Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive238#User:RMc

(hoping this doesn't become another subpage monster, but here goes...)

{{User|Eastmain}} is following my trail of tagging images without a fair-use rationale and inserting what I believe to be wholly insufficient rationales, then deleting the {{tl|nrd}} template. One example is [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Nadiz-logo.png&diff=prev&oldid=128031296 here]. "To illustrate the article" is a fair-use "rationale" that seems to me to be synonymous with decoration, which is expressly prohibited by our non-free content rules. Can someone help set either Eastmain or myself straight? (ESkog)^(Talk) 19:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:He's absolutely dead wrong per policy - David Gerard 19:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:He's flat out wrong, according to our policy. Needs to be detailed, with each specific instance documented and shown how the criticism or commentary would be lacking without it. -M^ask? 20:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:All reverted. And one by accident on ESkog's page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 20:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::Eastmain here. I was not dealing with images in general, but rather with logos, book covers and album covers (not photographs), which were used in the article about the album or book or about the owner of the logo, which has always been considered acceptable. Do you really want to throw away all the images of album covers or book covers that Wikipedia has, except for those that appear in articles about the subtler points of album cover design? --Eastmain 22:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:::That would in fact be what policy demands. It's a widespread myth that cover art is under a blanket fair use justification for every book/film/CD article. I know we've tolerated this common practice, but it's still wrong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

For logos, {{tl|Non-free logo}} says:

:"It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of logos to illustrate the organization, item, or event in question on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law."

For album covers, {{tl|Non-free album cover}} says:

:"It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of such covers solely to illustrate the audio recording in question, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law."

For book covers, {{tl|Non-free book cover}} says:

:It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of book covers

:* to illustrate an article discussing the book in question

:* on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation,

:qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law.

So I believe that my actions were in each case consistent with the text in the relevant tag, and that the tags are an accurate reflection of policy. It may not have been obvious that I was dealing only with images in these three categories, so I recognize that my actions may have been misunderstood. Now that I have explained things, would someone please restore my edits to the affected image pages? --Eastmain 22:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

: All non-free images still require a detailed and separate Wikipedia:Fair use rationale for each use in Wikipedia. The tag is inadequate. The images should therefore still be tagged with {{tls|nrd}}. Oh, additionally, the tags you quote are not policy, Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria is policy. --Iamunknown 22:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::If that is true, is there any reason not to boiler plate it for those three special cases? --Selket ^Talk 00:21, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::: An image description page of non-free media must contain the "Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder if different from the source" in addition to a fair use rationale for each use of the image in an article and an appropriate image copyright tag. I assume that not all of the logos, album covers and book covers in question are from the same source or are owned by the same copyright owner; it would therefore be technically unfeasible to use boilerplate text and provide the necessary information that is unique to each non-free image. --Iamunknown 00:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::: Additionally, the rule is pretty clear that there needs to be justification for each specific use; that is, each time a particular image is used in a particular article. The justification needs to show that the image is used for both identification and critical commentary in the article. I have encountered other users who have experienced similar confusion with these boilerplate templates and perhaps the solution is to cut down their size so that they don't seem to be prewriting someone's fair-use rationale. I think I'm heading off to one of those talk pages to propose just that. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::: Done - please join in the discussion [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Non-free_logo#Fair-use_rationale here]. (ESkog)^(Talk) 11:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Michael_Baxter&diff=next&oldid=128048860

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AQuackGuru&diff=128063011&oldid=127984511

I removed unsourced material which did not have inline citations. I would like the warning reviewed and my edit reviewed. Can a Wikipedian give people a warning without any validity. I felt I was harrassed. Please evaluate this situation and deal with the issue at hand. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 21:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:The template warning was inappropriate, but this has already been brought to [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Runcorn#QuackGuru Runcorn's attention]. Furthermore, it seems he has provided a citation for the disputed content. -- mattb 22:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:(after EC) You might want to re-read WP:BLP. Negative or controversial material can and should be removed instantly if unsourced. (note that "sourced" is not the same as "has inline citations" there are other ways to source statements). Content that is uncontroversial and not apparently negative is probably worth asking on the talk page if anyone can point to sources. OTOH, it would have been more polite in the case of an established editor to raise the matter on your talk page with a specific question rather than a generalized warning template. But a template that says that someone else thought that your edit was improper is not harassment, IMO. Now why don't all involved discuss the matter on the article's talk page and try for consensus? DES ^(talk) 22:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

;Update

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Crohnie&diff=prev&oldid=128064101

Editor is now engaging in edit war on Larry Sanger against consensus and has issued another bogus warning to another editor. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 22:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:I have asked Runcorn to stop misusing warning templates in this manner. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARuncorn&diff=128068849&oldid=128064890] Note that this is only in reference to his behavior with these templates, not any comment on the content disputes. I encourage you to heed DES' advice as well. -- mattb 22:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

;Update

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Runcorn This person is actually an administrator. I am shocked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WikiLeon&diff=prev&oldid=128074598

He/she has claimed it was "vandal fighting." This remark has alleged that Crohnie and I are vandals. And the editor is engaging in more edit warring on Larry Sanger.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SqueakBox&diff=prev&oldid=128075176 He/she has issued another bogus warning after being warned about misusing warning templates. Any suggestions. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 22:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:Yes I did receive one too. I have shown him how to reference an article correctly (ie not lewaving it in the ref section), part of the problem is that he badly edited wikipedia and then accused people who removed these edits of vandalsim. And clearly the message from Matt didnt work, SqueakBox 22:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

;Update

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:SqueakBox&diff=prev&oldid=128079857

SqueakBox has received yet another warning and has been threatened to be blocked for no good reason. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 23:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:Yes I just got threastened with blocking too, didnt sign and didnt refer to what vandalsim. As this chap is admin it may be that the account is compromised, and either way this is completely unacceptable behaviour from an admin (and an admin who cant reference properly), SqueakBox 23:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::And a new editor chased off the article "in his own words" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Larry_Sanger&curid=17605&diff=128093473&oldid=128089186 here]. is this the sort of berhaviour we expect from admins? SqueakBox 00:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The irony of [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARuncorn&diff=128102572&oldid=128093144 this warning]. I'm not going to defend anyone's actions, but Runcorn only reverted once. The second time he added the information back in the article it was with additional references, thus not a revert. Given the frustration one can have when dealing with these same users, I can understand that Runcorn might have been on edge. Quack has a history of stirring up needless confrontations over trivial matters. But I don't know Runcorn, so take what I say with a grain of salt or whatever. Just my two cents. -- Ned Scott 01:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:And normally I do try to avoid interaction with Quack due to past confrontations, but the conversation here just seemed a little.. one sided, for a lack of better words. -- Ned Scott 01:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

;Runcorn has made at least 3 or 4 reverts with a 24 hour period.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=next&oldid=128018198
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=next&oldid=128039273
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=next&oldid=128064754
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=next&oldid=128077095

Any suggestions on what course of action to take about the edit warring.

;Ned Scott has removed an appropriate 3rr notice which may be seen as disruptive

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Runcorn&diff=prev&oldid=128106083

Any suggestions on the behaviour of Ned Scott on removing a 3rr notice. It may be seen as disruptive.

Respectively, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::I hate to admit it, but I was mistaken about the number of reverts. Perhaps I was looking at the wrong page history. None the less, it's pretty obvious even from the above message that Quack has a way of getting people on edge, and has a tendency of escalating disputes rather than helping them. -- Ned Scott 01:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Striking out comment above that I feel is a borderline personal attack. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Unstricken.. -- Ned Scott 02:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have suggested to Runcorn that he take a couple of days off to destress. Georgewilliamherbert 02:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

After the Kevin Potvin article was protected, {{user|Zanimum}} used his or her admin privileges to edit the article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kevin_Potvin&diff=127964689&oldid=127863750]. Under normal circumstances, these might be justifiable edits (with the exception that "fall" should in fact be lowercase according to WP:MOS), but there is no libel issue here being taken care of, or any other serious matter requiring immediate admin intervention to an article under full protection, and no comment on the talk page. I request that these changes be reverted, along with whatever else you people do with wayward administrators. If Zanimum wishes to edit the article, s/he can plug his or her nose and slum it on the talk page with us commoners. bobanny 04:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:These edits appear to be related to the same issue that caused the page to be protected. I've asked Zanimum to clarify this. >Radiant< 11:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:: Letter posted to the talk page. -- Zanimum 14:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Could someone temporarily protect Buckingham Palace, it has been vandalised 7 times in the last 24 hours. Obviously with the Queen being un USA it is the headlines in America at the moment. Giano 07:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• There's not really enough activity there and I just blocked the main anon culprit. The other page-blanker hadn't been warned at all yet. Warned now - Alison ☺ 07:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:* I cycled past it yesterday, it looked pretty well protected to me - plod and soldiers and everything. Guy (Help!) 10:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::That really is very funny. LOL Giano 12:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::How dare they vandalise it while she's out of the house! Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::* LOL!! Very funny :) - Alison ☺ 13:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I blocked {{user|100110100}} for a week for edit warring and making a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Sailor_Moon&diff=prev&oldid=128160333 nonspecific death threat] at Template talk:Sailor Moon. This user has a history of abusive behavior, and I wasn't sure whether to block for longer (since the threat was not specific), although the behavior doesn't seem to have included death threats. Therefore, I need this action reviewed in case the block needs to be lengthened. --Coredesat 07:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::Why not indef? User is obviously completely disruptive. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Case in point [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Help:Contents&diff=prev&oldid=127851548 calling another editor a bitch while reverting]. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::::I've taken the initiative.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::Mr. Binary frequently edits from an IP address. Someone should keep an eye on it to make sure he doesn't engage in sockpuppetry. JuJube 08:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::I figured I should've gone with indef, but it's very late here, and I'm too tired to deal with any potential fallout at the moment. I'll keep an eye out for socks, though. Thanks, Ryulong. --Coredesat 08:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This time it's {{User|80.5.205.84}}. He'll probably run out eventually. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Highest_snooker_break&diff=128157205&oldid=128134266 Diff.] The escalating "retarded" personal attack this time probably warrants a further block extension. He'll get the point eventually. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:NB: I have self-reverted at that article to his last version. The talk page at said article has an ongoing discussion about the entire set of points his puppetwarring relates to, and I don't want my personal opinion on the matter to affect dealing with the behavior at issue. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 08:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Protected titles/May 2007/List contains two images (:Image:WinXP_exclamation.png and :Image:Stop_X_XP.png) that were nevertheless recreated. Does this process not work on images, or is something else wrong? >Radiant< 12:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:The problem is the protected title template; you have to specify the namespace with the "ns" parameter or it doesn't work. -Amarkov moo! 14:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I have recently entered a discussion concerning Anna Vida's opinions on Wikipedia, she said that it "Sucks" and is "Utter Rubbish", so I left a message on her talkpage, she then replied with:

''You added the following to my talk page:

"Our site sucks? Well, then leave it, we don't need people like you around here"

Here we have another wiki member who thinks they own wikipedia (by saying: our site sucks) you don't own it, and it is not your site!

Secondly, seen as (for some reason that isn't obvious to me) university students use wikipedia for assignments, so someone has to make sure that the info on it is true and correct (which in most cases it is utter rubbish).

And finally, don't stick your nose into business that doesn't concern you, the comment i made was to Jimbo Wales not you, so but out, and mind your own business, or don't you have a life?''

A personal attack, implying that "I dont have a life"

She has also, on many occasions, distrupted wikipedia to make a point, and placed more incivil comments on my userpage. in short, I would like her blocked, because she obviously doesent understand the way wikipedia works, and demonstrates this by distruption, incivillity, and personal attacks.

Thanks, Gherkin30 13:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:I don't think blocking is needed at the moment. Why on earth did you respond to a criticism on Jimbo's talk page with a suggestion to leave? I think that she should be spoken to politely, even if she is a bit on the rude side, We can always block later but not for the above rant. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 13:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• {{userlinks|Cockmaster69}} - vandal-only and dubious user name. Andy Mabbett 13:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Next time please refer such cases to WP:AIV. Thanks. --  Netsnipe  ►  13:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

• {{user|Iamsaa}}

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=128155492&oldid=128154898 Iamsaa's edit], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard&diff=128155716&oldid=128155492 archiving by MiszaBot II].

I believe some vandalism went under the radar there. Simply reverting it is not a solution since many edits were made ever since. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&action=history]

-- Cat ^chi? 14:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:Are you sure that was vandalism? Because there was a problem a while back with the page histories, where people's browsers were being fed out of date revisions, resulting in large numbers of accidental mass reverts--VectorPotential^Talk 14:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::Yeah I think that was what I saw when Ryulong seemed to delete another editor's comments while adding her/his own. Anchoress 14:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Well... mind the [?] on the section header, I am not 100% certain if it falls under WP:VANDALISM. Whatever the intention was, there are missing comments that need to be restored. Both there and at the archive page -- Cat ^chi? 14:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::::I'm not sure if there's much that can be done, short of reverting the whole thing, and adding back more recent comments one at a time. There only seem to have been 16 comments to the page after Iamsaa, so it's not impossible, just very tedious--VectorPotential^Talk 14:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::Now 17. hehe. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::I think I've fixed it. I tend to think it was an accident of some kind rather than deliberate. Thatcher131 15:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Naruto134 blanks discussion topics he disagrees with. He is a high school kid who seems very self-righteous an self-important in his deletions, particularly when it comes to Toho monsters. He is unwilling to debate. Please investigate this guy and try to keep him editing Wikipedia in a proper manner. I don't think he realizes he is crossing lines. --Scottandrewhutchins 15:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

: I am not an administrator but I can suggest kindly telling him that it is against policy, if he continues then you can warn him with:

• {{tlsp|uw-delete1}}
• {{tlsp|uw-delete2}}
• {{tlsp|uw-delete3}}
• {{tlsp|uw-delete4}}

Then if he removes comments after this then you can report him to WP:AIV and if the circumstances are right, he will be blocked temporarily by an administrator. Cheers! The Sunshine Man 16:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

Happened to notice while on vandal patrol that {{vandal|Pwnanza666}} and {{vandal|Ballsmccloon}} made seven defamatory edits to Pacman Jones within seven minutes.

• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pacman_Jones&diff=next&oldid=128154224]
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pacman_Jones&diff=next&oldid=128226586]
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pacman_Jones&diff=next&oldid=128226649]
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pacman_Jones&diff=next&oldid=128226911]
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pacman_Jones&diff=next&oldid=128227004]
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pacman_Jones&diff=next&oldid=128227464]
• [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pacman_Jones&diff=next&oldid=128227543]

I got a bit suspicious, given the similarity of the writing styles, and it turns out they were created within four minutes of each other. Pwnanza666 was created at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Pwnanza666 11:30 am GMT], while Ballsmcloon was created at [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Ballsmccloon 11:26 am GMT]. They've both vandalized again (albeit to different articles) and have been level 3-warned. This bears the distinct flavor of sockpuppetry--only reason I didn't report it to the sock page was because they're newbies. But keep an eye on them, would you please?Blueboy96 16:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:I've blocked them both indefinately for vandalism and serious WP:BLP volations, seam like SPA's to me. Ryan Postlethwaite 16:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This user has civility problems that I believe require some form of administrative intervention. All the more so since this did not arise from a content dispute.

Two days ago, I noticed that he had [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Orange_County%2C_New_York&diff=127654012&oldid=127537837 begun] a revert war with User:VerruckteDan over the addition of a recently incorporated village to {{tl|Orange County, New York}}. Since he was factually in the right, I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RMc&diff=127698433&oldid=116191448 suggested] he create the article first, then edit the template as he would have facts to support it. I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VerruckteDan&diff=127698880&oldid=127258284 advised]] VerruckteDan that I had done this so he would stand down.

RMc's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_Case&diff=127779349&oldid=127243763 response] to me was completely unexpected. No personal attack was intended, but for some reason I cannot fathom he read it that way.

I looked over his history and found that he has [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rollosmokes&diff=prev&oldid=92115762 similarly] [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rollosmokes&diff=prev&oldid=92961122 tangled] with User:Rollosmokes in the past. This misbehavior earned him [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:RMc a block].

I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RMc&diff=127886203&oldid=127698433 responded] patiently and tried to explain myself. In return, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_Case&diff=128171601&oldid=127892828 he again shot his keyboard off]. My patience somewhat more strained, I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RMc&diff=128196237&oldid=128185809 basically realized] he was beyond anything good faith could do and told him I'd let it go. He did, but not without [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Daniel_Case&diff=128199002&oldid=128171601 getting in some last insults].

In reviewing his contributions, quite a few of which actually are constructive edits (mainly in the area of radio and TV broadcasting), I found an article he had recently created about a clearly non-notable location (I can vouch for this personally) near us and nominated it for deletion, per policy. He assented to the deletion but not without [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Michigan_Corners%2C_New_York&diff=128196183&oldid=128187848 attacking me] again.

I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:RMc&diff=128220590&oldid=128196237 realized] I couldn't let this behavior pattern go unreported at least, since he has already been blocked once for this sort of thing, and here we are. Daniel Case 16:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:You know, folks, I'm getting a little tired of snooty little Danny Case ordering me about and then crying to daddy. I let him have his way on South Blooming Grove and Michigan Corners, New York, but, no, that's not enough...apparently, his little feelings are bruised. Here's an idea: LEAVE ME ALONE AND STOP HARASSING ME. And it's called a life...get one. RMc 16:53, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

user:PossumWith seems to be creating (Special:Contributions/PossumWith) obvious hoaxes based on existing Wikipedia article. Could an admin review his contribution and delete the hoaxes? (As a side note, is there a real speedy criteria for such obvious hoaxes? I think G1 can't apply here.) -- lucasbfr ^talk 11:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

:Different admins feel different ways about obvious hoaxes. Some prefer there to be an "obvious nonsense" tag. Others, like me, view big, obvious hoaxes as vandalism. Others believe that there is no existing speedy criterion and that hoaxes have to go to AfD. I think they're speedies, but I also understand and agree with there not being an easily applied CSD category. Geogre 11:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

::Hoaxes are not speedyable IMO because they may not actually be hoaxes - if you get my meaning. NOt talking specific examples here. Viridae^Talk 11:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

An unsourced, implausible article can easily be tagged with proposed deletion (PROD) and a suitable explanation. If the tag is removed then it can be taken to Articles for deletion (AfD). If someone properly sources the article and removes the tag, all is well. --Tony Sidaway 12:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

::I've speedied two obvious hoaxes recently (and permablocked their perpetrators). One was brought to my attention by the relevant WikiProject and so I was not just acting on my own judgement, the other was a hoax that came after move vandalism. When an admin is faced with such compelling evidence, I don't really think it matters exactly which CSD it falls under! If the admin is not sure, then of course a PROD or an AfD is more appropriate. Physchim62 (talk) 12:43, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

:::There is no clear CSD for hoaxes, but I think in cases of extremely obvious hoaxes you could make a judgment call and speedy it without anyone making too big a fuss. Of course I would have to be 110% sure that this is absolutely, positively, a hoax with no chance of ever being verifiable before I would speedy something like that... because if you are wrong then you are looking at a possible WP:DRV.--Isotope23 12:50, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

:::: Yes, I agree that in clear-cut cases one can speedy. The evidence has to be a bit more than "this looks a bit improbable", and both the creator's prior behavior and the considered opinion of third parties can be decisive in cases where doubt would otherwise merit a PROD or AfD. I wouldn't like to see an attempt to codify this in the criteria for speedy deletion (CSD) but it seems to me this kind of deletion, in the right circumstances, is well within administrator discretion. --Tony Sidaway 12:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

::::: The problem with that statement is that there is meant to be no administrator discretion about CSD - either it is explicitly covered by a CSD criterion or it isn't. If there is any doubt that one or more criteria apply then it is by definition not eligible for speedy deletion. PROD was set-up to handle probably-non controversial deletions that didn't meet the speedy criteria. In this case, if the article is >100% certainly a hoax and other factors (e.g. third party opinion, author's prior behaviour) also indicate it as not valid, then it is speediable as G3 vandalism. Thryduulf 13:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

::WP:IAR does have its legitimate purposes. I deleted an article about a blue whale that lived in Saskatchewan, it would swim along the plains. Being a whale that lived on land was certainly a claim of notability, so no CSD applied. I used IAR and deleted it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 13:40, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

::Ditto what HighInBC said. For process wonks, I'm willing to say that obvious hoaxes constitute disruptive editing that should be rolled back or deleted, or perhaps that they're just simple vandalism and can be speedied under that criterion. For people willing to employ common sense, we have WP:IAR and no further explanation is required for a reasonable deletion. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:45, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I have speedied a number of blatantly obvious hoaxes. (In addition to inherent indicia of implausibility or complete lack of verifiability, I have found a useful criterion to be whether the alleged hoax article is the creator's only edit or series of edits.) On the other hand, I have also seen an alleged hoax article on AfD and demonstrated it wasn't a hoax at all, so caution should be used. Newyorkbrad 16:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

::I spend a lot of time tagging articles to be speedied, and I try to follow a guideline of plausibility, much as others have described. For things that could be real, I prod them instead of putting a speedy tag, following the logic of WP:HOAX that apparent hoaxes aren't speedyable because they might not be hoaxes and thus deserve more time and eyeballs. For example, a couple of days ago I prodded Peter Boylan, because it's certainly possible that this person exists and does the things described, though extremely unlikely. An article about a land-swimming whale is something I'd likely mark as speedyable under G1, with the idea being that it's not a hoax, but rather complete nonsense. I try to err on the side of caution, though, so it has to be blatantly impossible and obviously unsourced before I'd try to have it speedied. Pinball22 17:08, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

:::How obvious is "obvious"? Truly, truly obvious, nonsensical hoaxes aren't worth a second thought before tagging/deleting -- take Non Sequitur's example of uploading an article about yourself winning the Nobel Prize for Best Girl of All Time, or whatever it was. Just delete and be done with it. Less obvious cases, though, I think that's more what we're getting at with "hoax isn't a speedy criteria" (and the really obvious hoaxes are presumably covered as nonsense or vandalism, anyway). That's my take, anyway. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Blatantly obvious hoaxes which are confirmable as fake by a simple Google search should be speedied, inasmuch they substantively and actively decrease the quality of the encyclopedia, and mislead any reader which might happen to stumble over them. Nothing which is false on Wikipedia is benign. If it's clearly nonsense, don't PROD it, nuke it. Every moment such an article exists on our encyclopedia is a blot on our copybook, inasmuch as we already have enough problems with our reputation for inaccuracy. We don't need to exacerbate the problem. We're rather lucky the media didn't get a hold of our article on a putative major city in Pennsylvania which happened to not actually exist, for example. FCYTravis 03:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• This is, in short, an issue upon which the magic pixie dust of "administrator's discretion" is applied liberally. Some are quick to kill them (me), others slow. It depends. I don't think I need to defend my position, but for those interested in my logic, it's this: an obvious hoax is defacement. If a person writes, Gary Hart, "He ate booogers!" then we treat it as vandalism. If someone creates an article called Booger eating presidential candidates and puts Gary Hart in it, it is no different. So, similarly, if a person puts, "And me LordDeathSkorpion" to List of presidential candidates, it's vandalism. If he writes, LordDeathSkorpion and says, "Famous presidential candidate in 2025 for the United States Empire," we shouldn't suddenly go into convulsions because "Oh, my goodness! there is a claim of notability there." It's only a small step to "Bongo Rabbitt Destroyer55 created the MiteeMuse music service in 2006 and began serving over 12,000 radio stations with streaming content." It's all just a childish desire to giggle at getting an article on Wikipedia. I nuke 'em. Geogre 01:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Even though I'm more of an inclusionist than deletionist, with regard to potential hoaxes, I believe it is better to err on the side of deletion. It is worse for a hoax to remain on wikipedia for a week, than that an apparently obvious hoax which isn't, be deleted, since such a thing will undoubtedly reappear in short order. imagine actual land-swimming blue whales being discovered, how long after its first article was deleted as a "hoax" do you suppose it would take for a second article to be created? A simple procedure which I use and which doesn't require a lot of pixie dust, is to ask myself: Will more harm likely be done if I delete and it's not a hoax or I don't delete and it is? Paul August ☎ 17:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User:PossumWith may be related to User:WombatWith, who created Wizard Done A Earthquake in school (sic) and added it to Caravan Pictures. —tregoweth (talk) 22:03, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/COFS, I have indefinitely blocked {{userlinks|COFS}} and {{userlinks|CSI LA}}, because the CSI LA account was used for block evasion during COFS's past blocks. This does not mean that the blocks cannot ever be lifted, or even that the blocks should not be reduced immediately. I have no opinion about the appropriate block lengths. But I felt this was the necessary first step while discussion takes place about what exactly should happen in the long run. ··coelacan 21:42, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

:Hmmm... both of those accounts were involved in the minor shitstorm over my week-long block of {{user|Misou}}. AGF or RFCU, I'm so conflicted... EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:16, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

::I kinda doubt Misou is the same person, but who knows. CSI LA stands for Church of Scientology International, Los Angeles. 75.62.7.22 04:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

:::I believe there may be several people sharing a common ip at Church of Scientology International, Los Angeles, Misou is also one of them. I would like to reduce the block to a week and then have this matter follow the dispute resolution process. I have looked at the edits of CSI LA, while aggressive and supportive of the Scientology point of view, they mostly consist of removal of links to original research by the opposition. Fred Bauder 01:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Could you please be more specific about the WP:OR the editor(s) were removing? Anynobody 04:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Quentin_Hubbard&diff=prev&oldid=121754554
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=L._Ron_Hubbard&diff=prev&oldid=121753145
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commodore%27s_Messenger_Organization&diff=prev&oldid=1217410
• Fred Bauder 04:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Thank you Fred Bauder, I wanted to make sure it wasn't one of mine. (P.S. the third link goes to some page from 2003). Anynobody 04:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::::The first one isn't original research as per WP:OR, it was based on quotes of other people. The second one was based on an analysis of "48 hours". The third one don't work properly [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commodore%27s_Messenger_Organization&diff=prev&oldid=1217410], it goes to a weird page not based on the history of the article. If you mean this edit, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Commodore%27s_Messenger_Organization&diff=121741092&oldid=121731771], it is a link to a biography. --Tilman 05:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Characterizing CSI LA's edits as merely "aggressive and supportive of the Scientology point of view" drastically underplays the disruption of this editor. At L. Ron Hubbard, CSI LA stated([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AL._Ron_Hubbard&diff=121542704&oldid=121491923]) that he had looked up certain quotes from Hubbard's The Fundamentals of Thought cited in the article, and found those quotes differed significantly between his book and the article. He characterized the quotes, as presented in the article, as "falsified" for "the purpose of slandering Hubbard". Strong words, but nothing outside the boundaries of appropriate debate, IMHO, even if he added speculation on the "motivation behind this and motivation of those keeping it in there". I checked the quotes in question against my own copy of Fundamentals and found that in that edition, the quotes existed in almost exactly the form presented in the article, differing as far as I could see only in punctuation. I replied to CSI LA,([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:L._Ron_Hubbard&diff=next&oldid=121542704]) explaining that while he might have in good faith believed that he had irrefutably proved "falsification", I could personally verify that the quotes he asserted "do not even exist" did in fact exist in official editions of the book, and if he wished to verify it himself he had the full publication data of both editions cited. Obviously it was disappointing when his next comment on the matter([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AL._Ron_Hubbard&diff=121727891&oldid=121712921]) continued to call the quotes "a fake and slander attack on Hubbard" and assert "The real quotes are not containing such statements". Ignoring others is not civil. Judge for yourself whether my response([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:L._Ron_Hubbard&diff=next&oldid=121730591]) was mild enough given the circumstances. CSI LA's next comment([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:L._Ron_Hubbard&diff=121766937&oldid=121764487]) was what went completely beyond acceptable behavior. It was not only full of attacks upon my competence ("... to cover up that you have no full concept on the development of Scientology, its literature and founder.") and upon my motivations ("Maybe so you can complain along about hot air.", "You seem to be part of the "alternative" Scientology scene which uses altered materials.") but upon my integrity as an editor ("You know better than you say.", "What is still unexplained is why you want to smear L. Ron Hubbard with altered quotes.") By still calling them "altered quotes" he is alleging that when I say I checked the evidence and told him how he can even double-check that very same evidence if he chooses, that I am lying. If it is allowed to simply allege without just cause for suspicion that someone is lying when they say "Here are the reliable sources which say these things verbatim", then we might as well shut down Wikipedia right here; it cannot operate other than on the principle that when one editor of good standing says "yes, I have checked this source, and yes, it does support this claim," the burden of proof is then upon those who would dispute that. To say "nothing is sourced well enough to go into the article if I have to take someone else's word that the sources support it" is a form of solipsism, and it is equally deleterious. As I have frequently pointed out, politeness is not civility; CSI LA's language might meet certain minimum standards for acceptable debate but his monstrous allegations attack the entire concept of collaborative editing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• The disturbing evidence brought forth from the Checkuser Case Confirmation brings up other issues as well. Isn't this also blatant violation of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline??? At the very least, if the IPs are all coming from this certain locale, it belies that most likely there is some sort of funding going on to edit Wikipedia in a certain manner. How is this any different than the User:MyWikiBiz issue? Certainly this would go towards some serious considerations of many of the subsections of Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, including but not limited to potentially: Financial, Legal antagonists, Self-promotion, Close relationships, Campaigning, and Citing oneself... Also, at User_talk:Coelacan#COFS_and_CSI_LA, am I correct when I read that User:{{ucfirst:{{{User (User talk:{{ucfirst:{{{User • Special:Contributions/{{ucfirst:{{{User • [{{SERVER}}/wiki/Special:Log/move?user={{urlencode:{{ucfirst:{{{User|Misou}}}}}}} page moves] • Special:Blockip/{{ucfirst:{{{User • [{{fullurl:Special:Log/block|page=User:{{urlencode:{{ucfirst:{{{User|Misou}}}}}}}}} block log]{{rfcu|1={{ucfirst:{{{User|Misou}}}}}|2= • rfcu|cond=n}}) is also related to this series of IPs as well? How many of these individuals are either the same individual or organization, or are relate to the conflict of interests outlined above? If this is not allowed for the concept and user User:MyWikiBiz, why is it allowed in other situations? Smee 06:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC).

:Thank you Smee for your words. Although I'd understand that corporations are allowed to work on the wikipedia entries of their products and services, I consider it deeply disturbing when several staff members would do so. Theoretically, scientology has the resources to simply set up 20 full time Sea Org staff members (payment: less than $100 a week) at that same IP. Hey, it could even set up 20 different IPs for them. --Tilman 16:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think the cofs would do this because it could always be reverted at a later date AND they have a "security" concern about staff getting information that might lead to them change their point of view on the cofs and leave.--Fahrenheit451 18:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've honestly tried to think of how this could be a mistake as opposed to dishonesty, but whenever I try to give the editor(s) in question the benefit of the doubt they demonstrate reasons why I shouldn't. For example this statement from COFS talking about how Wikipediatrix/Highfructosecornsyrop was able to stay:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACOFS&diff=127011412&oldid=126998435]. (My reply:[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ACOFS&diff=127015978&oldid=127011412]).

He'd get the benefit of the doubt except since he knows about Wikipediatrix/Highfructosecornsyrop he's either read up on it in the archives like I have or he was here under a different name while it was happening. Either way, he should know better based on the outcome of said example. Or how CSI LA harassed a sysop for blocking Misou:

1. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EVula&diff=prev&oldid=125742441 CSI LA advocating unblock of Misou, calls neutral sysop anti-Scientologist for not unblocking]
2. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=125716099 same as last diff but on] WP:ANI.
3. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:EVula&diff=prev&oldid=125707039 CSI LA advances notion that Misou was "set up"].

If it's one person, the block should stay. If it's several people the block seems just as appropriate because they appear to be working together in a manner not intended by the principles of this project. Also please note that even the points for unblocking raised by them are misrepresentations. CSI LA has said (in an e-mail postd on his talk page) that 1000 Scientologists are being affected. This can not be true, and instead makes it seem as though we are persecuting people rather than enforcing the rules (something the CoS has been observed doing in the past). Anynobody 08:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

: The comparisons to my "highfructosecornsyrup" experiment aren't even in the same ballpark anyhow. My two accounts never had conversations with each other, as CSI LA and COFS did. My two accounts never backed each other up in edit wars- in fact, I had stopped editing as Wikipediatrix during that time. I didn't operate two accounts simultaneously. COFS/CSI LA, by contrast, made every effort to portray themselves as two different persons, talked to each other, and apparently used the identities to bolster one user's opinion with two user's voices. (and even if they are two different people, if they're editing from the same office on the same mission or as a WP:ROLE account, that might as well be one person, as far as I'm concerned.) wikipediatrix 18:43, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

That's what I explained to COFS, you were not trying to give the impression that you are more than one person whereas he was. The difference is as big as night and day, with what you did being day and their tactics being night. Anynobody 18:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:I think that the sock-puppet matter alone is egregious enough to block this user, but the adjunct policy violations, such as repeated personal attacks and incivility, strengthen the rationale for the block.--Fahrenheit451 19:04, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I've been following this whole incident with interest, and feel it necessary to voice my opinion about what's been going on. I feel that the current block is warranted. I've witnessed COFS and CSI LA do some truly disquieting things since arrival.

The question of whether this is more than one person editing from the same IP, or two sockpuppets, seems irrelevant to me in this case.

They should be considered sockpuppets of one another, for the purposes of votes, discussions on the same page, etc. The reason for this should be clear. If we allow them to NOT be considered sockpuppets, then we have two editors working from the same IP who CAN "sockpuppet" by agreeing with each other and coordinating on discussion. And if we don't let the RFCU keep them marked "sockpuppets" of one another, as well as rooting out all other sockpuppets in this range (Misou and Grrrilla seem to be within this range or at least editing very close to it and generally backing up a Scientologist viewpoint in discussions that overlap with COFS and CSI LA), then we write a blank cheque for mayhem.

If we end up not punishing these users for collusion in the same, say, talk page discussion or afd (voting together and agreeing with one another), then we open the door to twenty, thirty, a hundred, or a thousand Scientologist editors to all show up from the same IP, and agree in the same topics, without officially being "sockpuppets" for all we know. Thus, I request that COFS and CSI LA as well as any other editors found to be editing from this set of IPs, be considered sockpuppets of one another for safety's sake. After all, they're editors with nigh identical opinions and goals within Wikipedia, editing the same general areas, and all from the same IP. Seems to fit the definition of "sock" to me, and if they're allowed to stack discussions to make up imaginary concensus from the same IP, we've failed.

I feel the block evasion was a taunt in the face of Wikipedia's standards and does much harm. No apology from COFS or CSI LA has been offered, presumably because the contention still stands that they are two different people. But, even if this block is reduced to one week, I wish to ask: will they be considered sockpuppets of one another in future discussions? And if anyone else is discovered to be editing the same kinds of articles from the same IP address, will they too be considered so? That's all from my end, but this being a single proxy for a large workplace should not allow the door to be opened to a hundred disruptive sockpuppets who may vote in droves. Raeft 23:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Coelacan#COFS and CSI LA Anynobody 19:01, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:So, with the exception of Fred Bauder, no one has supported my reduction of the block. Wow. But I do want to give them a second chance. Some people have come to my talk page and said "don't reduce the block" while overlooking the fact that I have already done so. I'm not about to reblock them at this time before their block even expires.

:These users have to be treated as meatpuppets. That doesn't mean be rude to them. But if they are involved in a vote or any discussion where consensus is being weighed, do make a note that they are organized from the same church headquarters and cannot be considered to be "acting independently". It's not good form to hound them about this. Please make an effort to remain civil. But do make a small note for the admin or whoever is evaluating consensus, that these are meatpuppets.

:Besides that, please remember that they are allowed to use these accounts as long as they are not violating WP:SOCK. For the specific incivilities that seem to come regularly from certain of these accounts, please use dispute resolution, or notify an admin if you see something outright blockable. And if other admins here think I've been right or wrong to reduce the blocks, I'd appreciate your opinions. ··coelacan 06:10, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

User Eleemosynary has been following around user Getaway and reverted almost all edits and then personally attacking user Getaway. Examples of this can be found in these places: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AFred_Bauder&diff=127843140&oldid=127840332], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fred_Bauder&diff=next&oldid=127843140], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ABiographies_of_living_persons%2FNoticeboard&diff=127846038&oldid=127844725], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Condoleezza_Rice&diff=122246051&oldid=122238536], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Robert_Byrd&diff=125390836&oldid=125166564]. I need assistance.--Getaway 13:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:Dear Getaway/Keetowah: I'd be happy to post diffs for over 500 instances of personal attacks and disruptive edits coming from you, your various identities, and your sockpuppet/meatpuppets. I urge you, as Fred Bauder has, to take this to a dispute resolution so all information can come to light. : ) Eleemosynary 16:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::Er, you took the time to count? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::500 is a conservative estimate. : ) Eleemosynary 22:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Sanger&diff=next&oldid=127983001 I would like permission granted for any editor to remove this unverified and controversial information on the Wikipedia co-founder's biography. The 3 revert rule does not apply to BLP violations but I want to clarifiy it here first. "Larry Sanger creates a new Wikipedia" Jewish Chronicle, October 27 2006, p.10 This reference can't be substantiated. I cannot find a copy of this reference. I did my best to find a copy of the reference and thoroughly searched for Larry Sanger refering to himself as being Jewish. He has not spoken publicly about his religious beliefs. Therefore, it is highly suspicious and should aggrassively be removed per BLP violations. Futhermore, there was a category added about Jewish Americians which Larry Sanger has not publicly identified himself as. I believe the category and reference are both BLP violations and the 3 revert rule does not apply in this case for removing such controversial claims. A simply clarification and/or guidance is needed to properly handle this matter at hand. Cordially, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 16:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

;Update

I carefully reviewed the BLP policy. I believe the reference and the category are both poorly sourced and highly contentious material. Therefore. the 3 revert rule does not apply in this case. I will remove the suspicious material per discussion here and per talk at the Larry Sanger article. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::Contentious that it be added or not; it's not derogatory or contentious substance. It might be wrong, but I doubt Larry would be grossly insulted by the mistake. BLP enforcement has to get enthusiastic regarding derogatory material, but this doesn't count. You by yourself saying that you can't verify a source isn't necessarily good enough. Lacking other admins/editors agreement, you should hold off. Georgewilliamherbert 20:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I kinda thought that admins were selected for being something of a cut above the regular editor, so imagine my surprise when I discover that User:Future Perfect at Sunrise is an admin. After the whole fiaso regarding the Iranians back in early April that went to RfC or Incidents, he began contributing to the article, arguing over the usage of a translation of a Greek film review (supposedly utilizing his GR-3 skills denoted on his User Page). After arguing over the definitions of two words, he tried to add the original Greek link to the article ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=300_%28film%29&diff=prev&oldid=126589685 1]). When it was pointed out in [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:300_%28film%29#Stroking.3F Discussion] that we don't do that in the English wiki, he then [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=300_%28film%29&diff=126340237&oldid=126290662 changed] the statement, deciding to paraphrase the quote instead. It rather detracted fromt he quote, and wasn't really to anyone's preference but, as the article has seen a lot of edit-warring, we weren't really eager to engage in yet another WP:LAME|lame dispute.

Today, he began removing the soundtrack image in 300, citing that it was simply [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=300_%28film%29&diff=prev&oldid=128003467 decorative]. He then [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:300_%28film%29#Removal_of_soundtrack_image posted] that he would simply delete the image tomorrow, despite being presented with reasoning behind the image's retention.

I didn't even know that FutPerf was an admin until I left a message on his user Talk page today. I am a little concerned that this editor is actively editing in an article and using his title as a hammer to stifle dissent. As well, I am unsure as to the "crystal" clarity of the polcy governing his intended removal.

Maybe I am reading this all wrong. Is he going a bit overboard, or am I being too sensitive to his particular personality and editing style? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:Fut. Perf.'s interpretation of the fair use policy appears to be correct, and in any case this looks like something to be solved at the article's talk page or a deletion review. --Akhilleus (talk) 23:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:I'm not sure how you can say you "didn't even know that FutPerf was an admin until [you] left a message on his user Talk page today", but then also claim he is "using his title as a hammer to stifle dissent". Obviously, the latter is not true. Nevertheless, I'm not seeing how this is an admin issue and I don't see the problem here. He used a word that sounded awkward in English. You and others complained. He then decided to propose a compromise that just summarizes the reviewer's statement. I don't see how his paraphrasing is any different from the intended meaning. -- tariqabjotu 23:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Akhilleus, for the sanity check. And Tariq, please don't call me a liar. I didn't know he was an admin until I sent to his talk page. It was after that that I posted here - after discovering he was an admin. So apparently both are true. However, its always nice to get your point of view. Thanks again, Akhilleus. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:I called you a liar? I'm not sure if that's the right word to use... perhaps you misrepresented something, but being a liar is too harsh an accusation. Regardless, you didn't refute my point. If you were to read carefully, you'd see that I said Obviously, the latter is not true. Fut. Perf could not have been "using his title as a hammer to stifle dissent" considering you didn't even know what his "title" was until just recently, when you "left a message on his user Talk page today". (I'm assuming by "title" you mean admin status, considering that is what most of your post was about.) -- tariqabjotu 01:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::If I misinterpreted your accusation, then I am sorry. When I read his posts in the Discussion area, I thought he was just being an somewhat arrogant person who was simply posting what he was going to do without the intent of listening to our posts in dissent. When i went to his Talk page to take the subject out off-discussion page, I then discovered he was an admin. Re-reading what he wrote in the Discussion page made arrogance seem more like abuse. Then I posted here. I apologize if the detailed chronology (and refutation) wasn't made clear. I stiil think its kinda arrogant for anyone to decide unilaterally that they are going to purge an image without explaining adequately the fair use issues (he simply called it decorative). That I felt (and feel) that he approached the situation with two left feet wasn't wrong. Anyway, the topic is closed; you folks think he went about things jolly well, so what more is there to say? Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, this section name is too amusing... If the Wikimedia Foundation is ever desperate for funding, we could release an "Admins Gone Wild" DVD ("the wild side of administrators that you don't see on Wikipedia! Only $9.99 a month and cancel anytime!") Grandmasterka 06:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:LOL :-) WjBscribe 06:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

: LOL!! "When good admins go baaaad! - Alison ☺ 06:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::Well, I do get snippy sometimes, but I make every effort to hold onto my humor. It was either that or "Fast Admins, Slow Newbies." I erred on the late night comical of drunken college girls. I could do worse.

::Honestly, what I think motivated my vigor in pursuing this is that I have an image of admins built up in my head that isn't fair. I expect these folk who put the Enn in 'NPOV' and are pretty nifty diplomats. There are a lot of them like that, and I was fairly blessed to see some of them in action as I was starting out. But there are people behind the curtain in the hall of the Great and Powerful Wiki, and they are just ordinary folk (albeit with powers beynd the ken of mere men). When someone breaks rank and acts - to my preconception - un-admin-y, I feel kinda offended. Maybe expecting FutPerf and others to fit that image every time is unfair. I know the admins often have a pretty miserable set of tasks, duty that largely goes unnoticed. I appreciate that. I guess that's what I sorta wanted to say. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 07:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the "Admins going wild" documentation could start right off with a documentation of me going wild over another issue just today.

([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MariusM&diff=prev&oldid=128162134],cf. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:MariusM/Heaven_of_Transnistria_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=125878650&oldid=125874035], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:MariusM/Heaven_of_Transnistria_%282nd_nomination%29&diff=128121777&oldid=127973426]). Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thought you all might want to know of the discussion regarding the application of the delete being discussed with FutPerf. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:300_%28film%29#Removal_of_soundtrack_image here]. Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

This guy blanked the WWII page, and if you look at his talk he's done this to other stuff before. Actually, he was blocked in April, and someone unblocked him. --LtWinters 00:36, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:He was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:MosesMaster blocked for a month] by Oberiko earlier. IrishGuy ^talk 00:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::Aren't vandalism-only accounts normally blocked indefinitely? JuJube 01:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::I agree. I think vandal-only accounts should be blocked indefinately. --24.136.230.38 01:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::I would have indef blocked, myself, but this is something that should probably be taken up with Oberiko to see what the motivation for a shorter block would be. IrishGuy ^talk 02:20, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

This isn't resolved. First of all, who unblocked him? And its not Oberiko's decision to block him, if he vandalized something he needs to be blocked. So why shouldn't we block him? Its our decision to make as it concerns us, and he did multiple things bad. --LtWinters 20:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:Nobody unblocked them. They had a prior block, which timed out normally, and then Oberiko blocked him/her for another month yesterday. It is exactly Oberiko's decision to block; he's an admin, we deal with these things. Lacking other abuses by them or a clear mistake in process or policy by Oberiko, the block should stand as-is. "Can block indefinitely" for vandal-only doesn't mean "Must block indefinitely".

:If you object, contact Oberiko and discuss it with them. Georgewilliamherbert 21:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::I agree with Georgewilliamherbert. Oberiko made a judgement call. It isn't as though the editor received a mere slap on the wrist...he garnered a one month block. If, upon his return, he continues screwing around he will be blocked again. Possibly indefinitely at that point. IrishGuy ^talk 21:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm confused... Could'nt he just make a new user name? Wouldn't nobody know he did that?--24.225.156.40 21:41, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:yea what 24.....40 said...--24.225.156.40 22:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::Why are you agreeing with yourself? IrishGuy ^talk 22:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Smee is acting improperly in Talk:Evaluating a Large Group Awareness Training

One of the editors for this article had removed a template: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evaluating_a_Large_Group_Awareness_Training&diff=prev&oldid=127310920 here

Smee then reverted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evaluating_a_Large_Group_Awareness_Training&diff=next&oldid=127310920 here

On another edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evaluating_a_Large_Group_Awareness_Training&diff=next&oldid=127614845 here information was removed which did not pertain to the book being reviewed.

Smee immediately reverted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evaluating_a_Large_Group_Awareness_Training&diff=next&oldid=127614938 here and gave only the reason that the source was cited.

Then again, a valid reason was given for removal http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evaluating_a_Large_Group_Awareness_Training&diff=next&oldid=127614938 here

And again, Smee reverted http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evaluating_a_Large_Group_Awareness_Training&diff=next&oldid=127615943 here and again only gave cited source as justfication.

Next Smee turned his attention back to the template

His first act was to post comments http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evaluating_a_Large_Group_Awareness_Training&diff=prev&oldid=127891955 here from another editor for another article in this article's discussion.

The comments were posted in first person and no indication was given that the other editor had not posted himself.

Then, based on those comments, Smee edited the article and re-inserted the template http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evaluating_a_Large_Group_Awareness_Training&diff=next&oldid=127616654 here and gave this edit comment: upon comments provided from a neutral, previously un-involved editor on the template usage

Note that the editor being quoted did not post on this page, but his opinion on another unknown article was used to justify an edit on this page. Note also that the concerns of the original editor, who initially objected to the template, was never addressed.

When I discovered (by looking in edit history) that Smee had added the entire conversation, I reverted the Template edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evaluating_a_Large_Group_Awareness_Training&diff=next&oldid=127892108 here, as well as his entire comment edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evaluating_a_Large_Group_Awareness_Training&diff=127934361&oldid=127891955 here

I also posted a note on his user page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Smee#IMPROPER_Warning here and invited him to post and document the comments properly.

His response was to repost the comments exactly as they had been done the first time http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evaluating_a_Large_Group_Awareness_Training&diff=next&oldid=127936541 here.

While it could be excused the first time. By posting exactly the same comments a 2nd time after being told of the issue, it appears that he may have intended to mislead readers.

Next, I properly cited the quotation http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evaluating_a_Large_Group_Awareness_Training&diff=next&oldid=128105718 here by putting it all in blockquote and "'s and added a paragraph which explained where they comments came from and who put them there.

Smee, then reverted my entire edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Evaluating_a_Large_Group_Awareness_Training&diff=next&oldid=128113645 here.

Several attempts after that to properly document the comments appeared to be headed to an edit war, so I have stopped editing there.

Thank you for looking into this matter, I'm sorry to bring up what I thought we would be able to over look. However, it appears that Smee will not allow us to over look it.

Lsi john 02:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• This user is simply attempting to cause trouble against me. I have edited and re-edited a "disclaimer" above the posted comments from the other user on the talk page in question - there were no untoward intentions here. Please see my disclaimer on the associated talk page. Smee 02:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC).
• First point; fraud is a heavyweight criminal accusation (second time I saw this today). Secondly, I think Smee is a she. Didn't you guys go through MEDCAB last month? - Alison ☺ 03:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:*As I understand it, Smee is a he, and s/he is welcome to correct the misunderstanding.

::Webster defines fraud as :1 a : DECEIT, TRICKERY. Copying and pasting another editor's comments into a discussion (twice) and using them to justify an edit seems to fit under deceit, however in the interest of WP:FAITH I have removed the word fraud from the heading here. It does seem to be WP:TE and this is only a small sample of the observed conduct. The pattern is to revert and comment highly cited source and ignore discussion.

::Yes we went through mediation. Based on the mediation, I no longer engage him in discussions of his behavior. And, his conduct has not changed since the mediation as you can see from the above sequence.

::I don't know if this is the proper way to file an AN/I or not. The edits are documented and I tried to post them in an easy sequence.

::Lsi john 03:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Smee's edits and explanations seem to me to be helpful and clarifying. Each edit was accompanied by Smee's edit summary and there were no involved IP numbers. Its very clear that Smee's actions are intentionally transparent and above board. But there have been large deletions of well sourced material from the Landmark Forum article without proper indication in edit summaries (Not by Smee). I believe the latter action is more likely to be classified as deception and trickery and that is more fitting for investigation. Jeffrire 07:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::Jeffrire, your edit history is telling. --Justanother 12:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::::"Smee's edits and explanations seem to me to be helpful and clarifying. Each edit was accompanied by Smee's edit summary and there were no involved IP numbers. Its very clear that Smee's actions are intentionally transparent and above board." -- Thank you, Jeffrire, for these clarifying comments as to my actions. This is exactly how I feel as well on this issue. I also second your consternation as to the removal of cited material from the other article in question... Smee 08:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

It was clear from Smees contribution if you read the whole section that the comment came from another page, but it was rather convoluted and if you just glanced through what looked like the most recent comment you could easily have missed this. But I would question the wisdom or fairness of transposing another editors comments out of context from a different page in this way. Posts are part of ongoing conversations and are rarely comments that can be universally applied. This one wasn't. It would have been better for Smee to say there was a comparable discussion on another page and provide a link.Fainites 17:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I did say just that. The very first way that I had posed it, I stated that there was a comparable discussion ongoing, and gave the link to that article's talk page. I just did not provide the DIFFs for this, and was not super super explicit. I will be more cognizant of this the next time, believe you me :) Smee 20:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC).

This guy is driving me crazy.

see his contrubutions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/98.1.242.33

-- Penubag  02:43, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:You probably want to post here here. --ElKevbo 02:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::Wait a minute. Those edits are several days old. What do you want anyone to do about it now? --ElKevbo 02:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::He already is "here," but I think I know where you meant to send him. =)

:::I don't see the problem. The user made three disruptive edits in a five-minute period on 30 April, and s/he was warned. Is there something I'm missing here? --Dynaflow 03:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Penubag may be referring to the [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stratus_cloud&action=history ongoing problem] at that page, from sundry IP numbers. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::The vandalizing edits seem to be coming from a number of different ISPs' IP-address ranges and from widely-scattered geographic locations. Was there a special on stratus clouds on TV recently or something? --Dynaflow 03:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:Well, look on the bright side: at least it's not a WP:BLP violation, since stratus clouds are not living people. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That's just what the radical humanists want us to think. --Dynaflow 03:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:You mean the radical group called the Weathermen? -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 03:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::Touché. --Dynaflow 03:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Okay nevermind he he was already warned for that incedent. It's just that it seems that all the weather articles are alwas vanalized. -- Penubag  22:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

{{resolved|1= Lou Proctor indefblocked as a sock of User:Chadbryant - Alison ☺ 06:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)}}

This user is responding to my cited edits to Craig Roger Gregerson with threats and accusations of being a sockpuppet, and other harassment. I have asked him to stop and he refuses, even removing my requests to stop from his talk page. Lou Proctor 04:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:Please block this sockpuppet of User:Chadbryant, the edits to the Craig Roger Gregerson clearly show it's him and I've already raised the matter with User:Yamla and User:Tyrenius both of whom are more than familiar with User:Chadbryant, but are both offline at the moment. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 04:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You are not allowed to accuse me of being a sockpuppet. You claimed that my edit was original research when it was not, and now you are angry and lashing out. Please grow up. Lou Proctor 04:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I note that you're blanking your talk page messages. Furthermore, you're revert-warring on that article. Your last revert (finally) included a reference .... which is broken. A quick search of that site doesn't show up the reference you require - Alison ☺ 05:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• Ok - so I dug back through the history of the Craig Roger Gregerson article and note that a banned editor has been using various socks to repeatedly insert the exact same changes as you are. The last time this happened was just before you happened along. Furthermore, your account was created just a few days ago and you immediately started revert-warring on the above article. Can someone else give me a second opinion here? - Alison ☺ 05:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Smells like socks. JuJube 05:48, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• One more thing. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=Lou_Proctor This account] was created 2 hours after his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Manager_Of_Champions last sock] was blocked. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 05:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Ok - I've seen enough. That, plus talkpage comments - Alison ☺ 06:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
• Just indefblocked seconds ago by Grandmasterka - Alison ☺ 06:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::*Thanks. I don't know why it's me that always deals with the prolific sockpupeteers, JB196, RMS, Chadbryant.... One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 06:07, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::::* You're just a natural at it :) - Alison ☺ 06:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::Also, at least in my case, my memory isn't very good. I've blocked literally hundreds of sockpuppet accounts amongst various sockpuppeteers and it gets hard to remember the identifying characteristics of each vandal. --Yamla 23:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see the logic behind a "curtesy blanking" of an organisation's name such as [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Fredrick_day&diff=128022991&oldid=128012207 here] on my userpage. Does that mean that any organisation can request this? --Fredrick day 12:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:There's a page about it if you're interested: Wikipedia:Courtesy blanking. As the name suggests, it is a matter of courtesy and not a mandatory thing. But I can understand that companies might not be pleased seeing their names coming up high in Google search because of a deletion discussion that turned to delete. -- lucasbfr ^talk 12:53, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::The user and organization just want to go away. There was a big mess involving numerous accounts from the user in the name of the organization, foolishly created using a real names, bad behavior on the user's part--who was not completely familiar with our policies, well-meaning administrators who persisted in applying the name in numerous locations on talk pages, citing guidelines as policies (such as WP:COI) and using those as excuses to block, rather than discuss things in a healthy manner... Immediate application to Community Noticeboard before the incedent had a broader look at it by less involved and heated users. All of the edits remain in the history of the pages, so any user familiar with Wikipedia will have complete access to these pages. Thanks. Cary Bass ^demandez 13:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Wasn't there some sort of discussion to eliminate those pages from the robots.txt file? What happened to that? howcheng {chat} 02:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I came across What Goes Around...Comes Around and moved it to the correct What Goes Around... Comes Around, correcting a large number of double redirects. Something seems to have gone haywire, though, because the article has now disappeared, and there's nothing but redirects... Can anyone lend a hand? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 21:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:I can't seem to find it. Also, the image that should be on it, :Image:Justin timberlake what.jpg is listed as not being on any pages. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:02, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:(edit conflict) Ow my head hurts. I see what you mean though - I can't actually see the article in any of the histories. There are two deletions [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=What_Goes_Around...%20Comes_Around here] - is that just a mistake or could the second one have inadvertently lost the article? Not being an admin I can't see. Sorry to not be much help. Will (aka Wimt) 22:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::Think we're good now: What Goes Around... Comes Around. Lexicon (talk) 22:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes — thanks. Any idea how it happened, so that I can try to avoid it in future? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• {{la|Republic of Hawaii}}
• {{la|Kingdom of Hawaii}}
• {{la|Native Hawaiians}}
• {{la|Hawaiian sovereignty movement}}
• {{la|Apology Resolution}}

A short while ago somone requested one month's full protection for [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=prev&oldid=128345619 five articles] due to edit warring. After checking them, it seems that {{user2|Arjuna808}} and {{user2|JereKrischel}} are the Hawaiian versions of MariusM and William Mauco. Obviously fully protecting five articles because of two users is undesirable, I was tempted to give them each a three-day block, but I don't like doing things like that if I can avoid it. Can someone else take a look? – Steel 02:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm being threatened at my user talk page and at User talk:Big Boss 0 (both since reverted, see the history of each page for the edits) by {{IPvandal|204.42.24.227}}. The interesting part of this is that the user claims to be a former bureaucrat who will get his account up and running again to desysop me. Any thoughts on this? Metros232 03:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:Since when did bureaucrats desysop? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 03:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:WP:RBI? --BigDT 03:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

It appears that User:Masterofsuspense (previous discussion here) is emerging again. I've had to block three (!) admitted (!!) socks in the past 24 hours or so, one with the dubious name User:MasterofsuspenseSOS(save our sockpuppet). Obviously this user has created multiple problems in the past, but now s/he has attempted to contact me directly. I have no idea why... probably thinks I'm naïve enough (since I was on de facto Wikibreak while the original problem occurred) to accept the "I promise I won't vandalize again!" line, which has obviously not worked for the score or so other socks created in the past. Not really anything substantial here, beyond the whole "keep an eye out" for other obviously named socks, but thought I'd bring it to the board's attention nonetheless. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Can an unbiased administrator please look at this article as soon as possible please? [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Gaillimh&oldid=124514954 An administrator with a Sinn Féin image on their userpage] has taken exception to content that is fully sourced from reliable sources, claiming WP:BLP. Practically every single book ever written on the Troubles or the IRA names Adams as an IRA member in the 1970s, and I've recently cited four of them in the article along with other sources which were there already. Betacommand has then jumped in threatening to block anyone who adds the material back without proper sourcing and multiple reliable sources, totally ignoring the fact it is sourced exactly like that. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:The above statement regarding the use of "reliable sources" is patently false. I've recently learned that Sean O'Callaghan is being used as a Wikipedia reference to make spurious claims about Irish politicians being involved in criminal activities. Sean O'Callaghan is a former IRA member who became an informant for the Garda (Irish police). He has an inherent and evident bias against the fellows who he turned against and cannot be considered a reliable source. I've tried to explain this numerous times that the section in question does not comply to WP:BLP. User talk:Gaillimh 22:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)span style="cursor: w-resize">gaillimh]]^{Conas tá tú?} 14:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::That's disputable, but the section doesn't even say that he was an IRA member, it just says that various people have stated that he was. The very first sentence in the section was that he denied it. -Amarkov moo! 14:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:::The simple answer (if you object to O'Callaghan) would be to remove the O'Callaghan part, and leave all the other sources in. Objecting to O'Callaghan does not give you carte blanche to remove every other source. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Sure, but as I've mentioned to you in the past, Adams has directly refuted and dismissed Ed Moloney's claims. In addition, you sourced Michael McDowell, the PD leader. I wouldn't consider that at all reliable either. Using Wikipedia to advance your goals of attempting to associate a politician with a criminal organisation is inappropriate. In addition, there's not been any proof of this, and again, Adams has denied all of these claims. You've been edit warring with me on numerous articles about this particular point, and while I've attempted to reach a compromise with you on List of IRA Chiefs of Staff, you keep insisting on interjecting your POV gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 14:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::No, I insist on maintaining a neutral point of view, as do several other editors who've tried to add the Adams content back. It's quite ironic that by one group of editors I get accused of having a pro-republican bias, now I'm being accused of having an anti-republican bias. The presence of a SF logo on your userpage clearly shows your POV on this. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:00, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::::My having a SF logo on my userpage equates to a POV that I eschew the IRA? Haha, now I've heard it all. This conversation might be a bit confusing to those outside of Ireland, and perhaps Britain, but SF has long since maintained direct ties to the IRA, so I'm not sure how removing biased information about an SF member incorrectly being labeled an IRA member equates to a POV (as I realise that I've mentioned they've direct ties, it should be noted that the IRA is completely decommissioned now, off of the US list of terrorist organisations, and plenty of SF members have never been a part of the IRA, Adams included). gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 15:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::Whether you consider McDowell or O'Callaghan a reliable source is irrelevant. If they made these claims and the claim has been reported on in a reliable source then there is no issue including it in an article here. In these cases all the information is referenced from reliable sources. On the Adams article, as ONiH states multiple sources have been given. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:05, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::::You're correct, it doesn't matter if I consider them to be reliable. Apologies for the confusion. I don't consider them reliable based on Wikipedia's policy regarding reliable sources. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 15:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::In fact I specifically added four additional sources before adding it back the first time. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Gaillimh, you misunderstand. McDowell is an Irish politician and lawyer, O'Callaghan is a former IRA member. So their opinions or claims are relevant. Any of our own opinions on them are irrelevant. We might think they are wrong, but that's irrelevant. They made these claims and they were reported on in reliable, independant sources which are used in the articles. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 15:28, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::Without the alleged IRA membership, the article fails WP:NPOV. The significant view (among journalists, authors, politicians etc) is that Adams is a former member of the IRA, that Adams denies it does not affect this. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::I agree that there is significant opinion that Adams has been an IRA member in the past. In an attempt at a compromise, I suggest that we find reliable sources to present both claims, while obviously giving precedence to Adam's own refutations and the lack of any hard evidence to the contrary. Sean O'Callaghan and Malcolm McDowell clearly fail WP:RS. I am still a bit unsold that this compromise will adhere to WP:BLP, so I would like another administrator or someone well-versed in this policy to take a look at it gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 15:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::::Furthermore, I recommend this article stay protected until such a compromise is worked out gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 15:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::::We already have all the sources we need. There's plenty of sources already in the article saying Adams was an IRA member, but Adams denies it. That's there already, and I honestly don't see what more needs to be said. There is no WP:BLP violation, the page should not have been protected in the first place. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:I disagree. Betacommand was correct and judicious in protecting the page, given the stated WP:BLP concerns above. Again, Sean O'Callaghan and Michael McDowell are not reliable sources. gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 15:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::So that would be why Betacommand describes the sources as "anti-adams POV/slander sites"? Any administrator is welcome to check the sources being used, and they will clearly see they are nothing of the sort. This is just another example of poor judgement by Betacommand. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Please dont quote me unless you get it right because that is also making my statement false, I also cited BLP and RS for removal so please shut up with trying to smear the admin who took the action and get to the meat of the issue. Wikipedia is not here to spread speculation, have a reliable 3rd party source the data. IE a fox news, the guardian or some other non-biased reliable third party confirm it and there will be no problems. but using confirmed POV sources that lean toward what you are trying to state is not a good Idea get a third party to source it. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::::I'm assuming you missed the four books by respected authors, some of which have won awards for their reporting on Northern Ireland? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason this conversation is being held here instead of the article's Talk page? --ElKevbo 15:34, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

:::Again, Betacommand was quite correct in protecting the page, and it's always best to err on the side of caution when dealing with BLP concerms. The anti-Adams POV evidently refers to Sean O'Callaghan and the slander-sites is probably a bit of confusion with regards to the McDowell silliness in The Guardian. As a related aside, I can't see how one would ever think Sean O'Callaghan could possibly be appropriate for citing in an encyclopedia (other than, perhaps, in his own article when sourcing biographical information) gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 16:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Sigh. I've been asked along to venture my two penn'orth, but I don't think it will help much. For what it's worth: the statement that several people accused Adams of being an IRA member is both factually accurate, correctly attributed, and significant in context. The fact that he rejects the claim, and that no credible evidence exists to support it, is also accurate and significant. It's not massively important, but it is highly significant and still believed, as far as I can tell, by a significant proportion of the militant Protestant population. WP:BLP does certainly provide for the inclusion of validly attributed, significant, but almost certainly wrong material, provided it is stated neutrally and tied to those who say it. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
• I agree with your estimation of BLP, and have several times suggested a compromise to this effect, despite this significant opinion being wrong. My issue is with attempting to pass off Michael McDowell and Sean O'Callaghan as reliable sources, when they are the epitomisation of what Wikipedia should strive to remove from biographical articles gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 22:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::*The problem being that you didn't remove those sources and the information they sourced, you removed an entire section including information sourced by reliable sources, and have repeatedly refused to discuss this despite requests from myself and another editor. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 23:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

::One Night In Hackney, I'm sorry to hear that you've used my absence to give a skewed account of the events. The truth is that I've tried to approach this fellow numerous times in an attempt at resolution and he's reponded in the snarky manner he's demonstrated directly above. Again, I'm disappointed in you, mate, and you've lost a bit of respect from me given your blatant lying in my short absence gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 08:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::* I don't see any of this personalising of the dispute helps much. Are we all agreed on how to proceed? Guy (Help!) 09:06, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::* True enough. I put forth quite a few attempts to compromise with the fellow and am eagerly awaiting a response. Cheers gaillimh^{Conas tá tú?} 12:09, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The oft-deleted Matrixism was reposted a couple of days after the WP:SALT was removed. It was taken to AfD, I closed it as a repost (DRV is the right place, in my view). Neil reverted that, restoring the article, and then removed the AfD notice as "closed". So: AfD notice removed because AfD closed, at the same time reversing the closurew of the AfD. Which pisses me off just a tiny bit. In the mean time we have rewarded the wankers who have been bleating about this crap-off-teh-Internets non-religion with its Geocities homepage since forever by giving them what they want. Way to go, team.

But it's worse:

• Neil created the current article
• Neil moved it to mainspace without deletion review, depspite presumably knowing that dleeiton had been endorse drecently
• Neil undeleted it after another admin (me) speedied it as G4, rather than taking it to DRV
• Neil then removed the deletion tag because the debate had been "closed" - but it was closed as delete, so he unilaterally reverted closure in favour of deletion of an article he himself had created, and which he surely knew to have been the suject of multiple deletions.
• Neil did not at any time that I can see declare that he was the creator when doing the above

That does not look too good, does it? Guy (Help!) 12:13, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• 11:38, May 4, 2007 Neil (Talk | contribs | block) restored "Matrixism" (39 revisions restored: Utterly invalid application of CSD)
• 21:15, May 3, 2007 JzG (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (CSD G4: Recreation of Deleted Material, re-created very shortly after removal of WP:SALT. No.) (Restore)
• 21:27, April 17, 2007 Cbrown1023 (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Matrixism" (content was: '{{deletedpage||July 2006}}

  ::::"On the other hand a number of scholars believe that the influence of Tamil and Dravidian had a far greater influence, including grammar, syntax, poetics and meter on Sanskrit and other Indo-Aryan languages.Sjoberg, Andrée F. The impact of the Dravidian on Indo-Aryan: an overview. In Edgar C. Polomé and Werner Winter (eds)., Reconstructing Languages and Cultures, pp. 507-529. (Trends in Linguistics, Studies and Monographs 58) Berlin and New York:Mouton de GruyterHart (1975), p.206-208, 278-280."

  ::: He then proceeds to remove following cited fact [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tamil_language&diff=127468115&oldid=127467199 here].

  ::::''"Unlike in Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh where early inscriptions were written in Sanskrit, the early inscriptions in Tamil nadu used Tamil exclusively.{{cite book

  |last=Caldwell

  |first= Robert

  |title= A comparative grammar of the Dravidian or South-Indian family of languages

  |origyear=

  |year=1875

  |publisher= Trübner & co

  |location=

  |pages = 88

  |url =

  |quote = In Karnataka and Teligana, every inscription of an early date and majority even of modern day inscriptions are written in Sanskrit...In the Tamil country, on the contrary, all the inscriptions belonging to an early period are written in Tamil}}"''

  ::This is not the first time where he removes cited facts from Tamil nadu related articles. Previous cited content removal with offending edit summaries are [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bharatanatyam&diff=119773211&oldid=119747191 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bharatanatyam&diff=112966406&oldid=112927463 here], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carnatic_music&diff=126694200&oldid=126557201 here], & [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Carnatic_music&diff=126353235&oldid=126352847 here]. It is particularly notable that in one edit summary he indulges in OR & attacks the Tamil epic's content as disco-dance (a slang in south India for cabaret [http://www.hindu.com/2006/11/07/stories/2006110714470300.htm]).

  ::Possible defamation of eminent Tamil researcher & other Tamil organizations (sangams) [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATamil_language&diff=127511612&oldid=127501616 here] where he compares their work to 'squat'.

  :::"...Hart's campaign and sundry Tamil sangams' 'campaigns' would have counted for squat minus Karunanidhi's arm twisting of the Congress govt.,.)..."

  ::Then he indulges in personal attack on all other editors in the talk page of Tamil language article without proof [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ATamil_language&diff=127555415&oldid=127554831 here] where he accuses other editors of trolling.

  :::"If only you guys would have spent less time trolling on Halmidi and Rashtrakuta FAC and Kannada and Bharatanatya and Carnatic music, we could have had more time to thrash out several issues on this page."

  ::I warned about this personal attack [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASarvagnya&diff=127677048&oldid=127550233 here].

  ::Can he provide evidence for the claim that he was exonerated from meat-puppetry charges? The [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gnanapiti&oldid=106671370#Unblocked restrictions] on him were [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABlnguyen&diff=111579664&oldid=111548841 removed] on account of subsequent contributions by him & his [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ARequests_for_checkuser%2FCase%2FSarvagnya&diff=85077436&oldid=82981280 confirmed] meat puppet. Not that his confirmed case was changed to unconfirmed.

  ::He accuses admin Sundar of bullying him (again without any proof). Please make a stop to all these. Thanks. Praveen 14:37, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

  :::I'm being accused of being a stooge to Sundar. Brushing aside this personal attack, which I have to come to expect from Sarvagna, let me point out a few recent examples of unreasonable behaviour from Sarvagna.

  :::#He tagged dozens of Tamil History related articles with {{citation neede}} tags with the edit summary inline citations (book, year, author, p#, publisher, quote, isbn) for all the cruft here please. [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gangaikonda_Cholapuram&curid=1573866&diff=127846050&oldid=120788377] While asking for inline citation is ok, does he have to insult the integrity of the author?

  :::#He tagged dozens of Tamil literature related articles as OR [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Agattiyam&diff=prev&oldid=127892425], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ainkurnuru&diff=prev&oldid=127892265], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Purananuru&diff=prev&oldid=127892165], etc with no justification or discussion.

  :::#He maliciously tagged images with explicit license information: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AThanjavur_temple.jpg&diff=127899688&oldid=81895314], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Gingee.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=127893154], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Nallur.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=127906090], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:EttayapuramPalaceRemains.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=127906206], etc, almost all pertaining to the soon to be featured History of Tamil Nadu or Tamil people articles. He also accused the uploader of one image of 'pompously' releasing it as {{PD}} [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image_talk:Serfoji_amarasimha_Tanjore.jpg&diff=prev&oldid=127372975].This is the image chosen to appear on the Main page on the 5th.

  :::These are just a few example of the disruptive editing habits of this user. I request stern admin action to address this. 'Pompous' Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 20:11, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

  :::To emphasise my point, let me give you an excerpt from a post from Arvind [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2&diff=127995814&oldid=127328252]:

  {{cquote|This isn't an easy problem to deal with. It's hard to fault individual acts by these editors. They use "cite" tags and "NPOV" tags and tags you've probably never heard of strictly in accordance with Wikipedia regulations, but in a manner that makes normal editing next to impossible (for instance, a cite tag after nearly every sentence). They dig up dozens of references and insist on their inclusion - even though the scholarship they represent has long since been superseded or has been seriously questioned - and one then has to waste endless hours trying to demonstrate why those sources aren't credible. After a while of dealing with this, one just gets burned out, gives up on those articles, or walks away from Wikipedia altogether.}} - 'Pompous' Parthi ^{talk/contribs} 22:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

  :Sarvagnya has a rather blunt way of putting things, however characterizing his editing pattern as a disruption spree seems like a large stretch. As for WP:BLP, he called the work squat, not Professor Hart (who is a respected expert on the Tamil language. Seeing the larger picture, this ANI post has been transformed into another of ethnolinguistic conflicts of India being played on the web. It centers in this context over the Kaveri water dispute and other issued dividing Kannada people (sarvagnya, KNM, and others) and Tamil people (parthi, praveen, etc.)Bakaman 01:14, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  ::It's nothing to do with Kaveri, in this case. It's just some sort of "parity complex" that a few people hold. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  :::So how much 'bluntness' you suggest the community to tolerate? Calling other editors trolls is according you is just 'blunt' way of putting things. Thanks for the insight.

  ::: If putting fact tags for every sentence (in some cases for every word) in an article [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tamil_people&diff=127913114&oldid=126887686], adding frivolous no-license tags for images with clear license information, calling all other editors as trolls, adding offending edit summaries are not being disruptive, what is being disruptive?

  ::: BTW: its nice to see Sarvagnya [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3ARequests_for_arbitration%2FHkelkar_2&diff=128047737&oldid=127996159 supporting your cause] in Arbcom. Praveen 15:32, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  ::::I initiated the checkuser on sarvagnya, I helped thwart an RFC he filed back when Marathi vs. Kannada was the vogue ethnic conflict. I also had a huge disagreemtn with him over anton Balasingham. Sundar in fact, was asked by sarvagnya to attack me in hkelkar's arbcom, which he declined. Back to the subject of "friendliness", you seem to misunderstand [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ACategories_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2007_March_9&diff=114963425&oldid=114963277 POV pushing], and other negative terms, so you using them does not really have the effect of a good editor like sundar using them, though he is incorrect in this case.Bakaman 23:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  First things first. Saying that I defamed Hart or anybody else is nonsense. Neither have I defamed Hart nor have I resisted them using him in their citations. When I said that Hart's campaign for Tamil's classical status would have counted for squat in the absence of Karunanidhi's arm twisting of the Congress government, I was speaking with a [http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040928/asp/frontpage/story_3813391.asp citation] in hand. I was not just ORing.

  This is all that I'll respond to right now as I dont know if anybody here is even interested/listening nor do I see any point in discussing content issues pertaining to Tamil language on ANI. But if any admin wants me to answer any of those baseless allegations they've thrown at me, point out the accusation and I will respond to it. Otherwise, I am done here. And before I sign off, I am still waiting to hear how tagging an article asking for citations is disruption. Or tagging(asking for source info) pictures that have been.. yes.. 'pompously' released on GFDL when there is zero evidence regarding the source or the original copyright holder. Sarvagnya 02:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  ::When I said that Hart's campaign for Tamil's classical status would have counted for squat in the absence of Karunanidhi's arm twisting of the Congress government, I was speaking with a [http://www.telegraphindia.com/1040928/asp/frontpage/story_3813391.asp citation] in hand.

  :Could you please show us the portion where Hart's (and other Tamil organizations') work is compared to squat from your citation? Thanks. Praveen 15:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  Praveen and Parthi have presented enough evidence here. Moreover, he has himself shown a sample of his attitude with his above comments. I leave it to the admins. Back to content issues, with his relentless and systematic pushing across-the-board, I doubt if we can work out consensus without third party mediation at the least or even arbitration. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 13:25, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  Praveen and Parthi have not presented any evidence whatsoever. All their so called 'evidence' is full of red herrings. For example, Praveen says I've removed cited content somewhere. If people take a closer look at the history, you will find that it would have been one in a series of consecutive edits by me(with no intervening edits from any other editors) and that I would have brought back the "cited content" myself in mostly the very next edit(the one about tamil inscriptions being in tamil and Kannada& Telugu being in Sanskrit, for example). If I have not brought back any content that I removed, then it means that the content has been disputed. In such cases, look at the talk page and you will find that I would have explained myself at length. In such cases you will also see that, instead of addressing my concerns, these people have tag team reverted me. And when they've reverted, they have infact removed "cited content" that I might have added(and in those cases, you'd hardly see any semblance of them discussing it on talk pages). Just because some content is cited, doesnt mean it is NPOV, undisputed or even relevant to the article.

  :The one example you gave is because you reverted my revert to earlier version. Could you give diffs for other incidents where you 'brought' back cited information? You claim you only removed 'disputed' cited information. Thats the point. The cited information was removed unilaterally. Praveen 16:10, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  I dont know who Sundar is referring to when he says that he's quit because of me. I presume he's talking of User:Vadakkan. If anybody takes a look at Vadakkan's user page and talk pages, you will see that he has been away since many months now. His going away has nothing to do with me and as his own edits(the few intermittent ones) will testify, he's been away because he's been busy in "Real life". Even as recently as a couple of weeks ago, he claimed that he was in Europe and busy in real life and would only be able to participate intermittently. How very convenient of Sundar to now claim that I drove him away!!

  Parthi says I've tagged dozens of articles as OR. If he be asked to show the evidence, people here will come to know of the gross exaggeration in his statement. Exaggeration which is no doubt filled with malice(to try and sway emotions here and may be get me blocked). And even the ones I tagged for OR(and didnt resist once I was reverted), people can see how badly they're written. Zero inline referencing in fairly long articles but conveniently marked as "stubs".

  As for the pictures he claims I've maliciously tagged, since when is asking for proper information of source for a pic that has been released on GFDL malicous?! Its not upto editors here to simply download pictures they like from somewhere and release it on wikipedia under GFDL. In some cases, there are pics where they've scanned it from some calendar and released it on a free license claiming that the copyright holder had "irrevocably released" all rights. When the fact of the matter is, they dont even know who the original copyright holder is!! In another case, a pic(on en.wiki) has a link to a "description page" on commons which directs you to fr.wiki and the fr.wiki sends you back to commons! And there is no source info. And it has been released under GFDL!

  As for the mischevous insinuations about my sockpuppetry, [[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Blnguyen&diff=prev&oldid=120192522#Mangalore.2C_User:Sarvagnya.2C_User:Gnanapiti] here] is the evidence disproving that. It has testimonies and acknowledgements exonerating me of any such wrongdoing. The acknowledgements are not just by multiple admins who were involved, but also by the user who initiated the RFCU in the first place. can somebody please make me a banner out of this link and drop it off on my talk page. I'll be grateful to you. Thanks in advance.

  As a humble and constructive editor who is not an admin, I submit that this is belligerence and not so veiled intimidation by an admin who is directly involved in a content issue with me. He is trying to browbeat me from even attempting to edit his favourite article while at the same time trying to present himself as some wronged martyr. Talking about things like an Arbcom(!!) to decide this content issue is in my view an attempt to intimidate and browbeat me into submission.

  Calling my edits disruption is just slander. If people investigate any content issue I may have been involved in, they will notice that I always take part extensively in discussing the issues on the talk page. Even in this case(Tamil language) you will see that I have been discussing issues on the talk page for nearly a month(and intermittently in related articles since the past one year). I could have tagged the article as disputed long back. I didnt because I assumed good faith. But when their "tag team belligerence" became too much to handle, I was forced to tag it as they had demonstrated no inclination to address the issues. Also btw, if I had a sockpuppet or a meatpuppet, I'd like to know where he/she was when these people were tag team reverting me.

  If anybody is concerned about any of my "content issue" edits that these people have mischevously presented as "disruption"(!!), I invite you to the concerned article talk page and I will be glad to explain it to you. But I absolutely see no point in discussing content issues pertaining to some article, here on ANI. Sarvagnya 18:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  :In short, to summarize the arguments above and a good view on it. This is a content dispute', nothing else. Sarvagnya has worked well among a wide spectra of nationalities and ethnicities including Tamil users (of which I am one). He has had a real hardknock conflict with a grand total (I have not seen sundar lately on wikipedia) of two Tamil users: Parthi and Praveen pillay.Bakaman 23:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

  :That is just your assertion.There is enough evidence presented above where he calls other users as trolls, removes cited information unilaterally, tags every sentence/words in an article. Praveen 16:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

  Nice! Two former enemies lawyering for each other!--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:02, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

  Accusing established and regular editors of disruption and nitpicking just because you're having a content issue with them

  sarvagnya should stop assuming that he is an established editor,on contrary he is an established troll. He is always behind other language articles be it Hindi, Marathi or Tamil. His extraordinary love for his language is to be blamed. I request a strict action against him.

  He is responsible for the exits of Mahawiki, Arya and sarvabhaum and fancy ''sockpuppet' allegations which led an admin to block whole range of IP.

Image:Rock crusher gears.jpg (barks/growls) 17:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)]]

Before I even get into this one, I confess that I was annoying in this particular MfD debate, as I admit at User talk:SMcCandlish#Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Fromowner, and as amended at this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FWikipedia%3AFromowner&diff=128182840&oldid=128124703 diff] with a broad self-revert. Despite no further issues being expressed by anyone, {{Admin|Freakofnurture}} closed the debate while still ongoing, supporting a "consensus" of keep and adding an "admonishment" to me for having proposed the MfD in the first place. I have four issues with this (and if this is really a WP:DRV issue, then say so and I'll take it there): 1) A party to the debate shouldn't close it; it's a conflict of interest. 2) An admonishment is called for in a case of bad faith, but not simply because one disagrees with the XfD nomination or doesn't like the nomintator's debate style. 3) More importantly, the "keep" decision strikes me as faulty; the only conclusion to draw (as much as I would like it to be otherwise) appears to be "no consensus" - a number of ediors raised substantive issues, in detail, that were never addressed by the more numerous but largely "me to" keep commentors, few of whom seemed to understand that the actual gist of the MfD was userspacing (or even another form of compromise) not deletion. And lastly, 4): Of over 30 commentors, only two suggested in any terms that I be admonished for bringing this XfD, and one made it very clear he was kidding, so a finding of consensus that I be so admonished is clearly nonsensical. That said, the fact that one seriously meant it and I got user talk comments about the matter was enough for me to re-examine my participation and change it, to the point of self-reverting much of my own text. I'm not sure what better sign of good-faith could be given. Still, the almost immediate [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FWikipedia%3AFromowner&diff=128195974&oldid=128195351 "result of the debate was: keep and admonish nominator"]

followed by the strangest message I've ever gotten yet on WP, and I've been around since late '05. I don't think I've ever seen an [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASMcCandlish&diff=128197189&oldid=128139683 Anti-Barnstar] before. From an admin closing a debate he was party to.

This doesn't seem to be an appropriate way to close an XfD, even if you are irritated with the nominator. And I don't like seeing this sitting around in the archives "admonishing" me for having dared to challege something that I thought was (and still think is) ultimately detrimental to the project. That view may be debatable, but it is neither insane nor malicious.

PS: The personal attack message aside, I am being reverted by the same personage at the MfD page in my effort to resolve an edit conflict and add my final comment to that page, which has no effect whatsoever on the closure decision, but simply provides my response to a direct challenge for one. Judging from the edit summaries, he reversions are based on assumptions of bad faith on my part that are not justified (i.e. 'lol "edit conflict". I don't believe you, reverting.')

— SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:Apart from any other issue, what you believe would have been the proper result of "No consensus" would still default to "keep," so precisely how the closer characterized the close is not critical. The "admonition" is one user's view; it's not a formal ruling as part of the XfD process, so I don't think you need to worry overmuch about that. I suppose you can seek a deletion review if you want to, but my recommendation would be to drop the matter and see how this new idea works. If it has as negative an impact as you seem to anticipate, the matter can be revisited in due course. Newyorkbrad 15:46, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::To interject: Yes, I know that it would be kept as a result of "no consensus", and I have no intentions to going to DRv about it; there is certainly no consensus to detele or userspace the stuff in question. But there was no "keep" consensus either, and a closure of "keep" gives the impression that ther was one, which is misleading. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

::Newyorkbrad, closing admins need to understand that what they say in a closing has implications, and the "ruling" to admonish the nominator is clearly listed at the top of the delete debate for everyone to see. There is no question that it may be interpreted as an "official" part of the closing and should not have been included. The closer should keep his purely personal opinions, especially when of a negative nature, to private conversation with the nominator. Lexicon (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::I certainly agree that it would have been better not to include that comment at that location. Perhaps the closing administrator, on seeing this thread, will refactor the wording. Newyorkbrad 15:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::(EC) Regardless of anything else, the "middle-finger barnstar" [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASMcCandlish&diff=128197189&oldid=128139683] is a bit much. That really doesn't seem appropriate, whether or not the admonition is. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:01, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::::Whoops, I missed that, having only looked at the MfD discussion itself rather than the talk. I have to agree that that was grossly inappropriate coming from any editor and especially from an administrator. I would urge, though, that the closing admin be given notice of this thread (if he hasn't already) before this discussion continues. Newyorkbrad 16:10, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::Done. Lexicon (talk) 16:17, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::Grossly inappropriate, but funny nonetheless. I can't fault him too much for his anti-barnstar. --Cyde Weys 16:52, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::One of the funniest (also grossest) things I've ever seen on WP was an image that Freak used to accompany his answer to one of my questions during his ArbCom candidacy. (He subsequently changed his answer, so anyone curious has to check the page history there.) Sorry, but this image was not in that league and seems to have offended a contributor. Newyorkbrad 18:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::As an F-U Barnstar giver, ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=126449704], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Kingboyk&diff=prev&oldid=126451426]), I must say his use of it is fine. --Ali'i 18:31, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::An "F-U Barnstar" in the way Freakofnurture used it is no different from saying "fuck you" outright, and is therefore undoubtedly a significant violation of WP:CIV. How could it possibly be defended as "fine"? Lexicon (talk) 19:22, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::::IMO the barnstar was given in good humor, if it were me I wouldn't consider it a personal attack. Roll with the punches and have fun. hombre de haha 19:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::::Just for the record, I'm not dreadfully offended, crying my eyes out in the corner or anything. I'm an old Usenet hand with a pretty thick skin, and the image actually is pretty funny. What concerns me about this is more precedential. If it becomes "okay" or "fine" to do this in Wikipedia, then where does it stop? How many editors will we lose who make great contributions, tick someone off once in a while, and don't have thick skins? Will the pictures start becoming disgusting? Threatening? That's where I'm going with this half of the issue (the other half being that I think the MfD is simply wrong as "Keep" instead of "No consensus", shouldn't be attacking the nominator - again a bad precedent - and shouldn't be closed by a party to the debate. I care about that stuff more than the "anti-barnstar".) — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::I'm relieved to hear that you personally were not offended by this. Such an image, as used, is a personal attack, and in general I would not hesitate to deliver a 24 hour block if an editor did not remove such an image and apologize (although I am not threatening a block against Freakofnurture, as this appears to be an isolated incident). This is an encyclopedia, not a cage match. We aren't here to see who can withstand more torment and abuse, whether overt or passive-aggressive. I am concerned by Freakofnurture's action, but this can be a lapse of judgment. I am much more concerned by the attitude of those who think this isn't a big deal. If Wikipedia is supposed to be a playground only for people who don't mind being cursed at and insulted, then there's really no possibility of a viable community or a quality product as the result. If we're going to scrap CIVIL and NPA, there's really no incentive for most people to stick around. ··coelacan 07:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::. —freak([{{fullurl:user talk:freakofnurture|action=edit§ion=new}} talk]) 18:30, May. 5, 2007 (UTC)

::::::::::::Where? The anti-barnstar is still present on my talk page (I really don't care), and the MfD closure still bears the "admonish nominator" in the closing statement (I really do care). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::::"" was just Freakofnurture's response to me. It's another clever retort. I'll go refactor the MfD. ··coelacan 08:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

:::::::::::Sounds like a non-apology. You could use the good ol' stand-by "I'm sorry". But whatever. Lexicon (talk) 21:03, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Over on User talk:HeadMouse, we've been having a discussion about the correct redirect for the page. I've tried to keep it calm, but this user appears to be trying to escalate the discussion. There was a reference to (who I can only assume is me) a "monkey" on their back in the edit summary for Mark VI monorail, and there also appears to be the thinking that this user owns any page they create. The original discussion was about the redirect of Monorail System to Monorail rather than Walt Disney World Monorail System.

I'm going to take a step back because I can feel my temper coming up a little, but would appreciate any input offered - even if it's that I'm felt to be in the wrong. Ellbeecee 14:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:Woah, this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_VI_monorail&diff=128431202&oldid=128430409] edit summary looks like a civility issue. --Kralizec! (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

:While I am not an administrator, I did step in as an impartial outside observer and point {{User|HeadMouse}} toward the relevant sections of WP:3RR, WP:CIVIL, and WP:OWN. I also fixed [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mark_VI_monorail&diff=128467430&oldid=128456317] the HTML monstrosity that was the editor's first article and answered [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMark_VI_monorail&diff=128446989&oldid=128419824] his/her questions on WP:OR, WP:VERIFY, and WP:CITE. --Kralizec! (talk) 19:07, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

::Thanks - I was worried that if I let my temper get in the way, I was going to escalate things, and I didn't want that, so I appreciate you stepping in and helping out. Ellbeecee 20:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Kralizec! for stepping in and helping with this - the situation has calmed and appears to be resolved. Ellbeecee 16:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User reverts an article written by cult expert Larry Pile from listed articles based on his dislike for the website the article is posted at and not the author's authority. It should be pointed out that this is possibly a single purpose account for the purpose of pushing PoV in favor of Great Commission Association. Diffs:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Pile&diff=128511863&oldid=128499285]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Pile&diff=128447633&oldid=128446904]

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Larry_Pile&diff=128421173&oldid=128392258]

User contributions:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gatorgalen]

Thanks for your attention to the matter. ClaudeReigns 23:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Also asking for notice to be paid to user's conflict of interest as a fundraiser, missionary, and staff member for Great Commission Ministries. ClaudeReigns 02:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I'll defend myself. The 3RR claim doesn't belong here; it doesn't really matter, because it's frivolous anyway. For some reason ClaudeReigns has become unwilling to discuss things on talk pages. As for SPA; I only have a certain amount of time. If it weren't for the POV editing by ClaudeReigns, I would be editing other things. As it is, I spend all of my available editing time tryin to make the GCA article NPOV. It's a very tiring task. For whoever looks at this, I would also like to ask you to review ClaudeReigns's edit history as well; though he apparently has much more time than me, he is focused on GCA issues as well, generally as I said in a POV manner. I have been upfront from the very beginning about my involvement with the topic and have tried my bestto remain objective. ClaudeReigns is an ex-GCA member who hates GCA; he is not upfront with this. I would also ask the administrator to investigate possible long-term sockpuppetery between ClaudeReigns and User:Xanthius. They apparently know each other in real life but refuse to discuss their involvement in opposing GCA. They do frequently back up each other's edits. Thanks for your time, I apologize that this frivolous report. Gatorgalen 03:12, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

These are interesting points which Gatorgalen makes, but I can make it quite clear why Gatorgalen's own actions and discussion necessitated my involvement in Wikipedia. He himself mentioned my real name in Wikipedia talk pages. These remarks were since deleted by administrators. Since coming here under an explicit understanding with User:Xanthius that I don't have to agree with him, I find that I enjoy it, and have been attempting to branch out from the core subject of Great Commission Association by developing second and third degree articles as well as get involved in other interests here. I do not always agree with User:Xanthius though it is true that he is a good friend and we often do see eye to eye on the subject of Great Commission Association. We also do share an I.P. address for half of the day. However, since both of our real names have been mentioned by GCA staff members and deleted by Wikipedia administrators, it is only fitting, in my opinion, that we both be allowed to edit. I can also clearly establish how my anonymity has been made necessary by present and former staff members within Great Commission Association. I think you'll find that nearly every addition I make to Wikipedia includes an immediately verifiable source and that until recently I have striven to reach out to current members of Great Commission Association to make them feel especially welcome. All of this stands in direct contrast to User:Gatorgalen's record as editor--and even User:Xanthius'. The administration is welcome to seek any information they would like about my involvement in the topic or relationship to User:Xanthius--my anonymity is only to prevent misuse of personal information by said current and former staff members. I know the administrators will make a good decision in this matter as they have done in the past. ClaudeReigns 09:32, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick note - Claude's memory appears to be fuzzy, it was someone else who outed his real identity, I have no idea who he really is. Just a note. Gatorgalen 12:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Gon4z continues to revert any updates to the following articles: Military of Albania, Albanian Land Forces Command, Albanian Air Force, Albanian Naval Defense Forces. Also his information is outdated, unsourced and he has done about 15 reverts in the three last days. He doesn't read any discussion post: here, here, here, here and here, but resorts to threats, insults and user page vandalism here. Some of his remarks to other editors:

: on my (noclador) talkpage:

::* "I will take further actions" Gon4z 23:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

::* "you did not citise anything its all crap you stright out deleted everything just because you are an anti Albanian dont mean you ahve to go around spreading propaganda you so called contribution of deeting articles are not wealcomed" Gon4z 19:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

::* "ok I suggest that unless you have a real contribution you should not edit the article.... tahnk you" (unsigned)

::* "you are delusional" Gon4z 15:46, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

: on user MrMacMan talkpage:

::* "I don’t know if you hate Albanians or what but pls do not edit that article unless you have sources from 2006 or 2007 I have been trying to work hard and fix that article I don’t need some one coming to ruin and spread propaganda just because they have a problem with Albanians" Gon4z 20:39, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

::* "Las time I checked it was you vandalising the Albanian military articles using racist anti albanian websites as source i have cetise my figures." Gon4z 02:59, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

::* "I not sure what you are considering an attack, I ahve not attacked you once I have just simplly replied to your comment, it is not nice to play the victim take it like a man you sources are not correct and are ruining the article." (unsigned, but once gain by Gon4z)

: in the edit summary of Albanian Land Forces Command

::* "I am clearly the only one here providing proof from my figures unlike you two whore are spreading bate propaganda"

My information is based on the following sources:

• The World Defence Almanac 2006, page 95, Mönch Publishing Group; Bonn 2006;
• The IISS Military Balance Report 2006- 2007, page 80, Routledge Publishing; 106 edition (May 24, 2006)
• SIPRI Yearbook 2006, Oxford University Press, June 2006.
• [http://www.csees.net/?page=country_section&country_id=1&sec=8 Centre for SouthEast European Studies: Albania’s Armed Forces- 2002 Data]]
• [http://www.bicc.de/ruestungsexport/database.php?action=land_detail&auswahlland=Albania&topic=G#milex Bonn International Center for Conversion]
• [http://www.mod.gov.al/eng/forcat/ft.asp Albanian Land Forces Command]

All this is ignored by Gon4z, who bases his information on the same homepage he criticizes as "Greek anti Albanian website". Also the same kind of edit war and personal attacks is waged by him at the article Serbian Air Force, where he keeps reducing the number of active Serbian airplanes, substitutes the correct grammatical tense with the present tense, vandalises the syntax and tells a fellow editor: "this is the last time i will warn you get a profile because if not then your IP address will be suspended from editing any article" Gon4z 23:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, according to user MacGyverMagic Gon4z is a “editor who has a history of vandalism, POV and unsourced edits.” comment can be found here.

As Gon4z in continuous violation and a repeat offender of the following Wikipedia rules:

• Unsourced material
• Vandalism
• Three revert rule
• Edit warring and
• Personal attacks against at least three fellow editors

I strongly urge to block him for an extended period of time. noclador 03:28, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

:I can't say that I am not involved in this issue with this user and today I reported the editor to the Admin 3RR board Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Gon4z_reported_by_User:MrMacMan_.28Result:24h.29 which resulted in his/her 24 hour block. I have really tried to get this editor to explain his reverts and his rational for using his older sources and his actual, apparent lack of sources. I think that this user has disregarded the newer and better sources put before him and has completely ignored all information not coming from his own older sources. When bringing up this newer information he ignores us and makes accusations that I'm biased or using other information that he says is biased (which I wasn't using anyway). I don't understand why he insists without explaining his reasoning so I have to conclude he is not acting in good faith. If this user was explaining his rational for reverting the changes this would be a content dispute but his disregard on this dispute and instead he's been very unresponsive to any comments that have been made to him. I would also say that his blocking period be expanded. MrMacMan ^Talk 07:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User B7rent has persistently uploaded images that do not belong on Wikipedia for Copyright reasons. The user has also replaced free images from Flickr with images from the Associated Press or other sources. The user has ignored three warnings, and has continued the aforementioned actions, including after being given a final warnings. See [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:B7rent User Talk]] and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/B7rent User Contributions --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  03:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

:Are you reporting a new issue or an old one? According to the upload logs for {{User3|B7rent}}, this editor has not uploaded any images since April, and even those were marked as {{tl|untagged}} by OrphanBot and/or deleted already. --Kralizec! (talk) 04:11, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

::Please look at the User's contributions. He keeps on adding images that have been tagged as copy violations despite warnings. For example, the user uploaded Image:CHester Bennington 2007.jpg on 4/27. It was tagged for deletion because of its false licensing and lack of source. After removing the image, and asking the user to stop adding it, the user has persisted on adding to to an article. He has even attemepted re-adding the image today. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  13:56, 6 May 2007 (UTC)