Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive346

Resolved

I wanted to make a call for action against

I have blocked Smsarmad for a week for abusive sockpuppetry. Keilana_(recall) 05:52, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I tagged the

• You have not provided a single legimate reason as to why the article should be merged or removed. The "reasons" you have given are either blatant lies or make no sense. Furthermore, Uka Uka clearly meets the criteria in order to have an article. I seriously suggest you rethink your discussion before putting ANY article up for merging or deletion. And yes, I am a fan of the Crash series. And that is how I know that the reasons you gave are blatant lies. HOWEVER, your claim that I can't look at an article neutrally is not only a blatant lie but it gives Crash fans a bad name. Look in the List of Crash Bandicoot characters talk page, and you'll see that it was ME who suggested that the former article we had for Doctor Nitrus Brio be deleted because he didn't fulfill the criteria. Uka Uka does, so I don't see your problem. CBFan (talk) 11:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• Furthermore, now I've read your comments more clearly, putting an article up for deletion purely because you didn't get your own way is, really, not what we want for Wikipedia. If you don't get your own way, you need to accept it. CBFan (talk) 11:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• He is also canvassing User talk:Freqrexy, User talk:Illustrious One‎, User talk:Cat's Tuxedo‎. Ridernyc (talk) 11:32, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

• I am canvassing nobody. I am meerly getting the attention of people who actually KNOW what they're doing. CBFan (talk) 11:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Being obnoxious and messing with the process is not likely to help your case. If it is as notable as you say, there should be no problems, but your behavior is reflecting poorly on the case. JuJube (talk) 12:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Considering that Uka Uka fits the strict rules that we made for a Crash Bandicoot character to have an article (that he/she should have appeared in half or more of all the Crash games, half or more of the six games in the Main Series and that he has a lot of material to work with), I really never saw the problem. He is notable. N Brio, who previously had an article, did not, and that's why he was deleted. Then add the fact that Collectonian didn't help either by actually deleting any attempts to fix the article. Currently, the way I see it is that either Uka Uka is allowed to keep his article via the guidelines written out, or only Crash is. Certainly, there is no reason as to why Uka Uka's article, and by this I mean only his article, should be deleted, especially as Collectonian failed to post any legimate reasons as to why that should be the case. CBFan (talk) 13:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Despite your repeated claims, I gave you very clear, specific reasons for why the article is not notable and should not exist. I tagged the article appropriately given those reasons, which you reversed as vandalism rather than addressing. I attempted a merge discussion, which you wouldn't even allow a chance to happen by continually removing the tags. You blatantly disregarded the reasons the article is not notable and act as if you are some how the

master

of the Crash articles, which you aren't. Some rules "you" and three other fans may have made for the character have the article are pointless and highly inappropriate if they are blatantly disregarding Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You yourself agreed on the article talk page that he had no real-world notability, yet you refuse to allow the issues to be address and the articles improved.

To add to my report, as Ridernyc noted, he is indeed canvassing other users, referring to me as Mr Uka-Uka hater. [25], [26], [27]. He has made a blantantly false accusation that I deleted attempted improvements to the article when the only thing I removed from the article was shoving in even more game references[28] and removing the addition of a category currently up for deletion[29] which CBFan himself also did[30]. He also appears to be admitting to being the IP that vandalized the AfD[31] with his repeated claim that I've given no reason for the AfD. He is doing the same on the article talk page [32] happily backed up by Illustrious One (who should have been ANIed for his behavior in the Lord of Darkness AfD, but was given the benefit of the doubt, but considering his responses to CBFan, I see now he shouldn't have been given such a free pass).

talk

) 16:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

You did not give ANY reasons whatsoever for why the article should not exist. All you did was post nonsense. You said, and I quote, "Uka Uka is a single character in the game series with no notability outside of the game". The half in italics is nonsense, as he has appeared in 10 games, so he can't be a "single" character, and the half in bold makes no sense, as that could go for absolutly EVERY single fictional character in existance, video game or otherwise. And I can't help but notice you've gone against the conduct of "being civil", because you're telling blatant lies about me...I obviously deleted the tag because your reasons didn't even warrant addressing, I never disregarded the reasons because there were no reasons to begin with, I never agreed on anything concerning "Real world notibility" and I never came up with any of those rules in the first place. If anyone is acting like they run the place, it is you, not me. I've already given you two options...either keep the Uka Uka article, or delete everyone's article but Crash's (because he certainly has had some of that "Real World notability" garbage you seem so insistant a Crash Bandicoot character should have yet no other fictional character needs). And yet you ignored both of those and continued on your "NO!! I DON'T WANT UKA UKA TO HAVE AN ARTICLE!!" rampage. Can't we at least act calm and sensibly about this rather than go on your rampant and extremely uncivil moans? And trust me, you ARE being very uncivil...and I should know. I've been there, done that, bought the flippin' T-Shirt. CBFan (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be perfectly fine with deleting all of the other articles. None of them establish real world notability and they do not qualify for articles of their own. However, I attempt to merge before suggesting delete, which I politely tried to do in this case and you prevented from happening resulting in it going up for deletion. With your reaction to my tagging a single article, of course I'm not going to bother tagging the rest just so you can insult me some more and revert them all. And, FYI, you are right, most fictional characters do NOT meet the

talk

) 19:26, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

As I told you, quite clearly, I removed the tags because you had not provided a single legimate reason for wanting the article merged. I've highlighted BOTH reasons why I ignored your reasons, and yet you still have not appeared to noted them. In fact, you fail to notice that even now. Uka Uka has appeared in 10 games, so he can't be a single character. Take, in comparison, Rusty Walrus. He is a single character, as he has only appeared in Twinsanity, but does he have an article? No. He just has a mention in the "List of Crash Bandicoot characters". Crash, of course, has to have his own article, because he does meet the requirements (and besides, he's the main character of his series. You remove him, you'd have to remove Mario, Sonic and Spyro's articles). Oh, and, once again, you're telling lies about me. Here with " With your reaction to my tagging a single article, of course I'm not going to bother tagging the rest just so you can insult me some more and revert them all.", here with "You were the one who blatantly refused to allow a merge discussion." (as I told you...if there is no discussion, there's no reason to merge) and here with "who continue to act uncivil here, in your talk page remarks, and in the AfD." as you are the only person who is blatantly telling lies about me. Also, all those times I've been blocked for being uncivil are the faults of sockpuppets I've lost patience with, so you have no right in saying that nonsense. CBFan (talk) 19:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

And, as I clearly stated, I canvassed nobody. I meerly alerted them to the problem. And, at the time, I had every reason to think you had something against Uka Uka and I still do, because you provide no reasons as to why he should not have an article, or even take suggestions into hand when I do suggest them. Once again, you are telling lies about me with those rediculous comments. Once again, just about EVERYTHING we know about EVERY single fictional character comes from in-game/movie/book references. Otherwise, obviously, it'd be fan-speculation. And believe me, there's no fan speculation in any of the Crash articles. If there were, it'd be deleted. Seriously, if anyone deserves an ANI, it's you, because not only are you trying to delete a reasonably good article that could easily be improved on for no apparant reason other than you don't want that article there, but you are also telling lies, being uncivil and generally refusing to listen to suggestions about alternative ways around this. And, once again, trust me, I've been down that way and it is not a path I wish to go down again. As I see, you have three options here...1: Provide some proper reasons as to why Uka Uka shouldn't have an article, 2: Keep Uka Uka's article and tell us what needs adjusting, or 3: Delete EVERY article in the "Crash Bandicoot character" section except Crash's (because, as I said, he certainly has that world notifiable nonsense you keep moaning about. Whatever you do, try to keep reasonable. CBFan (talk) 19:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Update User:Illustrious_One has now tried to close the debate as keep and remove the AFD template [33] he has been warned numerous times for disruption and uncivil behavior. See his coments in this AFD [34]. Ridernyc (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

'Sorry about that I wasn't trying to be disruptive, I just thought the deletion debate was closed based on strength of arguments and so decided to wrap it up. I jumped to conclusions. Maybe I overstepped the mark a little. I shall try and clean up my act. Furthermore perhaps myself and CBFan are something of a bad influence on one-another. --Illustrious One (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Not sure this is the right place or not, as this is a very strange situation. User:Yeanold Viskersenn posted a GNU Image:Stan Shebs above Berkeley.jpg (Self-portrait of User:Stan Shebs, taken April 2007 above Berkeley.) on his user page using it is such a what as to imply it was a picture of himself. User:Stan Shebs then deleted the image with the following edit summary: "you have got to be kidding, using my picture as if it were yours" User:Yeanold Viskersenn then reverted the deletion as vandalism. Is this type usage considered acceptable within Wikipedia? It is not a copyright issue due to the GNU license, but to imply that it is a picture of yourself on your user page, seems a bit overboard without some caption other than "Yours, truly".

dif link http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Yeanold_Viskersenn&curid=4841735&diff=180519391&oldid=180320293

Since I am usually miss understood, I will restate the above differently for clarity: With the use of GNU license, User:Yeanold Viskersenn definately has a right to use the image, the only real question is related to a misleading representation on one's user page which implies that a picture of someone else is actually a picture of yourself. Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:26, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Also consider the following usage by User:Yeanold Viskersenn http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chase_me_ladies%2C_I%27m_the_Cavalry&diff=prev&oldid=177051967 Dbiel ^(Talk) 01:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Adding one more comment posted to User talk:Yeanold Viskersenn by Stan Shebs:

My picture

Look you, representing my picture as a picture of yourself is fraudulent, and no way am I going to tolerate it. So I suggest you volunteer to remove it yourself before you get in any more trouble. Stan (talk) 14:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Dbiel ^(Talk) 15:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Not an expert here, but I don't think that would qualify as acceptable use. We don't allow people to create accounts with names that are nearly identical to those of established users for the purpose of impersonation, and this seems to be in the same general category of actions. If Yeanold wanted to have the photo on his userpage while representing it as being Stan, that would be a different thing. Anyone disagree? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 18:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• If it was uploaded using a GFDL license, then it can be reused - but not in a deceptive or misleading manner as to its origins, and not to impersonate another user. If he posted it as 'Picture of Stan Shebs' and noted it that way, that would be strange but fine.
  talk
  18:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It is the deceptive use that is the issue. When the image is deleted from his user page, he reverts the deletion as vandalism. This seems to me to be something that an administrator needs to address. Dbiel ^(Talk) 19:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually it seems that

User:Addhoc has deleted the image without comment, so let see what happens next. Dbiel ^(Talk

) 19:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

It's back: [35] Now, though, he kind of labels it as a picture of Stan Shebs... It still doesn't seem proper to me though. MookieZ (talk) 05:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Except now it looks like a

point of sorts is being made. --Rodhullandemu (Talk

) 12:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note Atari400 has commented within my original post and split it into various sections. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Wrong. There was no evidence. You accusation and request for checkuser was deemed "fishing". Atari400 04:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Besides edit warring and editing similarities, here's some stuff I mentioned in the Checkuser report:

• Sarcastic admittal of sock puppeting [36]: "You got me. I am actually a sockpuppet of editor Sefringle."
  • You accuse me of sockpuppetry, and engage in stalking and harassment. I was accused of being a "closet Muslim" by you, during the the deletion discussion for the category:anti-Islam sentiments. The real question is, do you have multiple accounts? Atari400 04:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • You've now admitted you're Kirbytime by saying above that you remember me accusing you of being a 'closet Muslim'. If I did that, that must have been in your old Kirbytime days because I've definitely not made these accusations to you with your current username. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:16, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Hoisted by his own petard. Hopefully some admin will do his job. Arrow740 (talk) 09:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• First edit was a long copyright warning to another user.
• Admin Daniel also suspects this is Kirbytime [37]
  • With no more evidence than you. Is Daniel a sockpuppet? Atari400 04:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
• After the CU came back, he's harrassing me, asking me to help file a complaint against me.
  • You are harassing me. One need only check my talk page to see. I have every right to refute your accusations against when they are submitted. Atari400 04:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

All the editing similarities are mentioned in the check user including edit warring with Yahel Guhan (Sefringle),

That means nothing. You editing pattern reflects that of Sefringle and Arrow740, as well. Are you Sefringle? Atari400 04:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Something must be done about your harassment, baseless accusations, and stalking. I can only hope an Admin will take some form or action to stop such behavior on your part. Atari400 04:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
  • You've now admitted you're Kirbytime by saying above that you remember me accusing you of being a 'closet Muslim'. If I did that, that must have been in your old Kirbytime days because I've definitely not made these accusations to you with your current username. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:22, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
    • That is a lie. You made the accusation here[38] less than two months ago. You are so blinded by your hatred of all things Arab/Muslim, that when a person holds a different view from your own, they MUST be a Muslim! What you are doing is bigoted harassment. This must stop. What you are doing is a hateful attack against me, and truly ruins Wikipedia for everyone, editor and reader alike. Atari400 04:33, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
      • I have hardly had any interaction with username Atari400, except for this recent sock puppet investigation. The only comment I made on the link you gave was "Delete: Recreated category which was deleted before.". --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Here's what I see:

1. Matt57 came up with reasonable evidence to get a Checkuser. The check was performed, and the result was "possible-inconclusive".
2. Behavioral evidence points to sockpuppetry.
3. In any case, the user has been a disruptive POV pusher who is willing to misrepresent sources [39]
4. Within this thread Atari400 is being rude and making unfounded accusations against Matt57. [40]

I am thinking about this and may add to the list before deciding what to do. Jehochman ^Talk 04:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. I am the one being "accused" with no evidence, and I reserve the right to answer my accuser. An admin named Alsion stated that Matt57 was fishing requesting checkuser. So, he comes here, and continues the attack against me. I find that very rude. Atari400 04:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have been no worse than Matt57, and there is no evidence of sockpuppetry. There were two checkuser investigations. Neither came up with evidence. One of the admins holds a known bias, and even he could find not evidence. If you allow this person to ban me on account of an unsubstantiated accusation, simply because we severely disagree on a topic, you will be doing a horrible disservice to Wikipeida, and as well as something very unfair to me. Atari400 04:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

You do know that Checkuser is not the magic pixie dust that proves innocence, right? (no comment on validity of sock allegations) —Kurykh 04:47, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Without a evidence, there can be no conclusion. I do not have to prove my evidence. Rather, others have to prove my guilt. I am not "Kirbytime", and am amazed at how things actually are run here on Wikipedia. Matt57 made a baseless accusation, and was accused of "fishing". Now, he comes to AN/I, and to my amazment, needs no evidence to make accusations. Atari400 04:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Not true. Arrow740 made the initial report without any diffs and his report was refused on the basis of 'fishing'. I fixed the report providing the diffs and then checkuser was accepted and performed. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 04:58, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And how do we know you are not Arrow740? Atari400 04:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Matt57 is correct. Atari400, whether or not you are the same person is almost immaterial because you are in fact being disruptive and display an editing style that would justify a block. Are you willing to change your ways? Jehochman ^Talk 05:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I see your point, and I'll cool down. For the record, I maintain that I have no sockpuppets. I did have another account which I had deleted for privacy purposes, as it was my original. I can email you the name, if you like. Atari400 16:45, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly the deletion of others' talk page messages with zero edit summary does not bode well [41]. When asked, Atari400 said the talk message in question was "pointless vandalism" [42], which is pretty shockingly disruptive behavior for someone who admits that they are neither a new editor nor that this is their first Wikipedia account. --Kralizec! (talk) 06:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Also here we see him reverting four other editors, while claiming there's no consensus for a page move to a more neutral title with each revert. Certainly intentional disruption at that point. ThuranX (talk) 07:35, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Atari400's editing styles should be discussed to see if the user is being disruptive or not. However, such discussion is not meaningful when on one hand baseless allegations (of sockpuppetry) are being made. In such a scenario its hard to tell legitimate criticism from illegitimate.Bless sins (talk) 07:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Bless sins, you have the same editing biases as Kirbytime. Before defending him, please see the checkuser report which clearly illustrates the similarities. Also its not hard to see that Atari400 is a disruptive user. See the diffs people provided here. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 08:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Kirbytime should not be allowed to influence this project further. His reverts at Islam and slavery and Islam and domestic violence should be enough to take some action even if he were a new editor instead of a banned one. Arrow740 (talk) 09:37, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, multiple established editors are reverting you not just Atari400 Nil Einne (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Please do not bring content disputes here. Use

Fair enough, I see your point, and I'll cool down. For the record, I maintain that I have no sockpuppets. I did have another account which I had deleted for privacy purposes, as it was my original. I can email you the name, if you like. Atari400 16:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

One focus of this dispute seems to be

coatrack created by a single purpose account, Wordbywordbyword (talk · contribs) possibly a sockpuppet. Jehochman ^Talk

15:30, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have started Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kirbytime to receive additional comments and evidence. Jehochman ^Talk 15:43, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That is what I requested before. The more opinions on it, the better. Atari400 15:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, the evidence I gave is overwhelming. I'm surprised that someone hasn't blocked this sock yet. I understand you and others are waiting for more evidence which is ok. I estimate it will be blocked before this day is over. I will comment on the case page if I have additional evidence but actually, I thought the one I provided on the CU page which you copied to the case page was enough. This ID suggests its Kirbytime more than any other of his socks simply because it had been able to exist for a longer while. Every time he gets a new ID he's a little bit more careful and so he's able to use it a little longer than last time. Ultimately he comes back to his old ways, disruption and edit warring. You'll all see now he'll behave well today and not edit war in hopes of slipping by. If he does, you can be assured another report will be filed on ANI for disruption later or someone will block him then. Thanks for making the case page. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I compared their edits and am absolutely convinced of sockpuppetry. In my mind there's no doubt whatsoever, but others may want to do similar comparisons and give their opinions. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• I left a comment on the SSP page. Basically, I believe there are two possibilities here. Possibility 1: this is Kirbytime. Pretty strong, but not 100% conclusive. Possibility 2: This is someone else who is exactly like Kirbytime. I don't see any third alternative. In either case, it is someone we can do without, who is an active hindrance to the goal of building an encyclopaedia consistent with core policies such as
  WP:NPOV. Guy (Help!
  ) 12:03, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• If true, they will prove the need for blocking soon enough. All we need to do is sit and wait. If the editor refrains from blockable behavior, all the better. Jehochman ^Talk 15:16, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

• 63.3.10.1 (talk · contribs)
• 63.3.10.2 (talk · contribs)
• talk · contribs
  )

I have a feeling the IP's in this range are being used by blocked sockpuppeter Cowboycaleb1. I therefore, a few weeks ago, tagged 63.3.10.1 and 63.3.10.2 with the {{suspectedsockpuppet|Cowboycaleb1}} template. I believe this, as 63.3.10.130 has been determined to of been used by Caleb as found out in the SSP case for Caleb. However, since then, those 2 IP's, along with IPs in the 209.247.5.57 to 209.247.5.59 range have blanked the tags I left and simply left the message "This is a shared ip address.", see [43] [44] [45] [46]. I have reverted the IP edits a number of times, as my concern still stands. The IP's trace back to Memphis, Tennesse, where Caleb is from, as proved in the SSP case. Can someone block these IPs for two - three months as sockpuppets of Caleb. Cheers, Davnel03^{Sign It, Junior!} 15:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Can an admin please do something about this instead of ignoring this topic, as IP 209.247.5.57 is YET AGAIN reverting my edits. D.M.N. (talk) 12:25, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please urgently see Special:Contributions/81.129.30.212, where an editor is mass-changing the names of Scottish kings from English to Gaelic, against Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English), and the common practise of using most-widely used name, which is not the Gaelic names. The user is ignoring 3RR as well. --UpDown (talk) 17:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

No, this editor was changing them back to the status quo after User:Michaelsanders started edit warring to change the status quo. As for 3RR, I checked it out. It was hard to understand, but you when I saw you going over 3 reverts on David I of Scotland, I assumed it didn't mean anything. Or does it only apply if you don't have an account? Also, UpDown, see Talk:Constantine II of Scotland. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 17:39, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the problem as long as the Anglicised version (i.e. the title of the article) is given first (for instance Alexander I of Scotland). BLACKKITE 17:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have seen that, it changes nothing. A clear policy says to use English and to use most widely-known names. 3RR is quite simple, and my reverting your vandalism (which this clearly is) doesn't count. Any contraversial mass-changes, which these are, should be fully discussed before being changed.--UpDown (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Any contraversial mass-changes, which these are,' Tell that to User:Michaelsanders. He, not I, initiated controversial mass changes. You've got things, I'm afraid, the wrong way around. You'll find I was only restoring the established default. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

And Lol ... reverting an article to the way it has always been hardly counts as vandalism. Why do you preach but not practice? I've no idea who reads here, but I severely doubt anyone will buy your story. It's unbelievable how so many established wikipedia editors try to play the system to "win" edit wars. How about joining the discussion on Talk:Constantine II of Scotland instead of warring? 81.129.30.212 (talk) 17:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Because you are going against two big Wikipedia policies.--UpDown (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not what most established editors discussing on the Constantine page think. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 17:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note that this edit has just broken 3RR on Donald III of Scotland. All these are also 3RR breaches [47], [48], [49], [50]. I'm sure there are many others, but I don't think they all need to be listed...--UpDown (talk) 18:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Why is it ok for you to go over 3 reverts, and not me? You went over 3 reverts first. I couldn't find anything on the page to tell me the rule only applied to users without accounts. Am I missing something? 81.129.30.212 (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I was reverting vandalism, your vandalism, and 3RR does not apply in such circumstances. Besides, I have gone over once, you have gone over repeated times, and do not appear to be taking notice of warnins.--UpDown (talk) 18:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, having looked at it, I'm afraid your comprehension of wikipedia's definition of vandalism is quite awful. Although I suspect you know fine well my edits weren't vandalism, I suppose you've been demonstrating problems of understanding all through this page. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 18:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The edits appear to have been made in good faith. Just because you disagree with them, or feel them misguided, does not mean they are vandalism. As such, yes, 3RR applies to you as well, UpDown. Is there a need to block the both of you, or can you discuss this issue without edit warring? There seems to be some discussion ongoing, but at some point, you might want to take this to

dispute resolution if you can't resolve your issue. Resolute

18:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea if I've been over the limit since UpDown did. There's so many pages, I can't keep track. To me it's blatantly unfair and unsporting to initiate mass controversial changes without discussion, pretend the person responding is actually making the changes while accusing him of vandalism at the same time, all the while (in Updown's case) not actually engaging in discussion beyond bad faith and lazy attempts to misinterpret wikipedia guidelines and policy. All the pages should be restored to the way they were at the start of the day (and for months and years before), while discussion takes place. It's hardly convincing to pretend your having a good faith discussion about "proposed" changes while trying to enforce them against the will of other editors. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 18:41, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

At this point, I see four separate editors arguing for one form of the articles vs. just you and one other arguing for the other. I've read your arguments on some of the talk pages, and you do argue your side very well. However, at the moment, consensus appears to be against you. I would rather see everyone discuss what is a content issue without edit warring rather than have to go around throwing down a bunch of 3RR blocks or protecting articles at

requests for comment. Resolute

18:51, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Michael Sanders is the only one forwarding arguments for the changes (atm!); Mike Christie is middle line, while myself, Angus McLellan and Haukur support the default. And it's not like this hasn't been discussed before. UpDown may well support Sanders, but he hasn't made any arguments ... or decent arguments at least. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 18:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I am looking at the revision history on several articles. If I end up having to protect the articles, I will do so at the version they are currently in - Gaelic or Anglicized. Again, I would recommend all parties take a step back, and continue to discuss. There has been too much warring over them already, and that is what I am concerned about. Resolute 19:02, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you've decided to take an interest in intervention here, it would probably be most effective if your recommendation was delivered to all parties involved, most especially the user who got it all started and who has continued to enforce his own wishes despite an awareness that it was controversial (as events and the advice of Mike Christie made him aware). I think it will calm down if this user's self-righteousness eases up a little while he gains an understanding that this issue, as with most heated issues in life, is actually complicated and two sided. As for me, I'm fine as long as a discussion is allowed to progress. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I should note, in fairness to UpDown, he didn't initiate the mass controversial changes. User:Michaelsanders did. Only after I reverted Michael did UpDown intervene on his behalf; if he was being truthful, UpDown believed at first that I was the one starting mass controversial changes. He must know by now that it's the other way around, so maybe he'll behave. As UpDown I see is a well established fan of edit warring, I hope it's not the case that he just couldn't resist. 81.129.30.212 (talk) 18:49, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The anon objects to links pointing to the established articles, as opposed to non-standard Gaelic forms. For that reason, he has been persistently reverting changes made by myself, UpDown, and several other editors. He is the only editor making reversions to these edits. Michael Sanders 20:01, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverting the reversions counts as well. That is the entire point of

WP:3RR - to stop two or more people from repeatedly reverting back to their preferred version. He's not innocent in this, but really neither are any of you. Resolute

20:06, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I am avoiding reverts to avoid edit wars, not because I agree with Michael. Angus is doing the same. I will start a thread on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (use English) and notify some editors I know that edit these and similar articles. I hope that a consensus there will resolve this. If everyone agrees to discuss the issue at that location then I see no further need for this thread. Mike Christie (talk) 20:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I have now created that discussion. It can be found here. Mike Christie (talk) 21:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• This appears to be a content dispute. I don't think it can be taken for granted that obscure style guidelines necessarily have consensus across Wikipedia. Too often they are decided by a small and unrepresentative group, and then presented to the actual editors of the articles in question as a fait accompli. This isn't how things are supposed to work. *** Crotalus *** 02:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting to stumble across this dispute. I have argued in the past, to no avail, against the Gaelic brigade who wish to have article pages etc., in some obscure format which no-one else knows or understands except them and a few other scholars. Put their Gaelic names into the article somewhere certainly, but don't attempt to rewrite every history book and encyclopaedia via Wikipedia. People wish to access WP for general knowledge and will do so by searching for the names they are generally known by. It is a tiresome business but we cannot turn the clock back 800 or more years just to satisfy either nationalists or Gaelic scholars (or both). Regards, David Lauder (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Rewriting history is part of what historians do and one of the reasons why new books and papers on history are published year in and year out. Here's an example of the effects of this continuous rewriting on Encarta. Illulb is one of those "obscure format[s] which no-one else knows or understands except ... a few other scholars". So too is Custantín I believe, and Cinaed, and Custantín again. Is Encarta in the thrall of Siol nan Gaidheal? Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As those who have interacted with David Lauder to any significant extent know, "rewriting history" refers to any writings made since the Industrial Revolution, and "revisionism" refers to any scholarly view or practice post-dating the Great War. No offense intended there David ... you know it's true anyways. ;) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 16:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my remarks which I feel are fair comment. It seems that this post-WWII generation feels it knows best and better than all those who went before it. I just do not agree. Thats all. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 16:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/BryanFromPalatine. Please also refer to all recent IP edits by 209.221.240.193 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) to Talk:Waterboarding. Looking at this, and comparing what I've just read of the political POV-pushing from User:BryanFromPalatine and his sock account User:DeanHinnen, this appears to be extremely suspect. See here. This IP address is using language just like what I see from various edits on both users, and this IP was previously confirmed blocked on the IP talk page due to it being used by User:ClemsonTiger, a confirmed BryanFromPalatine sock. Lawrence Cohen 18:34, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

In looking more at this, this IP address is owned by Bosch Corporation, which the IP user has admitted to. It also from casual Googling appears that this banned user actually works there, at Bosch, and is based on the subject matter they're editing evading the ban. I'd rather not link to the news sources I found that confirms this, but it's trivial to find them. Does this pass the duck test? Lawrence Cohen 18:55, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't recall that this was a topic area Bryan was interested in or edited in. I agree that it could be him, but I believe that the IP is correct that there are a large number of users behind that IP address. A checkuser won't help - we have to apply the Duck test. I think that "similar philosophy / political inclinations" but "not editing same set of articles" out of a pool of tens of thousands of users at a specific company isn't enough to pass the duck test.

None of the current edits seem abusive (sampled a bunch but not all). Keep an eye on? Sure. But no QUACK yet. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I would say that the edits to talk:Waterboarding are very likely Bryan - pushing of right-wing POV, languange and tone also strongly suggestive. Other, older edits may not be; it is a corporate proxy of Bryan's employer, as noted above. I suggest a softblock. Guy (Help!) 13:05, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm tired of being attacked by this user on the

I have given this editor a stern warning to desist. — Coren ^(talk) 06:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I was about to suggest the same as Coren. This comment is quite disturbing, comparing a fringe theory which is not in any modern textbook (I have taken monetary economics as part of my BA-MBA program and have yet to see any mention of this) to anal sex. At any rate, these comments border on

incivil and are patent nonsense. Seicer (talk) (contribs

) 06:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Note this isn't the first such warning Karmaisking has gotten: see here, less than a month ago. – Luna Santin (talk) 09:12, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to fork, but any admin seen this comment regarding suspected sock puppets regarding the fringe monetary economic pages? Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:39, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It continues: [[52]]. As you can see from articles where he edits, personal attacks are standard operating procedure.--Gregalton (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to reconcile my understanding of {{

Currently, unlike articles, when someone proposes renaming a category, a brand new category is created, with the new name, but the text of the old category. Its revision history shows it having a single author -- the robot that created it, not the actual human authors.

Any different revisions the text of the category underwent are lost. And, if I am not mistaken, if that category had a talk page, it is silently erased.

We grant generous rights when we release our contributions under the {{

It seems to me the current mechanism doesn't retain the attributions in our contributions to the text of categories. Geo Swan (talk) 20:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that the consensus is that the prose contents of categories are trivial, and mostly

scenes a faire material which isn't subject to copyright in general; it's meta-information and not subject matter. I suppose there are cases where a category would bear enough originality and prose to be protectable, but then a simple acknowledgment in the edit log should do. — Coren ^(talk)

21:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

They are, or should be anyway. However, Cydebot does list the editors of the old category, so the information is retained in the history of the new page. If there's a talk page for a renamed category, it gets moved to the new name, e.g. here and here. About as good as can be done with the current system. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:04, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Not all the editors are shown in the edit summary if the edit history is too long. Some of the edits made to category pages are creative enough that they should be preserved per the GFDL. A solution would be to move the category page to the new name (along with its talk page). The way that could be implemented is, I believe, as easy as making category pages move-protected by default, rather than having the software completely prevent movement of category pages. Carcharoth (talk) 01:30, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I think that that's simply a great idea. Though I have a vague recollection that categories should be "empty" before "turning into" a page (which then can be moved). - jc37 02:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

In answer to Coren -- I have started categories where the text has been vandalized. I have started categories where the contents clearly were longer than too trivial to merit copyright protection. I don't see how the suggestion that a mention in the edit log could be sufficient for those instances where the category has been vandalized, or has been the subject of disagreement, or edit warring. It still seems to me that this does not fulfill the wikipedia's obligations to honor the rights contributor's retain under the {{

gfdl

}}.

I don't understand why category renaming should lose the edit history, when the edit history is not lost when articles are renamed. Geo Swan (talk) 14:46, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken the current mechanism erases the content of comments in Category talk:* space. I checked my edit history and came across a contribution to Category talk:Chadian rebels. Even if, for the sake of argument, the comments here were misplaced -- I dispute that this means they should be flushed without any warning or discussion. Geo Swan (talk) 15:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

There are almost a dozen entries in the edit history of Category talk:Afghan politicians. If trashing the talk pages of categories is due to a programming design choice then, IMO, it was a poorly advised one. See also:

• Category talk:Saudi Arabian extrajudicial prisoners of the United States
• Category talk:Afghani anti-communists
• Category talk:Saudi Arabian terrorists
• Category:Guantanamo Bay detainment camp

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 15:31, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

For the record, administrators can see deleted edits. You have over 100 deleted edits that were made to various Guantanamo Bay categories (most were discussed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_27#Category:Guantanamo_Bay_detainees), and 6 that were made to category talk pages. I agree that category talk page discussion is sometimes very useful and should be kept if the editor wants to put the thoughts somewhere else. I have 17 deleted category talk edits and over 150 deleted category namespace edits. I'd be happy to retrieve your category talk edits if you want them. Carcharoth (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Is there a technical objection to using move rather than create when renaming a category? I certainly know of categories that have significant textual content that would very clearly not be

I support Lar's proposal. Badagnani (talk) 22:08, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The technical problem is that you can't redirect categories. Well you can but all articles added to the category will still be listed under the redirect rater than the redirect target, resulting in some confution. Various proposale to fix this have been floating around for years but it's aparenlty not easy to achieve. Basicaly you either have to go though and automaticaly change the text of each article that's a member of the article when it's renamed (but how do that reliably and effectively?), or just make the target category list all the content of any category that's redirected to it, but then what if multiple categories redirect to the same target etc? --Sherool (talk) 13:46, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Forgot about that you can't easily just move the category... it doesn't have a move tab! (I agree that once moved, a bot would need to clean up all the pages that categorized to the old name). Well I still think category talk pages should be moved if possible.. there's a move tab visible on those so it's at least theoretically technically possible to move them. ++Lar: t/c 18:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

After reviewing the contribs of

It's a little difficult to determine the relationship between SPD V and V-Dash, since the former only edited article space and the latter seems to have recently confined themselves to the talkpage. Providing you are certain that the correctly indef blocked puppet was being used by V-Dash then I concur with that block also, per JzG's warning. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

SPD V was edit-warring over the exact same things that earned V-Dash his last 3RR block from me - the genre section of Pokémon Diamond and Pearl. Also, his talkpage post there, written in French, is little more than a chastising towards those who do not fit his POV that D&P is a straight RPG (minus the J), i.e. most everyone. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 21:12, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

I saw a lot of edits to the same articles, but wasn't able to establish a consistent pov (because most of V-Dash's edits were a revert war over the same couple of sentences on the talkpage). If you are happy that SPD V is not an impersonator sock account designed to get V-Dash into trouble then I am happy too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comment made me consider the last post by SPD V, which was in French. I am not certain whether V-Dash knows

French and so I amended the SPD V CU to ask if this is PolluxFrost. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v}

) 07:42, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

V-Dash unblocked as innocent; SPD V is

talk · contribs), who is indefinitely blocked for harassment of V-Dash. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v}

) 19:54, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Man, this guy just keeps dodging every accusation! He's a genius! :) J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 21:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)