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

"X-Y" relations stubs

Resolved

 – user got blocked for threatening to vandalise articles. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

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

---

Extended content

Hilary T (talk · contribs) has created 16 stubs of the type Greece-Nepal relations [1] since April 1, when the account went live. These stubs are controversial; many editors (like me) consider them in most cases content forks from, say Foreign relations of Nepal. The editor has been made aware of this, yet continues to create such stubs (it appears at an accelerating rate -- Mongolia-Vietnam relations Australia–Vietnam relations and Egypt-India relations all created today, while the editor also removed a prod from France–Nauru relations). The intervention i'm seeking is an admonishment to stop creating such stubs, until we got some kind of RFC/consensus building mechanism in place to determine the conditions under which bilateral relationships are considered encyclopedically notable and useful (i must admit some editors think all of this stuff is worth having, it is a matter of dispute). But for now the serial stub creation (most without inline citations or reliable sources) is becoming disruptive. Here's a discussion of this sort of issue from earlier this year involving Groubani (talk · contribs) which seemed to yield a very clear consensus that such serial stub creation was disruptive and should stop [2].Bali ultimate (talk) 17:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I am creating stubs on notable topics. They all have reliable sources, and the new ones even have inline citations. They also seem to have a reasonable survival rate at AFD. I'm fully aware that people like Bali ultimate don't like them, too bad. Hilary T (talk) 17:22, 10 April 2009 (UTC) And can someone please tell Bali ultimate that my articles do have sources, since he won't listen to me. Hilary T (talk) 17:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC) My two cents: ignoring the prior precedent, Hilary T, keep on creating them if you wish and people like Bali will keep on listing them for deletion. The smarter strategy for both of you (especially Hilary) is to wait on a few of the AFD nominations and see what sort of precedent we have (not all get deleted but clearly most aren't staying). I don't care either way but Hilary T is the one who is going to be wasting the most time at this. Spend more than a few minutes at each one and you may have a few saved. I say take the same attitude here we do with our most famous serial stub creator. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC) The only constructive solution here is for Bali (being the only one really concerned as I see it) to draft up WP:Notability (bi-lateral relations), defining what a bi-lateral article should contain to satisfy WP:NOTE, and then take it into the field and start quoting it at Afd, to force people to read it, and edit it if they disagree with it, or say in afd why they disagree with it. It's obvious this editor is not going to give up while consensus is in limbo, and he's not going to get banned simply because it is in limbo (although obviously, there is a line between working in a vacuum of consensus, and editting tendentiously). A good start to get underway would be to simply start the page, cut and paste all prior discussions onto the proposal's talk page, and then start to distill the arguments into proposal content for the main page. What I do know is arguing the toss every time at Afd or at AN/I is a pure waste of time. At the very least, a proposed guideline that becomes a train wreck is still a usefull archive record. At the very least Bali, it will save you repeating yourself at Afd. MickMacNee (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Ricky gives sage advice. Just keep creating and nominate as necessary. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC) Mick, I don't think anyone is going to create a specific notability argument for bi-lateral relations, as it's just too specific. Let a few of the AFDs settle into place, and consensus will form (wasn't that how fiction, porn bios and other specific ones came about?). If anyone is really interested, I'd suggest a couple of user-space tables of all the various incarnation of bi-lateral relations, so that both sides can see what's red and what's done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 10 April 2009 (UTC) The advice above to continue this conflict does not make much sense to me if meant seriously. Hilary, though deletion processes can be unpredictable, there is no chance whatever that these articles will stand unless there is more material than just their mutual ambassadors--even when they have ambassadors, which is not the case for all of them. If you want to establish an actual precedent for articles like this, then work on strong ones and strong ones only. Once you have established these, then try some somewhat lesser ones and see the reaction. When creating, it pays to start at the top (and when deleting, at the bottom, which by and large Bali is in fact doing, appropriately. I saw a number of prods, & as I don't think the articles have a chance, I'm not going to deprod them.) DGG (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I don't do "mutual ambassadors" articles, that was someone else. Hilary T (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2009 (UTC) You have been doing ones with similarly sparse material, such as a single visit of foreign ministers and nothing else--and where there are not even mutual embassies. DGG (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC) I think what is more important that the presence or absence of embassies, especially when one of the countries is extremely poor, is the question of whether or not their relationship "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". I think you are confirming my suspicion that these articles are being deleted just because they short, and/or to punish that guy (and now me) for creating them. But because there is no policy that says you can delete articles for being short or in order to punish someone, I see all kinds of ridiculous distortions of your actual policies, like "sourced to newspaper articles = fails WP:News". Hilary T (talk) 07:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC) You do realize that regardless of how you view notability, DGG's views (and the views of others) are more in line with general consensus and as such will probably survive over time? Unless your plan is to just create articles and argue the same points in AFD after AFD until you find yourself blocked or topic banned, I'd say try another tact. Some articles are surviving, others aren't. Again, try to figure out what is acceptable and work on those, leaving the more fringe ones for later. You should add in reference tags, and other minor details but generally I have no problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC) If the general consensus is completely different from your written policies perhaps you should think about updating them. Hilary T (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC) (od) Wikipedia:Starting an article specifies that articles should only be created if the notability of the topic can be verified through reliable sources. User:Hilary T is participating in the current AfD discussions of obscure bilateral relations stubs and is aware that the notability of these relationships needs to be demonstrated. As such, it seems to be disruptive for her to create further stubs with no real attempt to demonstrate WP:N is met at the time of their creation, even allowing for her newness. The most charitable interpretation of this behavior is that she's relying on other people to bring her articles up to the required minimum standard, which is fairly unhelpful behavior. Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC) I'm aware of that. It's clear that some of his article are worth keeping (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazil–Vietnam relations is going his way), so I'm not sure a blanket ban on creation is appropriate nor really is warning. He has a reasonable interpretation of notability that possibly could survive here and in my opinion, I don't see it as vandalism or even WP:POINTy-ness. I'm not saying he's new or not. I'm saying I think it's reasonable interpretation. Again, if we allow a certain user to create dozens of unsourced articles like Carl Eugen Keel and Albert von Keller, what's wrong with relations between nations? Both of which are on a case-by-case basis debatable. Look, if he was just creating completely moronic things like relationships between micronations or dead civilizations with literally nothing there, I'd have a different tune, but some of these are actually useful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 12:06, 11 April 2009 (UTC) I agree. While a lot of these articles simply have no way to expand, a blanket ban would harm some notable subjects. However, it would be better for everyone to devise a notability guideline, since WP:N tends to be too generic to allow for easy immediate evaluation of the new article. —Admiral Norton (talk) 15:29, 11 April 2009 (UTC) This comment from Hilary T is rather unsettling: "I'm going create as many articles he [BlueRaven] doesn't like as possible for as long as possible". Promising to go on a spree of creating non-notable articles just to spite another editor is not very constructive. - Biruitorul Talk 18:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC) They aren't non-notable. Hilary T (talk) 19:12, 11 April 2009 (UTC) That's not the point. Creating articles simply out of spite is highly inappropriate and you'll see a complete block for that, not just a topic ban. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Well I'm not prepared to just accept these edit summaries so you can go ahead and block me now. Hilary T (talk) 21:48, 11 April 2009 (UTC) Even more unsettling stuff from Hilary T: here, she turns her user page into an attack page, declaring herself "motivated by hate", while here she says, "I just want revenge now". Do we really want someone with those motivations going on an editing spree? - Biruitorul Talk 05:31, 12 April 2009 (UTC) I'm not thinking "spree", I'm thinking long-term here. Hilary T (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC) In the interest of full disclosure, my input was requested. Anyway, here are my thoughts: The two diffs cited by Birutorul that mention the other editor are a bit unsettling as userspace should not be used to critique other editors. Concerning the main topic, I don't think creating the articles on relations is really a problem so long as they can cited through reliable sources. We are after all an encyclopedia/almanac and foreign relations are unquestionably an encyclopedic/almanacic topic and something people have an obvious and valid interest in. I can easily see someone thinking, "You know, I wonder if France ever had any significant foreign relations with (insert random country)" and coming here to find out. Many of these AfDs seem premature, i.e. not adequately taking into account WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE and that may be a bigger concern. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC) I'm not saying no such articles should be created, and in any case that doesn't require intervention on this board. What is troubling is that the user is promising to create articles just out of hatred for another user. That seems a little dangerous. - Biruitorul Talk 17:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC) That's a bit of a paradox, then, because I agree that if the motivation is to annoy aother user, then it is misplaced motivation, but if the articles themselves are worthwhile, then what? If someone started an article on (pick random president), because he hates that person and wants to annoy people, well, we wouldn't keep the article redlinked, because American presidents are encyclopedic topics, so it's a riddle here. The reason for creating the aricles is questionable, yet the articles themselves seem worthwhile. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:42, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Good point, although the close proximity of these users (as opposed to, say, a user and a President) makes the bad blood between them more likely to have a corrosive effect. Regardless, it's a situation to be watched. - Biruitorul Talk 18:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC) In my view, regardless of the quality of a user's content, that sort of incivility should not be tolerated, and as such, I am removing it from his user page as an G10 attack page and am warning Hilary. I could care less about the dispute but this sort of conduct will not be tolerated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC) How come you tolerate edit summaries like "burn with fire" anyhow? Hilary T (talk) 18:11, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Because burn with fire is a view about an article, not a specific editor. Also, he isn't the first to use language like and honestly most people don't care. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Most people don't care, do they? Perhaps your sample is disorted by the fact that almost everyone who does care just leaves. Hilary T (talk) 06:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Similar behavior Didn't we have someone creating similar "X-Y Relations" articles last year? Anyone recall what the result of that drama was? — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:53, 12 April 2009 (UTC) User:Groubani was banned and his sockpuppet User:Plumoyr has been inactive since February. He was annoying, but at least he didn't make threats of the sort Hilary T made just above (he didn't know English). - Biruitorul Talk 16:56, 12 April 2009 (UTC) I didn't make any threats, I just explained what I am doing and why. Hilary T (talk) 18:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC) My response to the announcement of a plan of revenge was: "If you act on that basis, you will soon be blocked from contributing, and very rightly so. You may accept that, but it will also harm the possibility of anyone working on these articles, because such actions will taint them". I regard he attempts to introduce the articles in exactly the same way as I do the campaign to delete a large number of articles of the same time, some but not all of which ought to be deleted. We will lose some good articles, which is not unusual at Wikipedia, and also tie up Wikipedia process in our trying to sort it out with as little damage as possible. The temptation is of course for us to respond by deleting all the articles, just as we delete everything submitted by a banned user. If there is any way to turn her into a responsible contributor, I do not know, but certainly I would not proceed in the absence of further disruption. If there is, I suggest another checkuser. The first was declined Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Plumoyr/Archive as for the content issue, I suggest my usual remedy--combination articles until expanded. DGG (talk) 19:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Actually the first IP check was Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WilyD/Archive. If you don't want to create disgruntled users, you could try not insulting them by calling them "meat puppet", not lying about their contributions to "help get them deleted", not ignoring everying they say in 9 different debates and lacking the decency to admit it, and not deleting good faith contributions with edit summaries like "kill it, burn it, then kill it again". Most sensible people would have left after first one, I'm just too ornery to be driven away. Hilary T (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC) You should take a look at the "combination articles" which exist at the moment. What does Foreign relations of Pakistan say about Pakistan's relationship with Japan? What does Foreign relations of Japan say about the same thing? Hilary T (talk) 22:01, 12 April 2009 (UTC) Well, generally, I would say we should be looking for there to be enough information until it's necessary to split it and create a separate article. That's the way I think about articles. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:45, 12 April 2009 (UTC) This might be part of the problem. People like you think "In general we should do this", and they vote that way, without actually responding to the specific objections that have been raised. Hilary T (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Editors who believe that bilateral relations are inherently nonnotable are going to use whatever tricks they can to get you banned Hilary. Certainly you've already seen specious sockpuppetting allegations, misrepresentation of the facts in your case, et cetera. Similar silliness has been flung at me. Here, you have to just take the high road. Create your articles, source them impeccably so no one can plauisbly argue they fail WP:N, make the cases at AFD when they're nominated regardless, and be nice. If you don't misbehave, there's nothing that'll get done to you, so be good. Don't worry that some editors want you banned, and don't give them fodder they need to see you banned. WilyD 00:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Sorry WilyD, I don't have to take the high road, because Wikipedia's interests are not my priority any more. I know what they want will result in a broken encylopedia but I really don't care. Initially I started creating these articles because I saw you complaining ablout being flooded and I thought it was a good way to give him an incentive to slow down. However I didn't realize how much it hurts when people who don't even read your arguments, like BlueRavenSquadron, get your contributions deleted with that kind of thinking. BlueRavenSquadron is obviously about 10 years old so I hold Wikipedia responsible for this. Now I'm thinking "what will give Wikipedia an incentive not to allow this kind of thing?" and I'm thinking a vivid imagination combined with that nice "cite book" template someone taught me. Hilary T (talk) 05:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Depends on what you want, of course. If you want to get banned, sink to their level and beyond. If you want to create a bunch of useful, encyclopaedic articles and have them kept around, let them expose themselves. 10:35, 13 April 2009 (UTC) What I want is to feel better about my relationship with Wikipedia. Getting banned is somewhat irrevelant to a strategy of creating fake articles, they would obviously all need different logins and IP's. Hilary T (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Well, I'm not sure I can speak to that. I write for the readership, and that I'm working in their interests, and some other accounts are working against their interests, I can't find solace in. I have to content myself with working for the readership, and benefitting it. If that's not enough, there may not be enough. WilyD 14:21, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I've been trying to figure out the proportion of good Wikipedians, who follow the deletion policy, google for sources and try to improve articles, compared to the ones who lie to get articles deleted like Biruiturol, the one's who are driven by hatred and vote without having the decency to read what anyone else has said like BlueRavenSquadron, the ones using AFD as a instrument of punishment like The Hand That Feeds You, etc etc. I thought you were in a minority of one, frankly, but there do seem to be some other decent people here too and so it's possible this project has a viable future. On this basis, if I don't get banned I might not start my campaign of fake article writing. Hilary T (talk) 04:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC) Whether or not we have these articles will not break Wikipedia. What will hurt Wikipedia a little is concentration upon issues of what should be separate articles instead of writing content. Those who think these articles important should try to write some more good ones one at a time. BTW, my idea of a combination article is : "foreign relations of Nepal with countries in the Americas;", with a paragraph for each, until someone writes more. DGG (talk) 07:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC) DGG it's broken right now, try to pay attention to what I say. Hilary T (talk) 07:17, 13 April 2009 (UTC) I have another question: why did you delete Greece-Nepal relations, instead of merging it according to your own policies? To punish me for creating it, no? Hilary T (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Greece-Nepal relations, you would need to ask User:Juliancolton. And you can keep on playing the victim here if you want but the truth is, people have made suggestions as to how to proceed and you've instead reverted to the same arguments, which aren't in the majority. Does everyone who supports you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Brazil–Vietnam relations now punishing someone else? I would guess that Julian, upon review of the discussion, did not think that you and User:User:WilyD had the arguments that indicated consensus the best, but you can ask him. Now, if you would like, there is Wikipedia:Deletion review if you think the decision was improper or I would be willing to move a copy into your userspace until a suitable version is completed. There are options available and they don't include insult other users who have a different view than yourself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC) What arguments have I reverted to? Hilary T (talk) 11:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC) And I think I'd better repeat this question: why did you delete Greece-Nepal relations, instead of merging it according to your own policies? Hilary T (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2009 (UTC) WP:POINT comes to mind. And User:Juliancolton deleted the article so, as stated above, ask him. We didn't make that decision. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 11:42, 13 April 2009 (UTC) If you deleted it instead of merging it because I created it to make a point (the point at the time being that WilyD was already overwhelmed with deletion nominations), I interpret that as punishing me and I have no need to "play" the victim, I am one. Hilary T (talk) 12:16, 13 April 2009 (UTC) That sounds rather backwards to me. It's hard to claim to be a victim when you intentionally set out to be disruptive. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 16:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC) Ok, you are right. I deserved my punishment. So sorry. Hilary T (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC) BlueRaven is still doing it, and I've decided it willl be too stressful to have any interaction with him, so I'm going to go with Plan B. Sorry Wily etc. Hilary T (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC) I suppose it doesn't make much difference now, but I have yet another grievance: You are closing debates like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Australia–Paraguay relations within 2 days, not even giving anyone a chance to look for sources. I can add false information and tell you immediately, and just make you run around looking for it, or I can add false information and tell you a month later, or never. Hilary T (talk) 06:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC) And can someone tell BlueSquadronRaven not to violate my right to attribution under the GDFL, as he did here [3] Hilary T (talk) 06:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC) What part of "speak to the specific administratior" don't you understand? There is no magic "we" deciding whether to keep, delete, or whatever out to get you. I don't even know what exactly you are mad at User:BlueSquadronRaven about. He voted to delete, like a number of others, and is actually adding details to Foreign relations of Australia. Frankly, I'm getting tired of this complaining from you. I'd like an outside view but I'm close to enforcing a break just for general disruption. If you want to start adding false information, see how long you last before we block you and move on. Oh, and tell him yourself. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2009 (UTC) I'm not planning on using this IP, dumbass. Hilary T (talk) 07:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC) I had got as far as leaving a final warning onm Hilar y T's talk page to find that Fut Perf had beaten me to it with a 48 hour block. That works for me to. Endorse block. Will also archive this. Spartaz Humbug! 08:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Romila Thapar: False Allegations of Sock Puppet: Please Investigate.

Resolved

 – Already posted at WP:AN

Wikistalking and harassment by User:Jack Merridew

Unresolved

Subpaged to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Jack Merridew-A Nobody due to size issues and for proper recording to polls by MBisanz ^talk 09:43, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Administrative eyes requested: User:Eye.earth

I'd like to ask an outside admin to review the behavior of Eye.earth (talk · contribs). I see this account as a long-term, low-level case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, though I'm currently losing patience and, perhaps, perspective. Most of his contrib history consists of promoting AIDS denialism, often by inserting its claims into various biographies:

• Paul Gann: cites an AIDS-denialist tract to contradict the New York Times ([4]). Endless edit-warring against several other editors to reinsert it, as well as this charming discussion.
• Greg Louganis: More hijacking a biography to soapbox about AIDS denialism.

Most of his effort seems to be devoted to rewriting our article on zidovudine to reflect an AIDS-denialist perspective (e.g. [5]). Recently this has taken the form of lengthy edit-warring against several editors, keeping below 3RR and trying to force in an edit which everyone else agrees is redundant or misleading ([6]). Straw that broke the camel's back is that I solicited outside feedback - at his request - and it universally agreed that his edit was redundant and/or misleading. Yet he continues to insert it.

He has edited other articles besides HIV/AIDS ones, but apparently has the same behavioral issues (see User Talk:Eye.earth). He was on WP:AN/I recently for the same kind of abusive editing at List of centenarians - see prior AN/I thread. I'm reasonably tired of dealing with him, but it's possible I've lost perspective. I would propose that he's reached the threshold for administrative action for continuous edit-warring against consensus, abuse of Wikipedia to advocate for a fringe agenda at the expense of core policy, and uncollaborative editing. I'd propose a temporary topic ban from HIV/AIDS topics, but it looks like his editing elsewhere is no more policy-compliant. I'd like to get some feedback. MastCell ^Talk 04:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

This user was previously(link to diff where Gwen links to thread(which is now archived, and I will not try to find it)) the subject of another ANI thread, with roughly the subject matter: Disruptive editing. Please just block this user and be done with it, they've made it blantantly clear they don't plan to follow our rules here. WP:RBI.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked 24 hours for persistent edit warring against consensus. Their last revert was to reintroduce unsourced material (including a fact tag) against the opinion of every other editor involved in the discussion. They'd been warned before, and this problem doesn't seem to be confined to one page. Hopefully this short block will deter them from continually disrupting articles. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
  • Aaaand... right on schedule, cue the socks. MastCell ^Talk 20:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
    • I've reset the block on User:Eye.earth per WP:EVADE and blocked that IP for 3 hours. The way I see it, they're welcome to discuss the matter on Talk pages, but not to make any further changes to the article text against consensus. I'm minded to apply further sanctions as necessary, towards that goal. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
      • I think they're necessary - he's still using IP's from the Sacramento Public Library to continue his relentless one-person crusade to force the article his way against consensus. MastCell ^Talk 20:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Smiley face murders - Legal threat/outing/COI/switching IP

Not resolved, more is needed unfortunately.

The Smiley face murders article has been plagued lately with an anon account trying to use the page to advance theories of someone called Mike Flaherty, with links to his blog, adding section to promote his theory (which has no mainstream coverage, just his blog), and even removing any mention that the majority view of the FBI/police/profilers is that there were no murders in the first place. This anon was finally blocked, but now a new anon IP account has started up the same thing, and the very first edit contains a legal threat and an attempt to out another user. DreamGuy (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

New problem, an IP is outing another editor on the talk page here that I suspect should be oversighted and the IP dealt with. I'm not sure how this is handled so I brought it here for others more knowledgable in what the proper procedure is in this kind of matter. I didn't remove the resolved template because not sure if that would be a proper thing to do either. I hope I have this in the correct location, if not please feel free to move or correct. Thank you for your attentions/help, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You would have been correct to remove the "Resolved" banner. There are two people trying desperately to get banned on the Smiley face murders talk page. I've left a warning but I'm a nobody so it might be more appropriate if an admin stepped in. They may very well have violated WP:OUTING already. Both have called the other by very specific names. (Whether they are correct or not I don't know). Padillah (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried to find and isolate the Outings but they are litterealy strewn throughout the edit history of the talk page. Padillah (talk) 12:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The anon has now expressed feelings of immunity due to his "endless IPs". Padillah (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all who have responded. I see Padillah has tried to help with this situation and I am in the same boat, unable to stop or remove the outing and poor behavior going on. The IP has already changed IP number so if someone who can would clean out the sock drawer that would be appreciated. Along with the outing, poor behavior we also have legal threats going on. I've never done a checkuser, oversight or any other request about problems I have seen. I always request politely the help of administrator to take the appropriate actions. At this point I believe indefinite blocks are in order for all involved. This can be seen at the talk page and apparently the article history though I think the article has been oversighted and I don't think that the problems have reocurred but I haven't checked again recently. Some of the problems are [7] [8] which is when I saw the problems esculating. Thanks for listening and taking time to tend to this. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I would consider blocking a range of ips and notifying the isp to be justifiable in this case. Do we know they are from the same isp? --neon white talk 14:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

The ones I've seen all whois to the same ISP in middle America. Keep in mind, all the dynamic IPs in the world won't get one by semi-protection. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

If they are all from the same isp a range block would likely be effective, not sure about reports to the isp as i am unfamiliar with US law and the responsibilities of isps. --neon white talk 16:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

More threats now, just FYI. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

SP'd my talk. Looks like he's persistent though. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 16:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"DreamGuy just added the libal again to the Smiley Face discussion page, Wiki needs to remove this, before legal action is taken. DreamGuy should also be banned. You have 30 minutes to remove this and ban DreamGuy or I will out you as well and spread your personal data all over the Internet." is pretty outrageous. Nothing I said could even remotely be described as libel, and demanding that I be banned or else he'll go around outing people shows all new levels of disregard for our rules. DreamGuy (talk) 20:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I highly recommend filing an abuse report on this one. It should be a priority to rid the project of this egregious person. --neon white talk 21:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Trolling at Phaistos Disc

"grapheus" is a well-known usenet troll who made an appearance at Phaistos Disc in 2006 and ended up permabanned over trying to cause real-life difficulties for another editor. This chap can be extremely tenacious, and is known to have pressed legal charges against other usenet users over flamewars. He is now back with a vengeance and appears to have picked me as his new arch-nemesis.[9] He is using Luxembourg IPs, and the only way to keep him under the lid is issuing short rangeblocks to his provider. I would be obliged if some admins could keep an eye on Phaistos Disc for the next couple of days and slap the IPs with blocks as they come in. Thanks, --dab (𒁳) 21:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Also making attacks off-Wiki, which is no surprise. [10] and [11]. Dougweller (talk) 06:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sheesh, someone needs to get a life -- & to belabor the obvious I am not talking about Dab or Dougweller. -- llywrch (talk) 05:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle again

Okay, with the !voting at 26 keep vs 5 delete, and the last 11 all keeps (mostly in tones of incredulity that it is up for deletion), I am shortly going to do a non-admin snow close unless somebody either objects here or beats me to it. Looie496 (talk) 22:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Done as proposed (now at 31-to-5, by the way). Since this is the first time I have closed an AfD, it wouldn't do any harm if somebody would verify that I've dotted all the i's properly. Looie496 (talk) 23:50, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Its usually best to note you did a non-admin close in the closing statement, and that you closed as keep per WP:SNOW rather than just keep. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I've added that info.Looie496 (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You shouldn't close an AfD discussion in which you have commented, particularly 'snow keep'! Leave it someone uninvolved. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

All right, I won't do such a thing again. I did at least state quite clearly here that I was going to do it unless anybody objected, and nobody did. Looie496 (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Especially when the majority of the early keep votes were based upon YouTube pageviews, which aren't in line with policy. AFD isn't a vote so 31-5 is meaningless and an inappropriate metric, especially for a snow discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Though I agree that it would have been better if someone uninvolved had closed it, it looked decidedly like a ski resort. Whether it's a merge if necessary (IMO it isn't) or just a straight redirect, the one outcome that wasn't going to happen was deletion. Someoneanother 00:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

AFD reopened per discussion at the Village pump and the Help desk. D.M.N. (talk) 13:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Per village pump and help desk? Oh brother. There's a certain irony to complaining that a non-admin close is out of process, then re-opening based on a few comments in those two forums. Closures should not be reverted lightly. That becomes a process problem as well. Wikidemon (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, it's open yet again. Time well-spent. --Moni3 (talk) 14:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I re-opened it because of the recent change to extend all AfDs to 7 days, and only close sooner for WP:Speedy keep and WP:CSD scenarios. If we don't insist on it now, it'll never get done properly. (Note that I did !vote to keep, I'm not trying to get the result to change.)--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

...and User:PeterSymonds ignored my reopen reason and closed it again.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

That article will be deleted or merged within six weeks so I wouldn't worry. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it/hope not. :-) In any case, PeterSymonds agreed to let me re-open. Bouncy, bouncy, bouncy... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

It was a silly and wholly inappropriate action to reopen that AfD, has common sense been excluded from Wikipedia these days? Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:13, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Not at all. There's a valid question as to whether BLP1E applies or not. The only way to determine the answer is to let it run the full length so that people can weigh in. I don't think it does, but I'm not going to assume that my opinion is the correct one. See the discussions about the Snowball clause during the recent AfD change discussions for why I'm doing this.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oi, I'm getting dizzy here. Who's going to stop this crazy wheel. But all in all, what is the harm in letting the discussion run the full 7 days, especially since there are editors disputing the early close after less then 48 hours? --Farix (Talk) 17:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Especially since the most recent response was a 1E-based strong delete.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Groan. I apologize for creating drama when my intent was to reduce it. Probably if I hadn't closed the debate some admin would have by now, and we wouldn't be in the ridiculous position of having a deletion template on an article that has had 23,000 views in the past day. Looie496 (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

A bit of advice for future occasions: when you leave a note stating you'll do X "unless somebody either objects here or beats me to it", wait far longer than an hour -- especially if it involves a speedy keep/delete. At the worst, someone will get to enjoy having egg on her/his face. :) -- llywrch (talk) 05:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Outside admin intervention needed

I've just withdrew my nomination to have it deleted, as consensus is clearly merged, only now it appears to be turning into a lame edit-war. Looking since the start of the debate:

1. Closed @ 23:44, 13 April 2009, reopened @ 12:19, 14 April 2009.
2. Closed @ 13:26, 14 April 2009, reopened @ 14:46, 14 April 2009
3. Closed @ 16:21, 14 April 2009, reopened @ 16:39, 14 April 2009
4. I withdrew the nomination at 13:06, 15 April 2009, as consensus was clearly emerging (although this was called inappropriate by MickMacNee (talk · contribs)
5. Closed @ 14:52, 15 April 2009, reopened @ 14:56, 15 April 2009
6. Closed @ 15:07, 15 April 2009, reopened @ 15:26, 15 April 2009

I think we need an uninvolved admin to step in (and when it does get closed properly to fully-protect the page to avoid someone reopening it). D.M.N. (talk) 15:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• When you discount the IP votes, and the keeps from brand new users who have not given a policy based argument, then the argument is pretty even. But that is beside the point, because withdrawing after that many votes and three days, when it is clearly not a case of SNOW, is simply innappropriate. If you are confident in the apparent consensus, where is the harm in leaving it open for the full term? MickMacNee (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• In addition, when I previously enquired about a nom withdrawing a nomination, the consensus was that if the debate is well underway, it belong to the community and the withdrawal is *not* a reason for closing. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• At this point, it's probably be best to let the AfD run its full course even if it's pointless and forget about it. From WP:SNOW: "the snowball clause is designed to prevent editors from getting tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic discussions over things that are foregone conclusions from the start". Now WP:SNOW was rejected, however, we still do not need to get tangled up in long, mind-numbing, bureaucratic meta discussions about it all. Equendil Talk 16:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• With all do respect, it is an obvious keep and the re-opens look like a WP:POINT violation. Can anyone in their right mind imagine closing this as a delete without a lot of wikidrama? Further, although the "delete" opinion is respectable (albeit in my opinion a misunderstanding of policy), the claim that delete wins because it has the better argument and everyone who thinks otherwise does not count is basically a rejection of the consensus approach. Wikidemon (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks to me like a case of "the merges have it", prolonging the debate is unnecessary so anyone (including the nominator) could perform a non-admin close as no consensus and then either boldly merge or start a merge debate. WP:BLP1E supports merge, but that's a content issue as this is a likely search term. Guy (Help!) 16:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I know it looks like I'm making a POINT, but as the guidelines for AfD closing just changed, I think this is an appropriate time to insist on the full AfD.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It looks that way yes. Just because the guideline has changed, its stupid to ignore common sense! This is just disruptive. Jenuk1985 | Talk 17:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that it's disruptive to keep closing a non-unanimous discussion in the face of guidelines specifically saying not to.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Susan Boyle seems to have plenty more keeps than deletes. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:52, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
• If I had to close the AfD now, I would do so as no consensus to delete. Setting aside the keep arguments based not on policy but on popularity / public interest, several contributors believe that the coverage in multiple reliable sources is a demonstration of notability. However, there is no pressing need to close the AfD now. It seems to me that the most likely result of prolonging the discussion will be the writing, publishing and discovery of more source material, thus reinforcing the case for a Keep result. On the other hand, there is also the possibility that many editors will offer their opinions that this is a BLP1E case and as such not encyclopaedic material, regardless of the amount of media coverage. Perhaps that will be sufficient to constitute a consensus to Delete; perhaps not. Rather than attempt to predict the outcome, I support keeping the AfD open, in line with policy. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

All AfD discussions run for at least seven days. However, a closure earlier than seven days may take place if a reason given in either Wikipedia:Speedy keep or Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion applies.

What part of "all" is unclear here?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, to be fair, the section you're quoting basically says, "AfDs should run for 7 days unless they shouldn't." -Chunky Rice (talk) 16:45, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

And neither of the "shouldn't"s actually applies in this case, so let it run.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I hate it when people throw this around, but WP:IAR anyone? There is no way in hell this AfD is going to be closed as delete and it's only for reasons of process and bureaucracy that people are insisting the AfD continues. Oren0 (talk) 17:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

• • As one of the people who has most strongly been urging the extension of time from 5 days, for years now, actually, I think nobody intended that there would not be common-sense exceptions, if necessary justified by IAR in the absence of something more specific. But this is not one of those times. When two responsible editors both urge SNOW closes, but different SNOW closes, it would seem that this is not the time to use IAR, of which SNOW is a special case. DGG (talk) 17:30, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Without revealing my position on how AfD's should be handled, that sentence is awful from a basic logic standpoint. Someone go rewrite the policy to say "AfD discussions generally run for at least 7 days. However tktktktk."Bali ultimate (talk) 19:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Off-Site harrassement by User:Norse Am Legend

This editor posted a personal attack at Talk:Dragon Ball attacking myself and other editors.[12] I removed and warned. His response was that it wasn't a personal attack[13] but another editor also agreed it was and reiterated the warning.[14] Norse is now proceeding to harrass me off-wiki, leaving a comment on my YouTube profile of "Obnoxious cow." and leaving a long, ranty comment on my anime/manga review blog (and he makes no effort to hide it is him). I can provide the copies of emails to an admin offsite if desired. The comment on my blog includes his email address and IP address for confirmation, if needed. This is not his first time being incivil, though as far as I know it is his first time taking it off wiki. Administrative advice and action would be much appreciated. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you email links and email copies to me via my user email link? I'll investigate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sent. Thanks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Received and reviewed. Not the worst off wiki harrassment I have seen but not great behavior. Warning left on Norse Am Legend (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) talk page. Hopefully this is the last we have to do about it. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, he still thinks he is justified because "she's worse then I am."[15] --Farix (Talk) 03:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Please don't twist and simplify my words. She's not "worse than I am", we're very different people with incomparable "issues". - Norse Am Legend (talk) 04:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I realize this diff has already been posted, but I feel the need to note a few particular sentences: Hell, maybe she's just secretly the most devoted and effective Internet troll ever not to mention: She deserved all two words of that amazing insult on her character I made. Someone please block this user, they have made it blatantly clear they don't care about our WP:NPA policy. Responding to a warning against insults with an insult? As I said above, there is no signs he's going to stop, or even sees what is wrong with his off-wiki-harassment.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I gotta agree. A block is the best way to go here, as it seems the user's behavior isn't going to change. - NeutralHomer • Talk • April 14, 2009 @ 05:33

Final warning left. AGF that it will be taken as intended. If not, the rope's out as far as it should go, I think.

I have no idea and no opinion on the wider question raised, of whether Collectonian needs to be looked at. Someone else may want to review. One example given was 6 months old and stale - if there's anything newer someone may want to follow up there. But even if there is, Norse Am Legend is responsible for his actions. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, I don't intend on "continuing" anything. It's true I'm often disgruntled by the actions of my peers here, but being the intelligent and rational person that I am I just brush it off and go do something else. Really, other than my handful of small-time conflicts with Collectonian I'm an unobtrusive, constructive editor(a fact that seems to have been overlooked in favor of making me appear as a raging troll with NPA issues 100% of the time). Hell, I don't even hold any such immature, moral grudges against her as you might expect. She works hard and is fairly competent at what she does, the only issues I have with her are of her attitude used when socializing and cooperating with other users, and after seeing another all-too-familiar discussion involving her on an article's talk page I got a little too annoyed and flew off the handle a bit, something I don't intend on doing again since it really is just a pointless course of action. Now if you guys don't mind, I'd like to continue my "Wikignoming" in peace. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 19:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Dream Focus

Unresolved

 – Split 71kb thread to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Dream Focus. Discussion ongoing; update when resolved. slakr^\ talk /

Arson threat?

Resolved

 – Good faith edits by IP, just poorly written HalfShadow 16:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this edit [16] is intended as an arson threat or not. I checked the local newspaper and TV websites and couldn't find anything that states that the school caught on fire.  єmarsee  • Speak up! 06:17, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't really look like an arson threat, more of just some silly vandalism by a student. Might be good to check it out for a bit though. Matty (talk) 06:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I once plotted to burn down my high school using a lit cigarette, but they had a rule against smoking in the building. There's always some catch to any plan. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 10:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Oh, Bugs, please.....--Caspian blue 13:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I live near this school. It DID catch fire during the night, in the boiler room, and it is being investigated as arson. See [17]. --BlueSquadronRaven 15:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Added to article; marking as resolved. Edits were in good faith, just badly written HalfShadow 16:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's a textbook case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

PoliticianTexas sock

Resolved

 – Blocked Keegan^talk 20:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

AMenendez (talk · contribs) is another sock of community-banned serial-sockpuppeteer PoliticianTexas (talk · contribs). Positive evidence includes:

• Strong interest and opinions about the placement of demographic data at New Mexico. [18][19][20]
• Odd capitalizations appearing in infrequent edit summaries (Please see contribs of recent socks AndrewGirron (talk · contribs) orJWillems (talk · contribs) for more examples)
• Interest in the politics of Northern New Mexico, often manifested by the addition of local politician's parties, despite the non-partisan nature of many of New Mexico's municipal governments.[21][22]^{<-- This diff shows an IP edit that is the same range as many of PoliticanTexas' IPs, for more information please see User talk:DoriSmith/PoliticianTexas}
• Recent socks have also shown interest in New Mexico State University (see DianaRuiz (talk · contribs),[23]), particularly its athletics, which is in line with typical behavior of editing articles about New Mexican high schools and sports, especially pages involving the New Mexico Activities Association[24]

For more information refer to User talk:DoriSmith/PoliticianTexas. –Synchronism (talk) 03:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've had a history with this sockmaster, it seems to be the same sock of PT. Dayewalker (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not to be trite, suspected sock puppets is that away. Proper place for investigation. Keegan^talk 07:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

You're not being trite. Because he is a community-banned serial puppeteer, it is routine and in accordance with guidelines to bring it here first, I've been told[25]. —Synchronism (talk) 07:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• IMO, bringing stuff like poltix socks here is fine. All that requires is a blocking admin with some familiarity w/ this serial sockpuppet to step in. There isn't actually so much doubt that we have to start a SPI. Protonk (talk) 08:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Englishprince posing as admin, apparently getting passwords this way

Resolved

Englishprince (talk · contribs) is posing as an admin and has been asking for and apparaently getting passwords from other new users. I am off to warn the people he has conned, but wanted to give a heads up. Should the compromised accounts be blocked? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 12:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have indef blocked Englishprince for now. Despite the more extensive list on Ep's talk page, he only asked for passwords on three accounts and only one was fooled: Daffodils333 (talk · contribs). Daffodils333 has been a vandalism only account, but claims to have had a change of heart. I would be fine with blocking it too, but would like to hear what others think fist. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Definitely. I'm wondering if it wasn't his sock, the "apology" sounding somewhat over the top. yandman 13:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I think I agree with Yandman. Is it a coincidence that Daffodil vandalised Prince Philip, and EnglishPrince asked for passwords? I wonder if Daffodils333 'gave' his password out so that others would see that it had been done, and think it was OK? --GedUK  13:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it looked like quite a coincidence that most of the others on the list were indef blocked users from the past few months, and the one truly "duped" editor has such a strange history as well. I AGF'ed in my actions so far, but if people want to block daffodil as well and/or checkuser EnglishPrince to see if there is any connection with some of the other named editors, I have no objections. Fram (talk) 13:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

In the interim, again under AGF, I have fully suppressed the edits that revealed the purported password as a security measure. I too have some overall concerns here related to trolling. Risker (talk) 13:51, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to Fram and Risker. I already am watching Daffodil and had had the same sock suspiscions. I will indef block as a vandalsim only account at the next such edit. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 14:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Since Englishprince got lucky once, I would imagine they will be back to try again. -- The Anome (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

As a Good Faith gesture, here's my password: ****** Does that show up properly? I can't tell. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

My password is hunter2. JoshuaZ (talk) 21:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, who knew that Bugs and I would have the exact same password!!! (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

My password is the same as the combination on my luggage. MuZemike 12:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

You're all heretics. The One True Password is Ken sent me. Διγουρεν_{Εμπρος!} 12:20, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm using the frequency that I finally got Ken to divulge. Deor (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Migraine Associated Vertigo

Hey. I started editing on this page after giving a 3O, and tried to defuse a situation. Basically, Studio34 has been harassing Julcal for adding spam links into this article awhile back. Julcal is most certainly a COI, and the article might be a coatrack. Either way, Julcal just blanked the page and has repeatedly claimed that Studio34 has been stalking her. I thought about escalating this through DR, but the problems seem to be rather heated. I'm not quite sure where to go from here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• support banning Julcal as advertising only account. His activities extent to other articles, e.g. [Benign paroxysmal positional vertigo]. in contrast, I see only 1 edit of Studio34 on the article, but similar good reversions of spam elsewhere. Her editing shows she is following a subject, not an editor. I notified Julcal and Studioi 34 of this discussion, as seems only fair. DGG (talk) 16:07, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Agree with DGG. This user has at least two problems: WP:COI and WP:BATTLE. [26] and [27] are evidence of seriously disruptive tendencies. Guy (Help!) 17:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't understand why my page is a conflict of interests. It only talks about MAV. I originally posted a support section at the bottom with a link to my forum (which has no indirect or direct link to my business) because the way I found my first MAV forum was through an external link on Wikipedia to Studio34's forum. Regarding the battling, Studio34 provoked me by accusing me of being a "known spammer." And as HelloAnnyong says, he keeps harassing me.--Julcal (talk) 17:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)julcal

  Quick note: unless you are refereing to something else I don't see, it's not "your page". It's an article on Wikipedia and that is a direct violation of WP:OWN. Padillah (talk) 18:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I don't see the COI here either. It might have been there in the first revisions, but as of right now it's nothing more than an artice about a medical condition. I don't know if only admins have a vote here, but I don't see a reason for a ban. -- Aeluwas (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • As best as I can tell, the COI exists because Julcal is somehow involved with the subject of the article by being the host of a forum aimed at selling products for the disease. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • The forum is not for selling any product. It is a support forum for sufferers of MAV. Have you seen the forum? [28] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julcal (talk • contribs) 19:08, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Sure, but as long as the article remains encyclopaedic, I don't see the problem. It's a very real disease, and it ought to have an article (Ménière's disease is far less prevalent than MAV yet has had an article for a long time). Julcal created the page to fill that void, and while there was a COI at the start, there isn't now. -- Aeluwas (talk) 18:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • The problem doesn't exist with the article, but the link that was added to the article by the user. It was certainly an advertisement for his forum. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
        • I agree that I broke a rule, unknowingly, by adding an external link to a forum. But the forum has nothing to do with selling a product. It's simply a support forum for MAV sufferers and does not link directly nor indirectly to any product. I found my first MAV forum through an external link on Wikipedia. The link was removed in less than 24 hours of publication. Regarding the battling, as HelloAnnyong points out in her opening statement, Studio34 "keeps harassing me." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julcal (talk • contribs) 19:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
          • His statement, than you. And I only wrote that because you repeatedly wrote it. Can you give us some information on how you feel as if you're being stalked? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
            • I can. "S" Googles me to death, (I know that because he posts on his own forum all of the places I have an internet presence.) He watches my forum closely, follows the links I post to my members where they can find more information on MAV and related disorders. (This article being one of them). I have an internet presence on many sites where you can post comments. (I'd rather not point them out by name, so as not to give him more info) Whenever "S" can find me, he degrades me, I have to watch very closely just to delete his posts. You're probably wondering how I know it's him. He only has "one joke."--Julcal (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)julcal —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julcal (talk • contribs) 19:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with the comments above about COI and disruptive editing and think that a block is certainly in order. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • I have taken another look through the history, and i do not feel the amount of advertising warrant an actual ban, just a clear warning. The link to the user's commercial site for a remedy against this syndrome was extremely indirect. But I note that the forum linked to seemed inappropriate, as it is quite small and not a major resource. I do hope there's something better. DGG (talk) 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • As things have settled down I don't think a block seems to be warranted at this point. I'll post a formal warning on Julcal's talk page and that should do it. Shall we call it settled at this point? Icestorm815 • Talk 21:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• Thanks for looking at my forum! It's only been live for a week. I have 9 members already so that's not too bad. I also have a lot of knowlege about the condition and a lot to give to people. The forum will grow. Thanks again for looking at it! --Julcal (talk) 20:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)julcal

that illustrates the rationale for our rule about not using Wikipedia for promotion. We link top what is a significant resource, not to what someone hopes will become one. DGG (talk) 20:59, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, I expected you would say that and I understand completely. An unfortunate misunderstanding of rules. As I said, I found my first MAV forum, Studio34's forum, through an external link on Wikipedia. It's hard, the first time doing an article, at age 55, to retain all the rules in my head. I wrote the page to fill a void. There are articles on virtually all the other dizzy illnesses, but none on MAV. Whether or not I will be allowed to be involved in it, I will be feel good about putting it out there. I hope it turns out to be a great article someday. MAV sufferers need it - badly. This is a wicked illness.--Julcal (talk) 21:15, 14 April 2009 (UTC)julcal

• My only problem with Julcal was an external link she had inserted into the Migraine Associated Vertigo (MAV), the BPPV, and the Meniere's article. In all cases the link pointed to her forum. She is involved in an MLM company called Enzacta selling an expensive bogus product she claims cures dizziness with numerous links pointing to the sales site from the forum. It is a conflict of interest and it's spam. I simply left a comment in the discussion over at the MAV article asking members to keep a watch for any newly inserted outbound links to her sites. Apparently my editing out the links and changing her "support" title to "migraine link" in two of the articles constitutes "cyberstalking" in her eyes. This is absurd. The above comments about "Googling her to death" etc are complete nonsense.studio34 (talk) 21:47, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
  • on the forum, http://mav-forum.com/, there's the text: "This is a link to a Wiki article I wrote on MAV. " You may say what you please outside Wikipedia, of course, but it does give a false impression. I've removed the resolved label on this section, because there are continuing copyright concerns: much of the text of the article is a copy of that. DGG (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • Is there enough justification to ban Julcal for that? This article probably shouldn't be deleted since it is an actual disease; it just needs to be heavily rewritten. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes, the article should definitely remain; it is a real and disabling illness. Is there justification for banning Julcal? I believe so. Although she states "I don't understand why my page is a conflict of interest" and "The forum is not for selling any product", she clearly states the following on the Migraine-associated Migraine discussion board: "I actually don't mind the free advertising. My website is great and it's a great product." Does anyone need any more evidence than that?studio34 (talk) 23:53, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism and disruption by User:Tennis expert

Help please in dealing with childish, disruptive behavior by Tennis expert (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

As many of you know, there has been an ArbCom proceeding on date linking and date autoformatting here at Wikipedia:Date formatting and linking poll.

Throughout the course of this, I and the other members of our group have maintained a page in my userspace here at User:Greg_L/Delinking links. I’ve had to provide a historical link because here is what the article looks like now: User:Greg_L/Delinking links

User:Tennis expert started doing malicious edits on my personal userspace page (see Revision history).

As you can see, my Wikifriends (other editors who are members of a team on de-linking), reverted him numerous times. Tennis Expert editwarred with them and ignored them. All this occurred when I wasn’t aware of it. Finally members who were trying to restore the page to the way we wanted e-mailed me to alert me that this was occurring on my own userspace subpage.

I informed Tennis expert here on his talk page that his edits were not welcome in my userspace. His response was as follows: OK. I will pursue rapid deletion of your biased subpage.

And he carried through with his petty threat here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Greg L/Delinking links. As you can see, many editors have patiently started jumping through the hoops to do a good-faith effort at opposing this disruption. It is a colossal waste of everyone’s time and we shouldn’t have had to do this since what Tennis expert did was not in good faith.

This subpage in my userspace is a list of links pertaining to date linking and autoformatting. There were so many relevant sites that we couldn’t keep them all straight in our heads. So I started this page and my friends on our team added to it. It has been a valuable resource. It is not supposed to be “unbiased” or “biased” or whatever Tennis expert desires. It is a resource we have and continue to use.

Tennis expert’s move is just mean-spirited disruption. I ask that he be blocked for this move. He knows full well what he is doing. Greg L (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I've snowballed the MfD and warned TE, please let me or any admin know if he does something like this again. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Gwen. I think a trout would achieve more than a block at this, um, point. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks Gwen. You and I both know that what TE did was malicious and intentional and he knew better. Please take a look at all the time wasted by good-faith editors trying to deal with this disruption. This stunt was pure, unadulterated, purposeful disruption. Tennis expert deserves much more than a warning for this. Greg L (talk) 18:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I came so close to blocking him for 12-24 hours. I've banned him from your user space (until you say it's ok for him to edit there, if ever) owing to the disruption, he's now been warned, let us know if he tries to game things again. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Sure, it looked like a handy page of links, until you get to the bottom sections, when it starts to resemble an open ended evidence gathering exercise against multiple users, which I am quite sure violates WP:USER. As for Greg now giving the impression he has taken the collation of that sekrit info off site, for the purposes of coordination and collaboration with a select group of users, I am quite sure that sort of thing is not looked on favourably at all. Anyway, now it is speedy closed and moved off site, there is no good reason for the user page to remain in its current state (except of course ironically as a revision history for any action TE might want to take over this quite blatant baiting of another user). MickMacNee (talk) 19:02, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• It wasn’t moved off of Wikipedia. The site is a pure resource that is a writing aid for the benefit of editors who have a common objective. It is in my userspace. I moved it to another location in Wikipedia userspace where TE can’t find it but where it is still in my userspace. Without going into details, everything I’ve done is in accordance with Wikipedia policy. It is unfortunate that TE’s stunt required this. It’s the first time I had to resort to it. Greg L (talk) 19:23, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• P.S. Had TE thought strategically, his group would have created their own page with similar links to facilitate their efforts in promoting date linking and autoformatting. I doubt it would have helped, since the community was dead-set against both practices. But the efforts of the pro-linking crowd would have been better coordinated. Better yet, TE (or “they”) could have simply used my page as a resource for them to use rather than duplicate it. As far as I know, it would have been in accordance for TE to have done a wholesale copy of my entire page and modified it in his userspace as he saw fit to better serve their objectives. Or he could have transcluded my page into his userspace to serve as a resource. I put it right out in the open in my userspace and all those on our team edited it while still logged in. The page was easy to discover and was available for all to use equally once discovered. Instead, TE saw fit to simply vandalize it. That was tantamount to spray painting graffiti on a store font. Now the page is history. Greg L (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Or you could drop the whole battleground mentality and making a fuss about 'your pages' (they aren't yours, you are just given the privelage of using them for activities that benefit the pedia, which hopefully dovetail with the interests of you and your 'wikifriends'). I personaly cannot see what justification there is for maintaining 'handy links' to multiple other users block logs. Are you actually saying these are hard to find? Open ended evidence collection is a violation of WP:USER, period. Talking in terms of off site coordination against other users is definitely a violation. MickMacNee (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Quoting you: Or you could drop the whole battleground mentality. Look who’s talking? I’m done here with you. Try looking at the MfD results. Are you seeing a pattern where anyone went to Tennis expert’s defense for this stunt? I’m sure plenty of people can Wikilawyer until the cows come home as to how some of the links on that (now hidden) page were offensive to someone. Get over it. The site was a very valuable resource used in the promotion of new policies that have now been adopted through consensus by the community. All this effort was necessary because a certain few editors insisted it on having their way and Wikilawyered about how prior RfCs (which were landslides) were flawed and weren’t a true measure of the community’s views.

  And I don’t need you to remind me that no one “owns” their pages. Who do you think you’re talking to? Do you think I just fell of a turnip truck? You don’t own your page either. And you and I both know there are certain permitted practices depending on whether content is in userspace or articlespace. Very different policies and practices. I will no longer respond to you. It’s over. It’s all over. Goodbye and happy editing. Greg L (talk) 20:04, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• • Greg chose to say at the MfD, "P.S. Tennis Expert: I’ve created a duplicate page in a place you will never, ever find. Only my Wikifriends know where to look for it. And they have all been instructed to not edit it unless logged out. It is unfortunate we have to go to these lengths to circumvent your vandalism and disruption to Wikipedia. I’ll be addressing this soon. I suggest you show some contrition at this point and apologize for being a pain in the ass and wasting other editor’s good-faith time trying to deal with your childishness. And, for the record: YOU do not have permission to edit in my userspace. Only my Wikifriends have such privileges and you ain’t one of my Wikifriends. Comprender? " I do not find this helpful, especially the point on advising editing by what amount to special purpose socks. DGG (talk) 20:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
    • User:Rimisherim. Didn't break a sweat. --Kbdank71 20:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• Well, thank you very much. That is most helpful. Thanks for your help to make Wikipedia a better, less stressful, less vandalized place. Keep up the good work, Kbdank71. Greg L (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Greg L asked me to delete both pages, which I have done. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• TE didn’t even get blocked for his purposeful disruption. So I utterly reject your kooky notion of what you thin isn’t “helpful.” It’s pretty unfortunate that I had to do this, but it is entirely TE’s making. He couldn’t leave it alone where it was available to all. So it’s in a place where he can’t vandalize it anymore. Simple as that. Since he hasn’t been blocked, I trust him as far as I can drool. And I am busy in real life working on a medical implant. I’ve already wasted enough time this morning on this horsecrap. I won’t leave myself vulnerable to one more spec of this crap. As for “socks” I suggest you know what you are talking about before you make a fallacious accusation. I don’t use separate accounts for sock puppetry purposes. I use the other account for writing lengthy posts where I can make lots and lots of saves and not have it fill up my Greg L account with a ridiculous amount of history. I will no longer respond to you either. Goodbye. Greg L (talk) 20:22, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

• As I understood it, unless you have a genuine fear of TE harassing or outing you, there is no excuse for using alternate accounts like Rimisherim to segregate edits. And if you are using said account merely for administrative convenvience, it requires identification with your main account, so that posts like this are not confusing to others. MickMacNee (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Can I suggest, now that Greg has recreated the page at the same title, that it instead be undeleted properly, because the ANI discussion above and Mfd, and any talk page discussions, now make no sense to any observer, as it all refers to deleted page revisions. MickMacNee (talk) 20:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

All of you have just witnessed a small sample of the vicious back-&-forth that has come to characterize the discussion around Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking. It has gotten to the point where one can only conclude that Ryan Postlethwaite has the patience of a saint, & wonder why we can't simply lock all of the participants in a room where they can kill each other & leave the rest of us alone to write an encyclopedia. (And if I'm included as one of the participants, I'll galdly submit to a lengthy ban just to purge this poisonous interaction from Wikipedia.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

we would have the typical dilemma, of needing to bury the bodies. But it appears that some aspects of the poll may be decisive. Those who do not accept the outcome, whatever it may be, then your suggestion might be worth the messy cleanup. DGG (talk) 07:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Drogheda Grammar School

Long-term vandalism by User:Annoyingbeast. Too difficult for me to correct it all. Suggest perma-ban. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Blocked for vandalism only account. Icestorm815 • Talk 18:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser help, please

Resolved

 – thanks Nishkid64

Could a CU contact me via email concerning [29], please? Acroterion _(talk) 19:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

User:I-10 nee User:I-15 nee User:I-210

• I-10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User has been repeatedly blocked for edit-warring, incivility, and block-evasion including CU-confirmed puppetry (see here and here). Makes some good edits but at a cost of lots of cleanup and abusive/bad-faith/mistakes we have to clean up (and which he does not accept as problematic). Has lately engaged in username-hopping, maybe to avoid scrutiny--dunno as he has refused to discuss. Numerous attempts at discussion by several involved and uninvolved editors and admins has failed, as he blanks all talk-page warnings (okay) but usually his only response is to treat any suggestion or complaint as an incivil attack on him, while continuing the problematic behavior. Lately filed WP:ANI against one of his perceived attackers. When that didn't seem to be going his way, he gave up and claimed (as often) that the system is broken rather than that he might not be correct. Has now said he will retire. However, said he will return to edit his talk-page. His edits lately there are merely to attack myself and others with whom he's had disagreements while specifically stating that we are not to respond there or we will be blocked/etc.. Seems like long-term block with no-edit-talkpage is in order...WP is not a soapbox, especially if he's not planning to edit articles. I'd tell him about this discussion here about him, but he told me not to. DMacks (talk) 19:48, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

User apparently retired. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:06, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

...again. He retired earlier that day also but plans possible future return (he will vanish until he returns?) and maybe continue talk-page edits even while retired. I was happy to let him just go away and I don't care if he wants the last civil word, but he can't seem to do either of those. DMacks (talk) 20:24, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(editconflict)I've seen this happen before, some users put up the retired tag just to get away from any sanctions that might be imposed by the community. As far as I've seen, his behavior before that retired tag is unacceptable, so here is a proposal:

Proposal

My proposal, which has two reasons which can be used while being separate of each other, also have the same end result, that this account be indef blocked. Aren't retired accounts usually indef blocked to prevent possible compromise? If not that, this user has shown he doesn't care about our civility and no personal attack policies, and if he is indeed just using this retired tag as a way to escape any sanction, this block will prevent any further possible disruption if he is indeed just using it as a way to get out of trouble, so to speak. All that aside, if not an indef block, I honestly don't know what, but he does need to be warned, that if he does come back, and continue the same behavior, the time he was away will not matter, and he would be treated the same as if he was still here. Maybe a 72 hour block, less or more, that depends on what you, the community, has to say.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:40, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

He's been busy since his supposed retirement (confirmed via Checkuser-I). I'm not familiar with this user, but anyone with this type of troublesome sock activity needs to be indefinitely blocked. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 21:11, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Nishkid; the socking merits blocking. No, retired users are not generally indeffed and, quite honestly, Wikipedia retirement frequently isn't. Now, in invoking one's Right to vanish, one may request an indef, but that's a different matter. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Only users in good standing can RTV. I would think socking would qualify as loss of good standing. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 02:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User:ReNeSmEe BlAcK CuLlEn

There's a slew of very bizarre new user names showing up on the log, including this one. Lots of non-Camel Case names like User:Light my fire, light my fire, etc. There's at least one other reference to "Richard Cullen." I've seen this before, but I don't know who the sock master is. Any objections to my blocking any suspect names? --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I say let them start screwing around before we act. Might be something silly like a bunch of kids in school coming up with names. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, I don't really see anything bizarre about the username Light my fire, light my fire :S C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 09:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was pretty innocuous (a José Feliciano fan?), but I also notice another admin has blocked them as a sock.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 14:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The "Light my fire" is a vandal creating sleeper accounts, I don't know if the "Cullen" usernames are sockpuppets of anyone although one has made this edit which I've reverted as it looks like vandalism. —Snigbrook 18:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Improperly formed AfD

Resolved

A relatively new user started what appears to be a good faith, but ad hoc Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stanley Armour Dunham without any proper notifications or listings other than the tag on the article page. Can someone straighten this out and let him know how to proceed? Thanks. Tvoz/talk 19:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear on what admin action you'd like. Seems like anyone can drop the user a friendly note with helpful advice.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:01, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Already done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ricky. Since I disagree with the nominator on the matter I thought it was better for someone uninvolved to fix it. Tvoz/talk 21:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: vulgar, nasty, and obscene language

Resolved

 – Vandalism has since been reverted. Nothing much to be done. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 22:14, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.118.154.35 (talk) at 01:47, 15 January 2009. It may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 01:47, 15 January 2009 by 24.118.154.35 (talk) (diff) ← Previous revision | Current revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

think of the children Bali ultimate (talk) 22:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC))
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
My vAGINA IS NICE AS FUCK!!!!!!!!! FUCK MY CLIT BITCH. KESHONS A PUNK AND SUCKS MY DICK!! YEAH YOUNG JEEZY!!! WELL I WAS WALKING 2DAY AND KESHON CAME UP AND SUCKED MY DICK SO HARD CUM ALL OVER HIS MOUTH IT WAS HOT!! i HAVE A 25 MILLION INCH COCK SO CALL ME YOU KNOW MY NUMBER 1-800-FUCK-ME-HARD LICK DICK SICK IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN!!?!>! Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informant"

This material that is posted here is very vulgar and obscene and i find very offensive and this should be looked into. There are children who come on this site to look things up for school and they shouldnt have to see this kind of nasty language posted. i think this person should be blocked and not allowed back on wikepedia.com for this purpose of the vulgar and nasty language. I cant even come on here to do research because of the nastiness that i just saw and i sure wouldnt want my children seeing this kind of stuff.

Thanks Alysah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alysah (talk • contribs)

• Though Wikipedia is not censored, what you encountered was vandalism. That particular bit of vandalism was removed within a minute of its going up, so I'm not exactly sure why you're seeing this. --Dynaflow babble 22:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
• That version is 3 months old and has been fixed many times over. How did you even find it? It also was by an anonymous IP user, not an identifiable person. Encountering material like that is a risk you run in any open forum anywhere. As long as we want to keep Wikipedia open, there is nothing we can do about this. You have to weight the benefit you gain from any form of research versus the risks to encounter unpleasant material. That's a personal decision. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyone else find it odd that a brand new user's (Alysah (talk · contribs) first troll edit was to post this here?Bali ultimate (talk) 22:21, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(ecx3)Very odd. The style - upright clean-living and outraged mom who doesn't know WP very well protecting her children - is all too reminiscent of one of the avatars of a certain sockpuppeteer, recently banned for 18 months (with their IP blocked for 6). As that IP is blocked there's no point in a CU, though. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:36, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really. (Wait, now that I think about it)... It's a valid concern, and there isn't much discussion of readers going through the history, anywho.

← A quick digression, for Alysah: if the flagged revisions feature is implemented, it will be entirely unlikely for readers to see vandalism on the current revision (the current revision is the page you see). Going through any page's history will yield this kind of behavior from vandals, however. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

This brand new user with not a single edit to their credit was so offended that they figured out where the highest traffic place on Wikipedia was, made a beeline for it and reproduced the offending material in full -- then didn't stick around 5 minutes to see how it was handled. I'm reminded of the old lady who complains the couple across the alley are engaging in "lewd" acts, for all the world to see in front of their window. She calls the cops. They come into her home and look out the window -- and see nothing. "You can't see them from here, they say. "Well, you can if you push that chest over by the window and stand on top of it, she says.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I lol'd. I just feel obliged to tell you that. Xavexgoem (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Ta.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:49, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Could some kind WP:DUCK-hunter target my quacking friend? (school holidays continued...)

Resolved

 – Blocked, Tiptoety ^talk 23:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

I reported a loud quacking noise here a few days ago. Alas, Scottish schools insist on longish holidays, and my quacking friend has returned as Breakinguptheboy (talk · contribs). The MO is the same: create or recreate articles on the minutiae of Scottish music (this time around focussing on Goodbye Mr. Mackenzie) and undo past reversions of other Nimbley6 (talk · contribs) socks.

So, my plea is much as before: could some kind WP:DUCK-hunter deal with Breakinguptheboy as humanely as possible?

Thanks! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:38, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

 Done Tiptoety ^talk 23:42, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Blimey, that was fast! Many thanks, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:43, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

IP comments at Dreamhost

There have been problems on the Dreamhost page for several days now, although it seems to be being worked out on the talk page, which is good to see. However, in the last few days, IP 194.144.90.118 (talk · contribs) has popped up to seemingly disrupt. He has added his personal story of deciding not to use Dreamhost because of what he read on the wikipedia talk page. He's been reverted several times as per WP:SOAPBOX by several editors including me, but he has readded the material every time [30] [31] [32] [33]. He's now also calling anyone who disagrees with him as Dreamhost employees and attacking the company on the page[34][35].

I hate to see this subject get caught up again, as it had seemed to cool down on the talk page into a discussion. Would an admin mind having a word with the IP? I've tried to discuss it with the IP on his talk page, but all I got was "I will not be denied my right to have my say." That doesn't sound too productive to me. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 02:36, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Upon further review, this IP appears to leave no signature on his talk page comments. I didn't even know that was possible. It makes his edits and responses hard to track. Dayewalker (talk) 03:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

There's alot of things that you don't know, for example that wikipedia ads those ip signatures on its own. Please do not make untruthfull remarks, only one of my remarks has been reverted a remark on a talk page and the only one to revert my edit has been you.

It is also untrue that I am attacking that company or any other company for that matter. It is strange that this fellow would hate to see this subject tackled and that he'd prefer to see it in a frozen state when the article in question is clearly extremely biased and the discussions are not leading anywhere. I suggest that the poor fellow find something more productive to spend his time on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.144.90.118 (talk) 03:23, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Your Dreamhost opinion has been reverted by me, and also here [36] by The SerialComma. Dayewalker (talk) 03:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

As to the anon's comment "I will not be denied my right to have my say.", you do not have any such rights here on Wikipedia. Also, Wikipedia is not the place to discuss or post your opinions on any subject. Wikipedia talk pages should be used only to discuss edits to the article, and for nothing else. If there is anything you want to add to the article, you may do so with suitable reliable sources to back up those claims. But please don't post your opinions on the article talk page. Chamal ^talk 05:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The usefulness and therefor the right of the words to stay where they were written has been clearly been demonstrated by the fact that archiving was enabled for the talkpage as a consequence of them being written. If my words will not be allowed to stand then any and all references to them should not be allowed to either and archiving should be disabled in the spirit of fairplay. --194.144.90.118 (talk) 12:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

"fairplay"? Wassat? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Archiving is usually done to prevent talk pages from cluttering up, and has nothing to do with hiding stuff. Why do you want to stop archiving the discussions there? Anyway, did you even read the pages that I gave the links to? Because it looks like you're still lost about your "rights". You do not have a right to post your personal opinions here. The place for that would be a blog, and this is not it. When something that does not belong in a talk page (according to the talk page guidelines, original research policy etc.) we remove it. That has nothing to do with hiding your personal views, but just removing them because they do not belong here in the first place. But apparently some of these comments are not removed and are still on the talk page. Chamal ^talk 13:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

IP blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. And yes, I'm an involved editor, but it seems that they have no intention of stopping until blocked.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Elkman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would someone please remind me what I'm doing wrong in editing lately? Don't hold back; let me know exactly what I've been doing wrong. Besides getting involved in the wrong side of discussions with Doncram (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and doxTxob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and Orlady (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and mistakenly starting a discussion about featured list status for National Register of Historic Places listings in Hennepin County, Minnesota (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), what the hell else am I doing so wrong around here?

Is it even useful for me to be contributing to this stupid encyclopedia any more? Does anyone even care about a bunch of useless historic buildings? DoxTxob (talk · contribs) doesn't think so. In fact, Doxtxob was quite glad that I lost admin status in January and is still seeking further punishment against me. I'm not sure even what else he's hoping to have done, unless he wants to see me blocked and/or banned. (See this discussion.) --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 05:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Come Back to the Five and Dime, Jimmy Dean, Jimmy Dean! (I love that title.) --Orlady (talk) 05:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's got to the point where you're questioning the validity of the subjects you're interested in then you need to take a break. Go watch some bad movies, listen to some decent music, eat something not entirely low in fat/salt/sugar/taste and/or go for a walk, preferably with a personal music player to keep you in rhythm. You will be extremely hard pushed to find any subject which is suitable for Wikipedia that nobody is interested in. So it might not be flavour of the month, so what, this isn't an intellectual popularity contest. Sharing your interests with others should be a pleasant experience, until it is again take some time off. Someoneanother 06:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Elkman, chances are quite good that you have done nothing wrong. Except maybe caring too much in a place where doing that will get you nothing but WikiBurnout & heartburn. (I suspect the first person to encounter WikiBurnout is Larry Sanger, & his latest actions are proof that he still hasn't recovered from it. But wouldn't be the last.) Follow Someone another's advice -- take a break from this infuriating hobby. It's not worth the aggravation -- or the heartburn. -- llywrch (talk) 06:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Chill man. If you're telling the truth and you genuinely think you've done nothing wrong, you probably haven't done anything wrong. If those users are deliberately stirring up trouble, they'll be seen to in due course... C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 09:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just relax and spend a few days looking at what real life is like (if that helps). The worst will soon be over. A very small number of people are panicking because an editor who tends to agree with global consensus more often than with their local consensus is running for adminship. But Orlady's RfA has only 3 hours left. If the situation doesn't improve afterwards, we will need a few user RfCs. --Hans Adler (talk) 12:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

MBisanz removing rollback facility for inactive users

• MBisanz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• see user rights log

I don't like the idea of admins removing facilities for a particular user if users happen to be inactive... it is not like they have "abused" that particular tool. I don't think there has been any discussion about this... we don't remove admin rights for a user if they are inactive, so what is different here? OK, they could request it once/if they come back, but it just seems to create more unneeded hassle. Thoughts? D.M.N. (talk) 10:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not especially bad, and the rights can be restored without an issue if the user returns. I've removed the accountcreator flag from various users myself when it hasn't been used, as an account with that flag is particularly troublesome if compromised. Stifle (talk) 10:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't it have been better to have asked him first? --GedUK  12:03, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it is a problem, honestly. But to echo the above, you should have asked him about it, or at the very least, notified him of this thread, which I've done. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a good move. In general, security privileges should be removed from inactive accounts on any system. Plain Wikipedia accounts can't cause much trouble, so it's not necessary to do much about unprivileged accounts. --John Nagle (talk) 15:10, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I think this is a poor practice. There is no real additional risk with rollback- anyone with a normal account can do just as much damage, so the security argument doesn't hold much water.. This is a little bit like deleting user pages for absent users- sure, it can be easily undone, but it's less work to simply not do it in the first place. Let's not make busywork for ourselves for no good reason. Friday (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems pretty pointless to me to remove rollback from inactive users, since you can't do any damage whatsoever with it, but if you don't have anything else to do with your free time.. hey, why not? --Conti|✉ 15:22, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Friday: there's no need to remove rollback from inactive accounts (they're no more dangerous than non-rollbacked accounts, and certainly less dangerous than inactive admin accounts). Rollback is normally removed when the tool is abused: there's need to create extra work and/or give users rollback right removal logs in their userrights logs just because they're inactive. I note that MBisanz hasn't left any courtesy notices on the talk pages of said users either. Acalamari 15:28, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah....seems like busy work that will just create more work for someone down the road. At least put a note on the effected userpage but I don't see any point in doing it in the first place. RxS (talk) 15:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal threats from IP - 71.193.118.38 (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – blocked Toddst1 (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

This IP user has posted personal threats on my user talk page: <quote>Go ahead and block me you fucking disrespectful prick.....You will be blocking Wiki editing for the entire campus of Western Michigan University, but go right ahead you stupid fuck. Besides, I can always run a proxy scramble and get around your "ban", so FUCK YOU. Why don't you just let the edit stand, as it is correct and useful knowledge for people. This asshole Russ Hamilton fucked me and many others out of MILLIONS of dollars, and it needs to be noted that he cheated on UltimateBet. As for the "considerable weight in silver" that he won, this was a direct quote from the TV program '60 minutes'. You do know about this American show, right, you pathetic Euro Fucktard ? Keep fucking with me and not only will I keep restoring the truth, but I may just feel compelled to hunt you down and put my fist down your ignorant fucking skull.</quote>

What am I supposed to do? He's already been blocked for a couple of days, but isn't this sufficient for a permanent ban, or if possible, contacting this university, if the IP really does belong to that, to track the user? Regards, Thrane (talk) 11:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

If it's just coming from one IP then it looks like a classic case of WP:RBI to me, just ask for the block to be extended. As for the actual threats themselves, I know it's easy for me not being the target, but trust me I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. C.U.T.K.D ^{T | C} 11:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Note that their IP address has reverse DNS of c-71-193-118-38.hsd1.in.comcast.net. served by NET-71-193-96-0-1 (71.193.96.0/19) net name SOUTHBEND-7, and is thus unlikely to be originating from the WMU's own network. Since traffic to SOUTHBEND-7 appears to be routed via te-3-1-ur01.mishawaka.in.sbend.comcast.net., I think it's reasonable to assume the location is in South Bend, Indiana. -- The Anome (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

User:Rotational

Resolved. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D}

This editor has some serious civility issues, and refuses to follow various core MoS guidelines, he has been warned more than a handful of times on his talk page, yet he still continues to edit in the same vein. He does have a history (and a block) for edit warring regarding his interpretation of the MoS, but no longer seems to war on the same scale. I have compiled a few diffs below to illustrate my points.

Civility issues: blatant inappropriate sarcasm, inappropriate comments, biting another editor, inappropriate sarcasm, more inappropriate sarcasm, attack towards other editors, attack towards myself

Not adhering to the MoS despite many warnings from several users including yourself: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41]

A block may probably inappropriate at this point, but how long should an editor be allowed to be so subtly disruptive before some form of action is taken? Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Not very long, at least. I'll gently leave a note. Nothing to make one quake in their boots, as it isn't anything too bad; and to be fair, you've returned the sarcastic manner a few times. See his talk page for more, I guess. Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 14:33, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I do apologise for my replies, with hindsight it probably wasn't the best way to handle things, I should have really noted something here sooner rather than reply as I did. Jenuk1985 | Talk 14:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. I just hope you can work things out without things becoming messy. Let me know if you need anything else! :) Cheers, Master of Puppets _{Call me MoP! :D} 15:26, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Recurring edit war on articles related to Piedmont, California

There has been an ongoing edit war on three articles related to the city of Piedmont, California, USA:

• Piedmont, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Piedmont High School (California) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Piedmont Unified School District (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Since at least January 2008, Akhamenehpour (talk · contribs), now-indef blocked sockpuppet Akhamenehpour1 (talk · contribs), and a couple of IP addresses (one from California State University, Hayward) have been adding blatant POV content to all three of these articles, indicating that the city, the district, and the high school are all extremely liberal and intolerant of conservatism. They began as unsourced POV edits ([42]) that eventually led to the city article getting protected for two weeks (verify using "logs" link above). The same edit war came back in September 2008 and again in March 2009. The more recent edits ([43], [44]) have cited an Alameda County, California election results map that shows that Piedmont residents voted for Democratic Party candidates in 2008, and stretches it to argue that it supports the view that the city, district administration, and high school administration are extremely partisan.

I first became involved in this at the beginning of April 2009 on the high school article and at the time had no idea of the lengthy edit war that had been going on on the city article. I tried to offer a middle ground with this message on the talk page, which was met with this edit to the article (note the edit summary) that still cited the election results map and stretched the argument even further. Then he decided that I was okay with this wording without asking me ([45]). Shortly after I made several edits ([46], [47], [48]) in an attempt to downplay the importance of the POV without completely removing it, my talk page was vandalized by a CSU Hayward IP ([49]). He went away for nearly two weeks until this edit which was conveniently called "minor housekeeping" in the edit summary.

I tried resolving this myself without bringing it here by trying to find a middle ground, but this user's actions are ridiculous and indicate that he has some grudge against Piedmont's city government and school district, and wants to use Wikipedia as a sandbox soapbox for expressing that grudge. The best part was, this guy had the audacity to nominate himself at RFA, which failed miserably but allowed me to find this RPP request. Ideally I would like to see this guy indef'd but a ban from editing all articles related to this city would suffice. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:27, 15 April 2009 (UTC) 18:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

I thought that guy had already been indef'd. It was only for 3 days. Time for someone with some authority to do something about that character. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Just checked the block log (don't know why I didn't before). He was 24-hour blocked in February 2008, then indef'd 3 days later but was unblocked a week after. The most recent 3-day block seems to have expired at the same time that I got involved in this. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

So, basically, as soon as the block expired he went back to it. Someone could have reported that to WP:AIV - unless they did, but no action was taken, as happens sometimes. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:48, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Since these are all clearly the same editor, and are equally clearly not here to improve the encyclopedia, I have done the following; blocked User:Akhamenehpour indefinitely, blocked User:76.102.193.102 for a month, and rangeblocked 134.154.118.0/24 and 134.154.254.0/24 for a month. If the user strays out of those ranges, contact me and I will extend the rangeblock, as the collateral from even blocking the whole 134.154.0.0/16 range would be minimal. Black Kite 17:49, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

It has long being established that the user has used 76.102.193.102 to edit, I discussed it with him/her and apparently (s)he needed to use that IP occasionally for technical reasons, hence a notice was added to the top of the IPs talk page, so that particular one was not really sock puppetry (at least while his main account was unblocked). He was indef blocked previously for disruption on the same articles, including using sock puppets Akhamenehpour1 (talk · contribs) and Akhamenehpour2 (talk · contribs). However his main account was unblocked (plus his/her approved IP) when he agreed to edit constructively. Akhamenehpour recently returned from inactivity but (s)he appears to still have a temper that (s)he has not learnt to control, so I have no objection to re-indef blocking. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)On a related note, I've removed the extremely liberal line from the article (diff). I had initially hoped Akhamenehpour would specify an article or page to check against from the print source, but with their blocking I've just pulled the reference. The improper synthesis and edit warring on the voting map source, and the print source being from right after the election makes me think the print source will also be improper synthesis. If someone specifies an article, or another source that backs up the liberal assertion we can re-examine this. -Optigan13 (talk) 20:08, 15 April 2009 (UTC)