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

About Niemti

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:HanzoHattori, now editing as Niemti: discussion regarding un-banning

User:Jayemd

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

---

I'm wondering if someone else can convince User:Jayemd that Wikipedia isn't a game. It started when Jayemd began to award himself barnstars (example diffs: 1234567) followed by inappropriately refactoring a warning into a congratulatory message. He was subsequently warned about self-awarding barnstars and also directed towards WP:NOTFORUM for more information about the project. Jayemd then refactored the signatures on his barnstars (1234) to appear as if they were left by other users—all retired users, it appears—and refactoring the warning about self-awarding barnstars into another congratulatory message. Afterwards, he refactored more warnings (12) and awarded more fake barnstars (123). He was warned about refactoring, again about self-awarded barnstars, and about treating the project like a game, after which Jayemd acknowledged the warnings. Other non-encyclopedia activities including putting a description of a wrestling points system on Talk:Main Page and User talk:Jimbo Wales and a "WikiFame" system again on Jimbo's user talk page. During this time, he began removing appropriate redlinks from numerous articles (1234567 are just a few examples, his list of contributions is filled with removals of redlinks), even though he was told repeatedly to stop (123). The last message was by myself, after which Jayemd just admitted on my talk page that he did it "just to reach 1,000 edits", which says to me that he's still treating Wikipedia like a game. Many of his contributions are positive, don't get me wrong, but I still feel that he has a lot to learn. Seeing numerous edits without references (123) led me to link to WP:V and WP:REF when I left him a message earlier, but I see that since then he's created a couple of new articles (Danny Miller (wrestler) and John Riker) without references of any kind. At this point, I feel a temporary block is justified, at least until he gets a handle on our guidelines and a better understanding of our fundamental goal (writing an encyclopedia). I'm assuming that he means well, but as it stands he's just making a lot of work for other editors without much much to show in terms of actually encyclopedic content. Wyatt Riot (talk) 05:11, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I would like to remind Jayemd that competence is required. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 05:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

In that case, Jorgath, you should read the essay competence is required, which suggests that you should not do so. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 08:39, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

According to Jayemd's userboxes, he's only 14. I was wondering whether, in the light of various issues, we could maybe point him in the direction of helping out with working on The Wikipedia Adventure. Strikes me that he could possibly both be helpful to that project, and benefit from the insights he might get from doing so. I'll ping Dcoetzee to look at this idea. Pesky (talk) 08:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding: I've dropped a link on Jayemd's talk page to the work-in-progress Newcomer's manual, on the off chanced that it might help him get a better handle on things here. Pesky (talk) 09:04, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I made an exception in this case because I felt that Jayemd displayed competence, just not consistently, and I believed that reminding them of the competence requirement might encourage them to edit from their competent style more often. I apologize if I offended them, or anyone, by doing so. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 11:44, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note re The Wikipedia Adventure, but I don't think it's quite ready to help out a newbie like this one right now - it needs more lessons on important basics. Dcoetzee 22:12, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think he now "gets" the redlink policy. You shouldn't have been branding him a vandal - it is not helpful. Youngsters do tend to pratt about with barnstars and so on - it's not harmful, and he will grow out of it. On the other hand this recent string of edits seems excellent (a lot of wrestling articles are in a dire state, so that's good to see). I think he needs a good, friendly mentor more than a block. --Errant ^(chat!) 09:05, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I would offer, but Real Life issues are taking priority and I couldn't give him the time he needs / deserves. I have to say that in some respects I can understand the redlink thing – they drive me absolutely nuts! (OCD thing ... worse than crumbs in the bed. Actually, it's more like eating half a salad while watching a film, then turning over a lettuce leaf and finding half a dozen slugs. And then wondering ...). But maybe if the first thing he did was to hide any templates where they're showing, before he even looks at the rest of the page, then he'll have "Made them go away" for himself, without affecting anyone else. If I see a page with a stack of redlinks I tend to close it, pronto, and go away and find something to obsessive-compulsively blitz-clean. My hands, sometimes, lol! On the subject of mentoring, Worm might be up for it, perhaps? Pesky (talk) 10:51, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I think mentoring could be a net positive here, and I'd be happy to be the mentor, if:

• The community's expectations are made clear. "No more fake barnstars or editcountitis; just concentrate on improving content", for instance.
• The community sets a future date where Jayemd and I come back to AN/I, or to some other forum, and we can discuss whether or not mentoring has worked and whether any next steps are needed. 3 months?
• Jayemd agrees with the mentoring, and is happy to focus their editing on other areas, with some discussion with a grumpy old curmudgeon like me. Results haven't been great so far, but I think that with a little help they have a good chance of becoming a really productive editor and making some really positive changes.

Sound reasonable? bobrayner (talk) 11:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Do we need all that? Point 1 covers everything except the talk page inappropriateness: add that and call it a mentorship package (I assume that's this week's euphemism for an editing restriction) and everything should be hunky-dory. With any luck the user will simply grow out of it, though I note that it's certainly not bored teens who are the worst offenders when it comes to barnstaritis. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd certainly prefer it to be consensual; some editors might feel that mentoring is patronising, and in that case it's likely to be a waste of time. There's a good reason for a time limit too. Have no interest in gratuitous bureaucracy, though... happy to get on with mentorship if the esteemed ErrantX & Pesky think it's the best tool in the toolbox. If you just want to ban somebody from doing X, Y, and Z, that's not mentoring. bobrayner (talk) 13:21, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Today's edits have not been encouraging. Unreferenced BLPs, replies on long-archived talk pages, whatever this is, worrisome ANI responses. That's all from after this thread was started. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 13:41, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

• Is awarding oneself barnstars a transgression now? As long as the barnstars aren't worded in a way to deceive, e.g. claiming to be Jimbo, a bureaucrat, etc... then that part shouldn't be an issue here. Tarc (talk) 14:02, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
  • It's not a hanging offence; but combined with the other editing concerns, I think that Jayemd would benefit from some pointers at least. (There's room for disagreement about whether the suggestions should be delivered by polite discussion or by a 2x4). This is supposed to be a project to build an encyclopædia; all of us get distracted occasionally but we have to get back on track... bobrayner (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I've "fixed" three BLP-prods which appeared on his talk, and showed him (on his talk) how. I;ve also dropped some various hints and tips over there. I suspect he may learn quickly, once he gets going. He may not have caught up with his talk page since I edited it. Pesky (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
      • Thank you all for everything done so far. This looks like a good start, so I'm content to step back and hope that mentoring works out. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Oooh, can someone better than me step in? He's having new stubs deleted as A7's, but it's possible that these are being created as he's just been bitten for unwikilinking redlinks ... it would be a real bummer for him to be doubly-zapped, once for removing redlinks, and the next time for trying to turn them into bluelinks ... I don't know (or care, lol!) the first thing about footie, but someone must be able to do something with this? This kid's going to be in tears otherwise – he's in a no-win situation. Pesky (talk) 16:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd mostly agree with that. Some of the earlier editing was problematic but if somebody gets criticised for removing "appropriate redlinks" it's not entirely surprising that they then try turning redlinks into bluelinks. Now, I'm not about to say "Don't delete bad content just because an editor is inexperienced" but some of these articles do have genuine potential (I just added a source to Corte McGuffey, and took off the CSD tag; there's a few other sources out there) so let's not shout too loudly at Jayemd... bobrayner (talk) 16:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiFame

I could not figure out the purpose of this page: Wikipedia:WikiFame. Looks like an attack page. --15:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not. It's a new...enthusiastic...editor.--v/r - TP 15:29, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

See the section above.--v/r - TP 15:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Mentoring

Jayemd seems happy with the mentoring option. I'm sure Pesky will be around, too. Any other comments/complaints/concerns, or can we close this thread? bobrayner (talk) 09:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Explain this? Franamax (talk) 11:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Cluebat required Blackmane (talk) 12:49, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• My only concern right now is that, even after repeated lessons on citing sources, all content currently being added is still entirely unreferenced. I know that this is what mentoring is meant to fix, I'm just worried that the warnings and friendly notes haven't gotten through. I hope that mentoring works out, though, and I think that closing this thread is probably the best step at this point. Any mentors or concerned editors can start a new thread if necessary. Wyatt Riot (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

  This is a common misperception. Including citations is not required for all content, only for content that is likely to be challenged. Sure more citations are generally better, within reason, but Wikipedia is not a learned paper, though some like to believe it is, nor is Wikipedia designed (at least it shouldn't be) to impress academia. The purpose being to collectively provide knowledge, it is quite OK for one person to add the knowledge and another, later, to provide citations. Rich Farmbrough, 00:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC).
  

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

Comments by a sock

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

---

Is it indeed normal to hide or strike through any comment (no matter how intelligent, constructive, perceptive, witty or otherwise welcome) made by a block-evading puppet (as claimed by one notorious troublemaker in this MfD), and/or does this constitute censorship, the principled opposition to which justifies more than three reversions? -- Hoary (talk) 03:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Please re-dact "notorious troublemaker". Why did you ask here after you have already stated that it is "normal"? What you should be asking whether or not the input should be censored if it is valid, has a point, and is constructive.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:02, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you saying he is not allowed to call himself a notorious troublemaker??? Arcandam (talk) 04:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I see a new wall of fame entry being added. Fasttimes68 (talk) 04:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It's pretty common to do so, but not necessary. If someone else undoes it, then there's really no point in starting an edit war over it. Instead, just add a note in small text underneath that the user above is a banned sockpuppet. Easy as that. Don't start conflict for conflict's sake. Silverseren^C 04:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

 Comment:. I am not going to spend time reading through the policies on it. Let me know when consensus is reached. I the meantime I will not participate in the delete debate if it is reverted again.--Canoe1967 (talk) 04:18, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't be. If it's a contribution by a banned editor, or a documented sock (e.g. SPI determined), it should be removed, not struck through or hatted/collapsed. Strike throughs are reversions by the posting editor, and those hats / collapses just draw attention to a section of a page. Nobody Ent 09:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That is an interesting point. My experience at RfA and AFD is that blocked socks are often just struck and indented, and I have often done the same. Of course, if they are particularly disruptive, then I would remove and possibly redact as a last resort. Banned users (or arguably, de facto banned users) are generally wiped clean via the ideas in WP:DENY. Perhaps there might be questions of an admin removing "dissenting opinions", so it is kept in plain site, usually with something along the lines of "Blocked sock. ~~~~" as a rationale, again, to keep it open and remove any conspiracy theories. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 15:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The IP isn't blocked and its talk page has no history. How do we know it is a sock?--Canoe1967 (talk) 15:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

One of the IP's is blocked actually. To determine if its a sock we do the WP:DUCK test. If the ducktest doesn't work we have to ask a CheckUser to take a look. Arcandam (talk) 17:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If the so-called duck test results in a false positive we could lose a potential editor. Given the shortage of editors and the number of articles with ugly tags atop them, that's not a good thing. A single editor being judge jury and reverter eliminates the normal checks and balances / consensus model of Wikipedia; a fledgeling editor is unlikely to put up much of a fuss and simply decide that Wikipedia is run by a bunch of assholes. Nobody Ent 18:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If we lose this "potential editor" that would be great! Look, we are trying to build an encyclopedia here. That person is WP:NOTHERE to help us achieve our goal. That person tried to violate WP:ILLEGIT (or WP:CLEANSTART, if we believe him) and that is simply not allowed. I didn't write these policies. And I am not the judge, jury and reverter, I am not an admin. An admin blocked that IP sock, I did not. An admin blocked that user, I did not. At least four admins have taken a look at that person contribs. Arcandam (talk) 18:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I wish User talk:Arcandam would just come out and say what his problem is with me. I feel I am being hounded everywhere I make an edit or try to contribute to the project. He keeps putting any discussion onto me, me, me. I have had a few issues where I felt I was right and others didn't. I was only blocked once because of a bad BLP image that the BLP was trying to replace with OTRS. I have been asked by admin to correct my actions a couple of more times and I have. This is yet another thread of many where User talk:Arcandam has done the same. Focused on me as an editor and not the thread itself. I am leaving town for a few days so I won't be near a computer that I know of. If I do go near one I doubt I will bother logging in to this bullshit while I am on vacatiion. --Canoe1967 (talk) 19:51, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you remember when we first met? I do! You asked for help on the helpdesk. I helped you. But then you started making WP:POINT edits and editwarring and povpushing and you refused to drop your stick... Now I don't feel like helping you anymore. Arcandam (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You only helped me the once and I feel you have been hindering me ever since. This has nothing to do with this thread as well as all the other ones you use to focus on me instead of telling me wtf your problem is. I doubt you ever will so I may ask for an interaction block when I get back. I wish you would stop playing games and just tell me what your problem is with me? You showed up at that dead dog article, reverted my edit, edit warred over with others, focused on me again, I left, you continued to edit war until now you have full protection on it. How does this help the project?--Canoe1967 (talk) 20:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I explained you before that lying isn't helpful because we have a log of almost every single edit that was ever made. At one point you sort-of hinted you would move on and focus your attention elsewhere, so I ignored you for a while. Unfortunately you didn't drop your stick. The problem is that you were intentionally annoying (e.g. editing my comments after I told you not to) and you tried to defend a socking troll that has been indeffed and you made WP:POINT edits and you editwarred and you pushed a pov. Stop doing that. It is probably a good idea to drop your stick and avoid me when you get back from your holiday. Arcandam (talk) 20:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That there stick has two ends, and it's really hard for an editor to hold it up by themselves if the other guy drops his end. And you should rarely say lie about another editor, cause lie means a falsehood with intent to deceive, and we only know what an editor contributes, not there state of mind when they made the contribution. Nobody Ent 20:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The community was on the short end of the stick and he refused to drop it. He should be thanking me and Viriditas, we both saved him from being blocked. Arcandam (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Your interests would be best served if you dropped the stick yourself. Your comments are incivil, at a minimum. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 21:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I cannot drop something I don't have. Difflinks pls? Arcandam (talk) 21:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

[1] Nobody Ent 21:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that is a difflink, but what I meant to say is: please post some difflinks that actually support that claim made by Dennis (the second sentence of his comment dated 21:17, 1 August 2012). I think its rather incivil to make such a claim without difflinks. Arcandam (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

You only have to look up, near the word "lying". Your overall battle oriented tone here and at MfD, and the fact that you have already have acquired a block for warring, even though you've only been here a few months, isn't making me hopeful that you actually get it, so I doubt explaining it further will be fruitful. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you mean the sentence: "I explained you before that lying isn't helpful because we have a log of almost every single edit that was ever made"? I did not claim he was lying, I just reminded him of the fact I explained him before that lying doesn't really work well here because we have a log of almost every single edit that was ever made. I think that claiming that my comments (plural) are incivil without any evidence whatsoever and not giving difflinks when asked for difflinks is much much more incivil than that sentence. I've been here for much much longer than a few months. That block was a mistake by that admin, check the history if you don't believe me. Arcandam (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC) p.s. Read this blocklog.

Arcandam, it's probably best to drop this and let things work themselves out. There's already other eyes on the problem, and that's the best thing you could hope for. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing I can drop. Look at my contribs. I am currently trying to figure out wtf happened to Timeline of Spanish history. I think the person who made this edit forgot the letters Chr. And for some reason the sentence: "{{Visigothic Kingdom persecuted jews" is included in the article. Canoe1967 continued debating here, and Dennis' and Nobody Ent's comments were rather contraproductive, even though that wasn't their intention. Arcandam (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Dropping stuff? 1 & 2 & 3. Arcandam (talk) 01:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The purpose an archivetop tag is not to ensure you get the Lastword^TM in. And please don't comment on my (or any other editor's) intentions. Nobody Ent 01:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Open and shut cases

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

---

Wow, there are so many closed cases here that the page looks like a sea of lavender. :)

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

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

• STRONGEST POSSIBLE OPPOSE Bad close, man! What a travesty! This is what's wrong with Wikipedia! etc. Zad68 18:24, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
• OMGWTF SUPPORT CLOSE i think this CLOSEW AS AW3S0M3!!11!!!ELEVENTYONE!!! U r teh wrogn! - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:26, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

User:Kpdi

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

---

This account has been inactive since Nov 2010, but today, in 15 minutes finishing just over an hour ago, it made 9 edits: starting with an innocuous addition of unnecessary links, but then 8 lots of sly vandalism, changing words and numbers (one example) to semi-plausible alternatives. (I've reverted them.) Doesn't fit the "persistent" criterion for WP:AIV, but could this vandalism-only account be blocked to protect the encyclopedia? I happened to notice the editor because they hit an item on my watchlist, but any future edits might not be noticed: it looks as if they're using "Random article" as I can't see any link between the articles they've edited! PamD 20:36, 1 August 2012 (UTC):

In an abundance of good faith, I've given him a final warning about inserting deliberate factual errors - if any other admin feels inclined to block immediately - I have no objections. --Versageek 21:16, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'd already blocked indef. They can always ask for an unblock if there's a sensible reason for doing so, but I think we need to ensure that sneaky vandalism is stopped. Black Kite (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Yankees76

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

---

The other day Yankees76[2] falsely accused me of sockpuppeting after i made an edit to Closing Time with out login in he was warned by several people including User:Jim1138 that he would be reported if he continued to disrupt Wikipedia. Today he decides to revert one of my edits(which he called vandalism the other day) just to call me out on some of my past edits which I think is Cyber Stalking WP:HOUND. Please can someone stop this guy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golfballz (talk • contribs) 21:58, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Its a bad idea to insult that person here. Administrators look at the behaviour of all parties involved. Arcandam (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think i insulted btw he called me a retard the other day because i wrote on his talk page[3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golfballz (talk • contribs)

Calling someone a "Psycho" is a personal attack. Arcandam (talk) 22:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Both parties have been incivil. Arcandam (talk) 22:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• If I can clear a few things up: Yankees76, don't link to WP:DICK, quit inferring people are socks unless you are willing to stick your neck out and file at WP:SPI, do not call things vandalism unless they fit the exact criteria at WP:VANDAL, and pull back the intensity and incivility a notch. I'm not thrilled with how you treat anyone, frankly. And Golfballz, I did check you for socking, very carefully, and I notice that you do edit while logged out, however I didn't see any pattern of abuse at all. Still, please log in, as you just cost me a lot of time. And you need to drop the stick, quit badgering him, calling his actions "trolling" and take a less controversial attitude with your edits. Both of you need to drop the stick and now would be a very good time to do so. A less tolerant admin might think the 'pedia would benefit from both of you being blocked. I'm thinking you need to avoid each other, hopefully voluntarily, and you both need some civility lessons. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:48, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Oh, and Golfballz, you are required to notify a person you are reporting to ANI. I've done that for you, but I strongly suggest you remember that next time. Read at the top of the page, it is a simple template to do so. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:50, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Per WP:SOCK, Logging out to make problematic edits as an IP address is sockpuppetry. This user did that on Closing Time (Semisonic song) here [4] after I reverted original research that was previously inserted into the article, which not only changed the genre without providing a source, or working to a consensus in the ongoing discussion on that article's talk page; the editor also left the original reference intact, disrupting Wikipedia and degrading the quality of the article. After looking at the quality of edits originating from the IP, I tagged it as an IP Sock - which is the correct thing to do as one more revert from either account would bring the 3RR rule into play. What happened afterwards is regrettable, however it's clear from edits [5][6]following yesterdays "vandalism" report, and the constant badgering on my talk page that this user has very little interest in improving Wikipedia, and is now using the fact that he was told by Ohnoitsjamie that Allmusic.com is a reliable source to post incomplete genres and absurd/misleading edit summaries on other articles. What makes this particularly disturbing is that prior to the edit to Closing Time, this user had used Allmusic as a "reliable source" in a content dispute with another user![7] I sincerely believe that this user would not benefit from a block, but isntead a WP:MENTOR so that they understand why articles require reliable sources. As for me, if you feel a block is necessary, go ahead. I've only been editing for six years and lost count of the number of articles I've created or the amount of vandalism I've reverted. Are a couple of slip ups with an annoying user worth a block? You tell me. --Yankees76 ^Talk 23:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That was interesting because it has the same time stamp as one of his logged in edits, but that is a single edit, and because it could have been an error (wikipedia does that to me sometimes) I can't confirm it is socking. And the point is, I'm trying to not block people (I'm not a block happy admin, ask anyone), and that doesn't change the fact that everyone here needs to tone it back when dealing with others. Consider it a friendly but serious tip. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up

I've blocked Golfballz for 24 hours for continuing to revert Yankees76. If this continues by either editor, then further blocks are in order.

Given the comments "I'll revert his edits on pages on my Watchlist...Are a couple of slip ups with an annoying user worth a block?" I'll encourage fellow admins to deal with any such behavior by Yankees76 by issuing harsher blocks (or community sanctions) as such behavior by Yankees76 would be clearly an instance of the previous issues aggravated by WP:GAME. Toddst1 (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Where did Golfballz continue to revert Yankees76 after the above discussion? Black Kite (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

[8] They had been edit warring over whether the song (and several others) were Post-grunge or Alternative rock. Golfballz continued the war and threw in a citation. 76.107.249.211 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) appears to be Golfballz edting under an IP. Toddst1 (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You blocked him for adding a citation, which wasn't a revert of any kind? And Yankees76 edited the article after that which actually fixed Golfballz edit by adding the reflist tag! The IP edit was 8 days ago. There isn't any reverting there at all. Black Kite (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• I don't see any recent contribs. [9] Yankee called [10] the edit [11] a revert, not sure it is. Golf added a cite, then Yankee added the reflist tag so it would show up. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:14, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • Todd might want to verify there, I think the block may have been in error due to Yankee calling the edit "a revert" when it wasn't a direct revert. Maybe it was adding something back from a while back, but not a direct revert. Still wasn't a good idea, but not sure that qualifies. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
    • Golfballz (under the IP address which he admitted) changed the genre from Post-grunge to alt-rock on July 23. Yankee76 then changed it back. Golfballz tonight added alt-rock in - with a citation which does indeed state the song is alt-rock and without removing post-grunge. That's normal editing as far as I can see. Black Kite (talk) 01:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
      • I also think that this is normal editing as well without going into an edit war. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 01:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
      • Yeah, I would feel better if they would avoid each other, especially at this moment in time, but that isn't exactly the same as a revert. Again, a good faith block but I tend to think it is an honest error. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:24, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
        • Agreed. Golfballz is requesting unblock. I would be tempted to accept it myself but since I'm about to go to bed (it's 2.25am here) I'd rather not unblock and run. Black Kite (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
          • I'm not far behind, but I will look at it closer if Todd went offline and verify all this again. It does look like a mistake, but I want to make sure, and Todd may be verifying it himself right now anyway. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
            • Todd is on it, he is unblocked. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:32, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

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

User:Arajdal

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

---

Resolved

Can someone please do something about this guy? He seems to be one of those pro-Berber anti-Arab Algerian who simply removes anything Arab from any Berber-related article. I'm a proud Berber myself but Algeria is an Arab country so it does not make sense to remove Arab names of places. There is no reason why both languages can't be included in articles. I've already reverted him twice on the Zinedine Zidane article and don't want to WP:3RR. Thanks. TonyStarks (talk) 01:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am on the way out so can't really do much, but a look at his edit summaries [12] is not very encouraging in the POV dept. ie: we need to stay true to the Berber people. Once someone starts talking about Truth® in their summaries, then someone familiar with the subject matter needs to independently come in and assess the neutrality of the edits. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 01:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• I am blocking the user indefinitely because all of his edits and edit summaries indicate that he is only here to promote an ideological agenda, which for some reason involves removing Arabic names from articles. So this is a vandalism-only or a POV-pushing only account, take your pick.  Sandstein  09:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Darkness Shines

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

---

Not a long while ago, the article India and state terrorism was created. Exactly ten days after the article's creation, Darkness Shines turned up at the article in a blatant act of WP:HOUNDING to start POV-warring and immediately nominated it, inappropriately, for speedy deletion [13]. This user has been warned for not hounding me before. This article was an orphan at the time, meaning that it was not internally linked on any other articles. The fact that he still got to that article while no one else did needs no explanation, and is a blatant violation. After he was reported to an admin Salvio giuliano, he was warned by Salvio in clear terms to keep off/stay away from that article or else he will be blocked off for a week (that discussion is preserved here). Another admin, Magog the Ogre also acknowledged the issue of Darkness Shine's problematic hounding. The message obviously fell on deaf ears, because just now, despite being told to stay off from there, he has gamed that request and showed up on the article yet again [14]. Given that just recently, discretionary sanctions have been imposed on the India-Pakistan topic area and this user was warned not to edit that article, a red line has clearly been crossed here and I would like action to be taken. There is absolutely no excuse or justification for his presence on that article. Mar4d (talk) 03:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll note that you have not attempted to engage Darkness Shines on the talk page of that article. Coming straight to AN/I is not an ideal course of action, even when there is a history of conflict between users. On the flipside, Darkness Shines hasn't exactly been a model citizen on this issue, and that G4 speedy tag on the premise that a dissimilar version was deleted 3 years ago is pretty flaky. So here's my advice - calm down, depersonalize the matter, and start a discussion on the talk page asking Darkness to calmly present his/her objections to the content of the article. We'll be watching what happens from there. As a second piece of advice, we don't tend to pay much attention to histrionics at AN/I. If you've got a problem, present the evidence, not your interpretation of it. Manning (talk) 03:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

He was engaged on the talk page and kindly told to mind his own business. No one is interested in how he miraculously finds his way to get to articles, it's the fact that's its always the same damn articles in a short period of time to engage the same people. This matter cannot be depersonalised, it's a clear-cut violation and it needs to acted upon. Mar4d (talk) 03:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

By itself, choosing to edit any article is not a violation of WP:HOUNDING. I've looked through the contribution log of Darkness Shines and don't see any evidence of tenditiousness or harrassment. Also no-one can tell anyone NOT to edit an article (admins can certainly suggest it, but only Arbcom or community-imposed sanctions can enforce it). So I'm far from certain what "violations" are taking place. It is quite possible that Darkness is using your contribution log to find new articles to edit, but unless there is evidence of actual harassment as a result, then there is nothing wrong with that - I do it every day. Also the topic at hand is clearly controversial, so a POV dispute between editors is almost guaranteed. At the moment I'm really struggling to see this issue as anything more than "we disagree and I just don't like it". My earlier advice to you to depersonalize and focus solely on the content still stands. If you are truly unable to do so, perhaps you should also consider ceasing to edit such topics. Manning (talk) 04:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please read the discussion at Salvio's talk page that I pointed. He assessed the situation and as a neutral observer, concluded that DS should not have been at that article, and that he would enforce a block if the behavior continued. This thread is to discuss the violation of that. Salvio is currently unwell and not able to attend to the issue - hence I brought it here. Mar4d (talk) 04:17, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I think you have misrepresented what Salvio actually said there If you think some sources are not reliable, you may start an RSN thread; but, for the moment, please refrain from editing the article. The block threat was over the source reliability dispute, and Darkness agreed (albeit begrudgingly) to abide by Salvio's call.

So for the third (and final) time, I see nothing here that requires admin attention. I have twice suggested you initiate a discussion about the disputed content of the article on that article's talk page. If further problems arise out of a discussion on the talk page, then admin action may well become appropriate. I'm not defending Darkness here, that editor clearly has their own share of problematic edits. But if you insist on demanding admin sanctions, while ignoring an admin's advice to follow standard procedure for handling content disputes, I really don't think you are going to get very far. Manning (talk) 04:38, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'll also add that he's been lying at another admin's talk page that Salvio asked him to leave the article for "a week" and then he could come back. Salvio did not say that, what he said is that he would block him for a week if he edited it further. Complete bollocks tactics used for gaming. Mar4d (talk) 04:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I highly recommend you strike that comment. Firstly Savlio said no such thing about blocking (see my previous comment), and secondly your assertion that Darkness is lying is completely out of order. It is a plausible misinterpretation, and you have no right to assert such bad faith. I have been very patient thus far, but you are really starting to push my tolerance level. Manning (talk) 04:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Let me requote what was said: I'll block you for a week for the reason I indicated earlier (giving the impression of hounding the other editor). If you think some sources are not reliable, you may start an RSN thread; but, for the moment, please refrain from editing the article. Also, he's using self-declared WP:SPS claims to remove big chunks of information from the article, including those sources which were not even brought up on RSN. Mar4d (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well this is nothing more than pure block shopping by Mar4d against DS, after failing to get DS blocked by posting on the talk page of various admins he is here on ANI. the article is full of POV and rather than discussing on the talk page about the problems in the article and sources he thinks it is convenient to post at ANI and get the editor blocked --DBigXray 05:46, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well I am unsure why Mar4d is not able understand what Manning is trying to say, Mar4d do not try to push push your point which doesn't seem to have any weight, please be aware of WP:Boomerang --sarvajna (talk) 08:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) - I don't think that Mar4d is being reasonable here. Yes, darkness shine was blocked but then he was unblocked within few minutes by admin Black Kite. IMO, that does mean something. That's all. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 08:49, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Well a few hours have gone by, and I see no evidence that my advice to attempt to resolve the dispute by standard methods is being heeded. Because of that, I'm closing this incident. I won't outright label this as blockshopping, but it is definitely on the perimeter of my thinking. As a final comment "I don't like you so you can't edit my article" is NOT acceptable under any circumstances, particularly on a highly controversial article that looks to be replete with POV issues. Manning (talk) 08:59, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• It's my opinion, on reviewing this matter, that Salvio's comments have been misconstrued or simply ignored; I'm likewise very puzzled by Manning's seeming desire to dismiss this out of hand. Here's what Salvio actually wrote, in response to a comment by Darkness Shines, who'd noticed a {{ygm}} entry by the complaintant on Salvio's talk:

No doubt another hounding allegation, see [20] the talk page. Darkness Shines (talk) 16:15, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

( Full Reply by Salvio ) Yep, it's about that article and, to tell you the truth, I tend to agree with Mar4d that, in this case, you gave the impression of having followed him there — which does not mean you actually did it, but merely that this is the impression I, as a neutral observer, get. On top of that, there is the issue of the inappropriate speedy tag. As you know, I don't like to block people out of the blue, so instead of doing that I'll give you a choice: if you edit the article again, I'll block you for a week for the reason I indicated earlier (giving the impression of hounding the other editor). If you think some sources are not reliable, you may start an RSN thread; but, for the moment, please refrain from editing the article. If you think some sources are not reliable, you may start an RSN thread; but, for the moment, please refrain from editing the article. (end of Salvio's comment ).

<snip>

I'll note also, that Magog observed to Darkness Shines, in this connection: "DS, the problem is that you always seem to find a way to these pages. Yes, you have a "reason" for each time you get there, but after so many times, it starts to become a pattern, and it looks like you are waiting for an excuse to find your way to that page.."

I don't know about other editors, but if I had received such advice and comments from two admins, or from any single editor I respected, for that matter, I'd leave the cited article alone, and go try to improve one of the other 4,000,000+ articles we have here, many of which are in dire need of assistance. I have no connection to the article in question, by the way, and am not involved in this dispute. --OhioStandard (talk) 09:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"But for the moment, please refrain from editnig the article" is not "Never edit the article again." Its quite reasonable to interpret that as 'Go away, come back later'. That sort of ambiguity is not really helpful to anyone, especially DS as it allows people to infer different meanings and hit him with a stick depending on their conclusion. Salvio probably should have been a bit less nice and said 'Dont edit it again or I will consider it hounding and block you.' And left it at that. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Fair comment Ohio, but I've looked into this pretty closely, and there are definitely two sides to this story. Firstly the article in question has serious issues from a POV standpoint. Secondly, while Darkness isn't exactly up for a good conduct award on WP, the editing has been largely aimed at getting a pretty inflammatory article back to neutrality, which is a perfectly reasonable action. Thirdly, judging by Mar4d contributions, he seems to have an "anti-India" agenda, and it is not unusual for such editors to attract the attention of editors with a different (or simply neutral) agenda. Anyway, thus far Mar4d has refused to attempt to discuss the content issues on the talk page as I've instructed. Until I see a genuine attempt to focus on the content dispute, I'm not willing to pander to "I insist action be taken" demands. If Darkness also refuses to engage in a content discussion (or does so disruptively), then action may be warranted, but NOT before. Manning (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Manning your talking utter nonsense the only anti anything editor is Darknesshines check his block log for his games and attitudes he has created more pov articles than anyone rape in pakistan etc where he tried to push a pov onto DYK and was refused to check your facts and both sides of the story before sending out such crass comments Itemsplot45 (talk) 09:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC) — Itemsplot45 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

( multiple edit conflicts ) Thanks, Manning: You're no doubt much more familiar with the context and history of this dispute, and my first inclination would be to defer to that, given my awareness of the balanced, sound nature of your previous administrative actions I've observed. I'm sure there's more going on here than is immediately apparent, from what you say, and would be interested to see a clarification of Salvio's intent, for example, and perhaps an additional comment from Magog, if he feels so inclined. Obviously, if there's a hounding problem that supersedes any one article, that should be addressed, although I've not investigated that sufficiently to form an opinion, myself. That's what I'm hoping Salvio and perhaps Magog can clarify here. In fairness, if DS feels Magog is opposed to him on other grounds, as he appeared to intimate in a talk page comment, we should hear from him on that score, as well. --OhioStandard (talk) 09:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Manning please see the below example from the article in Question, This highlights why Mar4d is so concerned to keep DS away (and if possible get DS blocked). The example (taken from Salvio's talk page[15]) is self explanatory.--DBigXray 09:40, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

the source you(Mar4d) used on "India and state terrorism" - this BBC article - to back up the content you(Mar4d) added doesn't use several terms and formulations which you(Mar4d) worked into the article to further a political pov. As one example, the BBC article states:

"A decade later, [India] continued to back the Communist-regime of President Najibullah, while Pakistan threw its entire support behind the ethnic Pashtun mujahideen warlords, particularly the Islamist Gulbuddin Hekmatyar."

You(Mar4d) made out of it[16]:

"[India] supported the unpopular Communist regime of President Mohammad Najibullah as a proxy against Afghan Pashtun warlords and Pakistan."

This is troublesome not only because of the source misrepresentation ("proxy", "unpopular", "against Pakistan") but it is partly factually incorrect also. Najibullah i. e. was supported against mujahideen from all ethnic groups, both Pashtun and non-Pashtun, against those backed by Pakistan and those not backed by Pakistan. Also, India historically had good relations to several Afghan governments predating the communist period which went beyond the issue of Pakistan. You(Mar4d) reduce the relationship to 'supported as a proxy against'.-- JCAla (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I hope the admins will take a note of such propaganda editing, WP:AOBF and block-shopping by Mar4d --DBigXray 09:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You seem to have taken an oath to poke your nose into almost anything that doesn't involve you, haven't you? Do not cherry pick quotes, I have replied to that comment on that talk page. Do not bring content disputes here, this is a question of user conduct. You are best advised to stay away from here too. Mar4d (talk) 11:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

"You seem to have taken an oath to poke your nose into almost anything that doesn't involve you, haven't you?" - Mar4d, change your approach. The way you interact with other well-meaning editors, is gross. I actually support DBigXray (talk) on this, you, I think, are block-shopping my friend. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 12:06, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

To all parties - this is an admin page. Speaking as an admin, I've given my assessment of the situation which is: all parties should take this content dispute to the article talk page, and if any conduct issues arise the admin body shall deal with them as warranted. IMO there is not enough here to warrant admin actions at this time, although there IS enough to merit admin attention, and thus the matter is now under observation. Beyond that there is nothing to be gained by continuing to bicker here, other than annoying the admin corps. Manning (talk) 12:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• (edit conflict × 3) For the Record, Mar4d is clearly WP:LIEing above, he has not answered to these comments on that talk page, and rather chose to attack me as he is doing above. I must clarify that I have not taken any oath whatsoever that i am being accused of, but we can see that Mar4d seems to be doing a Pakistan POV /propaganda based agenda editing and that there is some kind of an oath to get DS blocked (the aggressive block shopping on Salvio's , Magog's and Regentspark's talk is just an proof of that).--DBigXray 12:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes I did comment on that, you need to check again. The rest of your comment just reinforces my observation - you have a habit of becoming involved in things where you're not invited. This is a shining example of that. Mar4d (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

@Mar4d Rather than lying again, why dont you give the diff of your reply. The only reply i can see on that is an attack on me and you skirted answering the question as you are repeatedly doing here. --DBigXray 12:52, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

@Manning Admins keep ignoring policy violations and propaganda editing as bickering and so the situation has reached to arbcom.--DBigXray 12:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Why was I not informed of this? I asked an administrator if I was OK to edit the article[17] Admin says yes. I explained on the talk page before Sal asked me to leave the article alone about the SPS and it was brought to the RSN board were it was deemed that the sources were SPS and useless. I am really perplexed why Mar4d does not just get some new sources, I added cn tags were I removed the SPS ones. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

You have removed other sources too which were not part of that RSN thread that you quote. The RSN thread is only a garb which you've used to remove material which was not even remotely related to the RSN thread. And when Salvio told you to stay off from that article, you should have stayed off. Your conduct is what has brought this thread in the first place. Mar4d (talk) 12:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone is free to look at the edits I made, I removed self published sources and some uncited content, I remove information about espionage as spying is not terrorism, I removed information about the northern alliance as they are not terrorists this was also pointed out to you on the talk page by JCala. Darkness Shines (talk) 12:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Bananas Monkey and Renames

Hello, Would it be possible to put a restriction on this user, to prevent any further page moves? User seems to spend most of their efforts in systematically renaming articles, some with reason, but the great majority seem to be mis-interpretation of policies. There seems to be a language barrier, from having interacted and reviewing discussions. It looks like a few others have requested the user to stop their good faith, yet disruptive moves. Thanks.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 03:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I noticed his unusual renames when he did one on Somebody That I Used to Know. And, FWIW, this user has been accused of sockpuppetry, and here is the report. Nothing else to comment by now. Also, UnQuébécois, could you provide additional info on which other unusual moves he's made? Thanks. —Hahc21 05:53, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Just take a look at users contributions, pretty much a user set up just to do moves. Has numerous requests on talk page to stop moves.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 17:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• I propose a simple measure: Bananas Monkey does not move any article at all unless they have attained a consensus on the article talk page. Infractions will lead to immediate, progressive blocks. Cleaning up page move messes drains valuable time and energy. Drmies (talk) 18:35, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  Only problem I see is that the user has been asked to refrain from moves in the past and has not complied.--Education does not equal common sense. 我不在乎 19:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Page protection and blocks please

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

---

 Done Blocks and protection completed by Rjd0060. Nobody Ent 10:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

The article is 2012 FIVB Women's World Olympic Qualification Tournament. User:Cl2onaldo began removing large amounts of content from the article, including the reference list. After I reverted, two IP addresses immediately reverted me back. I assume they are both Cl2onaldo and he's working through some sort of proxy or something. Anyways, can some admin please look into this? Silverseren^C 09:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I see User:Jonathanfu is fighting them now as well. Silverseren^C 09:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I have blocked the user and semi-protected the page for 3 hours. If there are continued problems after that, please request protection at WP:RFPP (and if needed you may report vandalism at WP:AIV). Thank you. Rjd0060 (talk) 09:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Block-evading, Michigan-based global warming external link spammer; ACTION SOUGHT: 1yr IP range block

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

---

Caution: Case presents slippery IP issues Apologies for using the "story format". Due to the slippery IP issues I could not organize it otherwise.

User being reported A block-evading Michigan IP, details below. For one recent example 99.181.142.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Basis of complaint User has obvious POV on global warming and uses persistent external link spamming to advance that POV, without making meaningful attempt to improve articles

IP RANGE TO BE BLOCKED This is most likely the IPs residence: start 99.181.128.4 stop 99.181.159.79

EXAMPLE BEHAVIOR

• [external POV links on talk pages under thim patina of collaboration]. For example with subject heading "Add?" and then the link. As though this constitutes meaningful discussion of a proposed edit.
• In just two hours on August 1, in the guise of 99.181.142.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), this sock made nearly 40 edits, of which about thirty added a global warming or environmental external link consistent with the user's POV in favor of conservation, two made a trivial wordsmithing edit, and the rest turned text to wikilinks for no good reason. My own conservation sentiments are similar, but that's not the point. The point is that my watchlist is full of non-edits consisting of POV-based external link spam, articles I care about are being hit with linkbloat, and I'm wasting hours of happy editing time monitoring and sifting this persistent external link spam.
• Likely over a 1000 other examples all told.
• My watchlist has turned into a turn-off.

DETAILS, WARNINGS, BLOCK EVASION and EVOLVING OPERATING PROCEDURE

This IP started off with a fairly stable IP address, 97.87.28.188 (talk · contribs), at the Kalamazoo Michigan public library. The complicating IP issue is that in May someone else used the same IP to disrupt the project and so this IP is now blocked due to the third party's actions. I'm seeking a block for the primary alternate (an IP range) for the original party. Although this stable IP is nowblocked due to the 3rd party's actions, I will continue telling the story as it unfolded. Last winter, the library IP was the primary, and the first alernate was the IP range for which I seek the block. But it was all the same person.

They started by slamming climate talk pages with the entire text, or most of the text, from external articles on global warming related issues, like this for example. After Arthur Rubin complained of copyright problems, the IP instead targeted edit summaries.

After making a minor tweak to an article, the IP would load up the edit summary with unrelated links favoring the IP's POV. For example, after adding a wikilink to Climate change mitigation (meaning cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions to try to stop global warming), the IP abused the edit summary to advance his POV. He did this by loading up the edit summary with many additional links, including links to potentially catastrophic problems that might be caused by global warming if we don't, as the IP wants us to do, start combatting global warming. This is link spam to advance their interests, and that is disruptive and a form of vandalism.

In midwinter I made several unsuccessful attempts to reform IP 97.87.28.188's behavior, chronicled on my talk page here. Accordingly, on Feb 1, IP 97.87.28.188 was blocked for 30 days for external link spamming.

HOWEVER, the IP simply continued the behavior from other dynamic IPs....

• 99.181.133.202 21:39, February 1, 2012 to 22:25, February 1, 2012
• 99.181.138.136 23:01, February 1, 2012 to 00:57, February 2, 2012
• 99.181.139.43 23:04, February 13, 2012 to 23:45, February 13, 2012
• 99.181.157.121 18:31, February 14, 2012 to 20:01, February 14, 2012
• 99.181.132.23 01:21, February 14, 2012 to 02:21, February 14, 2012
• 99.181.145.106 22:45, February 14, 2012 to 02:17, February 15, 2012

Therefore, the 30-day block clock was reset on Feb 16 and yet the IP continued their POV campaign of external link spam. BUT (a key point!!) they switched dynamic IPs. Instead of exposing 99.181.___.___ to additional sanctions, they instead conducted their block evasion using some tertiary (expendable?) sites with dynamic IPs. Details are here. I infer that 99.181.___.___ (the range they protected during the 30 days) is for his primary residence.

After the 30 days expired, they fired that location back up with a long list of virtually 100% meaningless edits. Note the rapidity of their addition of articles... and a running battle with Arthur who is trying to combat the IPs behavior. From Feb 16 to June 30....

Collapsed ip list

99.181.128.177 20:46, June 16, 2012 to 22:32, June 16, 2012 99.181.128.183 23:56, May 1, 2012 to 00:15, May 2, 2012 99.181.128.237 19:53, June 8, 2012 to 23:11, June 8, 2012 99.181.128.4 19:08, June 10, 2012 to 20:01, June 10, 2012 99.181.129.132 00:08, April 5, 2012 to 01:04, April 5, 2012 99.181.129.83 23:13, April 20, 2012 to 23:40, April 20, 2012 99.181.130.240 20:35, June 10, 2012 to 21:22, June 10, 2012 99.181.130.36 20:53, January 21, 2012 to 20:56, January 21, 2012 99.181.130.94 16:02, January 15, 2012 to 17:10, January 15, 2012 99.181.131.189 22:17, March 19, 2012 to 01:55, March 20, 2012 99.181.131.192 18:09, April 20, 2012 to 18:45, April 20, 2012 99.181.131.205 22:03, June 14, 2012 to 22:42, June 14, 2012 99.181.131.210 18:16, May 12, 2012 to 20:47, May 12, 2012 99.181.131.215 15:01, January 13, 2012 to 16:59, January 13, 2012 99.181.131.243 22:03, June 17, 2012 to 23:04, June 17, 2012 99.181.131.248 19:35, March 18, 2012 to 00:20, March 19, 2012 99.181.132.130 21:29, January 21, 2012 to 21:51, January 21, 2012 99.181.132.241 18:57, April 18, 2012 to 22:00, April 18, 2012 99.181.133.138 [4]22:40, June 30, 2012 to 22:56, June 30, 2012 99.181.133.141 01:41, January 23, 2012 to 02:48, January 23, 2012 99.181.133.170 00:25, May 13, 2012 to 00:44, May 13, 2012 99.181.133.228 22:21, January 14, 2012 to 23:36, January 14, 2012 99.181.134.192 21:58, May 4, 2012 to 00:45, May 5, 2012 99.181.134.196 22:49, May 8, 2012 to 00:50, May 9, 2012 99.181.134.31 01:07, April 24, 2012 to 01:30, April 24, 2012 99.181.134.5 20:07, May 1, 2012 to 21:26, May 1, 2012 99.181.134.70 16:35, April 10, 2012 to 22:35, April 10, 2012 99.181.134.88 22:38, January 24, 2012 to 00:52, January 25, 2012 99.181.135.113 [3]17:22, January 24, 2012 to 18:45, January 24, 2012 99.181.135.167 [2]18:58, April 20, 2012 to 22:36, April 20, 2012 99.181.135.17 22:03, May 1, 2012 to 23:34, May 1, 2012 99.181.136.157 18:41, June 2, 2012 to 19:47, June 2, 2012 99.181.136.208 00:47, July 1, 2012 to 01:32, July 1, 2012 99.181.136.35 [4]19:16, June 17, 2012 to 19:53, June 17, 2012 99.181.136.82 00:01, June 29, 2012 to 00:16, June 29, 2012 99.181.137.180 01:04, April 14, 2012 to 02:37, April 14, 2012 99.181.137.3 19:53, April 22, 2012 to 23:15, April 22, 2012 99.181.137.33 21:56, June 6, 2012 to 23:06, June 6, 2012 99.181.137.83 22:12, April 24, 2012 to 22:52, April 24, 2012 99.181.138.146 [10]02:00, June 19, 2012 99.181.138.164 16:41, May 31, 2012 to 19:35, May 31, 2012 99.181.138.196 00:05, January 23, 2012 to 00:16, January 23, 2012 99.181.138.32 22:02, April 16, 2012 to 23:14, April 16, 2012 99.181.138.35 17:01, January 22, 2012 to 17:08, January 22, 2012 99.181.138.52 18:15, January 15, 2012 to 21:29, January 15, 2012 99.181.138.56 00:42, June 9, 2012 to 01:44, June 9, 2012 99.181.139.142 [10] 11:47, May 9, 2012 99.181.139.153 23:14, April 28, 2012 to 00:27, April 29, 2012 99.181.140.126 10:12, May 11, 2012 to 10:38, May 11, 2012 99.181.140.141 01:10, May 13, 2012 to 01:54, May 13, 2012 99.181.140.167 01:54, June 29, 2012 to 02:12, June 29, 2012 99.181.140.176 03:11, July 1, 2012 to 03:14, July 1, 2012 99.181.140.207 21:15, June 17, 2012 to 21:24, June 17, 2012 99.181.141.90 23:59, June 30, 2012 to 00:20, July 1, 2012 99.181.142.126 22:33, May 6, 2012 to 01:28, May 7, 2012 99.181.142.150 [12]20:39, April 23, 2012 to 22:07, April 23, 2012 99.181.142.152 21:11, April 27, 2012 to 23:21, April 27, 2012 99.181.142.159 20:02, May 31, 2012 to 02:41, June 1, 2012 99.181.142.19 20:28, April 2, 2012 to 00:10, April 3, 2012 99.181.142.194 [10]21:45, June 22, 2012 99.181.142.231 20:24, January 16, 2012 to 00:53, January 17, 2012 99.181.142.25 23:11, June 28, 2012 to 23:22, June 28, 2012 99.181.142.87 22:53, June 16, 2012 to 02:04, June 17, 2012 99.181.143.181 02:29, July 1, 2012 to 02:46, July 1, 2012 99.181.143.217 14:41, June 16, 2012 to 15:20, June 16, 2012 99.181.143.45 01:59, April 5, 2012 to ) 04:00, April 5, 2012 99.181.143.48 19:32, January 21, 2012 to 20:18, January 21, 2012 99.181.144.253 16:23, January 21, 2012 to 18:43, January 21, 2012 99.181.145.153 19:40, January 14, 2012 to 20:35, January 14, 2012 99.181.147.154 [15]14:58, June 17, 2012 to 15:39, June 17, 2012 99.181.147.173 00:46, June 13, 2012 to 00:55, June 13, 2012 99.181.147.96 17:04, April 1, 2012 to 00:15, April 2, 2012 99.181.148.206 18:53, April 27, 2012 to 20:22, April 27, 2012 99.181.148.240 19:10, May 13, 2012 to 00:41, May 14, 2012 99.181.149.83 16:15, January 19, 2012 to 17:17, January 19, 2012 99.181.149.86 19:35, January 25, 2012 to 20:40, January 25, 2012 99.181.150.169 19:06, June 9, 2012 to 19:28, June 9, 2012 99.181.151.68 04:50, June 19, 2012 to 05:00, June 19, 2012 99.181.152.120 15:32, January 23, 2012 to 16:32, January 23, 2012 99.181.152.187 19:55, June 9, 2012 to 20:31, June 9, 2012 99.181.152.94 18:35, January 31, 2012 to 00:38, February 1, 2012 99.181.153.161 11:46, May 7, 2012 to 12:18, May 7, 2012 99.181.153.18 19:30, April 12, 2012 to 22:08, April 12, 2012 99.181.153.207 16:12, June 10, 2012 to 17:18, June 10, 2012 99.181.153.4 06:28, January 17, 2012 to 06:47, January 17, 2012 99.181.154.161 21:33, January 18, 2012 to 23:08, January 18, 2012 99.181.154.233 13:27, May 13, 2012 to 15:43, May 13, 2012 99.181.155.14 18:16, January 22, 2012 to 22:00, January 22, 2012 99.181.155.9 19:41, June 14, 2012 to 20:57, June 14, 2012 99.181.155.96 12:49, June 10, 2012 to 15:28, June 10, 2012 99.181.156.212 03:19, July 1, 2012 99.181.157.73 [3]18:01, January 17, 2012 to 18:59, January 17, 2012 99.181.158.174 18:22, June 1, 2012 to 20:10, June 1, 2012 99.181.159.67 16:46, January 28, 2012 to 18:29, January 28, 2012 99.181.159.79 18:09, June 10, 2012 to 18:55, June 10, 2012

ACTION SOUGHT

• (A) Pretend the block clock for 97.87.28.188 (talk · contribs) was reset for each instance of block evasion, instead of erroneously allowed to expire on March 16 due to lack of vigilance (LATER: I struck some of my own prior words because I belatedly realized no admin action was needed to reset the clock. See details under "Answer 1 of 3" below.)
• (B) Tentative decision to impose IP range block for 12 months pending completion of sock inquiry and checkuser as appropriate.
  • start 99.181.128.4
  • stop 99.181.159.79
• (C) Advice on what to do when the sock evades the block using the tertiary (expendable?) dynamic IPs used for block evasion before (during the official 30-day block).

APPRECIATION Many thanks to Arthur Rubin for compiling the IP sock's contrib history.

NOTICE Since dynamic IP's don't have a one-stop talk page, I am posting notices of this proceeding at four places, one of which will almost certainly get their attention.

• The library IP 97.87.28.188 (talk · contribs)
• Talk:Arthur_Rubin
• User:Arthur_Rubin/IP_list
• Talk:Global warming

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:41, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

PS, article talk pages and some user talk pages are replete with attempts to reform this users behavior. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I looked at the Aug 1, June 16 and May 1 contrib lists (which reflect current behavior) and I'm not seeing a pattern that warrants blocking. Adding a bunch of on topic external links to articles in ScienceNews and BusinessWeek may be excessive, but it doesn't seem disruptive. There are some quite reasonable content disputes, see for example this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Banking_in_the_United_States&diff=prev&oldid=490257754 and what follows. We operate on the assumption that bad editors can be reformed. Could point out a few edits in the past month that you feel make your case?--agr (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

See edit warring at [18] and the ip's edits to Talk:Christianity_and_environmentalism for example of problematic editing against concensus. Note that article has been semiprotected twice this summer due to the ip's editwarring/disruption. Vsmith (talk) 14:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Clarification. The problem on the above page shows that in addition to identical talk page disruption as on climate related pages, the editor is edit warring there against any concensus for his desired content and pushing a different pov. Vsmith (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Answer 1 of 3, after Feb 1 all edit content is irrelevant because WP:SOCK states,

"The misuse of multiple accounts is considered a serious breach of community trust" and

"in the case of sanctions, bans, or blocks, evasion causes the timer to restart"

Under this language the act of block evasion itself - not administrator button pushing - restarts the clock. Given the nonstop behavior from the IP, application of the policy as written means the original block is still in "virtual" effect under our policy if not in the server's programming. Would ignoring the rule as written help us improve the project? ANSWER: No. The rule as written reflects the essential need for collaboration, teamwork, and trust and defines block evasion as "a serious breach of community trust". It is the fact of block evasion that restarts the clock, and we have ample examples that show the timing of the evasion, regardless of content.

Answer 2 of 3, this is a dripping faucet case, not a roadside bomb case. It is the cumulative effects of many non-edits in my primary subject area that is the issue here. On the first night, the dripping faucet is mildly annoying. After 12 months of sleep deprivation you're just about ready for the psych ward. So please adjust your yardstick to think "cumulative lowlevel dirsuption" instead of single bomb vandalism.

Answer 3 of 3, I will attempt to compile examples subsequent to your earliest date (May 1) to illustrate the dripping faucet and its impact. But that will take some time. Stay tuned. Meanwhile, hopefully other climate editors will chime in. Thanks for your interest and review so far. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:10, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment The range contribs for 99.181.128.0/19 shows there would be significant collateral damage from a rangeblock. If the person is spamming external links, the links can be added to the WP:BLACKLIST in order to solve problem. 64.40.54.25 (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you assuming the sheer volume of edits from this range necessarily implies different editors? I chose 10 random sample IPs from the first page of hits off your link and they all appear to be the subject of this complaint (same style, overlapping main subject area of enviro & climate). Also, this is not a case where the IP is spamming the same thing over and over. As I will show, they have demonstrated no intent on actually editing, and instead make trivial non-edits and bad faith talk page posts for purpose of advancing their own interest in global warming mitigation (halting greenhouse gases) with external links to nearly anything and almost everything that crosses the newswires. So the blacklist suggestion was a good one, but inapplicable here. Thanks anyway. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you assuming the sheer volume of edits from this range necessarily implies different editors? Yes, that was my assumption. I didn't look at the edits, so I could be mistaken. A CU will be able to give us a definate answer for both registered and IP editors. My personal opinion is that page protection is less severe than a one year rangeblock. 64.40.54.25 (talk) 15:45, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, page protection is ill-advised because of the multitude of article/talk pages, and because a lot of good faith IP editors would be negatively impacted.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:01, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I do believe that a /19 network is 8192 addresses (x.x.0.0 - x.x.31.255, ie: 32 Class C networks), which is indeed a fair amount of collateral damage. In extreme cases, that kind of damage might be accepted for a very short period of time, but I don't remember a range block of that size, from a known carrier (AT&T Internet Services) being maintained for even a full day. You need to look at page protection. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:09, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Page semi-protection can be applied, however, the wide number and variety of articles involved is problematic plus the bulk of the disruptive editing occurs on talk pages and we don't normally semiprotect those. Seems our ip jumping editor knows this and is using it to game the system. Perhaps the range should be examined to see if many/any valid ip edits are not this problem editor. Vsmith (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

So we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. I don't know, I would have to defer to someone who knows networks better than I do, and I doubt it would be a 1 year block. That is a lot of IPs. Not sure who would be a good admin to ask, maybe they will wander by and chime in. And maybe something smaller than /19 could be used, I haven't done all the math here, didn't bring my slide rule with me today. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I acknowledge the technical challenge this presents. There has got to be some way, else the IP's methods are a blueprint for others on how to disrupt any controversial subject area, and the ultimate result could easily be an end to all IP editing. Since that is an outcome to be avoided, let's keep looking for an answer! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:08, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I've sliced this pie 100 times and there isn't a way to get less than /19 that I can tell, they are all static broadband, and adsl [19] which I thought was a little odd. Not cellphone. I'm trying to determine what the real damage would be now by determining the typical use on that particular leg of the network. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:20, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This is actually part of 99.176.0.0/12, over 1 million adsl addresses[20]. He might only have access to /19 of, or maybe that is all we have seen so far. To answer below, you don't really sanction an IP, you block it or don't. It is not a person, it is an address and any number of people can be using it over a month's time. I can't block here, maybe someone else can. I'm at the end of what I can do. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your attention. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:39, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I would also appreciate some kind of sanctions or block against this user. The constant "Please add random article link?" posts to talk pages and other link spam certainly do clutter watchlists, and add nothing useful to the articles. The user also provides less than helpful responses to other user comments. - Parejkoj (talk) 16:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

  We don't block an entire range of ips just because your watchlist is cluttered.--JOJ ^Hutton 17:26, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Except this clutter is a defined form of disruptive vandalism because the primary purpose of the uer's contribs is to conduct external link spam in support of the user's POV.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:37, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Soft blocked the range for a month. Those interested should monitor the editing area for the active socks that will inevitably arise.—Kww(talk) 18:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Article: "Wroclaw"

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

---

I've tried to improve the article of the Polish city Wroclaw, especially the history part. But I'm suddenly facing "a wall of users" that do not understand the need of sources. "This is a polish city, and we know it's history the last 1000 years in our minds" is the impression I get. Someone actually has written the following to me on the talk page "As has already been pointed out to you, there are far, far better sources than either the Nordisk Familjebok or the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica. We have no realistic reason to consider even looking at those sources. It would just be a waste of time". However the article lacks also references in polish or any other language. This must (obviously) be explained to them, that this isn't how Wikipedia works ! This Wikipedia is english, not polish. Anyone that can substanciate what he/she wrights about through sources may do so. But unsourced not well-known things that may have origins from rumours or inventions cannot be accepted with the only comments like the one I've presented here. Am I wrong ? If not please help me. The history of polish cities is a part of this Wikipedia, aswell as any other subject. Boeing720 (talk) 13:55, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and not a matter for administrators. You should use the dispute resolution mechanism. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 14:25, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

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

Copyright violations and plagiarized public domain content

199.46.198.231 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) The above IP has been placing unattributed additions on vaccine related materials. The contributions are multiple sentence in length, sometimes with minimal modification. Some sources are public domain, but are still unattributed. A warning about copyrighted materials was placed, but the behavior continued. This did not go to WP:CCI because:

1. I'm not sure this has reached "long term";
2. I think the violations from this IP have been dealt with; and
3. the board is backlogged.

Examples:

1. PMID 19837285 to this and this.
2. PMID 19162109 to this.
3. Content from this public domain source wound up here and here.
4. After the warning, the behavior continued. This edit used wording that has been kicking around internet forums for a while, even if I did not find the original.
5. This is straight from PMID 6469355.

The above list is far from exhaustive. While I believe all the incidents from this IP have been dealt with (more eyes wouldn't hurt), any assistance in stemming the problem would be appreciated.Novangelis (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Blocked 1 month for persistent copyvios. I looked at him yesterday and removed one their contribs for that. Thank you for bring it up.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 16:21, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Content that is the public domain is not subject to copyright at all, so there isn't a way to infringe upon the "rights" because you have the right to do whatever you want to it, for all intent and purposes. Literally, it is impossible to infringe works that are in the Public Domain. Attribution is not required, even when it is a good idea. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 16:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Not being illegal does not make something appropriate behavior on Wikipedia: WP:Plagiarism#Why plagiarism is a problem. It just isn't as serious.Novangelis (talk) 16:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• As long as PD material is cited, it can be cut and pasted until the cows come home. It's only a problem if it's provided without a source. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 16:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• Berean Hunter blocked him for copyvio of copyrighted material, not the PD items linked here, and pinged me the link, so the block makes a lot more sense now. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 17:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
• For clarity, the additions to Alice Cooper was a copyvio of the website SickthingsUK and the Chlamydia vaccine addition was a copyvio of this article. This isn't just PD stuff.
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 17:03, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• Content on PubMed can be subject to copyright. Abstracts are commonly (not always) part of copyrighted articles such as the examples. Sites that are generally public domain can host copyrighted materials.Novangelis (talk) 18:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for IP edit blocks and page protection

IP User 67.164.72.88 (and formerly 24.113.190.101) continue to re-add the same false data to five articles related to Gargoyles (TV series). Although I already knew this information to be false (obviously alone am not a reliable source) I also cannot verify it in any form except for a few similar Wikia.com articles requesting deletion claiming (as I assumed) to be fan faction.

Diffs for IP:24.113.190.101: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Diffs for IP:67.164.72.88: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

As they are the only types of edits made with these IPs, I request an edit block for both as well as possible temporary protection of articles Gargoyles (TV series), Gargoyles the Movie: The Heroes Awaken, Zach Tyler Eisen, and Keke Palmer. — CobraWiki ^{( jabber | stuff )} 18:28, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Ched Davis is not qualified to be an admin

User:HanzoHattori was community banned two years ago, and that accounts userpage still says they'r banned. HH socked in the meantime and his latest (apparent) sock, User:Niemti, was blocked after an SPI investigation. Administrator User:Ched Davis unilaterally unblocked the sock, which is in direct violation of WP:BAN. An unban discussion at WP:AN located here [21] showed no consensus for an unban, yet the sock was unilaterally unbanned anyway. A large number of people expressed their reservations about this, those concerns were ignored and the discussion was closed. You can either rewrite the policy to allow administrators to unilaterally undo bans or you can believe that Ched Davis isn't qualified for his sysop bit. An administrator who grossly violates core policy ought to be desysopped. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 21:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• A couple of points. I don't see what ANI can do about this, other than argue over the issue further. Your wording implies that Ched Davis went against consensus, when actually there was support for the unblock. There were also arguments against it - that you disagree with Ched's interpretation of the consensus...well, what do you expect ANI to do? He's open to recall (see here). Go talk to him instead of making a dramatic thread on a noticeboard. OohBunnies! (talk) 21:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
  • I tell you what Burpelson AFB, when you contribute comparable quality content to the encyclopaedia as Niemti has, then I will listen to your argument. Comparing your two contribs list for the last few days is... compelling. Sorry to be harsh, but there you go. --Errant ^(chat!) 21:44, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• The action was closed for lack of consensus, no reason to keep someone blocked in absence of a consensus. Ched is an experienced admin who appropriately racheted down the dramazah until the process plays its way out. An ad homenim attack like this is inappropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 22:00, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• There are two problems here. Burpelson, I don't see you talking to to Ched on his talk page, and we generally require that to bring up an ANI, a show of effort to resolve the problem with the other participant. Second, I was there and opposed the unblock strongly, and watched the unblock, and disagreed with Ched on his view of consensus, yet this has already played out at WP:AN, and this ANI might be seen as a second bite of the apple. Even though I disagree with Ched on the unblock, there is no doubt in my mind that he is a good admin and I fully support him. Blocks are cheap, and if an admin is to "err", I would rather see it on an unblock than on a block. I also know and respect you a great deal, and I completely understand while you are a bit pissed, it irked me a bit as well, but I respect Ched enough to give Niemti (and Ched) a little rope. The deed is done and there was no consensus there at WP:AN to undo it. It was bold. It was classic WP:IAR. Time will tell if Ched was more insightful than us, or simply foolish. Reblocking is easy if Ched was wrong, and we can explore it at that time. Dennis Brown - 2¢ © Join WER 22:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

• • Burp, I recall that discussion about Niemti and IIRC HH was from 4 years ago and Niemti has been producing content. Now, has Niemti been producing content? Yes. Has he been disruptive? Not that I saw. If so, show me. Now you mainly seem to hang around drama pages and here you accuse Ched of not being qualified to be an admin. Now, if you'd bothered to look at the thread just above yours on Ched's talk page, re you'd see that the blocking admin, JamesBWatson, told Ched he had no objection to an unblock. This is how it's supppossed to work. Now you on the otherhand, come here and accuse Ched of being unfit. Far from it, Ched acted most appropriately but you cause more unneeded drama that will go nowhere and on top of that a good case could be made for this being a personal attack. Plus you never brought this up with Ched. Now, go produce some content. PumpkinSky talk 22:19, 2 August 2012 (UTC)