the history of oppression against sexually unorthodox people in the United States). Dispute resolution? WB74 offered mediation and it has been refused. Here are perhaps the most incendiary examples of LotLE's disruptive presence on the article Talk page:

These endlessly repeated pseudo-arguments passes asinine a long time ago. No matter how many thousands of words a few sock-puppets write about how very much they hate Ayers, it has never been remotely relevant to this article... which is, try to remember, about Barack Obama. Yes there are a bunch of article about Ayers and things he in turn has some connection with. None of that even comes within a stone's throw of relevance here. ... they are welcome to all get their own MySpace pages, which would be relevant places for these rants. None of this has ever been anything other than dissimulation by rabidly anti-Obama partisans who want to pollute a WP article with irrelevant crap.[274]

Jesus! A sockpuppet with more blocks in two weeks of having an account than I have in 5 years is accusing me of more BS. You're right, Noroton, I can't be "diplomatic" about that level of bad faith (not that I think your snide insult above is all that constructive either ...) ...I'm confident that the admins who are watching this will keep a close enough eye on the puppet brigades for the next weeks ... as long as K4T/WB74/Andyvphil are off the destruction for a while (with blocks or bans or whatever), I'm sure the article will remain sane.[275]

Two or three editors who want to get more anti-Obama language into the article for no purpose other than being explicitly anti-Obama. ... Workerbee74—who has happily been blocked for a few days (not long enough, but it's a start)—simply wants the article to be as negative, even slanderous, as possible, apparently out of a political antipathy to its subject. ... our only choice is to simply disregard and ignore any comments by him/her. Noroton seems primarily concerned with an avenue for his/her long political essays (probably 30k words on the topic by now, far in excess of every other editor; probably all others combined). ...... It's all moot though, however, since there are 2-1/2 editors who will never be satisfied that wording is long enough or condemnatory enough. Dont' feed the trolls. [276]

Then of course, there's his edit-warring. Curious bystander (talk) 18:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

tldr. Sceptre ^(talk) 17:44, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure there's been an agreement that tl;dr is patronising and sarcastic, and is not to be used. Neıl ☄ 17:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

tt;cnr Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Strong support. I couldn't agree more, and kudos to the newbie for doing such a tiresome and thankless job. Topic ban for LotLE for six months. On second thought, make it a year. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely a lot of work to go over the claims here, I stand in awe at the amount of labor involved in compiling the report. But AN/I isn't the place to handle such complex issues. This is like calling the police about your allegedly abusive spouse, and when the police ask, what's going on?, you hand them a fifty-page list of alleged offenses. The police can handle emergencies. And emergencies had better be clear and simple, or they aren't going to get proper attention. The place for such a massive compilation is probably RfC, which would lay a foundation for RfAr, later, if needed. Before RfC, of course, there must be documented attempts to resolve the issue, and some other requirements. What I can see above, though, is that it has the appearance of a laundry list. The editor did this terrible thing and that terrible thing and, besides, he has bad breath and is probably homophobic. The cop at the door would probably shake his head and walk away. "Call me if one of you starts hitting the other." My suggestion to this apparently new editor is that he or she read WP:DR, decide what disputes, if any, need resolution, and then pursue them, through normal DR process, one step at a time. It's not going to happen overnight. It is extraordinarily difficult, for starters, to get an editor blocked who knows the ropes and who doesn't insist upon a blockable offense. It can be done, but.... it better be good! Bring this kind of report here just irritates administrators no end, which isn't a great idea, if you are trying to get them to help you. Instead, focus on the encyclopedia, on content. If an editor is disruptively damaging content, deal with that. It's not easy, but that is precisely what is needed. If an editor is damaging content, with bad faith, it will come out when effective, civil, patient, and intelligent opposition appears and it starts to fall apart, unless the editor is very, very smart and knows when to cut his losses. Turn all that effort into content research and writing and patient, collaborative editing, not into trying to get rid of the "bad guys." That never works, anyway, more simply appear. --Abd (talk) 18:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me attest with great confidence, and with utmost respect to Abd, that if Abd has said that your post is "a massive compilation", it's too long. :-) All jesting aside, every single editor here is a volunteer, volunteering to do voluteer editing. You "volunteered" to whisteblow (for lack of a better term) another editor. All fine and well, and I can only assume that whatever pushed you to this amount of strenousness and, erm, completeness, was justified. All to say, it's too long for volunteers, in this forum. Keeper ǀ 76 18:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Keeper76, are you implying that I'm too wordy? Them's fighting words, pardner! Seriously, as well, yes, I have a lot to say and will often say it, and I know that many don't want to read so much, but .... I would not file an AN/I report that wasn't seriously boiled down, it's disrespectful, in my opinion, not to mention ineffective. Later, in commentary, particularly as an incident is about to be wrapped up, I may write more extensively, where reading what I've written is far more optional. More below --Abd (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Then you should read the summary he provided at the start, or the most offensive examples he provided at the end. From someone who has been dealing for the past two months with LotLE, a disruptive, tendentious editor who has developed a finely tuned ability to stay "a few millimeters under the radar," as Cb puts it, please take my word for it: if K4T deserves a topic ban, then LotLE certainly does. WorkerBee74 (talk) 19:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I little process suggestion: don't tell administrators, volunteers as Keeper76 pointed out, what they should and should not do. You are theoretically correct, but, unfortunately, practically wrong. AN/I isn't the place where the kind of decision you are asking for can be worked out, unless the situation is simple enough -- or the planets properly aligned or misaligned as the case too often is -- so that some decision appears, as it may have with K4T. If there is an emergency that requires immediate block, then what you would need to do is focus on that, but what you are describing seems necessarily to be other than that. AN/I isn't the place to deal with what has been called "civil POV-pushing." It's the place to deal with edit warring, gross incivility, and other blockable offenses. Topic bans can result from such, but usually it comes through normal WP:DR process and it is really an abuse of AN/I to try to reach for that here.--Abd (talk) 20:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently trying to keep communications open with LotLE through both email and talk pages, and I'm going to stay neutral. Curious bystander, you may want to put a line through most of it, starting with the older stuff (you won't get consensus for action without a good number of admins reading it and commenting on it, and these Obama fights are boring a lot of admins). I've made supportive comments of LotLE at Arbcom and at the beginning of the last AN/I thread (on BLP), but I didn't find him unhelpful in resolving it, and I'm just staying out of this one. I'm tired, I'm sick of the fighting, I have material to add to articles, and I don't have the energy to look back. This is not a criticism of Curious bystander's post. I exercise my right not to have an opinion on it.

Curious bystander appears to me to be a serious editor who deserves to be treated with respect. I find it extremely irritating that a 17-year-old editor (Sceptre) and Ed Fitzgerald (in his 50s and also (old enough to know better) can't avoid WP:BITE. Nobody taunted Sceptre and Fitzgerald and Wheelchair Epidemic into making their comments. This is not how Wikipedians unfamiliar with making AN/I complaints should be treated. This is why every Wikipedian should loathe this page. It's like getting mugged in a police station lobby. Noroton (talk) 19:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC) ((-- crossed out a comment; I misunderstood Fitzgerald's "tt;cnr" [too tiny, could not read] comment. -- Noroton (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)))

I don't know this editor, and can only comment on his edit history. Total edits 107, of which only 29 are in articlespace, 23 are to User Talk, a further 17 are to this page, and 35 are to Talk:Barack Obama. Looks fairly straightforward to me. Wheelchair Epidemic (talk) 19:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Lots of reasons to be suspicious of this notice; however, I highly recommend ignoring it at this point. I will try to talk some sense into Curious bystander, assuming good faith and all that, and, if he or she listens, there may be a future report that will be far more to the point, or other process that is less disruptive and less irritating. I understand CB's perspective, I think, but I think that CB, as might be common with similar people, doesn't understand how the process here works. I'll make a brief comment above about that. --Abd (talk) 19:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Can we just topic ban everyone mentioned in War and Peace here from the Obama pages until after the election? Jesus. There's obviously two groups of POV pushers brawling there, and it ain't gonna be fixed by punting one or two people from the pages. Our new friend points out above that the diffs suggest LotLE has been "at least" as disruptive as K4T. That, my friends, is not something that's convincing - it says "everyone's screwing around and everyone should be removed from the situation."

I don't know about anyone else, but it's getting very tiresome to see these same names appearing on ANI over and over and over ad nauseaum over the same bloody topics. Either everyone start to play nice (ha!), the whole sordid mess get dumped in the lap of ArbCom (which we don't need so they might, y'know, finish the never-ending arbitration case one century), or we topic-ban the lot of them and let some editors who aren't carrying grudges the size of elephants get some signal through the noise. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I note and appreciate your frustration; however, each Wikipedian is an individual (other than the sockpuppets) so please consider each as such. There are legitimate differences of opinion regarding the content of the Obama pages, and serious, legitimate editors being perfectly civil to one another. I won't bother for now refuting the allegations in this latest report. No reason to get worked up - just because somebody files an AN/I report does not mean there is any substance to it. Wikidemo (talk) 22:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've given up trying to edit pages LotE follows because it is simply impossible. See here. This is a classic example of how Wikpedia fails as a project. The fact that you, Wikidemo, didn't contribute a word to Project Vote's Talk page despite a RfC directed right at you is an example of how WP:RfC doesn't solve anything. I challenged LotE to take his allegation that my Project Vote edits were "vandalism" to ArbCom, but of course LotE didn't indicate his agreement to that because the charge is so absolutely outrageous. You, of course, have also declined formal dispute resolution, instead telling me to just "give it up". Curious Bystander has evidently decided to not just "give it up" and you are here dismissing CB's attempt to move the project forward as being without "any substance". Which throws it right back into an edit war which seems to suit you fine since users like myself have indeed just "given it up" in the face of the obstinacy of the opposition.Bdell555 (talk) 21:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It is extremely rich to see Curious bystander, with fewer than 100 edits, call LotLE a WP:SPA in the second sentence of the missive above. About the rest of it: too long, didn't read. Jonathunder (talk) 20:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BITE

"Mugged in a police station lobby" is about right. Please review WP:BITE. When he's adding material that even looks like it might have a remote possibility of contentious responses, he provides what I call the gold standard of sourcing. He's polite and cooperative. When he has a problem, rather than trying to resolve it with edit warring or personal attacks, he takes it to ANI; he already knows he shouldn't template the regulars. Way too early to call him an SPA but we could use more editors like him, not fewer. WorkerBee74 (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So ... 230 troublesome diffs, including edit warring, incivility and personal attacks, and nobody wants to take action? WorkerBee74 (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

While I can agree with WB's sentiment, in a way, he's got it wrong. What one takes to AN/I isn't edit warring over content issues, normally, unless a consensus has been established, article protection hasn't worked, etc. Quite simply, AN/I is not part of the dispute resolution process. I had to laugh when I saw an RfC in which the certifying parties claimed that they had attempted to resolve the dispute by warning the editor and taking the matter to AN/I. And those were experienced administrators, supposedly! The warnings were uncivil and so was the AN/I report; those were not attempts to resolve the matter, they were part of the problem, greeting a new editor with a "fringe POV" as an enemy, right from the start, instead of seeing it as an opportunity to negotiate a broader consensus. (Which does not involve laying down and playing dead, letting fringe POV take over.)

As to WorkerBee's question, the answer is apparently Yes. I've seen much more blatant offenses, brought to light here on AN/I, result in ... nothing. And trivial offenses that resulted in indef blocks. It all depends on, apparently, the phase of the moon and whether or not the one complaining either knows how to push the necessary buttons of the necessary administrators, or gets lucky. AN/I is badly broken, in case you haven't noticed, and a lot of people know it, but fixing it isn't so easy, apparently. But there are some things we can do. First of all, don't bring disputes that could possibly be resolved without admin tools, here. And if you need article protection to deal with edit warring, go to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, it's fairly easy. Note that you can't freeze the article in the state you want, but it stops the edit warring, and then those participating in Talk are more more or less forced to find consensus in order to get a change into the article. There is then a template which can be used to attract a neutral administrator to implement the change. And there are lots of tools available for finding consensus, including content RfCs, mediation, and user RfCs, and beyond, to ArbComm. Even before most of these is attempting to involve neutral editors as informal arbiters, or other means of directly negotiating consensus. If you assume that it's a lost cause, that everybody is going to be against you, well, you have lost, your attitude guarantees it.

I've written on CB's Talk page about how he could proceed, if he's willing to learn how to do it. AN/I is only a part of the process if a community consensus has first been established, that an editor then continues to violate, for there is then a basis for a report, and it could be pretty simple: the editor is warned, and, if the behavior continues, blocked. And, yes, adminstrators get blocked when they forget that they are ordinary editors like everyone else. Not often, though. While this is not the "real world," it's more like Wonderland, it certainly is not a utopia. Still, there is this amazing guideline that used to be policy and probably still should be: assume good faith. Try it. Sometimes, it works miracles. --Abd (talk) 22:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I rarely disagree with Abd, but I doubt ordinary procedures will work here, as there are too many articles and disputes going concurrently. We may possibly sift through it all, have some inconclusive RfCs, followed by the AC taking its customary 3 months, -- and then everything will be calmer anyway, because the election will have been decided. AN/I is supposed to be able to deal with preventing further disruption, and i think its clear that the contention about this has become disruptive. I support Tony's request for a topic ban for t he major editors involved on both sides. There will be no shortage of other people to deal with this issue. WP is fast becoming the Encyclopedia of the 2008 presidential campaign in the US. Maybe after all we can do it well, but the material above is not encouraging. DGG (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I disagree, DGG. My comments were only about process here and the dysfunction of the way that CM presented the issue. There is an alternate process, for emergencies: any admin can, for reasonable cause, but on his or her own judgment, simply declare a topic ban for any editor or set of editors (administrator or not), and, if not involved in the articles in question, enforce it. Then there is plenty of process for appealing, etc., but, in the mean time, the article gets a break. So, DGG, if you actually read the evidence above, maybe you should be the one? --Abd (talk) 02:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(after edit conflict) - Forgive me for saying so, but that would seem to be an extraordinarily unfair approach [topic-banning all the major editors]. Essentially, we are talking about a small group of politically-motivated editors (some of whom are single purpose account users) seeking to introduce negatively-biased campaign propaganda into the Obama BLP. Having been thwarted by longtime Wikipedians who seek to keep the article neutral, these individuals have resorted to tendentious editing, edit warring, contentious talk page arguing, sock puppetry, and now extensive wikilawyering and abuse of process. This proposed solution penalizes the editors of good standing - the editors who are most familiar with the material and its sources, who have worked hard to make sure this BLP is free of politically-motivated bias. It would be far better, I would think, to give the article full protection and force proper talk page discourse until after the election, preferably under administrator supervision. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Allow me to essay an interpretation: "major editors involved on both sides" wouldn't mean all major editors of the article, but those who can be identified as on a "side," i.e., what we usually call pushing a POV with reckless disregard for the POV of others and this goal of NPOV. Protection is also a tool that can be used. Administrator supervision can sometimes be problematic, for admins have POVs, too, and getting an admin intimately involved with an article, to the point of daily supervision, is a set-up. Having some kind of article "chair," though, if accepted by the editors involved, could be a good idea. It doesn't have to be an administrator and, indeed, might be better if it isn't. As long as the chair knows how to call in admin assistance when needed. And knows how to welcome and encourage as distinct from dominate and threaten. --Abd (talk) 03:40, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Most edititors would welcome any serious attention to the article. I certainly would. For the past week or two the articles in question have been fine: no significant edit warring or civility breaches, editing as normal. This would be a perfect time to jump in and make sure this lull is permanent. It is the worst time to start banning and blocking editors. Banning everyone in sight who is perceived to have taken a position in an already-settled content matter is sure to trigger a protracted Arbcom case, and would create a terrible precedent. We have a stable article to which several SPAs arrived a few months ago to add derogatory content and who, lacking consensus, resorted to tactics legitimate and otherwise that filled up the pages of AN/I. Experienced editors took varying positions on the content and, Wikipedia being what it is, a whole spectrum of less experienced or more tendentious but nevertheless well-meaning editors took positions all over the map. Banning legitimate good-faith editors because they've been antagonized by incivility, name-calling, sockpuppetry, accusations of bad faith, misrepresentations of the record, gameplaying, and more recently, targeted attempts at topic-banning, by a determined few, would only legitimize the trouble-making. Worse, it lays out a roadmap of what a POV pusher has to do to clear the decks of regular editors. Real Wikipedians would honor a topic ban; those with a single purpose here who have sockpuppeted before would sockpuppet again. The "reckless disregard" standard basically says we're looking at behavior, not content - you can't slice this any other way. There's a reason administrative remedies are based on behavior, not content, and are only to stop future disruption. Wikidemo (talk) 18:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

WB74's counterproposal

I like this idea. Issue six-month topic bans for the editors whose conduct has been perceived as most problematic: K4T, LotLE, Scjessey (against whom a similar 230-diff case could be constructed just as easily, starting with Noroton's compilation), Wikidemo (for reporting the other "side" on an almost daily basis while ignoring or excusing the many offenses of his own "side") and me. Anticipating and refuting two arguments: For those who feel this is unfair to one "side," or to Wikidemo individually, I'll point out that from the other "side," K4T has already been topic banned for six months, Andyvphil received a six-month block, and Fovean Author received a one-month block and closed his account, all due to this selective ANI reporting by Wikidemo and a series of false SSP complaints that were motivated by nothing more than the fact that we were disagreeing with them. If he'd reported LotLE and SCJ with the same frequency and persistence, Cb's report yesterday would have produced a topic ban for LotLE. The Wikipedia community would have been just as aware of LotLE's many offenses, and just as sick and tired of seeing his name. The fact that K4T's topic ban won such universal acclaim, while 230 diffs produced a collective yawn for LotLE, has demonstrated Wikidemo's WP:GAMEing of the system. If this goes before ArbCom, they've been known to issue one-year and indefinite blocks; and if I'm not mistaken, Cb will be able to construct a case supported by up to 1,000 diffs. (A lawyer would do that. Remind me not to piss him off.) This proposal serves Scjessey's concern, because other editors whose conduct has not been problematic (Noroton, Clubjuggle, Tvoz, Justmeherenow and Loonymonkey, to name a few) and who are familiar with the material and its sources would be left in place. WorkerBee74 (talk) 11:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• (Note: I'm not a "main" contributor -- or at least to the main Barack Obama main article -- however I'm flattered to be mentioned here seemingly in the same breath as such fine contributors as Noroton and some of the rest.) It appears obvious -- at least in my view -- that majority-position complainants at these other an/i's have ganged up on the above-mentioned contributors holding a minority position in order to silence their views. And I popped in on occasion in these other an/i's to defend each one of them and and am doing the same now in LotLE's defense. Folks, LotLE isn't alone by any means in holding the majority position's "negative" philosophy -- eg of making all newly proposed additions pass the weight test rather than "positively" accepting them on a probationary basis, working to expand the article elsewise so Weight wouldn't be an issue. And while it's true that such a "negative" contribution philosophy tends to freeze articles' expansion (.....Note that the 2008 Obama general presidential campaign article has nothing in it about B's trip to Europe etc etc etc etc yet about five dozen contributions were rejected in the main article about the trip, instead of letting them stay despite Weight concerns and then leaving a summary sentence and moving the treatment to the sub article.....), I see no reason to single LotLE out from the rest of their camp, since he's no more stident in chasing away new comer's contributions than the rest. Just my $.02.  $\sim$ Justmeherenow (  ) 12:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

That's why I'm suggesting a six-month topic ban for ALL editors perceived as problematic, and volunteering to "take one for the team" in order to get it done. Remember when MastCell proposed an indefinite block for me, and got it shoved back in his face by the community, on this page? I could easily take refuge in that community decision. But I believe this proposal is best for the Wikipedia project. Let's do it. The alternative is to do nothing, and wait for the next round of "disagree/ provoke/ report." WorkerBee74 (talk) 13:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Part of the problem here is the perceived notion that there are "sides" split along Republican/Democratic party lines. This is not really the case (although there is bound to be some element of this). The content disputes prevalent at the Obama BLP are almost all about the introduction of negatively-biased material, or the adjustment of existing text to produce a negatively-biased spin. To put it another way, this is specifically a case of Republican/Right/anti-Obama editors doing everything they possibly can to "color" the article to reflect their political biases. They justify their edits by claiming that WP:WELLKNOWN is an "ace card" that trumps WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT and other policies. The other "side" are neutral editors trying their best to make sure the article doesn't break these policies; however, they have been labeled as "Obama supporters" with their own agenda. My user name is being mentioned repeatedly as one of the "opposing side", but as I'm a foreign national with no vote in this upcoming election it seems an unreasonable claim. I'm just a neutral Wikipedian who hates to see the encyclopedia being used as a political football. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:21, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice spin. Here's the counterspin. The content disputes prevalent at Barack Obama are almost all about the introduction of material that would restore NPOV in the current hagiography. To put it another way, this is specifically a case of Democratic/Left/pro-Obama editors doing everything they can to preserve the current "color" of the article to reflect their political biases. The other "side" are neutral editors trying their best to make sure the article doesn't continue to violate WP:NPOV. However, they have been labeled as "Obama haters" with their own agenda. You're a foreign national with no vote in the upcoming election, but you live in the United States; and your persistent and recently repeated allegations of crimes by the Bush Administration lead to a reasonable inference that you see Obama as the perfect antidote to these crimes. Cb could just as easily compile a 230-diff case against you, starting with Noroton's compilation of your dishonest use of the WP:BLP stick at George Stephanopoulos. You had already seen abundant reliable sourcing, but claimed it did not exist.

A pox on both our houses. This is in the best interests of the Wikipedia project. Otherwise, we do nothing and await the next round of "disagree/ provoke/ report." WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

How clever of you. The only problem with your "version" is that I am an longtime contributor to Wikipedia, with thousands of edits across hundreds of articles over a variety of topics. You are an SPA user with a couple of hundred edits in only Obama-related articles and various administrator-related noticeboards. Whose "spin" is likely to be taken more seriously? Also, please stop accusing me of lying and observe at least some civility. Now I've gone and made a mess in here because you been goading me again. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

SCJ, do you need a link to Noroton's ANI case against you? He's also a longtime contributor to Wikipedia with thousands of edits across hundreds of articles. Did you really think you were going to convince anyone that you are without sin when you cast that first stone? Both "sides" have had their faults in all of this. It's in the best interests of the Wikipedia project if the most antagonistic of the antagonists take a six-month break, including you and I. WorkerBee74 (talk) 14:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I take it you are referring to this ludicrous report? No action was taken and nobody found me at fault for anything. It was just another example of how non-neutral editors are now employing wikilawyering to try to further their goals. It is in the best interests of the Wikipedia project if agenda-driven account holders are banned, rather than taking punitive measure against honest Wikipedians. It is also in the best interests of Wikipedia if the already overburdened administrators don't have to deal with this kind of crap. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No action was taken at that time, more due to the fact that the ANI system is broken and your "side" has been WP:GAMEing it. Noroton, an experienced editor with thousands of edits across hundreds of articles, found it appropriate to file that "ludicrous" report. I see a way out of this mess, in the best interests of Wikipedia. Step away from your agenda for a moment and you'll be able to see it too. WorkerBee74 (talk) 15:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I think it is pretty clear who has the agenda here. I shall be making no further responses to your goading, or indeed to this pointless thread. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I will not speak for any other editors and do not wish to participate in detail on but my behavior is not at issue here, and has never been at issue. This is getting really obnoxious. Please close down this mean-spirited attempt by the problem editors to impugn the legitimate Wikipedians. Enough is enough. Wikidemo (talk) 17:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Now that's hilarious. Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, this is Pot. WorkerBee74 (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation aka is Barack Obama on probation?

The probation above links to [277] where according to the above page, the community agreed to place the article on probation. Looking at the discussion, there was some support and notexplicit opposition to the proposal (although at least two editors expressed concerns). But the discussion appears to have died fairly quickly. While I personally support the idea of probation, I (and apparently so do other editors Talk:Barack Obama#Warning: This article is on "probation") am not sure whether the limited discussion can really be considered community consensus on the matter. I'm raising this now because I think we need to be clear on whether the article is on probation before any sanctions start which could lead to a right royal mess, and to ensure admins have confidence in enforcing the probation. Nil Einne (talk) 19:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Support/endorse probation Given that we are referring to an article on one of the two likely US Presidential candidates for the next 4 years, an article that is surely going to be a hotbed of controversy for the next 3 months and the problems that are already occuring I think it's a necessary step. Nil Einne (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - the article is covered by the special BLP enforcement measures.--PhilKnight (talk) 20:15, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • which doesn't cover all that Talk:Barack Obama/Article probation covers. Noroton (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
  • (EC) Good point although there are some issues which aren't be covered under the enforcement measures but will be under article probation. (Examples I can think of offhand is personal attacks between editors. Or if an editor insists on starting offtopic discussions such US vs. World or race relations in the US or whatever that don't really raise BLP issues but is disruptive.) (Another example I just thought of, if editors start edit warring over specific wording or other issues that don't raise BLP concerns.) Nil Einne (talk) 20:27, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Hi Nil Einne, thanks for clarifying. PhilKnight (talk) 20:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm probably should have left the 'probably' in there since I have no direct experience with enforcement of either :-P Although from my reading of the probation policy and from my existing detailed understanding of BLP, I'm pretty sure I'm right Nil Einne (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support probation as discussed previously. There should be some kind of notice about this at the top of Talk:Barack Obama, as discussed at Talk:Barack Obama#Warning: This article is on "probation". Noroton (talk) 20:23, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment - Most editors on the article appear to support probation. We would like a clear ruling on whether the article is, in fact, under probation (as suggested by Wikipedia:Article probation, and if so, an appropriate template such as {{Article probation}} placed on the page so all editors, including new ones, are properly on notice. Thanks, --Clubjuggle ^T/C 20:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Comment. The Talmudic nuances of "special BLP" versus "article probation" are probably way beyond my understanding. However, I definitely agree that if a few more administrators (maybe slightly irritable ones even :-)) were to keep a the article on their watchlists, everything would be happier. An occasional nudge, warning editors to be on best behavior, couldn't hurt discipline and order. LotLE×talk 21:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support patient administrative attention in any form. Well-conceived article probation is welcome, but needs the efforts of experienced, willing administrators. We can't force anyone to help - perhaps bribe with barnstars? I have a few nits with the exact form as proposed - given the history it should be clearer that derogatory comments about other editors, their motivations, abilities, sincerity, behavior, etc., should be kept out of the edit summaries and talk pages, and that good faith concerns should instead be taken to appropriate administrative pages. I also suggest setting up a special page for handling such things so they don't immediately escalate to AN/I, and formalizing that we're on 1RR and expectations of best behavior and not just bare minimum of civility - but that editors new to the article will be counseled and cautioned first rather than bitten. This isn't a perfect test case for applying the new ArbCom ruling on BLP - first, that ruling is controversial, untested, and of uncertain precedent. Second, it is narrower than the problems we have here, which go beyond BLP concerns (we have wikigaming, incivility, socking, meatpuppeting, edit warring, and general tendentiousness, and some like me argue have little to do with BLP because of WP:WELLKNOWN. Wikidemo (talk) 23:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
• Support / endorse probation per Nil Einne. PhilKnight (talk) 19:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni di Stefano and the GFDL

Apologies if this has been addressed before somewhere, but there appears to be a pretty flagrant GFDL violation in the above page's history, in that this revision (the first in the article's history) incorporates (actually, is pretty much entirely composed of) uncredited deleted revisions. User:Privatemusings has claimed elsewhere that material that caused the revisions to be deleted is now back in the article or its talk page anyway (though I haven't checked these claims), so restoring the deleted history may be the best solution here, or it may not, but something needs to be done. I know this is a sensitive article, so I'm bringing it here for discussion. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 14:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Privatemusings needs to stay well away from that article, as does anyone else who is not in contact with the arbitration committee, Jimbo and Mike Godwin. You really really do not want that guy on your case, and the Foundation doesn't want him on theirs either. Given that PM was banned for six months and subject to a BLP restriction as a direct result of editing that article, it's not clear to me why he feels he has to try and "help". Leave well alone, take it off the watchlist, forget it exists, leave it to someone else and trust that Mike Godwin has sufficient knowledge of intellectual property law to sort out any GFDL issues that may arise. Guy (Help!) 15:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Confirmed that this delete version is identical to this old version. Word for word, in fact. Other than that, I'm staying out of this. Cheers, everyone. lifebaka++ 15:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I concur here with Guy, and reiterate his advice: leave that article be. Incidentally, would Privatemusings editing that article not contravene the terms of his BLP restriction? Anthøny 16:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but virtually his first edit after his ban was to a WP:BLP and that was ignored. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if the first one was ignored, a subsequent one is still a restriction violation. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if Mike Godwin's working with the article, I'll leave it alone (I'm still not clear on how that's not a GFDL violation, and would appreciate an explanation of that for my own edification, but I'm more than happy to substitute the Foundation lawyer's judgment for my own). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• The solution to the GFDL problem may be a page like this one that gives the history tab data associated with the deleted revisions, along with a page footnote saying "uses content licensed under the GFDL from deleted revisions ... A list of prior authors can be found at ...". If the deleted summaries are themselves problematic, then selected redaction of said history tab data could be merited, or even a courtesy blanking if especially problematic. GRBerry 21:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking

Resolved

 – Duncan has been asked, and had in fact already stopped the rwemarks at AN

User:DuncanHill has a grudge against me following a previous (and unbelievably trivial) disagreement. As you'll see from my talk page, he is now apparently Wikistalking me, and on WP:AN he is baiting me. Perhaps someone could ask him nicely to stop, please. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Clarify: Wikipedia:AN#user:Ceiling Cat is where the trivial disagreement took place I believe. DuncanHill has been informed. D.M.N. (talk) 16:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure an ANI thread is the best way to de-escalate, but FWIW I'll leave a note. --barneca (talk) 16:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Actually, I suspect Guy is referring to an incident caused by his inability to read threads and deletion logs properly, which led to him wrongly denigrating my contributions. He may also be unhappy that I contributed to the RfC on his behaviour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DuncanHill (talk • contribs)

While you were writing this I was already on his talk page asking him to be civil at AN. I don't really see the point of starting a thread here. AN is full of admins who all can see the baiting for themselves. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left said user a note about signing his posts. Chafford (talk) 17:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

He's been around a while, I'm pretty sure he knows... --barneca (talk) 17:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Chafford was trying to be helpful, and I have no objection to being reminded to sign. DuncanHill (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Theresa, the point was exactly to get someone else to intervene. Thanks to those who did, that was all I wanted. Guy (Help!) 18:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Banned user has returned as IP address and restored previously removed vandalism

Resolved

 – reverted, IP blocked. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ralph_Nader&diff=230036105&oldid=229915985 BillyTFried (talk) 18:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Adminster effecting controversial pagemoves w.o. discussion

User:Adminster, whose name misleadingly suggests he may be an admin though he is not, is edit warring to move books of the Ethiopian canon around wildly to different titles, refusing to discuss, even though this is disputed. This needs urgent attention. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 18:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Does this person have an exemption on the username policy or something? –xeno (talk) 19:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
  • There was a Requests for comment/User names discussion in February, but it was apparently closed with no real decision being agreed on. --Onorem♠Dil 19:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
    • Thanks. New RFCN here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_names#Adminster. –xeno (talk) 19:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Actually Til Eulenspiegel (talk) is upset because he has already exceeded four reverts on an article that was given some well-needed basic proofreading. Nothing was in any dispute; he simply reverts. Adminster (talk) 19:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

If someone objects to a move (a revert or reverse of a pagement does indeed represent a dispute), you should not edit war over it, instead moving to a discussion on the talk page. –xeno (talk) 19:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Move protected the current title for a week. Discuss it on the talk page. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

possible hacking incident

Resolved

 – Template vandalism reverted, user blocked and template semi-protected

I was in the middle of replying to a user when I came across what appeared to be a hacking incident.

File:Wiki hacking.jpg

image of the hacking attempt?

.

I'm not sure if this is the correct location for this or not, if not please move it there.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 19:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It is vandalism on of the many templates included[278]. Chillum 19:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. Sorry to have taken up your time, I've just never seen vandalism do that before.--Honeymane_{Heghlu meH QaQ jajvam} 19:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(after ec) Yup vandalism now reverted. The vandalism was on Template:User WikiProject NFL which probably was transfered onto every userpage featuring the template. And now user blocked indef as a sock of you know who. AngelOfSadness talk 19:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Fixed. Still not sure which template it was... Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 19:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Typical childish vandalism by indef-blocked User:Grawp or one of his sycophants. Thanks for reporting it. —Travis^talk 19:53, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

FYI, it was to Template:User WikiProject NFL‎. Calvin 1998 ^(t-c) 19:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I indef semi protected it to avoid these things in the future. Vandal wasn't autoconfirmed. Cheers. lifebaka++ 19:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Legal Threat

Would like an admin to investigate possible violations of WP:LEGAL on Violators. It seems that whoever made the threats is quite probably a newcomer but the threat was made. Also, on a minor note the article was previously up for deletion and the tag was simply removed one day (evidently no one had sufficient time to delete it). It still meets the criteria for deletion under db-band and WP:NOTABILITY. I have not attempted to contact any of the editors, indeed it is difficult for me to discover who wrote the legal threats, as combing through the history can be mind-numbing(to me anyway). Please stop by and take a look, as I don't think it prudent for me to edit a page that has legal threats. I couldn't even afford to drive to the courthouse if I got sued, much less afford a lawyer. Thanks! radiooperator (talk) 20:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not directed at anyone in particular; just a rant against music pirates in general. I'll leave them a note to stop using us as a soapbox, but it's not really a blockable violation. The page, however, is getting deleted. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I suspected exactly that, but I am of the mind that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Don%27t_overlook_legal_threats also implies not to ignore them, so I felt compelled to bring it up. Normally I don't involve myself with anything more than copy-editing. Thanks so much for your prompt attention to the issue.radiooperator (talk) 20:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, and yes, you were correct in bringing it to our attention. Fortunately, this was perhaps the one exception to the "block all legal threats" rule. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Returning IP vandal

The University of Illinois Walrus.jpg vandal is back again: 128.174.44.49 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Corvus cornix_talk 20:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on them. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

NawlinWiki and incivility

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here folks, move along.

I believe NawlinWiki has given an incoherent reason for blocking 86.29.131.167. In the block log it says "Abusing multiple accounts", whereas on the IP’s talk page it says "Disruptive edits". Either way, I feel this block is unnecessary as no warning was given to the IP that what he/she was doing, was wrong. After the IP requested unblock, NawlinWiki swiftly declined with the reason “You're a racist vandal bragging about your racism. Go away.” and then protected the talk page. After looking through the IP’s two contributions, none of which indicate he/she is a racist and NawlinWiki has clearly violated WP:SPADE with the ludicrous accusation. Tainted Cinnamon (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The edits from that IP don't look like someone who just happened to walk in off the street. Incidentally, though, have you actually attempted to talk to NawlinWiki about this? I would think that would be the first step...? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Of course not - Tainted Cinnamon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is a WP:SPA created to harass Nawlin. Toddst1 (talk) 20:56, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Just noticed that myself, Todd - care to do the honors, or shall I? Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC) (Never mind, Nawlin got it already)

Yep, this was a sockpuppet of User:Tainted Salter, blocked earlier today for (gee, what a surprise) template vandalism. Cinnamon's blocked too. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

It is a perfectly fine block. That user is speaking about a prolific vandal as though he is in collusion with him. See "And for the record, Hagger is sorry for vandalising John McCain. His intentions were to actually vandalise the article on Barrack Obama". These are the words of either the person doing the vandalism(which has been going on for weeks spanning dozens of pages and accounts/ips) or someone directly involved with this person. Chillum 20:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I was about to block User:Tainted Cinnamon for clearly being an SPA account avoiding a block and likely the same person as the original vandal. But another admin beat me to it for the same reasons. Chillum 21:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Also blocked sockpuppets User:Tainted Coriander and User:Tainted Ginger. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

This is Bsrboy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), rangeblock applied. Thatcher 21:11, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Nitramrekcap disrupting Rosalind Franklin

This user is well know to me, for some reason today he has decided to make many small changes to the Rosalind Franklin article under both his user name User:Nitramrekcap and as an IP User:91.110.209.65. I've asked him to stop this disruptive behavour but he refuses. Initially this] set of edits was reverted by me because they are not suitable for the lead. But then pointless little edits that I can only characterise as complex vandalism [279] [280] [281] [282] [283] [284] [285] [286] [287] [288] I've done my best to reason with him, but he makes comments about where I'm editing from, as if that is relevant. He's been disruptive before, especially at the Rosalind Franklin page. I warned him on his user page but it didn't make any difference. I can't revert his disruptive editing any more as I've reached by 3rr limit, but here must be something someone here can do. Thanks for any help. Alun (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be a WP:POINT violation based in the idea that if he couldn't expand it, then it's already too big so he'll reduce it. I'll leave him a note about how leads are supported by the article and don't need citations there, as the lead is a summary of the article, nothing in the lead should not be supported in the article, blah blah blah. ThuranX (talk) 21:44, 5 August 2008 (UTC)