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

Resumed threats from Tokerdesigner

• Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cannabis smoking (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Several editors have been maintaining quality of some cannabis articles subject to fluff edits and vandalism. I have had to revert Tokerdesigner's edits several times. He once made a run on many articles I wrote in retaliation, and today left a message threatening the same on my talk page, literally threatening the notability of the 44 film articles I've contributed. Please read the message carefully as it is typical of his threats. Standard methods of mediation don't work with this user. I don't feel like defending my 44 articles. Can someone help? Mainly see history of article Cannabis smoking. In addition I have archived a multitude of threats, retaliatory and insults from Tokerdesigner. I need this to stop.Mjpresson (talk) 21:17, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

This is the message on my talk page to which I responded on User talk:Mjpresson:

== June 2011 ==

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Cannabis smoking. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

That above addition was not left by me. It's Tokerdesigner, who didn't sign his entry above. Yes and I will continue to warn him for disruption but that does not warrant threatening me and the articles I've written.Mjpresson (talk) 22:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Why isn't this inquiry getting any response?Mjpresson (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

What would you like an administrator to do about this? Where are these threats you're talking about? How can someone "threaten notability"? You're not making a good case here, I think that's why you're getting no response. I'm not saying there's nothing for an admin to do about it, but you have to give us something to work with. -- Atama頭 23:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Wow. Super good help. Did you even read the bizarre comments and threats which include asking to meet me in person? It's all quite obvious if you read what I asked you to read. Perhaps I neglected to mention I had to archive them all. When I revert or warn user he threatens to tag 44 articles I've contributed for notability. He's already done retaliatory hits on my articles. I can deal with this myself, apparently. At least my complaint is documented here, although blown off. I've been here a while and know what to do, or maybe someone else is able to help me. Please at least read the comment he left on my talk page as it's typical response to simple and civil reversions and warnings. I knew I would regret trying to improve the cannabis articles. --Mjpresson (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Mjpresson seems to be referring to [1]. Chester Markel (talk) 07:59, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

And edits like [2] suggest a disregard for verifiability. Chester Markel (talk) 17:10, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a bit late on the scene, but having looked at TDs edits over many months, I can't find any indication that they understand WP:V. They have continously littered our cannabis related articles with there own POV and suggeting that other editors who disagree are in someway linked to tobacco companies - I explained in depth to them on my talk page earlier this year why the way they edit is problematic, but they've carried on editing in the same vein since. A review of their talk page reveals that this has been going on for years, and despite multiple people trying to explain nothing has changed. In light of this, I believe it would be best for the project if TD was topic banned from cannabis-related articles. (Apologies if this isn't the right place to suggest a topic ban, but I can't remember where else it could be). SmartSE (talk) 16:57, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

On the other hand, since cannabis-related content is the only thing Tokerdesigner edits, it would be simpler in terms of enforcement to community ban him. Also, there's no indication that he could correctly apply the verifiability policy to other subjects. Chester Markel (talk) 19:22, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner temporarily banned

Tokerdesigner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is community banned for a period of six months, with email and talk page access disabled.

Support, per Smartse's explanation of the systematic verifiability problems with this user's contributions, and unwillingness to improve his behavior despite numerous requests, including being indefinitely blocked in 2009[3] for violations of the verifiability policy. The reversal of this block has definitely sent the wrong message. If we give Tokerdesigner a six month block that will actually stick, both because of its status as a community ban, and because he won't be able to post an unblock request on his talk page, this might be sufficient to convince him that his behavior has been unacceptable. If not, a longer block/ban can be implemented later. Chester Markel (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Tokerdesigner response tomorrow, o.k.?

By June 7, my next time at the Liebrewery (brewing lies incognito) I will reply to the above, including exhibiting the 2009 edits which User:Mjpresson charadcterizes as "threats". I think the issues regarding "Original Research" and "Self Published Sources" should be debated thoroughly on the Cannabis Project page. Meanwhile, please turn to Cannabis smoking and try to figure out what User:Mjpresson has done with the "dugout" and "kiseru" illustrations.Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:29, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

problematic anonymous users at articles about Singapore politicians, possible conflicts of interest and government censorship

I am an involved editor, and cannot use my tools in the dispute; since this involves elements of a content dispute, incivility and sockpuppetry it is my greatest regret that I have to use AN/I. It is my every desire to promote discussion and avoid edit warring; however various anonymous users often repeatedly blank sections (even when they are referenced!) without explanation that are critical of Singapore government / PAP (ruling party) politicians. These same users often write glowing or promotional articles on government ministries or government programmes with hyped-up language without any hint of neutrality. Originally my response to these actions was to revert on sight (especially if the removal was poorly explained or not explained at all) as well as introduce more critical language into the targeted articles; it's been a long time since Wikipedia:Requests for comment/United States Congress (which I helped draft) but this I believe is an appropriate action to disincentivise conflict of interest editing by powerful parties.

Originally these editors started out rather bumbling (deleting entire critical, referenced sections on Tin Pei Ling without any explanation) and reverting sourced criticisms (well-known criticisms, in fact). For a while (many Singaporean administrators are away and did not catch this) they could build such biased articles on government ministries without interference -- see this revision on MCYS for as an example.

I also suspect that these editors may be employed by the Singapore government. I do not make this accusation lightly. The first hint (outside of Wikipedia) was that during the elections, there was already a massive smear campaign online against the Opposition, sending trolls to make homophobic remarks or cast doubt on Opposition politicians and so forth; the trolls were deduced to be trolls because they came from accounts with virtually no friends, airbrushed or artificial / out of place profile pictures, and were created shortly before election campaign season, unlike commenters (both pro-government and pro-Opposition) who generally had some sign of a real life (and had friends, were not completely anonymous etc). Bloggers also caught the PAP astroturfing with fake accounts, the link given is just one example.

My first major conflict with these editors -- who I suspect to be coming from the same interested party -- started in Vivian Balakrishnan. Because of a discovered very old fundamental copyright violation (an unrelated issue) 330 revisions were deleted, but they can be seen here. Please note the range of different IPs and different usernames that attempt to remove reliably-referenced criticism, but behaviour (involving little discussion and little use of community tools) that makes it seem like they come from the same party. IP User:160.96.200.34 is a Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore address (also are addresses 160.96.200.35, 160.96.200.36, 160.96.200.37), all which have been involved in possible conflict of interest edits in Singaporean politics, often writing extensive promotional material for politicians and government ministries. Commercial ISPs are also used, especially IPs with a history of possibly COI editing -- see the anonymous editor which edited National Youth Council of Singapore in such an "official" and pompous way that makes me think these editors are from the government. The pattern of these editors have been to ignore warnings, avoid the use of talk pages, and try to battle it out through edit summaries, which is extremely frustrating. I used pending changes protection on that article in the middle of May for that reason, which I think was appropriate since the anonymous edits could still pass through, but other uninvolved editors could always look at the changes -- and generally they did not approve the unexplained reversions.

The latest conflict involves Teo Ser Luck, which I helped expand, and its talk page, over a section I added that discussed a video of a rally this politician spoke at, for which he was ridiculed online for, and made it to Yahoo! News Singapore. Despite the multitude of IPs reverting, I suspect they are one party and that sockpuppetry; government IPs were involved (User:160.96.200.36). When I posted my concern on the talk page about a) why I thought Yahoo! News was a reliable source b) that this was part of a pattern of whitewashing, an anonymous editor would constantly delete my comment off the talk page as "vandalism". It has now been moved out of BLP concerns by another user to Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Teo_Ser_Luck, however I am puzzled because the talk page comment makes no problematic statement against Teo Ser Luck, since I try to discuss the editors involved, and the news source, not the politician himself. The removing user's awareness of previous history at Vivian Balakrishnan, despite the fact that the history has now been deleted (for unrelated copyvio reasons) and other articles at Tin Pei Ling strongly confirms my suspicions of sockpuppetry and common party COI editing.

I have made my case for the inclusion of the statement backed by a Yahoo! News Singapore source (which hires local journalists) on the BLP noticeboard, but I can further elaborate here if needed; my frustration is not with the content in fact, but rather the attitude of censor-with-impunity that possible government-hired editors seem to have. The editor(s) would rather delete entire talk page discussions rather than engage in discussion, and this alarms me. The user simply says "the source is unofficial" (essentially a one word argument) rather than referring to policy or how he or she disagrees with how I characterise the source. This is the most problematic part. I think I am complying with BLP policy as well.

I am glad to be proven wrong on any of my suspicions though. However, if I am not wrong, then I am frightened by the lack of action. If possible, can I have advice if a) CheckUser is an appropriate course of action, and if b) what administrative actions, if any, should be required. Except for pending changes protection I have refrained from using the tools in this issue. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 10:13, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I would support a blanket ban/indef block on all IPs coming from government ministries (in Singapore and indeed just in general). On a related note, I have previously raised concerns with the OP at her talk page over her edits in the matter (which have often bordered on POV, even if admittedly to simply counter the pro-government, government-added POV). COI and POV editing is not new to Wikipedia, not even from government agencies, but they are a huge headache when they do occur and even more so when others try to add opposite POV to counter the existing POV. User_talk:La_goutte_de_pluie#TOC; User talk:La goutte de pluie#WP:RS / Vivian Balakrishnan and User_talk:Strange_Passerby#fair_use.3F are some relevant related links. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:33, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that government IP addresses seem to be mixed with a collection of commercial IP addresses; however the commercial IP addresses do not fluctuate that much. They seem to have the editing patterns of a single party. (see evidence above and below). I have refrained from blocking anyone at this point, or even using semi-protection, on the grounds of WP:INVOLVED. Admittedly I am more likely to make edits involving criticisms of the ruling party, but this is really out of the fear that for the past few years whitewashing and astroturfing has proceeded for Singaporean articles with near-impunity, with little administrative attention paid to them. I do not see patterns of Opposition members editing in a self-aggrandized way about their politicians and their plans; if I did I would also be similarly annoyed.Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 10:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi ho! Since my name has been brought up, guess it's fair I jump in? I've already replied on Strange Passerby's page about where I'm coming from. And yes, while there is a reason to be paranoid seeing the recent unexplained blanket deletions by unknown IPs, it's also a tad unfair to drag in others who do try and make articles more balanced. If the negative incident is referenced and cited properly, and not overly represented in a page (which may be a tactic to try and turn the article negative, excuse me if I'm wrong), I don't delete them. I've learning to be more fair and balanced in my article. Where La Goutte and I seem to "butt heads" is where I view he's being overly negative. While we don't want whitewashing, we also don't wanna sway to the other end of the spectrum and turn wiki pages into "smear" pages. Now pardon me if I'm wrong, and I don't mean to be rude or personal, but that's my rationale. If i'm wrong on intents, pls correct me. Thanks. Alverya (talk) 11:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. La goutte de pluie cannot stay civil and would keep repeating his dumb conspiracy theory that whoever disapproving of his words, is working for the government. Every Singaporean netizen has a right to edit and tell you when you are in the wrong. I was the one updating Teo Ser Luck's new ministrial posts after seeing nobody doing it, not you. So how are you considered the one expanding his section? And how is it considered pro-government when it's just an update of job titles? You are the one insisting your piece of irrelevant news be put up there, which is most insignificant. The way I see it, you just want whatever negativity you can find to be there. What's up with your hatred towards MCYS that you keep harping about it everything, even on talk pages? Apparently, it's more likely you seem to have a personal agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.247 (talk) 03:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Since you mentioned the earlier U.S. Congress problem, I would point out that part of the 'solution' to that problem was to use Template:CongLinks to provide reliable information about each person. That has a deterrent effect as it provides a check and balance against Wikipedians trying to spin and shade the facts. There's also Template:UK MP links. Perhaps you could find similar sources for Singapore politicians and create a similar template. Not a total solution of course, but it would probably help avoid the typical 'editing by newsbite' which causes undue emphasis on whatever makes the ooh!ooh! news reports. Here's an example of some sources I found. I don't know if they exist, but voting records and speeches in Parliament would be helpful. Flatterworld (talk) 17:56, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Further sockpuppetry suspicions

What especially strikes me as weird is that 218.186.16.10, a metastable IP involved in this dispute who kept removing my comments off Talk:Teo Ser Luck and in fact listed me as a vandal in Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, was later blocked for being an open proxy; when this occurred, another IP Special:contributions/218.186.16.249 showed up to protest the block (a request that was declined). This to me lends more evidence towards my sockpuppetry suspicions. Both addresses are commercial StarHub addresses that are stable for weeks if not months; it's weird for one address to be detected as a proxy and for a customer to be able to switch freely between these addresses, unless the customer had some special privileges. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 10:44, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not seeing a block log entry for .16.10... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:46, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Check again. "The IP address 218.186.16.10 is blocked globally (full details)." i.e. the IP is blocked on all Wikipedias. Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 10:50, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I can see it on the global log, but not on the enwp block log. Must be admins-only. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 10:53, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Global blocks are separate from local blocks and are not visible on the local log. Nothing to do with admins. T. Canens (talk) 12:24, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I mean, I don't see the line quoted by Lgdp at all anywhere, that line could be the one visible only to admins. I can see the block entry on the global log. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 13:10, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I see. Yes, that line came from Special:Block, so it's admin-only. T. Canens (talk) 13:18, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

The proxyip4 template, as in {{proxyip4 | 218.186.16.10}} should allow anyone (admin or not) to check whether rangeblocks or global blocks cover the IP. EdJohnston (talk) 14:08, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

I just tried that interesting template. For it to work, the space before the parameter (the IP address) must be removed. Johnuniq (talk) 04:38, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• FYI guys, 1.) please bear in mind that its the mid-year school holidays in Singapore right now; 2.) Starhub ip addresses are rarely dynamic in nature, though one can still "connect and use" another person's household WIFI (stealing bandwidth, in other word), most likely due to an apparent lack of security setup (from my experience, it's a fairly common problem in some of Singapore's tightly arranged HDB flats and/or private apartments); 3.) from my professional/working experience, governmental organisations and linked companies/statutory boards are mostly served by SingNet/SingTel's network (which has always maintained and valued network stability and security). That is all. (PS: @Elle, if I were you, I would have just Semi-PP the articles, they'll move off once they find that they can't disrupt us anymore.) --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 22:03, 5 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Dave for explaining. It is beyond my control how Starhub gives IP address. I am not stealing bw if that's what u mean. In fact, I am having problems doing edits as I'm blocked from editing when I'm on a certain IP address. I have tried appealing but for some reason, it brought me to another IP address's talk page. So La goutte de pluie, I do not appreciate that you go around smearing and insinuating that I'm part of govt board doing damage control. Like I said earlier, if you cannot stay civil, don't edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.186.16.247 (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That seems very "convenient". StarHub almost never has quickly-changing addresses. Can you explain why you are such a special "customer"? Why are you quick to revert but slow to come to discussion boards? Why do you sometimes edit from government ministry addresses? That is a really weird IP-switching system. It's hard to imagine a system that could be any more "accidental". Elle _{vécut heureuse} ^{à jamais} (be free) 14:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Admin needed to block disruptive anon/IP user

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 31 hours. Horologium (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

At WQA, we are having a situation with a disruptive IP (24.177.120.138 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) who has engaged in edit-warring (in excess of 3RR), incivility, trolling, and other forms of problematic behavior which are exhausting practically everyone it appears to come into contact with. It has blanked all of the warnings and messages it has received on its talk page too. Accordingly, I am requesting an admin to block this IP from disrupting the project further. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

This isn't the correct place to report 3RR violations (which I contest, anyway.) It also would have been nice for User:Ncmvocalist to notify me at my talk page that he/she was requesting a block. I'd encourage reviewing admins to consider that I'm not obligated to keep warnings on my talk page, and there are no diffs provided for the allegations of "incivility" and "trolling". 24.177.120.138 (talk) 00:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have blocked the IP for 31 hours. Some of the comments left by the IP indicate that we are not dealing with a newbie, and the overall effect of the edits was disruptive. Horologium (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

• I have also revoked talk page access for the IP because of his insistent removal of relevant comments. He has threatened to take me to arbitration when his block expires; I suspect that the three blocks for disruptive editing since the IP's first edit in May of this year will result in ArbCom declining to hear the case. Horologium (talk) 01:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought the rule was that you could remove anything from your own talk page except for unblock notices while still under a block. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:31, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

He was removing comments left in response to his unblock request.(More specifically, a detailed list of the edits which resulted in his block, which were highly relevant to his unblock request). Horologium (talk) 12:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Inappropriate responses to socks

This ANI is being opened in order to call attention to recent responses to sockpuppetry in the A/I and I/P topic areas that are potentially disruptive or that run counter to the spirit of Wikipedia's policies. It's universally acknowledged that the A/I and I/P topic areas suffer more than any other topic area on Wikipedia from intense daily sockpuppet incursions into articles, discussion pages, and user talk pages. These socks vote at AfDs, edit war, provoke flame wars, and generally interfere with the healthy functioning of the Project. The problem, though, is that sometimes users' responses to sockpuppets can be nearly and even more disruptive. Below are some specific incidents:

Deleting Discussion page comments ([4])

It will sometimes happen that a sock will initiate a discussion parallel to a content dispute at an article. Another user will engage the sock under the impression that he's an innocent anonymous IP contributor. Later, though, certain clues will alert the registered user that the IP is a sock, whereupon he will delete all the comments, including his own. Meanwhile, though, the dialog will have attracted the involvement of other contributors such that deleting the preceding conversation interrupts the flow of the page.

A query at the Help Desk ([5]) suggested it may be best to simply leave the discussion intact.

Deleting or striking out Talk page comments ([6])

Other times the sock will be active at a user's Talk page – not necessarily posting vandalism in the strict sense, though WP:BAN does suggest that there's no difference. Ordinarily, users aren't supposed to edit each other's Talk pages beyond leaving comments on them. Can ordinary users edit the comments of socks at other users' Talk pages without the Talk page owner's consent?

Personally attacking socks ([7])

The worst problem is when a user will lash out at the sock with vituperative insults. In the case cited directly above, the attack was prior to the sock's formal conviction. Is it alright to personally attack a sock while an investigation into his identity is pending? Is it alright to personally attack a sock after his identity has been confirmed?—Biosketch (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If it's socks of blocked users you are talking about, they are of course not allowed to edit anywhere. I would remove threads started by such users also. In your example above, the only one to respond to the discussion started by the sock, was the person who ultimately removed the whole thread. I don't see a problem with that. Of course, when multiple people have answered, it is often better to not remove the thread.

As for the personal attacks, of course it's not alright to attack socks, per WP:NPA, whether it is before or after confirming their identity. I hardly consider calling someone compulsive and unethical an attack though. It's certainly not the nicest thing to say, but unless it was a completely baseless assertion, we generally don't have such a low threshold for invoking WP:NPA.--Atlan (talk) 07:37, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

It's unfortunate that I may need to move Biosketch to my naughty list of the many editors in the I-P conflict topic area who apparently seek to protect and facilitate the actions of sockpuppets that do so much damage to the proper functioning of the topic area through the use of deception. As I tried to explain on my talk page, there is in my view a rather important difference between objective evidence based statements of fact using terminology that conveys accurate information and evidence-less derogatory personal attacks. There is also a difference between the set of legitimate contributors here to build an encyclopedia based on policy and banned users who cannot be here and cannot do or say anything and a difference between legitimate editing and meatpuppeting for sockpuppets. It seems to me that Biosketch cannot recognise when I make personal attacks probably because I don't make them. They would look quite different from the entirely accurate comment I made on Nableezy's page. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Am I wrong in thinking that the examples Biosketch gave are all about socks supporting one side of the I-P conflict? DeCausa (talk) 09:02, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

@SH: Although I agree with what you are getting at, the tone of the comment was close enough to a middle finger that you shouldn't do it. It only served to foster the battlefield mentality and bait the guy. If another editor raised an eyebrow at it, it shows that it caused some unneeded waves. Consider ow much easier it would have been if you would have not made the comment at all. Getting a lecture on decorum from me. Yeah, that must be getting a snicker.Cptnono (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Unneeded waves indeed. This is making a mountain out of a mole hill and is way too much attention Ledenierhomme deserves.--Atlan (talk) 09:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

@DeCausa, the particular sock (Ledenierhomme) that I made a comment about cannot be characterized as simply as supporting one side of the I-P conflict. They have broad areas of interest, part of which involves advocating on behalf of the State of Israel, but that is really neither here nor there. A sock is a sock. @Cptnono, a lecture on decorum from you is fine. I take your point but I disagree. What I do in the topic area can't depend on Biosketch's eyebrow movements. I considered simply deleting the sock's comment immediately since it was clearly cynically made to influence a discussion about the overturning of the unjustified indef blocking of an editor who had identified the sock and had them blocked on several occasions. I decided to leave it be, provide context and contact an admin to implement a range block. I've done it again for the same sock since then. This guy will not stop unless everyone helps to make him stop. I'm not fostering a battlefield mentality. Like many others in the topic area, he already has a battlefield mentality. I'm not a combatant in a battle, I'm an editor trying to stop sockpuppetry, one of the main catalysts for conflict and disruption in the topic area. Sean.hoyland - talk 09:52, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

BioSketch; nothing there looks problematic, simply normal responses to socks. What specific administrative action are you requesting? (otherwise this should probably be closed for WP:DENY reasons, no need to give these socks another platform) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:24, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree - these are standard responses to sockpuppets. It's standard practice to remove material added by socks in order to discourage them from returning under a new account (as by removing the material it means they've wasted their time writing it). Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

@ErrantX (talk · contribs), the lack of names in my original message was deliberate: no action is being sought against a particular editor. Perhaps I ought to have mentioned that a Talk page discussion preceded the filing of the ANI here. I felt that I and another contributor weren't seeing eye-to-eye vis-a-vis Wikipedia's policies and brought the matter to this noticeboard for Admin input to avoid unnecessary friction. (Appealing to RfC did occur to me, but that process is intended for resolving content disputes, not policy ones, and anyway the issue involved more than just a single incident or a single editor and seemed to me to have wider implications.) If the bottom line is that it's fine to delete or strike out comments made by socks, regardless of the circumstances, and that calling a sock "compulsive" and "unethical" doesn't constitute a derogatory comment, then I'll raise no objection to this ANI being closed.—Biosketch (talk) 03:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

@DeCausa (talk · contribs), I don't know the answer to your question. I've become somewhat familiar with the Drork sock owing to a number of articles and discussions he's contributed to lately where I was also involved, but I'm not acquainted with the one that left the comment on Nableezy's Talk page. If you're concerned that I'm pursuing this ANI because of bias on my part, even though I don't agree the concern is valid WP:COI may require that I disclose that, for reasons that are too complex to get into here, I do have certain sympathies toward Kurdish people and some of their separatist struggles against the Turks, Syrians and Iraqis. I only mention this because the sock at Nableezy's page edited from an IP in Kurdistan (or at least that's what I remember someone saying; the WHOIS places him in North America, so maybe I've gotten mixed up). But if this had been an anti-Israel sock, I think I'd be protesting with equal vigor. Understand, it isn't just the fact that it's a sock being called names and having his comments deleted from a user's Talk page. I think that personal attacks should have no place on Wikipedia no matter what the circumstances are. And if an anti-Israel sock were to leave a comment on my Talk page, then yes, I would like to be the one to decide how to address him and not have a random editor with a personal vendetta to settle come and make changes to my Talk page without consulting me first.—Biosketch (talk) 04:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

@Atlan (talk · contribs), thank you for the succinct reply. Actually, upon further contemplation, I can kind of see how calling a sock "compulsive" and "unethical" would not qualify as a personal attack (although those words do still meet my threshold for "Derogatory comments," a la WP:NPA): a sock is by definition unethical, and one who makes repeated and frequent appearances over an extended period is demonstrating compulsive behavior. That matter aside, however, I do have one other question. When you say you would remove threads started by socks of banned users, does that mean they must be removed? If one editor demands that comments by a sock be removed from a discussion but another editor insists that they remain, does policy favor the demand of the first editor?—Biosketch (talk) 04:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I said blocked users, not banned. There is difference. Anyway, just try to apply WP:DENY with some common sense and this should never be an issue.--Atlan (talk) 15:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

@Sean.hoyland (talk · contribs), as the user who was instrumental in facilitating my transition from an IP editor to a registered account back in the Mairead Corrigan days, your perspective matters to me. You are the one who instilled in me the importance of deferring to what WP:RSes say even when one's own intuition instructs one otherwise. That's been a valuable principle that continues to guide my contributions to the Project. So when you say I'm in danger of slipping into your Naughty list, I don't dismiss that criticism lightly, even though sometimes it's a sentiment that's also worked the other way, I have to admit. But if you think that soliciting advice from Admins when there is reasonable fear that Wikipedia policies are being undermined is naughty, then perhaps you need to consider that your Naughty system is flawed. I don't think you're approaching this issue from the right angle. There's no question that socks shouldn't be editing or otherwise influencing the edits of other contributors. You seem to have formed the impression that I condone sockpuppetry, though I have been nothing but unequivocal in my condemnation of it. But look what happened at Majdal Shams. The sock made a comment on the Discussion page, another user replied to him assuming good faith, and the end result was that the Etymology section was changed by registered users in good standing – that is to say, the article was improved. In a case like that, why delete the conversation that started it all from the Discussion page? Wouldn't it make more sense to have it there for future reference? And like I asked User:DeCausa, if a sock leaves a comment on my Talk page, shouldn't I get to decide what becomes of it once it's already there? Lastly, on the matter of the personal attack, your explanation wasn't clear on your Talk page. It sounded more like it was issuing from a place of vindictiveness than from Wikipedia policy. Not every sock is compulsive. You can't expect me to have known the Nableezy sock's psychological profile like that. And regarding the "unethical" comment, you should have just said that socking is ipso facto unethical, in which case pointing out that it's unethical was merely stating the obvious.—Biosketch (talk) 04:20, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

If an editor is actually banned (not merely blocked), then any edits made by that editor since the ban are subject to removal on-sight, as per this:[8] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

BLP violation on Lorraine Williams

76.185.142.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) made a series of edits that introduced a massive WP:BLP violation to the article Lorraine Williams. I reverted the change with the explanation that this violated a policy, but the IP user reverted my change.[9] They posted an explanation for these edits to their user page, but I don't think this excuses this action. 108.69.80.43 (talk) 11:55, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I reverted it on the grounds of editorializing. If the IP persists, semi-protection of the article might also be called for. See WP:RFPP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:18, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Does the user talk page comment infringe on BLP at all? I have no idea what he's talking about so I can't judge. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:27, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

There's something about scalps and trophies, which sounds like BLP editorializing. I've asked for semi-protection of the page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:46, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Err, who is 76.185.142.155 and why are they so upset?; Shared IP addresses can make things interesting, but the details seem useful to add to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.142.155 (talk) 12:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Edits that consist of undocumented accusations of destruction of property & an unflattering nickname, while "interesting," are not allowed on Wikipedia. We're not a smear rag. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The POG thing (which sounds like insider-gossip) is in the prevous version of the article, merely in a footnote and apparently sourced; but moving that to the lead, along with the unsourced stuff about trophies and such (which also sounds like insider-gossip) seems to be strictly POV-pushing and editorializing on the part of the IP. Once the article is protected and/or the IP is blocked, it should be safe to revert the IP's junk out of the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:08, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protected for two weeks. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 15:09, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. Much of this came up at presentations at a game convention where there was significant discussion about how the nickname POG did not have the connotations or denotations that it had picked up over the years. The material on trophy taking is something that Lorraine has exhibited a great deal of pride in, and her collection of trophies occupies a prominent place (or did) in her office.

The purging of TSR, both of artwork and of the detritus that was left behind is an historical incident, and one that has a great deal of discussion.

However, there are some good points made about the POV. From one perspective, trophy taking can be seen as negative, rather than a triumph. There are a number of people who would prefer that the nick name POG be kept, not as one more trophy, but instead as the other meanings it has picked up over the years.

The interaction between the purging, the material that was recovered, and the various auctions of historical memoriabilia that tie into it may be important for collectors, but may be very vulnerable to POV issues since some people see it as a clean sweep and others as vandalism. That could call for a more neutral approach and a rewrite.

As a result, much of this not insider gossip, but a response to industry gossip and the recent interest various historical events have drawn due to the attention they have been getting with the emergence over the past 5-6 years of a considerable market in D&D source documents and such.

Even responding to industry slang and terminology, and even discussions of the historical event, the artwork and other matters that were recovered, and how those ended up in auctions may (a) not belong in this part of the wiki and (b) if they do, would require edits for POV issues.

There is a massive amount of source material in the discussions at The Acaneum, along with the auction documents and authenticity issues.

Locking the topic for two weeks might well solve much of this, especially since the poster has stated that if there was disagreement, he was dropping out of providing content. Seems he would rather quit than object to what appears to be censorship and restrictions on knowledge, in spite of the well founded concerns. Perhaps he can not appreciate the difference.

A couple weeks and then it can be said what others have to say on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.202.222.1 (talk) 18:21, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Reverting to the BLP-violating version after two weeks does not sound like a good idea. You can discuss this on the article's talk page instead, if you prefer. 129.33.19.254 (talk) 19:16, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

The above verges on violating BLP, and the BLP-violating information is still on the IP user's Talk page. Isn't anybody going to remove it? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

An admin should (1) remove all the editor's BLP violations; (2) semi-protect the user's talk page; (3) block the user for a suitable interval. UNLESS the IP voluntarily removes all his BLP-violations ASAP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:03, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

You are mistaken. I have no intent on reverting any page to any status after two weeks, as I said, I'm done with the topic. In addition, since the response to the allegation of BLP violations apparently is a violation, I've deleted my response to the notice that was on the user page. Is there a place that responding to the accusations is appropriate? Apparently not where the notice is posted, and not here, where there is a discussion, not by me, not by others I've discussed it with (who don't agree with me completely as noted in the comments above).

Otherwise, this was started by complaints from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:129.33.19.254 -- note the history there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.142.155 (talk) 03:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Simply put, you have to provide a reliable source for the statements to avoid the BLP violation. "I heard it at a convention presentation" isn't going to qualify. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please, help!

I don't know is this the right place, but here it is. I have a problem with user Nedim Ardoğa regarding the List of campaigns of Suleiman the Magnificent. Now, this problem can be seen as a "Content dispute", but it isn't. IMO, we are talking here about WP:OWN and WP:DISRUPTPOINT. Now, all of mine 'good faith' is now 'gone with the wind', and I need professional help from Administrators. From the first day when I started editing this article (I left him a message on his talk page and the article didn't have any inline citations), I was constantly "sabotaged", although I informed user of any significant changes (edits, Peer review, changes and submission to FL). I have removed almost everything from the article which he has asked me on the talk page. I also left the article some time without any edits from my side (I only used talk page for discussion). On the talk page, his answer was this, and he left me editing. After I have informed user of submission to FL, he started edit war, IMO only to disrupt possible FL status of this article. Now, I am frustrated! What should I do? I can't solve this even with the quality sources, per his reply on the talk page "...But we should be careful with the sources. They are not always reliable..." Please, can somebody look the talk page of this article, and give me some solution to this problem. All my talk has no effect, and while I am trying to improve the article the best I can, he is acting like an administrator who approves some of mine edits, and deleting unacceptable ones (per his opinion, not per sources). He is acting as the owner of this particular article, and he disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point (I guess that I should have asked for his permission to start editing, since just notifying him wasn't sufficient). Now, I am long on Wikipedia, but this is mine first encounter with 'Administrators' noticeboard', so please excuse me if I have made any procedural errors while doing this complaint. Thanks. --Kebeta (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

First thing, no, you have not made any procedural errors when bringing this issue here. Secondly, without reviewing the various histories of the article(s) or the user talkpage, it appears that you have not exhausted Wikipedia:Dispute resolution processes; you may suggest Wikipedia:Mediation in the dispute, or request a Wikipedia:Third opinion, both to try and initiate a resolution between the two of you editors, or you might try a Wikipedia:Request for comment at the article talkpage to try and get further third party opinion on the validity of your edits and the removal of same by the other party. Only when dispute resolution is either exhausted or when one party does not follow the consensus arrived at during the dispute resolution process should Admin intervention be considered - because admins cannot act to resolve content disputes, but only conduct concerns. Until it becomes apparent to other, uninvolved, parties that there are WP:OWNership issues, or other possible policy and guideline violations, there is little admins can do (except where such actions are obvious abuse). I hope this helps. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:07, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks LessHeard for your reply, but the user showed all "Signs of disruptive editing" per WP:DE. I acted exactly per instructions on WP:DDE.

• 1. First unencyclopedic entry by what appears to be a disruptive editor - I assumed good faith and I didn't attack the author.
• 2. If editor unreverts - none sourced information did appear from his side, yet he reverted. I ensured that a clear explanation for the difference in opinion is posted at the article talkpage.
• 3. If the reverting continues, and they are inserting unsourced information - he continues reverting the article with only his opinion as a tool (with no sourced information whatsoever), nevertheless I suggested a compromises at the talkpage and showed will for discussion. BTW, he openly speaks of this article as his own and. After I stoped editing, and only tryed to solve the problem, he refused. After I start editing and made the submission to FL, he started again. Per this final point, I reverted and requested an administrator help via this ANI.--Kebeta (talk) 22:12, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If this was a content dispute, I am sure that he would discuss the problem thru the end, as that is in his interest. Also it's interesting that he mostly engaged in slow edit war at two occasions: when I made a request at peer review, and when I made submission to FL. Now, if he continues, I guess he will get what he want - to disrupt progress toward improving an article (FL in this case) and maybe drive me away from this (his) article. Thanks anyway for your time!--Kebeta (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

As I said, I have not reviewed the article history in depth so I do not know if the page is habitually edited by other contributors. What I am suggesting is that you ensure that this is not an issue between two editors, but a question of compliance with editing guidelines by bringing in other viewpoints. Requesting a RfC is an obvious way of garnering more opinions and, if this then stops being a struggle between two people, may lead to an agreement on how future editing may be conducted. Only when this or a similar approach has failed to resolve the issue should the matter be brought here, because the only think an admin can do that other editors cannot is block an account or protect the article - and doing so as a first resort may aggravate a party to a degree that they evade the block to continue their behaviours. It is unfortunate that good faith editors are required to exhaust such options before a possible bad faith account can be dealt with. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Thanks LessHeard, I will request a RfC if he continues (which may be tomorrow or in a month). I do hope that he will present some sources than, instead of his opinion only. Anyway, I do not wish you to block this editor or to protect the article, I only wish to continue normal editing. Thanks for help!--Kebeta (talk) 15:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Zurich

User:TomZH3030 is constantly edit warring using sockpuppets. mgeo talk 18:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I notice User:TomZH3030 has already been blocked by an admin. As to the possibility of sockpuppetry, that should be handled at WP:SPI. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone block 95.178.250.68, he is clearly a sockpuppet of TomZH3030, see [10] and [11]. He also edited with the IP adress 95.178.250.35 ([12]). Regards. mgeo talk 20:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If there's an admin lurking about, it looks like this is all coming from one /17 IP range. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't do rangeblocks but I've semi-protected for 2 weeks. MLauba ^(Talk) 10:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible Disruptive Editing Patterns by User: Hoops gza

Partially Re-Listed from a Previous Posting Now Archived

Can an administrator review the situation I outlined in this post [13] regarding User:Hoops gza? This is a tricky situation as the user has done nothing wrong on purpose, but the editing habits are heading in a bad direction. The most serious of which appears to be possible dozens of images uploaded with misleading or incorrect tags. I brought this matter up on the user's talk page with no response, so I am bringing it up here. I stress this is not an attack against the user, just concern for the behavior. -OberRanks (talk) 00:45, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks like OCD or some other behavioral disorder. Might fall under WP:COMPETENCE, but less-drastic steps should be taken before admins step in (unless one wants to, of course). Since no admin commented, here are some suggestions. You might want to try a WP:WQA first for difficult communications regarding the edit summaries and see if that can poke the user in the right direction, or a WP:RFC/U. WP:CCI handles copyright problems with the image uploads and might wake up the editor. Sorry to put you off to other boards, but since it does not appear to be at an admin-intervention level yet, this might offer some help at least. --64.85.217.213 (talk) 03:07, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

It's leading to the editor into violating WP:3RR. We definitely need some admin intervention here. I agree with OberRanks that some mentoring needs to be offered to Hoops gza before something else happens. I definitely think it is an unfamiliarity issue considering some of the comments he made in response to the 3RR notice - The only reason that multiple reverts were made was because you made multiple edits. - this clearly points to a complete misunderstanding of how Wikipedia operates. I just want to get the article back to FA status, the topic is too important to let it languish - but the article isn't going to improve by itself. Ajh1492 (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

My main concern is that the user will eventually get a lengthy block through a misunderstanding of a key policy. Right now, we have edit summaries with no descriptions, page moves with no consensus, possible copyvios on several uploaded images, and the beginnings of edit war and 3RR violations. I think someone needs to step in and reign HG in before something happens which requires more serious action. -OberRanks (talk) 22:36, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

I did put a post up on WikiProject_Poland to see if a volunteer mentor will step forward. Ajh1492 (talk) 22:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Has that user indicated a willingness to seek a mentor, or join a discussion? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 01:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The editor in question has not indicated any willingness as to being under a mentor; I do agree with OberRanks and Ajh1492 that some direction/guidance from a higher power may be in order. Kierzek (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There doesn't appear to be much interest by administrators so maybe that will help. I for one am amazed that the uploaded images with possible false licensing tags hasn't drawn a lot more attention. I guess at this stage, its all been reported and anything further would look like we are "picking on" HG or posting just to get him in trouble. That's not my motive here, so I will leave it at that. -OberRanks (talk) 01:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

IP personal attacks

An IP, 82.41.92.182 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has been attacking me (see [14] & [15]) in response to my reverting his vandalism. He also attacked Thecheesykid after he also reverted. ([16]) Would an admin please take appropriate action? WikiPuppies! (bark) 00:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

WikiPuppies (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) You have still failed to provide any evidence that this is vandalism. Your itchy edit finger has put you in the wrong, now you are attempting to abuse a biased disciplinary system to cover up your own mistake. These 'attacks' as you call them, were a request for such justification. Way to propagate the stereotype of totalitarian information control. "Wikipedia : The encyclopaedia any mindless puppet with no sense of individuality can edit" more like.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.92.182 (talk • contribs) 00:29, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps if you'd bothered providing a reference, a link, or something to show the actual team name, instead of just snapping out "you fascists" because your unreferenced edit got reverted, this conversation would be unnecessary. Dong ma? --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Please read this page before 'requesting justification'. WikiPuppies! (bark) 00:35, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced edit got reverted to another UNREFERENCED EDIT. As I originally stated, if I had been asked for a citation instead of met with this arrogant wall of superiority, maybe this discussion would not be necessary. And do you even understand what an attack is? I've said nothing offensive or degrading, I have merely remarked upon your actions. If I was to say "hey, you're an idiot" That would be an attack. Observing that your uncompromising approach to a situation regarding information you have no grounding in is akin to that of a totalitarian government? That is just relaying an opinion. But hey, you guys obviously have no interest in considering evidence. Crying to administrative boards because you screwed up. And I no longer have any interest in attempting to contribute to a farce of a community that operates on a shoot-first-never-ask-questions policy. So I guess everyone wins here. Oh, apart from those wanting accurate information. But I guess no one really cares about them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.41.92.182 (talk) 00:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

...Leaving a NPA warning. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, attacks are more than what you gave as an example. Things like 'fascist' are enough to be considered attacks on Wikipedia. Again, please read this page before replying. WikiPuppies! (bark) 01:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikipuppies - The IP editor does have somewhat of a point. WP:BITE applies here, in that several people including you seem to have assumed bad faith rather than ask them politely for a citation.

I agree that the contribution makes me skeptical, but unless it is clearly vandalism (and this one is not, imho), you're supposed to constructively try and engage first.

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm on Dare 2011, there is no "Team Stupid Head" nor anyone developing games for the Atari Jaguar. I'll add the citation to the press release with the team details and if Captain BadEdit keeps at it I'll keep fixing his clearly deliberate attempts at trolling. Hyperspacey (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Just to make doubly clear, I think this editor needs to be singled out for particular special treatment for both making "bad faith" edits and trying to make a scene by claiming he's some poor, put-upon Wikipedia martyr. Hyperspacey (talk) 18:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Paul Revere and Sarah Palin

Talk:Paul Revere currently has an edit notice stating that anyone discussing Sarah Palin will be warned and/or blocked. Was there a consensus for this anywhere? Kelly ^hi! 00:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Can we please leave the content discussion at the article page and stick to the meta-discussion and admin stuff here? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Better still, why are you removing sourced material from the Paul Revere page and making claims that "Sarah Palin was right" on the Talk page? The removal of sourced material(1,2,[17],4) is an obvious attempt to make it seem as if Revere was 'warning' the British, when in fact by every reliable source in the article he was "bluffing the British" and trying to direct them away from Lexington, and more precisely away from Whig leaders Hancock and Adams. Which was part of one of his missions. I quote from the source in this article. “ Paul Revere had a particular objection in mind.Everything, without exception, that he said and did to his captors was consistent with a single goal. He was trying to move there men away from Lexington - away from Hancock and Adams. Revere had reason to believe that the mission of the patrol was to arrest those two Whig leaders. He warned the British officers that if they remained in the vicinity of Lexington Green, they also would be in extreme danger, and he hinted that the expedition coming after them could start a war unless it was warned of the trouble that awaited them at Lexington center. In fact, trouble was gathering for them in many places that night, but Revere stressed only one place in particular-Lexington, where he had left Hancock. and Adams. It was a remarkable performance. The soldiers listened carefully to Paul Revere, increasingly quiet and pensive. Then they withdrew' a little way and began to talk among themselves. Suddenly they returned to Revere, and ordered him to mount. Another officer went to the captive Sanderson, who remembered that they "ordered me to untie my horse (which was tied to a little birch) and mount." ” There was absolutely no valid reason to remove the sourced material, other than it contradicting the version of events being currently propagated by those sympathetic to Sarah Palin. Dave Dial (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(ec)Oh, God - here we go again, wikistalked. I'm not asking administrators to rule on any Sarah Palin-related content, I'm merely asking if there's a new consensus or policy about this particular article because I can't find it if there is. If there is, a note should probably be added to the Palin article probation. Kelly ^hi! 01:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've left a note for Master of Puppets (who added the edit notice) about this ANI thread, and commented as well on his talk page that I think the edit notice goes beyond policy in what admins are allowed to do.

Blocking people for participating in a discussion, even an annoying discussion, would be very different than merely closing or archiving a particular discussion that got disruptive to the point of needing intervention.

The latter is well known, if fairly rare. The former is ... unique, or at least very unusual without significant warning and discussion about the problem posed.

I am temporarily disabling the edit notice until this discussion has a chance to percolate here a bit.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

People have been removing comments on that talk page too. It's all very WP:BITEy. :-/ --Kim Bruning (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

That's what happens when politics gets involved...no matter the article topic. Pol•i•tics n. Etymology: Poli-, from the Latin for "many"; -tics, small bloodsucking parasites. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 02:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Jay Leno said that, and probably others as well. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC) (Restoring comment deleted probably due to an edit conflict.) --64.85.214.168 (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The edit warring has yet to even cause a 3RR violation, so it looks rather frivolous to bring to ANI. The edits being reverted aren't really of vandalism, but of POV issues, which aren't exemptions. Violations such as removal of content on the talk page can and should be reported and dealt with here, but this is pretty boring edit warring if the modern political figure were removed from the situation. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 02:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC) (Restoring comment deleted probably due to an edit conflict.) --64.85.214.168 (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't quite think this is an IAR case, George (mind if I call you George?). Excessive commentary on what is essentially a bunch of remarks made by a celebrity is pop-culture stuff that's more well-suited to a community that deals in that sort of stuff, and not an educational resource such as Wikipedia. In large amounts, it's disruption of normal proceedings. I mean, I'm aware that Paul Revere isn't the most hotly-debated topic and doesn't receive that much traffic normally, but the edit notice was meant to set a warning for those who come to the page with the intent of arguing or debating, not for people who just want to discuss Revere. That way, if they go ahead, we can take further steps to avoid disruption, instead of having to warn every single user.

I did speak with a few colleagues over the matter, and we thought it was an acceptable idea. Again, I don't intend to block everything that moves - I'd just like to set a little reminder that any ir-Revere-nt content (see what I did there? No? Tough crowd?) should not be placed on a talk page.

More on this on Kim Bruning's talk page. Cheers, m.o.p 03:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You can call me George, yes. That's my name, and I'm sticking with it.

I agree that it's a misuse of the talk page, and that it's appropriate to do something about it. But this sort of off topic thread is something that we routinely tolerate or deal with using much less drastic responses than threatening to block people. It's not the reaction that's troubling, but the overreaction.

At least we're all able to laugh about the situation - you should join my upcoming Vegas comedy tour. Now if only I had a hotel or comedy club booked to perform at... ;-)

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you aware that "George" was once a common nickname for a train porter? As in, "Hey, George, carry this trunk for me." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:57, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This cash-deprived student finds it hard to commute ten minutes without breaking the bank, let alone to Vegas. Maybe next time! And I'll leave it up to consensus - though I find it appropriate to lay out a fair warning, if others see it as an overreaction I'll definitely defer to their judgment. m.o.p 05:13, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

“ The argument over whether Sarah Palin was misinformed about the historical facts of Paul Revere’s ride has moved to where bar bets go to be settled: Wikipedia.New York Times, June 6, 2011 ”

Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Good thing a lot of Wikipedia admins watch Colbert. XD —GFOLEY FOUR— 03:59, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Jasonstackhouse.com legal threat

Threat to sue editors here and here by Divinhighbird. Article currently CSD'd and the creator made several blatant personal attacks on the talk as well.--NortyNort (Holla) 03:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• I blocked them indefinitely. That was some foul language. That article, I deleted it before as a hoax, borderline vandalism. Drmies (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I found his grammar and spelling to be entirely amusing, with interesting rhythmic devices that seemed to counterpoint the surrealism of the underlying metaphor...so there were at least a couple of redeeming features. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Bwilkins, that is a very astute reading. It's original research and as such we can't allow it in article space, but you have a future as an English major. I'm going to give you a sticker, on your talk page. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I guess there is some good to everything. The creator even made their own blog entry with the text, citing "Wilipedia" in the title as the reason they were making it; to disprove a hoax.--NortyNort (Holla) 12:55, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Good block - and a hilarious read. Their only other edit, a deleted item on Deion Sanders, makes clear their intentions on the project. I think we're done here. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 18:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I love "deformation of character" - obviously a flexible chap -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

OK, the full quote, "delete the post, and have your non profit company get ready for a deformation of character/minority subjective, and racially specific law suite filed. Please delete this, I dare, you." No one has dared yet. But I just have to ask this: Is it technically a legal threat if the guy doesn't speak English and might just be reading from the Hungarian Phrase Book? "law suite" sounds like something they might put on sale at the furniture store. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what a law suite is, but I hope the documents will be made public and include many grafts and statistices for our edifaction. I like visual AIDS. Doniago (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

These suites look pretty nice. This character looks fairly deformated. Meanwhile, somewhere, Norm Crosby's ears are burning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:01, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of how he was the CEO of his blog. Can I be the Senior Executive Vice President in Charge of Canadian Operations for Wikipedia? Resolute 20:09, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

You've got my vote, eh! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I hereby appoint myself to the office of Minister of Special Projects and Second Liege of the Wikipedia Shadow Council. Doniago (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Problems at Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand)

We have a persistent IP editor, User:24.187.8.149, at Talk:Ayn Rand who seems to be doing nothing but spewing personal insults and allegations of bad faith, and has failed to offer constructive suggestions despite repeated prodding from other editors, including myself. This has gone on for about two weeks now. I will also note that Objectivism related pages are also under an ArbCom ruling, WP:RANDARB, which specifically enjoins admins to help ensure a productive, civil editing environment there. As such, at this point I think a 24 hour block is in order. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The article in question is in fact Talk:Objectivism (Ayn Rand). Paul B (talk) 09:22, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Right, I'm a moron. Sorry :/ TallNapoleon (talk) 09:36, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a number of different 24.* IPs which are too far apart to rangeblock. (Different /16 ranges). They look to be the same person. In my opinion, the only admin action that would do any good would be semiprotection of the talk page for some period of time, say one month. If the IP wants to continue theorizing about Ayn Rand they should create an account. WP:NOTFORUM. EdJohnston (talk) 13:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

But this isn't theorizing about Ayn Rand, the IP is engaged in a content dispute about the article's tone. His/her own tone is careless and insulting, so a warning or block is fitting. There's no need (yet) to semi-protect the talk page. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Perpetual Mediation freezing an article in place for 14 months

This nonsense has imo gone far enough. I'd like to bring up the issue of the perpetual RfM on the Draža Mihailović article. Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Draza Mihailovic was started on 6 April 2010, exactly 14 months ago. While I will not here go into the reasons behind the length of the mediation, its failure is, in my opinion - self-evident. The mediation is incapable of drawing any conclusions or of any dispute resolution. Its only product was an article draft written by one user - unfortunately since no agreement whatsoever has been reached on the actual dispute, this draft has virtually nothing to do with mediation, and will certainly not solve any disagreement (which is already all too obvious). While I am sure users will claim that the mediation is "nearing its end", I must point out that this is what was repeatedly claimed several times months ago. And indeed, even were the mediation closed right now perforce, it still would not solve anything, and will have failed anyway.
It is hard to express how utterly useless and pointless the mediation really is: the actual dispute is not even being discussed, and actively avoiding the main issues (the "difficult areas") is the actual policy of the mediator(!)

Realizing that I might well finish medical school before the mediation makes even the most insignificant progress, I withdrew months ago, did the research, gathered the sources, and expanded the article lead with a carefully referenced lead paragraph (see the second paragraph in the lead and its sources, here). I must emphasize that every word of the text in question has been referenced with secondary sources of the highest quality (university publications), and its veracity is essentially beyond any serious dispute. Now, however, the paragraph is being continuously removed by the admin User:Sunray, solely on the grounds of "No major changes until the mediation is completed." [18].

Now, reading WP:M I struggle to find where exactly is it explained how an RfM and its mediator, are empowered to edit-war and remove any changes at will, without any coherent explanation, sources, or even a talkpage post? And even if this is the mediator's perrogative (which I am certain it is not), since the mediation started the article in question has been edited beyond recognition - and only the recent edit, the addition of a single paragraph, is being subjected to double standards and apparantly constitutes "major changes". The edit is now essentially being edit-warred out of the article by the mediator.

Could it be that an RfM has the authority to effectively freeze an article in place for no less that 14 months, and is it possible that the mediator gets to pick and choose which edits (by non-involved editors) are "allowed" in the article. This feels to me like I'm being bullied. In any case, more admin attention is undoubtedly required on the recent happenings in that damnable article.

(P.S. Bear in mind User:FkpCascais, my "arch-nemesis", is likely to stalk me over here and attempt to disrupt this discussion.) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 09:28, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• First, the mediation has found much difficulties, correct, however every offer of discussion assistance has been provided to you by the mediator (User:Sunray) who has been more patient with you than with anyone else. Even so, you rejected participating further in the mediation. The mediation is actually coming to a closure. Is that the reson of some aprehension on your side? Anyway, I don´t see any reason whatsoever for you to proclaim unilateraly the mediation as a failure.
• Second, it is important to remind all here that the version "frouzen" was actually the one that you mostly edited, and that was so much disputed by the side against you (should we go to the edit history to check it?). Is all this recent panic actually because you are about to see "your" version replaced by the mediated one?
• Third, all mediation participants (including you) agreed that during the time of the mediation duration, no major changes were to be done on the articles in place. As I remember you so enthusistically reverted every single user on that article that made edits you disliked (even sourced and correct). Now, for some strange reason you find yourself with the unique right to edit it. Wrong. Clear WP:OWN.
• Fourth, you actually edit warred on the main mediated article the mediator itself!
• Fifth, you got me sanctioned recently [19], without a notice about the report (something you often do), and where you manipulated so much the administrator that he didn´t even noteced that you broked the 3RR: [[20]]. I really hope someone corrects this situation.
• Sixth, you give up mediation, and you try to push the precise diputed edits which you refuse to discuss under mediation. Either you discuss them under mediation, either they are disruption and POV pushing. Other users refrained to edit the articles until the discussion is complete, so should you. You even tryied to convence me (!?) to leave the mediation [21]
• Seventh, it is incredible to notece how you are even unaware that you fail under BRD on the edit war you are doing against the mediator. You push the dit, you are revrted, and you edit war and ask Sunray to discuss?

Here is just another exemple of your recent behavior: revert with prejurative edit summary, and the discussion afterwords. Similar or identical pattern is seen everywhere DIREKTOR has a dispute, however he just slowed down in this case because he is counting on Timbouctou for support in some other edits, so he just backed down. However, this is a tipical exemple of blatant disruption where, without that users intervention, DIREKTOR would have created nonsensical eternal discussions making all possible (and impossible) claims, allways reverting to his version.

Resumingly, he leaves mediation that actually started because of his edits, he edit wars everyone who oposes him including the mediator, he blatantly missinforms admins on reports including failing to provide noteces (me and Sunray previous reports are clear exemples), and he refuses to put his edits trough mediation, beside the fact that he clearly disrupts the mediation. I mean, what else? FkpCascais (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• Hm, well the "No major changes until the mediation is completed" edit summary was a bit of a joke (not the funny kind), as I quite frankly don't see much mediating going on. A 14-month mediation would be kind of absurd even it was an active discussion, but it appears that that page has only seen minor fits and starts in the time period. 3 of the 8 parties are inactive, a 4th has withdrawn, IMO it is time to mark the mediation as failed and move on. Tarc (talk) 12:41, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
  • To be clear, this is not a complaint against User:Sunray specifically. In my opinion the mediation was focusing too much on user agreement and too little on the facts and sources, as I pointed out several times: one cannot solve a factual dispute without promoting a careful adherence to references. I do not doubt, however, that Sunray's actions were in good faith, and his commitment to this issue is beyond admiration. I guess it is possible to be "too good" of a Wikipedian to solve a dispute, however. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• The Mediation Committee is considering this complaint, and will respond when we reach a consensus. For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 14:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that the admin User:Sunray is still edit-warring to remove the paragraph [22], this time with no stated reason (as opposed to "no major changes until the mediation is completed"). The text in question is sourced completely and in detail. It is the result of literally months of work on my part: I researched the matter, found the sources, and inserted the information quoted almost verbatim from high-quality references. Now it is being removed for no reason; I cannot imagine what has posessed Sunray. I invite anyone to check the sources (the second lead paragraph). --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Again, missinforming. The main problem is not your source (you repetitively use just 2 sources that favour your POV and ignore all the others), but it is a matter of WP:UNDUE. You are refusing to go trough a mediated discussion where that can be solved. A non-mediated discussion with you has been prooven as useless every time in the past. Only a mediated discussion can solve this. The situation is crystal clear. FkpCascais (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I am using two sources, among the best ones available, which is more than enough. One source is enough. There are no "other sources" I am ignoring, because most other sources agree with the two, and NO other sources disagree. Your acting as though there are these mysterious "other sources" which support you is getting rather ridiculous. You have been asked time and time again to post anything, anything at all. You just keep acting. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 17:51, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't usually comment at ANI during a mediation, but since DIREKTOR left the mediation following his topic ban and is now making many accusations, I will clarify one point: I do not edit war. I did restore the stable version of the article (reverting DIREKTOR's major addition). The tags on the article clearly caution editors as follows: "Before making substantial changes, please verify on the case page that your edit does not relate to the dispute being mediated." DIREKTOR'S addition did relate to the issues under mediation and he did not discuss it. An edit war seemed to be brewing over this, so the article has now been locked. Sunray (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, you must certainly be aware that such a moratorium has no basis in policy, and there is no way you can enforce it from on high if it's not kept voluntarily. You were edit-warring, and went right to 3R. One more, and 3RR would have been held against you, just like with any other editor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:47, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As a personal comment, I have to agree with Future Perfect that it was unseemly for Sunray to try to enforce the parameters of a formal mediation case by reversion. Formal mediation is never binding, and members of the Mediation Committee have almost no authority to force the parties to a case to respect any consensus, or even to abstain from editing the article pending discussion or an agreement. I do understand why Sunray reverted Direktor today. The edits by Direktor were grossly disruptive, because consensus for or against his view is very plainly still being formed, and to jump the gun by revert-warring is unprofessional. But I cannot condone the actions of anybody concerned here, and confess myself somewhat disappointed. On a practical note, I have protected the article indefinitely, pending some kind of consensus being reached, because I do not imagine that this kind of behaviour will not be repeated. I think the best way forward now would be for the mediator and all the parties to return, calmly, to the mediation page and pick up where they left off. AGK [•] 18:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• This comment, unlike my own one immediately above, is made in my capacity as the Chairman and representative of the Mediation Committee. We are disappointed that Direktor has vacated the mediation proceedings, and is re-entering the disputed material into the article. The purpose of mediation is to resolve disputes about article content, where discussion and other dispute resolution has failed. We remind Direktor that, although he is not obliged to participate in mediation, he is required by site policy to discuss all contested changes. Mediation is an effective form of dispute resolution if the parties engage in the proceedings with professionalism and an openness to compromise, and Direktor is invited to resume his participation in the case. But if Direktor is opposed to mediation, then he invariably must find some other way to establish a consensus in support of his changes.

  In relation to Direktor's complaint about the mediation proceedings being unsatisfactory, the Committee has examined the progress of the mediation proceedings, and finds that it is satisfactory. Progress on the case has admittedly been slow, but that is to be expected with a dispute as complex as the one in question. We note that, thanks to the professional approach of most of the involved parties and the patient, structured approach of Sunray, the mediator, there has been a substantial degree of progress made so far. A re-write of the article is being finalised on the case talk page, which is an enormous achievement in itself. Furthermore, the re-write will be put to the community in a request for comments in the near future, which would be a still greater achievement. It would be more helpful if Direktor were to engage in those commendable efforts, than unilaterally continuing to edit war, but it is ultimately his choice. On behalf of the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 19:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Having read the entire mediation I would agree. Although it is irritating that it is taking so long to post the mediated article, we are all volunteers and the pparticipants have indeed accomplished a great deal in this vexed and difficult area. After the mediated version is posted - ongoing issues can be discussed on the talkpage - hopefully in a structured way and to some purpose. It was entirely DIREKTORS choice not to continue to participate in the mediation.Fainites ^barleyscribs 20:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

In this case, mediation has failed; the only other option is Arbitration, at which point, given the evidence presented by all parties, it would then be up to the Arbitration Committee to take the necessary actions, usually in the form of sanctions, topic bans, and even sitebans. –MuZemike 20:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

As an involved party, and new to mediation procedures (although I appear to have picked a doozy for my first time out), would it be appropriate once we can return to the article to farm out some of the issues to other noticeboards, such as RSN and WQA, rather than pursuing the matter with ARBCOM? I confess I'm not hopeful regardless of venue, and simply curious about the best course to follow here. --Nuujinn (talk) 23:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Bizovne at it again....

I have a feeling (ok, it's more than a "feeling", but more on this later) that Bizovne doesn't seem to be bothered by WP rules and policies or thinks that they don't apply to him. If you check his block log you'll see that he's been unblocked 4 days ago and resumed his edits (and also his tactics & schemes) yesterday. He resumed his revert campaign of removing everything that's Hungarian from various articles, especially town names (especially at the Ányos Jedlik articles which seem to be one of his favorites: [23], [24] and [25]). Truth be told this time he's shown some willingness to discuss his reverts by adding some notes to various talk pages. He asserts in these notes that since Hungarian became official in Hungary only in 1867 (which's not true, because it happened way before than that, in 1844), essentially in any articles dealing with events before that date the Slovak term should be used instead (which has NEVER been used officially before 1919 at all). I've tried to explain to him that his asserts are wrong, but he hasn't replied (so far). Instead he just mobilized his good ol' IP socks, namely 195.28.75.114 and 193.87.75.82 to continue the reverts (today) as if nothing would've happened. Therefore I think that he's lacking any willingness of some calm discussion and it's apparent that he won't relent no matter what (after all it's considered to be a weakness by these types which they'd never let to happen). He also seems to use his socks when "necessary" in the "battles" against his "vicious enemies" on WP regardless of the fact that he shouldn't.
There's one more interesting thing about the way Bizovne behaves: when doing his "reverts" he's marked most of them as "minor edits" and stated that he's reverting vandalism, just like Iaaasi did. It's also apparent that at least two of Bizovne's edits ([26] and [27]) were reverts of one of Stubes99's socks, which's also Iaaasi's favorite "hobby" on WP. These two clues seem to point to meatpuppetry..... CoolKoon (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I've only added an ANI notice on Bizovne's talk page because the IPs are his confirmed sockpuppets so I didn't feel necessary to add the template on their talk pages as well.

The contributions of User:Anguilano.f

Hi. I noted a couple (here and here) of copyright violations by this user. As it turns out, he's also created a whole lot of other pages which appear to be the same. I cannot find the relevant text, which may well actually be in another language (does copyright still apply if directly translated?), however many all of these pages have a "Written by" section which can only really mean it's copied from elsewhere, I'd have thought. (See this, this, this, this too, and this one, and this, yup, more, etc etc etc. They're also very undersourced for the amount of information presented and I'd say need to be re-worked from ground up. Thanks! Nikthestoned 14:33, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment) User account is less than 24 hours old. I hear quacking in the distance... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 14:40, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The quack of a misguided but otherwise productive and well-intentioned duck. Let's keep it. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:50, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I just remembered, an AFLAC agent moved in next door last week... --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:05, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Cowboys & Aliens redux

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive701 § Cowboys & Aliens

Altitude2010 (talk · contribs) was blocked for 48 hours for pushing his draft of the "Marketing" section at Cowboys & Aliens (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). After he was unblocked, he reverted the consensus-supported draft back to his own. He has been the dominant editor of the film article with over 330 edits. He has failed to comment on the article's talk page and denies that there is a consensus for the draft that I provided. His conduct makes it impossible to edit the article without his permission and goes against the notion that one should expect his contributions to be edited. [EDIT: He reverted another editor and still fails to engage in discussion. It's clear that he is content with edit warring.] Erik (talk | contribs) 14:42, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

This looks like a content dispute, on the face of it, but Altitude2010's conduct is troubling. Might not be a bad idea to limit him/her to 1RR for undiscussed edits, if only to force discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 15:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

And he appears to be edit-warring again over his verson now. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Looking at Altitude's Contrib history and the article's edit history, I'd say Altitude has ownership issues, and doesn't want to consider consensus. Still, I'm wondering if this would be better handled at WP:ANEW, considering the back-and-forth. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Is the back-and-forth sufficient for that? I wasn't sure if he was really in 3RR territory because his reverts are spread out. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The way I see it, 3RR is the "bright line" limit, at which point an editor can be blocked with no questions or commentary required. What I'm seeing here is a "slow-burn" kind of edit war, one that never quite pushes up against 3RR, but is still an edit war by any other name. Maybe a bit more commentary or asking the editor to explain or justify themselves, but the end result may still be the same. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, Mike and I pretty much submitted reports at the same time. I detailed mine a bit more with Altitude2010's conduct before the block. Erik (talk | contribs) 15:23, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I note that Altitude has been blocked for one week by Kuru. I almost boldly marked this thread as "Resolved", but given Altitude's history, I think UltraExactZZ may be onto something by proposing a 1RR. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if I am able to support a 1RR restriction as an involved party, but I think it is a good idea. Some exchange on his talk page shows the possibility of discussion past the stubbornness. It would help for him to discuss with other editors on the talk page (and especially not just me). Erik (talk | contribs) 20:43, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

User:Tofaan

This user is vandalizing the article Ghurid dynasty. He has absolutely no qualification in that topic, has an obvious nationalist agenda, and he has no idea what Wikipedia is. This is not constructive editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.137.253 (talk) 15:10, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of posting the required ANI notice on Tofaan's User Talk page. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 15:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The user with the IP-address talk is the one with nationalistic agenda. He edit articles without discussion first on the discussion page. as follow edits have been made by this IP-address user.Here, Here, here, Here, Here, and this one HereTofaan (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

The academic sources are absolutely clear on the subject. Authoritative standard reference works on the subject have been cited: Encyclopaedia Iranica, Encyclopaedia of Islam, The Cambridge History of Iran, etc. And all of them totally disprove the nonsense by this user. He, on the other hand, is posting YouTube videos (!) as a "counter argument" and insults other Wikipedians. I can't believe that YouTube videos are being used as "arguments" against experts such as Clifford Edmund Bosworth. This gotta be a joke! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.83.137.253 (talk) 19:04, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I attempted to explain to User:Tofaan that unpublished websites do not care as much weight as published sources. Instead User:Tofaan responded with, "Whahhahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahaah, just get lost men. Get a life!!!!!!!!!!!! Your story smells to ignorants.."[28], hardly helpful to the discussion. This was not the last time User:Tofaan would use the term "ignorants".[29],[30]. Along with ignoring the current references in the article, Tofaan has insinuated I was lying about a previous discussion concerning the ethnicity of the Ghurids.[31] I also informed Tofaan if he/she could not remain civil that I would not be participating in the discussion.[32] --Kansas Bear (talk) 21:02, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I just declined an unblock request for Tofaan, they are blocked for 24 hours for edit-warring (I count at least 7 reverts to the article in 24 hours). I looked at their contributions before declining, and there's a serious problem here. I don't think this editor is capable of collaborating with others, their approach to anyone who disagrees is a constant attack. I offered a little advice when I declined the unblock but I just don't have a lot of hope. I think the statement, "he has no idea what Wikipedia is", is the truth. -- Atama頭 21:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

He (self-IDs as male) submitted another unsuccessful unblock request and continues to plead for an unblock, with no sign of understanding why I blocked him and why no one else is overturning that. He just doesn't seem to get it—why what he did was unacceptable, why he's been blocked, etc. If the block runs out and he continues as before, we might just have to block him indefinitely, or at least topic-ban him. I don't see him coming around. Larry V (talk | e-mail) 22:08, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Possible vandalism to article: List of current National Basketball Association head coaches

Resolved

 – Mathematical error, assuming good faith on part of original inserter. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Someone inserted an incorrect entry under the career win% column in the article List of current National Basketball Association head coaches - when I divided 272 into 410 I got .663 NOT .744 as is shown in the article. I couldn't find out who inserted it so I can't provide any links or diffs or notify anyone. Is that vandalism?

--ILikeWatchingFights (talk) 15:58, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Not necessarily, could just be incorrect arithmetic. – ukexpat (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Here's the diff that put the original info in. I've changed the win% to show the correct maths result. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 16:18, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Talk:The Nation of Gods and Earths

I don't really know whether this is the best forum for this problem, but here goes anyway. We have had discussions on the The Nation of Gods and Earths talk page with an editor called user:Bornking7 who says he is the editor of the Five Percenter, the journal of this group, which is an offshoot of the Nation of Islam. I should say that Bornking7 is clearly trying to engage with Wikipedia through the talk page and that he has accepted the reversion of his own earlier highly POV edits, no doubt made in good faith. However, myself and other editors are finding it very difficult to communicate with this editor who still seems to believe that Wikipedia's article is part of some concerted campaign or plot against the group he represents. I have tried to incorporate content he has proposed, within an appropriate format but he still adopts an "aggrieved" position which I'm afraid might again erupt into POV edits. If anyone can bear to read through the walls of text there, I would be grateful of some help in communicating with this editor, who has so far restrained himself, but does not seem to fully understand how the encyclopedia should work. Paul B (talk) 19:53, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

• I've notified Bornking7 of this discussion and had to change many mis-formatted ref tags on his talk page to get it to show up. Hobit (talk) 21:03, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

James Thomas Aubrey, Jr.

There seems to be a slow-motion edit war going on in that article. I'm not sure why it's on my watch list. Maybe it's been here before? I have not notified anyone yet. I want to get the opinion of an admin or two as to whether something needs to be done administratively, or if it's strictly a content dispute and should be confined to the talk page. If there is an administrative issue, I'll notify them. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Does not need admin tools but there's three paragraphs of uncited stuff that ought not be there seeing it's a featured article. 86.146.22.108 (talk) 23:11, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I recall now why it was on my watch list. It had to do with creating a link to another article. I'm not sure who's right in that content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:17, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I have now notified the 3 most recent editors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:19, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Removed some fully unsourced material - a splendid example of why BLP should extend to recently deceased people for sure. Collect (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I wouldn't call 1994 "recent", but in addition to a lack of sourcing it seemed to be a bit too detailed, even if fully true. Thanks for retaining the important bit, about his death. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:25, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Quack quack

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

This user is adding multiple sockpuppet tags to random IP address and user talk pages. I think the sockpuppet-tagging vandal has returned. Reaper Eternal (talk) 23:48, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about Editor XXV? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

The WHOIS response is weird...the toolserver comes up with a /22 range, but drilling down from the geolocation server gives a different allocation, with a /29 range (a whole five addresses). I'm wondering if there's an open proxy involved somewhere. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 00:14, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I checked the ports on this IP address, and the following came up negative: 80, 2301, 3128, 6588, 8000, & 8080. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:23, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

REQUEST MOVES and PRIMARY TOPIC

There have been a number of lengthy debates recently (here, here and now here) sparked by (what I would suggest is) an over-zealous application of the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC guideline at WP:Disambiguation.
These are producing a fair amount of acrimony, and are seeing the usual suspects (and this includes myself, now) presenting the same tired arguments.
As The guideline itself is under discussion, here and elsewhere I suggest it is not appropriate to be starting new WP:RM processes, and I also suggest there should be a moratorium on such requests until the matter is resolved. Xyl 54 (talk) 00:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

1RR enforcement requested

For the second day in a row now, Tillman (talk · contribs) is in violation of the 1RR editing restriction per the probation sanctions on Climatic Research Unit email controversy.[33] To his credit, he self-reverted his violation yesterday,[34] but is continuing the same edit warring behavior.

Today, Tillman made a total of three reverts to Climatic Research Unit email controversy, which I will only count as two total reverts as two were consecutive. However, the diffs show him reverting three times in 24 hours, which is a violation of the spirit and intent of the 1RR:

• 01:04, 8 June 2011 Tillman (Please don't add contentious material without first seeking consensus. See head of talk page. You know not to do this.[35])
  • Revert of 00:50, 8 June 2011 version by Viriditas.[36]
• 00:58, 8 June 2011 Tillman (talk | contribs) (116,104 bytes) (Undid revision 433119267, stable text, prior discussion at talk. Please don't edit-war.)[37]
  • Revert of 23:45, 7 June 2011 version by Viriditas.[38]
• 22:37, 7 June 2011 Tillman (talk | contribs) (116,185 bytes) (Restore Boston Herald & WSJ reactions. These aren't "fringe" publications!)[39]
  • Revert of 16:15, 6 June 2011 version by Tarc.[40]

Disclosure: I have made one revert to this article in the last 24 hours, at 23:16, 7 June 2011.[41] Could someone please enforce this 1RR and help Tillman understand the concept of a revert? I've tried on the talk page, but he doesn't get it. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 8 June 2011 (UTC)