Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive289

A check is necessary about the destructive behaviour of

Yes, for some reason my talkpage has apparently become something of a complaints department from multiple editors pushing multiple POVs at Dalmatia related articles (despite my frequent reminders that I know squat about the topic). I'm going to initiate an ARBCOM request tomorrow because frankly there are a whole host of editors who don't seem to be able to work together within the Wikipedia framework and have resorted to edit warring, name calling, and other non-productive behavior... It's a bit more than I can sort out on my own.--Isotope23 ^talk 00:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that Isotope23, but if you recall I was not the one to drag you down into all this. It was the same person whose clear pattern of mistkes in sentence construction had become all too familiar to me, and who's constant, pathetic, and incessant attempts at sockpuppeteering have begun to characterise him. I am of course talking about

DIREKTOR

00:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Its been undone, nominators cant close afds so its a simple case of revert,

SqueakBox

23:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Are we sure the nominator's intention was not to withdraw the nomination? - Crockspot 23:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Even if it was, there are two other delete votes tallied. I'm not sure it can be withdrawn at this point. Resolute 23:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec x2) As has been observed, the nominator "improperly closed" the discussion most likely as a way to withdraw the nomination. However, since Corpx was for the article's deletion, the deletion review seems apropos here. --Aarktica 23:51, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

• Check out
  this section of the deletion process, the portion addressing non administrators having their closes reverted (located on the tail end of the section) . Since the reversion was 38 (+/-2) minutes after the "closure"... all the needs to be done, has been done. No DRV, no relist (at this point) in my opinion is needed. Best regards, Navou ^banter
  00:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Somebody check this for sockpuppetry

Resolved

I'm offline for a while. Can somebody check into this?

• 75.37.13.69 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 76.204.176.109 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SallyForth123
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/SallyForth123
• Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#SallyForth123_evading_3RR_block_with_dynamic_IPs and Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:SallyForth123_evading_block.

Thanks! Sancho 23:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. See User:Sanchom/SallyForth123 I really need some extra help or input with this. Do we protect all of the articles? Sancho 05:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Sox23 (talk · contribs) has been uploading a variety of airline route maps, often providing a source link directly to their website (see Image:Spirit Airlines Route Map.JPG for example), but putting them under a GFDL license. Am I missing something here, or are these outright copyvio's without a fair use claim (let alone released under GFDL). Should they just be speedy-deleted? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 23:56, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not GFDL. As to whether they are fair use in articles about airline destinations is debatable. Comments by someone with more fair use experience would be welcome. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 00:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

They're copyvios. Delete them and re-create using free-licensed maps and the original data. --Carnildo 00:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be honest, I don't even know what the GFDL is so I've reverted all back to the previous non-free promotional. Sorry- I didn't mean for "copyright infringement"? Sox23 01:51, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think these maps you're uploaded qualify as non-free promotional either - the are repeatable, as noted above. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 01:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

They've been deleted. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 02:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This morning media outlets in Australia have reported that staff from Prime Minister

I don't think full protection is neccesary. The history shows the most recent IP edits, (which are what Wikiscanner reports on) are typical childish vandalism, and have been reverted as usual. There is no evidence that I could see of substantial editing from someone with a conflict of interest. Kevin 02:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Kevin. The article was semiprotected to limit childish vandalism and it is a good protection from IP edits reported by scanner. On the other hand JH is a Prime Minister, we are nearly elections. Thus, something notable about him may surface any moment and who would add the info to the article? Alex Bakharev 03:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

for the umpteenth time I have to make a report about this user formerly known as

Note:(Muntuwandi, I think you inadvertently removed this) Phral and Muntuwandi are both involved in a

(talk)

02:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh for fucksake. Pay no heed to he who adds photos of albinos to the white people article. If the situation was reversed, and Muntuwandi was a white editor, pushing the Agenda for whites as he does for blacks, he would have been blocked after his first edit. No admin seems to have the balls to block a Black editor for racism, because 'that's impossible' --Phral 02:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Phral, if you would care to discuss the issue with me, please feel free to do so, either via

(talk)

02:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Phral you have just followed him to Mother Theresa and removed a sourced paragraph w/o even leaving an edit summary or a reason why at the talk page. This is wikistalking. I am therefore blocking you for all these offenses as i'd already warned you before about edit summaries. So all in all, you have followed him to an article you have never edited before. You removed sourced info. You haven't used the edit summary. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorse; both these editors seem to be totally incapable of de-escalating their argument. If blocks are what it's going to take, I support them. --Haemo 03:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

This person throws a tantrum and retires/quits about once a week, then comes back and resumes editing. He's been blocked several times in the past for vandalism and such things, and is currently blocked for one week for vandalism here [14]. He refuses to recognize this and insists on repeatedly vandalizing his own talk page. When someone is blocked, they're not supposed to edit their talk page except to request unblock, which he did (and this request was declined). He responds by constantly blanking and redirecting the page. [15], [16] This person is obviously not going to listen to reason and it's time to end the games and vandalism. The Parsnip! 02:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the user blanking his talk page with a desire to leave Wikipedia, so I reblanked his page and protected it. Once a user blanks their talk page there usually isn't a reason to undo it as otherwise it just becomes harassing to them. As for whether the user should be blocked longer, that's another matter which I haven't looked into much, so that should be looked at still.

Cowman109^Talk

02:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Bit of a POV warrior as well. I can't decide if we should give him another chance, doesn't seem like we'd be losing much were he to be indeffed...

masterka

02:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Even though we don't block to make people keep their word on leaving, it doesn't seem like it would hurt if he really is leaving, either. But ignoring that, the user does seem to be quite disruptive, so I certainly wouldn't fight an indefinite block for the user. But I'm not sure if it's even necessary unless he does come back again. It sounds like he's gone for good.

Cowman109^Talk

02:33, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, there's nothing wrong with blanking his talk if he's really planning on leaving and isn't currently blocked. Editing while blocked is block subversion. He should wait until his block has expired, THEN blank his talk with his retirement notices (which I don't believe for a second, but that's neither here nor there.) The Parsnip! 02:37, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, I guess protecting his talk accomplishes the same thing. Thanks! The Parsnip! 02:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

He shows classic signs of playing a trolling game. I ran into him on one article, and then observed his pattern. The anti-smoking rant on his edit summaries (along with the f-word, which might be considered uncivil) have the tone of someone who's on that rant just as part of the game, just to evoke responses. The issue itself doesn't really matter. Also, no one's stopping him from quitting except himself. Blanking and protecting his talk page was the right thing to do, as it silences him and denies him the ability to play the game. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Hakozen (talk · contribs) POV, edit warring and disruption by this user he already removed a big section: [17] than he reports me to about 5 admins calling me a racist and nationalist. He violated the 3RR on Huns when I warned him but he ignores it at thinks it will be a acceptation since I am a racist and nationalist. Than he messages me saying: "you are a pure racist and ultra-nationalst. im working about your ban. you will be shoot-out like all armenians who vandalise their homes" --Vonones 03:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that a threat? It sounds like a threat to me. --Haemo 03:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Block review

Interesting, I just came here to ask for a block review of my block of Hakozen. I gave him a stern warning on his talk page for harassing Vonones. Immediately after that, he then continues the harassment (with the above threat) and asks me how I can "stop" Vonones. I then blocked Hakozen for 31 hours. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 03:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well he violated the 3RR I would prefer a longer block but its okay for now I hope he changes his behavior after the block expires. --Vonones 03:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

From my point of view, he's been incessantly edit warring and been generally abusive and harrassing to anyone who disagrees with him. My only question would be "is the block long enough"? --Haemo 03:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well It is very likely he will continue his way. He doesn't know English very well also. --Vonones 03:36, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

After a look at users contribs the block looks justified to me.--Sandahl 03:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Why edit war at all? If it's deleted for not being

notable, then remove it. If it's kept or merged, then it can stay. The guidelines are to mainly to prevent spam, and this clearly isn't spam nor is there any urgent reason to remove it. --Haemo

06:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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

The page is protected and this thread has veered off topic. The original problem is resolved; please open a

user RFC if you have additional concerns you want to discuss about this editor.--Isotope23 ^talk

16:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

I have to get this out of my system. While primarely a content dispute, I have major trouble over how User:Eyrian is conducting in this matter. The whole discussion can be seen here. Basically, Eyrian removed half the page [22][23] and I reverted him twice [24][25], and he reverted me twice [26][27]. Now, I am more then willing to discuss any changes to the page, but I cannot make him see the error of his ways. I believe he should have engaged in discussion after he was first reverted. Instead, he kept reverting, and probably would do it again. Not willing to risk 3RR myself, I stopped.

Now, as he is the only one wanting to remove the content, I told him repeatedly he needs consensus before making the change. But he doesn't seem to grasp that concept. And to top it of; he is an admin. Like I said, want to discuss the changes, but I'm putting process before content here; it has become a matter of principal for me. So I would like some 'peer review' on his behaviour here. — Edokter • Talk • 14:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, looks to me like

neologism. Personally I don't think removing the most trivial of information from an already overwrought article is something that requires any admin attention.--Isotope23 ^talk

15:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

They are complaining about how the user went about the issue, not the issue. They themselves state they would probably have agreed. If you read the discussion they are complaining that Eyrian removed the content "per talk" then posted the talk discussion hours later. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If you read the actual discussion, I posted to talk days before. --Eyrian 15:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I was reiterating the debate, not placing blame. Sorry if that was misunderstood. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Eyrian posted on 20-AUG, then removed the sections days later. Look, I'm not condoning the edit warring that both sides carried out, but there isn't really anything that required admin intervention here, though apparently someone feels otherwise.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

That was my mistake. It's not relevant. — Edokter • Talk • 15:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverted back to before the war began, and protected the article for a few days so this can be resolved on the talk page. I suggest Eyrian starts by listing the sections he is unahppy with, one by one, and it can be discussed whether they ought or ought not to be in the piece.

ム

15:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Er... are we not supposed to protect pages in whatever state they are in (barring obvious vandalism or

WP:BLP issues) rather than just picking our own preferred wrong version to protect?--Isotope23 ^talk

15:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know, I haven't even looked at the content. I just put it back to before the edit war, which I tend to do. No problem with another admin changing it (probably not Eyrian, as he's involved in the dispute).

ム

15:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) I wasn't looking for protection, and it seems a bit overkill. The 'edit-war' is days old. All I wanted was an opinion on Eyrian's actions. — Edokter • Talk • 15:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

The comment is: "by all means be bold, but if someone reverts your edit, that's a pretty good sign your change isn't wholly agreeable for everyone. If that's the case, discuss. Don't edit war over it, or someone will editprotect the page and make you discuss it."

ム

18:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Some days I think

WP:BRD would be better as a guideline than an essay, at least in non-vandalism situations.--Isotope23 ^talk

19:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. — Edokter • Talk • 20:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems consistant with Eyrians way of doing things - I've clashed with him, and found him rude, autocratic and not a big fan of seeking consensus. He's also been leading a one person effort to get the word "inconsequential" into the WP:NOT section on Trivia, which coincidentally happens to be his favorite edit summary description of material he's working on. I'm not sure anything he's up to is technically "wrong" from a wiki point of view, but I do find him very annoying. Artw 16:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I've just recently been

WP:TRIVIA to fit his definition of it seems disingenuous at best, also. Dstumme

20:39, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

He just blanked a bunch of messages here. if he does that again i;m going to ask for cooldown. Artw 15:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Eyrian vs. Dungeons & Dragons

Before I forget, Eyrian nominated a truckload of

WP:NOT made during an AfD he nominated; I redacted that point upon his request. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!}

) 07:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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

Giovanni Giove had removed this comment I've inserted. [28] on 23rd Aug. Kubura 13:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add that this user has a pattern of excessively abusive and disruptive edits, and has a sockpuppeteering history. On several occasions, he went "off" his battlefronts across Dalmatian-related articles and actually followed his "wiki-enemies" rv in sight there edits elsewhere. I would also like to note that I tried to be a neutral mediator between this user and several wikipedians from Croatia in a dispute with which I had no connection whatsoever and he responded in a very uncivil manner, threatening me to leave him, despite I calmly asked him to open discussions at the talk page and only cited Wikipedia's policies to him. --PaxEquilibrium 23:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

You know if you want admins to look at this you are going to have to back up accusations with actual links. |It is not reasonable to expect admins to have to go searching. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 23:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

There is really no need to search: just check out the talkpages of these artcles, he's ALL over them:

I took a brief look at this dispute. One glance at the edit summaries on Talk:Republic of Ragusa will show that there's a lot of emotion in play here. And the article's not showing up on the History RfC page for some reason. Any Admin who decides to don kevlar & wade into this firefight probably should first protect the article page on the wrong version, then try to get the folks involved to play nice with each other. -- llywrch 00:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Beleve me, there is no playing nice with Giove, we've all been there. The man's just returned from vacation, or was unblocked, or something. Before that, all was quiet, but for the last couple of days the man's incessantly venting his frustration and refuses to be stopped by anything. Important: If anyone intends to total-block these articles, make sure that the version is "impartially disagreeable" to both sides. This will not be simple (in fact it is nearly impossible), however, otherwise, i promise you, the discussion will probably stop completely by the "winning" side, I've seen this many times. This is one of the core problems here, so I really suggest a different approach.

One of my first experiences with Giovanni Giove was this: [29],[30], precisely he accused me of being a sockpuppet of some other banned user with no any reason and without any explenation where his suspicions came from! It was a few days after I was logged for the first time on Wiki and day after I have come with rich sources [31], [32] which were disputing some of his edits regarding the population of the city, Zadar article. As you can see he didn't contributed to the discussion on the Talk:Zadar. He simply tried to solve his problem of my "existance" by marking me as somebody else's sock puppet.

Another example of his behaviour: first RFC was started at the Zadar talk page [33] where he wrote this comment: You have not intoduced the sources!!! After all my hard work with presenting sources (and work of other users too). It's transparent at the talk page. This user simply doesn't want to see other people's work and he's absolutely blind for other users sources. He acts like it doesn't exist.

Here you can see just a little part of his argues with other users: [34], see section "Why such words?". Actually all that page is a kind of dossier. Zenanarh 10:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: dossier of Giovanni Giove's misbehaviour and vandalisms. Over 70 (yeah, seventy, and 3 is too much!).Kubura 13:42, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Now the best of all comes: his "conduction" of 2 Requests for Comment on the articles Republic of Ragusa and Zadar that he started. In both cases the same thing. Example - Zadar RFC: he firstly changed the article into his version [35], [36], immidiately after that he put the tags [37] and started RFC [38]. When other users wrote their first comments he interfered by changing it. I simply cannot see how can I participate there, even I'm very interested in that discussion. I wrote it there [39], he immidiately deleted it [40]. This is all messed up. Zenanarh 10:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That, when he inserted the template:suspected sockpuppet, is, according to

WP:HARASSMENT (section: "User space harassment"): "Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page..., placing 'suspected sockpuppet'...on the user page of active contributors...and otherwise trying to display material the user may find annoying or embarrassing in their user space is a common form of harassment.". Kubura

12:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove also used method of threatning to other users. See this change [45] and comment "Rvv:undiscussed deletion of proper cocnepts&links. Unjustified tag (this accident will be reported". Typical for him. Threatning with "you'll be reported". The article in question was an contentforking, "Dalmatian Italians". Shall we make articles like "Yorkshire Pakistanis" as "historical ethnical group"? If he wants to write about Italians in Croatia, then why don't he writes that in the article Italians in Croatia? Why does he inserts internal links in "see also" like "Zara"??? Croatian city of Zadar had that name under Mussollini's Italy, until it was returned to Croatia after WWII. Do we have to tolerate such provocations here?
Giovanni Giove uses Wikipedia for his revisionist ideas. He even places the links to Italian border and history revisionist sites (www.dalmazia.it). How long do we have to tolerate that? Till he gets in clash with Greeks (Euboeia, Rhodos, Messolongion, Korfu) and French (Nice, Corse)? Kubura 13:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

When he was warned about his expansionist attitudes, he removed those, with comment "JSF stop to bulshit. YOu don't know about my attitutedes (I've delete your vandalism fro here)". [46]. In his previous removal of that warning [47] , he called it "Deleted usual Kubura's personal attacks". But these attacks were the things Giovanni Giove wrote.
Here's the message I posted called "Giove's attacks". [48]. Kubura 14:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the text of that message. This was posted on it.wiki. We don't discuss on en.wiki the things on other wiki's, but this should be a guide and proof for those who don't believe. I posted this for others to see his attitudes.
Hi, everybody.
Here's Giove's message on it.wiki from July 30, 2006. I give it here, to show interested users Giove's attitude towards Croats and Croatia. [49].
"...: La nazione croata è un'invenzione dell'800. Prima non esisteva: non avevate nemmeno una lingua vostra. Ve la siete dovuta inventare a partire da uno dei vostri dialetti...".
The translation: "The yuYCroat nation is an invention from 1800's. Before it hasn't existed: you (Croats, translators' note) neither had your own language . You (Croats, translators' note) had to invent it from one of your dialects...".
In the same message there's an explicit anti-Croat attitude (though, it referres to Croatian War of Independence): "Ti faccio da ultimo presente inolre che hai elimanato tutti riferimenti ai crimini di guerra croati.. "... that you have removed all references to Croatian war criminals". Giove mentioned general Ante Gotovina, althought Gotovina is still under process. And even worse, he "attacked" me for removing that false reference (interesting, he hasn't mentioned any Serb war criminals at all, like Milan Martić and Milan Babić).
That was the message. Denying of Croatian nation and language. That tell's everything. Now make conclusions about his edits here. Kubura 14:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI... It appears that a

Hey...I played that game on the radio...I lost ;) Anyway - about the protection. He also played games with other articles; not sure if that has had any impact on them each. Are you sure semi-protection was the best move? I mean, he has stopped playing that game now, so vandalism inspired by Glover's show should have stopped by now... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

When multiple IPs showed up and started to pile on, I felt that semi-protection was necessary. I really didn't want to babysit the page while all of his listeners kept changing things. -- Gogo Dodo 17:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism[50][51] and personal attacks[52][53]. Warned repeatedly [54][55].

Also warned Perspicacite myself against his arrogant, would-be-threatening tone, which I also consider a personal attack [56]. Also thought it would be more responsible to start a polite discussion about the subject [57] rather than going to bawl to the admins. Am ready and willing to discuss the matter with anyone capable of showing respect. Wedineinheck 07:45, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Perspicacite was a little heavy handed by issuing a vandalism warning as it was clearly a content dispute. However, the

WP:NPA warning was legit. nat^tang

07:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, Perspicacite should try to be a little polite with his fellow users if he wants to be respected. Wedineinheck 08:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Well Wedineinheck, you could try to

assume a little good faith when involved in these types of situations, even if the other editor isn't. nat^tang

08:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Perspicacite stated right away that I write "nonsense". He advised me to "use the sandbox" if I want to "experiment". He clearly implied that I am a cretin who does not know what he does. If that wasn't a personal attack, I don't know what that is. Hence, I am perfectly entitled to find him arrogant and obnoxious. Do not consider this as an attack, but as a personal opinion. His latest message here also makes me think that he behaves like a cry-baby. Ok, so I'll try to assume good faith and will now, in the future, ignore Perspicacite and won't engage in any debate with him. If I should assume his good faith, that would lead me to assume that this editor is unable to be polite and respect his interlocutors : so it is simply pointless to engage with him in any kind of heated exchange. I just have no time for this. Wedineinheck 08:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Wedineinheck, the first message that Perspicacite left is a standard message template and not a personal attack. the template that Perspicacite used was {{

subst:test2}}. nat^tang

08:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that this template be modified, as it is the best way to offend users. Wedineinheck 08:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The template isn't the problem. The editor who placed it used it inappropriately, that's all. It's obvious that it was a good-faith but ill-judged edit which didn't deserve a nonsense tag. Chris Cunningham 09:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You, also, need to stop making personal attacks like this:[58] His action was not in good faith, nor have any of his subsequent NPA violations. How many personal attacks before he is blocked?

Perspicacite

09:12, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

He registered only a month ago, he doesn't appear to have been in any other conflicts which would have resulted in having to read up on template/NPA policy to date, and the "personal attacks" in question are pretty obviously off-handed comments made defensively. I assume the personal attacks would stop if you started acting like his peer and not a wikicop. As for my own record, I don't need to be told I'm not as pure as the driven snow by people who go trolling my edit history for ammo when I make an observation on their behaviour. Chris Cunningham 09:19, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Perspicacite: the edits you list as "vandalism" weren't great edits, but

POV

.

I think this was a situation where user warning templates might not do the job. The template would have been fine if this were a clear case of vandalism. / edg ☺ ★ 08:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Maybe {{uw-badcat}}. / edg ☺ ★ 08:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I could have used that indeed. Anyway, as the category includes people like

Edith Cresson, I'd say that it needs some polishing. Wedineinheck

09:21, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Instead, he has reverted the merge once again, resumed working on it and also

Several editors have previously suggested that the controversies article largely violates

I don't get it. He nominated his own 'synthesis,' for deletion? Anyway, with the AfD ongoing, what is it that you'd like done, specifically? El_C 10:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No, he nominated it for "keep."  ??? --ElKevbo 10:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You're-doing-what-now? El_C 10:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, it's a pre-emptive AfD in which the nominator states that "this is a procedural nomination in the sense that I created the article and want to keep it." Either the nominator misunderstands the purpose of an AfD discussion or it's an attempt to game the system (or maybe I simply misunderstand the purpose of AfD discussions). --ElKevbo 11:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. That is certainly unconventional. El_C 11:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

A decision was made to merge the articles in early July on the grounds that the movie had just come out and there wasn't any controversy. But the article was never merged: it was simply turned into a redirect without any content moved. An author's good-faith attempt to resuscitate a well-sourced article was repeatedly deleted on the grounds of the stale consensus reached before there was two months of controversy over the movie. Noroton is seeking a new consensus instead of edit-warring. It may not the best way to do it, but

WP:CCC. This is a content dispute, already being addressed at the AFD, and doesn't need intervention. THF

10:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this is related to your note above that didn't make any sense to me? El_C 10:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

My note above is related to several closed discussions already on the page. Some of the players are the same, but Noroton's AFD predates the problem of an off-wiki attack site and the enforcement of

WP:MULTI. THF

11:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. You may wish to unify it alongside those other sections, then, because it is pretty confusing all by itself. El_C 11:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering the noninator nominated it for AFD because he wants to keep it, I have closed the AFD as invalid. Procedural nominations are already stupid and pointless enough without the original nominator for deletion not actually nominating it for deletion.

ム

11:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. El_C 12:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, now it needs admin intervention. User A tries to create an article. Users B and C revert the creation and turn it into a redirect without using the AFD procedure based on a stale discussion that clearly doesn't apply in changed circumstances to a different set of content. Why is a self-nominated AFD an inherently worse procedure for dispute resolution than an RFC? THF 12:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody said anything when I made Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kieran Gibbs, maybe because they were too busy voting delete. What exactly is wrong with a self-nomination for AFD? ugen64 15:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone just redirected the long, sourced article, without any inclusion of the information in the main Sicko article. That's essentially de facto blanking. I've reverted the redirect. I have no problem with it being merged into the other article and then redirected, but simply redirecting without transferring the information is wrong in this case.

Again, the earlier consensus at Talk:Sicko was to drop a lot of the information from the separate controversies page and to just to keep issues that were considered genuinely controversial, as several editors explicitly recommended to "trim"/"summarize" the page before merging it. Discussion on the matter has now resumed at Talk:Sicko, so please leave that redirect intact for now and let proper dispute resolution (and maybe a change in consensus) take its course. - Cyrus XIII 14:03, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Without commenting on the specific content here, I think that

Thatcher131

15:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone here think it's possible that when an "incident" is brought up here you might notify the editor who you're complaining about? Is that really too much to ask? It states at the top of this page: "As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting." Is that really so onerous? I mean, with all the time some of you spend here, I would think a quick note on the editor's talk page wouldn't be too difficult. Why can't you just do that? It's a fair, civil question, isn't it? It's not rhetorical: I'd really like to know why you don't. Should this be a requirement for anyone who initiates a discussion here? How can we impliment that?

Second, another fair question: How do you come to the conclusion that my AFD nomination was wrong? I don't know every Wikipedia rule, but I have seen procedural AFDs before. My mind is open and perhaps I'll agree that I didn't go about it in the right way. If I can avoid fighting this, I'd rather do that. So please give me the reason why it was right to close the AFD. I don't see a rule or principle or anything in the discussion so far that allows me to say, "Oh, if I only knew that, I wouldn't have nominated it there." Please, tell me. It's a fair question, isn't it? I've asked this same question on the talk page of the admin who closed the AFD, but I thought I'd post it here too, since you're already discussing it. Am I being reasonable to ask? Noroton 18:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes as a courtesy you should be informed when someone makes a report about you. Obviously that doesn't always happen, but it should.

Pertaining to your second question, the process is Articles for Deletion not Articles I created and want Keep'. AFD's are sometimes opened procedurally by admins/editors who are going through PRODs or speedy deletions, but as a rule we don't nominate things for deletion to keep them. That is why your AFD was closed. Had I noticed it I would have done the same thing the closer did. If you want to discuss the article, use the talkpage or open a

WP:RFC. AFD was not the right process for what you were trying to do.--Isotope23 ^talk

18:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I can try answering the second question. AfD is for nominating articles for deletion, not for preemptive keeping. The procedural nominations you see are those sent from

WP:POINT violation. —Kurykh

18:15, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both. I'll follow those links. I've made a proposal on the talk page that informing editors who have been the subjects of complaints should be not just a courtesy but mandatory, in the first line of either the complainant or the next editor to post a comment. Please participate in that discussion. Noroton 18:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Some very strange things have been going on in this article's history; people adding strange content and reverting each other (content appears to be addition of unrelated content, but more than one person seems to be adding this content). I think it needs watching; semi-protection perhaps. Thoughts? Comments? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. If the article and editing is steering away from the purpose of creating an encyclopaedia, action should be taken to put it back on track. thats my 2 cents. nat^tang 11:01, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Blatant vandalism now. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. As Riana said in a very old archive, "

Reverted? Blocked? Now, ignore ;)" Turned the autoblock on so he doesn't do any more damage. --DarkFalls ^talk

11:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

For the last two months or so several editors and I have been having problems with this person who has been using a IP range (59.xxx.xx.xxx} and vandalizing Republic of China/Taiwan articles with his/her political views; replacing Republic of China, Taiwan, Republic of China (Taiwan), etc, with Republic of Taiwan. In normal circumstances and on other articles, this would be considered as a content dispute, however, the Republic of Taiwan does not exist and is only a proposal by a political coalition in the ROC. This IP vandal has been clearly warned many times not to continue to vandalize articles with his/her political views, but ignores them and there is nothing that editors could do but to revert his/her edits because it would be highly improbable that a sysop or a crat would block an entire range and it would be completely unfair to the IPs that have made good contributions to these articles. What more or less permanent/long-term action could we take against this vandal as this is getting quite annoying and frustrating. nat^tang 12:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

The only instances I could find were very sporadic, e.g., their last edit to

Republic of China was on August 8. Any remedy would have negative consequences that greatly outweighed the benefits. As you have noted, we can't block 59.0.0.0/8, and semiprotecting the articles would eliminate constructive contributions from anons. When problems occur at such an infrequent pace it's best simply to deal with them as they arise. Raymond Arritt

16:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Today alone, I have had to fix the use of the {{discussion top}} template about a dozen times. Please read the documentation. The most important thing is: Place the {{discussion top}} template BELOW the header. Otherwise, archiving bots will NOT move the template with the discussion, malforming both the archive and the discussions left behind (anything below the template becomes "closed"). So please, place it below the header. Thank you. — Edokter • Talk • 15:57, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

They were unrelated attacks on me. The issue in question was resolved. If you want to start such a discussion, I suggest an RfC. I would ask that those considering this situation in fullness note that Artw has admitted to wikistalking me, in a manner I would characterize as harassmnet, as demonstrated here. --Eyrian 16:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That I happen to have checked yuour contrib page a couple of times a reverted what I consider to be bad edits by you (In one case preventing an article from being deleted against procedure due to your misapplication of a templater) is not wikistalking under the description here:

WP:WIKISTALK, no have I admited to being a "Wikistalker" - possibly you would like to retract that claim? Artw

17:00, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Your remarks on your talk page, and your contributions, make it pretty clear that you've been persistently following me around. I believe that it's harassment, but it hasn't gone too far, yet. --Eyrian 17:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Re-read

conflict of interest

issue. So, he does have grounds to keep an eye on someone who's making edits counter to Wiki policy.

Unless he's specifically doing it to harass you, you're making a groundless claim. Dstumme 17:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I can assure you, I've read it carefully. It's because there haven't been any blatant violations that I haven't pursued any further action. --Eyrian 17:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

And yet you feel justified in making the bad-faith accusation anyway, when you know that it's not accurate. Whatever happened to assuming good faith? You ask it of others as a way of justifying your edits, but other people don't get that same benefit, and instead are accused of WikiStalking? Chalk another one up on the list of policies you have problems with, I guess. Dstumme 18:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

and [66] again. Artw 16:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is entirely unacceptable to remove other people's comments. If you feel they're an attack, report them, but you have to let people have their say if they feel they have a legitimate issue with you. Their post will be judged on its merit, you may not preempt the whole discussion by removing the complaint. VxP 16:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not preempting any discussion. User:Artw has raised this issue, and I have no problem exploring it in fullness. The problem begins when a thread about a resolved issue branches out into unrelated personal remarks. --Eyrian 16:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you should let an uninvolved editor handle it. When you remove remarks about you, it makes it look like you're trying to supress the conversation. VxP 16:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've closed the above discussion... the original problem has been addressed... it's time to let it go and move on to
  dispute resolution if there are additional concerns with editor behavior that need to be addressed.--Isotope23 ^talk
  16:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Rameriz (talk•contribs) has been making a quite a few additions of "Last words: " to various articles about characters in The Godfather. Nothing incorrect, as far as I can see; not exactly vandalism; but the additions don't flow with the rest of each article, and he seems set on adding them. What's the right approach here? Philip Trueman 17:30, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Remove and link to q:Fictional last words in film#The Godfather (using {{wikiquote}}). The section doesn't exist yet, but nothing's stopping it from creation. Will ^(talk) 17:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

User was originally blocked for 3RR and evaded block by using IP edits confirmed by checkuser. Block was reset, then extended by another admin. I have since been tracking continuous IP block evasion and two user accounts used for block evasion by this user. This resulted in the block being extended twice more; it now is one month long. The articles being edited by the blocked users are many NASA related articles. I've maintained a partial list here: User:Sanchom/SallyForth123. I suggest a range block that covers the IP addresses at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of SallyForth123 or semi-protection of every article edited by this user (including those edited via sockpuppets). I am posting this here because both of these measures have more than minimal collateral effects, but something needs to be done to better enforce the block on SallyForth123. Sancho 17:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to do the range block, but it looks like the following ranges would be sufficient (by looking at the WHOIS)

• 75.36.168.0 - 75.36.175.255
• 75.37.8.0 - 75.37.15.255
• 76.204.176.0 - 76.204.179.255

Sancho 18:23, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Could someone please revert this edit? I'd do it myself, but the page has been sprot'ed. Av99 18:24, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been taken care of. Thanks. Av99 18:29, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

As posted on User talk:Matt57#WP:HARASS and Elonka, I've blocked Matt57 for 24 hour for intimidating behavior and stalking another editor. A certain amount of oversight over other editors (including admins, of course) is obviously beneficial: it keeps us all honest and playing by the same rules.

Going so far as to dig through someone's life and prying out things the other person is trying to keep from public view, when they're quite frankly none of any of our business, however, is quite something else. I've redacted a comment (which will hopefully be deleted soon) of Matt57's which in my opinion shows disturbing behavior on his part.

Hopefully, instead of backfiring on me and causing more wiki-drama, this will cause him to rethink his current behavior and change it to something a bit less frightening to us. Just think of how you'd react if someone were digging up your personal information and posting it all on a site that gets mirrored and google-indexed many times a day.

I can only hope that this causes more help than harm. Opinions and views on the situation are requested. I've obviously been opaque on the actual subject matter for a reason. Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 05:33, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen the deleted comment, so can't offer any review of it - perhaps it is blockworthy, as you say…

…but you invited Matt57 to edit articles which Elonka isn't editing.[67] To my knowledge, Matt57 isn't editing any articles which Elonka is also editing (though she's invited him to do so.) Which articles did you have in mind when you wrote that?

What Matt57 has been doing is vetting articles that Elonka created last year contra

WP:COI - for example this glowing resumé for her father - for original research and other unsourced material, of which they are mostly comprised. That's not harassment.Proabivouac

05:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not it is harassment, it is, IMO, incivil of him to single out a particular user in such a way when he appears to have a history with Elonka. I also note numerous complaints about the zeal with which he's taking an axe to them. IMO, it would be wise of Matt57 to keep away from these articles in the future and leave fixing them to other, uninvolved editors. There are plenty of other bad articles on Wikipedia; in fact, there are many far worse than this. I've seen no credible allegation that these articles contain inaccurate statements; rather, that they contain possibly unverifiable statements and are unduly favorable to their subjects. I'd suggest that Wikipedia can survive a few puff pieces on Elonka's relatives quite well, that no harm will result by their remaining for a while in an unfixed state, and that Matt57 find something else to worry about. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 06:09, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

"…they contain possibly unverifiable statements and are unduly favorable to their subjects."

unduly favorable are violations of policy which I should like to correct. Will I, too, be blocked if I do so?Proabivouac

06:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I supported her RfA, albeit with strong misgivings, per Danny's oppose, due to COI concerns. I became aware of this issue when MAtt57 was unjustly blocked after having been framed by sockpuppets of two banned users; see this thread.Proabivouac 06:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It would depend on how you did it. Why is it so important to you to fix THESE particular possible flaws in the encyclopedia above others? Why is it so important for Matt57 to do so right now? There are some issues that need immediate fixing; those covered by BLP, copyright violations, etc etc. Other issues like these can be handled slowly if necessary, and are best handled when there is contention by attempting to involve as many others in the decision as possible, so that the results are seen as fairly representative of consensus rather than a personal dislike or issue. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 08:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fred Bauder once suggested that "aggressively checking the logs of editors with whom you are in a dispute may constitute harassment". Since other arbitrators discarded this principle as a "step in the wrong direction", I believe our definition of harrassment should be reexamined. As I infer from ArbCom's handling of the Abu badali case, Matt's actions should not be qualified as harrassment. He is simply enforcing our principles, just like Abu badali was. --Ghirla^-трёп- 09:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not: I'm involved in all kinds of things. This is just item that's been on my plate since it was brought to the community's (and my) attention on this noticeboard.

Although I will point out that there is a probable BLP violation on Elonka Dunin right now: "Dunin, however, investigated further, and got Dunn to admit that he faked the impersonation, as well as his own death, in a pathetic attempt to gain attention."[68][69] Hopefully, someone will fix that soon.

Re "It would depend on how you did it."

The following diffs illustrate the model I'd like to apply to the articles in question:[70][71] Granted, I might be accused of being partial toward the editor who did that; however I'm confident that he wouldn't have taken this action were it not mandated by policy.Proabivouac 09:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been unfortunately dragged into this dispute over the past few days, and I must say I fully endorse this block. Matt57's behavior towards Elonka in this dispute has been wholly unacceptable: digging through her contributions and stalking her across wikis and other websites, aggressively attacking contributions she made years ago, and constantly accusing her of shady wrongdoings, such as accusing her of conspiring with administrators against him in IRC (accusing third parties who offer an outside opinion as being part of her "cabal," which is how I got dragged into this), and even accusing her of harrassing and wikistalking him. Even after Elonka made a completely reasonable request for him to stop (complete with many diffs of example of the behavior I just mentioned), he only seems to have stepped it up further. Matt57 needs to know that this kind of behavior will not be tolerated whatsoever. --K

mpe

t 06:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Krimpet, you threatened me with a block on Commons following Elonka's threatening me on this wiki,[72] (since-deleted page) and conversing with you on IRC.[73] So if Matt57 has accused her of "conspiring with administrators against him in IRC," I'm afraid this strikes me as very credible.Proabivouac 06:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Proabivouac, your levels of incivility and serial assumption of bad faith has been on par with Matt57's in this dispute (and it appears that I have conflated your allegations with Matt57's; it was not he who made the accusations of her conspiring with administrators, it was you). I did answer a request for informal third-party clarification from Elonka on whether

mpe

t 06:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Krimpet, when I see a threat on this wiki, followed by an IRC conversation and a threat for a block on Commons, what am I supposed to think? I asked Elonka about this several times (deleted page, e-mail) and got a carefully-parsed non-answer each time, which does nothing to promote an atmosphere of transparency and trust.

On Wikipedia, it would certainly not be considered disruptive to remove a

WP:BITE) - and your accusation of "disruption" remains completely unfounded. If anything, it is another excellent illustration of why discussions should take place on-wiki wherever possible, so that the matters can be examined openly, without being prejudiced by one-sided conversations to which affected editors are not privy and cannot respond.Proabivouac

07:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I remember one of Matt's comments at Elonka's RfA. It was quite excessive. There is no sign of acceptance of anything in Matt's response to Elonka's comment here [74].

Aminz, we've been talking about this for awhile now at

COI articles in line with Wikipedia policies as harassment. You can say, well, it'd be better if someone other than Matt57 did it, and perhaps you're right…did you have anyone in particular in mind? Because these articles have been blatantly out of step with WP policy for over a year now, and no one's anything about it.Proabivouac

08:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt is unique in several aspects: There is only one user that writes the username of Itaqallah as "ItaqAllah" and it is Matt (can one ask why only and only Matt does that?). Matt insists in using people like Craig Winn in criticism of Islam article. Just to give you an idea of who this guy is, I'll provide some quotes from him: "Hitler simply followed Muhammad's path...Muslims, like Nazis and Communists, can’t be trusted...Muhammad, Islam’s lone prophet, qualifies as the most evil man to have ever lived...Prophet of Doom is the best documented and most comprehensive presentation of the Islamic scriptures ever written...Muhammad was the perfect Satanic prophet...As an expert on Islam and terror, I know that all good Muslims are terrorists and that most all terrorists are Muslims...Decadent egomaniacs like Muhammad are deeply troubled and tortured souls..Muhammad was a terrorist." --Aminz 07:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You appear to be canvassing, and to have forgotten hadith Volume 4, Book 52, Number 220. Arrow740 09:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I am unsure, Aminz, how this has any bearing on the discussion at hand.

ム

08:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt needs to stay away articles associated with Elonka, because his behavior looks like stalking. Whether it is or not is irrelevant; it's what it looks like that matters. He has followed other editors around after disputes with them, which has been discussed on AN/I at least once, so this isn't an isolated incident. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 08:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the prevention of the posting of private material on this website and therefore and by extension the blocking of users, for what seems like a necessary and or appropriate length of time, that introduce such content; blocking is not punitive, but preventative, so I think that what has transpired between Kylu and Matt57 is probably to the benefit (and, possibly, the safeguarding, in relation to the consideration and insurance of every users right to keep certain private information/s unrevealed to the community) of those involved. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I, too, strongly support this principle and any actions taken to uphold it.Proabivouac 08:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

However, according to Matt57's unblock request, this information was already avaliable on User:Elonka/About…

if so, it seems that Matt57 has been blocked twice in a row for infractions he did not commit.Proabivouac 11:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• That was hardly a "completely reasonable request to stop". Rather, something that starts with "formal notification" is probably misguided to begin with, and it appears to contain any number of leaps to conclusions. Something doesn't seem right here. >Radiant< 11:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• I only glanced at this in the past, and assumed Elonka was mostly in the right. The behavior of her more aggressive supporters is making me think again, and making me wonder if I was foolish to support her RfA. Blurring out the face of Muhammad bothers me, but that is a question I would let Commons to deal with, as long as we do not use the bowdlerized picture in any of our articles. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
• Kylu, again, this was no private information. Its all there at
  WP:COI. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs}
  ) 15:07, 22 August 2007 (UTC)