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

Rosencomet, canvassing and COI

Rosencomet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has apparently once again solicited off-wiki for people "to open new Wikipedia editor accounts" to come support him and help protect "his" articles. See the "Attempted Vote-Stacking, Again" section here. This is not the first time he has broadly appealed for help off-wiki on a large scale. I have confidential but trusted info that he did this kind of canvassing with an email to 30 people in the Fall of 2007. He has been repeatedly warned about engaging in canvassing, by multiple admins.[1][2]

Despite consistent warnings from a wide variety of editors (dating from the very beginning of his time as a Wikipedia editor in August, 2006) about his conflict of interest in promoting the Starwood Festival, Association for Consciousness Exploration (ACE), and people he hires for these events, he has continued to engage in this behaviour. These comments and warnings are so numerous, I'm just supplying a link to his archived talk page and letting the TOC there speak for itself rather than citing specific diffs.

User:Rosencomet has been reasonably found to be [*OUTING INFO REMOVED - NO OUTING PLEASE *] (see the Starwood Arbcom finding of fact.) [ * OUTING INFO REMOVED *] "...is the conceiver and a founder of ACE, the Chameleon Club, the Starwood Festival, and the WinterStar Symposium, and is both the primary event organizer and product manufacturer for ACE." (from the ACE website) He is also the executive director of ACE[3] and he handles public relations/communications aspects of the organization. (see paragraph #4 here and the ACE website link above in this paragraph.)

Please note also that [*OUTING INFO REMOVED *]/Rosencomet personally sells books/CDs/DVDs/items at the ACE website and store. If any doubt exists about his COI, see this book excerpt with Mr. Rosenbaum's photo and compare it to this ACE CyberCatalog page. Note the caption saying "When you phone A.C.E., ...you'll probably be talking to THIS MAN" (emphasis in original.) Interestingly, since I referenced this webpage in my COI Noticeboard posting in mid-Dec. 2007, Rosenbaum's picture is no longer featured on the current version page. I had to go to the Internet Wayback Machine for a cached version from July 2007. (Unfortunately the picture doesn't seem to be in the archive cache anymore although the element properties clearly show the link to www.rosencomet.com/catalog/images/biopix/jeff.jpg.) The picture was the same in all versions of this webpage available on the Wayback machine from Dec. 2003 through July 2007 and to 20 Dec 2007 when I last accessed it. In other words, the picture of Rosenbaum (which was on this web page for at least four years previously) was changed within the month after I made reference to it in my COI statement (which Rosencomet was aware of), a strangely coincidental occurrence.

As I indicated at the top, Rosencomet's level of ownership of articles he has started or contributed to is quite high and readily apparent. Changing or deleting info in his WP:OWNed articles usually calls forth aggressive challenges from him and sometimes wikilawyering. He continues to assert that his judgment is sound concerning inserting references to his organization and events into articles.[4][5]

AfDs for any articles in which he has a vested interest invariably results in new SPA accounts voicing opinions and the re-emergence of the Ekajati sockdrawer, resulting in a time drain on editors, admins and checkusers. Now he also admits that he is canvassing [6] to affect AfDs for articles he wants to save.

Despite being warned exhaustively by editors, admins and Arbcomm, and in defiance of COI admonitions by all of the above, he rarely ventures outside his walled-garden area of interest: promoting the careers of those who appear at the Starwood Festival, or whose books and tapes he sells on the rosencomet.com website. Over his time on WP, he has has proven to be a tendentious and disruptive editor.

I have ideas about actions I'd like the community to take but I'd prefer to hear feedback and suggestions from others before I voice them. Pigman☿ 04:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet says I misrepresented his letter asking people to become editors to vote with him. I reprinted the letter on his User Talk page in dispute of his claim of misrepresentation. He has deleted it. So, reluctantly, I reprint it here:

From: Jeff (SURNAME REDACTED) (mailto:REDACTED)

Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2008 2:43 PM

Subject: Wikipedia Cabal Alert

Dear Folks,

You are all people I have approached about helping me preserve the articles on Wikipedia related to individuals and subjects important to our community. If anyone receiving this has not logged in to Wikipedia as an editor, please do so. It's really easy, and you become one right away. But please, use a nickname rather than your own name, like almost everyone else does. Believe me, there are some people who take this stuff way to seriously, and will hassle you about your activities; plus, no one can challenge you on Point of View or Conflict of Interest issues if you remain anonymous.

If you have already become an editor, I urge you to edit...anything! Even correcting typos or grammar here and there will establish you as an editor; if you don't, when you vote on something they'll put a flag next to your name that says "this editor has provided few or no edits besides this issue", which is a way of saying that you're not really an editor, but probably just a sock-puppet (fake additional account) for some editor who wants to pad the votes. We are not doing that; you are real people, not dummy accounts.

There are two articles nominated for deletion that I'd appreciate help on. First, go to their articles, click on the words "this article's entry" in the box at the top explaining that it has been nominated for deletion. That will take you to the deletion nomination page for that article. Please register a vote to keep; to do that, you must hit "edit this page" at the top, then click your cursor right below the last person's entry and add Keep - This subject is notable enough. Keep should have three apostrophes before and after it. You can word the last part any way you want, or expand on it and say why you think so, although someone may argue with your reasoning if you do, and you may not want to keep checking back and responding. After your entry, remember to print four tildas like this (EXAMPLE REDACTED), which will add your Wiki name and entry date to the vote. If you have the time and interest, you can actually try to improve the article with new citations and data, but this stuff happens fast so first register your vote RIGHT AWAY.

The articles nominated for deletion are Dennis Chernin and Nicki Scully. Please feel free to read the articles as they presently exist first, and see if you agree that they are worthy of inclusion; I am not trying to twist your arms on any of this. I'm just trying to make sure our community has some folks looking out for our interests on Wikipedia and expressing their opinions. Also, there are a couple of editors who have a problem with articles either written by me or associated with Starwood, and others who have issues with Pagans, hippies, New Agers, or whatever they perceive these folks to be, and even three people working together is a lot on Wikipedia.

Other articles tagged as having questionable notability include Philip Carr-Gomm, Richard Kaczynski, Skip Ellison, Morwyn, Vivianne Crowley, and Chas S. Clifton. Most were tagged by the same person who nominated the other two. He also tagged Nevill Drury (if you can believe it), but retracted it for now. He succeeded in deleting the articles of Phil Farber (author of Futureritual), Pamela Ball (author of over fifteen books on New Age and magical subjects), and Halley DeVestern (who sang with Big Brother & the Holding Company the year they did Starwood). He and his little group successfully deleted the following as well: WinterStar Symposium, Jeff Rosenbaum, Victoria Ganger, and Taylor Ellwood, and tried unsuccessfully to delete Sally Morningstar and Matthew Abelson. They've also been deleting mentions of Starwood and WinterStar wherever they find them using one excuse or another.

Please feel free to contact me about any of this, either by phone: cell - (REDACTED), off - (REDACTED), or e-mail me either here or at (REDACTED).

Thanks for your interest. I will continue my efforts to keep articles about prominent members of our community present, up-to-date, and free of slander on Wikipedia, and monitor subjects like "witch" and "psychedelic experience" for misrepresentation. Thank you for any help you can give me.

Ad Astra, Jeff

This is a more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger situation for me. I have nothing against him as a person, and I think he has done some good work here on Wikipedia, as well as for the Neo-Pagan community in general. I just wish he would listen more carefully to those who've tried to reason with him with regard to appropriate Wikipedia practices and manners. -- Davidkevin (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I’m afraid this will take a while to respond to, so I will ask you to bear with me. I am also not nearly as experienced and skilled as Pigman in diffs and retrieval of text, nor can I compete with his wikilawyering, but I will just have to say my piece and improve it later as I have time.

First, the e-mail that Davidkevin posted here was a PRIVATE one to friends that was not addressed to him, and I feel it is improper for him to print it ANYWHERE without my consent. Unfortunately, someone forwarded it to him and others without asking me (for which he has apologized). It cannot be judged out of the context of numerous conversations I have had with the people it was actually sent to. I think it is unfair to include it here, and wrong of him to have posted it at all, with full knowledge that I opposed his doing so.

Second, the above statement by Pigman contains several misrepresentations. I do NOT personally sell anything. To do so, I would have to profit in some way, which I do not. I sell nothing I own, and I’m not an employee of ACE, nor am I (or anyone else in ACE) paid for the work I do. We are all volunteers. Even if I took an order over the phone for a book, to say that disqualifies me from writing or editing an article by that author would be like saying a clerk who works at the desk of a Borders or Half-Priced Bookstore can’t edit an article about any author who’s book is sold there, or artist whose CD is sold there. Worse, in fact, since he IS paid. I get nothing from editing these articles. I also do not hire speakers or acts; ACE does, by general vote of its members, one vote each.

Third, I don’t see how my e-mail can be called canvassing according to the definitions on Wikipedia:canvassing. It says: "Canvassing is sending messages to multiple ‘’’Wikipedians’’’ with the intent to inform them about a community discussion." It doesn’t even forbid canvassing; in fact, it has a section about how to do it if you DO canvass. The page discusses conversations with ‘’’Wikipedia editors’’’, not encouraging new people to become editors and get involved. Yes, I may have gone a bit far by giving specific examples of deletion nominations I disagreed with and thought my friends who I had prior conversations with would also be interested in. However, I specifically said "Please feel free to read the articles as they presently exist first, and see if you agree that they are worthy of inclusion; I am not trying to twist your arms on any of this. I'm just trying to make sure our community has some folks looking out for our interests on Wikipedia and expressing their opinions." This was a private conversation with people I was encouraging to become involved in Wikipedia, with examples of why I thought they should, and was part of a larger discussion which should NEVER have been posted without my permission on Wikipedia. (This is the reason I resisted being outed as to my identity by Pigman and wished to remain anonymous; I’m sure anyone aware of Newyorkbrad’s recent problems would sympathize with that, and understand why I recommended any new editors use a nickname.)

My intent, which would be clearer had this e-mail not been posted out of the context of the larger conversation I was having with the individuals I sent it to, was not to vote-stack but to get more people in the communities I relate to (such as the Neo-Pagan, magical, multi-cultural and consciousness exploration communities) involved in Wikipedia. I think more people in all sorts of smaller-interest communities should do so: Native Americans, Santerians, Voudon, the polyamory community, those interested in entheogens, etc etc – communities where under-representation, misrepresentation and misinformation are a problem. I felt that in this case there was a small group calling all the shots, and more people with experience and knowledge in the fields would help matters. But I did NOT want them to simply support my votes or opinions, and I told them so emphatically when I first broached the subject with them; I trusted their judgment to edit responsibly.

Fourth, I disagree with Pigman’s opinion that I should not edit any article either of an individual that has appeared at an event I have worked on, or insert a mention of a Starwood appearance or connection where it is appropriate. The arbitration did not come to that conclusion, and when I specifically asked one of the arbitrators, Fred Bauder, to "state for the record that I am not violating the arbitration, and am not disallowed to edit articles by either speakers or entertainers simply because somewhere in their appearance history there was one or more appearance at the Starwood Festival or WinterStar Symposium, events run by an organization I am a volunteer with and neither receive payment from nor hire for. I also need a statement that there is no reason I can't edit an article about a Llewellyn author." His reply was "You are welcome to edit any article, including articles about associates, provided you cite reliable sources. It is best to not rely on personal knowledge."

Fifth, the history of my interaction with Pigman shows, IMO, that he has his own POV issues with Starwood, and that while he invokes the specter of the "Ekajati sockdrawer" (none of whose actions I am responsible for), he recently went on a tagging spree with help from Mattisse, who’s many sockpuppets [7] don’t seem to bother him in the least. Mattisse, if you recall, was a primary cause of my problems in the first place. Most of my links to the Starwood website were in response to her citation request tagging spree just days after I began editing on Wikipedia. She not only used sock-puppets to multiple-tag and vote-stack, she actually created fake articles and blamed them on me! (For instance, Anne Hill, Musart, and Children of Earthmaker) So Pigman called her out of retirement, so to speak, as it relates to my editing, and along with Kathryn they tagged, edited, and deletion-nominated dozens of articles I wrote in a few days. My reaction was NOT to engage in revert wars, but to ask three different arbitrators for help. (Here’s a link to the letter I sent Fred Bauder at that time. I also contacted Thatcher and Newyorkbrad)

As an example of Pigman’s POV issues concerning Starwood, he has made statements about Starwood concerning his opinions of its connection to drugs and sex (made under the guise of discussing whether mentioning youth programming was "promotional"), implying dangers to children, offering no factual material to back these slurs up. (Kathryn agreed with his statements, and she offered to pass on "info" about the same to an editor privately, away from the sight of Wikipedia editors observing the conflicts you two have had with me. In fact, she claimed to have "a bunch of info about this", which she characterized as "the unpublished reports of multiple friends and acquaintances over the years". She evidently doesn't mind going off-Wiki to promote her positions.) All this can be found on the Starwood Talk Page [8]

I realize I am far from a perfect editor, but I feel that I am being judged by someone who has set himself up as if he were my parole officer, watching me all the time, and creating a hostile environment in which I sometimes overreact and beg for help from wherever I can find it. Whether it's an occult author that’s never been to Starwood or something as innocuous as Marvel Comics mutants or Turkish Taffy, I can expect an edit from Pigman or Kathryn immediately after mine. Pigman has actually set up a watchlist User:Pigman/Starwood-Rosencomet Watchlist on my editing! They still act like all I do is promote my events, when I have hardly written a new article about anyone who has been to Starwood in nearly a year. They set the bar so high, that they claim that since ACE got permission from Llewellyn Worldwide (the world’s biggest and oldest occult publisher) to reissue a few cassette tapes back in the eighties, I should not be allowed to edit any articles by ANY author who’s ever been published by Llewellyn. He deletes any mention of Starwood wherever he finds it as undue weight, even if the subject of the article posts his disagreement, as with Paul Krassner (who has been at 6 out of the last ten Starwoods, and written articles about his experiences there in The Nation Magazine, Ariana Hufington’s Blog, and High Times). Also, he treats guidelines as laws and disagreement as aggression, and ignores it when an arbitrator supports my side of a disagreement. On some complaints, Thatcher has told him more than once that what I edited was not a violation of any policy, and he has ignored it. He has even warned me against disagreements discussed on talk pages, when that’s exactly where the arbitration told me to have them.

In December I created an alphabetical sample of the kind of editing I have done since the arbitration [9]. I include it here to show that I have NOT been aggressively editing, revert-warring, or limiting my edits to Starwood-associated articles. I will provide an update soon, showing that aside from some disagreements on certain existing Starwood mentions (mostly resulting only in discussions on talk pages and deletion nomination pages), I have not been creating new articles linked to Starwood or inserting them into articles. I have mostly been creating new articles about occult authors who have NEVER been to Starwood (like Nicholas R. Mann, Al G. Manning, Vivianne Crowley, Ed Fitch, Prem Das, Laura Huxley, Sally Morningstar, Gabrielle Roth, Dorothy Morrison, Luisah Teish, Nevill Drury, Chas S. Clifton, Morwyn, etc), and adding material to beef up articles threatened by deletion. Pigman keeps characterizing me as a big problem, aggressively and contentiously editing and disrupting Wikipedia. I deny that; I have had few conflicts, almost all reactions to his (and Kathryn’s) behavior towards me, mostly kept on talk pages. I have also sought help from arbitrators whenever possible, and would very much welcome any further help to deal with conflicts when they arrive. -- Rosencomet (talk) 18:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break after really long posts

It is hard to make a single comment on all of this, but I did spend a good while reading this so I'll at least start out with something. If Rosencomet actually believes that that email is acceptable in regards to wikipedia policy, then that is problem #1. It effectively becomes a message to wikipedians because you are encouraging them to become editors, then telling them exactly how to vote in your favor. It is the ultimate bypassing of consensus. I see on the AfDs that meat puppets have arrived in response. Rosen may choose to continue doing this in the future, maybe more discreetly so we don't find out about it here...oh well. However, if you are actually defending such a thing, then this becomes a blockable offense. I will comment more later, this is just a start. I also encourage both Rosen and Pigman to condense further responses so people can actually read this. -- Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki canvassing via private email communications is definitely sanctionable on-Wiki. See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying. -- Lawrence Cohen § t/e 19:24, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to defend it. I simply ask where in the canvassing rules it mentions anything about conversations with people who are not editors when you talk to them? A technicality, perhaps, but when can you forbid conversations with non-wikipedians, or sanction for them? In any event, I will certainly be more careful in the future about anything that seems to push anyone, even a non-editor, to edit in favor of a particular position. However, in the context of the prior conversations I have had with the specific people this private e-mail went to, they would tell you that I made it clear that I wanted them to edit as they saw fit and vote their conscience, not follow my direction. And I hope you are never called to task for the content of your private mail. -- Rosencomet (talk) 20:10, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

It is wikilawyering to suggest that by mailing people who are not then contributors to become editors and to vote or edit in a certain manner is not covered by WP:CANVAS. The intent is to vote stack or otherwise disrupt the usual WP processes, and might be considered more serious as you are seeking both accounts previously unknown to the community and also suggesting how they may appear to be more neutral in their contribution history - a clear attempt to promote an agenda over the process of consensus. My opinion is that you should be indefinitely blocked for these serious matters. -- LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't sanction for talking. I can mail all my employees right now to say, "Hey check out this cool article on Wikipedia," or to discuss Wikipedia issues. But as soon as I send the email that says or implies "Also, check out this debate(s) to support me or our interests", I lose in epic fashion and should be banned. You did just that--in my opinion, this is a blockable offense. We have no way of knowing now how corrupted consensus and integrity of the articles may be now, but we do know that you have at least once done this. See again: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying. You did the same thing that CAMERA did, essentially. -- Lawrence Cohen § t/e 20:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

When Rosencomet says he has had few conflcts on Wikipedia, please see [10]], during which Rosencoment ongoing supporters User:Hanuman_Das, User:Ekajati, User:999 and subsequently others -- see: Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati -- were found to be sock puppets. I realize that by bringing this up, Rosencoment will accuse me of sock puppeting because of a screwed up episode that lasted two months some two years ago involving some of my family, never repeated. I learned from this and paid the price, including over six months of daily harassment from Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati that continued even after the Starwood Arbitration. -- Mattisse (Talk) 21:12, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

* Addendum: Nearly all the above mentioned sock puppets were almost exclusively editing Rosencomet/Star Festival articles, voting in those articles' AFD's, etc. -- Mattisse (Talk) 16:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Go here, click here, vote keep...lose in epic fashion, indeed. I'm tempted to make a joke about the email being a copyvio - it certainly is a textbook example of canvassing. -- SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

(undent)Since some opinions have been expressed, I might as well say I also consider it a blockable offence as well. I have to say even I am surprised at the specificity of Rosencomet's letter above concerning actions to be taken. I suspected as much but didn't have that info when I brought it here. I also see that Rosencomet's real world identity has (mostly) been redacted above. Since this info was already explicitly established as part of a public Arbcom case and is extremely pertinent to COI issues, I didn't see it as an issue of "outing" but perhaps my judgment is flawed in this case. In any event, I don't think I can block Rosencomet due to my lengthy and extensive interactions with him. If there is a general consensus for blocking him, someone else will have to push the button. Cheers, Pigman☿ 23:23, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

After viewing the input of editors so far, I feel that enough have expressed their opinions that what I did was a violation of the policies against canvassing. I must apologize for having done so. I can only say that I did not read it that way, and was unaware of the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying case (though I've got to say that comparing that case to what I did is like comparing a war to an argument). I truly meant to encourage friends of mine that had expressed an interest in my stories about my work in Wikipedia (of which I am proud, despite my stumblings) to get involved and help improve and support articles about people and subjects important to the communities we share. I see that the way I went about it, and particularly my specific mention of articles nominated for deletion that I hoped would be kept (even though I specifically told the folks I contacted to review them and vote according to their own judgement), evidently crossed the line. Both articles have been deleted; ironically, Nicki Scully probably would have survived if not for my blundering.

I am contacting each person I sent my e-mail to and asking them to ignore it, telling them that what I did turned out to be a violation of Wikipedia policy, and that there is a case against me for having sent it out. I accept that I owe the Wikipedia community an apology, and offer one sincerely. I can only say that I felt that an undue number of articles I had created, mostly NOT related to my personal activities, were being tagged and/or nominated for deletion on notability issues, including several I thought were extremely notable, and I thought this was once again a campaign by an editor with a history of conflict with me to attack articles not because they were actually non-notable, but because I had written them. In the past, I have tried to ask arbitrators for help in such cases, and either gotten no response or, in some cases, been told that my editing was acceptable, but the editor(s) in question simply ignored the arbitrators. When I tried to get help from other editors, I was accused of canvassing. For the sake of fairness to the subjects of the articles, I had hoped that more eyes on the issue would be a help, and I have always wanted more involvement in Wikipedia by people from the communities these subjects are important to, so I thought sending out this e-mail was a good thing all around. However, I accept that my actions were improper, and I can only apologize, retract my e-mail from those I sent it to, and promise never to do it again.

Over the past many months, I have written many articles about individuals who are unrelated to the events I work on. I have created little or no new links to the ACE or Starwood pages, and no external links, though I have vigorously discussed the merits of deletions of existing mentions and wiki links on several talk pages and deletion nomination pages. In a very few cases, like Firesign Theatre, I followed up such a talk-page discussion with a revert of a deletion, but not more than one revert. An examination of my work since the arbitration last year will show that aside from talk pages and deletion pages, the vast majority of my work has been to either add to and improve articles (especially ones tagged or nominated) or to write new ones unconnected with my personal work. I can supply records of this if asked (and given time).

I can only hope that I will be allowed to continue to edit here. I truly believe I have been an asset to Wikipedia in the fields of my interests, and occasionally elsewhere. I have spent hundreds of hours just adding to bibliographies and discographies, finding citations and references, expanding and wikifying text, turning in-text notes and links into proper references, and other just plain work. I have never visited the articles of those I've had conflicts with and tagged them or treated them the way I saw myself treated; and I realize that articles don't belong to anyone, but I'm just saying that when I have had a problem it has been reactive, not proactive. I am not here to cause trouble or vandalize or disrupt, just to write and improve articles. With very few exceptions, I think my editing has improved a great deal over the last year. I sincerely hope I can continue to contribute, and I will seek to get a better understanding of Wikipedia policies. I hope I can get the help I need to operate appropriately and find the resources I need when an honest disagreement exists about good-faith edits, and I will refrain from ever violating canvassing policies either on or off Wikipedia. -- Rosencomet (talk) 17:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Recommended actions

By my reckoning, no one has defended User:Rosencomet's actions, four editors have clearly recommended a block, one editor has less clearly stated what Rosencomet did was "a textbook example of canvassing" without specifics of action and one edtitor's opinion seems unclear on actions to take. While Rosencomet's apology above is a consideration, I also note that here, Davidkevin says that Rosencomet's letter was posted to 4 Yahoo groups. This genie doesn't go back in the bottle that easily. This is not an isolated event and his actions over the past two years have generated a number of RfCs, mediations and an Arbcom case. My recommendation is a minimum three month block and if I had my druthers it would be for much longer or permanent. -- Pigman☿ 18:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you link to the arbcom case? -- Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Certainly. The evidence page is here. The main page is here. I'll save you the trouble of going through this rather lengthy and convoluted case and say the proposed remedy in relation to Rosencomet was the following: "Rosencomet is cautioned to avoid aggressive editing of articles when there is a question of conflict of interest. If edit warring or other conflict arises, it may be best to limit editing to talk pages." -- Pigman☿ 18:39, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, it's probably worth mentioning that I was the one who brought the case to Arbcom in the first place although you can see that many other people participated. Please also make a note of the Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati to be clear who was defending Rosencomet's actions in this case. -- Pigman☿ 18:44, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I only sent the e-mail to a few friends. Only a half dozen received it, and none have expressed an intention of becoming editors. Unfortunately, one of my friends didn't understand that it was not meant for the general public, and HE forwarded it to the yahoo groups without my consent (and he has apologized), where Davidkevin read it. I have sent an e-mail to the people I originally contacted saying that my e-mail had violated wikipedia canvassing policies, and that I had apologized on wikipedia, and urging them to ignore the first e-mail. -- Rosencomet (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment having no one to advocate for me, I would repectfully point out that this case involves this e-mail and it's violation of wiki canvassing policies; at least, that's the only current evidence being considered. It has nothing to do with an Arbcom on activities that took place in 2006 during the first 4 months of my editing which doesn't mention canvassing once. Also, I had no knowledge of Ekajati's sockpuppets, nor were they the only editors in support of my position in the Arbcom or the two mediations that preceded it. Within days of my first edit, I found myself to be in the middle of a war between two people using an army of sockpuppets: Ekajati and Mattisse (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse. I didn't even know what the word meant. If you read the decisions, you'll see that it also said:

"Rosencomet was initially unaware of important Wikipedia policies and guidelines like reliable sources, verifiability, autobiography is discouraged, notability, and others.[11] He has made good faith attempts to understand policy [12] [13] and particpated in a MEDCAB mediation over the issue of links. His editing has improved significantly and his range of editing has broadened.

Passed 4 to 0, 16:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)"

Pigman's right about one thing; it was a convoluted case decided at the end of March 2007 that covered activities starting from August 2006, and I don't think it can or should be re-tried via a snapshot now. I don't think this decision should be about everything I have ever done or been accused of doing since becoming an editor, or whether Ekajati or Mattisse had more sock-puppets, nor should that Arbcom be selectively re-hashed by the one who brought it as part of this case.

I made a serious error in sending this e-mail out. There is no question of that. But unless some objective analysis of my editing since then is conducted, I don't think the Arbcom should be mixed in here. -- Rosencomet (talk) 20:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Your editing has always been borderline tendentious and tending to promote your own interests, so that at least has not changed. -- Guy (Help!) 21:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I mediated (for a while) the case that wound up at the ArbCom case.

I think a block would be, at this point, needlessly punitive. Pigman is right -- the genie doesn't go back in the bottle. Blocking Rosencomet, for any length of time, is not going to undo the damage, both realized and potential, in this incident. But it's also not going to teach Rosencomet anything that he isn't already being told by a flood of editors -- myself included -- in varying degrees of detail and empathy. And since the incident in question is one that is off-wiki in nature, a block inherently cannot be seen as preventative.

An indefblock, as suggested by Pigman above, I think is grossly inappropriate, since Rosencomet does seem to actually want to do better. Does he fall (far) short of the mark at least some of the time? Obviously, as this incident evidences, yes. But his apparent desire to be a positive Wikipedian, no matter how misplaced his efforts, makes an indefblock inappropriate.

That renders any block levied at this point in the process, after the incident is by and large over, purely punitive. And I would like to remind all involved here that we don't do that here and we shouldn't do that here.

Here are my suggested constructive solutions which would both be in keeping with policy and would help Rosencomet grow as an editor:

1. topic ban, either for a defined length of time or until marked improvement is evidenced.
2. mandatory mentorship, either for a defined length of time or until marked improvement is evidenced.

I suggest specifically that these two be simultaneous.

I, of course, welcome comments on this proposal. -- Revolving Bugbear 21:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment: I need to make it clear (and I apologize for not having made it clear already) that I am only a member of two of the four YahooGroups to which the letter was posted, and that in the two in which I saw the letter it was in fact Oberon Zell-Ravenheart who re-posted it, not Rosencomet himself. It very well may be as Rosencomet says, that it was Oberon's idea to do the reposting, not Rosencomet's -- I've known Oberon personally for 36 years and he is both a man of immense good will and also occasionally a man of impulse. I have no doubt that he thought he was doing a good turn.

Even if it was originally addressed to specific individuals and not intended for group publication, however, the letter as it is written, seen out of the context of being part of a chain of correspondence, still thoroughly appears to be an attempt to "ballot-stuff" in an edit dispute, and inappropriate by the rules under which we all are supposed to work as Wiki-editors.

Having occasionally corresponded with him, and seen some of his interactions with other editors, I don't think Rosencomet had evil intent. It appears to have been a "doofus" kind of action, something of which I don't doubt we all have been guilty at one time or another in one context or another -- Goddess knows I certainly have, both here in Wikipedia and in plenty of other places, too.

I agree that banning is merely punative and only grossly instructive at best. I think, with no intention of being patronizing, that mentorship is a much better solution for Rosencomet -- if I had had such, perhaps I wouldn't have made as many mistakes as I did when I first took up here.

I don't think a topicblock is appropriate as there are subjects about which he is knowledgable, where he can greatly improve articles. Under active mentorship social errors such as this current situation can be avoided, and we all win.

I wish him nothing but well. -- Davidkevin (talk) 23:20, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I certainly have no objection to dropping to topic ban suggestion if there is agreement that Rosencomet can trim the things that have been getting him in trouble. My suggestion for a topic ban was more out of caution than anything else -- there are some people whose patience is running extremely thin, and it would be disastrous for a boneheaded but well-intentioned move to wrench an otherwise positive mentorship. But like I said, if it's not necessary, that is of course fine. - Revolving Bugbear 23:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(Response to Revolving Bugbear's 21:32, 16 May 2008 post above which I took far too long to write.)

With all due respect, Revolving Bugbear, I think you are wrong. Yes, a punitive block/action is never appropriate. We do not block punitively; blocks are only to protect the project, not to punish. However. I know I also weigh the editor's history (if any and if I can) leading up to any incident. This is not Rosencomet's first incident of canvassing (see [14] from Dec. 2007). I also have concrete evidence that he sent a different email to 30 recipients (in Dec 2007, IIRC), again canvassing off-wiki for support. I can quote from that email if requested to do so but my source has requested confidentiality.

Over the many months of my interactions with Rosencomet, I have consistently provided him with polite help, links to appropriate policies and guidelines, explained situations when he was unclear about WP process or protocols, etc. I briefly explained how to provide a statement in the request for arbitration, an arbitration case I myself brought against his actions, particularly reminding him to keep it under 500 words because I was aware of his tendency to write at length. While certainly not a mentor to him, I've done my best to educate and tutor him in the mysterious ways of Wikipedia during our exchanges. While Rosencomet and I have often been in conflict and at odds over these months, I've always hoped he would eventually shed his ownership issues with articles and develop an understanding of WP:V and WP:RS as well as other policies.

Instead he has developed an ability to wikilawyer: to disregard policy, to ignore or creatively "reinterpret" well-established WP guidelines to serve his goals, to claim community consensus is actually a cabal organized against his work here. To put it plainly: He doesn't play well with others. That is not a blockable offense. But serial violation of the same policy, particularly when blocked for it the first time, is. Pigman☿ 00:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right, Pigman, you were not a mentor to him. That's what he needs -- focused, exclusive, intense guidance. With all due respect to you, and without calling your actions into question at all, you can't really expect to be instructive to someone when you are in conflict with them. Rosencomet has expressed to me that he feels that "no one is in his corner". That may be a situation of his own making, but he realizes that he needs to change the way he does things in order to be accepted and productive. That can be shown to him, but not, to take your example, by a party to an ArbCom case essentially filed against him.

What are you trying to accomplish pushing for this block? Whether or not you think he's any good at it, he clearly shows a desire to improve and to understand, so this is definitely not an indefblockable offense. So what, exactly, will this block accomplish? There is no instructive or corrective merit to a block here. What good will it do, other than to satisfy a few users who are irritated? - Revolving Bugbear 12:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I take your point. At best, I've just been courteous and occasionally helpful to Rosencomet; this is not, in any imaginable way, equal to mentorship. I can, however, take issue with "he clearly shows a desire to improve and to understand." (my emphasis) I'd say he expresses a desire to improve right here, right now, on ANI, faced with a block. Is this a failure of WP:AGF on my part? Perhaps, but as I said above, I also look at his history and explanations in relation to the canvassing. He was brought up once here at ANI for doing it on-wiki. If that was the extent, I'd be more lenient. We now have two separate instances of canvassing off-wiki that we know of. Above in this thread, he tries to wikilawyer and split hairs about whether he was really canvassing. While the CAMERA incident isn't close in scale to his known canvassing violations, it is related.

As Guy mentioned above, Rosencomet has also been a tendentious editor during his 20+ months on WP. I believe this is related to the tactics he then uses (canvassing, for example.) I agree an indef block is extreme and not appropriate. My suggestion was three months because I see such canvassing as quite antithetical to consensus on WP. His record of policy violations on WP, which includes letting others use his account, has been remarkably consequence-free for him. When caught on one thing, he stops that thing but, lo and behold, he's caught on a different violation a few months later. This is my point: He games the system by playing at being the ignorant victim. What editor of 20 months and fairly extensive WP experience doesn't know such canvassing is a policy violation? After being warned once before, four months earlier? Pigman☿ 19:31, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction In December Rosencomet was warned three times about canvassing, and referred to the relevant policies: [15] [16] [17]. He then says "I have looked over the material about canvassing. ... I do not see this as canvassing, and I certainly don't see it as a "blockable offence".[18] Then once again he was reminded that he's been warned, and given the policy: "Wikipedia:CANVASS#Responding_to_disruptive_canvassing. The relevant section is this: 'Users with a prior history of disruptive canvassing, which they have previously been asked to discontinue, may be blocked immediately without further warning, if such an action is deemed to be necessary.'"[19] - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 02:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment These are all about the same incident. You are making it look like this is a record of three incidents of canvassing, which is not the truth. Rosencomet (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree with Pigman when he says that he has been civil and polite to me. On the contrary, I have felt that he has treated me as if he were a parole agent, constantly watching, watchlisting, and commenting on my every edit. He, Kathryn and Mattisse have gone on two sprees of tagging and deletion nominations in the last few months on articles I've written, once tagging about 35 in the space of a few days. I have NOT engaged in revert wars or contentious editing; in fact, I have reserved myself to the talk pages and deletion nomination pages, and asked for help from arbitrators. Over the past six months I have written almost entirely articles that are NOT related to Starwood or ACE, but because they are mostly associated with Pagan and Magical people and subjects, Pigman has treated my editing as if they WERE Starwood related. I have not inserted new Starwood mentions into articles, and in most cases I haven't even argued, as mentions from before the Arbcom have been stripped from article after article, even though they were IMO appropriate in several cases. I either discussed it on talk pages or provided citations to support their inclusion; and if they were still reverted, I did NOT reinsert them. It seems to me that my editing has approached the norm in wikipedia, except for the constant pressure Pigman, Mattisse and Kathryn insist on exerting.

My editing HAS changed drastically, but these three not only refuse to see any of it, including the dozens of new non-Starwood related articles, but they are trying here to re-try me for activities that have already been settled in the Arbcom that ended in March of 2007. This is like double jepardy; except they are selecting particular one-sided pieces of that case without anything from the other side, and acting like I'm editing the same as I did back then, with no defense for me. And they are ignoring the fact that the results of that Arbcom were that my behavior was at least partly due to the fact that I was plunged into a contentious battle between two multiple sockpuppeteers starting when I had only been editing for a few days, that my editing had improved since then, and that I was free to keep editing as long as I don't do it aggressively; which I have not. My only real conflicts have been with these three editors since then; they refuse to let me be, refuse to recognize any improvement, refuse to stop trying the same Arbcom that they were dissatisfied with the results of, and they are hooking a lot of you in by presenting just parts of their side of that Aerbcom. I would ask you; if it is so clear cut, then why was the decision what it was? Please ask the arbitrators who voted 4 to 0 if this rehashing of that case is fair or balanced.

He and Kathryn have consistently claimed that I should not be allowed to edit any article by a Llewellyn author or anyone ACE's bookstore has ever had a book for sale by, even though an arbitrator, Fred bauder, has explicitly said that this is not true and that I am free to edit any article, even those of associates, as long as the edits themseves are responsible and not original research.

I am placing in Revolving Bugbear's hands an assessment of the editing I have done since the Arbcom. I've given him a sample of every article I've written alphabetically from "A" to "J" (the first ten letters). It includes 37 articles, 4 that have been deleted, 3 within the last couple of weeks. I will supply a similar assessment of ALL my edits if need be. You will see that all the new articles since March 29, 2007 are not Starwood or ACE related, and that I have not inserted any new mentions of the same into any old or new articles in the list, or revert-warred on any of them. You will find vigorous dialogs on talk pages and deletion nomination pages, but that's any editor's right.

I am asking for time to present you all with a better picture of my editing since the Arbcom, to show you that I have improved and want to improve, and that I have at times been provoked into reacting against uncivil behavior done with a polite note and a smile. I mainly want to show you that this should not be a case of evaluating everything I have done since I began editing, but I should be judged as someone who has tried hard to change and has done a lot in that area (don't take my word for it, let me document it for you). But I blundered badly about this canvassing thing; I realize that and I truly apologize, and vow not to repeat it. And I certainly need mentoring in how to react when I perceive myself to be treated unfairly without violating policy. I feel like for the past six months I've been harassed, and I am only told what I should not do or should not have done about it, but never what I CAN or SHOULD do about it. Rosencomet (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Support block

I have experience of trying to work with Rosencomet. He may mean well, but in practice he wears out any and all opponents by attrition. He wore me out. As long and as copiously as he has edited here, he still seems unaware of, and uninterested in, the practice and culture of the place; the meatpuppet e-mail posted above is a good example of his methods, but far from the only one. I read with interest his post above, which sounds rather like this is the first time anybody's ever tried to explain basic policy to him: I hope I can get the help I need to operate appropriately and find the resources I need when an honest disagreement exists about good-faith edits. This elicits benevolent assumptions of good faith from many who have posted above. However, my experience of his editing techniques is not "an honest disagreement about good-faith edits," I wish it were. Instead it resembles that of Pigman: I've done my best to educate and tutor him in the mysterious ways of Wikipedia during our exchanges... Instead he has developed an ability to wikilawyer: to disregard policy, to ignore or creatively "reinterpret" well-established WP guidelines to serve his goals, to claim community consensus is actually a cabal organized against his work here.

I support Pigman's proposal for blocking Rosencomet for at least three months. Revolving Bugbear asks what good a block will do. At a minimum, it will free up the time and energies of good editors, which Rosencomet uses up. These people could and should be writing articles, rather than struggling to contain his tendentious editing. (Please read Pigman's post immediately above carefully.) Bishonen | talk 22:12, 17 May 2008 (UTC).

If you feel that saying he "expresses" a desire to improve is more appropriate, I will concede that point. However, the distress he has expressed to me seems rather genuine, and I'm inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on that. Maybe he's struggling with some of the policies, maybe he really never got around to reading most of them (you'd be surprised), or maybe he really does think he can weasel his way around them ... in any case, I think a focused effort to make him aware and respectful of these things will show improvement. I could be wrong, but I think it's worth a shot. - Revolving Bugbear 22:18, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I support a block as well--and to my mind, the only course here is indef. In light of the fact that a) he previously was blocked for sharing an account and b) he's been warned before for canvassing, I'm of the mind that it's time to close the door. Blueboy96 22:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

--Support Block: Short list of Wikipedia attempts to educate Rosencoment--

Coflicts arose around the large number of articles associated with Rosencoment's Starwood Festival and his apparent control of other Wikipedia articles listed on the Starwood Festival and related pages. At one point, there were over 145 links from Wikipedia articles going to Starwood Festival commerical links selling CDs, tickets etc.. Rosencoment and those later found to be socks repeatedly replaced these commercial links when they were removed. There were also other problems such as WP:COI. Regarding attempts to reach an understanding with Rosencoment over policies and guidelines in editing on Wikipedia, please read a sample of energy of editors that has gone into such attempts:

• Starwood Festival Talk Page [20]
• Starwood Mediation 1 [21]
• Starwood Mediation 2 [22]
• Starwood arbitration (December 2006) request[23], Evidence [24], Workshop[25],Proposed decitions[26]

It was during the Arbitration that it was revealed that major supporters of Rosencomet at that time were Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ekajati

If you want to see the scope of the number of articles that Rosencoment and supporting socks were WP:OWN at that time, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Mattisse where many (but not all) of the articles covered by Starwood Festival are listed. –Mattisse (Talk) 00:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

It was also revealed in the same Arbcom that the problem began when Mattisse, using a host of sockpuppets herselfCategory:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mattisse, tagged almost every article I had written in my first few days of editing with requests for citations. I did not know at the time that links to the Starwood website to support what I had written were not acceptable, and I was being told by Ekajati and Co that they were correct and that Mattisse was the problem. It was easy to believe, especially when it turned out she had written additional dummy articles and attributed them to me on various editor's talk pages! Some still exist today. I didn't even know what a sockpuppet was when this was happening; I thought these were all different editors, and that there was nothing clear at all about what I should or shouldn't be doing, since all these people who had been there before me disagreed with each other about what was a good or acceptable edit, source or citation. And whenever there was a RfC or a nomination for deletion, there was vote-stacking going on from both sides that I had no clue of; it turned out that Mattisse often voted on BOTH sides of the same issue? (I'll be happy to dig up some examples if you like.)

Please don't allow Mattisse to make this case about a re-vote on the Arbcom that involved activities nearly two years old now, especially by only introducing the parts she likes. Either read through the entire two mediations and the Arbcom, or ask the arbitrators to comment on this; ask THEM if there wasn't plenty of blame to go around for that fiasco. And allow me to document how different my editing has been since then, despite the fact that Pigman, Kathryn and Mattisse, refuse to see it. And let me demonstrate that I not only want to improve, but that I have been working on it. That's all I ask. Rosencomet (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support block. Mattisse's links are quite illuminating, and I well recall my interactions with this editor... The purpose of the encyclopedia and that of Rosencomet are at odds with each other; Rosencomet views the project as a means to publicise his endeavours without regard to WP standards of impartiality or conflict of interest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support indef-block. Rosencomet's actions, and the diffs provided by other editors, speak for themselves. I have also attempted to educate Rosencomet about policy, repeatedly, for almost two years now. I believe he simply does not care about the Wikipedia community, nor the quality of content on Wikipedia, and is only here to promote his own interests. His canvasssing e-mail of December offered suggestions to 30 people of how to game the system and subvert consensus. He was warned three times by two admins, briefly blocked for it by another admin, and now has done it again. What I have seen is that, when caught, he often expresses remorse and promises to change; then when people have moved on to other things and he feels he's not being watched, he returns to violating WP:COI, WP:RS and WP:V and lashing out at those who remind him of WP core policies. I do not believe he will change; I do not believe he wants to change. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Both Pigman and Kathryn have alluded to a December e-mail that only they know of from a source they refuse to disclose. I really don't think that's fair, and I think I should be allowed to face my accusers. This sounds like something that may have been trumped up by someone who doesn't like me, perhaps even among the folks I work with. One or two of them have issues with me, and one of them is in complete control of our yahoo groups and outgoing mail; and my only email address is associated with a website he can alter as he wishes. I ask you to discount any discussion of some e-mail they refuse to produce or source, and which may even (through no action of theirs) be bogus. And in point of fact, though I have in my geek-like way bent many an ear about what I've been doing on wikipedia and how much I'd like some help with it, I know of none who has shown an interest in giving up any of their time to work with me. They just don't see what I find so interesting about it, or why I'm willing to take the stress and keep at it. Rosencomet (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• Support indef-block. The assumption of good faith gradually dwindles over time if the editor concerned keeps up the same behavior. It had seemed to me that he was mellowing out in January, 2008 around the time of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeff Rosenbaum (2nd nomination), but evidently this did not continue. We have to assume that people *know* when they are using Wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion of their business enterprises. Nobody should be surprised when such a thing is pointed out. EdJohnston (talk) 01:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me demonstrate to you that I have not been using wikipedia promotionally. Let me show you all the articles I've written since the Arbcom that have no relation to Starwood or ACE, and the dozens of deletions by Pigman, Kathryn and Mattisse of such mentions dating from before the Arbcom closed that I have simply stood and watched, or only commented on from talk pages. Instead of simply accepting their claim that I'm as bad as ever, let me document the truth. Rosencomet (talk) 08:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Summation 2.0

Current opinions are: 9 in favour of some form of block, most seem to favour an indef block. 2 opinions in favour of no block with Rosencomet entering mandatory mentoring. Is this an accurate representation of the opinions? -- Pigman☿ 04:19, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not certain if you're including me in that vote or not, but if you're not, I am Against Block, Against TopicBlock, and For Mandatory Mentorship. As the person who first reported this current incident, I never meant that he would or should be blocked or banned -- in fact, I warned him that this might happen and was trying to get him to pull back before it did, never intending for this to snowball the way it has. (Perhaps I was naive.)

I think a block will only increase the feelings of persecution Rosencomet already exhibits. That solves nothing and helps nobody.

Regardless of that, if consensus is for a block, at least make it temporary, with the mentorship attached to it upon his return. Very few actions are unforgivable, and this isn't one of those; very few habits are unchangable, and this isn't one of them. Err on the side of mercy, please. -- Davidkevin (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: I forgot to list User:SheffieldSteel's comment calling Rosencomet's actions "...a textbook example of canvassing." While that isn't explicitly a call for a block, I'd say it falls closer to the "block" end of the spectrum than the "no block" end. -- Pigman☿ 05:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC) I've struck through this comment. I specifically said he didn't voice an opinion on blocking but adding my interpretation was uncalled for. His words speak for themselves. I apologize. Pigman☿ 17:39, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I object to putting words into SheffieldSteel's mouth, as it were. If he/she has a vote, let her/him express it rather than anyone make an assumption. -- Davidkevin (talk) 08:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Davidkevin -- I myself agree that it was "a textbook example of canvassing", and I am obviously against the block. Intuiting votes from people who haven't expressed them is not a good idea. - Revolving Bugbear 12:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this phase II of votes for banning? -- Badger Drink (talk) 08:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

* Beaver Drink, if you have a point, please make it. I wrote above that I support Pigman's proposal for "at least a three-month block." That was because it felt strange to explicitly support indefinite blocking when Pigman, who opened the thread, called it too strong a remedy. But I've changed my mind: I, too, support an indefinite block. I don't believe Rosencomet wants to change, either. I believe he's gaming our good faith. -- Bishonen | talk 08:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC).

• Has Bishzilla hacked your account again? My point is that this whole thread seems to be dominated by one editor and his dogged pursuit of a certain accomplishment - in this case, getting Rosen banned. It reminds me of the Gordon Watts days of old. I'm not informed enough to make a "vote", but this leaves a slightly odd taste in my mouth. Maybe Pigman should take a break and let other editors catch up on this. --Badger Drink (talk) 08:58, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• [Proudly.] Bishzilla admin,[27] wienie 'shonen not admin. Little beaver have point in referring to Zilla? [/me direct educational puff of atomic deathray at little badger. User burst obediently into flames. ] bishzilla _ROARR!! 11:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC).

Pigman, you are coming off as rather aggressive in this matter. I think it would be good of you to take a step back from leading the charge. This thread does not need to be pushed along by the person who initiated it -- whatever your intentions (and I am willing to extend you a thousand times good faith on this), it gives a very inappropriate appearance. - Revolving Bugbear 12:48, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I was not trying to rush a decision or stifle discussion. If I seem aggressive, my sincere apologies. I did not think summarizing opinions was a call to end discussion or take action, only a helpful recap of discussion to this point. And, yes, I was including Davidkevin in my summary. I did neglect to note that Davidkevin and Revolving Bugbear both seem to be against a topic ban as well as being for mentoring. Now I'll take Revolving Bugbear's sensible suggestion and step back from this discussion. Pigman☿ 17:53, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

For the avoidance of doubt, I am not against a topic ban -- I think it may be an alternative to a block, but am not committed to the idea. - Revolving Bugbear 17:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am surprised that anyone particularly wants to hear my non-admin opinion on this, but here goes anyway. With Rosencomet's tenure on Wikipedia, many editors would have had time to gain admin or even bureaucrat status, yet this one still doesn't seem to understand that canvassing is bad. My good faith interpretation, after reading the discussion above, is that educating this editor as to how Wikipedia works is taking too long, since it is apparently necessary to run through every rule in the book, explicitly telling them "do not do this", and even then the lesson does not always sink in the first time. Stating my bad faith interpretation at this point would be doubly redundant, since you can guess what it is, and since I believe that the good faith disruption by this editor is causing more trouble than their contributions are worth. Whether that justifies a ban or a block is for the admins to decide. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet denies knowing that this is against policy- obviously anyone with common sense might think it is, plus Rosencomet has been here years so can't claim to be ignorant of policy, and has been advised about canvassing before. This is WP:MEAT and he will have heard of meatpuppetry before. I would suggest at least a ban on editing articles about which he has a WP:COI, we will then see if Rosencomet has it in him to be a keen editor on other articles. Or maybe then Rosencomet will suddenly be less interested in wikipedia. Sticky Parkin 01:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Support immediate ban on editing all articles where Rosencomet has a COI in addition to mandatory mentorship. If the mentor feels Rosencomet should edit talk pages per WP:SCOIC, then this should be allowed but watched carefully. And, if after three months, Rosencomet has shown a significant improvement in his editing and understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, then he should be allowed to appeal the ban in order to edit articles based on the "non-controversial edits" clause in WP:COI, but only after an editor review subject to discussion by the community. But, if Rosencomet engages in any bad behavior outside of his mentorship, then an indefinite block should be on the table. If Rosencomet cannot agree to these simple, fair, and equitable terms, then I support a three month block. Viriditas (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Question

Is Rosencomet three times faster than a regular user? Jtrainor (talk) 22:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite: how "fast" is the average user? Viriditas (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a joke only a Gundam fan would get. Look up Char Aznable. =p Jtrainor (talk) 02:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Evrik

I direct your attention to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epicaricacy‎ where users have come forward to admit that their participation was the result of off-wiki canvassing by Evrik (talk · contribs), who appears also to have solicited the support of a sockpuppet of his indef-blocked pal South Philly. It seems to me that some sort of sanctions against Evrik for his crude attempts to game the system are in order, but I leave that to you folks. What to do about the AfD, which appears to be irredeemably tainted, is a whole other question. Deor (talk) 16:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, I asked people to weigh in, but I did not ask anyone to vote in any way. I did not ask anyone to create sockpuppets, or meatpuppets, to participate. In fact I notified a couple of admins of South philly's sock puppets. Which I can document. I have tried my best to remove myself from this discussion and have in not participated in a couple of days. As for the AfD, I think it was done in bad faith. I'm going back on wikibreak. Thanks. --evrik ^(talk) 16:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

* I don't understand in what sense this AfD, which I filed, was in bad faith. I filed it May 12 at 15:19, and admittedly I am no expert at filing AfD. [28]. At that time, the article consisted purely of dictionary-type info and material lifted from schadenfreude [29]. On Talk:Epicaricacy at that time, three users besides me were arguing with Evrik that the word should re-direct to Schadenfreude. He gave flip answers, and reverted a re-direct all but him thought was agreed-to. On Evrik's own talk pages, which he has deleted since this notice was filed, he gave similarly flip answers to other editors who were asking him why he was changing links that used to go to Schadenfreude so that they went instead to the stub he was creating. Since I thought Evrik was ignoring consensus about his new article, I filed the AfD in the hope that a wider consensus would persuade him. I never before encountered Evrik on Wikipedia and had no personal reason to get into an argument with him. I noticed his actions after this edit to Internet troll, which is on my watchlist. [30]. At the time he made that edit, he had not yet created the article, so it was a red-letter link. I deleted the link [31], he created the article and reverted my delete. At this point I went to his talk page, found the upset messages from other users and his offhand answers, left a message saying he shouldn't link to non-existent articles. Rather than saying, "I have now created the article", he came to my talk page and left a message "How would you define non-existent?" [32] If an AfD was the wrong way to approach this problem, I apologize. It was done in good faith. betsythedevine (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Record of canvassing friends and/or sockpuppets

• Evrik has now deleted his recent user-talk, which would document his recent actions, and replaced his user page with a display of his barnstars (including one given to him by his suspected sockpuppet South Philly.
• Evrik was investigated for having South Philly as a sockpuppet. [33] It seems to me that the first investigator had pretty solid evidence the Evrik was in fact the same as South Philly, even though they used different computers, noting that over a 20 month period they never once overlapped their editing sessions, which seemed quite unlikely. But the second investigator, citing what a good contributor Evrik is, gave a tortuous explanation of why they might not be the same person, giving Evrik the benefit of the doubt as an established editor. His conclusion: "In the best-case scenario, it looks like Evrik drafted a friend to help revert-war with Boothy443, then this friend went on to do some editing independently, always staying loyal to his teacher in various disputes, big and small. "
• Evrik was also involved in a January, 2007 sockpuppet investigation for the same kind of apparent vote-stacking [34]. The suspected sock English_Subtitle returned to Wikipedia on May 12, after a 4 month absence, to take part in the epicaricacy AfD as well as other edits. w:Special:Contributions/English_Subtitle.
• It seems like more than a coincidence that of the 10 Keep votes for "epicaricacy", 6 were apparently from Philadelphia, based on information on their talk pages: Evrik, plus Sur_de_Filadelphia, Marketstel, Raider.adam, Eagleapex, and LBlanchard. After the topic of canvassing was introduced on the talk page, a 7th participant came forward to say that Evrik had recruited him. [35]. And so did an 8th person, who had not taken any part in the discussion. [36].

Now it is clear that Evrik is a hard-working and productive editor of Wikipedia. It is also clear to me that his past encounters with admin reproaches for edit-warring and vote-stacking have not made much impression. I would like to see the "good" Evrik continue to edit here but the "bad" Evrik has wasted a lot of other people's time over this already. betsythedevine (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

n.b. I had originally deleted User talk:Evrik/Archive 12 after a speedy deletion request, but Betsythedevine informed me that it was relevant to this ANI discussion. I've restored the page. Also, User talk:Evrik/Archive 11 doesn't appear in Evrik's archives. I'm noting this for purposes of the discussion; otherwise, I haven't checked out the case. (I'm more interested in checking out the IUCN database against lists of state parks and National Register properties at the moment.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 18:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• FYI, I just added the link to my archive 11 for the discussion here. What evil thing did I do? --evrik ^(talk) 18:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Relevant material from Evrik's deleted talk pages

Thanks to Elkman for restoring this material, but in case it gets deleted again somehow I want to put the relevant parts here.

• From May 16 I just now became aware of the guideline on canvassing, and I think it makes good sense. In the future, if you want to discuss Wikipedia disputes with me, please contact me through my talk page, for the sake of transparency. ike9898 (talk) 13:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• From May 9 :

Hi, I don't understand why you have altered many links for schadenfreude, which has an article, to Epicaricacy, which doesn't, and is a practically unknown word. Please would you explain this? Someone else has already reverted your edit in template:suffering, and I think the rest should likewise be reverted. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:17, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Fayenatic. Epicaricacy seems to exist only in lists of curious words, whereas schadenfreude is in everyday usage. I can't see any reason why Wikipedia should use the former. Can you explain? Otherwise, I am inclined to revert. Grafen (talk) 22:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree. --evrik (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I came here to comment on your repeated addition of a link to the non-existent article "epicaricacy" to Internet troll. I see that you have made similar edits elsewhere. It isn't good Wikipedia practice to persist in edits that others question without giving some explanation of why your edit makes Wikipedia better. betsythedevine (talk) 17:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Non-existent? --evrik (talk) 17:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I made this comment based on the article's non-existence yesterday. I see that today you have created it. You still haven't explained why you think this article's existence (it used to re-direct to Schadenfreude) is a benefit to Wikipedia users. betsythedevine (talk) 18:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I assume good faith as Evrik is a solid editor here on Wiki and I have great respect for him. But I wanted to ask a similar question. Why wouldn't the term "schadenfreude" link to schadenfreude? --Midnightdreary (talk) 18:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

that was a mistake. --evrik (talk) 18:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I hope you can see from this (as well as from early discussion at epicaricacy) that before the AfD other editors tried to engage evrik in a respectful discussion of his actions but without success.

Added by betsythedevine (talk) 19:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I see that Evrik has now asserted (on what basis I don't know) that User:English Subtitle, another !voter in the AfD, is a sock of someone unnamed—though I assume that the section heading "SP" indicates "South Philly". I guess my question is, If Evrik was aware that socks were improperly supporting his position in the AfD (including double !voting), why didn't he divulge it in that discussion? Deor (talk) 19:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrap up

Here's what I think happened, and note I've been familiar with these users from way back. I think Evrik and South Philly know each other IRL. So, they talk to each other and support each other. I do not think they are socks. Then some falling out occurred, like maybe Evrik got tired of SP's socking, but could be all sorts of things. So Evrik reports on SP's socking. SP retaliates by reporting Evrik's canvassing. Now what I find really odd is these socks: English Subtitle, Stonewall Revisited, Amnesia grrl, 216.185.29.69 reporting themselves at SSP. I've indef'd the names and 3-month blocked the IP. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/South Philly (3rd). That leaves Evrik. He's posted a "retired" note on his pages, but maybe he'll come back. So, I'll leave a note about the canvassing there. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:46, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that there's probably nothing else to be done at this time (though I pity the admin who chooses to close the AfD in question). I'd like to point out, however, that it was not any South Philly sock who reported Evrik's canvassing. It was other users who he canvassed—even though the canvassing was already fairly clear, albeit unprovable, from the evidence in the AfD itself. Deor (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I really am sorry that the outcome of all this has been for Evrik to "retire" but I hope it will be temporary. Nobody is claiming -- I certainly am not --that Evrik is wicked, but I do think he got carried away by his enthusiasm into doing a number of inappropriate things. I complained about the actions (so did others). My complaints weren't meant as a personal attack. Everybody, in Wikipedia or elsewhere, sometimes does stuff others think they shouldn't. I think that Evrik must be a very good person on the evidence that he has so many loyal friends, quite apart from the good work he has done in Wikipedia.

On a less friendly note, if Evrik's ally South Philly had defended Evrik by citing Wikipedia policy instead of insulting and wikistalking me, he could have helped to calm the discussion down instead of heating it up. I am sorry that my annoyance about what I saw as inappropriate tactics caused me to waste my time (and other people's) with excessive posting about these issues.

I am going to try to change the AfD to a Merge and Redirect, and I will make sure the ultimate Wikipedia article has a section mentioning "epicaricacy."betsythedevine (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I have closed the AfD as Merge and Redirect anyway. Black Kite 11:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I still believe South Philly was Evrik's Bad Hand sock. I went over the logs during the linked investigation above, and remain convinced that two computers were involved, at either work and home locations, or home and cafe, etc. No overlaps, ever; long sessions on one computer, then logged out, then twenty minutes later the other would start up. Like clockwork. SP always turning up to attack whoever had disagreed with Evrik, often twenty minutes after Evrik's last edit, *never* online at the same time. The logs were pretty much statistically impossible for two users in the same time zone, imho. Even if by some bizarre confluence of events SP was actually a meatpuppet, Arbcom "has ruled that when there is uncertainty whether a party is one user with sock puppets, or several users acting as meatpuppets, they may be treated as one entity." - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 01:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

• I've pretty much shut down my account. I may come back to deal with a couple of issues in the future, or I may even start editing again. Most of the accusations here are baseless. In fact, I was working with a couple of admins to try and deal with South Philly and his socks. Oh, and as an FYI, I was one of the only people to oppose the adminship of User:Kathryn NicDhàna as I thought she tended to be partial. --evrik ^(talk) 17:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Epicaricacy problem not really wrapped up yet

This appears to still be open, so I think that it's worth adding a mention of today's contributions by 151.197.116.67 (an anon IP from Philly? Who'da thunk it?). Can an admin please block that IP for (at least) WP:NPA? Dori (Talk • Contribs) 02:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, the insanity continues today via this Philadelphia IP mentioned by DoriSmith above but not yet banned, who left an angry message on my talk page saying that epicaricacy was not a content fork, and ending with "Cunt. Stop spreading your lies." Other Evrik-opponents in the AfD debate got similar though less obscene messages. betsythedevine (talk) 19:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

He didn't leave me one of those. Do I have BO or something? I feel so neglected. Deor (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how he missed you, Deor.As I said, I'd be happy to see the "good" Evrik back at work on Wikipedia, but some of his friends or his socks or the socks of his friends are just ugly. betsythedevine (talk)

• Don't feel too bad; even though I put my 2¢ in on the AFD, I didn't get one of the nastygrams either (thankfully!). Dori (Talk • Contribs) 22:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• Don't look at me. --evrik ^(talk) 22:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of Twinkle

It has been brought to my attention that Tylerpuetz is abusing Twinkle.1, 2, 3 He has been warned by admins to stop and he still persists. He also tried to "block" an IP user I guess. 1 Could someone over here look into it? Thanks. §hep • ¡Talk to me! 15:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a clear case of abuse, if he has been warned prior to this thread, chances are that he will have his rollback removed and Twinkle removed temporarily. Qst (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

He was warned by me a few days ago and promised he'd be more careful. If these diffs are from after that promise (I haven't checked), then support revocation of Twinkle, rollback and Huggle. — iridescent 16:09, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

On closer look, while he hasn't made any invalid rollbacks since my final warning, he has inappropriately posted block notices on multiple occasions since. (1, 2, 3). It appears that he has already been warned about this as well, and doesn't seem to have done it since. I think what we're dealing with here is someone who doesn't understand how things work, rather than deliberate abuse; that said, I'd support revocation of all automated tools if there's any further abuse given the number of warnings he's received. — iridescent 16:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

However, if somebody doesn't understand that typing {{uw-block1}} on a talkpage doesn't actually block the user concerned, do we really want them trying to deal with vandals? Good intentionals are without doubt; it's just the fact that they are likely to inadvertantly cause trouble.

I would suggest withdrawing automated vandalism tools and rollback, and give him/her a reading list; when they indicate that they've read up and understand the necessary facts, then restore and see how it all goes. —TreasuryTag—t—c 16:29, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c with above) Unfortunately, he seems to be using TW thru gadgets; it can't be removed. Blocking right now isn't necessary; appears he may be talking to TheHelpfulOne on IRC. However, any further abuse should result in a warning that he needs to remove TW from his gadgets, and that he will be blocked if he uses TW again. In any case, removing rollback seems reasonable right now, until he demonstrates a better understanding of how things work, but I won't do so myself since I'm about to leave and can't deal with any fallout. This is another example of why TW shouldn't be in gadgets; so that blocking in order to put a stop to TW abuse isn't our only tool. --barneca (talk) 16:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I've revoked rollback privileges and HUGGLE, as misuse of either of these will cause more damage than Twinkle due to the speed of editing. I agree that complete blocking at this stage is undesirable (and, again, urge the developers to remove Twinkle from gadgets so we can disable it in these instances). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iridescent (talk • contribs) 16:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Any sysop can remove Twinkle from Gadgets, we don't need to file a Bugzilla request and wait for a sysadmin to edit localsettings.php. FunPika 16:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Unilateral action probably not appreciated/advisable ;) Alex.Muller 16:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

←Last time it was removed following discussion it was re-added within 24 hours. Personally I don't think it should be there (or that the Gadgets section should really exist for anything remotely controversial) but short of a ruling by Jimbo, I suspect Twinkle's on it to stay. — iridescent 16:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd suggest we try to again to get it off and keep it off. People ask for it tot early and use it too carelessly. It should require at least a certain degree of deliberation and sophistication & putting it in gadgets is making it appear too easy. DGG (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This was proposed recently at WP:VPR#Twinkle. Methods were discussed there for disabling Twinkle per-user, even for those who have it enabled through gadgets. The discussion seems to be at a standstill right now (interestingly, just after a user asked for "multiple examples of misuses of Twinkle that justifies changing the requirements"). It might be best to comment there -- removing twinkle from gadgets is one possible solution, but there are others. I personally feel that in the vast majority of cases, twinkle edits should be treated as any other -- inappropriate edits deserve warnings, and too many warnings leads to a block, despite what was used to make those edits. The only time I can really see removal of the tool being necessary is inadvertent misuse by a good-faith editor, and I think even in that case the user can simply be asked to stop clicking whatever he or she is clicking. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

This isn't an issue with the tool. It's an issue with the user. This would better be filed under "Misuse of editing priveleges". He could have done the exact same thing without the use of Twinkle, so I don't really see what the controversy is here. The solution is to deal with the problems that the user has, not the fact that the tool lets him do stupid things faster; if he keeps it up, block him until the admins are satisfied that he isn't going to misuse the ability to edit any further. Celarnor ^{Talk to me} 08:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't I say that? :) Equazcion •✗/C • 20:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User MaskedSuperAgent physical threat

MaskedSuperAgent (talk · contribs)

An admin might want to take a look at this users recent editor history, but most importantly at this diff, the reason I've brought this immediately to the noticeboard without getting involved in warnings. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 01:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Nuke 'em, I say. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that WP:TOV be consulted in responding to this. Bstone (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've left a warning, and a suggestion to remove the comment. I think it's more a case of lashing out, than an actual threat to the recipient. Kevin (talk) 01:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This seems more like an edit of someone else's comment to make that someone else appear to be threatening the user. Essentially, a user putting a threat of violence against themselves into someone else's mouth. Unacceptable, yes - but not a Threat of Violence in the sense contemplated by TOV. I probably would have blocked immediately - Still might, if no satisfactory response ensues. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 01:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

← No it wasn't a threat of violence. It was just a massively inappropriate thing to do. We don't edit other people's comments, and we especially don't do that in order to incriminate others. So I say nuke 'em. Equazcion •✗/C • 02:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, nuke em (as in, indef block). Bstone (talk) 02:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

First of all, maybe take a step back when analyzing the threat. Regardless of how he edited the threat, he knows that the person he has been arguing will see it. Maybe that makes it less explicit? I guess, but maybe not. Secondly, even if viewed as purely a trick, attempting to make it appear that another editor told you to kill yourself is basically just as bad an edit as anyone can make on wikipedia. In fact, when I first read the entry, (which is how I even stumbled upon this), I assumed that other editor had in fact threatened MaskedSuperAgent. I think a block is in order, anything about a gun in a mouth on talk should probably result in one. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 02:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think this strays about as far from civility as one can get with text. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Update I issued mask a final warning because this morning he has continued to post harassing messages on talk pages. I'm pretty sure a block would be fine now, but I'd like an admin to keep an eye on any contribs he has from this point on. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Further Update -This was his most recent reply. He says "I understand you are angry and wish for me to die..." Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 16:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Totally beyond the pale. I've indef blocked User:MaskedSuperAgent. -- SCZenz (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Good block. This guy (i.e. MaskedSuperAgent, not SCZenz) seriously needs help. However, Wikipedia is not therapy. -- llywrch (talk) 23:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Worrying vandalism to suicide

Resolved

 – Proper Authorities were notified and proper action is expected to take place

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

User:69.140.152.55 just contacted me and brought to my attention certain vandalism to the suicide page which suggests 80.229.58.53 is considering killing him or herself. It appears that the IP address is from Great Brittan so I will suggest that the user contact Samaritans.

Although the user in question later committed a blatant act of vandalism, I want to strongly suggest that this be taken seriously and the information be passed on to relevant authorities in the UK. (I know something like this is usually done when people threaten violent actions on Wikipedia.) Thanks for acting quickly on this serious issue. --S.dedalus (talk) 04:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick comment- The Samaritans (in the UK at least) is not a suicide prevention service. Anyone wanting to report should call a UK police station and provide as much information as possible. Dan Beale-Cocks 18:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Volunteers?

Would be nice if somebody who is an expert in these matters can put this article on their watchlist so as to ensure its factual accuracy and quality, as well as monitor for signs of trouble. I might add though (especially if a lay administrator, rather than an expert, chooses to volunteer for this)– I feel it even more important to assume good faith than usual, and not be too hasty in judging good-faith edits to be "vandalism."

Also, many of you are already familiar with this, but for those who are not, please see this debate. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think a simple message will help. I am not trained. But I am worried and feel some one in the area should contact the local authorities for a well being check. A couple Bobbies at the door never hurt. Rgoodermote  04:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. That's why I suggest that an expert be the volunteer. [Another possible policy is simply "e-mail the Foundation, and the Foundation may (will?) take any steps deemed necessary to assist the user in question." But that has to be discussed too.] (By the way, I have not e-mailed the Foundation about this; what I am saying is, right now, intended mainly as an idea for discussion.) 69.140.152.55 (talk) 05:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I just happened to read this here and I would like to strongly support the idea of contacting the local authorities. I'm not sure if I'm permitted to post this, but the IP address seems to originate from Ilford, according to a dns resolver site. Someone please call the bobbies over there ASAP! Caius (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Problem is finding some one in that region. O and that would be public knowledge so you are fine posting the area and at this point the address. Rgoodermote  21:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I contacted the Wikipedia office. I am really disappointed that this got ignored for so long. I thought it would be taken care of by now. Rgoodermote  21:35, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The police may still be able to do something based on this information. Has anyone actually called the authorities in the area? --S.dedalus (talk) 00:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This individual can do whatever he wishes to do with his own life. If he wishes to end it, than who are we to stop him? Monobi (talk) 01:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

See suicide intervention. Also note that in some areas suicide is illegal. Regardless, if a person is posting suicide notes on a public internet site they are asking for help. --S.dedalus (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Someone who talks suicide is either trying to get attention or wants help. Actual suicides usually just do it. Suicide being illegal can add to their burdens, though. I knew of one guy who committed suicide and is now serving a very long sentence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually in New York committing suicide can result in a Death Sentence. I am not kidding. But anyways no I do not think any one called the Authorities and I am unsure if the Office is even doing anything as I have not received a response. Rgoodermote  02:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Can we find a number for the Ilford department? --S.dedalus (talk) 02:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is this it? --S.dedalus (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent><edit conflict>I just posted the number when we conflicted and I believe that is it. I can not call. Rgoodermote  02:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I am going to email them however. Some one needs to call.Rgoodermote  02:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Apparently I can’t make international calls. Would someone else please call? --S.dedalus (talk) 02:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Great...how do you call the UK? Just dial the number? Rgoodermote  02:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried that and it’s asking for my long distance code. I’m trying to find whatever that is. --S.dedalus (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I would call but I myself can not talk with out stuttering. But I found how to. Dial 011, which is the international access code. Dial 44 which is the area code for the United Kingdoms. Rgoodermote  02:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Also dialing 00 also apparently helps. It is the international operator. Rgoodermote  02:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I’m calling, but so far I’m getting a busy tone. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been running around the site looking from some one from the U.K. but I am having problems finding some one online. Rgoodermote  03:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

As soon as the Bobby gets off the phone I will contact them. . . --S.dedalus (talk) 03:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You got in contact? Sorry for my uselessness. But my speech impediment would keep me from explaining anything.Rgoodermote  03:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Arg! I still am not getting through. It says the call cannot be completed as dialed. Can you try? They won’t care about a stutter. --S.dedalus (talk) 03:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

<undent>Give me a bit. Rgoodermote  03:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the 24 hour switchboard number btw: 020 7230 1212 --S.dedalus (talk) 03:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"I'm sorry but your Time Warner package does not come with International calling features." Rgoodermote  03:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this is quite a conundrum isn’t it! Thanks for trying. Isn’t anybody else on this notice board? --S.dedalus (talk) 03:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

If you miss this discussion you are blind. Rgoodermote  03:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I am logging out as it is late. If anything happens some one drop me a note please. Rgoodermote  03:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've emailed them, providing as much info as possible... Caius (talk) 08:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

They've said they forwarded my e-mail to the Telephone Investigation Unit. Apparently, the e-mail on their homepage is for their Financial Department... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Caius (talk • contribs) 10:56, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I got the same message. At least it got through. Rgoodermote  14:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Allstarecho

There are somewhat pornographic pictures on certain sections that do not nee to be there. My 10 year old son saw my neighbor accidentally click on it and he did not need to see some of those pictures. I have emailed wikipedia about the problemAbrmd2007 (talk) 04:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored for the protection of minors. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 04:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This SPA removed the images from Fluffing, Clitoral hood and Erection. I reverted Fluffing and warned. User then removed the images from the next 2 articles. I'd be curious to know if the user would rip out the pages of the encyclopedia's found in libraries all over the world. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 04:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait, so this users 10-year old kid was over the neighbor's house while the neighbor was looking at articles about erections and clitoral hoods? Hmmm. Perhaps they have more to worry about than Wikipedia's articles... Maybe they need to keep their kid away from their neighbor... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Bingo! - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 04:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Durova^Charge! 05:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't see that Allstarecho has done anything wrong here, and Abrmd2 doesn't even really allege that he did. Can we mark this resolved and move on? Aleta ^Sing 05:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not over. The complainant has "emailed wikipedia about the problem." This could start a trend; and remember, this is an election year. Be afraid. Be very afraid. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

So what? Wikipedia isn't running for office. --Carnildo (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, but opportunistic politicians are. They might decide to target wikipedia as being purveyors of child endangerment, and try to shut it down. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:38, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We'll deal with that if it happens. Until then, WP:NOTCENSORED --Carnildo (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the fact that Fluffing combines the article on the porn-industry occupation (with lead photo) with a disambiguation section that contains numerous _non_-porn-related definitions is a cause for concern, since someone could click a legitimate link for one of those other meanings without intending to go to an article about the porn industry topic. --Random832 (contribs) 15:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just going to say, Fluffing looks like a legitimate dismbiguation page... with a short article at the beginning of it. Random832 beat me to it, obviously. Is there any reason why the existing article couldn't be moved to Fluffing (pornography) and a proper dab page created? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

See here. Enigma ^message 20:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and furthermore I don't understand why a warning concerning the content of some pages is not required. Even if it's a high school student doing research for biology, they might stumble onto a picture they weren't expecting to find. CH52584 (talk) 04:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the discussion there ended with some page moves needed, and no one countering it, so can an admin read that through and make the relevant moves? ThuranX (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

mrg3105 incivility at Talk:Belgrade Offensive

mrg3105 has been incivil throughout an ongoing discussion at Talk:Belgrade Offensive, but this is now escalating [37], with remarks such as "And DIRAKTOR has the temerity to tell me I should compromise with him. I repeat. I do not compromise, particularly when presented with such a clear case of an editor not actually knowing what he is editing".
I'd be grateful if somebody could take a look before it goes much further. Many thanks, AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 13:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd be grateful if someone just explains to DIREKTOR, and AlasdairGreen27 the policy on Wikipedia:Attribution--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, just look at the previous complaint!!!--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 13:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have left a warning for Mrg3105. If behaviour does not improve, then I will block. Woody (talk) 13:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like the above complaints to be seen in context of a string of insults being made by user:Mrg3105, for example Talk:Strategic operations of the Red Army in World War II#Kharkov operations and [[38]] & [[39]]. This is not one instance of incivility, but literally months of it, and should be seen in that light. Buckshot06(prof) 02:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for eyes/policy proposal?

I was first wondering if some administrator could have a peek at Webfan29 (talk · contribs). Most of his image uploads (as can be seen on his talk page) have very dubious sources. Recently I was looking at Image:Hawaiian Islands article1.jpg (an "article" he or she claims is public domain). A brief web search shows parts of the text showing up elsewhere around the web. I tried using my buttons to mark as possibly unfree, but they must be broken. It remains untagged. My question is, can someone either go take a peek at his or her uploads and delete any copvios, or at least give Webfan29 a stern warning about uploading unfree images? To my second point, is there a way to disable image uploads to certain repeat offenders (other than blocking them as a whole)? If not, I might start a discussion on the village pump to see if that can be enabled. Mahalo. --Ali'i 14:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

While Image:Hawaiian Islands article1.jpg may have a dubious claim (seems to be a scan), the others seem to be legit. Most of the images, such as this, were taken with a Canon PowerShot A560. seicer | talk | contribs 15:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what that means. Does that mean that they are undeniably his to release freely? Could he have copied them from a different site, and uploaded them here with the meta-details intact? Also, things like Image:1863031491 736d97196a b.jpg that he or she says are public domain are clearly "All rights reserved" on Flickr: [40]. With the history of uploads that are dubious, I was wondering about specifically blocking image uploads while still allowing article editing. Is this possible? Mahalo. --Ali'i 16:11, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No, not all. I only viewed through the top 10 on the list, since I did not have available time to parse through all of his contributions. But the above image is a clear vio, unless he is the account owner. Which I doubt. seicer | talk | contribs 16:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, it's Webfan29 the person who had uploaded various images on wikipedia. The photo images that were taken from the Canon PowerShot A560 is my camera - these images were taken by ME during my visit to Cuba in January 2008. As for the other images, i've either scanned them or found them off the internet. If you look at my contribs, you may notice that i've also created articles on radio stations, etc. that are mostly in Canada. I've also done some editing as well. Sometimes it's hard to find out what or which licence I can use after i've uploaded an image and if they're free or not. I guess next time I should ask a user of the image or a user on wikipedia before uploading an image, etc? I appologize if I did any wrong doing here! ONCE AGAIN: The images taken from my Canon PowerShot A560 are mine! Thank you. Take care. :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Webfan29 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the clarification. I don't doubt the validity of the images from your Canon PowerShot, and haven't been able to find any other copyright violations. seicer | talk | contribs 04:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Webfan. Just a friendly note and reminder though: you can't just find an image on the Internet or scan something and upload it with a different license. We have to be vigilant against copyright infringement, and loading images under a false license is a very bad thing. If you ever have any questions (about licensing, a certain image, or other issues), please do ask someone here on Wikipedia, and we'll gladly help you. Thanks very much. --Ali'i 13:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Uncivil user TeePee-20.7

Resolved

- user has been blocked by another admin --Matilda ^talk 07:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

TeePee-20.7 (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) has been uncivil and not assuming good faith to other fellow editors including myself. The User also tryed to accuse me of being a socket puppet to Matilda (which I'm not) on my talk page. Bidgee (talk) 16:17, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I didn't try to accuse her of being a sock puppet at all and her saying I did is not assuming good faith. This user has been biased against me in her relationship to editor Matilda. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What was the reference to a sockpuppet in this edit supposed to mean then? --AussieLegend (talk) 19:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

And what's the implication here? --AussieLegend (talk) 19:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I recently warned him for using an uncivil edit-summary in blanking material from his talk page here, but he removed my warning and made a comment to my talk page that didn't indicate any comprehension that there was a problem with his way of expressing himself. I am not, however, familiar with the context of his edit-dispute. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Now who is not assuming good faith FisherQueen, get familiar and assume good faith. BTW why was your user name familiar when I got your message? Why does it sound familiar to me? Have we dealt with each other in the past somewhere in the big world of wikipedia? TeePee-20.7 (talk) 17:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This editor is also exhibiting a serious WP:OWN problem on Chilean Australian, where his editing on both the entry itself and the talk page is close to being totally disruptive. While the rest of the editors there are hashing out a positive solution he simply reverts to his favorite versions (unsupported by anyone else). Meanwhile he clutters the talk page with sometimes uncivil commentary about how no one understands the issue but him, though notably his versions usually disregard basic aspects of WP:RS and WP:V. He needs a serious break from this entry, which as far as I know is the root of all these issue.PelleSmith (talk) 17:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

After I warned him that he would be blocked for any further incivility, he left this message for me, which essentially tells me to mind my own business as this conflict does not concern me. In addition, he appears to be continuing to edit-war at Chilean Australian. I am reluctant to block based on the comment he left me as it is addressed to me, but I'd love another admin to review and decide whether it's time for a block, for incivility, edit-warring, or some combination thereof. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The user keeps pushing the point and still not assuming good faith[41] Bidgee (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

No I am not and PelleSmith is not assuming good faith in saying I do. My edits have never been disruptive and as soon as improvements are suggested I have incorporated them into the article. We are all trying to come to a concensus on the page and I have always edited accordingly. Up until just recently PelleSmith did not understand a keypoint in the dispute and his opinion was based on limited knowledge of the matter. Now I am doing a test to see if three other users have also managed to understand this keypoint because up until very recently there has been no indication they have. One of the users based on the edit she provided but still containing flaws, may have infact only just realised this as PelleSmith now does and is supporting what I am saying over this keypoint. But you will see from the discussions on the page they based their judgements mostly in part to me the editor providing this, as when I made mention of this specific keypoint numerous times in different means she did not understand, but now that PelleSmith mentioned it a couple of times she has seemed to understood. PelleSmith needs to stop disparaging me and not treat this issue as something to sweep under the rug. He mentioned he wanted to drop this matter and quite clearly seems more interested in removing it from the RfC page listing of disputes then infact reaching a true concensus where all issues are addressed. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 18:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Now you can clearly see from FisherQueen's comments she has taken what I said to heart and the wrong way. I am not essentially telling you to mind your own business, I am aknowledging I was rude in my edit summary saying that if she reverted my removing of her comments once again from my talkpage that she would be in violation of WP:Harassment. And then apologising for doing this. You tell me to assume good faith but you do not do it yourself by putting words in my mouth. Your choice of words "love" show your clear judgement based on me as an editor and this can be taken as a personal attack. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 18:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If some admin would take a couple of minutes and have a look at Talk:Chilean Australian they'd get the picture. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User is now being disruptive[42]. Bidgee (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

and is now harassing me [43] Bidgee (talk) 19:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

He has already been blocked once for these problems. Another block will be coming should he continue to edit war and refuse to abide by reasonable consensus on this issue, or if the incivility continues. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Please take note of: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:TeePee-20.7_reported_by_User:Bidgee_.28Result:_.29. Regards.PelleSmith (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• I had warned him quite clearly that I would block him at [44] when I stated I propose to allow others to comment and refine the proposed words if necessary. Then it will go in the article. If I find any further edits from you undoing such an edit in the article - as you have done in the past against talk page consensus - I will block you for disruptive editing. He has done exactly that this morning - he is the only editor who disagreed with the wording that we have worked through to excess - see for example the comments at Talk:Chilean_Australian#As_you_can_clearly_see. I also warned him here [45] . He is quite keen on removing my comments(and those of others. While they are visible in history - it is not acceptable on article talk pages and in my view it is poor form to attempt to disguise discussion on his talk page with edits such as [46] [47] [48] [49] That is just the last few hours.

He claims he has not called me a sock puppet but at User talk Bidgee he stated You know what would be cool, if you and Matilda posted an edit at the exact same time on the exact same day. I will check both of your contributions to see if this has ever been done before. I doubt it though. - sounds like a sock puppet accusation to me!

There is also an issue of 3 reverts within 24 hours see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/3RR#User:TeePee-20.7 reported by User:Bidgee (Result: ) - yet to be acted on but supported not just by Bidgee but also User:PelleSmith

He has been blocked in the past:

11:28, 15 May 2008 Angusmclellan blocked "TeePee-20.7 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 24 hours ‎ (Continuing incivility/attacks after warnings)

02:52, 30 November 2007 WJBscribe blocked "TeePee-20.7 (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (homophobic personal attacks after warnings)

The block of 15 May is over the same dispute. I would appreciate if another admin blocked rather than me.--Matilda ^talk 21:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be ok to accuse someone of being a socket puppet? From my understanding is that it's inbreach with WP:GOODFAITH policy (possibly other policies as well). Bidgee (talk) 03:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• TeePee has furthered his accusation of sock puppetry by lodging Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Matilda --Matilda ^talk 07:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
  • While the request has been declined as a fishing exercise, TeePee is continuing his accusations of bad faith with assertions such as "tag teaming" in this edit summary when referring to the views of other editors who do not agree with Teepee's views at Chilean Australians (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I find it quite distressing that this editor is not being dealt with. He has violated the 3 revert rule. He has lacked civility in his dealings with quite a few other editors. As an involved editor it would no longer be appropriate for me to block him. Above FisherQueen notes she is in the same position but wishes to see him blocked.--Matilda ^talk 07:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nichalp's move of Burma to Myanmar

On May 12, Nichalp launched a straw poll on the issue of whether the article Burma should be moved to Myanmar (despite the fact that numerous previous straw polls and discussions within the past year had shown the community to be evenly divided on the issue). At the conclusion of the straw poll, it was evident that opinion was still evenly divided. The numerical result of the poll was 16 opposed, 17 in favor. More importantly, both sides were still strongly entrenched in their positions and both sides presented numerous opinions and facts in support of their side and how it related to Wikipedia policies. No unbiased reading of the debate could interpret it as anything other than evenly divided. One week after opening the "straw poll", with neither side moving any closer to consensus, Nichalp unilaterally decided that one side's arguments were more "clear and logical" than the other. He then used his administrative power to move the article (which had been protected against moves) despite the fact that there was clearly no consensus to do so. I believe this is a clear abuse of administrative powers and the move should be reverted by another admin. I would do so myself, but I voted in the straw poll, and thus have a conflict of interest. Kaldari (talk) 16:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

This move is long overdue and the original move to Burma had more anomalies than this bold and to be applauded move edit; lack of consensus should clearly mean the article stays at Myanmar and should never have been moved to Burma in the first place, a move which never had consensus either. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that Nichalp didn't just move the article, he invited the community to debate the issue and then ignored the debate to implement his own opinion. Such behavior is extremely insulting to the people who participated in that debate in good faith. Kaldari (talk) 17:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Kaldari you seem to contradict your own words. If people participated in the debate in good faith, then there would be a quite a few of them (over half of the people who have expressed opinion) that the name should be changed. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:06, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

'Be aware that Wikipedia is not a democracy: A straw poll is not a binding vote, or a way to beat dissenters over the head with the will of the majority. If a large number of people support one option but some don't, this doesn't mean that that's the "outcome".'HalfShadow 17:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, there was no "outcome" of this debate other than the fact that the community is strongly and nearly equally divided on the issue. Thus, no action should have been taken. As this was already well known from previous debates and polls, I can't see this "straw poll" as anything other than a pretense. If Nichalp was going to move the article regardless of the debate, it was not acting in good faith to initiate and advertise the debate in the first place. Kaldari (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, according to your own post, one more person was for moving than against, which sort of defeats your own argument. HalfShadow 17:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, debating first sounds like good faith to me, and no more of an insult than to those in the original debate whose views were also not complied with (and I dont believe either move insulted anyone of us wikiepdian editors). Thanks, SqueakBox 17:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Two wrongs don't make a right. Kaldari (talk) 17:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Kaldari, you assume that I used the straw poll to effect the page move. Unfortunately no. The straw poll was created to summarize the salient points of each editor for or against the name. I've said that in the poll itself. Please stop misinterpreting my poll. Rational points were given more merit than simple 'keep' statements. =Nichalp «Talk»= 17:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess that makes my points irrational! You sound just like my beloved spouse, Nichalp. (Sadly, I lose all those arguments!). :-) --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 19:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that proper process was not followed in this case since there was no attempt made by Nichalp to negotiate or arrive at a consensus. He choose to stay out of the debate, even though his position is own well known when, as per Wikipedia:Consensus he should have participated in the debate and tried to negotiate or build a consensus. As a matter of practical fact, an alternative suggestion (separate Burma and Myanmar articles divided historically as in the case of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe) was receiving some attention and could have emerged as a consensus solution when Nichalp unilaterally renamed the page. I've seen some of User:Nichalp's work elsewhere, have no doubt that he has the best interests of wikipedia in mind and refuse to believe that he acted in bad faith, but do feel that this action should be reversed and taken to WP:RM where it properly belongs. In the final analysis, Wikipedia lives and thrives on our (the editors) faith that due process will be followed in giving weight to our opinions and edits and, while Wikipedia can live with the possibility of an imperfectly named article, it cannot live with a breakdown in that faith. Thanks! --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 17:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd echo the view expressed by RegentsPark. I returned to the page today after viewing it yesterday pre-move and was very surprised to see such a politically-charged change being made on such slender grounds, especially while compromises were still unexplored. Webmink (talk) 17:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this move appears to be skirting process, but I don't really see that there's anything to be done about it. The article is really in the right place now -- like it or not (and I think that the "government" in Myanmar/Burma has absolutely 0 legitimacy), the name of the nation is both de jure (the UN recognizes the name) and de facto (Google has more than twice as many hits for "Myanmar") what the government changed it to. We shouldn't undo an out-of-process move that will restore something that is less correct. It would be as wrong as moving Ho Chi Minh City to Saigon, even though there are doubtless many Vietnamese who resent calling it that.

I think Regents Park's suggestion to have two separate articles, one for pre-1962 "Burma" and one for post-1962 "Myanmar, formerly known as Burma" (since it was until 1989). - Revolving Bugbear 18:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That was the unexplored compromise to which I was referring, yes. Both pages should link to Names of Burma which documents the origin and nature of the dispute well. - Webmink (talk) 18:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I commend Nichalp for this exceptional admin action. It is high time that the powers that be of wikipedia did something about situations like this where two opposing factions have equal votes but only one faction's arguments are in tune with Wiki policies and guidelines and the other faction knows it. Arguably, it should be a no-brainer, but the other faction is able to filibuster forever claiming "there is no consensus". Yes, "there is no consensus" would apply if it was a simple vote. Thankfully, it isnt. And if you disregarded the ILIKEIT, IDONTLIKEIT and DONT_LEGITIMIZE_THE_JUNTA votes, not only was there a consensus, but an overwhelming consensus to move it. So overwhelming, a bot would have moved it. Seriously! Sarvagnya 18:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The sad thing, Sarvagnya, is that an interesting alternative proposal was emerging and it could have formed the basis for consensus. On the whole, the discussion was remarkably civil, as wikipedia discussions go, with almost no edit warring. It might feel good to be triumphant and have your views codified in wikipedia, but do remember that wikipedia is an organism, each editor is equally valuable, and riding roughshod over a group of committed editors without even a token attempt at dialogue is not the way to keep this organism healthy. Sometimes, the means are more important than the ends. Thanks for your comments though. They are very instructive. Regards. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 18:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

There are absolutely no grounds for this action by User:Nichalp. He moved the article bypassing the thoroughly discussed move proposal we had back in October (which was even praised by User:Jimbo Wales for being so civil and constructive) and bypassing the closing admin User:Duja who closed it as consensus to move to Burma. I contacted Nichalp and expressed my disagreement with his unilateral action. He explained that he acted against the entire process because he was allowed to thanks to WP:IAR[50], and that there was a straw poll somewhere that was mentioned at WP:CBB which, according to Nichalp, would be a more relevant place for advertising the discussion than WP:RM. He also says that he analyzed consensus in order to justify his action. I am quite shocked not only by his action, but also by his apparent refusal to acknowledge such a blatant violation of the process. Nichalp effectively reverted the in-process action of admin Duja who moved the article to "Burma", basing his decision to move the article back to "Myanmar" on a consensus that not only does not exist, as would not be valid even if it existed somewhere, because most of the community was deliberately left outside the process. Controversial move proposals have to go through process in order to legitimize any results, and that is only through WP:RM and a proper section on the article's main talk page. Not through an obscure subpage, advertised on an obscure bulletin. And certainly, not for someone who is not neutral on the matter to suddenly call it quits and enforce a page move. I am disappointed with Nichalp and request feedback on his action. Húsönd 19:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

AND, should I also add that this article was move-protected? Húsönd 19:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The subpage you refer to isnt/wasnt as obscure as you claim it to be. I only recently entered the discussions about the article name and I had no difficulty whatsoever finding the subpage. It is advertised right at the top of the main talk page. Anybody with an opinion on the issue would come to the article's talk page and the talk page would lead them to the appropriate subpage. Sarvagnya 19:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

While I, who have been discussing this for ages, didn't know about it. Users don't have to be watchlisting every single subpage of that article. Move proposals happen on the main talk page. Unless you have something to hide. Húsönd 20:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• This is just further reason why many regular editors do not trust the "powers-that-be" here. Nichalp decided that what he (and those agreeing with him by a 17-16 margin) overrode the WP reliance on consensus. Amazingly bad admin action on a move-protected page. Classic misuse of admin tools. Bellwether ^B_C 20:23, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Husond's move back

I am not convinced that reverting Nichalp's move is wise. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 00:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I've just expressed my dismay on Husond's talkpage. Though I think Nichalp's action would have been better based on a fresh consensus-finding exercise, his analysis of the arguments was persuasive. That said, the discussion could have been signposted at WP:RM and Nichalp should have asked someone uninvolved to asses the result. Ideally, I would have thought a fresh discussion about the appropriate title for the article a sensible way to proceed. Given that Husond suggest Nichalp's action was a de facto wheel war, I am astounded that he has decided to reverse the move on a move protected page. I expect to see such behaviour from rather more hot-headed admins and seeing so rash an action in this case is, to say the least, unexpected. WjBscribe 00:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

With due respect, I think Nichalp's actions were unwarranted because he did not actively seek a consensus and moved a protected page. Nichalp should have reversed his move as soon as he found out that the page was move protected because that should be a no-no for any admin, but he did not. I think Husond has done the right thing. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 00:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Husond has reverted his move, acknowledging that his error, for which I am grateful. Now another admin, who was also involved in previous discussions about the page's name [51], MJCdetroit has moved the page. This is getting ridiculous. I am at a loss as to how to deal with the number of admins who feel there is an immediate need to move this move protected page. Block them/ ask ArbCom to desysop them? Both actions seem a little extreme but this situation is rather out of hand.... WjBscribe 01:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Wheel war

I'd appreciate opinions so we can nip a situation in the bud before it gets worse. If you check the move logs (Burma, Myanmar) of the two pages, you'll see that Nichalp moved Burma to Myanmar after a discussion that could probably be seen as no consensus for a move, yet he instigated the discussion so was clearly involved. Husond later moved it back to Burma, yet after concern, he was honourable enough to move it back. MJCdetroit has decided to once again move it back to the Burma title. yet, he has also been involved in the talk page discussion, opposing the ealier move. Now, this wouldn't normally be too bad, but it's been move protected all along, so only admins can move the page - yet we've still had a move war over this, by people that are clearly involved. Any thoughts on how to solve this? Ryan Postlethwaite 02:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this is a situation that shouldn't have happened in the first place, by not being started. Nichalp should have measured the consequences of his unilateral move. That's not what WP:IAR is for, I am quite disturbed that he found grounds on that particular policy to excuse his move. I think it's only natural that admins will come and revert him. He did something wrong, others will fix if he's not willing to. I think that the only solution is to call on Nichalp to reflect on his actions today. If he acknowledges that he was wrong, then everything's fine. It doesn't cost a cent to realize and fix our own mistakes on Wikipedia. But if he doesn't, well, I think the biggest concern is on him who could not ponder the consequences of reserving the right to determine consensus all by himself and going against process. Húsönd 02:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• With status quo being "Burma", the most recent move(s) back to that seem much more logical and supportable than Nichalp's. Bellwether ^B_C 02:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that the first thing to do is to make things as they were before Nichalp moved the article. For three reasons. First, because almost everybody believes that there was no consensus. Second, because Nichalp did not seek a consensus or attempt a negotiation. And, third, because any admin action on a protected page should be immediately reverted if that admin has not first sought consensus on the Admin notice board. Then, we should do what Nichalp should have done in the first place. Try to figure out where people lie on the various alternative scenarios proposed (Burma, Myanmar, split Burma & Myanmar), see which editors are not totally fixed on either end of the continuum and work something out in this middle ground. Most of us, IMHO (and I could be naive), are willing to live with any title provided it is not thrust upon us - I certainly am. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 02:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I support Husönd's action, Nichalp not only misrepresented the view of the "pro-Burma" camp and did a unilateral move, he refused to engage in any serious discussion about it. There is a flaw in the system. If English Wikipedia have a procedure for removing admin status, I don't think this would have happened.--Amban (talk) 02:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, people keep saying that Nichalp did not try and seek a consensus for the move: what is this Talk:Burma/Myanmar#Straw poll if not an attempt to seek a consensus? Perhaps that discussion should have been better advertised and perhaps Nichalp should have asked someone else to close it but at least he was up until that point uninvolved in this dispute. Husond and MJCdetroit (the admins who have moved the page back to Burma) were both involved in past discussions and strongly advocated Burma as the correct title. They are not only moving a protected page without further consensus but doing so when they are involved in the dispute. I find their conduct far more problematic than Nichalp's. WjBscribe 02:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Nichalp tried to seek a consensus, failed to generate one, and then decided to move the page anyway. It's difficult not to consider him involved in the dispute because I don't find it plausible that a person without a strong personal preference would have closed the debate in this fashion. Overall I support the move back under the general principle that in the case of poor/disputed admin action it is best to work from the original status quo rather than allowing the party at fault to effectively have their way. Christopher Parham (talk) 03:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

WJBscribe, I disagree with your view that the straw poll was an attempt to seek consensus. One cannot seek consensus by being uninvolved in the discussion. Building a consensus requires actively participating in the discussion, drawing out the different views, building bridges, and trying to work toward a solution. Starting a straw poll with the statement that the purpose is not to really do anything, disappearing for a while, returning and the unilaterally moving the page is not an attempt to seek consensus. I'm frankly surprised and disappointed that an admin and a bureaucrat would do such a thing and even more surprised and disappointed that other admins would not immediately revert that action. Frankly, I'm even more disappointed that Nichalp himself hasn't resolved the issue by returning the page to the Burma name. --Regents Park (Feed my swans) 10:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have seen this kind of behavior before, and my conclusion is that admins wouldn't be so bold if they knew that their status were up for renewal every year, as is the case in other versions of Wikipedia. The relevant straw poll completely eluded me by the way, so I can't say this was very well advertised either. I have never seen this kind of behavior in other versions of Wikipedia and something is wrong in English Wikipedia, you'd better find a way to fix it. Asian-related pages have become soap boxes of different POVs to such an extent that it is pointless getting involved and sharing your knowledge and I have ceased to be involved in most of what is going on, because it is insane.--Amban (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is just not the comment I was expecting from you. You find our actions more problematic than Nichalp's?! How can fixing a blatant mistake, an abuse of the tools, complete trampling of process and consensus, be more problematic than a blatant mistake, an abuse of the admin tools, complete trampling of process and consensus? I am very, very disturbed by your opinion. In my view, mistakes exist only to be acknowledged and fixed. Húsönd 03:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Husond, I really think you need to take a step back. One of the things I have found most troubling is that you seem to be unable to look at this situation calmly - a sure sign you are too involved to be acting as an administrator here. I don't see the "blatant mistake" or "abuse of the tools" that you do, I'm sorry. Yes, I think Nichalp could have done a better job of advertising the discussion and that he wasn't the ideal closer of that discussion but I do not think his actions constitute an abuse of the tools. You seem unwilling to accept any view other than that Nichalp was totally wrong - I'm sorry but there are to my mind more shades of grey here. Yes, it could have been done better but I see no abuse so shocking that it needed to be reverted immediately by someone as involved as you are. If Nichalp's actions were so terrible, do you not think someone uninvolved would have undone them in the time between you posting about it to this board and deciding to undo them yourself? WjBscribe 03:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an unfortunate trap we fall into, believing that out-of-process actions are so serious that they require immediate fixing. Especially as it relates to actions requiring admin privileges, it's best to go ahead and take things slowly, even what's been done seems totally outrageous (obviously, I'm not talking about any thoroughly uncontroversial actions, such as reversing a move to "HEIMSTERN IS GAY!"). Fights between admins (between anyone, but especially admins) are seriously damaging to our community and we need to be willing to take things like this slowly and not let our shock and even anger take us to fights like this. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I reverted my move action per WP:UNINVOLVED, which leaves the page back to the move of Nichalp (Burma-->Myanmar) and back to the community to decide if that move has merit. —MJCdetroit ^(yak) 03:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Moving forwards

OK, aside from recriminations about who was right or wrong to move the page when, there remains the question of what title this article should be at. I propose that we set aside a page for a request for comment on this issue alone. Flag it up as widely as possible so as to attract as many users as possible who have not been involved in these disputes before. The discussion can run for a couple of weeks and be closed by someone who will assess the consensus. That person (or persons if necessary) should be generally agreed to be neutral and people should willing to accept their determination. I propose something along the lines of:

Wikipedia:Request for Comment/Myanmar vs Burma

This approach was successful in resolving the naming dispute over the city of Danzig/Gdansk, see Talk:Gdansk/Vote. A debate can be had an reviewed by neutral editors who can then form a view as to which arguments are more persuasive. Thoughts? Is this a sensible way to proceed? It seems clear that the usually processes have failed to resolve this dispute, with various discussions coming to different conclusions. This really needs to be settled finally. WjBscribe 03:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the quite likely outcome of any discussion is an absence of settlement. So the real question is, do we enact an arbitrary settlement, or preserve the status quo (and which status quo?). The thing that makes Nichalp's action particularly troubling is that it smacks of an attempt to frame the debate around a new status quo, knowing well the fact that consensus for any change of the status quo is unlikely (as he was well aware, from the straw poll he has just conducted). Christopher Parham (talk) 03:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the status quo needs to be removed as a factor here for the very reason that we'd have difficulty deciding which status quo. My hope is that if we advertise this discussion as widely as possible and beg those who have never heard of this issue to read up on the arguments and come to an opinion, there will actually be a consensus one way or the other. I agree that the situation is problematic if neither there remains no consensus at the end of the new discussion. As a slightly flippant idea, if there is no agreement perhaps we should have the article at Burma for half of each year and at Myanmar for the other half... WjBscribe 04:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately removing the issue of the status quo from the discussion is next to impossible. At the very least, the page has to exist while the discussion you propose is taking place - at what title? The issue also faces the problem with any protection situation in that the side whose preferred version is hard-coded in place has little incentive to make a genuine resolution of the dispute. Christopher Parham (talk) 04:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

"at what title?" -- Make it simple, like an international politician would do it: Move the article to "Country_at_22N_95E", and create four links to this article: Burma / Myanmar, Myanmar / Burma, Myanmar, and Burma. That still won't satisfy people because they will say the article name starts with C which is closer to B so Burma is obviously being favored. I think that the strong of heart could probably ignore that during the naming discussion. Loren.wilton (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What problem exists with Regent's idea of a Burma page for the preJunta nation, and a Myanmar for the PostJunta nation? Neutrally written articles about both will make the history and situations clear to all involved. Those who are (rightfully) morally opposed to the sadists ripping off the Burmese people will find even the driest writing of the events since the takeover makes clear what monsters be there. Such clarity will be available to all readers, who will then be free to form an opinion. It's an issue where it's very hard to form a pro-myanmar view, even while carefully following NPOV. Facts can speak for themselves. I support a split solution, and if this goes to such a RfC as mentioned above ,please copy and paste this there, or at least notify me abvout such a page, and I'll do it myself. ThuranX (talk) 04:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:majeston

This morning I was removing some links from articles that clearly fail as reliable sources, plus some trivia, etc. These are Nephilim (role-playing game), Nephilim, Paleolithic Continuity Theory, Lemuria (continent) and Mu (lost continent) user:Majeston, who may be upset with me because of edits on the the Urantia book article, quickly reverted them giving no reasons and marking the reverts as minor (he seems to mark everything as minor) - see [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] I thought that he was just watching these pages, but then he reverted an edit I made on Paper folding [57], a very different type of article and one he has not been editing. He has just made a big reversion at the Urantia book article [58] of edits by 3 different authors, calling them vandalism, which they were definitely not (well, not sure about the IP edit). He seems to have little interest in Wikipedia guidelines or entering into discussions, which makes even more difficult. I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place, and if not, apologies.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine here for now. Notified him of this discussion. It is highly inappropriate to revert with no edit summaries marked as minor, but let's see what he says. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

i have my preference box set to minor automatically —Preceding unsigned comment added by Majeston (talk • contribs) 19:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC) user dougweller as well as others have been stalking and rv my entries on wiki with no discussion and only with the intent to turn positive entries into negative ones or to suppress any positive entry at all. Majeston (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC) example:

• Dougweller (Talk | contribs) (73,697 bytes) (adding POV tag because of recent edits (esp the one that carefully left out McMenamin's critical words)) (undo)
• Dougweller (Talk | contribs) (73,689 bytes) (→Criticism of science: replacing a bit of the quote left out by editor (naughty to leave out the critical bit and just leave in the praise))
• 65.78.13.238 (Talk) (67,196 bytes) (rv biased edits by Majeston. It's doubtful this material even belongs in this section, since it isn't "criticism of [by] science"; don't try to inflate its importance.) (undo)
• Dougweller (Talk | contribs) (67,633 bytes) (→Criticism of science: let's have a bit of context about Mullis) >>>>>>>>>>The Nobel-laureate chemist Kary Mullis (who also defends astrology, denies the role of HIV in AIDs, and describes having spoken to a glowing racoon in his book Dancing Naked in the Mind Field,

the previous article was, by my reading, biased strongly towards trying to make him look bad. I happen to personally disagree strongly with his approach to AIDS and therefore am not his biggest fan, but my sides of those arguments can be made on their merits–-not by denigrating him personally. Joewright

This page spends very little time referring to the accomplishments of Kary Mullis, and it is his accomplishments which make him encyclopedically notable, whereas it spends a great deal of time trying to make him look like a raving lunatic. I feel the present article is highly unbalanced against the man, and if there are controversies that deserve treatment, they ought to be included, but if the primary purpose of the article is to discuss those controversies, this is not encyclopedic at all. Whig

Majeston (talk) 19:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I must agree with and amplify Doug's observations; it seems clear that Majeston has been combing through the contributions of editors that he disagrees with and reverting changes that they made, without any consideration whatsoever about the quality of the edits. Obviously, there was no legitimate reason for Majeston to undo the correct formatting of the title of a movie except, as his edit summary states, "Undid revision 213286446 by 65.78.13.238 (talk)". Neither was there any legitimate reason for Majeston to go back at least four edits and two months into the history of Misha: A Mémoire of the Holocaust Years to find the last change I made and undo that specific change; any well-intentioned editor who studied the change for even a second would realize that there will never be an article with the title "the existence of a compass allegedly used by Misha" and therefore no reason to restore a wikilink to that non-existent "article". Majeston is clearly wikistalking.

I further agree with Doug's observation that Majeston doesn't display any interest at all in being a sincere participant in Wikipedia. I would call your attention to a pair of Majeston's edit summaries on The Urantia Book (a look at his contributions will quickly suggest that this subject is his single purpose for editing Wikipedia.) In this edit on May 17th, Majeston reverted to his preferred version with the cryptic edit summary "wiki policy is to discuss and reach harmony b4 rev-not drop mypov and then rev with no ~~~~". Majeston has hardly done anything to "discuss and reach harmony" before making any of his many, many revisions -- his two most recent edits to Talk:The Urantia Book were on 13 May, 2008 (nine KB of text copy-pasted from elsewhere) and prior to that, 27 August, 2007.

The conflict between Majeston's own disuse of the talk page and his insistence that others "discuss and reach harmony" before reverting his changes is already a red flag. But when it has been clearly explained on the talk page why the material Majeston has been adding is original research and must be removed, and Majeston has been advised to join the talk page discussion he called for before attempting to reinstate the material -- Majeston's reversion straight back to his preferred version is made with the edit summary "yeah, sure thing....like i've got nothing better to do......i'll jump right on that ~~~~". I think you have Majeston in a nutshell right there -- the only interest he has in the policies of Wikipedia is to insist that others should be constrained by them. -- 65.78.13.238 (talk) 20:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The above 2 editors only interest in the article is negative. Neither have contributed anything of a positive nature to the article and their only intent is quite obviously to either ridicule it or to turn any entry into a negative pov even to the extent that if they cannot find fault with the material they then attack the authority. In this case A noted professor of Geology and a Nobel-Laureate. If that doesn't work they try to suppress the material with any WIKI loophole they can find. My entries are well researched; cited and valid. There is no entry by either one of these editors geared to improving the article in any way. I personally do not appreciate putting in hours of work and research before I make an entry and then having it deleted or turned into a negative attack simply at the whim of a stalker who neither has read the material nor understands it. Example I have put a request on the page for WP Protection which was just removed by User talk:65.78.13.238 I am not sure but I do not think the removal of a request for protection from this edit warring is valid. Please advise and Protect the page and block both of these users from any further edits. Thank You Majeston (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify about my alleged attacks on 'the authority' It is true that I pointed out that Kary Mullis was not an authority on the issues where he says science agrees with the Urantia book, and that I also said that Mullis's private web page with comments about the Urantia book was not a reliable source. I made clear on the talk page what I was doing: [59]. Majeston did not respond, he simply reverted with no edit summary. I certainly did not attack McMenamin, what I did when I saw the quote that Majeston used was attempt to put it into context, here is Majeston's revert: [60] this time with an edit summary saying "unsupported off-the-cuff general remark-no examples" - I have no idea what that means as there is no reason to think the 'comment' " "Of course I am being selective here in my choice of quotations, and there are reams of scientifically untenable material in The Urantia Book" was off-the-cuff at all, and just because McMenamin gave no examples is surely not a reason to remove his comment. All editors need to learn to put up with having hours of work removed, and I believe that I read his edits and fully understood them. Doug Weller (talk) 21:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Balkans

Resolved

 – Article semiprotected for a week

Could someone please have a look at the history of the article Balkans. An anonymous editor has been constantly changing the data without any comment even though I have left a message on his talk page[61] not to do so. Does this qualify as vandalism for which I may simply block the anon? --Eleassar ^{my talk} 17:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like POV edit warring, not vandalism. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:01, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, to be fair all around, when I further checked the page history to see if the anon violated 3RR, I noticed that Eleassar actually did. I see 4 reverts in under 24 hours. Unless I'm mistaken, the reverts that were made were not for vandalism or BLP violations. Now it looks like the anon is back at it and likely also violating 3RR. Have to be careful here, would be tough to block him for 3RR when others have also violated it. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 18:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted the IP's latest edits, which do veer on vandalism. No one need worry about 3RR when reverting this guy. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 18:50, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Supporters of Barack Obama are getting the article censored to help Obama

Resolved

 – Socks blocked

Supporters of Barack Obama don't care about NPOV or non-bias. They are out to censor the article. They have a new method.

Anyone they don't like, they call them a sock. Easy way to ban people. In Wikipedia, if someone calls you a sock, a lot of juvenile administrators will rush in and ban the person.

They don't care if the edits are fair. Just whack anyone that someone calls a sock.

This is just terrible. Administrators who are fair should try to help.

One ploy is called Derekx1s. According to RFCU, as long as you use a certain ISP, which is used by several million people, you will be banned. That's really cunning of the Obama supporters.

I see that DianeFinn has been banned. The edits are ok to me from what I have seen in the talk pages of the articles, it's just that the editor is not a diehard Obama supporter. Ded2839485832456 (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[citation needed] - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

To be fair, helping Obama is a perfectly commendable cause. —TreasuryTag—t—c 18:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

 Confirmed as yet another-other-other sock of banned editor, User:Dereks1x - Alison ^❤ 18:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The user apparently labeled himself a sockpuppet on his userpage. The only time I ever dealt with that article was when I blocked a guy who was repeatedly edit warring to try to insert "zomg, he is really a muslim" type nonsense into that article. Smears against people violate BLP and should be removed immediately I suspect that the situation is the same here.--Jersey Devil (talk) 18:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"The only time" wrote Jersey Devil. Well, that shows that this is different as DianeFinn edits are not nonsense, but NPOV and sense.

This also shows that checkuser Alison lacks ethics. An ethic person does not block someone that registers a complaint against your own actions. Big conflict of interest on Alison's part.

Look at what the checkuser wrote "I can confirm that all these edit from the same IP range. It's a /12 network, however, which means that there are 1,048,576 IP addresses there...Could be coincidence, could be nefarious behavior, could be nothing at all" or it could be Obama supporters cornering Wikipedia for their personal gain.

Neutral administrators should wake up and stop collaborating with these bad apples in Wikipedia or those who act with ethical conflicts of interest, like Alison.

Those who attack me are just like the Nazi prison camp guards, they think they are doing the right thing but they aren't. If you say I am a sock, then have you really studied the early Derek history? Derek was upset with John Edwards, not Obama. Ded08 (talk) 18:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Didn't take long for Godwin's Law to come into play here. Derek, please stop trying to game Wikipedia. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Ummm -  Confirmed yet again, as well as two others. Rather obvious - Alison ^❤ 19:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Users such as this aren't blocked because of their politics, or their beliefs, or their names - they're blocked because they are run by a user who has been banned by the community from editing. Blocks are used to enforce this ban. There's no conflict of interest, unless you count a distinct aversion on the part of Alison, myself, and other admins who hate having to waste their time with shenanigans from this user. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:31, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Disruption and time-wasting is the order of the day for Dereks1x. Last week, it was legal-threat sockpuppets threatening to bring down the WMF in 5 days. He's a massive drama-magnet. Remember this guy, anyone? - Alison ^❤ 20:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Blanking user talk page

Resolved

--For the moment. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 02:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hashmi, Usman (talk · contribs) seems to be unwilling to communicate with other editors, which is unfortunate because they are make a lot of, uh, questionable pages. The user blanks their talk page regularly -- which I thought was generally agreed as acknowledgement of warnings and messages -- but other editors seem to be restoring the warnings. Is this the right way to deal with someone who already seems reluctant to engage in discussion? Aren't they allowed to blank their own talk page? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

You are quite right, persistent restoring of warnings is frowned upon to say the least. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

They generally are allowed to blank warnings off of their talk page, but if they flat-out disregard the warnings they've removed, it's regarded as vandalism ex post facto. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 18:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If he blanks the warnings, it's treated as if he read them and as such he is now liable for having ignored them. Nevertheless, he doesn't have to be uncivil in his edit summaries. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:51, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think there are multiple issues here, which is why I wanted to bring it to ANI. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

His new articles are suspect sometimes. He flatly refuses to fix anything or follow normal Wikipedia decorum and polices. I would like an admin to do an IP check. And, then close this account, and block the IP range for 72 hours. IP4240207xx (talk) 19:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Most of the new articles look like redirects; do you have any specific examples of suspect articles in mind? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 19:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I have Hashmi, Usman's page watchlisted after notifying him about a prod. He's also removing discussions people have started about his editing style that were requesting replies (ranging from assuming good faith to assuming bad faith) which can be seen as not being civil. On at least two occasions has reacted in a hostile manner[62][63]. It is as if he's determined not to communicate or take notice of the messages, and continue adding new content that is not suitable for the encyclopedia. While removing content from one's own talk page is not against policy, it seems that in this case users (including myself back in march[64]) have felt that it is necessary to reiterate that his editing style needs a change. At this point however I don't think messages from other users are going to have much effect. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:25, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Note that the user's talk page was just un-blanked again... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Has anyone noticed that every one of this user's edits is being routinely and immediately reverted? The Hashmi has made several redirects today, all of which were blanked and then tagged for CSD as no context (blank pages) by Harry the Dirty Dog (talk · contribs). See also this edit. Problems with Hashmi aside, can we lay off a little? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, user explained their concern to me. No problem. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:20, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I FIND THIS IN POOR TASTE: "The beatings will continue until morale improves..." THANKS FOR REVERTING BACK. IP4240207xx (talk) 21:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

? John Reaves 21:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Could either User:Delicious carbuncle or User:Ultraexactzz say what admin action they think is appropriate? This is not the only editor in WP whose behavior is slightly peculiar. What should we actually do? EdJohnston (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like an admin to do an IP check. And, then close this account, and block the IP range for 72 hours. (Thanks for changing the title of this discussion) IP4240207xx (talk) 22:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

a) users may blank their talk page, and anyone who repeatedly returns warnings to their talk page may instead be blocked themselves. If they blanked it, they got it. b) We don't do checkusers for "fishing". If you have specific reasons to believe this is someone using alternate accounts abusively, produce the names of their other accounts, and the reason you suspect the connection, and then a checkuser can be peformed. But we don't do checkusers just cuz someone is acting weird... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel his continued refusal to correct errors that he has placed in his edits, continued massive non-communication with others who asked nicely, and overall negative attitude, constitute a pattern that will continue of: Wikipedia:Civility. IP4240207xx (talk) 23:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe any administrative action is warranted at this time. The user, while uncommunicative, appears to be making good faith attempts to improve the project, and I do not want to block him over that. He absolutely has the right to blank his page, especially given the large number of CSD and other notices he has received recently (some of which I and others have declined, as they were simple and reasonable redirects). If there's an issue with an edit - copyvio, for example, that the user repeats after a warning, then a block may be in order, but we're not there yet. Are there specific problematic edits that I'm not seeing here? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 23:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I add that these diffs were more than two months ago - I can't find any additional such comments from this user since then. If there are other suspect articles or bad faith edits, I'm missing them. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to bring the issue of page blankings here to confirm my understanding of policy, because multiple editors seemed to be undoing the user's blankings (even after I brought the issue up). If Ultraexactzz (or any other admin) is going to keep an eye on interactions involving this user, I suspect that will solve all issues. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 00:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with that. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 00:23, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

So, who is this supposed admin that is going to monitor this user? IP4240207xx (talk) 01:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have been watching this user since I welcomed him. First of all, this user is contributing good work, even if the notability is questionable. To IP4240207xx, this does not warrant a block, or a Checkuser. This user also reserves the right to blank his page if he wishes, after all, it is his Userspace. I will try to deal with this user, and if it has to be reopened, please feel free. If you have any questions, just ask me. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 01:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, this just got a whole lot more complicated. I have a feeling that the IP address of User talk:207.69.139.142 is indeed User:Hashmi, Usman. I think that this has gotten way out of hand, and I'll see if I can help him. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 01:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Posted a kind message on his User talk. Let's see what happens. Cheers, ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 02:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think he is arrogant and rude. He made an edit to Elvis Presley and I nicely asked him for a reference, and he just blanks the page and ignores people. I think he adds tripe and if he is not willing to work with other users to make a better Wikipedia, and improve the quality of his edits, then he is a waste of time. I will recuse myself from dealing with him any farther. IP4240207xx (talk) 02:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This user is definately over the top. I tried to deal with him kindly, but it did not work. This incident is over my head, and deserves a block or ban. ṜέđṃάяķvюĨїήīṣŢ ^{Drop me a line}_{Review Me!} 02:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of beating a dead horse, the issue I wanted to raise here is not the user blanking their own page, but rather other editors undoing that blanking. This has just happened again, twice [65] [66], which makes three times since I raised the issue. No wonder the user is frustrated! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of frustration, this sort of edit summary: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hashmi%2C_Usman&diff=prev&oldid=213612645 is uncalled for. I have blocked him for 24 hours for civility problems. SOmeone please review my block, and feel free to unblock if this is inappropriate. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the user twice used an IP to remove the content of his talk page, with big all-caps notes in the edit summary. To anyone not reading this thread, that would look like vandalism to be reverted to me. That edit summary, however, does go a little far, I agree. Is there a way to disable the "new messages" bar when someone edits the talk page? If we can set him up that way, he'd probably be fine. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me clarify - if we can stop this user from being agitated by messages (which causes him to go incivil), then I think his contributions will be fine, and would support an unblock. The usual criteria for an unblock would be that they acknowledge what they did was wrong, apologize, strike the comment, etc., but that seems unlikely here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The ones that are frustrated are the editors at Redirects for Discussion, who have been cleaning up after the mess of redirects he's leaving behind, see Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_14 and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_15. The fact that he doesn't answer to any message and keeps creating the same redirects is what causes those reversals on the first place. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, whoah, he has another redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_18 (GTA VI), and another one at Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2008_May_19. I just nominated a bunch more today, altought those might actually survive RfD. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The user's talk page shows that 90 different users have written over 200 messages that have been blanked with no response on 88 occasions. I guess the frustration has made some of us restore blanked messages. BTW it's interesting that a user with a similar name was blocked in October 2006. --Johnuniq (talk) 05:11, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hum, this user also made lots of articles about not notable persons, has been also warned for not paying attention to warnings given to him, and he also had an interest on GTA, what a lot of interesting coincidences, anyone would say they are the same person ..... --Enric Naval (talk) 07:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Moar Mediation Wanking

I need some eyes at Xan Yae to keep an eye on it; as it sits I had to breach the mediation injunction to restore the tags as I did not see any sources or such added by CSHunt68 (talk · contribs). Apologies. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 18:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Thingg; I've filed an RPP request. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 18:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Florida babe

Florida babe (talk · contribs) - this person keeps uploading images with no copyright status. Her Talk page is full or warnings, and yet she keeps uploading and never responds. Corvus cornix_talk 18:49, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Notified and warned. Going through the images now and adding a pile of more warnings for her. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

According to her userpage, she is 13 years old, so I'm wondering if she just doesn't understand the warnings. It seems like that she's trying to have her own MySpace through Wikipedia in a way. That was a good warning message you placed on her page by the way Ricky, hopefully she'll respond. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine if she doesn't understand. My problem is the lack of interest in correction. I've dealt with younger users (or just inexperienced users) and the main thing you want is that they at least seem to be trying to figure out what they are doing wrong. The people, regardless of age, who simply ignore everything and continue are the headaches. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you 100%, hence why I liked the warning you left her. I feel the same way, age isn't an excuse if you are going to ignore everyone. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In the same vein, although perhaps more people will be attracted to a thread titled "Florida Babe", please see my question in the section above (#Request for eyes/policy proposal?) regarding blocking uploads from repeat offenders. Is there such a mechanism? Mahalo and thanks. --Ali'i 20:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure this isn't some 40-year-old playing a social-engineering game of some kind? Like doing stuff designed to make deletionists go apoplectic, and apparently it's working. Just block he/she/it and be done with it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:14, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Occam's razor, my dear Bugs. A block will be forthcoming if there is another upload. So far, it's quiet so let's all AGF and go on our way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's only a question of how long you want to fool around with this character. Now ask me why I don't want to be an admin. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:01, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

We should have a "This is not Myspace" template, or something similar, for situations like this. Lacking that, I used the {{behave}} template. --John Nagle (talk) 17:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Closest to "This is not Myspace" would probably be {{uw-socialnetwork}}. --Onorem♠Dil 17:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

BLOCK ME

Resolved

Let me help you. BLock me! I don't believe it's right but you are going to do it anyway so I will alert you to make it faster. Bamarack (talk) 19:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What we need is a mediator to stop this. More than 1 person has been blocked so I can't control the others. Sit down with me and I will stop. Shoot me and I wake up like a zombie. Bamarack (talk) 19:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

denied _→AzaToth 19:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Alison, is this Dereks, or is it someone else entirely? -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 19:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's Dereks1x -  Confirmed - Alison ^❤ 20:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

New account declares themself to be sock of banned user

Resolved

Blocked, sockpuppet.

Take a look at User:Vios1Per. This was reported by another editor at WP:AIV. Um....? If he had not advertised he was the sock of a banned user, I'd be inclined to give the benefit of the doubt that maybe he was back to be productive. But, uh... --Jaysweet (talk) 19:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

As a totally uninvolved party, I still must say that this was absolutely hilarious! -OberRanks (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Funny? Maybe. Blocked as sockpuppet? Yes. NawlinWiki (talk) 19:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What the...? Uh, block him, I suppose. If they assert themselves to be a sock, it is likely that they are [if it quacks like a duck...] RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 19:45, May 19, 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I have to admit I just laughed pretty hard at that message. Block was appropriate. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:46, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A change in tactics from dear, sad old Dereks1x. Disruption by revealing himself. RBI time. Any CUs about to find the underlying IPs? ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 19:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's an open proxy. All accounts are already blocked - Alison ^❤ 20:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Always on the ball, Alison! Thanks! ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 20:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(four or five edit conflicts at least)Maybe, just maybe, he really wants to help out. He may say so so that if someone later found out he don't get blocked. Let's wait for more edits. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If he were to edit productively and silently for a few months without making such an egotistical song-and-dance routine of it, I for one would support his return when eventually the truth came out. But he doesn't want to. He wants everyone to notice him, focus on him, pay him lots of attention as he ostentatiously edits. And eventually we would stop noticing; he would get bored; and he would go on a rampage to get the attention back. This is standard behaviour of this type of banned user (see also Wonderfool amongst many others). Nah. WP:RBI applies. ➨ REDVEЯS is now 40 per cent papier mâché 20:09, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who was almost banned (long story behind that), R.V. speaks the truth. The best way to fix such a bad situation is to quietly apologize and then go about one's business and stay away from articles that in the past caused huge fights. If another account is created to distance from past sins, the best idea is to just admit everything, start again, and be a good user editing articles that aren't controversial and avoiding topics and other users who had issues from before. Of course, if you are already banned, then the policy is very clear that you can *never* come back. For instance, I doubt if this guy showed up asking for a clean slate anyone would listen. That's why its best not to get banned in the first place and listen when others give fair warnings. -OberRanks (talk) 20:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User talk:64.185.61.13

Resolved

 – it's oh, so quiet... --Rodhullandemu 21:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin block this user from editing their talk page (disruption)? The AIV helperbot is not so helpfully removing reports as this user is already blocked from editing mainspace. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 20:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Rodhullandemu sprotected the page after you had reverted it (I also reverted it after the sprotection, to the pre 19 May version...) LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:55, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 21:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

In cases like this, you can always request protection at WP:RFPP. Corvus cornix_talk 21:10, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Behaviour of User:Super Vegetto

Resolved

 – suggestions made including review Wikipedia:Dispute resolution

--Matilda ^talk 00:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Can't really say all of his edits are disruptive, but I'm finding that some of it is. Suggestions? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, it would help if you provided difs to the problematic edits he has made. I looked through his last 4-5 and haven't seen anything disruptive. What specific edits have bothered you? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I've notified SV of this topic, and will be looking into it shortly. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:27, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

What bothers me is that he continues to insert data which is not even credible (see history pages of List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball, Muten Roshi, and List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball). Can someone help me keep an eye on this editor? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I don't know much about anime to be able to comment intelligently on his edits to those articles. Could you perhaps provide specific difs, and tell us what is wrong with them? Its hard for me to understand the problem, since his edits don't look all that contentious... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really have time to put up the diffs (big watchlist to check). But can you watch this user? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• If you don't have time to put up the diffs and several of us (at least User:Jayron32 and myself) have looked at recent diffs and can't see the problem .... My suggestions are, discuss on article talk pages, draw his attention to those discussions on his own talk page and try to work it through. If there is a specific disruptive edit, discuss it clarifying what you find disruptive about it. Until you have discussed on article talk pages and/or with the user, you should not be escalating the issue here. If there are specific violations of civility or edit warring, there are specific pages to escalate such issues to - see the top of this page - blue box suggesting specific noticeboards to escalate issues to - heading Are you in the right place? - specific noticeboards make it easier. It seems to me that Sesshomaru has pasted warnings on User:Super Vegetto's talk page but they don't make a lot of sense as they accuse Super Vegetto of vandalism or adding unsourced material but are merely templates and no discussion. I think much more discussion is required. I think also a review of Wikipedia:Dispute resolution would be useful. --Matilda ^talk 00:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, what is your bloody beef with me, Lord Sesshomaru and anyone else who thinks I'm being "disruptive"? I'm just an editor trying to get along with all you guys and edit Dragon Ball/Z stuff. I even delete stuff that is wrong. For example, in the Saiyan Saga, someone put down the power level of a Saibaimen being 1200. Where the hell does it say the power level of a Saibaimen in the manga, hmm? Or for the matter, where is the anime does it say it either I have DBZ manga volumes 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 22, 24, 25 and will soon be getting volume 23. So if anyone agrees with me, please, don't agree with this loser Sesshomaru who thinks I'm being "disruptive"! And if you think I've been "disruptive", please point out the problem, tell me what it is and I'll get along just fine, thanks.Super Vegetto (talk) 16:39, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• I looked through some of your edits and didn't see anything that I would call vandalism or disruption. However, it would be in your best interest to remain civil while discussing this. DCEdwards¹⁹⁶⁶ 16:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Why administrator refusal to look at problems in pseudoscience and alternative medicine articles is hurting wikipedia

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The DanaUllman homeopathy case is coming to an end. Let's look at the time spent on it, and the evidence available at various times. On 1 April, this section was posted, stating that a problem was occurring, and asking admins to look at it. Admins were contacted: Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#pushing_articles_on_talk_pages It was ignored, so I spent three hours or so documenting the problems. Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#Misrepresentation_of_studies_by_User:DanaUllman I asked several admins to look at this, on IRC and here. Noone was willing to act, they said it was too complex, they couldnt' follow it, and so refused to do anything. So I documented it further, spelling everything out, and documenting it. This thread represents about thirty to fifty hours of work. Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#An_analysis_of_Mr._Ullman.27s_claims_as_to_studies Everyone still refused to act. So I had to go to Arbcom. This section takes the above, and adds an aditional 20-30 hours of work, minimum: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Homeopathy/Evidence#Dana_Ullman It looks like he will now be blocked. So, we have about 100 hours spent just to deal with a clearly disruptive editor. What could have been done instead with that time? Here's a diff showing the time from first save of a new article to when I stopped in the day. It shows I spent maybe 5 hours on this: [67] After another five hours or so, you have this: Creatures of Impulse It is up for GA. So, if I had been able to work on articles, not deal with Dana's nonsense, I could, perhaps, have made 6 to 9 GA articles. Also, Dana was a highly disruptive editor. He brought up the same arguments over and over again, as a look at Talk:Potassium dichromate will show (that also contains the section where he tried to tell User:Scientizzle that Scientizzle actually supported him, and that Scientizzle was stonewalling by denying this. The time spent by many editors dealing with DanaUllman's constant disruption while I and others tried to make the community aware of the problem, and the community refused to act is also time lost for working on articles. In short, the admin community's refusal to look at anything related to Alt med wasted DAYS of my life that could have been used in more productive things, yet had to be done because Dana Ullman was so disruptive that it STILL worked out to less time than he was wasting by his tendentious, disruptive behaviour. This is untenable. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC) This is not an incident report. It doesn't belong here. WP:AN may be an appropriate venue. Hesperian 00:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC) YOU made the choice to spend all that time on this. No one forced you to. YOU decided the issue was that important to you. What did you find out about the behavior of the science editors during this? — Rlevse • Talk • 01:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Already at WP:AN, please stop forum shopping. Nakon 01:10, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Augh! Sorry, all, I think that when Firefox crashed, and I restarted it, it somehow decided to repost a post that had gotten deleted from here, with a request to move it to WP:AN. I did manage to get it to double post the first time I posted it, soo who knows what's going on in the minds of computers. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 01:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible Threat of Violence

I am reporting this possible threat of violence against one of our editors, Gavyn Sykes, in accordance with the suggestions at WP:TOV. While it may be a hoax I highly suggest taking this seriously and reporting it to the appropriate local authorities. WHOIS reports this information. The police possibly could be contacted in order to report this potential Threat of Violence. Bstone (talk) 00:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there reason to believe that this is anything other than a simple, angry vandal? —  scetoaux (T|C) 00:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and blocked the IP that made the threat, they had other disruptive edits mixed in there. Tiptoety ^talk 00:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree. Although likely a hoax, this is a threat of violence which should be dealt with. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

BStone, knock yourself out if you feel it needs to be reported. These really don't need to be dragged up "OMG-DEATH_THREATZ" style every time they happen, which you've noticed is pretty often. WP:DENY would actually recommend these be handled as quietly as possible. Report the vandal to WP:AIV, then call the cops if you feel like it, but in my experience they tend to be a little skeptical when you tell them you're from Wikipedia. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I use RoadRunner myself, so I just want to leave a note here that Herndon, VA is where RoadRunner is based, and it is not indicative of which RoadRunner system (they are nationwide) they're posting from. Mike H. Fierce! 00:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Mindless vandalism - please don't waste peoples time and report this stuff. It happens every day and is pure vandalism, that's all. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The IP is in Austin, Texas but truth be told, looking at the other edits, I don't see anything more to do than a block here. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Just post a notice here if these threats re-occur. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible suicide threat

Resolved

 – Not a suicide threat. Hut 8.5 09:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Does this edit constitute a suicide threat? George The Dragon (talk) 02:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it really doesn't. These reports of violence or threats are getting silly now. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely not a suicide threat. It's just someone who is upset that their userpage was deleted. Nakon 02:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible threat of violence?

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

Resolved

 – Enough! Tiptoety ^talk 02:27, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Does this edit constitute a possible threat of violence? Monobi (talk) 02:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Potential sockfarm

Resolved

 – Socks blocked. MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Jbritt6 (talk · contribs), Martyrokz (talk · contribs), Shawn Curry (talk · contribs) and Jacobkk (talk · contribs) seem to be single purpose abusive socks. They appeared at Sun Tzu after I began the process of improving the article through stripping it down and building it back up with high quality sources.[68] The accounts were created after this point,[69][70][71][72] You may note in their contributions that their sole edits (aside from one silly sandbox edit) were to counter my changes to the article. There's a loud quacking, but since I am obviously involved in a dispute with them, I am requesting that other admins have a look over it and determine if my impressions are correct or incorrect. I have not filed a checkuser, as this falls under more than one criteria of the "[u]nacceptable requests". Vassyana (talk) 02:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

CheckUser says Martyrokz is unrelated, but the other three and Yumena are the same. Dmcdevit·t 02:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Tagged & blocked. MastCell ^Talk 18:13, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Red4tribe evading ban

Hi... I reported User:Red4tribe (blocked for 3RR and sockpuppetry) for suspected ban evasion [73]. I was told to assume good faith. Well, he has now made the rather silly mistake of editing from an IP address, from which he previously owned up to being his own whilst I was accusing him of using the other IP address

• Red4tribe displays his IP address [74]
• Edits made subsequently made from anon IP [75].

This user has clearly not learned anything at all and should receive a permanent ban. Please don't make me waste any more time having to write detailed "proofs" of his bad faith on this message board. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick ^t 02:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reset his block to the original time limit it was set at 6 days ago (some weirdly long number of hours by East718) and blocked the IP for the same time limit. If he comes back again before the block expires, please re-report them. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Restoring page

Resolved

 – User page restored, and then re-deleted per user request. No further action necessary. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin please restore User:Miranda/header please. Thanks. miranda 02:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Tiptoety ^talk 02:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

And quickly redeleted per U1 because of the db template - I've restored again. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks guys. miranda 03:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, one more. User:Miranda/mentalhealth - it's a userbox w/o personal attacks. miranda 04:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done For future needs like this one, try contacting a admin, or heading over to WP:AN. Tiptoety ^talk 04:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. miranda 12:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It's gone again... Is it still supposed to be restored? — Edokter • Talk • 14:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think Miranda had what she needed, as she re-tagged the page for a U1 deletion shortly after her comment of 12:19, above. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and begging from User:Altenhofen

Resolved

Altenhofen (talk • contribs • non-automated contribs • wikichecker • count • total • logs • page moves • block log • email)

User:Altenhofen has been making attack comments on User talk:East718 like this, this, calling East718 an idiot here, this, and nonsense here. From the look at User talk:East718, he was begging for his user page be restored/unprotected. He/she treats wikipedia as a WP:MYSPACE and I think this incident should be brought to attention. Thank you, RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 02:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Try looking here. Tiptoety ^talk 03:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay than. I didn't see that. Apologies. --RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 03:04, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User: 90.192.59.194

This user is a sock-puppet of User: 90.196.3.1 and User: 90.196.3.244. He has placed an abusive message at my talk page.[76]Mahaakaal (talk) 03:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the message from your talk page and warned the user about it. If they persist in being incivil, let us know here on WP:ANI, and he can be blocked. You shouldn't have to tolerate that. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:41, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helpMahaakaal (talk) 03:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

possible 3RR

Is there any point in reporting a likely 3RR violation by an IP address? Well, here goes. In checkmate, user:209.247.5.43 made a questionable edit, and I reversed it. Then user:209.247.5.61 - likely the same person, according to WhoIs - reverted me. I reerted it again. That user reverted me again, which was reversed by another good editor. That user reverted again, which was again reverted by a good editor. If the two IP editors are the same, and they likely are, then he is in violation of 3RR. Bubba73 (talk), 04:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You can report it here instead. -- 41.251.1.44 (talk) 05:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if I should, because (1) I'm not certain that the two editors are the same, (2) even if they are, what good does it do to put a short block on a dynamic IP address? Can a range be blocked? Bubba73 (talk), 05:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You might cut short the edit war by finding a reference for the term yourself! Take a look at this web site, which may not be a reliable source in its own right, but pulls out proposed etymologies for 'checkmate' from numerous authorities. So far the IP editor has not made more than 3 reverts within any one 24-hour period so there is not yet a 3RR violation, even if you assume the two addresses belong to one editor. If the activity persists you might request semi-protection for the article at WP:RFPP. EdJohnston (talk) 13:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that page is referenced in the article, and I don't see anything about "sheik" in it. And if the two IP similar addresses are the same person, there were four reverts in well under 24 hours. But none since then, so I'm going to wait and see. Three real editors either reverted it or asked for a reference, and none was ever given. Bubba73 (talk), 14:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

IVANDER2

Resolved

 – IVANDER2 indef. blocked. seicer | talk | contribs 06:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

IVANDER2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been posting the same exact libelous rant that Baxtereo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for posting on the same article pages. They are obviously the same person. Neither account has been used for anything but vandalism. The reason that this is important is that the vandalism accuses a Peruvian human rights worker who has come under attack in the past of being a terrorist, which is an extremely seriously allegation that can get people killed in the Andean states. --Visitweak (talk) 05:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Clean-up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_deletion_as_of_15_May_2008

I've taken care of most everything up to 13:00ish, that being the current time give or take. Looks like PROD has been busy this week. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 13:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

August Burns Red

I am involved in a dispute with User:SilverOrion. The genre death metal has been in the infobox for quite some time. He keeps removing it. The genre is cited with multiple sources including MTV, AOL music, windows media, an allmusic review and some others. I don't want to get in trouble for violating 3RR so I am requesting help. Thanks! Landon1980 (talk) 07:35, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

comment: I see no reason for you to remove those citations from the article. You may however wish to explore the idea of "displacing them" into the main article's text which appears to be lacking citations. So long as it's something different then just removing them, since that's what it appears you're doing. However, I'm not an admin and some meat head admin might not be as kind as I in allowing you to make these changes... specially if you appear to be causing conflict and have avoided talking to the user in question. --CyclePat (talk) 07:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What? I'm not removing anything. Citations being removed is not the issue. He is removing sourced content (death metal) based on his own personal opinion. Landon1980 (talk) 07:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh sorry about that my bad. Per the previous comment... Keep the citations, but in this case put it, preferably, into the main text. Once it's cited several times in the main text you'll only really need one reference (if at all any) in the info box. What is authoritive and important about these sources... you may wish to explore an anoted reference list? Anyways, perhaps there's a conflict in between how one can articulate in a prosic fashion such a dilema of having a mix of genres? If this is relevant at all to the issue? --CyclePat (talk) 08:15, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. Please take appropriate steps at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Turn to others for help to reach a new consensus or compromise. Admins do not settle content disputes. It appears you have been edit warring just as much as the other party. If that continues, the article could be locked, or worse either one or both of you blocked. I'd suggest continuing discussing the matter on the talk page, and requesting addition input through WP:3O or WP:RFC, and to stop edit warring yourself. -Andrew c ^[talk] 14:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

jarhed

Hi administrators, I am posting this because I was threatened with a post on this page about my editing behavior, but no such entry was ever made. The threat was merely an attempt at intimidation, and I wanted to make sure you were aware of such intimidting behavior.

I suspect that some regulars threaten non-regular editors, such as myself, just to make them go away. Note that these threats are very successful. Please note the number of editors on this page whose home pages no longer exist.

I have always taken the Wikipedia mission seriously, and I once registered under my real name. I did this because I wanted and was willing to be accountable for the quality and veracity of my posts. Almost immediately I came under attack by certain regulars. I do not want to make judgemental statements, but some individuals, for whatever reasons, consider themselves to be the official guardians of Wikipedia, despite the collaborative nature of this enterprise. Perhaps they deserve this role, given the work that they do to keep Wikipedia clean. However, they also get into a mindset where they attack non-regular editors that are merely trying to contribute. These people scare away a lot of contributors, and in my opinion, they do a lot of harm.

These individuals certainly scare me, and I do not scare easily. Sometimes I expect them to do a reverse IP lookup, google me, and then show up on my doorstep. These people are unreasonable, irrational, and dangerous. At least that is how they come across in their demeanor and statements.

I urge you all to please pull your heads out of the Wikipedia tool that you use to detect vandalism, just once in a while, on occasion, and please make a distinction between real contributors and vandals. Just because we are not regulars does not mean we are vandals. You wiki-whateveryouares, listen: please calm down.

I would direct your attention to your own governing doco, but I know from experience that you don't care about Wiki doco and such references merely piss you off. Just think about the mission of the Wikipedia and do your best to comply. Posting threatening posts on a homepage and then not following through is just--creepy. Grow some intellectual balls to go along with your big mouths.

Having read what I just wrote, I know from experience that the people I am talking about will never heed it. Further, I have no doubt that some idiot will revert my post as a personal attack. My apologies to you, Wiki-whateveryouare. If the shoe fits and all that.Jarhed (talk) 07:37, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A report was filed on this noticeboard on 20 March 2008, and was later archived with no action taken. The archive may be found here. As can be seen from discussion at Talk:Military brat (U.S. subculture) and elsewhere, there was some concern that your edits to that article were not backed by Independent, reliable sources, and you took exception to this fact. Wikipedia's policies on the matter are quite clear, and were followed in this instance. Wikipedia also requires that you Assume Good Faith that your fellow editors have the same goal as you - to improve the encyclopedia. Your comments here and elsewhere do not seem to assume good faith, which is problematic. No one intends to intimidate or "scare" you, nor will your personal information be used to track you down, as you claim - but Wikipedia does have certain policies, and they must be adhered to if you wish to continue to contribute to the project. Best, UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Box Benefits

Not 100% sure what is happening but as I understand it the issue is around sockpuppetry.

I'd appreciate an admin having a look at the history between "Baseball Guy", I HATE CAPTCHAS, etc. and Libr0 as the userpage of the above user is currently accusing the account of being a sock of Libr0 and may in fact be being used the userpage as a battleground. I can't locate any current SSP case against Libr0 to merit the tag nor can I find the I HATE CAPTCHAS SSP case that existed previously.

A bit of wikidrama perhaps but, one that is relatively easily resolved (my limited experience says) depending on what the outcome of SSP case(s) was/were. Thanks. Jasynnash2 (talk) 07:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Having had the misfortune to be involved in that, Libro0 accused I HATE CAPTCHAS of being a sock puppet, and got him banned for that. I'm still not completely convinced he was. During the argument between Libro0 and IHC, Baseball Guy appeared and edited some of the same articles. Libro0 immediately accused him of being a sock. I don't recall that being proven. IHC then accused Libro0 of being a sock based on a misinterpreted comment. Box Benefits wandered by and so was also summarily accused of being a sock. In the end I believe everyone had accused everyone else of being socks.

I'd really like to see a checkuser on all of these guys and sort out who (if any) really are socks and who aren't, and put the whole thing to bed. Loren.wilton (talk) 09:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

StarTopia vs. Startopia, etc

Was going to do a bold redirect here but, don't want to get embroiled to deeply in the drama just yet. Basically, there seem to have been a number of articles where the content is being duplicated from other wikipedia articles in such a fashion that they are getting tagged as copy violation. The StarTopia article is just an example. Can something be done? I tried to speak to the creator but, have had no response to my enquiries that I can see. Thank you. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the creator thinks the article should be called StarTopia instead of Startopia, and performed a cut-and-paste instead of a normal move. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 11:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Cut and paste move fixed. Neıl 龱 11:49, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD of Catedral Quelimane

Resolved

 – Fixed — someone removed the reason and nominator at some point Alex Muller 13:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Could someone have a look over there and sort out what is actually happening. Either there is a boo boo occuring somewhere or I'm even more confused than I thought. Basically, it seems to be nominated for deletion without an actual nominator or reason for nomination. Or I'm misreading it. If that is the case just let me know so I know better next time I come across something like this. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Peter zhou's Socks, China, and Names of China

reposted to bottom of page: 01:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
reposted to bottom of page: 13:07, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

For the past year, Peter zhou or whatever alias he goes by, has been creating a large number of sockpuppets, most of them "sleepers". To this day, I believe that over 150-200 socks have been uncovered (through your neighbourhood-friendly checkuser and through his own choosing - aka his sock edits, usually we find them by the shipload) and blocked. About 6 months ago, I indef protected (expiry date later set at 2008-07-17T04:02:12 (UTC) by User:CBM) both the China and Names of China articles to prevent Peter zhou from using his socks to disrupt the articles. Unfortunately, four months later, my fellow sysops such as User:Doc glasgow (who has now scrambled his password and is assumed to be retired...iunno) and User:Happy-melon decided that the move was "ridiculous", and unprotected the articles (I understand why they did it, so I'm not holding a grudge against them). As soon as they did that, guess who showed up. Thats right: Peter zhou. Clearly the whole WP:RBI simply does not work with this individual. A more permanent solutions needs to be created, as I am the only sysop at this moment (other that User:Alison who is the neighbourhood-friendly checkuser I was talking about and blocks some of the ones she can find and User:SchmuckyTheCat who is very helpful in reverting him - but doesn't have the blocking tool) blocking the sockpuppets of Peter zhou. This is becoming very frustrating as it seems that there is no end to the sockpuppetry. So at this point in time I am asking the community's help and for suggestions on how to deal with this situation. nat.utoronto 20:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

If the IP is blocked how can this individual create new accounts? I thought that wasn't possible. Badagnani (talk) 20:36, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

He uses several IP ranges which cannot be ranged block as there will be way too much collateral. nat.utoronto 20:39, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

That seems an awfully large hole through which mischievous editors may game our system. How has such a situation been handled in the past? Badagnani (talk) 20:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Usually, it seems that such concerns here simply wind up with 'shit happens, keep working hard.' ThuranX (talk) 23:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(EC with above, reply to Badagnani) Usually by semiprotecting the article, then playing whack-a-mole with the socks when they come out of the drawer. Its tedious, but not much else can be done where the rangeblock becomes prohibitively large... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 23:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I went and looked, and this entire thing started with a content dispute about whether or not to include a connotation of the Mandarin name of China preferred since the start of Communist China; a period of over 50 years and supported with sources. Why it's impossible to find a compromise is beyond me, but it should've been done then. It looks like most of this fight was between two users. What a stupid waste of everyone's time. Why doesn't someone open Peter's talk page and work something out there? Let him know he's got one opportunity to work this out as a compromise, or else he can move on, but persistent vandalism will eventually result in some of these big ranges being blocked, and that's that. This kid gloves approach is showing itself to be a big pile of horseshit, because it doesn't stop the vandals, and it doesn't allow compromise to be found. It's ridiculous. ThuranX (talk) 23:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I have read about this user's conduct, I would not support giving him a 151st chance, or whatever number it is by now. Badagnani (talk) 23:44, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, ThuranX, is that this started way before I got involved in using my sysop tools to block his socks. As well, he's blown his chances already. The problem doesn't quite stem from the fact that he wishes to change the content but his past attitude toward other people, as well as the fact that he has consistantly violated WP:SOCK even after been told not to. This situation has led me to full protect the page a few months ago, although certain people disagree with that move and through me the WP:RBI book at me (which clearly doesn't work on him). And seriously, this is much worse than the time when I had to deal with User:TingMing.

To be clear, what I would prefer is a reinitialization of the full protection until such time that PZ would stop creating hoards of sleeper socks, but then again, I'm sure some people out there would disagree with such an action. nat.utoronto 01:09, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, since we can't perma full articles, you're just gonna have to either whack-a-sock forever, or figure somethign out. That said, this section can be closed, nothing the admins can do here. ThuranX (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

ThuranX, there have been several attempts to communicate with this fellow both before and after. At first he would talk, but then he just became belligerent when called on the lack of quality in his sourcing. His only edit seems to be sourced, but that source is not reliable - particularly compared to what we currently have as sources. The sourcing is to a writer of throwaway travel/language/etiquette guides who also seems to think himself a martial arts expert. Compare that to multiple academic sources and the sourcing doesn't stand up at all.

WP:ANI is not the place to discuss the conflict between the most accurate translation and the most common translation. His edit doesn't do it either. All this guy does, and has been doing for months is come back with throwaway socks and re-make the same edit.

IMHO, we need someone with CU that will take the IPs and access log information and contact someone at the ISP. Not a throwaway ignored email to abuse, but an actual contact. It's either that or someone is going to block a /16. Last time someone did that and blocked every Kinkos, Starbucks, and all of T-mobile. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Well, those are the available options. Figure out how to work with the guy, whackamole, or block the chain cafes. fine by me, i'm not playing whack-a-mole with the guy. But perhaps instead of obstructing his edit, enable it. Help him find some reliable sources for that. Challenge him to find a different source. It's up to you how, but if you all want it to stop, you're gonna have to work with him in some fashion. Otherwise, reconcile yourself to one of the two other options. ThuranX (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Nat, please block the entire range. When someone asks why as it causes huge collateral damage, you can point to the non-helpful responses to this ANI thread. This was brought up, maybe several times, several months ago on ANI as well. Months of this is long enough. Playing whack-a-mole with sockpuppets for a year when no other admins take an interest is what causes burnout. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Sorry, but I don't have the ranges that Peter zhou operates on. That information is limited to the checkusers only. What we need is more sysops watching the articles China and Names of China as well as checkusers that are specifically dedicated to weeding out these socks. nat.utoronto 14:45, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

What I am also trying to say is that there is only one sysop and one checkuser (who is also a sysop) to deal with this sockmaster. And we are definitely not "super computer people" and don't have the energy or the time to be constantly monitoring the articles 24/7. nat.utoronto 15:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, but I will put the pages in question on my watchlist and will help out with reversion and sock-reporting when I can.

What is up with ThuranX's dismissive attitude? It is clear Nat and Schmucky have already done their homework and have come here in desperation for additional ideas. For the sake of argument, let's even assume that Peter zhou is right, and that his sources are reliable -- this kind of remarkably persistent abuse of sockpuppet accounts is terribly damaging to the project, and even if we could make a compromise with this guy (which seems doubtful based on N & S's descriptions) it would set a bad precedent: "If you get in a content dispute and people won't compromise, all you need to do is keep creating socks and wait out any full protection on the page, and eventually they'll be willing to make a deal."

I don't think full protection is the answer, but Schmucky's idea of trying to contact the ISP is good. It may not work, but it's at least worth a shot, I think... --Jaysweet (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Zhou's sock's edits are so WP:DUCKy, I don't see why a CU would be necessary for doing the blocks. I wonder if we could get a consensus-agreed page that basically says, "If a user makes this particular edit, they are automatically up for indef banning as a zhou sock, and a report to WP:AIV is sufficient." That way at least, non-admins like me could get the socks quickly and efficiently blocked...? --Jaysweet (talk) 14:58, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

A CU is not needed to make blocks, but are needed to weed out the ones that are "being saved for later use". nat.utoronto 15:06, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. Okay, so if I see this happen, should I report to WP:AIV, or WP:SSP? The latter seems to take a while to get serviced, so I'd rather use AIV. And if so, what should I say? If there's only been one edit -- and not an obvious vandal edit at first glance -- it will be hard to convince an admin to block unless there is a concise page I can point to? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the slowness of SSP and the "not vandalism" single-minded response are both failures of those noticeboards. I suppose using SSP is a good idea, eventually someone will get around to it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

PAiigE likes sexy with steffii

Resolved

 – page deleted, advice left --Rodhullandemu 13:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/PAiigE_likes_sexy_with_steffii. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

More Kauymatty socks

I brought this up a couple weeks ago. Several more Kauymattys have appeared, all created in the same 5 minute window. 2 have been blocked already.

• Kauymatty7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked
• Kauymatty8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked
• Kauymatty9 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked
• Kauymatty10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked
• Kauymatty11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked
• Kauymatty12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - blocked

Anyone have a free minute to take care of 9-12? --Onorem♠Dil 13:38, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done, all blocked. Woody (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Onorem♠Dil 13:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

may not be related, but Kauynutty‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indeffed as vandalism only a little while ago. Before starting to (obviously) vandalise, first edits were to project ratings on a couple of article pages, which seems a slightly unlikely thing for a brand new account to do. David Underdown (talk) 14:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

The Kauynutty (talk · contribs) account was created by Dixonsej (talk · contribs), a user who registered in 2006, and I cannot see any vandalism in that user's edits. I'm not sure if it's a compromised account or not; edits of Kauynutty suggest it may be the same user, but it may be a vandal copying the editing style (also Kauymatty2 (talk · contribs) left a message on Dixonsej's talk page). Dixonsej also created two more accounts recently, Schmelly1 (talk · contribs) (already blocked), and Justinbz (talk · contribs).

These accounts were created by Justinbz:

• Deadalive (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Deadalive2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Deadalive3 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The first of these has vandalised, the other two have not edited yet but are obvious socks. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 15:44, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

FEROZE GANDHI

Resolved

 – Not an ANI issue

Feroze Gandhi, husband of Indira Gandhi is said to be "Gandhy" at birth. This is factually wrong. His father was a Sunni MUSLIM in Allahabad who did marry a Parsi girl but after CONVERTING her to Islam as is the custom among Muslims. Later he became a GANDHI for political reasons since India is a Hindu counry and a Muslim spouse of Nehru's daughter would not have gone well with the electorate. One expects courage and honesy from Wikipedia editors. Please do some research and expose the family of Feroze fully before his marriage to Indira. Record ought to be straight now.

R Singh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.8.38.88 (talk • contribs) 14:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This would better be discussed on the talkpage of the article. Lradrama 14:08, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Liguria

Would appreciate some advice on possible copyvio uploads by Liguria (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The user is uploading duplicate copies of an image for use on the article Khmer sculpture. The initial upload was stated to have come from an art catalog, but when the copyright status of that was questioned the user began uploading duplicate copies claiming {{PD-self}}. Every time a copy is deleted or the status of a new copy is questioned, the user simply uploads a new copy with a different name. I've tried to communicate with the user but get no response. Kelly ^hi! 14:54, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

backlog at WP:AIV

Resolved

Just a FYI. APK ^{yada yada} 15:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers for the report, it's resolved now. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

NP, there were 16 reports on the page when I looked at it. The school kids are really bored today. APK ^{yada yada} 15:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Doug youvan

User:Doug youvan is a newly registered user who is almost certainly a sockpuppet of User:Nukeh, a user who was blocked for a pattern of disruption and legal threats, and who also went by the name of Doug Youvan in talkpage discussions. I'd appreciate it if someone here would look into it. Thanks, silly rabbit (talk) 15:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

See also this. Daniel (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User apparently posing as an admin

At User talk:ItReallyDoes, User:Arrogant & Intransigent has declined an unblock request. Please take a look. DuncanHill (talk) 16:02, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I left the user in question a note, and maybe you should have tried the same thing too before posting here. Tiptoety ^talk 16:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

• Denying another user: [77]
• SNOWing an AfD: [78]
• Denying another user (and reverting intervention): [79] [80] [81]
• Another improper AfD closure: [82]

I could go on, as the list continues, but you get the picture. Over zealous? Sure. Blockable? Not yet. seicer | talk | contribs 16:12, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Refactoring another admins unblock review in a misleading manner here [83]. DuncanHill (talk) 16:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

He has been issued a final warning, any more disruption and I will pull the plug. Tiptoety ^talk 16:19, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Bah to edit conflicts. You just took the words right out of my mouth. --jonny-mt 16:22, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't parsed through all of his contribs, but yeah, refactoring other comments and unblocks, and the fact that the account has been most recently used just for this crap, leads me to believe... seicer | talk | contribs 16:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone had a look at this user's contribs? If not, you ought. --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we have. That is what we have been discussing above. Tiptoety ^talk 16:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I wondered why no one mentioned that the account was only created six hours ago.--ROGER DAVIES ^talk 16:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Arrogant & Intransigent is almost surely a disruptive sock. Who of, is something I'm not quite up to yet, I'm still working on one sock-ring. I'll look at this in a while.

Thats a tentative finding based on quick work and digging; it's subject to change if later review shows reasons it's mistaken. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 16:31, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Account was created at 1:53 20 Nov. 2007 and not used until today. Any other interesting accounts created around that time? Deor (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's J.P Stephenson (talk · contribs), created three minutes later, who claimed to have "thousands of socks" [84] (deleted edit). Hut 8.5 17:46, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Also Wefewence Fwame (talk · contribs), (blocked for three days and an obvious sock of Theowy of Welativity (talk · contribs)[85]) and the user's IP 194.81.151.68 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), blocked but anonymous only so the registered accounts can still edit. --Snigbrook ^(talk) 18:17, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Persistent policy breaches

Could you guys take a look at this guy removing good content and sources and inserting poorly sourced / unsourced material in Taurus (astrology) (dif1, dif2) and Cancer (astrology) (dif1, dif2)? I wouldn't want to edit-war this guy... Thanks, --Nathanael Bar-Aur L. (talk) 17:32, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a dynamic IP under a new user now. I'll do a WHOIS. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Flurry of apparently related anonymous (possible open proxy) edits

Maybe I'm just paranoid, but I perceive a large amount of anonymous editing -- from IPs that I suspect to be open proxies -- on pages related to Westchester County, New York and on pages edited by users who have edited in Westchester County articles, and I believe that these edits are part of the ongoing campaign of disruption by blocked user and confirmed puppetmaster Jvolkblum. Jvolkblum has earlier been confirmed or suspected of editing from open proxies; similar behavior to what I'm describing led to the blocking of Special:Contributions/203.162.2.137. Here are some specifics:

• Special:Contributions/210.2.128.106 - Anonymous user of an IP registered in Pakistan who has recently developed an intense interest in the affluent suburban enclave Wykagyl, New York and opposing the deletion of a New Rochelle, New York-related article created and tended by sockpuppets of JVolkblum (article edit history).
• Special:Contributions/222.240.212.17 - Anonymous user of an IP registered in China whose interests and esoteric knowledge of New Rochelle closely mirror those of the user above.
• Special:Contributions/189.60.13.41 - Anonymous user of an IP that may be registered in Brazil but appears to be an open proxy, whose editing interests are (1) arguing about issues related to the zip code of Wykagyl, New York, and (2) adding "citation needed" templates (including the format {{CN}} that has been favored by Jvolkblum and his socks) to articles for Tennessee cities and towns that have nothing in common other than appearing on the list of my last 500 or so edits. [Jvolkblum's puppets have recently added many such templates to articles for communities near New Rochelle (for example, this diff), and they have a history of trying to get back at me for pursuing them (for example, this diff).]
• Special:Contributions/203.81.238.4 - Anonymous user of another IP registered in Pakistan whose edit history is exclusively focused on adding citation needed templates to various other Tennessee cities and towns where I have edited recently.
• Special:Contributions/210.212.86.165 - Anonymous user of an IP registered in India whose only edit was to revert an edit by User:BlueAzure in Wykagyl, New York‎.
• Special:Contributions/122.50.167.233 - Anonymous user of another IP registered in India whose edits have focused on documenting that various notable people graduated from New Rochelle High School.

I have trouble accepting that people from distant parts of the world have developed a sudden interest in wealthy suburban enclaves of New York City, with a side fascination with adding improvement templates to articles for Tennessee cities and towns... --Orlady (talk) 17:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Another is Special:Contributions/124.36.28.100, IP in Japan whose only two edits have been to restore content previously added by Jvolkblum puppets. --Orlady (talk) 17:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

COMMENT - You have noted quite a number of edits, none of which appear counterproductive or particularly malicious as you are claiming. Everyone can contribute to Wikipedia, regardless of whether they choose to register. If the edits were vandalous acts, investigation and admonishment of the IPs would be justifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.95.10.229 (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Move vandalism

Someone moved Directors Guild of America to Directors Guild of 420. I moved the main page back over the redirect, but the software won't allow me to move the talk page over the redirect. I suggest the moving editor User:SuperWiki6 be blocked as well. Equazcion •✗/C • 17:51, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Done by Toddst1, it seems. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 17:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Flurry of IP Attacks onDeli nk

I've blocked 3 ip's harassing Deli nk (talk · contribs)'s user and talk pages today:

• 99.141.233.29 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.141.236.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 99.145.6.231 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

These IP's are registered to AT&T Internet Services. I've semi-protected both Deli nk's user and talk pages.

• 99.144.180.53 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has now vandalized my talk page which I've also semi-protected.

We need to be aware of this outbreak - I'd like to avoid a rangeblock on such a large ISP. Toddst1 (talk) 18:20, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I was reverting some of the vandalism on this page earlier as well. This was a very persistant vandal, and I want to thank Todd for protecting the page, as I was ready to head to WP:RPP to request page protection. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2008 (UTC)