Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive453

User:XxJoshuaxX page moves

Would someone care to check out what appears to be disruptive editing from this user in moving pages based on faulty premises? Check the talk page for examples, specifically moving articles on books, films and songs with "Over" in the title to pages with a small "o" in the word "over", contravening the actual titles. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:23, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate to say it, but this editor operates more like a vandal, wikilawyering, quoting MoS to suit purposes, and working entirely against consensus. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 06:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC).

Isn't this the same guy as Big T.V. Fan? If so he just changed his username last week after way overstepping the bounds of [[WP:3RR]. I had to file a CheckUser even. JBsupreme (talk) 06:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Same guy. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

An indefinite block is in order in that case. Chafford (talk) 07:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

So, is someone going to implement it? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, this was a legitimate renaming of an account, not sockpuppetry. Still the page moves he's doing are absurd. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Can some admin be bold and undo the editor's page moves? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 13:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Moved the Cuckoo's Nest novel, play & films back. Do we have consensus for a block here, or would a severe warning be enough? I'm leaning towards block myself, given the consistent disruptive editing and accompanying incivility... EyeSerene^talk 13:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Judging by the MO established, I would first favour a "highly descriptive" warning before resorting to the ACME hammer. FWiW, I think this is a very young person who probably is well-meaning but then again, his actions are highly problematic... Bzuk (talk) 15:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC).

I moved those pages because "over" is a presposition. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

However, when dealing with the title of someone else's work or the name of another entity, it should be rendered according to their intent, including any grammar, spelling, punctuation, or capitalization errors. Or perhaps the article on the hit song should be He Is Not Heavy. He is My Brother. And the article for the toy giant should be Toys Are We! --Jaysweet (talk) 15:56, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh,I get it now. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

But I feel like a total idiot now. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(out)Someone to Watch over Me (film) still needs to be moved back to Someone to Watch Over Me (film), as does the disambiguation page Someone to Watch over Me and all the pages linked on it, all of which have been moved to pages with small "o"s in "over". Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 16:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, thought I'd got them all. Done. Any more I've missed? EyeSerene^talk 16:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the editor's history, there are a number of other moves which may be problematic, if they followed the same procedure of elevating grammar and Wikipedia naming conventions over the actual titles of things, but most of the rest of them involve songs and musical artists I'm not particularly familiar with, so someone else will need to evaluate the moves. In the meantime, I hope the editor takes to heart the lesson here not to override the names of things, and to initiate some discussion before making potentially contentious page moves. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I went through many of them earlier, but didn't have the time to go too far back. If someone else wants to have a look...? EyeSerene^talk 17:37, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(out)I'm concerned that User:XxJoshuaxX is still doing numerous page moves, some of which seem pretty dicey on the face of it. I think it would be a good idea for an admin to take a close look at his edits and give him some advice. It might be a good idea for him to hold back from doing page moves for a while. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

And now another editor has moved the "Someone to Watch Over Me" articles back to "Someone to Watch over Me". This is really ridiculous, can't some admin do something about this? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've moved them back and fixed the redirects. It looks like a simple misunderstanding - no big deal ;) EyeSerene^talk 08:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

analysis and suggestion for administrative action

Actually, after saying above that he got what was problematic with his moves, he made only two moves, and both seem correct, but he gives wrong reasons for them:

• He moved Who's The Boss (album) to Who's the Boss (album) saying that it's because "the" is an article, but he should have said that it was because the original title of the work uses "the" uncapitalized.

Sorry about that one,if I could edit my summary,I would. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• He moved T.O.S. (Terminate on Sight) to T.O.S (Terminate on Sight), removing the dot after "S" saying that there is no dot on the cover, but the cover doesn't have dots, but asterisks. Also, it's obviously an acronym of the title, and acronyms do have a final dot. Amazon uses the dot [1], and so do all sites selling the products (see 4 links at the end of this page[2]). Of the 10 music reviews linked on the infobox, 6 say "T.O.S." with final dot (including 2 print magazines), 2 don't use the acronym (HipHopDX and DefSounds) and 2 use "T.O.S" without final dot (B-inside and G-Blender), however B-inside liks to the amazon page with a final dot. Their official page spells the title without the final dot, so that move was also correct.

Yes the cover uses stars,but stars are prohibited,so we use dots instead in this case. And even if it's acronyms,the actual title surpresses that. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

So, please some admin undo the T.O.S. move and then leave a warning on XxJoshuaxX's talk page to not make more moves, and instead just suggest them on the talk pages so other editors can check them and make them if they agree. provide better rationales for his moves. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My move of T.O.S. was correct,per my above explanation. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Joshua, I replied at Talk:T.O.S_(Terminate_on_Sight)#final_dot_on_title, as this is more a content dispute. --Enric Naval (talk) 03:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Silly "defendeachother" request

Resolved

 – Chiselandpaw indefblocked and Cloakdeath re-warned. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It seems silly that I have to ask for this, rather than do it myself, but based on recent events, I suppose a short silly ANI thread up front is better than a long, stupid ANI thread after the fact.

Could someone block User:Chiselandpaw indef, as the returning indef blocked User:Hammerandclaw? Chiselandpaw's contribs consist of bragging to his friend User:Cloakdeath that he's going to annoy me, followed by doing so. Someone having a word with Cloakdeath about encouraging this behavior (see Chiselandpaw's talk page) would also be appreciated. I'm fuzzy on the relationship, but evidently either thru school or thru some online gaming thing, Cloakdeath has lots of little fans running around in user space (although it seems most aren't active anymore), and the kid behind Hammerandclaw appears to be one of them. If this person had just shut up and edited an article, I wouldn't care he was back, but evidently all he's interested in doing is making my orange bar light up as many times as he can get away with.

Thanks. --barneca (talk) 23:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much! Next time someone complains about you archiving their thread early, I'll block 'em for you. That's how this "defend each other" thing is supposed to work, right? --barneca (talk) 03:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User:AfD hero

Resolved

 – No administrative action required, at least for now

AfD hero (talk · contribs) Something queer is going on. I immediately noticed the username on an AfD I had submitted. Looking through his contribs, he primarily frequents AfDs (and, as far as I know, has !voted Keep on all of them). From his first edit, one can tell that he's been on a Wiki before and has experience with our policies. This leads me to believe he's a sock of some inclusionist. I also noticed that he had been !voting Keep on AfDs in May and June, but disappeared after June 10. His reappearance within hours of my starting an AfD was particularly peculiar. Please note that he vanished once again after casting the keep !vote today. Does anyone else believe this to be suspicious? Any thoughts? Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I came across that username around May (approx) and it was almost that users first time editing. This could very well be a sock account, but unless we have something to pin them to, nothing will happen. I'm looking over the other contribs right now to see if I can notice a pattern. Synergy 23:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

E.g. if certain users are also present at an AfD. Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to think that its just a generic name. This user is obviously an older more established user or ip. Read the opening comments on Epbr's talk about his rfa. Synergy 23:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. This is very Kurty. Although we know Kurt doesn't write like that. He's like "Kurt Reloaded". Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 23:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Need Administrator assistance with problematic set of users

Resolved

 – No admin action required. EyeSerene^talk 13:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I was left this message on my talk page, but I am not an administrator and I'm not sure what action is appropriate. The message is referring to repeated vandalism as detailed at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/63.164.47.2 and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/63.164.47.2 (2nd). I do not know if the message is accurate, but if it is, it seems some action should be taken. Any assistance is appreciated. Powers ^T 00:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The account who left you the message has only made one other edit (and a nonsense one at that). It looks suspiciously like trolling to me - I'd think I'd ignore it to be honest. There's always WP:SSP, but with so few edits it's probably not worth the bother. EyeSerene^talk 08:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I had the same thought, but the nonsense edit is consistent with the claim that the perpetrators were caught in the act and the authority was using the currently logged-in vandal account to contact me. I've added User:Those Kids to the second SSP page, but I felt someone should at least attempt to reply to this person, in case it's true. Powers ^T 11:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I see your point. I'll leave a note on that account's talk page. Thanks for your report ;) EyeSerene^talk 11:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks and confetti. Powers ^T 12:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review - Alansohn

Resolved

 – User has been unblocked. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Now, Alansohn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is subject to a no personal attacks parole by arbcom. He's just been blocked by animum (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) for violating that at Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Rlevse#Oppose. I personally think he was slightly off the mark, but I don't see anything there that could be seen as uncivil - he's stated his points with resorting to attacks. I'd appreciate some neutral admins to review please and hopefully we can get a swift unblock. I've asked Animum about it, and he disagrees. Alansohn has now requested a block review so I think we should deal with this swiftly. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I saw that slowly unfolding, including the remark by Animum regarding possible blocking. While I am not an admin, I was somewhat surprised at the block. I've read it a few times now, and fail to see violations of NPA. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not attacky, just a bit uncivil. So, we're blocking people who don't violate their paroles and don't block those who do violate their paroles? Have I stumbled into Bizarro-Wikipedia? Sceptre ^(talk) 03:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Off topic perhaps, but who violated their parole? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a bit of a "ha, take that!" at the current double standard with civility. Sceptre ^(talk) 03:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see a personal attack, but a comment that is slightly off-colored. Can we be provided a specific reason and DIFF to the supposed personal attack for reference? seicer | talk | contribs 03:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd very much like to see exact comment which led to the block - I see the one that led to the warning. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like, at least at RfA, that it was dropped after the warning. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Was about to write that it was abad block, now i can just congratulate Gwen gale ,who is batting 1000% tonight! Go Gwen!ThuranX (talk) 03:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

While bold, did someone talk to the blocking admin first? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Not saying I disagree, but if there's some kind of confusion (say per this thread) then usually discussion works first without potentially incuring WP:WHEEL. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, I did before bringing it here. He disagreed with me that it wasn't uncivil. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, good to hear. That's all I wanted/needed to know : ) Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 04:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be scolding Animum or anything though, the posts were mildly disruptive and I've asked Alansohn to lighten up his language, to which he answered: Understood. I will make my best effort to ensure that there is no perception of incivility. It was all a bit on the edge for an editor under an NPA sanction. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Good, good, everything is more or less fixed. It's clear that I've jumped the gun here. I apologize to everyone involved. —Animum (talk) 04:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That's good, but in general I think we need to be much more cautious when blocking for things said when opposing at RfA/RfB. The very nature of opposing will involve negative personal commentary, and that's absolutely fine. We can't get confused between this and personal attacks, even if the two do occasionally overlap. No blocks should be made. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 07:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal information

Resolved

 – Oversighted by Alison.

Look here under "Definition of Propaganda: Binary Emotional Rhetoric" at the very bottom. A name, an address, and a phone number. I don't know whose, what, why, or anything like that. However, something should be done about such delicate information. I clicked on the user's talk page from a discussion by the user here, which may also be of some interest. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It needs oversighted. Contact one of these people: Wikipedia:OVERSIGHT#Users_with_Oversight_permissions. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's okay - I've sorted it - Alison ^❤ 02:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you missed the bit on the WP:VPP. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this edit, too. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 02:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Alison. I was busy trying to find someone online and I'm glad that you stumbled in. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OOps! Ok - got them all :) - Alison ^❤ 03:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What is the threshold for personal information about a minor?

Resolved

 – deleted/oversighted - Alison ^❤ 22:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

EvilWendyMan (talk · contribs) previously had his user page history scrubbed because of the posting of personal information about himself (prohibited for those under age 13). He is working on his user page again, and I think this one is okay (it says his first name, age, state of origin, but I think that's it).

<venting> Or at least, it's okay from the personal info perspective. A number of the infoboxes are downright lies, which really irritates me... he claims to be a former member of a defunct Wikiproject, but he just added his name to the list of members today, months after the Wikiproject closed. heh... His intention to contribute to the other two Wikiprojects he added himself to do is quite dubious (I know a lot of people do this, but it just rubs me the wrong way anyway). And the "This user has a website" infobox links to a Wikipedia article he created, which was speedy-deleted today. Which makes some sense, except he didn't create the infobox until after the page was deleted. Frankly, while the kid has made about half a dozen positive contribs, he is more hindrance than help to the project (previous 48 hr block for continued uploading of copyrighted images; uploaded a couple of hoax/vandal images today; etc.) In a perfect world... </venting> --Jaysweet (talk) 20:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I'm a little concerned by the fact that this user discloses his age as 9 years.I don't know how other editors feel about these things, but I personally think it's a risk on many levels. Anyway, I'm not particularly sure what your point is about the rest. --.:Alex:. 20:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A clue to my point regarding the second paragraph may be found in the faux-markup tags placed around the paragraph.

The first paragraph is the actual issue I would like to see addressed at ANI, as per the subject of this section. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol ok, just noticed that (darn edit conflicts despite section editing). It looks ok at the moment, though I get the feeling that this user may introduce more personal information once again if not monitored. --.:Alex:. 20:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Could someone good at making beautiful userpages go help him, maybe? If it's already awesome, I wouldn't guess he'd add to it again (and accidentally include personal info again); besides, those sorts of userpages are pretty. So far I think it's okay, though. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 20:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

His page looks good, but I am also concerned that he reveals his age, maybe someone could ask him nicely to remove it.— Ѕandahl 20:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A candidate for a good adopter, maybe? I sense another block on the horizon if the iffy image uploads keep coming, and I'm also a little uncomfortable with a user that young posting their age. EyeSerene^talk 20:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

An assesment/ possible change to a youngster revealing their age should be mentioned via email or at WP:OVERSIGHT in my humble opinion, because posting here just makes more people and even possible undesirables (no-one who posts here of course :):) ) aware of the person's age. Sticky Parkin 21:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I probably should have asked hypothetically first (I really wasn't sure if it is worth action here, since he doesn't reveal anything that really compromises anonymity).

Since the cats already out of the bag, I would mention that EyeSerene's idea of getting an adopter would be great -- assuming someone can get him to respond on his Talk page, of course. He so far has not edited any Talk or User talk pages, ever. But yes, mentoring would be good, as the vast majority of his edits are unconstructive, even though all but a few appeared to be in generally good faith. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Email sent to RFO. -- Avi (talk) 21:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

 Done - Alison ^❤ 22:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Umm -and to clarify, now that they're gone; this person, apparently aged 9, had left their full name, location, school name, date of birth, home town etc. That's more than enough to locate them at their school, pretend to know them, etc. Not good. If people find other examples of this and are sufficiently concerned, please feel free to email me in private about it - Alison ^❤ 22:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not think there is anything inherently wrong with posting a name/age/location as most non-pseudoanonymous editors do this. As we all learned from Essjay, that may not even be the truth. I agree with the removal of school, address, and phone numbers, of course. I don't know what was on the original page, but getting bent out of shape over age alone is a bit silly. Let's try and keep it friendly, though, since oversighting a userpage is a bit of a WP:BITE. --Dragon695 (talk) 03:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not overly concerned about someone's age appearing on a page. It's barely oversightable. However, the other items certainly are. It's no reflection on the person and definitely not ageism, but people need to be prudent about what they publish here. The same applies to adults, too, as I know only too well. So, common sense and care all round, really - Alison ^❤ 03:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree (I know this is now marked as closed, but it's an important issue). Adults can make a presumably informed decision about whether or not to post their RL details; young children can't. In that respect we have a moral duty of care to, as far as we reasonably can, look after such members of this community. I think ensuring privacy is the minimum in this case. As for parental supervision of youngsters online... [abort rant] EyeSerene^talk 07:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, at the time I initially raised this issue, it only had his first name, age, and the state he was living in. If at that time it already had his full name or school name or date of birth, as it did when Alison oversighted it, I probably would have emailed RFO straight off rather than asking for second opinion. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It was a doubly good catch then, and kudos for erring on the side of caution ;) EyeSerene^talk 16:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Computer graphics

Resolved

Could an administrator take a look at Talk:Computer graphics#Administrative irregularities.

Now it is possible that user:99.233.198.118 has removed even that message. He has been harassing my moves to the article and talk page for the last days... being very agressive and rude ("onbeschoft" in Dutch). Could somebody talke a look at that also. Thanks. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the main issue, this is a fairly simple cut-and-paste move repair. No comment on the IP user conduct bit, the IP user might just have misunderstood what was going on? --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 14:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorted out the moves (I hope!). Gentle warning to IP user ;) EyeSerene^talk 14:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 16:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Admin intervention needed

Could a sysop look at the contributions of User:76.67.100.126. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 03:07, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Left a {{uw-test2}} on his talk page. CIreland (talk) 03:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If they become active again, WP:WARN them sufficiently and then report to WP:AIV. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User admitted to having sockpuppets

Somedude8890 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) admitted to having sockpuppet accounts. I am not sure how this is normally handled, can someone who knows what to do, um, do it? Thanks, J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you think he's trying to get a rise out if you, ignore him. If you think he might be telling the truth, you could try a checkuser request. There's really no harm in ignoring him; if he's vandalizing with socks, we'll get them as they occur. --barneca (talk) 01:36, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I've seen other people post similar things here, so I didn't know if that was standard procedure. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

From the way he zeroed in on Zzuuzz, I'm sure he's been here before and will be here again. Soon, you can nuke him yourself (don't worry, not a jinx; I have my fingers crossed behind my back and I'm knocking on wood as i type). My instinct (which is correct approximately 50% of the time) is that he's a just a garden variety vandal, not a special threat. --barneca (talk) 01:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFCU. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Muntuwandi

Banned user Muntuwandi (talk · contribs) is running amok with an army of socks, Mr. Muntuwandi (talk · contribs), Monsieur Muntuwandi (talk · contribs), etc. etc. Need help with this. --dab (𒁳) 23:26, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sam Korn blocked one IP recently, but I don't think that's going to fix it. He'll get tired eventually and go outside or spend some time with his family. In the meantime, are there any pages you'd like me to watchlist to help block the socks as they appear? MastCell ^Talk 23:45, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Sam Korn blocked User:Muntuwandi180 and I just blocked User:2005 munthuwandey. I wish the user creation log understood wildcards. —Travis^talk 00:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

if it did, this user would just generate more erratic usernames, if anything just making sock-spotting more difficult, not less. --dab (𒁳) 08:44, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Origin of religion is his usual favourite page. Stifle (talk) 13:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Probable sockpuppet trying to unblacklist his site and get an article about himself

Resolved

 – User warned, not much else to do at this time. — Coren ^(talk) 03:29, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

First a little background; several years back, Jonty303 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) went on a spamming campaign for links to his site, losethegame.com (relating to The Game (mind game)). He also was caught creating confirmed hoax articles (The Pez) as well as a few nonsense articles. His site was blacklisted. Subsequently, he introduced a tool on his site for the purpose of vandalizing Wikipedia with "lose the game" messages (e.g., [3]). Since then, he's made several attempts to have his site unblacklisted via the talk page for The Game article. See edits of User:LoserNo1 as wel as deleted edits of User:LosingTheGame and User: LosingTheGame2. Now it appears he's returned with a new account: Rabidfoxes (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), creating an article about himself, as well as re-petitioning for inclusion of his site. I asked for Sam Korn's opinion, as he'd been previously involved with a checkuser of User:LoserNo1; he found that the case for Rabidfoxes was "plausible" but not confirmed [4] (which doesn't surprise me, as Jonty is now aware of the CheckUser tool). Is there enough circumstantial evidence here (single purpose account following pattern of older socks) to warrant action? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It is, at the very least, clear self promotion. I will warn the user to desist, and explain to him that the site will simply not be unblacklisted. — Coren ^(talk) 23:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Husond

Husond is involved in a naming discussion over Þorvaldr Ásvaldsson, for whom the anglicized Thorvald Asvaldsson is far more common in English; there is substantial evidence of this on the talk page. In the process, he has three times reverted to the repetitious text:

Þorvaldr Ásvaldsson (Icelandic: Þorvaldr Ásvaldsson) was the father of the discoverer of Greenland,...

removing all mention of the common name from the article. So far, so good; this is a content dispute; I do not care for his tactics, and I am not encouraged to like or trust him, but I would not bring this here except for the following.

• He sent me a warning describing this content dispute as vandalism;
• He reported it to WP:AIV (and did not notify me) after three exact reverts.
• When Parsecboy labelled it a content dispute, he argued that this was disruption.

All are welcome to chime in on the content dispute (is there a compromise?); but this borders on an effort to settle it by use of admin powers. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the article hasn't been moved yet, although from the "survey" its headed in that direction despite Husond's opposition. His view that it doesn't make sense to change the version of the name used in the article until the article is moved is fairly sensible - certainly, when the move discussion is going your way, it doesn't make sense to edit war over it. I imagine that Husond won't be using his admin tools in this situation, and a declined report at AIV isn't something that can really garner admin intervention. What would you like to accomplish through this report? Avruch ^T 19:18, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

What would I like? To remind Husond to separate admin powers from content disputes hereafter. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I must say I'm with Pmanderson in being rather disappointed with Husond's behaviour; he ought to know better. Of course, everybody involved ought to know better; it's not as if the Great Icelandic Thorn Battle was a new phenomenon. The obvious intermediate wording solution that solves both Pmanderson's legitimate complaint about redundant redundancies (which redundantly repeated the same information twice) and Husond's legitimate complaint about inconsistent inconsistencies between article title and lead was probably just too obvious for anybody to find in the heat of battle... Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:25, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reality check. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:31, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hah! Pmanderson is good at distortion, but I've seen better. Here's the facts:

1. The article in question is Þorvaldr Ásvaldsson. On Wikipedia, the first mention of the subject of an article must conform to its title, regardless of any ongoing proposals to rename.
2. Pmanderson insists in changing the first paragraph so that the article starts with "Thorvald Asvaldsson", which does not conform with the title of the respective article.
3. Pmanderson was informed about #1 and still defiantly proceeded to revert to his preferred form.
4. Pmanderson's actions are clearly WP:POINT, not a raw content dispute or edit war. Persistent WP:POINT violations are often dealt no differently than vandalism. The fact that Pmanderson is a well established editor should not entitle him any special leniency.
5. I fail to understand what exactly Future Perfect thinks I ought to know better.

Sigh. Húsönd 23:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've certainly never treated a POINT vio as vandalism, and it strikes me as an exceedingly bad idea to do so. Vandalism is simple and clear-cut, POINT not so much (it involves a judgment of the intentions of the other editor to a much greater degree than vandalism). AIV wasn't the right place to handle this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I like to think I know Husond pretty well. Prior to our reconciliation, I truly did not care for his tactics of using his admin powers to resolve content and personal issues. However, I know for a fact he always does it to "achieve what's right", at least in his eyes. Even though it may not be the right thing, with good faith, you can usually see how he thought it was. In this case, where no blocks were given, I don't see any immediate action needed by an admin. Beam 02:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

PMAnderson was one of the antagonistic parties in the recent dispute over tennis player naming, which centred on the use of diacritics and the use of foreign characters as two separate issues, and which reached no ultimate resolution. I think there's some campaigning going on here, especially if the article has been at one location for a fair while. It has been at the present location for approximately 2 years, and before that was located at a similar name with one of the contested characters. Orderinchaos 05:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Husond is doing what seems to him right for the encyclopedia; have I said otherwise? I disagree with what seems right to him, but that is what makes this a content dispute. I support looking, in these matters, at what English actually does with a name (and have therefore disagreed with both sides of the tennis dispute). Accordingly, I did not propose this move, but I do support it, now that Erudy has found evidence on the matter; I also support Haukur's suggestion of a merger. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center" again

Special:Contributions/128.197.130.249

I posted something about this in the past. This IP is going through this list of people and adding "His/her papers are housed at the Howard Gotlieb Archival Research Center at Boston University." to the articles about the people.

This is, at best, a completely inconsequential detail and unsuitable for an encyclopedic article. At worst, due to the sheer size of the list of people, there is no way it would be physically possible for one institution to house the papers of all those people. Can an administrator issue a warning to the IP, and can I have an endorsement to go through and rollback the IP's contributions? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 15:30, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• Rolled back and blocked 24h pending some explanation as to why it is relevant, or any kind of acknowledgement fomr the user that what he is doing is disputed. Guy (Help!) 16:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It's an odd one. It does look like good-faith editing, but I certainly take issue with adding such a generic comment to all those articles. From a quick browse of your external link above, 'papers' in some cases means a single letter or similar. Since the IP is now blocked, I think given the unhelpful and misleading nature of the sentence, rolling back the edits is fine. If the IP wants to add more specific information in future though... EyeSerene^talk 16:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In case anyone's interested, the previous occurance of this issue that J. delanoy mentioned happened with 128.197.130.145 (talk · contribs) on July 11. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 16:22, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this the second time the same thing has occurred? Corvus cornix_talk 16:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/128.197.130.145 Corvus cornix_talk 16:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Urmph. I see SWik78 beat me to it. Sorry.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 16:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Where the bulk of someone's papers are in a particular archive, such a mention is highly relevant content; for a truly notable person, it is in my opinion helpful to list all significant collections, preferably in a separate section of the article. This is key source information, as important as listing printed sources--especially due to the accessibility of an increasing amount of this content on the internet--and by no means all of it indexed by Google et al. But obviously judgement must be used--the situation is essentially similar to the addition of external links. (and, in fact, an external link to such sources is another good way of doing it). But when they are added without discrimination, then we the situation changes. People connected with such archives should rather suggest the sources on the article talk page to avoid giving the wrong impression if the importance isnt obvious--and especially when adding it wholesale..DGG (talk) 17:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Please block IP 76.227.110.225‎

Resolved

 – Indef blocked.

Over 12 hours ago, IP 76.227.110.225‎ was blocked for edit warring. Up until that time, the user was repeatedly vandalizing music-related articles with misinformation, as well as changing article formats. They then vandalized my home page and that of Swampfire. Admin Kevin blocked the user for 12 hours. As soon as the block was over, the user has already attempted to revert edits back to the vandalized version of Motley Crue. I would note that this IP is that used by indefinitely banned user Alterego269. I appreciate any assistance. Best, A Sniper (talk) 00:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked again for 48 hours for continuing the edit war. Kevin (talk) 04:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This currently blocked user 76.227.110.225, associated with the indefinitely blocked Alterego269, is now using the account name Heavymetalis4ever2 and is continuing the edit warring with the same reverts back to the misinformation vandalism of 76.227.110.225. Please assist... Best, A Sniper (talk) 05:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Heavymetalis4ever2 blocked indef as a vandal only account. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Adam sk

Resolved

 – Biruitorul ^Talk 17:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to complain about a personal attack by this user. Some days ago, I removed an absurdly large image gallery he placed at William Lyon Mackenzie King. He proceeded to insult me by asking that I "confine [myself] to Eastern Europe in future", which is especially grating because I have made many good contributions in areas outside that domain. I filed a Wikiquette Alert, to which he responded (essentially) that I should stay out of Canada-related articles because I don't know anything about the subject (which isn't true anyway, but last I checked, we have a commitment to amateurism). He then defiantly refused to apologise, but more seriously - and here is the personal attack - made this post, where he accused me of disingenuousness, cynicism and self-interest, "flat out LYING", perpetrating a "LIE and MISREPRESENTATION", and, most damning, of being a "fascist".

It's true that my initial removal of the gallery was a (perfectly acceptable) exercise in WP:BOLD. But since then I've shown myself a very courteous interlocutor with Adam. It's unfortunate he has to resort to calling me a fascist, in violation of WP:NPA. Biruitorul ^Talk 13:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

BOLD is kind of generic. He could be just as BOLD by insisting that it be put back. How about citing a specific policy on galleries, that you can use to challenge the size of that gallery? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think that whether or not the gallery should be in the article is irrelevant (personally I would say the number of images was excessive) but it seems clear that User:Adam sk has violated WP:CIVIL in this case, GDonato (talk) 14:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

He was warned for his edit to the talk page on 0715 24 July and I don't think anything more than a warning is deserved just now. Of course, if this becomes a persistent problem that's another matter and Biruitorul should report back if he feels he is personally attacked in future, GDonato (talk) 14:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This is totally unbelievable. First this guy tries to defend his actions by citing to Wikipedia guidelines, and then when I point out that the guidelines don't actually say what he claims they say, I'M the one who is being uncivil!? I also don't think it's fair to say I attacked him personally - I only attacked his actions, which I think in this matter have been totally out of line. If you want to accuse me of violating WP:CIVIL, please cite something specific, because so far as I can tell, I've fully complied with that policy. Adam_sk (talk) 15:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This edit is unacceptable as you should not attempt to discourage editors from editing and in this edit you called another editor a "fascist"; which is a pretty blatant violation of WP:CIVIL. I have not checked to see if you were provoked however. GDonato (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What does it matter? Provocation or otherwise uncivil behaviour isn't acceptable here.--Crossmr (talk) 16:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The incivility cries are a distraction. The issue is about whether the gallery is a violation of policy. Both editors need to focus on that, as well as, obviously, cutting back on the name-calling. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's fair to point out that I have experienced Adam's frustration with self-styled deletionists who don't like the size of a gallery or something else connected with illustrations, and take it upon themselves to zap it and try to justify it based on policy. I don't use terms like "lying" or "fascist", though. I've usually used the term "idiot". Which, by the way, got me blocked once. So be careful. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There is an attempt to get consensus on the issue; which is reassuring and all should go well as long as editors remain civil and calm. GDonato (talk) 15:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for the future:

1. Don't call people fascists.
2. Don't pretend that you don't know you aren't supposed to call people fascists.
3. User has now been warned, legitimately (by several people). Should be the end of it for now.
4. General note: not every instance of incivility on Wikipedia warrants a full blown ANI report (although, in this case, I do understand that "fascist" is a pretty big red flag, more serious than some other things that get reported around here). Continuing the discussion in the original Wikiquette report would have worked better, IMHO.
5. Discuss the gallery issue on the talk page of the article, not here. That's what it's for.

--barneca (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Spoken like a true fascist. :) Incidentally, if someone expresses a deeply held belief that nationalistic totalitarianism is the best form of government, then it may be appropriate to call them a fascist. In contrast, this appears to be a minor dispute over the Wikipedia manual of style. George Orwell wrote in 1944 - in 1944 - that "...the word 'Fascism' is almost entirely meaningless" due to indiscriminate overuse. MastCell ^Talk 17:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Per barneca. Throwing labels around often is a major cause of trouble - don't do it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well doesn't this seem like a fascist state. Where's Mussolini Wales? Beam 17:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, why wasn't there an edit-conflict just now? Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucracy is worse than fascism. At least with fascism, you can blame somebody specific, like Adolf or Benito. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think Adam sk continues to blow my action way out of proportion, and I'm dismayed at his lack of repentance for his incivility. However, given the warnings he has received and the ongoing discussion on other pages, for my part I consider the matter resolved for now. Biruitorul ^Talk 17:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Corruption of featured page

Resolved

 – Template vandalism repaired. Beam 12:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There has been vandalism on the featured Wikipedia page 'Exmoor': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exmoor

Please can someone address this as the information added is offensive.

Aenathras

I can confirm that, but I'm not sure how it's being done - looks like some kind of CSS trick. Can somebody knowledgeable take a look? Tom Harris (talk) 12:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Might this be the same template vandal issue all over again? Wildthing61476 (talk) 12:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Pernicious template vandalism on Template:Devon; User:Angusmclellan already caught it. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 12:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, the fool in question was Dev temp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I'm not an admin, who wants to do the honours? --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 12:52, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Blah, I got EC'd, I had the answer! ME! I HAD THE ANSWER! Now i don't get my heaps of praise and goodness....bawwwww. :( Beam 12:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, more template vandalism. Reverted, blocked, and can now be ignored. Although I do think that we wouldn't have a fraction of this silliness if Werdna's filters were rolled out. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:51, 24 July

2008 (UTC)

Thank-you all for such prompt action - if only other things in life were as efficient. I hope I posted the information in the right place, I didn't find it easy to find where I should report the issue.

Aenathras

Might be a good idea to block Aho kamo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) while we're at it. That account was created, and three minutes later they created the Dev temp account. No edits yet, but I'm fairly confident that we don't need to extend any good faith. --Onorem♠Dil 13:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indef. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Permanent block needed

Resolved

 – Onlyonetime temporarily blocked. Kuger indef blocked. IP blocked.

Checkuser has directed me here to file a request for a block of a user who has been determined to have several accounts all used for vandalizing. See here Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/82.117.194.34 for details. Main user in question is 82.117.194.34 and Onlyonetime. His third account Kuger has been blocked. The first one has 29 warnings on his talk page and 2 previous blocks while the second one is a reserve account but it also has a lot of warnings and one block. I think it's time to say enough is enough and block this user.--Avala (talk) 15:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Athana's edits on Talk:The First Sex

Resolved

 – User blocked for 24 hours.

Athana (talk · contribs) seems to have been in a content dispute with someone on The First Sex article and has taken it upon him/herself to issue some sort of a warning to Wiki owners on the article's talk page. The soapboxing material has been removed twice by myself and several times by other users. I also left a note (no template) on their talk page. Could I get someone else to take a look at this and, perhaps, deal with this person?

Thanks! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I already blocked for 24 hours, for the reasons you cited above. Any of the transgressions by themselves aren't blockworthy... but there were dozens of them. Tan ǀ 39 18:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna keep an eye on this guy when he comes back beacuse, on closer examination, he seems to be editing in a pretty combatative manner on the above article. He has gone well over any standard of 3RR and his edit summaries could be seen as inflammatory towards some editors, ie saying that some editors working on the article have passive-aggressive emotions and are working to wreck this article. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Watch the pronouns, there. Not that the gender of the contributor ought to be relevant here, but based on Athana's contribs I think she might be a little offended to be referred to as "this guy". (Might as well call her "virulent"!) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Haha. You know, I quickly lose my focus when I try to keep up with he/she or they nomenclature. I keep it up for a while and then I just switch off without a warning and use he as a default. Probably not a PC thing to do but I lose my train of thought if I concentrate on the pronouns more so than the subject at hand. I have no problems with people mislabeling me but, for the ones that are worried about offending me (trust me, I'm not easily offended otherwise I wouldn't be married any longer) I have a section about this subject on my user page.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 19:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I recently became sensitized to the fact that for a small subset of the population, even "he or she" may be objectionable to them (see genderqueer). This, however, will not stop me from continuing to use it as a compromise unless I am asked otherwise, since the alternatives are either pretentious (Gender-neutral pronoun#Neologisms), confusing (Singular they), or unwieldy (abandoning pronouns altogether).

Anyway, I'm getting off-topic... I just thought it was worth mentioning that "he or she" might upset some people, as the Wikipedia user from whom I learned this was, well, very upset about the issue. :/ --Jaysweet (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User:JimBobUSA [revived due to non-completion]

I have copied this from archive 451, due to a lack of action on this matter. Grant | Talk 14:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This user has been warned before about deleting a credible/reliable reference (a long article from the London Review of Books) from Yamashita's gold. He has given up on that, but is now attempting to delete the same reference from Japanese war crimes, while misrepresenting it as a "novel". I think a stern warning from someone other than me may help. Thanks. Grant | Talk 00:22, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do it if you could get me the diffs of the previous warnings, and the diff for removing the ref from the Japanese War Crimes article. Beam 00:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it has to do with the following DIFFs:

• Yamashita's gold: [5] [6]
• Japanese war crimes: [7]

I see a lot of reverts, but this is something that doesn't require administrator attention at the moment. Have you tried dispute resolution? seicer | talk | contribs 03:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, WP:RFC or simple talking on the articles in question/user talk might be more apt at this time. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 06:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I support User:Grant65 on this. For many, many months, User:JimBobUSA is trying to eradicate all references to this topic on Wikipedia and discussions have provided nothing... as you will see here [[8]] [[9]] [[10]] Yamashita's gold has even been protected without any success : [[11]]. --Flying tiger (talk) 22:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

There does seem to be something of a campaign being waged. I was saying to someone the other day that POV warriors have the more obscure areas to themselves because they can turn anything into a content dispute which outside admins cannot comprehend due to the specificity of the subject and the nature of the points being argued, and are allowed to drive away valuable contributors with knowledge in the area (such as Grant65 in this case) for years until they finally meet their match, get shoved into a corner, sockpuppet or stalk to get out of it and get blocked for that. It's a phenomenon which occurs time and time and time again - effectively a way of gaming our entire policy structure by testing the limits' of our volunteer admins' knowledge. The last one in my general area of interest to get blocked has now shown his true colours now that he is banned, by vandalising and stalking from an entire stack of IPs and usernames, and another one in my project, who had free rein in the place for 14 months despite *numerous* reports here, which all went nowhere or met with blithe calls for good faith, went the same way when blocked about a year ago.

I wish I had the time and capacity to intervene here, but I'm neck deep in content research at present and only have about 3 weeks before real life becomes busy again. Can someone look into this in more depth? Note: Be careful not to become an "involved editor" if you do, as that will then get used against your capacity to act in the matter. Orderinchaos 01:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

This thread seems to sum up the problem with JimBobUSA rather nicely. If JimBobUSA disagrees with a statement, it cannot on any account be included. Even a straightforward statement like "Several historians have stated that Yamashita's gold existed", cited to no less than six sources, is rejected as a "novel narrative".Hesperian 01:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above. Part of the problem is that any rapport that existed, between me and JimBobUSA, has long since disappeared. I believe that he has breached Wikiquette in many ways, including a general lack of cooperation and repeated wikilawyering. For instance, he did not respond to my suggestion of mediation on January 14. I do not believe it is in anyone's best interests that I deal with him directly and this is why I ask that other admins get involved. Grant | Talk 03:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I've now read the edit histories of the article and talk pages and agree with your stance. JimBobUSA seems to miss the point that Yamashita's gold is about a theory of missing gold — the 1st line says "... alleged loot stolen ..."; the lead also says "The theory has been particularly popularised ...". No-one (as far as I can tell) is saying that the gold exists, just that there are theories that it does. And to say that, one needs to cite these same sources. I see that User:JimBobUSA engages in regular edit warring on a number of articles and despite numerous warnings given, then treats them with contempt (see User talk:JimBobUSA). Moondyne 06:23, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. IMO the article is worded somewhat too cautiously, since there is ample evidence that a substantial treasure did exist at one time and was hidden under Yamashita's supervision. This is supported by a good quality, critical source not yet quoted in the article, Thom Burnett, in the Conspiracy Encyclopedia (London: Collins & Brown, 2005), who states: "The Golden Lily hoard in the Philippines is also confirmed..." (p. 219). Golden Lily (Kin no yuri) was the secret Japanese unit that controlled the loot during WW2. It is interesting that Burnett, who is critical of many, if not most conspiracy theories, goes on to question the purported involvement of "famous Americans" in appropriation of the hoard. Grant | Talk 10:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

This is redundant. It was been hashed out here once before: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive360#Yamashita.27s_gold Jim (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Which is why its being discussed here again. Moondyne 07:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Moondyne.

You made mention of the “numerous warnings given” and then referred to my talk page. I would like to point out that all of those warnings are from the same person, Grant65 (starter of this complaint).

I would also like to point out, that the material I removed, and was warned for numerous times by Grant65 is still vacant from the article. Reason being is that novels (fiction) and books that do not contain reference to the article at all make for poor references. Yes, you read that correctly. The frivolous warnings were for removing false references. Hence, that is why I titled them “frivolous warnings” on my user talk page.

This is also noteworthy on the opening of this complaint, where Grant65 states: “This user has been warned before…”. What Grant65 fails to mention, is that he is the one who has done all of the warnings. Dubious in anyone’s book.

In closing, the creditable/reliable reference given for the Japanese war crimes article (the reason for this complaint) notes this about the source being used, the Seagraves novel (I will copy/paste my text from that talk page):

I would also like to point out, that the reference cited for the Looting sub-section makes note that the Seagraves (the sole source for the Looting sub-section) states that the Seagraves are not fully reliable as historians, they have a tendency to overreach and exaggerate, are unreliable on Japan and do not read Japanese.

Chalmers Johnston’s book review (reference given) also points out that the book is full of errors and one of the characters (Lord Ichivara) is an absurdity. Johnston goes on to point out that, the Seagraves sense that they might have a credibility problem, and have taken the unusual step of selling two CDs that support the book. Buy the book, and then buy the documentation afterwards? Jim (talk) 00:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to make a brief exception to my rule about dealing directly with User:JimBobUSA to make three key points: (1) I believe that he is wrong about the CDs supporting Gold Warriors. My information is that they were never sold separately and were an "extra" with a limited number of copies of the book. (2) He misrepresents Johnson's view of the Seagraves, by citing the only passages of Johnson's very long article that are critical of the Seagraves. Johnson is not generally critical of Gold Warriors — far from it. (3) For the benefit of JimBobUSA and others who may be under similar misapprehensions, the main "incident" in question here is his attempt to delete citation of Johnson's article from Japanese war crimes, with edit summaries describing it as a "novel"(!) It plainly is not. Neither is the book it is reviewing. User:JimBobUSA either does not know, or does not care, about the difference between: (i) novels, (ii) scholarly books and (iii) book reviews. Grant | Talk 08:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

• "Oh no, not again". What is it about this subject that the conspiracy theorists can't leave it alone? Oh, wait, the answer is in the question, isn't it? Guy (Help!) 14:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Are you saying that Wikipedia should ignore well-known "conspiracy theories"; or, in this case something more substantial than a theory, i.e. the "looting of Asia", to use Chalmers Johnson's term? Grant | Talk 02:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

POV-warrior on Property is Theft

The user User:SteveWolfer is persistently re-adding "an Objectivist critique" to Property is Theft. I think it is pretty clear, if you view the content added,[12] that this is giving "undue weight," that Wolfer is using a single paragraph in a single article as an excuse to link to Objectivism on a page that has nothing to do with it. This is seriously lowering the quality of the article. The user has not responded to my comments on the talk page from over a week ago, but continues to revert. Now he is parroting what I tell him in the changelog: he says that I refuse to discuss, and that I am disruptive. I suppose I should also note that the other user currently editing the page (User:EmbraceParadox) agrees that the material should be removed, so that it certainly lacks consensus. (I explained this to Wolfer, althoug hhe did not parrot that part.)

I'm not sure this is the right place to post or if I've provided the necessary information. Really I'd prefer not to deal with this shit at all and I'm far from familiar with policy and protocols. So my apologies for any mistakes. —Jemmy_tc 23:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute for which administrator attention is unwarranted; the matter has already been raised at the neutral point of view noticeboard. If that does not resolve the issue, I suggest you recourse to escalating degrees of dispute resolution. Regards, Skomorokh 02:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

IP content vandal

I have come across an IP - 70.100.254.101‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · block user · block log) - who seems to specialise in changing dates in articles, with no edit comment nor any citations. He may or may not be correcting mistakes, but the absence of citations or comments makes it hard to tell. In at least one case - (Alain LeRoy Locke), his change [13] clearly introduces inconsistencies into the article.

I'm after a couple of things right now: 1) would anyone care to revert his most recent change on Joseph Reinagle - I would hit 3RR if I touched it again. The date he is changing in this article is referenced to the Dictionary of National Biography, and the person associated with the date is so obscure that I cannot believe there is another source. (done - thanks) and 2) Would anyone care to add some of the article he haunts to their watchlists & watch out for more such insidious content changes. I have talked to him and now warned him, but he ain't talking back. thanks --Tagishsimon (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have come across acouple of editors like this over the years. They think that changing the dates won't be noticed. You should feel free to post edit/vandalism warnings on their talk page and report them to AIV if they don't stop. Thanks for keeping an eye out for this kind of thing. MarnetteD | Talk 23:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It is interesting to note that the editor's first edit DID correct an incorrect date. Yet, as stated above, has also been introducing inconsistencies. DigitalC (talk) 04:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Block request.

User:Master chick Has vandalized my User page by blanking. this is because I have nominated his Iron man 2 (film) as a CSD A4 problem, for recreating the article after it had been deleted, per his own User talk. I initially redirected, but as I worked on that, I saw that there were multiple actions by him. He was fully notified, then after being given a vandalism 4 ( he knew the content was deleted but persisted, blanked the CSD tempalte, and so on), he blanked my page. He continues to revert the CSD out on the Iron man 2 page. ThuranX (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Have you talked to him about this, without templating him or being hostile? Beam 03:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Good grief, man, do you just sit here stalking me to nag, or did you bother to read all that I put in the above report? Including a personal message to him on his talk? ThuranX (talk)

I don't stalk you at all, I wish you hadn't said that. I read the report, you said you gave him a vandalism 4. Sorry man, I always feel communication comes before block. As i put in the edit summary, it was an honest query. If the user is continuing, after being kindly contacted in a civil manner, to blank your page and the CSD tag, than I'd support a 12-24 hour block to prevent further poor actions on his behalf. That is if he ignores attempts at communication. Beam 03:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So you admit you didn't read his talk page, the edits I linked, or anything else, just the report. Then you insisted I do more jumping through special hoops for you. If you can't be bothered to read up, please do not comment on my comments and requests for blocks any more. You've insisted on more hoop jumping before, to me and other editors. There are limits to patience, civility, and bureaucracy. It's clear you like bureaucracy, but your love of it derails threads about actual problems. ThuranX (talk) 03:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, that's not it at all. I read your report, and took your summarization as truth (why wouldn't I?). I don't want you to do anything more. I'm willing to talk to him if you'd like. And your comment on me derailing threads isn't appreciated, I give my input and opinion as you do, and just because they some times differ does not make my or yours of lesser quality. Again, you don't have to go through any hoops. If you think it would achieve anything, since you're obviously way more aware of this fellow, than I'm willing to assist you by talking to him. As I said above, if he is not able to communicate and if we (you/anyone) has tried than I support a block. Or at the least, a final warning. I hope this alleviates your unhappiness with me, sir. Beam 03:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User has tried to create the page three times and did replace the content of ThuranX's user page with a comment. I've salted Iron_man_2_(film) but (before seeing Beam's input here) didn't block the user because because they may not understand what they're doing. However, if this carries on a 24 hour block may be needed, to get through to this editor. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

As I state above, I share your exact feelings on this case. Beam 03:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Thank you Gwen for following up on things so quickly. I think that, having had the material deleted already, ignoring a specific non-template message, a template message (the V4), and then a warning about blanking, before then running to the talk page for that delted article, The editor knew full well what was going on, and how not to act. That said, I can wait to see if he tries again. ThuranX (talk) 03:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, it's nettlesome, but I've found new editors sometimes don't think the deletion templates are anything more than automated barriers and don't know what they're getting into. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Thuran. Your patience and calm is very appreciated. Your willingness to potentially put up with one more round of shit from the user speaks volumes. And I'm glad I could relieve your problem with me by simply explaining my position. And thanks Gwen, it's nice to have your input, as always. Beam 03:44, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP help needed

Resolved

Can any admins who have WP:BLP experience check Talk:Connie_Talbot#Basic_Common_Sense and give opinions? There is currently a discussion as to whether it's appropiate to include the school being attended by Connie Talbot in the article. Exxolon (talk) 20:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Calling this resolved, discussion is over. J Milburn (talk) 22:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Stalking/harrassment

Resolved

 – user blocked

User:TheWatcherREME has been stalking me and posting some disturbing comments on my talk page about coming to my house and wanting my personal information. He started a bogus sock puppet page on me and has been acting quite oddly. His edit patterns led me to believe he was a sock puppet of a user named Jetwave Dave so I tagged his user page as such. I also tagged his talk page for a blatant cut-and-paste copyvio he did in an article. Is there anything that can be done to stop him or do I just have to continue to put up with this? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I am going to take a look, and I will see what can be done. Chafford (talk) 08:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User blocked. Synergy 23:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Legal Threat

Resolved

 – Blocked for 6 months.

I seek assistance with a messgage left on my talk page. I have been watching and editing the article on the band Blessid Union of Souls for a little while. I was made aware by another user in April that two founders of the band each had a group using the same name, both with an online presence. In April 2008 we reached a comprimise edit that mentioned both group's claim. I have since been keeping both claims in tact on the artcile as various parties tried to assert one groups claim over the other. In light of no real vailidation to either side's claim I thought it best to mention both groups, which claim in separate websites to be touring as Blessid Union of Souls. I am simply editing a wikipedia article to keep a neutral tone in light of no evidence to settle the dispute. I have posted comments at various points to this effect and have added comments on the talk page.

Here is the original threat

Here is an example of a recent edit I made to the article NeuGye (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

IP has been warned. If the threats continue, please repost here or at WP:AIAV. Regards, nat.utoronto 06:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

The way I understand it, that's not how it's supposed to work. A legal threat is supposed to result in an instant indefblock, without discussion, to be lifted only if and when the threat is withdrawn. If the threat came from an IP, an indefblock may not be possible, but something significant, like a month or so, might be appropriate. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly a legal threat, but what's the rule on legal threats from an IP? It does have another edit to the same article from weeks ago, is that enough to assume it's static? Is it proper to leave a note for that on the article's talk page telling them to contact the foundation with any problems? Dayewalker (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked for 6 months. If someone finds a better answer or policy saying otherwise, feel free to change this block. I'm doing this in a good faith interpretation of the rules I know about. Toddst1 (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, good block that is how we handle these things. Whatever you do don't give this fella your name. Chillum 17:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you feel uncomfortable making further NPOV edits regarding the name of the band, I will be happy to do so. Threats are bullshit, and I won't stand by and let us get bullied. Beam 18:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I thank everyone for the help. I just wanted to make sure some admins were aware of the situation. I will continue looking into the article and verifying proper citation is added before information is added or removed that might change this article's neutrality. Thanks again. NeuGye (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've also indef blocked Buosmgt (talk · contribs), which is clearly their registered account. - auburnpilot talk 18:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Faisal_Saddiq

Resolved

 – Seems to be penitent. I'll keep an eye. Others are welcome to do similarly --Dweller (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have temporarily blocked User:Faisal_Saddiq, while I undo various unpleasant pieces of vandalism the user was doing, most notably some move vandalism.

I have yet to dig properly into Special:Contributions/Faisal_Saddiq, but I've seen enough to reassure me that this user has made useful contributions, as well as horrendous ones (that have taken me some time, so far, to undo).

My intention is to offer the user an unblock if they give their word they will not vandalise in this manner again. I don't know if they can be trusted to fulfil such a bargain, but I would push for strict sanctions if they don't.

Thoughts? Consensus? --Dweller (talk) 12:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that 24 hours minimum to protect the 'pedia, whether he gives his word or not. Beam 13:37, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The contributions this month are dramatically different from the contributions in July to September 2007, with no contributions during the northern hemisphere school year. There were a batch of poor image uploads last summer, hardly a surprise, but hardly a major problem. The editor of last summer doesn't seem particularly communicative; I think that you'll have a challenge just getting communication to occur.

The edits of yesterday don't seem particularly like they came from the same editor as those of last summer. When I saw the page moves in my watchlist, I decided to block myself if it hadn't yet been done. You did it. My preference would be for you to do whatever it takes to get two way communication opened, and then we will be able to figure out what the right long term solution is. GRBerry 13:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. --Dweller (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack in edit summary

Resolved

 – blocked by User:barneca

[14] - Apparantly Anger22 left this guy a warning in 2006 (see his talk page); I'm thinking a block is in order. —Giggy 01:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Also see this. Enigma ^message 01:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

and this. I agree that a block is in order, after perusing the user's recent contributions. Enigma ^message 01:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've warned. He doesn't inspire a lot of faith that he'll be able to contribute civilly and productively, but he appears to be a good faith user. Since, from what I can see, nobody's explained civility policies to him yet, let's start with that and hope that he shapes up. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think we would have to explain that making personal attacks in every venue imaginable is wrong, but I suppose there's no harm in giving him another chance, with the understanding that it's a tight leash he's on. Enigma ^message 02:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

As I say, I'm not precisely optimistic that this will end well, but I've been continually surprised by what some people sincerely think is acceptable behaviour. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 02:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The user reverted my removal of the personal attack. Thankfully, barneca blocked. Enigma ^message 02:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) SI, I'm sorry, in a way I just went against your decision and "reversed" your call, knowing that another admin disagreed. But if we really let those two attacks go with just a warning, the pendulum has swung way too far in one direction. I blocked indef, to be lifted upon apology. I did this knowing you disagree, so if this pisses you off, I understand and am willing to talk to you about it. I also won't wheel war if someone reverses me. But I will not unblock myself without an apology. We are civilized human beings and we don't talk to one another like that. --barneca (talk) 02:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Support Barneca's actions. SI, it would be nice if we could wait and see, but this user's pushing for a reaction, and he got one, just not the one he expected. I think he wanted Anger22 to lash out, instead he got sunk. Leave him be till he can stnad up like a man and apologize. ThuranX (talk) 03:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Rx StrangeLove incivility and threatening others in September 11, 2001 attacks article.

This user is making threats...If you keep going down this road and continue to waste good editors time you'll end up topic banned (or worse).

The suggestion is to take out subtle original research. I'm not saying we need my version. I simply pointed out the faults and gave a few (not just one) ways to improve it.

Background: In 2004, the September 11, 2001 attacks article name was decided after fierce debate. I am fine with the title. I am not fine with using the title as a grammatical subject (not object) in the introductory sentence.

The BBC, CBS, CNN, CBC, and others do not use the exact term "September 11, 2001 attacks" generally and in cases where it is, it is usually the object, not the subject. We need to be precise (sometimes they use the term "September 11 attacks" or "September 11th terrorist attacks". Making up a phrase and using it authoritatively is OR, albeit subtle OR.

Second point is that we in WP are using it like a bad TV episode name...tonight's episode "Showdown with Saddam"..."Inferno in Iraq". We are also using bad prose by defining "attacks" with the same word "attacks". It's like "A car is a thing called a car" "The September 11, 2001 attacks was a coordinated attack.

An admin should defuse the situation by reminding RXStrangelove not to make threats but to let the RFC continue and to make suggestions to improve WP. That's all I want to do...improve prose. None of my suggestions have any political POV pushing. It's just to make WP look like an encyclopedia, not some melodramatic amateurs writing a written collective version of myspace.

Note: admins are not asked to decide on the RFC. Admins are asked to calm down the situation and caution against the use of threats. Presumptive (talk) 05:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

First, your allegations of original research will fall on deaf ears. ANI is not dispute resoltuion. Second, you should have notified Rx StrangeLove of this thread. Lucky for you, I have decided to take care of that for you. Third, when making accusations of poor behavior, you need to provide diffs. Fourth, RxS has done absolutely nothing wrong. He has merely suggested that you quit editing disruptively. I have notified Presumptive of the discretionary sanctions put forth in WP:ARB9/11.[15] I know this isn't technically the place to discuss ArbCom enforcement, but because Presumptive has brought the issue up here I think we should consider his behavior. See here for time-wasting by Presumptive. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

On the article in question, I have noted that Rx StrangeLove is getting pretty close to breaching civility guidelines. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:September_11%2C_2001_attacks/GA1&diff=prev&oldid=227564021 from a user, I take offence to such comments, from an admin, it is more suprising than anything else. A block is certainly not required, I would be more than happy if this report resulted in Rx StrangeLove modifying his tone. Sennen goroshi (talk) 05:12, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

He is an admin!!!! Oh, shit, he is. It's also shocking since an admin should be a pillar of WP, calm, collective, open to friendly discussion.Presumptive (talk) 05:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It's the simple truth. I didn't say I'd do the banning/blocking, but there is a long list of editors that have been sanctioned under the Arbcom restrictions [16]. That Arbcom decision has been pointed out to Presumptive multiple times by several editors, so it's not something new to him. If anyone has the soul for it, go ahead and read the debate. But in any case, like I said I'm not ever going to block over this (as someone involved, that'd be a very bad thing). But in the past, there's been no lack of uninvolved admins to enforce the Arbcom decision and it's not incivil to point that out. RxS (talk) 05:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And such banning would be censorship because I am civil and very open to alternate wordings, even asking editors to come up with a dozen alternatives to improve the poorly worded prose. In contrast, another user mentions Rx StrangeLove's incivility. Consider how my suggestions help WP....I don't seek any change remotely like POV, I am only seeking better prose and logic. That's about as neutral as you can get! Presumptive (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between censorship and preventing disruption to the project. Ice Cold Beer (talk) 05:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Utter ridiculousness, IMO. Presumptive's point—that incorporating the exact article title into the lead sentence is awkward—is perfectly valid. Why is he/she being accused of being disruptive over trying (civilly and with discussion) to improve the prose of this article? Powers ^T 11:20, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Presumptive is quite a new editor who is being treated in this instance in violation of WP:BITE for good-faith edits, with threats of blocking etc being mad on her talk page, and being told of just for grammatically improving an article, and changing small bits with references added alongside them. People object to her use of simple rather than elaborate ref tags, but even I have difficulty using the long-winded style of references. Instead of telling her off for using a style of refs most people use, others could change the style of refs rather than intimidate her for editing an article. It seems like WP:OWN. Sticky Parkin 11:50, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Presumptive may be a new editor, but he/she is using tags like a pro, albeit incorrectly (IMHO). The RfC should probably proceed, but there's no WP:OR, subtle or otherwise, involved in this dispute. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not saying there's OR, but she may be right grammatically as she is on Talk:Murder of Eve Carson. LtPowers above can see what's happening. I don't know the subject enough to know if it's also OR or not OR, that is a content dispute in a way, and not a matter for WP:ANI. Sticky Parkin 17:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Content Dispute / Edit Warring over the term "British Isles"

Hi, an ongoing content dispute betwee, myself and User:TharkunColl. Tharky is aware that the term British Isles is a contentious term and that an unspoken rough agreement was reached on not introducing it into articles that didn't already use the term. He is now inserting the term in many articles, without references - see Ye Olde Trip To Jerusalem and Salve Regina. In addition, he is reverting edits that result in the removal of the term, even though the term cannot be referenced and references are provided for the alternative edits. See Furry Dance, Porteous family, Scottish Green Party and others.

Despite many attempts to discuss, several edits are made with personal comments such as "reverted political removal of term".

Tharky knows the policies as well as anyone on Wikipedia. He is aware of what constitutes a good reference, and is aware that the references provided for Furry Dance are not good enough. There are no references for the other articles. His editing is extremely disruptive and in breach of policy. I've politely asked for references and waited to see what he can produce. But he simply ignores the requests while the article is left in the state he wants, or starts an edit war over articles that aren't.

--HighKing (talk) 16:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of no such policy regarding the use of British Isles - Bardcom/HighKing has mentioned it to me before, but has signally failed to point to the relevant discussion or consensus, despite my repeated requests (oh yes, that's right, it's "unspoken"... ho hum). It is he who is disrupting this entire project by his poltically motivated campaign to remove British Isles from the whole of Wikipedia. TharkunColl (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Who says "British Isles" is a contentious term? That's common usage. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. TharkunColl (talk) 16:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(I'm not an admin, edit conflict)Hi. The semi-edit war, as far as I'm aware of, going on in the article Lough Neagh may also be of interest. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 16:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

HighKing, do you use Wikipedia for anything unrelated to the term "British Isles"? All your edits, and all your disputes seem to be centered around this term. Chillum 16:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A glance at User:HighKing identifies the issue. From a Irish Republic perspective, the term would be rather galling. It is no doubt politically incorrect there.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

For explaination in case people on this board can't tell due to it not being explained at the start of the thread- the complainant who started the thread is User:Bardcom who has conveniently changed his name after his recent two blocks over his "British Isles" fixation and edit warring, and has previously been the subject of an RfC and listed for potential Arbcom or something. Sticky Parkin 16:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"British Isles" does indeed seem to be uncontentious: Síle de Valera TD, in her official role of Minister for Arts, Heritage, Gaeltacht and the Islands uses it in the usual sense in this speech in 2002. I'm sure other examples could be found easily. -- The Anome (talk) 17:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There was a failed attempt to form a consensus on this issue at WP:BI.--PhilKnight (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I like that expression, "An unspoken rough agreement..." Unspoken? In a text-based medium? Tell me another one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

My point is simply that the phrase obviously cannot be, as has sometimes been suggested, deeply offensive to Irish people in Ireland, if a leading Fianna Fáil politician and member of the de Valera political dynasty -- is happy to use it in a public speech in her official role as Minister for the Gaeltacht to describe the landform in question. -- The Anome (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• This is lame in the extreme, but just to offer my (unsupported by WP:RS) $0.02, the term British Isles is very rarely used in the UK to describe anything other than the geographical feature; when describing cultural references the terms UK or Britain are both vastly more common and actually in the cited cases above England would have done just fine. British Isles is clumsy and will read discordantly to most Brits. Guy (Help!) 17:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ssssso... there's a POV warrior warring... and what? block him, be done. As mentioned on WP:BI, there's no other good term for the geographic archipelago. Use it, ignore the POV pushers, and get the encyclopedia written. They can suck it up or go to conservapedia, where I'm sure their intense nationalistic jingoism will fit in wonderfully. ThuranX (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As Guy says- but it is used as a geographical term and how Bardcom describes the consensus at the start of the thread is misleading. The consensus as discussed even on User talk:Bardcom is not to not introduce it where it isn't already used- if so it would hardly ever be used as Bardcom is so mad for removing it. The consensus as I understand it as Tharky and Bardy agreed at one point near the bottom of Bardy's talk page, is that it's ok to use it in a geographical context at least, and probably in some other, historical perhaps, contexts- I don't know the fine details. Anyway, we're not here to discuss the content dispute, but dispite what Bardcom says, as ThuranX says, it's Bardcom that's acting against consensus, edit warring and so on, IMHO far more than the other participants- hence he's been blocked twice recently, been a subject of an RfC etc- two recent blocks of slightly increasing length unfortunately haven't deterred him for more than a couple of days. Sticky Parkin 17:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

British Isles naming dispute points to this official policy of the Irish government. For most purposes there are better ways to phrase it. Just use them.LeadSongDog (talk) 17:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

that link doesn't say a thing about alternate phrases, and it's by a bunch of Irish nationalists, thus POV. big deal. This is a lot of pissing in the wind by crybabies with agendas to push. Unless they've got a real, viable solution, start blocking liberally. What good does it do to hide fact behind touchy feely crap like 'we don't want to offend, so we'll jsut cut out anythign they don't like'? Block , and block some more. ThuranX (talk) 17:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I've noticed a few editors systematically changing the terminology to "English" or "Scottish" in biographical articles which said someone was from the "UK" or was "British." There seems to be little consensus for using the higher level term, at any manual of style page. Similarly reverting to "British Isles" seems to merely express a personal preference not driven by sources or by consensus of editors. Such non-consensus edit warring is to be discouraged in favor of talk page discussion, at the affected article, or preferably at the manual of style page or at the essay Wikipedia:Nationality of people from the United Kingdom which unfortunately does not rise to a guideline. There is also Terminology of the British Isles where this issue could be worked out, and an essay posing as an article,British Isles naming dispute. Edison (talk) 17:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

In such cases I always go with self-description. Sean Connery is Scottish, and would probably slap you if you called him British. I am British, the term English is too much associated in my mind with the "Little England" mentality and the minor English nationalist parties. In Salve Regina, to pick one at random, British Isles was, in my view, the wrong term, it is not the term which would be used by a Brit. And for the record I do not give a toss what the Dail says, Encyclopaedia Britannica says it's British Isles, the United Kingdom [of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to be exact], England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales, Ireland (the island) or Eire (the country excluding the Six Counties) - I am sure that's offended everyone by now so I will shut up. Guy (Help!) 18:17, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Simple clicking a few random diffs here: [17] and it is clear that this user really does little else other than remove "British Isles" from articles and revert people who revert him. Chillum 17:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As one with English ancestry, I object to that body of water between Great Britain and Ireland being called the "Irish Sea". I think we should rename it "The Body of Water Between Great Britain and Ireland". By the way, what do the Scots think about also being in the "British" Isles? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget Scotland used to be referred to as "North Britain". -- ChrisO (talk) 18:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That is technically correct as Britain is the mainland of the British Isles, per my understanding of its history (albeit that this is largely informed by Winston Churchill's books, which are decidedlyy lacking in political correctness by modern standards). Guy (Help!) 18:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It may suit some editors to make this issue look bigger than it actually is. This is about basic policy - verifiable sources and references.

(restate)Can an uninvolved admin take a look at the named articles please. There are no references or reasons for using the term British Isles in the named articles. There are however references for using other terms. User:TharkunColl repeatedly reverts edits with references without discussion or providing other verifiable references. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 18:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I expect someone will. Now sod off and stop fighting with TharkunColl. Guy (Help!) 18:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope William Connolley looks at it again.:):) He talks sense where The Artist Formerly Known as Bardcom is concerned. Sticky Parkin 19:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ireland being an island of the British "mainland". That's interesting. Is it true the Times once had a headline, "Fog in Channel - Continent Cut Off"? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe so, but that's not relevant, Ireland is an island off the British mainland, as are the Scottish islands. I suspect that some people (e.g. Wotapalaver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) will disagree, though, and this is based on my studies of geology before many of the Wikipedians who feel so passionately about this issue were even born. Guy (Help!) 20:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. I'm just saying that, from the British (i.e. our) viewpoint, the European continent is also "an island off the British mainland". Just a really large island. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No, Britain is an island off the European mainland, I'm quite clear on that. I am not a Daily Mail reader. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)With respect, can I remind editors of WP:NPA and can I request that an uninvolved admin take a look? I have politely expressed my concerns about Tharkys behaviour. --HighKing (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And accused me of bad faith, as well. TharkunColl (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have given Tharkuncoll an immediate final warning for a viscious personal attack upon Sarah777 on User talk:Sarah777. I have also advised Sarah777 about inflammatory language being used. Until personal attacks cease, I do not think this content dispute has a chance of being resolved, and I encourage other adminsitrators to deal with the personal attacks in a similar way.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something here, but I can't see what you're talking about. CarterBar (talk) 22:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I made a mistake about the target of the message TharkunColl posted. I've withdrawn the warning and apologized to him, but the general point stands about there being too much personal attacks in this dispute to make any headway on the content dispute until the attacks are stopped.  DDStretch  (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to try and cool this a bit: D-str was responding to Thark's remarks to/about an IP which I complained about. They weren't actually aimed at me; that was clear to me but would not have been obvious to D-str (and I'd complained of lack of 'parity of protection'). This is a mess of our creation that D was trying to sort it out! Sarah777 (talk) 22:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, of the articles I mentioned, the first two, Ye Olde Trip To Jerusalem and Salve Regina, have since been edited by another editor and provided references for the text being used. Great. With regard to Furry Dance, Porteous family, and Scottish Green Party, no further discussion has taken place and I will assume that the editors accept the argument put forward. I am now going to change each article in line with the discussion, and I hope that if my edits are reverted, the good admins here will look to see if the reverts have included references to back their claims. Thank you. --HighKing (talk) 10:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Erm, this whole thread proves not everyone agrees with that, and people have said so in this thread- different people, repeatedly. Sticky Parkin 11:28, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Said what exactly? That the edits don't need references? But as one of Tharkys buddies User:TharkunColl/Order of TharkunColl (Sticky = Merkinsmum), I guess it's not difficult to see which way you see the world. BTW, what did you do to "deserve" your membership? --HighKing (talk) 21:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• Erm, you have seen the page header, haven't you? This page is not part of our dispute resolution process.. I'd suggest you open a MedCab case on this topic. Steve Crossin (contact) 21:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Block review User:Cberlet

I just blocked Chip ( Cberlet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ) for 24 hrs for violating WP:CIVIL with this remarkably angry and hostile comment: [18]

I asked him to retract it and pointed out that it was unacceptable, his response indicated that he didn't feel it was inappropriate. Though I generally agree with him and he's a long-standing positive contributor, if he's snapping at people like that right now I think he needs a short break. Review appreciated, however. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems dangerously close to a "cool-down" block. Are we really worried that Jimbo, the ArbCom, or the board is going to be driven off Wikipedia by such a comment? If not, there's no real point in blocking (unless we're going to really dig into the letter of WP:BLP, but even then, I believe all of his LaRouche claims are rather well-established, and are certainly presented as personal opinion). For what it's worth, I completely disagree with this block. --Badger Drink (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL exists for a reason, as do WP:NPA etc. I doubt Jimmy, Arbcom, or anyone else will feel personally insulted, but the point is that nobody should be wandering around saying things like that on-wiki. People have been blocked for far longer for less. This is well established policy. That said - further review is always useful. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is a silly block, IMO. Chip is railing against Wikipedia's failure to enforce policy on the LaRouche articles, which are WP:OWNed by zealots. He is right. Guy (Help!) 04:42, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Posit for a moment that I agree with you...

Chip could have said so without running a SUV through our civility policy... And chose rather insistently to be extremely rude about it. This is not behavior we should be encouraging. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 04:50, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a decent block. Close to cool-down, but the German trains response following is highly inappropriate as well. ThuranX (talk) 05:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I endorse this block. However I'll note that other parties in the conflict have been using equally uncivil language, one of which I redacted because I thought it was unhelpful.[19] It'd be great if this block improves the civility. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a good block. First, I don't like blocks for strong but honest language, as long as it stays this side of WP:NPA (and expressing frustration with Wikipedia and its structures should have even more leeway), and secondly I don't see how this is likely to positively influence Chip. He's just doubly pissed now. I do appreciate the style of the block message, though. Very good, clear explanation of why the behavior was problematic. Chip's German/trains comment was completely over the top, though. Now I'm pissed, too, and I guess so would be others. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Good block. Viridae^Talk 07:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that his comment is just as much a violation of WP:BLP as it is uncivil. Cla68 (talk) 07:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block- no need to call people things like that (regardless of whether you think it's true) it's unconstructive and intimidating. Sticky Parkin 11:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block - looking at the thread in which Chip made the original comment, it appears that someone mentioned his habit of citing himself wherever possible, and his response was to loose his temper. He was then warned, and his response was unhelpful. PhilKnight (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

No worries about Jimbo or arbcom members being driven off by such talk, but other editors might easily grow quiet in fear such labels might be slapped on them. I don't see this as a cooldown block, I see it as a way to stop any a hint of a personal attack from this editor for a day. This is beyond strong language, it's name calling, clearly meant to stop discussion. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this acceptable? --Random832 (contribs) 13:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It's a rant/vent targeted at Wikipedia overall. I don't read it as a PA. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:36, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I too see it as easily within the range of acceptable comment. DGG (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Not easily so, but tolerable in the context of an article with a very long history of abuse by supporters of LaRouche, a particularly unsavoury character. Guy (Help!) 18:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

← This encapsulates, in a nutshell, everything wrong with our current approach to "enforcing" civility. Let's jump in the middle of an ongoing, overly snippy discussion on an article where there's a long history of antagonism. On some occasions, Cberlet has responded to baiting reasonably (see [20] → [21] and [22] → [23], for example). At this particular point, he loses his cool and makes an unacceptable remark. As a result, Cberlet is given an out-and-out "cool-down block" while several single-purpose agenda accounts skate on after remarks like these: [24], [25], [26], [27].

Cberlet's remark was unacceptable regardless of provocation, and a block is justifiable on BLP grounds, as Cla68 mentions, since he refused to retract it. Whatever. But if you're going cast this as an "enforcement" of WP:CIVIL, then look at the context; consider whether a single editor is dealing with provocation from multiple agenda accounts, and whether any action beyond a "cool-down block" for one participant is warranted - because I can guarantee that a unilateral cool-down block isn't going to improve the situation. Don't come into a contentious, uncivil back-and-forth and just block the person who made the most recent uncivil comment, and then leave. That's going to look like an arbitrary lightning strike, and no one's going to learn anything from it - it's just going to entrench everyone further. MastCell ^Talk 19:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wow, alright. I also support blocks to the first three links for NPA violations, per WP:SAUCE, (if that doesn't exist, it ought to - sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander). The last one is more of a legitimate discrediting comment along the lines of COI. ThuranX (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

SV has attempted to dodge this thread, and asked GWH for an unblock on his talk page. [28]. I have left the question of what to do with the statement on Cberlet's page open. SirFozzie (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

SlimVirgin needs to come here and explain why she's above community consensus. That's an insulting move to make, dodging all of the discussion here for an end-run around us. ThuranX (talk) 02:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that she's dodging this discussion. It's possible she was unaware that a discussion was taking place here, unless I'm missing something. The first move if you disagree with a block is generally to approach the blocking admin on their talk page, so I wouldn't consider she's doing anything outside of standard practice. SirFozzie notified her of this thread, so now she knows. No big deal. MastCell ^Talk 03:34, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh, seems like a cool down block, don't agree with it at all. However, it's not cool for SlimVirgin to duck this thread. Come here and voice your opinion in "public." Personally, I feel that civility policy is some times abused. Beam 02:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Does this block need to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Lyndon LaRouche 2? Cla68 (talk) 03:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No. None of the remedies or enforcements were against user:Cberlet - they were all about user:Herschelkrustofsky. Since "HK" is now banned indefinitely, there's little point in logging bans on his sock puppets. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Although the initial enforcement instructions in that case specifically apply to HK, the post-decision motion [29], which doesn't mention HK by name, appears to generally cover any POV-pushing, sourcing problems, or, as happened here, any WP:BLP violations related to Larouche articles. Cla68 (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You may be misreading that decision. The BLP concerns there were related to the constant attacks on Cberlet by LaRouche editors. If you read the thread where Cberlet made his remark, you'll see that it hasn't stopped. Have you seen the edit that I deleted as a personal attack?[30] I think that Cberlet, while going over the line, has been remarkably calm considering the manner in which he's, shall we say, baited. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

That post-decision motion is so broad, it looks to me like it could be applied to just about anything untoward that occurs with the LaRouche articles. So, if any of the pro-LaRouche editors have been bloked for attacking and baiting Chip, or for anything else related to those articles, then their blocks should also be annotated in that ArbCom case. Cla68 (talk) 21:13, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I still think you're misreading it, and if you want to press the matter perhaps you could quote the text you think is relevant. Since this matter has dragged on and forced us to look at that ArbCom case again, I'm more inclined to think that Polly Hedra (talk · contribs) also deserves a long block for his/her personal attack on Berlet.[31] Does anyone think that would be uncalled for on account of the BLP violation? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

There is no BLP violation. Polly commented in a civil fashion about chronic policy violations by Cberlet (WP:COI), which is a legitimate topic. Her characterization of PRA is certainly far milder than Cberlet's characterization of the LaRouche organization, and I notice that you deleted her remark while allowing Cberlet's to stand. --Marvin Diode (talk) 23:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

So an unsourced derogatory comment on a living person, by name, isn't a BLP violation? Considering that an entire ArbCom case dealt with personal attacks on Berlet from a LaRouche editor, I don't think that it's possible to "play dumb" or give the benefit of the doubt. The ArbCom has made it clear that HK/LaRouche editors are not to badmouth Berlet. Given that ArbCom case, Polly Hedra's remark was ample grounds for a block. As there is an existing ArbCom case governing HK socks, WP:AE is probably the appropriate venue for discussion of a block or ban. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've asked for clarification from ArbCom [32]. Cla68 (talk) 03:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've asked there if the arbCom has an opinion on Polly Hedra's apparent BLP violation. If they don't respond, and there are no objections here from non-LaRouche editors, I'll place a block. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think, if there is a block of that user, it ought to be done by somebody else, given that Will Beback has shown clear partisanship on this issue and is not an uninvolved administrator. Anyway, is it your contention that Berlet has carte blanche to badmouth other people and make unsourced derogatory comments about them? One of the people he's been attacking has been Carol Moore, who I know from libertarian circles and find Berlet's characterizations as being connected in some way to fascism, totalitarianism, and antisemitism to be absolutely absurd. (If he goes through with his Right to Vanish, as he seems to be right now, points about his behavior will become moot, other than the possible need for rear-guard actions against those who want to make him a martyr and use his name to justify further crackdowns against purported "trolls" and "harassers" who persist in expressing opinions contrary to Berlet's clique of supporters.) *Dan T.* (talk) 12:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Good block. Civility is the most fundamental of behavior policies. Looking at the edit- [33] "Spineless Cowards" is definitely pushing it. "Single issue fanatic supporters" is crossing a line. Referring to the living person who is the subject of the article as a "raging antisemite, fascist and lunatic"-- no definitely good. --Alecmconroy (talk) 03:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I notice that SlimVirgin never appeared to explain her actions. Very disappointing behavior from an admin who has had the buttons and knows procedure so well. ThuranX (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

What actions? She asked the blocking admin to reconsider. I don't see the blocking admin even responding to her. She's done nothing wrong in this regard. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with my friend Thuran. Beam 22:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like a good block to me. We have rules, nasty comments like that are not allowed and the block is short. Chillum 23:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• -- Ned Scott 02:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Papercup47 (talk · contribs · count)

Resolved

 – blocked indefinitely

Before going to sleep, I noticed some odd edits. This new editor has been undoing borderline edits by established editors, calling them vandalism, and then going to their talk pages and leaving uncalled for warnings and veiled threats. [34] [35] [36] [37]

I looked at the reverts and all were reverts of good faith edits. I'm not taking a side on which editor is right, but calling them vandalism is not on, and leaving warnings that say "I will not look at your talk page again as I am very busy. If you want to contest this reversion, feel free to leave a message on my talk page. Feel free to apologise for your vandalism on my talk page as well. I have added this page and your contributions to my watchlist as I will be monitoring your activity for vandalism." is way out of line. I notified the user of the AN/I thread, and I have my reasons for not discussing it with the editor before bringing it to AN/I. Enigma ^message 07:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What are your reasons? I tried to reply on your talk page but you have set it to be protected, precluding open discussion. If you have a problem with how I am editing I would hope you would inform me as to what I am doing wrong. As you can see, I am a new editor and may be going about things too aggressively. If this is the case I am not yet aware, still further this is the case because you have elected to not talk to me about this situation before posting here. Feel free to reply on my talk page. Papercup47 (talk) 07:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

He followed this up with a personal attack. I'm not optimistic about the prospect of seeing anything good out of this editor. Enigma ^message 07:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It was protected by an admin because of trolling. In this case, I am glad it's protected because I don't want to hear the kind of stuff you've been hitting other editors with. Enigma ^message 07:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

another personal attack. If you ask me, this is a sock account of an editor who has a vendetta against Chrisjnelson. You can feel the vitriol. Enigma ^message 07:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you must be right. It can't be a coincidence some random new account just decided to target me. I think a block and checkuser are in order.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Now he put a fake block/unblock message on his talk. [38] Enigma ^message 07:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The thought did occur to me. Was in the process of leaving them a message, and found they'd been blocked while I was typing; will try to keep an eye on this case. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think any of us should have to keep putting up with his nonsense. He clearly knows what he's doing (to some extent at least) and is just trying to be disruptive. His talk page claims about not understanding his block are clearly intended just to waste others' time.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Speaking from a general procedural standpoint, I'm not entirely comfortable with any situation where a single admin blocks a user, locks their talk page, and then declines their unblock request. However, the user was being pretty egregiously disruptive, so... – Luna Santin (talk) 07:43, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Or else I would have specified the same. Synergy 07:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I am the admin Luna Santin is referring to: I took that action because of the extreme nature of what was being done, and I wouldn't normally have done that in other circumstances. It wouldn't be anything I would do lightly, but I think we need to be alert to highly disruptive editors gaming the system in this manner in order to have more time to carry out even more faking of messages, accepted unblock requests, and so on.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:12, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Harassment and stalking by User:Papercup47

I am being harassed and, by his own admission, stalked by User:Papercup47. It began when I was doing routine corrections and fixes to Orrin Thompson. Shortly after these edits to the article, I was reverted by the aforementioned user with the edit summary "reverting vandalism." He then came to my talk page and warned me about vandalizing Wikipedia, as seen here. You can also see on his talk page that I have contested his accusations, but he has continued to make false accusations, talk down to me and, most recently, flat-out insult me. I think it's obvious this user is up to no good and is just trying to be disruptive.

UPDATE: As I write this, it's clear he's just trying to be disruptive and has no good faith, as he's suggested "it must hurt to go to a stupid public school." Can someone help?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems someone got to it before I could.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You need to review WP:BLP about the adding of unsourced statements to articles about living people. In short, one should not do it, and they can be removed on sight. The fact that you label the removal of them as "vandalism" is not helpful and can be viewed as being disruptive if you continue. You seem also to be engaging in personal attacks upon other users, as explained by Enigma on your talk page (assuming you have not merely removed the message, which has happned in a few other cases for messages on your talk page) So, you need to review WP:AGF and WP:NPA.  DDStretch  (talk) 07:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've attempted to wake someone up to this thread. Synergy 07:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, DDstretch is talking to Papercup. Initially, I thought he was talking to Chrisjnelson and I was taken aback. Then I realized. Heh. Enigma ^message 07:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

To clarify further: I'm talking to Chrisjnelson and not DDstretch. ^_^ Synergy 07:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ooops. Sorry for that, I was being hit by multiple edit conflicts both on here and on the (noew) blocked sockpuppet's talk page, and sliped up there. Sorry for any confusion: I was addressing Papercup/Notepad.  DDStretch  (talk) 09:17, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I did too, haha!►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(OD)If I may, he seems eerily reminiscent of recently blocked user User:Notepad47. Personal attacks, superiority complex, asking about becoming an admin on his first day. Looks pretty similar. Dayewalker (talk) 07:21, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems like a pretty strong coincidence to me. Can someone request a checkuser, especially since it could also be someone I've encountered before?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

More personal attacks

[39] And a faked message from me, to boot. I'll be requesting a checkuser shortly and we'll see if anything turns up. First it has to be accepted, naturally. Enigma ^message 07:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Funny that a guy vandalizing and harassing people on Wikipedia at 3:30 a.m. ET is saying others have no friends...►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Its over for now. His talk page has been protected. I'd suggest you file at WP:RFCU or just contact a checkuser just in case. Synergy 07:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

DDStretch and Synergy, thanks for your help with the situation.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem. Synergy 07:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice job, Dayewalker. Enigma ^message 07:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem, anytime. I thought he seemed pretty familiar. Beans, and all that. Dayewalker (talk) 07:54, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

• Figured I'd post it here as well for anyone interested. Courtesy of Alison:

1. Papercup47 (talk · contribs · count)
2. Notepad47 (talk · contribs · count)
3. Lronhubbard234 (talk · contribs · count)
4. Abnodfashcefdarf (talk · contribs · count) -- Enigma ^message 08:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Another copyvio editor: wrong information, copyvios, broken links, spam links, bad geography, bad interpretions

I've been looking at some articles by User:Wilhelmina Will who is running a race for DYK and other awards on her vanity page. Her articles have tremendous problems, they're largely copied from single sources, generally blogs, they're factually incorrect, she mixes up geography (though on a lesser scale than a recently indeffed editor, New Mexico for California), the links are broken, they include spam links, she's copied wholesale from copyrighted internet sites. Check my edit history for some of the articles of hers I've had to edit and tag. I bring up the other example in this because, like CS, it appears that most of this editor's contribution should be removed from Wikipedia.

I assume, as usual, I will be attacked for this. But, it is nice to see that some editors care about quality on Wikipedia, though, and thank you to all those editors who did not feel it necessary in my case to shoot the messenger.

However, again, this is fair warning for when this comes back to haunt Wikipedia: this editor is copying material that already has copyrights, and having Wikipedia copyright it as Wikipedia material; she is creating articles that are wrong (like one article uses a source that is all about a turtle not being a crown group sea turtle, and she calls it a crown group sea turtle in the article, obviously not understanding the technical article at all); she is copying from blogs to build articles and sourcing them to the blogs, she is copying huge amounts of text from IMDb, etc., etc.

She appears, like CS, to have created hundreds, if not thousands of problem articles. I've only looked at ones that appeared on the main page in DYK. They are all bad in unacceptable ways. I have alerted the folks at DYK who will be watching her contributions more carefully to address this one issue. The other issue remains, what is to be done with her existing articles, potentially all of which are seriously problematic from the sampling I've taken?

--Blechnic (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

It's human to make mistakes. Fix them if you see them. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

That is not a helpful comment coming from you Will after you didthis - by fix do you mean removal? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Every article she has created that I have looked at has mistakes in it. When I confronted her the first time she got belligerent. Should I review her hundreds and hundreds of articles and correct all of the errors, like the sea turtle article based on a misreading of the primary source she created? I've looked at half a dozen articles, all are almost completely useless for some reason. How about somebody find one article of hers that isn't completely useless, rather than have her continue to contribute wrong, copied, and bad articles? --Blechnic (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi Blechnic - are all of her articles copyvio issues, or are a lot of them just cleanup problems? Fritzpoll (talk) 00:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Her list of created articles is here. I note quite a few BLP articles in this mix, and there are several hundred of them. I only looked at a couple, and though they were not horrible, they weren't well sourced and there were at least minor errors in them. Both that I looked at quickly were borderline as to copyvio, so I can't answer that conclusively. I'm going to start working from the bottom up if someone else would like to start on some of the others. Risker (talk) 00:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll start at the bottom of the list. Fritzpoll (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict.) They all appear to be largely copied from various sources, although cleverly so, and some will debate me on this issue. Still there is enough copied to find which page she copies from with a simple and quick search. She does copy lists in their entirety, such as a huge list from IMDb. However, the bigger problem, as with CS, is that her use of technical literature is wrong. For example on the sea turtle article, Ctenochelys, she reads the abstract and says it "is considered to be a crown-group sea turtle," but the source she used is an article about it no longer being considered to be a crown group sea turtle, and in fact, it's not considered in the extant sea turtles where she plops it in her first sentence. She includes spam links.[40] Nothing about the one reference in this article says anything about him being the director of all the soap operas. And her single sources are usually personal blogs of the person the article is about.[41] It appears every article of hers that I have looked at has deep problems. I am tired of looking. Maybe she can clean them up herself.

Good start, Fritzpoll and Risker. She might be willing to learn how to do it properly, also. --Blechnic (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The science articles are going to be the problem, if you don't know phylogeny something like someone saying it's a crown group when the article is about it no longer being considered one might not jump out at you. This whole article is so off, but so convoluted, I don't know what to do about it. I personally think Ctenochelys should just be deleted. --Blechnic (talk) 00:53, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll let other admins respond to this one as well, but it depends on the scale of the problem - I'll see how many science articles there are. But I'm not sure what CSD criteria could apply Fritzpoll (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Right, I got up as far as Morawanocetus from the bottom, and have made a note of the scientific articles on the way. I need to go to bed. Mostly so far, I have no direct copyvios, but some very poorly sourced articles. I suggest someone contact the author and offer to mentor her through the next month or so and to point out the lack of importance of DYK. She seems motivated, but in just the wrong direction at the moment. I hope she will reply here soon Fritzpoll (talk) 01:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone remember the User:Orbicle case? This is how we handled it, with User:Gmaxwell's help. He queried the database for all new pages by the user, listed them in alphabetical order, and we had a team of about 10 (look at the page history) go through the list to check sources, and then we crossed them off when they were done. Some were copyvios which we re-wrote, others were fine as is. When there's a long list, this can be an efficient way to approach the problem.

Wilhelmina gets her articles from Articles for Creation. I haven't checked to see if she copies directly from there, but it is possible she does, assuming good faith on the part of the people who post there. I feel a certain responsibility here because I've been supportive of her efforts, have encouraged her, and she has often come to me for opinions about notability and sources -- but I haven't checked her work for copyright violations. Seeing as copyvios are a serious issue, I think we need to go through these, and of course if Wilhelmina herself would help that would be best of all. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 01:31, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I agree, for what it's worth. Many seem to come from Articles for Creation, but created without actually reality-checking the proposal (for instance, Oaaa, where the source was one unverified answer at a Q&A site). The cryptozoology articles are pretty bad too - articles like Issie, Cressie and Batsquatch sourced from various personal and non-scholarly websites that well fail WP:V standards. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:40, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, she is a AFC regular. A bit of good faith is required here - she AGFed on the IPs being able to not copyvio or use unreliable sources. When I accept articles at AFC, I rarely deviate from the IP's submission. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:48, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's a good faith issue. I helped there for a while, and even assuming good faith all round, the practicality is that many (most, even) AFC proposals are by newcomers who've not gone through the small print of Unregistered users: Submitting an article, so it's wise to check the sources for copyright/reliability issues. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:05, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You really can't afford to blindly accept AFC submissions. When I was helping out there I found that the largest majority of articles posted there were copyvios. I always double checked every article before I posted it and I would encourage others to do likewise - it only takes a couple of minutes to Google a couple of choice sentences. Sarah 07:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Has she been notified of these proceedings? Beam 01:58, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, by a couple of editors on her talk page.

• Wilhelmina Will (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

--Blechnic (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone alerted her to the exact problem with copyvio as well as the issue of writing poor articles? Beam 03:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Having worked with/pseudo-mentored User:Wilhelmina Will on the Iggy Arbuckle pages, I'm inclined to think it was an honest mistake from not checking the AFCs before doing them. She does go overboard on the non-free images, but I think its just from a lack of full understanding of the policy, which some long term editors no longer always have a good grasp on due to the changes earlier this year. I think a more formal mentoring relationship would be very beneficial in helping correct these problems and help her become an even stronger as I've found her to be fairly open to corrections, willing to learn, and to have a desire to be a good editor. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

In spite of the severity of the problem (factual inaccuracies, and admission on my talk page she doesn't understand the scientific article she wrote incorrectly, bum links, links to viruses, plagiarism, hostility in response when it's pointed out) I suspect this editor is worth working with. Please don't anyone underestimate the level of the problem with her existing articles, though. Underestimating the problem will not do her or Wikipedia any good. Maybe she could get some guidance and learning while fixing the problems she created. --Blechnic (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, initially I agreed that while its a big problem, its fixable with some guidance. However, it seems like she is very deliberately ignoring all messages on her talk page and this report and continuing along with her usual edits. That, to me, does not bode well. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

In all honesty, with Durova's comment below, and how long Carol Spears was allowed to go on even after it became apparent that something was seriously wrong with her contributions, probably just ignoring this and continuing to plagiarize and create misinformation is the way to go from the viewpoint of the one creating the problem.

Someone elsewhere said this would be the most effective means of vandalizing Wikipedia: getting a few other editors who support you, then just writing random crap all over the place. I agreed then, I see it even clearer now. Everyone can spot the Gawp's who can't handle (or find) their cocks, but it takes perserverence to deal with editors like this, and Wikipedians rather more to the former, than the work necessary to deal with the latter. Something needs to be done about all of her edits. Meanwhile, she's creating more. I looked at a few, they were just one line stubs, though I haven't looked at all.--Blechnic (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's be more circumspect with real people's names

I've done something blockable: I've altered Blechnic's thread title and opening post above. I'm also invoking IAR; made the changes to partially redact a real person's name who is not involved in this thread and is referred to as a negative example. Let's remember that sort of thing can have a real world impact via Google hits, etc. If a username is Fuzzyduckling22 and has no real world connection to anybody, then turn it into a meme if you like. Please be more circumspect with real human names. Durova^Charge! 10:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what is a real person's name or not on Wikipedia, and when editors use their real names they have already conceded to allowing a real world impact via Google.

It was an expedient way to make it clear what I was talking about--what is appearing to be a common editing style among plagiarizing editors: factual inaccuracies, sloppy links, gratuitous references, overall bad editing.

I don't have an issue with changing the title of a thread, though. Why would that be blockable? Don't answer! --Blechnic (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

What would really be better is if we treated copyright more seriously around here. After all, the Wikipedia community doesn't have the power to overrule real world legislation. If an editor is committing bright line copyright violations, he or she should get a limited number of warnings before an indefinite block. And then--as with legal threats--a retraction and pledge to stop creating problems should be necessary to get an unblock (with mentorship if needed). When we as a site treat the law less than seriously, we open the door to difficult editors making an open joke of it. That's a risk to the Foundation and to our site's credibility, and ultimately to the names of those difficult editors if they use their real names. Durova^Charge! 04:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand this lack of response to copyright violations and plagiarism. It stains everything Wikipedia has accomplished, imo, to see these little DYK articles with content copied and pasted from all over the web. This week was the first time I read all of the articles on a DYK and did not suspect a single one of a copyvio. This copyvio/plagiarism stains all of the hard work done by editors who write excellent articles, by editors who use sources properly, by editors who contribute to featured articles and good articles (the ones without copyvios, that is). Yet editors continue to attack me for pointing these problems out. These issues put Wikipedia in ugly company. Do the big print encyclopedias plagiarize hundreds and hundreds of pages off of the web (to Carol Spears alone, and, now, it appears the same to Wilhelmina Will--this is just two editors)?

Yes, it attacks Wikipedia's credibility, and it makes it harder to justify contributing, and it stains the hard work of good editors by pulling them down into the cesspool.

And these bad editors are the ones who are going to draw attention and headlines, like that guy who lied about being a Ph.D. What's so bad about saying you have a Ph.D. in comparison to saying the words are your own when they're not?--Blechnic (talk) 18:52, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I've worked all my career in the RW trying to educate people who honestly and in good faith think that writing and research is a matter of finding places from which to copypaste--if they're sophisticated, adding quotation marks and some sort of references. At least in the (US) higher education system there is an emphasis on originality in doing one's work, and it is fairly easy to explain how originality is incompatible with such a technique. But for writing what is acknowledged to be a tertiary resource like Wikipedia, where originality isn't merely not-required, but prohibited, it's a little harder to explain why intellectual effort beyond that of an OCR system is needed. I suspect good parts of many or perhaps most of our articles are prepared the same away as these, though not as erroneously. The use of misunderstood references based on abstracts is inevitable when people use the free summaries in databases without attempting to find the actual articles. (See Open access for at least one part of the true solution to this). The solution is not to ban those who do it the most conspicuously, but to educate, one at a time, as suggested above. Yes it's tedious. But people can and do learn, and working here can be a good opportunity to remedy the missing parts of someone's education. DGG (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

A recently-concluded siteban demonstrates that we err entirely too far in the direction of education and lenience. The result is an enormous cleanup job for several editors and the near-loss of Blechnic, who endured unfair accusations of wikistalking as "thanks" for her efforts to remove bad citations and copyright violations. I do not propose that we ban editors routinely. It's very easy to get a legal threat indef lifted. This is a legal matter too. Durova^Charge! 19:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Having said what I said, I suppose what I do now is offer to help in the education if she stays. DGG (talk) 02:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I wish you would help, as she is, right now miscopying with a new article she is working on. She does not, like Carol Spears, read scientific sources well enough to be able to use them accurately. This is hard to understand. I don't write articles about topics about which I am ignorant. Today I edited a link from the main page featured article, but only after some serious reading and research to make sure I understood what a whaleback ship was. Even then, I asked other editors to check it. I write mostly outside of the area of my formal education, but I am very careful when writing Wikipedia articles to source what I write, no matter how well I know it, and to write from sources I understand fully. This is why I cannot understand how people think they can write articles about topics about which they are ignorant in five days or less. It takes me a day to put up a sentence about topics in my area. I'm reading about a well-known Egyptian geological formation. This is my area, stratigraphy. I've been reading about it for days to add a few sentences. This is because an encyclopedia requires sourcing and referencing.

Please help if you can, as I suspect this editor will listen and is capable of learning. --Blechnic (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've made the offer. If you have any particular difficulties or suggestions for me, let me know, perhaps privately. (I am not offering formal mentorship.) DGG (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Tennis expert and 80.0.41.117 edit warring

Tennis expert and IP 80.0.41.117 are edit warring at Venus Williams which I have watchlisted due to an addition made a week ago. The two users are making the same reverts in a two party content dispute with no discussion engaged in as yet. MickMacNee (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Reverts by Tennis expert:

• 19:35, 22 July 2008
• 19:33, 21 July 2008
• 07:23, 21 July 2008
• 19:42, 19 July 2008

I warned both editors today [42], [43] at aound 16.30 UTC. Tennis expert acknowledged my warning at 17:38, and subsequently made the same revert again at 20:36.

I would report this at the "edit warring" notice board, but it seems to have taken to rejecting any reports that are not a stone cold violation of 3RR, whereas I think anyone can see this is a purposeful slow edit war with no likely resolution without some action taken to butt heads, or someone giving in. MickMacNee (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yup, you're right that this isn't a 3RR violation, but it is a slow edit war. I don't personally see it as blockable just yet, so I've protected the page for 72 hours to let discsussion happen on the talk page. Ryan Postlethwaite 20:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

This is not an "edit war." User 80.0.41.117 keeps adding unsourced, unencyclopedic, unconstructive, and opinion-filled information to the playing style section of the Venus Williams article. Here is this user's text:

Williams is an aggressive baseliner, equipped with an attacking all-court game. Across her career Venus has developed into a skillful volleyer and effectively utilises her long reach and relative quickness around the net. Venus stated during an interview at the 2008 Australian Open that she was working to improve her volley.[1]

Venus is the most powerful server (by a margin) on the women's Tour, both in terms of average and fastest serve speeds, surveyed across tournaments throughout the year. At Wimbledon 2008, Venus struck the fastest serve recorded (by a woman) in the tournament's history, at 129 mph, in the women's final, Saturday 5th July 2008 (see: http://www.wimbledon.org/en_GB/news/match_reports/2008-07-05/200807051215270803593.html). This equaled the record for the fastest serve in a WTA main draw event, previously set by Venus at the 2007 US Open (first round match) at 129 mph. At Wimbledon 2008 Venus' average first serve speed was 115 mph in the 1/4 final, a remarkable 116 mph in the semi-final and 111 mph in the final (IBM/Wimbledon) - rather faster average speeds than any woman (including her sister, Serena Williams) records. To put this into further perspective, the top men's seed (and world no.1) at the tournament, Roger Federer, registered average first serve speeds of 119 mph (1/4 final), 117 mph (semi-final) and 117 mph (final) in his last three matches at the tournament (IBM/Wimbledon). This kind of confluence in men's and women's service speeds is unusual in professional tennis, and sets Venus Williams apart from her contemporaries in the women's game. To further illustrate the difference, the no.1 seed at the tournament, Ana Ivanovic, recorded an average first serve speed of 98 mph (fastest serve 108 mph) in her last match at the tournament. The no.3 seed at the tournament; Maria Sharapova, recorded an average first serve speed of 104 mph (fastest serve 111 mph) in her last match.

Venus Williams has always been a explosive hitter of the ball off the ground but her backhand is the more consistently reliable of her groundstrokes. Venus' backhand is equally effective hit down-the-line or crosscourt (frequently for a set-up approach shot). Venus' forehand does occasionally break down under pressure. However, it is still the more powerful of her groundstrokes, and a stroke that yields many winners, from a variety of court positions. Additionally, it is one the most powerful forehands in the women's game, frequently struck in the 85 - 90 mph range. In the 2008 Wimbledon women's final, Venus struck a forehand winner measured at 94 mph (IBM/Wimbledon). Only a few women (notably Ana Ivanovic, Serena Williams, Sania Mirza and the now-retired Justine Henin) hit to these speeds off the ground. Venus's forehand drive-volley (a shot that she popularised at the top of the sport) is the most decisive and devastating in the game.

Finally, Venus is a gifted athlete with excellent court coverage. Equipped with a long 'wingspan', Venus is able to reach shots that many other players would not even attempt a play on. Moreover, Venus is able to play an offensive shot from a defensive position - something that comparatively few women players are able to do.

When this user first added this "*checked and re-checked*" stuff, I attempted to work with him or her, as follows:

Williams is an aggressive baseliner and uses an attacking all-court game.[citation needed]

Williams has developed into a skillful volleyer and effectively uses her long reach and relative quickness around the net.[citation needed] She stated during an interview at the 2008 Australian Open that she was working to improve her volley.[1] Her forehand drive-volley, a shot that she helped popularize, is one of the most effective in the women's game.

William's serve is among the most powerful on the women's tour.[citation needed] During the singles final at Wimbledon in 2008, Williams struck the fastest serve by a woman in the tournament's recorded history, at 129 mph.[2] This equalled the record for the fastest serve in a WTA main draw event, previously set by Williams at the 2007 US Open.[citation needed] Also at Wimbledon in 2008, her average first serve speed was 115 mph in the quarterfinals,[3] 116 mph in the semifinals,[4] and 111 mph in the final.[5]

Williams has always been a explosive hitter of the ball off the ground, but her double-handed backhand is more consistently reliable than her forehand.[citation needed] She can hit her backhand down-the-line or crosscourt. Her forehand occasionally breaks down under pressure;[citation needed] however, it is still one of the most powerful forehands in the women's game and yields many winners, from a variety of court positions.[citation needed] During the 2008 Wimbledon singles final, Williams struck a forehand winner measured at 94 mph.[citation needed]

Williams has excellent court coverage.[citation needed] Equipped with long arms, Williams is able to reach shots that many other players would not attempt to play.[citation needed] Williams also is able to play an offensive shot from a defensive position.[citation needed]

But my work was reverted back to the problematic text. Tennis expert (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree - the text added by the anon IP is not neutral or encyclopedic. But some of your comments would not have encouraged discussion. Lets see what discussion and progress occurs while the article is blocked. If the anon IP does not engage, it would indicate disruptive behavior. --HighKing (talk) 13:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of cited material on advice of attorney?

Just came across this edit which removed cited material, supposedly on advice of attorney. It doesn't seem defamatory in any way. Thoughts? Toddst1 (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• I'd say "stick it back and tell the editor to contact OTRS". There's nothing defamatory there -- just reportage. Further, the editor has an obvious COI. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • It's a "legal bluff" by a red-link. I reverted it. If he has an issue, he can contact wikipedia's legal eagles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:30, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • For what it's worth, the phone number they asked us to call (yeh, we'll get right on that, sure) is a Canadian law firm. [44] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There's also this one. Toddst1 (talk) 17:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That one at least has a real WP:BLP concern. I readded the info about him having daughters, but the other paragraph should probably stay out (or someone could find a source?). Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 17:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

i readded in neutral language, plenty of citation int he relevant article about anne of green gables. ThuranX (talk) 17:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

And I copied the refs from Anne of Green Gables (1985 film). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

We should politely ask what the actual issue is (other than WP:IDONTLIKEIT), and offer the email address for OTRS. He may have a valid concern which does not quite justify total removal of the content but would nonetheless colour its presentation. Guy (Help!) 17:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• (ec, agree with what JzG says) Blindly reverting this is a really bad idea. It could probably stand to be better sourced and verified. It does make two potentially defamatory claims - that Sullivan lied about the movie making money and that he refused to allow his books to be examined according to contract. Unless someone can back up everything in that paragraph, this is a BLP problem and rather than screaming COI, we should be thanking this individual for their good faith effort to point out a problem with one of our articles. If we are able to get everything in there well-sourced (and claims in the lawsuit itself don't count), and he just doesn't like having unfavorable facts there, that's a him problem, but as of right now, there are unsourced claims there. --B (talk) 17:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

If it's unsourced, it could go. When a user posts some nonsense about calling an attorney, that just invites blind reversion on principle. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

But we should be careful. The removed text doesn't actually say the movie made money; it suggests it. The parenthesis " (even though, as noted above, they were among the highest-rated television programs in Canadian history)" is probably synthesis - and it is indeed possible for a crefully structured and extremely popular show to show no profit (this is why percentages of gross profit are customary); the other points should be dealt with by saying "the heirs assert" he refused to let them examine the books, and noting (as the removed text does) that a judge did not believe the movie made no money. (I presume both of these are in the trial record, as cited.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a user involking lawyers invites blind reversion, but we should be circumspect in doing so. Experience on OTRS has shown that while in many cases reversion is the right thing, in others (and it's not always easy on the face of it to tell which) it is a spectacularly bad idea. Guy (Help!) 18:23, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Both quotes from the trial have now been removed (not by me). The Globe and Mail story (here, may require registration) attributes "evasive witness" to the judge, "bad joke" to the heirs' lawyer. Both are just aw well away. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the present version is a good compromise. The quotes from the judge and attorney, while factual and verifiable, are superfluous to an article about the film itself. caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 19:58, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

When some red-link makes some pompous statement in an edit summary, to a presumably consensus version of an article, then immediate reversion is reasonable. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:33, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This comment is so wrong-headed it is hard to decide where to start. "Red-link" is irrelevant. "Pompous" is highly subjective and also irrelevant. "Presumably consensus" is no excuse for assuming good faith and giving due respect to any edit, and, as to immediate reversion based on (1) red link, (2) pompous, (3) the status quo is presumed to reflect consensus, only the third argument has any weight at all, and when a BLP issue is raised, it's utterly insane. What's the rush? --Abd (talk) 22:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Gross incivility on Cold fusion

Page gets heated anyway, but it is getting OTT. Most recent comments by User:ScienceApologist are beyond the pale in my view. A good look by an uninvolved admin would be much appreciated. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:26, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

As a non-admin, the first step I'd take is to warn them with a personal message about focusing on content and contributions, and not the editors per WP:NPA. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. However, I'm always talking to this editor about one thing or another. It is too easy to get into a situation where we wind each other up. A completely external person would do better. Itsmejudith (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

It was requested by an IP that SA refactor his comments, and he did do. Hopefully that should be the end of it. If there are any more concerns, it might be an idea to ask SA to refactor another comments because he's normally very open to doing so. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Ryan. Itsmejudith (talk) 01:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ryan, glad to hear/see a resolution, but I'm slightly confused. Refactoring comments, even one's own, is generally frowned upon (even if the intentions are ultimately good, as in this case) because it can lead to confusion down the road with regards to diffs - if it were ever to come up again or be relevant. A retraction/apology would have been more appropriate in my opinion. Just musing here. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 05:16, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

No, it's fine. That article is the subject of long-term civil POV-pushing by a fringe minority, and such cases tend to cause frustration in those who support the majority view. People are human, refactoring tetchy comments is a good result. Goading the supporters of policy into exploding and then driving them off to leave the field clear for those who would skew content to give undue weight to a minority POV is much more of a problem. Guy (Help!) 06:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I think, with some comments, striking it out is worse than leaving it be. Not only is the insult/attack still there, but now the attacker can say "I struck it out, what do you want from me?" Beam 10:45, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to chime in here: For whoever reviews this, I think they should take a look at Talk:Cold_fusion#Analysis_and_rejection_of_observational_error and the most recent comments in Talk:Cold_fusion#Differing_isotopic_ratios. Thanks. Kevin Baas^talk 00:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

advice needed

Not sure where to post this, so I thought I would try here, where I know there's a number of experienced people hanging around. Please advise me if this should go somewhere else.

I went to the template page Template:Sexual orientation on an RfC. there is a user there - Cooljuno411 - who is essentially doing extensive original research on the template itself (recategorizing the definition of sexual orientation to his own particular tastes...). he's very adamant about his position, to the extent that he comes close to edit-warring, though most editors have been gracious enough not to allow an edit war to start. normally I would solve this by attaching an OR template and flagging it for all concerned, but attaching templates to templates is ugly and confusing to readers. I'll put in some inline templates for the time being, but can anyone suggest a more graceful and effective approach? --Ludwigs2 22:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Keep trying to reach out to Cooljuno. And don't try to talk to him by yourself. There has to be others who are concerned and use the Sexual Orientation template. I don't want to use the term "gang up" on him, but you should "gang up on him" in a calm and nice way. If that doesn't work, than try some sort of dispute resolution and if that doesn't succeed, than offer all the money you can muster! Beam 23:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Figure out what is the basis for the pre-existing categorization system, and then argue from there. If it is commonly known, or famous, or standard in off-wiki professional discussion of the topic, then that should help a lot. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 23:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

There's a bigger problem, seen here. Cooljuno's edits are in pursuit of his POV that sexuality is a choice and thus should all be equally lumped together. The talk page seems to have a lot of interestin forming a good order and consensus ,but against a POV pusher, what hope is there? ThuranX (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It would be one thing to have this kind of debate on an article page, where sources could be brought to bear, and things could be weighed in and balanced. it's just odd on a template page, because there's no real room for discussion. is there any policy I can point to that says that templates must be restricted to commonly held and uncontested perspectives? I actually have no idea what policies and guidelines cover templates specifically (aside from the normal policies that are designed for articles). --Ludwigs2 20:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Katie Reider article IP Sockpuppetry

User:Brhannan has been obfuscating his sig on the Katie Reider AfD (which I started) by posting and then changing the sig link to "Nomad 2" (this followed by this is an indication, as he couldn't even sign posts when he voted). The level of uncited personal information added led me to report him on COIN. There is also an IP heavily involved in the article and AfD User:38.112.25.6, and by this diff blatantly proves they are one and the same person, which Brhannan has tried to hide up until the point where he edited a Brhannan comment as the IP here. The sheer number of edits made, and the fact that they are made only to this article makes "I forgot to log in" extremely unlikely, and I'd like to see some admin intervention here.MSJapan (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply I actually did forget to log in on several occasions, so I apologize for the confusion. You will notice, though, that the post with an IP address attribution concludes with a manually entered "Nomad 2" that was placed there before this "incident" was reported. Clearly, I am not trying to obfuscate. Also, when I use the prescribed "four tildes" to sign my posts, Wikipedia inserts "Nomad 2," and if you click on comments from "Nomad 2," you are directed to the "Brhannan" page! I am deeply sorry for the mistakes I've made with respect to not logging in and assure all concerned that I will endeavor to do better in the future. There are a number of policies and procedures to learn; I would urge people to give newbies the benefit of the doubt.Nomad 2 (talk) 18:46, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Webster121 - Continual POV pushing and Sockpuppetry

This user appears to have engaged in sockpuppetry in order to continue his POV pushing at Vietnam related articles while he is still barred from editing. See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Webster121 and Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Webster121_(2nd) for more information.
Webster121's block is due to expire in early August. David873 (talk) 02:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

OfficeMax editing on behalf of Jon Porter

Resolved

 – non-ip socks blocked, pages protected from the House vandals Toddst1 (talk) 20:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

OfficeMax (talk · contribs) and his/her sockpuppets OfficeMax12345 (talk · contribs) are repeatedly adding POV comments about US Congressman Jon Porter and his opponent Dina Titus. Ordinarily, I wouldn't say this was too big a deal, but this editor appears to have used an IPsock, 143.231.249.141 (talk · contribs) from the US House of Representatives. Given that OfficeMax has already been blocked once, (and I unblocked based on a promise to abide by Wikipedia policy) and the POV edits persist, I feel something should be done. Perhaps a ban from political articles? 18:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Both blocked already. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Are things like this supposed to be reported to the Foundation? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

NB: this user used the IPsock after being blocked by me on 8 July. Toddst1 (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, first he was making all of his edits from the I.P. Then, because we were only softblocking the I.P. (since it's used by thousands of people) he created OfficeMax. Then he was blocked. Then he agreed to behave himself if he was unblocked. Then he failed to behave himself, so he was re-blocked. And now he's created a new sock, which is also blocked. Nothing exceptional going on here, I don't think. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

And the fact that it's the government doesn't mean it should be reported somewhere? Should we call Tom Brokaw? Is he still working? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This editor(s) have done this before. The congressman's office said when called that it wasn't true; and when told that it was the washington office said that's politics, so... it's not going to stop. I'd recommend a hardblock on the IP from which it originated for a long time, regardless of the fact that it's a government IP. ThuranX (talk) 19:15, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

We can't hardblock it - it's used by thousands of people. This guy's a nuisance, but he's eminently manageable. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, Dina Titus' campaign is now well aware of the issue, has the names of who to contact and what accounts and IPs are being used, so that might help as well. They also know that playing tit for tat won't work on WIkipedia, so I think we're safe from reprisals. ThuranX (talk) 19:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Further, if it's a gov't IP, noone of hem should be spending american tax dollars at work to edit WP, so block it. ThuranX (talk) 19:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Sarcasticidealist, but I'm not for beans up the nose on that one. Removed part of your comment. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 19:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Since the consensus here is that the POV pushing and vandalism by the unblockable IP will continue, I have semi-protected the 2 pages. Toddst1 (talk) 20:00, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

that's hold it for a while. I'll watchlist both pages, and would appreciate some others doing the same. ThuranX (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Nefbmn - Serial Abuse and Sockpuppetry

This user has continued engaging in serial abuse and has been caught utilising sockpuppetry even after being blocked. In particular, there has been a lot of insulting and racist commentary from this user. This user has already been reported here for the same matter before Nefbmn was blocked for one week.

In the latest incident, 162.84.137.211 vandalised Vietnamese people as shown here[45]. This user is clearly a sockpuppet of Nefbmn, who in turn has also been suspected of meatpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/218.188.90.194 for more information. David873 (talk) 00:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't edited in a while, user has most likely switched IPs by now (claims to have a dynamic IP, evidence so far suggests so). So, a block would just be kinda' annoying for whoever gets the address next. Cheers. lifebaka (talk - contribs) 03:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Lil hyphy12 (talk · contribs) AKA 71.31.93.166 (talk · contribs)

This user is being disruptive on the articles souljaboytellem.com and Unsigned & Still Major: Da Album Before da Album. S/he keeps changing the names of the tracks to go against the manual of style. Something must be done about this vandal. XxJoshuaxX (talk) 02:24, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What you mean is that you keep trying to change the names of the songs to keep in line with Wikipedia capitalization policy, when the other editor is trying to keep them as they are listed on the CD. You've been told before, in this previous ANI thread and elsewhere, that the name of a song or book or film or other media item as named by the artist involved trumps Wikipedia policy and controls. What you need to do is stop what you're doing and let the track names be listed here as they are listed on the CD. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

And you shouldn't come running to ANI every time you have a content dispute. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Anvil Media Inc

Resolved

 – Checkusers conducted and blocks issued. If you see any others, block. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

According to the deleted article Anvil Media Inc which this user wrote about itself, its business is writing Wikipedia articles for profit. I blocked the account as advertising-only after it created the piece about itself, and after it started tagging articles with "Created by Anvil Media Inc." All of those articles were created by User:Mrtriviamaniacman. The Anvil Media username is now asking for an unblock. Questions: (1) Anyone have any problem with the block of User:Anvil Media Inc? (2) Should we do something about User:Mrtriviamaniacman, who pretty clearly is the same user? (3) Should we do anything about the articles that were created by this PR firm? Most of them do have sources, although I deleted a few where the cited external source didn't work and they appeared to be just advertising for one company's products. NawlinWiki (talk) 21:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• Block of Anvil is good, Mrtriviamaniacman can go too (writing for profit is not on), I would nuke any articles with no significant edits other than by this user and review the rest for bias. For example, Attensa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was deleted three times previously by other people as blatant spam. Guy (Help!) 21:15, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Which policy prohibits writing for profit (not saying I like the idea of people writing for profit on Wikipedia, just got a nagging feeling this may have come up before)? DuncanHill (talk) 21:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:NPOV would be the obvious one. A company being paid to write an article for another company is not likely to write in an unbiassed fashion. Not to mention the obvious WP:COI. Resolute 21:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

What about WP:REWARD, which pays users for improvements to articles etc? Sticky Parkin 21:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

That was what I was trying to remember. DuncanHill (talk) 22:47, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Mrtriviamaniacman for spam/advertising, which writing for profit is. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:37, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

• FWIW, the only article that I can still find Attensa in is FreeRange WebReader, sole edit of a relatively new user. --Amalthea (talk) 22:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
  • See also Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 23#Springfield, Oregon for more potential user connections. KimKnees (talk · contribs), at the very least, has edited Planar Systems after the COI discussion, a company listed on http://www.anvilmediainc.com/full-client-list.htm . --Amalthea (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Should we get a CU to look out the whole lot? It seems there are many... Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 23:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
      • I'd absolutely say so, there seems to be no end to it. Johnanvil (talk · contribs) created Attensa, Triviamaniacman23 (talk · contribs) seems an obvious sock of Mrtriviamaniacman (talk · contribs), Pthomas03 (talk · contribs) could be part of it since he created ReliableRemodeler.com a long time ago — really wherever I click I seem to find new suspects. It'd need an admin first to walz through all of those deleted pages, if possible check all pages in the above client list for deleted contributions. This article suggests that some of those accounts were active before that whole thing started, but 70.89.191.245 (talk · contribs) seems to be a very good candidate for a common IP. --Amalthea (talk) 01:18, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest this thread continue over at WP:COIN. This issue came up once before on that noticeboard; I see that I've already left {{uw-coi}} for 70.89.191.245 (talk · contribs). Though we disapprove of outsiders writing articles for money, since it is hard to maintain NPOV in such cases, COI-affected editors can sometimes make a contribution. (The ColumbiaSoft article is not too bad). Keep in mind these are fairly low-volume editors, so they are unlikely to swamp the enforcement system. If someone writes a new COIN report please focus on what is the worst abuse so far and maybe we can fix that. If none of these editors will respond on Talk more blocks may be needed. EdJohnston (talk) 01:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this like the "MyWikiBiz" user? I remember that from ages ago. --_{tiny plastic} Grey Knight ⊖ 10:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have filed Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Anvil Media Inc. Please add any and all related accounts to the list for examination there. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 11:47, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Please also feel free to help at User:Gb/Anvil - there, we are checking over Anvil's client list. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 12:38, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Link removed, as we've now gone through all the relevant names. _GB^T/C 07:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Some blogosphere exposure

Just for the record, a quick blog browse turned up at least some response to this situation that might be of interest. We're referred to as a secret sect in the Art of Marketing blog, while the folks at Attensa are cranky, as per this blog. The Anvil Media dude opines here (I see some of our editors and others who have been bagged for paid editing in the past are already commenting). Fun stuff! Might be worth monitoring this discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 21:47, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kober

Resolved

 – Kober unblocked. Papa Carlo blocked indefinitely - consensus that if he is to be unblocked, then he should be topic-banned. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I would like to ask the community to review the block of this user on the basis of the accusations made here: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kober. In my opinion, the grounds for this block are very questionable. 2 checkuser requests showed that Kober is not related to Papa Carlo: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Kober#Kober, Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Papa_Carlo; yet for some reason it was decided that Papa Carlo was Kober's sock or meatpuppet. I know Kober for years as a very prolific and knowledgeable contributor, who is a real asset to Wikipedia. His contribution to the articles about the region of Caucasus are invaluable. I'm having a hard time to believe that such a person may have had anything to do with the things he's being accused of. The claim that 2 users must be related because they make reverts on the same articles cannot be used as grounds for establishing that users are socks. I must note that it is not something extraordinary for the region related articles, where ethnic groups formed to support certain national POVs, and moreover, people who make accusations against Kober are themselves involved in edit warring in region related articles and are even restricted by the arbitration imposed paroles. Many people have the same articles on their watch lists, and you can see how many users are involved in the same sort of actions on both sides of the dispute. It does not mean that they are all socks or meatpuppets, just that there are conflicting views supported by different groups of users. In my opinion, the block of this user is a serious mistake. I don't think that there was any bad intent or prejudice in the actions of the blocking admin, it is just a case of a good faith mistake, which I think needs to be corrected. Grandmaster (talk) 07:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I've contacted the blocking admin. Since CheckUser has proven that they are unrelated, this makes it certain that they are not sockpuppets of one another. I have interacted with both users and their styles are very different. Kober is a prolific editor while Papa Carlo appears to mostly be involved in edit wars. I am not at all convinced by the meatpuppetry accusations as well. Simply because Papa Carlo has reverted to Kober does not equal proxy editing IMO. It is likely that PaC probably followed around Pocopocopocopoco or Kober's edits, and inactivity does necessarily mean that a user is a sock or meatpuppet. Kober has told me that he has never contacted Papa Carlo outside of Wikipedia. There was a similar situation here when one user (Karcha) was reverting to another (E104421), and was thus blocked as a sockpuppet. It was proven that they were different individuals, and E104421 was unblocked. Karcha remained blocked as most of his edits were disrutpive. I think that can take precedent here. Knowing Kober, I highly doubt that he was in contact with Papa Carlo outside of Wikipedia and that he requested for him to engage in edit warring. I believe that Kober should be unblocked. However, Papa Carlo should probably remain blocked as most of his edits consist of reverts and disrutpive editing. Khoikhoi 08:49, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Khoikhoi's assessment and recommendation. Also, if Papa Carlo requests an reasonable unblock with a commitment to only revert/undo vandalism for a few months, I think the user should be unblocked. The user has been editing regularly since early 2006. I can mentor if required. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, as I've stated on Papa Carlo's page, he may most certainly appeal and, given assurances that he will desist from the edit warring, may well be unblocked. Indefinite is not infinite. See below about the general presumption and Kober. — Coren ^(talk) 12:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Simply put, I found no convincing evidence that they are the same person, but that the behavior of Papa Carlo make it reasonable to deem them to be colluding, especially since Papa Carlo has done basically nothing but edit war in the disputes Kober has been involved with.

I would not be opposed if someone took it upon themselves to unblock Kober. His constantly edit warring is troublesome, and I'm not certain that he is here to write an encyclopedia — as opposed to defend a nationalistic POV, but he did contribute for a long time on more than one topic. Hence my short block. — Coren ^(talk) 12:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

These guys always edit war, and keep an existing dispute rolling. Off site discussion between Wikipedians with a similar POV does occur quite often among communities in this region, and makes it it look like collusion and meat puppeting, but correlation is not causation. This type of discussion occurs often in the English-speaking community as well, but there is more variation in opinions because we are a much larger cohort, and we have not recently had bitter wars. Also, these groups pick up wikifights started by another without even needing offwiki discussion - they do it out of respect for their fellow countrymen, etc. Futhermore it is has been shown that those making the accusations, according to arbcom, (paraphrasing slightly) make good faith accusations of sock puppetry that have turned out to be insufficient justification for a block. Caution is required - they look too hard for correlation, and dream up exotic explanations that make sense. They also lay traps and honeypots for each other, but I am not saying that these specific accusers are guilty of it in this case.

I could accept edit warring as justification for the short block in place, but that is not what the block log and block message currently say. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:01, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand a simple thing in this case, under what evidence was Kober blocked for sock poppetry? If the result was negative and the evidence did not yield any similar patterns of editing between Kober and Papa Carlo (I also reviewed the evidence but I dont see any credible assumption that they are socks), why did this administrator blocked Kober? On what grounds was this user blocked for sock puppetry? He did not behave in sock puppetry and was blocked for it? I wan to remind you that Kober was already blocked for 3RR and why punish again a person who already was blocked for the same fault? Is this a case of unprofessional handling of sock poppet claims? Also, please pay close attention to Kobers rv's. They are mostly directed at countering vandalism by anon users. Why these rvs were not being reviewed or mentioned here? In my op pinion this block is completely unjustified, no strong evidence exists of even a hint of sockpuppetry between these two users, the notification was posted by a user who engaged in harassment of Kober over the articles which did not fit his POV and overall the evidence looked fishy. Before blocking this user, did you review so called rv wars? How many did you see countering vandalism (such as blanking, inserting dubious claims, etc)? Did you see possitive IP match between these two users? Did you ever consider or give it into consideration that this user created more than 700 articles and is unmatched in the Georgia and Caucasus related articles? What nationalistic POV are you talking about, wher eis the evidence for it? So Proco (who posted notification against Kober) has no nationalistic POV but Kober has it? On what grounds are you making this assessment? Kober is purely encyclopedic user and his valuable articles dont even hint any "nationalistic POVs" as you have claimed. Again, this user was blocked already for 3RR and blocking him again for the same faults does not make a real sense. In my opinion, this block was groundless, uncounted for, unjustified, and definately a mistake by administrator who should have been more responsible of his/her duties. Iberieli (talk) 13:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Again, the absence of CU evidence is not a factor. When two accounts behave as if they are colluding, especially if one of those accounts only behaves as a proxy, they they are deemed to be a proxy regardless. — Coren ^(talk) 14:26, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I will add, as I have on Kober's talk page, that no account can be believed to exist only to support Kober's edit warring if Kober didn't edit war in the first place. — Coren ^(talk) 14:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry for wikipedia for doing this. I active mostly in the Hebrew wikipedia and writing about Georgia and well known in the Hebrwe wikipedia for doing it. Big part of my work based on Kober's work because he is the most productive user about Georgia and the history of Georgia. I ask hi a lot of quetions about the articles of Georgia and he always answering me and showing proficiency abour thes issues, he is a real helpful. He made 3 or 4 articles according to my request search books and made nice articles. He is doing grear job on wikipedia and blocking him for no ground as I understand is realy bad for wikipedia. I hope you will correct the mistake. Geagea (talk) 14:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Well Mr Coren, where did you see Kober engaged in edit war after his block was over? Where are you getting this idea? Did you see his contributions list? [46] I know Kober for a long time now, and I highly doubt that he is capable or willing to use multiple accounts or engage in edit wars. Also, did you consult other admins on this issue? You just went ahead and blocked the user without any inquiry. Im sorry but none of Kobers edits match Papa Carlo and you have overlooked many flaws with that evidence presented by "Procococo." Fact remains, you have blocked Kober without any solid evidence of meat or sock poppetry, you have blocked a very productive and long time contributor of Wikipedia, and moreover you have accused him of "Nationalistic POVs" (from where did you get that idea?) on what grounds? I think your action went too far, out of the way and should be reviewed by other admins. I think blocking someone just because of assumption or presumption is unacceptable. Not only this action was unfair and still unjustified but also hearts the reputation of Wikipedia administrators overall. This is a clear case of mis-conduct and poor judgment on the side of administrator. Iberieli (talk) 15:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Dont you think Coren that you have went out of your way, first blocked a user without any reason (there was no evidence of sock puppetry) than made a personal attack on this user claiming the following: His constantly edit warring is troublesome, and I'm not certain that he is here to write an encyclopedia — as opposed to defend a nationalistic POV, but he did contribute for a long time on more than one topic.? You have failed to present evidence on "edit wars" which in fact were countering vandalism on various articles. What can we call such a treatment of this particular Wikipedia user? I think we will launch a formal complaint against this administrator for abusing his privileges and blocking people without a cause, not to mention personal attacks such as calling people nationalists without a cause. Iberieli (talk) 19:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to register deep concern about this block. Coren has as much as admitted that the one is not a sock-puppet of the other. The real accusation is tag-teaming and if this is indeed a serious problem we should address it, but not in this manner. Even if there were collusion, which is very hard to prove (whereas apparent collusion happens all the time here), I think it is a mistake to deal with this problem by invoking sock-puppetry. I consider sock-puppetry to be so grave an offence we should indict people for it with extreme caution. Let's be clear about what is going on: there are many conflicts at Wikipedia where the 3RR itself is inadequate to control conflict. The problem is that we do not have very good mechanisms for deeling with conflicts that are not precisely 3RR and not precisely sock-puppetry. What we should be doing is looking for more appropriate mechanisms rather than turn to the latter because the former does not work. As to the specifics, it seems likely to me that Papa Carlo is an SPA. One question I would ask more involved admins is whether any of his edits are clearly disruptive? If so, he can be blocked for that. But from what I have seen, there is another problem: these editors are drawn, like several other editors, to articles that invite nationalist conflict (dab has written an essay on how profound a problem this is at Wikipedia). If this is the case, what we really need at these articles - where several editors, none of whom may be violating 3RR, are nevertheless involved in a revet war - is mediation. If the real problem is a revert war rather than sock-puppetry, the purpose of a block is not punitive but to allow for cooling down, but in this kind of conflict short blocks seldom work. What is needed is page protection and mediation. Is one, or are two, parties more to blame than others? I do not know. I think it is possible that both Papa Carlo and Kober may have at times violated NOR, especially through SYNTH. I raise this because a more accurate diagnosis of the problem may help resolve a deeper conflict. But I do not know enough about the substance of the case to judge all the editors. Nevertheless, it seems to me that this block is being used punitively and with an inappropriate justification. I agree there is a problem, but let's try to find the right tools to fix it. Slrubenstein | Talk 19:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If you have a viable alternative, I'm most certainly all ears. As things currently stand, however, the only recourse to prevent such tag-teaming is the presumption that single purpose accounts that behave as though they are a proxy for each other to be deemed a proxy and handled accordingly. I agree that, in principle, a legal fiction such as this is deeply unsatisfying— but that's all we've got. At this time, and despite the fact that it is not unanimously supported, I believe those blocks to be good and I will not unblock. I will also not oppose another admin who feels things can remain under control and feels he can unblock either or both.

I must, however, point out again that had Kober avoided edit warring in the first place and repeatedly skirting 3RR, then there is no point where support from a single purpose account would have appeared to be in furtherance of edit warring and this whole mess would have been avoided in the first place. Caveat bellator. — Coren ^(talk) 19:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I've had a look at this. Since checkuser says "no" to sockpuppetry, and since Kober has enough good-faith capital left in his Wikipedia account for the relevant guideline to apply, I've unblocked him, seeing as disruptive meatpuppetry may be unlikely.

I've unblocked Papa Carlo and then reblocked him indefinitely, tweaking the block reason. I agree this block is warranted. Since last year it seems that nearly all his edits have been reverts of non-vandalism. This isn't really acceptable, and does merit an indefinite block. Possibly a topic ban would be an alternative. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:19, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I endorse Moreschi's actions. If Papa Carlo is to be unblocked I believe he should be banned from editing Georgia-related articles. But for now he should remain indef. blocked based on the reasons I've stated above. Khoikhoi 20:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

For the record, I have explicitly no opposition to Moreschi's tweaking. I also agree that a topic ban would be a reasonable alternative to Papa Carlo's indef. Shall we now consider this mess over with? All of us have better things to do. — Coren ^(talk) 21:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your time and consideration. Papa Carlo seems to agree with putting himself under some restrictions. Please see his comments here.--Kober^Talk 17:59, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack on the talk page of hAl

This is an ongoing problem that has gone on far to long. I would like an admin to remove a section on HAl's talk page and inform him not to recreate it or spread its content to other pages. It seems HAl and an anonymous editor are engaged in idel speculation that has the effect of lumping me together with known rule breakers, or that I am a rule breaker. The problem was first reported here [65] it was then taken to Wikuette [66] and I was finaly refered back here [67]. There has been some confusion. It seems some have thought this a discussion of possible infractions on Wikipedia by me. It is not. This is an attempt to link people HAl has had problems with in the past to me, and thereby discredit me. This is IMHO a personal attack on my good name. I have never, ever, broken a rule on Wikipedia. The linking is a strange multi step link that has so many hole in it and untruths that it is amazing a sane person could believe it. You can find it in this section , along to my rebuking it. [68] Hal has been warned multiple times that if there is an infraction of Wikipedia rules, to take it to the approprate notice board.

• [69]
• [70]
• [71]
• [72]
• [73]

The thing is, HAl is not interested in reporting anything. The section is soly a personal attack and he has no intention of filing any reports. [74] because in his own words in that diff "We can´t report that one WP:SSP because you need evidence of sockpuppetingthen. We do not have that." HAl has also started posting this on other users talk pages. [75] so he is not just dragging my name in the mud on his own page. As I said above, this has gone on long enough. It was reported 5 days ago, removed and recreated. [76] more than once [77] and still exists [78]. AlbinoFerret (talk) 12:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

If he's not willing to actually file anything, ignore him. He's trying to get a rise out of you. Don't feed the trolls. Chances are he'll get bored and so something else. Cheers. --lifebaka (talk - contribs) 13:17, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the advice, and from this point on I will take it and not contribute to this insanity by responding to it. But the insanity IMHO needs to be removed and HAl warned not to spread it. To me this is a clear violation of several Wikipedia guidelines WP:AGF, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVILITY. Leaving this in place is unfair to me and my reputation and rewards a hostel editor who will in all likelihood repeat the same thing over and over as he has demonstrated by replacing the section that was removed once already. All I am asking is that it be removed and a warning not to replace it on user pages. If he has a real issue, he should file a report on the appropriate notice board. AlbinoFerret (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Reported at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kilz (3rd). WalterGR (talk | contributions) 08:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Al-Anbari and Ramadi article

Resolved

 – Sock confirmed; indefblocked by FayssalF EyeSerene^talk 16:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of Hisham 5ZX, a previously banned user with a number of IP and username sockpuppets (See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Lawrencoma and here ). He is trying to push a POV favourable to his tribe at the expense of academic integrity and community consensus as well as posting videos of gruesome beheadings (i.e. insurgent propaganda).

In the most recent case, he has saved a U.S. government site, modified it to suit himself and then used his version as a citation in the Ramadi article. See here for Al-Anbari's version and here for the official version. (Note that this official link is in the header of the source of Al-Anbari's forged HTML page. Note also that he saved the entire site and re-uploaded it). I have repeatedly told him that falsifying sources is a serious academic breach, but he continues to use his version as a citation. He has also posted links to Ansar al Sunna propaganda (See here for an example) and links to the beheading of captured Iraqi national guardsmen (I won't post that link, but it's in the diffs below).

• Ramadi history
• Ramadi diff 1
• Ramadi diff 2
• Ramadi diff 3

This user also makes disruptive edits to Al Qaim and Al Anbar Governorate.

• Al Qaim history
• Al Qaim diff 1
• Al Qaim diff 2
• Al Qaim diff 3

• Al Anbar Governorate history
• Al Anbar Governorate diff 1

He has also created a user-name nearly identical to mine (Lawrencoma) and copied my user page and talk page. This has since been handled following an incident report here, but he continues his disruptive edits. The disruptive edits go back months, if not years, and this individual should be blocked permanently. Lawrencema (talk) 11:34, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Next banning request

Resolved

 – One was already blocked this morning. I just blocked the other now. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

During this month I am victim of harass accounts so I will ask for new banning. First of this accounts has been PravdaRuss [79], then Fiumena [80] and then Fiumina [81]. Now we are having 2 new accounts. First is User:Koljicic. He is having only 5 edits and all are revert of my edits. Second is User:MaximilianusMaximus. His only 2 edits are revert of my edits. --Rjecina (talk) 14:28, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Prodego's use of his ACC tool administrator rights

Resolved

 – WP:NOT#THEACCTOOL - That doesn't really exist, but you get my point. No Wikipedia Administrator intervention is required here. Mww, go discuss with Prodego. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Per my notes here I am requesting the intervention of an administrator per Prodego's demoting me on the ACC tool for reasons pertaining to unblock-en-l when the tool is for accounts-en-l. Mww113 (Talk) (Review me!) (Sign!) 13:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

What admin action could be taken onwiki? Also, IMHO the ACC tool should be forked if unblock-en-l wants to use it. FunPika 13:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Large number of PRODs & AfDs in a short period of time

Resolved

 – no administrative action needed

Rtphokie (talk · contribs) has AfD'd or PROD'd over 100 articles in a short span of time. On the 24th, they made 122 edits -- including 93 AfDs or PRODs -- in 138 minutes, and there has been a similar effort made today. One edit every 68 seconds & one deletion every 89 seconds yesterday seems excessive and it's hard to see how the editor had sufficient time to consider each article on its merits. Some examples:

• A national radio program on CBC Radio with clear notability, The R3-30, has been proposed for deletion, an edit summarized as "clean up using AWB."
• Canadian Voices, a public affairs progeram broadcast on a network of 36 Canadian and American radio stations, has been PROD'd with the edit summary "clean up, Replaced: ==External links → ==References==."

There have been multiple (100?) similar PRODs (and a few AfDs), many with inaccurate edit summaries. Other editors have approached the nominator on their user talk page, without much success. I think these proposals are being made with good intentions, but the speed with chich they're done makes the process prone to error and difficult to counteract. What steps can be taken to address this? --SSBohio 20:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Could you expand what you mean by " without much success". I agreed to ammend the affected edit comments and have spent much of today doing exactly that. I think that I'm entitled to discuss the request before agreeing to it. Some editors on my talk page seem to think it was something that would happen instantly when in fact it took much longer to do properly and in such a way that would not create more problems than it solved.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Remove the prods. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I notified Rtphokie of this thread. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 20:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Keeper. You're faster on it than I am. --SSBohio 20:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Gwen, while that works for the ones I can get to, it seems that this editor is much faster at tagging articles than I would be at untagging them, partuicularly since I wouldn't want to do it wholesale. Some of these should probably be PROD'd or AfD'd. I'm mainly concerned about the rapid and seemingly unreflective way that so many deletions are being proposed in such a short time. --SSBohio 20:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I think this is perfectly fine - Rtp has a good rationale on his/her talk page, and I happen to agree that these categories get filled with crufty stuff. The process should work - any editor can remove the prod tag (and with five days to do so). AfD works itself out, also. Tan ǀ 39 20:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Many of the prods -- particularly those dealing with podcast articles appear legit. I'd recommend against a wholescale reversion of the prod tags. I agree with SSB that the user was probably a bit too fervent with the mass nominations. caknuck _° is back from his wikisiesta 20:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

While much of the tagging is legit, the way in which this user is approaching deletion is, in my view, very dismissive of our guidelines such as Wikipedia:Guide to deletion#Nomination: first do the necessary homework and look for sources yourself, and invite discussion on the talk page by using the {{notability}} template, if you are disputing the notability of an article's subject. The fact that you haven't heard of something, or don't personally consider it worthy, are not criteria for deletion. You must look for, and demonstrate that you couldn't find, any independent sources of sufficient depth. The speed suggests that the user is not making the slightest attempt to search for sources for any of these nominations and prods. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:46, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Note about Paul Erik's comment - these guidelines you cited are specifically for AfDs, not for PRODs. Not that it doesn't apply to the AfD tagging, I'm just pointing it out. Tan ǀ 39 21:04, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Tan - I'm not convinced removing the prods en masse would be a good idea. PhilKnight (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

If an editor disagrees in good faith with a prod, the editor can remove it. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course. Also, DGG has removed some, but not all the prods. I'm just saying that removing all of them without looking at the articles would be a mistake. PhilKnight (talk) 21:05, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have ruffled some feathers, particularly with the podcasting articles, nearly all of which were tagged with reference concerns months or years ago. Tanthalas39 is correct that the goal here is cruft removal. There is plenty of cruft there, editors seem to think every podcast needs a wikipage and don't seem to understand the concept of verifiable 3rd party sources. My apologies for the edit comments, I had WP:AWB set to properly comment these with "proposing deletion" but it switched to "cleanup" mid stream, not sure why but it's something I'll keep an eye on in the future. I've gone back through with AWB and added a trivial edit with a comment of "proposing deletion" to everything that still had a prod tag for completeness sake. For the record this is not the first mass prod'ing I've done. American radio personalities was similarly crufty and nearly all the feedback I got on those prod's was positive. This category had a similar problem that the podcast one does. Everyone seems to think their favorite program needs a wikipage but doesn't bother to properly source it or make sure it meets [[WP:N}] or WP:BIO before creating it. This process either resulted in deletion of non-notable articles or improvement to the point that they were notable and properly sourced. The prod process is a good one which works very efficently and effectively. Contesting is simple enough that any editor seasoned veteran or anon-IP newbie should be save their favorite article from deletion it without flying off the handle.--Rtphokie (talk) 21:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Satisfies me. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Me too (e/c). This seems a rationale explanation, and an assertion that Rtphokie will improve the edit summaries. There are no administrative actions needed here, and I'm "resolving" this thread. Rtphokie, please continue to be sure your edit summaries match your edits, and SSbohio, please attempt to talk to the editor that you are concerned about before you post here (you may have attempted this for this particular set of prod/afds, I'm not sure), I'm only saying that for next time. Cheers, Keeper ǀ 76 21:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you consider slowing down the pace a bit? I don't think it's reasonble to expect your fellow editors to be able to research and clean up hundreds of articles every day. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it's completely reasonable. There's 5 days in which to address the PROD tag. Wikipedia has tens of thousands of active editors, with millions of edits being made a day. I don't think we need to slow down any cleanup efforts. Tan ǀ 39 21:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've got news for you, 99.99999% of those editors won't be working on this cleanup project. -Chunky Rice (talk) 21:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Your snarkiness aside, what does that have to do with this? When I nominate an article for deletion, I don't take into account any cleanup projects, or the possibility of another editor finding my tag. I just nominate it. This is a completely scalable task; again, I see no reason to restrict it based on the intent and discussion detailed above. Tan ǀ 39 21:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

<-- I marked this resolved several posts ago. No administrative action is needed. Talk everything else to you respective talkpages, eh? Keeper ǀ 76 21:50, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Lucyintheskywithdada : racist and personal attacks

Resolved

 – blocked indef for sockpuppetry

• Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs), 118.18.193.25 (talk · contribs)[82][83][84]
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lwachowski[85][86]
• Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-25 Comfort women
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Documentingabuse (maybe related to the matter)

I believe this user in question needs to get an immediate and proper treatment by administrative actions for his behaviors more than disruption: threats, false accusation, harassment, racist attacks, personal attacks, extreme incivility. There has been disputes at Comfort women since Ex-oneatf (talk · contribs) added massively plagiarized, sythesis-like and strong POV contents to it after Korean war crimes written by him was deleted twice for the plagiarism. Amble[87] and Admin Fut.Perf[88] spot it, but Ex-oneatf had tried to put some of contents from the deleted article as accusing the former of deleting the content with Korean nationalists' excuse. Due to his continued disruption, he was blocked for 31 hours.[89]

Irrelevant of the content dispute, Lucyintheskywithdada suddenly appeared to revert the article several times without revising it by himself.[90] So the disturbance around the plagiarism continued .[91][92] until another editors who wants to keep the content revised it. So the problem is seemingly confined to content disputes now. However, in the meantime, Lucyintheskywithdada has kept insulting and harassing people who objects to his strong and aggressive attitudes without any good reason why the content has been kept such as myself, Good friend100, Amble, Fur.Perf.

The user's disruptive behaviors does not seem to stoppable. He basically calls me "history revisionist" "anti-Japanese race", "Japanese hater", anti-social person, habitual reverter. I counted the number of how many times I reverted the article in question. I reverted 7 and Lucy reverted 5, so his accusation of "persistent reverter" is unwarranted and Good friend100 who initially pointed on the problem was inactive, so my 2 times more than Rucy is enough to be accused of being as such? Given that Lucy's ISP, his strong anti-Korean sentiment does not justify the insulting accusation. He calls Koreans "Anti-Korean race". I believe this is a racist attack as well.

Lucyintheskywithdada's insulting comments

*The anti-Japanese editors have managed to layer it will references to all the usual atrocities[93] Why keep up the pretense Future Perfect? Why not just join the honest revisionists like Caspian blue and Good friend100? 1000 propagandistic blogs or race hate websites (which, let's face it, is the motivating principle for some editors here) The bottomline is, are the Anti-Japanese race hate jockeys willing to give up their propaganda in order to turn this into a well informed article? What I see is someone making a big scene, provoking an edit war You are just repeating what Future perfect wrote in respect to another article in support your habitual revisions and edit warring. Do you find it personally challenging for some reason to accept Korean involvement in the Japanese comfort women system or that so many Korean women were forced to be victims of military prostitution for such a long time? Is it an issue to do with women's sexuality or your own national identity that you find difficult? Is it something that you would like to discuss privately, perhaps offline because it seems to be bordering on obsessive and interfering with your own and others contributions to the Wikipedia? My interpretation would be that copying and pasting a private and conciliatory message onto a topic talk page is an act of bad faith, designed to discredit the other, lobby your own level of supporters and a deliberate distraction for others. it is you that has been persistently reverting the page for sometime now. aggressive, exaggerated and anti-social strategies to WP:OWN said topics such as persistent revisions, deletions, "creative" edit summaries and personal attacks so as to provoke and waste others time. Caspian blue (talk · contribs) as it is my belief that they are engaged on long term strategy of WP:OWNership of various Korean-Japan, or Korean-Japan WWII related topics of which the deletion of this topic was only one part. comfort women or Japanese race hate? This is about the biggest BS I have ever read in my time on the wikipedia

Per Lucy's Japanese Plala ISP, 118.18.193.25 (talk · contribs)[94], and his long history of trolling and massive sockpuppetry, I believe he is either sock or one of systematic meat/sockpuppeters from 2channel, Japanese off-wiki forum.

After Lucy trolling to Fut[95] and me[96][97] at the talk page of Comfort women[98] and user pages, Fut gave him a final warning[99], however his threat is still going on as accusing him of abusing admin tool[100]

He said he filed a meditation[101], however he was busy accusing me with personal attacking language[102]

Also his filing meditation Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-07-25 Comfort women is filled with false accusations and personl attacks against me and Fut.Perf. I'm seriously concering about the user's behaviors. He even recreated Korean war crimes with plagiarism. Since Fut.Perf is getting involved in the matter, other admin's opinion on this would be appreciated.--Caspian blue (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Caspian blue's complaint is, as usual, rather long-winded and adds a few irrelevant details. But I too, find Lucyintheskywithdada's behaviour to be seriously objectionable. After I did some work trying to clean up Comfort women from plagiarism and tendentious editing, she accused me [103]: claiming that I have "an axe to grind", making dark insinuations that I have "personal involvement that this topic raises in a difficult manner", of a kind that I might "prefer not to put it in public" (this essentially means she is suspecting me of having some sort of involvement with forced prostitution or war crimes.)

Earlier she repeatedly accused me of "censorship", and also asked me [104]: "Why keep up the pretense Future Perfect? Why not just join the honest revisionists" (so I am a dishonest revisionist then?). She closed with the rhetorical question of whether my involvement was due to "the topic about the women or Japanese race hate?")

These are very grave insinuations against my honor and integrity as a person and an editor. She was making similar dark insinuations about Caspian blue. If "no personal attacks" means anything on this project, this is the kind of fundamental attack on a user's personality that is completely unacceptable.

Now this person wants "mediation" with me and Caspian blue. I refuse to have anything to do with this as long as those accusations are on the table. I want an unreserved apology, or I want her blocked / topic-banned. I made the "mistake" earlier of getting into a content discussion on the article, so I'm no longer "uninvolved", or I would have blocked her for her repeated plagiarism alone by now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I shorten my original draft, but it still seems to be lengthy.

I also begin to doubt that the user would be User:Documentingabuse. The two uses same ISP and have same agenda, deep grudge against me.--Caspian blue (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with FutPerf. — Rlevse • Talk • 09:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, an earlier discussion of this editor, where she narrowly escaped an indef block for tendentious editing plus sockpuppetry, is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive362#Lucyintheskywithdada (talk · contribs). Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:19, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking this over and I have to say, going on his/her comments in relation to you FutPerf, I don't really see very much in the way of grave insinuations against my honor and integrity as a person and an editor. To me it looks more like a general conversation about content, and one in which they themselves appears to have an axe to grind as well as a personal issue with. I'm still reviewing the other diffs before yours, but I felt compelled to point this out now. Synergy 10:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate this Korean-Japanese issue being brought to a wider and more qualified audience. I initially chose the "non-combative" mediation route as that was what policy decreed.

If other admins are willing to accept the bigger issue here, or accept that it goes straight to some other avenue of resolution, then I am glad to take the mediation there. Please advise.

I also wholly expected such a response and documented the nature of the Caspian blue's MO in my mediation request ... revert, provoke, complain, report.

I also flag up the bogus Open Proxy report Caspian blue filed at;

• 07:33, 25 July 2008

in order to find more information about me as a distraction from the main issue ... and the mediation.

• No, I am not Japanese nor do I speak or read it but, yes, I am editing from Japan's largest internet provider (NTT).
• No, I have not said what they say off me.
• What I have learnt of 2ch and any previous disputes comes from following the user who seemingly edits as Caspian blue (talk · contribs), Appletrees (talk · contribs) and who knows what else.

• I sincerely believe I am touching on issue that needs to be addressed at a higher level. The precision of my analysis of Caspian blue's MO is the cause of such a strong reaction.

I do not know the history is but there are a group of editors of whom Caspian blue (talk · contribs) is the most dedicated, with good cultural grounds to have a grudge against WWII Japan, who are repeatedly provoking other contributors, blocking ANY changes or improvement to related Korean-Japanese topics, distracting and wasting the time of both other contributors and admins.

My feeling is that they are mainly young Korean-Americans as my experience with education Koreans is that they are more balanced and sensitive about the issues. It appears Caspian blue is also supported by others with similar interests, e.g Blueshirts (talk · contribs) and Amble (talk · contribs) whom he can depend on to make identical revisions. Most or all of the recent Korean academics in this field drawn attention to cultural gender issues in their analysis and I think this is what we are also facing here.

I am not a denier, imperialist and have nothing personal going on with Caspian blue except that I think their MO is unethical and bad for the wikipedia. He, and the others, are deliberately ensuring that both new and informed professional contributors the wikipedia are discouraged from attempting to develop "their" propagandistic topics because of the futility of attempting to do so.

If I have a fault, it is that I am attempting to do something too sophisticated here ... and I do not bow to such tactics. Of course, this causes its own problems. My previous editing history has been on cultic religions, e.g. BKWSU where I experience almost an identical MO until the organization in question withdrew and the article settled down to a normal level of minor changes. I find that often admins are too willing to react to the given stimulus (e.g. stop the noise) rather than looking deeper at what is really going on.

• I would like to flag up an additional bad faith deletion of the page on Korean war crimes by Future Perfect at Sunrise at [[105]] at 07:44, 25 July 2008 following my request to involve them in the mediation.

"Plagiarism" is a new word that Future Perfect has taught the boys but I do think other uninvolved admins would find the same fault nor enact the same censorship. I consider this quite a deliberate provocation. If someone would take a look at it and make a decision, I would appreciate it. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 12:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You accused first that I'm of Anti-Japanese hate race so that I automatically become Korean or Korean-American per your theory. I have never said that you're a Japanese, never. That's why I filed WP:OP to see if you're using it to look like a Japanese. Given your time arrange, I guessed you're Australian. It is true that you use a Japanese ISP (Not NTT, but NTT Plala) and your false accusations and attempts remind me of Documentingabuse. Nobody said that you're denier or imperialist, however your racist attacks are harming Wikipedia. Also the description on yourself is the blocked sockpuppeter. You were saved by the last incident on Feb, and your disruption keeps going on. --15:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Note:For the record, she has apologized as Future wished, but was removed. Synergy 15:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

That's barely an apology at all. It's self-contradictory: she says "sorry", and then continues the attacks in the very next phrase. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 15:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Thats not even directed at anyone. If you feel a block is merited for this specifically Moreschi, then I don't see what anyone is waiting for. Don't let me stop you. Synergy 15:56, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

My involvement has been only to document and remove plagiarised material. Lucy has repeatedly personalized this issue, accusing anyone who believes there's a problem with the text in question of censorship, nationalist agendas, indifference to the suffering of abused women, personal/psychological problems that need to be worked out, and so on. I do find this abusive. --Amble (talk) 16:27, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Well put. And yes, saying "I apologize for the amateur psychology" is not an apology for having suggested that several fellow editors are secretly sexual perverts with an obsession about forced prostitution. Doesn't even come close. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Amble: Agreed. Although I'd like to point out the my initial and only objection is to blocking over FuturesPerfect's honor and integrity as a person and an editor. Other than that, she has clearly been disruptive. Synergy 17:06, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine, blocked her indefinitely. CU came back confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Documentingabuse, so that's in addition to all the other disruption documented in this thread she's also been a naughty girl with alternate accounts recently. That's a no-no, so good-bye Lucy. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:42, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Nice job. I'm glad to see this could be resolved in a positive manner. Synergy 06:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Hiram111

I've been having issues with User:Hiram111 in Druze, where he kept removing references by John Esposito, Mordechai Nisan and other scholars, calling them unreliable and unscholarly. He recently monitored my edits and followed me to Twelver Shi'ism, where he added POV statements from unreliable sources about concepts already explained further in the article. I repeatedly reverted his edits until he reverted mine from a newly created sockpuppet account, User:Macabricvoid, adding other dubious statements with sources that have absolutely nothing to do with the content he added. He then proceeded to request protection for the article using, unsurprisingly, another sockpuppet account, User:Vitriulum. I'm requesting that User:Hiram111 and his accounts be blocked for violation of WP:SOCK, and revert Twelver Shi'ism back to the consensus version. GreenEcho (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

GreenEcho rather than such behavior, I think it would be better for you to work for consensus concerning the disputed articles since you had been gaming the system for more than a month and your distributive editing history is still here, anyway If we are going to continue with this dispute i think the issue will never end since it seems that we both have alot of free time...please recheck your references and our references so we can get over with it and get to consensus since it had been going for over a month .(and I don't think its worth it, to lose such time to say that the Druze belief that caliph Alhakim is God!)

And why would a Sock Puppet use an account that redirects to his other user page ????.Im not actually that new to wikipedia, I hope you will review your actions and decide if its leading you anywhere. « Hiram111^{ΔTalK Δ} 00:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Too many sockpuppets used by both sides

• Macabricvoid (talk · contribs), Vitriulum (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets of Hiram111 (talk · contribs). Blocked indefinitely. The master account Hiram111 got a week block. Feel free to review this if you feel the duration is short.

• GreenEcho (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of the abandoned (for a reason) NAccount (talk · contribs). Please refer to the 7 weeks old archived Klaksonn sockpuppetry case. Another sock Enforcing Neutrality (talk · contribs) has been also indef blocked. NAccount for 2 weeks since this is not the first time and this user has been heavily abusing multiple accounts. Next time it will be indefinite. Do not create new accounts because you are not happy with the one you are left with. Request changing your username instead. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Hiram111

I've been having issues with User:Hiram111 in Druze, where he kept removing references by John Esposito, Mordechai Nisan and other scholars, calling them unreliable and unscholarly. He recently monitored my edits and followed me to Twelver Shi'ism, where he added POV statements from unreliable sources about concepts already explained further in the article. I repeatedly reverted his edits until he reverted mine from a newly created sockpuppet account, User:Macabricvoid, adding other dubious statements with sources that have absolutely nothing to do with the content he added. He then proceeded to request protection for the article using, unsurprisingly, another sockpuppet account, User:Vitriulum. I'm requesting that User:Hiram111 and his accounts be blocked for violation of WP:SOCK, and revert Twelver Shi'ism back to the consensus version. GreenEcho (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

GreenEcho rather than such behavior, I think it would be better for you to work for consensus concerning the disputed articles since you had been gaming the system for more than a month and your distributive editing history is still here, anyway If we are going to continue with this dispute i think the issue will never end since it seems that we both have alot of free time...please recheck your references and our references so we can get over with it and get to consensus since it had been going for over a month .(and I don't think its worth it, to lose such time to say that the Druze belief that caliph Alhakim is God!)

And why would a Sock Puppet use an account that redirects to his other user page ????.Im not actually that new to wikipedia, I hope you will review your actions and decide if its leading you anywhere. « Hiram111^{ΔTalK Δ} 00:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Too many sockpuppets used by both sides

• Macabricvoid (talk · contribs), Vitriulum (talk · contribs) are sockpuppets of Hiram111 (talk · contribs). Blocked indefinitely. The master account Hiram111 got a week block. Feel free to review this if you feel the duration is short.

• GreenEcho (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked as a sock of the abandoned (for a reason) NAccount (talk · contribs). Please refer to the 7 weeks old archived Klaksonn sockpuppetry case. Another sock Enforcing Neutrality (talk · contribs) has been also indef blocked. NAccount for 2 weeks since this is not the first time and this user has been heavily abusing multiple accounts. Next time it will be indefinite. Do not create new accounts because you are not happy with the one you are left with. Request changing your username instead. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)