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

Ozguroot canvassing again

Ozguroot (talk · contribs) has for a second time canvassed fifteen partisan users to a very charged discussion (Talk:Passport and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-02-04/Passport). The users contacted all have commented on one of the two pages previously, and all in opposition. None of the editors who had supported the compromise were contacted. It only takes a brief search for the names of editors canvassed on Talk:Passport to see how methodically they were picked for their views. Considering the fact that this discussion was previously only held between three users, this has the potential to completely undermine days' worth of discussion, perhaps even destroy the extremely precarious compromise reached. Ozguroot has previously canvassed two users to the discussion, in a foreign language, and was subsequently repeatedly pointed to WP:CANVASS (read from my "03:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)" edit to Talk:Passport) - there is simply no excuse, and I feel a warning is insufficient in light of the irreparable damage done to 160kb of discussion held on Talk:Passport over the last few weeks.

It has been raised on ANI before Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive593#Passport-related_edit_war) that Ozguroot may be a sock-puppet due to the similarity between his editing patterns and those of another sock-master, as well as his strange out-of-the-blue editing history. The possibility was never properly investigated.

Diffs: 16 Jan 09 canvassing:

1. Kerem Ozcan (translation: Google)
2. Kaygtr (translation: Google)

Today's canvassing:

1. Vmenkov
2. Jake Wartenberg
3. Valenciano
4. Rave92
5. Qwerta369
6. Tomi566
7. El Otro
8. Pryde 01
9. Gaston28
10. Philip200291
11. Tetromino
12. Bonus bon
13. Glenfarclas
14. Sky Harbor

And one in a foreign language, also from today:

1. Ajdamania2 (translation: Google)

One of the users above (Pryde 01) even launched a very scathing personal attack on the talk pages of me and another user and was subsequently given an only-warning by an administrator.

It pains me to report Ozguroot right after he had posted his very possibly first rational reply, and I would like to note that this is not an attempt to kill discussion, there is another very committed editor (Avala) with which my discussion on the subject matter continues, but I feel as though I've been wasting my effort only to be toppled by simple brute-force numeric supremacy. My Mediation Request has not yet been taken up by a mediator, and I am not sure what to do. Considering the fact every oppose has been notified, would it be prudent for me to canvass all the support votes, in an effort to return balance to the façade of discussion being held at Talk:Passport and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-02-04/Passport? Action against Ozguroot, as well as advice on how to proceed with the discussion, would be much appreciated. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

They are the editors of the articles in subject. User:Happenstance could actually do that, instead of me, to notify them and let them know about the change or his "decide", before making over 250 deletions. But he did NOT never tell anyone. They don't know what is happening. Additionally, i am afraid that "Ozguroot has for a second time canvassed fifteen partisan users."' is totally a lie. When was the first time? I don't remember. I just asked for the opinions of two editors. - If you call this "canvassing FIFTEEN partisan users". Also please have a look at United_States_passport, Ukrainian_passport, its not only about a single editor, none of the articles editors accept your own "decide/consensus". But you ignore their opinions, you insist, insist, insist and delete, delete, delete. They were keeping undoing your changes as well. Is this a consensus, is this a solution? Let's be [serious]. As we see, you deleted the sections of over 250 Wikipedia articles, and you did NOT want NOBODY to get notified before doing so. That's not normal, in my humble opinion. Your reason was: (rm visa-free bloc per consensus on Talk:Passport). But there was NOT such a consensus at all. See Talk:Passport, too many OPPOSE editors there. Which consensus? Shortly, I just asked for their opinions on the matter. It pains me to hear "Ozguroot may be a sock-puppet" only because i asked for the editors opinions, so they could help on that matter, - as we were never reaching a consensus- . Why not to discuss all together, instead of an edit war? Regards. --Ozguroot (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

OK here is my view - Happenstance, Ozguroot did what you were supposed to do. This is not canvassing, but notifying regular editors, something that you failed to do and caused all the mess on the Passport talk page. He also did it in neutral manner, something that you also probably wouldn't be able to do.--Avala (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I object to be being called a "partisan user," as Happenstance calls me above. My handful of edits on this issue do not display one iota of partisanship, and I take this remark as uncivil and a failure to assume good faith. My attempt to smooth it over with Happenstance was not successful; his response was, it's not pejorative, I'm just saying that you're devoted or biased toward one side. That's not at all true, in any sense, and I feel it's appropriate to make my objection here.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

So, rather than notifying me you still had problems with my clarification, you chose to come here without even dropping a line on my talk. And then you say I violated WP:AGF. I have explained my definition of partisan, and I have stated that it was not intended to be pejorative. We clearly have differing definitions of the term. Mine comes straight from the WP:CANVASS policy. —what a crazy random happenstance 06:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The total apathy and lack of administrator response to what is a repeated and rather serious violation of a significant behavioural guideline is quite worrying, and could very easily completely undermine weeks' worth of discussion. —what a crazy random happenstance 09:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I've only just hopped onto ANI to read this. Now I can't say whether these are partisan editors, and in fact I don't think that's helpful, but I would have thought that a better way forward would be to file an article RFC. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Abusive IP Addresses

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Soft blocking AOL.

Personal attacks and disruption on Talk:Sarah Palin

We need an uninvolved admin at Talk:Sarah Palin, where Scribner (talk · contribs) has descended (again) into personal attacks and tendentious editing. Disregarding his total failure to assume good faith (towards any editor whose views differ from his own), he has made his current target SB_Johnny (talk · contribs) who was identified by the community as an uninvolved admin assigned to deal with disputes on the article. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive504#Sarah Palin probation proposal.) Since Johnny is the target of Scribner's abuse, he might be accused of a CoI if he blocks Scribner, so I am asking for another uninvolved editor to take a look and decide if action needs to be taken. FWIW, I have a long history of conflict with Scribner on this specific article (and no others), so take this report with a grain of salt. Horologium (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

He's pushed a lot, but not to the point of blockability quite, in my opinion. I have left a warning on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Horologium, you've got history with this article that's quite embarrassing. (Redacted personal attack.) But, as an administrator and editor you're the worst I've encountered. Scribner (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, on top of Johnny's failed enforcement of policy regarding personal attacks, there's been retaliation edits on the TN GOP article by Malke. So, in attempting one simple edit on the Palin page, I feel like I've suffer three separate retaliations. Wiki at its worst. Scribner (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Palin alleged to have violated the law? Keep in mind she doesn't own those books, the publisher does. If she wanted to distribute them to contributors, she probably had to buy them (possibly at wholesale rate). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've redacted an absolutely unnecessary personal attack from the preceding comment. jæs (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That comment looked like a paraphrasing of what Auntie Em said to Miss Gulch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Auntie Em said: "For twenty-three years I've been dying to tell you what I thought of you! And now... Well, being a Christian woman, I can't say it!" If Mrs. Em were an editor, I'd advise her of the same: attacking another editor is not the way to address your concerns. If Mrs. Em took a nastier route, and was also an editor with a history of poisoning the well, as it were, I'd redact her comment. In either case, I'd suggest Mrs. Em avoid directly interacting with Mrs. Gulch if she couldn't keep her opinion of Mrs. Gulch to herself. jæs (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I find it ironic that the Palin article is alleged to have been "scrubbed clean". Where have I heard that before? For the Obama article, that's where. Apparently, wikipedia is infested with both liberals and conservatives. Forsooth! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, indeed! It's just preferable, in fact obligatory, that said liberals and conservatives focus on editing productively -- as opposed to disruptively -- and not attack each other. It's possible, I tell you! jæs (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Psst....Why are you guys talking in small letters? Doc Quintana (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

To conserve space. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're interested, I can provide diffs from another edit war he's conducting over at Tennessee Republican Party. I used the talk page to discuss concerns and put POV and Criticism tags. He removed them. He argued. I got a 3rd Opinion. The 3rd Opinion editor found the article had a racist slant. I put the tags back. He removed them. Another editor put them back just now. He removed them again. If he doesn't get his way he puts tags up. If he doesn't like what you say, he takes them down. Diffs upon request. It is impossible to reason with this fellow.Malke2010 07:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for disruption for 24 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope that, after this ends, he doesn't do that again.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(OD)He just removed a declined unblock request, and I have just reverted him. I also warned him that such attempts would be met with a loss of the ability to edit the talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And he just removed it again. I of course reverted him. Can an admin possibly warn him?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've done so. I referred him to WP:BLANKING which states that declined unblock requests cannot be removed for the duration of the block, and warned him that removing it again will cause him to lose the ability to edit his own talk page until he is unblocked. -- Atama頭 17:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sanction time?

Uninvolved admin here ... I just looked at his block log. Good grief, it's genormous. Could it be time for a topic ban of some kind? Looks like it to me. Blueboy96 17:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not condoning this user's recent actions, esp the edit warring to remove the unblock decline, but that block log is not exactly what I'd call enormous. There's only 3 blocks that were not overturned well before the duration was up, and those were about 3 years ago. Tarc (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's because it looks like this has been an ongoing problem ever since he arrived here--the first block was back in 2006. Tells me this is a problem that should have been nipped in the bud a lot sooner than now. Blueboy96 18:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, Scribner had only 32 edits between April 24, 2007, and February 11, 2009, which explains the big gap in his block log. There is no evidence that he has learned from his previous blocks. He has been unblocked because he promised not to do the same behavior on the article in question (different article in each case), but that hasn't stopped him from repeating the same modus operandi on different articles. Also notice that all his recent activity has focused on three hot-button political issues (Sarah Palin, Tennessee Republican Party, and Tea Party movement, in which he is very clearly displaying a pattern of POV pushing behavior. Horologium (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Just pointing out that it wasn't as lengthy as I expected it to be, put down the pitchforks. It does appear that his talk page will have to be locked soon though, due to the repeated removals of the block decline notice. Tarc (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(OD)Looking through the block log of this user, I see that they have primarily been blocked for edit warring/personal attacks, and as of the block before last, that time had been extended until a week, then lifted on the promise he wouldn't do it again. Seeing as how he has obviously done it again, what is the next step up? 24 hours is too short for a repeat offender.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm requesting an indefinite ban for Scribner from US politics-related article. I was watching over the Sarah Palin article a couple months back, and Scriber was definitely one of the major problems at the article then. Looks like things have not changed much since then, and it has been even longer of a problem than I have thought. Thoughts? NW (Talk) 20:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I won't !vote below (due to my involvement), but I think that's a good idea. Horologium (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Indef topic ban

Per what NW said above, and to centralize discussion and for ease of editing,

• Support - Per what NW has outlined above and this user's block log. Broken promises is all they have to give. Maybe this will prevent further disruption from them.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse If this user hasn't learned to cool it down in four years on its own, sadly we're gonna have to force him to do so. Blueboy96 21:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - The amount of time an editor uses up in dealing with Scribner on these pages is lost from building the project. Scribner does not respond to working within process. Only one thing he said on the Tenn Republican Party talk page showed any ray of light of understanding when he said he could see my point about an edit. He also said he didn't support my point, but he could understand it. He said all this about ten minutes before he got blocked. The Sarah Palin episode caused so much disruption. He came over to the Tea Party Movement article and slapped tags on it because he disagreed with a comment on the talk page. It feels like a boulder has dropped on an editor's head when he appears on a page. But in the last 24-48 hours he seems to have been especially disruptive. I don't know what is at the root of this. But for now, a topic ban might help him regain some perspective. He's right about the Tenn Republican Party being racists, and it's Tenn, throw a rock you'll hit a klansman. And Sarah Palin isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but this is an encyclopedia, and not a forum for disruption, or a soapbox, or a soap opera.Malke2010 06:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, what? That post was full of wrong. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ban from what topic? If you're going to propose a topic ban, you should state what topic the user is banned from. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

NW wrote, "I'm requesting an indefinite ban for Scribner from US politics-related article.". You can see this right above this section. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That is as may be, but it should be specifically indicated at the point where you make the proposal. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is. I quite clearly state, "as NW said above..."— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I haven't visited Tenn Republican Party or Tea Party movement but the core issue at Sarah Palin is a content dispute (gosh!) between Scribner and several other editors with opposing POVs. It's ruthless and nobody plays nice. I can't be arsed to go through the diffs, but observing developments at SP talk leaves a strong impression that pressure is subtly but regularly applied towards sanitizing the article (plus ca change. . .), and one or two in Scribner's opposition appear to have ownership issues, all of which Scribner resists. The proposed catch-all topic ban serves the interests of SP's WP protectors at the expense of the article itself. Scribner seems clued-up on SP and may have much to offer, but is not afraid to speak his/her mind rather bluntly, is outnumbered by opposing editors, and reacts too strongly for his/her own good to the goading and bullying etc. that SP talk offers would-be contributors who are not members of the Palin club. (Although arguably no stranger to personal attacks him/herself, Scribner has also been on the receiving end of abuse and apparent attempts to run him/her off the article. Few if any hands remain spotlessly clean at SP.) Given that Scribner's problems at SP appear to be largely procedural, solutions that are more constructive and less draconian might be worth considering here. E.g. WP:Mentorship. I'd like to hear what Scribner has to say about that. Writegeist (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Involuntary mentorship has a track record of prolonging conflicts and burning out mentors. If this editor has already sought out a mentor proactively that might be another matter? The difference has something to do with "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink." The people who succeed through mentorship tend to be the ones who recognize the need for it and seek it out without being compelled. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 01:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
• Reluctantly support an indefinite topic ban. He is evidently growing increasingly unable to work within the guidelines set here, at an article on probation no less. The increasing attacks against anyone who disagrees with him combine with a long history of disruptive editing and a nearly complete inability -- within this topic area -- to work towards consensus. (I've seen one instance in which he was part of a process that resulted in consensus, but it was fraught with disruptive tactics on his part, and he's now taken to using that event as a line of attack against an administrator and editor involved in that process. Hardly heartening.) After a period of time (perhaps a few weeks or months), if he is willing to agree to take the personal attacks and disruptive tactics off the table, then I'd support lifting the topic ban. jæs (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Scribner is back at it on the Sarah Palin page. He's not using the talk page. He's adding to the lead and putting up a POV tag. No consensus, no discussion. If you want to know what Scribner has to say on an indef topic ban, I believe he's spoken.Malke2010 23:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to mention I don't think any editor is trying to run him off articles. Editors just want him to work within the process which means working for consensus. Right now he seems to think he doesn't need to do that.Malke2010 00:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose . Some of the points Scribner made hold merit. A few of the editors on the page have been rather uncivil and I think that coupled with the fact that other editors disagreed with him resulted in frustration and shouting back. I don't think it yet merits admin intervention.Chhe (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTE If you feel my edits to the Palin article were an attempt to damage the integrity of Wikiapedia as an encyclopedia, I should be banned from the Palin article. There's been no malice on my part, other than to add two simple facts. Don't blame me for standing my ground and defending policy. Look at the vast amount of effort it took to include the simple fact that Palin did not complete her first term as governor. Horologium fought the edit the hardest, claiming it POV. The wholesale POV in the article speaks for itself. Scribner (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

A couple hours ago, I banned Scribner from Sarah Palin-related articles, talk pages, and community discussions[1]. I still think that this discussion should continue to see if the community wishes to expand the scope of the ban. NW (Talk) 04:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Writegeist it's "he" by the way and Chhe, thanks very much for your input. Malke, you appear to have a problem with exaggerating and honestly lying, for lack of a better term, in the case of your claims with the TN GOP article and the Tea Party movement article. I think you suffer from WP:OWN issues with regard to conservative issues. Wikipedia becomes less an encyclopedia by shutting down vigorous debate. One thing I noticed when I returned to Wikipedia is that the best editors I had the pleasure of working with had left. It's obvious why the effort continues to degrade. Scribner (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• A topic ban from 'US politics-related topics' looks, in this case, to be effectively a site ban since Scribner doesn't edit anything else. So inline with NW's above point - is there evidence of this volunteer using the site in a non-tendentious manner outside the Sarah Palin and US Politics topic areas? Because if there is not we should be discussing a ban rather than a topic ban. The reason I point this out is so that we don't end up moving a problem and having to go through this all over again.
  That said I do endorse the topic ban from US politics articles, but with the above caveat--Cailil ^talk 17:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is proof of me "using the site in a non-tendentious manner" in economics and other BLP's. But, there won't be evidence of me kowtowing to administrators who are either in error of policy or biased in judgment, or both. I've placed my account in indefinite retirement. Scribner (talk) 06:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Need help with a situation

119.160.18.209 (talk · contribs) has been, for the past few weeks, sparring with Omirocksthisworld (talk · contribs), and they've been edit-warring on multiple articles. After a recent block, Omirocksthisworld has been toning down his aggression, but there's a lot of bad blood here, and 119. doesn't seem to understand the term "agree to disagree".

Tonight's incident seems to be spread across two articles, at WP:AN3 and WP:RPP respectively. However, while Omi has at least been civil this time, 119. seems to be feeling cheated out of an arms race and is starting to cross over into harassment, issuing ultimatums, copy-and-pasting a 3RR report Omi filed against him, and berating him for "issuing an ultimatum" (actually the bog-standard {{uw-3rr}}). Since I need to head off to bed, could a chummer take over for me? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 10:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

As I was notifying the IP, it was blocked 24h. Depending on his behavior, this thread may have been rendered moot. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 10:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And as I was writing this, ... IP Blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR, but as this IP has only been editing today, I expect we will have this Karchi based editor, using Mobilink-Infinity, back again soon. I'll have a word with Omirocksthisworld. Dougweller (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Though personally I have nothing against this editor, the fact that he was not willing to discuss issues or even attempt to reach an agreement really irritated me. At first I just kept reverting his edits hoping that the strange edits would stop or that he would start to attempt to work things out, but I think I made him angrier and he seemed to felt that it was personal. That's when the edit warring issues started and I ended up getting blocked for forgetting Wiki procedure. This time around I reported him, which I think made him feel even more like I was personally against him or something (at least thats what it looks like from his comments on my talk page). I think the main issue with the other editor is that he doesn't know English too well so when I try discussing things with him he doesn't quite understand, and it looks like he is from Pakistan because he was using derogatory words in Urdu on Talk: Younus AlGohar. Since this issue has been ongoing I think I will have to put an RFC tag on the articles that the IP has been having problems with so that this doesn't keep happening. Hopefully things will get better once different neutral editors start discussion on the talk pages. I'm very sorry for my part in all these disruptive editing wars and my mistakes with Wiki procedure. --Omi(☺) 11:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This user (who may be Falconkhe?) is today engaged in related behaviour at Sufism. See edit diff, and also earlier article history and talk page comments. Esowteric+Talk 12:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Has just returned as 119.160.36.86 and made the same change to Sufism, possibly to avoid 3RR edit war. Esowteric+Talk 15:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Falconkhe is also engaged in an edit war with Omirocksthisworld today at Younus AlGohar: see the article history. RAGS International shows a similar history of conflict. Esowteric+Talk 16:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Don't blaim me for 119 acts, what you are getting is readers response might be but I should not hold responsible for that.Its true that I have some differences with Omirocksthisworld but it doesn't mean that I was blaming for doing nothing. I always try my best to abide the rules & regulation of wikipedia--Falconkhe (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm well I don't know if it was an edit war, but he was removing the references I was adding (hopefully by mistake). His edit summaries on the article history have been confusing though. Anyway, we've been discussing it in Talk:Younus AlGohar and hopefully we can come to an understanding soon. Though I personally don't have anything against Falconkhe myself, his recent edits to Younus AlGohar, RAGS International, Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi, and pretty much all the articles/pages related to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi haven't exactly been constructive. Omi(☺) 21:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Omi you are getting confused since you are a lier but you don't know one thing that a lie has to be reveal one day. MFI and Younas are the terrorist, this is the reason you have to flee from Pakistan and this is the only reason that you people are facing legal problem in all other countries whereever, you are taking shelters, the people of MFI have misused the law of UK and used it for taking legal shelters under the umbrella of asylyme, you have misguided British Government and provide false proof (like you are doing on wikipedia) to them. We are planning to use interpole to bring younas back to Pakistan and hopefully it will not take long time.--Falconkhe (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making inappropriate/abusive comments. Esowteric+Talk 20:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Falconkhe, I don't even live in the UK, nor have I ever been to Pakistan. I understand that you aren't particularly fond of the organization and you want to have your voice heard about them. But if you want to actually contribute you need to provide reliable sources for your claims (so that it can be included in the article) Omi(☺) 21:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, I'm an editor with no ties to the religious quarrels in question, who stumbled into this issue. Falconkhe, and a number of similar-number IPs with very similar writing styles and phrasings have been engaged in constant and ongoing harassment in articles related to the religious figure Gohar Shahi. Despite all encouragements to remain objective and provide sources, Falconkhe and similar-opinion (?) IPs have continued the exact same behavior, making POV accusations both on Talk and the article, reversions, etc. Some admin attention to these patterns of misbehavior would be greatly appreciated. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Omi, thats what I am asking you to provide with reliable sources and contribute positively, each time you come up with references of self-made websites like you are preaching self-made teaching and linked that up with HH Gohar Shahi. Please provide reliable sources for your articles.--Falconkhe (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not borne-out by some of your edits: "Edit diff showing removal of Falconkhe's "extremely POV comments" by an uninvolved editor Esowteric+Talk 10:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There's also a lot of jiggery-pokery going on sporadically to redirect and unredirect pages to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, eg edit diff and edit diff involving Falconkhe and Nasiryounus Esowteric+Talk 10:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever I have done, I have provide with genuine reasons and reliable sources.--Falconkhe (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's not correct. You've not provided any references regarding RAGS International, to which Omi did provide references which are reliable as well. And you accuse Omi of providing references that are not reliable; you might want to provide references from that.-- NY7 ☆ 06:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can just discuss the sources on the respective talk pages, and decide how reliable they are for what they are being used for there. Falconkhe, I think you could actually make the articles relating to Gohar Shahi more neutral by offering references for your claims. Otherwise, you can continue to say "So-and-so are conspiring against Gohar Shahi" but it can't be added in the articles without sources. Just, please be a little more respective towards the other editors on Wikipedia, and maybe use more descriptive edit summaries- and I'm sure things can work out. Omi(☺) 07:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The broader context for all this is that for some time several editors have been involved in a battle over any articles to do with Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi: articles about him; about his organizations; mentioning him; or redirecting to him. Editors are split into three main camps: Gohar supporters; Gohar critics and neutral editors who understand Wikipedia's requirements. Esowteric+Talk 10:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There is also the issue of 119. editors and Falconkhe repeatedly sneaking in gratuitous Gohar Shahi references and images into articles where neutral editors see no justification for doing so. One example is the Sufism article, which Esowteric+Talk has already referred to in his 12:22, 6 February 2010 and 15:50, 6 February 2010 comments.

User:Caesarjbsquitti soapboxing - community input requested

As I am semi-involved I feel it necessary ask for community input in relation to restricting User:Caesarjbsquitti. There is a long term issue with his use of talkspace, his attitude toward other editors and editing in breach of WP:OR, WP:SOAP. To my mind this user has demonstrated a disregard for site standards and policies that is fundamentally incompatible with the core principles of this site fo a number of years. I suggest it is time to restrict Caesar's talk page postings, or to consider an other community sanction.--Cailil ^talk 05:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Report

Caesarjbsquitti (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
User:Caesarjbsquitti is continuing to use this site, its article pages, its talk space and its user space to push his ideas. Caesarjbsquitti has published a book which he uses his user page to advertise in breach of WP:USER and WP:AD [2]. He uses talkspace to lecture us all on how 'The truth can lie' and has been doing so for years.[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]
He has accused this site, its sysops, and other volunteers of intimidation and censorship [11][12][13][14][15]
But the issue is that User:Caesarjbsquitti is soapboxing and forum posting on this site in relation to multiple topics. He repeated this behaviour today. Rather than block him I warned him again, and again (explaining why), and again. He hasn't listened[16][17][18]. (please note also he posted the same stuff to two pages [19][20]) Therefore I'm bringing this to the community in order to request broader input on the situation.

History

He was topic banned from 9/11 articles for soapboxing[21], he was blocked twice for it[22], he has been repeatedly warned over the course of years[23][24][25][26][27][28][29] but he is not listening.

I'm restricting evidence to edits since his topic ban in June 2008. For anyone interested in his behaviour before that please see this for an indicative situation and conversation related to the topic Devil.

Soapboxing since the 2008 topic ban

• Relevant policies & guidelines: WP:TPG, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTFORUM & WP:BATTLE

On Talk:English language[30] [31][32][33].
On Talk:Thallium [34]
On Medicine_in_China[35]
On Talk:Crohn's disease[36]
About feminism and bias against men[37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50]
On Talk:Pornography[51][52][53]
On 'abuse' topics (watch out for repeated phrases like censorship, hidden agenda etc) [54][55][56][57][58]
On Talk:Political correctness[59][60]

Multiposting

• Relevant policies WP:POVPUSH, WP:MULTI, WP:TPG,

On Vitamin talk pages[61][62][63][64][65][66][67]

On domestic violence topic articles (June 2008)[68][69][70] - please note the coatrack issue in this case.

Thanks for taking the time to review this--Cailil ^talk 05:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Caesar's response

The issue of this complaint deals with the listing for Violence against LGBT People

The problem with the entry is that it polarizes the issue, as do many of the past entries on abuse, most notable againt men, and against the heterosexual community. Here is the reference provided.

A most notable case involved a bisexual women who killed her boyfriend, by becoming involved with a lesbian woman,Bisexual Girlfriend found guilty of axe murder

I will try to find another link. The fact as you say that the CBC does not make mention of the sexual orientation, (while other sites do) shows how censorship of this situation is quite prominent in North America, or at least Canada...Guilty verdict in lesbian axe murder

This article in the Toronto Sun makes mention of a lesbian, (the CBC report states same sex. Another article title refers to a bi-sexual woman. (good case study for political correctness ?)Toronto woman in court in bisexual love-triangle murder case

This article must remove gender or orientation biases because it is discriminatory. While it is true this group can be victimized by others, they also can be victimized by themselves and they can also be abusers.

The issue is addressed by someone else as well...Violence by LGBT

As a researcher of deceptive truths, ie half-truths it is important to overcome this deceptive and flawed type of reasoning. --Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all Caesar this issue is not about the content of your posts but rather the form. What you are demanding is that article about violence against women and violence against LGBT people remove the gender category from them. These articles are about gender based violence not violence in general. Your posts are criticisms of the subject and that kind of posting is not permitted as per WP:TPG and WP:FORUM. You've had this explained to you multiple times - in fact you were just blocked for this kind of post last winter. The reason I brought this here was to discuss with the wider community what to do about it--Cailil ^talk 18:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out to you that...You say that the artilce is about gender based violence well violence against women can also be perpetruated on women in general by some women. (In lesbian relationships the violence is by women against women.) Enough has been said about the anti-male, anti-heteroseuxal approach of the current models dealing with violence and abuse. 10 years ago much of this matter was being censored by individuals with a conflict of interest.

In so far as violence against LGBT you suggest that it is by non LGBT, and that is incorrect. There are lesbians who abuse homosexuals, there are homosexuals who abuse lesbians, and on and on...To merely paint heterosexuals as THE abusers is a deceptive half-truth.

The example given in the talk page, that of a bi-sexual woman and her lesbian female lover killing the bi-sexuals boyfriend suggests we have to rethink our model of violence against LGBT to include violence by LGBT, or we can include examples of LGBT members abusering other members of the LGBT group, as a matter of fairness. The current models are one sided, unfair, sexist and biased. The evidence is clear, and someone should change the listing to be more inclusive and non-discriminatory.

Many postings are a conflict of interest.--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Caesar because you made quite a serious allegation I am going to directly ask a number of editors to review this situation in the hope that the wider community will weigh in--Cailil ^talk 22:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Further none of the remarks you have attributed to me in the above post reflect anything that I have said. Also please remember this not about the content of your postings but rather the form--Cailil ^talk 22:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I note that the issue is 'neutrality' of the topics involved and an attempt to censor my postings and or comments to suggest an improvement. On the one hand after repeated 'criticisms' that are clearly in keeping with trying to keep the wikipeida neutral, there are some with a hidden agenda who would rather see me not posting. Sadly, many with a conflict of interest. If you do a cross section analysis of them you may find the key.

Let history show that in all the comments on this listing, not once did the analysis of the fact that some within the LGBT community can also abuse was addressed.

While at first my postings were being deleted even after being referenced, it became obvious that even posting to the 'talk' page to improve the wikipedia articles, even with providing legitimate sources was not acceptable to some.

This reminds me of how the radical feminists, and how some radical lesbian feminists were able to corrupt the models of abuse, first the children's aid society with the model, "men who abuse, women and children victims' and then the spousal models with the slogan, "Stop violence against women..." including the incident involved Ms. Simpson whose sister ignored the simple truth that a Mr. Goldberg was also murdered in the incident.

Thanks for your time and consideration....--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is another source to your article that should be dealt with.

• • What about the killing of the great Italian DesignerGianni Versace by Andrew Cunanan.

I am begining to understand how someone can be railroaded based on a conflict of interest, and or hidden agenda.--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Caesar, first I don't have any "hidden agenda" - please stop assuming bad faith. Second, this is in your hands but you're not listening. Durova has given good advice please read it and consider it. And remember this is about how you use talk-space not about sources or other content matters. Third, by using this page as a soapbox you aren't helping yourself - please reconsider this approach--Cailil ^talk 20:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Your arguments about the posting that necessitated this, (that appeared just after another concern about the LGBT group appear illogical. You use truths non-critically to paint a rather poor picture of my postings. I suggest you address the issue, the posting, that sparked this latest concern, and that is what talk pages are for. Let me repeat this again. The current listing is impartial, unfair, biased, one sided. My suggestion was to improve it and yet you have not given me a reason why it should not be added, merely attack me--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Caesar, this is not the place to discuss content but briefly: you want to add a source (a news item that alleges a women's female lover killed her boyfriend on that woman's request) to Violence against women and violence against LGBT people. But this source is not about violence against women or LGBT people, I told you that there[71], as did User:C.Fred[72]. You use the source to criticize the subject of the articles. This is a) not relevant to the article and b) not acceptable use of an article talkpage.
Please listen Caesar, I don't want you to get banned if you are willing to be a productive editor - but you have threatened me, verbal insulted me and accused me of conflicts of interest without basis. This kind of behaviour is not acceptable on a site founded on principles of civility and assumptions of good faith. If you retract (strike) these remarks immediately I will ignore them if not I must follow site protocol for dealing with harassment. It's your choice. The door is still open - you can convince people that you are willing to work within the rules and standards of this site. The work you did today on Sinusitis is good. You can continue to do good work if you recognize what you've been doing wrong--Cailil ^talk 22:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Outside views

Cailil has asked me to review this thread. The soapboxing is worrisome, especially since it appears to have continued on other subjects unabated since the implementation of a topic ban. The issue is not whether Caesarjbsquitti's opinions are correct but whether he presents them in ways that are compatible with Wikipedia's structure and mission. Article talk pages exist to discuss specific improvements to articles; they are not forums for sharing personal opinions about a subject. Has there been any formal dispute resolution attempted recently? Other than the topic ban this editor's block log is short. It might be that a constructive approach such as a user conduct request for comment could steer things toward a more productive and wiki-compatible direction. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 23:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Durova. The last DR attempted was in relation to English language in September 2009. Caesar had WP:FORUM explained to him again then. And after 4 warnings was brought here. Caesar's response to this was to assume bad faith of the others involved rather than engage with the policy issue [73][74](same text posted twice - and BTW the first diff shows him altering an archived ANI thread). Apart from his talk postings to Talk:Violence against LGBT people, Talk:Violence against women, his replies on his own talk page[75][76], and the posts here Caesar has only made one edit to wikipedia since his last block - so there has been no chance to engage with him through WP:DR--Cailil ^talk 00:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Calil has asked me to review this thread. I have in fact enountered Caeserjbsquitti many times in the past. I have never been involved in a conflict with him. However, I have only seen him use talk pages for soap-boxing, and have never seen him constructively edit an article; any edits I have followed were reverted by someone else. I endorse Durova's point that talk pages are for the purpose of improving articles. Frankly Caeser's statement at this thread, "As a researcher of deceptive truths, ie half-truths it is important to overcome this deceptive and flawed type of reasoning." makes the case against him quite well. For all the time that he has ben at Wikipedia, he still does not understand that (1) Wikipedia is not about truth but about verifiability and (2) not a place for an editor to forward his or her own views. Yet Caeser admits that is all he wishes to do here. Frankly, I think Caser should be banned, out and out. I m calling for a community ban, because Caeser has never shown any indication ofagreeing to or being willing to work within the framework of our core policies and to the contrary simply hijacks talk pages to promote his own views. Can anyone provide one example of a substantive improvement he made to any - any - article?

His allegations against Cailil are for me the last straw. I do not know Cailil well, but I do know that s/he has worked very hard on a number of actual articles, making major contributions to the encyclopedia. Morover I have seen him/her involved in edit conflicts where s/he has always shown patience in working towards a compromise based on core content plicies. In short, one of our best eidtors. Bor Caeser, who is nothing but a POV pusher, to criticise Ailil, who works hard to make this a better encyclopedia, is in my view perverse.

If people think my call for a community ban is too hash I ask people to propose soething less harsh but that will allow us to police his actions for a finite period of time to see whether a ban is justified. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, the last posting was well referenced, and yet the posting has not been addressed as to its validity.--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying SLR. And just so everyone understands - whenever Caesar has been brought under the spotlight he has always declared that people who do so "have an agenda" not just myself (per [77][78][79][80])--Cailil ^talk 00:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Cailil you have not addressed the referenced material, merely attack me, trying to ban me from wikipedia. A site that I have spent alot of time on.--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Also it should perhaps be noted that there is a WP:KETTLE element to his use of WP:COI - when if you look at his userpage and many of his posts he attempts to promote his book--Cailil ^talk 00:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are misinterpreting my comments...they are suggestions based on relevant incidents that are not included in the postings. They are obvious truths that are being ignored.

For example, "The Stop violence against women" campaigns, is an obvious error when it relates to spousal abuse. Child abuse has also been corrupted within recent history.

There are many 'feminists' and others who would deliberately ignore these obvious truths to promote their obvious sexist censorship of valid truths; I have sought repeatedly to merely introduce suggestions to the talk pages for someone else to take the initiative to make changes to the official page.

I thank you for your comments, but I do not see anyone refuting the truth that 'gays, lesbians and bisexuals abuse as well, sometimes each other and sometimes those outside their group" Should you not be addressing the validity of my comments to see whether they are merely opinion or verifiable facts that should be included ?

It appears by the comments made in attack of my comments, that the individual who has started this has 'invited' individuals. I might suggest a more objective and unbiased group.--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Please note: When you click Save, your changes will immediately become visible to everyone. If you wish to run a test, please edit the Sandbox insead."

"Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources. Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view."

I might ask that you address the link that I have provided and either accept it into the article or establish another one. This was not mere 'soapboxing' as Cilil states.

He identifies as being male, with intersts in atheism, a feminist. But when I suggest that there is obvious anti-male postings he as a male does not defend them as a male would, suggesting to me a problem of logic. Yes I digress, but I do not appreciate being censored or threatened when I point out how articles are unfair,unbalanced, and anti-heterosexual.

When I have more time I will come back with some more research findings...--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding a posting to the English Language that was brought up. If i recall correctly I heard on the CBC that someone had written a book about the english language, specifically that one of the major contributors was a criminal genius who wrote from prison. To this suggestion I was met with resistence. The idea was totally rejected, and more. I used the talk page to suggest an improvement rather than making the change itself. The source was never entered into nor considered.

In regards to conspiracies about 9-11, again suggestions were gathered from reputable TV programs, and again met with censorship, and resistence.

Getting back to the page that started this attack, would someone check the link and suggest whether this is valid and what improvments will be made to include the truth of that matter.--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What about the killing of the great Italian Designer Gianni Versace by Andrew Cunanan ?--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Caesar no I have not addressed the content (the source you wish to add to Violence against women and Violence against LGBT people) because this is not about that source. This is about how you have been using talkpages for years. How you have ignored policy, warnings, blocks and topic bans - all designed to help you recognize that you are going about using this site improperly. And no I am not "trying to get you banned". I, rather than block you, brought this to the wider community in order to ask them what to do. When you accused me of a conflict of interest I contacted 3 volunteers Durova, Slrubenstein and Jehochman. I also made a point of stating this here on this thread - as did the people replying. This was done so that other, uninvolved people might enter the conversation - now other editors are voicing their opinions on what to do. Slrubenstein suggested a ban, other users agree. You have been advised of policy for a very long time - you have chosen to accuse others of bad faith rather than recognize the problem at your end. You may still be able to change people's minds if you could demonstrate a willingness and ability to accept and abide by site policy and guidelines about talk page postings and the general core principles of the site--Cailil ^talk 18:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You are using truths out of context to try to get me banned by yourself. The issue that brought up this last attack of myself stems from my posting some suggestion that the entry about violence against LGBT, does not include violence by LGBT against LGBT. I have given you a specific link resource. Now you seem to be coatraking all other concerns over the past years to censor me. You have not addressed the suggestion that was a simple attempt to add balance to the article. I would suggest a full inquiry into you, your background, who you are, (you are hiding under a false name) and why your beliefs are attempting to hide a simple truth about the LGBT group.

There is no mention of the many hundreds of entries I have added; an error of omission over the past 4 years.

When I have more time I will get back to this concern. My involvement in wikipedia has been reduced in part due to the resistence to exposing some simple information that appears to be politically incorrect by some like yourself, and you are doing a fine job in using truths to ban me from this.

I will hope you will do all you can in adding balance to many of the articles including how many of them today, are out of balance, (as one other person mentioned on the site previous to my posting) about violence (and abuses ) by the LGBT group.--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Caesar no I have not addressed the content (the source you wish to add to Violence against women and Violence against LGBT people) because this is not about that source. This is about how you have been using talkpages for years."

Your last response is questionable. I made a simple suggestion and sourced it to add balance and fairness to the entry. You appear to have a conflict with that, otherwise why would you not enter it, nor defend it ?

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Community ban discussion

It is proposed that User:Caesarjbsquitti be indefinitely banned from editing Wikipeda:

• Support indef ban The talk page comments aren't productive, and I see a total of four article edits since August 2009. AniMate 07:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Just ban him already if that post above is an example of what he's coming out with (seems to be). He's obviously determined to get "The Truth"(TM) into Wikipedia come hell or high water, regardless of any of our policies.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban I have warned him many times over the years. Its about time. -DJSasso (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban - I have run across this editor in the past, and I've often hoped that he would reform after Wikipedia policy was explained to him. This hope was misplaced, since he does not listen. So if he continues to edit, we should expect more of the same. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban - An editor, accused of soapboxing, uses the situation as an opportunity for more soapboxing (complaining about feminism, etc.). I don't see the editor capable of being neutral enough to edit Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 23:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional oppose. ANI discussions are not dispute resolution attempts. Formal dispute resolution at Wikipedia takes six forms: wikiquette alerts, article content request for comment, user conduct request for comment, mediation cabal, mediation committee, and arbitration. Balancing respect for Cailil with good faith here. Caesarjbsquitti, you can see where this is headed. Your actions to this point are not compatible with site mission. If you are interested in receiving feedback and adjusting to our norms, please state so clearly. I am offering to certify a conduct RfC in place of an immediate siteban. It's not meant to humiliate--more about giving feedback and getting things on course. Sometimes we all have to put our personal opinions in our pockets and be editors first. If you're willing to get on board with that please say so. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 02:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I can't see how an RfC would be helpful here. Looking through his talk page history, acceptable Wikipedia editing practices have been explained plenty of times. Everything he can possibly learn from an RfC is either here or no his talk page. The only reason more serious sanctions weren't leveled against him in 2008, was because he was only focused on 9/11 at that time. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive22#User:Caesarjbsquitti_and_unsourced_POV shows his problems have been going on for over two years now, and looking at this, he isn't prolific enough of a content contributor to warrant any sort of leeway for his numerous and years long talk page violations. Sorry, there's assuming good faith and there's being a glutton for punishment. AniMate 04:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm also unsure how much of a dispute there is here. This just looks like flat out abuse by one editor in multiple forums. AniMate 05:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
    • This is an opportunity: if he steps up and expresses in a no nonsense way that he's willing to get with the program then let's give real dispute resolution a go. This person has been talking at (not to) the community and the community has been talking at (not to) him. One straightforward offer on the level is appropriate. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 06:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Such an offer would be the triumph of hope over experience. Pigs will fly and hot places will be covered with ice before this editor will step up and offer to get with the program. Do you see any comprehension of Wikipedia policy in the comments he has made above? EdJohnston (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I get where you're coming from Durova and as I said to Caesar above, if he can work within site regulations and be a productive editor I'd prefer if he wasn't site banned. I understand how distressing this process probably is for Caesar. So if he can demonstrate a willingness to recognize what he's been doing wrong and undertakes to adjust his postings I'd be happy to support something much lesser than a siteban. But his response demanding my identity "be investigated" is not encouraging.
    That said I don't think an RfC/U would help in this case. There isn't a dispute per se to resolve. Some other measure: restricting his talk activities to one talk page thread (with posts conforming to WP:TPG, WP:EQ and WP:FORUM) per day with an uninvolved sysop to monitor him for 12 months. And/or a topic ban from truth, lies, abuse, violence, men's rights and feminism topics for 12 months--Cailil ^talk 10:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban. I see a long history of abuse of the project, and no sign of willingness to change this behaviour. Also, the problematic behaviour is spread out so far and wide that a mere topic ban will be ineffective to curb it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Official Shakespears Sister And Siobhan Fahey Web Site

Arhcive: Thank you FisherQueen for visiting our forum. I have uploaded the evidence here:: www. shakespears sister.co.uk/SFTRR.jpg (please remove the space between shakespears and sister ) I would like to complain here myself for the unfair treatment from XinJeisan, who in my opinion has totally acted in an unprofessional manner. Firstly; Songs From The Red Room, is not sold via the website, as it is a new release and availble via retailers during its Charting period. Websites very rarely sell new releases through their own web site, they usually provie and external link to another retailer, as we have done. Secondly, I totally think that XinJeisan is talking of another L Dennison, as I have no idea what that discussion is about on Ron Livingstons talk page. I can confirm I am the webmaster of both Jacquie O'Sullivan and Siobhan Fahey, both former members of Bananarama. Jacquie O'sullivan did work for L Dennison Associates where she casted dancers for music videos productions. My "attacks" on XinJesian were not exactly attacks, they were simply my opinion, and at first i was polite when I asked to why these sites were being removed. But my frustration, built as clearly Xinjesian and Momusfan clearly were not researching the matter properly. Finally, as for advertising, it has always been a well known fact to fans that the MGA Sessions was strictly a web site release! Sold exclusively on Fahey's old web site siobhanfahey.com, and now sold on her new site shakespears sister. co. uk. This wasnt an advertisment, it was helpful information to fans. Thank you for taking time to review this matter. And for the record, shakespears sister.co.uk should eb applied to both Siobhan Fahey and Shakespears Sister wiki pages, as Shakespears Sister is Siobhan Fahey. May i also ad that Xinjesian claims that i have used multiple IPS is totally untrue and with propper research you can see this. I have the one IP address, and my service provider is not Carphone warehouse and never has been. I think Xinjesian saw that our forum members were trying to add the site in support of Siobhan, and he/she has assumed/accused me of chaging my IP address. I really do not appreciate being accused of that. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that the image in question seems to show that this is indeed the official web site, I think that it should be removed from the blacklist. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Accounts

• Antmarkhemingway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 92.13.53.79 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.6.238.202 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.10.15.171 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.12.126.195 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.3.104.60 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.8.226.103 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.9.69.179 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.0.153.204 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.3.214.51 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Registrant(Owner) of these sites is Anthony Hemingway (AKA Antmarkhemingway (talk · contribs))^[81][82]. Long term spamming and abuse including Moving ones own link "UP", which is never a sign of good faith, and off site harassment and personal attacks origionating on the site in question. I Would find it difficult to believe this is anything more than a fan-spammed-site. I see no need for the continued disruption, harassment and abuse that has occured by this individual.--Hu12 (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Hu12. I suspect that Antmarkhemingway is running sanctioned fansites with permission from Jacquie O'Sullivan and Siobhan Fahey (so "official" in a manner of speaking). However, even if these were official sites registered to the band/record company/individuals involved, there's nothing to say that we have to include them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost and not here to drive web traffic to external sites or provide a fan service. Unfortunately we can only go by the behaviour we observe and Antmarkhemingway has done his sites no favours by behaving like a spammer. Looking at the history of spamming and disruption, I see no compelling reason why these sites should be unblacklisted. EyeSerene^talk 10:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hu12 is being very petty now i think! And this is not meant in a rude way, but if you knew anything about the internet, a persons IP changes regular, so that is something that is not my problem. Why would i go through the trouble to change my IP address for the sake of editing here? I am a webmaster and know full well that IP addresses are traceable even when changed. Shakespearssister.co.uk is Siobhan Fahey's web site and port of call. All news is posted their, and it is the place for media and fans alike. Those interviews you refer to on the wikipage were actually arranged via ss.co.uk!!! It is not a "fan site", and i really wish you would stop using that term, as you are really getting quite annoying now. Wikipedia has used information from ss.co.uk, but when teh contributors try and reference ss.co.uk they haven't been able to! Antmarkhemingway (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If the band itself publishes the address as the go-to site on its albums, I'm not sure why it would not be an 'official' site. I don't really understand why this site is blacklisted, and I'm not convinced it's 'spamming' to have it in the article; most musician articles include the musician's main site with no problems. The band doesn't appear to be obscure or non-notable, after all. I have been horrified by some of the uncivil behavior I've seen from some of the people trying to add it, but we don't usually blacklist sites for that reason. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There are such things as "official" fansites, where the quality and expertise of the host created pages serve as useful publicity tools - and whose addresses are reproduced on some of the artists products. I know, because I belong to one. This doesn't mean that what is reproduced there is necessarily representative of the subject, since it is the editorial decision of the site owner, but the relationship is sufficiently beneficial to be given "official" recognition. While not an unreliable source, such sites should be treated with caution when it is the only available reference. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense; I'm willing to let this be decided by people more learned in the subject than me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

May i ad for one final time that this is certainly not a "fan site" it fully represents the band. But how can i prove this? Just becasue the site isnt registered to Shakespears Sister??? I purchased the domain and hosting in my name as i pay for the hosting on behalf of Siobhan fahey. All i ask is people just take a look at the site and look at its content, its clearly represenative of the band and all the information on the site is 100% correct and accurate. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think what generally separates a "fan site" from an "official site" is that the former is amateur (as in "labour of love") and the latter is professional. Are you paid by Siobhan Fahey or her management, or do you do this as a fan? Your comment about paying for hosting "on behalf of" Fahey is a bit confusing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Is it possible to link to a statement from the artiste(s) (management) saying the website is the sole legal online representative of said artiste(s). This might be linked from the artistes record label or management website. It should also note where editorial control is exercised, and by whom. Another avenue, likely preferred by WP, would be if an independent source noted that the site was the official online representation of the subject(s). That said, I would draw your attention to thebansheesandothercreatures, whose address has recently appeared on releases by Siouxsie & the Banshees, The Creatures, and Siouxsie Sioux and is linked from their official sites and record label websites, and that of Steven Severin. Despite this "recognition" (and the accuracy of its content) it remains a fan site since the editor - who owns the site - is independent of the artists; it is one of the acknowledged "official" fansites. Under the circumstances, clarification of the status of "your" website is required before WP can describe it as being that of the subjects. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes the site is linked on the bands record label web site http://www.cargorecords.co.uk/artist/5136 Thanks, Antmarkhemingway (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. What about statements to the effect that the site is legally the official website from Fahey, her management or record label, or an independent third party to that effect, and whether you are acting on behalf of or are an employee of the artist or their record label? I would draw your attention to the earlier comments also from HU12 and EyeSerene regarding your interaction with other editors and inappropriate "promoting" of the website. Even if the website is removed from the blacklist, there would need to be an improvement in your behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that Cargo Records is a 'distributor of independant records labels" [83], and not the artist's label. XinJeisan (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. but that just came with the fustration. it isnt hugely important that the site is listed here, but i just think it looks better, as most other artists have their sites linked. I will refrain from editing the Siobhan Fahey page and Shakespears sister page, and will let whoever ad it Antmarkhemingway (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC).

I think that might be helpful. It's edits like this that sparked my concern; it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for and casts doubt on your motives for editing the article. Per WP:ELNO criterion 1, we only need include external links that add content beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. That's deliberately a very high bar; if the external site's content is already covered by the article (perhaps as a source for the content), we don't need to include it as a separate external link as it adds no extra value. Exceptions are offsite content that we can't host for whatever reason (for example, the original text of a document that's discussed in an article but that can't be quoted in full without breaching someone's copyright). Like LHvU I have some reservations about using the site as a source, but that's another discussion. EyeSerene^talk 11:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

But couldn't we at least have the site listed on the URL of Siobhan Fahey's profile. Its only fair i think. Bananarama's website doesnt offer any further information thats on their wikipedia and their site is on here, even their youtube and myspace are listed! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bananarama I was told that youtubes and myspaces were not allowed, so thats is why i took all this a persoanl dig at the band, because it seemed Siobhan's former band was allowed their site, youtube, myspace etc. but not her, This wa my issue all along. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• If Antmarkhemingway withdraws from editing the article I think there should be no reason to have the site unblacklisted and placed in the appropriate place in the article. As long as it is not being used or promoted as a reliable source then I feel it may well be included. Does anybody know how to do the unblacklist thingy? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I will certainly withdraw from editing the article. I would just be very happy to see the site in the URL section of Siobhan Fahey and Shakespears Sister's profile pages if possible as they are very reliable sources. All information on SS.co.uk is accurate and approved by Siobhan (afterall, she did write the bio), I just thought it would be fair, since, as stated above, Wikipedia actually has MORE information on Bananarama than their official site does itself, in my honest opinion, and their site and youtube channels are listed. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC) And I also would like to appologuise for past behaviour, and i feel like i have learnt a lot about Wikipedia from the experience, and appreciate it much more. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Have we been able to reach a decission on this matter? Please let me know Antmarkhemingway (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

• • This issue was archived but it has not yet been resolved. Is the site going to unblacklisted? Sorry for puuting this topic back here if i wasnt suppose to Antmarkhemingway (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC). Moved here to preserve chronological order. EyeSerene^talk 12:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The sites involved (from the blacklist) are:

• jacquieoh.com
• shakespearssister.co.uk
• facebook.com/ShakespearsSisterOfficial
• bananaramafanclub.freehostking.com

We appear to have some weak consensus that the first two can be removed - anyone else care to comment? EyeSerene^talk 12:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy enough for the first two to be taken off the blacklist - they could prove useful for a reader of the article. The latter two I feel fall under WP:NOTLINK. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, the latter two are not needed. As I have learned, Facebook pages are not allowed, official or not, am I correct? So that one is ok. The Bananaramafanclub can go, im not sure if that even exists anymore, it was a site i uploaded on behalf of a fan who used to run a fan service, and is not official Antmarkhemingway (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

I'd suggest to remove the first two, and add them to their own pages here (and not anywhere else). Antmarkhemingway, you might want to have a look at WP:OTHERLINKS/WP:WAX (that other links are somewhere else, is not a reason to include yours, it might be a reason to remove the other, but it may also be that the others are discussed and deemed appropriate), and consider that we do not have to link, even to thé official site. We link as we assert that it gives more information. Unwillingness to discuss before inclusion, or other attempts to push a link may indeed lead to (re-)blacklisting, especially when the pushy editor has a conflict of interest regarding the subject.

Shall I go on an remove them from the blacklist? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems we agree that the first two should be removed. I don't mind doing it, but since you've offered, Dirk... :) EyeSerene^talk 17:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, you have been most helpful. Both sites do offer further information, such as latest events and extensive biographies. The Shakespears Sister site would be best added to both Siobhan Fahey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siobhan_Fahey and Shakespears sister http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespears_Sister pages, as Shakespears Sister is pretty much now Siobhan Fahey, and the site is mainly based on her, but former band member(s) are breifly included. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Apparently Dirk has gone offline, so I've updated the spam blacklist myself. Since you've undertaken not to edit them, I'll also add the sites to the articles. Other editors may have different ideas and there's no guarantee they'll stay in the articles forever - if they do get removed again, by all means point the editors concerned to this thread (which will be in the ANI archives), but please don't add them back in yourself :) All the best, EyeSerene^talk 18:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, but I didn't realize that any consensus was reached about the .jaquieoh website. I didn't originally bring this to ANI to discuss whether blacklisting the websites was a good idea or not -- which was never directly discussed nor did Antmarkhemingway copy the entire discussion over when he was looking for a decision to be made in his favor. But my complaint towards Antmarkhemingway's behavior changed to a discussion about whether the decision to blacklist was correct.

I stated if the SS site was taken off the blacklist, I would think that would be okay, as long as it was not used as a source for the article. However, if there was any discussion about whitelisting the jaquieoh site, I would have disagreed strongly. I already mentioned why The Jacquie O'Sullivan article itself is unsourced -- it is quite difficult to find reliable sources about her -- I've tried. (You can see the work I have done on Shakespears Sister and Siobhan Fahey, for example here, here, (this last edit was actually removed here by someone trying to put back in the ss website, even though I had properly sourced the material with reliable sources), here, and here. So, I haven't just spent my time removing the one site, I actively worked to improve the articles in the spirit of Wikipedia. However, there is not a reliable source that states Jacquie O'Sullivan was a casting director at all. And, while on Talk:Jacquie O'Sullivan he seemed to admit that this wasn't accurate (see this diff), here he states that not only was O'Sullivan a casting director, but that she has worked for Lee Dennison So, putting an website that in the past has put up incorrect/unverifiable information doesn't seem right to me. Also, also the diffs here and here seem to contradict what he said here about what IP he uses.

I just wanted to put this here in the record so people realize why these websites were blacklisted and why originally I wanted to bring this to the community's attention.XinJeisan (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be talking about two separate issues. The first is including the sites on the articles in question, which seems to have been reasonably settled. With my editor's hat on I see no harm in listing them in the External links section, but would not recommend including them in the infobox; although they are clearly approved of by the artists, I don't believe they are 'official' in the sense most of us might use the word (as in directly paid for by the artists or operated/owned by paid representatives). The second is using them as source material for the article content; again with my editor's hat on I think this is more problematic. They may be mostly accurate, but as Antmarkhemingway indicated above they are not necessarily secondary sources and should be treated with caution. EyeSerene^talk 09:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I was indeed offline by that time, thanks EyeSerene for the removal.

The reason to blacklist was the pushing behaviour, abuse of the link, and the surrounding behaviour of the spammers. I agree that this seems more a 'band approved fan-site' than the official band site, and should be treated as such.

I would say that we need to keep an eye on this one and revisit its use after this moment. I think/hope Antmarkhemingway has gotten the message that we include links after consensus and discussion, and I hope that we will see use of the link, and not abuse. De-blacklisting a link has in common with blacklisting that neither have to be permanent. Regarding Jacquie O'Sullivan, I would say, see if it can be sourced, if they is notable enough, etc. If that fails, WP:AFD might be worth to see if something comes up. When the article would be deleted, then there would simply be no use for the link, but as long as there is no abuse, we don't need to re-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are very much my thoughts too. Given Antmarkhemingway's assurances, I believe the underlying reason for keeping the sites blacklisted has been addressed. I'll keep the articles watchlisted though. The lack of sourcing on Jacquie O'Sullivan is a concern, especially with WP:BLP being enforced increasingly strictly. Suitable sources should exist - she was in one of the most successful bands of the time. I assume we're OK with Antmarkhemingway participating constructively on the article talk-pages per WP:TALK? They obviously know the subjects, so might be of help in locating reliable sources. EyeSerene^talk 10:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• I am more than happy to help in anyway in the future, but will leave links to the powers that be! I am not paid for Jacquie O'Sullivan/Slippry Feet's web site, and yes I guess its pretty much an approved fan site if you look at it from that angel, and this is simply due tot the fact jacquie has gone quiet and there is no news to update. If she records music again one day, then the site will be updated appropriately. Jacquie did participate in the site during its first few months, but she got busy and Paul Simper (former band mate, Slippry Feet) finished it off with me. A Siobhan fahey's site is slightly different, it is her represensative website, which I am paid for, BUT, i make the initial payment and then reinbursed later... this is why the i am the registered owner, i know its not ideal, but thats just the way things turned out. Again, thank you for your understanding, and I hope to work with you on this in future, not against you! Also can I just varify that I never changed my IP address. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

Little Bill Credits

Resolved

 – Directed to what (I think) would be better venues... ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 13:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I was the original Art director of Little Bill at Nick Jr. I worked with Varnette Honeywood and Robert Skull to develop the look of the show. I worked for almost 1 year before airing. The art work on the main article was made by me. I received art director credit on only one or two original episodes. After that I was given the credit of lead designer. The artwork that appears in the info box was made by me. This can be verified by Bill Cosby and Varnette Honeywood. I would like to only add the credit of designed by Adam Osterfeld and Kirk Etienne. You can email me at hoganost@yahoo.com. The page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osterfeld (talk • contribs) 13:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your query: if you wish to claim copyright for content hosted on Wikipedia, you'll need to email details and proof to info-en-c@wikimedia.org – or if you simply want to be credited in the article as having been on the crew of the show, you'll need to find and cite a reliable source confirming your involvement. Hope this helps! ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 13:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I made this edit based on your testimony that you were the original art director. Hopefully, this will encourage someone to verify and find a citation. The problem with your edit is that "lead designer" is not a recognized field of the template which creates the infobox content. Hopefully my change will get the ball rolling in your direction. WTucker (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As a citation, you may look to the credits for episodes 1-6. I am not claiming copyright. Creative is a perfectly acceptable credit. Like the directors, I was a salaried position. My job was to establish the design and art production of the show. I was assisted by Kirk Etienne, an illustrator that made the drawings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osterfeld (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC) On second thought, the credit of creative director is generally reserved for advertising. Art director or simply Designer would be more accurate. See Episode credits 1-6.Osterfeld (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

IMDB has you listed as a "Designer" (among others). While it's not a hugely reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, I think that's enough corroboration that you can be listed in the article. I'll add it back in, though the template doesn't support Designer so it's less than ideal. EyeSerene^talk 19:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Continued incivility after a request to stop

User:Parrot of Doom has been generally uncivil today and failed or even mocked requests to improve his behaviour, He started off edit warring over an unfree picture in the nick griffen article with User_talk:J_Milburn after three reverts his actions culminated in this edit with the edit summary in capitals of "CLEAR THE FUCK OFF" , I left him a polite civility note, to which he replied, "thanks but I'm not interested in civility warnings" he then again was uncivil on a public talkpage, saying on the talkpage of Griffin , "What the fuck is it with people today". I informed him again that he was being uncivil and requested him to stop, he replied that "Clearly you didn't bother reading my response to your civility warning. Get it into your head - I will use whatever language I feel is appropriate." and with the edit summary of " civility bollocks" followed up with the edit summary of "indent reply about civility bollocks" , Users should not have to suffer this level of insulting commentary, the editor in question appears to believe that he can speak derogatory to other users, this is upsetting to some editors and should not be ignored. Off2riorob (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, you've managed to create silly wikidrama at 3 pages now. Starved of attention today are we? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Not constructive. Please refactor or someone else will do so for you. → ROUX ₪ 16:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This editor is obviously out for wikidrama and constructive or not it should be pointed out, if for no other reason than to demonstrate that there is an alternate side to his little story above. His idea of incivility is when someone else uses language that he doesn't approve of. Then to go running to ANI to 'report' it is, in my opinion, a perfect example of creating a wikidrama. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Foul language isn't acceptable, particularly if another editor requested it to be stopped. Parrot needs to cool it, less administrators give him an un-voluntary break. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"Foul" language is not against policy, neither is it, in itself, uncivil. A request is, by definition, an invitation for a refusal. PoD, while I agree should chill a bit, has every right to use whatever language he chooses to convey whatever it is he is attempting to convey. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What you (GoodDay) call "foul language" may not be what Parrot of Doom would call "foul language, or indeed what I would call "foul language". It was certainly robust language, but that's not quite the same thing where I come from. The only incivility here is too many editors attempting to impose their prissy notions of civility on others, with threats and bullying if necessary. Time it stopped. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The irony of Roux, one of the rudest and most abusive of editors on this site, turning up to criticise another editor for incivility is mind-boggling. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones Malleus. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And yet you're blind to your own incvility and abuse. Irony enough for everyone, it seems. So, how about you try this for a change, Malleus? Stop being a fucking dick. I know, I know, it's pretty much impossible for you. But you sit there and continually browbeat others while screaming at the top of your lungs for people to be nice to you. It would also behoove you to note that I didn't criticise anyone for incivility--I pointed out that his comment was unconstructive. But then, detail was never exactly your strong suit, now was it? Certainly not when piddly little things like 'facts' would get in the way of you getting your digs in. Grow the fuck up and start acting like an adult. Jesus. → ROUX ₪ 17:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is your only warning, Malleus and Roux; disengage from each other. This isn't about you, and every civility thread on ANI is not a reason for you to continue your feud. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Warn away, but you cannot suppress the truth that Roux is just as guilty of what he's complaining about with this edit summary. Why not address that issue instead of throwing your weight around? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Beg your pardon? Malleus shows up out of nowhere to attack me, and I'm being warned? Blame the victim, nice. Plus ca change.. → ROUX ₪ 17:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware, and I'm telling you to be the better man here and leave it at that. Don't contribute to the problem. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And let him--again--simply spout whatever crap he wants? Here's the thing that you lot don't seem to understand.. you keep telling him to stop, you keep doing nothing about it, and therefore you keep enabling and encouraging him to be ever-more-abusive to everyone on this site. → ROUX ₪ 17:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like some imbalance here. malleus stops and gets blocked. Roux continues but doesn't get blocked. Looks like that's an unbalanced answer to the problem. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to point out, if PoD had respected the request to cool it, at the public talkpage, he wouldn't have been reported. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) And why exactly should the request have been granted? "Do as I ask or I'll report you"? To me that rather smacks of bullying and threats. How about PoD's right to use whatever language he deems appropriate for getting his point across? This is a rather typical ploy of the 'civility police' mentality around here. Threats and wikidrama. Now that sounds far more uncivil than the release of an F-bomb. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Think about it this way, Fred. Do you think others are more or less likely to take PoD seriously and engage with him in a calm manner if he's throwing around profanity? If PoD cannot express his displeasure or disagreement with an action without resorting to "an F-bomb", it's a lack of vocabulary or imagination on his part, and it only causes discussion to decay. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

An F-bomb is not an example of lack of vocabulary. In fact many times it is the perfect word to get across certain feelings. In my veiw this makes it the perfect use of vocabulary. It is not my decision on what allows PoD to be taken seriously, primarily because I don't believe that the use of epithets devalues what a person is saying. Your mileage obviously varies. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The following article may be of some interest:

• Wales, Jimmy (December 29, 2009). "Keep a Civil Cybertongue: Rude and abusive online behavior should not be met with silence". The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A right to use foul language? there's no such thing as rights here. At Wikipedia, we have privillages. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

By those rules there is no right to the expectation that someone is going to respect one's own view of the world and what languages we expect others to use. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

One's own views on civility becomes irrelevant, when one is blocked for incivility. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem. There is not one person on Wikipedia that can define exactly what incivility actually is, yet strangely lots of people think they know and use their own interpretation to go ahead and block someone based purely on subjective opinion. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would expect to be blocked if I spoke to editors in the same way, especially if I had been politely requested to be more civil, my request was mocked, and the behavior repeated, good faith editors are repelled by this level of incivility and should not have to be addressed in this manner. Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Your expectations have no greater sway than PoD's right to use language he deems appropriate. Also your interpretation of "uncivil" holds no greater sway than his. Who are you to decide what is or isn't uncivil? Good faith editors are also repelled by the immature, run to mummy approach that is frequently used by the final arbiters of what should be civil and what shouldn't be. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has a right on Wikipedia, we've privillages. IMHO, if one's want to spourt off on his/her pesonal page? fine. But, not on public pages, when requested not to. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

David, you should leave block notices on their pages. I know they're aware, but in the interest of the probable unblock requests... Tan | 39 17:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I left them in other tabs and forgot to save. Appended, thanks for the reminder. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Here you go on about lack of rights again. That lack of right also applies to peoples' expectancy of what they can request and their right to have that request complied with. It is after all a request and not an instruction. The bedrock of WP is that it isn't censored. You cannot have a non-censored encyclopaedia whilst simultaneously censoring its editors behind the scenes. But back to the point, the use of off-colour language is not in and of itself uncivil. Off2riorob has no right or "privilege" to decide that it is all on his own. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's all up to the community, in the end (as we're a collaborative project). GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"The bedrock of WP is that it's uncensored"? Strong statement; it's a facet of the project but I'd hardly call it the bedrock. Tan | 39 17:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, do we not -censure- people from making threats? legal, physical etc etc (which hasn't been the case here). GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

in any case, it's the articles that are not censored DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the boilerplate answer, but please re-read exactly what I said. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The implied threat was "swear in front of me and I'll tell teacher". I have no idea what Off2riorob expected to get from this report other than a dose of wikidrama. This he seems to have got in spades. two people blocked (none of them being PoD). This has all the hallmarks of a troll, or at the very least a WP equivalent of dropping a stink bomb before shutting the door. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly higher up the ladder (or deeper in the foundation as it were) that, say for example, errr truth. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My advice to Off2 would've been 'ignore' Parrot 'until' he agreed to muzzle the foul language. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

IMO it is not OK to talk to other editors in this manner at all, if you do lose your cool, OK, we are adults, in that case you calm down and apologize, you do not assert that you will say whatever you feel is appropriate and repeat the comment.As DDG says, it is the articles that are uncensored, not the talk pages and the edit summaries. Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As your internet acronym succinctly puts it, it is your opinion which has no greater precedence than PoDs. Where he and I come from it is perfectly acceptable to talk that way. Who are you to say that it isn't? If you don't like it, then simply ignore it. Running to mummy ANI will merely increase the signal-to-noise ratio and will cause far more disruption than any f-bomb ever could. Personally I think you were in the wrong for over-dramatising it. So far I've heard no complaint that your ears are bleeding or you were in some way harmed or mentally disturbed by anything PoD said to you? As you yourself stated, you are an adult. Adults don't go running to mummy. They just ignore what they don't like, or at least the ones round here do. This isn't a restaurant serving tough, under-done steak. That is the place to complain to the chef. In this instance you aren't going to get you way, or get a replacement steak. he can't unsay it, he isn't likely to come over to your view any time soon. So what is it you think you've achieved today, other than wasting a lot of people's valuable time with this discussion? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps it is ok on wikipedia to speak to editors in this way, if that is so please point that out to me. Off2riorob (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There are several issues here, and in each case PoD, is on the right side. Firstly, take the description in the first paragraph where the disputed image is described as nonfree- this is a mere interpretation of a borderline case- a POV. Secondly, the article is about an individual with a particularly nasty track record, it is politically naive to believe you can sit on the fence- PoD is correct to verify a fact with a reference in this case a visual one. Thirdly, the heinous crime here is to suggest that Off2riorob intervention I left him a polite civility note,,was civil- no, it was gross provocation- delivered with Blairite sanctity. To which PoD politely replied:"thanks but I'm not interested in civility warnings" Fourthly, there is the issue of language register. Most of the time it is vaguely amusing that, words that 'kids on the street of Collyhurst and Ancoats use as punctuation marks, cause offence in other parts of the globe. On the Gamesley Estate, a lad bumped into me and said Ah f--k mate, I dinna see ya.- and that translate into I am sorry friend, I didn't see you. In parts of South London, saying Woof in the wrong context is grossly offensive- (It suggests the recipients mother is a dog). It is sad when editors take this seriously and get precious about others using a register they personally don't subscribe too. Finally, is the issue of timewasting. We have FAs to write- and being diverted from that central task, and dragging editors away from the name space is totally counter productive.--ClemRutter (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Shall we consider this civility report closed? GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No, let it carry on, its fucking hilarious. Parrot of Doom 19:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this illustrates why some react badly. There is no reason that I can see for parrot to say (well write) a word that some find offensive. As it is writen (and not spoken in the heat of argument) it is clarly premeditated (and as such presumably serves a function, I will not presume to assume what that might be).Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Point of view I guess. Some people presume that when the word "fuck" is used, its designed to offend. I find that laughable, they almost have my pity. Parrot of Doom 21:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The report should be closed, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Before it's closed, I would like to add something. Last night, I tried but gave up after numerous edit conflicts. Ok, while I would never support a block against an editor who lets rip with the odd f or c word in a moment of anger or sheer frustration (an admonitory tut-tut is sufficient, IMO), I feel that unrestrained usage of profanity should never become the norm here as it would create an ugly atmosphere of hostility, and talk pages would become battlegrounds for tit-for-tat profanity wars. Not exactly the scholarly image an encyclopedia strives for. The liberal use of profanity would also give free rein to those editors who wish to indimidate others through a contrived hard man, bad-ass Sgt. Bob Barnes stance as well as those who are just having a bad hair day and rebut a polite request with a snarling f..k off. This is not prissiness ot latent puritanism on my part, but rather practical advice to those of us here who do not wish to see Wikipedia turn into a popular hangout joint for bored kids who would use it merely to post their favourite swear words.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban requested

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Enough of the he-said/he-said bullshit. This is growing wearisome, and I see no positive outcome here. Next time, bring some diffs to the party, cuz this thread is in no way helpful to admins trying to mediate the problem. Better yet, request mediation at WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM. There is no positive outcome from this thread at all.--Jayron32 16:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

---

I would like Malleus Fatuorum to be permanently and unequivocally banned from commenting to, on, or about me anywhere on Wikipedia. I will voluntarily subject myself to the inverse, naturally, but I am sick and tired of his attacks on me. → ROUX ₪ 18:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

...and I'd like a toilet made of solid gold, but it's just not in the cards now is it? Seriously I don't think you can ban someone from talking about you or to you, only from certain topics or namespaces, etc. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:50, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I am on a permanent no-contact ban with a particular user, so, yes, it can be done.[84] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been done many, many times. So... yeah, I think it's justified. You could check out his latest little gem. → ROUX ₪ 18:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, there is such a thing as an interaction ban. In fact SuaveArt ended up indeffed because he couldn't stop violating his. Auntie E. (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Is that any worse than you calling him a dick? No use calling a Kettle, when you're distinctly Pot-coloured. Parrot of Doom 19:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Try noting the chronology here. It may prove illuminating to you. → ROUX ₪ 19:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Miss! Miss! He started it!! How very mature. Ironic that you propose the above measure, and then proceed directly to Malleus's talk page to vent your spleen. Parrot of Doom 19:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

After he continued to attack me--and, indeed, now proceeding to lie about me--yes. I suggest you also look up the meaning of 'irony', as you don't seem to know it. → ROUX ₪ 19:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) As much as the "he started it" defense gets made fun of, it actually has a lot of relevance. I've never heard of an interaction ban before, but the question of harassment can indeed fall on who started it, and often does, even though we don't expressly use those words. If you call someone a dick as a result of them having repeatedly been a dick to you, for example, there isn't necessarily an equal amount of blame to go around. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:15, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I would put a good sum of money on the result that if I looked far back enough in time, I'd see that Malleus's comments against Roux are entirely justified. I've worked with him here on quite a few articles and I've seen him make apologies where they were due. It seems to me that the minority here who don't like Malleus hold that view not because they think he's wrong, but because they don't like the fact that he's prepared to tell them they're wrong, and in no uncertain terms. Parrot of Doom 19:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is a bet you would lose. Here is something you should find eye-opening, also this. But, y'know, facts. Not exactly held in high regard here. → ROUX ₪ 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Then let's start posting some diffs rather than making idle generalizations (PoD, Roux, and Malleus). For the record I have almost no experience with either user so I don't "like" or "dislike" anyone here. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:29, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Some advice: "The more we get together, the happier we'll be" (remember that little tune). GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I found neither eye-opening, in fact I struggled to stem the massive yawn issued forth from my mouth. If such comments are the root cause of your problem with Malleus, you clearly have issues. Parrot of Doom 20:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If you do not respond to Malleus then you will have no concern of any action against you, Malleus can get himself into trouble if he wants to do one sided battle. It takes two to interact. Simply deny any direct response to him and if his actions cause concern then you can ask an admin you trust and respect to look at it or make a request here for further scrutiny. As long as you avoid responding negatively then you will be fine and Malleus will either stop find himself blocked. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Not good enough, I'm afraid. Ignoring him does not, in fact, make him go away. And his behaviour is such that somehow he avoids getting blocked. One can only speculate as to why. I will happily restrict myself from commenting to or about him anywhere on this site--if and only if he is required to do the same. He has lied about me enough today--you should also see his commentary on Fuchs' talkpage immediately after his block expired. Because apparently it's okay for him to say shit like that. That is, at least, the only conclusion I can draw as he was not reblocked for those attacks. → ROUX ₪ 19:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The real problem here is that we have two people and neither seem to have the maturity to rise above it. His behavior is not getting a pass but neither is yours. If we were to look at comments from just after the block and consider further blocking then your comments would put you in the same light, perhaps it is better to stop with administrative enforcement and at least one of the two of you just ignore the other. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I note without surprise (Chillum) that you have implicitly accepted that Roux is the victim in this affair. Well, for starters I'd suggest that this "victim" gets the Hell off my talk page if he expects anyone to take his proposal seriously. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could be the more mature one and rise above it? Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Retract your lies and your personal attacks and I will be happy to. → ROUX ₪ 19:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What part of 'he showed up out of nowhere to attack me' is completely unclear to you, Chillum? Grow a pair and impose the ban. → ROUX ₪ 19:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am an admin, not a relationship counselor. I can block editors for engaging in personal attacks, but I am not going to take sides. To be frank, if either of you keep this then escalating blocks may be the only way. Wikipedia is not a battleground and a person fighting with someone who is not fighting back will look a fool so just don't respond. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I just want him barred from harassing me further. What part of that do you not understand? → ROUX ₪ 19:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you don't see that you are also going to his talk page with and spitting nasty words at him. I have already offered you a solution, I don't accept your suggestion of an interaction ban. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

After--and only after--he started lying about me. I'd also like you to show me what exactly is 'nasty' in comparison to his comments about 'bile' and such. I want his bullshit to stop, and clearly you have absolutely no interest in doing so. → ROUX ₪ 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I think everyone understands you perfectly. It just hasn't been shown yet that such a ban is warranted. You can't just request a ban and get it without adequately proving one is needed. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:59, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he showed up in a thread above solely to harass me? Yes, naturally that isn't any evidence whatsoever. None at all. The fact that he is lying about me? Nope, no evidence there. Oh well, facts, who needs 'em? → ROUX ₪ 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"The fact that he showed up in a thread above solely to harass me?" - That is an outright lie, which anyone bored enough to check will plainly discover for themselves. Parrot of Doom 21:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, could you please show me exactly where in his attack on me he said anything about you? Anything about the actual contents of the thread? Go on, I can wait. → ROUX ₪ 01:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Typical gutless response from somebody who knows they're in the wrong. Answer my question, because it appears to me (and anyone else reading) that you're lying. Parrot of Doom 11:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's gutless to ask you to back up your assertions. [removed] I do not lie; honesty is the sole commodity editors have. [removed]. → ROUX ₪ 16:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Refactored; stop it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Roux for 24 hours for extreme incivility and disruption in this post, which stood out to me in the edit summary of this page (I had not previously read the thread). I'll leave it to others to determine whether anyone else is at fault here too, but nothing could excuse that comment. postdlf (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec x a billion) I think Chillum is basically summing up WP:JDI. Though if you could show diffs illustrating that that didn't work, ie. that you actually didn't respond to Malleus and he continued harassing you, that might be grounds for a block. To Malleus: I think Chillum has actually stated that both parties are to blame in this case. I don't see that he's painted either of you as the victim. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:46, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

That is not a view that I share. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not had a positive response to my whole "don't take the bait, ignore the other person" advice. So perhaps other people can weigh in. I am not interested in participating in any interaction bans as I think they ignore the root of the problem, those who are interacting. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Because I am sick and fucking tired of that 'advice'. Don't take the bait? Suuuuuuuuuuure. How about you get attacked by an abusive editor repeatedly and just 'ignore' it. Oh wait, you don't have to--you can just block them. The rest of us don't have that luxury, and we would like to be able to comment in peace without being harassed. That is, clearly, too much to ask. More to the point, Wikipedians generally don't bother actually looking into the background--they see Malleus making outlandish accusations and lying, and will assume he's correct. I will defend myself. What I am asking for is to have the need to defend myself removed. I really am at a loss for why you are unable to understand this simple concept. So let me try again: I will not stand idly by while I am attacked and harassed. But I get punished for reacting. So how about we just get rid of his ability to attack and harass me? → ROUX ₪ 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you should check my log of blocking people, you will see I do not block people I am in a dispute with. I get someone uninvolved to handle it. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If it'll make anybody happy, have Malleus say vicious lies about me, instead. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me alot of the ANI thread about User:IMatthew that I started. Look, Roux. Prior to you leaving, you and I had a feew fights but look, If Malleus is bugging you then just tell him that you'll take his "advice". He'll probably leave after that. However, if he does'nt, then that may count as hounding. Even so, many admims seem to be trigger happy with the block tool. Malleus only deserved a warning if that. Now Malleus, you and I have really gotten into fights in the past. While I belive that the animosity is gone, you may want to think "will this edit help Roux or just cause trouble" when your posting to him. You have every right to speek your opinion but sometimes things are better left unsaid. Well thats my crappy two-cents. Take it or leave it.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The facts of the case are pretty simple. I generally try to avoid ANI like the plague I believe it to be, and I'm pretty sure I've never initiated an ANI thread on anything or anyone, and very likely never will. Roux's repeated claim that I turned up at Parrot of Doom's ANI thread above completely out of the blue and simply to harass him is a direct personal attack far worse than anything he accuses me of, yet it goes unremarked by these "trigger happy admins" you have so rightly identified. I spent some time working with Parrot of Doom on the Nick Griffin article that's at the heart of that row, and we've worked together on many other articles as well, so quite naturally I have his talk page on my watchlist. That's how I found out about the ANI report that Roux pounced on out of the blue to offer his usual words of wisdom. I don't follow other editors around looking for excuses to start rows, unlike some others. I prefer to spend my time building an encyclopedia, and I was supporting Parrot of Doom, an editor for whom I have the greatest of respect, against an absurd charge of incivility. Roux's track record, on the other hand, speaks for itself. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It would behoove you to get your facts correct before you start shooting your mouth off. My sole comment in that thread, until you decided to show up and harass me, was "Not constructive. Please refactor or someone else will do so for you." in response to Fred the Oyster. I made no comment on Off2riorob (the initiator of that thread) nor Parrot of Doom (its subject). As I have said repeatedly, it is customary to have opinions preceded by knowledge. You may wish to try this. → ROUX ₪ 22:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

How ironic. "The fact that he showed up in a thread above solely to harass me" is what you said earlier. Do you stand by this comment? Parrot of Doom 00:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course I do. He made no comment about you or the thread, just came to attack me. → ROUX ₪ 01:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Really, so what is this - "What you (GoodDay) call "foul language" may not be what Parrot of Doom would call "foul language, or indeed what I would call "foul language". It was certainly robust language, but that's not quite the same thing where I come from. The only incivility here is too many editors attempting to impose their prissy notions of civility on others, with threats and bullying if necessary. Time it stopped. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)" - if not a comment about me and the thread? Where does that comment, made first, say anything about you? Red-mist, eh? Parrot of Doom 11:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What he did do is make an ironic comment. That is not the same as an attack. Neither is it an attack if it's a true statement and so far I see you haven't denied what he said as not being true. Incidentally your behaviour today has somewhat strengthened the veracity of MF's original comment. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

He did no such thing; I suggest you look up the definition of irony. Nor indeed was it a true statement. And it would behoove you to note I have merely responded in kind to the bullshit MF has thrown at me. Oh well--facts, really, why would you bother familiarizing yourself with them? → ROUX ₪ 01:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel you're on the wrong side of the pond to be giving lectures on irony. "Responding in kind" is still a behaviour. If you respond in kind then you are doing exactly what you accuse him of. As I said, you aren't doing yourself any favours here. And yes, that is a fact that I'm now familiar with. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm bored and just browsing around, and I just happened across this. I jsut wanted to briefly comment that it may be a good idea to open an RFC/user about one or both of the central editors here. I personally think that they both have something to add to Wikipedia, but there are some rather serious concerns with behavioral issues (at least, on a "presentation" level) which could possibly be helped by using the RFC procedure. For full disclosure I should note that I've had (a somewhat limited amount of) negative iterations with both editors here, and I should probably admit that one of them does bring up a compelling point in my opinion, but I think that I'm presenting this in a fairly neutral manner.
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 22:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Look. I've had my own run-ins with Roux in the past as well. Just take a look at all of the MFD's from September and you see just how many. I also agree that Roux needs to calm down. In other words, take a chill pill man. This is just an all volunteer project. If you get sooo worked up over a stupid comment that some random user tels you then you need to take a break and think to your self "why should I even care?" Trust me. I have gotten worked up all of the time over Malleus's comments. (Take a look at my TP archives). You are makeing a fool of yourself Roux. Just calm down, back away from the computer and do sometihng else if you ned to. Remeber, this is for fun. It's no job of yours. And Malleus, I know. It just seems like the nice thing to do is to back away from the situation.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. He started the situation. The nice thing to do would be to apologise. It won't happen. → ROUX ₪ 22:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right Roux. Just remember that.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• That sounds like a good idea. In fact, why don't you start up a company specialising in turning molehills into mountains? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

  LOL! I couldn't have planned such a response, it's so perfectly illustrative. Thank you!
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 22:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• No, you probably couldn't. No shame in that though. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Stop. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

All the people in this thread who thought it would be amusing to add their own little 'funny' comments could stand to be whacked with a block. You arn't helping by prodding Roux and you certainly arn't funny. Jtrainor (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This thread, as much as any, shows the fallacy of the reflexive "two sights fighting" response. It's tempting, and it's easy, but it is no substitute for a serious attempt to figure out what is really going on. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Rangeblock possibly needed

Per another users request on my talk page, I am raising this here to discuss a rangeblock of a group of IP addresses being used by a indef blocked sockpuppeteer. Any time an IP in their range gets blocked, they hop onto a new dynamic IP address within 24 hours and continue the same pattern of vandalism/personal attacks on users. I tried to dissuade them by protecting their targets userpages for a week, but they find other users and target them instead. The list that I have personally seen so far are:

• User:RegularLife (Block evasion account of User:Silverlife and User:RegularBreaker
• 123.27.27.224
• 123.27.24.27
• 123.27.24.174
• 123.27.25.120
• 123.27.26.132
• 123.27.26.189

The main targets have been User:Atama and their user subpages, and User:Joe Chill, however since their pages were protected the IPs have been targetting the users who warned their previous IPs. Any thoughts on performing a rangeblock? They have continued for over 5 days now, not letting swift blocks and page protects deter them. Thanks in advance, --Taelus (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

See also: Previous ANI thread on the RegularLife sockpuppet. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive594#Sockpuppet. --Taelus (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the contributions to see if an edit filter could be applicable. While there are a few vectors that could be pursued, I'm not really sure it's warranted: any filter would be extremely rough as the contributions are a bit wild. The ISP range is 123.27.0.0/19 (8190 possible IPs) but the ISP might restrict the user further than that based on their infrastructure. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

123.27.24.0/22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) blocked for two weeks. If it spreads (and I don't think it has yet), opening it up to 123.27.0.0/19 might be a good idea. NW (Talk) 21:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems they have alot of patience, and a wider pool of IP addresses. Same pattern sprung up on User:123.27.29.229, I will re-protect target pages and block the IP for a short time. --Taelus (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As a note, 127.27.29.229 is inside 123.27.0.0/19. Not saying the block is justified, just a note for clarification. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Danieldis47

I feel that Danieldis47 is a biased-POV-pusher and needs to cool down a little with his negative view about the Afghan situation. He is adding only negative stuff into Afghanistan article and reverts anyone who tries to nuetralize his edits. For example, he keeps mentioning how bad and inaffective the Afghan police, taking bribes, using drugs, and etc., but he refuses to write anything about the large number of them getting killed for the small salary that they earn and etc.--Jrkso (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I would welcome third-party or editor assistance in working with Jrkso. As I have noted on the Afganistan talk page, in my edits I stick as closely as possible to facts as detailed in appropriate sources, which I always provide. Nevertheless, my editing seems to leave Jrkso extremely frustrated. He has accused me of bias, but he declines to point to any specific "biased" edits of mine to allow me to respond. I am at a loss as to how to proceed. This could be an ongoing issue (for example, Jrkso has just added yet another un-sourced claim to the "Police" section.) I will likely seek Wikipedia formal intervention, as appropriate.

Thanks, Danieldis47 (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: I just wandered onto this page. Was I supposed to have been notified of this posting? Thanks. Danieldis47 (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I may have jumped the gun on this - editor was removing 52K of material from this page, repeatedly. The diffs weren't immediately clear on what was going on. I blocked per previous block and current "disruption"; eyes by another couple editors would be appreciated. Tan | 39 19:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at his previous behaviour but the way in the diffs he both adds and deletes posts, could it have been some botched edits using an old page version.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:JelrGREEN

I observed the following pattern of behavior from a new editor (User:JelrGREEN) who has solely edited one article Brendan Burke. He is aggressive, threatening and belligerent, determined to insert his own WP:OR. He needs to be warned by an administrator about the risk of being blocked. He has already violated WP:3RR. See the most recent transactions:

(cur) (prev) 22:39, 7 February 2010 JelrGREEN (talk | contribs) (7,345 bytes) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 22:31, 7 February 2010 JelrGREEN (talk | contribs) m (7,095 bytes) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 22:26, 7 February 2010 216.26.223.50 (talk) (6,556 bytes) (→References) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 22:24, 7 February 2010 24.78.131.232 (talk) (6,550 bytes) (→Death) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 22:20, 7 February 2010 JelrGREEN (talk | contribs) (6,992 bytes) (I re-entered info about Mark Reedy. PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE, unless you want an ANGRY town coming back and editing it again.) (undo)

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Their Talk page is a red link. Not only have you not discussed this with them before coming here, you haven't notified them of this discussion. Woogee (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Your characterization of his edits isn't really fair, either. He's a friend of someone who died in the same accident as Brendan Burke, and he thinks that person should be mentioned in the article. He's also a brand-new user who is not familiar with the nuances of Wikipedia's rules. He isn't trying to vandalize or do any harm; he is editing in good faith. Let's try talking to him nicely, shall we? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

He/she has been notified. I very rarely (anymore) find another editor's actions so objectionable that I resort to the Noticeboard, so I was rushing and neglected the protocol. MY apologies. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous IP vandal (User:216.26.223.50) blanked the AFD notice from the Brendan Burke page. Is it possible to run an IP check to see if the IP number matches User:JelrGREEN? How did I know this article would become a hornet's nest?? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The AFD discussion on Brendan Burke has turned pretty vicious since a lot of single purpose accounts showed up. Woogee (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Emergency unlocking of article please

Super Bowl XLIV, please unlock it now. I have important useful information to add. Hurry, I need to add some stuff and watch the game, too. I am not a troublemaker. Colts are the greatest (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOCK]].--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit senses...tingling... HalfShadow 23:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Not gonna happen Colts.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure! I've fully unprotected the article. Go ahead and add what you need to; I'll check in after the game. Actually, I didn't really unprotect it. Don't tell him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please be nice ok (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Could someone tie these socks up, please? HalfShadow 00:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• • OK, What's his name above is a sock of a blocked user. I wonder though, is the question really "bullshit"? We do we have the article locked? There are obviously hudreds, if not thousands, of people looking at it. If any vandalism is reverted in seconds, why does the page need protection?
    — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Do you want to spend the next 2-3 hours watching the game, or watching the article? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

      Same difference to me, since I'm already doing both... (apparently along with a few 10's of thousands of others...
      — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• You would think they could use that particular template (which I will not mention; BEANS) that requests an edit. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, maybe we should just relock it. It's been unlocked for about five minutes and it's already getting cluster-fucked. HalfShadow 00:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Because of 2-3 vandalous edits? a bit oversensitive, aren't we?
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering the page needs to be edited on a moment-by moment basis, it would be helpful it could be done without having to worry about reverting vandalism too. HalfShadow 00:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are (or, at least, should be) editing it moment to moment already, then how does vandalism really affect you anyway? That info is something that you're already at least looking at, if not changing, so why should vandalism particularly bother you?
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• I knew I was a big geek, I'm not even watching the game because I don't follow the NFL. But you guys are even bigger geeks, editing in the middle of the game! Shouldn't you be too drunk to be editing by now? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  hehe... I almost am, hence my posts here!
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  Not exactly, per my age...almost too caffeinated though! Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does this article need moment-by-moment editing during the game? Up-to-the-minute reporting goes on Wikinews, not in an encyclopedia. There aren't exactly any high-quality, reliable, secondary sources being added to the article which relate to the ongoing event. Just wait a couple of hours. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Man was that burst of vandalism tough. Good thing Explicit jumped in otherwise I (and others) would be rapidly reverting like crazy. Just saying. ConCompS talk 00:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Well, looks like I was invited into this discussion after I protected. Honestly, this article wouldn't survive if it wasn't protected. This reminds me when Michael Jackson was fully protected the day of his death because—as a highly visible page—vandalism was high and removing it was nearly impossible due to all the edit conflicts (let's not forget the server crash, either). Although the Super Bowl isn't receiving the same amount of traffic, semi-protection seems to apply here quite nicely. — ξ^xplicit 00:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  Heya Explicit. I invited you here because I wanted to see your reaction to what I said above, mostly. I find the "this article wouldn't survive" attitude curious here, I guess, and I wouldn't mind discussing that further with anyone willing to do so. I mean, with literally 10's of thousands of people viewing the article, what makes you guys think that the article wouldn't be able to survive? Do you admins really have such a low opinion of us content editors that this is a standard viewpoint here, now? Has Wikipedia fallen to such lows?

  Directly in reply to bringing up the MJ article, I'd point out that the main issue there was the rapidity of the edits, as far as I'm aware of. The Foundation seems to have taken care of that issue, which was at least partially technical and partially physical (server configs), in response, so why is that relevant?
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  What I meant by "it wouldn't survive" was that the article will be bombarded by IPs and non-auto-confirmed that make less than constructive edits to the article. I think that was shown pretty well before the article was protected, as most by of the IP edits were either reverted by Huggle, ClueBot or rollback. No where did I put down constructive editors. As far as Jackson's article goes, yes, it was due to rapidity. It was this rapidity that left vandalism in the article for too long. In fact, I remember that the infobox was broken when a vandal made its way into the article and remained that way for several minutes; reverting was no easy task with all the edit conflicts. My point is, if the article was left unprotected, unconstructive edits would (and a few did) remain visible to those hundreds, if not thousands, of readers who would stop by. Semi-protection won't get rid of all vandals, but the article will receive significantly less unconstructive hits. — ξ^xplicit 01:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  OK, taking everything above a face value for the moment (which is fairly generous, but that's for later), say a few "unconstructive" edits remain for a while. Just for the sake of argument here, do you feel that such edits reflect badly on you or something? I'm really trying hard to understand this point of view, but I'm struggling (admittedly, I think that those of you who are currently "admins" are completely out of touch and off your rockers, so I'm willing to admit to be subject to my own criticism which I offered above, but I'm really honestly trying ot understand here...)
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 01:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  I hate football. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  See what I mean about "completely out of touch and off your rockers"
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 02:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  No one's gonna answer huh? What, are y'all too chicken-shit to step up to the plate? Ah well, I've got better things to do then waste time here on AN/I anyway. Thanks for empirically proving the point about how useless it is to have "admins" here, at least.
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 03:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  Reflect badly on me? No. It'll reflect badly on the encyclopedia. If someone uses Wikipedia for research or to read something that interests them, I'd hate for them to see "SHIT"—or better yet, using this article as an example, seeing "COLTS SUCK COCK"—randomly thrown into an article. I think this discussion boils down to views; you don't feel protection is justified while I do, and that's completely understandable.</all written before edit conflict> Well, some of us don't live on Wikipedia, surely it would be polite to wait a few hours before calling admins chicken-shits and useless. — ξ^xplicit 03:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Eyes Needed

Super Bowl just ended. Eyes will probably been needed on Indianapolis Colts and New Orleans Saints. In case you are wondering, Saints won. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you had to read it here, then you likely don't care... Which has always irked me on sports channels, when they run a news service just after the big game, and they include a report on it; if you cared you would have seen it, if you hadn't seen it you are unlikely to care! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hijacked account

When a useful editor's edits turn into blatant vandalism, I tend to suspect the account has been hijacked. Such is the case here. However, I don't recall the procedure (or know where to look) for handling this type of problem. To prevent further abuse of our articles - and of the editor's account, I've gone ahead and indef-blocked the account. However, I invite anyone with experience in this type of problem to correct or supplement my actions - and to post a note on my talk page pointing out the correct process. Thanks. Rklawton (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Look farther up the page - there was a similar case recently, for a user named DC or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Bugs - been awhile. Thanks for the heads up. Looks like I've taken all the right steps. I don't think check user is necessary since the edits are significantly out of character and not on any previously edited article. Hopefully we hear back from him via e-mail. 'till then, we're protected. Rklawton (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, this:[85] I guess you figured that out. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There should probably be a help or guideline for admins as to the best way to handle compromised accounts, but I think that the procedure is generally that we indef-block until receiving an email from the address that originally registered the account. That's what happened with the DC incident that Bugs was talking about. I'm not sure who has access to email info for an account; crats? ArbCom? Oversight? And it would have to be the email account used prior to when the account was compromised, because the new "owner" of the account could change the associated email address to their own. -- Atama頭 18:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, no usergroup has access to users' email-addresses. That's what the committed identity system is for. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 18:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

DC had conveniently listed their email address on their edit notice when they were still in control. Not sure if we will be so fortunate this time. –xeno^talk 18:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I sent them an email through the email user function requesting an explanation. I'll post any response I get here. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Mass change to formatting style

For the past 24 hours I have been constantly finding myself readding quotation marks to the formatting of ref names on University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because Racepacket (talk · contribs) appears to have an off-site copy of the article text that he has removed all of these from. He has told me that he prefers to not use them because they are not entirely necessary unless the name parameter uses spaces, punctuation, or non-ASCII characters.

I do not think that this requires removing every single instance as he has done in the following diffs which include misleading edit summaries: [86], [87], [88], [89].

I have brought this up to Racepacket on his talk page as seen here where I also ask him to stop removing the carriage return between the infobox and the lead paragraph ([90], [91], [92], [93]): User talk:Racepacket#Carriage return. He does not seem to care, or he has not been answering me at all because he keeps making these edits long after I began the discussion on his talk page.

Racepacket has begun accusing me of stalling improvements to the page because he has it set in his mind that there is an all important deadline (he assumes there is one because of a pending GA review), and has accused me of doing harm to the page because of a single mistake (where he corrects a + to an = and then says I harmed the page because I undid the edit because it was one where he removed all the quotation marks) and that I am keeping him up by asking him to add two more keystrokes when he adds content.

I know he is improving the page. I know it is good that he wants it to be considered a good article and probably eventually a featured article. I just do not think it is appropriate that he reformats the entire article just because he does not want to add two instances of " whenever he adds a reference.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In the time that I was writing this, he did it again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Counterview: As indicated in a prior ANI, User:Ryulong is doing everything possible to see that the article University of Miami fails its GA review. We have a limited period of time to respond to the review while it is on hold. In response to the review, I split off University of Miami School of Business Administration, and three times Ryulong merged it back. After repeated requests, he finally left the article in place and started an AfD, where the vote is going toward keeping the article. Second, the review asked that we expand the Research section, and User:Ryulong has been actively moving (to other articles) or deleting content which I have added to that section. (See, Talk:University of Miami#Research) Third, the review asked that we find sources independent of UM to meet WP:V They suggest that at least half of the sources be to something not on the UM website. User:Ryulong has been finding excuses to move the non-UM sources to other articles and where several sources can support a remaining sentence, he insists on using the one from the UM website. What prompted his current complaint is that I do not use unnecessary quote marks around the name parameter value in <ref> tags. He goes backs and adds them. He has also changed the = symbol to the + symbol in cite templates which cause values to not be displayed. Because I don't have time to go through each citation repeatedly to check for such nonsense, I have asked him to stop. He then harrasses me with endless discussion over the quote mark issue which has absolutely nothing to do with how the article will be displayed on the page. He goes so far as to reformat my responses to him on my own talk page, causing more interruptions to my work.

Here is someone who has not made substantive additions to the article for months, wasting time in our efforts to address the review in a limited time period. An administrator's intervention is needed to stop User:Ryulong from wasting valuable time by doing everything possible to prevent the article from passing its GA review. Racepacket (talk) 07:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no such thing as a limited time period on Wikipedia. No comment otherwise. → ROUX ₪ 07:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And again, here you come accusing me of bad faith and bringing up things that are so minor and not intentional just to make me look bad. I am not seeking to prevent University of Miami from being promoted to good article status. I merged and then listed a page for WP:AFD that I did not think was notable for inclusion. I moved references that had nothing to do with the article to an article they were related to. I did not mean to change any = to any + in any edit; it was an unintentional change from an undo I performed on your edits regarding the reason I brought up this thread. All I have been doing to your talk page is change * to : because no one uses * in responses to people. If anything, your mass removal of the quotation marks is not recommended.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no such thing as a limited time period on Wikipedia. No comment otherwise. → ROUX ₪ 07:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

<ref name="fn"> versus <ref name=fn>. Lamest edit war ever. Hesperian 07:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware. I have asked him to not remove them, as well as a single line break, but based on an off-site copy he is keeping and the fact that he replaces the text of the article wholesale whenever he adds a new edit, I believe that this is an issue to be brought up here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

pls guys clam down on the talk page ...you will notice noone has answered..this can only mean people are looking deep into what is going on..so guys pls lets turn down the YELLING .. just give admin time to look things over ..both should not edit the article until we come up with a solution to your problem, since you guys cant solve it yourselves... Buzzzsherman (talk) 07:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Buzzzsherman you have no idea what you are talking about so if you would not mind, do not get involved with disputes if you do not know of a proper way to solve them.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh, Buzz is completely correct. Back off and let people investigate. → ROUX ₪ 07:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I was confused because he copied over other people's comments in the process of adding his comment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• (EC)I agree with Roux. How can I get back to looking for sources? It is 2:30 a.m. and this ANI is an incredible waste of everyone's time, as is the petty harrassment over the quote marks and whether I am allowed to format the comments which I leave on my own talk page with a bullet. Racepacket (talk) 07:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC) [This comment was added immediately after Roux's but ran into 4 different edit conflict] When I tried to add it where I first submitted it, [{User:Ryulong]] is trying to start another edit war over the order in which our comments appear below Roux's. diff

For the quotation marks there is this: Wikipedia:Footnotes#Caution on converting citation styles. I am not going to bother with the bullet marks or anything similar.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This is WP:LAME. Nobody cares (or, at least, nobody should care) about minor coding details that make absolutely no difference in the formatted article. If it affects the GA review then something is seriously wrong with the GA process. Both of you, stop arguing, stop worrying about how each other's refs are coded, stop asking for admins to interced in your petty disputes, and get back to doing something constructive. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I know it is lame, but I have asked him to stop changing the coding style entirely but he just ignores me and has been accusing me of preventing the article from being promoted. Certainly the fact that the quotation marks are or are not there should not affect his ability to edit the page. He should not change them in every edit nor should he replace the text of the article wholesale with a version he has copied off of site because he does not want to use the quotation marks or a single line break at the lead of the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• User:Ryulong is misquoting Wikipedia:Footnotes#Caution on converting citation styles which address converting articles from {{ref}} to <ref>. The principle applies however as common sense, which Ryulong is ignoring. I am the one doing the research and adding the references, and User:Ryulong is the one who goes back and tries to confusing things by editing the footnotes which I create by adding quotes and even a + where I placed a =. This is a lot of work -- the GA Review has asked us to add a publisher parameter to each footnote and to find alternatives to the UM website references. If he does not want to help make the article meet WP:V standards, then he should stand back and let others get the required work done. Racepacket (talk) 07:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Should there be a difference? And would you stop bringing up that stupid + to = thing? It was not intentional as I have been telling you for the past 2 hours. And I am not trying to sabotage a Good Article Promotion. Stop accusing me of things.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• The fact that you have wasted the last two hours of my life with this quote mark nonsense and this ANI speaks mountains as to your intentions. It is now 3:11 a.m. and I have not been able to spend any substantial time since midnight finding new sources. Please stop this behavior. Racepacket (talk) 08:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of keeping you awake and intending to cause the GAR to fail. I've removed the fucking quotation marks at this point because it's obvious you are going to keep using your .txt copy of the page's text. I'm just tired of you thinking I'm your foe in this matter.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Interim resolution except for Daedalus969

I am please to announce that the only two users involved in this dispute myself and Ryulong have agreed to proceed without quote marks for now. Once that was established, I uploaded two more references (again without the quote marks) only to discover that after Ryulong and I have reached our agreement, User:Daedalus969 who has had no prior role in this matter has reverted the article to a state that used quote marks. He then reverted my change and added one of them back into the article with quote marks. He has also started a parallel proceeding at AN3 It is difficult to see how his edits were made in good faith. As best I can determine, they don't have a visible impact on the article (unless he accidentally picked up one of Ryulong's stray + symbols.) I have left messages on his talk page to no avail. Racepacket (talk) 09:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not agree to anything. I just know that you are going to constantly refer to your offline copy that you've removed all of the quotation marks from because you can't trust the online copy because of this +/= issue that you keep referring to. There are no such items in the text now. Just copy that and deal with the lack or existance of quotation marks. Maybe you shouldn't modify articles by using an oldid of an article's content and just add references to sections as you go through them like normal editors instead of making the formatting of the article your preferred version every single fucking time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry I misunderstood you. I thought that we had agreed to proceed without quotes for now. By the way, I don't use any javascript editors, which is perhaps why I am locked out on these edit conficlts. However, I don't see how the invisible differences between the two files can constitute edit warring. And I don't see how Daedalus' action is consistent with WP:POINT - sure he managed to make invisible changes to the document and he certainly managed to confuse me and steal another hour and a half from my life. I have to be at work in 3 and a half hours, and we have many more footnotes to process. This entire invisible quote stunt is unforgiveable and will go down as one of the sillier episodes in Wikipedia lore. Racepacket (talk) 10:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Seriously, it doesn't matter whether there are quotation marks in references or not. It makes no difference whatsoever. Why do you guys even care? --Conti|✉ 11:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• I agree that the quotation marks don't affect the article at all. I was worried about more sneaking in changes of = to +, which prompted me to work from a trusted copy. Which prompted Daedalus to start an invisible, artificial self-proclaimed "edit war" regarding changes nobody including me could see or be aware of. This is a clear case of WP:OWNership and need for attention distracting us from the task of addressing the problems noted by the GA review. A series of experienced editors with no connection to the University of Miami have pointed out WP:BOOSTER and WP:V problems with UM articles, and people need to roll up their sleeves and address them. Racepacket (talk) 14:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Actually, their tag teaming results in perhaps unintended, substantive changes. In diff Daedalus deletes two footnotes. In the next edit, he only adds just one back in. And then Ryulong comes along and deletes the ref name that was common to both footnotes. Daedalus does not explain why he deleted the second footnote. Racepacket (talk) 15:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Clarification - the reason why I care is that each time Ryulong goes through and edits the article (perhaps just adding invisibile, optional quotation marks or perhaps changing a = to a +) I have to go through all of his changes to check his work and that is very time consuming when we are under a deadline. That is why I started using a copy of the article so that I could keep on going with the business of adding the requested footnotes. But I am willing to stop working from the second copy if Ryulong stops playing these distracting games. Racepacket (talk) 15:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest you either stop using the second copy, or otherwise make sure you're not reverting any intermediate edits when you save your changes. It's a wiki. Other people will be editing the page besides you. Jafeluv (talk) 16:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have been careful, but there are so many "invisible" changes in Ryulong's edits that it is hard to spot his = to + change, or Daedalus969 dropping one of the two footnotes. Whatever changes they are trying (or not trying) to make is camoflaged by the sea of quotation marks. Take a look at these diffs:

Daedalus' diffs

• no visible effect
• removed 2 footnotes
• added back the just one footnote without the unnecessary/optional quote marks

Ryulong's diffs

• added back the invisible quote marks
• added back the invisible quote marks
• added back the invisible quote marks
• note the change from = to + in the template parameter Racepacket (talk) 19:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Stop bringing up the =/+ thing. It was not intentional other than the revert that I performed to the rest of the page to deal with your overwriting with the off-site copy.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed interaction and topic ban pending outcome of mediation

Look, we've tried all this several times. You've both been told to not use ANI as a place to hash out your conflicts. You have both been told to seek mediation and dispute resolution. Neither of you has done so. You want admins to take control of the situation? I'm an admin, and I am proposing the following solution:

1. Racepacket and Ryulong are placed under a mutual interaction ban, with the sole exception that both are to participate in a mediation by filing a case at WP:MEDCOM or WP:MEDCAB to deal with these problems. Neither editor is to comment about the other, nor interact with the other, for the duration of the ban.
2. Both Racepacket and Ryulong are topic banned from editing the University of Miami article. Neither editor may make any further edits to that article at all. Furthermore, both are banned from seeking out articles the other has substantially edited for the purpose of antagonizing the other editor.
3. These restrictions are to be lifted upon satisfactory completion of mediation.

Seeking comments from other uninvolved editors and admins... Support? Opposition? --Jayron32 20:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This whole issue is ridiculous. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What? Topic banned from the article of my own alma mater? That is ridiculous. All that should come out of this is that Racepacket should not be using his offsite copy to overwrite everything on the UM article. I've kindly requested that he use the quotation marks and leave a single line break. All that has come out of this is that Racepacket has been constantly accusing me of trying to make the GA nomination fail. All that I have been telling him is that he should not be repeatedly sending this thing to GA review, and having taken it on his shoulders to force the article to become a good article. I am fine with the fact he is making the page better. I have just been asking him to add a few more key strokes when he writes, and adding them back once he's done overwriting the article without those keystrokes. There wouldn't be an edit war if he did not keep an offline copy that he overwrote everything with and there certainly wouldn't be a need to ban either of us from the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And I'd like to point out I tried a dispute resolution tactic. Nothing came of it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, the situation here is that this is a WP:LAME dispute, which has zero to do with content, and 100% to do with the personality conflict of the two combatants. The solution proposed is because admins aren't here to decide who is right. Frankly, the exact locus of this specific dispute, which is over the use of quotemarks in the ref name= tag is the most pointless edit war, maybe ever. It doesn't matter who is right, but given that you two have a several months long history, and neither side appears to want to back down, the only solution seems to be to end the problem by ending the problem. The U of M article will have someone else who is interested in it; I am unconcerned if the two of you no longer get to edit it. Indeed, given the absolute mess this dispute is causing, I am rather sure the article would be better off if it is not edited by either of you while you two are disputing. I recommend bilateral mediation, since an RFC is really about one user tattling on another, which is why it isn't helping solve the problem. When and if you two can figure out how to coexist and not generate these conflicts, THEN you can both go back to editing the article. But it is clear this conflict has nothing to do with this specific article, and everything to do with the conflict between the two of you. So, if the two of you can agree to mediation, work it out in MEDCAB or MEDCOM, and reach a mutually agreeable resolution to your conflicts, the article can be edited harmoniously. At this point, there is no reason to let the article continue to be edited by either of you, since neither of you is really trying to edit the article, you're both just trying to one-up the other. Lets solve the conflict FIRST, then we can get to the article LATER. That's my justification for proposing the above sanctions. It's no use claiming the "I'm more right so I shouldn't be sanctioned here" from either side; since as far as I can see neither side in the conflict can claim any moral high ground. So lets quit it with that, end the conflict, and worry about the article later. Mkay? --Jayron32 03:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have proposed a solution to Racepacket such that he simply stops utilizing his off-site copy and edits the article as everyone else does. This would end the issue of his massive and unilateral reformatting of the article and the WP:LAME edit war that he and I have been involved with. However, he has not appeared to respond to this suggestion. If he manages to pay attention for five seconds and see my comment here and respond in a clear and coherent matter, I would be glad to have this stop. I'm not seeking any moral high ground. I'm just seeking that he see someone else's opinion instead of thinking he is the one who is the end-all be-all for the page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You're not hearing me. This isn't about these edits. You and Racepacket have been disputing for a long time. The conflict between you two is the problem; it has nothing at all to do with this batch of edits. If it was this one batch of edits, then we could solve it by facing that. Its about the fact that neither of you wishes to back down against the other over any issue. This is the merely today's one thing; if we did decide somehow that one of your versions of the article was favored, we'd just be back here tomorrow on a different problem or a different article. The problem is the conflict, not the article, so we need to end the conflict. Seek mediation so you can work together harmoniously, or stop working together. That's the only two solutions I see... --Jayron32 03:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Then I don't know what the fuck will resolve it. I just have been finding things that need fixing (the reference formatting), things that would be better suited to other articles (like this block of only references), or things that are trivial or poorly referenced and I feel should be removed ([94]) in his edits and he starts accusing me of sabotaging the GA review.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:41, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support the interaction ban and topic ban. Judging from WP:Requests for comment/Racepacket it's unlikely that calm will be restored any time soon at the University of Miami article. This dispute can't be allowed to continue on the admin noticeboards without action being taken. I'd withdraw my support if Ryulong and Racepacket would suddenly agree to work together harmoniously on the GA nomination, but that's not going to happen. The October, 2009 RFCU on Racepacket (opened by Ryulong) shows that the underlying dispute has been going on for many months. EdJohnston (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

1) Ryulong said, "Topic banned from the article of my own alma mater?" but shouldn't we have sensitivity for WP:COI and the need for objectivity necessary to avoid further WP:BOOSTER problems. We have a number of experienced users noting WP:V and WP:BOOSTER problems with the UM article, and these concerns need to be addressed. I have asked Ryulong and others to join me in this work, but so far I seem to be the only one working on finding reliable sources for the UM article. I don't OWN the UM article and want multiple other people working to improve it. In a prior dispute (involving the Miami Hurricanes football article), I suggested repeatedly that we use mediation, but Ryulong rejected the proposal. I am not sure what dispute there is to mediate -- the current goals are not being disputed: Wikipedia expects articles to meet WP:V; Wikipedia aspires to have all articles meet Good Article criteria; Wikipedia does not want copy and paste from the UM website. Somebody in authority will say whether quotes are mandatory or optional in <ref> tags -- from what I read it's currently optional. We need to get on with these goals. 3) I thought that Ryulong and I had worked the quotation marks issue out until Daedalus969 started his WP:POINT edits. I am willing to continue working on the UM article to meet the matters raised in the GA review. Racepacket (talk) 02:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Aside from the ridiculous quotation marks business, are you saying that Ryulong has been POV pushing? out of interest, why are you removing the quotation marks? It's not normal practice, even if it doesn't cause an issue. Hopefully we'll never move to a strict XML format that requires the quotation marks, else we're going to have to put them back in again. Would it hurt you to use quotation marks? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Abstain - I am a bit involved, therefore I will not comment support or oppose.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Second proposed interaction ban

Neither Racepacket nor Ryulong may remove or add quotation marks on existing references on ANY article. This whole issue is over the lamest edit war I've ever seen, and this proposal would a. stop this stupidity, and b. allow them both to edit any article they want to, aside from this restriction. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support (proposer) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal Threats and Aggressive Warring by User

Hello, on my talk page [Talkpage] I have been aggressively threatened and attacked by a repeat edit warrior: Atmapuri [Talkpage].

His direct and open personal threats on my page relating to edits are offensive, negative, and completely out of line with Wikipedia policy:

EXCERPT:

"Anybodies edits on the page of Kundalini Yoga, which are not in line with the will of God, lead directly to hell. ... [this is] THE LAST WARNING!"

Please comment or warn (again) about this behavior. It has been ongoing and his warring in editorial disputes is irrational and relentless.--Fatehji (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you really believe that this person has the power to send you to hell or editing a certain Wikipedia article in a certain manner will send you to hell, then you need to consult a doctor, seriously. This user is trying to scare you, it has obviously worked since you are here. Editing an article in a certain manner isn't going to send you to hell (not in anything I have read, but I am Christian, so your religion might be different). Just delete it the comments and move on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm totally uninvolved here, but I wanted to point out that the proper enforcement of WP:NPA isn't to say to the victim, "Grow up, get a spine."  Glenfarclas  (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I admit it isn't the best way to address the situation, but if the user honestly thinks another user (who isn't God) has the power to send them to hell by editing a certain article, a spine might be in order. I am sorry, but I see this as a silly thread and just reverting the post left should have been done, not rushing off to ANI. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Fatehji never said he was worried about actually going to hell. He said the comments were "aggressively threaten[ing]," "offensive," "negative," "completely out of line with Wikipedia policy," "irrational," and "relentless." I've seen worse personal attacks, sure, but that doesn't mean we need to tell Fatehji to "consult a doctor."  Glenfarclas  (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the comments were "irrational" (VERY!), but the other stuff barely. What they were, were just plain silly. This should have never made it to ANI. We need to learn to revert the really silly "attacks" and move on until something big shows up and then report it. If Fatehji thinks the comments are that bad, he can take Atmapuri to WP:WQA, which I recommend he does and this thread closed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified the user in question of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I think wikipedia should adopt some variation on that warning as a standard template. There might be two or three trolls it would scare away . ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oh, cool--I was looking for a way to avoid all that pesky Heaven stuff. I mean, you got all your abstinence-practitioners, your relentlessly-sober folks and the just-say-no contingent, your [martyrs], your cherubim and seraphim, and a mess of long-faced winged dudes playing the harp? Hey, if that's what you're looking for, more power to ya, but an eternity of that does NOT paint my wagon. (Disclaimer: this user recommends that you keep a safe distance of at least 50 yards (45.72 meters) so as to avoid becoming collateral damage to the inevitable lightning-bolt of divine retribution.) GJC 10:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you Glenfarclas for your truly neutral positioning. My level of involvement is irrelevant and 'NeutralHomer' is not aiding the situation by assuming my standing on the matter. It's not about literal meaning of the threat, but that it is a personal threat and represents the spirit of the user Atmapuri. It shows how he is at odds with Wikipedia policy, and he has done a systematic approach of ignoring policy on a consistent basis on this and other edits. Additionally, he has not changed his behavior based on warnings in the past, and I recommend this user be Blocked.--Fatehji (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Atmapuri was warned when you raised this earlier at ANI. Their comments to you date from 29 January and they haven't edited in two days. We need evidence that they've ignored a warning before admin action is taken; you can't really keep reporting them for the same offence. EyeSerene^talk 10:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(moving from "4:30 AM snarkmeistress" mode into Serious Admin) In a similar vein, if you are alleging a "a systematic approach of ignoring policy on a consistent basis on this and other edits" then it would be highly instructive to give diffs of more than just one edit--particularly since it's one for which, as EyeSerene mentions, the user has already been warned. Other diffs showing this behavior, as well as diffs subsequent to the Jan 29 example, will be needed before a block even enters the realm of possibility. GJC 10:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think, perhaps, this is the warning that EyeSerene was talking about. This is the Jan 29 post as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, thanks Neutralhomer. Should have provided diffs myself really :P EyeSerene^talk 12:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That usertalk page is not exactly a meadow full of rainbows, is it. And we appear to have another user who claims that the mere act of warning a user or of criticizing the content of their edits equals a "personal attack". I've seen this assertion more and more often lately, and IMHO that's the sort of thinking that needs to be discouraged emphatically whenever it crops up. The act of warning can be DONE in an uncivil manner, but the act ITSELF is not uncivil. I'm starting to think that repeated "misunderstanding" of this distinction should itself be a warnable offense, a variation of assumption of bad faith. GJC 00:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Tomgreenstein

Indef blocked as a VOA. Keeps blanking their Talk Page, removing all past warnings plus the blocked notification. I put this up on AIV last week but think it keeps getting removed because they are already blocked. Could someone block talk page editing for this user? Thanks, _Will^dow (Talk) 10:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

They are allowed to blank their page of warnings, as it doesn't erase any history. The only thing they would not be permitted to remove would be unblock templates, but they haven't used any of these. As they are indef blocked I wouldn't worry about the warnings being immediately visible etc, any reviewing admin would view the block log and talk page history first. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It doesn't really matter that they keep blanking their page. The notices are in the page history anyway, and for registered accounts only declined unblock requests during an active block or sock notices must be visible. In this case I've locked the page anyway to encourage them to move on, but ignoring their blankings would have worked just as well :) EyeSerene^talk 10:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Racist editor in need of a vacation

Unresolved

 – blocked a week

Neyagawa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been trying to push some pov in a controversial area (classification of the Korean language) and after being reverted for not discussing it, he decided to throw some racist comments down on the pages of a couple of users who reverted him [95], [96], [97]. I can't really see any value in his further participation.--Crossmr (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

and my reversion and note on his page garnered the same [98].--Crossmr (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for a week, this is clearly unacceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering how few his contributions number (only a little over a hundred I think in the last year) and the obvious hatred there, not sure how much effect that is going to have.--Crossmr (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's just a first warning block basically. If he continues like this, he'll immediately be indef'ed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And he's asking to be unblocked [99]...--Crossmr (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblock declined, left my rationale in the decline message. --Taelus (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

They listed another unblock request shortly after my decline however. --Taelus (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Also declined. EyeSerene^talk 12:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

After taking a closer look at this editors contribs, I'm not sure this is resolved. It seems the editor is engaged mostly in edits that seem to damage articles in attempts to promote (in some cases falsely) Korea, and remove references to Japan from existing articles. They've frequently been reverted as vandalism. See this series of edits on Taipei 101 [100], and this series of edits on movable type [101] or in this edit where he removes cited content without explanation [102], which may have something to do with his anti-chinese bias, or here [103] here removes a map for no reason, and here again on movable type he removes a reference to china [104]. The more I look, the more I'm convinced there is nothing useful coming from this editor. Also this attempt at name POV pushing on a couple articles [105], [106]--Crossmr (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but as Future Perfect notes above this block is in the nature of a shot across the bows. If they resume in the same vein when/if they return, the next block will probably be indef. It doesn't hurt to give people a chance to reform though. EyeSerene^talk 19:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait, am I missing something here? I was indeffed for far less. I realize my block was overturned, but this seems pretty egregious. Multiple uses of "chink", a slur of the same severity as "faggot" or "nigger" seems thoroughly deserving of an indef the first time. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, not to be all comparative (WP:NOTTHEM) but...well, as you said, YOU were unblocked. I HIGHLY doubt this guy will be--unlike you, he meant HIS stuff to be taken non-satirically. (And incidentally, can I throw in a much-belated :::THWAP::: on the head for that OMG-WTF-were-you-thinking attempt-at-humor diff? Because I obviously missed the Drama Club meeting that led to your indef, and...well, there's a long story attached to why I would have argued on your behalf, but before you were allowed to go free I would have subjected you to proper justice: a skull-thwap with a frozen food item of some substantial mass. Because...seriously, dude. "LOL" and "cringe" only belong together for SPOKEN humor; in print, they go wrong the moment before you start to type them. Words to live by from the terminally inappropriate...) GJC 00:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not defending my actions at all. I was wrong, I apologized, and I didn't repeat it. That doesn't change the fact that there were many, many people calling for (and wheel-warring over) my head. I'm simply surprised that such vitriolic hate speech is given so little attention in comparison to my experience. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess I mean it seems like this account is almost a vandalism only account. He's made a little over 100 contribs and in that time, it looks like any major edit he's made has been reverted for one of these reasons with only a couple of trivial fixes standing, and in addition to that he's decided to make some rather blatant racist attacks when he didn't get his way, then carry on on his talk page when he wasn't unblocked.--Crossmr (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Daniel_Tammet article

User 85.210.180.155 is in breach of Wikipedia's rules regarding original research and the posting of unsourced or poorly sourced information for biographies of living persons.

I have removed his edits that breach these rules and each time he has reinstated the edit, sometimes within a matter of minutes.

I have explained to him that he is in breach of Wikipedia's rules on several occasions on the article's discussion page, but he ignores this.

I have also repeatedly asked him to provide published sources to support his edits but he has not done so. He claims, incorrectly, that the burden of proof is on the person who removes unsourced claims. In fact Wikipedia's rules on biographies of living persons state clearly that the burden of proof lies with those who add or restore material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.193.84.62 (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Daniel_Tammet_article. Cirt (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Plzppl

In June last year, the Latin Australian article was moved to Latin American Australian, after a move discussion on the talk page. The only one who (strongly) opposed the move was LatinoAussie (talk · contribs), who has since been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Cazique (link to investigation). Thirty minutes after LatinoAussie's last edit, Plzppl (talk · contribs) started editing, and on 20 January that account came to the Latin American Australian page and unilaterally moved it back to Latin Australian. Another user, Kransky (talk · contribs), opened a sockpuppet investigation, but it was declined as "stale". I'd like an uninvolved admin to look into this and see if there's enough evidence to block the account as a sockpuppet of LatinoAussie. What I found particularly interesting were Plzppl's first edits, where they created their userpage and talk page by signing them: [107], [108]. Another Cazique sock, TruthTold (talk · contribs), did exactly the same thing as its first edits: [109], [110]. Jafeluv (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Plzppl has an edit history going back several months, but it could be a dormant sock. The simplest solution would be to request move protection at WP:RPP if this persists. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 20:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nickgriffin bnp

Vandalism by Nickgriffin bnp to Scarborough Sixth Form College edit dif, but more importantly, check the user name. Looks dodgy, Esowteric+Talk 15:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've applied a username block. See my comments on the block notice. -- The Anome (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That was quick: many thanks. Esowteric+Talk 15:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Return of banned editor

Resolved

 – Blocked by User:Tnxman307. GlassCobra 17:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Xiutwel-0002, based on user name, posting style, and their own admission, is the same person as User:Xiutwel. That account was indefinitely blocked as a sock of Kaaskop6666. Could an administrator please block this person's new account as well? This individual is a "9/11 Truth" conspiracy theorist and has been making waves on the fringe theory noticeboard. *** Crotalus *** 16:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are the userlinks:

• Xiutwel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xiutwel-0002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kaaskop6666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It appears that Xiutwel should be considered the master account. His WP:AE restrictions can be found via Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive26. In my opinion, Xiutwel-0002 should be indef blocked for evasion, since his main account is still blocked. He could be told to ask for {{unblock}} as Xiutwel. I am not sure whether unblock would be granted; I can see arguments on both sides. I've notified Xiutwel-0002 of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef by User:Tnxman307. GlassCobra 17:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

user:HalfShadow

No need for this to hang around. GlassCobra 23:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have concerns that HalfShadow is inapropriately taunting User:Roux at User_talk:Roux. So far, HalfShadow has told Roux that he (HalfShadow) is "smarter than you,"([111]) and responed to Roux asking HalfShadow to get off of his (Roux's) talk page with "There you go, lad," - on Roux's talk page([112]). This kind of taunting, and ignoring a blocked users request to back off, is inapropriate. I warned HalfShadow about his conduct - he removed my warning with a dismissive edit summary ([113]). I think it's time for HalfShadow to leave Roux alone - and if he can't do it by choice, it should be done by force. Hipocrite (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC) It's called 'making a point'. If Roux had simply stayed away from Malleus, he wouldn't be in the hole he is now. I've made that point; unlike you, I am now going on with my day. HalfShadow Halfshadow, cut it out. Tan | 39 18:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Gosh, are you behind the times. That was fifty minutes ago. Care for a coffee? I have a french press... HalfShadow 18:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC) I don't give a fuck if it was three days ago; quit stirring up drama for the hell of it. Tan | 39 18:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Materialscientist blocked

Resolved

Materialscientist has been blocked for a month is this a joke ,mistake or being done by a compromised account summary he is blocked for a month as his 3rd block when the admin has never been blocked.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Jamie has been engaged (two messages) on his/her talk page.  Frank  |  talk  18:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And unblocked. Case closed.  Frank  |  talk  19:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

OTRS help

There are some images that are unfree and apparently have a bad OTRS ticket or something, here are the links to the discussion on my talk page and commons OTRS, hope it can make more sense to you then it did me, all I know is that this needs admin attention.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that's concerning... are these only for use in Wikipedia and nowhere else? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thegoodlocust

Resolved

 – moved to an appropriate enforcement board

Moved to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. But more engagement there by uninvolved admins would be welcome. --TS 19:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of domain of animal taxa

p removing the domainThere are several IP addresses (78.151.23.110, 78.144.191.16, 89.240.239.157, etc.) who keep removing the domain (Eukarya) from different animal taxoboxes, including Mammal, Lizard, and, most, recently, Red Panda, without leaving an edit summary or an explanation on the talk page. It is probably the same guy doing it all, using different computers. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been trying to keep up with this blanking but am getting tired of doing so. The edits summaries were at first profane and then switched to claiming that it is tidying the infobox. There has still been no explanation of why the items are being removed and this has gone on way past the last warning. This has been reported at AIV and Cirt has blocked the the 78115123110 address so this may be resolved. MarnetteD | Talk 20:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the edits by the other two IP's. All three trace to Manchester so they may be back under another IP tomorrow. I hope that editors from the Science and/or biology wikiprojects will help to keep an eye on this. MarnetteD | Talk 21:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP that was doing this asked a question about it on the help desk. I had a look and put a note on his talk page, and I began a discussion on the talk pages of a couple of the pages he had altered: Talk:Gecko and Talk:Reptile. He has replied on the latter, as have some other people. I am becoming convinced of something I suspected from the start, which is that this editor doesn't accept the newish classification which includes 'domain' as a taxon, but won't come out and say so. --ColinFine (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the info Colin. It helps to understand what is going on. Looks like vigilance will be need for the foreseeable future. MarnetteD | Talk 23:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

More disruptive editing by User:Eye.earth

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked by Beeblebrox for "violating WP:BATTLE, WP:NPA and other disruptive editing". - 2/0 (cont.) 04:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

After two threads on their disruptive behavior, Eye.earth (talk · contribs) is causing problems once again. After Eye.earth cut down the already insufficient lead to the List of centenarians article (which was the original problem), I reverted it, and since Eye.earth has taken to engaging in personal attacks not only on this issue, but on many of the problems that users have brought up on his talk page. It is obviously inappropriate for me to take any action, but I feel that his actions should be brought to the attention of the community, as this has been a long-term problem. As for the claims that I own the lead, I actually don't like the lead in its current form at all and would welcome someone coming along and changing it to a proper lead... but simply removing information and making it shorter is not going to accomplish that at this stage. Cheers, CP 20:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to second the request for administrator attention. This user has a long history of tendentious editing, including at Zidovudine and Greg Louganis, and responds to constructive criticism with comments like "poor oaf" (referring to CP). In the same block of comments, Eye.earth laments my apparently "patent dishonesty and lack of integrity", observing that I and MastCell are "shills" and "pharmaceutical hacks". When Smokefoot graciously attempts to explain why a minor bill from California might not deserve extensive coverage in an encyclopaedia ([114]), Eye.earth accuses this, editor, too, of having "a professional interest to defend, exactly like the shills KeepCalm and MastCell". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

From a brief review of Eye.earth's talk page, it does indeed seem like some action should be taken here. Eye.earth has had numerous threads here at ANI about him, and has been blocked previously. He appears to have learned nothing from his blocks, nor the multitude of warnings from various parties, both involved and uninvolved; furthermore, he appears to believe that everyone who expresses a contrary opinion to his own is a "shill" and undoubtedly in the employ of some pharmaceutical company. GlassCobra 23:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I came across this editor during his campaign to push AIDS denialism into various articles, including zidovudine and Paul Gann. I've found him uncollaborative and abrasive in the extreme, and it appears that others who have interacted with him on unrelated topics have had universally similar experiences. I would add that he employed sockpuppetry to evade his most recent block. Overall, I'm not seeing a huge amount to be gained by continued contributions from this editor - but then, I am involved, as a "pharmaceutical shill" who accepts the "HIV = AIDS orthodoxy." MastCell ^Talk 00:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Indef blocked, the POV pushing, assumptions of bad faith, and unfounded accusations that severly cross the line of WP:NPA, and the general battleground mentality make this user a definite net negative. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Rama - again

I've noticed that despite ongoing discussion about his behaviour Rama and the misuse of the fair use dispute template that he continue to do add this tag to images.

I propose that we enact a ban on him using the {{di-replaceable fair use}} tag as he clearly is not able to use if correctly. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support this needs to end, post haste. It's gone on long enough and is highly disruptive. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - Doing this on the heels of the RFC is not wise, and shows a tendentious will to defy the community on this matter. -- Atama頭 00:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support He is well aware of the lack of support for his particular interpretation of the NFCC policy. He is well entitled to have his opinion on it, and I appreciate that he has a different opinion, but rather than working to change existing policy from the inside, its clear he wants to enforce his own view on the policy from without, by forcing his view. It started with outright deletions, when it became clear that was causing a problem, he has shifted to tag-bombing such articles. NFCC-tagging and deletions is good work, and much needed, but Rama has breached into a side of the work that has little broad support, and it would be best if he disengaged. I would support his right to continue to argue for changes in the policy in discussion settings, but to act as if the policy supports his view, when it does not appear to, is clearly disruptive and he needs to slow down. --Jayron32 03:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support per the comments already given. He is clearly acting against strong consensus in opposition to his interpretation. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support, he knows that he is not backed-up by the community on this, and doing it after the RFC is ludicrous. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support Mjroots (talk) 07:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support (non-admin) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy, what you are doing is harassment, intimidation and wikistalking. I will report further such behaviour.

Furthermore, you have given ample proof before that you are incapable of judging whether an image is replaceable or not, going as far as speedily removing a tag for an image claimed as Fair Use for an image for which a better version was available on Commons under a Free licence (of the very same image). We have Free replacement readily available, for instance File:Mogador-2-guns.jpg, an obvious crop of File:Mogador-2.jpg. Your attempts at proving the done to be impossible is just ridiculous, but how you persist in doing it after being pointed to particularly egregious consequences of your incompetence is blamable. It is outrageous that people make claims about images being impossible to replace without have first looked it up on Commons. Rama (talk) 08:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it's really not. If you want to misuse a template even when you are in the midst of a user RFC on this sort of thing, expect others to start looking into what you are doing around this area. That's all I've done, and I noticed that you have continued to add in the tag, which was promptly removed by an entirely uninvolved editor who told you to take the image to FFD.

If you feel that you need to report me to someone, somewhere then please go ahead. I feel that my actions stand up to scrutiny, and if they don't then I will ensure that I take corrective action. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

1) You admit that you have been wikistalking

2) You forget to say that the tags that I have added have been vindicated. You are therefore reporting me for a perfectly appropriate use of the template. That constitutes harassment. Rama (talk) 14:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It is not wikistalking to keep an eye on a user whose edits have in the past proven problematic. From WP:HOUND: Many users track other users' edits, although usually for collegial or administrative purposes. Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles. In fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam. The contribution logs can be used in the dispute resolution process to gather evidence to be presented in requests for comment, mediation, WP:ANI, and arbitration cases. –xeno^talk 14:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Second Xeno's interpretation above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support This is ridiculous. The point of the image is not that it's 'some guns on a French warship' - it's that particular model, used in the article on that particular model. Unless Rama is aware of a free version showing that model of ship's artillery, the odds are well against there being a free version, given the circumstances and all. Elen of the Roads (talk) 08:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You do realise that I provide such a file right above, do you ? Rama (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: I would support asking Rama to use FFD instead of the speedy queues (as I recommended to him earlier), because it leads to less drama. That said, I note that the actual cases he picks are at least arguable. In the case of the WWII warship guns cited above, yes, there are free US-Gov pictures of the ships in question, showing the guns fairly clearly [115] (though smaller than in that picture, but then again, the picture hardly reveals any non-trivial structural detail of them either, as far as I can make out). BTW, the replacement image shown by Rama at File:Mogador-2-guns.jpg, according to Mogador class destroyer, should be "138 mm (5.4 in) Mle 1934 guns" – that's not quite the required model, but not quite so different either; it's actually the successor model currently treated within the same article Canon de 138 mm Modèle 1929. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

yes, the fair use image is of a Fantasque class destroyer, the predecessor of the Mogador. Not sure if there are significant differences between them, but they are not the exact same model. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said, the two types of guns are currently treated in the same article, although the title ostensibly refers only to one of them, so both qualify as illustrations for that article. And we have free images of ships with the other, earlier type of gun too, albeit small ones. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support I see that he used again the speedy tag in that way during the RfC ("Outside view by Xeno" and "Outside view by Tbsdy lives" in his RfC). Since he insists in doing that, we'll (regretfully) have to force him to send instead the images to WP:FFD. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have never been requested to stop using this template. There have only been numerous attempts to (1) caracterise my use if the template as abusive, and to (2) cite my continuous use as a proof that I am a "ROUGE ADMIN" of some sort. However, as for (1), my use of the template has been vindicated in numerous occasions, while my detractors have repeatedly illustrated that they label some image "irreplaceable" while we do in fact have replacement readily available; and as for (2), since I have never been formally requested to refrain from using the template because of the process at hand, I fail to see what I am doing wrong.

Your position here amounts to saying that frivolous claims of misbehaviour are binding and sufficient to prevent people from contributing. Rama (talk) 11:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Rama, if you find fair uses that you believe are replaceable, please list them at WP:FFD where other users can double check your work. In cases where you are correct the image will be deleted anyway, and everybody wins. The point of doing this is that the community does not currently have faith in you getting the call right on every occasion and has accordingly asked you several times not to continue acting as you have been doing. If you listen to the community you will in time regain their trust, if you do not listen then it is only a matter of time until you get blocked. Thryduulf (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The community has done nothing of the sort. A small group of users have congregated in several instances, such as the present one, to form a so-called "consensus" which is limited in scope and time, informal, and directly contradicts the policy. The statements on which this limited congregation have "achieved consensus" have in numerous instances been reverted by other admins.

Of these limited congregations, some individuals have called on me to stop using templates over some particular incidents in which they were proven wrong. I do not consider that to constitute a request from "the community". The community is not appropriately represented by a handful of its less informed participants congregating outside of any proper process.

In the present state of affairs, I might renounce dealing with frivolous Fair Use claims, either in part or altogether. It must be noted, however, that this is the result of the pressure of a group of angry people who militate to gang-rape the policy on WP:NFC. There is "consensus" enough to circumvent the policy by harassing people who enforce it, but not enough to change the policy. There are numerous quotes to prove that this is not a problem specific to me:

• "I've often wanted to remove that one (...), and I suspect I'd be reverted", SlimVirgin [116]
• "I'll happily endure the machine gunning I'll get for doing it. I don't care." Hammersoft [117]
• "Removed and watchlisted. (ESkog) Be prepared!!!! Damiens.rf " [118]

Wikipedia is supposedly "not a democracy"; in the present state of affairs, it is worse than this, it is the rule of the mob. Rama (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

If it is not the community who is asking you to moderate your approach, why has no one stepped forward to endorse your approach? –xeno^talk 14:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Curious - Rama: if you had found a free replacement, why didn't you actually replace the image before tagging the one you felt was replaceable for deletion? –xeno^talk 12:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I did not have to. The image was replaceable whether a Free replacement was or was not available at the time. It is explicitly specified that "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." [119]. Rama (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody here has to do anything. I ask again: if you knew there was a free replacement, why didn't you replace it? –xeno^talk 14:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment I feel Rama's responses are indicative of the problems relating to their editing in these areas; faced with an overwhelming majority pointing out concerns and suggesting alternatives, Rama complains about the motives of one or two of the more vocal opponents of his actions. This is more troubling as they are an admin, whose major role is to enforce consensus - I suggest that they need to be able to recognise it first, and be able to abide by its conclusion. I see neither here.
  I also note xeno's excellent point. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel that your answer amounts to "screw the policy if a local and temporary group can assemble and overwhelm a single admin attempting to enforce it". Rama (talk) 14:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support as Rama spends much of the time above blaming a WP:CABAL, rather than listening to what the community's telling him. I'd also suggest that further comments down the line of "a group of angry people who militate to gang-rape the policy" be considered as personal attacks and dealt with accordingly.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Possible compromise: Rama can keep a subpage of images he feels are replaceable, preferrably, but not necessarily with a pointer to the free-replacement and other individuals who do work in NFCC can watch the page and ultimately place tags if they agree the image is replaceable. This will perhaps help Rama to align his beliefs about replaceability with those of the community. –xeno^talk 14:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support My one and only encounter with him was quite annoying, and I am not at all surprised that others feel the same way. In view of his continuing behavior, this seems a good solution. Ray^Talk 14:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. His actions are extreme and seem to be a little POINTy; he must have know, for example, that picking on Holocaust images would be controversial, especially during a user RfC about this very issue. I support Xeno's idea of Rama keeping a subpage of images that he feels should be dealt with, then uninvolved editors can decide how to proceed. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 15:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Weird edits on Murder

Just come across this: Special:Contributions/140.198.57.156. Although it's probably some kid goofing about, the 17:08 UTC edit seems to be more specific. It's a school IP, which I've blocked for a week, but if anyone is in Arizona and wants to give LEA a call just in case... Rodhullandemu 23:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah; 140.198.57.158's edit (same person?) turns it into a threat against a specific person identified by first name, by a specific time. I did try calling the Tempe AZ police department, and they referred me to the FBI's Internet Crime Center, which says (through its website) it's not for threats or time-sensitive matters (mostly fraud it seems). So, I'm stuck. Anyone with a bit more determination than me, care to take this up? (Perhaps calling them again and saying the first approach didn't go anywhere?) -- Why Not A Duck 23:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! And they're the ones who advise us that we should report these things and let them decide the severity and any action to be taken. Too many donuts, methinks. Rodhullandemu 00:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Restore Twikle and remove 1RR sanction.

I'm asking to have my ability to use Twinkle restored, and to have the six month 1RR sanction, which was imposed on 29 October 2009, rescinded. Radiopathy •talk• 23:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at your talk page, you've had some significant problems adhering to your 1RR restriction, including at least one block that I can see. I was unable to find the original discussion that led to your sanctions, can you please provide a link? Also, you should probably write a detailed explanation about why exactly you feel these sanctions should be lifted, as well as concrete examples of constructive work that you intend to do. GlassCobra 23:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but following the block there was an edit war on the talk page about removing declined unblock request templates, in violation of WP:BLANKING. That led to a revoke of talk page editing restrictions temporarily. That would certainly discourage the lifting of a 1RR sanction. -- Atama頭 23:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'd appreciate if you'd look at my edits since the block of 10 December 2009 expired.

BTW, the discussion that led to the 1RR sanction is here. Even though I'm not as active on Wikipedia now, I have been engaging in discussions and contacting admins when other editors get out of hand rather than getting caught up in the spirit and "having to be right". Also, for Twinkle, it's a great tool, it makes life easier, and because of the reactions of other editors, I understand what constitutes abuse, and won't use Twinkle that way again if I should get it back. Radiopathy •talk• 00:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the link to the original discussion. My concern is this... You were placed on 1RR restriction in October. As recently as December, you broke that, and then edit-warred while blocked on your own user page after being warned that it was wrong to remove templates, and told why. Now, less than 2 months after that, you've asked for your 1RR restriction to be removed even though your contributions have been sparse. I will agree that your conduct since you returned has been much better, but I think it's far too soon to remove it. This is just my opinion, not a "final judgment" or anything. Others may disagree with me. -- Atama頭 01:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I personally would need to see a substantially longer time period of constructive and positive contributions before agreeing to lift the sanctions. This user needs to demonstrate their commitment to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. GlassCobra 03:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What if we just let the 1RR run its course, but restore Twinkle? Radiopathy •talk• 04:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: Twinkle blacklist discussion here. Haven't had time to review diffs, so no opinion to offer. —DoRD (?) (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I personally would need to see a lot more empirical evidence that you can keep your cool and uphold the rules before you are allowed to have Twinkle back. Also, the 1RR sanction should not just run its course -- you were unable to follow it, so it should be reset to begin at the cessation of your most recent block. GlassCobra 05:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Atama and GlassCobra here. You will need to show appropriate behavior for a longer period of time before Twinkle can be restored, and I see no reason to remove the 1RR sanction. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker

Bot's acting up again and needs to be blocked. It replaced an appropriate image with a similarly named but irrelevant image at CSS Shenandoah DavidOaks (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

commons:File:Shenandoah.jpg and w:File:Shenandoah.jpg are different images, which the bot doesn't appear to able to detect. I don't believe it's so much the bot (CommonsDelinker) malfunctioning as a problem with two different images sharing a name. --auburnpilot talk 03:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The image for Shenandoah (musical) has been moved to File:Shenandoah (musical).jpg, and the commons file File:Shenandoah.jpg can now correctly display in CSS Shenandoah if you so choose. Best, --auburnpilot talk 03:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's already been done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I let the owner of CommonsDelinker know about the issue, so hopefully it won't be an issue in the future. Fran Rogers (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Crysjocy

Would somebody review the page moves of Crysjocy (talk · contribs)? Something doesn't look right and multiple moves always confuses me. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like harmless, if annoying, experimentation. He's been asked not to continue with it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please semi-protect Waterboarding

 Done

RPP is very slow. I don't know/care what "consensus" might be, is, or will become, but the thing is on probation and gets bombarded by IPs. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected due to edit war in progress. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User:LivingMuse removing AFD comments.

User:LivingMuse has now twice removed my comments in this AFD [120], [121]. WP:DUCK strongly suggests that this user is a puppet of User:GoldbergEva the accounts both started editing within days of each other and both are single purpose accounts that edit exclusively on topics relating to Katia Tiutiunnik Ridernyc (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Adilette

Just looking for a little advice on this article. I stumbled across it a while back when it was created. The language was very poor and notability was an issue. I have suggested it be merged with Adidas, or the article improved, but several IP's, all originating in Madrid, Spain keep removing the templates with minimal edits to the actual page. My suggestions were added to the Talk Page only to be removed by one of these IP's. I think their grasp of English is not exactly great, the article is poorly written, and is only really notable enough to be mentioned in a sub-section of Adidas, especially considering the only people (or is it just one person...??) editing it are not really up to the standards expected. I don't know enough about the actual subject to edit it myself - I have no interest in a type of Adidas sandals to write an article on them(!), but yeah - leave to edit with templates (I'll keep replacing them and issue warnings if removed) or merge with Adidas? _Will^dow (Talk) 09:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Speaking as an editor (admins have no special remit over article content) I'd say the current sources don't support any of the content, much of which is puffery or unintelligible. The article looks to be a direct copy of the Spanish Wikipedia's version - possibly even run through an online translator. My personal opinion is that in its current form a merge/redirect would be the kindest option, though even that will need decent sources to be found.

Speaking as an admin, I suspect that the author may be this chap, who from the username might have a WP:COI. However, I think the real problem is their lack of facility with the English language; we can't assume they've understood the warnings and advice well enough to realise what the concerns are. This is itself a WP:COMPETENCE issue, so depending on how things develop admin action may need to be taken. Ideally a Spanish-speaking editor (anyone?) is needed to help explain WP:OWN, WP:RS and WP:V; if proper sources can be found (shouldn't be too hard given the brand) and someone is willing to tidy the article up, the problem would disappear. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 11:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Stifle and his rollback removal

This user/admin had alleged that I rollbacked libelous material at Talk:Harvey Dorfman. Since the alleged rollback edit has since completly been deleted, I have no way of actually looking at what I may have done wrong, nor do I have a fair chance to defend myself among the broader community as a whole. I did recieve this message:

A recent rollback of yours restored libellous material to this page (it has now been deleted). This is a really serious issue. To encourage you to slow down when patrolling recent changes, I've removed the rollback right from your account. This is intended to be temporary and I intend to restore it in a few days. Stifle (talk) 11:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jojhutton"

In order to encourage me to slow down (code for teaching me a lesson}, the admin removed my rollback. Seems couter productive to me, especially since I have made thousands of good rollback edits in the past year. This, I think, only helps the vandals in the end, since that means that there will be one less set of eyes on their vandalism.

The real question is, what was restored with my use of rollback, and how was it edited before before I rolled it back? I have no real way of knowing, nor will most anyone else now. I know that admins have the ability to look these things up, so I hope that this will be looked at.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree the material should not have been restored; that being said, repeating what it is here defeats the purpose of the original suppression. It contained unsourced accusations of impropriety. –xeno^talk 12:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have a lot to add to this; this admin-only link shows the rollback in question, accompanied by this template warning. I will defer to the consensus here (and hereby authorize any admin who feels that Jojhutton's rollback right should be restored to restore it without reference to me). Stifle (talk) 12:17, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, a completely inappropriate and indefensible restoration by any standard, and hopefully temporary removal of rollback will encourage Jojhutton to look more carefully next time, as no one in their right mind would have restored it and issued a warning if they had. The previous editor had blanked the page by the way. What's more surprising is that the content had been there for six months. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Endorse Stifle's actions. It's rollback is easy and quick, hence the need for additional caution to ensure what is restored isn't material that was, in practice, courtesy blanked. MLauba (talk) 12:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Very difficult to defend myself against invisible evidence. Please look at how the page was blanked, was an edit summery used properly? I have no idea at this point, nor willl 95% of those who see this thraed, who aren't admins.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

An edit summary was not used. However, when reverting blanked text, you should always look to see why. Per policy: "When an anonymous editor blanks all or part of a biography of a living person, it is important to remember that this might be the subject of the article attempting to remove problematic material. If this appears to be the case then such an edit should not be treated as vandalism. Instead, the editor should be welcomed and invited to explain his/her concerns with the article." The material that was removed was completely unsourced accusations of criminal impropriety. I suspect if you had read it, you would not have restored it. Accidents happen, but when you revert blanking you are responsible for the material that you restore. If you had been under the impression that blanking without edit summary was automatically vandalism, then reconsideration is a good idea. (Adding, from Wikipedia:Vandalism: "However, significant content removals are usually not considered to be vandalism where the reason for the removal of the content is readily apparent by examination of the content itself..." --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

When a one-shot IP zaps a large section of uncontroversial-looking text, that's usually vandalism. It's always good to check it first, though, before reverting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it usually is, but in this case, though, it clearly wasn't. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Since I can't see it, I have to take your word for it. :) One thing, though - If you blindly revert, you can see the results of the reversion, so there's really no good excuse for not taking note of what was deleted or restored. You can always fix a mistake by reverting yourself, or if it's not clearly vandalism but needs reverting, by reverting yourself and then reverting again but with an explanation in the edit summary. That may seem tedious, but it makes it less likely you'll end up here with an accusation of rollback abuse. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

After looking at this myself, I agree entirely with what Moonriddengirl's said here. I'm not sure if I'd personally have removed rollback for that one incident, but it was certainly a pretty egregious piece of vandalism to restore, and I guess it's worth learning the lesson. I'd certainly support restoring your rollback in a few days as Stifle initially stated. ~ mazca ^talk 13:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just use WP:TW instead.--Otterathome (talk) 13:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Endorse temporary removal of rollback. After a quick review of Jojhutton's reverts, I suggest that rollback is reinstated in the near future so that they can continue fighting vandalism. Also suggest that Jojhutton is provided the deleted content privately, to clarify the reason for removal. Otherwise the suspension may seem rather Kafkaesque. decltype (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Moonridden Girl also. But I don't think that anyone should be given the deleted content and I am going to email OTRS suggesting that it is oversighted. Dougweller (talk) 13:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Why email OTRS? Just email Special:Emailuser/Oversight if you think it qualifies. Make sure to give them diffs to the deleted revisions. –xeno^talk 13:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Oops, I meant oversight, sorry. That's who I emailed. Dougweller (talk) 14:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• I support giving back rollback right now, instead of waiting for a few days. Jojhutton isn't a child, he doesn't need Wii privileges taken away for a week to make sure he learns his lesson. Unsubstantiated accusations against a living person are bad. Blanking text without an edit summary is bad. Blindly reverting it without reading what you're restoring is bad. Of the three, blanking text without a summary is least bad, by far. Moonriddengirl, above, nailed it, so any further discussion is unnecessary. I think it's safe to assume Jojhutton knows he made a mistake, and from the number of admins commenting, knows it was a fairly obvious and serious mistake. Let him learn from it.

  So, is this one of those "must have consensus" things, or is it one of those "any admin willing to overturn" things? --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:31, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think most of us are waiting for Jojhutton to change their line of argument from, "How can I defend myself against edits I can't see" to something including an undertaking to be more careful in the future. CIreland (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Quite patronising to remove his rollback to “encourage” him to be more careful. A polite reminder would have been sufficient. Heavy handed and condescending removal of R/B from a consistent vandal fighter for one slip-up. Leaky Caldron 14:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

He may be a wonderful vandal fighter, but I think the comments about this matter at the talk page reflect a clear misunderstanding of practice, here...something beyond one slip-up. He evidently was under the misimpression that any blanking without edit summary could and should be automatically reverted. Hopefully he will know better now (both based on policies above and Wikipedia:Rollback itself: "When using rollback to restore text to a page, ensure that the text restored does not violate Wikipedia policies."), but I would also like to see some indication that he does. We all make mistakes, but there's no harm in waiting for an "Oh, I get it" before restoring the status quo and marking the matter resolved. I'm also a bit concerned about his characterizing an expressly temporary removal of rollback as "being led to slaughter". I hope that he realizes that it is not an attack against him to make sure he is using the tool correctly, and his note that Stifle had "convienently erased" the evidence in first instance seems a bit out of accord with WP:AGF. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, I won't restore without such an explicit indication, then; in any case, I see he hasn't edited since your clear summary above. Keep in mind he can't see the deleted content, and the rollback removal came out of the blue; there was no explanation first. I can certainly put myself in his shoes and understand him getting his back up. Permission removal is not a substitute for discussion. In fact, it can be an excellent way to make sure the other person is too offended to listen to what you're saying. This could have been handled better. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Stifle already said that he is fine with another admin restoring it without further discussion, however I would also like to see some commitment to be more circumspect in future rollbacks. There is a setting (I believe it is the default?) that shows you the result of the rollback. You should take a quick peek to make sure you've done the right thing! –xeno^talk 14:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The material that was rolled back was pretty serious, but I take it that this was an accident and not deliberate? I'm sure we've all hit the rollback link wrongly a few times as admins, it seems quite unfortunate that this one happened but it doesn't sound malicious to me. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's a question of malice, but of misuse; his talk page and comments above suggests that he has not understood how reverting blanked material works. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Per Tbsdy lives, plenty of admins occaisionally accidently rollback things they shouldn't, or block the person reporting vandalism instead of the vandal, or make all sorts of other mistakes. We don'r remove their tools, however obtuse their response. DuncanHill (talk) 15:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

A silly comparison. You're comparing apples to uranium, or apples to the early works of Raymond Carver. One set of tools we give to people who have a heartbeat and can demonstrate that they don't write "poopy" on the wall; the other takes 5000 edits of experience and a hell of a gauntlet to run. Tan | 39 15:07, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• These edits have now been oversighted as they contain potentially libelous, unsourced accusations of serious criminal acts - Alison ^❤ 15:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

IP vandalism

Requesting aid with the latest wave of banned IP disruption on Balkans articles. More specifically the newest reincarnation of "User:ANTE RAKELA", IP 193.206.126.34 [122]. Repeated section blanking, reference removal, and classic vandalism on several articles. Is an IP block a possibility? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)