Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive428

User:JTWoodsworth - misleading user page and sockpuppetry

Resolved

 – Blocked one week. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

JTWoodsworth (talk · contribs) has a user page which identifies them as a professor ("Dr. Jehad T. Woodsworth") at the University of Arizona, but there is no professor there by that name. Instead, the user page is a slightly edited copy of a genuine professor: http://www.optics.arizona.edu/faculty/Resumes/Norwood.htm. I was going to report this to WP:AIV, but I discovered it's not quite that simple. I can't find a case filed, but there is blatant sockpuppetry from this user (see discussion here and Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_JTWoodsworth). I think a CU might be helpful here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's got to do with a series of sockpuppets connected with that user and it's a battle over that user's obsession with and/or trolling about, an AFD'd article he wrote called Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars (script). Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was posting here hoping an admin would take a look at the larger (sockpuppetry) issue to see if it's a better-known sockmaster. Current sock User:Dipolemoment is active at the moment. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems our little friend is now claiming that anyone opposed to him/her/it is a sockpuppet of Alientraveller or ColdFusion650. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 18:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello! I'm new to wikipedia, and I may have broken some rules, but I apologize and won't do it anymore.... I was just having fun, but I found out it's a lot more fun to play by the rules in the wikiworld than to break them, so I promise to be a good girl from now on (and I'm sure Delicious carbuncle will be keeping an eye on me!) I do want to mention that Delicious is particularly upset because I'm creating a page he and his friends don't like (Indiana Jones and the Saucer Men from Mars) which he's trying to delete, and has resorted to ad hominem attacks (English Lit minor!) because Truth and Justice and the Wikipedian Way are no longer on his side! So, any adminstrators who are on this page, totally feel free to reprimand me (spank me if you have to!) but do check out my page and vote with your heart!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dipolemoment (talk • contribs) 18:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please point out the "ad hominem" attacks or withdraw the accusation. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I meant only as a philosophical interpration of a form of dialectic argumenation, not as a slight. Neverthessless, if it offends you, I apologize and I take it back. :) Dipolemoment (talk) 19:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The above user might not be a sock, since he apparently knows how to write in real English, although the broken English of the other users could just as easily have been purposeful. However, the article is under attack, so to speak, simply on grounds of lack of notability. An article about a script that never went beyond the script stage seems a bit excessive. Many films begin with scripts that get significantly altered over time. That doesn't justify a separate article about each one. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Interesting timing.... TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Shazam! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:58, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be suprised if User:Scifigeek314, whose opposing lone edit, was a just a setup for the "dork" comment shortly thereafter. ccwaters (talk) 20:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked JTWoodsworth one week for apparent sockpuppetry, and for disruptive editing at Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. He has recently taken down his extremely dubious user page. EdJohnston (talk) 20:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The sockpuppet or "close associate" of that user, User:JulieKO, who is still active after being similarly short-term blocked last week [1] is also trying to cover its tracks a bit. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Somebody seems to be looking for attention: see this and this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I finished indef blocking all the accounts Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of JTWoodsworth that were not already blocked by others. Conceivably a checkuser may be helpful just because new socks may continue to appear. There is not much doubt about the socks that are already dealt with. EdJohnston (talk) 22:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Revert/edit war in 'List of Civilian Nuclear Accidents'

User:Eiland insists on reordering this list to newest-oldest. User's stated reason (on Wikipedia_talk:Recentism) is 'personal preference'. Reasons against newest-oldest are that there are a group of radiation and nuclear related lists that are all ordered in oldest-newest, so LoCNA should be ordered to match.

I'm requesting List of civilian nuclear accidents be rolled back to "09:08, 21 May 2008" before his first edit to repair damage from edit war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nailedtooth (talk • contribs)

This appears to be a content dispute, in which case you and the other editors involved should work it out on the article's talk page or through wikipedia dispute resolution. I don't see any obvious three revert rule violations. You should not be arguing your side of the content dispute here. If I'm missing something please let me know, but otherwise please try to build a consensus for one version or the other. --Selket ^Talk 01:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit war

Resolved

In progress on The Twinz over an exceedingly trivial matter. Participants are User:Tasc0 and User:Qlazarus. Qlazarus is a new editor. Chubbles (talk) 00:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Protected by User:Anetode. Trebor (talk) 01:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Abtract

Abtract just returned from his most recent block (48 hour), and has already begun his stalking activities again.[2][3] and contacting the people he was told to stay away from[4].

Related/previous history: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive426#user:Abtract, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive426#Abtract, still stalking at Aladdin (disambiguation). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

From an outsider's perspective, his first three edits upon returning were all in direct challenge to Sesshomaru's edits. That seems to indicate pretty clearly that he either doesn't understand, or doesn't care. Either way, the lesson that was to be learned from his block has been lost. Disappointing, but pretty clear. Dayewalker (talk) 01:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Really, some people never learn. Why isn't this guy banned? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week for harrassment. Trebor (talk) 01:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it should be more permamant? – ClockworkSoul 01:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, and I won't object. A quick scan of his contributions however suggested he is capable of contributing constructively at times. If he continues it'll end up permanent soon enough. Trebor (talk) 01:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the fourth block for practically the same reason. The subsequent block will be either for a month or we can simply inform him that any subsequent harassment will result in an indef block. I think the latter is appropriate given how many warnings he has received so far. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I second that. If he demonstrates no interest in playing nice, I don't see why he should be able to edit at all. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Review of indefinite block of User:Zerida

Resolved

 – User Banned.

Based on the findings at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Fantevd, I have indefinitely blocked User:Zerida.

Fantevd was a throwaway account for the purpose of attacking Dbachmann. Fantevd led to a family of accounts all editing from overlapping anonymous proxies (One proxy would have users A, B and C, another proxy would have A, D, and E, and so on). All the accounts edit similar topics. The main account seemed to be Egyegy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an old account with 2000 edits, who it turns out was involved in a dispute with Dbachmann.

However, a few of the proxies used by the sock accounts were not actually anonymous, and passed on the originating IPs. There were two different IPs disclosed, about 2 weeks apart, and both of them were IPs that were assigned to Zerida (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on the same day. The IPs are, as near as I can tell, typical residential IP addresses and unlikely to be shared.

Zerida and Egyegy both protested the findings in email to me. but after sending them a version of this message with my findings they have not replied. I have rechecked my findings; they have also contacted other checkusers, I believe.

Based on the long-term nature of the abuse I have indefinitely blocked the accounts; however, the community is invited to review the situation. Thatcher 17:01, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Looked it over a bit, and support the indef. Setting up sock accounts to attack editors is really bad form. The timing of the attacks with respect to the dispute, coupled with IP evidence is enough *more than enough* for me to be convinced. R. Baley (talk) 17:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So is Zerida confirmed (most likely) to be the sockmaster? If so, I could undo most of the deletions I did on the userpages. Rudget (Help?) 17:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Zerida is on a typical residential ISP, while the other accounts were on open proxies (some of which accidentally tied back to her). Plus, her account is the oldest and has the most edits. So I would call her the master account, yes. Thatcher 17:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks. Rudget (Help?) 17:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If Thatcher's technical evidence is convincing, I'm OK with this block. Zerida does have some good contributions but this kind of stuff is not forgivable. I notice that Zerida was in some disputes with Dbachmann. EdJohnston (talk) 17:43, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have independently reviewed the checkuser evidence in this case and can corroborate what Thatcher said above. Block endorsed - Alison ^❤ 18:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Eek, seems I forget to include this in the above comments. I endorse block based on CU evidence. Rudget (Help?) 18:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

This is very unacceptable - it goes much further than basic policy violations in my view. I looked through some of the discussion between the two accounts and Dbachmann after I read EdJohnston's note above, and I see some clear similarities between the two accounts through the discussion. I don't think he's unfamiliar with the relevant policies either (looking through his talk page). It brings me to formally ask; is there any admin who is willing to unblock him? Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I certainly wouldn't be willing to do so. --Akhilleus (talk) 04:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It is really regretful to get to know that after a couple of years you now feel that it was so tedious, for all that time, answering the "concerns" of presently blocked accounts. Sockpuppetry wastes more contributors' energies than anything else. I have to say that it was because of Zerida and Egyegy that I decided to stay away from Arab-related articles. I read the discussions now and find it very ridiculous. Pwned but glad I am still contributing to the project. Someone else would have already gone feeling distress as it has been the case in some other areas of the project. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If a couple more admins can add their assurance that they are not willing to unblock him, or if there is no admin that steps forward saying that they are willing, I think the community ban can be logged. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm actually pretty shocked by this. I do hope nobody plans to unblock on a whim: this has been sustained troublesome-hand terrible-hand disruption. I came across the two hands at Talk:Egyptian after a post at one of the noticeboards; they certainly played a good game. IIRC, I appealed to one account to help me keep the other account focused on the article....[facepalm]. --Relata refero (disp.) 05:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

WILL SOMEONE PLEASE CLEAR AIV?????

Resolved

 – Vandals blocked, talk page protected until 9:00 June 4 (UTC), my sanity restored. J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 03:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Look at the history of my talk page, and DO SOMETHING!!! I'm about to go out of my mind... J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 20:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your issue seems to have been solved. Anyone feel like semi-protection on their talk page? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:33, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked those who've carried on after final warnings. However, there are still a number of editors who have been reported but given final warnings. Therefore, their names remain on AIV until they are 'block-worthy', as it were. Lradrama 20:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. I mean that far more than I can say merely by writing it. I apologize for being so dramatic, but all those "you have new messages" banners on huggle and Firefox were breaking my concentration, and, apparently, eroding my sanity. I appreciate the quick action with the ban-hammers, and the offers for semi-protection, but I really don't want to do that. (see User:J.delanoy/protection, although apparently, my resiliency to persistent vandals is not as good as I thought it was when I wrote that page.) I will assure you, though, tf it ever gets bad enough to force me to do this again, my request won't be only to "clear AIV".... J.delanoy^gabsanalyze 20:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If you have troubles with vandals targeting your TP, gimme a note on my TP and I'll see what I can do. If these are the same wethers as follow him around... -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 04:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom article blocked user editing with IP

User:Pete_K was article banned by arbcom and has lately resumed with provocative test editing in the involved articles under his IP. A WP:SSP was filed a few weeks ago, resulting in a two week semi block in involved articles and two week editor block. After the block expired, sock edits have resumed:75.35.23.210, 75.31.77.70, 75.28.138.60. These socks will probably continue to wage slow edit wars and soapbox on the talk pages. The talk pages of the articles have a template notify users of the editor ban, but since the semi-protect hasn't stopped it, the articles probably need a "heads up" that he's persistently sock-puppeting there under dynamically assigned IPs. Professor marginalia (talk) 23:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've semi-protected PLAN for another two weeks, since the three IPs you mentioned have all been targeting it. Still worth keeping an eye on the talk page. Are any other articles being affected? – Luna Santin (talk) 02:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Anything to do with Rudolf Steiner or Anthroposophy, the user in question has some issues with any portrayal that doesn't meet his POV (that it's all evil). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 04:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Sock of Hdayejr Again

We were advised to bring it here for quick notice, so User:68.31.102.232 clearly appears to be another IP sock of blocked user Hdayejr. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 03:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking into it contributions R. Baley (talk) 03:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think blocking the IP will do much good as it's already been over half an hour already and he tends to change IPs anyway (in addition to making all edits in a couple of minutes and then ducking out). I was going to batch semi-p the lot of articles for a couple of days to see if he gets bored, but am running into technical issues (someone want to do that?) Dayewalker, I recommend that you still post at the WP:suspected sock puppet page just so the info is all in one place. R. Baley (talk) 03:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Roger that, good buddy. I posted here as soon as I saw him, but he had already given up by the time the cavalry came. I'll post on the SSP board to keep things all together. Dayewalker (talk) 03:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Soviet War in Afghanistan

Apparently stemming from a single user, given the similarity of his/her IP address, this user repeatedely deletes sourced and cited information in an unwarranted manner. Claiming that his/her source is "respected," while foregoing the six cited sources I offered along with completely disregarding recent consensus, the unknown and unregistered user defiantly insists that his course of action is justified. See the recent edits at Soviet War in Afghanistan for details. Best regards, Scythian1 (talk) 03:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and semi-protected the page and left a note on the IP's talk page. Hopefully this will bring them to the talk page for discussion. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 04:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

User A Link to the Past

This user has been stalking me for the past day or two. Trolling with other users and Flaming please see my talk page under User talk:Lbrun12415/Archive 2 and see # 34 Response, # 35 Response, # 36 Response, # 37 Response, # 38 Don't worry too much(proof of flaming and trolling on other users), # 40 Response, # 41 Response. and last talk

Wow, be quiet. After you continuously vandalized my statement, I have decided to be done with you. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

WHy do you have to be so rude and you call me a troll. I'm trying to help.--Lbrun12415 20:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC) from here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games.

Every time I went to two different Admin he would alos comment with negative comments, also I tried to tell him that Gamefaqs is not a source and he started fighting with me about it. also here history of List of Wii games he has vandalized List of Wii games as you can see I told him twice "(Before you do something like that see the talk page. They NEVER said to delete half the pages information, BUT to make new pages to split it in half meain # to N and O - Z" and "(Once again please see the talk page. And also all the other list of games don't include a 4th box.)" please help me. --Lbrun12415 04:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been 2 days since he's done anything particularly related to you, why don't you let it go? Chan Yin Keen | Talk 05:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

User:96.238.40.131

User:96.238.40.131 has been doing nothing since March but adding an unreliable source at Sportsbook.com. I blocked for 31 hours after more incivility and edit warring but after this nice little edit to my user page (which I would ask someone to delete from the edit history once this is over), I would suggest calling this a static IP address deserving a longer block. To reduce the abuse claim that will follow, could someone else do it? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, could someone do a checkuser to see if this is related to User:Fadeintoyou? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Evolutionary psychology

I need some eyes over at evolutionary psychology. According to the page history, someone is using WP:SPA accounts and anonymizing proxies to delete content from the article, edit war, and avoid the 3RR. Having just seen this, it appears to have been going on for some time. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for semi-protect filed here. Viriditas (talk) 04:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: All of the accounts engaging in edit wars on this and several related pages appear to be connected to User:Memills. Request for checkuser in progress. Viriditas (talk) 10:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Memills. --Viriditas (talk) 10:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to have an admin mark this as "resolved" if they will simply ask User:Memills on his talk page to limit himself to one account and to edit while logged in. The problem tends to come up when he reverts multiple editors while logged in as different IP's, some of which appear to be proxies. Limiting himself to one account and staying logged in will help clear up some of the confusion. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 13:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Update: Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#Evolutionary_psychology filed. Viriditas (talk) 09:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Bogus Article: The Feather Cave (novel)

The subj article claims to be a fraud that's existed for a year, and the edit history would seem to support that. I tagged it nonsense, but am now wondering if there's any other response appropriate for this WP:POINT article. Jclemens (talk) 07:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't meet the criteria for nonsense, so you make be better taking it to articles for deletion. Kevin (talk) 07:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I updated it to G3, thanks, but I don't understand the AFD reference--if the author of a stub comes back later and says "ha ha, Wikipedia's unreliable because this was nonsense" shouldn't that be speedied? Apologies if I'm being dense, and feel free to delete this thread and follow up on my talk page if appropriate. Jclemens (talk) 07:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Article gone now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 07:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Editor deleting reliable sources

As much as I understand PetraSchelm's attempts to galvanise the project actively against child-abuse, and the emotional strain that such a self-imposed task must bring about, I cannot support her recent removal of reliable sources, even when pub info was in the source or readily available from scientific databases. The justification for this string of edits appears to have been the discovery of a Pedophile-supported website that hosts copies of scientific papers. She claims that this website is not a reliable source, and in removing the entire source, fails to understand that in most cases their online copy is simply a backup to already reproduced or easily retrievable pub info that would suffice on its own. This has lead to the loss of a number of independent and well-researched sources, none of which I see as supporting the ethos of the website in question.

It would be better - instead of blanking the source without warning, to simply remove the link from the reference, if one objects to it. I do not want to incite any kind of kneejerk reaction against this person, but she does need putting right in this instance.

See E.g.. The entire pub info is reproduced. Even though the paper itself (available in databases) supports the text, she removes the whole lot because someone has backed it up with a questionable link. forestPIG 20:18, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

ipce--International Pedophile Child Emancipation--is not a reliable source. It's a website hosted with no known author, and we have no way of knowing if anything hosted by ipce is complete/unaltered etc. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a number of editors deleting ipce, not merely Petra. I think John Nevard's user page provides the clue as to why now, this site is best described as fringe and IMHO admins would do well not to get involved in this content dispute about fringe RS acceptability in the pedophile articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 20:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

See my comments below regarding low-quality websites reproducing material that has appeared elsewhere as a cite-able publication. Perhaps IPCE material can be treated the same way: If it reprints something from the American Journal of Pediatrics or even from a completed Ph.D. dissertation, let it stand, if it's spouting nonsense that would never be printed by a reliable publication, then don't. Treat each citation on its own merits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

How to handle advocacy organizations hosting content?

This begs a larger question: What to do when editors use a secondary source which cherry-picks primary sources which support its point of view, particularly when the primary source is a paid-subscription, print-only, or otherwise not-available-to-everyone source. In other words, if I source "Hitler allowed 3 million Jews to live" from a Neo-Nazi web site's reprint of a peer-reviewed print-only scientific journal from 1953, should I leave the source and the link, leave only a reference to the hard-to-find printed paper, or eliminate the source altogether and tag the text as {{fact}}, leaving it up to the next editor to delete it entirely? As much as I don't want to send traffic to neo-Nazi sites, having an online copy is better than having only a paper reference.

Now, if the paper in question was never published in a cite-able publication, e.g. it was only published in some Neo-Nazi newsletter from 1953, then by all means can it. The same goes for pedophile manifestos that were never published in a quality publication. About the only claim those sources are useful for are passages like "Most people consider Neo-Nazism to be an offront to society[insert cites here] but at least one group from 1953 disagrees[insert garbage newsletter citation here, or better yet, a non-Nazi 3rd party quoting from said garbage newsletter]. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

For that situation we have {{cherrypicked}}. --Relata refero (disp.) 17:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I invoke Godwin's Law. Please continue without further Nazi/Hitler comparisons. Thank you. CharonX/talk 22:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Please read Godwin's Law; it is a mere statement of fact that compels nothing. And as the article says, "The rule does not make any statement whether any particular reference or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate"; given that the concrete examples behind this are to pedophile sights, referring to neo-Nazis might actually less hyperbolic than the original.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That is not my concern. Even though the articles are in fact exact copies of independent work, I am concerned by the fact that you extend this observation to delete the reliable book or journal refs that form the core of these sources. This is not acceptable behaviour, and I suggest that you read up on our policies if you wish to continue in this way. forestPIG 20:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, Davidwr brings up very good points. And I did indeed notice that there were 138 links to ipce by reading John Nevard's userpage. I think ipce should be on a blacklist, to keep these links from creeping back in (and to get rid of the 100+ that are linked from talkpages). We're not a linkfarm to boost ipce's Google stats, and there's never any reason to cite it; anything published elsewhere can be cited from elsewhere. -PetraSchelm (talk) 20:36, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

PetraSchelm, could you please pay a bit closer attention to the arguments of myself and David above. I am not asking you to leave links to the offensive site. I am asking you to cease in blanking the whole independent pub info because a copy is hosted on an offensive site. And where the pub info is not reproduced, yet readily available, you should be prepared to put in that little extra bit of work to improve the source. forestPIG 20:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think wikilawyering will get you very far, ForestPig, whose admin sock are you anyway (email me privately if you like). Thanks, SqueakBox 20:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If the sources are reliable sources, then there is no need to link to an iffy website that hosts them. There should be original links available. Corvus cornix_talk 20:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Or a book/journal ref. This is what PetraSchelm has actually been deleting. forestPIG 20:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

keeping the original reference to the book/journal is no sin. Sure it makes it more difficult to a) check the source yourself for more research, or b) figure out if it is used appropriately, but I'd rather not link to polemic sites (of any stripe) if we can avoid it. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The letters IPCE stand for "International Pedophile and Child Emancipation" - it is the successor organization to the Paedophile Information Exchange (PIE). Among the people who founded both organizations is Tom O'Carroll, convicted in the UK of a couple pedophilia-related offenses and child pornography.

Nothing on the IPCE website can be considered a trustworthy source, since its purpose is activism and has no independent fact-checking oversight, there is no way to know if anything posted their is true or not.

If someone can find them, the sources quoted on IPCE might be reliable as originally published. They would need to be located and vetted on their own merits, and unless someone has done that, they can't be used either. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Don't discount a source just because its purpose is activism. Political web sites, lobbying web sites, womens- and childrens-issues-advocacy web sites, and many others are inherently activist, but I would not summarily discount the material on them just because they are activist and POV-pushing web sites. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between activism and fringe. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:43, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If the standard of extra scrutiny is a site whose "purpose is activism and has no independent fact-checking oversight" that would apply to a lot of non-fringe sources. In fact, most activist web sites run by small- and medium-sized organizations would fail this test because we can't know if they have an independent fact-checker. We can probably trust big-and-popular sites because if they screw up it will be in tomorrow's newspapers. If on the other hand the standard of extra scrutiny is "fringe sites" then we get into wikidebates over where the exact border between "fringe", "nearly fringe," "2 steps away from fringe," and "not fringe" are, and that's a debate that will just waste everyone's time.

A reasonable measure is "Does this site claim to have fact-checking and is this claim credible? If not, how likely is it their reputation will be hurt if they screw up and misprint something, and do they even care about their reputation?" The more fringe a site is, the less of a reputation they have to be damaged, and therefore the less external motivation they have to get it right and the greater scrutiny they deserve. It's a sliding scale that is best decided by the editors of the individual articles where the citation is made, not on a Wiki-wide basis. I suspect articles on controversial issues tend to have a lot of watchlist-ers, so such a discussion won't want for lack of participation. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing about ipce is that it's run/maintained by only one person, according to ipce, who has not disclosed his identity. So it's officially maintained by Anonymous, and has all the credibility of Anonymous, who is in no way accountable. -PetraSchelm (talk) 22:03, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In this case, not just fringe, but extreme fringe. The difference is the reliability of the particular activists; what are their qualifications, are they experts, are they otherwise notable, are they published elsewhere, what is the reputation of their organization, etc... ? In the case of IPCE, the founders include convicted criminals, some of whom have advocated sex with children and distributed child pornography. So, no, don't discount them just because they're activists. Discount them because they are not reliable. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 22:00, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This can be dangerous: There are unreliable activists who are not on the fringe. As a hypothetical, if I were a woman's rights activist from 1972 advocating for abortion rights, but I routinely got sloppy when copying academic work into my newsletter, then I'm unreliable. On the other hand, if I'm a Neo-Nazi and I am meticulously accurate in reproducing others' academic works, then I'm reliable even though I'm extreme fringe. I'd be more likely to trust the reprinted works of the latter than the former. When it comes to original material of course, the Neo-Nazi's garbage-spew would go straight to the trash-can where it belongs. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll jump in as a neutral party. This seems to be a case where the correct procedure is to change the citations to reference the original scientific research papers directly. We ARE allowed to reference offline sources as long as they can be accessed somehow. The correct procedure is to change all the citations thus. Squeakbox, I do not see any 'wikilawyering' in ForestPig's contributions and if you have credible evidence he is an alternate admin account attempting to avoid scrutiny then I suggest you bring this up at the appropiate channel rather than making a wild accusation - WP:AGF applies in the absence. Exxolon (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

• ForestPig states on his userpage that he operates "a moderately active admin account" and that this is his alternate account for "controversial articles." -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Of course we must verify that the papers are actually genuine and not forgeries hosted by the questionable site to further it's agenda that goes without saying. Exxolon (talk) 21:28, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we should hold these sites to the same verification standards as we do other non-reliable sites. For example, if DanRatherFanclub.blogspot.com reprinted one of Dan Rather's early newspaper articles, and someone cites it, it deserves the same scrutiny as if www.AdolfHitlerFanClub.blogspot.com reprinted one of Hitler's lesser-known works and someone cites it. No more, no less. WP:IDONTLIKEIT or WP:YOUSOUNDLIKEAGOODGUY are not good reasons to hold someone to a higher standard or let someone off with a free pass. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement, the original-source citations should stay even if they are not in an easily-accessible form. There is a difference of opinion over whether online copies which are on questionable sites should be allowed to remain. On one hand, an online copy makes it easy to check the reference to make sure it actually backs up the claim. On the other hand, it can allow Wikipedia to turn into a link-farm to www.adolfhitleristhecoolest.com. I recommend allowing these types of links but only as a last resort, if there is not another free-and-easily-accessible copy. One solution is to track down the original source, contact the publisher, and 1) ask permission to host it on your personal site or on Wikimedia Commons and link from there, and 2) alert him to the fact that the material is being used on the questionable site. Typically the publisher will either say "okay" or he will send a DMCA request to the questionable site. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This, and Jack-A-Roe sound the most sensible opinions so far. I am able to verify many sources, as I have access to some databases. I am sure that many other users do too. forestPIG 21:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

On an unrelated matter, if a source like www.AdolfHitlerFanClub is KNOWN to frequently mis-copy cite-able material or edit them in a slanted way and misrepresent them as an unedited version, then it's grounds to blacklist that particular site as a source for Wikipedia article references. However, that should be taken up on a site-by-site basis. If anyone is making such a claim about IPCE, then please open a separate discussion, call it "Move to blacklist IPCE as a fraudulent source" or something like that. Have your evidence ready before you start, and make sure the fraud is wholesale or at least significant enough to be a problem. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 21:38, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, but as you wrote, let's keep that question out of this thread. Whether or not IPCE is blackllisted, it still can't be used as a WP:V source. The only thing IPCE can be used to support is statements about its own opinions, not any facts or sources that require independent verification. This needs to be clearly decided in this thread so it doesn't come up again, because the purpose of that website is pedophile activism - its use in footnotes on Wikipedia undermines that dependable accuracy of our articles. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 21:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

"Can't be used as a WP:V source" is the crux of the discussion, and there isn't a consensus yet. Let me explain. If IPCE reproduced an article from George W. Bush's high school newspaper about him, and that article wasn't found anywhere else on the Internet, I would have no problem including a link to it if I needed to. However, I would include the paper-citation information as well and would probably ask someone who had access to check his school newspaper's printed archives to verify the copy was accurate, just as I would if the same newspaper article showed up at www.DubyaIsTheCoolest.blogger.com. Some editors in this discussion disagree with me: They say I should limit myself to just the paper citation and not include the hyperlink. That is the question that is still on the table. I suspect we will not resolve it globally, and frankly, I think it should not be resolved globally but rather by the editors of George W. Bush or whatever article it is we are talking about. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 22:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, IPCE may be a good starting point for some research in this area (this does not mean that I endorse their opinions, but just their rather thorough coverage of the topics). They do appear to reproduce accurate copies of scientific and sociological works, and one imagines that this is probably important for a group who have all the dignity of campaigning pedophiles. If people find the EL offensive, I am not opposed to having it removed. Editors should always cite the journal/book/publisher anyway. forestPIG 21:54, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the question that's being missed here - has anyone looked at the print source to verify that the website is reproducing it faithfully? If not, since the website is of unknown quality, it shouldn't be used as a reference yet. No harm in putting that statement it references back once someone has been able to verify that the actual source supports it. Shell ^babelfish 23:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fair, but if and only if the same standards are applied to all web sites of similar quality. I would put almost all blogs in that category. If www.ilovemykittycat.blogging.com had an excert from "How To Raise Cats, by Ima Catlover, (c)1990" that would be just as untrusted. Google Book Search is good but only if the book in question is in their database and the page in question is publicly available. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 00:11, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No text at all was removed--fact tags were placed after the ipce links were removed. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Quite. This should apply to at least 3 "believe the children" sites frequently quoted in satanic ritual abuse- and false memory-related articles. The bias of the site-owner is clear, and the question of whether quoted articles are edited is open. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 00:19, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Which sites? I don't edit any of those articles, but I'll take a look. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The question that needs to be asked is, "does the IPCE website have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy?" If so, then it's a reliable source; if not, not. I'm not averse to the idea of providing "convenience links" to third-party online copies of published documents which the publisher has not made available online (assuming there are no copyright concerns) but I'm convinced that we should not approve the practice in principle, only on a case-by-case basis, and taking particular care when the third-party is strongly partisan or advocating for a minority, fringe or extreme point of view. In any case, the citation should always be made to the original publisher, not to any mirror site. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 04:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I also believe that removing the whole reference because of a link cannot be justified because someone may not have looked at a reiable copy. How do we know that the referee has not looked at a reliable copy, and is not just giving the online copy for informational purposes? Anyways, if PetraSchelm does not have the original source, a civil way of settling the issue would be to contact another editor, not to go removing sources, because her knowledge or access to databases is lacking in that area. forestPIG 08:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

The onus is on the editor who wants to include information, and always has been. (And that would be completely bizarre to expect anyone to go through the entire revision history of an article to determine which particular editor added something, and notify them personally--the 30 links I removed were not added recently; who knows how long they have been there.) But, the question of ipce is for 1) the RS noticeboard 2) the talkpages of articles. The consensus already long established at articles is that ipce is not RS, but exceptions have been allowed for use of ipce as a fringe source in fringe articles such as the pro-pedophile activism article--although there was some discussion if it qualified as an exception because there is no known authorship, and that is one criteria of an acceptable fringe source. -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:04, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

From what I understand from today's and yesterday's discussion here, IPCE has two types of materials: Original material and copied material. I understand there is no known author, which typically makes the original material not a reliable source. As far as copied material, I assume that breaks down into 2 categories: Material which has easily-accessible copies elsewhere and material which has copies elsewhere that are not easily accessible. Links to the former can be simply replaced by links to more-mainstream locations. Furthermore, links to the former can be used to determine if IPCE is making faithful copies or not. If it is making faithful copies to these, then it's reasonable to assume the copies to the less-accessible materials are also faithful copies. If that is the case, then I see no problem using them as a link in Wikipedia. This concept can be generalized to any source which is not considered reliable but which republishes, or claims to republish, material from reliable sources. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:36, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

That's a much higher standard than has been used for ipce links, which have mostly been indiscriminately spammed in without regard for accuracy or info, or whether there is another copy on a non-polemic non-fringe site. Here [5], for example, ForestPig complained to someone else, who replied that she couldn't find the source in the LC (and replaced it with an alternate source which meets WP:V). Ipce is questionable enough as a source that anyone who wants to use it should make a strong case in every instance for why ipce and nothing else is a good link, IMO -PetraSchelm (talk) 18:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I see the standard davdwr proposes above a very good one for sites such as this. It represents the common sense consensus we try for, and I suggest he propose it explicitly as an addition to our V policy or whatever is the appropriate guideline in our morass of rules. Petra is right that we should upgrade the articles for this, but it will take a while, for it requires a serious effort at finding a better source before the links to them are removed. We shouldnt remove what links we have while we work on improving them. DGG (talk) 18:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I have opened a discussion on WP:V to change that section. Please participate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 20:52, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact, IPCE is not the source at all; the papers and articles themselves are. That IPCE is used as a convenience link is not a problem, as long as the original article is fully cited. Those wanting the original rather than IPCE's copy are free to pay the requisite journal for a reprint. We've been doing exactly this with convenience links for quite some time. It's easier to delete than to add; I ask that we not take the easy way. Wishful thinking: It would be nice if the articles were available for free from an organization that didn't advocate for any side of this or any other issue. However, it's usually only the partisans who care enough to host materials such as these. --SSBohio 08:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not the consensus at talk:Verifiability. Also, you should talk to Legitimus, who has now verified that ipce changes documents (deletes graphs/charts/conclusions...) -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

'tis true 'tis pity. I have access to some original print copies of some studies hosted by IPCE, and have found that on occasion, IPCE may have altered a document's content, left out critical parts like statistical graphs, or is hosting a commentary rather than the true study. If you must have details, I'm afraid you'll need to wait for a bit. I do not want to access IPCE from my location.Legitimus (talk) 12:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Request of Rangeblocks regarding the banned user, and Sock master, Hdayejr

As the title states, I request that the following range blocks be issued. The following IP ranges have been found by finding sockpuppets and taggin accordingly:

• 24.172.0.0 - 24.172.255.255
• 65.28.0.0 - 65.31.255.255
• 66.240.192.0 - 66.240.255.255
• 68.24.0.0 - 68.31.255.255
• 69.4.224.0 - 69.4.239.255
• 69.61.231.0 - 69.61.231.255
• 69.89.96.0 - 69.89.127.255
• 70.0.0.0 - 70.14.255.255
• 70.144.0.0 - 70.159.255.255
• 70.192.0.0 - 70.223.255.255
• 71.64.0.0 - 71.79.255.255
• 72.56.0.0 - 72.63.255.255
• 75.176.0.0 - 75.191.255.255
• 75.192.0.0 - 75.255.255.255
• 96.12.0.0 - 96.15.255.255
• 99.200.0.0 - 99.207.255.255
• 140.106.0.0 - 140.106.255.255
• 207.10.0.0 - 207.10.255.255
• 207.10.224.0 - 207.10.239.255

Here is the sock case for the user, well, the most recent sock case. Thankyou for your time.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 05:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Those ranges are way way too extensive. By my count, you're asking for a block on at least 10 million IPs. WP:RBI. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was just going off of the WHOIS reports for the IP net ranges. I shall go directly from the list now.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 06:14, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

New list:

• 65.31.*.*
• 68.24-31.*.*
• 69.4-89.*.*
• 70.9.59-237.*
• 70.210-212.32-117.*
• 72.59-60.*.*
• 75.185.202.*
• 75.218.*.*
• 99.201-205.*.*

— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve\ ^Contribs 07:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• That is still too much. For one thing, admins can't block anything bigger than a /16 block (like 65.31.*.*) — 68.24-31.*.* is a /13 block, 99.201-205.*.* is a /16, a /15 and a /14 block, and so on. Blocking those ranges would be using a sledgehammer to crack a peanut — the risk of collateral damage is far too high. (See Classless Inter-Domain Routing for explanations of what a /16 block, and so on, are.) We have had long discussions here before blocking a /18 — there's no way that that many IPs can be blocked because of one user who uses a few of them. Stifle (talk) 11:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I concur against the blanket raneblocks as the collateral damage is way too high, unfortunately. -- Avi (talk) 20:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well, however, it is worth pointing out that Hdayejr is really persistent so rapid mole-whacking is the order of the day. Ideally there would be a AIV-like noticeboard for "simple socking", i.e. a case where a well-known sockmaster has re-emerged with an obvious repeat of their old MO. I guess right here (ANI) is the place, but it's not always simple to get admin attention on this.

For persistent (and apparently unemployed) sockmasters like Hdayejr, it's a fine line between letting them get away with it and giving them trophy pages. I agree the only solution is whack-a-mole, but I'd love to hear any suggestions on how to more effeciently report moles for whacking. --Jaysweet (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Range block for a troll?

Resolved

See #IP troll above for the previous history. There is a nasty troll using multiple IP addresses in the 77.78.196/197/198.* fields. 8 were given long blocks yesterday, and then there was more of the same. A range block would appear to be in order, but the scope of such a block is beyond me and I don't know about the collateral damage it would cause. Can someone else deal with this, please? Thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 10:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked 77.78.196.0/22 anon only and ACB for 3 months. There doesn't seem to be anyone else on this range at this time. Thatcher 11:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

User Pompertown disruptive.

User Pompertown (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) keeps on reverting in Backstreet boys article with no edit summary or comment on the talk page for the revert. It's clear that the user knows what they're doing (Myself and Foetusized (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) have left a message to them). Bidgee (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

My question is how has this person been allowed to edit for so long? I have never seen so many block notices/warnings on anyones talkpage, so I am proposing an immediate indefinite block. Chafford (talk) 11:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the user's contributions and long block and warning history, I've blocked them indefinitely; simply ignored too many chances to reform their behavior. A fuller rationale is on their talk page. --barneca (talk) 12:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Further comment, copied (with editorial changes) from User talk:Foetusized:I've blocked this user indefinitely, not for this latest edit war, but for the consistent history of doing nothing but revert with little/no explanation. I have no position on the actual subject of your disagrement, so if someone else comes along and thinks they liked his version better, this isn't a free pass to revert them with no discussion; please try to start a discussion with any new editor if they show up preferring his version, and assume it isn't the same user unless they start reverting with no discussion too.

I'm not going to warn anyone who reverted him for edit warring, since no one came anywhere near 3RR, and several others agreed. Just noting that perhaps the "perfect world" solution would have been for you to start a discussion with other editors about the edit in question, which you could point to as "consensus" in your re-adding the material he removed. Perhaps that's a little too utopian in dealing with a clearly disruptive editor, but I was slightly disappointed to see all that reverting going on with no talk page thread (at least that I noticed, apologies if I just missed it).

So hopefully that should improve the editing environment at the article. --barneca (talk) 13:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Lard Sock

Someone keeps creating pages called lard land and typing lard into articles plus other varients such as ard. This vandal surfaced earlier today and has just resurfaced just now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wheelclerk4567 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC) — Wheelclerk4567 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

AIV is thataway ->. shoy 12:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I get some eyes here?

Resolved

No admin action required - debate is continuing on the talk page Kevin (talk) 01:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I am encountering some resistance to the removal of some synthesized information in Silence in the Library (a Doctor Who episode). There is also a bit of testiness flaring up in the article discussion. As this isn't a content issue but rather one of policy and behavior, I think this is the place to ask for some experienced eyes. Please note that I brought up the synthesis issues in both NOR¹ and the Doctor Who wikiproject², without response. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you cite a couple of diffs, as examples? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Er, the synthesis or the unpleasantness? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:32, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The bit where you feel that admin action is required. Kevin (talk) 22:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sure. The synthesis is located mainly within the article section ""Continuity", located here", wherein all the statements are synthesized bits from editors noting prior occurrences of events happening within the episode. None of it is cited. The unpleasantness ([Talk:Silence_in_the_Library#Removed_paragraphs_in_continuity 1]), while mild is somewhat corrosive and dismissive. The synthesized (and crufty, trivial) info:

• "As shown on the BBC Doctor Who website, there are a number of books in the library either written by former Doctor Who writers or featured in previous episodes. Among those seen are the operating manual for the TARDIS, Origins of the Universe (Destiny of the Daleks), The French Revolution (An Unearthly Child), the Journal of Impossible Things ("Human Nature"/"The Family of Blood"), The Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy (written by Douglas Adams, former Doctor Who writer and script editor), Everest in Easy Stages (The Creature from the Pit) and Black Orchid (a book first seen in the Fifth Doctor serial of the same name)."
• "The Doctor mentions that "emergency program one" will send Donna home should she be left in alone the TARDIS for five hours. In "Parting of the Ways", this program was activated by the Ninth Doctor to send Rose Tyler home."
• "The "squareness gun" used by River Song produces a visual effect similar to the "sonic blaster" used by Captain Jack Harkness in the first series episode "The Doctor Dances" (also written by Moffat). In that episode, Rose Tyler coined the term "squareness gun", which the Doctor re-uses here."
• "The psychic paper has previously summoned the Doctor to a location in "New Earth", where the Face of Boe called the Doctor to his supposed deathbed."
• "The Doctor also mentions that he loves "a little shop", a sentiment previously expressed in the episodes "New Earth" and "Smith and Jones"."

If that information is verifiable, is it really "synthesis", or is it merely "summary"? For example, if I were to list the Superman episodes in which Kryptonite is a plot element. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, I consider it synthesis, and rather trivial, crufty such, at that. They aren't summarizing so much as using prior knowledge to reinforce the legitimacy of a tv show. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've given my views on the talk page, but at any rate this isn't an issue requiring admin intervention. If you want further input, make a request for comment. Trebor (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Right on, I saw it, but respectfully disagree with your interpretation of synthesis in this matter, and feel the allowing of continuity sections in these articles sets a bad precedent which will almost assuredly come back to bite us on the ass. I'll file the RfC forthwith. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Can I make two complaints about Arcayne's behaviour: firstly, for someone claiming unpleasentness is taking place on the talk-page (and it really, really isn't, anyway), he was discourteous by informing nobody of this ANI post's existence. I only found it by chance. Secondly, he (or she, don't know!) should not file an RfC for this very trivial matter, where there is a VERY clear consensus for the information to remain. Arcayne seems to be the only person holding the viewpoint that the information is naughty. 15:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Blatant copyvio at L. Ron Hubbard bibliography‎

Issue of blatant copyvio at L. Ron Hubbard bibliography‎. I cleaned up a bit of this but the editor that added the copyvio material virtually via copy/pasting sections from the source in question does not seem to understand how this was incorrect. Here is a good example of what I am referring to. (Please also see the user's subsequent response - [6]) - I would appreciate an admin looking into this please and advising Hypatea (talk · contribs). Thank you, Cirt (talk) 15:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I tagged it, but I might just go ahead and nuke it since the old versions were clear copyright violations, and given that we have a L. Ron Hubbard article anyways. seicer | talk | contribs 16:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That might be for the best. I've been comparing-and-contrasting, and the last version before Cirt started deleting was full of copyvios - a few words were changed here and there, but it's definitely been copied wholesale. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted and redirected to L. Ron Hubbard, as there are incoming links. I assume most are coming from the link on {{LRH}}, which I have removed, so the redirect can be deleted once the incoming links dwindle. - auburnpilot talk 16:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this and addressing it. A note to Hypatea (talk · contribs) might also be appropriate, to explain things - might be best coming from someone other than myself. Cirt (talk) 16:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle abuse?

Resolved

 – blocked for 24 hours Gwen Gale (talk) 14:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

BYF079 (talk · contribs) has been using Twinkle to roll back edits to articles that he disagrees with,[7] also wrongly labelling some as vandalism.[8][9]

Despite being warned about this,[10] he continues to do so.[11] Could another admin have a look to see if action is necessary? Cheers, пﮟოьεԻ 57 12:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This diff shows some pretty disturbing WP:OWN issues in addition to the Twinkle abuse. Also, I gave him a notice about signing his posts, since I noticed he was failing to do so on your Talk page.

I don't know that there is a language barrier in place or what, but the user has been here at least since January and still is failing to grasp some basic policies. It's dangerous to have a user like that with a rollback button. I think deactivating Twinkle and protecting his monobook.js, with restoration of Twinkle privileges being contingent on getting a mentor, would not be out of line. --Jaysweet (talk) 12:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Oh hell, just block him if he continues to edit war or make wrongful accusations of vandalism or any other bad edits. No need to muck around with his user-space. Besides if you protect his monobook he could just switch to a different skin. — CharlotteWebb 13:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps if "the community" deactivates Twinkle while discussing their edits this would be a clear indication - similar to at level 4 warning - that there are serious concerns about their method of contributing? The user switching Twinkle to another skin without responding could then be taken as a further violation which would then result in a block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You can be blocked for misusing Twinkle? Don't think I've seen that before. Avruch^T * ^ER 19:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hrm, shouldn't the first step have been deactivating Twinkle? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The user was blocked for rolling back good faith edits and calling it vandalism, as well as for WP:OWN and WP:CIV issues, not just for abusing Twinkle.

That said, I think the block was way premature, and that's why I advocated decativating Twinkle as a first step to get the users attention. I would also point out that the user was not active at the time of the block, which makes the value of a 24 hour block highly questionable.

I wasn't going to challenge an action that two admins had consensus on (CharlotteWeb and Gwen Gale), but I never felt good about this resolution. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Good Comment Jay. FYI, I don't think you need that disclaimer on every post. There are many of us non-admins here, its perfectly allowable. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 19:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know :) Maybe I'll stop using it as often, perhaps only when I initially respond to a thread. Another good faith editor got kinda frustrated after I had been working for about 24 hrs on getting through to a disruptive user and decided that it needed admin attention after all. His point was, "If it didn't need admin attention, I wouldn't have brought it to the admin noticeboard," and thought that was a valid complaint so I've been trying to practice full disclosure. But you're right, I probably don't need it on every single post :) Thanks --Jaysweet (talk) 19:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You might be surprised by the percentage of "incidents" on this page which do not require an admin's attention (there are others which do not require anyone's attention but that's another issue). — CharlotteWebb 20:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually I wouldn't be surprised, and that's why I hang out here ;) I estimate at least 50% of the reports don't need admin attention. But I started doing the disclaimer anyway, because I had a good faith editor thinking I was an admin for >24 hours, and that didn't feel honest to me. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

"Twinkle" isn't the problem. Reverting in one click isn't the problem. The problem is edit-warring, failure to explain reverts, and accusing others of vandalism. This is an attitude problem and not anything inherent or specific to "Twinkle" or any other reverting tool. — CharlotteWebb 19:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I wasn't saying necessarily that the block was unwarranted, I wasn't sure of the severity of the other problems and it occurred to me that if the Twinkle misuse was the major one a block was sort of a novel approach. Its totally possible that the other disruptive behavior (edit warring) noted in the block was enough to merit it. Avruch^T * ^ER 20:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

How would you have done if all other factors were equal but no extra features such as "Twinkle" had been used? You can't take away the "(undo)" button, or the ability to select and manually repost the text of an old version, so at some point you would still have to consider (not-so-)novel approaches. — CharlotteWebb 20:18, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think number57 is right that the user isn't really editing collaboratively, although it appears there is a language barrier issue impacting the problem. Still, I only saw two edits identified as twinkle using the edit summary. I think a barrage of folks letting him know that his editing style is inappropriate (either on his talkpage, or directing him here) might've made a difference prior to a block. He's clearly not very well versed in Wikipedia, but that can be changed with some education. At the least, now that he is blocked, it'd be appropriate for Gwen to advise him more specifically on what he did wrong and how he should edit once he is unblocked. Avruch^T * ^ER 20:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As for Twinkle abuse, Wikipedia:Twinkle has a big red warning at the top of the page about the likelihood of being blocked for that. However, I blocked the user for three things, including severe edit warring along with the use of Twinkle's rollback feature on good faith edits even after being warned. This unsigned edit, though, is what swayed me. Here we have ownership, edit warring and Twinkle mis-use worries all together, with an editor who was showing no hint of slowing down. This said, I've been watching his talk page and was ready to unblock as soon as I could get a promise he would stop edit warring and would not use Twinkle's rollback for anything but vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

While I still have doubts about the efficacy of a short (24hr) block on a user that was not active, if you are watching the User Talk page then I retract my earlier "unhappiness" about the resolution of this issue. Hopefully they'll reform. Cheers! --Jaysweet (talk) 20:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The editor had made 70 edits today in a 6 hour period. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but most of those edits were productive (or at least, most of them weren't rolled back.. I don't know enough about Tunisian footballers to know for sure if they were productive!) and more importantly, he had not edited for ~3.5 hours at the time of the block.

<shrug> I don't think the block was really out of process or anything (otherwise I would have made a stink about it at the time), but I am not convinced it was the best way of dealing with the user. But, that's just a matter of opinion, and seeing as how you have the mop and I don't ;) I'll defer to yours (while retaining my own). Cheers! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Truth be told you got my attention with your first post to this thread when you wrote It's dangerous to have a user like that with a rollback button. After reading the comments here I counted three rollbacks of good faith edits, saw the edit warring and saw no hint the user was heeding any of the pleas or warnings on his talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hdayejr sock, who wants to whack a mole?

Resolved

 – Blocked by Moreschi (thank you kindly)

This diff is characteristic of Hdayejr socks. I will warn and such, but I'd rather have this nipped in the bud than wait for it to escalate to AIV, thanks! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

If I find a sock puppet of someone can I call them "unemployed loser" also?[12] Or is this a privilege on Wikipedia for the few? Seriously, why antagonize people? It's not necessary. --Blechnic (talk) 21:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

PS no answer is required.

You know, it's easy to turn the other cheek after the first fifty or so socks and personal attacks. After that, people tend to get a mite trigger happy and sick of this multiply-banned user coming in every day and repeating the process. Dayewalker (talk) 21:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(EC)Well, I can't say I don't understand his frustration with rampant socks who waste our time. I am a bit confused that you're working so hard to defend such socks. Why are you defending the sock puppeteer? ThuranX (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

So you've just offered up an excuse for acting just like him? I suggest he didn't give any appearance of deserving the energy expenditure on your part. --Blechnic (talk) 21:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(triple edit conflict)

Fair 'nuff, I'll strike the comment. --Jaysweet (talk) 22:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Well done, imo. --Blechnic (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that due to WP:DENY, we all just end the conversation. This user isn't worth the effort. We can all agree that sockpuppeting, vandalism, and personal attacks are bad. We're all on the same team here, so let's just let it go. Dayewalker (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

An odd post

See the date. Same thing elsewhere. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Good thing we got a free photo of him whilst he was alive. — CharlotteWebb 17:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

On a more serious note I would notify his office that a specific threat has been made, but I'm afraid I'll sound like a complete dingbat if the diffs are oversighted. — CharlotteWebb 17:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP is from Washington DC if anyone wants to deal with it.-Wafulz (talk) 17:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll make a phone call. This needs to be dealth with, just in case. – ClockworkSoul 18:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I filed a report with the Detroit Police Dept. (they were very nice). Can't be too careful about this kind of thing. – ClockworkSoul 19:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to follow up, the supervisor of the sergeant with whom I reported the incident called me back to thank me (and us), and to let me know that this is being pursued. Obviously, it's probably just a really silly prank, but I'm willing to bet that the prankster will probably be encouraged to consider the consequences of his actions in the future. – ClockworkSoul 22:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to do that. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Better hope he doesn't get killed -- standard procedure by the Detroit Police homicide department is to start the investigation by arresting the victim, the reporter, and any potential witnesses. --Carnildo (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The homicide department arrests the victim? I imagine that can get messy. – ClockworkSoul 00:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The IP has been blocked, also. --Selket ^Talk 19:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Note to 'crats: please don't oversight those diffs. – ClockworkSoul 22:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think they warrant oversight, and I thought nothing of it til I looked at the date O.O <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 22:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I was scheduled for a meeting tomorrow, the 4th. I guess I missed it. I wonder how it went? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:21, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Bureaucrats don't hide revisions: Overseers do that. Acalamari 22:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Doh. Of course. Very silly of me. It's unlikely to be oversighted of course, but I just wanted to be sure that they remain for the authorities to see. I had to talk the very nice sergeant through the process of navigating through the wiki so that she could see the diffs, and I would hate for them to be unable to find them if they needed them again. – ClockworkSoul 22:18, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Anybody who has ever tried to help somebody find a diff or any other url over the phone will agree with me on this: e-mail works better. Recommend using a throwaway account, a pseudonym, and an IP address not traceable to you. — CharlotteWebb 14:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it, the article needs some attention with respect to BLP in respect to other people named in it, and possibly to undue weight. We do not normally describe events like this in such great detail. DGG (talk) 01:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Block of user TJCstaff?

Forgive me if this is the wrong place to make this suggestion, it seemed to fit best here. User:TJCstaff (talk), and associated IP addresses (User_talk:90.194.161.30 and User_talk:90.194.161.126) exist for sole purpose of adding non-NPOV/unsourced content to The Jewellery Channel Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 23:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's way PoV but the contribution history is very limited. Please keep trying the talk pages for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Will do, though no luck as yet. Wezzo (talk) (ubx) 00:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

M-72 and the continuing disruption

User M-72 has been warned on 4 separate occasions from 3 separate editors about personal attacks in a relatively short time. Here are the diffs of the warnings: 1, 2, 3, and 4. #3 was considered a "last warning". Many editors have attempted to educate the editor in question of the policy, but I think, considering the amount and time frame, it's time to take further action here. When confronting the editor with the behavior, we usually got response like this, this, and this.

On top of the personal attacks, the editor has been warned several times about vandalism in general such as this. It is clear to me that without actions from an admin, this type of behavior will continue. Is anyone able to offer help on this issue? Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 23:54, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, if I've placed this report in the wrong notice board, please forgive me and help point me in the right direction to report this properly. Thanks for the help. Roguegeek (talk) 23:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

User:TerriersFan

Resolved

 – misunderstanding Gwen Gale (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

TerriersFan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Nipissing University (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has failed to assume good faith, with using the edit summary "re-established pre-vandalised version". I wish him to be blocked for this please. GreenJoe 01:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Can't you tell the user that your edit was not vandalism? You also need to assume that the user just wanted to do what was best for Wikipedia and reverted what they thought appeared to be vandalism; assuming good faith, the user appeared to have reverted your edit which was removing an entire section of the article. This would be better resolved with a private discussion rather than bringing it here. Gary King (talk) 01:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

TerriersFan explained this to GreenJoe. Note GJ has also brought this to DRV. I think this is resolved. It's not blockable at any level. Suggest someone else mark resolved as GJ and I have a 'history' _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 01:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's resolved. I apologized for the misunderstanding. GreenJoe 01:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:6M2

User:6M2's user page is being used by the user and friends as a social networking site of sorts. Clearly something should be done as this is against policy, but I'm not entirely sure what. Does warning or blocking all involved work for everyone? --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 01:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, reported at WP:MFD. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you told the user that this is not accepted? Perhaps they are not aware of this policy. Cheers! Gary King (talk) 01:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I have not. Will do. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Another Hdayejr sock

Resolved

User:70.9.243.200 is another sock of User:Hdayejr, nothing but vandalism and personal attacks including this beauty [13] right here on the WP:ANI page. Thanks in advance again. Dayewalker (talk) 01:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks to R. Baley for the block, however, hes back at User:68.29.201.137. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 01:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. R. Baley shot him down again. Thanks! Dayewalker (talk) 01:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Massive tennis page moves

User:Tennis expert moved a bunch of bio articles about various tennis players from titles with diacritics to titles without. He cites some sort of consensus which I assume refers to this localized discussion Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Tennis#Naming_of_tennis_biographies. Diacritics or no diacritics is a Wikipedia-wide issue and individual projects should not carve exceptions for itself. Thus I bring it to the wider audience for comments. Renata (talk) 06:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't really the place for that. This page is here to report incidents that require the intervention of an administrator using tools that are only available to administrators. Comment withdrawn. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 06:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

See this, this, and the items linked therein. Tennis expert (talk) 06:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The moves should be reversed - this seems to be one side of a very lengthy argument (several months) attempting to get its way by blunt force, and the move is neither required nor suggested by policy or style guides. Orderinchaos 08:34, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Need help here - a massive number of articles have been moved per this supposed "consensus" - 68 in a very short period of time. Tennis expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have been working in concert with Redux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on this one - the latter moved 20 on 20th May, some of those have already been moved back. Orderinchaos 08:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not working in "concert" with anyone, i.e., there is no conspiracy. Redux began the discussion. Several editors, including myself, agreed with his proposal. He closed the discussion and said the renaming and edits should be implemented. And various people have followed through. It's as simple as that. Tennis expert (talk) 09:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for my previous belief that you were aware of previous discussions on this matter. It still shouldn't have been done, but I was incorrect to jump to a conclusion on that. Orderinchaos 09:46, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think most have been moved back now. All biographies are usually part of more than one WikiProject so a single project should not really even discuss about doing something this controversial to a large number of articles. Prolog (talk) 10:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

When doing things that might appear suspicious or vandalism to other users, always take care to link on the edit summary to the discussion where the changes obtained consensus. It avoids lots of problems --Enric Naval (talk) 15:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. As Tennis Expert also did: here On the other hand some editor "Pokrajac" just reverted by either no edit summary or "Per all Serbian names". And that editor keeps disrupting the article against consensus for that particular article. So who is to be banned? I loose more and more faith in this whole project. Where is a clear rule, a thrustworthy editor (in the non-wiki sense of the word) when you need one? --HJensen, talk 08:55, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

If you think we should change to Djokovic, than we must change all other Serbian, Croatian, Bosnik, and Polish names. Open new voting for all non-English names if you want to make something. Whitout that this is only double standard. --Pockey (talk) 13:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You should have made these arguments earlier. You cannot go against a consensus by your unilateral disrupive edits.--HJensen, talk 14:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. This debate has been raging for eight months in different locations, and to claim one very limited consensus on one WikiProject (which represented a determined minority in nearly all of the other discussions) and ignoring all previous activity on the subject (which I might note ended up on the arbitration pages on at least two occasions but was never certified) is the end of the matter is not a way to facilitate cooperation. Consensus, as far as I can see, was not designed as a tool to beat people's heads in when they have the opposite POV to one's own - it was actually meant to avoid the entire silliness to begin with. Unfortunately, its spirit, as often happens, has been thrown out the window here, as has civility and a few other things. Orderinchaos 15:58, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

So I can just change names to English spelling over and over just writing "Because I say it is correct" in the edit summary? I am genuinly trying to find out how this disorganized anarchy works. Sometimes when I think I understand it, new people come up with new interpretations telling me that I got it wrong. So my question is not sarcastic. Can I do it? And do you appreciate Pokrajac´s edits to the Djokovic article? --HJensen, talk 19:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

For those poor souls who are still watching, six of them are at WP:RM. Orderinchaos 15:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

What about those poor folks who watch over WP:RM? (I need some acetylsalicylic acid....) JPG-GR (talk) 05:36, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) Can we come up with a better, more centralized location to discuss this rather than on the actual WP:RM page itself? WP:RM has never been the place for discussion but merely a bulletin board for proposals. Quite frankly, in it's current state, it's a circus. JPG-GR (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

OBAMA incident

OK, my eyes are not playing tricks on me and im not on drugs either. The obama page was just covered with a HUGE slogan covering his name. The slogan read ( and i squirm as I write this) NIGGER!!!!!!!!. I checked the edit history and no one had edited the article, it was there for about a minute and then disappeared. --— Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It was in a template. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 02:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

{{Barack Obama}} which is now protected. It happens sometimes... not much we can do except protect all templates. --Rividian (talk) 02:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, i was concerned about my health lol. — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not actually protected, oops. But the vandalism was removed. --Rividian (talk) 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's sprotected. --Rory096 02:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears on Michelle Obama's page as well. Steve Richter (talk) 02:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, same template. --Rory096 02:16, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

(ecx4) It was in a template (this one to be specific). It's now removed, and the vandal was blocked. If it happens again, any admins should feel free to block on sight. --Rory096 02:11, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is this template not full protected? The visibility on Barack Obama's article alone is around 800,000-2.6 million pageviews a month. Sometimes it gets over 100,000 hits in a single day. Why isn't this full protected for safety's sake.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it really ought to be, same with George Bush's template. It's not exactly a high-risk template, but it did need to be sprotected. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 04:50, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It depends on how you define a "high-risk template". I would assume that all high-profile BLP templates need to be at least semi-protected if not fully-protected all the time. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 05:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, can Template:Barack Obama be only semi-protected and not full-protected? Or are us autoconfirmed users not trustworthy? :) New articles and such can be created and may need to be added to the template, etc. Gary King (talk) 06:25, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd love to Gary :) but BLP issues are much more of a concern. I've just updated the guideline here. Please feel free to comment at the talk page there. Answers to your concerns are already mentioned in the guideline. I mean there's still, of course, a way for you to edit it. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, GK, but a user only has to have an account for four days to be autoconfirmed. It is still highly-vulnerable to both vandalism and BLP concerns. --Mizu onna sango15/水女珊瑚15 23:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

:'( The number of templates that a regular user can't edit increases again by one... Gary King (talk) 06:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I know and that's sad. If you or someone can guarantee to me that it would be monitored on a regular basis and that we won't have no more troubles like we had today than I'll be ready to reduce the protection level to semi ;) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 06:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There are currently 2661 templates that are fully protected. Maybe I can add a few to my watchlist so they can be unprotected again... :p Gary King (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You got a really magic watchlist :) Yes and you may end up with having most of the high-profile BLP-related templates being fully protected so there would be no such targeted vandalism and potential BLP violations. I have no idea about how many that would be. Apart from Barack Obama's one (+1) and out of the 2660 templates, how many do you believe they really have to be fully protected? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to be safe, I went and semi-protected all of the open templates used in that article. That should be fine for most situations, but they can be fully-protected later if necessary. – ClockworkSoul 06:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

And that's why I'm sad that we can't have a cascading semi-protection. (Yes, I know it causes privilege escalation.)

If any of these protected templates needs to be edited, you can use {{editprotected}} on the talk page, like normal. It won't take too long. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me?

Just to clarify for those not paying attention, template {{Barack Obama}} was fully protected by FayssalF on the grounds that it is a "high risk template", transcluded onto all of 30 pages. This totally contravenes the protection policy; how has this not be undone yet? ➪HiDrNick! 12:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Nick.

• First, the question would have been "how come no one contacted FayssalF and discussed this with him" instead of saying "how has this not been undone yet". There's quite a big difference. In fact, i left a clear notice on the template talk page. Probably, it is there were you should discuss your concerns.
• Is there any specific rule on the WP:PROT which states that such a template must be semi-protected instead?
• Is there a specific descussion regarding my protection apart from the above?
• Do we agree that such high-profile bio templates involve BLP issues?
• Do you know that the full protection is not indefinite and it will end on 2008-06-18 T02:18:17; enough to keep vandals away during this post-primary elections period?
• Do you have any suggestion about:
  • avoiding the above mentioned problem (vandalism) to happen?
  • better protecting our BLP articles?

-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In the past, good-faith misapplications of page protection have been undone by other administrators, particularly when discussed here. I had to read the section and check the protection log before I realized that the template had been full rather than semi protected, and wanted to draw other editor's attention to that fact. That the protection expires at some point in the future does not mitigate the current damage. The protection policy is extremely clear: full protection is used to stop edit warring, which was not going on here. However, The written policy is largely irrelevant; my primary concern is that if administrators continue to protect pages for feeble reasons, eventually the protection policy will come to reflect that as the norm. Only the most frequently-used templates should be full-protected to prevent vandalism: should {{fact}} be vandalized, it appears on hundreds of thousands of pages. {{Barack Obama}} appears on less than 30. This is a very slippery slope indeed.

No one is proposing that BLPs be full-protected to prevent vandalism. Yet. Of course the content of articles and templates that appear on biographies of living persons invoke WP:BLP issues, and they will always be subject to vandalism. Semi-protection, when properly applied, is a fine deterrent for this sort of vandalism.

Again, I reiterate that if you are fully protecting a page because you don't want vandals to edit it, you're not helping Wikipeida. That is not what page protection is for. Unnecessary page protection is harmful to the project, and should be used rarely and with extreme caution. This template should be unprotected forthwith. ➪HiDrNick! 17:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

We at least agree that it doesn't "totally contravenes the protection policy" which was part of your argument above :) However, I totally disagree with you Nick that it was a 'feeble' reason. You don't seem to be aware of the BLP side of the story. You also seem that you are not aware that the template has been edited several times after its protection. You probably missed my edit summary while fully-protecting and my note on the template's talk page which you discarded and chose to come here straight away. {{Barack Obama}} appears on less than 30 articles but you miss the fact that [Barack Obama], for obvious reasons, is one of the most consulted, visited and edited article in the 'pedia (a high-profile BLP article). Any change in related templates can have serious consequences as proven by the raison d'être of thread.

Protections of templates should be judged on a per-case basis. Your concern seems to raise another point; that you think there's a community trend of fully-protecting templates. I am not really aware of that and I can assure to you that my action here has nothing to do with that.

My point is view is straightforward... I prefer dealing with {{EditProtected}} than having Ni**er appearing for x seconds or minutes on a high-trafic BLP article. In brief, the template can still be edited but there will be no BLP troubles or vandalism. You are of course entitled to your belief that [my action is] not helping Wikipeida.

And please Nick, as a friendly note, next time have the courtesy of discussing issues with the concerned admin before posting here especially when there is no vioation of any policy whatsoever. At least, we admins should encourage a more friendly atmosphere over here. Are we really helping the project by how has this not be undone yet? Let's make a smile out of that while still discussing if you don't mind. :) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. In fact, to not to forget mentioning the essential part of this sub-thread. Please feel free to undo it and get it back to semi-protection. You, or other editors, may also keep an eye on it. I had said and proposed this yesterday but here it is in case it has gone with the wind. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 18:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing about high-visibility templates is that they are highly visible. The Barack Obama template is viewed several million times a month over the 30 or so pages it is transcluded to. That is an incredibly high visibility warranting full-protection. There have been days where the Barack Obama article alone gets 200,000 hits. Lets call that half a million hits in one day over all of the articles with that template (conservative estimate). If a racial slur is put up for even a half hour during the most heavily trafficked times of day, that is potentially tens of thousands of people who see that vandalism. That is a Big Deal. Hence, it merits full protection. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 03:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Please feel free to undo it and get it back to semi-protection" — HiDrNick is not an administrator. I also agree with the full protection, per FayssalF and Swatjester. Daniel (talk) 03:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Slow edit war on Arthur Waskow; editor using Twinkle in content dispute

I wish to bring to the community's attention a slow moving edit war between User:Thoughtman and User:Malik Shabazz on the article Arthur Waskow. Since 7 May 2008 these two experienced editors have been reverting each other's edits on this article over and over and over. Additionally concerning is User:Malik Shabazz using Twinkle 6 times in this content dispute, something which is absolutely prohibited. This manner of edit war and tool abuse is harmful to the project and thus I bring it to the attention of the administrators and community. Bstone (talk) 04:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dropped warnings on both of their talkpages. Not taking any action yet, but I will if they keep at it. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :)} 04:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's clear as day that I have been attempting to keep the cat. free of people that shouldn't be on it per it's description.

User:Malik Shabazz for whatever reason has done nothing but vandalize my work. --Thoughtman (talk) 22:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that Rabbi Waskow and two other people at issue — Joan Baez and Medea Benjamin — satisfy the criteria for inclusion in the category, but User:Thoughtman keeps removing them. When I asked User:Thoughtman for an explanation, she/he wrote:

"Not everyone who is against the Iraq War is a pacifist, an advocate of nonviolence, a conscientious objector, or against warfare in all circumstances: i.e. a anti-war activist."

That has nothing at all to do with whether these individuals meet the criteria for the category, which they do.

Since my attempts to deal directly with User:Thoughtman have been futile ("Please read this time" "Please stop vandalizing article."), I will try alternate means of dispute resolution. Thank you for intervening. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 02:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thoughtman, what is happening between you and Malik Shabaaz is a content dispute, not vandalism. It does not help when you accuse other editors of vandalism as you have Malik Shabaaz. MS is a long standing editor with thousands of good contributions. You are as well. Let's work hard to be professionals and not let this devolve into a flame war. Bstone (talk) 12:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Stalking

It appears that user:Yahel Guhan is stalking me.

The user recently arrived from a month long wikibreak, as can be seen in Special:Contributions/Yahel_Guhan. One of the user's first edits was to revert me on New antisemitism and Mecca, without making any response on the talk page. I don't think they qualify as a violation of WP:STALK as the user has edited those article many times before.

However, Yahel Guhan has followed me to the article Banu Qurayza, where he blindly reverted me: [14]. The blind revert deleting about 15% of the article, removing sourced content from 11 different scholars.

Furthermore Yahel Guhan has made no attempt to discuss on the articles' talk page, which others users are busy engaged in. Using page statistics, I determined that Yahel Guhan has only 1 edit to the article in the past, which was 207 days ago (in early November 2007 [15]).

That Yahel Guhan would revert me at Banu Qurayza while reverting me at multiple other locations is an indication that the user is following me, reverting me, without making any attempts to discuss on the talk page. (Keeping in mind that Yahel Guhan did this very shortly after returning to wikipedia).

I'd like to remind other users that I was blocked for this misbehavior (for 72 hours) a few months ago, when I followed a user and reverted him on an article I had never edited (see the latest block on my block log).

I think that wikipedia rules apply not just to me, but to everyone, Yahel Guhan included.Bless sins (talk) 04:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Since they edited all the articles concerned I'd suggest their watchlist came into play. Finally have you attempted to discuss this with them before raising this? Have you notified them of this thread? Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Aha - I see you have done neither. How disappointing. No Admin action required until you have discussed this with the user. Spartaz ^Humbug! 04:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • This user has stalked me twice in the past: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive361#WP:STALK, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive382#Stalk. I've discussed the issue of stalking ample times with this user. Yet the behavior persists. Finally, I note that when I was blocked for 72 hours, no one ever discussed any issue with me, nor notified me of anything. Go ahead and check my talk page. Why is one rule applied for me, but another for Yahel Guhan?Bless sins (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you not know when to give up? You have made stalking reports three times now, and all three you were informed that it is not stalking, that you need to stop making the reports, and yet you continue. You're a relentless hypocrite who can never take a hint when consensus doesn't support your agenda. I never blindly reverted you; Banu Quaryza is on my watchlist, and you are in a dispute, making highly contentious very POV edits, as usual. And if you actually read the talk page of that article, you would realize that you never had consensus to make the edits you did. Rather you resort to (as usual) pretending to be stupid to delay disputes with very poor arguments that are obviously fallacies or outright incorrect, misinterpretations of basic English, and resorting to other tricks such as repeating yourself, claims of irrelevance to things which are clearly relevant, and wikilawyering. And for what purpose? Not to resolve the disputes, but rather to prolong them so you can continue to promote your POV. You did (and continue to do) the same tricks on the Islam and antisemitism article, and every other article I have been in a dispute with you on. I reverted your highly contentious highly POV edits on all three articles, while you seem to have taken advantage of my absence to continue promoting your POV pushing agenda, where you reverted me: [16][17][18][19][20] just to give a few examples (there are more), knowing that only you and I were in the dispute, or that when I was editing, both sides of the dispute were balanced, and when I was on wikibreak, you could take advantage of my temporary absence to get your version to seem like a consensus version, no matter how temporary. Then, when I return, you call it “stalking,” and you make this report.

But since you wish to bring up stalking, lets look at several articles you started editing after I did: for example: Mecca. I make this addition: [21], and you revert it: [22]. It is obvious that this is stalking, as your last edit to the page was never. Check the page history. Thus all of your editing that page is, by your definition, stalking. To continue: Another page you never edited, but followed me to is Islamist demonstration outside Danish Embassy in London in 2006. Your stalking is evident here. Then there is Racial segregation, where your stalking is also visible, as you make contentious edits on articles I edit that are completely irrelevant to the topic you edit: Islam-related articles: [23][24][25][26][27] It should be noted that this is his first time making the contentious edit:[28]- about a month after I edited the page [29].

Here is another article: Infidel. I don't know if it was me or Jayjg you were stalking when you showed up here and reverted [30]

Two other things to take note of. In the past three months, Bless sins has gotten away with two reported 3RR violations: [31] [32] YahelGuhan (talk) 05:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Most of the above allegations are baseless. Yes I did edit all those articles. No my edits weren't related Yahel Guhan's edits on those articles. I've been editing the Mecca article for quite some time. The dispute started when Yahel Guhan reverted me on Portal:Discrimination/Selected picture (a portal the editor had never edited before, see history here).

My edit here was on the article talk page, where Yahel Guhan had never made an edit before.

"It should be noted that this is his first time making the contentious edit:- about a month after I edited the page " That should make it obvious that I'm stalking you. I was lead to the article through a completely different source, certainly not your ancient edits.

Regarding the [edit on Infidel. I added new content, and y edit had nothing to do at all with you (who had first edited the article about two months ago).

Finally back to Banu Qurayza. I see your attitude has not changed, and you have not even apologized for making blanket reverts on the article. You are not even ashamed of the fact that you removed 15% of the material without a word on the talk page, acting like a drive by reverter, removing content only because I added it.Bless sins (talk) 05:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Baseless! Hardly. Just look at your edits. You have edited those articles, and all of your edits conflict with mine, so they do relate. You have never edited the Mecca article until my addition to the article that you objected to. If you did, you'd be able to provide a diff to prove otherwise, which you did not do. Now you resort to outright lies. Speaking of the Portal, you probably canvassed off wiki for votes, as 5 muslim editors who share your views suddenly showed up to vote, all of whom never edited the page until you made the edit, before I initiated the RFC. Not to mention this.

My edit here was on the article talk page, where Yahel Guhan had never made an edit before. More lies. I make one minor edit, and you show up.

That should make it obvious that I'm stalking you. No. It is obvious that you are playing games, biding your time. I often make my first edits months after I first find/read the article, and I am sure other editors do as well.

your edit had to do with insurting the connection to the term "goy", which I (and Jayjg) objected to.

I already explained my reasons. Str's arguements were correct, while yours were just weak, repeats of what was already said, and attempts by you to prolong the issue. Drive by reverter. You think you are funny? I looked at the content, and it didn't belong for the reasons Str already stated. I'm not repeating other peoples arguements for you. YahelGuhan (talk) 06:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that you both travel in the same small circle of articles isn't evidence of stalking, but rather of a shared interest from two contradictory appearing angles. Paranoia does not warrant admin intervention, in my humble and honest opinion. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Blessins and Yahel, you both need to stop. This is an ongoing problem with the two of you getting into edit wars and being generally nasty with each other. You both work on similar sets of articles - no one is stalking anyone here. Calm down and work out your disputes on the talk page instead of edit warring or complaining here please. Shell ^babelfish 06:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Only that I get blocked for 72 hours for the same behavior.Bless sins (talk) 06:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry no, that was a different situation and regardless, has no bearing on this incident. Perhaps given the number of warnings and blocks you have for edit warring or being disruptive over trying to force changes to an article, this would be a good time to take a step back and consider that the community is trying to tell you that its not acceptable to behave this way while editing Wikipedia. Please find a way to work out the differences you have with other editors without causing a scene and edit warring every single time and you'll find that the time you spend here will be much more plesant. Shell ^babelfish 06:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd be interested to see numbers indicating the proportion of recent edits by these editors that are undiscussed reverts, the proportion of recent edits that are substantive statements on the talkpage, and so on. That appears to be the real problem here. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Arcayne & User:TreasuryTag

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

Resolved

 – Peace, love and understanding appear to have been achieved, or as close as we're going to get. --barneca (talk) 15:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

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

This user has been being disruptive for a short while:

• In a content dispute, they persistently claimed that they were right and everyone else was wrong and their views were beneath contempt (usual, I know! Coming to the salient bit...)
• They then posted this thread on this page; they didn't notify the other users on the article talkpage (all of whom were in agreement, opposed to the lone view held by Arcayne) that there was such a thread. This was discourteous.
• He then filed an RfC (overkill or what?!), following advice from the admins. He claimed that he was subjected to "unpleasantness" and "passive-aggressive behaviour" - not from me, as it happens... from another user who was behaving perfectly.
• He was very insulting to me on my talkpage; I pointed out my reply on his talkpage and was reverted with a rude edit-summary.
• I politely suggested that blacklisting me from the talkpage was disruptive; and was described as "aggressive" (!!). I gave a final warning for all the offences above, and was reverted with the summary "lol please file the report", so here it is.
• Note: I also received the talkpage comment (along with a lot of restored comments): Allow me to educate you a little more on wiki-quette (before I file a report on you). You have asked me to not write you on your page. I hnored your request, and asked the same of you. Perhaps you might see my politeness as a sign of weakness; be assured that it is not. If you disagree with my edits, that is one thing, as is your assertion that I am wrong in my assessment of another person's behavior. Being uncivil is quite another, and I will ask you - again - to not post to my usertalk page again. You have exhausted my well fo good faith for you since you exhibited the inability to distinguish restraint; to whit using usertalk page comments in again attempt to score a win in a policy issue. You have nothing remotely of interest that I want to hear any longer, and your actions in defending your behavior borders on trollishness. Intelligence is a good thing; knowing how to tempter it with wisdom and maturity is quite another. When you understand that, you may approach me again. Until then, kindly stay away. This will serve as my last warning to that effect. Post to my page again - after I have specifically asked you not to, and there will be unpleasant consequences. I've bolded the important bits.
• So - what's to be done? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It sounds like you guys are already not posting on each other's talk pages, right? It looks like this will solve the problem. It's not clear to me that he's actually been disruptive to articles, just from your post. Friday (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

He has violated WP:CIV, WP:POINT and WP:TROLL, I think this merits an admins' looking into. Maybe two ;-) ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 17:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) What to do? Um, maybe respect his polite request?

Seriously, the synthesis issue raised in a previous AN/I hinted at some unpleasant behavior in the article. The comment about a user demonstrating passive-aggressive behavior was made in TT's usertalk space only, as the article discussion truism: "Focus on the edits and not the editor" is particularly applicable in instances such as these. As my discussions to remove the synthesis continued, I was met with some pretty unpleasant commentary, presumably from editors who felt I was attacking the whole of the Doctor Who series of articles (many of them contain equally- if not more-crufty bits), and responded quite aggressively to the proposal. I would point out that TT was in fact one of these editors who I was concerned about, and it would appear I was justified in my concerns. I would also point out that, ironically, I was not made aware of this AN/I filing - such was one of the concerns that TT felt contributed to this filing (as I had not alerted the article discussion that I had requested AN/I assistance yesterday).

As per the comments received from the prior AN/I by Trebor, I filed an RfC report to get some neutral input on the synthesis issue. TT contends that this is a trollish action, etc. I know that I can be somewhat snarky at times, but I feel that I was very well-behaved in that particular instance. TT then took the opportunity to turn the RfC (incorrectly summarizing that RfC on content was instead and RfC on user conduct). Perhaps my request is malformed, as the specific issue revolves around an interpretation of a policy issue. If it is incorrect, I welcome someone to help me fix it.

As per the alleged violations of CIV, POINT and TROLL, I don't think I've violated any of these. As per this post in my usertalk page, he considers the very filing of the RfC to be "disruptive" (the thrust of his POINT allegation), and trollish.

I am available to answer any questions that folk might have for me. Friday, I would have been happy to either resolve the matter on his talk page (or to simply ignore the fellow), but he asked me to not post on his page. Apparently, my subsequent request for the same was ignored. I'd prefer to avoid this fellow, as he is pretty bombastic when challenged. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, I object particularly to your comment that "many Doctor Who articles contain worse cruft". Actually, many, many Who articles are good or featured. This is another indication that you may be oversensitive to what constitutes synthesis. Also, your comment on the article talkpage that "my (correct) interpretation of policy..." is counterproductive; equivalent to "I'm right, you're all wrong. Obviously - how could anyone think otherwise?". ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 18:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, when you say "many, many" are FA, are you categorizing the two episodic articles that are FA? How many episodes have there been of Doctor Who (hint: more than 750).

And while you are entitled to your opinion that I interpret synthesis narrowly, that interpretation does not equal disruption, trollishness, POINTy behavior and incivility. You are welcome to point out how filing an AN/I asking for help in interpreting a policy and subsequently filing an RfC (at the suggestion of a responding admin) constitutes the behavior you have accused me of displaying. Why are you so resistant to a request to have neutral folk comment?

I haven't edit-warred the article, and have been patiently engaging in discussion. I am sorry that you take offense at my assessment of my understanding of synthesis to be correct. While I do in fact think you are too loosely misunderstanding synthesis, I haven't attacked you in the article discussions or filed trumped up complaints of bad behavior that never in fact occurred. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:31, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment: From what I can see, this doesn't warrant an AN/I at this time. There is no evidence to suggest deliberate disruptive behaviour; the primary issue now seems to be a personal disagreement between Arcayne and Treasury Tag. I would suggest that both parties hold off and wait for people to comment through the RfC. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] Calming down and talking out your problems would benefit both parties. WP:ANI doesn't exist to manage the relationship between the two of you - equally, if you each have a problem with the other, then reflecting on each of your own behaviours and what you might have in common is a step towards resolving your differences. It's also best to avoid snippiness like I'd prefer to avoid this fellow, as he is pretty bombastic when challenged - if you're trying to establish a spirit of co-operation.

An RfC is a request to the wider wiki-community to give a subject a fresh set of eyes and encourage a wider group of opinions. The request should be formed as to address the specific issues needed to be looked at in the article. Pointing at the prior discussion, may be useful background, but the notion is that questions and comments really should be succinct. There's nothing wrong with filing one, it doesn't reflect in any way on the prior participants. The question should be neutral as to prior discussion and pointing to a lengthy prior argument is probably the wrong way of expecting a fresh pair of eyes to want to get involved.

In the meantime, your personal choice of hot (or cold) refreshment might go some way to calming things down. A short break from each other, followed by someone offering a truce would not go amiss. Be generous. Kbthompson (talk) 18:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Agree with Ckatz. I have had dealings with Arcayne in the past, and I think he is a serious editor with good intentions. The most I could fault him for is that he becomes a bit impatient and uncompromising when dealing with other editors who are impatient and uncompromising ;D

I think Arcayne was premature in filing the initial ANI report, and it was definitely a mistake not to notify the involved parties -- and Treasury Tag is understandably upset about that. However, I do not think Arcayne's mistake is at all sanctionable. Furthermore, I absolutely disagree with TT about Arcayne's most recent attempt at dispute resolution: I believe filing an RfC was absolutely the right thing to do here, and I hope it resolves the problem.

Wait for the RfC to play out, try to be civil to each other in the meantime, and hopefully all the involved parties can come to an understanding. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Neither am I an admin, but I think the easiest way to sort this out is for both of you to just apologise for whatever misgivings may have occured, and then move on, and not make any more contact with eachother. Chafford (talk) 19:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems like an appropriate template, as this appears to be a content dispute wrapped in a personality conflict (or a personality conflict wrapped in a content dispute, the whole "wrapper" thing is confusing...). Best to stay away from eachother, and poof problem solved. If you like, you can ask an administrator to require you to stay away from eachother. That way, violations can incur warnings and ultimately blocks. Seems unnecessary, though. Avruch^T * ^ER 19:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Just thought I would reiterate that I did nothing to bring forth all the sound and fury from TT but stick to what policy is. I was not impolite, not rude, not inappropriate. If there is indeed a personality issue within the article discussion, I am neither initiating nor promulgating it (except for perhaps suggesting that the personal attacks and comments belong somewhere other than on an article discussion page), and stick to the discussion of synthesis in the article. I followed protocol in this matter pretty much to the letter; why am I being herded with TT for an issue that seems wholly his? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:00, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You were rude, impolite and inappropriate. Sticking "please" onto the end of a sentence doesn't automatically categorise it as polite. Claiming that you are 100% right and there is no room for debate is not only rude, it is an insult to others' thought-processes. Generally, if one user thinks one thing and four think another, while they four may not be correct, they might have a valid argument, as in this case.

(ec)Furthermore, I consider it unreasonable to claim that I produced "sound and fury", and that you did nothing wrong. I consider falsely accusing another editor of passive-aggressive behaviour an immoral act; when I pointed this out, you said "It is just your belief that they are acting reasonably; actually, they are acting aggressively" (not a direct quote). This is insulting; it again implies that my thoughts are just beliefs (wrong ones at that), whereas your beliefs are facts (and correct ones, of course). This is not a constructive way to build an encyclopedia, which is what we are here for.

Referring to me as aggressive accomplished nothing, and really served no purpose other than to inflame the situation. If you wanted to delete my comment, you could have used a gentler edit-summary such as Noted, Understood or even Sorry, not interested. As long as you're not making an accusation against me, I've not really got any grounds for complaint! ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 20:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it appears that way - my point is that this can be resolved without assigning blame, which will be inevitably disputed, and given that my advice to steer clear of eachother is guilt-neutral. Whatever the issue between you is, without taking a position on who is right, it can be resolved by simply avoiding each other. The question on whether it ought to be enforced was somewhat rhetorical - the answer is, unless you guys refuse to allow this issue to be settled the easy way, its simply unnecessary. Avruch^T * ^ER 20:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I feel that Arcayne is doing his utmost to have good humor and sense. But that's just me. Bstone (talk) 20:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

On the contrary, I'm feeling more and more insulted the further I read down his comments. Claiming that he is being "herded with TT for an issue that seems wholly his" is unreasonable in the extreme. While I may have been naughty, he cannot disassociate himself from this as my comments above show. He has also done nothing to address the fact that he falsely accused myself and another user of being aggressive; he claims to have acted in excessively good faith throughout, remaining polite and open to other points of view. This is a joke; I've quoted him above claiming that "his (correct) interpretation"... I propose simply closing this issue and vowing never to cross paths with him again since he's clearly not going to see that his approach irritates the Hell out of me and has any element of wrongness about it (I may see a greater one than others, but everyone must admit that his attitude and some of his comments linked above have been iffy). ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 21:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, a few minutes ago he called me and another unspecified user on the RfC "creeps". I don't know how he can now suggest that he's been polite through the whole issue, even if he could before. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 21:12, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

No, he didn't call you a creep. He used the word as part of a sentence, but specifically did not reference you. Bstone (talk) 22:42, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I have dropped him a line regarding this, hopefully he will respond with some kind of aknowledgement. Chafford (talk) 21:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Doing his utmost to have good humor and sense? As one of the targets of his attitude, I will have to disagree. He often appeals to his longevity as an editor in a manner that reeks of elitism, he has shown himself to be uncompromising in his beliefs and he has been incredibly antagonistic in his execution:

"Arguing angrily will only complicate matters (for you)."

"Intelligence is a good thing; knowing how to tempter it with wisdom and maturity is quite another. When you understand that, you may approach me again."

"I have almost 10k edits under my name, and you have less than 1k; I think the volume of editing speaks, well, volumes."

"...look at Saturn's rather passive-aggressive behavior"

"I sometimes miss the old days, when I could just tear into creeps like that, and send them weeping into closets."

"I hope that attitude works out for you."

These are not the comments of one practicing "good humor" and "sense". He has been trollish and disruptive.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 21:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne's been up here many times for this sort of behavior. He shows arrogance and stubbornness in a way that screams, both overtly and implicitly 'I'm better than you and I'm right and you never are.' I've dealt with this before, and I've seen NUMEROUS others deal with it. Each time, he's warned, but he can't stop being an ass in his dealings with others. I'm not lily white, lest people shout pot/kettle, but I'm never so imperious as the above quotes. ThuranX (talk) 21:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I dunno ThuranX, I think calling any other editor an "ass" puts you at the very least at the same level of imperiousness. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Does this have anything to do with the conversation here and now?Theplanetsaturn (talk) 21:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You have a better word for repeatedly abusing other editors? Would you prefer Jerk? Bully? what hes' doing is insulting people left and right while being arrogant about it. That's being an ass. I didn't call him a long string of four letter words. I bluntly speak about his actions. I've talked to him about this before, so have dozens of others. After a point, why not be firm and open about how he acts?

As for PlanetSaturn, yes, it does. It goes toward showing that there is a community awareness of a pattern of behavior here, one that needs serious addressing. ThuranX (talk) 22:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm referring to whether or not it is relevant if someone else (you, as example) have equally engaged in disruptive behavior in separate discussions. Even if you have, I don't see how it is relevant when weighing this particular subject. In short, I was addressing Keeper more than I was you.Theplanetsaturn (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, misunderstood who you were addressing. And agreed, others' behaviors aren't relevant, only those of the two mentioned. ThuranX (talk) 22:37, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Comment .... and they were both given advice on how to go away and deal with it. I'm actively trying to help Arcayne modify his behaviour. Kbthompson (talk) 00:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Reading this, particularly Keeper's comment(s), I am literally stunned that s/he can sustain a belief for a second that Arcayne has behaved immaculately throughout all this. I consider calling me a creep (yes, he did, we've shown that above and on Arcayne's talkpage), "Arguing angrily will only complicate matters (for you)" is grossly offensive and supercilious; "Actually, my perception of Saturn's behavior is spot-on, and it is your belief that it is wrong" is nothing but arrogant... so my thoughts are just beliefs, and Arcayne is able to spot, with his superior intelligence, that they are wrong - whereas Arcayne's thoughs are spot-on, obviously... sorry, this is offensive.

What people need to understand here is that being civil isn't defined soley by using civil phrasing. Saying "please" and "sorry" is nice enough, but if the tone or the message is incivil, no number "thank-you"s will get anywhere. I could say Oh, sorry, Mr Pollock - I do apologise, I thought that painting was covered in birds' mess for a moment! Pardon me! While that seems perfectly polite - an apology, a pleasant form of address - its point, "I think your painting looks like bird-crap", is disgustingly rude. Equally, the message of the admittedly civil- and regal-sounding "you may approach me again", said by Arcayne on my talk-page, is not in-line with Wiki policy. It is arrogant; it makes him out to sound like a God. And if you read what came before the approach-me-again-bit, quoted above, it gets even more supercilious.

On that basis, can anyone honestly say (creep incident aside!) that Arcayne's behaviour has been immaculate? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 07:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you want to achieve? You have been told to keep away from each other, just move on. Chafford (talk) 09:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I want to achieve an understanding of how anybody can entertain a thought for even a second that Arcayne has behaved proprely. I'm genuinely intrigued. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 11:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Now you are being distruptive, please just move on. Chafford (talk) 13:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

A genuine interest in the application of our civility policy is disruptive? ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I take an evening off to cool down, and the whole village is talking about me. I'd like to thank the Academy and my hair stylist WhipporWill...

Wait, this isn't the happy sort of 'talking about me', is it? Oh well.

I would like to thank everyone for their comments. I readily admit that I am not always the most polite person in heated discussions, and I am dismissive when faced with what I feel are either bad arguments or bad behavior (but then, a lot of people are that way). That the people who choose to report me are often too willing to tag me with everything except for being on the grassy knoll in Dallas, 1963 is of little comfort. That at least one of the people who choose to contribute, unbidden, demonstrate on almost a daily basis even worse examples of those failings being attributed to me is of less comfort - those people I can simply dismiss (and yes, I had intended the word creep to encompass the complainant, though in my own talk page, and nowhere near an article space - and for which I apologize).

However, I have to accept that my language and sometimes my tone is cause for frustration. When I feel I am correct and someone else is wrong, of course I am going to be pretty confident of my standing (as would anyone here). However, I didn't need to make it a spade issue, and rub someone's face in my being correct (I would point out that when I am proven wrong, I always accept responsibility). That might be what TT is really talking about here. I was somewhat condescending to him in article discussion; his impolite comments which prompted them are not a real excuse. My comment on his user-talk page about another user demonstrating passive-aggressive behavior was misplaced and, as TT and the subject of that comment are clearly friends, it volcanoed into TT's behavior which I responded to. Had I kept my opinion of that user's behavior to myself, it might never have flowered as such. I should have clearly recognized the willingness of someone unhappy with me to search my edits for anything to use as ammo in an argument. So, as far as pushing the magic button for TT is concerned, I accept responsibility for that. That doesn't forgive his behavior, but it addresses my culpability for inciting it with mine.

All of us here are guilty of much the same. I will endeavor to not try to incite this behavior, and avoid engaging people who are all too willing to see offense and take it hyper-personally. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with the above response, and propose that this thread is closed. ╟─TreasuryTag (talk ╬ contribs)─╢ 14:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

Community ban for ClaimJumperPete

Resolved

 – rouge "resolved" tag; perhaps rude of me, but I really don't see the point of a vote that will have no practical effect. but my feelings won't be hurt if this tag is ignored. --barneca (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

ClaimJumperPete has created around 59 socks and counting so far. It's obvious this person has no good intentions on Wikipedia. I'd therefore like to propose we community ban them. There's no reason we need an editor like this on here. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I seriously doubt any admin would be willing to unblock him, though I am continually surprised in this regard. He could be considered effectively banned unless there is an admin somewhere who actively wants to unblock him. I don't know that it will change much, in practical terms, though. MastCell ^Talk 21:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Ummm... The account is indef blocked, and unless you are aware that there is an admin who is suggesting that they might be considering that the account should be unblocked then it is effectively banned. Until that sysop makes themselves known I would consider the question moot. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Formalising the ban with community discussion means that even should an admin wish to unblock they can't until such time as further discussion has overturned the ban. Viridae^Talk 04:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Any admin crazy enough to unblock this troll should be desysopped quick-smart. --Folantin (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought he had been community banned already. If not, seems like he should be. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Support, clearly disruptive. What is about Wikipedia that attracts these mindless trolls? Rudget (Help?) 15:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

He's de facto banned. Let's conserve electrons and not have a discussion that won't change anything. --barneca (talk) 15:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What do I do?

I've been fighting off spammers from the Fringe (TV series) entry for a while now, but the same guy (User:Mg.mikael corrected link to userspace umrguy42 23:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)) just keeps coming back. I've tried a few of the warning methods (learning as I go), but he just deletes them, and to be honest I don't understand how they were supposed to work anyway. Is it the case that the last man standing (read: editing) wins, or is there some other method for preventing persistent spammers? BOTF (talk) 23:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the spam again, along with the copyright violations and left him a warning. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, not an admin here, but here's some tips - IF he's actually spamming/vandalizing (i.e., adding in nonsense/profanities/randomly changing numbers to nonsense), he can be reported to WP:AIV. If it's a matter of disagreement on content, you need to head over to dispute resolution to work it out. Best, umrguy42 23:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

PS - I've notified the user of this thread. umrguy42 23:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional note. BOTF, you removal of people's talk page comments is also completely inappropriate. I'm having to rebuild the talk page because of this. He is allowed to post a request to consider the link on the talk page. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of his other edits haven't exactly been good. I asked him about it on his talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

By way of explanation, the spammer, having been frustrated on the article, took to spamming the talk page (that is, using the talk page to link to his site). Naturally, (not seeing a difference) I deleted those spam links as well. While his talk page entries evolved and he stopped including the link every time--opting instead to argue the mote point for the sake of "naming" his site--the pattern had been established and I assumed his arguments were sufficiently transparent. I also got a bit lazy. As for discussing it, I didn't see the need as it was a cut and dry case. That said, I'm not making excuses and I will refrain from similar bad practices in the future. Apologies. However, the unsigned personal attach suggesting I'm "too concerned" remains on the talk page. Not sure what the policy is about that. Nevertheless, I do appreciate the attention given to the issue and I am satisfied. Feel free to call this entry resolved. BOTF (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion needed

Resolved

Can I request someone uninvolved have a look at the history of Xp54321 (talk · contribs) and take whatever action they deem necessary, as regards this discussion - which itself stems from the removal of Huggle from Xp as documented on this talk archive (I think you need to read the whole archive - it all relates to the run-up to this incident). While normally, I'd block both accounts, in this case I'm really reluctant to, since Xp54321 seems to be a genuinely good faith user, who's been repeatedly given some spectacularly bad advice, and I don't want to do anything to drive users like this, who've come to help but don't yet quite understand how things work, off the project. Can someone else review the whole saga? — iridescent 02:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment:Oughta be shown to new users making similar mistakes.Good story.:)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm. Nice........ OK, I definitely don't think you should block XP, as he is 100% NO QUESTION trying to do the right thing. As to what you should do, I have no idea really. I think probably the best solution would be to have someone adopt XP (preferably an admin, although I would be willing to do it if he wanted), and maybe watch his contribs a little and nudge him if he does something questionable/foolish/wrong. I think the biggest problem here was that he got told a lot of, well, flat-out wrong things right after he joined the project. With time and some good advice, he will be fine. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow...just...wow. I thought nobody thought about me here except R2,R5,and kodster and iri.:)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Someone adopting Xp would be a good idea, I agree. I ran into Xp during one of his earliest strange actions at WP:FTC, but have always considered his actions done in good faith. He is an eager user that doesn't quite understand Wikipedia policy, so just consistently pointing the right way to do things to him would be a great idea. Gary King (talk) 02:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm going to take no action of any sort one way or the other, and I imagine Metros won't either — while I 100% agree that XP shouldn't be blocked for this I think any action either way from me would be inappropriate. (Although I would like to aim a particularly juicy WP:TROUT in the direction of Realist2, who seems more to blame than anyone for this mess.) — iridescent 02:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any bad faith here. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, excellent idea, haha... Realist, tsk tsk. :p Gary King (talk) 02:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)all over conflicts i cant get a post in!!!But BIG SMILE!!!And laugh R2!:)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(My god, 4x ec(??!!!)) Hey, I know you did a lot of, well, rather dumb things, but that does not mean you are a bad contributer. Just don't try evading huggle sanctions. Try doing some vandal fighting using just Special:Recentchanges and WP:UTM. Once you get more experience,your huggle ban will probably be lifted. I really don't want to see you leave, XP. You have the ability to make this place better, and with experience, you will. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Another ec.Thanks j, adopt me!!R2 youre trouted!!!:)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Note Useight cares about me too.:)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

LOL :) J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Now what.WE wait till jimbo wales comes along or something?:)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

OUCH, it was a JUICY TROUT, I dont eat fish though so celery would have been nicer. ;-) — Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 02:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah you're a veggie.LOL!!!!Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, it is absolutely ridiculous that after being told his Huggle rights were taken away...he proceeded to A. use it on his primary account because of a technical issue. Even though he knew he wasn't allowed to do it, he continued to use it. And B. after he was told again that he wasn't allowed to use it, he sets it up with his alternate account Mr.Xp (talk · contribs). I don't find that to be misguided or just unaware of how Wikipedia works; I find that to be dishonest. Metros (talk) 02:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

<long deep sigh> Everyone is allowed an opinion...I guess.:)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

NoteI have been adopted by J.:)(4th of july sort of celebrations!!!)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Why did you think it was appropriate to set up Huggle on your secondary account even though you were explicitly told twice not to use it and were blocked on one occasion for using it when previously told not to? Metros (talk) 02:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I think one way to help is by letting him know how potentially disruptive some of these actions are; for instance, after Xp used Huggle to revert some edits that were not vandalism (I believe this is what happened?) then instead of simply pointing him to a policy page, perhaps explain it out more in layman terms? If one method doesn't work, and the user still acts in good faith, then perhaps try another route. Gary King (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.also ec,again!!!!lolXp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 02:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

XP, it's in your best interest to tone down the frivolity and participate in this discussion normally. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you answer the question I posed? Metros (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, the signatures alone is this thread are giving me a headache. Daniel (talk) 03:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Glad someone said that. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Listen, XP has been admonished multiple times now about his Huggle use, had the monobook protected, yet was still able to use it (despite knowing he was banned in this regard) and now he has his alternate account use the program? It's downright deceitful, yet not circumspect at the same time. Surely he would have known this action would be visible to those watching. A block is not in order, but there needs to be some real tutelage and massive improvements before I'd allow him to utilize huggle again. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:03, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Forget huggle!!!I hate it!It's cursed!!!:)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 03:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You should probably stop blaming the tool for your misdeeds. Metros (talk) 03:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

<sigh> Fine.Humor helps destroy tension. Metros answer to your q.:It was to circumvent the ban and fight vandals.Block me already.<very long sad sigh>:(Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 03:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Offline in a min.Sleep tomorrw schoolday but fri.See you.:)Xp54321 (Vandals Beware!!!,Contribs) 03:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Humor will not do anything to help your case here, though. Again, admire the tenacity and the enthusiasm, but it's starting to come off as immaturity. We need to get to a conclusion here, and I don't think anyone feels you need to be blocked. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:11, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I agree, using huggle on an alterantive account (User:Mr.Xp) when the main acount (User:Xp54321) has had huggle disabled is unacceptable. I personally think that we shouldn't grant rollback and let Xp use huggle until he has learned more about vandalism from othes such as his adopters. Although Xp is trying to go down the right path, he occasionally takes a wrong step, leading to things like this. What I'm trying to say is that Xp is trying to do his best, but he needs a lot more to learn from. We probably shouldn't give this user huggle to any of his accounts until a few months of learning from his adopters and that others agree he has learned what vandalism is and how to use these vandal tools. -- RyRy5 (talk) 03:15, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Xp54321, please read WP:SOCK. What you did with your secondary account is definitely inappropriate sockpuppetry. You used the alternate account to get around a "ban" on your primary account. Both accounts can be blocked for this offense. Metros (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict, reply to RyRy5) I'd call them "anti-vandal tools", but yeah, he was officially adopted by J.delanoy, so that's a step in the right direction. Useight (talk) 03:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. User:J.delanoy is a fine vandal fighter and he/she can teach Xp about WP:VANDALISM, WP:ROLLBACK, and whatever he needs to learn to vandal-fight properly. -- RyRy5 (talk) 03:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Still using Twinkle?

From, like, 6mins ago. Daniel (talk) 03:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Was Twinkle ever an issue for this user? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Surely if you can't be trusted with Huggle, you can't be trusted with Twinkle? Daniel (talk) 03:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Xp54321 has a problem with vandalism in general. No specific type of anti-vandalism tool can change that until he has learned what vandalism is.--RyRy5 (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, it's generally easier to make mistakes using Huggle than Twinkle. Useight (talk) 03:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

While I think the user has a misapprehension of what constitutes vandalism, I also think that the major factor here is disregard due to the speed at which Huggle operates. I've seen XP revert and undo vandalism just fine, it's the mistakes that kill the attempt. Twinkle is slower and less prone to false positives, although can still be misused. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 03:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec)The thing about TW is that now people can enable it in the "my preferences" section, so it's impossible (to my knowledge) to remove it. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 03:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how this user would do with no add-ons at all, using only the basic interface for at least a month or two. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The user he reported has been banned and Xp's warnings appear to all be for legitimate vandalism. To Gwen, that's an interesting idea. Perhaps delaney can float that idea by him. Also, it appears that Realist put Xp on the path of article-building, which I think is a great idea because once you've built an article up, especially to, say, Good Article status, then you have a much better understanding of how much work goes into article building and then you appreciate everything on Wikipedia more, really. Gary King (talk) 03:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Like User:Wisdom89 said, Xp does use the anti-vandalism tools correctly most of the time, but he does miuse it on occasions which starts all the problems.--RyRy5 (talk) 03:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

←Although he's been warned against using Huggle (and banned from AWB), AFAIK he's never had any warning about Twinkle, so I personally don't see a problem here. Twinkle and Huggle aren't the same thing - it's like comparing a spear to a machinegun - as Twinkle runs more slowly, gives prompts, and (most importantly, in this case) auto-opens the talkpage of the user being reverted, and a glimpse at the talkpage is usually enough to give a "woah, this is an experienced editor I'm reverting" moment, whereas Huggle can run faster than most bots in the hands of a reasonably experienced user. As I said above, I'd suggest that having lit this firework, Metros and I both drop out of any decision on this particular occasion; I trust J.delanoy to come down like a ton of bricks if Xp does anything else out of place. — iridescent 03:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

... otherwise this same thing will happen to J., heh :p Also, since you opened this, I suggest you just mark it as resolved and/or add the archive tags since not much more needs to be added. Gary King (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Ton of bricks" doesn't even begin to describe it. As you can see from my décor on his adoption page, I know exactly how to set the tone for these things. :P J.delanoy^gabs_adds 05:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Fun image, but no way is it GFDL. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Those sites could have taken it from the Commons; the first result is Wikipedia. Gary King (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What I meant was it's a derivative image of a copyrighted character, which requires a license from the original copyright holder, who was very unlikely to have granted a GFDL release for this artwork. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just as a philosophical question, why doesn't Huggle require users to get prior approval the way VP and AWB do? Seems like just common sense that you'd want to make sure a user had a little experience before using such a powerful tool...? (And this is not a knock on XP, this is actually a knock on Wikipedia for creating a situation that sets up users like XP to make mistakes.) --Jaysweet (talk) 15:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The changelog says that in the most recent version you need to have rollback to use it. Wikipedia:Huggle/Changes--Tombomp (talk) 15:48, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Huggle and Twinkle are menaces in the wrong hands. I think I just upset one eager Huggle user by taking his toy off him for a week because he was reverting all IP edits that didn't include a citation. Neıl 龱 15:51, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

So was XP using an older version, or did somebody give him rollback permission?? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The version requiring rollback was only released yesterday. I think at one point before this kicked off he did have rollback though. --Tombomp (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he did. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I'll be damned... I'm requesting that too then! :p --Jaysweet (talk) 18:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Erm, someone beat me to it, you've got it ;) Gwen Gale (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Block review please

Resolved

 – blocked indef by User:barneca for conduct while blocked

Jjonjonjon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I blocked the user for 12 hours for repeated vandalism, at times bordering on personal attacks. Note this isn't specifically related to the AfD disruption that resulted in the Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Jjonjonjon, but rather charming edits such as: this, this, this, this charmer, this especially for BLP and uploads such as this.

I don't know that this editor is here for any productive use but it seemed a clear vandalism following final warnings with no inclination that it would stop. Just a bit nervous as this is my first non blatant spam username block. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, 12 hours is a little short. I would have blocked indefinitely. PhilKnight (talk) 03:37, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I would have blocked 31 hours and come back with an indef if it happened again. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks both of you, I was debating longer but a) didn't want to overdo it b) didn't want to scare off someone who might have a .01% chance of being a productive editor and c) couldn't find anything that specifically addressed whether blocking should be done while an SSP is filed, although he's aware of it and hasn't commented there. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 03:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I prefer that new sysops block too short per AGF than too long - it is no hardship to block again (and longer) if the first sanction did not have the hoped for effect. Starting out with week long and indef blocks may cause a lot more reaction, and may lead the admin and the community wondering if they are suitable for the responsibility. After a while admins (hopefully) get a feel for the appropriate tariff. Kudos also for bringing it up for review, anyhows. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone want to have a look at his talk-page contribs since being blocked starting here? He's coming off block in an hour or two and someone might want to keep an eye. I don't think we're going to see a big swing in positive contributions. I may or may not be online to keep an eye myself. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 14:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC) :I'll be around for a while & keep an eye on this. --Rodhullandemu 14:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User's talk page also protected indef. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks all, I landed in a never-ending meeting. _{TravellingCari}^{the Busy Bee} 15:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Problems with the page of Adolf Hitler

Resolved

There is a problem with the page of Adolf Hitler. In it it states that Adolf Hitler was found dead at the end of the war, which is incorrect. His body was never found and no autopsy was never performed on him. Eva Braun was never found either. I was going to edit it to correct it but there is no way for me to do that considering the edit has been removed on the page. It bothers me very much when false reports like that are made out to be true. The body that they found was the body of Adolf Hitlers body guard, and his morgue picture is here http://www.celebritymorgue.com/adolf-hitler/. It states that Adolf Hitler and Eva Brauns bodies were burned but this has not been verified by any references of mine. Please edit the page and state the truth about Adolf Hitler. The truth would be, no conclusive or verified information has determined whether or not Hitler died at the end of the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wafflessucks (talk • contribs) 05:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Admins aren't judges of content, so there's really not much we can do to help you here. I'd suggest that you try to talk this out on Talk:Adolf Hitler or try another form of dispute resolution. Shell ^babelfish 06:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The Russians found the bodies and eventually disposed of them. I thought that was old news by now. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia, the webhost any one can edit

Resolved.

Youngerthanozzy (talk · contribs), Fireball159 (talk · contribs), and Name12 (talk · contribs) appear to be using Wikipedia as their personal Webhost. I've asked them not to. I removed some personal information from User:Name12 as it seemed imprudent for it to be there. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 07:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

One vandalism-only account, one longstanding account with no edits save a few deleted nonsense pages, and one account with the entirety of its contributions spread across the related userpages. I've indef blocked them for now. If they wish to request an unblock and make positive contributions to the encyclopedia, they would be more than welcome. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 09:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I just laughed out loud when I saw this sections header, and my mom asked me what was so funny. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Minor Image Issue

I hope I'm posting this in the right place. I like to browse for Google Earth images from time to time and tag them for deletion as most are replaceable. Anyways, I ran into some Panoramio images and I tagged them, but honsetly, I'm not sure if the person who uploaded them is actually the source. The three I tagged are: Image:Johnsons beach east view.jpg, Image:Johnson Beach west view.jpg, and Image:Langley Point.jpg. The copyright tags said he was the copyright holder and he released it, but the image description said they were on Google Earth and Panoramio. What should I do? -- VegitaU (talk) 17:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The user is fairly active. You should leave him a message explaining the confusion and ask him to clarify. You should probably direct him here also. --Selket ^Talk 17:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty, I've done so. -- VegitaU (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

All images using Google Earth and Panoramio are copyrighted, and cannot be tagged as a freely licensed image screenshot. — Moe ε 19:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Request confirmation of MascotGuy sock block

I just blocked a likely MascotGuy sock, but found some edits that actually corrected wrong things in the editors contrib logs. Could someone more familiar please take a look? See Special:Contributions/Techtonic's_Techno_Metro-Funk_5000 and Wikipedia:Long term abuse/MascotGuy. I have to go offline, so I other admins are requested to take whatever action they deem necessary.--chaser - t 20:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Techtonic's Techno Metro-Funk 5000

Yet another MascotGuy sock leaving more destruction in his wake. I don't have rollback privileges, so I'd like to bring him to the attention of someone who does. I've reverted a couple, but he was just too active. It'll take me an hour to set things right without the rollback and I don't have that time right now. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've reverted a few, but he's left a huge amount of edits and I can't delete the redirects. That's what I get for giving up the mop and bucket, I suppose. Gotta get back to the real job. Thanks for the help.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 20:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Astrotheology

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

Arbitration requested. Durova^Charge! 04:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Dzonatas has been blocked indefinitely. Durova^Charge! 16:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

---

On the Astrotheology page, two users have been warned several times (through edit summaries and extensive debates on talk page) and continue to cause disruptive edits: PelleSmith (talk · contribs) and Hrafn (talk · contribs). Please, also note the tone general used against me with their hyperbolic language. It has caused much distraction and stress in trying to expand a stub. They continue to edit back to dubious (tagged) versions for which a request to clearly cite the source has been unmet. I've shown in plain explain how their argument is a fallacy on the talk page. The continue to ignore all other reliable sources that do not agree with their position and state only one as the one and only WP:RS source. The page was also put on AfD a few days ago, but it has had the basic claim resolved, and it is continues to carry past the AfD's WP:POINT. Hrafn in particular wants to make the claim that "astrotheology [only] is natural theology" even though no source can be cited to clearly support that position, and it would be highly POV since it completely disagrees with other sources. It appear these two uses are using consistant red herrings, with dubious edits and ignorant talk page comments, in an attempt to distract constructive edits to expand a stub before the AfD process is up, so that the article will get deleted (as they voted). — Dzonatas 13:35, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

pov version = "astrology is natural theology..." (which has not yet been cited to support the claim, despite many requests)

• revision back to tagged dubious+uncited version, pov
• revision back to tagged dubious+uncited version, pov
• revision back to pov version after attempt to disambiguate
• revision back to pov after attempt at npov
• revision back to pov version
• revision to pov version, narrowing of citations, and removal a published book cites solely based on their opinion of it being not WP:RS
• reverted (by Hrafn) viewpoint from quotation
• reverted ref from book, replaced viewpoint on definition with his own -- clearly WP:OR
• reverted removal of notability tag even though it is clear that notability can be established
• reverted section title back to his previous edit
• reverted recently added quotation, replaced with his own selective quotes
• Also note, how he first reverted the link and called it 'a junk link' but hid it within another change

Further I clearly point out their fallacy on the talk page and they completely ignore it. — Dzonatas 14:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a content dispute which Dzonatas is escalating into disruption. Please do review the talk page. I stand by my language as reasonable, particularly having struck text that Dzonatas tagged as ad hominem though it was hardly an attack in the first place. Dzonatas fist attempted to use sources in ways that violated WP:RS and/or WP:V. Good natured suggestions to review policy and to implement it accurately failed to do much good. Presently Dzonatas wishes to completely disregard what is plainly stated in reliable sources regarding the subject matter, instead disruptively asking for a specific quotation he knows does not exist (such a quotation is plainly not needed). All of this is clear on the talk page, and again other than his disruption I would really say this is all a content dispute which of course relates to the implementation of guidelines like RS and V. With the exception of warning editors for possible breaches of WP:CIVIL and WP:DIS, and perhaps suggesting a review of WP:RS and WP:V I don't think this needs much admin attention presently.PelleSmith (talk) 14:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be a content dispute with a pending AfD and not much else going on here. No clear violations of 3RR, but it's possible I missed something. I suggest everyone cool it and try, again, to reach a consensus amongst yourselves. If the article survives AfD, I would suggest using one of the alternative dispute resolution methods. Hopefully this won't escalate further, but if it does come back here. --Selket ^Talk 15:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Derham is the only source that defines 'Astro-Theology' and 'Physico-Theology' in his time. Derham makes no mention of 'Natural Theology' (which is a book published by Paley almost 90 years after Derham's books in 1713-1715). Derham, as a source, is being ignored by other editors in order to support more recently written text that use the terms more generally. Newton's achievements is cited as to make that distinction clear. The events related to Newton and Derham cannot be ignored in order to achieve NPOV. Since the book Adaptation states that natural theology is sometimes consider physicotheology, it seems more reasonable to assume that natural theology is an abstraction of physicotheology. Derham makes his books distinct except for the 'demonstration of the Being and attributes of God' (which others sources have interpreted simple as 'theology'). Consider that 'Natural Theology' is also theology, I see no reason why to use the dominant view of 'theology' as npov. It states it right in the title and definition "astro-theology" and "physico-theology" (click links for visual of page). — Dzonatas 15:29, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

As you've been told - content dispute. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 15:34, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• It is more than a content dispute, it is disruption. What makes that evident is the fact that Paley's Natural Theology tries to prove God (as its cause and explicitly quoted in natural theology); however, Derham's theology does not try to prove God until he published another work called 'Christo-Theology'. It is obvious that Derham used the hyphen to emphasis the subject with theology in each of his books. It would be a an ill-compromise to wikipedia to state that "astro-theology is natural theology" such that it would only be viewed as a cause to prove God. — Dzonatas 16:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

With respect, the dispute is entirely about content, as your post indicates. I would strongly advise you to seek dispute resolution first, as there is not a user conduct issue here. You believe them to be disruptive, because you disagree (strongly) with their position; I'm sure they feel the same way. Thus, the dispute that needs resolving. No admin action is required here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Hrafn is now outright blanking/deleting everything I add. Even though Hrafn cited the sources himself on the talk page, he nows claims they are falsified. Um????? If there were constructive edits to it, I could pass it off for just a content dispute, but consider his comments against me "Dzonatas' nebulous idea of an atheist astronomy-based argument against the supernatural," "ungarbled" "grammatical error", "misinterprets source," "fast and loose," "did you fail to comprehend," "conflated," "I don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys about," "you are garbling what the source said," "being horribly muddled," "nonsensical," "Virtually every sentence you wrote in that section is garbled jargon-ridden verbiage," "tagging was obviously careless" is a baseless violation of WP:AGF" 03:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

History of User:Dzonatas

The editor who started this thread is forum shopping. See this invalid 3RR complaint he opened concurrently. Dzonatas has a highly disruptive history and his principal contributions to Wikipedia are Template:Citecheck for flagging misuse of citations and the disruptive editing guideline--not for having helped to create either but for having inspired them. After a two year hiatus he recently returned and is back to his old tricks. Comparisons:

• Misuse of citations
  • Today:[33] [34]
  • October 2005: fabricating a nonexistent primary source[35]
• Disruptive editing
  • This week: generates 75kb of talk page debate and general wheel-spinning at Talk:Astrotheology
  • Feburary 2006: as immortalized at WP:LAME, generates 58kb of talk page debate over how to copyedit a two line statement. After he got blocked and all other editors had reached agreement, he returned and claimed that they had reached a false consensus because, having been blocked for edit warring and disruption, he couldn’t participate. Template_talk:WikiProject_Computer_science.
• Alters posts inappropriately:
  • This week: leaves an incomprehensible message at another editor’s talk page. After the other editor replies that he cannot parse the statement, Dzonatas calls the other editor uncivil for having not understood it, while simultaneously editing his own previous statement to make it comprehensible.[36]
  • Fall 2005: during mediation, alters another editor’s posts.[37][38]
• Advocates nonsense articles:
  • This week: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrotheology
  • December 2005: construes the financial term ‘’forward-looking statement’’ as if it had relevance to linguistics and historiography, which it doesn’t.[39]
• Frivolous 3RR reports:
  • Today: (see above)
  • December 2005 – January 2006: three frivolous complaints:[40][41][42] when in fact the only 3RR violations were his own.[43]

Some of you have heard my horror stories about the fellow who parked himself on the Joan of Arc article for a solid year for no other purpose than because he insisted he was descended from her brother. This is that guy.[44] He used to edit under the username Jhballard; see the userpage. I hoped I would never encounter him again. This is a troll so successful that most of the people who dealt with him quit Wikipedia in frustration, and he is now baiting two editors in good standing and lodging frivolous threads in multiple fora in the attempt to get them blocked. Requesting impartial review and intervention. Durova^Charge! 17:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• (reply) OMG, Durova, are you still stalking me and poisoning the wells!!!

• Please notice: the other account reveals personal information in its account name that I do not want publicably revealed anymore. I never denied to anybody the other account is mine (and there is clearly no overlap in use between the two). It is against wikipedia policy to attempt to disclose personal information about people.

Those were voluntary self-disclosures and, not having vanished, the editor cannot invoke the right to vanish. He spent a long time insisting that his aunt's unpublished family tree was a reliable source, thus compelling the other editors to examine that claim. An editor cannot have it both ways. Durova^Charge! 17:46, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is suggested in the policy to completely start a new account. It would only be voluntary disclosure if I in any way edited one account with the other or made a link between the two. I have never advertised a link. Durova has disclosed the connection. If there was any question, a private message could be asked of me. This board isn't private -- what do you expect me to do? Deny it? Also, Durova left this message on my talk, "If you want to invoke the m:Right to vanish, you have to actually vanish. I would have no objection if you do." Durova doesn't understand that username changes were not allowed, despite the Durova's tone used in the message. — Dzonatas 18:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dzonatas is attempting to muddy the waters. If anyone has a question about this I'll be glad to reply, but I think it's clear that he's attempting to throw around a variety of unsupported claims to distract attention from his own longstanding disruption. He was perpetrating exactly the same genealogical claims on both accounts. Durova^Charge! 18:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Durova has stalked me before, and found other articles I was editing. She contacted a few other editors on the talk pages. I could spend some time to dig up evidence if really needed about this. I think it is clear when she associated with User:Ruud_Koot (which became an admin later, and continues to poisoning the well also with his [watchlist]. Other admins noticed the collaborated-gang poisoning of other users. There were private IRC chats on how to handle it. — Dzonatas 18:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This is another frivolous accusation. I contacted Dzonatas at his user talk page today to offer advice about m:Right to vanish; that is all. I do not edit the other articles where he is active (aside from Joan of Arc, which I raised to FA after his departure). Dzonatas is claiming that, since I am not in any current dispute with him, it somehow constitutes stalking to respond to this thread he started. It is well known that I boycott IRC. Durova^Charge! 18:30, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not the only one she has done this to. A search on the internet for "ruud" and "durova" reveals an interesting thread (search for "Durova" in thread, links confirm). Obviously, ruud later found out what Durova was doing. 18:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC) — Dzonatas 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

• Some evidence remembered:

1. "canvassing"
2. the rfc result
3. Durova resigns over blocking violation

— Dzonatas 18:56, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Dzontas, stop throwing mud to see if you can get any of it to stick, and start actually defending yourself, or we will have no choice but to presume Durova's statements about you are 100% true. Your claimed "evidence" proves all of "nothing" Wow. a person named Ruud - who may or may not be the same as the Wikipedian - made general comments about Wikipedia on a page that also linked to an article that mentioned Durova. Very thin gruel, and if it actually did say what you claim it does, then it would be strong evidence against your claim of collaboration between Durova and Ruud. Which, I might add, has no evidence either. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

These links Dzonatas is supplying range from irrelevant to meaningless. In March 2006 I attempted to start Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dzonatas, but it could not be certified because he had already successfully driven away all other productive editors from the Joan of Arc article. During that time I asked one administrator for procedural advice. I don't recall this Ruud Koot person Dzonatas is talking about; if I ever interacted with that individual at all it must have been very long ago. Any admin who takes an interest is welcome to review the RFC draft; I spent a long time preparing extensive evidence for it. If his behavior continues I may request undeletion so that it can be updated and resubmitted. He's initiating conflicts with more people now. Durova^Charge! 19:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It has been recommended to me that Dzonatas, if he/she is agreeable, might be a good candidate for mentoring. If this is agreeable to all, and seems like it might help in this situation, I would be willing to help in that way. Pastordavid (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That suggestion was made by a person who did not know his previous history. While in principle I support mentoring and dispute resolution, as you can see from the diffs above he subverted a mediation by altering my posts during my earliest days as a Wikipedian. His participation was also disruptive at this content RFC. I have not seen any dispute resolution attempt regarding him that was successful: he starts a variety of digressive tangents, attempts to damage other editors' reputations, and generally grinds people down until they depart. Durova^Charge! 19:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hrafn asked in a harsh way to clarify my grammer on his talk page. I edited *my comment* per request. If you look on Hrafn's page talk, others agree that he could be more civil. — Dzonatas 20:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Back to Astrotheology

Not that this is any different than your first set of assertions. Take this diff: [45] Your description: "reverted ref from book, replaced viewpoint on definition with his own -- clearly WP:OR"

Actual, sane, description: Removed references to ancient 1913 dictionary and a book published by a fringe publishing company copyright page and replaced it with information from a modern, mainstream source, which he gave a full reference to. How on earth is that supposed to be Original research? Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Your mixing to things together, the book, which has nothing to do with the WP:OR bit, and the new lead that states "astrotheology is natural theology." There are cited sources that show the teleology of natural theology does not agree with astrotheology. Both natural theology and astrotheology are theologies. It was perfected sane to state in a npov way that "astrotheology is theology..." and later describe the partisan views created by teleology. It's OR because Modern Predicament only talks about astrotheology for its teleology view, and the other editors say it is apart of natural theology based on that book. The other books go beyond the 'narrow'[SIC] teleological of natural theology, and they make the non-teleological view. — Dzonatas 19:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

According to the talk page, that is an utter lie. Talk:Astrotheology#Natural_Theology Hrafn quotes the section of the book directly naming it as a subset of Natural theology. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It is quoted out of context. He seems to want to infer that "subordinate" means that it was already apart of natural theology. You very well will get that impression unless you read the surrounding pages to understand the development tone. Look here. It clearly says "In this narrow sense -- sometimes known also by the more grandiose term 'physicotheology'-- was limited in scope: is tended to despise the more abstract traditional arguments for the existence of God and prided itself on close contact with new facts revealed by science." Little further down: "we find men influenced by the new empirical sciences and seeking to derive from them some support for religion. Because of the concern with the details of God's purpose in the world, natural theology tended to break up a series of minor theologies." (emphasis added). It didn't state natural theology 'created' the other theologies. It states: "Those subordinate theologies -- which are said to have been zealously cultivated by the English--were given impressive names." It then lists the theologies with a name that supports it in the teleological view. However, Derham didn't name astro-theology it like that. Compare: the study of "God's purpose in the stars" to "A demonstration of being and attributes of God, from a survey of the heavens." Clearly, one is purely observational while the other is teleological. Further, astrotheology is based on astronomy. Natural theology is based on biology. I haven't seen anything to say that "astronomy is biology" in analogy to "astrotheology is natural theology." — Dzonatas 20:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't counteract Hrafn's quote in any way shape or form. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears that this edit was inserted by Dzonatas in order to generate the appearance of a content dispute, when the focus is actually on his policy violations. Durova^Charge! 20:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It also cuts off the second half of my comment from the first half. I added this [46] as a postscript to [47] It is now separated from the comment it responds to. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 07:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing disruption

In addition to the policy violations documented above, Dzonatas has now insinuated that the existence of this noticeboard thread (which he started while he was forum shopping for blocks) means that an AFD has been canvassed.[48] That claim is completely false; no one has canvassed. It appears that he is making claims because the consensus discussion is going against him. Respectfully request that an admin step in with the tools. Durova^Charge! 19:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A block is against HEC. Being against blocking doesn't mean we don't report ill-activity. — Dzonatas 20:10, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

In the above post Dzonatas links to a disambiguation page, apparently in the attempt to distract attention from the fact that I am calling for a block on Dzonatas for disruption. Durova^Charge! 20:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:HEC *sigh*— Dzonatas 20:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The harmonious editing club itself is a nearly inactive project that never took any formal stand against userblocks. Dzonatas has opened forum shopping frivolous complaints against other editors at noticeboards, never suggesting that he objected to userblocks until one was requested against him. His link is another red herring. Durova^Charge! 21:05, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Your red herring accusation is clearly false My comment at HEC was made way back. — Dzonatas 21:25, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

A single comment that Dzonatas himself once made shortly after receiving several userblocks, and 14 months after the thread opened for unrelated reasons, is no barrier against intervening with the tools here.[49] If anything, it demonstrates that his disruption is both habitual and stubborn. Durova^Charge! 21:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

After all this time, ... um, you saying I caused WP:DE to be written? I see why you co-authored a quicker to indefinitely block people, but I had nothing to do with your resignation because you violated blocking policy. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. For HEC to sponsor WP:DE for the blocking reasons seems highly doubtful. — Dzonatas 22:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Other debates

Obviously, I stepped into a can of worms when I started to edit anything close to astrology, astronomy, theology, religion, etc. All of my other edits made on other topics never have met so much dispute. Even consider the small edits I make to high traffic articles on political candidates, those have gone completely fine. To me, it appears the can of worms is on any astronomy and religion related discussions. Thinking of RfA debates on other users, it appears quite common. Yes, I can dig up the connection between how the debate on computer science (where ruud was editing) got crossed with joan of arc (where durova was editing) when I was editing both. But as I search throws the past links, wow... There must be a more civil way then to have to dig up old evidence to defend oneself. I shouldn't even have to do it, but with Durova's out-of-the-blue comment here, it takes it totally out of context from the article on astrotheology and natural theology. I suggest to replace the section above that Durova made with the commonly installed quote "Jimmy Wales engages in edit warring," so that we can get the discussion back to astrotheology. If Durova want to make the her case over history, there is more appropriate places. — Dzonatas 20:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with the patience to do so can look through the ongoing disruption and figure out if the history she presented has relevance here--as it seems to. Please note that you made yourself visible by shopping all of these forums. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 20:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Again Dzontas's claims are misleading. With regard to computer science, in addition to his userblocks and the frivolous 3RR complaints he lodged, two formal mediations attempted to resolve issues with his participation there: Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/14_December_2005/Computer science, Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-01-28 Computer Science dispute. It appears that any subject where he edits with regularity gets bogged down as a result of his involvement. This person was one of the principal reasons I coauthored WP:DE, in order to give the site an effective way to deal with this kind of problem. With the exception of a long wikibreak where he didn't edit at all, his participation at this website has been consistently disruptive since spring 2005. Durova^Charge! 20:13, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Now that is truly amusing given the amount of times Dzonatas has claimed others are violaing "WP:DIS", which redirects to WP:DE. Does that mean Dzonatas has a WP:COI in drawing attention to this policy ;).PelleSmith (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

See my post to the guideline talk page from 16 September 2006.[50] I don't call the fellow out more than is absolutely necessary to address ongoing disruption, but it's true I made a commitment to certain areas of volunteer work because I didn't want anyone else to endure the same frustrations he generated, back when I had been a new editor and no administrator paid attention. Durova^Charge! 20:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:No climbing the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man. — Dzonatas 21:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The community raised WP:DE to a guideline, and Dzonatas himself cites it liberally when he thinks it supports him. Let's see it put to its proper use. Durova^Charge! 21:49, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The proper use of wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. I stopped edits at Joan of Arc because mentors suggested to me to let you do all the work. So now, here is astrotheology which it seems there were only 3 people who started to create the page, and I was trying to do the work to get information in the page -- there is no intent to misinform. Wouldn't you agree that deleting content you worked hard to find and put into and article then suddenly see it deleted and ripped apart feels like people are losing sight about what wikipedia is about. Hey, I know my dyslexic type doesn't let me making perfectly spelled words with beyond perfect grammar. That is why I put it in and then come back latter to improve it. Your sense to need to block people stirs the pot against people with any form of dyslexia. To come back and attempt improvement just to find others have shredded it doesn't help. It's like expecting perfection upon each edit. You can't expect that. With those articles you wrote (like the one you contributed to HEC after you noticed I was in it), I would think you would understand, hmm. Even though me and ruud buttheads before, we continued to work to consensus and then go are own ways. Here, you have not demonstrated you, Durova, can fully go on your own way once someone crosses your path. You must feel like the one way to solve it is to completely block someone from your existence here. Back to ruud, I believe is right when he said, likewise, that this kind of pain will probably never have enough public light to heal it. — Dzonatas 22:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Cue admins ...

Isn't it about time someone at least ended this whole mess. Blocks or no blocks, warnings or no warnings, someone needs to put this discussion out of its misery. Durova seems to have some valid concerns here about this editors history, and I certainly think he's being disruptive presently, but nothing constructive has been said here for a while. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 22:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It does look like there is enough here to make a decision one way or the other. If no blocks are forthcoming, an RfC is a possibility (for its own sake, or as a prelude to arbitration). Since further discussion of the sort occurring above is unlikely to be constructive, I've archived all sections but this one. Avruch^T * ^ER 22:34, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

To the administrator who makes a decision about whether to block: if you choose not to, please restore Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dzonatas so that it can be updated and resubmitted. Thank you. Durova^Charge! 22:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Dzonatas could use mentoring, and I believe this has been suggested by at least one commentator above. Someone please review his recent behavior and do something proactive. Thanks.PelleSmith (talk) 02:57, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently he is disrupting an AfD so unrelated to his previous edits that one can only imagine he followed Pastordavid there.PelleSmith (talk) 03:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought about the mentoring that Pastordavid offered. Then I noticed this canvassing. It was a successful votestacking call. Morally, I decided not to ask PastorDavid for mentoring, as I felt he should have noted the invite as canvassing and should have not voted. Further, the article on AfD met the guidelines for central discussion. — Dzonatas 03:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I have initiated Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Dzonatas. His response to feedback has been aggressive (see his user talk page history from today) and so has his response to prospective mentorship. Durova^Charge! 04:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

One final note on this sad case: Dzonatas has sent me obscene e-mail. If any admin contemplates unblocking him, please contact me for a copy. Durova^Charge! 23:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Testimony

• Previously archived section, modified 21:29, 5 June 2008. — Dzonatas 07:38, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Edited 21:32, 5 June 2008. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Astrotheology — Dzonatas 07:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• Edited 21:31, 5 June 2008. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Luke Lutheran Church — Dzonatas 07:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
• [51], [52] — Dzonatas 13:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

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

I'm famous :-P

Jerusalem Post Online: Digital World: Wiki gone wild by David Shamah <eleland/talkedits> 17:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

What an intriguing and utterly unbiased account of the controversy. ^_^ UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw that. How does it feel to have your words hopelessly twisted by the media? shoy 18:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I was actually somewhat surprised by the piece; it was more even-handed than I expected given the content of my exchanges with Mr. Shamah. In the e-mails he basically called me a crazy antisemitic Israel-hater and kept dragging in the strangest, totally unrelated controversies (CAMERA is sneaky and biased? Well, a Reuters stringer photoshopped extra smoke on a picture of Beirut being bombed! And Pentium 4 processors are made in Haifa! What do you say to that, you scoundrel!?) At least in the article he avoided libeling me outright... <eleland/talkedits> 18:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Not far from it, though. He certainly painted you as a lying sack of anti-Israeli bias and a crazy nerd in the basement in that. I'd avoid talking to him again. Bloggers aren't like real journalists. His point about 'disputed' as opposed to 'occupied' makes some sense, but in light of that, I'm more in favor of removing 'disputed' and substituting 'occupied' universally. I'd suggest finding the right WP:pages to seek a consensus for change to 'disputed'. ThuranX (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The one paragraph on the first page summed up the entire newspiece for me: "Camera had sinned", "Wiki purgatory", "Eleland", "<random attack on Canada>", "anti-Israel bias". It says a lot about this person as an journalist, like that he isn't one. — Moe ε 05:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

What is it with opinion pieces and the Jerusalem post? And this paper is used as a reliable source?? 78.86.18.55 (talk) 12:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

The real Jerusalem Post is a respectable newspaper. Apparently the standard for its online supplement is somewhat lower. I'm of half a mind to publish my correspondence with Shamah (after all, it was five e-mails in that he said, "By the way, I'll be using this correspondence to attack you in a future editorial piece, hahaha," so I don't see an ethical issue) so maybe I'll post it to Wikipedia Review or somewhere. <eleland/talkedits> 00:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

SUL offensive username problem

This charming username (blocked indef immediately, of course) was created automatically (i.e. the account exists elsewhere rather than having been created here) – so how do I find out where its "home wiki" is to make sure that the name is blocked globally? Bencherlite^Talk 23:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

While this is probably a case that can be uncontroversially dealt with cross-wiki, SUL is likely to bring about a number of cases in the future where usernames get imported into a wiki which violate some policy there, while being legal on their "home wiki". We used to disallow non-English Unicode characters in usernames, didn't we? *Dan T.* (talk) 23:58, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You can find a username's home wiki using this tool. I've renamed that particular account as it was a pretty unpleasant attack name. WjBscribe 00:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

There were several more created. here and here other too. Anyone have any idea how to stop it? Toddst1 (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Get a steward to run a cross-wiki checkuser to find the wiki its coming from. And we might want to blank this thread per BEANS; he may or may not realize what he's really doing. Thatcher 01:08, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Meta log for reference. As I don't move in exalted Meta circles, how would I go about making such a request? Bencherlite^Talk 01:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

IRC is probably fastest. There are usually a fair number of people online at any given time to spot this sort of this, this situation was being handled about 30 minutes before you posted the report. Thatcher 01:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If you don't use IRC, this is the page to request on. Al Tally ^talk 01:23, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I assumed when I saw the meta log that The Powers That Be would be doing something already! However, as offensive global usernames were still being created here more than 30 minutes after I posted the report, it clearly wasn't fixed when I posted. Anyway... shall we mark this as "Resolved" now? Bencherlite^Talk 01:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, since it might make things easier: in cases like this, we don't need a cross-project CheckUser to determine the home wiki of the problematic username. Stewards have a "Global account management tool", called "Special:CentralAuth", which automatically identifies the home wiki of any global account. All they need to do is type the username and hit "search". The same tool can be used to either delete the global account or lock it. Redux (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• The stew still needs to run a checkuser to block the IP. Thatcher 11:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, a check needs to be performed, but since we are able to determine the home wiki without a cross-project check, we'd not perform one, at least not at first, unless circumstances justify it. The ramification of that (yes, there is one) is that, if the Steward determines that the home wiki is one with local CheckUsers, elected or appointed locally, the Steward will be forced to defer the check to a local CheckUser, unless it is a clear emergency and a local CU cannot be reached expeditiously, or if the local CUs remain unresponsive after a reasonable (but short, in this case) period of time. All of this per Foundation policy regarding CheckUser. So far, there has been no innovation in policy to accomodate the innovations brought on by SUL, so Stewards will still have no choice but to ask the user reporting the problem to at least try to contact a local CheckUser first. We are only able to avoid that if we are "lucky" (if you can call it that) enought that the vandal happened to establish the home wiki in a project with no local CUs appointed.
Ok, the BEANS are all over the place now. We should give it a short while for people to be able to read this, since I suppose it is valuable information regarding how this works on the Foundation level, but then we will need to blank this, for obvious reasons. Redux (talk) 01:51, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks and incivility by suspected sock

Hi all, User:Luigi 28 recently engaged in personal attacks against User:AlasdairGreen27 and myself on User:WBOSITG's talkpage [53], calling us both "fools" and generally engaging in conversation in an uncivil manner. The flamer frequently uses CAPITAL letters and communicates in Italian. He is suspected of being yet another sock of banned User:PIO, could someone do something about this guy? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I recently collided with him on the Andrea Antico article (the man dared to be born in Croatia; that seems to irk those with a strong sense of Venetian history, but I admit I don't understand all the background issues here, i.e. what were the ethnicities in 15th-century Istria, and why it would bother people so much). I left a note on his talk page. Is he a sock? I can't tell: you can find one of his IPs in the history of Antico, and I defer to the checkusers on this one. Antandrus (talk) 14:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

No idea about the sock part, as to the personal attacks I don't see much of it, but then again, he is going on soliloquies in another language which is inappropriate and nonconstructive on the english wiki. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 16:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As for the sock part, his IP appears to finally be using a different IP after being banned several times, but everything else points to sockpuppetry.

1. Just like User:PIO, he can't speak English that well and frequently uses Italian when attempting to convey a complex thought. His grammar mistakes when he does use English are identical (I'll leave out all the examples at this time).
2. He edits the exact same articles as User:PIO (controversial Dalmatian articles, like Istrian exodus) ands his socks, and in the same manner.
3. His very first edit on Wikipedia was the restoration of a removed fact tag added by User:PIO and his socks.[54]
4. User:PIO (i.e. his sock) stated that he has nothing to do with User:Luigi_28 when nobody even asked about him, mentioned him, or pointed him out to the sock.
5. He added PIO's disputed census data ([55]) to the controversial, but recently peaceful, Istrian exodus article within hours of the expiry of the semi-protection placed there against User:PIO's socks.[56]

--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

As for sock part:

1. I speak a very bad English. I want to see my identical mistakes. Every single identical mistake!
   
2. My family comes from Losinj (Lussino). The family of my wife comes from Rijeka (Fiume). I read more than 300 books in four languages (Italian, French, English, German) about the Adriatic. This is my point of interest from more than 20 years. I want to see every words wrote by User:PIO and every words I wrote. I want to see the census data posted by User:PIO and the census data I posted.
   
3. I restored the fact, but I didn't knew the fact posted by User:PIO. However, the point need a source, because the voice stated that: Alleanza Nazionale has often claimed that Italy paid too much for her defeat in WWII, repeating that "Dalmatia was stolen to Italy". I'm Italian, and I've never read from Alleanza Nazionale that "Dalmatia was stolen to Italy"! If you have a single source (every kind of source!), I'll write a 2-pages letter of apology.
4. I wrote here about Istrian Exodus, but also Rijeka[57], Boscovich[58], Andrea Antico. If you want, I can send to you for every one word I wrote one, two or three sources (more books than links). I would like to see what is wrong in my words and in my sources!
   
5. I don't know why that PIO stated that he has nothing to do with me. I know that PIO wrote to me an e-mail regarding Wikipedia, in Italian, after the very first time you wrote that I was a sock. If you want, I can send to you this e-mail.
   

That's all.--Luigi 28 (talk) 17:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi all.
From my first message here in Wikipedia, I was accused to be a sockpuppet:

1. Here:[59] User:AlasdairGreen27 wrote that I'm the banned User:PIO
   
2. Here:[60] Alasdair insinuated that I'm the banned user Agazio/alias PIO: seem pretty conclusive to me that Agazio and Luigi 28 are one and the same
   
3. Here:[61] Alasdair confirm that I'm PIO: I'm getting together an RFCU now
   
4. Here: [62] Alasdair wrote that I'm the banned user PIO: they're indeed the same person
   
5. Here: [63] User:DIREKTOR wrote that I'm the banned user PIO: they're the same person allright, the grammar mistakes are identical. When one listens to him long enough, one gets used to PIO's distinct "style" of expression. My God: I have the PIO's style of expression!
   
6. Here: [64] DIREKTOR wrote that I'm the banned user PIO, and call me Venetian irredentist radical. Irredentist radical !!!
   
7. Here:[65] ">DIREKTOR wrote: reverting unreferenced info added by banned User:PIO
   
8. Here:[66] DIREKTOR reverted for the second time my contribute.
   
9. Here:[67] DIREKTOR reverted my contribute for the third time, and wrote: you're banned from editing remember?
   
10. Here: [68] DIREKTOR wrote that I was another guy, named PIO: What are we going to do about PIO? He's a real fanatic, this one. Please, note the word fanatic.
    
11. Here: [69]User:AlasdairGreen27 is trying to insinuate that I'm that banned PIO
    
12. Here: [70] DIREKTOR wrote that I'm the banned Pio: Yep, you're PIO alright
    
13. Here: [71] DIREKTOR wrote that I'm the bannedo PIO
    
14. Here: [72] Alasdair wrote another time that I'm PIO and others banned contributors.
    
15. Here: [73] Alasdair insinuate that I'm PIO: If you click on the IP addresses, then at the user contributions screen click on WHOIS at the bottom left of the page, it tells us they are all the same and the others banned contributors.
    
16. Here: [74] DIREKTOR wrote that I'm PIO: I know, you're Luigi. Your Wikipedia name was PIO, though...
    
17. Here: [75] Alasdair insinuate that I'm another one: Yes, Luigi, you know who you are. Your problem is that everyone else also knows
    
18. Here: [76] DIREKTOR insinuate that I'm that banned PIO
    
19. Here: [77] DIREKTOR wrote that I'm PIO (hi PIO) and reverted my contribute without any explanation
    
20. Here: [78] DIREKTOR reverted my contribute without any explanation
    
21. Here: [79] DIREKTOR reverted my contribute without any explanation
    

About Antico: I think that the expert prof. Picker was in error, I read maybe five books and articles (in Italian, in German and in English) about Antico. The first who wrote that Antico was "of Croatian birth" was professor Lovro Zupanovic from Zagreb, in 1969. The "Muzika Enciklopedija" (Zagreb, 1971) mentions Zupanovic's claims (under the entry 'Antico') more as an oddity than an established fact. See also: Bojan Bujic, "Music & Letters", Oxford University Press, LVI (34), 441 (1975), p. 441. The voice Andrea Antico was changed[80] after my discussions.

I'm not a sock. I'm sorry, but I speak a terrible English, and I'm sorry for the words "fool" or "crazy": but for DIREKTOR and Alasdair I was "guilty" of "sock" before every kind of judge!

Finally. Here:[81] DIREKTOR wrote: if this guy isn't User:PIO I'll write a 2-page letter of apology.. You can make everything, but I want the "2-page letter of apology"!

Regards.--Luigi 28 (talk) 16:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I said User:PIO is a fanatic, what are you going to say about a guy who devises plots all the time just to edit an internet article? The real question is why does that bother you? You're not supposed to be PIO remember? ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:52, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• • I repeat: I don't know that PIO. I know that I'm not fanatic. That's all.
    
  • You wrote that I'm a banned guy many times. I was never banned in my life from mailing list, groups, clubs and so on. Please, remember this.
    
  • I'm not bother, except for you and Alisdair: you repeat more and more time that I'm a banned contributor: and sorry another time for my bad English.--Luigi 28 (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps this needs to be addressed at WP:SSP then? Wildthing61476 (talk) 16:55, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh it will, but he should not be allowed to insult Wikipedians and call them "insane" and "fools". Even more so when he uses Italian to do it and WP:SHOUTs all over the place. I just wanted to clarify my reasons for saying he's a sock. (Evidently he perceives that as a personal attack.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Yes, for me is a personal attack, because you reverted me more than five time, only for this! But I repeat: I'm not a sock: that's a fact.--Luigi 28 (talk) 17:16, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Luigi, here [82] you say that an edit by IP 151.70.75.185 was by you. In the same conversation you made a bit of a slip as to whether you were 151.67 or 151.70 [83]. According to this [84], one of PIO's last known IPs was 151.67.85.112. Now, a WHOIS check reveals that 151.70.75.185 and 151.67.85.112 are identical, so you are, what, PIO's very close neighbour?. So, with the best will in the world I'll ask you to ease my doubts as to whether you are PIO or not. Because the heady brew of yelling [85], reverting [86], removal of references to Croatia [87] and POV pushing in every edit is what makes me think that you just may be my old friend PIO wearing a false moustache and glasses. Some months apart, there's also a bit of an overlap, oddly enough, at User_talk:Angelo.romano between PIO here [88] and you here [89]. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 18:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear [User:AlasdairGreen27], please, listen to me
I would like to write something in Wikipedia. I'm tired, because you and User:DIREKTOR think that I'm another user. I repeat for the last time: I'm not PIO, my name in Real Life is Luigi Vianelli. I live in Venice, you can read something about me in WWW, you can call me so you can hear my voice.
I'm a fanatic reader of books regarding the world, the history, the land of my grand-grand-grand-grandfather, my grand-grand-father, my grand-grandfather wich unfortunately was the Eastern part of the Adriatic Sea.
I wrote to User:Angelo.romano, because he is the FIRST admin in alphabetical order who speaks Italian. I don't want to read another time that I'm a person who I don't know. For me Wikipedia is a new world. If you want - i know that you speak also Italian - you can read my contributions in Italian Wikipedia. I started in the same days here and there!
I repeat: you can make every kind of check about me, my IP, my history here in Wikipedia, my history in real life and so on... I have nothing to hide. But for me all this story is in-cre-di-ble: one think that I'm another people, like in Hitchkock's movie! And you, like a little Sherlock Holmes, scan all the old messages in Wikipedia, to find the connections between me and YOUR phantoms! In-cre-di-ble!
You don't know nothing about me, but sixteen times you and User:DIREKTOR wrote that I'm that Pio or another one sockpuppet. Your friend wrote that I'm that PIO and that I'm fanatic, and reverted my contributions six times without any kind of explanation, except: "You are PIO"!
I'm the only one here that wrote his real name! Then, if after all my explanations you and the other guy want to pull out me and my possible contributions (please, read here and tell me if someone else here knows what I know: [90]) from Wikipedia, make your work, but I know if I'm that PIO or don't! I repeat: for me all this story is in-cre-di-ble!--Luigi 28 (talk) 19:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Direktor -- I recommend you file a report at WP:SSP if you are convinced this is a sock. Then Luigi doesn't have to defend himself and you don't have to accuse him, because the truth will be there for all to see. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:27, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm ready and very happy to check my messages and my IP with ALL the possible methods, incluse the checkuser. But when "mr Wikipedia" will find that I'm not a sockpuppet, I want the 2-page letter of apology from User:DIREKTOR. Remember: no 1-page, but 2-page... and I prefer the hand-made letters!--Luigi 28 (talk) 20:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Few minutes ago, the latest provocation from User:DIREKTOR here: [91]. He wrote another time that I'm the banned user PIO: I'm sorry I doubted your word, PIO--Luigi 28 (talk) 23:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)