Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive351

Due to an edit conflict on

Did those sources use the name Rumania or Roumania? Really though, until I was told that it "is" Romania, I personally spelt it Roumania. The Catholic Encyclopedia uses Rumania and frankly, I think people are a little too eager to make incident reports when someone disagrees with them or they disagree with someone else. When faced with people reverting these very common alternative names, I wouldn't be surprised with anyone having a less than favourable reaction. It seems to be a case of picking on someone and trust me, Pmanderson and I have had a lot of differences. He's a good editor though. Charles 20:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The sources are here: two recently published books (one from Oxford) which use Rumania and Roumania in their titles, and the reasonably well-known poem by

Talk:Iaşi-Chişinău Offensive to the form actually used in English. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

19:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with

User:Eurocopter tigre, in past dealings with User:Pmanderson I have found him to be incredibly rude, insulting, and disruptive in many different edits to many different articles... and he has also been blocked at times for his disruptive behaviour (whether 3RR or otherwise) but this seems to surface from time to time and now continues unchecked. Rarelibra (talk

) 20:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This would appear to be a reference to

Lake Scutari; see its talkpage. Septentrionalis PMAnderson

19:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Not seeing a problem with PMA here from any of your diffs, but an edit summary such as you made: "any such additions will be considered vandalism and reported accordingly" is not acceptable during a content dispute. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For God's sake we are talking about the oficial name of the country. I'm sure that nobody will agree if I'll post "Ingland" as an alternate name for "England", just because I found this error in a book. Also, see PMA's incivility here and here. --

talk

) 21:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. And, while at it, can anyone explain why is it "imprudent for a foreigner to dogmatize on English usage", as Pmanderson puts it? What exactly does it mean to be a "

here, but no real apology has been offered, just more of the same. Turgidson (talk

) 21:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion appears to be about alternate spellings of the name and their use on Wikipedia, not the official name, so far as I can see. Who disputes the official name of the country? To Turgidson, I would assume he means that people who are not native English speakers may be less familiar with questions that depend on English usage. This seems reasonable at first glance, although perhaps not well-applied in your case as your English seems excellent. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I insist on this point, but "foreigner", or "alien" (de:Ausländer, or l'Étranger, if you wish) means precisely "a person who is not a native or naturalized citizen of the land where they are found"—this has nothing to do with whether English is one's native language or not. (If we are to talk about the English language, let's be precise about it, shall we?) So I repeat my question: what is alleged or implied by this statement of Pmanderson, that I am a "foreigner"—in which land? US? UK? Canada? Ireland? Australia? NZ? And, if so, does it make me a second-class citizen here at WP? I thought English Wikipedia is for everyone to edit, with more-or-less equal rights, and that one is judged by the quality of one's edits (including, yes! one's command of the English language), and by the quality of one's demeanor, not by whether one is, or is not, a "foreigner" (again, with respect to which country?) Thank you for considering this point. I am very much interested in hearing your opinion on this, since it goes to the heart of how I view the Wiki. -- Turgidson (talk) 01:48, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see I'm not getting any answer to my question. Be that as it may, I would still dispute the planted assumption "that people who are not native English speakers may be less familiar with questions that depend on English usage". Is there a reliable source stating that, or is this merely a nativist assumption? I've seen plenty of native speakers (including editors here at WP) who have a poor command of the English language, especially when it comes to grammar and spelling, and also some non-native speakers with a perfect command of the many nuances, alternate meanings, etymology, etc, not to say grammar and spelling. So I'd say that kind of dismissive attitude towards editors who may not be natives of an English-speaking country is misplaced (to use the mildest word I can use in this context), and not conducive to a good working atmosphere here at WP. -- Turgidson (talk) 19:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Silence talks... --

talk

) 13:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

And what is it saying? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a reaction by a handful of editors with an emotional commitment to the use of official names, as with this uncivil comment by Turgidson to Narson; they do not recognize, or do not accept, that

While my experience of PMA is that he can be abrasive at times in his pursuit of what he sees as correct or fixing what is incorrect, I do think that if there is 'action' taken against PMA for that talk page, certainly other users deserve administrative sanction as well (As Husond warned both, after which I believe PMA seemed to make an effort to keep his comments shorter and avoid commentry on other users, while Turgidson has continued to display disdain for the other users). Narson (talk) 04:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This article has been a hotbed of nationalist edit-warring for years. There was a recent Arbcom case, but it resulted only in the ban of one editor and no sanctions on anybody else. I and a few other admins have instituted an experimential type of article probation with a zero-tolerance rule against edit warring. All to no avail.

Currently, the main problem is that the article keeps getting edited by people who, while not permanently revert-warring, are still clearly tendentious, insistent on making frequent high-volume edits trying to maximize the representation of their nation's point of view, and, at the same time, write abominably poor English. The whole article as well as the talk page have become utterly unreadably as a result.

I've pleaded with them asking them to recognise the limitations of their language skills and refrain from making further text additions until the mess has been cleared up, but to no avail. The moment one editor stops messing with it, another starts.

Can we block people for writing bad English? The whole situation is unbearable, and I'm losing my patience with these people. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"Can we block people for writing bad English?" I think we should if they're clearly making bad faith edits and are not here to contribute to the encyclopaedia. Unfortunately, our problem is half the world's trolls speak English and WP:EN is a great place for POV-pushers of various factions and differing languages to meet for an "away match". We shouldn't be making life easy for non-anglophone disruptive users to come here too. I doubt the Icelandic WP has to put up with the levels of hassle we have to. --

Folantin (talk

) 16:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

They aren't necessarily acting in bad faith. Their tendentiousness is also not dramatically above that of your average "nationally-focussed" editor. It's the combination of that tendentiousness with the poor English that makes it so bad. -- Actually, one of the recent main culprits, Opp2 (talk · contribs), has now stated he will give it a rest (good for him!), but could somebody look at Whatdamn (talk · contribs) and tell me if he is a certain sock? He is, but I can't quite work out whose. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

"They aren't necessarily acting in bad faith". Sure, but judging purely by the effect they have on encyclopaedic content it's difficult to tell the difference between sincere but tendentious and ill-informed editors and bona fide bad faith trolls. Liancourt Rocks has a notorious reputation as one of the "nationalist hot spots". I've never examined it in much detail and I can't make head or tail of some of those comments either, probably because I don't know the linguistic substrates (Korean and Japanese). I think there is an ArbCom ruling on avoiding the use of foreign languages in talk page disputes which might be relevant. IIRC it was on one of the East European arbs. --

Folantin (talk

) 16:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a bit of linguistic pedantry: bona fide means... "good faith". So I'm not entierly certain you meant "bona fide bad faith".  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 16:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That may be what it originally meant, but many people use it to mean "the real thing" or something along those lines (e.g., "That guy's a bona fide cowboy.") Meanings change, and all that. (^_^) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice catch! (Looks round for the entrance out of here...). --

Folantin (talk

) 17:07, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• I'm seriously tired of the grief that this article causes. I have deleted it. We are simply better off without it. The amount of time and effort it sucks up from productive users trying to mediate simply isn't worth it. No doubt someone will reverse me but, seriously, there has to be a mechanism to control articles like this that cause so much disproportionate trouble.
  Spartaz ^Humbug!
  16:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that once you start editing a Wikipedia that is not in your native language, then whether or not you are editing in good faith is moot if your writing quality is so poor that it degrades the article. If editors are being contacted specifically about their writing quality, and continue to make edits that create in a net degradation of the article, then they are effectively vandalizing the encyclopedia... I would have no issue with a short block for an editor who has been fully warned. That said, it is still important that we first reach out to such editors and offer to help them integrate information in order to differentiate poor writers from poor writers who are also tendentious. Hiberniantears (talk) 17:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that's rouge, Spartaz! I'm tempted to recreate it with "Liancourt Rocks are just some boring rocks between Japan and Korea. Get over it". I suspect someone will try to haul you over the coals for "violating policy" but I wonder why we never seem to enforce our policy on

Folantin (talk

) 17:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there some way, perhaps, that a page could be fully protected so that only admins could edit it? Could that be a way forward with an article about a notable geographic feature that is frequently reported in news services worldwide, and which attracts controversy from a number of countries? DuncanHill (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Whoa, turning Liancourt Rocks into a rougelink? That's radical... :-)

I share your feelings. Although, of course, we should have an article on that topic. I was considering forcibly stubbing it down and having it rewritten from scratch. But who is to do it? Sigh. (And it just so happens that I've for a long time maintained another article on a

disputed little islet, demonstrating that it is possible...) Fut.Perf. ☼

17:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, it's gone blue again. Can't wait to see what's happened to it... :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a redirect to

Dokdo. I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw it was a red link, heh. I know I'm not an admin or anything, but if it came down to it, I'd support Fut.Perf.'s thought of a full rewrite. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)}

17:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• How many versions of this article exist? I came across
  Dokdo while reviewing the deletion history of Liancourt. Hiberniantears (talk
  ) 17:12, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Folantin (talk

) 17:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• • {EC}Its just been recreated. I'm going to spend a few more rouge points and delete the redirecrt and the pov fork and protect them while we discuss this. DuncanHill's suggestion has a lot of merit
    Spartaz ^Humbug!
    17:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Wow, talk of cheekiness. Well, by doing that lightning-quick copy-and-paste move, Whatdamn has certainly demonstrated he's not a new user but some kind of sock. Indef-blocked now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've heard a pretty reliable rumour that there are noticeboards out there encouraging Korean and Japanese nationalists to come and edit this particular article. So I think it's perfectly fair we take measures to protect the encyclopaedia. --

Folantin (talk

) 17:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Good point. BTW, would anyone object if I tried my hand at a neutral stub replacement? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:26, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't object to that. --

Folantin (talk

) 17:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You have my support in creating a neutral stub replacement. In the mean time, what should be done with

Dokdo?Hiberniantears (talk

) 17:33, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why can't people just learn to get along? — Rlevse • Talk • 17:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Dokdo can be redirected to liancort rocks and full protected. Agree with fut perf rewriting this in neutral and then full protection thereafter.

(3 edit conflicts) A neutral, fully-protected stub would a) make sure we at least have something about these notable stones, and b) keep POV pushing (to some extent at least) off the mainspace. Go for it, I say! DuncanHill (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, give me half an hour. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't read the above discussion yet. But I don't understand why the Liancourt rocks page has no content. I thought an editor who copied and pasted contents from the old article of

talk

) 17:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wha?

talk

17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I was upset at the whole contents being deleted, so I wrote too quickly. --

talk

) 18:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

After reading the above discussion, I still think this is pathetic. Replacing the article with that sentence was downright childish and you have brought the administrators to the same level as the edit warmongers. A large systematic attack on the article as you've mentioned could very well warrant full protection, but not this, this is vandalism. Wha is what I want to know. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

• Restore the article quickly The administrator who protected the Liancourt rocks should've restored the page to the prior version after a banned user reverted. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and there is no content on either the redirect page, Dokdo, and Liancourt rocks. --
  talk
  ) 18:04, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems a bit too dramatic, actually. From cursory observation, I notice that intro has not come under dispute, or changed much for that matter, in a while. So why send readers away to answers.com (as much as I'm a fan!). And no, it isn't just some rocks, I reckon it is homework for thousands of Japanese and Korean students. So, I'm restoring the intro, which should not have a bearing in figuring out the rest. Good luck. El_C 18:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Future Perfect is working on a stub, and if the stub is of quality then I think protecting it somewhat permanently from editing would be a fine idea. In the mean time, a protected article with little or no information is preferable to the constant edit-warring that this article is subject to. How many ArbCom cases, AN/I reports etc. need to happen before we decide that this piece of content isn't worth the trouble?

• It'd probably be best to restore the entire history as well though, to give an idea of why the article is a neutral stub. BLACKKITE 18:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked at few version and the lead remains pretty much the same throughout and has no citation requests, so, at least we can provide the very basic inforamtion of what, when, whom, etc. El_C 18:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I thinm Fut perf os doing a quick stubification/rewrite and material can be restored from them on in. Obviously we will have to restore the history for gfdl reasons once this is complete but at the moment shall we leave fut perf to work on this in peace?

Spartaz ^Humbug!

18:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how having the undisputed intro is preventing to work in peace. El_C 18:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed the references on the existing stub. Let's see how FP's version looks. BLACKKITE 18:25, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned on the talk page, I fail to understand the reason behind deletion, if the purpose is to blank (which I question, too). One can blank and protect and the effect is the same. Why was the page deleted if all it's revision are to be restored intact? The only difference between that and blanking is... what, the drain on our resources as thousands of revisions are restored? Paint me confused. El_C 18:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry El C, I see this has already been undeleted but the (admittedly out of process) deletion of the article seems to have helped towards creating some progress. Sorry for the confusion here. I was expecting to be immediately reverted but instead we did something constructive instead. :)

Spartaz ^Humbug!

19:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and in honour of this experiment of yours I shall dedicate this new entry in the Dictionary of Silly Wikipedia Jargon to you: "to rougelink (v., tr.):

rougely turning sth. into a redlink temporarily to force a way out of an edit-warring impasse.". -- Fut.Perf. ☼

19:23, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

All credit to you for making something useful from it!

Spartaz ^Humbug!

19:28, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If the stub is to be protected (which I presume it is, or else this is all pointless) there is no harm in restoring the history, I'd guess. BLACKKITE 18:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing in the revisions we're trying to hide, which is why I'm confused. Oh well. No big deal. El_C 18:42, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the history of the Liancourt Rocks article. Writing a new version of the article and then protecting it is not a terrible idea, but there seems to be no useful purpose (or permissible reason) for deleting the history. -- tariqabjotu 18:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, at the very least the history could be useful in providing diffs. in assessing the behaviour of warring editors in future Korean-Japanese disputes. Maybe best to protect the redirects at

Folantin (talk

) 18:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

As an innocent bystander who saw a mention of this edit war on the Help Desk page, I must say I think that the new, neutral, stub-like article is far better than the 100k monster that's there in the history from only hours before. The old version is too long-winded to read and a POV-pushing nightmare, "Pro-Korea" and "Pro-Japan" sections in the external links, etc. Kudos to the admins for providing a neutral article so quickly that's about as long as anyone who doesn't really care about these rather dull rocks would want to read. ^_^ • Anakin ^{(contribs • complaints)} 19:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

While I could agree with deleting the actual rocks deleting the article has significant baby bathwater issues.Geni 20:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

A motion to expand the remedies available from the prior arbitration case has been made at

I motion we leave the article fully protected forever and never let anyone edit it ever again unless something drastic happens (such as erosion or a Japanese invasion/liberation (which term depends, of course, on your POV). It's a small outcropping of rocks, and the article as it stands covers everything that could and should be said about them. The old version ([3]) was raddled with nationalist rubbish.

☎

10:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please make lengthy comments regarding the article's content on

☎

14:11, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think his pointing out is not that lengthy. The editors are invited to discuss the matter here. I prefer seeing comment regarding correcting information rather than the below scornful and unhelpful sarcasm.--

talk

) 15:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please propose any factual corrections on the article talk page. I wouldn't be surprised if I got things wrong, I know absolutely nothing about either Korea or Japan, other than what I could gather from the existing material. Any admin can fulfil requests for uncontroversial edits or merge uncontroversial material back in from the old versions. The article should be allowed to grow back to a natural size under some cautious scrutiny. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Give them guns and let them kill each other over it. After all, they really are just a couple of rocks out in the ocean... what purpose or value would it really be? Set up a McDonald's there - and everyone will be happy, I say. Rarelibra (talk) 13:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC) (sponsored by sarcasm)

I like the deletion of all the "history of claims" and other stuff, it was too cluttered anyways. I like the article as it stands but it could do with more information regarding the dispute.

I don't think we should block (or you mean ban?) non-english users. They are biased and rude but because they don't understand english, I don't think they fully know how wikipedia is run and are probably doing what they think is ok. At least I hope that they are doing this unaware. I think you should just warn them about adding bias and being biased in discussions. I think they will pay attention more to administrators. Good friend100 (talk) 02:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion

Even though the article has some incorrect information as an editor pointed out, I also prefer the current version than the past controversial editions including all mumble jumble. I think protecting the article from editing for good is a good idea because the nature of the article tends to be a consistent hot zone of editing warring. Regardless of the conflicts here, the actual situation is still same but readers can get a wrong information from the past badly written article. If someone wants to expand or add new information, first go to the talk page and then get a consensus at a discussion and administrators only add confirmed information to the article under the protection.

For example of

Unfortunately, this is only an interim solution; eventually a consensus needs to emerge concerning the content of this article, & hopefully it will be unprotected. There are many reasons for this, but I will only mention one. Eventually, Wikipedians who have vested interest in the contents of this article will, one way or another, manage to become Admins, which will lead to a renewed round of pain over this article. No, I am not engaging in

WP:BEANS by saying this, because anyone who can edit Wikipedia can figure this trick out for themselves (& from the prolonged nastiness over this article, I wouldn't be surprised if a few people have already started "sleeper accounts" for this very purpose). However, a broad consensus about the content of this article could avert this result because its supporters would a reason to work off-Wiki to minimize a renewal of this conflict, & if they prove effective the protection could then be removed. -- llywrch (talk

) 20:09, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Bootstrap Bill Turner 5 January

   POTC: AWE 6 January

   POTC:AWE 5 January

   POTC:AWE EARLY 5 January

   Will Turner 5 January

As these removals are not commented, and continue to occur, this constitutes disruptive editing, and needs to be addressed. This is a pre-block advisory, action is not being requested at this time, unless it is deemed by admin(s) to be required, per the record of edits. Thank you again for your time an attention to this incident report. Edit Centric (talk) 22:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Took a look at his edits - on "Will Turner" he's editing out what looks like POV (removing

POV is in keeping with our policies, in "Pirates of the Caribbea: At World's End" He's editing out a referenced to a forum, again, in keeping with policy regarding references. I don't see that this is vandalism. I don't think a block or a ban would be appropriate here, but that's just my .02 cents. :) KoshVorlon ".. We are ALL Kosh..." 18:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I am drafting an FAQ here and would appreciate any input or constructive edits the editors here could give on/to it. The page is currently semi-protected; I do not trust anons to edit it given the topic matter and their use of it. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 08:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how this semi-protection is justified under the

protection policy. 72.193.221.88 (talk

) 10:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Userpages can be semi-protected on request, 72. As an administrator, I can simply cut out the middleman and semi-protect it myself. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Please check the neutrality of this article, see the history and read the talk page. It is full of peacock terms. I repeatedly tried to add the necessary tags. The article was locked for a month without any result. See also [4] and [5]. Thanks.Aparhizi (talk) 11:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Unacceptable (though perhaps he was just having a bad day) and I've left a warning. BLACKKITE 14:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• It looks like User:Piercetheorganist is the bad hand of User:Republican given that both pages redirect to Republican's. --WebHamster 14:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• I was a little confused about what that meant. Does that mean that Piercetheorganist is a sockpuppet? MrVibrating (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Eek - I'd left him a message and not even noticed that. I see that Ioeth is dealing with it now , though. BLACKKITE 18:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Can you take a look at another use of vulgar language in edit summaries by User:Piercetheorganist on Demarcation point. Here is the reference - 08:41, 7 January 2008 Piercetheorganist (Talk | contribs) (4,179 bytes) (A f&cking grammar fix, you f&cking idiot morons. Why the f&ck don't you know the f&cking difference betweent these f&cking SIMPLE words, you f&cking screw-ups?!!!!!!) I can't understand why he would become so angry over such a trivial matter. Thanks63.239.69.1 (talk) 21:45, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

This edit was made before BlackKite's warning, so additional action isn't necessary. However, if this happens again, I would suggest a longer term block (i.e. 1 week), as this is a recurring problem for this user. Tijuana Brass (talk) 21:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Given the fact that the user has been warned multiple times, and blocked twice for the exact same kind of issues I don't think a further warning will prevent future disruption. After looking through his contribution history, I think stronger measures are warranted right now rather than waiting for the next instance of incivility - I've instituted a one week block. If the user makes a commitment to improve his civility, I'd be happy for him to be unblocked earlier though. henrik•talk 22:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Biggilo (

• frankingmachines.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• howtobuydiamonds.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
• vids-uk.info: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

--Hu12 (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Are theses sites genuine spam, and if so, have they been added to

friendly

) 16:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Biggilo also fails to understand that Wikipedia's servers are in the United States, not in Britain, and in the US, libel law does not function in the same way. Over here, the onus is on the accuser to prove libel, not on the defendant to prove that it was not. Horologium (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Obvious they are all related (adsense confirmed) and promotional additions. In light of the threats, should we BL them? I see no reason wikipedia needs them, nor ever would. Doubt we need them reapearing under another username or anon IP..IMHO.--Hu12 (talk) 17:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

BL'd all three, doubt anyone will dissagree, but if so, say so..;)--Hu12 (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Jasdhf1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Klijh1986 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• RobJ1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The entire SSP case was reposted to RobJ1981's talk page, in lieu of a briefer notice. In that context, I think both Jasdhf1981 and Klijh1986 are the same user. The SSP case indicates that the reporting user is a regular contributor who wishes to avoid stalking and harassment from socks and proxys, which would seem to confirm that both accounts are indeed socks - whether they would be permitted socks or not is unclear, and may be based on the merits of the case (i.e. whether it is spurious or not). I haven't checked all (or even many) of the diffs, but the AfD case appears to be circumstantial, in that Eyrian nominated Nanotechnology in fiction for deletion in July 2007, and RobJ1981 re-nominated it in November. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, RobJ's made a comment at the SSP page which you may which to see. D.M.N. (talk) 17:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

some of the diffs do seem less than convincing, and I agree that the admitted sockpuppetmaster and desysopped admin Eyrian has the least to do with this business, but the general concentration on the wrestling seems to match the previous sockpuppet pattern. I can see why someone who think he's going against JB196 might want to use a different account, and that he said so straight-out is a sign of good faith. . But as UltraExact says, it will need a detailed look at the evidence, which I am not able to do this week. DGG (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I removed a copyvio from this page per

The copyvio claim was overly vague to begin with. So vague that it didn't cite specific source of the alleged copyright violation. So it's reasonable for BladeRN to question the claim and reverted the article. You also didn't help by blanking almost the entire article, regardless of whether it contained material that was a copyvio or material that was clearly not a copyvio. --Farix (Talk) 19:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for the spam, but there hadn't been a proper Look At This post on AN or ANI. It was on VPP and the CENT template, however, and spawned out of a thread on AN last week. Please review and help out at:

Wikipedia:Task of the Day

Posting here, as it would obviously require some administrative support, as it involves protected pages. Basic initial idea work is now done, and the (surprisingly basic) technical Mediawiki work as well. Please review it, and weigh in on Talk there, so we can see if the idea has proper legs. Thanks! :) Lawrence Cohen 19:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• TheOnlyJason (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Persistent vandal. Final warning given. User talk page blanking obscures previous warnings. Latest example [7] -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:03, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, you'll want

WP:AIV for this. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page}

20:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

They refuse to act if it's not occuring within minutes of the time of reporting. Please can admins on AIV and ANI reach a consensus on this and publish it in the instructions for using both boards. Thanks. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, it was 5 days ago. If he does it again, you can warn him one more time, or report him. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 20:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Just report it on the AIV page the next time it happens, and tell the admins who review it that there has already been a final warning issued and to review the history of the Talk page. Corvus cornix_talk 22:29, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Piquant (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Just about every edit involves adding a link to an article in the International Socialism journal. I don't know if this contravenes anything, but it looks like undue politicisation of articles to me. User talk page blanked, obscures one warning. -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 20:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Consolidating some discussion on this Talk:Happiness#Proposed_link, User_talk:Piquant, User_talk:Edgarde#Your_comments_on_citation_and_external_links, User_talk:Orangemike#Spamming_and_POV, User_talk:Irishguy#Spamming.3F, User_talk:Daytona2#Removal_of_link_from_subprime_article

Is this an ANI issue ? -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 21:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Can someone close this bad faith DRV discussion before it goes on too far? This is the second request by the user in the last 5 days...I'm not aware of what the IP did, but this is obviously related to it..--Smashville^BONK! 22:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone has requested me to delete and/or undeleted this user talk page... any help would be appreciated.[8] --W.marsh 00:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's already been through DRV - Wikipedia:Deletion_review#User_talk:202.76.162.34_.28closed.29. Pastordavid (talk) 17:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Asgardian (talk · contribs) - Made 2 reverts in less than a week [9], [10], (with the original edit that was a revert of over a weeks time [11]). This is violation of the user restriction agreement RfA:Asgardian-Tenebrae. This may or may not be a moot point as the use is currently blocked due to the agreement for similar edits on another page. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC).

It is indeed pretty moot.

☎

09:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – 757-223ET phone hoooooooome..... -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 06:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This user has made a veiled threat on my talk page. I believe this user was banned as User:767-249ER for vandalising a number of pages and making threats to me and a number of other users. The following message appeared on my talk page:

>>>>== Message: ==

Hack is BACK!

--757-223ET (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2008 (UTC)<<<<

I would like to request that the matter be handled by an administrator because if I issue another warning, I will just be continually harassed by this user and from other IP addresses, as has happened in the past. Thank you. J Bar (talk) 05:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This userbox, located in User:MQDuck/userboxes/Right To Resist, supporting Iraqi insurgency. Please delete this userbox. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't think it's worse than a number of other boxes on this page. Though of course a better answer would be to delete the whole lot of them so people could concentrate on, uh, building an encyclopedia. BLACKKITE 09:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• The text of this userbox is "This user recognizes the right of Iraqis to
  resist occupation
  ."
• This userbox is supporting Iraqi insurgency, in other words supporting terrorism.

This userbox cannot be tolerated. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Deleted as unhelpful. Although "terrorism" is subjective - that's what we called "George Washington" a few years back. But, looking long and hard at this user's contributions, I find it hard to assume other than a deliberate attempt to provoke drama. In a more rounded user's own space, I'd allow more latitude.--
    Doc
    ^g 10:52, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

In the future, please consider

criteria for speedy deletion instead of reporting here. --slakr^\ talk

 / 10:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we've had several UBX issues of late, it might be worth leaving a reference to this here in case anyone's forgotten it. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I started a discussion about one I saw subst'ed on a userpage here:

It may not exist elsewhere.

There is more than one problem with this user's conduct. [12] (Edit: I didn't see it before but this user was just blocked for a week [13] so that may or may not have anything to do with this users judgement) —

229

09:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

He has now made a response to my attempts to get him to mitigate his activities basically to the tune of "no". Should we remove the userbox for him? Can I get some administrator attention on this matter?

talk

) 16:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have left a message informing him that it has to go, and reminding him that his userspace does not belong to him. If he doesn't remove it himself I'll take it down. Natalie (talk) 16:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that Kubigula and I removed these [14] [15] charming sentiments twice last week. Acroterion _(talk) 17:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Per the user's request, I am deleting the whole userpage and usertalk. Pastordavid (talk) 17:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Fructify, the subject of the article (presumably) is blanking the page and replacing it with an unedited essay about how great he is, how "though he is imperfect, he is just as imperfect as ML King and Jack Kennedy", and is indeed so perfect that everyone is jealous of him and wants to be like him. I have reverted him 3 times now. Does 3rr apply in this kind of case? Lobojo (talk) 16:01, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No. I have blocked

☎

16:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've passed this onto

☎

16:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This user should be blocked as he/she has been vandalising several pages for the past few days. The user enters the same content coming from the same unreliable source [16] to all of the articles he gets a hand on (see his contributions) [17]. He's even been warned by an admin. not to add commentary or his own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, but seems like he's going to continue to do so.--Harout72 (talk) 20:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

A block can not be put upon this user, the user has only been told two times for adding unreferenced information. Sure you have the diffs, but the user has not been properly warned. The user needs to be given a full set of warnings for a block to be placed. The only thing that can really get them block is if they start threatening people or are proven to be a puppet or master. Rgoodermote  21:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Giovanni33 for 24 hours for "fail[ing] to discuss a content reversion" at New antisemitism per ArbCom enforcement here. Details are at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Giovanni33-John_Smith's#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 22:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Without saying too much, you need to take a look at this (now blocked) user's deleted contribs.

I have already requested oversight for these deleted edits - but I feel that the affected users need to be made aware of this. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I checked the two admin accounts that i recognised, and neither password worked. It may not be as urgent as thought. Viridae^Talk 22:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I checked the top three, didn't work. Woody (talk) 22:24, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be because I just scrambled them. Viridae^Talk 22:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I wanted the cat one! Phaedriel doesn't even have a cat. El_C 22:28, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Worth running a checkuser to try find out who was behind that? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I want to report that I have been, what I perceive to be, the subject of long term assumption of bad faith and paranoia by self described

I had tried to calm him down my posting to his talk page and introducing myself but no response from him.

A few weeks later, a sock of banned user and arch sockpuppetier user:Bonaparte vandalized my user space. FPS blocked him but did not revert the sock puppet tags that the vandal had put on my user page. Perhaps believing that they belonged.

A few weeks later still. An IP sock of arch sockpuppetier user:Bonaparte had started up a Request for Checkuser on me. FPS then helped this banned sockpuppetier complete the checkuser request. He also blamed me for sparking an edit war which I absolutely did not do.

At this point I had tried to reason with FPS numerous times to no avail so I decided to wait and let the dust settle and hope that he would chill and I went forward with adding content to the project. Most recently, I tried to make a peace offering and a request to put all of this behind us which FPS rejected in what I perceive as a terse response.

Part of the reason I bring this up is that everytime I have a minor dispute with another editor, that editor brings up the fact that an admin believes me to be a sockpuppet of William Mauco.

I demand that Future Perfect at Sunrise clearly state what he needs from me to end what I considered is this long term assumption of bad faith and paranoia. Under no circumstances will I give up my privacy. Once this is met, I demand that he apologize. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The above section relates to the below subsection and the archiver incorrectly archived it so I am bringing it back for continuity sake. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

user:Future Perfect at Sunrise's block of user:Britlawyer

When FPS had helped banned user

It looks like he is putting more faith in his sleuthing abilities than the checkuser. I for one can say that if his conduct towards me is any indication, his sleuthing skills need improvement. I recommend that this block as well as his actions be given more scrutiny.Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 00:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I must agree that the account creation and edit patterns just scream sockpuppet, and that a checkuser cannot be used as "proof of innocence" (editing from a proxy is trivial enough). I can't tell whether FPS is correct, but he certainly seems to have been reasonable. — Coren ^(talk) 01:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Possibly so but did it warrant a block? I have posted a request on John Kenney's page and I await what he has to say about this. I also think that some of the principles from this arbcom descision might also apply here. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Just to add, my reason for posting this block is that we know that false positives do occur and since FPS is wrong about me he could also be wrong about others. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:08, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a hard time assuming good faith from anybody who comes here demanding anything. Corvus cornix_talk 02:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Pretty please with sugar on top, could everyone not get caught up on semantics and

WP:AGF and also Wikipedia:Assume_the_assumption_of_good_faith on my part and address my concerns. Thanks Pocopocopocopoco (talk

) 03:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Britlawyer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked in May. Am I missing something here? --B (talk) 03:34, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It was in may. I posted it here in order to have a look at possible incorrect long term admin behaviour and possible overzealousness. Which I believe I have also been subjected to. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not a fan of admin FPS, he was one of the people who asked my ban during Transnistria arbitration (proposal rejected by arbcom), but I consider legitimate the checkuser he asked regarding possible conection between User:Pocopocopocopoco and topic-banned user User:William Mauco. Generally speaking, is nothing wrong to ask a checkuser if there are suspicions. Mauco was proved as an malicious sockpuppeteer and the checkuser didn't gave relevant answers regarding User:Pocopocopocopoco (the answer was "stale" - is bad that after the arbitration case the checkuser data regarding William Mauco were not kept). I wonder why this sudden demand of an apology for a checkuser asked long time ago and which had no relevant answers (that mean nobody can tell that the suspicions were wrong). To be mentioned that yesterday a ban evasion by User:Buffadren (banned in the same Transnistria arbitration like Mauco) was discovered, and FPS blocked the IP used for ban evasion, I wonder if it was not this fact who suddenly made Poco angry.--MariusM (talk) 04:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I care not about Buffadren or Markus Street or whatever other socks that person has used. If it was proven that he was an astroturfer then he deserves to be banned. I am not angry, just determine to put an end to this issue of FPS's suspicions against me. The reason I bring this up now is, as I stated, whenever I get into a minor dispute with another editor, FPS's beliefs that I may be Mauco are trotted out by that editor and I want this to end. This has been occuring on an ongoing basis and has occurred recently (diffs can be supplied if requested). The other reason that I bring this here is that I was not able to resolve this by communicated with FPS on his talk page recently. I clearly stated that I would try to address his concerns if he would communicate these concerns. He did not present me with any way to get to a resolution on this issue with him. I have no problem with the fact that he ran a checkuser but I have a problem with the entire pattern of suspicion that hasn't even been put to rest even now and I have a problem with the fact that he seems to be basing all of this from the allegations of banned users (NokhchiBorz and Bonaparte). Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 05:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this was ages ago - I barely remember it. I remember that at the time I thought it was questionable to block a user when the check user suggested that they were not a sock puppet - and perhaps Future Perfect acted hastily. But I would imagine it's quite likely that s/he was right nonetheless. I'm not even sure what to say about this - there does seem to be a fair amount of Transnistrian sockpuppetry going on, but the Romanian side is hardly much better. It's all a fetid fever swamp, really.

if  Confirmed socks are very likely to be blocked regardless of behaviour, that doesn't mean that  Unrelated socks can't be blocked based on their behaviour. Sockpuppet is unfortunately not Magic Pixie Dust. -- lucasbfr ^talk 10:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

But the indefinite block should come after incorrect or abusive behaviour no? John might not remember now, but in the link I posted John said that Britlawyer was broadly "civil and polite" and "highlighted legitmate sources". Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:50, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, it was my impression at the time that Britlawyer was not behaving in unacceptable ways, aside from the question of whether or not he was a sock puppet. This is worth clarifying. The black was entirely based on the supposition that Britlawyer was a sock puppet, not based on other disruptive behavior. That said, the non Checkuser evidence that Britlawyer was a sock seemed fairly strong to me at the time after Future Perfect explained it to me, which is why I didn't pursue it further.

talk

) 21:51, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Lucasbfr, that statement is incorrect. Confirmed sockpuppets might not be blocked if there is a logical explanation (family members, roommates, coworkers) and unrelated users might still be sockpuppets even without technical evidence if the contributions make it obvious. Even in a simple case like only editing from work with one account and home with the other would make technical evidence improbable, but a case could be proven with contributions. I have no earthly idea if this person was socking or not, but "unrelated" doesn't necessarily mean "proven false". --B (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say that there was no possible legit explanation for a  Confirmed (I saw one two days ago), just that most confirmed users are illegitimates socks. Checkusers are wary of that kind of possibilities. Anyway we are looking at the other case here :). -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of copying below the principles from the unrelated but somewhat similar arbcom case (linked above) that I also believe apply here:

1) Users are expected to assume good faith in their dealings with other editors, especially those with whom they have had conflicts in the past.

3) Users are responsible for the editorial and administrative actions they undertake, and must be willing and prepared to discuss the reasons for their actions in a timely manner. If a user feels that they cannot justify their actions in public, they are obliged to refrain from that action altogether or to bring the matter before the Arbitration Committee. This does not apply to users carrying out official tasks as authorized by the Foundation or the Committee (including, but not limited to, CheckUser, OverSight, and OTRS activity).

5) Administrators are expected to act in a reasonable and transparent manner. Even when reversed, administrative actions that appear arbitrary or capricious, or are based on poor methodology and evidence, have a chilling effect on people's willingness to contribute to Wikipedia.

8.1) Blocking is a serious matter. Administrators should be exceedingly careful when blocking. Blocks should be made only if other means are not likely to be effective.

9.1) A decisive response to on- and off-wiki harassment of Wikipedia editors should not come at the expense of actions which undermine the core values of the project or the goodwill of honest contributors.

The questions that I now have are:

1. Why did FPS
   WP:BITE
   and assume bad faith and believe that I might be a sock after I had hardly made any edits and had only been a user for 3 days?
2. Why does FPS pay so much heed to the allegiations that banned users have against me?
3. Why can he not admit that he was wrong, apologize, and end all of this? Does he believe that I have made 7 months of contribution in a multitude of topics just to pull the wool over his eyes that I am a sockpuppet of one of the transnitrian astroturfers?
4. Why has he not responded to this section in WP:ANI about his conduct?
5. Why has he not responded to my query about his recall criteria? I still don't think it will be necessary but how can one claim to be an admin open to recall and yet not have a recall criteria?
6. As per the above arbcom principle #3, did Future Perfect at Sunrise bring the matter of Britlawyer to an Arbitration Committee before applying the indefinite block? He obviously didn't justify his actions in public.
7. As per the above arbom principle 8.1, was there no other means of dealing with the possible sockpuppetery of Britlawyer other than an indefinite block? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 17:46, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Pejoratively written "questions" like this aren't actually questions (see

requests for comment? ➔ REDVEЯS

says: at the third stroke the time will be 20:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how my questions can be thought of as loaded questions when I actually don't know the answers and I want the answers. For instance, I don't know why FPS thought I was a sockpuppet of a transnistrian astroturfer after hardly any edits and I want to know the answer. I don't know why he might still believe after 7 months of contribution to a wide variety of subjects that I still might be a sockpuppet of a transnistrian astroturfer and I want to know the answer. I have thought about an RFC but doesn't an RFC require two complainants? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me begin this by saying I am not looking for a pound of flesh. I'm trying to help the administrator in question. I'm trying to head this off before it happens.

Also, I requested and received page protection of the article (again, for the sake of discussion as it's irrelevant, let's assume it was in incredibly poor taste as Faithlessthewonderboy suggests). Subsequent to that, Faithlessthewonderboy indicated he was going to use his administrator powers to revert the article to his preferred version [19] "Therefore, I will revert to the previous version". Once again, this is the sort of action that administrators have been de-adminned for before.

Faithlessthewonderboy has been directly involved in this dispute and to use his powers in this way is exceptionally bad and likely to lead to his de-adminning if he takes such action. Please, would some experienced administrator give him some sort of wave-off before he abuses his powers in this way? If he wants to recommend I be blocked, or wants to request another administrator to revert, fine...but using his powers in this way is not what he should be doing. As an inexperienced administrator, I don't think he fully understands the ramifications of using his powers in thisd way. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 17:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

First off, I think both of you need to have

a nice cup of tea and sit down

. I see there's a discussion going on the talk page; let's all use that and figure out what's going on.

You're right, however, about Faithlessthewonderboy using his admin power to revert to his preferred version. That's clearly an abuse of the admin tools (squarely addressed in the

protection policy) and he should know better. I'm not going to put a note on his talk page about it because I see he was already referred here, but the edit war needs to stop from both sides. Reach consensus first on the talk page; once that's done, the page can be changed (if need be) to reflect that consensus. Getting hot about it and reverting to your preferred version (even if you're correct, and even if Hammersoft was NOT correct in reverting then requesting page protection) is not the way to approach things during an edit war. Gromlakh (talk

) 18:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) This is incredibly unfortunate. I encourage everyone to read the contents of

Talk:Minor Harry Potter characters. The conversation was perfectly amicable at first by all parties (Hammersoft included), until out of the blue he threatens to have those who he disagreed with blocked. I repeatedly tried to diffuse the situation, but received only more threats from Hammersoft. I cautioned him repeatedly that our disagreement aside, his uncivil attitude was completely unacceptable, and would likely lead to a block if he persisted. For this caution, I was scoffed at and Hammersoft "dared" me to block him. As I said on said talk page, I was hesitant to take any action against him (even if it was justified), as I was involved in a content dispute with him at the time. I believe the discussion on the talk page more than speaks for itself. While I maintain that I am completely in the right here, I will for the time being recuse myself from editing that article, pending the result of this discussion. Cheers, faithless (^speak)

18:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not looking to have people say I was right or wrong. This section was entirely to get an experienced administrator to head you off at the pass before you did something you could be de-adminned over. It was meant in good faith, was meant to help you in every respect. Every single editor on Wikipedia can assume I was absolutely in the wrong if they'd like. It has nothing to do with this attempt to save you from serious problems. If you want someone to acknowledge you're right, and I was flat out in the wrong, fine then; you were right and I was flat out in the wrong. But again, this has nothing to do with attempting to wave you off before you did something that would have caused you serious harm. Since that wave off has been achieved, this succeeded and I am happy for it. I wouldn't want you to lose your admin powers over this. That would be silly. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:23, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Administrators are still free to act as ordinary editors. They are allowed to revert the same as anybody else, and they can request a block if another editor is acting disruptively on an article they are involved with. Before requesting a block, they can warn the other editor that a block may result if bad behavior continues (though it helps to clarify that they will not place the block themselves). I do not see any diffs here that show abuse of administrative powers, and I do not see any need for administrative action at this time. I hope both parties will take the above advice and head to

dispute resolution and work out their differences in good faith. Jehochman ^Talk

18:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Jehochman's analysis of the situation and advice on how to proceed.

friendly

) 18:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is not with an admin being involved in a content dispute, it's about threatening to use his admin powers to continue the revert war after the page had been protected. That's a clear violation of the protection policy had he done it. Fortunately, it appears that he did not do it, so there was no violation. It still should not have been threatened. Gromlakh (talk) 19:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(multi-ec) The content dispute here involves images. If the page remains protected for a week with all the images orphaned, they get tagged and deleted, which would rather favour one side of this dispute. There was no allegation of actual admin abuse. Hammersoft's userbox is arguably divisive, though, given the current atmosphere. Gimmetrow 18:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Our mission and noting same within the context of fair use is divisive? Wow. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I've not tagged the orphaned images. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Though, five of the eight images removed from the page lack sufficient fair use rationales. Six of them are currently orphaned. Two of them are used improperly. 1: (Image:Viktor krum hpgf.jpg on Stanislav Ianevski (living person,replaceable) and on a gallery at Bulgarians#Bulgarians._Faces_through_history). 2: Image:Maxime.jpg on Frances de la Tour (living person, replaceable). --Hammersoft (talk) 18:42, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Your new userbox is more divisive. Regarding the former userbox, "I support X" is not the same as what you had, given the current atmosphere. Gimmetrow 21:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• My new userbox is exactly what I've been recommending on Wikipedia talk:Non-free content, and what many people have been advocating. I hope you're not suggesting that appeasing the huge masses of people who feel fair use should be used liberally is somehow divisive. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sarcasm can easily be divisive given the current atmosphere. Gimmetrow 22:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

It isn't sarcasm. It's how I feel. --Hammersoft (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Faithlessthewonderboy should not threaten to use admin powers in a dispute he's involved in. That's all I have to say, it'd be fine if he was uninvolved though, now let's forget it and move on--Phoenix-wiki 18:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec x 3) Hang on. It seems that Faithlessthewonderboy may have reverted a protected page to his preferred version. Is that what happened? If so, you need to use {{

editprotected}} in the future, and make sure not to use any sort of sysop tools nor threaten to do so, if you are involved in a content dispute. The diffs provided do not establish what exactly happened, so I am reading between the lines. If anyone can clarify, that will help. In any case, one mistake does not require any action other than acknowledgement and an understanding how to proceed in the future. Jehochman ^Talk

18:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Nothing actually happened, other than threats to use his admin powers in the way I said above (and cited). The only action I was looking for was to wave Faithlessthewonderboy off from performing an action he could lose his admin status over. That's been done, thankfully, and Faithlessthewonderboy heeded the advice. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, which is why I hope he sees this thread and remembers not to use his powers in a dispute he's involved in, akknowledgement is all that's needed here, so I'll be bold and mark this as resolved.--Phoenix-wiki 18:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Conveniently, the first 3 images I checked have been tagged as orphaned, and so are up for deletion in 7 days [20] [21] [22]. But I guess anything goes in a "war". R. Baley (talk) 18:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• I did not tag them. I've never worked or even spoken with Addhoc. It was his doing on his own. He's never edited the article they were removed from, nor commented on the talk page of that article. His action was entirely separate from anyone else's. A little good faith please? Please? --Hammersoft (talk) 18:59, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I just want to add that Faithlessthewonderboy did not threat, he gave a warning after Hammersoft himself threated with blocks for users that were in disagreement with him. We asked Hammersoft not to re-introduce his edits until we reached consensus in the

Talk page of the Minor HP characters article. Everything is in the Talk page, take a look at that before accusing Faithless of taking any action. He was asked not to revert the protected article to a previous version, and he has not do so. --Lord Opeth (talk

) 19:39, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Faithlessthewonderboy did make statements (perhaps you like that wording better) of intent to use his powers on me and on the article, when he has been directly involved in a dispute with me and on the article. That's what I was hoping to avoid. You should be happy that I brought this problem here for an experienced administrator to head him off. I could have chosen to step back and let him use his powers in that way and then *really* nail him to the wall with abuse of his administrator powers and quite probably have his admin status forcibly removed. I'm not sure what it is you're expecting of me, but what I did was for his benefit, not against. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:56, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, after your threats about blocks and warnings and stuff, I do not know what to expect. But I will AGF. --Lord Opeth (talk) 20:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Opeth, thank you for your comments here. If anyone is still reading this, Opeth was the third editor involved in the dispute, so he is aware of what transpired. As for Hammersoft, please let this end. You have repeatedly on this page spoke about me like I am an inexperienced or unknowledgeable editor, and that you were doing me some big favor. I have shrugged it off before now, but I am tired of having my name dragged through the mud, so to speak. I am an admin with roughly fourteen times as many edits as you; while I am far from perfect and, like most people, still have plenty to learn, I do have a pretty solid grasp of how things work around here. I could probably even learn something from you, but do not talk about me like I just registered my account and don't know anything. Remember, I have done nothing wrong here, and I'm getting tired of you implying that I did, or that you somehow prevented me from doing so. You had been asked several times to remain civil, yet you continued to threaten other editors. Like I've said, if I had blocked you, it would have been for your consistent incivility; it had nothing whatsoever to do with the content dispute. You're trying you're best here to portray me as someone who doesn't know what they're doing, and needs help. This isn't the case, and it's quite offensive that you would misrepresent the situation the way you have. All you've done is wasted the time of a bunch of people and made me look bad, when all I did was try to keep our discussion civil. In your future dealings with editors, I encourage you to not make baseless threats towards people and respect your fellow editors. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 23:46, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Personally, for me that is, it would be easier if Faithlessthewonderboy could sign his posts with his full handle. Also, perhaps it is a bit confusing that he refers to himself in the third person? ("You're right, however, about Faithlessthewonderboy using his admin power to revert to his preferred version.") --Law Lord (talk) 08:06, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That is actually Gromlakh's comment. They are just indented the same amount one after the other.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You are right. My mistake. In that case, the only thing is with the handle signing, though since the matter is resolved, it does not really matter. --Law Lord (talk) 10:41, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Faithless, I've no idea what it is you want from me. You accuse me of incivility, and I ask you to provide evidence. All I get from the talk page is "look above". Yet, I've made no insults towards anyone, ever. You threaten me with blocks, as I've cited above, when taking such actions could cause you to lose your powers. Knowing that you would not listen to me, I came here to get an experienced administrator to caution you. You apparently heeded that advice, which is great. Further above, I cow tow to you in every respect noting "If you want someone to acknowledge you're right, and I was flat out in the wrong, fine then; you were right and I was flat out in the wrong." What is it you want from me? What more could you possibly want from me? Do you want me to request a permanent block of myself? Do you want me to advertise to every forum on Wikipedia that you were right and I was wrong? What? You go to the extreme of accusing me of having contempt for my fellow editors because I use an asterisk in my comments for formatting. On even that count I must accede to your every wish and desire. There's no quarter with you. I tried to do you a favor, and you accuse me of dragging your name through the mud. Just tell me what it is I can do to restore your good name to angelic status so you will leave me the hell alone! --Hammersoft (talk) 14:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I just want you, Hammersoft, not to forget that you threaten us with blocks before...

"If the edit warring continues to attempt to force these images back onto the article, I will recommend blocks." --Hammersoft (talk) 20:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"If they (some images) are re-instated against policy, I will remove them and recommend blocks." --Hammersoft (talk) 23:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

We asked you to wait a couple of days to get consensus and, if your edits proved to be right, then obviously the images should be removed, but you instead threaten with blocks only because we were in disagreement with you. And then you come here accussing Faithless of warning you? --Lord Opeth (talk) 17:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I will quite gladly threaten blocks when warranted, and will continue to do so. In fact, warning of potential blocks is pretty much required, rather than just going ahead and having someone blocked. What I wanted to achieve was to have an experienced administrator wave him off from using his powers against someone with whom he was in dispute. As I noted, if he wanted to recommend I be blocked to another admin, fine. Mission accomplished. Faithless was warned off, and the abuse of power didn't happen. That's a good thing. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a good thing. The bad thing is the way you threaten everyone that is in disagreement with you. --Lord Opeth (talk) 19:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• I use threats of blocking as appropriate to the circumstances as they arise. If a person were to vandalize something for example, you do not just move to block the person. You warn them. That's the way it's supposed to be handled. I handled this entirely appropriately. Policy was being violated. People were edit warring against policy. I warned of potential blocks should that continue. You can debate the application of policy all you like (feel free to Wikipedia talk:Non-free content). Debating a policy does not mean it no longer applies. And before you say policy didn't apply, you're quite in the wrong. Per character images have been removed from hundreds of articles over the last many months by far more people than myself and Betacommand. The difference is that the recent crescendo of acrimony over the removals has effectively suspended the application of policy. I fully intend on continuing to warn and threaten people with blocks when their actions work against policy. If you think this is wrong, your best bet is to request I be blocked since I do fully intend on continuing this pattern. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

When an article is nominated for deletion, it is because it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria (notability, tone, style, etc.), but if CONSENSUS says that it should be kept, then it should be kept. The same happens with this images, you did not manage to fully prove you were right, you just provided some link and say you were acting on policy. Acting against consensus is also acting against a policy, so in the end you were wrong anyway. I have nothing more to say, good luck. --Lord Opeth (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The thing is, Hammersoft, neither Lord Opeth nor myself did anything even approaching being worthy of a block. Neither of us broke 3RR, we were exceedingly civil in the face of your threats, we tried to work toward consensus while you were making your contempt for consensus abundantly clear, etc. Your threats were not in the least "appropriate," as you claim. On the other hand, the warnings I gave you were warranted, as your incivility and ignoring of several appeals to your better judgment to mind what you were saying are indeed block-worthy; if I had threatened to block you because we were disagreeing, obviously I would deserve to have my admin tools revoked immediately. Of course, this did not happen. Indeed, there was another editor who commented in the discussion who disagreed with me, but she was civil and didn't threaten other users. And you want me to "leave you the hell alone?" I'll remind you that you started this discussion, and now you object to me defending myself? I don't want anything from you; I am simply trying to convey what has really transpired here to anyone who is reading this, lest some stigma remain attached to me from having an utterly unnecessary and unwarranted report of me posted at the admin noticeboard. You have completely misrepresented and then overblown everything that has happened, and I want to stress to everyone reading that I did nothing wrong here, kept a very cool head in the face of repeated threats and sought consensus instead of edit warring. I was then portrayed as being incompetent and overwhelmed by a user with a fraction of my experience. The very title of this discussion (Admin threatening use of powers in content dispute) is inaccurate; I warned you that you might be blocked because of your incivility, nothing at all to do with a content dispute. Your claiming that you were only trying to 'help me' is similarly misleading. When someone is accused of a misdeed, it very often is irrelevant whether or not the charge is accurate, their reputation is damaged either way. I beseech anyone reading this to peruse

• Without reading anything but the last sentence since my last diff, agree. Bye, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Earlier today

Was about to mention this myself. An alternative to salting would be a fully-protected redirect to Squeegee#Squeegee for floor, as the word is genuine. Tevildo (talk) 20:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree - there was some consensus for a redirect in the AfD. nancy ^(talk) 20:10, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The redirect's there at the moment - let's see how long it holds. :) Tevildo (talk) 20:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I have semi'd it after looking at the deletion log. If semi won't work, I'll call Fort Knox for the

gold padlock. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v}

) 21:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Was there consensus for a redirect? I removed the sponga material from the squeegee article and changed the redirect to just squeegee. Anyways, --Tom 20:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The official closure statement included "A subsequent redirect to squeegee or mop might be appropriate, but as for which, I leave to editor discretion." There certainly wasn't a consensus for a simple deletion, but if anyone wants to redirect to Mop instead, I'm sure it won't be controversial. Tevildo (talk) 23:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I've been having some difficulties with Nat, and could use feedback. A little while ago Nat blocked Armon [23] after an erroneous report was filed on the 3RR board by Timeshifter. Armon was blocked not for violating 3rr but for edit-warring. I didn't think this was the right call; the person Armon was edit-warring with (if was edit-warring), Tiamut, had made 5 reversions in 29 hours (And Tiamut, if you're reading this, please know I'm not asking for anyone to block you ;)), quite a bit more than Armon. So I asked for Nat to reconsider the block on his talk page [24] Nat's response? To whisk my post away without comment. [25]

I thought he must have seen the message, but wasn't completely sure, so I posted again. [26] Again, whisked off to an archive without explanation. [27]

I found this all pretty distressing, but thought it might just be best to let the thing die down. I felt Armon had really been shafted for no good reason, but Armon himself seemed to take it with a great deal of equanimity, so I followed his example and dropped it.

Then, recently, I noticed that Nat had unblocked Pedro Gonnet (NB: because I had the page Pedro was editing watch-listed, not because I was looking at Nat's actions). Pedro had been blocked for a clear violation of 3rr, see [28], and in fact, after being unblocked by Nat, Pedro continued right along with the reversion he'd been blocked for making [29].

Given that these blocks concerned Israel/Palestine issues, which are fraught with friction already, and that Nat had blocked a user (who might be on the pro-Israeli side) when he'd not clearly committed a blockable offense, then unblocked a user (who might be on the pro-Palestinian side) when he indisputably had done so, I felt I had to say something. So, with some trepidation, I left a message on Nat's talk page again. [30]. No bonus points for guessing what Nat's response was: [31].

I don't know how others feel, but if this were a regular editor who was responding to concerns from a user in good-standing, I would be concerned. That an admin would do so—would remove posts from his talk page without a single comment—makes it alarming. I would also point to this arbitration case, [32], a case which Nat I think initiated, wherein this very issue was raised and voted on by arbcom:

3) Due to the collaborative nature of Wikipedia, proper communication is extremely important, and all editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues. This is especially true for administrators in regard to administrative actions. Such expected communication includes…using accurate and descriptive edit and log summaries; and responding promptly and fully to all good-faith concerns raised about their administrative actions.

Indeed, User:Alkivar was desysopped, in part, for this very practice. I am not calling for Nat to be desysopped, but I do think he absolutely must respond to messages left on his talk page about his admin actions, and I also believe that the admin actions in question have been applied by Nat inconsistently, even erratically, which exacerbates an already tense atmosphere. I would have been much happier to take this up with Nat on his talk page, but obviously couldn't do that in this case. Input is welcome.

Hi IronDuke, I apologize for not responding to your messages left on my talk page about my actions as you have listed above. I agree, "proper communication is extremely important, and all editors are expected to respond to messages intended for them in a timely manner and to constructively discuss controversial issues", and I am sorry if you felt that I had ignored your posts. In regards to the case of Armon, I admit I might have overlooked the actions of Tiamut. I agree it was a bit unfair that Armon had been blocked and not Tiamut, for as you said, 5 rvs in 29 hours. In the case of Pedro Gonnet, i did write in the unblock message: "After re-reviewing the request, the block appeared to be a punitive measure rather than a preventive measure. As that is the case, I have reversed my previous decline of the request and I have granted the request for unblocking for Pedro Gonnet. That being said, Pedro Gonnet had indeed violated 3RR, and as a warning, next time a 3RR violation occurs on PG's part, blocking may be issued without warning.". Reading through this thread, it seems that you are implying that I have taken a side in this Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I have not. When I make my decisions, I do not notice or pay attention to their political views or affiliations. As that is the case, it is pure coincidence that I blocked a "pro-Isreali" editor and unblocked a "pro-Palestinian" editor. I would like to apologize again for not responding to your messages left on my talk page about my actions, and I would also like to apologize for the fact that it took an ANI thread for me to respond to your concerns. nat.utoronto 08:03, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nat. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. First off, please feel free to move this discussion to your talk page (or mine). I don’t believe it requires admin intervention now, if it ever did. And I appreciate the apology—these are often grudgingly given through gritted teeth, when they come at all, and yours clearly wasn’t.

A few minor-ish points. I wasn’t saying that you are pro or anti anything, FWIW, just that you made two admin actions in a row that could plausibly be said to favor one “side”, which cause for concern, nothing more.

As for the Pedro block, I must respectfully take issue with your characterizing admin

IronDuke

23:40, 8 January 2008 (UTC)