Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Removal of comments on article talk page

User:Pablothegreat85 an admin who has actively wanted State terrorism by the United States deleted, just reverted my comments, calling them "trolling", in violation of WP:NPA.

Tom harrison, Tbeatty, and MONGO, strong POV warriors who also want this page deleted, will probably now actively support his actions.

The page move, the underlying problem which started this argument, will be dealt with in an upcoming RfC.Divestment 01:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm an admin? That's news to me. The comment was trolling; here is the diff. Divestment has moved the page against consensus multiple times today. Pablo Talk | Contributions 01:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Divestment (talk · contribs) is a special-purpose sock account established for page moving. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

All that aside, how does this require administrator attention? It looks like Pablo has decided not to remove your comments (which are, for the record, less than civil, and you're filing an RfC. How can an admin, exactly, help? --Haemo 02:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was about to be banned, but Pablothegreat85 is not an admin, and has no authority to do this. Divestment 02:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

An admin less involved than I am might block the special-purpose sock account. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Other than noting that you're a brand new single-purpose account who jumped into a heated debate, whose second edit was to WP:RFPP, and is now filing an RfC. MastCell ^Talk 02:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And having reviewed the contribs in more depth, I've indefinitely blocked Divestment (talk · contribs). It's obvious from his contribs that this isn't his first rodeo, and that this is a single-purpose disruptive sockpuppet account. MastCell ^Talk 02:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Can I get some feedback from other admins, based on the rationale provided at User Talk:Divestment, regarding the appropriateness of this block? MastCell ^Talk 02:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I support this block (as a non-admin), this SPA only pops-up to move war on this article. - Merzbow 03:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As this username has done almost nothing but repeated page moves against consensus without participating in discussion, this indefinite block is well-warranted.Proabivouac 03:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmed that Travb is Divestment as he claims and that he has also likely used various IP's in an effort to canvass votes on the last Afd on the Allegations of state terrorism by the United States article. See: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Travb. Calling myself and others on the opposite side of the debate POV pushers seems to be begging the question. Unlike those that have been on the same "side" of Travb in the disagreements on this article, we haven't used socks, IP's and three of us haven't been blocked recently for violating 3RR as have TravB's compatriots.--MONGO 06:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

To get around the indefinite block, Divestment has now switched back to using the Travb account. Pablo Talk | Contributions 15:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The sock was blocked for being a sock and to prevent further socking. The main account was not since it was ended with a right to vanish. This is obviously the case of they would have blocked the main account. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:18, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see no problem with Travb adopting a sock based on right to vanish; it's rather that the behavior of User:Divestment warranted an indefinite block regardless of the identity of the user. I also see no problem with having spared the Travb username the block based on RTV. However, now that Travb has exercized the right to unvanish as Travb, I cannot see why this username should be immune from this block: he/she has picked up to resume exactly the same conflict for which User:Divestment was blocked as if nothing at all had happened. I cannot see the purpose of subjecting the encyclopedia to what can only be more disruption to come. As there has been no apology or pledge to change - indeed this edit to user page indicates that Travb stills sees nothing wrong with the behavior that led to this thread - and RTV is no longer an issue, an extension of the Divestment block to Travb would seem appropriate.Proabivouac 03:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. Travb has acted disruptively, using his new account to move war and his IP's to canvass editors for the Afd for the same article he was move warring as Divestment. At the very least, his Travb account should be blocked for disruption since we block editors, not accounts anyway.--MONGO 05:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This conversation indicates he is bascially proud of evading his indefinite ban for disruption using the username of Divestment.--MONGO 05:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"Time wasters, POV pushers, trolls, they need to be shown the door...don't expect me to kiss their ass as I do so." Right Mongo?

You know the problem with that link you provided MONGO? People may look at it. Pablo and Morton are patting themselves on the back for booting divestment and saying it was funny, and I respond "hilarious ain't it". That is a really long to say I am "basically proud". The link User:Proabivouac provides is my explaining to the world that I was User:Divestment, "sees nothing wrong with the behavior" is a fantasty.

Please note, User:Proabivouac, User:Tbeatty, and User:Pablothegreat85 are active POV editors on the State terrorism by the United States page, who have opposing POVs.

EVERYTHING I DID WITH User:Divestment WOULD BE OKAY WITH AN ESTABLISHED EDITOR. User:Divesment was closed because of WP:SPA. User:Proabivouac ignores this, so his logic fails completely. Established editors are allowed to move pages, in fact many editors on the state terrorism page have. User:Travb is an established editor, editing since October 2005. Is wikipedia going to boot established editors for moving pages? Of course not. User:Divestment, the account I opened two months after m:Right to vanish is closed, so what rule am I now violating?

As I explained below, the reason I left User:Travb is because of the stalking and harrassment of these same editors. User:Proabivouac says himself that my w:Right to vanish was okay.

Again, if you really want to pursue this, call a RfC, why would MONGO get a RfC before getting punished, and I don't?

Travb (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

EVERYTHING (laugh) you did as User:Divestment would be OKAY for an establish editor? Are you kidding...all you did was move war the article to a different name repeatedly...are you kidding? Check your grand contributions again Divestment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)--MONGO 20:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And who "move war'd" it back? Takes two, or sometimes three. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Travb, you wrote, "Please note, User:Proabivouac…[is an] active POV editor on the State terrorism by the United States page…" Which is puzzling, as I do not recall having made a single edit to that article, or to its talk page, but only reviewed the situation upon seeing this thread.Proabivouac 22:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Support indef block of travb (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) for disruption and use of sockpuppets to evade scrutiny of past trolling. --Tbeatty 05:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment and Strong Oppose: I do not feel this is fair. All of the above editors advocating blocking him, are strong POV opponents who are or were actively enaged in heated content disputes with him, pov warriors, and were edit warring with him in politically controverisal articles. To me, blocking him for the vauge "disruption" when the distruption was clearly the result of both sides of many editors being involved in a signifiant content dispute (luckily this has finally calmed down and there is progress being made--with Travb's participation) strikes me as a way to single out and get rid of a vaunerable POV opponent and thus gain an upper hand in a content dispute, or future ones. Therefore, any assessment about this editor should come from nuetral non-involved admins and with an understanding of this context. I think that an Indef blocks against this editor on this basis is certainly inappropriate; community bans require a clear and large consensus. If there is a case to be made against this edtitor, I say take it to Arbcom after the normal dispute resolution steps are followed. In anycase, Travb is working with others on the article, and I don't see him being the primary cause of distruption, in anycase. If he is being primarily distruptive, then give him a warning, a block, a longer block, and if it continues and the claims are valid, then we can talk about indef. ban.Giovanni33 07:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  POV warriors...? Shall we look at your use of socks and your outrageously long list of 3RR violations for which you have been blocked? This has to do with Travb's canvassing with one of his IP's and using his User:Divestment username to move war...Divestment was his only known named account, and is indef blocked. He switched back to using his Travb account to evade the indef block...we block editors if they are being disruptive regardless of what account they decide to edit with.--MONGO 10:51, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Okay Mongo and you clique, I asked you not to bring up personal information, but you started it. Here we go.

Sorry so long....

Mongo has a long history of edit warring and abuse of other editors, a few months ago he was desopyed for this abuse. He has had two Arbcoms called against him and two RfCs.

After calling someone an anti-American, on this same page above he wrote:

"all I am trying to do is ensure that articles about my own country aren't taken over by POV pushers who are not editing from the U.S"

"Time wasters, POV pushers, trolls, they need to be shown the door...don't expect me to kiss their ass as I do so." #1.1 Is this an acceptable edit? and #1 MONGO: vexatious litigation

For a full list of MONGOs behavior up until December 2, 2006 see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_User:Travb I particualy call your attention to how MONGO calls other editors "bigots" and "racist bigots" hasn't MONGO had Teatty ban or has't MONGO banned other editors for less?

While I deeply respect MONGO hard work on National park pages, One of MONGOs purpose on wikipedia is clear: Delete all content which does not match his own POV. Tbeatty, Tom Harrison, and the others above find articles which do not meet their POV and then put them up for deletion. They also remove large portions of referenced materials which dont meet their POV. Any information which is critical of the United States or of the official account of 9/11 will be deleted by this group.

Defector Recently, someone defected from this group, now banned User:NuclearUmpf he revealed that this group actively emails each other and tells each other how and when to vote. He said he really liked MONGO as an admin because he was more active whereas admin Tbeatty? was "lazy".

I think the edit history shows that this group uses the admin powers of Tbeatty to push their agenda.

My behavior If the above POV editors dont like my behavior, call a RfC. But leave me a space at the top, because I can't respond in full until after September 15, because of the Bar exam and a one month vacation to the FSU. Mongo, you get the priveledge of RfCs and Arbcoms for your behavior, why can't I?

I am not going to edit the State terrorism of the United States page until after September 15, maybe forever. After my page name change idea was universally condemned (I am glad the opposing sides agree on something) I have decided that some editors like to edit war, and there is no point in editing the page any longer. If you look at the page history, I have been involved for over a year trying to get disputes resolved, calling straw polls, mediators, etc.

Regarding User:Divestment and Mongo's other accusations. I left wikipedia on March 5. The reason is because of this group of editors in MONGOs words "show(ed me) the door".

I was tired of wikipedia. So I requested. m:Right to vanish on 12:49, 5 March 2007. My userpage was blanked. I no longer used that userpage.

Over two months later, (2 months, 10 days) I created User:Divestment.

I read m:Right to vanish in March and I read it today, and I still can't see the policy on editors who want to return. I was NEVER attempting to break wikipolicy. I never used Divestment and Travb together in any Discussion etc. Divestment was not intented as a sock, it was intended as a replacement for Travb. All of the actions of the User:Divestment would be "okay" if done by an established editor such as User:Travb. Mongo himself on his talk page talks about leaving his user name.

I was not avoiding any blocks, etc. on user:Travb by using this Divesment account.

My use of this User:Divestment has consisted of moving the page name. During this same time, other editors moved the page to the same page name I was.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8] Other users continue to support this page move name. (This last edit war for moving was started by an account which has been indefinetly banned) On this page I also asked for page protection from massive deletions by editors whose single purpose has historically to delete the page.

Irony the extreme irony of MONGOs "clique"'s arguements is that they call those who want to preserve referenced information on wikipedia "disruptive". Yet, MONGOs "clique" searches wikipedia for articles that don't match their own POV and delete them. They also delete large sections of reference material, call other peoples names like "anti-american" "racist bigot" and begin edit wars. When editors like myself attempt to stop the deletion of well referenced material, we are labeled the disruptive ones.

I have created several dozen articles and added immense amount of information to wikipedia, 99% with references. I have vigourously also defended the deletion of articles which don't match my own POV. Travb (talk) 13:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again you make accusations without any facts. Two glaring ones are that 1) I put any articles up for deletion and 2) that other editors "uses the admin powers of Tbeatty to push their agenda." Since I haven't put any articles up for deletion in quite a while and I have no admin powers that I am aware of, it becomes clear that your long diatribe is lacking in the truth. You can throw the mud and hope it sticks and this would fit your MO but is just more evidence of your disruption. Your inability to edit without falsely accusing editors of wrongdoing is the primary reason you are so disruptive and tendentious. --Tbeatty 07:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Oppose The same people who wanted the 'state terrorism' page deleted will surely appear as they have been edit warring at the article since the failed AfD. MONGO - TBeatty - Morton - Pablo - Ultramarine. I think it is a shame that this is the method used to get rid of the opposing view point. How are we as an encyclopedia suppose to achieve NPOV on articles that is the case? Not on that page there have been some highlited such as opposing view points that have been working contructively, such as Tom harrison, Merzbow etc. and working with Bigtimepeace and others. I do not know about much of the above, but I can say I have asked MONGO not to attack users numerous times. He has been calling people trolls, sockpuppets, SPA's, anti-american, bigots etc. The worst part is, lately he has not proposed anything to add or discussed anything regarding the article, it seems to be just chiming in to make a personal remark, threaten someone with a soon to be ban etc. This issue was ignored above as just another MONGo witch hunt, which seems to be the way people take these things. Just consider how many people have been chased off this project by MONGO and his behaviour and what they could have contributed. I have so far created 5 articles in just the short time I have been here, 1 month or so, and this constant ignoring of his behaviour is making me consider leaving. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• PUBLIC APOLOGY Two users above have the gravely mistaken view, that I am "proud" of having to leave User:Travb and later returning to Travb. This is dead wrong. I want to publicly apologize for any wikipedia rules that I may have broke when I left User:Travb. If I did break any rules, I apologize. I am at a loss about what I could or should have done differently (A name change?). I am not going to edit the State Terrorism page, the page which is the nexus of this argument, until after September 15. I am seriously considering never editing it again, as I explained above. I hope this is acceptable. Travb (talk) 15:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  My, my.--MONGO 20:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  My o my o my ... useful commentary indeed, o my my o my. This is not a in person conversation, you do not have to post things such as this, just like we do not reply to others saying *shakes head in silent agreement* as a post. Passive agreesive behavior gets you agressive people. Wait, thats called baiting I believe. --SevenOfDiamonds 22:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

  I think staying away from State Terrorism is a great idea. The relevant guideline is WP:DISRUPT: you can't just keep on pushing ad infinitum.Proabivouac 22:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose Block on the condition that he cleans up his behavior, and he seems to be motivated to do so. However, I think he should be on a shorter leash. That is to say, a block would require less questionable behavior from Travb than from an "average" editor. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose Block of Travb. As someone outside of this discussion, I thought maybe I could interject a totally neutral opinion. So, I spent the last several minutes scrolling through his edits and he is prolific editor with hundreds if not thousands of edits and seems to be willing to discuss edits as well. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Help

Resolved

 – Blocked 24 hours by User:Swatjester

User:Symbiote-Spidey keeps making disruptive edits to Spiderman: Friend or Foe. When I warned him several times he is now threatening me on my talk page and his user page. I want someone to help me put a stop to this please.BlueShrek 18:45, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Symbiotespidey blocked 24 hours for the physical threats. BlueShrek warned for being incivil and biting. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:57, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

BlueShrek wasnt uncivil Iwent by the rules.BlueShrek 19:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You certainly did not. You were uncivil, biting to the new user (and you yourself are a new user) and you both have ownership issues. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hes still making threats somehow. He just left me a message. I need help against this vandal.BlueShrek 19:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I had forgotten to click ok on the block. He's blocked now. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

New sock of User:Mariam83 blocked indefinitely

Further information: [[:User:Mariam83_blocked_indefinitely, Harassment and more disruptions from socks of User:Mariam83]]

I've just blocked indef another sock of this disruptor. Irrer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is waiting for an admin to unblock the account. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 19:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One more → User:WinterT. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One more → User:LeopoldSenghor7. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 23:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

One more → User:FayssalK. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Mass date-delinking campaign by Lightmouse

This user has taken up a contentious stylistic campaign that has caused much disruption in the past: indisciminately stripping articles of all year-alone datelinks, using bot-like methods to run through large numbers of articles at high speed. The same thing has been done in the past by Bobblewik, who finally gave up only after repeated rounds of escalating blocks, hiatuses and resumptions, and by Hmains (under Bobblewik's initial influence), who somehow escaped blocking but acted likewise, breaking off under pressure each time the campaign attracted notice and opposition, only to quietly resume it at a later date. (For this background, see Bobblewik's block-log and talk-page, and Hmain's talk-page in its history, repeatedly, almost from the get-go: Dec 2005, June 2006 and straggling on through the summer, Sep 20006, Oct/Nov 2006.)
Long discussions at Wikipedia:Manual of style (dates and numbers) have failed to reach a consensus either for linking years or for de-linking them, giving the matter a status alike to that of other stylistic differences (e.g. "British" versus "American" spelling) for which there's a general principle of "don't go around articles changing the style from one way to the other". It was for stubbornly breaking this principle that Bobblewik was repeatedly blocked.
Now Lightmouse is repeating the very same pattern of behaviour: First as Editore99, and then under his present name, he's been stripping articles of all year-alone datelinks. Quite a number of other editors have complained, but Lightmouse has mostly ignored their complaints. A month ago I warned him to stop, filling him in on the background. He laid off for a month, then resumed making edits such as this. I warned him again, more strongly, earlier today, but he has since carried on with edits such as this. He's made no effort to get consensus for his campaign by re-opening discussions at the MOS page.
His edits are not all bad, and I, personally, even agree with some of his year-delinkings, because he tends to concentrate on articles for quite recent stuff. He also does much other, largely useful editing at the same time, with units and such -- but this almost makes matters worse, because it means that a straightforward revert of the date-delinking also undoes the good stuff. (He's gotten complaints about some of that other stuff, though, and reacted to them with equal stubbornness.)
Anyhow, since complaints and warnings have failed, admin intervention seems to be the only way of handling this. I hope this is the right place to ask for it. -- Lonewolf BC 00:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any harm in it myself. What difference does it make? These links are not of any real use anyway. --John 00:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Not policy nor consensus. Corvus cornix 01:52, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no policy or consensus either way, right? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have left him a stern final warning. Please report further activity of this type here. --Richard 01:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

What policy is he violating? The BC/BCE thing was decided by the ArbCom, that no one should change one to the other. But there's been no such decision here, has there? Or am I missing something? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Not as far as I know. Why would he get a "stern final warning" for something like this? --John 02:01, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

there is no general consensus that the habit of linking separate years (that are date indications that only consist of a year) should be abandoned. Corvus cornix 02:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Right. There's no general consensus either way. So I shouldn't threaten to block people for linking years, and I also shouldn't threaten to block people for de-linking them. At least, that's how I read it. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 02:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I admit that this is an ambiguous situation. I researched it before I left the warning. I researched it again quickly and revisited my thinking after reading Quadel's comment.

I think we all understand that there is no consensus to link or de-link years. Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) clearly indicates that it is permissible to link years (else why would they show how to do it?).

WP:BRD suggests that it is ok to be bold but that, if someone else objects, then you should discuss and develop a consensus.

Someone (User:Lonewolf BC) has objected to Lightmouse's de-linking and asked him to stop pending formation of a consensus. Ignoring the opinions of others and editing unilaterally in the face of opposition is disruptive.

According to the BRD model, it would have been permissible to revert Lightmouse's edits. However, that probably would have been more confrontational than necessary.

I don't think any admin relishes the idea of having to go through each of Lightmouse's edits and rolling them back if the consensus were to decide against his de-linking campaign.

Blocks are meant to be preventative; not punitive. The purpose of a block in this case would be to limit the de-linking until the issue can be discussed in an appropriate forum.

Discussion and consensus are crucial to working in a collaborative community.

--Richard 03:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Applaudere. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Well said Richard. However, I think the best would be to help coach Lightmouse towards making more productive edits, rather than talking about blocks for what seem to me, from a very cursory sampling, to be more good than bad edits; edits with which I too see certain problems, but which are undoubtedly well-intentioned. Discussion and consensus are vital here and I'm disappointed at how little attempt at dialogue was made with Lightmouse about his edits before threatening him with a block and reporting him here. Experience has shown repeatedly that the community is not able to attain a consensus either for or against linking standalone years, and that there are editors on both "sides" who passionately believe they should or shouldn't be linked. I should say that I often delink standalone years as part of a copyedit myself. Perhaps the solution to this issue would lie in discussing with Lightmouse on an individual basis the merits of his edits. If there is a concern that he edits somewhat robotically, then perhaps he could be restricted to a certain speed of editing. Finally I'd say, with all respect to everybody involved in this, it really doesn't seem worth anybody falling out over, to me. --John 06:49, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left the editor a message inviting some coaching. Wikignoming is not inherently bad, you know, and this energy to make formatting changes could surely be tapped rather than thwarted. We'll see if they want to work with me. --John 00:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, John. I agree with what you wrote. In my defense, I admit that I was editing under time pressure yesterday and reacting to an existing series of exchanges between LonewolfBC and Lightmouse. I was simply trying to reinforce what LonewolfBC was saying. Comparing LonewolfBC's exchange with Lightmouse against your exchange with him shows that there is indeed a "kinder, gentler" way to communicate. It is a lesson for me to learn. --Richard 08:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, here's my kinder and gentler approach. --Richard 09:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Applaudere2. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User:76.182.220.150

I am deeply concerned about the edits I see by Garry Denke (talk · contribs) (who also apparently contributes as 76.182.220.150 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)). He has recently spammed a number of talk pages with fairly well-written pseudoscientific/pseudohistorical religious "theories". By itself, this is a problem but easily dealt with. My bigger concern is that Garry Denke has contributed to and started a variety of semi obscure articles over the last two years (e.g. Seven Spirits of God, Scroll Trench), and made small factual changes to topics like geomagnetic reversal. Some of these contributions appear legitimate, some are transparently false (e.g. magnetic reversals do not occur in less than 39 years), but others are plausible sounding statements that I am unqualified to judge. I worry that he may have inserted a variety of problematic content that was too obscure to notice.

I would appreciate it if others would investigate his edit history and take appropriate action as necessary. Particularly useful would be someone knowledgable about Stonehedge. Dragons flight 07:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The last swing of the VGP from the southern hemisphere to the northern hemisphere in the Brunhes-Matuyama geomagnetic reversal took only 38 yr.

<copy of abstract removed. Dragons flight 15:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)>

Speaking of knowledgeable

One entry found.

knowledgeable

Main Entry: knowl·edge·able

Pronunciation: \ˈnä-lij-ə-bəl\

Function: adjective

Date: 1829

having or showing knowledge or intelligence

— knowl·edge·abil·i·ty \ˌnä-li-jə-ˈbi-lə-tē\ noun

— knowl·edge·able·ness noun

— knowl·edge·ably \-blē\ adverb

John

Okay, so it's nonsense that some scientist believed in the 1980s. "[A]n analysis of the available sediment records of the four most recent polarity reversals ... yield[s] an average estimate of about 7,000 years for the time it takes for the directional change to occur." (Clement, Science, 2004 [9]). If one only cares about the time it takes to go from slightly S oriented to slightly N, then obviously the time required is neglible because you catch it just on the transition, but that is not at all the same as asking how long the reversal takes as the pole slides through a 180 degree arc. Dragons flight 15:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oy, a bit high brow for Clement. Dipole flip is three (3) days. The whole arc; degrees / minutes / seconds. Homo erectus is the discoverer. The discovery date; Middle Pleistocene. In the beginning top "Ionian" Stage. Here is the discoverer's "Photo". "So easy a Caveman can do it". Go ahead and laugh, whatever. Watch one, then you correct Wiki. I know that you dislike ancestors. However; give the founder full credit! Nobel Peace Prize for Homo erectus! Garry Denke 19:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC), User:Garry Denke, User talk:Garry Denke Garry Denke 14:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Garry, you're not helping your cause out by using the Chewbacca defense. You're only proving Dragons flight correct. The Evil Spartan 19:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dragons flight Chewbacca (Trojan horse) Defense employs non-dipole technical jargon, vs., Earth's dipole "so easy a Caveman can do it" Homo erectus eyewitness account, The Evil Spartan. Just thought you'd like to know you've buried Dragons flight with your link. John

Hey Dad, how do you spell Stonehenge? John

Studyhedge. Universal Magnetic Field. Garry Denke 23:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmbabies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and TV station articles

This user was indefinitely blocked back in February. Since that time, he has continued to edit pages under various Houston-based IPs. The edits are vandalism/nonsense (changing TV station affiliations/call signs/channel numbers) and some threats. After months of this abuse, I send a boilerplate message to the vandal's ISP, but that didn't work. I've placed the Houston TV stations on semi-protection, but the vandal has moved on to Bakersfield TV stations, and WP:TVS members are asking for a range block. As I do not really understand the range block parameters, I'm asking here.

The IPs which have been used include: 71.147.18.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 66.139.10.84 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 75.18.56.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 75.6.214.82 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 68.92.33.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 71.156.123.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 72.236.190.51 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 65.34.130.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 75.18.56.90 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 68.94.98.93 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 75.18.56.133 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 71.147.16.30 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 75.21.56.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 75.1.22.253 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 68.90.246.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 68.90.232.60 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), 70.132.151.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), many others. Firsfron of Ronchester 09:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

As a member of TVS, I support something of a limited range block--require AT&T users in this range (the Houston area) to create an account before editing. It's unfortunate that it has to come to this, but clearly the ISP isn't taking it seriously (despite the fact that AT&T's TOS requires users to abide by the policies of third-party sites). To refresh some people's memories--he was community banned in part for exactly this behavior, including threats to the life of Christina Aguilera. At the very least, requiring him to create an account would make it easier to keep track of him. As it is, his vandalism is almost a weekly occurrence. Blueboy96 11:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Support - I don't like blocking a whole city, but it really is necessary. Will ^(talk) 12:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Support -- I concur; if AT&T won't do something about it, we have to do something to keep him off for good, or at least, make it harder for him to vandalise. As long as there are loopholes, Mmbabies has the "keys" to the Wikipedia "kingdom". P.S. -- In addition to bakersfield, he also vandalised some Dallas / Fort Worth stations in the past; and his vandalism stunts are actually almost a daily thing. -- azumanga 19:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Comment One of the IPs he's used is already restricted from editing anonymously ... with this guy's history, it should be extended to the whole range, as suggested above. Blueboy96 00:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Support I was not involved with the originial block, but this guy needs to be stopped. Sadly, blocking an entire metro area might be the only way. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 00:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Support I think all of us are very tired of his nightly "fun", which includes death threats to Christian artist Nicole C. Mullen and Kenneth Copeland's daughter and a 'my way/highway' attitude towards Houston TV and every show airing on Daystar. Sad that it is to block AT&T access for Houston without an account, this guy needs to be reined in somehow. I would give this range block around six months, and then reopen for a review to see if he's finally been discouraged. I have only reverted him a few times since GridlockJoe, Postoak and Azumanga have done an admirable (and probably wearing) job keeping Mmbabies reined in, but I do keep a couple of Houston TV articles on watch just in case he might try something funny late when I'm on. Nate 08:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Support. I don't know how to perform a range block, but hopefully an admin who does will read this. If not let me know and I can make a quick post to wikien-l. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I think with the now three seperate death threats, that we should also let perhaps the Houston area police department know. Even though they are the rantings of an obviously disturbed person, we should let the police know. Perhaps they can track the guy down. - NeutralHomer ^T:C 03:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment on Comment:I agree, especially since we already have 131 "leads" as of tonight (7/15), right here. -- azumanga 04:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Banned user vandalizing from IP?

Check out this edit from 68.90.62.217 (talk · contribs) before a current vandalism spree diff—Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

MMBabies (talk · contribs) doesn't exist. Anon misspelled the username, if there was a username. hbdragon88 03:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Mmbabies (talk · contribs) exists though. Viridae^Talk 03:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User: Jeffrey Vernon Merkey

This user has repeatedly deleted cited material over and over from the Cherokee Freedmen Controversy and has been violating the NPOV and AGF policy with false comments about the Freedmen descendants and pushing his POV all while claiming that the article is filled with “uncited materials”. I made changes to the article, but he deletes each change over and over again. He claims that I committed vandalism and “libel” to the page, but if you look at the entire page history, I have contributed to the article with multiple numbers of cited materials and the user whose he claimed I vandalized states that I didn't vandalize the page [10]. He's accused me of being some user named "JohnC1" in the “talk” section and I've deleted his edits to my information page, but more have taken its place [11]. He tagged my page with "This user is a sockpuppet of JohnC1" [12] and I had no idea what that was until a fellow user told me. I welcome an Admin to check my IP and see that this claim is garbage. This person keeps harassing me on the page [13] and now he wants users who have contributed to the article blocked (as you can see from the page history link above) and making some bogus claim that people contributing are "Freedmen that should be blocked" with another piece of unfactual information [14]. Someone constantly manipulating the page to push his agenda makes no sense and I'm hoping that an Admin can resolve this because this is out of control.Stormshadows00 14:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a tough one. Clearly a content dispute. That being said, nothing rankles me more than one hair-brained editors accuse other editors of "vandalism", as if we can't tell the difference. A spade is a... But seriously, can't you guys work this out on the talk page? The Evil Spartan 20:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Mr Merkey has a habit of calling anyone who disagrees with him a troll, sockpuppet, etc etc. See SCOX Issues User:Kebron here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive269 as well as User:Stormshadows00 here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive270 He has been banned from Wikipedia twice before for EXACTLY what he is doing now. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:List_of_banned_users&oldid=74046215 reverting edits that are CITED and claiming that HIS POV edits can remain. --Kebron 22:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmm…[15], [16]…Proabivouac 22:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please... continue to make vague accusations all you want. The truth remains... Mr Merkey makes wild POV changes to articles. I and others revert them and are accused without proof trolling, of being sockpuppets of this user or that. I have asked over and over if there was anything wrong with my edits and the only thing wrong was that I was editing articles that Jeff Merkey edited. --Kebron 23:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

And the truth remains that anti-Merkey SPAs continue to troll this noticeboard.Proabivouac 23:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on. Is there any evidence to call Stormshadows00 an 'anti-Merkey SPA'? SPA yes, but the edit history seems to consist of good-faith edits to a single article, and a resulting conflict with Merkey's rather vexatious editing practices. WP:AGF if nothing else. --Aim Here 09:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The trouble is that AGF is exactly what the anti-Merkey SPAs have very consciously abused. We could have one hundred and one anti-Merkey only SPAs here and each would assure us from the bottom of their keyboards that they have no idea what we're talking about, while we would be required by the quaint tenets of our religion to overlook the obvious. Merkey can be a problematic editor, but how often does that result in posts to ANI by relatively new editors? Where Merkey is concerned, it happens all the time.

Stormshadows is an SPA. Maybe the quick post to ANI which is characteristic of anti-Merkey trolls is coincidence. Okay, but you can't get around this. That's not just an SPA, but an anti-Merkey-only SPA, and one who's been allowed to contribute for several years now.Proabivouac 10:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Pretty unlikely that this is anyone's forty first edit.Proabivouac 10:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Except that a few days previously, Merkey had used the same forum to complain about Stormshadows00, so, newbie or not, this forum had already been brought to Stormshadow's attention as the appropriate forum to complain about other editors. In any case, not even Merkey claims that Stormshadows00 is an anti-Merkey troll - that's your invention. Merkey is accusing Stormshadows00 of being John Cornsilks, who is not a SCOX user or troll, but a Cherokee that Jeff has clashed with on Cornsilk's message board, and he was trying to leverage that accusation against Stormshadows00 in this content dispute (since John Cornsilks' account was blocked from WP, for non-Merkey related reasons). Please keep up. When you're seeing anti-Merkey trolls that not even Jeff sees, then I suggest you reevaluate your methods.--Aim Here 12:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I did not say that Stormshadows00 was an anti-Merkey account, but an SPA and not a new account. Which is fine, but suspicious. What is far beyond suspicious are the contributions of the other editor who has commented above, which admit only one common denominator.Proabivouac 20:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Erm, you made one reference to 'Anti-Merkey SPAs' plural in this thread (after pointing at the user contribs of only two editors, one of which was Stormshadows00), and then a reference to him as an SPA doing something 'which is characteristic of anti-Merkey trolls'. Forgive me for not overlooking the obvious but what you wanted to imply was fairly clear and warranted refuting with facts. --Aim Here 22:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As a totally uninvolved user (I had never even heard of Mr. Merkey before, let alone edited anything related to Native Americans) I find Mr. Merkey's behavior troubling in this instance. When confronted with a user that claimed to be new, he not only reverted him several times, but would not initially answer on the article talk page, other than to accuse User:Stormshadows00 of sockpuppetry. Would someone more knowledgeable look at this please? (I realize that Mr. Merkey seems to get continuously trolled, but that is absolutely no excuse for this WP:BITEish behavior.)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonfairfax (talk • contribs)

I think Proabivouac is, in good faith, trying to thwart the announced intentions of certain users on the Yahoo! SCOX message board to come over here to Wikipedia and harass Merkey. Naturally, he's therefore suspicious of anyone who (a) has a short edit history, and (b) engages in conflict with Merkey. However, Merkey's editing behavior is so chronically problematic that nearly all editors who encounter him, newbie or veteran, become embroiled in some sort of conflict with him, even if they try to give him the utmost benefit of the doubt. So, while a new account that has rapidly clashed with Merkey could be a SCOX troll, the likelihood that it's not is great enough to mandate assuming good faith of the new account, unless there is further evidence to demonstrate that its purpose is harassment. And, even if it were a SCOX troll, the concerns expressed here by Stormshadows00 are concrete enough to be verifiable. Giving a disruptive editor like Merkey yet another free pass on his behavior, simply because someone offsite said they'd try to harass him here, seems to be focusing on an immaterial threat and disregarding a known, ongoing problem. It should be easy enough for an administrator to take a look at Merkey's edit history and determine for herself or himself whether Stormshadows00's complaints are baseless or well-founded, and whether Merkey is a disruptive influence on Wikipedia or not. alanyst ^/talk/ 13:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I can see at least three SCOX trolls listed above. I think this Stormshadows account is an SPA sock and these others accounts are SCOX trolls here to revert. I need to be sysoped so I can deal with them since they seem to still be here. Perhaps Jimbo will sysop me for 24 hours to clean up this mess. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

All due respect, I think that's a very bad idea. You're directly involved, and thus, lack the neutral view on the problem to sort things out in a way that maintains oversight and such. Instead, let us find a sysop to whom this can all be explained, as well as your preferred resolution, and let a more neutral, calm voice sort things out. This should help us keep our actions transparent and accountable. ThuranX 02:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Haco adding spam links

User Haco (also posting as IP 89.98.105.183) has begun posting links to his own site on multiple cruise ship articles. He was warned beginning on July 6 and was blocked by GDonato for spamming links. He was unblocked a few days later and has resumed spamming. I have tried to engage him in conversation on his talk page but his only response has been to continue to post links to his site. Please see his most recent contributions where he continues to link spam with no discussion whatsoever. I am no longer interested in pushing multiple reverts on all of these articles where he is continually pushing his personal site. Thanks! Malson 16:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the account indefinately and the IP for six months. Spammers are not welcome here. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 16:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I posted on WT:WPSPAM so that the bots can keep an eye on it. MER-C 11:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Billzilla

This user has now gone beyond pushing it too far. He was already warned for, after asking a reasonable question at Talk:George W. Bush, taking it to the level of trolling (blanking other's comments, calling Americans idiots, etc.). Now it's cemented on his talk page (calling, for example, me a dick). At risk of sounding rude, is this user just young, is he dense, or is he trolling? The Evil Spartan 19:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, he is now warned. LessHeard vanU 20:23, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

...and blocked for 24hours. LessHeard vanU 20:42, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

...and now protected the page to stop Billzilla from removing blocknotice. LessHeard vanU 22:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I read the heading as User:Bishzilla and I was wondering what on earth she was doing in a content dispute. Viridae^Talk 01:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You could have warned me before I clicked Bishzilla's name to see who you were talking about!! Phew (or should that be "aaaiieeeeeeee!!!"?)! ;~) LessHeard vanU 12:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Dubious block of DreamGuy by VirtualSteve

VirtualSteve (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has blocked DreamGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) giving this reason, which suggests to me that his main reason for imposing such a hefty block—three days— is that Dreamguy speaks rudely of admins in general. IMO admins should practice ignoring that kind of thing. We have too much power to act out a sense of grievance—collective or individual—with a Power Answer. It also worries me that VS blocks an editor he has just been edit warring with; that he hasn't posted the block on ANI for review; and also somewhat that he signed out as "unavailable" 25 minutes after blocking.[17] [18] I'm quite tempted to unblock without further ado myself, as these actions make it in practice impossible to discuss the block with the blocking admin; but having in the past been perceived as a "champion" of DreamGuy, I feel I'm not the best person for such an action. Bishonen | talk 21:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC).

As I have said elsewhere, I feel the length of the block to be excessive. At this time I think he has been unblocked by another administrator. Regards, Hamster Sandwich 21:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Pascal.Tesson has shortened the block to 18 hours. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The block has been reduced to 18hours by Pascal.Tesson. I was prepared to unblock had DreamGuy agreed to not attempt to delete the disputed image, but I have deferred to Pascal.Tesson's decision. As there is a discussion relating to the image at WP:FUR#13 July 2007 I think another admin (or PT) might wish to further consider the block length. LessHeard vanU 21:56, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

How about someone removing the block completely with a note that says 'oops. Shouldnt block someone you edit with. It's called COI and admin-advantage.'. Peace.Lsi john 23:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

While I'm at it, and since I'm in a pissy mood anyway.. Block comment Attempting to harass other users. What sort of weasel block comment is that? Either he harassed or he didnt. If he 'failed' at his attempt at harassment, thats sufficiently embarassing. Besides, blocking for 'attempted harassment' with someone you are edit warring with? Geez. Peace.Lsi john 23:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... "Attempting to harass..." is a value judgement; are you going to wait until they succeed (one which will work against the majority of editors)? The attempt shows the perpetrator is acting in bad faith. It is the same for attempted murder; you don't only arrest them when they manage to do the deed.

However, the above has nothing to do with DreamGuys situation. If I had known that the blocking admin was previously edit warring with the blockee I would have unblocked without requiring conditions. I don't know the situation but the fact that there was no request for review does not look good. LessHeard vanU 00:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in fairness, yes, we wait until actual harassment occurs. There is a law addressing 'attempted murder', but I'm unaware of a clause for 'attempting' to harass in our policies or guidelines. Either the behavior counts as harassment or it doesn't. If we use 'value judgment' for 'attempted harassment' then (overused or not) AGF says 'value judgment' also says 'not attempting to harass but perhaps overzealous'. Pre-emptive blocking is bad. It creates a 'trail' of block logs which may, or not, accurately reflect a history and lead to excessive escalations. And, I'm not going to pretend that DreamGuy is the most polite editor on wikipedia. But blocking where you're involved, is wrong. Blocking for 'attempted' is wrong. Sorry for my shortness above, I'm tired, it's been a long day and my patience grows short at times. Peace.Lsi john 02:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• To assist in the closure of this matter and so that my comments are made on open record for all other wikipedia editors I have added the following:
  Thank you to Bishonen, LessHeard vanU, Hamster Sandwich, Lsi john, Butseriouslyfolks, Pascal.Tesson & Evilclown93 for taking an interest in this matter. I appreciate the views you have provided and understand them all to be in good faith. I detail the following comments for historical purposes:

1. For the record I do not get upset by comments made towards me on wikipedia. If you feel that I have, those feelings are incorrect, and I wish to go on the record as saying that I do not have any personal issue with or feelings against DreamGuy in any way.
2. People will have different views on edit-warring. That was absolutely neither my intention nor, in my view a reflection of my actions in regards to Image:Daredevil46.jpg. DreamGuy placed a tag initially [19] on July 5th that said, This images has been deleted probably some 20 times now under various names.... no fair use, not cover art that was used as cover, needs a speedy delete as recreation of deleted image, and the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... I mean, seriously, how many times do we have to delete this thing, he's just stubbornly refusing to listen.

   I assume as a part of his admin role Evilclown93 removed that tag as detailed here.

   Dream Guy's reply (unknown to me at the time) was to suggest that Evilclown93 was a sock of the uploader.

   It was only a few days later that I, also as a part of my admin role came across the speedy delete request and confronted with the above rationale, agreed with Evilclown93 views and removed the request stating in my edit notice: reverted edits by DreamGuy to that of Evilclown93 - who is not a "sock" but an admin. Pls use only correct speedy tags before replacing (if at all).

   A further four days later, again just as a part of my admin role (see history of my admin work for that day) I came across the renewed speedy request, again with the above rationale. Confronted by no more information, I removed the speedy noting in the edit summary: Speedy deletion tag removed - awaiting a NPOV request that retains civility! You will note that I was talking about the content of the speedy deletion tag request of which I considered words such as the guy who keeps uploading it needs to get blocked so he knows not to pull this crap.... to be misplaced, no matter the frustration felt by Dream Guy. I then left the matter.

   DreamGuy it appears renewed his request again and without alteration at which point Butseriouslyfolks removed it, it was renewed and then Butseriouslyfolks put it up at WP:FUR.

   I came across it a day later and after I had left an adjusted canned message (which as most of you know includes a welcome to wikipedia line) on DreamGuy's talk page that also said, politely, Please assume good faith in relation to tagging an image for Speedy Delete. The reason that two (and now 3 admins) did not agree with your tag was made more and more obvious to you. Quite simply your request was polluted with a non-neutral POV and did not nothing to assist us in attending to the request. Please do not continue to suggest speedy deletion in this method - no matter what editor is frustrating you with their additions as it belittles your otherwise good work. Keep editing! My warning therefore was in relation to his edit-warring with three admins who did not agree with his method.

3. In relation to blocking ... Following the posting at WP:FUR - at which I note Dream Guy has commented, he still reverted Butseriouslyfolks' removal of the speedy tag, even after Butseriouslyfolks wrote in his edit summary, Let's discuss it first, please?. Finding another reversion, despite an ongoing request at WP:FUR and noting that DreamGuy has been warned before and blocked before, and most importantly that whatever any admin did DreamGuy would revert, I blocked him for a period which I considered at the time to be commensurate with his previous block and the continued reversions. To the extent that others consider that amount of time excessive I thank you, and particularly to Pascal.Tesson for his revision of the time line.
4. I note the comments above (on my talk page) that in the opinion of an other editor Dream Guy is not the most polite individual on wikipedia, but he damned sure isn't the most acrid either and I agree totally. Whilst DreamGuy may not be able to accept that my message to him as detailed above was positive - I reiterate here again for all and sundry that I believe he is an otherwise good editor that was confronted by enormous frustration over the image he has been trying to delete. HOWEVER my job as I understand it is to assist in the protection of wikipedia. For those edits that relate to this matter - in my opinion DreamGuy needed to be blocked so that the process of deletion or otherwise of this image could be dealt with, without having to battle his continuing nose thumbing at the Good Faith decisions being made - especially with regards listing the matter at WP:FUR.
5. I should end by also indicating that my becoming unavailable at the time I did had everything to do with it being 2.00am in the morning at my location (bed and pillow beckoned) and no other reasoning.

Again thank you all for your comments. Please let me know if anything at all needs further explaining. With best wishes --VS ^talk 02:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

VirtualSteve, thank you for taking the time to respond. I understand your reasoning and I still believe that since you had been 'fighting' over the tag, you were potentially emotionally involved and should have opened an AN/I for an uninvolved opinion. If for no other reason than for appearance and perception. (Perception is reality). Perhaps DG would have been blocked anyway, perhaps not. Peace.Lsi john 02:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Again a helpful and informative comment - thank you - it is noted.--VS ^talk 02:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I hesitated to simply lift the block as well. I reduced it to 24 hours instead (6 elapsed + the 18 I added) because the fact is that DreamGuy was being pretty stubborn in his fighting over the tag and because as an experienced user (who has been blocked a few times before) he should know better than to be overly confrontational and uncivil on such trivial matters. Pascal.Tesson 09:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm not quite ready to join the above group hug yet. I just posted a response to VirtualSteve's defense of his block on DreamGuy's page, not realizing that it was here on ANI as well. Since this is the more public place, I'm pasting my request for some more explanation here:

1. VirtualSteve, I see you don't comment above on your "adjusted canned message" with its "Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia."[20] I can fully understand DreamGuy's irritated reaction to that. Yes, the template includes a newbie greeting; so why use it? Please see Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace: "if the template's tone isn't appropriate, don't use the template." There's nothing like leading by example when you call for civility from users, and your "Welcome" template use was not civil and not delivered "politely." And, er, how is it that you get to assume bad faith and tell DreamGuy he deleted your template "to hide the fact"? *I* might easily have deleted that annoying template, if you'd put it on my page, and it wouldn't have been to hide anything.
2. I didn't mean, in my original block comment on your page, to suggest that you deliberately made yourself unavailable after placing the block. Certainly not! But I did mean that it's a poor idea to place a controversial block at all when you are about to ge to bed. Let somebody in another timezone do it.
3. I notice that you have nothing to say about your failure to post what you surely knew to be a controversial block on ANI for review. That was one of my main criticisms. Altogether, you scarcely engage with anything I said. I'm sorry to see that. Since you're a new admin, I went to some trouble to make myself clear, and hoped my commentary might be helpful. Bishonen | talk 14:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC).

• Thank you for your further comments and questions Bishonen. I will answer frankly:

1. I have provided a detailed set of reasoning to this issue above. Administrators (both new and old) do make mistakes. I appreciate that you feel that I have done so in two or three areas and I will take those views on board. However I also note that others do not feel that I have made a mistake in blocking - other than imposing too long a ban - to which I have already provided a comment and my thanks.
2. Other editors/administrators have commented on DreamGuy's style of editing and his previous blocking - and of course I note that he continues to bombast his talk page on this issue. I also note the unreasonable hyperbole that he adds to his comments such as the discourse he attempts here. Realistically if that energy had been put in adding an informative and helpful speedy delete request to the image in question (which is what a good editor would have done) - rather than reverting all attempts to remove the item from speedy under its current tagging then this matter would have gone away - to DreamGuy's benefit (in terms of the image deleted or adjusted with appropriate fair use) - at least a week ago.
3. In terms of meeting your initial question - well to be honest (and of course I acknowledge that you are the first to note this), your comments do come across as *championing* DreamGuy and to that extent they are one-sided in his overall favour. For example what you consider to be edit-warring I consider to be removal of a template and a request for further information. I wonder if you would not also have reverted the speedy tag in the case of any other editor constantly putting it up, especially when that editor was actually reverting the tag against a total of 3 administrators who had an unwillingness to speedy delete the image as it stood. As you probably know WP:CSD is populated by 100's of items a day, to which administrators take personal time (as volunteers) to consider and delete. This is a thankless task - every editor that has created an article or image wants the item kept, and every editor that has tagged an item wants it deleted. That task is not made any easier by the tagging of an image in the way that it has - and please remember I was actually the last administrator to deny its speedy deletion. Finally and to put this point in a nutshell your interest in admonishing me would come across as far more reasonable to me if you also spent some considerable time instructing your friend that as an experienced editor his actions were inappropriate.
4. I do and have appreciated the point about listing this at WP:ANI - and certainly I can see that it would have been easier to do so. However whilst you say I have nothing to say about this point - I had actually (yesterday) acknowledged this point to Lsi john above.
5. Finally I tend to continue working wikipedia until I stop - in other words I do not spend the last 30 minutes or 60 minutes etc just looking. There is work to do and I tend to knuckle in and do it.

I have a strong feeling that I will not be able to say anything to totally appease your "supportive of DreamGuy views" on this matter - but I hope that you will see that I have attempted to do so as congenially as possible. Best wishes. --VS ^talk 22:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyright issue

Resolved

A website - http://www.fonejacker.tv/Kayvan_Novak.shtml - appears to have copied a Wikipedia article and placed their own copyright tag on the page. I wasn't sure of where to report this so I guessed this would be the best place. The article is Kayvan Novak, see also the discussion at Talk:Kayvan Novak. — AnemoneProjectors (zomg!) 21:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Normally, the procedure is to list it at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks, and to contact the website to ask them to remove the content. I'd do it but it's probably best if one of the editors involved in the article takes care of it. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I and another editor contacted the website and looking at the page now, http://www.fonejacker.tv/Kayvan_Novak.shtml, they have removed the copyright logo and give credit to Wikipedia and IMBD now. — Moe ε 19:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio uploads used in Kurdistan Workers Party and other related articles

Deleti (talk · contribs) (doesnt that sound like delete?) had been repetitively uploading same copyrighted images for quite some time now. He has been warned many times. I request admin intervention. -- Cat ^chi? 22:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I checked over the last few contributions of Deleti to the PKK article, and they are mostly images that are later deleted. I have indef blocked Deliti for uploading copyvio images but would welcome other admins review of my actions. LessHeard vanU 22:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I would probably have used a shorter definite block initially, had the user at least acknowledged the warnings. Since they just kept at it, IMHO an indefinite block is warranted. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:20, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The images still need to be deleted. Though I would reccomend keeping the PKK flag as "fair use". I'll write a rationale now. -- Cat ^chi? 07:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

On a second thought delete the flag too, it was from FOTW and was poorly converted from gif -> png. I have reuploaded it as a gif with proper format, source, fair use license and rationale. -- Cat ^chi? 07:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

All images were deleted and deleti was indef blocked. -- Cat ^chi? 22:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Delefi (talk · contribs) is uploading copyvios despite the indef block. Please end his misery. -- Cat ^chi? 22:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeffed this one, too -- obvious sockpuppet. – Luna Santin (talk) 22:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have filed a Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Deleti to identify the puppetmaster. -- Cat ^chi? 22:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Shashwat pandey

Resolved

Despite the repeated objections of multiple editors and patient explanations about the difference between primary and secondary sources on the user's talk page, Shashwat pandey (talk · contribs) insists on repeatedly reverting articles to his own version against consensus. The primary article in question is Sahaj Marg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This article's subject is a meditation practice. There are separate articles about two primary orgs which practice it. This user repeatedly tries to turn the article into one about some dispute between these two organizations. Could some admin attempt to intervene here. I understand this user has been blocked once already and only unblocked because he agreed to cooperate with other editors. He is not keeping this agreement. IPSOS (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Response

There is sequence of personal attack on me rather then my contribution same was the case with previous admin also, there is one user Reneeholla [21] who has created an atmosphers against me, and any single edit that i am doing is being reverted, subject is not discussed on article talk page but is done on admins talk page, this is highly inappropriate. and such personal attack, must be avoided at all cost. in case of above admin also, kindly have a look at talk page of the article [22] there is no explaination given by above user regarding his reverts and change's, whereas there is more then 25 edits have been done by the user, including variuous reverts [23] again no note on talk page. It was repeadly requested by me not to change the content of the page as it is under mediation process [24] but still the entire page has been changed and no discussion was done on talk page, all discussion is done only on admins talk page see here [25] this is not a healthy approach towards debate and reaching a concensus. any advice will be highly appritiated.Adding one section is by no means disruptive edits, as i have asked incase there is any violation of wiki policy, [26] above user also seems to be prejudice rather then keeping an open view kindly advice on how to maintain a fair atmosphere of mutual respect and understanding, without any personal attack--Shashwat pandey 23:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Article is protected. Involved editors have been advised to pursue WP:DR. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 14:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Checkusers inappropriately deleted.

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Pending has been blanked with the rationale “THIS PAGE IS DEPRECATED!” However, when one jumps through the request hoops, one is clearly told

Don't forget to add {{Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents}} to the checkuser page here.

(See, for example the message box on Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grazon.) Thus, the blanking of RfC/Pending has caused multiple RfCs to vanish inappropriately.

• The deleted RfCs need to be restored.
• If RfC/Pending is truly not to be used, then the script that generate the RfC case pages needs to be changed very quickly.

—SlamDiego_←T 23:25, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now posted a transclusion of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grazon to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser, but I believe that it would be better if an admin took care of the other deleted requests. —SlamDiego_←T 23:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, this looks like we've kind of half-closed the pending part of the board, but the scripts aren't totally fixed. I hope someone with the necessary experience and skill can fix this quickly. --Haemo 23:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• In my opinion it's not a big issue, we left a huge message on /Pending asking people to go to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser instead. Presumably, we could AWB all old cases to change the text but I'm not sure that's really necessary. Keep in mind that changing the message means editing more than 500 pages. An other option would be to protect the page to ensure people would read the big message, but I don't like the idea. -- lucasbfr ^talk 01:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, of the requests I removed, all were either already transcluded to the main page and had been completed and archived, or had been transcluded and done: We have two ways to see new requests, and we are able to add them to WP:RFCU when we see them. If you look at the revision before the archiving, you see that the only open cases are the ones transcluded from IP check. IP check is already transcluded on WP:RFCU. No information was lost, and all of the cases were seen be a checkuser. --ST47Talk 01:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grazon had not been transcluded to the main page. It fell off the map, which is what got me looking for it. I hope that you will double-check to ensure that no other RfCs were lost. —SlamDiego_←T 02:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised to read that more than 500 pages would have to be editted to change that one link; but I don't see why (even if the claim is true) that task could be automated and proceed swiftly. —SlamDiego_←T 02:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Because the message you see is substed from each case from {{Rfcua}}. {{Rfcua}} was updated to reflect the change in procedure, but the cases already closed have the previous version. That mean we need to manually edit the link appearing in every case to the newest version. I'm not saying it can't be done (AWB can easily take care of it), just that it is not something to take lightly. That's why I'd rather tweak the message in /Pending to make people actually read it, instead of editing 500 pages. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for independent Admin oversight

Recently User:SlimVirgin has become involved in Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan). While I appreciate the assistance of an admin in trying to sort the issue out, I feel that because I already been in conflict with SV on a discussion of Richard Gere/Cindy Crawford BLP, I feel he is not impartial enough to deal with my edits. Notably, he has removed well-sourced criticisms I made of the Baker case (that appear in three independently verifiable newspapers) and has made a long diatribe about my COI even though I have not edited the article directly in some time. He has even asked me not to discuss my proposed edits on the article talk page. He has now threatened to block me, and I feel I am being bullied by an Admin.

I would like to refocuss the discussion on the text to be reincluded, which has strong support from other editors. the discussion is here: [27]

I would like to request that SV recuse himself from the article and that some other independent admins look at the issue with respect to gaining consensus on the disputed text. Thank you for your time. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Its a she. Have you tried to discuss this with her on her talk page before bringing it here? Viridae^Talk 01:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

We have been discussing on the article talk page. I ask that SV refocuss her efforts on building consensus, and not on trying to stifle my ability to comment on the text by saying I cannot discuss the proposed edits on the article's talk page. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, all BLP restrictions apply to talk pages as well as articles. Crum375 01:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

My criticisms of Baker's case were picked up by three independent sources in the UK. They come well withing BLP guidelines. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That's not the issue. The point is that BLP concerns are allowed to 'stifle' anyone's ability to discuss things on the article's talk page. Crum375 02:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I support Sparkzilla's side in the content dispute, but don't agree with him that SV has been acting in bad faith. She unprotected the page and the only reason me or someone else hasn't readded the deleted material is that we're still working through the issue on the article's talk page. Cla68 01:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I won't go into detail here because of BLP. In brief, Sparkzilla has been engaged in a real-life campaign against two individuals for the last couple of years. He has brought this campaign onto Wikipedia, and has repeatedly added details of his allegations against them to a BLP about one of them. The allegations involve legal and financial fraud. Several editors and admins have asked him to stop, to no avail. Therefore, I asked him today, per WP:BLP, WP:COI, and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing to stop commenting on those individuals, whether in articles or on talk pages (he has been posting links to the offending material on several talk pages in an apparent attempt to spread the allegations). Our discussion is here.

As for his claim that I've been in a previous conflict with him, this is simply an attempt to play the "she's involved" game. My only involvement with Sparkzilla is when he arrived at BLP in May and started posting endlessly to the talk page about a dispute he was having at Richard Gere, which I was not involved in. He then tried to change the policy to suit his position. His changes were reverted by myself and others, and he was asked by several of us to take his dispute about Gere to that talk page. That's my only involvement with him, and I didn't even recognize his name when I started dealing with the current BLP issue. I do, however, recognize the same intensity of approach that caused him a problem on the BLP page. I'll be issuing a block if he continues to allude to the disputed allegations, because the situation has gone on long enough, and previous requests from other editors and admins seem to have made no difference. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I support Sparkzilla's involvement in the talk page discussion of the Nick Baker article, because his relationship to the subject is stated and the journal that he runs is, in my opinion, a credible English source of investigative journalism here in Japan. SV's opinion in the dispute is also appreciated and, like I said, we're working through the issues involved. Cla68 02:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla runs a free city guide with a limited circulation for English speakers in Japan. It's not a strong-enough source for allegations of fraud. The only newspapers that have picked up on the story are three local advertising sheets (which may also be freesheets) in the UK, and even they didn't repeat the substance of his claims. Contentious BLP claims need strong sources, and in this case that would mean the mainstream press.

Also, as the city guide appears to be self-published (by Sparkzilla and his wife), V also kicks in, which says that third-party self-published sources are not allowed in BLPs. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Just because Metropolis is free doesn't mean that it isn't a credible news source. It does contain a city guide, but every edition usually contains an article or articles on issues going-on in Japan, usually issues that non-Japanese living in Japan might have interest in. The article's author's names are on the articles (as opposed to most mainstream Japanese press stories, which don't state the author's names, but are still considered to be credible) and the article's sources of information are stated. Those local newspapers in the UK also appear to be credible, even though they're not mass-market publications. I believe the sources pass the credibility test. But, why are we discussing this here instead of the article's talk page? Cla68 03:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, if the fact that a trusted administrator has enforced a particular policy in the past were to mean that she could not enforce it in the future, who would be left to do so? All administrators are expected to enforce BLP. If you find yourself repeatedly in conflict with SlimVirgin over BLP, it is probably a sign that your edits fall too often on the wrong side of that policy.Proabivouac 02:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

SV, do not misrepresent our previous conflict. I took the Gere/Crawford issue to the BLP policy page because there was/is a valid issue regarding what I saw was the abuse of the word "sensitive" in the policy. At no point did I change the text of the main BLP page article -- I discussed proposed changes on the talk page only. I suspect you have serious WP:OWN issue on the BLP page so I let it go. After you basically told me to go away I knew it would only be a matter of time until you came back.

Also please do not misrepresnt my magazine. It is a weekly 80-page city guuide with 30,000 distribution. It is the No 1 English magazine in Japan read by 50% of the foreigners who live here. It has already been established that it is not self-published. For god's sake, what else are you going to try?

Even so, my allegations against Baker's support group are in three independent newspaper sources that were published in Baker's home area. They are notable, relevant and verifiable and well within BLP policy. After you deleted the items without reason, the disputed text has been discused by other editors on the page -- all except you. Other editors disagree with your asessment of the content and your attempt to use COI issues on what is basically a content sidpute is not appreciated. I feel strongly that you are trying to stifle discussion of a content issue using the authority of an Admin.

Given your continous denigration of my edits, and my magazine, and the reliable third-party sources which note my criticisms of Baker's case it is reasonable to suggest that you are carrying a grudge and I once again ask that you recuse yourself from further comment on the article -- there are plenty of other admins who can deal with this issue. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, if you are indeed the publisher of the disputed material, it would seem that it is rather you who should recuse yourself, per WP:COI.Proabivouac 02:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Following COI policy I have been discussing the proposed edits on the article talk page. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay.Proabivouac 02:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, once you have admitted you are COI, and have been told to back off, you should do just that. Let other neutral editors deal with the situation. My guess is that there is no one there with a POV in the issue, except you. The rest just want to make sure that BLP, V, NOR, NPOV and UNDUE are carefully adhered to. Crum375 02:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As above, ith respect to COI policy I am allowed to discuss proposed edits on the article talk page. I am also happy to abide by the consensus of the editors on the page. Actually, I have been working to remove POV by Baker's supporters who like to present claims as facts ;) -- Sparkzilla talk! 03:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Your posts must not attempt to repeat the disputed allegations, or link to websites or previous posts that repeat them. Please be very clear about that. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:12, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Posts and allegations are well within BLP. Three independent sources. I suggest we both take some time away from this issue and let the other editors discuss the proposed text on the article's talk page. -- Sparkzilla talk! 03:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone wants to read my previous interaction with Sparkzilla, given he's claiming it makes me "involved," it was on BLP talk in May, in several sections starting with Conflicting claims, Sensitivity, and Addition of recent paragraph. But most of it is in The meaning of sensitivity, and Proposed text for public figures.

As you can see, I was one of a number of editors who were opposing his proposals and asking him to stop posting so much about Richard Gere. To quote Risker: "Sparkzilla, you have been asked repeatedly, by many editors and administrators, to keep the questions about Richard Gere in either the talk page of that article or the BLPN section with reference to that article. Your continued insistence on discussing it here, in the talk page of a policy that applies to hundreds of thousands of articles containing biographical material about living persons, has become disruptive. Please stop." SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If you will recall there were actually two discussions: The first was a discussion of the actual Gere/Crawford issue. The second was a discussion of changes to BLP policy that used the Gere conflict as an example (something you clearly did not understand at the time). Each item for discussion was in the correct place for discussion. I was bullied off of the BLP page by you at the time, but chose not to persue it at the time. You have admitted that you were in conflict with me then and given that conflict, I once againa sk you to recuse yourself and to let another admin deal with this issue. -- Sparkzilla talk! 03:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the fact that Sparkzilla has been warned-off this article by two trusted admins and other editors - I am curious why he would bring this here. He misrepresents that his current position has strong support from other editors. At the latest count three for and three against. He also misrepresents the position of his magazine here. There are over 2,000,000 foreigners in Japan - is he suggesting that his magazine (which is restricted to the kanto area around Tokyo) has over 33 readers for every single copy? An amazing feat!!!David Lyons 09:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that you read the header; Sparkzilla would like the views of a third party administrator on a particular matter. He then gives his reason, a past history of dispute with the other party. It is quite simple, and this is the correct place to make the request.

It then gets a little muddied by the content of the debate, and the basis of the previous conflict, being bought here by the parties involved. Despite this being an entirely inappropriate venue for the discussion it does give some indication why a neutral admin is being requested (and what said admin is likely to encounter). LessHeard vanU 12:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Complaint regarding unwarranted ban by SlimVirgin - Abuse of Admin powers in content dispute

Sorry this is so long, but I would like to register a strong complaint regarding my recent ban by SlimVirgin. I feel strongly that this ban was unwarranted, and that it was an abuse of admin powers in what is a basic content dispute.

This discussion revolves around the removal by SlimVirgin of text and sources that support my real life citicism of the support group of Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan) [28]. This material had already passed through an RFC and was deemed acceptable as long as there were extra sources -- two new sources were subsequently provided by other editors. After the text's deletion without discussion by SlimVirgin I sent a mail to the RFC respondents to ask for their opinion on its removal. A copy of the mail is here

Sending this mail resulted in a six-hour ban by SlimVirgin on the basis of COI and BLP violations. These claims are unfounded. The ban followed attempts by SlimVirgin to stop me discussing the disputed text on the talk page with other editors. In this lengthy diatribe about my COI issues [29] she said, in violation of COI policy, that "I'm going to ask Sparkzilla to stop editing this article and refrain from commenting further about the Bakers on this or any other talk page".

There is no COI issue. Since I declared my COI on the article I have only discussed edits involving sources that reference my commentaries or my magazine on the article's talk page. There is also no BLP issue as stated on the ban because there are three independent newpapers that have referenced my claims and the claims have also been addressed by Baker's supporters. Three editors on the talk page currently think the text should be reinstated.

My points

1. It is easy to say I have COI issues, but after COI discussions several months ago which ended in me revealing my identity, any proposed edits concerning my own magazine and commentary have only been posted on the article talk page in full conformance with COI policy.
2. The so-called BLP violation is part of a content dispute which is supported by three independent newspaper sources currently being discussed on Talk:Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan). I have to wonder how we can discuss the sources without linking to them?
3. The disputed text and sources was removed unilaterally by SlimVirgin without any consultation with other editors on the page and with no reference to the previous RFC [30]
4. The disputed text (after more sources were added) was deemed acceptable in a previous RFC [31]
5. Criticisms of the support group have been an integral part of this article since its very early days
6. There are three editors on the talk page who support re-inclusion of the material
7. I have been in conflict with Slim Virgin in the past and I have already asked for assistance to stop what appears to be a vendetta against me in the section above[32]- unfortuantely no action was taken.
8. SlimVirgin refused to recuse herself from the page to let another admin deal with the page. Why is it so important that she alone must deal with it?
9. SlimVirgin also defensively denigrated my magazine's notability and that of the other sources. Why do this if this was simply a COI/BLP issue?
10. I was then banned for asking for help from respondents to the original RFC and my mails to those editors deleted.

I did an RFC and I added sources; I have only discussed proposed edits on talk pages. There are multiple independent sources that support my commentary. I have followed policy properly only to find myself banned. I would like to ask once again for SlimVirgin to recuse herself from the article and to ask non-involved admins to check the sources and confirm whether or not is acceptable for me and other editors to discuss them on the article talk page. This is a simple task -- the sources are short [33].

I would also like to ask the following questions:

1. Is it WP policy to block a user for sending a letter of request for help to previous RFC respondents?
2. Is it acceptable for an admin to ban someone based on COI issues when they have been following COI policy?
3. Does BLP policy means that controverisal claims, however well sourced, cannot be referenced in talk pages?
4. Is it WP policy to use admin powers to suppress participation in a content dispute?

I also sincerely hope that I will not face further sanction for bringing this issue up. The actions of powerful admins should be always be allowed to be questioned in an open environment without fear of reprisals from either them or the people who support them. Thank you for your time. -- Sparkzilla talk! 17:53, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Considering the above, I'm surprised the block was only for six hours. You seem to have a vested personal COI interest in this case, and it is best for all considered, you in particular, to leave off editing the article. Period. Corvus cornix 20:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have not edited the main article concerning my edits at all, in full conformance with COI policy. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Corvus cornix. When you are an obvious COI, you should walk on eggs. Take a back seat, let the neutral editors work on the article, and limit yourself to pointing out obvious factual mistakes, once. Don't lobby or promote your COI POV in any way, and when told to back off, do so. In this case, there are many neutral editors involved, the facts are known, the issue remaining is how to best present the information given our very strict BLP related rules, combined with V, NOR, NPOV, UNDUE, etc. Stop attacking a neutral admin who is simply following our BLP rules. Crum375 22:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly what I have been arguing for. I took an RFC, I added sources, I refrained from directly editing the article, I discussed on the talk pages - all according to policy. Now that the text was arbitraruily deleted any attempt to discuss it on the article talk page or with previous RFC respondents has resulted in a ban. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I just learned that user Sparkzilla is the author of the op-ed that started this dispute. On that basis alone, Sparkzilla should not edit that article. He can comment in talk and provide any sources he wants added, leaving other editors to assess the material on its merit. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever you think of my COI, I have followed policy properly. I have not edited the article directly regarding my commentary. I have commented in talk and provided sources in full comopliance with policy. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, FYI, I've also asked him to stop commenting on talk — and in fact to stop commenting on the Bakers anywhere on Wikipedia — because he was engaged in a real-life campaign against them. He has been posting his opinions widely on various talk pages, urging editors to add material for him, and including links to the disputed editorial and other articles he's written in real life, which is all being cached by Google. I feel he needs to withdraw entirely from being involved in this on Wikipedia for reasons of BLP and COI, and to allow the other editors on that page to write the article and discuss it without his constant requests that material written by him be restored. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again you misrepresent me. I have not posted info about Baker "widely" on other talk pages, other than to to discuss this COI issue and to ask for help from the previous respondents to the RFC, who had accepted the text. According to COI policy I am both allowed to cite my own sources, and I am allowed to comment on the talk page of the article. It is also not unreasonable that I should also be allowed to discuss the text with editors who previously approved the disputed text on an RFC without incurring a ban. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note that I brought the original RFC precisely so that non-involved ediotors could comment irrespective of any COI. This is what the policy says: [34] : Those who feel the need to make controversial edits, in spite of a real or perceived conflict of interest, are strongly encouraged to submit proposed edits for review on the article's talk page, or to file a request for comment.

I have strictly adhered to this guideline, yet now I have been banned. The policy exists to help editors like me who have a conflict of interest deal with the situation. What is the point of the policy if following it correctly results in a ban?-- Sparkzilla talk! 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with that. Disclosing a COI does not eliminate it, and it appears it is going to be difficult for this editor to adhere to WP:NPOV. We're each supposed to write content in NPOV fashion, not advocate our respective self-interested positions to meet in the middle. -- But|seriously|folks  23:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I have not edited the article directly and have conformed with COI policy throughout. I have also provided independent sources to deal with NPOV issues. Please tell me the actual BLP policy that I have broken and tell me why I am not allowed to ask for help restoring the approved text without incurring a ban? -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Just do not edit the article. Provide sources and recommendations in talk and let others make the changes if they think that these are necessary. Avoid giving personal opinions on LPs: discuss the article and not the subject, and you will be fine. Wikipedia should not be used as a soapbox for personal opinions of others. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what I have done. However, given that I have been doing exactly as you say and have been banned for it, I wonder if you can assure me that if I was to comment or assist other editors regarding my sources on the article's talk page or in mail discussions with RFC respondents such as yourself that I would not be banned again? -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to Sparkzilla: I think you are missing the point. As an admitted COI, the issue is not your editing of the article, but your promotion and lobbying for your own publications as a source for a highly controversial BLP article. As I noted above, you should provide your material once, which you have already done, and then step back and let neutral editors handle the BLP and sourcing issues. When an admin removes your controversial material per BLP, you don't restore it as you've done - you step back. This applies to anywhere on the Wikipedia site. So just sit back, the neutral editors already have your material, let them work with it. And do not under any circumstances restore controversial BLP material that has been removed, or you'll be blocked. Crum375 01:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I took the original text once to RFC. Secondly, after its removal by SV without discussion I did not restore the disputed text to the article, but followed policy by commenting on the text in the article's talk pages, or to ask for help from previous respondents to the RFC. I am concerned that I was penalised for following policy, and concerned that I will be punished again for discussing it on the article's talk page in future, even though this is part of COI policy. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla doesn't seem to be getting it. If this continues, I support another block to get his attention, since the first one just wasn't long enough to provide enough time for proper reflection and reading of the relevant policies is seems. The only question is, how long this time? FeloniousMonk 01:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please tell me the exact policy I have broken. -- Sparkzilla talk! 01:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT for starters. How about WP:HAR as well. FeloniousMonk 01:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not disruptive to ask for assistance regarding a content dispute. It is not disruptive to question the removal of well-sourced material from an artcile. It is not disruptive to discuss a ban, which apears to the the result of following policy. Can you tell me the policy violation regarding COI or BLP please? Also can you tell me who I am supposed to be harassing? -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would add WP:BLP - restoring improperly sourced controversial BLP material that has been removed, after several warnings, is a blockable offense. Crum375 02:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It was established in the RFC that the material was acceptable. Confimation that I criticised the support group is available in three independent reliable sources, easily satisfying verifiability and NPOV issues. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, let me clarify this for you. This is a case of COI aggravated by the fact that you are involved in case about third-parties. COI on subjects you are involved yourself, such as editing an article about yourself, or your newspaper, is difficult enough. When the COI involves comments your newspaper is making about others, it is even more difficult, and to such extent that you simply should avoid any perceptions' that may be construed as improper. So, I would advise you to make your comments in talk page, allow others to make the edits, and avoid any type of canvassing for the material's inclusion. Hey, if the material is notable, significant and and well sourced, I will re-add it myself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

All I asked for initially was for some external help to deal with the issue. I appreciate your offer to help. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, to avoid making this more difficult for yourself, accept the feedback given to you and take a break. I believe it will do you good. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you have kindly indicated your desire to help I will leave the issue for now. Thank you. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, once an admin, or any established user for that matter, declares controversial BLP material as improperly sourced and removes it, you may not restore it, regardless of any previous RfC decisions. The proper way to handle that is to discuss it, and reach consensus prior to restoring. Additionally, if you are an admitted COI, and in your case also the author of the controversial material, you should not be promoting your COI POV - you should stick to providing raw facts, and let neutral editors discuss the BLP issues. Crum375 02:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I was discussing it to reach consensus on the talk page and with previous RFC respondents - but was banned for doing so! It was the attempt to suppress that discussion that I am concerned about. Please note that I have only discussed what is in the external sources and have not promoted any agenda (in recent memory) on WP that is not already inside those sources. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Constantly repeating poorly sourced WP:BLP violations is indeed a WP:BLP violation, and given your campaign against the individual in question, you should simply stay away from commenting on them at all on Wikipedia. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no BLP violation. The items are not poorly sourced according to WP:ATT. My comments about the case were reported in three independent newpapers in the UK. Three other editors on the page, and the repondents to the RFC agreed that my commentary can be cited as a claim with the sources provided. -- Sparkzilla talk! 03:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Sparkzilla, you say "There is absolutely no BLP violation" - can you appreciate that as a COI pushing his own contentious BLP material as source, you are in no position to be a neutral judge of that? This is why you must step back and let neutral Wikipedia editors deal with the BLP issues. Crum375 04:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You are completely right. That's why I... 1) took it to an RFC that said that my commentary could be used if sourced appropriately. 2) There is no further COI issue from me as I have discused the re-istatement of the text only on the article's talk page and with the repondents to the COI (and here). I have behaved properly when it comes to my COI. In fact, it is SlimVirgin who has gone against consensus by removing this material, and I would like to ask why it was removed without discussion when it is porpoerly sourced, has pased through an RFC, and why I was banned for challenging that removal? -- Sparkzilla talk! 04:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If I am "completely right", then you should just step back. As the author and publisher of the material in question, you are not neutral, hence you can't judge the merits of a BLP case. The RfC, as I explained to you, means nothing, since BLP issues evolve, and an established user removing contentious BLP material can only be reverted by subsequent consensus - certainly not by the COI whose material was removed. So please stop this campaign, as it's becoming very disruptive. Crum375 04:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Metropolis

It also appears that Sparkzilla is controlling the content of Metropolis (English magazine in Japan), a free city and classified-ad guide in Tokyo that he and his wife publish. The history shows him removing negative content and fighting to restore anything positive, not all of which is reported accurately.

For example, the article said: "In 1999 the magazine started "Glitterball", an annual Halloween party at Velfarre, a large club in Roppongi. The party, which has about 2,000 attendees, raises funds for various children's charities in Japan, including Make a Wish Foundation and the YMCA Challenged Childrens' Project."

The edit was sourced to The Japan Times with a dead link. In fact, the Japan Times article is still online, and it does not entirely support the edit. In a March 2006 article entitled "A good cause: Expat charity balls are some of the biggest and most expensive draws on the social calendar. Where does all the money go?, the newspaper writes:

Another popular evening out on the cheaper end of the scale is Metropolis magazine's Glitterball party. The Tokyo-based English weekly holds its annual Halloween dance party at Velfarre in Roppongi.

It is not traditionally a charity fundraiser, but for the October event the magazine advertised that some of the money raised would go to the Make-A-Wish Foundation of Japan and the YMCA.

However, advertisements for the party did not specify how the money was to be raised.

Mark Devlin, CEO of Crisscross KK, Metropolis' publisher, admitted the group was not as organized last October as they had been in previous years.

"We did not have a clear idea of who to give (the money raised) to," Devlin said.

As they have been doing since 2003, 500 yen of the 3,000 yen advance and 3,500 yen door ticket prices was earmarked for charity, while those who received free tickets were asked to give a 500 yen donation at the door.

Devlin clarified the event, which had about 2,000 attendees last year, also makes a "moderate profit" for the magazine.

Crisscross donated 503,000 yen each [about $4,000] to the two charities, according to Devlin.

I've fixed the article so that it sticks more closely to what the source said. [35] SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why bring a mnor edit on a minor page not relevant to this discussion if not to muddy the discussion? Please do not distract the issue. The older edits to Metropolis were already the subject of a COI discussion where Mangojuice said "I feel his behavior on the central articles (Metropolis, Crisscross) was not so problematic, because he's trying to follow policy. I really don't think the removal of negative information was inappropriate: the negative information was out of balance and not well sourced in any of the cases. Generally speaking, as long as they stick to policy, people are allowed to edit with a conflict" -- again my actions were well within COI policy. Personally, the party is not as big a deal as you have made it, but I will leave that to other editors to work with your changes. -- Sparkzilla talk! 02:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You're quoting selectively again. It's neither a minor issue nor a distraction; it goes to the heart of the discussion, which is about how you seem to be editing Wikipedia to further your business interests and personal campaigns. You created the article in the first place, which was not a good idea; you're reporting what sources say inaccurately; you inserted a dead link to a source you misrepresented, even though the article was available online, which meant people couldn't easily check what it said; you're removing negative material that appears to have been sourced correctly; and Mangojuice actually said that your inappropriate editing has to stop. [36] That was back in May, yet here we are again. Your actions in several articles are a clear example of a deeply problematic COI, and it really does have to stop this time. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, I did not insert a dead link - the Japan Times has recently changed their archive policy to allow non-registerd users to access their archive - so all links have recently become broken. Secondly, my company is notable and has multiple independent sources to say so. Thirdly, the page has been under constant attack by people who would like to insert libelous material, which I have removed according to COI policy and which was confirmed as appropriate by MangoJuice after an extensive COI discussion [37]. I would like to bring this discussion to a close now, and I hope you will also do me the courtesy. Thank you.-- Sparkzilla talk! 02:47, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

RFC is about SlimVirgin not Sparkzilla

I'm not going to discuss any of Sparkzilla's COI or WP:CANVAS "violations" here. This incident is reporting innapropriate actions of User:SlimVirgin regarding his dealing with Sparkzilla.

Sparkzilla canvassed my talk page, with a valid concern. I have been both for and against some of Sparkzilla's stances on certain webpages.

SlimVirgin promptly removed this request from my talk page saying it violated BLP. I do not understand how it could be violating BLP. WP:CANVAS maybe, but not BLP. Sparkzilla describes his problem and asks me to give comments/advice about appropriate steps.

The removal of another editors talk page comments, and citing an innapropriate guideline is Harassment.--ZayZayEM 03:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

In fact, Sparkzilla added the WP:BLP-violating content to your Talk: page, which is why it was removed. WP:BLP applies everywhere on Wikipedia, even User talk: pages. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no BLP violation. SlimVirgin is acting against the consensus of the RFC repondents and of the current editors on the page. As ZayZayEm says this issue is not about my actions, but about the abuse of admin powers to restrict my right to discuss properly sourced material on the article's talk page and with the RFC respondents. -- Sparkzilla talk! 04:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Per my comment above, you as a COI promoting your own contentious BLP material to be used as a source, cannot possibly be neutral, thus you cannot judge the BLP violation. A previous RfC does not trump any established user who decides to remove contentious BLP material - there is always new evidence and developments in a case. In any case, it is not for you to determine, but for the neutral editors. Crum375 04:13, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

but BLP supercedes consensus in cases where the BLP limitations and consensus for inclusion conflict. It's that simple. SV seems to me to have enforced BLP zealously, and against some possible COI. I don't see why this whole debate's still ongoing. ThuranX 04:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no BLP violation. The material is sourced appropriately. -- Sparkzilla talk! 04:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, given your campaign against the individual in question off Wikipedia, please accept that you are in no position to comment on whether or not this material violates WP:BLP. As I said above, going forward it would be best if you didn't comment at all about this individual on Wikipedia, here, on someone's User talk: page, or on the article Talk: page. Focus on other articles - there are about 1.5 million from which to choose. Jayjg ^(talk) 04:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no BLP violation. The consensus on the article's talk page and on the RFC is that the sources ARE approporiate. Are you really trying to tell me that three independent newpapers that reported on my comments in the UK are NOT appropraite sources? Don't tell me to go away. Even with my COI, I have a right to discuss the removal of properly sourced material on the article's talk page and I also have the right to complain when I am harassed and banned by an admin while discussing the removal of that material against consensus. -- Sparkzilla talk! 04:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This distortion has to stop. The more you write, the more I see how unclearly you describe events, and that makes me wonder even more about using your publication as a source.

The background, one last time: You and your wife publish a small, classified ad and city guide for English expats in Japan. In that publication, you have written very critical material about a living person who was convicted of a crime. You wanted to add to the Wikipedia BLP about that living person that he and his mother had lied to the public to obtain fraudulent financial donations and political support. You claimed that your allegations were based on a defence document that someone had leaked to you, which you published on your website. This had no signature, no date, nothing on it to indicate its provenance. It was apparently originally in Japanese, but someone had translated it; again, we don't know who. You then sent out 25 e-mails to various publications and other interested parties in the hope they would pick up on your story. Three very small classifed-ad papers in the UK did, papers that are local to the area the accused and his mother came from. They are not independent sources, or reliable sources for this kind of claim. They are taking their information entirely from you, and you're not a journalist or professional researcher — in fact, I found an interview you gave in which you explicitly say your magazine doesn't hire people with publishing, editorial, or journalistic backgrounds. Even those papers only alluded to your allegations, but also didn't dare publish them in their entirety. Your publication has no editorial oversight, and apparently the person whose name was on one of the articles doesn't exist.

It terms of BLP and COI, it could not be worse. Despite this, you've spent huge amounts of time posting these claims in one form or another on various talk pages, trying to get someone to add the material back for you, either entirely or in part. It has to stop, and there's no point raising it whenever you can, because it's a crystal-clear case of a serious BLP and COI violation. And in the article about your city guide, an article you created, I see more of the same attempt to talk up whatever you do, and remove any criticism.

The bottom line is that you must stop focusing on self-promotion. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes, even I am trying to say stop. Using external sites to validate your own statements, to add to an article you're editing, about something you're working against, is COI of the greatest level, and that COI leads to BLP violations, becaues it's making an end run around basic libel to multi-stage libel. Just move on. ThuranX 04:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)Why do you insist on completely misereprenting my publication and the sources? I find it amazing that you can know so much about me and my magazine without having lived in Japan. Firstly, my magazine is the No 1 English magazine in Japan, an 80-page weekly city guide with a certified (ABC) distribution of 30,000 copies/week. Its readership of 67,500 covers 50% of the foreigners in the Tokyo area. It employs 40 staff and has an independent editorial team of four full-time people which has produced hundreds of articles and commentaries over the 12 years it has been in publication, including many, many articles more contentious than Mr Baker's issue. Over the years we have employed hundreds of freelance writers. I have been profiled many times as a leading publisher in Japan (see sources on tthe MEtropols WP page).The magazine website will easily show that your claims are bogus.

Why are you bringing up the removal of the defense documents? I did not contest your removal of the defence documents and it is not related to this issue. My editorial team will shortly make a public statement regarding their authenticity. My claims are not based on that document alone. Even so, the fact that I made such a claim was reported in other sources.

Each of the newpaper sources that reported on my criticism of the case fully staisfy WP:BLP: They are independent of me, they have independent editorial teams and they are widely distributed in Baker's home area. Whether they are free or not is immaterial. These sources are deemed acceptable by the RFC repondents AND by many editors on the article's talk page.

Further, if you were really concerned about this issue you should have submitted your comments like other editors on the article's talk page as part of consensus building instead of trying to force me off the page and then banning me when I ask for help regarding your removal of the material under the pretext of a bogus BLP and COI violation. In fact on the article's talk page right now you are being asked by two editors why you have gone against consensus in this case.

It is pretty clear given the kind of bogus research you are doing on me and my company that you are not interested in consensus regarding the actual sources, but are instead interested in denigrating and harassing me. I ask you to stop harassing me and misrepresenting the sources (see below) -- Sparkzilla talk! 04:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

FACT CHECK UPDATE: I checked the sources website and The Citizen [38], which reported on my criticisms of the case, is actually a PAID-FOR newspaper with a weekly circulation of 32,000 copies (readership 80,000 copies). Pretty reliable source, I'd say. -- Sparkzilla talk! 05:09, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

FACT CHECK UPDATE 2: I checked the Swindon Advertiser, which despite its name is also a PAID-FOR newspaper (circulation around 20,000 every day with 58,000 readers). [39] These sources are clarly reliable. There is no BLP violation. My ciriticisms of the case are reliably sourced and should never have been taken out without discussion. Banning me for daring to object on the article's talk page is an abuse of admin priviledge.-- Sparkzilla talk! 05:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This disruption has gone on long enough. We're long past the point of decreasing returns accomodating Sparkzilla here; there's only so much disruption of this page and the project we're expected to put with for such a trifling set of gripes. It's time for Sparkzilla to drop this and move along: there's 1,885,720 articles at Wikipedia, and if he's genuinely interested in contributing to the project he'll have no problem finding some not related to those that gave rise to the imbroglio that need improvement. Otherwise he simply confirms the objections already voiced here about his method of participation and makes further blocking all the more likely. FeloniousMonk 05:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It is not distruptive to question the actions of an admin. I want to know, given that there was no bLP or COI violation, if I can expect to be banned for continuing to follow COI policy, or for asking RFC reposndents for help, or for asking that properly sourced material be restored by an admin who deleted it without consensus. This is a fair question. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sparkzilla (talk • contribs) 05:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)~~

Indeed. But as advised to you on these pages as well as via email, you are not doing yourself any favors in pursuing this the way you are pursuing it. Listen to the feedback given to you by your peers here and elsewhere and take a well deserved break from commenting on this subject, before making it worse for yourself. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

If you are asking, my opinion is that the sources you provided are not reliable sources for the claims made. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss why on the article's talk page and come to consensus with the other eiditors. -- Sparkzilla talk! 05:37, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, please stop it. Your amount of posting here, to promote a personal COI agenda, is clearly excessive. I would urge you to start editing other unrelated articles, not connected to your COI, or you could be blocked for disruptive behavior. Crum375 05:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask, most humbly, why I should be further penalised for highlighting an administrator's abuse of WP rules, when I, in turn, have now proven that I have done wrong with respect to COI or BLP policy? I made an RFC, I brought in reliable sources. I only discussed on the talk page. Yet I was harassed of the page and banned by an admin when I asked for help regarding the removal of text without discussion. Surely this request, which has been focussed on my actions for some time now, is actually about SlimVirgin's actions, which were against COI policy, BLP policy and admin priiledge?

I would also like to ask if I am banned again for being so bold to report an admin, where I can take this issue next?-- Sparkzilla talk! 05:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Dude. You're looking for ways to get your opinion into the article. "they quoted me" still presents a COI. Get over it. You know youre' wrong, and almost a dozen editors have told you to drop it and move on. Why don't you understand that no one is going to let you put your own quotes into the article? ThuranX 05:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry you are getting frustrated, but uit's frustrating for me too. I don't see why I am being penalised when my actions have been in line with COI and BLP policy. If I can get an answer to my question above I will be happy to move on. -- Sparkzilla talk! 05:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sparkzilla, I believe you would get a more sympathetic hearing here if this claimed 'consensus' that BLP was not being violated by your links was actually demonstrable by support of that statement on this page. I see no such support, and as such am forced to the conclusion that there was no such consensus. Hornplease 06:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)c

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about masturbation (4th_nomination)

The article was listed on 4th July and procedurally correctly relisted as 4th nomination. (the 3rd nomination (from 2006) now sits on the 4th July 2007 list of archived Afds). I have been struggling to get the original nominator to relist it, he seems unwilling to and I do no want the Afd to close with no consensus so that it can raised again on afd. It is a waste of everybodies time. I have even told the nominator that I am willing to change my comment to delete if it will push consensus one way or another.

I feel that the Afd hidden from scrutiny, not listed and still open after 11 days is abuse of process.

any suggestions? Mike33 03:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note this is not an invitation to comment at the afd. When the afd is correctly relisted or you comment using the article afd notice, that is good faith. Commenting at the afd using this link isn't welcomed. Mike33 03:27, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Anyone can comment on AFD until it's finally closed. At any rate, AFDs are normally only relisted due to lack of participation... this one is eligible to be closed now. --W.marsh 03:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Something's weird here... was this AFD ever properly listed? The version listed on 7/04/2007 was the third nom (closed by me, coincidently). If the fourth nom was never listed on an AFD day log, it is not fully valid. Sorry if I misread your initial post. --W.marsh 03:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Offhand, I would suggest closing AFD4 as invalid and relisting, and notifying everyone who participated in AFD4 of what happened and link to AFD5. Mike33 is right, linking to it only from the article can give a skewed consensus. --W.marsh 03:57, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've relisted the Afd. Just a reminder to editors who do rename Afds to ensure that you also update the Afd log to take note of the rename. There is nothing more frustrating that being unaware that you are involved in an orphaned afd. Mike33 04:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you suggesting it needs further mass debating? --Steve _(Stephen) ^talk 09:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The AFD is now closed. There was a complete 11 days to gather consensus, which was achieved. If anyone is dissatisfied with the result, they may seek review at WP:DRV—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• It was never properly listed so the consensus is invalid. --W.marsh 19:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie being flooded by spa keep votes

Since about 23:00 this AFD has been flooded with Keep !votes by new users with no previous contributions, as if it was publicized on a blog or mailing list, with many of them unidentified. I saw at least one AFD semiprotected not that long ago. Is there a way to at least task a bot with identifying the unsigned contributions? It is just about impossible to keep up with the flood by searching the history file to identify them as spas. Thanks. Edison 03:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Great God in a bottle. I can't even find the original deletion reason in that utter mess - oh, wait, there it is, just below the SPA tag. Might I suggest that it should be thrown out and restarted, this time semiprotected? I can't see anyone digging through there to find the signal in the noise... Tony Fox (arf!) review? 03:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it supposed to be closed today? —Kurykh 03:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like, yeah, in a few hours. Tony Fox (arf!) review? 03:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Krimpet bit the bullet and closed as delete. Angry DRV in five... four... three.... Tony Fox (arf!) review? 05:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I found this edit to the AfD to be very troublesome. Can we block this clown gentleman? Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello! Just as a quick note, I do not think it really appropriate to call that editor a "clown." Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The nonsense on that AfD frustrated me. I probably shouldn't have called the editor a clown. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:14, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Anybody who nakes threats like that should be immediately blocked. Corvus cornix 20:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

In the edit which Pablo cited above by Atari2600a, [40], Atari2600a says "Wikipedia can handle a Dynamic Denial of Service (or 'DDoS') attack from a single hacker, but imagine tens, hundreds, possibly thousands of hackers DDoSing Wikipedia at once. This can spell nothing good. Just leave the article up." Does this sound to any one else like a threat? Or just a user expressing concern that "something bad" might happen to Wikipedia if we deleted a particular article? Atari2600a had 6 sensible edits before this AFD, dating back to last November. I'm not sure whether the flurry of Keep !votes toward the end was an effort by one user with a variety of hijacked computer accounts, or the result of a posting somewhere asking people to come to Wikipedia and "save" the article about the movie. Typically they would sign the Keep vote with their first name and their location, in a very consistent pattern, without having created a Wikipedia logon, and without using four tildes. This consistent pattern suggests it is either the work of one person, or that someone told readers somewhere to click on a link to the AFD, then add a Keep vote and sign with their name and city. In most cases, when I tracked down the IP addresses in the history file and checked them with Whois, the city matched the claimed city, such as "Henry W in Boston, but that same IP address was used to post a vote by "Scott in Wisconsin" "Bryan in California" was indeed from California, and added 2 keep votes. "Marcel Netherlands" was from there. "Fornequiem Canada" was from there. "Steve from Ontario" and "Eckostream from Quebec" were from where claimed. These votes were still of an unusual and distinctive pattern. Edison 19:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Matsis01

Resolved

Seems to be a single-purpose account - 9 contributions, all edits to User:Nummer29, and all vandalism. pablo :_{:  ... hablo ...} 05:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indefinately. Next time, please report vandalism at WP:AIV; you will generally get a faster response there. Raven4x4x 07:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Violent comment at Talk:Jack Thompson (attorney)

Maybe I'm being overly sensitive, but NoMercyX (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made this comment at Talk:Jack Thompson (attorney) earlier tonight. The guidelines for a block state that usually a vandal has to make an edit after getting a final warning (a severe attack warning was just placed on his talk page), but I feel that this comment may be so severe that this may be considered an unusual circumstance. If not, I understand, but in that case a close eye should be kept on this user. Cmprince 07:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats pretty meh. Just remove the comment per the notice at the top of the talk page and let it be. Viridae^Talk 07:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about masturbation (4th nomination): apparent vandalism

• The AfD discussion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs about masturbation (4th nomination) has been closed, but at its start instead of the verdict "keep" or "delete" is a short vulgar poem. Its history says that this is not the result of an edit after the AfD was closed. Anthony Appleyard 09:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced this colorful poem with a proper close.[41] Folks, please remember that this is supposed to be a respectable academic enterprise.Proabivouac 09:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No it's not, it's supposed to be a good-faith attempt at a reasonably serious encyclopaedia. Have we lost all sense of humour? I'd have clarified it, perhaps, but I'd certainly have left the quote in For Great Justice. Maybe that's because I'm old enough to instinctively respond "We are Devo!" when asked "Are we not men?" but it's a bit harsh to slap the guy for it. Guy (Help!) 14:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The AFD was really not valid, it was only listed at AFD for a few hours (see above thread on this AFD). It needs to be re-opened and allowed to run the full 5 days, I have left a note with the closing admin. --W.marsh 09:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it's been listed since the 4th, then reposted for consensus. Then it seems to have snowballed to a delete. --Hemlock Martinis 09:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Please read above as I requested... it was not listed on any AFD page until a few hours before it was closed, so only people who had the article watchlisted would see the AFD. --W.marsh 09:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It was listed here, although incorrectly (as 3rd nomination instead of fourth), on July 4.--Atlan (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Which means the 4th was not listed. --W.marsh 14:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The 4th got listed as the 3rd. Everyone was able to see it listed as such from the 4th of July. I don't think a miscount of which nomination it was, makes the whole Afd null and void.--Atlan (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The 4th never appeared on the AFD page... the 3rd did, which was long since closed... people just looked past it as some weird error. it was also not linked to by AFD moniters. It was simply an invalid listing. Listing some random past version of an AFD is not a substitute for listing the current AFD. --W.marsh 18:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I wasn't aware of that.--Atlan (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of warnings from talk page

Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) was warned a few times about his recent contributions. However, he decided to remove the warnings, which goes against Wikipedia's best practices. In addition to that, he called me a troll in the edit summary. Please take a look at the warnings that he removed from his talk page. His behavior is unacceptable. And removal of warnings about his unacceptable behavior is also unacceptable. — Alex^(U|C|E) 11:24, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, he just restored his structure at the AFD he participated in (see here). This can be considered offensive by some users and is meant to influence the vote for deletion. — Alex^(U|C|E) 11:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

He is allowed to remove the warnings if he so wishes. Viridae^Talk 11:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no maybe about his uncivil behaviour and personnal attacks, he even summarily accused all Ukrainian editors of Russophobia[42]. This is the user with the longest rap sheet[43] of name calling and gross incivility and here he goes again with personal attacks and uncivil insinuations. This behaviour needs to stop.--Hillock65 11:35, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so you want another thread to slander me behind my back in retribution for this? How long should I defend my edits against nationalist 15-year-olds who coordinate their attacks off-wiki? If a passerby is free to paste some outrageous allegation on my talk page, anyone is free to remove it as well (especially as the relevant "case" was closed by an non-involved sysop with the summary "beyond ridiculous"). --Ghirla^-трёп- 11:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like you to please refrain from personal attacks and get your facts straight (I'm not 15). I've seen even ten year olds make great contributions to Wikipedia. As long as a user is unbiased and makes good contributions, it should not matter how old the user is. It was my choice to post my age, and I've done so at my own discretion. I feel I'm a fairly neutral person (yes, I know everybody says so), but I guess I'm not the one to judge. But neither is a person who calls everybody a troll, makes personal attacks, and violates many of Wikipedia's policies. — Alex^(U|C|E) 11:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

"nationalist 15-year-olds who coordinate their attacks off-wiki" can be considered inflammatory and a personal attacks. If you have some evidence, just put it on the table. Dont just make accusations. Its our job to evaluate on the basis of edits not by looking at onse birth certificate or passport. --soum ^talk 11:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

To administrators: this report isn't as much about the removal of warnings as it is about the user's behavior. As you can see here, he continues to make personal attacks, even after being warned. And after making personal attacks he tries to hide the evidence by removing warnings from his talk page. This is exactly why I reported him, something definetly needs to be done. Steps in dispute resolution were already tried (including RFC), and this user was warned in an ArbCom case to refrain from personal attacks. I believe it was AndriyK's ArbCom case, if this qualifies for ArbCom enforcement. — Alex^(U|C|E) 11:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, here's the bit that can qualify for ArbCom enforcement: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/AndriyK#Ghirlandajo warned. — Alex^(U|C|E) 11:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, from discussing the issue Ghirlando is starting his usual name calling and frivolous accusations. After numerous RfC's and ArbComs about his incivility this attitude still persists. What will it take for him to get the message?--Hillock65 11:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's another message left by a user that was subsequently removed by Ghirlandajo: [44]. — Alex^(U|C|E) 11:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought this wasn't "as much about the removal of warnings" (despite the heading). Aren't users permitted to edit their talk page as they see fit? ---Sluzzelin talk 12:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, within reason. There's certainly nothing prohibiting users from redecorating their talk pages, or deciding what their structure ought to be. But it's unacceptable to make other people say what they didn't say on one's talk page, and removing serious warnings is generally frown upon. Digwuren 14:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't get why nobody has done anything about it yet. Ghirlandajo keeps reorganizing the AFD. The AFD can't be protected from Ghirlandajo's edits, because that would prevent others from voting. I'm going to report his reverts to the 3RR section. — Alex^(U|C|E) 22:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, looks Like I can't report it to the 3RR noticeboard, but I feel this requires some kind of punishment. When has a user gotten away with so much trolling, personal attacks, and revert warring? I know you might tell me to go to ArbCom, but what makes a long-term abusive user so special over a short-term one? If nobody can do anything, at least please explain why, that way I know what to do if this happens in the future. — Alex^(U|C|E) 22:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It is my experience, after a few years here, that users who have been with the project for several years are are relatively active (and known), are allowed to bend (or break) the rules to an extent that new users would find it impossible. Further, WP:3RR is the only policy that is seriously observed; violations of WP:CIV and WP:NPA are common and rarely penalized, particularly if they come from 'older' editors. It is a sad occurrence, but there is no other explanation I can provide for why epithets like "nationalist 15-year-olds who coordinate their attacks off-wiki" go unpunished. Unfortunately, the only way you can try to deal with that is to start a lengthy [[WP:DR] process - with RfC, mediations, and eventually ArbCom in the end. Even more unfortunately, judging by the proposed decisions of an ArbCom involving myself and Ghirla, it is likely that such violations of those policies will remain unpunished and commonplace. And perhaps the most unfortunate is that this is paving a way for Wiki to degenerate into the level of flaming Usenet discussions, with all editors who can't stand such uncivil environment gone from the project :(-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  13:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Non-English speaker destroying edits

There is this user, 151.33.91.166 (talk), calling himself LEO, that keeps reverting my edits (on the Josip Broz Tito and Foibe massacres articles) without even having, by his own admission, the knowledge to understand them. He is extremely POV (and uncompromisingly so), I have warned him many times and have been personally attacked on numerous occasions. I also stated several times that I'm not married to my edits and had invited him to enter a civilised and costructive debate on the subjects involved so we can achieve an NPOV article (see the talk pages of the mentioned articles). But he either does not even try to understand or is so indoctrinated in his belief that he will persist in this edit war out of pure spite(!). PLEASE help. DIREKTOR P.S. the difference between our versions can be seen on the history page of the articles. With this war going on you should have no problem wiewing the differences, but please note: all I'm saying is that there is no conversing with this man, I'm not saying my version is impeccable, but neither is his, however, this guy can't even converse on the issues. All he can do is constantly revert my hard work.

I have s-protected the entries. See if it helps. Crum375 13:37, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You have my thanks, I'll try to talk to the guy somehow... DIREKTOR

Violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIV at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Conservapedia_(fourth_nomination)

I was recently reviewing pages for deletion at WP:AFD. I came across Conservapedia's fourth nomination. Nathaniel B. Heraniaos (talk · contribs) nominated Conservapedia because "it sucks" according to this Diff 1. When one user decided to vote keep Nathaniel responded with this 2, and to the second user who voted keep he replied that he "officially hated him" 3. The nomination was eventually speedy closed by a non-admin as there was strong consensus to keep, but Nathaniel disagreed with it "reoppened" the debate 4. Pats Sox Princess 15:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Just looked that AfD over. Nathaniel needs a time out so he can review our core policies, and decide if Wikipedia is really where he wants to be a contributor. - Crockspot 15:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

  A few people have explained to him that even if you dislike a topic with your entire mind, body and soul to the extent that you are consumed by both fury and righteous indignation that such a repugnant entity be allowed to cast its foul and maelevolent shadow over both the world and - far far worse - Wikipedia, this doesn't always mean it shouldn't have an article. If that were the case, I would be nominating Liverpool F.C. for deletion on a daily basis. I haven't seen Nathaniel misbehave since that; let's hope this remains the case. Neil ╦ 16:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• He seems to have been inactive since the AFD was closed... I don't see the need for a block right now. --W.marsh 16:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive editor on Wirral Peninsula

User:Mark_S seems to be pushing a POV on this article, following the removal of a link he had added to the External Links section by two editors (myself included). He was warned about the dangers of a 3RR violation following three reverts in the space of 24 hours:

• 1st revert: 1 00:44, 14 July 2007
• 2nd revert: 2 01:02, 14 July 2007
• 3rd revert: 3 18:33, 14 July 2007

I opened dialogue on the talk page to raise the issue here. The response was advocation of the removal of many more links in this section of the article. I agreed that they needed to be looked over, and added a link cleanup template to the article here so that editors could discuss the links and reach a consensus on inclusions and exclusions.

User:Mark_S then promptly deleted the other links, in an apparent breach of WP:DISRUPT and WP:POINT, without waiting to seek consensus from other users. He is now on the verge of a breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL here.

Before this gets out of hand, and since this user seems unwilling to take a step back to cool off, I hoped an administrator might look in on it. Coldmachine^Talk 16:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Cjmarsicano declaring his work here as copyrighted

See the top of his userpage. I assume it's a protest of fair use policies, just my guess. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I was leaving the user a talkpage note about this, and by the time I had finished, Ryulong had already blocked him. Newyorkbrad 19:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone should remove that "licensing withdrawn" message. He can't withdraw the license on his edits made under GDFL and any claim to the contrary is confusing and disruptive.--Atlan (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Cjmarsicano (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) contacted me on my user talk page stating that he no longer contributes under a license that is compatible with the Wikimedia Foundation (CC-NC-ND 3.0) which is blatantly stated on his userpage. In a lack of what to do in this situation (and the fact that he editted following his withdrawal of the GFDL from all of his contributions), I have currently blocked him indefinitely. This user has been on Wikipedia longer than I have, and I know that this is because of the fair use policies and how it forbids him from adding nonfree images of Hello! Project members as they are living individuals. But what should really be done here (my indefblock lifted, or does he go the way of Alex756 (talk · contribs))?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

See thread immediately above. I was going to give him a little time to respond to my note before blocking. But given that you've blocked, we'll see if he posts an unblock request and what he might say in it. Newyorkbrad 19:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds a lot like ParthianShotPioneer-12, who was banned. --Iamunknown 20:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears this has been resolved. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 20:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

How is this resolved? His Talk page still says This user affirms and believes that the First Amendment supersedes the Wikimedia Foundation's ill-advised policy on so-called "non-free images" and that the use of these same so-called "non-free images" is protected by the Fair Use Clause of the US Copyright Act of 1976.. In other words, he seems to feel that he has a legal right to post whatever he wants, regardless of whether his postings follow Wikipedia policy. US law has no bearing on Wikipedia policy. Corvus cornix 20:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've agreed to with Ruylong to multi-license under GDFL and a CC license within Wiki's grounds to be determined later by me. As for the talk page notice, I still maintain my right to publicly state my views on what I see as a heavily flawed policy regarding such imagery. CJ Marsicano 20:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You do understand that this is a privately-owned website, and as such, US law has zero meaning here. right? US copyright law has as little meaning on Wikipedia as the First Amendment does. Wikipedia makes its own policies. Its policies may be more restrictive than US copyright law, and that is the case here. And you just said above, that the copyright you will follow is to be determined by you. No, it is to be determined by Wikipedia, or else you need to edit elsewhere. Corvus cornix 20:46, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you have misread or misinterpreted what I said. Many Wikiusers have multi-licensed their contributions before, I have not yet decided on what the full scope for my contributions will be. --Ceej 20:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, U.S. law does have some bearing on our policies, but we reserve the right to make our policies a superset of the law, and to formulate them in such a way that minimizes legal exposure. --Iamunknown 20:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I feel that the Fair Use Clause of the US Copyright Act would more than adequately protect Wikipedia against "legal exposure" (a term George Carlin would no doubt have a ball with: "Legal exposure? That sounds like you could whip your dick out in public but not wave it at someone!"). Ryulong, at my request, provided me with a link to the resolution in question... oi vey, what a mistake those guys made! --CJ Marsicano 20:55, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am glad that you "feel" that, but you have yet to show that your interpretation abides by Wikipedia policy. Until such a time, you should take down your "feeling" from your Talk page. Corvus cornix 21:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That's where I draw the line. The statement on my Talk page will remain. Cjmarsicano 21:17, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what you feel (or think), the Board has determined that a stricter interpretation of the Fair Use parts of US Copyright Law is what is best for the Foundation. As Wikipedia is owned and operated by the Wikimedia Foundation, that stricter interpretation applies here, too. You aren't the one who has the potential to be sued for improper fair use. And as others have pointed out, the Bill of Rights (of which the First Amendment is a part) does not apply to a privately owned site. The Bill of Rights only applies to the government. Period. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 21:08, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

69.142.43.130 (talk · contribs)

User repeatedly reverting content without explanation or discussion. Already blocked twice for disruption. Just64helpin 19:25, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Um... I only saw wikilinking and adding uppercase to proper nouns. Can you provide diffs for reverts? LessHeard vanU 21:47, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The wikilinks are of items already linked, hence overlinking. Not a huge deal, but it's been going back and forth for a while. Just64helpin 22:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've left a more detailed request to desist on the talkpage. As this is an ip it cannot be certain that the historical non Godzilla edits were this particular individual. If the complained edits continues after the warnings/requests then perhaps a short block to get the editors attention might be in order. LessHeard vanU 22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User refusing to remove image from his signature

Per policy, users are not allowed to have images in their signatures because it increases the load on the servers. Cunado19 (talk · contribs) is refusing to remove the image after I asked them to remove it. Maybe they'll listen if an admin told them. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I'll make any arguments that a non-admin won't be able to make, but I'll talk with Cunado19. Sancho 19:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

As Cunado19 has explicitly pointed out to you, it's not a policy, it's a guideline. And if you'd bothered to read his talk page you'd have found several previous discussions of the issue, in which he's already explained at length why he thinks the rationale for the guideline doesn't apply in this case. That's his right. If you disagree, feel free to address his argument, on his talk page. Zsero 19:43, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Was that a reply to me or to Matt57? Sancho 19:48, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Where are the "rights" to do anything on Wikipedia elucidated? So far as I know, there are only two rights - fork or leave. Corvus cornix 20:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

User demanding to know identity of another user

On my talk page, User:Danko Georgiev MD has requested that I reveal my real life identity. This seems contrary to wikipedia policy and seems to be harrassment. I have posted the usual wikipedia warning template about the protection of anonymity both on my talk page and on his. --Mathsci 19:45, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It was a request, not a demand, and seems to have been asked in light of claims on your part. If you're using your academic credentials to bolster your arguments, it's likely people want to verify your credentials. KP Botany 19:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you try a simple 'no'? It seems a reasonable request. If you make any claim on Wikipedia, you should expect to be asked to back it up with some evidence. It's when they tell you what your identity is that you have problems. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) PS He also appears to have asked this after you challenged his assertion of someone else's credentials.[45] In other words, you told him that he failed to supply evidence to support his claim of someone else's credentials, now he has asked you for yours. "You claimed that Rabounski is a "professor of mathematics", yet this does not appear to be the case. You have supplied no evidence to support your claim." I think this is a minor request on the part of one user to ask another for credentials. IMO a simple decline would probably be more than enough, Mathsci. KP Botany 20:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems zzuuzz has the same idea. KP Botany 20:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Gee, could it possibly bring Wikipedia into disrepute if an editor claimed to have all sorts of academic degrees or professional accreditation or be a college faculty member when arguing from authority in editing disputes? Edison 20:05, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

An administrator has confirmed on my talk page that demanding or requesting my identity is contrary to WP policy. How could I possibly have made my recent mathematical edits without being a professional pure mathematician? Mathsci 20:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that that is the question, Mathsci, how could you have made them without being a professional pure mathematician. And the administrator is in the wrong, as no demand for identify has been made. KP Botany 20:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not a very informed remark. Please look at the article on Affiliated operator and Von Neumann algebra before making further comments. --Mathsci 20:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Both articles need serious work to their introductory sections. KP Botany 20:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Did you find a mathematical error? --Mathsci 20:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

No, and I haven't looked for one. What I found was an error in introducing the concepts to a general audience. This can be done, and should be done for articles in a general encyclopedia. Please look at WP:MOS for ideas. If you rewrite the introductions for a general audience, post a request on my user talk page, and I will review them. KP Botany 20:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

These are topics which are only covered in advanced postgraduate courses. I would not expect anybody without a knowledge of spectral theory for unbounded operators even to have a motivation for looking at the article on affiliated operators. Why do you think you could contribute to an article at this level? Why do you think all mathematics articles should be written for a general audience? --Mathsci 22:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Unindent -- This appears to be rather about your personal desire to show you know more about math than other people, than it is about math articles on Wikipedia. This is an unusual tactic for a mathematician, one I'm unused to encountering. Advanced postgraduate courses? Sorry, general prerequisites would be Linear Algebra and a good Probability course--and you know this, or you're not a mathematician. But I'll promise to try not to solve anything with compact operators, while you're discussing unbounded operators, showing my mathematical idiocy any more than I already have--good grief. (Don't worry for the mathematically less genius, I didn't say anything, I just guessed at some random words and popped them down--wouldn't know a differential from a split dual salt shaker if I were paid to know.) KP Botany 04:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a scientific journal for a small group of experts? LessHeard vanU 23:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately mathematics on the wikipedia, as in real life, has a rather complex hierarchic structure. That is why for example the articles on Morse Theory or Donaldson theory assume some prior knowledge. If you don't like them, you can always try to improve them or vote for their deletion.--Mathsci 23:21, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

That argument would only make sense if people who are not professional mathemeticians invariably make mistakes, which is not true. -Amarkov moo! 20:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that what you say is true. People with no mathematical training would almost invariably make mistakes when editing articles on higher mathematics. If they did not understand the particular piece of higher mathematics, they normally wouldn't have a clue about what they were writing. They might not make mistakes if they were simply copying and pasting something written by somebody else. --Mathsci 00:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

(unindent)Appeals to authority are discouraged (with prejudice) at Wikipedia, for exactly the reasons indicated above; certification of identity is not possible. Professional mathematicians (or any other expert or professional) should have access to the reliable sources that can be used in the article to support whatever position they are maintaining on the talkpage. If it cannot be cited then it cannot be in the article. LessHeard vanU 22:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that all statements in wikipedia articles should have verifiable sources, e.g. biographies of living people. When a user such as Georgiev makes an elementary error in mathematics on a talk page, such as confusing infimum and minimum, all that can be done is for WP editors to point this out and hope that he/she understands. If it is a typical calculus error made by freshmen, that is unfortunately what it is. It is quite unfair to confuse such a statement with an "appeal to authority". --Mathsci 23:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I considered

How could I possibly have made my recent mathematical edits without being a professional pure mathematician?

to be an appeal to authority, albeit in good faith. Simply, it is an unanswerable statement when there is no ability to verify editors credentials (see User talk:Jimbo Wales/Credential Verification detailing why this did not/cannot happen) on Wikipedia. It is best to stick with the strengths of your argument - and the good faith assumption that folks can understand it - than refer to qualifications that cannot be easily checked. LessHeard vanU 23:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI I did in fact reveal my real-life identity by private email to CH in my first talk archive (September 2006). He did advise me there that more detail should be provided on my user page to avoid exactly the kind of confusion that has arisen here. Apart from quoting interchanges like this with other WP editors or administrators, I see no other way of confirming the statement on my user page while retaining my anonymity. --Mathsci 23:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Another userpage of mine needs protecting...

Resolved

Can an admin protect this page, per more vandalism from IP's, including this edit. Much appreciated. Davnel03 20:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Protected by Evilclown93. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppets of User:Kirbytime

Resolved

 – Taken care of in lower threads, looks like. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This indef blocked editor (he may have been community banned, I'm not sure) has been using socks, please see the checkuser report. Would someone please block these socks? Arrow740 20:49, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Per the results of these latest CU results, and Kirbytime's failure to heed the suggestions of this thread which resulted in an indefinite block, per Jpgordon's Kirbytime's own suggestion, it may be appropriate to affirm a community ban. Additionally, sockpuppets User:Fâtimâh bint Fulâni and User:Xveolgvzr have not yet been blocked.Proabivouac 23:26, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I've permablocked Fâtimâh bint Fulâni and Xveolgvzr. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of deletion tags on spam article

Resolved

 – page deleted, reverter warned⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

The article for Lyriel (band) is blatant advertising and does not demonstrate sufficient notability for inclusion. The page's creator, Eclipica, has repeatedly deleted the tags that identify it as such. C1k3 20:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

If someone is removing the speedy tags, do a regular nomination for deletion. If they keep removing those tags, then further steps can be taken. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

You've replaced the Db tag with a prod tag, which doesn't do any good. The creator of an article may not remove a db tag, but they are perfectly within their rights to remove a prod tag. You should warn them about removing db tags and after four warnings, take it to WP:AIV. Corvus cornix 21:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, you should have used {{db-band}} instead of {{db-spam}}. I've placed the proper tag. --Edokter (Talk) 22:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Eclipica (talk · contribs) has now twice removed the db-band tag. Since his only contributions are to Lyriel (band) and apparently does not want to play by the rules, I suggest a short block. --Edokter (Talk) 22:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the {{db-band}} as it's obvious the notability is disputed. Please take it to AfD. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Disputed does not mean invalid. There was not a shred of an assertion of notability, and it was a blatant CSDG11. Deleted. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 22:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate use of user namespace?

Resolved

 – pages deleted, users warned

User:Re3fx50 and User:Ashley0030 appear to have created usernames in Wikipedia solely to post supposed sexual solicitations (and phone numbers) on eachother's pages. Don't know if this violates any one policy, but it's certainly a misuse of Wikipedia that's fraught with ethical and legal issues. - Special-T 22:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Both deleted. Wikipedia is not free webhosting. They were clearly not here for the encyclopedia. Not blocked, but I suspect they won't come back anyway. Mak (talk) 22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) The good news is that 1800-IMA HOTTIE WITH A BODY!!!!!! is probably not a real phone number. :) That's school like vandalism. I warned them both, please tell me if they continue, but I dont see a good enough reason to block them at the moment. ---- lucasbfr ^talk 22:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response and action. - Special-T 22:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated speedies and removal of refs

XAndreWx (talk · contribs) is re-adding removed "speedy deletion" tags to more than one article, and removing references from Third city of the United Kingdom. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 22:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC) 0

Perhaps a word with their mentor User:G1ggy might help? LessHeard vanU 22:22, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 3 hours to cool off. My rationale for doing so is that he is editing in a distruptive manner, and basically, he just needs to cool off. Клоун 22:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

63.227.40.66 (talk · contribs) is link-spamming

Resolved

 – spammer warned ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

63.227.40.66 (talk · contribs)'s only contributions are adding the same link to several pages. I've cleaned them all out. Can someone take care of the spammer? --Edokter (Talk) 22:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Feel free to place a warning such as {{spam}} yourself as an admin is not needed for that. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 23:03, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought spammer IPs were usually soft-blocked. --Edokter (Talk) 23:07, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Everyone deserves to be warned first as they may not be aware of the specific policies or guidelines prohibiting their behavior. The IP hasn't done anything since being warned, so unless they continue, there's no reason to block the IP. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

This may be a problem...

Resolved

 – Or seems to be, pending further developments. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I went to help an editor asking at the help desk about "How do I post an article to wikipedia?" Upon checking out his page I found this[46]. Which may be a problem. I have to leave right away, so I can not tend to this as I would like, and trust that some bright spark amongst you would take up the gauntlet, so to speak. Good luck! Hamster Sandwich 23:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blanked both the userpage and the usertalk page. Both should be speedily deleted. -Jmh123 00:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Deleted. IrishGuy ^talk 00:05, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Requesting block for indef sock puppet

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Could someone block Fâtimâh bint Fulâni (talk · contribs · block log), a sock puppet of Kirbytime? I have a question: When clerks do the checkuser and they find a likely or confirmed sock of a banned user, shouldnt the sock puppet be banned right then by the CU admin? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked Fâtimâh bint Fulâni. No comment on the CU question... —Wknight94 (talk) 00:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

"Typically, enforcement of policy (up to and including blocks for sockpuppetry) are the responsibility of the applicant. Applicants who are not administrators can forward requests to the admin noticeboard for enforcement, if needed. Clerks who are administators are invited, but not required, to assist with the enforcement of relevant policies." Daniel 00:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, will do from now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:41, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Bush vandalism

Resolved

 – vandalism reverted -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Someone has, I think, vandalized this page:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush

I will copy/paste so you can see what I mean:

"George H. W. Bush, U.S. President 1989–1993, his First Lady a shit load of fathers ago from your moms dad, but you get the picture"

would someone mind fixing this please? Thanks!

Fixed. For future reference, see Help:Reverting -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Bigoted comments on my talk page.

User:Klaksonn made this edit to my talk page. First, his insinuation that I can't edit because I am a Salafi is very prejudiced. Second, Nasibi is a religious slur and was very hurtful. Third, I was only reverting a large edit this user made to the article on Ali, a respected Muslim figure, without discussing it first on the talk page. He then reverted my revert and insulted me again in his edit summary. I request a temporary ban on this user to let him know this isn't acceptable, though I will abide by any decision that is made. Thank you for any help, this is very distressing. MezzoMezzo 01:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Strange image deletion requests

User:Fethroesforia uploaded several images going back several months with comments like "Picture taken by me" and tagged them cc-by-sa2.5. Now, the user is requesting that they be speedily deleted because: "This item is unquestionably a copyright infringement of picture taker has claimed legal action after i accidentally uploaded thinking i could upload his picture as mine, and no assertion of permission has been made." That's quite an accident. Should we go through and delete all of the user's "self-made" images on the theory that we cannot trust the user's claims? Should the user be blocked? Is anyone else suspicious that the account may have been compromised? There's something odd here. -- But|seriously|folks  01:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't believe those would be the actions of a compromised account, so he probably shouldn't be blocked. To be safe, I think that speedy deleting any images he has tagged as this incident, not all of the images he ever uploaded, should be deleted and restored if permission is granted. — Moe ε 01:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You might try asking the user if anything else he uploaded as "his" might have mistakenly not been taken by him. Shell ^babelfish 04:46, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm particularly concerned about Image:Berlin Wall Plaque.jpg, which has already been copied to Commons, but he seems to be dealing with them there. There's a little more explanation at his Commons talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I asked him, he answered, and I'm satisfied now that he hasn't left us with any problematic images. I skimmed through his upload log and it looks like all the others are album covers and logos. The story about his father threatening litigation still doesn't sit right, and I'm not happy with his repeated statements here and at commons that he took the photos himself, but as long as the images are gone, I guess it's not worth thinking about. -- But|seriously|folks  08:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Banned user vandalizing from IP?

see Mmbabies and TV station articles (combined with older discussion)

I've combined this heading with that of the Mmbabies discussion already started above; please comment below that heading. Nate 08:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Another possible sock of Kirbytime (impersonating an admin)

Resolved

 – The real one dealt with him. I think it's time we stop randomly accusing trolls of being Kirbytime.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Jerpeegordon (talk · contribs · block log) impersonated an admin ([47],[48]) and is most likely another sock puppet of Kirbytime. He's trolling as usual and playing with Wikipedia. All his other edits are strange blank edits with no input. Could someone block this user as well? thanks. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:14, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Why, whats wrong with that? It wasnt random. This editor created his account at the time of Kirby's CU report and impersonated an admin. Its reasonable to assume that its Kirby again.--Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Didn't check contribs. Anyway, it's dealt with.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Hvarako consistently pushing POV

The article Operation Storm was first edited by User:Hvarako ^{(talk•contribs)} on the 13th by adding balant non-sourced POV attack wording [49] and then moving the page to "Oluja Genocide". The changes were reverted, following which he reverted back to his version no less then 5 times in the last three days. [50] I fear this will just continue. He was warned by User:ChrisO on his talk pages to read about NPOV, to no effect. ---The Spanish Inquisitor 06:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention, during the reverting, he also violeted the 3RR rule on the 13th. ---The Spanish Inquisitor 09:01, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Admin review of mass deletion/moves of talk page sections please?

69.177.242.99 went to a dozen comic character talk pages, removed the deb ates about merging alternate forms of characters, and relocated them to the WP:COMIC discussion on the same, three weeks after his move to merge ALL alternates ended in a no consensus. It looks like he's trying to shore up support for his opinion, but at the same time he's taking the choices out of the hands of the editors of those pages, which is the opposite of the apparent lack of consensus on the WP page, where editors instead called for figuring out standards for such merges and so on. This seems like some sort of unethical behavior but maybe there's a policy I don't know about allowing this? ThuranX 06:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Attempt at deleting a single revision appears to have failed

I have twice tried to perform a selective deletion of a single revision within Hangover that contains a phone number in its edit comment, without success. Can someone else try this, and tell me if they can make it work? -- Karada 09:21, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

You've done it just fine. You've left your revert in, but that particular revision is now deleted. --Deskana (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I find that I have to make a null edit to the page (ie. add a space here, remove a space there) for the edit history of an article I've "history-cleansed" to be updated for me. Maybe that was the problem? Daniel 09:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Even after a purge? That usually works for me (remember a purge can be done by going to edit the page and then changing action=edit to action=purge, or many people have it as a tab thanks to custom monobook.js code) ++Lar: t/c 11:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I tried a purge, and it made no difference. Could database server lag have been the problem? -- Karada 12:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeated moves from experienced editor

This editor claims on his userpage to be an experienced editor on the Farsi WP. In recent days he has four times moved 2006 Lebanon War and although I twice left warnings on his Talk, he has not responded, nor left any messages anywhere. I hope this is just a misunderstanding, but the most recent move ended with another user cutting and pasting, and if this keeps up, the disruption will only get worse. I've contacted a Farsi-speaking user to try to sort things out, and I've move protection for the interim. Any ideas? Tewfik^Talk 09:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That's probably not a fantastic thing to be happening, given the current situation of the naming dispute. Daniel 09:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Block on New England

Yesterday a disturbing situation arose on the nomination page for TomStar81 for admin. New England accused me of having nominated him, Tom, bec ause he nominated me for admin. This is provably false, Stillstudying nominated me. This page shows the series of exchanges between that user and myself, [51] I blocked him for 24 hours, and lifted it after telling him I would block him again if he continued false statements. I was concerned at the time, and still am, that these false accusations would color the election process. I warned him that continued false statements would result in another blocking, and he made additional false statements last night on the RfA talk page. He stated I have no right to block him for making false statements - at some point, I do have to do just that, or give up any pretense of enforcing our policies! This was so obviously wrong that I felt I had to act this morning when I read it. I have blocked him for one week for making false accusations. I made Deskana, a crat, aware of this, and he advised me to post the block, and the reasons for it, so they cuold be reviewed. I believe he is absolutely correct. My comments to him are here, [52] I hope you will support me, and make a stand for our policies on false accusations and wikipedia assume good faith which he has grossly violated. I cannot stay on wikipedia if users are allowed to simply lie about us, repeatedly, without any consequences! I spend at least 20 hours a week working on articles, and I try to get along with everyone, but I simply cannot stand by and let this person continue to lie about me. At some point, there has to be some accountability for this kind of slander. I felt I had to take a stand and do something about it. If I am wrong, the block should be lifted, and I will leave wikipedia. I cannot stay and have false statements made about me repeatedly. It is simply wrong, and against our basic policies of not allowing personal attacks. Thanks to anyone who reviews this matter. old windy bear 10:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Object to this block. Admins should not block users with whom they are in conflict for any reason, regardless of how good their reasons may be. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 10:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The block is problematic as the blocking admin was involved in a dispute with the blocked user and should be undone by an uninvolved administrator so that New England and OWB can seek dispute resolution. -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 10:58, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring and removal of citation tags

There is an extensive edit war going on at Thriller. One user is repeatedly removing citation requests without providing any citations.--124.176.6.98 11:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I've started a section on the talk page. Perhaps you'd care to comment? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 12:39, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Petri_Krohn (talk · contribs) propagates slander and rumors in most inappropriate places

Diff

A whole long tirade of accusing Estonians of being Nazis based on rumors and without any sources, with in my mind is just an attempt to wage emotional warfare against anybody identifying themselves as Estonian. The final statement however(I would not be surprised if some of the editors contributing to this trollfest were hiding Nazi skeletons in their closet.) is the worst and that in my mind falls under category 'gross incivility'. I Hope something is done to stop these attempts to drive certain editors away sole based on their nationality.--Alexia Death 12:08, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Could we somehow ban Korps! Estonia accounts from this noticeboard? It is annoying to spend the better part of a day watching their endless and meaningless diatribes on high-traffic noticeboards. The purpose of this page is not to entertain them on a daily basis. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Troll ignored.--Alexia Death 13:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I read this case with skepticism because Alexia Death, in my opinion, does a lot of tendentious editing. However, in this case, Alexia Death's claims appear valid. The AfD comment by User:Petri Krohn is off-topic, inflammatory, incivil, and violates WP:BLP if the person he names is still alive (unclear). Rather than bring this case here, Alexia, did you try asking nicely for Petri to strike his inappropriate comment? That's the normal first step. Jehochman ^Talk 13:10, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at his talk. Theres a discussion about this. He shows no remorse. As to striking, this AfD was archived soon after his comment, so that cant be done.--Alexia Death 13:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)