Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Return of longtime disruptive user under another new sockpuppet user account (Filmcracker) registered for the purpose of Wikistalking

Filmcracker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Techwriter2B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Sift&Winnow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
64.252.0.159 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
75.2.209.226 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Filmcracker, who is a sockpuppet for Techwriter2B, Sift&Winnow, 64.252.0.159, 75.2.209.226, and many other anonymous IPs, has returned for the purpose of Wikistalking and other activities (See [1], [2], and [3]) for which he/she has been the subject of complaints from many editors over a period of more then three years. (While this user has been the subject of many complaints, I am only aware of one blocking—as User:Techwriter2B—as he/she generally edits under a great many anonymous IPs which he/she changes frequently to avoid being blocked or otherwise disciplined. On occasions like this one when he/she actually registers a sock account, he/she does so in order to disguise him/herself by hiding his/her location as being in SW Connecticut where all the anonymous IPs he/she uses resolve to.) A full AN/I discussion of the well documented history of repeated patterns of these attempts to hide his/her identity as well as engaging in disruptive editing, sockpuppetry, and overt Wikistalking by the this editor, as well as an accounting of many of the anonymous IPs he/she has used for this purpose, can be found here. Centpacrr (talk) 22:19, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

This is clearly the same disruptive editor who was given an indefinite block (still in effect) under his/her Techwriter2B sock (link to AN/I thread from June:[4]). He’s continuing to wikihound Centpacrr (the editor that he’s most persistently stalked). He’s evading the block, using both a newly registered username (Filmcracker) and IP 64.252.0.159. The IP 64.252.0.159 maps to the exact same area of CT [5] as his other IPs (as documented in the prior AN/I thread)and he used this same IP previously while disruptively editing Stephen Ambrose. He also recently posted a false claim that the IP belongs to an organization [6], to try to keep administrators from blocking it (or to at most use a soft rather than hard block). This disruptive editor has a long history of such “clever” maneuvers (e.g. forging an admin signature to try to terminate a prior sockpuppet investigation, etc.). Expeditious blocking of Filmcracker and IP 64.252.0.159 appears to be needed. Eurytemora (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Suggest a full investigation leading to a community ban - As I stated at the last time this character was brought up at ANI, my encounters with him have been unpleasant in the extreme. After I banned him (twice!) from my talk page he started stalking my edits. This is the worst kind of moral cancer Wikipedia can have - a disruptive multiple sock who violates every rule in the book and makes a mockery of attempts to stop him. Will use any trick or lie to get what he wants. Must be stopped for good asap using every power at community command. Jusdafax 08:02, 14 July 2010 (UTC) UPDATE: Have placed an ANI-notice on the two talk pages involved. Jusdafax 08:54, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

*NOTE: Not unexpectedly, "Filmcracker" has summarily deleted the AN/I notice from his/her talk page with the comment "No clue what this is all about", an action which is another hallmark practice of this user. Centpacrr (talk) 20:51, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support Ban- We've banned for less... --Rockstonetalk to me! 13:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Some examples of prior administrative involvement relating to disruptive editing by this user are: [7], [8], [9] The user has received multiple prior warnings including Wikiquette Alert.[10]. Some (but certainly not all) of the IP accounts he/she has been identified as using to engage in disruptive tactics on Wikipedia are: [11], [12], [13], various IPs in range 64.252.*.* ([14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]), various IPs in range 12.76.*.*([21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]). Also in a period of just three weeks in May, this user (as anonymous IP 75.2.209.226) also started and perpetuated 16 separate threads in various Wikipedia boards and talk pages (See [32],[33], [34],[35], [36],[37], [38],[39], [40],[41],[42], [43],[44], [45], [46],[47]) in a pattern of Wikistalking of both me and a number of other editors who had deigned to disagree in any way with his/her personal views of how Wikipedia should be edited. His/her campaign to that end consisted mostly of posting dozens of universally condescending and demeaning comments apparently designed to intimidate, questioning the motives of other editors, disruptive editing (including making blanket reversions of other editors' contributions either without edit summaries or with demeaning ones), making blanket accusations of "vandalism" and "spamming", and demonstrating an unremitting lack of any assumption of good faith on the part of any other editor while he/she repeatedly demands in edit summaries and postings that all of those whom he/she was criticizing blindly owed him/her an unconditional assumption of good faith on his/her part. See here for the latest example of his/her "style" which I found posted on my talk page this morning. Centpacrr (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Support ban. Generally I’m a bleeding heart, but given this editor’s history of behavior and attitude of contempt (toward other editors and toward process), I think the chances of successful "reform" are essentially nill.

Also, will confirm Centpacrr’s observation that this user has a history of blanking his talk pages (to remove comments/notices posted by others - this has been commented on by other editors in the past). Eurytemora (talk) 00:02, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thought I should add – I have no personal history of conflict with this user (have always treated him with kid gloves, not wanting to become one of his targets myself, and have always tried to be fair/evenhanded/supportive), but recognizing the severity of the problem, I brought the issue to AN/I in June (which resulted in the indefinite block). Eurytemora (talk) 02:03, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Support ban This user has sucked hundreds of hours out of other editors with his contempt for the rules. That time could have gone to improving the encyclopedia. ɳorɑfʈ ^Talk! 02:49, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Sockpuppet editor "Filmcracker" is continuing to make disruptive edits against consensus to The High and the Mighty (film) (see [48], [49]). While his/her edits may look "reasonable" on their face, the purpose for which those were made certainly are not, and this is another well documented pattern of his/her past behavior on Wikipedia over more than three years. He/she will make what appear to be a few good faith edits to convince another editor whose support he/she is soliciting that he/she is only interested in making positive contributions. This, however, is actually a smokescreen he/she has used many times before. By feigning good faith and then seeking the "advice and support" of otherwise uninvolved editors (See [50]) for his/her "reasonable" edits, he/she is really just attempting to "use" those editors to then advance his/her real agendas of misconduct, disruptive editing, Wikistalking, etc. This sockpuppet needs to be banned immediately. Centpacrr (talk) 15:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how long it'll take before someone DOES but I agree. No one should be blocked for violating 3RR trying to stop him... --Rockstonetalk to me! 17:07, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

PS: I'm following his edits and reverting them- I'm currently treating him like any other sock puppet- he's not welcome. If you disagree, let me know on my talk page. Thanks! --Rockstonetalk to me! 17:13, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm in support of a ban as well. The evidence speaks for itself here; the user in question has been given ample opportunities to clean up, but hasn't shown any desire to do so. – ClockworkSoul 19:27, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban; sadly, this appears to be the only solution left to deal with the constant conduct issues with this user, and it's time to deny recognition. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban, per above. This is the only route now. —fetch·comms 22:48, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for an administrative decision & action

• Sockpuppet user Filmcracker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to make edits to other film articles. While these edits may also appear to be innocuous on their face, their purpose is not. These edits are instead being made by the sockpuppet to establish an "edit history" to make the user appear to be a good faith editor. This is another well known pattern that this user engages in when he/she becomes the subject of AN/I complaint or other disciplinary attention. Please do not be fooled by this practice. This sockpuppet is already the subject of an indefinite blocking as Techwriter2B (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and has an extensive record of disruptive editing, sockpuppetry, wikistalking, and other misconduct over a period of at least three years mostly using dozens of anonymous IP accounts.

• No matter how his/her edit history is being developed to appear "reasonable" as "Filmcracker", his/her documented history of disruptive editing and wantonly violating WP policies and guidelines has long ago demonstrated that nothing this user ever does on Wikipedia under any account (registered or anonymous) should ever be assumed to having been done in good faith or to benefit the Wikipedia Project.
• This thread has now been open for four days with eight editors commenting all of whom support a community ban of this sockpuppet user. Please advise what (if any) further evidence or comments are needed to obtain the necessary administrative action. Centpacrr (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Centpacrr, time for a decision - the evidence has been presented, the jury has decided unanimously and an admin needs to make the ruling here. The subject refuses to comment despite notification, which should be the final nail. Jusdafax 19:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• NOTE: "Filmcracker's" only response to not one, but two AN/I notices placed by both myself (on July 13) and Jusdafax (on July 14) on his/her Talk page was to promptly and summarily delete both (See [51] and [52]) notices with no edit summary on the first (but instead posting a message on my Talk page calling me a "crank", "kook" and "crackpot"), and an edit summary of "No clue what this is all about" when deleting the second notice posted by Justdafax. (The blanking of talk pages is another hallmark practice of this user.) However he/she has posted nothing whatsoever here in response to the comments of other editors in this discussion, or in defense of his/her actions. Centpacrr (talk) 20:20, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• NOTICE- I have currently undid his currents edits with the summary "Undid edit by sockpuppet" IF you think I am misguided let me know- but I see no reason to let his distruptive edits stay. --Rockstonetalk to me! 02:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for this community service Rockstone. Eurytemora (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome lol! --Rockstonetalk to me! 20:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to summarize - documented conduct problems for this user include (but are not limited to) severe wikihounding of multiple editors, abusive sockpuppetry, block evasion, uncivil (in the extreme – perpetual demeaning language), trolling (e.g. attempting to instigate edit wars among other editors, etc.), vandalism, and miscellaneous covert maneuvers to thwart administrative action (e.g. forging admin signature). And, as noted by ClockworkSoul above, the user has shown no desire to reform despite being given ample opportunities. Eurytemora (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• ADMIN: Please advise what (if any) further evidence or material is required to close out this matter. Thank you. Centpacrr (talk) 15:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've blocked the named accounts, and will investigate whether an edit-filter can be written. I'll leave it to an admin more familiar with the process to enter the account into the "banned editors" list.—Kww(talk) 15:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. This user truly deserves a broad community ban. Without such, as before he/she will simply return under more sockpuppet accounts and/or anonymous IPs (his/her more usual practice) and continue to disruptively edit, wikistalk, troll, vandalize, and waste the time of many legitimate editors to undo his/her damage. Centpacrr (talk) 15:16, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Kww's actions. While I declined to take administrative action due to my earlier involvement in this (although I was quite neutral), these IPs and socks have been harassing Centpacrr all over the project and it's time to put an end to this. Well done.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Wehwalt. While I have been the main target of this user's wikistalking since May, a review of his/her record reveals that I am certainly not the only editor who has been harassed by him/her over the past three years during which his/her misconduct has been pervasive and increasingly egregious. This user's hounding of me has probably been more intense and obvious than his/her stalking of many others only because I have not been willing to put up with it, but have instead always "called out" this user (with the help of others) as opposed to allowing him/her to drive me away from editing and contributing to Wikipedia in disgust. Fortunately such users as this one are relatively rare on WP, but the damage they can do to the project is considerable if they are not eliminated from the community. I hope that I (and the many other editors whose time he/she has wasted) will not have to deal with this issue again, and that a broad, effective, and permanent solution to this now three year old issue can finally be achieved. Centpacrr (talk) 16:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I would like to thank Kww, Centpacrr and all others who helped to make this ban possible. Let's follow up and make sure he gets added to that 'banned editor' list that Kww mentioned, and hopefully that will be a final end to this sad affair. Jusdafax 17:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC) UPDATE: I notice the IP 75.2.209.226 remains unblocked/unbanned. Please don't forget to, thanks! Jusdafax 17:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Sarah777

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

After a period of calm since the Ireland naming poll concluded, Sarah777 (talk · contribs) has decided to get back into Troubles issues, and resume labeling anyone and everyone who doesn't interpret the goals and methods of WP:NPOV the way she does, as a British nationalist. See this for example, just one of a series of shotgun one line comments to that page with little or no value except to inflame and attack. It's tiresome, and based on experience, she won't quit, and will probably even get worse, without some serious feedback. It needs nipping in the bud, or you will be seeing her name pop up here regularly for the next few months, if this latest venture back into the field is not just a one night thing. MickMacNee (talk) 00:45, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I see the same sentiments in your posts here and here. Pot. Kettle? --HighKing (talk) 00:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

More like Shakespeare and the Telly Tubbies. I'll freely defend any part of those long and considered posts in detail and with evidence, if you've found any part of them to be as inflammatory and unconstructive as one of Sarah's little buckets of sunshine. MickMacNee (talk) 01:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

It's a fraught area. I suggest both of you moderate your tone. Isn't there still an ArbCom probation on these articles? --John (talk) 02:11, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

A 1RR restriction on certain tagged articles is all I'm aware of. MickMacNee (talk) 02:40, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, no, it's 1RR on all Troubles-related articles, tagged or not, broadly defined. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:05, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I didn't edit any "troubles-related" article. But for "inflammatory and unconstructive" comments please have a leisurely read of the record of MickMac! It was his extreme British Nationalism and agressive negative characterisation of Irish editors that drew me to engage in the "British" Isles debate yesterday. I could not sit back and watch WP:NPOV being trashed by the usual suspects. Nor will I in the future. Sarah777 (talk) 07:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

coming from the person that wanted the British Isles article completely renamed its funny to hear you talk of WP:NPOV BritishWatcher (talk) 10:07, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I still want the "British Isles" article to be restricted to the British Isles. I'm unclear as to why that makes my comment above humorous. Sarah777 (talk) 19:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Sarah777, "I want" doesn't get. Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. "British Isles" is a phrase that includes the island of Ireland and nothing you can say here will change that. I know you don't like this, but you're going to have accept that this is a general usage in English. And yes, I am British, and no, I'm not a "British nationalist". Continue your activism against the term "British Isles" off Wikipedia, please. Fences&Windows 00:17, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I want the loaded term "British" Isles removed from the title of the article that includes sovereign Ireland in order to uphold the principles of WP:NPOV. The phrase is not used to include Ireland in the most common collective descriptions of the islands. Wiki should reflect this - not British Nationalist pov. I see, despite your protestations, that you support British Nationalist pov in this instance. Maybe you should take your nationalism elsewhere? Sarah777 (talk) 05:05, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Lots of Greek editors don't want the term "Republic of Macedonia" is Greece-related articles, either, but it's there. Sometimes standard English terminology isn't what you'd like it to be, but we follow common usage, not what people like or dislike. And really, discussion of the content doesn't really belong on this noticeboard anyway, but on the appropriate talk pages. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 14:19, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I love the hypocrisy a nationalist accusing others of nationalism. FWIW, as a Canadian who could care less about either Ireland or England, the "British Isles" has always meant both the islands of Great Britain and Ireland to me. IMNSHO, arguing otherwise would be about as NPOV as a Canadian complaining that Canada isn't part of North America because they don't like the United States. Resolute 14:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Canada? And your "head of state" is.......? A British Queen I believe. I love the hypocrisy of a British subject claiming non-Britishness. Get back to me when Canada is free of it's colonial subjugation. Btw, I've nothing against nationalism except for the self-denying British and American sorts. It's pushing nationalist POV on Wiki I abhor. I have written an essay on the topic you'd do well to read. You'd find it educational. Sarah777 (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Canada has a British Queen? Are you trying to give Miesianiacal a heart attack? GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

See also [53] (French - Îles Britanniques) and [54] (German - Britische Inseln) - I presume the French and German language Wikipedias are not fanatically imbued with "British nationalist POV". A quick google search shows that the direct translated phrase is used thousands of times in those two Wikipedias alone. The position that the rest of the world uses a term widely, but that it should be deleted from En-Wikipedia because it offends a segment of Irish opinion is clearly absurdist. Jamesinderbyshire (talk) 19:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Folks, this board isn't part of our dispute resolution procedure, at least as it comes to content, and I don't see any sign of any admins being ready to take action for conduct issues. There's nothing more to do here. Can we archive this? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 23:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, one admin warned her [55], but got the usual reaction, and she's carried on with her nonsense. [56][57][58]. Not a single one of these comments is designed to do anything except inflame and attack. She has masses of form for this, and will likely never change her ways, she just departs the arena for a bit to presumably let the sands of time help her cause. But yes, you are right, it appears no admin is willing to do anything about it. MickMacNee (talk) 16:50, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I've posted before about Mick's rants. Pot. Kettle? Black? Mick, maybe this might "clue you in"? --HighKing (talk) 00:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And it obviously hasn't clued you in, because you clearly still can't differentiate between apples and oranges. You asked for feedback, you got it. Nobody asked for, or needs, Sarah's 'input' to this arena. MickMacNee (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Besides one intemperate post is there anything we actually need to be concerned with here? If not, I'd suggest that John's response is enough. TFOWR 10:14, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

There might be a case for an additional sanction to prevent the use of ANI by either sides of this particular argument to attempt to sanction or remove editors. --Snowded ^TALK 23:55, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Odd behaviour from OhanaUnited

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

OhanaUnited (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made a couple of troubling edits over the last few days. The first one was a huge bunch of original research he inserted into an article page supported by forums and blog posts. This alone was way out of left-field for an administrator as far as I was concerned at the time. I reverted it[59] and left him a note on his talk page. I didn't get a response right away and kind of forgot about it. I went back to his talk page to see if he'd ever replied and found this [60] a silent removal by a guy who seemingly archives everything. No explanation for the extremely poor edit. While I was there I noticed an odd discussion with Elekhh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I went to their talk page to get the whole story and found some rather disgusting comments from Ohana leveled at Elekhh. User_talk:Elekhh#Portal:Contents.2FPortals. Elekhh sums it up best in their final comment. But calling my edits on the Portals Contents page as "unilateral", "undiscussed", "reckless" and implying incompetence and bad faith, topped up with a "stern warning" of blocking.... what do you think of that? An admin ignoring all the evidence about his missinterpretations and refusing to engage in a WP:CIVIL dialogue?. Another user points out his "warning" was over the top and unwarranted as well. But calling a user incompetent because you disagree with them and not explaining those kinds of edits to articles isn't really appropriate administrator behaviour, and for some users that kind of personal attack would either get a strong warning or possibly even a block. Interestingly enough in this one post to a talk page a month ago he warns a user for all of these things [61], and should really know better on all fronts. The second is clearly more egregious than the first, but taken together they show some emerging hypocritical un-admin like behaviour that is bordering on disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 23:55, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Elekhh tried to use this silver star to represent featured process

(one-sentence summary provided at the end in case someone wants to read my response quickly without going through a textblock) Well, let's see, has anyone seen a featured process use a silver star? (image provided on the right side) I'm pretty sure most, if not all of you, have never seen a silver star like that. What's more worrying is that according to a userbox on Elekhh's talk page, Elekhh found and nominated 2 pictures to featured status. If he actually take a look at the userbox he uses, then he would realize how all our featured process use gold star yet he still went ahead and add silver stars to these 10 pages (diffs provided) [62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71] Is this an honest mistake? If it's done on a few pages and not familiar with any featured process then yes. But on a grand scale like this? He probably knows what he's doing (or at least think he knows). Next thing, for many of the diffs shown, Elekhh added comments like this "<!-- for featured portals use ^{[[File:Cscr-featured2.png|11px]]} --> ". Yet when he told me which venue did such discussion takes place, he shown me to Portal_talk:Contents#Icons. Take a read at the discussion, did you see him mentioning *anything* about switching featured star from gold to silver? No. Others, later on Elekhh's talk page, also agreed that featured content should be in gold and not in silver.[72] If switching featured contents from gold to silver is not considered to be "unilateral" or "reckless", then what is? (For example, if someone tries to change FA star on featured articles from gold to silver, watch how fast the edit will get reverted). And never did Elekhh post notice on any featured portal process. I seriously believe that his notice was posted to the wrong crowd and missed the intended recipients that will otherwise benefit the discussion. In summary, Elekhh changed featured portals' star from gold to silver without any discussion, posted a notice for comments on changes to a page unrelated to any featured portal process that did not reach any intended audience to facilitate meaningful discussion, plus the discussion itself did not tell anyone that the star will change its colour. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:53, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

You're just completely ignoring all previous explanations. What you present above is your missinterpretation of my edits, determined by your continued assumption of me being of bad faith. I reiterate: I did not propose to change the colour of featured portal stars. I did change the representation of featured portals on the portals contents pages from bold italic text to a star symbol, as discussed on the relevant talk page in January. What you perceive as "grand scale" is nothing more than the complete set of separate chapter-templates which together compose Portal:Contents/Portals. I used a small star symbol of 11px not 50px as you indicate. Both the image you added to this discussion and its caption are missrepresentations. I explained to you why I used that symbol, and also that I have nothing against the other symbol. Note that Featured content is represented with different symbol in Template:Link FA as well, assumably for the same reason that it appears at a very different size than the one on the top of portal pages. Please be carefull with your conclusions. At this stage, as you again accuse me of bad faith, and noting that you added a new accusation by questioning my honesty, I must agree with Crossmr's listing of this issue on this noticeboard. --Elekhh (talk) 06:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

And yet you still don't address what you're doing running around trying to insert original research in an article supported by citations that don't remotely meet WP:RS and WP:V. Someone of your position should be well aware of those things and as I indicated you seemed aware of all of these things a month ago, and then continue to duck the issue. this isn't adminly behaviour. This is the behaviour of someone in the first few days or weeks on wikipedia. There are more editors that have commented that don't support your over the top warning and accusations of bad faith than do. WP:COMPETENCE is reserved for people who are so bad that they can't effectively communicate and work with the community. Frankly you're now giving me that impression with your utter lack of ability to address your inappropriate addition to that article and your WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT response to what you said on Elekhh's talk page. You might disagree with what they did, but the way you said it would be inappropriate for a new user let alone a "trusted" admin.--Crossmr (talk) 09:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

@Crossmr: I didn't add any info back after your revert and considered it as "case closed", so you still consider this as "duck[ing] the issue"? It appears that you're the party unwilling to let this matter rest. @Elekhh: I didn't accuse you of dishonest, I was only wondering why you requested for feedbacks on Portal_talk:Contents#Icons rather than on Portal talk:Featured portals or Wikipedia talk:Featured portal candidates when it indicating a featured portal is part of the featured portal process. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 11:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider an admin walking into an article and adding original research supported by forums, blogs and other conjecture to be "case closed". As I said, you should know better. The fact that you haven't, or can't, explain why you made that edit is what makes it a problem. You also went far beyond "wondering" at what Elekhh did by bring WP:COMPETENCE into the discussion as you did, along with your "stern" warning. We don't "wonder" with a banhammer, threats and insults. Which is why I brought it here. Both of those things are disruptive. Administrators making bad edits and threatening people doesn't help the community and only causes issues. Even if you considered it case closed, why didn't you archive it like everything else on your talk? you've got plenty of other talk on your page that is "case closed" Like a several months old GA sweeps update, a several months old notification for an event that has already passed, etc. No, you quietly removed that comment, and now 3 proddings in, still have failed to defend or explain what you were thinking adding that kind of content to an article.--Crossmr (talk) 12:50, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you should take a look at WP:OWNTALK? It means I read your comments and understand your concern so I stopped further pursue in this matter. The timeline nor the logic fits if I do it the other way around. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:25, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I've read it. But you just told me you removed it because you felt the case was closed. Why haven't you removed other things, inconsistency doesn't help you defend your actions. It looks pure and simple like you were ducking the issue and the fact that you still won't explain why you made those edits makes it look even more like that. You demonstrated the month before that you understood WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:RS. Since you're continuing to duck the issue yet again let me blunt: What were you doing, a supposed trusted administrator with so much experience, adding that kind of content to an article? For someone of your position, it is frankly disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding OhanaUnited's messages to Elekhh: As easily verified, and as explained above and many times at Elekhh's talkpage, Elekhh did not change gold stars to silver stars, ever. Elekhh simply picked the wrong icon to use, when replacing the bold italic that the portals had been using up until then (see example prior to Elekhh's edit). Continuing to assert that he did replace gold stars with silver stars, and insulting the user with suggestions of recklessness and incompetence, is blatantly uncivil. I'm concerned about the lack of admittance and/or apology for a proven mistaken interpretation - you cannot just abandon a thread where you've made strong accusations and then had core-assumptions proven wrong. Everyone makes mistakes, it's how you handle the mistake that matters. -- Quiddity (talk) 17:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and that is the problem. It's the same way he's acting about the original research he added to the article. Trying to pretend it didn't happen, nor admit fault, nor explain why he added it. this is not good behavour for an administrator. It is disruptive and not conducive to a community.--Crossmr (talk) 22:32, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I have heard the input and comments and will try to take this to heart. I would like to step back from this incident and take some time to think it over and reevaluate my actions. Thanks for all your feedback and I hope I can continue to serve the community. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 03:48, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

An 11th hour apology isn't exactly sufficient here. Through several messages you've shown no indication that you realize you've done anything wrong and even with this you show no actual understanding of what you did wrong. You've gone out and made entirely inappropriate edits to an article and continued to avoid answering questions about why you made that edit. Even now, when I put the question directly to you, you've ignored it. You've gone out and threatened and insulted a user through several messages, even when told your interpretation of what happened was off by a mile. Now through an AN/I thread, you've showed an utter failure of ability to understand what you did is wrong, and your apology sounds like you're running for office and contains nothing that actually addresses what you did.--Crossmr (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Crossmr give it a rest. OhanaUnited has apologized and said that he is going to reevaluate his actions. What are you suggesting, that he be desysopped for this mistake? Do you think you might perhaps have a chip on your shoulder about this? LK (talk) 10:41, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No actually he hasn't apologized. that is the problem. An apology would mean that he's shown that he knows what he did was wrong and is sorry for doing it. Can you show me where he's indicated anywhere that he knows what he did was wrong? Neither"I have heard the input...and will try to take this to heart" or "I would like to step back from this incident and take some time to think about reevaluate my actions" says "I know what I did was wrong". It just isn't there. Both of those sentences are business speak for "not really saying anything at all or committing to anything". The fact that I've asked him 4 times to explain his edit and the fact that he flat-out refuses to shows a much larger problem. Someone with utter disregard for those around him. It's one thing to ignore an issue, it is another thing when the question is put directly to you to just pretend it was never asked. As for what I'm suggesting, I haven't made a suggestion at this point. What I did was brought a user who was acting disruptively in two separate incidents in a very close time frame here. Why do you think I have a chip on my shoulder, because I insist on matters actually being full discussed, or that I don't put up with people trying to sweep things under the rug? Are you perhaps assuming a little bad faith?--Crossmr (talk) 11:22, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Crossmr, I'm not sure that you have provided evidence that OhanaUnited's actions on this one edit "shows a much larger problem". Having read this, it seems a pretty small problem to me. I'm here because I know - I think we all know - that OhanaUnited makes a huge contribution to Wikipedia. Yet it's entirely possible that he owes you an apology Crossmr - so my question to you is, under what circumstances would you be prepared to let this drop?Travelplanner (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think it is far more likely that he owes Elekhh an apology. His response to them was clearly inappropriate, uncivil, and disruptive. It is his response here that shows a bigger problem. Were he to come here and say "Yes I know my actions were wrong I'll improve" it would be one thing. Instead he spent several messages denying he did anything wrong, only to follow it up with a nothing apology which says nothing. Nowhere in any message has he acknowledged fault with what he did. He's only used double-talk to make it look like he's given an apology when in reality he's admitted no fault and given no indication that he understands what he did was wrong. If he can't do that, then the matter is far from closed. That gives me zero hope that the disruption wouldn't continue in the future. He's an administrator he is supposed to be held to a higher standard. There are no exemptions in any of the policies which state "if you do a lot of good edits you can break them". Both of these series of edits were clearly wrong and entirely inappropriate for an administrator to be making. The fact that he flat-out refuses to explain them is disruptive and not becoming of an administrator. So if he can neither admit fault, nor explain his actions, we have no guarantee that the disruption won't continue.--Crossmr (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I also believe that an appology is outstanding, and from my part I would expect a withdrawal of the smear words thrown at me. Indeed this could have stayed as a small incident, but he himself agravated it. I was used to and still expect collaboration on Wikipedia. His row of standing accusations at my address demotivate me. I've never been treated in such a way, neighter on Wikipedia nor in real life. I'm not sure if any editor would like to be called (among others) dishonest, reckless, and incompetent, while trying to make a positive contribution to Wikipedia. --Elekhh (talk) 23:10, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing "smear words." OhanaUnited assumed that you were attempting to change the colour of the stars for FAs. He said that this was "beyond bold and on the verge of reckless." He also asked you to read an essay on competence (suggesting that he did not consider your actions as having the required competence). This seems to have been based on a misunderstanding. Moreover, threatening blocking seems to me to be an overreaction. IMO OhanaU made a mistake. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't see it being part of a pattern. BTW, your comment about his "violent attitude" also seems to me to be a breach of civility. OhanaU has responded to Crossmr (and that matter seems, mercifully, closed). Perhaps he would be willing to comment on the interaction with you now. Sunray (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I acted with good will and in self defence. I did my best to clarify the situation. The use of the words "violence" and "smear" were reflecting my perception, but I acknowledge that I might have been overly sensitive when describing the effect of his words on me. If OhanaUnited feels offended by any of these I retract and apologise. For my part I remain deeply saddened. --Elekhh (talk) 22:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The pattern is inappropriate behaviour for an admin. Making amateur edits to an article, making personal attacks and threatening blocking just because they disagreed with someone, and now failure to take responsibility for his actions, and even discuss them appropriately. After spending several messages denying he did anything wrong he finally admitted nothing and walked away. This is not admin behaviour. And since he's continued to edit and based on his last message he doesn't plan to return to this conversation, he's leaving us very few options. He has neither indicated he knows what he did was wrong nor that he intends not to do it anymore. These are the two things we typically look for on Wikipedia to ensure that disruption will not continue. At this point I have to say that OhanaUnited has no business being an admin if this is how he conducts himself. These are three clear situations where he should clearly know better if he's going to have the tools and he is clearly demonstrating that he doesn't know how to behave on wikipedia and interact with the community. That might seem strong, but as far as I know this is my first interaction with him, and I'm hardly seeing any of this good work people were speaking of. All I've seen is someone who warned others not to do the things he did, and is incapable of carrying on a productive conversation with the community over any disagreement with what he believes. and no Ohana hasn't responded to me, even after a straight request he refused to explain his poor edit to that article. That is all part of the pattern of inappropriate behaviour that is shaping up here.--Crossmr (talk) 01:11, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I see no pattern. I see two incidents. No amount of wikilawyering will make this into a Federal Court case. Crossmr continually refers to the fact that OhanaUnited is an administrator. He needs to bear in mind that admins are NOT PERFECT. As the policy states: "Occasional mistakes are entirely compatible with adminship; administrators are not expected to be perfect." These two incidents hardly constitute "sustained or serious disruption." So with respect, I think Crossmr should take the advice already offered and let this go. Sunray (talk) 03:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Sunray (talk · contribs), and Lawrencekhoo (talk · contribs). At this point in time, this is beating a dead horse. Further dragging out of this issue is not constructive. -- Cirt (talk) 03:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't expect him to be perfect. I do expect him to properly address problems if they come up which he has failed to do. Here is the pattern:

1. Very poor edit to an article. Disagreement is met with silence and a very quiet redaction of the comment by a user who seemingly archives everything else and an explanation for its removal that makes zero sense

2. Disagreement with an editor is met with insults, personal attacks and threats, even when other users step in and correct him. He walks away with no apology nor retraction of his over the top statements.

3. Further discussion of both issues is met with outright denial and refusal to discuss or explain his actions.

That is the pattern of a disruptive user. Not an administrator. No user is expected to be perfect, but they are expected to explain their edits if called on them, and administrators are expected to be held to a higher standard, they get tools of trust, he has abused that trust through his edit to that article, his attack on the other user and his non-response here. He has failed to do so. And no one here can demonstrate where he has indicated that he knows what he did was wrong. If anyone can, I'll happily drop it. But I expect an unambiguous statement taking responsibility for his actions, otherwise why does he have access to those tools if he cannot explain nor take responsibility when called to task?--Crossmr (talk) 03:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

He doesn't engage in that much talk, not compared to other users, but here is another assumption of bad faith over a disagreement over a tag. [73]. He assumes the user hasn't read the article and accuses him of "screaming". I read the article at that time and it isn't remotely clear what he's referring to which is further pointed out [74]. Asking for refs and clarification on unsourced articles isn't untoward, nor something that requires an assumption of bad faith and mischaracterization of someone's edits.--Crossmr (talk) 03:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Actually I was seeking administrative action, so your closing summary is false. It's also very clear that of the 6 people who commented (besides Ohana) 3 think he's done something wrong and 3 don't. Hardly a consensus that no action will be taken. I'd also just added a third incident where he acted inappropriately towards a user. For someone with such a low volume of talk, that's not good. While I haven't found many disputes, what I have found is that of the ones that generated user talk in the last year he's handled inappropriately. That is not encouraging.--Crossmr (talk) 22:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

[75] here he is essentially taunting a user he disagrees with. Even another user at the time thought it was insulting [76]. That's 5 clear incidents of him inappropriately handling interactions with users, seeing the pattern yet?--Crossmr (talk) 22:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

This discussion isn't going to lead to a block of OhamaUnited, isn't going to lead to a desysop, and isn't going to lead to any actions by administrators acting as administrators. Even if people think that OU has done something wrong, there's nothing for ANI to do here. ANI isn't for forcing explanations or apologies out of editors, even administrators. You still seem to be confusing ANI with WP:RFC/U or WP:DR or WP:ARBCOM. "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators", as it says at the top of the page. I note that two of the people who have commented in this thread have already said that this has been discussed enough here, hence my closure.

Having said that, if any other passing admin thinks that there is life in the horse that would be benefited from further beating at this location, feel free to reopen this thread once more. (And, for goodness's sake, some of your latest diffs are from July 2009 and September 2009 - hardly recent incidents requiring action from administrators, are they?!) Bencherlite^Talk 00:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There was a request made to show a pattern. In order to show a pattern, we must go back to friend previous incidents. We have 3 very recent incidents. His terrible edit to the article, his completely inappropriate personal attacks, and unwarranted block threats against a user, and his utter non-response to this thread. This is a guy who within 150 contribs on user talk and talk space you're back well into the middle of next year and in those few amount of contribs (which include the normal things like routine taggings, block notices, and other such non-talk, we've got 5 problems. Per capita that isn't good for a regular user, let alone an administrator. Now, if he'd managed to take responsibility for his actions, it'd be dropped but he's failed to do so. Last I checked out around here, when we have a disruptive user, the requirement was that they acknowledged what they did was wrong and indicate that the behaviour won't continue. he's done neither. Until he's done either of those, what assurance do we have that his disruptive interaction with users won't continue? I believe that is what AN/I is for. to handle disruptive users. He just happens to be an admin this time.--Crossmr (talk) 07:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:Apology applies here. Yes, what OhanaUnited said wasn't much of an acknowledgement, but it was better than nothing, and demanding more is non-helpful at this time. Ohana will hopefully be writing with more self-awareness, and others will be watching him more closely, which is the best outcome that is likely, all things considered. Endorse thread closure. -- Quiddity (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

personal attack by user:HalfShadow

Resolved

 – Unblocked, and a stern warning given about the personal attack. (X! · talk)  · @071  ·  00:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Here: [77] "More than a dozen people have explained this to you; given as you don't 'get it' yet, I can only assume your intelligence is damaged. Do your parents know you're here?". Just because he does not agree with me he should it does not mean that WP:civil does not apply anymore. I request administrative action.  Dr. Loosmark  17:12, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• I've redacted the latter portion of remark. @HalfShadow, you recently were unblocked after being blocked indefinitely for personal attacks - I think you would do well to avoid making comments like this again. –xeno^talk 17:23, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Whereas if someone else had said the same thing you'd have just overlooked it because 'they're really useful'. You guys can spend all day seeing who has the longest one; I'll even give you a tape measure. Meanwhile, I have actual work to do. HalfShadow 17:53, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• I have re-instated the indefinite block of HalfShadow, and advised them accordingly. I did so on the assumption that the lifting of the previous sanction was on the basis that they would refrain from further attacks; and not so much for the resumption of insults but the cavalier attitude toward the complaint and possible response. Any admin who feels that my action is too harsh, or that HalfShadow is now properly cognizant of the need to maintain decorum in their dealings with other editors, may lift or vary the sanction without reference to me. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

actually.....if you look at the previous block and unblock discussion [78] there was no particular mention of personal attacks, and indeed the move from two weeks to indef seems to have been because he was unrepentantly gobby with those admonishing him, rather than for personal attacks. I would not have thought that the comments to Loosmark would have been worthy of administrator action (certainly not for an indef) were it not for the perception by LHvU that it related to the previous block/unblock. If it were me, I'd cut him loose after 24h, other views may vary. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

• Let's all be simply realistic and just unblock. It will happen anyway sooner or later. FWIW I didn't see that comment as particularly blockable in the first place. Pedro :  Chat  22:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Indef is out of proportion. Reduce to 24 hours and be done with it.--Chaser (talk) 22:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Indef completely wrong. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 22:33, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen a lot worse that resulted in almost nothing. And for what it's worth, I'm inclined to agree with the OP about the flag issue. But I wouldn't have come here to complain about mild insults. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

As far as incivility goes that's a pretty mild case and in my opinion didn't warrant an indef block. I don't even think it warranted a thread at ANI. Insulting another editor's intelligence is rude and not exactly productive but, as far as responses go, that's overkill. I'd agree with reducing the block to 24hr at least. ^OohBunnies!Not just any bunnies... 23:28, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

That was not a mild insult. It was probably not blockable as a single case for someone without a history, and it's not clear that HalfShadow's history justifies a long block. But it was not a mild insult. LessHeard VanU is correct that it was not ok behavior. WP:OTHERSTUFF and all, on letting others get away with it when nobody notices. With all of that said - I recommend someone with a bit of bandwidth talk to HalfShadow on their user talk page before unblocking or reducing. I don't currently have the time/bandwidth, for the next few hours, but if nobody else acts I will get to it later. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:05, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you, please? It was indefinite as in, "for as long as is needed". As soon as HalfShadow recognises that the best reaction to a complaint is not to try and engage in a pissing contest with reviewing admins then I have no problem with the block being reduced to time served (or lifted, if that is the preferred terms). LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's gone 24 hours, and HalfShadow is still blocked. Any admin offering an opinion other than someone else should deal with it? Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

HalfShadow was indef. blocked before for incivility and unblocked based on his claims of having reformed, this isn't the same thing as somebody who's just having a bad day, this is part of a pattern. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Half, a sincere apology seems in order here. More importantly, this kind of interaction between yourself and other editors needs to stop. If you can commit to that, I have no problem with an unblock. Throwaway85 (talk) 03:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• I think it's time to unblock. Sure, it was a rude remark, but it wasn't that bad, and in even less so in the context it was in. I'd like it if HalfShadow were nicer (hell, I'd like it if I were nicer), but let's not keep this block going and going and going for such little cause. Drmies (talk) 06:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
  • Why not? Wikipedia is clearly an experiment in the behavioural modification of human beings by operant conditioning, so punishment is clearly appropriate. Malleus Fatuorum 00:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Anonymous vandalism; IP 195.50.69.30

The IP 195.50.69.30 (talk) has been vandalizing the articles Halamish, Ateret and Beit El inserting slanderous information against these localities, some of which are incoherent. I am reporting this here and not at WP:AIV because at least one other editor also reverted to that version and it's a slightly more complicated case involving more than 1 article. The anonymous user has not reacted in any way to talk page notices. I request that either action is taken against the editor or the articles are semi-protected. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 01:20, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the "slander" or "vandalism" in those edits? The IP has been edit-warring, and the "confiscated land" bit should be more properly sourced or removed, but most of the material being changed is accurate and can be backed to hundreds of sources. nableezy - 03:23, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

For example, changing "it was home to about eighty families" to "it was home to about eighty settler families" seems like slander to me. Moreover, while adding the word "settlement" or "settler" once or twice to an article with 2–3 total paragraphs is often fine, adding it 8–10 times, sometimes in the same sentence, is not. The main problem is that the user persisted in making the edits even after he was notified that they were inappropriate, and also did not reply to the notices on his talk page. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 09:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

In what way can describing the occupants as 'settlers' be remotely slanderous. Firstly, slander relates to spoken offences, secondly slander and libel apply to accusations that are in some way defamatory (theif or adulterer for example) and thirdly, given that this is a settlement established in 1977, it can be no more than factual to describe those who moved there at the time as settlers. If the issue is that some lived there before 1977, the statement still would struggle to be slanderous, as he does not identify which ones did and which didn't. It is better not to throw such words around, and instead to define the actual problem. I see the last entry on the talk page was in 2008.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 14:14, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Truly. It cannot be considered slander to describe Israeli settlers as "settlers", indeed most reliable sources do so. And you called this vandalism and slander, not a case where a user is making "inappropriate" edits repeatedly. If you would like to request full protection so that the users the IP has been edit-warring with (yourself and Shuki) do not have an unfair advantage that might be acceptable. But right now you are attempting to block one party of an edit war from participating by first calling the edits "vandalism" and "slander" and now by saying the problem is that the repeated "inappropriate" edits. nableezy - 16:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

@Elen of the Roads, are we looking at the same IP? The talk page has few entries for July 2010.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

@Nableezy, I assume that IP does not know, I assume that Elen of the Roads does not know, but you should have known better.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Know about what? That an admin doesnt think there was consensus there? Why would that matter? The edits here are not "vandalism" or "libel", Israeli settlers are Israeli settlers, there is nothing libelous about calling them settlers. And I believe Elen's comment about talk pages was about the articles. The comments on the IP's talk page just "warnings" for vandalism, which these edits were not. Ynhockey should not be characterizing such edits as "vandalism" and instead should have attempted to discuss this on the article talk pages. Instead he came here looking to block the IP from making edits. nableezy - 22:18, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless if it is actually "vandalism" is not that important. It is disruptive. Edit warring of controversial material is not the right way to do it. So we can notify the IP of the sanctions, open up an edit warring report, or simply seek a block to encourage a quicker understanding of the policies if he continues to do it. Cptnono (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It is no less controversial than the repeated removal of such material. nableezy - 22:29, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It was based on some of the terminology and edit summaries making it clear that there was no attempt at writing in a neutral tone.Cptnono (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

The user Ynhockey has been vandalizing the articles Halamish, Ateret and Beit El inserting slanderous information against these localities, some of which are incoherent. I am reporting this here and not at WP:AIV because at least one other editor also reverted to that version and it's a slightly more complicated case involving more than 1 article. I request that either action is taken against the editor or the articles are semi-protected. He is also adding misleading and biased information that is violating the wikipedias terms of use and the international law as well--195.50.69.30 (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC) talk:195.50.69.30|talk]]) 21:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC) -

• Clearly controversial disruptive edit warring by the single purpose IP. Not appropriate behavior. Elen is of course correct in distinguishing slander from libel. I would simply call it controversial edit warring in an area subject to sanctions meant to chill the interest of editors (whether editing as IPs or under accounts). Odd, of course, that this IP seems so wiki-savvy. But we see that (all too often) in the P-I area. I would expect the editor supporting the IP who has himself been blocked for such disruptive editing in this area to know better than to try to wikilawyer in this thread.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Matt Sanchez image issue

I served as an informal 'guide' for lack of a better word for Matt (User:Bluemarine) on issues relating to his editing, and what he saw as problems with his BLP. This turned out fairly well, and there hasn't been any problem with either for a while. I got a personal email from him earlier, noting that the image has been removed from the infobox. It turns out the image, File:Matt_Sanchez_3_by_David_Shankbone.jpg is no longer present, but i seem unable to find out deletion information about it (which shouldnt really exist, it's freely licensed). It's also missing, leaving only an empty link, from User:David_Shankbone/PoliticiansActivistsMedia a gallery of similar photos taken by the author, an amazing asset to the project. I'm about to head out to go get wildly drunk (it being a friday evening and all) but would someone mind finding out what happened here? If the image was deleted for acceptable reasons, a substitute should be placed in there, it's currently displaying an ugly red '200 px', the size parameter, instead. -- ۩ Mask 01:32, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It was on Commons, deleted because

13:15, 20 June 2010 ABF (talk | contribs) deleted "File:Matt Sanchez 3 by David Shankbone.jpg" ‎ (In category Media missing permission as of 1 June 2010; no permission) (global usage; delinker log)

If a Commons admin could check this out, thanks. —fetch·comms 01:41, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

It is back again. There is this problem when the uploader is not the same as the author than it needs some indication that the author has agreed to the upload and licence. As this was not clearly stated, a user (who probably does not know the name Shankbone) tagged it as "missing permission", which is a rather huge category where images get dealed with rather bot-like, meaning that if there was no visible change it gets deleted. I restored it now and changed the description to better show that the author agrees. -- Cecil (talk) 04:04, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps the person who tagged knew the name Shankbone, but was unfamiliar with their sockpuppets. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:53, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I can attest to DC's statement as it was his harassing of Shankbone that drove Shankbone to use other accounts. DC is a master at this looking at their contributions, likely his only skill (with this account at least) is the only real asset they have to offer Wikipedia. Much like pedophiles they can sniff each other and are happy to throw others under the bus, right DC? Nuclearised Bucolic (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's right, Benji Nuclearised Bucolic! Except the part about me harrasing David Shankbone, the reasons for his use of alternate accounts (which predate any involvement I had with Wikipedia), the part about my having sockpuppets, and ... wait, did you just imply that I was a pedophile? But you are right in that I don't have many skills or much to offer to Wikipedia. Perhaps this would be useful reading for those unfamiliar with the background. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

A very unusual request

Resolved

 – No problems. Toddst1 (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I am quite aware that this is not a standard ANI matter, but it's the most practical method that sprung to mind to accomplish this, so here goes.

I would like to request a quick evaluation of two of my own recent comments on civility grounds: [79] and [80]. I don't see anything wrong with them (or I wouldn't have made them) but I would appreciate a sanity check on the matter. --erachima talk 05:28, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The tone and content of both comments looks all right to me, although I can see how their bluntness could be taken as an affront. (That's reviewing them as standalone comments.) sonia^♫♪ 05:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There was no connection between the two comments. --erachima talk 05:44, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks OK. You didn't call anyone names or accused them of eating raped babies. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 05:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• Well, good thing we're at ANI--I'm going to ask for an indef block for incivility. Just kidding. You're nicer than I am on a good day, and this community has tolerated me so far. Drmies (talk) 06:33, 18 July 2010 (UTC)
• First, I absolutely agree that the comments are not a violation of civility rules. That said, I think there were better responses. Having seen my own proposals go down in flames, I think I can safely put myself in the mindset of an editor identifying an issue with WP, coming up with a proposal to improve the encyclopedia, and proposing that idea without fully thinking through all the issues, perhaps thinking that the forum is the right place to have that discussion. I suggest a better response would have been something like "you've identified a legitimate concern. However, before we simply accept or reject your proposal, perhaps it would be good to have a discussion of the issues, to see if this, or some other proposal might be a better way to address the issue. In fact, WP:VPI was created specifically to have those sorts of brainstorming discussions, so I suggest we move the discussion there, and talk this through." Were I the editor proposing the idea, I think I would take that response much more positively than being told I hadn't thought the issue through.--SPhilbrickT 16:30, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

172 Vandal (now using Bell?) back at it.

I've got a strong suspicion that this vandal is back, but under Bell this time. My RfA got hit twice until it was semi'd, then when the semi expired, it got hit again, same for the talk page (it was indeffed). I then observed that Michael Ignatieff was lifted from the 1 year semi that came out of the last thread about this vandal on here, but Ignatieff has been hit 5 times in the last couple days, along with a random bunch of pages, such as Presidential transition of Barack Obama, FIFA World Cup 2010, etc. Connormah^talk 17:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Note - I've put in requests at RFPP for the pages already hit by this vandal to hopefully bar the pages off before the vandal can vandalize more. Connormah^talk 18:02, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I can confirm it's the same vandal. It seems a much more blockable range this time. I'll look into doing that. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:37, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, hopefully we can sort this out this time. Connormah^talk 18:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

70.27.72.0/21 (talk · contribs · block log) (that's 70.27.72.* - 70.27.79.*) blocked for four months. As far as I can tell that range is used exclusively by the vandal. Let me know if I've missed any. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:48, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, much appreciated. I'll raise it again here if the vandal starts to use another range (wouldn't be surprised if it happens, but you never know) Connormah^talk 18:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Now back (presumably) as 174.94.37.0, see history of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William McKinley, Sr.. Connormah^talk 03:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Deleting posts from other users' talk pages

Resolved

 – WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 22:52, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Meletian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
81.159.32.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Jc3s5h has just wiped a message I posted to User talk:Samhastings. He has been warned about this before: [81]. Can someone block him so that he knows not to do it again? 81.159.32.4 (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are not punitive, they are preventative. Blocking shouldn't be necessary here IMO. Connormah^talk 20:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

So are you a sock of User:Vote (X) for Change? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 20:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I am not a sock of Vote (X) for Change. I have been an IP editor for three years now. I'll add the message back and see how it goes. 81.159.32.4 (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

SPI has been started: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vote (X) for Change ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Putting it at its highest, a judge might decide (wrongly in my opinion) that I am a sockpuppet of Vote (X) for Change, but that isn't relevant, because other editors are only allowed to remove talk page posts of editors who are banned. 81.159.32.4 (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your response falls into the "non-denial denial" category. Your best option would be to go to the SPI and answer the specifics of the complaint, if you have not already done so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The message has been removed a second time. That's why I think a block is appropriate because it prevents the action being repeated. 81.159.32.4 (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The user will be alerted to the activity on his talk page, will read your comments, and if he wishes the post to be present, he can restore it himself. This is a non-issue. --erachima talk 20:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It's not exactly a non-issue. It's true that a user can manage his own talk page the way he wants. But when another user starts messing around with your talk page on the suspicion that the poster is a sock, then he's crossing the boundary into "nannyism". However, if the posting itself is a violation of the rules (e.g. a personal attack or BLP violation) then theoretically its subject to deletion by anyone. Did the OP's posting violate any rules? Has the IP been demonstrated to be a block-evading sock? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:47, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The removed post appears to be some form of WP:SOAPBOXing. Removal of such comments is always a gray area, but it's definitely not actionable. --erachima talk 20:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It's the prerogative of the user himself. Jc3s5h needs to prove his case at the SPI. If he does, then 81 will get put on ice for awhile. If not, Jc3s5h should either just leave it alone or else report what violation 81 has committed by posting it here. Meanwhile, I agree that 81's bringing this here is excessive and could boomerang, as there appears to be no real justification for blocking Jc3s5h. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you explain to me what a "non - denial denial" is? Also the gentleman I wrote to is 81 years old and shouldn't be expected to check his talk page revision history every day. 81.159.32.4 (talk) 20:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Something that kind of sounds like a denial but really isn't. See Watergate. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

What does his age have to do with anything? --erachima talk 20:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It does appear that Sam only edits sporadically, and has only about a dozen edits since February. But unless he's asked Jc3s5h to delete "possible" sock entries from his page, Jc3s5h is getting a bit carried away. (Of course, if 81 does prove to be a block evading sock, that will be another story.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:53, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

But isn't it always up to the prosecutor to prove his case? The defendant doesn't have to say anything. 81.159.32.4 (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

At what point did you get the idea that wikipedia is a court of law or is subject to the U.S. Constitution's Bill of Rights? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to do anything if you don't want to. Wikipedia is not a court, nor a democracy, there is not a legal thing. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 21:09, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

He soon won't be able to, as SG pointed out that 81 gave the game away in this diff[82] where he identified himself as a sockpuppet (Meletian) of the indef'd user Vote X. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Another term popularized by Watergate was "smoking gun". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Also, this particular IP on 81's subnet just appeared today, after a 4-year silence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as an obvious and self-admitted sock. London based IP prattling on about esoteric calendaring issues and self-identifiying as a previously blocked sock. Am I missing something? Kuru (talk) 22:19, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Only maybe the question of whether he has other IP's. But if he does, we can probably expect to hear from them. And if not, everything's peachy. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. The office manager wanted to call it a day. When I entered the office the IP was 86.174.115.50, when I left it was 81.159.32.4. In that time nobody came in to tinker with the machine, so the responsibility must lie with the operators of 81's and 86's subnets. Baseball Bugs hits it right on the head when (s)he says

Jc3s5h needs to prove his case at the SPI. If he does, then 81 will get put on ice for awhile. If not, Jc3s5h should either just leave it alone or else report what violation 81 has committed by posting it here.188.220.41.240 (talk) 10:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The above IP has also been involved in that same calendar dispute. It seems odd that an office would have such a dynamic IP, but maybe it depends on the office. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:A Nobody returned?

It seems possible that he is currently socking under two IP addresses, 86.132.227.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and now 88.106.175.78 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), (or someone who supports him is doing so in a style similar to his). The first IP has been causing some disruption at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional characters who can manipulate technology, making off topic and uncivil remarks, then today after an editor notes that he sounds like A Nobody,[83] a new IP that geolocates to the same area makes states "A Nobody was a good man. I'm sad to see that the Wiki-Mafia have made him disappear for challenging the infallible will of the Deletionists. Wikipedia could use more like him. But hey, who cares about creating when you can destroy?".[84] It seems to clearly indicate that the IP is either a blocked editor evading the block, or an established editor inappropriately using their IP to make personal attacks. Not sure what steps would be appropriate to check this, though, as I know SPI won't deal with an SPI request that has only an IP and not a named sock to go with it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 20:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Not A Nobody, as both geolocate to the UK. Might be someone else editing without logging in, though. Since the AfD seems headed for a consensus to delete, it's perhaps best just to ignore him. Deor (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Good to know. Wasn't sure where he was located at, so no idea if UK made sense or not. Not the first time I've seen an IP from that range trying to disrupt AfDs or making similar remarks, as well, which also had me curious. I am pretty much ignoring him, myself, but after the concern was expressed and the IP made such a remark, it seemed appropriate to bring it to attention. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 21:04, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There's at least one anon IP who's in the habit of making disruptive edits to Fiction-related AfDs. I've seen a variety of AfDs where the article was tagged with {{rescue}}, without an edit summary, somewhere intentionally "below the fold" of the article, often down around by the references section. Likewise, there've been a few oddball partisan IP requests, e.g. when Ikip was blocked. I'm not sure whether this sort of behavior is some uber-inclusionist guerilla, or some agent provocateur, but the IP hopping has been characteristic: only one edit, from an IP address which has never edited before. So far, there's been no measurable effect that I've seen, but I agree there's something suspicious in the waters you and I both patrol. Jclemens (talk) 23:46, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Given that it's a BT dynamic, it might well be User:Dalejenkins having a bit of a laugh and a joke. Nothing to be done except WP:DENY though, it's a stupidly big range - I know, I'm on it myself. Black Kite (t) (c) 23:56, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I suspect this person is deliberately making stupid arguments to try to paint the inclusionist side (and the ARS in particular) as stupid and unreasonable by association. Reyk _YO! 03:07, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think Reyk has the right read on it. Is the relevant ranged blocked already? If s/he starts up again might be useful to block it for a few hours just to let them get bored, though it would have to be two ranges, obviously. Protonk (talk) 05:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Pmanderson

This user has twice removed AFD templates from the article List of wars between democracies The first removal was here [85] with the edit summary two more references which i reverted to restore the template with the edit summary rv please do not remove AFD tags. The second was [86] here with the edit summary revert persistent vandalism which i have now reverted to restore the template. Could someone please tell this user not to remove AFD tags, and not to call people vandels mark nutley (talk) 20:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Given this edit, the AfD template appears to have been an accidental casualty of Pmanderson's reversion of content blanking. --erachima talk 21:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Not content blanking, just editing. Once may be an accident, he did it twice. And there is noway he could have missed my edit summary mark nutley (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

How would it be an accidental casualty of that? The template was not added in that edit, an undo would not remove the template. But fine, if Pmanderson says it was an accident... --OpenFuture (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks like he restored it himself, after restoring his edits[87], so not sure it was done on purpose (though his edit summary calling your revert vandalism does not appear to be extending good faith). -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 21:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Per the definition, blanking referenced content without an explanation or obviously identifiable reason is a form of vandalism. Edits should not be referred to as vandalism in content disputes, however, and calling established editors vandals is a bad idea in general. --erachima talk 21:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Depending on the validity of the sources cited in the content you removed, Mark, you are either vandalizing the page by blanking referenced content or this is an edit war. In the latter case, ANI will not endorse a side in this edit war due to an accidental template removal, and it will certainly not censure a user for reverting vandalism if it is the former. --erachima talk 21:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes there is a content dispute (when is`nt there) The removal of content was due to OR and Synth issues. But that is an aside, he has removed the tag twice, once may be a mistake, but twice? mark nutley (talk) 21:17, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, twice. Pmanderson understands the deletion process, claiming he would intentionally remove AfD tags is simply absurd. --erachima talk 21:25, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

An accident, now fixed, while restoring mark nutley's persistent blanking of sourced material.

Blankings from July 14:

• 21:17 14 July,
• 21:19,
• 21:21,
• 21:36

At this point the page was protected. Mark Nutley then put the article up for AfD; he has a somewhat idiosyncratic understanding of the subject: Greeks had no democracys [sic] and that the United States had no elections before 1789. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I had already reverted you to restore the tag, what you actually did was insert disputed text under the guise of restoring the AFD template. Content issues aside as this is not the place, why did you do it twice? mark nutley (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And you were removing disputed text under the guise of restoring the AfD template. --erachima talk 21:26, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

And this means what exactly? mark nutley (talk) 21:42, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It means you need to stop edit warring, and stop making frivolous ANI reports. --erachima talk 21:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

• 09:28 17 July
• 12;27
• 12:29
• 12:30
• 21:11

The first and the last use twinkle. Will someone have a word with this user, or shall I go on the Twinkle page? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:29, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with comparing versions and restoring a previous one? mark nutley (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There is when you do so in place of discussion. --erachima talk 21:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

I have been discussing it, it is difficult to discuss with an editor who does not respond [88] And i refute your allegation that i am edit warring mark nutley (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Pmanderson appears to have made a full dozen posts in the topic you linked, hardly unresponsive of him. And no you don't. Refutation implies making an argument, you've just made an assertion. --erachima talk 22:13, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes while the page was protected, as soon as it was lifted he stops talking and reinserts disputed content as i obvious from the fact he has not responded in there, why not just mark this as resolved. I can`t be bothered to argue with you over it anymore mark nutley (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

It's worth noting that Pmandersons talk about "blanking" is not in accordance with the facts, and neither his statement that his text is "sourced". Just FYI. What is happening here is removal of POV statements that is not supported by the sources given. --OpenFuture (talk) 06:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Not in accordance with the facts? The diffs are above; all of them show blankings of sourced assertions. While there have been some other edits by these editors, the only other effect they have had is to replace the AFD coupled with a massive blanking reversion (the first of mark nutley's edits on the 17th).

But unsourced claims seem to be their stock in trade. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced content introduction in the, 2006 Lebanon War

Some editors in the 2006 Lebanon War page have decided to change the longstanding results section of the Infobox to one that makes a general mention of some sort of Hezbollah retreat from South Lebanon. The problem with that edit, apart from the change from the consensus version not having been discussed, is that there are no sources included that mention anything of the sort so it very much is Original Research.

It’s also worth mentioning that some of the most authoritative and objective sources on the events, like UNOSAT, indicate the opposite (according to UNOSAT’s map "Situation Along the Border of Lebanon and Israel - Version 2.2 (14 August 2006)"[89] Hezbollah only had been driven from positions that formed a salient near the Shebaa farms and perpendicular to the Litiani), the version that is being introduced through what is essentially edit warring seems to be more of what some editors would like to see, than information based on recognized events and has no source that mentions anything of a route, retreat or breakthrough during the war; that seems to damage the article’s status as an objective and neutral authority on the topic. If possible would a moderator be able to examine the issue and sources (or lack of thereof)in this content dispute? -Freepsbane (talk) 22:23, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Could you provide differences for us and notify the editors involved? Thanks. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes certainly: the older consensus Infobox result, which had been the accepted over the past three years, can be seen here[90]; the revision the editors want to introduce is here[91](the linked sources mention nothing on the point of contention), and the UNOSAT revision I've edited in can be seen here[92]. I'll notify the other editors:Jiujitsuguy, Marokwitz and Mikrobølgeovnright now, I don't think anyone else is has been involved with the infobox editing, sorry if I've messed up procedure. As far as the infobox goes, I think the older consensus revision should be used, but if the other editors insist on including the tactical/positional situation at the end of the conflict I think it should follow what sources say, preferably objective ones like UNOSAT.--Freepsbane (talk) 01:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Huljich brothers (User:Independentobservernz)

Resolved

 – discussion continuing on talk page Toddst1 (talk) 23:35, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a dispute in that article. User:Independentobservernz is constantly removing information he believes is unsourced, see Special:Contributions/Independentobservernz. He also claims he has reported this, but does not specfiy exactly where, like WP:AN or WP:ANI (here). The article is currently sysop-protected to July 25, 2010 evening. What should we do? The user was first indef blocked, but was just a few minutes later unblocked on request. /HeyMid (contributions) 22:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The editor User:Independentobservernz has being repeatedly removing material (some negative) s/he claims are untrue and libellous about a living person. The material is cited, however. I have protected the article, and per WP:DOLT am trying to initiate a discussion on the user's talkpage and on the article talkpage about what is problematic about the material. I wonder if a complaint is in an WP:OTRS queue, for example. So the answer, Heymid, is that let's wait and see what Independentobservernz has to say. There's no rush. If the choice is between having the information out of the article for a day or two, and getting it wrong about a living person, then the choice is clear. --Slp1 (talk) 23:00, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

The problem is I get a feeling this is a case of trolling, but I don't know if it actually is or not. Good news, hovewer, he has replied on Toodst1's talk page without signing (only username is signed in the post). But let's see what will happen in the aftermath. Currently, the text is removed, so I think the user got what he wanted to. /HeyMid (contributions) 08:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Clayton College of Natural Health discussion page

I started a discussion on external links on Talk:Clayton_College_of_Natural_Health. I have attempted to provide sources to support my argument. However, another user (Ronz) keeps deleting my posts and is threatening me on my personal talk page [[93]]. I am attempting to reference a court case, which is still considered valid law. As an attorney, I know that the definition of libel. Referencing court cases is not libel. Statements of fact are not libel. Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mavery94 (talk • contribs) 00:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ronz (talk · contribs) notified, as is conventional for this page. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:52, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Here is my understanding of the issue: The article in question is Clayton College of Natural Health which starts "The Clayton College of Natural Health is a non-accredited American distance-learning natural health college based in Birmingham, Alabama, offering classes on natural health." An external link points to a criticism of the college by a living person. On the talk page of the article, Mavery94 has claimed that the person was found to lack credibility in a certain legal case. Ronz has removed the claim per WP:BLP and has posted on Mavery94's talk page that the person has been misrepresented on Wikipedia for years, and that editors who have done so after being warned have been blocked. I have no knowledge of this, but from past performance, I would be astonished if Ronz's statement were inaccurate. Accordingly, I can see no need for administrative action at this time, unless someone wants to confirm or deny my summary.

@Mavery94: To make a negative statement about a living person, you need a good secondary source (preferably multiple such sources). It is not adequate to cite a primary source as if that is the end of the matter (a reliable secondary source would include an overall analysis of the entire situation which undoubtedly involves more than a single legal case). Johnuniq (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my lack of faith in Wikipedia and why there are so many places that site it as being a poor source. Mavery94 (talk) 15:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, these attacks don't come from simply citing a court ruling as editors assert. They come from deliberate attacks on Barrett, some based upon the misrepresentation of a court ruling. The attacking editors are quoting from off-Wiki attacks pages rather than from the court ruling.

These recent attacks against Barrett mirror the ones that have been going on for at least four years now by such editors as Ilena (talk · contribs) (banned), TimBolen (talk · contribs) (banned), and their sockpuppets. While Clayton College of Natural Health is already protected because of the related vandalism, we may need to protect Quackwatch and Stephen Barrett as well if the attacks continue. --Ronz (talk) 15:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think an adminstrator might be useful over at the Stephen Barrett and Quackwatch articles. An editor is trying to revert war the same kind of edits that are being discussed here. Maybe Ronz is correct and protection for these articles might be considered. Thanks for your time, --CrohnieGal^Talk 17:28, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi I have been blocked and my page deleted..

I read all the guidelines so I have no idea why I have beeb blocked as I'm sure everything was ok. Would appreciate advice on what I need to correct page and remove the block. Thanks Emma —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.85.13 (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but rather than letting you just wait: without knowing which account you refer to, Emma, it's hard to do much more specific than link this, sorry. Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks  Begoon^talk 03:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"Emma", what you need to do is go back to the account blocked and use the {{unblock}} template and request unblock. What you are doing now could be considered evading a block. Like Begoon said above, do read the Guide to appealing blocks. Once you post your unblock notice, wait. An admin will be around shortly (not immediately) to address it and decide what to do. They may discuss it with you first. Be open and available for discussion on the account blocked. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, Neutralhomer's advice is spot on, you should follow that. There's also Appealing a block which might be a more straightforward explanation of the procedure if you're still confused.  Begoon^talk 03:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

uh-oh

Resolved

 – Nothing requiring intervention here. If you have an issue with a user's userpage, please talk to them directly. --erachima talk 03:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding User:Antigrandiose/userbox/sex, this is up for deletion, and has been nominated for speedy a a possible violation of (what used to be) WP:PED, but I wonder if it should be RevDel'd and the author dealt with in some manner. Herostratus (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

How, exactly, is a picture of a shaven vagina a danger to the welfare of children? I would imagine that most children have had up-close, personal experience with at least one in their lives. While the userbox itself is a bit lacking in taste, I would have hoped you, being an obviously righteous man, would have done due diligence by checking the upload details of the aforementioned image before whipping out the stale and tired moralistic "think of the children" stuff. Wikipedia is not censored. As far as the user is concerned... yeesh, a lot of Userspace edits and sparing mainspace edits, but what little mainspace edits there are seem to all be good faith contributions. Badger Drink (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

OK fine, whatever. I just thought I'd point it out. I don't know if it's shaven or what. It's up to you guys. I know what I would do if I was an admin, but I'm not, so, as you wish. Herostratus (talk) 02:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait a sec. Badger Drink removed the CSD tag. If user Badger Drink is not an admin -- I'll check in a sec, but how many admins have blank user pages? -- should he be hanging around this page and making decisions on requests here? Is this permitted, or encouraged? I was trying to get the attention of an admin. Herostratus (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If Badger Drink is an admin, it doesn't say so here. Herostratus (talk) 02:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

When the admins are on vacation, lunch break, coffee break, smoke break, union break, joint break (RIP George Carlin), bathroom break, or just out of the office, you are likely to get help from a non-admin. Happens all the time, from ALOT of non-admins and the help (with the exception of blocks and such) is just as a good as something an admin can do. Gives them a break and gives us a chance to help. By the way, I am also not an admin. Oh and JzG (Guy) doesn't have a userpage and he is an admin. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yep. The vast majority of what's brought up on ANI does not require an admin, just a guy with a WP:CLUE. --erachima talk 03:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but... the person's response was not helpful. It was just a jejune screed. I can get that anywhere. Why even have ANI if this is going to be the response? Herostratus (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes a diatribe is necessary and needed at times. Hell, you get those from admins. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 03:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Nothing unhelpful about it. He gave the right answer, he cited the right standard. Certainly, "stop being puritanical" isn't the reply you wanted, but it is the reply that's appropriate to the situation. --erachima talk 03:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer (and, post-edit conflict, erachima) said it better than I could ever hope to. I'd just like to add that it seems you're confusing "help" with "do exactly what I want done", which in this case is histrionic and utterly, completely, without-a-doubt over-the-top. (of course, during the edit conflict erachima beat me to that point as well, once again saying it more succinctly (and probably politely) than I ever could - but whatever, I'll rip a page from WP:DGAF. :)) At most, a friendly WP:MYSPACE mention might be made on Antigrandiose's talk page. The fact that you would immediately speedy delete something like this means it's probably for the best that you're no longer a part of the Wikipedia admin corps. Badger Drink (talk) 03:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the little dig Badger Drink. I sure needed that when I came here with a good faith headsup. Why don't you or some of you other guys apply to be admins then if you like doing this? We have a shortage of new admin applicants, you know. Now look at this -- erachima closed the discussion, and he's not an admin either (at least, it says here). So as far as I know no admin has even looked at this. So non-admins can resolve discussions here? OK whatever, if that's how the admins want to run it. If the admins are so busy though, maybe we could have a separate board WP:GET_SOME_ABUSE_FROM_SOME_RANDOM_YAHOOS or something and cut out the middleman. Sheesh. Herostratus (talk) 03:47, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am sorely, sorely tempted to make that a redirect right back here. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

 Done N419BH 03:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Heh. Herostratus (talk) 04:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Why yes, I am Neutralhomer, Random Yahoo...how may I be of assistance? :D LOL That is awesome right there. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Redirect deleted. Re the ubx, does it assist in our primary task of building an encyclopedia? Does it portray Wikipedia in a positive light? No and no. We're not Craigslist. However, the MfD should run its course. EyeSerene^talk 12:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

72.100.174.159

The above IP is going around to a couple mainspace pages and userpages with the same "[insert name here] is a JEW" crap. IP needs to meet Mr. Banhammer. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:42, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Warned user. Will actively monitor user. --Chris (talk) 03:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser blocks

For information, the Arbitration Committee has just put out a statement advising administrators how to handle disputes concerning Checkuser blocks. The full text is here.  Roger Davies ^talk 02:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

And you can Discuss this Statement here. EdChem (talk) 12:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Where did it go?

I attempted to weigh in on the discussion,

• 13 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Moses as symbol in American history, closed as delete but in fact merged with Moses

It was obviously there so where did it go? Otr500 (talk) 03:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Try the archive? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 06:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe I missed something. I am fairly new but a section can be archived, especially in the middle of action, with no warning? Maybe I went through a twilight zone or something. I tried to save an edit after clicking on a section link in the index then it would not save and I realized it was not listed in the index anymore. I am not familiar with navigating the archives yet. Otr500 (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is archived after 24 hours with no posts - unless a user deleted/reverted it for some reason. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a big search box at the top of this page that searches the ANI archives. Entering 'moses' gives this result. Olaf Davis (talk) 18:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Harrassment by IPs

In the period December 2007 to March 2008 there was a user who added and reinstated original research to the Games Workshop article after it was duely removed. They then objected to this removal on two occassions and claimed I was involved in "abuse of admin power" (approximately 9 months before I was nominated at RFA), that I was alone in objecting to the materials inclusion and then proceeded to personally attack me. For clarity I made one serious edit to that article in December 2007[94] and none since (excepting 2 minor and obvious vandal reverts[95][96]) The user in question was RichSatan [97][98]. They were blocked as a sockpuppeteer following this RFCU in 2008[99].

Following this block an IP user claiming NOT to be RichSatan continued the same arguments on Talk:Games Workshop in March 2008[100]. I opened an ANI thread then in March 2008 which resulted in the IPs being blocked[101]. However they returned again in July 2008.[102][103]

And to reiterate I had not edited that article in any serious way since December 2007. Also a consensus on the talk page rejected the material[104] in the Winter of 2007 and again in March 2008.

This month another 2 IPs User:82.152.164.81 and User:82.152.165.79 popped up claiming not to be RichSatan making the exact same claims.[105][106][107][108]

I tagged these 2 new users as a suspected RichSatan socks and after 2 days User:MuZemike dropped me a message saying: "I just had the person behind the IP right now talk to me on IRC saying that he/she is not RichSatan. I strongly recommend that if you wish to further pursue this that you start an WP:SPI case and allow the accused IP to presume his/her innocence." Now let me preface this by saying MuZemike did the right thing but as I understood it this case is closed - RichSatan is a confirmed sock-puppeteer and these IPs are replicating the same behaviour.

82.152.165.79 dropped a note on my talk page claiming I vandalized the Games Workshop page by removing the material.[109] That they never had contact with Wikipedia admins before and that they were not RichSatan ("I am not RichStan [...] Prior to this conversation I had no idea what an "ANi" was, since I've never had any previous contact with Wikipedia's administrators.") As I understand it they are claiming not only that they are not RichSatan, but also, not the user who was involved at ANi in March 2008.

Now, if this not RichSatan I'm happy to remove the tags - but these IPs are behaving in the exact same manner and seem to be restricting their onsite involvement to this single purpose. Other than claim I made an improper edit and make attacks on me these IPs have made very few other edits to WP.

It appears this user/these users has/have a vendetta against me but since my judgement here has apparently been questioned I'm submitting this to ANI for outside review. Any help would be appreciated. And as normal I submit my own behaviour and action to the scrutiny of my peers--Cailil ^talk 03:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

For ease of viewing I'm presenting previous behaviour by other IPs whom this new user claims not to be:

IPs March 2008

• [110] by 91.84.95.68
• [111] by 82.152.179.208
• [112] by 82.152.177.104
• [113][114] by 82.153.198.246
• [115] by 82.152.178.70

Current IPs

• [116] by 82.152.164.81
• [117][118][119] by 82.152.165.79

Also if you read through the old ANi thread you will see that person using IPs 91.84.95.68 and 82.152.176.98 denies being RichSatan in the same manner[120] that the new user 82.152.165.79 does. Also it's worth noting that on the post to talk page they claim to be "This is (one of) the users" I have accused of being RichSatan (therefore saying 82.152.165.79 and 82.152.164.81 are different people involved in the same discussion, making the same points, and also sharing the same IP range)--Cailil ^talk 03:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, look, this is getting silly. Here's the facts: some (possibly all or maybe just a couple, I haven't checked) of the IPs in question are assigned by Eclipse Internet in Exeter. This is a reasonably popular UK ISP and it is, according to them, feasible for large blocks of their users to be assigned any of a fairly wide range of addresses any time they connect. Cailil's assumption that anyone using an IP in their range is the same person is just simply wrong from a network technology standpoint, quite apart from anything else. I have edited dozens of articles on wikipedia (most recently SMPTE Timecode and Betacam because it reflects what I do for a living) and the fact that Cailil seems to be blisfully unaware of this puts another hole in his argument.

For the record, despite Cailil's stating that I or other people am claiming various things, all I can tell you is that I have never held the user ID "Richsatan" and that there is at least one other person, presumably an Eclipse client, involved in this discussion.

I should point out that I have had absolutely no involvement with either the Games Workshop article or Cailil (or any wikipedia administrator) before my talk page comment beginning "Further to the above...". I was drawn to visit the page upon receiving a message indicating that I was suspected of being a clone of a user called Richsatan. Looking into this led me to the Games Workshop article and Cailil's involvement. For what it's worth I tend to agree with the criticism of Cailil's content position as some of the material he or she is campaigning against was entirely well sourced and properly written, but that no longer seems to be at the core of this matter. This now seems to be more about Cailil running around bashing Eclipse users and I think it is clear he (she?) has broken some rules. I certainly feel unduly attacked.

I think it's obvious that this has created an entirely circular situation whereby Eclipse users receive rude messages from Cailil about being Richsatan "sockpuppets" and are drawn into the argument. Please, someone, think of the children! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.152.165.79 (talk) 11:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I've checked the immediately preceding IP address with RIPE. It is indeed as claimed part of a DHCP block for an ISP's customers, as indeed are the whole of 82.152.164.0/22 and the whole of 82.152.176.0/22. This should help in the future. Feel free to mark the other IP address talk pages above that are in those ranges in the same way, and check further addresses with RIPE. Uncle G (talk) 13:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Uncle G. I need to address some of the very interesting remarks made by the person using IP 82.152.165.79. They do in fact claim not be the same person as the user who made the same (verbatim) points at Talk:games Workshop and on ANI in March 2008. Interesting that user also claimed to be new to wikipedia then but in fact these IP users pre-date RichSatan as illustrated at the RFCU and the previous ANI. Also it's worth remarking this IP and that IP in March 2008 made their first posts criticizing me for the December 2007 deletion and claiming to be a new independent user. I'm going to drop a note to the other users who had experience of this case in 2008 and will present further diffs for examination shortly. I want to address the behavioural issues here (primarily an IP or group of IPs harrassing a user about an edit made over 30 months ago on a page they haven't editted since then)--Cailil ^talk 14:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

So hang on, we have an independent third party telling you what's going on technically, and you're still desperately trying to sling mud? Of course everyone is making the same complaints about you, you're doing exactly the same thing to all comers. This "harrassment" line is preposterous to the point of absolute laughability; before this time yesterday I'd never heard of anyone called Cailil, yet now I'm harrassing you? You came to me, if you recall!
I think my response to this has been absolutely impeccable in the face of the most outrageous arrogance and discourtesy (and so, as far as I can tell has that of several other people, if they're to be taken at face value). If I cared this much about the Games Workshop article, really, I would have edited it.
I really have run out of things to say on this topic. As I understand it the same technological issues that created this situation also make it impossible for Cailil to censure me personally, at least with any reliability, so really this is all just hot air in any case. As such all I'll say is this: I don't know what the procedure is for complaining about an administrator, but I get any more unpleasant messages, I will do my best to find out.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.12.72.1 (talk • contribs) 15:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thre is the problem with your remark that "before this time yesterday I'd never heard of anyone called Cailil, yet now I'm harrassing you? You came to me, if you recall!". You see I tagged Ip 82.152.164.81 on the 11th of July 2010[121], one week after it made this post to Talk:Games Workshop[122]. That July 4th post mentions me by name. Then on the 15 July 2010 at 14:10 (UTC) after the IP 82.152.165.79 replied to a different IP user (who IS a different user the IP is in a totally separate range and location) who responded to the comment by 82.152.164.81. Now MuZemike was contacted by 82.152.165.79 on July 16th. The above posted was made on July 19th by user who was using 82.152.165.79. So it is fair to say you've been involved in this, making comments about me since July 4th not July 18th. Remember we have experience of dealing with anon editors here on WP and we have public records.
Also THIS is the venue to complain about administrators but I caution you I wasn't an admin when I made those edits and I have not used admin privelages in any contact with you but feel free to ask for outside input--Cailil ^talk 16:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if you've read the post by "Uncle G" above but does explain how random assignment of IPs works. In case you haven't, I'll make it clear: an IP address does not uniquely identify a computer (even if a computer uniquely identified a person, which isn't a factor in my case but could be in others). If you are using, for instance, an ADSL modem, every time you connect that modem to an exchange it will (or may, or probably will) be given a different IP address. Sometimes this happens to me even when I don't explicitly ask it to. This is all entirely normal. I'm not sure I quite follow the chain of events that you describe above because I'm not sufficiently familiar with Wikipedia's administrative process, but in light of this I think it's more than adequately explained. The only comment I wrote on the Games Workshop talk page is the one beginning "Further to..."

You don't know what you're talking about, and you're making serious mistakes. I don't know you, I have never heard of you, and yet you are going out of your way to wind me up. Do you not see how this causes a problem? Do you not understand the potential negative impact of accusing effectively random people of things they clearly and obviously didn't do?

But at the end of the day I can't stop you doing what you're doing, and you can't stop me doing what I'm doing. Let's get a disinterested administrator involved. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.85.189.168 (talk) 17:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not "trying to wind you up" - I am trying to sort out a serious problem. Wikipedia prohibits the kind of personal remarks made by these IPs on talk pages and I am wholly within my rights to pursue this.
Also I do understand the situation with IPs and have dealt with far more complex ones than this. The shifting of IP address is precisely my point. There is only one constant in this situation - users from your IP range harassing me about an edit I made in December 2007, and then claiming to never have used wikipedia before and to have never edited Talk:Games Workshop before. What the diffs show is the same behaviour, the same area of interest, the same attacks on me, the same single point of content and the same IP range. Now I've posted this here for outside input but if none comes I'll bring this straight to SSPI--Cailil ^talk 18:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Also to clarify something it may not be YOU, the person who has just written here, that is the person replicating RichSatan's behaviour but somebody using the same IPs range is. The best course of practice for YOU to avoid being confused with a sock-puppeteer is register an account with wikipedia. This would stop you from getting messages left on IP accounts meant for other users. Also it would be good for you to acquaint yourself with our policies on civility and talk page usage and also the three core pirnicples of Wikipedia, WP:V, WP:N, WP:OR--Cailil ^talk 18:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Jrfoldes Back At it Yet Again

Resolved

 – Blocked by Shell --LK (talk) 08:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive617#User:Jrfoldes_Reverting_Again and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive616#User:Jrfoldes Edit Warring and Spamming Fansite/Copyright Violating Link for the previous two reports. Last time he was blocked 3 days for his continued disruption at the You Can't Do That On Television articles, including reverting consensus based redirects and merges, restoring inappropriate fansite "references" that violate WP:COPYRIGHT, and continuing to add unsourced, BLP violations to articles. He has been warned numerous times on his talk page, and after the second ANI report, he got the three day block. In his request to be unblocked, which was declined, he falsely claimed that he was being "harrassed" by not being allowed to do his actions, falsely claiming I deliberately deleted references then removed the content they supported (illegal sites are not "references" it is spam which was submitted for blacklisting), and flat out lied by claiming he asked to work "together" with anyone as his only responses to the clean up of the articles has been to continue to try to restore his preferred versions over numerous opposing voices.[123] A few days ago, he again reverted the redirecting of Amyas Godfrey to the series article[124], which was redirected as a BLP violation per the results of other AfDs of similar actors in the series, and per consensus of multiple other editors. Thus far, only Jrfoldes has "disagreed" by his continued reverts. I left him a final warning, to which he responded with his usual complants of harrassment. A neutral editor, User:J Greb, also warned him to stop, but instead decided to interpret it as a warning against me.[125] Today, he again redid ALL of the inappropriate edits he has been warned for numerous times before, including restoring articles redirected by consensus in AfD and restoring links to a copyright violating site.[126][127][128][129] He clearly has absolutely no intention of stopping this disruptive behavior even after being blocked last time. I think strong action, and an official topic ban, may be necessary as he refuses to accept any responsibility nor admit to his continued wrong doing, falsely claiming no one has told him what he did wrong (two ANIs and the numerous warnings on his page aren't enough?). -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 03:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Immediately after my reverting his edits again and reporting him, he redid them[130][131][132] (which I have reverted as vandalism for his continue use of an copyright violating link, BLP violations, and previous blocks for the same edits). He also left a pseudo ANI notice on my page again making his frankly bullshit claims of harrassment and distrorting J Greb's words to claim that consensus is needed to REMOVE his violations, and other random made up remarks[133] and when I removed it (per my right) he restored it[134] -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 03:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Since the editor had a long history of warnings over the same kinds of behavior and just came off a block for identical behavior, I've upped the block to 2 weeks this time. While I'm all for letting people figure things out as they go, continued copyright violations after warnings and explanation is a serious problem to say nothing of the persistent edit warring and personal attacks. Shell ^babelfish 06:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Bband11th

I've been having issues with User:Bband11th over the course of the past few months. Just recently however, the disagreements have spread to other articles over issues that are pretty straightforward. The most recent example is on the article Larry Farmer (basketball). There is a dubious statement on that article and I added a {{fact}} tag to it. He added a reference that did not support the statement, so I reverted and tried to start a discussion on the article talk page ([135]). He continued to revert ([136]) so I brought it up on his talk page, ([137]) but he merely removed the notice. ([138])

I believe this stems from another dispute we've had on various college bowl game articles. You can see the discussion here: [139]. The gist of the discussion is there was no consensus on how to treat the odds, so we should just leave the stylistic debate as what the article originally used. The user is having difficulty accepting that. He continues to change the articles to

The last part of my "complaint" is that he has been WP:HOUNDing me on various pages that I've edited that he never has. See: [140] and [141].

I've tried to contact the user to resolve these disputes, but he is not responding and there have been no discussions. I think he's a good Wikipedia user, but I don't know what to do anymore. I'll gladly avoid the articles he edits. In fact, I'll check the history of an article prior to editing it if it has something to do with UCLA (the types of articles he tends to edit). If he's made an edit to it, I will not (he hadn't edited the Larry Farmer article prior to when I did. Farmer crosses our WMU and UCLA paths. If he had edited it, I probably would not have). — X96lee15 (talk) 04:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the Larry Farmer (basketball) article, I attempted a rephrase that should hopefully address both of your concerns. See this revision of the page. –Grondemar 04:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm good with that change. It amazing how simple a change can be when you take a step back :) — X96lee15 (talk) 13:55, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

99.238.167.207

I would like to report that 99.238.167.207 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be a sock puppet of user:Vedant but I'm unsure how to post a sock puppet case. 88.106.103.83 (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Signs of sock puppetry and make a judgment about whether there is enough evidence of sock puppetry. Go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Submitting_an_SPI_case to submit a case if you believe that you have enough evidence. Keep in mind that it is perfectly alright to edit without logging in, as long as one does not do so to mislead, deceive, disrupt, or undermine consensus. LK (talk) 08:50, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have notified the users in question of this thread. Mauler90 _talk 09:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Just so that everyone here is clear, the user making this claim is a sockpuppet of the banned user User:Yattum. This SPI case should shed more light on the situation. It's also worth noting that Yattum here has in the past, accused me of sockpuppetry, a claim which has been refuted by a CheckUser. I actually did advocate a range block of 88.106.00.00/16 but it was not implemented as a look at the range contributions reveals that other edits were made that don't fit his MO.

Anyways, I have no intention of replying or responding to these accusations. If the admins here feel a CU and block is necessary, then by all means perform one and actually determine if I've engaged in sockpuppetry. I'm just going to let the moron above babble like a fool and spit more accusations out. Vedant (talk) 15:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

An as some additional food for thought, here are the contributions of another IP from the 88.106 range who has re-instated claims made by Yattum's sockpuppets (claims which I removed). Perhaps it just made him upset and motivated him to launch a frivolous investigation... Ofcourse this time I can't be accused of furthering Indian nationalism... shame. Vedant (talk) 15:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism from 95.133.226.150

Resolved

 – Various editors have now reverted all articles and talkpages back to the pre-spam state. TFOWR 10:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Could someone help to revert the edits from 95.133.226.150 (now blocked) please. Most of the edits were automatically signed by sinebot, so rollback isn't an option. —  Tivedshambo  (t/c) 10:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Jakezing requesting unblock

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

I have recently declined Jakezing's request for unblock, but want to offer my decision for review. It is now more than a year since the last block. My own opinion is that a mere request is not enough; we should have more prospect of improvement before lifting the block. For instance, a record of contribution at some other Wikimedia project. Since the block was imposed due to an ANI thread in June 2009, it needs consensus to lift it. If you have an opinion, please comment. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

If this user agreed, we could try something along the lines of Diego Grez' former sanction, to make sure he's really reformed. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Comment—I would really like to oppose his unblock request, because his behaviour while an editor was so dreadful, but I am really struggling to find any substantive reasons to do so. Therefore, I feel obliged to say give him another chance; if he messes up again he can easily be re-blocked. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 13:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment: A lot can change in a year. I'm inclined to say give the guy a chance. If he screws up what's the damage? Another block and maybe 5 minutes of rollback. If he's ready to be a positive contributor the Wiki will be better for it. N419BH 13:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Notified - I've notified Jakezing about this thread so they can follow it. I've suggested to them that they post anything they wish to say on their talkpage and it can be copied here if relevant. Exxolon (talk) 13:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Comment Normally I'd support these, but someone who's been indeffed four times (twice as User:Cody6, twice as this unsername)? WP:AGF and all that, but I'm not convinced. Black Kite (t) (c) 14:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• Question It's unclear from the thread EdJohnston linked to whether this user was blocked indefinitely (which means an Admin could unblock him) or banned by the community (which means he can only be unblocked by consensus -- or an appeal to the ArbCom). IMHO, if Jakezing was only indefinitely banned, then any Admin could unblock him, but then that Admin -- or a designated mentor -- would need to keep an eye on this editor to make sure he plays nice with others. -- llywrch (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

  It was a consensus block; see this. Ironholds (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Nope. A year is a long time to move on from four (yes, four) indefinite blocks, and it's quite possible someone could turn their personality around in that period. I would perhaps be more convinced if the unblock message wasn't platitudes which rely only on our belief that he might have changed. AGF only goes so far; after four indefinite blocks, there needs to be something more convincing than "I promise I won't be rude most of the time". I'd suggest editing on another project and keeping his nose clean; that way we have some actual evidence of a shift. Ironholds (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
• His comment "I can't guarantee I will always be civil" is not altogether promising. If he wants to edit that badly, maybe he could propose some edits to articles, within his talk page, and demonstrate the extent of his sincerity. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

User:EmiruTheKnight

This user was created about a couple of minutes ago. He is advertising on his page about his YouTube account. I did request speedy deletion but he took it off, and seeing Wikipedia says not to edit war, I am not going to do it. What do I do? I am new here( sort of, was using IPS) so can someone help me? Thank you. AboundingHinata (talk) 15:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

My question is whether links to YouTube videos of games might be copyvio. Dougweller (talk) 16:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Seems like his only edits were to make his user page, and blank yours (which has the same thing, advertising your YouTube account). Why did you feel justified in blanking his user page and trying to have it speedied when you are doing the same thing yourself? Also, can you explain this edit[142] in which you seem to be taunting another editor by indicating you are an IP who reported him for something (though there is no record of his being reported for anything, blocked, nor even warned). -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 16:14, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

the one user page was advertising, and proposing speedy deletion was reasonable. The other case was blanking for no stated reason, apparently in revenge. The two are very different. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not saying Emiru is right, I just find it odd that the reporter in essence was doing the same thing, even without a hard link. That to me was odd and would at least make his reaction at least mildly understandable if inappropriate. -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 18:49, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't. Not that it matters. I was just patrolling the recent users page. I will delete my user page if it bothers you. I just think him advertising is wrong. And for Tom, I can't really answer that. Sorry. I don't know how to answer, explain please. AboundingHinata (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Wait, just that Tom was making Seagate Technology disputed... that's it. AboundingHinata (talk) 16:22, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

"I did request speedy deletion but he took it off, and seeing Wikipedia says not to edit war, I am not going to do it" Actually, the creator of a page is not supposed to remove speedy tags from it (see WP:CSD) so restoring it would be fine (though if they kept on restoring, I agree finding an admin would be better than pointlessly revert-warring over it). Olaf Davis (talk) 18:40, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

War

At List of wars 2003–current, I added 2010 Kingston conflict to the article because it was an armed conflict between the Jamaican military and the Shower Posse drug cartel, similar to the Mexican Drug War. A few individuals keep removing it because, according to them, it's not a war. I provided sources at the article's discussion page where media outlets called it a war, ye these folks keep removing it. It's becoming annoying. B-Machine (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Neither should be included - those are more law enforcement actions than wars. GregJackP Boomer! 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Without getting into the debate, just because a few reliable sources say something doesn't necessarily mean it's right. Sometimes, they intentionally (or not) use sloppy language; if it's an obvious mischaracterization, don't try to force it into the article and hide behind "verifiability, not truth" (I swear that truþ is a 4 letter word here). Look at the events themselves, and try to determine if the sources are giving a rational definition, or it's just hysteria. If the former, then try to find consensus; if the latter, then find a better term. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes I suspect that the media is not the best source to decide is something is a war (but then does perception maketh war?) but if this is just a content dispute try the talk page? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 16:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's the problem - the media loves phrases like 'drug war', but that doesn't make it a war. But this is a content dispute. Wikipedia:Content noticeboard? Dougweller (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Plenty of people have gotten killed in the "drug wars". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sure, and in gang wars also, but are those wars? Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

So, you're involved in a slow-burning edit war, and rather than engaging in dispute resolution, you instead escalate the dispute here? Do mind the WP:BOOMERANGs, they can give one a nasty clout. I'd suggest that you don't come to ANI unless there's a clear need for admin tools to be used. You losing a debate is not a good reason. If you continue to edit war, you might find yourself blocked. Fences&Windows 17:10, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Block evasion

• Sodomite (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Onereydick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Looks to be a self-admitted block evading sockpuppet[143] of indef'd User:Sodomite. Nsk92 (talk) 16:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

No doubt about it; professes as much here, too (see specifically [144]). That said, the first block was for username violation. "Trolling" was brought into the block log later. I think the current username is probably okay. He seems to have been spurred by dislike of our username policy, initially, but I've explained how to contest policies and help change them. Maybe we should give him a chance to show he's interested in being a good contributor. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:02, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That[145][146] was definitely trolling and I think that last edit fully explains the block summary. In any event, using a sock account to evade a block is not an acceptable solution. An admin willing to deal with this may restore, at least temporarily, talk page access on the master account, and the user can make his case for unblocking, name change and whatever there. Nsk92 (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't think this is quite the same class as the usual block evasion, even though I pointed out the issue to the contributor myself at the conversation I linked above. He hasn't made any effort to hide his new identity (indeed, has disclosed it in all subsequent conversations) and seems to have had reason to believe, as he indicates here, that registering under a new username was what was expected of him. It's what he was first told to do here, after all. No doubt, this is a rocky follow up to that, but, again, I think a chance is warranted here. If he continues in the same vein, he can easily be blocked again. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:13, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

It still strikes me as improper, at least procedurally, to allow the sock account to continue editing while the master account remains blocked. I also have more than a sneaking suspicion that the Sodomite/Onereydick account and the Wolfpussy accounts may be related. The very first edit[147] made by User:Sodomite was to Wolfpussy's username RfC - a very unusual place for a new user to start editing. Plus later there was this request[148] to upload a Wolf puppy picture, reiterated from the Onereydick account[149]. Nsk92 (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there may very well be other issues here. No arguments there. There may be some sock issues; certainly his behavior is a bit unusual for a new contributor. As to his being blocked for block evasion, though, I think it depends ultimately on whether User:Sodomite created a new account in good faith. His block was a softblock, and he was given instructions to choose a new username. He didn't cover himself with glory with his unblock request and the new username was almost certainly chosen in part to wave the flag for freedom, but his behavior as a new account does suggest good faith in respect to block evasion at least. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ari89: Repeated bad faith, personal remarks, etc.

This person is essentially edit warring by reverting a pretty minor edit of mine, while making personal comments in every exchange on the Talk page. It has become impossible for me to assume good faith. There are strong religious overtones here. Ari89 self-identifies as almost exclusively interested in the Bible, and is a member of the Orthodox Church [150]. The basic gist is that I wanted to identify some sources for factual claims about Jesus scholarship as Christian theolgians, since I think it is relevant to our readers to know when religious sources are used for factual claims on religious topics. This has been reverted and met with a incessant stream of accusations of prejudice, POV, etc. My edit in question: [151] Comments from User:Ari89 directed toward me:[152]

"You seem to bring everything back to your personal point of view as you attempted on the main Jesus article. Wikipedia is not your personal outlet for what you think scholars should believe. "

"Noloop's attribution is not impartial, and it is part of their personal pov. On a number of Jesus related articles Noloop attempts to bring everything back, without citation, to his own personal hypothesis..... Noloop wishes to bring this back to the fringe theory that Jesus did not exist." (For the record, I have repeatedly said I don't doubt the existence of a historic Jesus, and have made no edits intended to suggest otherwise.)

"unless all of a sudden the mainstream of academia is going to claim that reliable sources by Christian scholars at leading secular universities cannot be trusted because Noloop sees a "conflict of interest" there is no need to force our own prejudices in."

"Noting that you are advocating a personal prejudice against sources is not a personal attack. Appealing to personal attacks to force consensus isn't very useful."

"In light of some POV pushing and attempts to redefine the whole historical Jesus field of scholarship on the basis of personal preferences,"

"On the rest of your comment, I have stopped reading. You can constantly accuse me of personal attacks until the cows come home, but that will not make them materialise out of nothing. Find a new game. "

Ari also left this unexplained warning/threat to block me for vandalism: [153]

I'm not calling for a block or punishment. I think some sort of feedback would be appropriate. The person is obviously unwilling to work collaboratively with me.

Noloop (talk) 16:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Another attack on my motives, on a Noticeboard: [154] Noloop (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You argue that I was not assuming good faith in noting systematic POV pushing, and in this report you open by claiming I am bias because I identify as "a member of the Orthodox Church". Of course, you are yet to show me demonstrating a bias in this regard, but it seems it hasn't stopped attempts at poisoning the well.

Furthermore, accusing me of personal attacks on this noticeboard is not the place for content disputes. I have outlined the numerous reasons for reverting your edit - especially as they entirely modified the meaning of the sentence contrary to the attached citations. Multiple editors have also questioned these edits on the NPOV noticeboard.

Standard WP policies continue - verifiable mainstream dominates, editorial comments and personal opinions have no place. I also don't understand how those comments are meant to be personal attacks.

Finally, you modified my comment on the historical Jesus talk page. Do not modify people's comments. I also do not see how me giving you the heads up on not to modify other people's comments is a personal attack.

In essence, we discuss content disputes - not cry wolf. --Ari (talk) 17:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Having interacted with both editors on the issue, I can say that both have a point. Noloop is taking quite standard comments too personally, and this is not an issue that should have been brought at ANI or even at WP:WQA. On the other hand, it would really help if Ari89 could be more collaborative and less on the defensive, trying to assume good faith. --Cyclopia^talk 17:26, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment Noloop has some rather clear POV motivations around the fringe theory that questions the historicity of Jesus and has been wasting everyone's time at numerous talk pages and message boards he forum shops at because he doesn't like the answers he gets. Please see Talk:Jesus and Talk:Historical Jesus. See also ...

• Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard#If_a_majority_.28or_all.29_of_the_sources_for_factual_claims_about_Jesus_are_Christian.2C_is_it_proper_to_mention_that.3F
• Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#If_a_majority_.28or_all.29_of_the_sources_for_factual_claims_about_Jesus_are_Christian.2C_is_it_proper_to_mention_that.3F
• Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources#Are_there_guidelines_for_conflict_of_interest_among_sources.3F

Noloop needs to realize that he's being very disruptive and completely refusing to listen to reason. This makes people justifiably upset.Griswaldo (talk) 18:36, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Can you clarify where do Noloop "clear POV motivations" come out? On Talk:Jesus he explained very clearly his concerns/viewpoint, but he repeated very clearly that he does not question the historicity of Jesus, so you are doing a pretty bad straw man argument against him. --Cyclopia^talk 18:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know about WP:WQA, or I would have brought it up there. The comment of Griswaldo is pretty typical of this whole thing. I do believe some Christian topics are not sufficiently neutral, but my basis for saying so is straightforward. Conflicts of interest and cultural bias should be brought to the attention of the reader. Wikipedia is not for the promotion of Christianity, or the Good News, or anything like that. These concerns are being met with a constant stream of accusations of being anti-Christian. I feel like I am being hated in the name of Christ...bleh. Noloop (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

You are being opposed by people (like me) who are not Christian. Please don't play this kind of victim game here. My concern is with your perspective vis-a-vis scholarship in the area of religion and not anyone's religious faith.Griswaldo (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

@Cyclopia. Here you go -- one quote from Noloop and one from the second sentence of Christ myth theory.

Noloop

• That figure is a legend, mythic in the same sense that Odysseus or Rama are mythic. They may very well be based on individuals who really existed, but those real individuals didn't battle cyclops or winged monkeys. We could not say scholars agree that they did. This article doesn't exist to promote Christian doctrine: from a secular perspective, Jesus (as Messiah) is a legendary, mythic figure."

Christ myth theory

• Some proponents of the hypothesis argue that events or sayings associated with the figure of Jesus in the New Testament may have been drawn from one or more individuals who actually existed, but that those individuals were not in any sense the founder of Christianity.

If you don't see the similarity in these perspectives then I cannot help you.Griswaldo (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Call for applications for Checkuser or Oversight permissions

The Arbitration Committee invites applications for Checkuser or Oversight permissions effective with the posting of this motion. The application period will close at 2359 hours UTC on 1 August 2010. For this round of appointments, only administrators will be considered. Candidates who ran in the May 2010 elections elections are encouraged to apply for consideration in this round of appointments. Administrators who applied for permissions in the round leading to the May 2010 election may email the Committee at arbcom.privilegeswikipedia.org by the close of the application period, expressing continued interest and updating their prior responses or providing additional information. New applicants must email the Committee at arbcom.privilegeswikipedia.org by 30 July 2010 to obtain a questionnaire to complete; this questionnaire must be returned by the close of the application period on 1 August 2010. The Arbitration Committee will review the applications and, on 13 August 2010, the names of all candidates being actively considered for appointment will be posted on-wiki in advance of any selection. The community may comment on these candidates until 2359 on 22 August 2010.

For the Arbitration Committee, NW (Talk) 17:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Discuss this

Image tagging by User:Sfan00 IMG

Resolved

 – discussion started at policy page.Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:30, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Sfan00 IMG (talk · contribs)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk · contribs)

Sfan00 IMG, a bot owned by SharkespearFan00, is mass tagging images for speedy deletion under F2 that are Commons images, but which have a category at en. His response to my question about a discussion authorizing this deletion was unsatisfactory [155].

There are a number of categories of free images on Wikipedia (see Category:Images by country, Category:Image galleries, Category:Wikipedia images by subject). Unless there has been a decision somewhere to delete these, their members should not be unilaterally deleted without discussion. --B (talk) 18:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Firstly Sfan00_IMG, is not a bot, as has been explained on countless previous occasions.

Secondly, It was my understanding that images that were now on Commons whould be categorised on that site, and the local page removed. I therefore request evidence of the claims the aforementioned user is making. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:35, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Clarification - I'd like to see evidence that the response wasn't satisfactory... Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:00, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, this account was blocked just last week after an issue with images, since resolved. Could you provide a link to the relevant policy page on these mass deletions? I don't want to go searching for it. Assuming there is a policy on this, I don't see a problem. N419BH 18:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• WP:CSD#G8 covers this as well as WP:CSD#F2. WP:CSD is policy, and I fail to see any reason not to delete these image description pages for non-existent images. The images are hosted on Commons. If you want to categorize them, do so there. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• (ec) (1) I assumed it was a bot, I apologize for my assumption. In any event, it's irrelevant - my concern is the edits themselves, not whether it was an approved bot action. (2) I gave you three big image categories with lots of subcategories. The fact that innumerable commons images are categorized means you shouldn't just delete them unilaterally without some rule or discussion affirming the deletion. You're asking me to prove a negative - that no such discussion exists. That's illogical. I'm asking you what your authority is for tagging these images - is there a discussion wherein you proposed tagging them? Is there a rule that you are relying on? F2 is for empty description pages. A page with a categorization is not empty. We don't just mass delete stuff without some kind of discussion. --B (talk) 19:06, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• There is a rule. G8: "Pages dependent on a non-existent or deleted page. such as ... image pages without a corresponding image". I don't see how this could be construed as controversial. It's covered by well established policy. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I think this only applies to somebody creating File:XYZ w/o uploading an image anywhere -- which would obviously result in an empty page. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't see where it says that. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

That's what "image-page without corresponding image" means. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Bingo - there is a corresponding image. That corresponding image just happens to be on Commons. In any event, this alleged "long standing policy" is clearly out of line with our current practices. --B (talk) 19:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

(ec)(I don't have any stance here either way, I'm just showing how the policy/rule referred to here is ambiguous; maybe it should include "...and and pages for images hosted at commons")Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• That's what you believe it means. That's not what it says. The pages Sfan's been tagging lack a corresponding image. That fits G8 perfectly. If someone wants to categorize the images, they can do so on Commons. In fact, such work is quite welcome on Commons where categorization is often lax. It doesn't need to be replicated here on en.wiki. If a given project wishes to categorize images, they can do so on Commons and place a link from their project to that category. There's plenty of articles on the project that have links to Commons categories. That's why we have {{Commons category}}, which is structured to direct a person to Commons. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As I suggested, maybe that should be clarified at the policy-page, e.g. this discussion should be continued there. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• I don't know. The policy does say "This excludes any page that is useful to the project, and in particular: ... image pages or talk pages for images that exist on Wikimedia Commons." Seems very counterintuitive to me. What could we include here that shouldn't be included on Commons??? Maybe if there was a deletion discussion here. But, using a local page to categorize something on another project? That doesn't make sense to me. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:27, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

The current efforts have been halted, until there is a CLEAR and SPECFIC CSD for 'local page for image now at commons'. Do you want me to start reverting F2 tags per B's logic that there needs to be a 'justification' disscussion? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

See here: Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#.22image_pages_without_a_corresponding_image.22. Hope that helps. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 19:29, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please roll them back until there is text added to the deletion criterion to support their deletion. --B (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure I agree that this situation is covered by CSD G8 and F2. {{Db-imagepage}} (G8) says that it applies when "the image is on the commons and the page has no Wikipedia-specific information." F2 says "This also includes empty (i.e., no content) image description pages for Commons images." In the cases at hand, the image pages that have been CSD'd do have Wikipedia-specific information (categories, in particular). It may be that G8/F2 are intended to cover this case as well, but it sounds like it needs to be clarified. Tim Pierce (talk) 19:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing dispute at Rasmussen Reports

Ed Wood's Wig (talk · contribs) has been having problems over at Rasmussen Reports and he appropriately filed a RS/N and a RfC on 4 July to try to deal with it. Ed showed some good initiative and he was off to a fine start. Shortly thereafter, several users asked Ed to rewrite his initial RfC statement for neutrality per the RfC instructions and he refused. On the RS/N, he was asked to cite specific examples per the instructions posted at the top, and he again refused. On the same day, an interested user contacted him on his talk page, and for two weeks, nothing happened. On 18 July, I saw Rasmussen Reports listed at RS/N and I made two brief comments and then contacted Ed Wood's Wig to see if I could be of some assistance. As you can see from the subsequent discussion, Ed wasn't interested in helping resolve the dispute. After this dead end, I began making a series of non-controversial edits to see if I could at least lay a foundation for taking a stab at the problem. I cleaned up some section headings per MOS, removed a dead link, and tagged a reference as needing verification. I also rewrote a tiny bit for clarity, but I did not make any major changes in tone or content other than moving text into more useful sections.[156] Ed, who had refused to work with other editors on either the RS/N, RFC, and with me on his talk page, then waltzed over to the article and reverted the changes I had made and those of User:Kenosis and restored his personal version from 17 July which was complete with bad links, MOS issues, and poor grammar.[157] He was reverted by another user, and then reverted to his personal version yet again.[158] So, to conclude this report, we have a user who refuses to participate in both a RS/N and an RFC he himself filed, refuses to work towards resolution about these issues on either the article talk page or his user page, and who continues to edit disruptively on the article itself. Other eyes on this issue would be appreciated. Viriditas (talk) 18:54, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, correctly stated. Seems there's a POV issue here. The article is far from perfect, even though Viriditas did an excellent job of cleaning uo the article. The Wig has been told numerous times that the article could be balanced better, and has been asked to discuss his concerns, but he simply refuses to. I really would like to AGF but I'm sensing an agenda in the edits the wig makes. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera!

Well, this is just a lot of false stuff right here. I rewrote the article back on 1 July. After some edit warring back and forth, I took the discussion to the talk page, beginning here, where I noted which blogs where the problems. People then...asked me what blogs were the problem. When I pointed out the policy, they then told me I was wrong about the policy on blogs, which didn't really make a lot of sense, and I was accused of a "mass deletion" (which one can judge for themselves content-wise here - note that Kenosis thinks that this is "well-sourced"). That was going nowhere, so I opened an RfC regarding the blog sources. While one person did ask me to rewrite the RfC, which I did, it still wasn't enough for some people who felt the issue wasn't about the blog sources. Of course, that's exactly what I was requesting comment on - the use of self-published sources on the blog. Kenosis and I eventually had a good conversation and made some headway, which he then abandoned. So I made the changes that he requested, restored the rewritten version since no one else had commented, edited, or made any note at talk for over a week, and here we are. Veriditas claims I'm not interested in helping resolve the dispute, but I'm more not interested in trying to make the RfC into something its not.

The problem here is simple - we have users who want to restore a version with poor, unreliable sources that have significant undue weight. Does this need administrator intervention? Maybe. I don't know if it will help or hurt the situation, but be sure to do your own research on the issue first before you take the word of Viriditas - or myself, for that matter. Ed Wood's Wig (talk) 20:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Specialkjamie

Resolved

 – Facepalm –MuZemike 19:45, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure PapaDrom (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is Specialkjamie due to this edit. I made an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/PapaDrom. Jamiecocopops (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thats him and so are you? Frostiesjamie (talk) 19:31, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Et tu? S.G.^(GH) _ping! 19:34, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Enforcement regarding User:Mk5384

• Mk5384 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user is on an indefinite civility restriction, where if after four blocks, starting at a week in length, the user still persists, the block may be upped to indefinite.

If the community would please check his block log, they would find not only has he been blocked for edit warring, this block has been changed to revoke talk page access for incivility/personal attacks, and was then upped to 2 weeks for gross incivility. After all of this, the user still would not stop, and chose to evade his block just to vandalize the original blocking administrator's userpage. If there are any doubts the IP is them, simply check the IP's contributions.

This user just can't seem to abide by our rules, and frankly doesn't seem to get it that their behavior is unacceptable here. Per their most recent 4 changes, today in their block log, starting for edit warring and being upped for personal attacks, I propose this user's block be upped to indefinite.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC) User notified, not that it matters since they cannot comment here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 19:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I upped it to 6 months before I saw this, because I suspected that "indefinite" would be "infinite" given past contributions. YMMV.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

• Just as a point of order, the block was changed to revoke talk page access for gross incivility, but this was done at the same time as someone increased the block to two weeks for the same (see the timestamps). So that should really be read as an enforcement of one action, but with differing opinions on how to enforce. With Mk5384's actions today, I'm throwing my hands up. –xeno^talk 20:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)