Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive283

• [5]
• [6]
• [7]
• [8]
• [9]
• [10]

References

--Ayoleftyz 20:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I removed a report on

WP:AIV against Ayolefyz made by FSX-2007. Unimportantly, that one wasn't signed either. Could someone with more knowledge of this subject matter look over this? LessHeard vanU

20:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for not originally signing my complaint, it's fixed. --Ayoleftyz 20:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

There seems to be an ongoing issue with this article - various new accounts and IP addresses seem to be popping up to put in unsource and what appear to be libelous claims - some extra eyes would be appreciated. --Fredrick day 21:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page. JoshuaZ 22:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Some research suggests the incident is true; the anon edit-warrior appears to be adding this (so it's really a copyright violation, too). I'll get better sourcing, since Shepherd draws all his stuff from newspaper accounts.

In the future,

WP:RPP are the places to go. THF

22:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've researched and sourced the material. THF 00:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

For some reason this obvious attack page is sitting for a long time waiting to be deleted, and was being discussed without removing all of the attacks.

It discusses this, without references, about its subject: he challenges experts in fields which he has no formal training himself.... All of his argument's have the underlying themes of poor reasoning, use of non-existent "factual" data, and ill-formed grammatical structures.... he has attained an unaccredited pastoral ordination ... which required nothing more of him than to simply apply for one. He hopes to develop (his enterprise to include) a special "pastor's house" in a tropical beach setting. He is a self-described believer in a number of new age ideas that are considered by the vast majority of the scientific community to be rooted in unscientific and pseudoscientific approaches. He is a self-proclaimed "Hell of a man." He is known to refer to himself as "a gifted man" and "a freaking genius."

Frankly, if GUY were editing this would have been deleted before I had to wade through the speedy delete incomprehensible jargon to request its deletion, much less watch it sit on Wikipedia this long, posted by an editor and his sock puppet. And why is an administrator putting this up on AfD instead of deleting it? Look at my edit history to find it, instead of announcing it in yet another place for everyone to read. Could someone just delete this crap now? KP Botany 23:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've deleted the article and closed the AfD. The AfD itself was an overwhelming delete, and the article does appear to meet speedy criteria as a page created primarily to disparage its subject. MastCell ^Talk 23:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to take this to

A7 might have applied, speedy deletion was not counseled by BLP, and no harm would have been done by our allowing the AfD, which might have borne out sources to establish notability (AfD often serves, after all, to improve articles that are thereafter kept, which is why we tend not to close "early" AfDs that trend toward deletion, especially where deletion is suggested because a subject is non-notable or because sources toward his/her/their/its notability are not adduced), even as it was tending toward delete as non-notability, to proceed, with the provision that one might have deleted the problematic edits, as KP suggested at the AfD (to be clear, I don't think it necessary for us to remove every BLP-non-compliant version of an article from its edit history, and I don't find there to be any consensus for the view that we ought to excise all egregious BLP-non-compliant edits, but selective deletion might have helped to assuage concerns here). Joe

23:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh. If anyone can explain how any of the revisions of that article were in any way appropriate for the encyclopedia, I'll undelete it. The article can, of course, be recreated at any time if actual sources appear. If you'd like to take it on, I'm happy to provide you with any of the less defamatory deleted revisions to work with. But an unsourced article created expressly for the purpose of defaming its subject is an excellent candidate for rapid deletion, in my opinion. There was no sourced, non-defamatory content to save. We do need Guy back. MastCell ^Talk 23:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Deletion was right. As it is, an inappropriate version of the article is the first thing that appears in a google search on the name. Tyrenius 00:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No strong opinion on whether deletion was correct but I will comment that if I understand how most search engines operate whether we deleted the article or replaced it with an ok version wouldn't change how quickly that updated. JoshuaZ 00:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned that to show how important it is that such problems need to be attended to immediately, as there are wider repercussions than the material just appearing on wiki (which is bad enough). Tyrenius 00:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the deletion occurred after the really problematic material was removed. Once that has occurred, the deletion isn't that relevant. In that regard, quick removal of the problematic material is not different than speedy deletion. JoshuaZ 00:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I was just making an additional observation, not directly applicable to the deletion per se (as you point out). Sorry for any confusion. Here's another point, that the edit history would need (at least selective) deletion. Tyrenius 01:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Right, and I don't have any particular problem with that. It seems quite silly to me, though, and quite inconsistent with

BLP, to take an attack article that happens to assert the notability of its subject, stub it in a BLP-compliant fashion, and then speedy it as an attack page (its genesis and the reasons for its creation are, at that point, irrelevant). Once it has been stubbed, as Josh observes, there is an acceptable version in the edit history, and there is absolutely no point to speedying (unless, of course, the removal of all uncited or dubious material renders the article entirely without an assertion of notability, I guess). In this instance, there appears to have been no damage done, since the AfD was unquestionably going to result in deletion (I, for one, in a cursory search find nothing that I could adduce at AfD toward notability), but it needs once more to be said, I imagine, that one should always opt, of all the possible actions that clearly comport with BLP, for that which is least disruptive/unconstructive. Joe

02:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

See my comment about this below. KP Botany 03:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The article can be restarted as a stub, but BLP policy is clear that if there is no clean version in the edit history, it must be deleted. I left it as a stub, but that left a long edit history of pure crap that would have had to be deleted. In addition, it was being discussed at AfD in a completely inapropriate version. The person who nominated, who I thought was an admin, should have edited it down to at least the level I left it at before posting the AfD. The "really problematic" material may have been removed, but what was left when I looked at the article was shockingly inappropriate for Wikipedia, so there was still "problematic" material for a BLP. It would have required almost no effort to add it anew as a stub without any edit history. Thank you MastCell. KP Botany 02:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Just to be clear, if you're smearing the hell out of a living person in a Wikipedia article, it has to be sourced with 100% reliable sources, every word of the crap. It's edit history clearly showed there were two editors, probably a puppetmaster and his sock, who would write and say anything about this guy, just to get it on Wikipedia, without ANY references, accuracy, or concern other than to smear this person--that is an attack page. KP Botany 02:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but what about the final version you produced before deletion? If your contention is that, your best efforts to the contrary notwithstanding, the article continued, by the very fact of its existence in view of its creation as an entirely negative unsourced biography and its practical inability to be anything substantive but that, to violate BLP, then I understand your point, even as I probably disagree with you. I gathered that you were saying that whilst your stub was BLP-compliant (which, to my mind, it was), because the article was created as an attack piece and because without the problematic material we were left with very little, speedy deletion was alright. It is, of course, true that a stub could be recreated without reference to any of the prior, largely uncited material, but we don't speedily delete simply because an article has problematic versions in its history and because discussion of it at AfD is problematic; we remove the offending material from the AfD and from the edit history of the article, provided that there is an acceptable version to which to revert, as there was, setting aside for the moment GFDL concerns, here. Joe 02:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The detailed version was an attack page. The stub did not assert notability. There were never any independent, reliable secondary sources, in any revision. Ten experienced editors (or so) had weighed in at the AfD in favor of deletion, none with any arguments to keep. If anyone can produce any reliable secondary sources on which to base an encyclopedic article, I'll support recreating it. If this is just about process for process' sake, when we all agree on the outcome, then consider it a case of

WP:IAR. MastCell ^Talk

03:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it still violated BLP as the stub I left it as, because there were no independent sources in the article, and there was no version in the history of the article that had any independent sources.

I do leave rather negative articles up and allow them to go through AfD if there are any sources, even if I think they should be deleted due to notability, although I edit them down to stubs to remove attack material that is poorly or unsourced.

This was simply not the case for this article--there was no acceptable reversion material, because I don't count anything I write without sourcing it on Wikipedia to be acceptable material for an article. I've never heard of the guy and don't know anything about him. I'm not sure whether the guy could be an article or not, because I didn't research him because of the nature of the article itself--I'm not going to do anything, ever, to support and assist someone's efforts to use Wikipedia for their own personal attack site. So, no, anything I write on Wikipedia that is completely unsourced about a living person is not acceptable material for a stub. If you think the guy could be an article, though, and belongs on Wikipedia, e-mail his name to me, and I will look him up and start a stub or start class article if I find adequate resources. There are plenty of folks with tons of bad things to say about them, that could responsibly be properly researched BLPs on Wikipedia. KP Botany 03:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I need to bring attention to a harassment case. User Jeeny seems to be on mission to stalk different wikieditors including me. She watches their talk pages then follows them around to pages they contribute to, then blindly reverts them if they disagree with someone else. Usually these articles are about things that she doesn't frequent at all and doesn't seem to understand. Most recently, User Laternix was working out a style issue about the page Coptic with User Paxsimius on their talk pages, and Jeeny without comment and without ever contributing to their discussion reverted Lanternix [11] 20 minutes after Paxsimius left a comment on Lanternix's Talk page [12]. This was another incident [13] on another page. In that she's following User Taharqa's style, the person that she helps edit war on a couple of Egyptian articles. Egyegy 01:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone fix HMS Fawn (A325) - beyond my technical capability..I didn't break it...honest. Aatomic1 02:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. I dont think this was the correct venue to ask this question, however. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ty -panicked will check back to my welcome message in future Aatomic1 02:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Static or stable non-shared IP 65.60.157.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) (3 edits, 3 vandalisms):

• One month ago, 11 June 2007 stealth vandalism : changing a valid </ref> into an invalid </kref>, makes the opening REF gobble a whole part of the article until the next closing /REF. Only one character to type for the vandal with plausible denial, but a possibly large piece of an article has just become invisible, very hard to notice: the trick made this heavily-edited article stay stealth-vandalized for one week before someone eventually noticed something (18 June 2007 restoration of the hidden part).

• Ten days ago and a few hours ago, petty vandalism but proving the IP stability: 2 August 2007 "Ethan" vandalism and 12 August 2007 "Ethan" vandalism both on Winston Churchill.

The dates show it's a nasty one on a static or stable IP, working smooth and long-term vandalism: he just comes from time to time, bullseye with a stealth vandalism trick, and can leave an article vandalized for one week just by having changed a single character where it hurts. (Unlogged, I don't wan't to be wikistalked by those beasts.) 62.147.38.181 03:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There's not a whole lot we can do unless he's vandalized more than once in one day with a final warning, looks like just some person coming by, and vandalizing every once and awhile. They only have three edits spread out over a few months, but I'll keep an eye on it. DarthGriz98 03:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

(move-vandalism) --Chaser - T 04:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

???--Cheszmastre 04:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)--Cheszmastre 04:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. --DarkFalls ^talk 04:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

how do i fix it myself for next time--Cheszmastre 04:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at

administrator's attention though... --DarkFalls ^talk

04:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about his previous actions have not been addressed. [14] . Fresh off his second block, he has made blanket attacks on Wikipedia [15], and appears to be claiming ownership of one of the contested articles [16] where he has a heading titled ‘On my article, Sicily'. Also, since the end of his block, Scipio3000 has accused User El C, the one who blocked him, of vandalism, threatened to report him, and said he had ‘no right to butt in’. [17] Edward321 00:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

For now I have issued another 48 hour block after he violated the 3rr rule on the Sicily article.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

How about unblocking him to try dispute resolution? We could always request that he does not edit the Sicily article for 48 hours or until the dispute has been settled. The 48 hour block, though not improper, may not be the best solution. Pascal.Tesson 19:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I was considering this since El C's post on Scipio's talk page regarding the request not to issue a 3rr block. But today I was convinced that this block should still stand. What convinced me was this post by JodyB that provided a diff link showing that Scipio had not been truthful in saying that he had not removed talk page sections from the Talk:Sicily page. But I am still open to any other admin willing to grant the unblock.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I suppose El C should probably make the call then since he will probably be the admin most involved in future dispute resolution with Scipio3000. By the way, I have declined his latest unblock request since this is essentially what this thread is supposed to do. Pascal.Tesson 20:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Scipio always comes up with these heartfelt pleas each time he's warned or blocked. The first time, I bought it and thought it was genuine. Then, when he was no longer being observed, he returned to deleting parts of pages and making very strong personal insults. He is frequently lying to put himself in a more positive light. Edward321 reported a few days ago that Scipio had changed the names in a report that Edward had made to make it appear as if Edward had commited the offences Scipio had done. He claimed that his fight with me was about me claiming stuff about the Holy Roman Empire, a subject of which I have never written a word. Yesterday he was asked by a moderator if he had erased comments from the talk page on Sicily and replied no. The moderator found out that he had been lying, and that's part of the reason he became blocked again. During the last week, Scipio has deleted large parts of articles without given any explanations, violated 3RR, lied about his actions, lied about others, falsified reports and attacked other contributors over their race and religion. See the reports by Edward [18] and myself [19], [20] as well as all the information he has removed from his talk page. During my time at Wikipedia, I've come across very few users that are this disruptive and violates so many Wikipedia policies. It's a bit strange that we're discussing if the short block of two days should be lifted, I find it to be very short given his behaviour during the last few days. JdeJ 21:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify. The block was in place before I had the exchange with him about deleting sections from Talk:Sicily. I am happy to continue watching him very closely but I support the block and would not remove it. I think he could be a useful editor as he is obviously enthused and passionate about the subject. Of course he must learn to work well with others. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 21:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

My bad, I thought that was the reason. It's possible that he could become a constructive editor, but I admit to being sceptical. Being hot tempered is one thing, all of us can get upset at times. That he is frequently lying about his actions and about what others have done is more serious. I'm also concerned over his edits to Sicily. It's not just that he deletes large parts of the page, what he deletes is references to Arab, African and Jewish cultures being present in Sicily. That worries me. I've recently had some harsh words thrown at me by another contributor, but I don't doubt that that user is a valuable contributor. We have different opinions in an academic question and he's hot-tempered and not very polite, but he's not delibarately lying and his edits are about an academic matter. I'm sure he will turn out to be a great contributor. As for Scipio, even trying to take

WP:FAITH into consideration, I'm doubtful, but let's hope for the best. JdeJ

21:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record, Scipio3000 is still claiming ownership of Sicily on his talk page - 'On my article, Sicily'. (Difference is listed above, it was still there as of his most recent revision of his page. [21] ) Could someone please explain this policy to him, I doubt he would take it well from me. Edward321 01:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have asked JodyB to take over the case for me; he has my complete confidence and I'll back him up in whichever way he decides to proceed. El_C 05:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Scipio3000 making attacks on his talk page

Mathsci asked Scipio3000 to post comments on his (Mathsci’s) talk page, not on his (Mathsci’s) talk page archive. [22]. (Post was restored by JodyB after Scipio3000 deleted it.) Scipio responded with ‘I will delete what I want on my own talk page.’ [23]. Later, Scipio3000 called Mathsci’s post ‘crap’, ‘sarcasm’ and ‘insults’ [24] and accused him of being ‘bossy’ [25]. (Scipio is currently blocked for 3RR.) Edward321 00:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Scipio3000 did not seem willing to accept what I was telling him about the difference between a talk archive and a talk page. Post-archive additions to a talk archive would normally go completely unseen and are deprecated. --Mathsci 13:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I have just had to decimate

For example, he wrote [26]:

"On July 12, 2007, the top Republican on the U.S. House Financial Services Committee introduced legislation that would create a national registry and set new standards for mortgage originators in response to the subprime mortgage crisis. Spencer Bachus, of Alabama, said in a statement that his bill, called the Fair Mortgage Practices Act, would curb unscrupulous lending and increase consumer protections. The bill would set licensing standards for mortgage loan originators and log those lenders in a national registry. Loan originators would have to submit to a criminal background check and FBI fingerprinting, and loan originators convicted of fraud would not qualify under the new licensing standards, according to the legislation. The bill also would require mortgage lenders to weigh a borrower's ability to repay the loan and would restrict penalties against homeowners who refinance out of a high-cost loan."

which apparently came from a Reuters article:

"The top Republican on the U.S. House Financial Services Committee introduced legislation that would create a national registry and set new standards for mortgage originators in response to the subprime mortgage crisis. Spencer Bachus, of Alabama, said in a statement that his bill, called the Fair Mortgage Practices Act, would curb unscrupulous lending and increase consumer protections. The bill would set licensing standards for mortgage loan originators and log those lenders in a national registry, the lawmaker said in a statement. Loan originators would have to submit to a criminal background check and FBI fingerprinting, and loan originators convicted of fraud would not qualify under the new licensing standards, according to the legislation. The bill also would require mortgage lenders to weigh a borrower's ability to repay the loan and would restrict penalties against homeowners who refinance out of a high-cost loan. ... "

This is just one among many examples in that single article. I have listed a number of additional uncited sources identified by Googling on

However, my additional concern is that 65.15.77.18 seems to contributed substantially to a number of other articles, and I would appreciate some help investigating these for copyvios and repairing as necessary. Dragons flight 07:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you know that its a copyright violation and you seem to know where it came from, could you not add the citation? --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 14:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't become less of a copyright violation if we say where the article came from. Using a newspaper article as a source is perfectly fine, as is quoting from an article in another work, but just copying the article with no additional commentary or analysis would be violating the terms of use. Natalie 14:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Citing sources is used for backing up claims with reputable source material. For example, when we state that the European Central Bank has injected €61 billion into the European financial system due to the

subprime mortgage financial crisis

, we must add a citation that points to the proof (for example, an article on the site of the BBC, or perhaps the ECB's own website).

Copying whole sections from an article is an entirely different thing. That would be copyright violation, since the authors of those publications hold the copyright to the sections that were copied. Citations are used only to support our own material's validity. (In response to JodyB.) —msikma (

user, talk

) 17:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if other people noticed but the editor is still active as of recently. I've informed the editor of this discussion and also told them why their behaviour is incredibly bad. While my message may have been fairly stern, IMHO in cases like these was have to be stern, don't bite and assume good faith regardless (which is not to say I didn't assume good faith, I did) Nil Einne 22:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on cleaning up his work at

American Freedom Mortgage, Inc., and it's a mess. He starts a paragraph with "On date x, the "Mayberry Gazette" reported..." then he pastes in a huge chunk of the content. There's little choice but to gut the article, which I am now doing. Unfortunately. - KrakatoaKatie

11:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Temoni prince (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Alameer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

are both sockpuppets of:

• Skatewalk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

— EliasAlucard|Talk 12:07 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)

Please refer to WP:RFCU. Not here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 17:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Or

saran

14:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User seems to be asserting that he's another sockpuppet of User:Jonny Cache. Somebody take a look, please. --Jack Merridew 12:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've indef blocked for vandalism/trolling, and noted that the editor is a possible sockpuppet. I'm not convinced, since it is too obvious a name and admission, which is why I blocked on the basis of vandalism. Please would another admin check over the contribs and undo the various merges/redirects? LessHeard vanU 13:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

AGENT 7 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked twice for removing maintenance templates on substandard articles he/she created. Now back doing the same ([27], [28] , [29], [30], [31]) via various Greek IP addresses:

• 85.75.41.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 85.74.181.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.203.168.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 85.75.14.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 85.74.144.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 87.202.47.207 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This is a newish user who needs a cluebat: adding large quantities of unreferenced material, in poor English, on Salamis Island topics, and refusing to take the hint or enter into discussion about editing practice here. Gordonofcartoon 12:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I use photos with the tag - {{self|cc-by-sa-2.5}} for my magazine.Kaystar 15:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The link in the box will explain the terms of the agreement.

.V. _[Talk|Email

] 16:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.Kaystar 16:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

frequently insults editors for not being British as somehow inferior Sherzo 15:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please could you provide some examples? - Papa November 16:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note the above discussion. Thanks, CR7 (message me) 17:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This editor continues to make nonsense edits be creating hoax articles about fake sequals to video games [32], making poor decisions page moving, like this and when I confronted him about it, he makes attacks. [33] I suggest something be done, because he's continued in this disruptive behavior in the past and he shows no signs that he is learning from it [34]. Previously blocked for disruption, vandalism, civilty, harrassment, how much more should we tolerate? — Moe ε 16:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I gave him a warning. If he continues like this, he's on the fast track to banville, and I just might be driving the train.

masterka

18:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• 10 August 2007
• 7 August 2007
• 15 July 2007

This to me fits into the last part of the Wikistalking description: "...with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor." The fact that we have butted heads previously (articles on Prime Ministers of Canada), along with the following:

• he spends what must be a significant amount of time digging out months or years old records to try and construct a 3RR breach on my part,
• tries to smear my character so as to influence whatever admin reads his reports,
• made a "prediction" of my breaching 3RR in fututre ("I foresee more "playing chicken" with, and violations 3RR by G2bambino, before long" 1), and then himself filed the next report against me,
• he has himself recently engeged in edit wars and skirted 3RR breaches (List of palaces, Official residence, British monarchy, John Thompson (politician))
• flat out recommends I be blocked for what he personally, and hypocritically deems offensive ("I recommend blocking him for a while, though, to deter his future edit-warring over this (or other things)" 2).
• he invests his time communicating, much more collegially, with other users about me, rather than speaking to me,
• attempts on my part to communicate with him personally were ignored, with the either no reason at all or the excuse that my words weren't composed in a manner paletable to him, or in the correct location, (3, 4, 5, 6, 7)

all says to me that his intent is not to make a constructive contribution to Wikipedia, but instead to target me and have me blocked so as to eliminate me as an opponent to him. I've made one request here previously that someone look into Lonewolf and his interactions with me, but nothing really came of it. I don't know how else to handle someone like this, and I'm really becoming quite disturbed by the whole affair. I'd appreciate some attention and input. Cheers. --G2bambino 03:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have asked User:Lonewolf BC if they would review and comment on the above here, at their talkpage. LessHeard vanU 13:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's rather difficult to declare someone a 'harrasser', unless they've disrupted ones personal 'discussion page' (example vandalism or continuous posting when requested not to). GoodDay 18:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you read

WP:HAR? What you just said above is clearly not true. Corvus cornix

19:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of 'WP:HAR' (my blunder). Sorry folks. GoodDay 19:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha, this complaint falls under -Wikistalking-. It never hurts to research before posting (again, my blunder). GoodDay 19:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Um...no. "Wikistalking...[is] editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress...[my italics]" — "...following another user around in order to harass them[not my italics]." "[It] does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason."
The reason I ended up editing a bunch of the same articles as G. is that he'd lately made the same edit across that whole bunch of articles. The edit was, if not flatly wrong, at least plainly unfitting, and I thought that this was obvious enough that G. would simply let it go. He did not, and it was perhaps my mistake not to withdraw immediately at that point (as I did very soon). Whether this actually caused G. "annoyance or distress" I don't know -- I somewhat doubt it, from his manner, which to me seems more agressive and gleeful than bothered or worried -- but if it did then that was not at all my purpose, which was only to set the articles right. -- Lonewolf BC 20:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

My blooper; I was merely discribing G2bambino's charges. I haven't cast judgement on you (that an Administrator's duty). GoodDay 21:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There is such a scatter-shot of complaints, here, and so little merit to any of them, that I cannot reasonably be expected to address them all. Nonsense (whether in the form of bogus accusations or otherwise) is easily made up, but takes time and trouble to show up (as nonsense). However, I shall deal with what seems to be the principal issue:
Making legitimate, truthful 3RR reports is not harassment. I am much concerned about the continual edit-warring by G2bambino, against many editors and across many articles, with frequent breaches of 3RR, and even more frequent dances up to the brink of it. For the good of Wikipedia, this must stop. To that end, I have lately troubled to report those of his 3RR violations which have come to my notice (whether because they were perpetrated in editorial disputes against myself, or for some other reason). These reports have all been carefully made and scrupulously accurate, detailing, where necessary, the precise nature of the revert. (And yes, this took me more time in the cases where some of the reverts were less straightforward, but diligence is not a vice.) The three reports that have already been handled have all been confirmed as 3RR breaches, and one resulted in a block. The

Howabout letting a 'third' editor implement his 'compromise edit' (at least until the opposing editors turn up a resolution). Stability of the article, is paramount. GoodDay 21:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of NPOV is that bias may be included in an article, providing that it is properly sourced, as long as verifiable counter bias is also allowed. Here we have is two editors who do not recognise the others opinion as based in "fact". However, if a neutral compromise can be found then it may be that both editors will agree - although it may be difficult to reconcile the two differing stances. What do the involved parties think? LessHeard vanU 22:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If we're talking about Rideau Hall specifically, I don't see the debate as one "fact" vs. another. To my mind, it was more a matter of one person seeing a fact as valid while the other first saw it as valid but unimportant, and then later changed his mind to say it wasn't valid at all. I've always been gunning for a compromise - hence the numerous variations I proposed at Talk:Rideau Hall and inserted in the article itself. Again, from my point of view, what was last done (and what now remains in the locked article) addressed Lonewolf's initial concern of importance. Unfortunately, it may not now address his concern about validity. So, in the end I'm now quite unclear as to what he really thinks or wants; he didn't invest any time at Talk expressing his concerns/desires, preferring instead, it seems, to quickly and bluntly revert any alteration I made. Having my cooperative efforts met with that led me to, regretfully, revert back in anger, thus putting in place the final component that led to the inveitable edit war.

In the end, I suppose I'm saying a compromise was what I'd been gunning for all along. What was most aggravating was that anything I did in an effort to reach that compromise was either ignored, thrown aside when the person with whom I was trying to compromise changed his grievance, or deleted by that same person; the one who then went on to target me for 3RR breaches and discuss having me blocked behind my back.

Lonewolf does seem to now be acting more collegially, which pleases me, and I do remain open to discussing a resolution that satisfies everyone involved. --G2bambino 18:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I retract that final statement after discovering this, entered from a special section of his Talk page. --G2bambino 01:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been having a problem with User:PalestineRemembered over his insistence to make claims for me or about me to other editors on talk pages of articles.

after a number of notes, requests, and warnings i found that i cannot resolve this issue without taking it to the noticeboard, so i issued a final notice and afterwards opened an AV/I case that was a tad ignored.

i'm reopening the case with new personal attacks made after the previous complaint and am pushing for a one week ban:

• "were you one of them?" ^{(22:20, 10 August)} - a repeated accusation that i was a fighting member in the "
  Jenin massacre". (he's received, and removed, a 3rd level warning on this one) ^{3rd level warning (personal style) and removal}
  .

• this new message from 17:53, 11 August, in which User:PalestineRemembered states the following after all the previous discussions and warnings.

statements made:

1. are there circumstances under which you could be charged with war-crimes and arraigned before the ICC at the Hague?
2. If there are circumstances under which you might seek asylum

-- User:PalestineRemembered was made aware of my complaint^[35] yet refused to take note and continued with this baseless libelous accusation. considering this is a prolonged issue, i'm requesting a one week ban on said user.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs)

I don't think I have had direct notification from User:Jaakobou that he has requested the community act against me.

I don't think I have accused him of anything, however it has become necessary to ask him if there is a

Conflict of interest in some articles he is editing in WP. He has had ample opportunity to deny this is the case, instead of which he chooses to ask I should be blocked for 7 days. I trust that admins will give proper consideration to his request, and the actual circumstances under which it has been presented. With best regards, including towards those with whom I will do my best to behave in a collegiate fashion in future, I am, Yours Sincerely, PalestineRemembered

18:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, refactored. I just noticed that Jaak had already pointed this out. I'm not exactly certain what is up with PR. He accused me on the talk page for Battle of Jenin of being hormonal cause I'm a woman. (Which amuses this catLORD to no end) Kyaa the Catlord 18:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm involved in this dispute, and have had some fairly hostile exchanges with Jaakobou, so take this as you will. Bombast and incivility are always bad, but Jaakobou still won't tell us whether he has a conflict of interest in the matter. He is an Israeli which means he's likely a reserve IDF soldier, but he won't tell us whether he was mobilized in "Defensive Shield" and whether he was involved in fighting in Jenin. A simple "no" would suffice here, rather than this extended drama. Asking the question is not an accusation, claim, or libel. Eleland 19:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

comment - User:Eleland, with all due respect, you should really avoid this discussion considering our latest altercation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask editors if they have a

Conflict of Interest. If the requestee refuses to answer, or engages in bluster, or requests I be blocked for 7 days, as he did here then it ceases to be a robust exchange of views between editors, it becomes a robust difference of opinion between the requestee, (User:Jaakobou) and the community. PalestineRemembered

19:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between asking if a user has a conflict of interest and accusing him of being a war criminal, however. This accusation is an amazing leap from "were you at Jenin and do you have a COI?" and "did you indiscriminately kill civilians?" Kyaa the Catlord 19:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's one thing to try and determine if an editor has a conflict of interest. It's another thing at all to attempt to discern another persons identity for the purpose of disparaging him, especially in emotional situations.

It's hard to imagine a neutral application of the COI rule that would forbid Jaakobou from editing because he is Israeli, but permit an editor with a name like "PalestineRemembered" to edit. If Jaakobou says he does not have a COI,

ownership of pages. THF

21:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

comment - i'd appreciate the de facto libelous claims of the reported user be put into center stage. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As it's phrased as a question, it's technically not libelous. It is an obnoxious violation of

THF, i disagree. for example if i ask you "are you a rapist?" in a crowded room. is that not libelous because it's phrased as a question? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:COI charges. --Raphael1

14:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Raphael, please apologize. Editors have no obligation to respond to obnoxious questions like that. THF 14:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Editors have no obligation whatsoever as they always have a

WP:COI. What do you want me to apologize for? --Raphael1

15:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You're repeating the same violation of

WP:CIVIL fortunately prevents that sort of diversion. THF

15:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do we have a

WP:COIN, if a COI can only be self-declared? And no, I wouldn't be upset, if people would ask me, whether I provided material support to suicide bombers as I can negate with a clear conscience. --Raphael1

15:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you would get upset if you were pestered repeatedly with the same question. We have

WP:COIN for cases where editors with COIs ignore COI warnings and violate COI policy and administrative intervention is needed. There are other cases where undisclosed COI can be determined from, say, a Google search or an ARIN WHOIS search. COIN isn't for content disputes. THF

15:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be, that the question was asked repeatedly, because it has never been answered. --Raphael1 15:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Raphael1, i think that anyone who looks to vilify his "opponent" can easily ask such similar questions and i never elicited such impressive leap of faith questions with any of my edits or statements. while the sheer question is insulting considering the POV of the person behind it, the phrasing and insinuations made it more than evident that the editor had more interest in how defamatory he can phrase himself without getting blocked than in the reply he gets. to note, PR still makes false and/or inaccurate assertions about me and maintains his innocence. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

We can only speculate about the motives PR had, when he asked you about your IDF engagement, but we can never find out ourselves. The phrasing was definitely inapt as he confesses himself on his talk page ("lurid terms"), which is why I agree to the 24h block. But I don't understand, why the sheer question would be insulting. AFAIK a pretty long military service is compulsory in Israel. How can someone be insulted for something he would be obligated to do? --Raphael1 00:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone asked me an irrelevant and obnoxious question that violated

WP:AGF, like you're doing now to Jaakobou, Raphael1, I might not answer either. If you want to ask irrelevant and intrusive questions, please become an employment lawyer rather than use that tactic on Wikipedia. THF

21:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What question did I ask? I consider it superfluous to repeat PMs question. Instead I'm rather interested in why Jaakobou doesn't answer it. --Raphael1 00:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you keep describing these claims as "libellous", Jaakobou, does this mean that you are intending to begin some kind of legal proceedings? Tim Vickers 21:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim, i'm fairly sure that being alleged, out of the blue, to be a war criminal and asked if i'm seeking asylum, is pretty damn close to the legal description of libel. am i planning to pursue legal proceedings because of an internet talk page clash? no. am i requesting the user blocked for a week due to his insistence on

soapbox behavior and baseless libelous attacks? yes, considering he was warned and patently repeated the offense on more than one occasion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk}

22:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaak, please don't use the term libel, it makes things very close to legal issues. Please just stick in terms of

WP:CIVIL. That said, I've blocked PR for 24 hours. This comment in particular is well beyond what could possibly be ever acceptable. We may wish to reconsider whether PR is an editor that we want to have on this project, considering these remarks and his extensive block record. JoshuaZ

00:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

i'll avoid that wording in the future. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

comment - PR still makes false and/or inaccurate assertions about me and maintains his innocence.^{static version} Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User indefinitely blocked.

Good evening. I've noted that User: Baron von Washington seems to be trying to push a non-neutral point of view. He will alternate between listing an image of a Schutzstaffel soldier as an example of a "typical white man" and removes Image:Light skin colors.jpg. Please see the edits listed:

• [36]
• [37]
• [38]

I'm passing him off here to avoid a revert war. The picture of the SS soldier is designed to be inflammatory, and the second picture removed is a valid one.

Thank you for your attention.

--

His tactics have escalated. There is a report on

(t) (m)

03:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's all referenced, the article is being hijacked by cajuns, possibly Communist spies. --Baron von Washington 03:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And finally, a

(t) (m)

03:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

He's been indefinitely blocked, which I fully support. MastCell Talk 03:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I second the block, someone got him just before I did. DarthGriz98 03:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Communist Cajuns? That's a new one. Clear trolling. Good block. Corvus cornix 00:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I blocked this user indefinitely after I spotted him using TWINKLE to troll

Hmmm. I have quite a knowledge of this case (as do you Moreshi, that is for sure), and Rlest/Qst's final statement on his talk page seemed to indicate that he was no longer interested in Wikipedia diff, and he has been on a downward spiral ever since late July - I can't see him picking up again and reverting vandalism as normal. Still, might be worth a look. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

He has said many things in the past which have turned out to be rather untrue. He suggested he wouldn't use sockpuppets again shortly before creating Ds.mt and said he was going on a break until September time, again, untrue. The account Moreschi blocked is clearly a sockpuppet and Qst is a very likely candidate. I'd like a checkuser to confirm though, it'll give us some idea as to whether Qst intends to circumvent his ban. Nick 12:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Nick's right; he's said many things, and, lately, most of them have not been true. The editing pattern is very similar; nobody installs TW as their third edit and starts reporting usernames in their first day of active editing. I agree with the idea of a Checkuser. --Boricuaeddie 15:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: A checkuser has been filed. --Boricuaeddie 16:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

←Boy, I missed all this...I support the bannination, by the way, and this account seems to fit in with the editor's pattern. My recent interactions with (now-blocked)

Possibly, I hadn't thought of that - I don't think so, purely because more bile would have been thrown in my direction if that were the case. Daniel Bryant reckoned that account was

User:Geo.plrd, which is probably a closer guess. Kind of fits. Moreschi ^Talk

19:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The user has been cleared by checkuser (see [39]). I really thought Qst was this one also. The evidence was pretty convincing. --Boricuaeddie 20:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

However, whoever this user was, he was part of a massive sock farm that Voice of All caught and blocked indef. Moreschi ^Talk 20:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

[40]- It seems defamatory to me without a specific neutral source saying that a particular living person is anti-Zionist, but I don't care, so I'll leave it to you guys to sort out and will refrain from reverting this

It's my general guideline that unless they say they're Anti-(whatever) or Pro-(whatever), it's not right to claim that unless there's a source which describes them as such; and it should be phrased as "Considered by X to be a Y" or so forth. Allowing biographies to contain (seemingly as fact) contentious information is certainly against BLP.

.V. _[Talk|Email

] 14:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The IP's edit summaries are becoming more hostile, [41], and a look through the history of just that page shows the sort of slow boil exception ot the 24 hour period that 3RR requires. Perhaps a block is in order? diffs: [42], [43], [44]. I realize it's four over four days, but the same sort of reverting removals of the category appears on other pages as well: [45], [46]. the editor is likely to continue, so perhaps a week long range block? longer? he has used: [136.186.1.19], [136.186.1.186], and [136.186.1.187]. ThuranX 06:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Two articles, List of Iranian states and empires and List of Turkic states and empires have had sourced information continuously removed from them.

On List of Turkic states and empires, User:Lima6 has continuously removed sourced information: [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54]

On List of Iranian states and empires,

User:A.Garnet: [60], [61], [62]

Please look into this, this seems like vandalism.Hajji Piruz 17:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as an Admin, this seems like a content dispute to me: one side claims that the Ottoman Empire should be grouped as one of the "Iranian states", the other reverting those edits. Discussion ongoing at

original research -- but no one has asked me for my opinion, so I didn't say that. However, if another Admin is asked for an opinion, don't be surprised if she/he actually does. -- llywrch

01:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No, no claim like that is being made at all. No one is claiming that the Ottomans were an Iranian state (as in the nation of Iran) but rather an empire which was culturally and partially linguistically Iranic (as in Iranic culture, civilization, etc... see Iranian peoples, as sub branch of the indo-Europeans, which includes Kurds, Persians, Tajiks, Talysh, Ossetians, etc...), which is an undisputed and undeniable fact which is even heavily sourced. None of the Turkish editors even deny this fact.

Some users are distorting what the article is actually about and simply removing sourced information. This is not just about List of Iranian states and empires but its also happening at List of Turkic states and empires.

Its simply a matter of confusion which, after a talk with Deniz, is hopefully cleared up, but still, this seems like borderline vandalism. Sourced information should not be removed like that until the issue is discussed. It would have been different had the information not been sourced, but in this case the information was heavily sourced.Hajji Piruz 06:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – blocked

^{Denny Crane.}

20:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Admins may need to look into this edit to see if there are any legal issues or practical issues for Wikipedia (protect the article, block the IP, etc.). --ElKevbo 18:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And also send its editor back to grade-school English class. Baseball Bugs 18:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly a sock of Psthi (talk · contribs) who apparently feels he has a right to spam us; and who seemingly makes threats, which this (reverted) may be an attempt to carry out. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

blocked.

^{Denny Crane.}

20:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Page semi-protected by another admin. -- Gogo Dodo 19:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

On

Hello. User:Squash Racket is currently involved in a revert war, in which he/she has already violated 3RR. This violation despite a warning on the user talk page has been reported by User:Roamataa.[63] Squash Racket has not been blocked yet and he/she is using his/her time to post personal attacks on my talk page. The attack can be found here, my response, in which I asked Squash Racket not to resort to personal attacks here. As he/she keeps reverting my removal of the personal attacks on my own talk page, I would like to ask someone either to block him/her, so he/she has time to cool down (Squash Racket has already violated 3RR anyway) or to protect my talk page against his/her spam. Tankred 20:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR aside, I think you really need some form of

dispute resolution rather than administrator intervention here. Nick

21:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The user User:Diesel 10 (whom hasn't yet created his userpage) has been reverting the formats of the episode lists for "Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends" to sloppy versions that:

• Give away too much of storylines
• Carry redundant and unsorted information, as well as original research
• Used insults and rude commands to stop the edits (Please see his comments in the history page for
  Thomas and Friends - Season 8
  .)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rusty5 (talk • contribs).

See

Miranda

02:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Jmfangio starting an RFC per

You accuse everybody of doing every bad thing possible, when you're the one who instigated this whole thing. I tried to have a discussion with you about a content dispute we had, and you deliberately refused to even listen to me. This carried over to Talk:Brett Favre; Aviper2k7 and I tried to discuss a content dispute with you, and again you refused to have part of it. You're the one who has issues with the content, begin a discussion about it, and then refuse to even listen to us. It makes me wonder what's the point of even talking with him? You have caused me a lot of tension, no doubt, but I haven't even done anything wrong. You accuse Chrisjnelson of doing something, when you're no cleaner than he is. You cause everybody a lot of tension with your very disruptive behavior, and then try to turn us in. I don't see how you can accuse anybody of anything when you're the true instigator. Ksy92003(talk) 22:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ksy92003 - I am giving you an opportunity to leave me alone. You too have been ridiculously uncivil as has the other person involved. You guys are bullying me and being so incredibly obnoxious. Leave it be please.
   ►Chat 
  22:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What did I ever do to you? The only reason I came here is because I'm trying to defend myself and Chrisjnelson. I honestly don't know what he, me, or Aviper2k7 has done to you, and speaking for Chrisjnelson (I've been e-mailing him recently), both him and I feel that you've caused us a lot more tension than we feel we've caused you. I don't feel I've been the least bit uncivil, and I'm certainly not bullying you nor being the least bit obnoxious. I even have been trying to help you on numerous occasions. Ksy92003(talk) 22:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A

I have temporarily protected this article due to BLP concerns, specifically the insertion of material which is presented negatively and is only tangentially relevant. [65] Bringing here for wider review, as I'm sure someone is certainly going to disagree. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think we're talking about people adding cited information, rather than any willful destruction of the article. And the issue with the cited info seems to be not about its accuracy, but how it is presented, or how relevant it is. Personally, I think if people add cited information to this article (whether it makes the subject look good or bad) is a good thing, as the article is lacking cited info. The article currently consists of entire sections that are controversial and uncited.

It's almost impossible to add any cited info to the John Howard article, as a small group of editors always delete it immediately it is posted. I think they are trying to protect John Howard's reputation before a coming election. My opinion is that we need to encourage people to add verified and properly cited info, which the article desperately needs. Lester2 00:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that the criticisms are sourced, the more important policy consideration issue here is

BLP policy incorporates NPOV as a consideration, so a 24-hour protection is acceptable, but effort ought to be made to determine if this is significant enough to include before extending that protection, as this is a weak case involving a national leader with at least one major newspaper story on the issue (more such stories would give it proper weight for inclusion).--Chaser - T

01:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Is blocking & deleting the best way to handle it? Sure, if it is libelous, it should be deleted. But we're talking about presentation and undue weight, even though the 'AWB Scandal' was one that enveloped Howard's government. Wouldn't it be better to discuss the issue with other editors first? At least the content had a reference, unlike much of the rest of the John Howard article. I don't know what the block will achieve. 124.168.7.125 02:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"a scandal enveloping Howard's government" is rather gilding the lily. In fact the government's only participation was to commission the

Cole Enquiry. Trying to link John Howard to the misdeeds of a private company is drawing a very long bow indeed. --Pete

03:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

See

And I do, too. But rest assured, I'm only going to use one hundred at the very most today, after all I have work in under eight hours time! Onesanode 00:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked that one, needless to say. I wonder if this is the Manchester vandal again? -- ChrisO 00:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You can try Checkuser. —Kurykh 00:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You could... or you could just ask for my IP! No, I'm not the Manchester vandal, at least as far as I'm aware. And by the way, as should have been clear, there were two of us. I stepped in to assist with the campaign started by Mr. Lister, and provided him with some accounts (I also apologise for some of the incivility he used). Nothing too exciting about it, really. 81.158.32.82 00:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone vandalized a MW: namespace page! Now all editing screens and talk pages are centered and italicized! !??!!!??

Fixed now, what on EARTH was that?

68.39.174.238

00:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably this. The problem has been fixed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it was this. A div that made all text 80% smaller and aligned right was accidentally not closed, and since

Gracenotes^T

§ 00:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to get sign smaller to fit on the Main Page, and obviously by my edit summary reverting, I fucked it up (sorry). I reverted that edit, but the new change is still retained. It is there because there is a bug that prevents anons from seeing the new messages bar. Maxim 00:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is Maxim? Why doesn't he have a userpage? Man this anono-admin thing is frustrating. --W.marsh 02:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless I've missed something (in which case someone will and should surely refactor this comment), his name change was and continues to be transparent (although, of course, as W.marsh notes, not mentioned at present on his userpage or user talk page); he is the former Evilclown93 (RfA here). This name change, while not of the troublesome "longstanding admin moving to username that will not be readily recognized by most users" or pernicious "admin is sysopped under a new username with his previous identity known only to a few users" type, was nevertheless a bit confusing for me; we already have a User:MaXim. Joe 03:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

This issue may be better handled by community sanction, dispute resolution or some other forum, but it involves content dispute, edit warring, 3RR and a general issue with a new, foreign-language user that I feel is a bit complicated for any one of those places. Any advice on where to take this next would be greatly appreciated.

New user and

Before his talk comments on Aug 8:

• Aug 6
• Aug 6
• Aug 6
• Aug 8

Myself and other users (including admins) have attempted to explain in-depth about consensus building to no effect. My response to his comments was simply deleted, and he reverted without responding to my retort. Frikkers has not only deleted and altered warnings, notices and conversation without reason from his own talk page, but has deleted other user's talk comments in article talk space. I realize blanking one's own talk is not a violation of any policy or guideline, but it isn't conducive to an attempt at consensus, and I see it as trying to hide or ignore conversation in general. Sadly, I think the user has good intentions, but is seriously hampered by the language barrier. Their English is rudimentary and their computing skills also seem to be primitive. As, after blocks and warnings, the user has clearly demonstrated their disregard for Wikipedia's process, policies and spirit of collaboration, I feel some stronger recourse is desperately needed. But considering their new status, the language problems, and what seems to be their general ignorance of Wikipedia, I feel just another time block is both unfair and (obviously) ineffective. Thank you for your attention

You say it is a content dispute. Administrators cannot do better than yourselves. Try

WP:DR. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®}

04:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not just a fight over content, it's that a debate hasn't taken place because of one user's refusal to do so and their violation of policies such as 3RR. Since this user has completely ignored attempts to engage from "regular users", I feel the weight of an "official" voice may have an actual affect.

(talk)

04:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, after using my microscope, i gave that user a 48h break. You know why? Because they never tried to talk. Reverting never solved anyone's issues. All their talk namespace edits were removals of warnings. Thanks for bringing this to the AN/I. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift response and advice, much appreciated.

(talk)

04:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I had thought things were a bit too quiet on the Conradi front, and I just figured out part of why. He's been editing quietly under the id User:Tobias Conradi2. Since he is a banned user, I have blocked this account. I wanted to give everyone a heads-up, since 1) he is likely to unleash another wave of personal attacks once he discovers his new account is blocked, and 2) he's evidently not accepting the idea that he is banned and unwelcome here. So I suspect more new accounts will follow. - TexasAndroid 15:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned out all the edits from this account since the date the ban was made official. The account has been active since a few days before the ban was finalized. The edits from before the ban, while technically block-evasion edits, and not ban-evasion edits, and thus are not as automatically reverable. - TexasAndroid 17:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do people do such sloppy jobs? [66] This is why that tool should be used only if they are destroying things. Unless I am reading that wrong, it doesn't seem like mass removal had much of a point. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is enforcement of the ban, as laid out here. Conradi is banned. He is not welcome to edit on the project any longer. All his edits are subject to removal/reversal. That's part of how bans are enforced. - TexasAndroid 17:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It would also be hypocritical of us to say "you are not welcome here, but we're going to keep a few of your good edits". - Crockspot 18:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what happens. Articles created by banned users I am sure are not then deleted. Removing wiki linking seems pointless. Also all information submitted falls under free use. Perhaps what should be considered is more if they user just wants to edit now and avoid whatever got them banned. Exposing quiet editors who were once banned, that are editing articles in a positive way, seems counter productive to the goals here. P.S. If I have a slab of meat in my pocket, please let me know Crockspot. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles created by banned users can and are deleted. There is a specific Speedy Deletion criteria (G5) for exactly this case. I speedied a number of articles written by Conradi on his new account just this morning. In Conradi's case, yeah, he does good edits. But the general opinion at the ban discussion was that the good was not worth the bad that always seems to come with it. Many who endorsed the ban did so reluctantly, but they endorsed it none-the-less. I'll include the summary of the ban message from the ban list page below these comments.

But there is a psychological component to the systematic removal of edits by banned users. They are not welcome, and their contributions, good or bad, are no longer welcome. And by systematically removing their contributions, they will hopefully get the idea before too long that continuing to try to edit in a place that they are not welcome is simply a waste of their time. Their edits will not remain, so why make them in the first place? Will Conradi get the point? Who knows. But I at least intend to continue to make the point. - TexasAndroid 19:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi (

talk · contribs · block log), July 28 2007

the community sanction noticeboard, a site ban was enacted. Additionally, he engaged in IP hopping block evasion

in order to continue the attacks and incivility once blocked. (Copied ban summary)

No offense to you, since you did not make it up, but that is a foolish system. People wish to edit, and are creating articles, are being chased off by those who probably do not, and instead correct the work of those who actually take time to research. The silly politics on Wikipedia seems to outweigh the notion of a collection of information for the public. Not wanted? The community said so? The idea that 20 ppl who frequent this board are "the community" is further absurd. But the 20 people who make up the general posters here are probably pretty sure they represent the community well enough. If only this was really a collaborative project. I could only imagine the total rewrite I did of Cali cartel and the 11 articles I created being removed because I said something flagrant, talk about depriving others of information and to spite only yourself and the community you are trying to help prosper. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what else to say. The policy is the policy, and until/unless it is changed, it is what it is. And this is far from the right place to debate whether it should change. So, I'm sorry that you disagree with it, but... <shrug>. - TexasAndroid 21:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

... Yeah ... It doesnt matter I re added much of the work, thanks for giving other people work you did not feel like checking. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Policy is not a noose with which to hang ourselves. Removing perfectly good edits that someone is going to have to replace is biting off your nose to spite your face, and as such is a complete waste of time. Deletion for the sake of deletion is incredibly stupid.

Talk

10:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)