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

Death of Michael Jackson part 2

Foregoing archived to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive549#Michael Jackson cardiac arrest / reported death

A contributor created the article Death of Michael Jackson, under the basis that they're expecting future information about a current event. In the talk page, I've already explained about the WP:NOTCRYSTAL policy, as well as using other high-profile deaths as examples of precedence. We're recommending that the content is merged with the main Michael Jackson article, rather than building this article up, and then end up merging later on if the death was indeed natural with no foul play involved. groink 02:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

See Death of Michael Jackson (stub) above. This isn't really an admin issue, but one of content, and should be worked out on the talk page. --auburnpilot talk 02:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Umm, Death of Michael Jackson was deleted and salted. Now it's an article, especially after being used as a fork example in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reaction to the death of Michael Jackson? Was there a discussion to un-salt? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 03:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

That's what I'm getting at here. The admin who unsalted the namespace is sympathetic of the MJ situation. But the reason I think this is an admin-related issue is that, whenever Wikipedia policy is bypassed under an assumed special circumstance like this, it should've been discussed somehow. Especially when another admin is the one who is circumventing the policy. Groink (talk) 04:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is the link to the delete. [1] Groink (talk) 04:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I just want to add here for the record that I created the article, but I did not unprotect it. I posted a request on AN/I. And there clearly is a need for such a sub-article, given the length of Michael Jackson, and given that we should follow WP:SUMMARY STYLE. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

There appears to have been no discussion other than that tiny bit above. Guess that passes for consensus these days, multiple deletion discussions aside. There's a vigorous merge discussion on the talk page of the unsalted and recreated article; see how that goes, I guess. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

There does not even appear to be a Death of Elvis Presley article, and that story was certainly a media sensation - for awhile, at least. I doubt very much there's enough info on the death of MJ to fill an article, even if it turns out he was taking 100 different pills and had 100 different illnesses and that the FBI and CIA and Oliver Stone were somehow involved. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 07:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Try to use examples that occurred during Wikipedia's lifetime. –xeno^talk 15:00, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I won't dispute your hint that wikipedia suffers from recentism. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Most sources do. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As long as it's not recant-ism, it's probably ok. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Those who cant, do. Those who can't, recant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

How about Death of David Carradine? That was totally out of the blue. The death of MJ shouldn't have been such a surprise. Meanwhile, there is nothing officially known about MJ's death yet beyond the fact that it occurred. Maybe Reaction to the death of Michael Jackson would be more appropriate, since it's everyone's reaction that makes it special - as with Elvis. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:13, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Being a modest 32k, David Carradine's article can accomodate for this. Michael's was ~95k pre-death. –xeno^talk 15:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Besides, it's the coroner's job to split Carradine :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Xeno. Also, MJ is a FA. There is likely to be reisistance to putting as much in the article about the death as some people will want. I think that having a Death article is a good safety valve.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

/me runs off to create Death of Farrah Fawcett and Death of Ed McMahon - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 15:35, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

We have Death of John Lennon (but I suppose that was an interesting and unusual death, as assassinations usually are). Dendodge _T\^C 15:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

And it was obviously also out of the blue. Curiously, the article fails to mention the dotted line connecting that assassination to the attempt on Reagan. Supposedly the guy who shot Reagan was devastated by Lennon's death, and that helped to put him over the edge. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:05, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Meh, and people wondered what my motivation in locking down the MJ article when the first unconfirmed reports started coming in about a heart attack was - 29 years later and there are still people trying to portray Lennon's murder as "assissination". LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Would Death and state funeral of Ronald Reagan be comparable (death by natural causes, major figure, relatively recent w/in WP's lifetime?) Based on that, this would mean that there would need to be a lot of coverage of his funeral and memorial services, since the actual cause was not significantly noteworthy (assassination is one thing ala JKF or Lennon). As this stuff is yet unknown, and in the case of Reagan given the fellow being a President and all that, it's CRYSTAL to assume there's enough for an article at this point. The only thing that I've seen noteworth on his death includes: false scarcity of his music, the Internet being hit hard when news broke, and people jumping on fake death sites to try to complete the death trifecta (see Jeff Goldblum), and only one of these really deserves a mention. --MASEM (t) 15:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

As Wehwalt suggests, the presence of that article, which is really a violation of wikipedia guidelines, serves a practical purpose, and after the furor dies down it can be trimmed back and re-merged. It wouldn't be the first time. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 16:02, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Which guidelines? The only one anybody has mentioned, is NOT#NEWS, which they are quite literally interpreting as 'Wikipedia does not create articles based on events in the news, period', which is beyond ridiculous. I cannot fathom, when we we so much non-notable dross and crap created on the pedia every day which can never simply be deleted at Afd under NOT#NEWS due to the 'reliable sources - notable' defence, that this global event is the one thing people choose to wake up and enforce a brittannica type standard on. Wikipedia has really screwed up this whole episode, from locking the article, from making his bio unreadable due to its woefull lede and 'NPOV' but unreadable chronological format of his article, and now, by inisting on being second best to all credible and non-credible information sources for properly covering the notable events relating to his death. MickMacNee (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Precisely. This is where the pie-in-sky ideal of "anyone can edit" starts to break down. The fact of so much hemming and hawing over protection levels, while funny to observe, really makes wikipedia look stupid. Above all else, we should try not to make wikipedia look stupid. It only further undermines wikipedia's credibility. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 19:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

We might as well archive this section. It's obvious that the consensus has been decided on by the folks who are editing the new article, so further discussion is probably moot. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I wish I understood why this was not allowed to go through the AfD process. A lot of people want to see the "death of" article merged or deleted. --Susan118 ^talk 01:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The contributor who was behind un-salting the namespace is an administrator. User:Gwen Gale is a fan of Michael Jackson, and took it upon herself, with no AfD or any other discussion. I see it as a total conflict of interest, and abuse of her admin privileges. I didn't want to state this out in my opening statement, but I'm left with no other choice. We can't undo the damage and delete the article now. I would highly recommend that a higher authority look into this issue, and explore to see if the right procedures were followed. In the end, all I want to see is a warning sent to the people involved Groink (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

You may get more traction if you appeared to know what you are talking about; there was a request by SlimVirgin (talk · contribs) further up on this page to unsalt the title, and Gwen Gale was the admin who responded. The article was salted at the time of the MJ announcement so editors could not circumvent the protection of the main article to prevent the use of unreliable sources, and had no content - therefore there was no need for discussion to unsalt; reliable sources are now available. If you wish to warn SlimVirgin, you go to it (but it may help if you could give the appearance of knowing what it is you are talking about.) An apology to Gwen Gale may also help. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Warn me about what, LessHeard? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm still wondering why it did not go through AfD discussion. There was much discussion on the talk page about the possibility of merging the article, someone archived it as "no consensus", but I would have liked to see that discussion on AfD, where it would have had visibility to others who might not even know the article exists. The article has been expanded, with sources, but it is heavily dependent on quotes and media speculation, and has no real substance. --Susan118 ^talk 14:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There was no need to go through an AfD. Article clearly warranted by any standard. In fact, I'm quite certain it's going to end up being split up even more: investigation into death, reaction to death, funeral, probate, custody battle, etc. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 01:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and list it. I've wanted a week-long drama fest for so long, and none of the new admins are obliging by deleting the main page or blocking Jimbo. More seriously, I think in this case, the community has spoken. And if being a fan is a disqualification, well, we better find some admins who live in monasteries. Monasteries with wi-fi, of course.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey I'm a fan, too, and I still don't think we need an article that devotes several paragraphs to statements by his family, and even less relevant people like Jesse Jackson. But not having nominated anything for deletion before, I'm not starting with this one. --Susan118 ^talk 15:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is going to exist. The community has IAR and ignored all procedures and decided that one, for better or worse. You can yell at the tide to turn back, but it just ain't gonna. Suggest we close this and move on. There is no need for administrator intervention in this matter.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensus to invoke WP:IAR as a lot of people here are opposed to it. This rush to create new articles to document current events is getting crazy around here. Death of Michael Jackson, Michael Jackson's health and appearance...where is the Birth of Michael Jackson article? I see absolutely no need for this to be forked off the main Michael Jackson article. He collapsed, then he died. Who cares what Al Sharpton/Jesse Jackson says? This rush to create forks has to stop. Corpx (talk) 02:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Nice...now I went to archive my talk page and my cut/paste archive got tagged as "possible Michael Jackson vandalism". I should note there is no discussion related to any of the Michael Jackson articles on my talk page; this leads me to believe that I've been labelled a vandal. Guess I disagreed with the wrong person/people? I am highly offended as I have spent a lot of time fighting vandalism on Wikipedia. I wish I knew (for certain) who did this, as I'd like to open up a separate incident. I would also like to request this removed from the edit history of my archive.--Susan118 ^talk 04:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not you, Susan, that's just the Abuse Filter picking something up it doesn't like. That's an automated thing, not a person - don't worry about it. The filter can be cranky sometimes. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea, don't sweat it. That filter is too wide right now. See the note Entries in this list do not necessarily mean the edits were abusive at the top of [2] –xeno^talk 13:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tony and Xeno. Sorry if I seemed overly paranoid, but it looked very odd to me, and it seems there's a lot of secrecy around how the abuse filters work (which I understand there has to be, otherwise people could easily find ways around them). I know they do sometimes flag good edits. I reported it as a false positive at the tag discussion page, so I'm not going to push the issue any further here. Thanks. --Susan118 ^talk 16:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Main_Page#Link_on_Jackson.27s_death

Resolved

 – Thanks. Pyrrhus16 08:02, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Can an admin see to this please? Pyrrhus16 20:54, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Time to split

This entire section has more subsections than ANI does now. It's time to split off this section into it's own sub-page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I've archived the first part of the thread, I don't think we need a subpage for an issue that should quiet down fairly quickly. –xeno^talk 02:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Longterm abuser User:Nangparbat

Resolved

A long term Islamist banned abuser, called Nangparbat (see User:Hersfold/Vandal_watch#Nangparbat) uses dynamic ip addresses to evade his block, and has been vandalizing numerous South Asia-related articles with Indophobic and anti-Semitic bias. Several articles have been sprotected because of his actions (for background, consult User:Thegreyanomaly). His recent attack has consisted of egregigious holocaust denial and pro-Nazi POV in Dalit Voice (see contribs, and [3], and [4]). Simply blocking the ip does not help, as he merely switches over to another dynamic ip in a matter of minutes. I appeal to editors to maintain the integrity of the encyclopedia and prevent this abuse to continue.Todaymiddle (talk) 13:14, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

While you are likely a sock of Hkelkar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the opposing banned editor in conflict with the above individual. Blocks all round, I suggest. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Fine. A "ban" means nothing anyways. However, Nangparbat has a large gang of sympathizers among the far-left and Islamist edit gangs on wikipedia, particularly abusive are pro-nangparbat admins like User:Nishkid64. If the antisemitic version of Dalit Voice is enforced by technical means due to the intervention of the pro-nangparbat camp, I will proceed to notify editors who are more intimately familiar with the dynamics of such things as antisemitism. This time, the bastards have bitten off more than they can chew. Besides, blocking will not help, as all users concerned have dynamic ip addresses. The only solution is indefinite semi-protection of targeted articles. Todaymiddle (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. Nangparbat accuses me of being pro-Hkelkar and Hkelkar accuses me of being pro-Nangparbat. Oh, how will I ever obtain the approval of two banned nationalist edit warriors? WP:RBI. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 15:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nishkid64: Prejudiced Against All Races! ~ mazca ^talk 20:08, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Go play yur dramuz someplace else, please.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they are all equally worthless :) MuZemike 01:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What a joke this is! Nishkid blocks Nagparbat and slocks the Nangparbat articles everyday YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 01:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Darko Trifunović

Darko Trifunović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a BLP, is yet again being repeatedly vandalised by a series of anonymous IP editors - this article has been discussed several times before on AN/I and the BLP noticeboard [5]. The IPs repeatedly post angry rants [6], blank the article [7] and replace the article with a canned resumé / curriculum vitae [8]. The individual responsible is almost certainly the subject himself, Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been blocked for periods of up to two weeks, has edited from IP addresses and socks, and has been warned numerous times for posting copyright violations, soapboxing, disruption etc. The article has been semi-protected several times but IP vandalism and disruption has resumed as soon as protection has lapsed. This situation has been going on for at least 18 months. Some kind of resolution is long overdue, frankly.

In the light of this continued disruption, I suggest that the discretionary sanctions in force on Balkans-related articles should be invoked. Specifically, I suggest:

• an extended block of Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs) for up to the year mandated by the discretionary sanctions;
• an indefinite topic ban of Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs) editing BLPs;
• indefinite semi-protection of Darko Trifunović (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to prevent the ongoing disruption by IP sockpuppets.

I should add that I would not object at all to Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs) being given an indefinite block. He is plainly not interested in contributing productively and has done almost no editing apart from disrupting "his" biography. Given the very lengthy catalogue of disruption that he has caused over a long period of time, I can't see him becoming a useful editor any time soon (or ever, for that matter). -- ChrisO (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I see some edits by him of "himself", but they are a week old. Is there evidence the IPs are this guy, such as a checkuser? I dislike community bans on gut feeling.--Wehwalt (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been peripherally involved, in that I have blocked some socks and also suggested that the editor/subject contact the Office regarding allegations about the editing of "their" article (which either they have not done, or it was not sustained), and would back ChrisO's call for some resolution. I would, however, hesitate in locking up the article and throwing away the key - I have seen some serious allegations linked to sources that do not necessarily support the comments regarding the subject. I support linking the article to the ARBMAC provisions to ensure that the neutrality (derived from reliable sources, properly ascribed) is not compromised by any party. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) It's not a community ban - it's a request for the enforcement of discretionary sanctions per WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions. The IPs all trace to the same ISP, Serbia Broadband in Belgrade, where Trifunovic is based [9] [10] [11] [12] [13], and they all do the same sort of thing - replacing the article with Trifunovic's CV and posting rants in broken English. As I said, this has been going on for a long time - 18 months at least. In response to LessHeard's comments, semi-protection is needed to ensure that the article can be edited without being continually vandalised. It's a bit of an exaggeration to say that semi-protection would be "locking up the article and throwing away the key" - it would just mean that the endless vandalism from IPs would cease, which can only be a good thing. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

(3x e/c) In response to ChrisO's prompting on my talk page, here are my thoughts:

• The Darko Trifunovic article is in an inefinite state right now. Various editors trimmed and RS'ed the article into a state just above stub, but only into a state where it is verifiable, not IMO to where it is notable.
• Darko (presumably) is mildly disruptive, but nothing that the multiple eyeballs already watching can't handle (as I just did). However the mild disruption does not violate BLP, in that it does not inject negative information. Thus I would be opposed to semi-protection or indefblocking of the Darko user themself.
• User:Bosniak could possibly use a topic ban, since their contributions are rarely productive. Also, Darko's presumed lawyer and the supporting academic possibly located in NY State have been unhelpful.
• The answer here, to me, is to finish the job and construct a proper article that deals properly with the subject. As it is, we have a single event where the subject is not necessarily a prime mover. Maybe so, but also maybe not. No matter how vile the viewpoints expressed, we need to obey BLP. We should either fix the article up properly (and I can't help much since I don't have access to EE sources) - or we should delete it. Franamax (talk) 23:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the incomplete task of rewriting the article needs to be finished - it seems to have stalled. With regard to the disruptive editor, WP:ARBMAC#Discretionary sanctions specifically provided for the sanctioning of editors who "fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, the expected standards of behavior, or the normal editorial process." I think it would be hard to argue that Trifunovic has adhered to any of those things. He has contributed absolutely nothing of value to Wikipedia and his continued involvement is not helping to improve the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:50, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think that some evidence that the IPs are this guy are needed. Yes, I know, quack quack, but there are several peopele in Belgrade, at least ten or twelve, and no doubt a few of them write broken English.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Well, on the Purpose clause, the purpose is NPOV, which is not necessarily being satisfied here; the Decorum clause doesn't really apply, since Darko and all the sock/meat-puppets are quite polite; and Editorial process - well, when it's your own name, you find an injustice, nobody listens - wouldn't you walk around to every internet cafe in the city too? I'm not saying it's right, just that it's a reminder that we need to fix the article.

Even if you get an SPI that nails down a connection between DT and the IP editors, we generally block the puppets, not the master. I'd think that a final warning to the Darko user entity not to edit their named article page under any guise would suffice, with a reminder to raise specific concerns on the talk page of the article. If the resume is anonymously posted after the warning, sprot would be indicated, with around one month duration (it's not a high-traffic article). Same goes for the user and user-talk page.

Note that Trifunovic is not noticeably pushing the POV of "they raped and tortured people so it's OK that we raped and tortured people" here on the en:wiki. The issue from what I can see is to just clear up the BLP article. Franamax (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It sounds reasonable, Franamax, though I'd be cautious about the final warning thing. Perhaps more along the lines of "Please work with us on the article talk page. If this is you, please cut it out, you aren't helping matters any."--Wehwalt (talk) 00:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I must say I'm surprised to see this individual still treated with this much mildness by some people here. As someone who has followed the issue from a distance for some time, I have to agree completely with ChrisO: the amount of long-term disruption the article has seen is mind-boggling. This guy is not here to correct BLP problems about his own article; his presence has been disruption-only for months. He should have been indef-banned long ago. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:22, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's called assuming good faith, not mildness, and demanding evidence before banning an editor. I still haven't seen any evidence these IPs are this editor except for being allegedly in the same city and language troubles. I suggest this thread be closed, this isn't going anywhere.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there's any real doubt that the IPs are the editor. I'll request a checkuser run on the IPs - in the meantime please keep the thread open so that I can update it as necessary. In the meantime, can we at least semi-protect the article so that the current run of disruption can be stopped? -- ChrisO (talk) 11:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, the identity is plain obvious. Just compare the following edits:

• posting CV instead of bio article
  • logged-in: [14]; logged-in sock: [15], IP [16]
• copy-pasting non-wikified article text from earlier versions:
  • logged-in: [17], IP [18]
• posting complaint rants in article space:
  • logged-in: [19]; IP: [20]

Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Updated - the checkuser request is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Darko Trifunovic. The pattern is indeed extremely obvious. The IPs are doing exactly the same thing that the Darko account and a previous sockpuppet have been doing for some time. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I too have watched the Trifunović article and its Talk for some time. As I reverted one of the countless instances of vandalism by the the article's subject, I was notified of this discussion by ChrisO.

ChrisO and Fut.Perf are well up to speed with Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs)'s persistent disruption. There have been numerous warnings. The fellow never complies. When his changes are reverted and his self-promotional propaganda removed, he switches to accusations of apartheidism and terrorism etc. It's clear from his repeated outbursts that if the article does not serve his personal agenda he will not hesitate to disrupt it and use it as a propaganda vehicle.

I tend towards liberal treatment of Wikimiscreants, but it was tried ad nauseam with Trifunović and it failed. ChrisO, in particular, has been patient and courteous in the extreme. It looks as thought the time has come for firm action such as he has suggested.

And it seems that Wehwalt may not be fully conversant with the article's history. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Writegeist (talk) 18:43, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism has resumed, this time from an apparent open proxy in Israel which is being used to repeatedly blank the article. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser has confirmed that Darko Trifunovic (talk · contribs) is responsible for the IP edits. In view of the lack of any interest here in dealing with an obvious case of disruptive sockpuppetry, I'm taking this issue over to WP:AE. -- ChrisO (talk) 06:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Result at AE was an indef block of Darko Trifunovic (block log). — Satori Son 14:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Joining this discussion late; however, I'd like to respond to Franamax's point. I for one am aware that the article is woefully incomplete. There's a good bit more that can be added, with proper sourcing. However, I and most of the other main contributors to this article have been somewhat preoccupied by WP:ARBMAC2 and the associated naming debate. I have every intention of returning to this article when time permits. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 13:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Also joining late - I have been dealing with this for years now, Darko had been extended good faith much longer than any other chronic abuser I am aware of. He's repeatedly been told not to do this with the article, and to bring concerns to the article talk page. Which he's done at times, and resulted in a significant reduction in critical content about him, but not a complete whitewash.

His ongoing disruption here was not acceptable. As CU confirmed the anons are really him - we have no reason to AGF anymore, we've proved bad faith engagement after repeatedly giving opportunities to engage within Wikipedia policy and plenty of assistance and openminded discussion. I support the indef. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive SPA?

I bet you'd like to know (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - I do not see this as permitted under WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Moreover, the last thing we need is more of these advocates for absolute free speech, especially ones that aren't even willing to do it under their main account. I almost blocked indefinitely myself, but I thought I'd solicit more views. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Given that the user seems to be American, they don't have the excuse that they're contributing from some politically sensitive region of the world and need additional protection. So far the "illegal" thing they've posted using this account is the name of a juvenile offender. Exploding Boy (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Which is in fact illegal to publish in Canada (the location of the crime), just so we're clear. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 03:47, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh for God's sake. We on about this again? When will people understand that just because we can (legally) publish something it doesn't mean we should (morally and ethically)? And more to the point, when will Americans learn to understand how their free speech guarantee actually works? Ugh. → ROUX ₪ 03:54, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Constitutional free speech and press largely has to do with the right to criticize the government. Unfortunately, some think free speech and press mean "no limitations". That ain't it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

What I'm taking from the above is that my first instinct to indef block was the correct one. I shall make it so momentarily. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse that block you are about to make. Good call; this is clearly a multiple account situation, and this is also clearly NOT a legit use of a secondary account. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
  • A checkuser would also be a good idea. Results don't need to be made public, but the user who is hiding their tracks needs a severe talking-to about why it's unacceptable. Frankly, I'd be happy if we changed the sock policy to "No socks, ever." Would make situations like this much more easy to deal with. → ROUX ₪ 04:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
    • The likely response of a checkuser request here would be "checkuser is not for fishing". I'd like to see it happen, but I'd be surprised if anybody would do it. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 04:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Which speaks to an enormous misunderstanding of what Checkuser is good for, alas. Not to mention is found nowhere in WMF policy. It should absolutely be used for fishing; the long delay between identifying socks and getting rid of them is silly. Pre-emptively finding them would only be a benefit to the project. → ROUX ₪ 04:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
        • You won't find it anywhere in WMF policy because it's a English Wikipedia-specific policy. "Fishing" requests, as they're called here, are permitted elsewhere. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
          • I know; it's a silly policy. → ROUX ₪ 05:19, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
            • Is it because there's a shortage of checkusers? Seems like when even an accepted SPI is posted, it can take days for them to get back. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
      • Endorse check being run. Enigma^msg 04:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I was drawn to this discussion in reviewing this user's request for unblock. I find this block preposterous. This user has not posted the real name of the minor defendant that is being discussed and has no apparent intention of doing so, despite what their user page states. But they have stated that they live in Canada, and that their main account is under their real name. They have done nothing but make two comments in the discussion. There are reasonable editors (admins, even) on both sides of the dispute, and if the user has had a bit of confusion between the principle of free speech in the US and Wikipedia's own version, I think that's forgivable. This is clearly an appropriate use of alternate accounts under WP:SOCK#LEGIT, as an alternate account for a controversial area. Mangojuice^talk 21:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The user has posted the real name of the young offender, in his second edit. Besides that, by the account's own admission it is an alternate account devoted to the single purpose of taking an extreme stance on freedom of speech; if somebody wants to push such a stance, they should not receive the benefit of WP:SOCK#LEGIT to do so. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:18, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I meant in the article. Two edits is not an extreme stance: I would like you to justify that these two edits constitute actual disruption rather than discussion. Mangojuice^talk 21:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

A couple of things: first, the account's gratuitous use of the young offender's name on the talk page, especially in conjunction with the posts on his user page, strongly suggest that he's here to make a WP:POINT. Second, I don't think it's helpful for Wikipedia to facilitate Canadians' violation of Canadian law (we're not responsible for enforcing it, obviously, but it strikes me as dubious to allow accounts whose sole purpose is to violate it). Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 21:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have unblocked the account with the condition that it limit its activities to participating in this thread until the question is resolved. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Steve. I'd like the opportunity to speak on my own behalf. The question here is not whether the killer's name should be mentioned, or what the limits are to free speech. (For the record, I know free speech is not absolute, and that Wikipedia policy may differ from what's allowed in the outside world.) The question is whether I was being disruptive or violating any Wikipedia policies. WP:SOCK only bans secondary accounts used for "fraudulent, disruptive, or otherwise deceptive purposes that violate or circumvent enforcement of Wikipedia policies." In fact, WP:SOCK also says it is acceptable to use a secondary account to avoid "real-world consequences from their involvement" in a controversial topic. In order to determine whether the block is appropriate, you have to divorce yourself from all of your thoughts and opinions about the Richardson family murders article and look at it strictly as a matter of Wikipedia policy. If you have a strong opinion about whether or not to mention the killer's name, you should address that on Talk:Richardson family murders, not in a blocking discussion.

As regards WP:POINT, the policy is "Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point." I did not mean to disrupt Wikipedia; I merely posted two comments on the talk page.

For my part, I promise not to mention the girl's first name on the talk page again until the issue of whether to mention her name in the article is decided. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 22:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Your very username is WP:POINTy. → ROUX ₪ 22:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

(ec) To add to that, everything about this account - from the user name to the quote on its user page (including the quotation marks around "illegal") to its unnecessary disclosure of young offenders' names on article talk pages suggests that it is a single purpose POV-pushing account. Single purpose POV-pushing accounts are made no more acceptable by the POV in question being about Wikipedia policy rather than about a real world subject. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. WP:POV deals with bias in articles. It has nothing to do with pressing a point of view about an article's contents on a talk page. That's the responsible thing to do -- to press one's case on a talk page rather than unilaterally editing an article. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 22:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:POV isn't applicable here, which is why I didn't link to it. You're here to push for a change to how Wikipedia deals with voluntary self-censorship; that is your account's single purpose (and don't try arguing that you're not trying to change Wikipedia's policy so much as to change the content of individual Wikipedia articles; the descriptive nature of Wikipedia policy means that this is the same thing). Per WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY, "In particular, sockpuppet accounts may not be used in internal project-related discussions, such as policy debates." Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 22:50, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

So you're saying that the "internal project-related discussions" mentioned in WP:SOCK#SCRUTINY applies to all discussions on Wikipedia, even localized discussions on individual talk pages? That leads to a conclusion that secondary accounts cannot be involved in any disputes on Wikipedia. I don't think many people would come to that conclusion after reading WP:SOCK. Anyway, the point of the account is to contribute information that may get me in trouble in the real world, not to get into policy arguments. But being a responsible Wikipedia editor, I decided to have a discussion on the talk page rather than to unilaterally change the article. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 23:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Not all localized disputes are about Wikipedia's broader policy. Localized disputes about Wikipedia's approach to information that is illegal to publish in some jurisdictions, especially when pushed by an account who acknowledges that liberalizing Wikipedia's rules on such matters is its sole purpose, are de facto Wikipedia policy discussions. Steve Smith (talk) (formerly Sarcasticidealist) 23:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

The account was not created to "liberalize Wikipedia's rules on such matters." It was created to contribute information to the encyclopedia, like all constructive accounts. It so happens that was a dispute regarding the article, so I made my opinions known on the talk page first per WP:EP, like I should have done. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 23:25, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I will request a change in username. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 22:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Participating in a discussion about a controversial issue in order to keep one's main account private is a perfectly reasonable thing for an alternate account to do as long as there's no disruption. I don't believe mentioning an already-public name of someone whose name is supposed to be kept secret constitutes disruption: in fact, I am far more concerned that the oversnsitivity being shown here will affect the debate on the issue. And Steve Smith's idea that this was somehow a Wikipedia-wide policy discussion is preposterous: no, this is really about this single article, and no one is proposing rewriting policy. That interpretation would have the effect of preventing any legitimate use of alternate accounts where policy is involved, which is basically all article editing when there is any contention at all. Mangojuice^talk 13:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hold on. Including the names of murderers in an article about the murder hardly sounds like free speech absolutism to me, especially when a quick Google search shows several US-based reliable sources ( i.e. Discovery Channel's website ) which mention the name without reservation. I'm finding the reasons given for the block extremely underwhelming. I'm also seeing a contradiction in the arguments claiming this is an inappropriate use of a sock: One one side, some users want to take sensitivity to Canadian law into account in obscuring the names. But on the other side, editors are saying that the user is not contributing from a politically risky part of the world and therefore not a legitimate use of a sock. So which is it? It seems to me we're bending our own rules toward Canadian censorship standards while at the same time claiming Canada isn't repressive enough to allow the use of a sock. I highly doubt we would show the same deference to Iranian law. Squidfryerchef (talk) 14:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that permanently unblocking me does not mean we're going to name the killer. That decision will be made on Talk:Richardson family murders. I can see it both ways, but the question here is whether I was violating Wikipedia policy, and I think it's clear that I was not. I wish I could go back to 2005 and not use my real name as my username so this wouldn't be an issue. But I promise that if permanently unblocked, I will change the username of my secondary account, change my secondary account's user page, abide by WP:SOCK#LEGIT, refrain from using the killer's name on Talk:Richardson family murders and only edit Richardson family murders in accordance with Wikipedia policies on consensus and dispute resolution. -- I bet you'd like to know (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Michelangelo24

May I suggest a banning of one week? Please see: [21]. Created many pages (some multiple times) over a period of several months that get constantly deleted. I am no music expert so I wont comment on his edits to already created articles, but I do note a COI in his edits (i.e. adding his own music/creation in places like 2009 in music etc.). Cheers.Calaka (talk) 08:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

In theory, he warned to stop back in February, for what that's work. Alternative could be to just blacklist his website or really someone should just talk to him first. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I seem to notice a pattern (since working over at the new articles created page for the past few days) that if these users talk after writing them a message on their talk page (e.g. please add refs), they talk/do as you requested straight away. However, others no matter how much you litter their wall with speedys or warnings, they seem to be completely non responsive and just continue doing what they were doing (basically ignoring the talk page/not bothering to read the messages). I agree that communication is key to solving a lot of these problems, but I am unable to suggest a way of better improving this barrier between the regular wikipedians and the newbies. Some sort of chat feature might need to be implemented/enabled (unless there is already such a thing somehwhere)??!? I know there is IRC chat but are newbies given notice of that being available? Furthermore IRC is not something everyone uses (since you need to download a client to get onto it first) etc. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 10:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's a human thing, not an interface problem. One problem is that a lot of the newest users love getting Huggle and the like, doing vandalism fighting. Those are precisely the type of people who need to interact one-on-one, not use automated tools. At the same time, most admins (the most experienced users) like myself tend to deal with so many users who are completely a wreck that a simple conversation just seems like a waste of time. Besides, <sarcasm>it's just a name on the talk page anyways. It's not like it's a real person.</sarcasm> -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it is never black&white. With newbies that make new articles (that lack cats, refs, etc.) I usually do an automated welcome and then write a little note underneath to tell them to add a reff or to fix up the article or to add more sources etc, and I try to do the same for users that make speedy worthy cruft (that is not vandalism). Stuff that is pure vandalism though, I feel that there is no point in even communicating with them. They either get over it and might one day contribute (after growing up?) or will go at it for a while, get banned multiple times and eventually stop bothering. Anyway, if there are no further disruptive edits by the above user, then maybe we can leave it be? Hopefully he sees this. Cheers!Calaka (talk) 09:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Open WP:Wikihounding by User:Viriditas

Resolved

Brought as an RfC here by request of admins here and other users here and here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I apologize in advance for the long posting, but understand that it's actually a tiny fraction of what's been going on, making it virtually impossible to edit on Wikipedia. I and other editors need admin help regarding some openly brazen WP:Wikihounding that literally takes up now several hours a day over numerous articles and boards. In fact, it has just caused one excellent editor (Wildhartlivie) to declare that he is "Done" attempting to edit an article, wondering "I keep wondering why an administrator hasn't intervened with what is being said and the attacks upon me and the two of you." This Wikihounding campaign intensified after Viriditas was blocked from editing for 48 hours six days ago for WP:Edit Warring on Human rights in the United States, including falsely accusing at least two editors of "NPOV" and "plagarism", the Wikihounding, which had existed before, was increased. Spread to Jonestown - After his/her block time ran out, Viriditas then began a series of tagging and openly combative Talk page sections at the Jonestown article, which I had previously edited mostly a year or more ago and Viriditas had never before edited, with three editors. When another editor raised his suspicions that this was part of Viriditas' continuing attempted dispute with me, Viriditas actually admitted "yes, my attention was drawn to this article due to the actions of another user who has been active here, referring to me. Viriditas' most sizable campaign there involved the inclusion of a POV tag over the entire article because the article did not do more than discuss for one sentence and link to the article Jonestown conspiracy theory, a fringe CIA conspiracy theory first espoused by cult leader Jim Jones himself to hs followers. Spread to Noticeboards - Unfortunately, it has now spread even further, to a baseless Neutral Point of View complaint lodged by Viriditas on the same conspiracy theory, wherein it was again explained to this user -- over more combative commentary -- by a yet another univolved editor "I see no real NPOV issue here" along with the same statements by the other three editors. The uninvolved editor, now the FOURTH editor to say this, stated "the (correct IMO) point was made repetitively by others that the content under debate best belonged in the conspiracy article - and User:Viriditas refusal to accept that seems to have consumed a lot of effort that could have been better spent improving that article and the short mention of it in the main article". Talk Page Comment Deletions of multiple editors - The WP:Wikihounding includes repeatedly deleting my comments on Article Talk pages -- along with those of other editors -- in gross violation of WP:TPO, so much so that Viriditas was seperately made to stop such Talk Page comment deletions by an administrator at ANI-3RR here in a separate instance. Combative, Uncivil Accusations and Charges to nearly every editor - Unfortunately, in the Jonestown article, which has now suffered from this new part of the WP:Wikihounding campaign, the Talk page alone has ballooned in size by over 1,100% in three days -- from 10K to over 115K -- by the now highly combative many-hours/day Talk page campaign that Viriditas is waging with me and other editors. Just one click on the page reveals the now nightmare state is has become. This includes violating WP:Assume Good Faith and further WP:Disruptive editing on that page and other talk pages: to editor Wildhartlivie - I see you are still chewing on sour grapes from the shortened footnotes discussion. My neutrality here has never been in question. to editor radek - "you have shown that you are intellectually dishonest" edit comment re me and Yachtsman1 - "crud posted by disruptive crudités attempting to distract and change the subject. Your crud is not needed" to me - Because of your documented history of poor editing involving cherry picking of primary and secondary sources, undue weight, NPOV violations, and plagiarism to editor Wildhartlivie: Sorry, but none of what you say makes any sense. to editor Yachtsman1 - You are a tag teaming meatuppet for Mosedchurtre, the editor who refuses to allow a discussion of the classified sources and conspiracy theories in the article, and you are not neutral. You have the same documented NPOV issues as Mosedchurtre. to editor Wildhartlive - You're not following the discussion. To refresh your memory, to editor Yachtsman1 - "you aren't the first civil POV pusher/wikilawer to try it, nor the last" to editor Yachtsman1: You aren't paying attention. Understand that this is just a TINY SAMPLE of the combative bloat that the Talk:Jonestown has assumed since Viriditas brought the Wikihounding campaign there three days ago. Disruptive Editing and Baiting - The WP:Wikihounding also involves WP:Disruptive editing that was open outright WP:Harrassment, including several false accsations repeated, ignoring all statements made, just to attempt to bait some aggressive responsve, such as the following (just one of many examples) regarding the potential citation of an article by Dr. Rebcca Moore, which I never opposed: Viriditas - "Why isn't this source allowed to be used in the article? . . . What is your objection to using this particular source?" Me -"No editor, including me, has disallowed this (Rebecca Moore) article, and I in fact have cited Dr. Moore's books in this article. I have no objection to the source, or many thousands of other books and articles on Jonestown" Viriditas - "Why will you not allow a scholarly article written by the chair of the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, Rebecca Moore, to be used in this article" Me - *Please stop making false statements such as "Why will you not allow a scholarly article written by the chair of the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, Rebecca Moore " , each continued falsity is a further indication of WP:Disruptive editing. The brazen falseness of this charge is especially telling for future ANI action where I directly stated above, ""No editor, including me, has disallowed this article, and I in fact have cited Dr. Moore's books in this article. I have no objection to the source, or many thousands of other books and articles on Jonestown." Viriditas - "Please explain why you will not allow a scholarly article written by the chair of the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, Rebecca Moore, to be used in this article" Me - Third time now, please stop making false statements such as "Please explain why you will not allow a scholarly article written by the chair of the Department of Religious Studies at San Diego State University, Rebecca Moore, to be used in this article " Viriditas - "What is it that you find objectionable about citing this academic paper" Me - Fourth time now, please stop making false statements, each continued falsity is a further indication of WP:Disruptive editing. The brazen falseness of this charge is especially telling for future ANI action where I directly stated above, ""No editor, including me, has disallowed this article, and I in fact have cited Dr. Moore's books in this article. I have no objection to the source, or many thousands of other books and articles on Jonestown." . There is ZERO issue with citing this article. Again, this is merely one example of combative disruptive editing and baiting via false statements that occurs throughout the Talk page. Threats - The campaign also includes numerous threats, such as "Please stop ignoring my questions per talk page guidelines. Failure to answer them but continuing to make the same points will get you in trouble." HUSH practices - The campaign also involves engaging in WP:HUSH, leaving numerous warnings on both my talk page, as well as user:Yachtsman1 here, here, and here False Plagarism Assertions/Forum Shopping - The campaign further includes makinge false "plagarism" accusations, at times as an attempted pretext to delete text, including at WP:Content_noticeboard, where he/she was told "If it's paraphrased sufficiently, it isn't plagiarism. It is paraphrased sufficiently." For the record, as Viriditas was told by others, it is plainly obvious that it was not plagarism, yet Viriditas repeatedly deleted the text based on this false basis, such as here, here, here, here and here. Note, he/she continued the false accusations of "plagarism", here, with [As for your continued plagiarism of content, that is a fact that is not in dispute. In fact, she did so an another board not just about one editor, but about two here: Both the content noticeboard and the copyright cleanup board agreed that you (another editor) and Mosedchurte are engaging in plagiarism. Openly admits to POV in editing - Viriditas also overtly admits POV in editing, such as with regard to the tendency to include violations over advances in Human rights in the United States, where he/she admitted "Mosedschurte, do you understand that the positive advancement of human rights in the U.S. has come out of the criticism of negative incidents?" Attempts to Resolve before coming to ANI - Please understand, and I cannot stress this enough, that I have hestitated to bring this to the attention of ANI for days, fearing that it will just draw even more aggressive WP:Wikihounding from this editor. Two days ago, I placed the following "Sincere Request" on this user's Talk page stating "Honestly, this is not some attempt at snarky sarcasm by me, but a sincere request. just a consideration that we not let any dispute (between us, content or otherwise) spill over into other articles? . . . I truly believe -- all B.S. aside, and no blame on either party in this particular statement -- that we would both be happier and more productive both on and off of Wikipedia without spending time and energy continuing disputes across multiple articles." This was ignored. I then yesterday again renewed my request with "Please, I wanted to renew the original request, a consideration that we not let any dispute (between us, content or otherwise) in Human rights in the United States spill over into other articles. We would both be happier and more productive both on and off of Wikipedia without spending time and energy continuing disputes across multiple articles." This was again ignored. I simply have no other avenue in which to turn other than this board. I can no longer edit on Wikipedia without facing literally many hours a day of WP:Wikihounding including overtly combative talk page comments and reverts, much less do so enjoyably. In fact, I didn't even go into the rest of them, simply scan the now massively bloated Talk:Jonestown for many more examples, because I felt that this complaint was already too long. I am not sure what the proper remedy for such harrassment is -- whether it be an outright block, or just an order to not particiapte in articles in which I (and perhaps Yachtsman1) edit, or something of the like. Honestly, whatever remedy will make it go away is preferrable. Mosedschurte (talk) 09:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC) When the complaint is this long, perhaps it should have involved an WP:RFC/U instead? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC) I could have shortened it to just the talk page deletions/abusive commentary/etc., but I thought that an administrator would want more info to work with. Again, this is just a tiny fraction of the problematic WP:Wikihounding. We really have no where else to turn at this point.Mosedschurte (talk) 11:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Note - I have notified Viriditas about this thread. ANI reports about users require notification to them. Exxolon (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC) Thank you, Exxolon. Since I never even glance at Mosedchurtre's contribution list, I would never have known about this report. To address this allegation of "hounding": Mosedchurte was not actively editing Jonestown when I arrived on 25 June. In fact, before I arrived, his last edit to the main Jonestown article was on 30 March 2009[22], and his last edit to the talk page was on 5 January 2009[23] My first edit was on the talk page on 25 June 2009.[24] Mosedchurtre didn't even show up until a day later. However, I did come to the article because he had recently plagiarized material on Human rights in the United States. After trying to address the issue of plagiarism with Mosedchurtre on the talk page unsuccessfully for days, I began to look at his contributions using Soxred93's tools. Looking further, I found that issues related to problems with sources, cherry picking and NPOV were previously discussed on the noticeboards concerning his edits to Jim Jones/People's temple topics: [25], [26], [27], [28]. I then decided to check up on his contributions and look for copyvio. Shortly thereafter, I requested an analysis by WikiProject Copyright Cleanup of one of Mosedchurtre's edits I found problematic (I'm looking at many more right now). The project reported back that "this passage is a problem under Wikipedia's policies as it takes creative elements (both language and structure) from a non-free source in a manner inconsistent with the non-free content policy & guideline. From a legal standpoint, close paraphrase of a single passage is unlikely to clear the de minimis threshold, whether or not the material is defensible as fair use. But Wikipedia's own policies do require that non-free content be plainly marked." I have recently submitted Jonestown for peer review and hope to help improve it. I would appreciate more eyes on the article, especially the talk page, where the tag team of Yachtsman1/Mosedchurtre has followed me over from Human rights in the United States. Viriditas (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2009 (UTC) I'll let most of the falsehoods stand (anyone can simply clink the links above to reveal their wackiness) but: When another editor confronted Viriditas about aggressive commentary and edits at Jonestown merely because I had edited there, Viriditas actually admitted "yes, my attention was drawn to this article due to the actions of another user who has been active here. I won't repeat the massive bloat, abusive commentary and tendentious editing then ramped up even further. The primary focus of Viriditas since beginning the Jonestown leg of the WP:Wikihounding had zero to do with "plagarism" at all, but an accusation that the entire Jonestown article violated POV because of the lack of discussion regarding the Jonestown conspiracy theory, for which all three editors at the article told Viriditas he/she was incorrect. This was followed by yet another leg of the WP:Wikihounding campaign of Viriditas' immediate complaint at the Neutral POV Noticeboard, where the Noticeboard editor (now a fourth editor) also Told Viriditas that "the (correct IMO) point was made repetitively by others that the content under debate best belonged in the conspiracy article - and User:Viriditas refusal to accept that seems to have consumed a lot of effort that could have been better spent improving that article and the short mention of it in the main article". Regarding the false "plagarism" charge leg of the WP:Wikihounding, Viriditas was told by the editors at the first content board in which he/she lodged YET ANOTHER complaint that, bluntly, "If it's paraphrased sufficiently, it isn't plagiarism. It is paraphrased sufficiently.". Alleged "plagarism" was also the same false pretext used before that did not work when Viriditas was blocked for 48 hours for editing six days ago. Regarding a second editor's consideration that the original paraphrase was too close -- but she refused to state that it "plagarism" as well -- the text was [plainly fixed and paraphrased even more since then and is no longer an issue. Note that that editor also directed Viriditas, when she comes across any problems, to simply "rewrite that passage to address the problem", which Viriditas has repeatedly refused to do as part of the WP:Wikihounding, instead deleting the text wholesale REPEATEDLY (see above), continuing to use the false "plagarism" charges as a pretext to delete text -- both by me and at least one other editor (Yachtsman1), furthering the WP:Wikihounding campaign. In addition to the huge number of examples above, I would like to state that this WP:Wikihounding campaign literally consumes, no exaggeration, hours/day and has alredy forced one editor (Wildhartlivie) to consider himself "Done" in disgust in the Jonestown leg of the WP:Wikihounding. I'm not even suggesting that some sort of block is mandatory -- even just some kind of admonition to stop editing/following/hounding me in articles besides Human rights in the United States (the original article kicking off the WP:Wikihounding) would be enough. There is literally no other remedy aviable to any editors of these articles/noticeboards besides soem adminstrator action (or unilateral action by Viriditas, whom I have TWICE requested to stop with a "Sincere Request" on his/her Talk page, and a follow up plea). Mosedschurte (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC) This should be a user conduct RFC. ⟳ausa کui × 20:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC) An RFC would probably be shorter. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 02:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC) My issues regarding this user came about as the discussion on Talk:Jonestown progressed. When I looked at the contributions history and realized that Viriditas had been in some lengthy and what appeared to be contentious disputes with Mosedschurte, I immediately voiced concern that it was not being carried over to previously uninvolved article [29]. Despite assurances to the contrary, [30] [31] it became apparent from statements Viriditas made early on that the intent was not necessarily a neutral one, but based on preconceived notions that were not later supported by dispute pages diffs that the editor posted. At least the resolutions did not reflect the outcomes Viriditas claimed that they did. Dispute itself isn't an issue, miscontruing the results is, however this post more concerns the behavior that Viriditas displayed against me specifically and statements that misrepresented previous comments, incivility and flat out rudeness. As discussion went on, Viriditas's responses became more aggressive, confrontational and incivil. When I addressed the manner in which he/she was posting and that he/she had repeatedly expressed doubts about the editor reviewing the article neutrally [32], he/she responded incivilly, dismissing my statement, making a personal attack in stating that I was "still chewing on sour grapes" and claimed that his/her "neutrality here has never been in question" [33], despite my having asked at least three times for an outside reviewer or dispute resolution be sought instead [34] [35] [36]. I responded [37], posting diffs to 5 previous posts I'd made questioning his/her neutrality on the article to that time [38] [39] [40] [41] [42], and once again expressed my concerns with his mission on the page. Viriditas made made increasingly incivil posts and personal attacks to and about me. "You're not following the discussion. To refresh your memory... My next post objected to tone and requested that it stop, and explained that the editor's posts were bereft of diffs to check what was being posted [43]. The response was to finally repost the diff that had been posted some 150 posts earlier and suggested I "try to read the discussion". I protested the tone and incivility and again requested that the "contentious and attacking" posts stop. That post provoked a response that included "You must be kidding. Please do yourself a favor and actually read what you wrote above, at 03:27, 28 June 2009. Your entire comment was one long demeaning commentary, contentious, and attacking ... Seriously, take a break or something because you aren't making any sense at all." Later, when I again challenged the editor's ability to conduct a neutral assessment of content involving Mosedshurte, the editor denied issues with neutrality and claimed that I would have to show "a non-neutral concern or edit" and referred to my repeated expressed concerns as "a neat trick, but it's painfully transparent". The editor claimed "there is a mandate to discuss the conspiracy theories here, per Wikipedia:NPOV#POV_forks", I responded with a somewhat thorough examination of that here, which Viriditas dismissed in a demeaning and patronizing manner, saying "My concerns were directly addressed by a neutral third-party from the NPOV noticeboard, so I have no idea what you are going on about now." The attacks and incivility actually worsened at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, where I made this initial statement. My involvement on Talk:Jonestown was dismissed and characterized as stemming from my being "very upset at [Viriditas because I pointed out that your chosen referencing format was unwieldy and inefficient and I recommended the use of shortened footnotes in its place. You then threatened to leave the article if I changed anything"], both of which were factually untrue. The editor then posted this, which effectively minimized my overriding concern with the actual involvement of the editor him/herself constituting an issue with POV, trying to direct the discussion back to only what points he/she wanted to cover, frankly ignoring that larger issue. Viriditas then mischaracterized my statements and POV concerns with his/her involvement on the article at the noticeboard as "an angry response from Wildhartlivie" and dismissed all the other editors' posts as "more POV crud". At that time, an uninvolved editor reviewed the page and claims being made and concluded "I see no real NPOV issue here" in response to Veriditas charge of NPOV violations. Even after that, Veriditas continued contentiousness, stating "The burying of comments under repeated "crud" without actually addressing the topic or saying anything is a common tactic of POV pushers." I again posted a protest regarding the personal attacks, mischaracterizations, and contentiousness [44], to which Viriditas replied "I have no idea what you are talking about, but that's an interesting fantasy world you live in." Viriditas attacked a source linked to a caption on a photo essay on the Time magazine website [45], claiming it could have been plagiarized from Wikipedia, that the Time content was "backward sourcing" and attacked the reliability by demanding an author's name and dating from the site, although the photo essay was clearly titled "Mass Suicide at Jonestown: 30 Years Later". I stated that "the event happened in November 1978 - when then would 30 years later be?" The response was patronizing and quite odd and ignored the clear evidence of the date of the essay [46]. A different source was then found, and Viriditas refused to support or discuss her/his rather odd claim that Time magazine was plagiarizing content from Wikipedia by copying from here and publishing it without proper terms of use attribution, despite being repeatedly asked. Based on the gross incivility, personal attacks, bad faith assumptions and contentiousness shown by Viriditas, I would request that he/she be admonished for this gross violation of Wikipedia behavioral principles and suggest that he/she be banned from conducting "POV, cherry-picking sources and plagiarism" reviews on pages in relationship to editing by Mosedschurte and topic banned from articles concerning Jim Jones, Jonestown and Peoples Temple related subjects. This is simply outrageous and unacceptable and editors should not be required to endure personal attacks, incivility, contentiousness or confrontation of this scope. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC) I would invite anyone interested in the facts to take a look at all of my edits to Talk:Jonestown beginning with the thread Talk:Jonestown#Cherry_picking_of_primary_sources. It is clear from that first discussion and until the end, that as a primary contributor with 95 edits to Jonestown, Wildhartlivie has ownership issues, and instead of directly addressing my concerns, chose to assume bad faith about me, treated me with incivility, made many personal attacks against my character, and for the most part, avoided addressing the discussion. All of the links above are responses to incivility and fails to show the initial comments. This would be like me saying "Look, Wildhartlivie is rude, he told me to eat my shorts" while omitting the fact that I told him his mother wears army boots and snake skins. It's not honest to show only one side of the dispute. I have made a total of 11 edits to the article, all of which were maintenance-related and connected directly to discussion on the talk page. I have made no additions or deletions of content, nor did I intend to do so as I stated on the talk page. For example, when Wildhartlivie became upset when I questioned his referencing format, I assured him, "I have not said that I'm going to implement the referencing proposal without your support, I've merely tried to discuss it with you to find out why you oppose it." A NPOV incident report was filed when consensus could not be reached, and User:Jaymax, a neutral editor, successfully carried out the changes I requested. This is exactly how I intend to continue working: 1) Use the talk page to raise the problem 2) Engage in discussion 3) Reach a consensus for a change. 4) If consensus cannot be reached, contact a neutral third-party on a related noticeboard and request the changes. Anyone who is interested is welcome to examine my edits on both the talk page and the main article. Viriditas (talk) 09:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Final conclusion about Google hits

In the recent AFD discussions, the problem of Google hits was really intriguing. In some discussions 80 google hits were considered as proofs of notability, in others, 300 google hits were judged meaningful; what about this.?,Rirunmot (talk) 13:32, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

That is interesting. My understanding is that Wikipedia:GOOGLE#Notability dismisses the entire idea of establishing notability with hits, so I don't know why these arguments are still being used. Viriditas (talk) 13:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Google hits are rightly listed as an argument to avoid in deletion discussions.  Skomorokh  13:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It's because many who make such arguments do not care about or otherwise outright dismiss the notability guidelines. MuZemike 17:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Skomorokh, how can anyone remember all of these arguments to avoid? Can anyone come up with a mnemonic? Viriditas (talk) 09:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Admin eyes would probably be a good idea

It's already semi'd, but Billy Mays just died, and according to a friend of mine who frequents the place (seriously, an actual friend) /b/ is having a minor paroxysm. The article has apparently previously been a target for move-vandals. → ROUX ₪ 17:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It was protected here but I don't see any actual vandalism. Of course, admins seems to enjoy doing that now so what difference does it make. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I know it was protected. My guess is that the first recent protection (March) was while he was alive, thus a BLP, and the revs have probably been removed from public view. The second one seems to me to be a very smart move in the case of deaths of high-profile people. There is no rush, so a short bout of protection while the furor dies down is probably a good thing. However, none of that is why I posted this, I just wanted to make sure admins were watching for sleeper socks, given /b/'s attention to the issue. Also, given that the original protection was by NawlinWiki, I'd be willing to bet that /b/ and/or he who must not be named were involved. → ROUX ₪ 19:33, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I just have to disagree with protection "while the furor dies down" when there hasn't been any vandalism out there. I know Jackson's article regularly is protected but seeing that something like 2009 Iranian election protests has lasted pretty well without any protection at all, I guess I'd rather we wait until someone actually happens rather than keeping new users locked out under fears of potential abuse. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Greek love

Things are becoming distinctly unWP:Cool at this article and its talk page. There was a recent afd where the consensus was to keep. I was aware of some heat at the time and wanted to keep half an eye on what was happening to the content but the proliferation of silly section titles in the talk page: Talk:Greek love#Absurd, Talk:Greek love#21:07, Talk:Greek love#21:09 Talk:Greek love#questionable" and Talk:Greek love#Editor admits original research, point of view, and referencing personal letter. etc. and the deletion of large chunks of text in ther article followed by reversion means that I've lost the will to keep up. Could a kind admin be so good as to consider protecting whatever the wrong version happens to be at the time they get there and encourage more constructive use of the talk page, please?--Peter cohen (talk) 18:07, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I've reviewed the edit history of the article, and whilst there are a lot of edits, there's also a lot of talk page discussion accompanying them. There's some reversion going on, but there's also some constructive editing going on, as well. The problem here appears not to be the article, but the talk page, with edits such as this one and this one, for example. Protecting the article won't address this talk page etiquette problem.

  As for the "silly section titles", at least one actually is not silly. Talk:Greek love#questionable" is, as the section title states, about the use of the word "questionable" in place of other text. Far from being "silly" it seems plainly denotative, and indeed far less problematic than editors using section titles to call each other dishonest.

  You have a talk page etiquette problem. Page protections and blocks are too blunt tools for this. This is especially so given that the page to protect would be the talk page, which would be entirely counterproductive for the writing of the article proper. The talk page is being used. It's even being used extensively. It's just not being used well. The best course of action is to ask for third party editors to step in with quiet words to all parties on user talk pages at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Uncle G (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Max Mux

User:Max Mux has requested a more public review of his block and ban - in the interests of sorting this all out, I'm willing to comply. In a discussion here (under the heading Abuse of Wikipedia:Guidelines) Max was put under a set of restrictions to do with creating articles. This was because of a continued and consistent failure to understand the reliable sources policy, far beyond the point where language problems (Max is a german speaker) could be used as an excuse. After repeated failure to use Reliable Sources, Max was indefinitely blocked and community banned as per the original agreement. This is slightly problematic, since the original agreement prohibited the creation of new pages (even though that wasn't the main problem) but said nothing about the use of Reliable Sources. I expressed slight misgivings at the time, and max has now requested a more public review. The question, then, is twofold: firstly, whether you agree that max's behaviour on top of that expressed in the last thread is such that he deserves an indefinite block, and secondly whether you think this block fell under the community agreement in the last thread. Ironholds (talk) 19:30, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

• I remember the discussion, as well as--if memory serves--evidence of shenanigans on de.wiki. To answer your questions: yes and yes. → ROUX ₪ 19:39, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• The reason I went ahead and instated the community ban was because I believed that the spirit of the last discussion was about the inability to understand and follow policy. Yes, he stopped creating articles at a break-neck speed, but then started up again in his userspace. When told to stop creating them willy-nilly, listen to his mentor and fix the ones he already created instead, he dropped them completely and blithely went back to adding unsourced information to various biographies. I think it is clear that at best, Max absolutely cannot understand what's expected of him; at worst, given his participation at de.wiki, he simply has no interest in following policy. Either way, stopping someone from running amok in biographies is prevention at its best. Shell ^babelfish 19:52, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
• Yes, the block was deserved, but no, it did not fall under the remit of the discussion regarding a community ban. From a purely technical standpoint he did not violate the restrictions placed on him by the community; that said, it is pretty obvious that Max Mux seems to have a fundamental inability to "follow the rules" so to speak. I do not know whether this inability is intentional or otherwise but the problem is egregious enough that his continued editing here is a net drag on the project. Making the jump in logic to apply a "community ban" for something not directly related may be a large leap indeed and I can see how one would make the case that he should not be considered "banned" per se, but I for one would be unwilling to unblock him either way. Shereth 14:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Battle of Warsaw 1920

This requires rapid administrator investigation and response, possibly oversighting or office actions also. Exxolon (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Oversighting and office actions? For what purpose? As I said here, the person in question doesn't seem to be correctly understanding the discussion he is complaining about. There's nothing we should do, as his claims are baseless. --auburnpilot talk 23:08, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Not really; the most significant part of the complaint follows from a misunderstanding (the complainant construed an assertion at FAR that an article too closely paraphrased his work [i.e., that we had plagiarized him] as an assertion that he had plagiarized, a misreading that is not easily made). Courtesy blanking suffices. 68.76.156.73 (talk) 23:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Returning vandal

Judging from their contributions Capetown Jones (talk · contribs) would appear to be a returning vandal (and rather a nasty piece of work). Does anyone recognise them? Could someone familiar with persistent vandals follow-up with checkuser/WP:LTA if appropriate? Any help appreciated,  Skomorokh  22:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Their modus operandi bears similarity to that of King of Sing Sing (talk · contribs).  Skomorokh  22:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Capetown Jones (talk · contribs) has been blocked by another admin, and I have blocked King of Sing Sing (talk · contribs). You may want to file a quick case at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations#Quick CheckUser requests. Tiptoety ^talk 22:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance Tiptoety (and thanks also to User:Kurt Shaped Box). I've filed the sock case as you have advised, though I'm not au fait with the process. Mahalo,  Skomorokh  22:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Also blocked The Lion Bear (talk · contribs) and the underlying IP. I thought this was Fclass (talk · contribs), but it appears to be someone else. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 23:40, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

James P. Barker unresolved

This has been here a few days ago clearly not an article for speedy deletion and is still unresolved. I have asked user Manning to restore the page, disscussion and full history but he has not gotten back to me. The speedy deletion was obviously wrong so that the article and history should be fully restored. I am asking you to do it now because it is a mess and people even use the deletion that violates normal procedure as an example in another ongoing afd. There would be also no harm to reopen the Afd for James P. Barker as it was wrongly cut off and let the community have their say on an 3 year old article. I think it would be more harm and wrong if it would be simply redirected without giving the wider community the chance to have their say. Iqinn (talk) 00:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think the AfD was closed incorrectly, the place to discuss this is at deletion review. A number of editors might agree with you on that, and if so the AfD could be relisted. Incidentally, I was the person who mentioned it in the Steven Dale Green AfD, and I was not mentioning it "as an example," but rather making the point that if WP:BLP1E applied to Barker, it should probably apply to Green as well. In any case, deletion review is the place to make your case on this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:22, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

For the deletion review i need access to the article and it's history. So i can make my case that it has been wrongly speedy deleted under A7. Only administrators have access to it now. If you think deletion review is the best way that's ok but i and people need access to the article to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iqinn (talk • contribs) 00:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If you feel you need access to the article, email me or another administrator and we can send you the most recent revision by email. Once the deletion review is started, the history may be temporarily restored for that purpose. We usually don't restore prior to the DRV being filed. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The result of the previous discussion seemed to be that the article shouldn't be restored and that a bare redirect was the correct outcome, even if the process that reached it was wrong. Is there a specific reason why the full history needs to be restored? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 14:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User:Alex contributing

Alex contributing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
User is coming off a recent block for "Personal attacks or harassment: obscenities in edit summaries, disruptive editing" and this is apparently their way of moving on. I understand the idea of letting users blow off some steam on their own talk page, but this seems to be a bit much after a week.
I don't have time to dig out diffs of the original trouble tonight, but will later if necessary. From what I remember, they're upset over a category being deleted. --Onorem♠Dil 00:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• good lord no, "I can only hope he will listen to that admonishment: not to be a faggot." as the capstone to the rest of the homophobic filth--and the day after the 40th anniversary of Stonewall, no less! Pride day for me--is completely unacceptable. Ban. → ROUX ₪ 00:21, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Indef blocked. There is absolutely no reason for this guy's continued attacks to be tolerated. --auburnpilot talk 00:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also suggest talk page protection, no reason to let the user have a soapbox to spread homophobia. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 04:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

...along with deleting the talk page per deny recognition. MuZemike 06:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Both done.  Sandstein  15:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Support indef and deny. Completely unacceptable behaviour. Ironholds (talk) 06:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks in article mainspace

I'm having a bit of a dispute with User:Russellfl5, in the article John Russell (Florida politician) and outside. I listed the article for deletion, and actually filed a sock puppet report, thinking that they were the same as User:Baxterword, and I'm still not convinced that they are not the same (the report is at [[47]]). Now, after cleaning up a coding error by Russellfl5 in that SPI, I saw some nasty, nasty things, and to my surprise they had repeated accusations of terrorism (yes, indeed) in the article mainspace, here. I can't rightly tell if I'm being "outed" here or not--I guess not, since the user doesn't seem to understand UTC, but I'm certainly being insulted as an Israel-hating terrorist. Do I need to explain here that my interest, as you'll see from the article history, was to remove trivia? Your attention is appreciated. Russell is aggravating me a little. Drmies (talk) 04:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems that Russellf15 is claiming to be John Russell (Florida politician). I removed his rant from the article and left a standard COI warning on his talk page. If it continues, he'll likely be blocked. --auburnpilot talk 05:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

After making this edit, one minute after the COI warning, I've indef-blocked the user. It's a bit faster than usual, but this type of harassment isn't indicative of someone who wants to edit constructively. I trust that's not overly controversial. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

No arguments here. Somebody might also want to keep an eye on PuddyKat (talk · contribs). The account has the distinct trademarks of a sock/meat puppet. --auburnpilot talk 05:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Good block on Mr. Russell; [48] is deserving of an automatic indefinite disruption block. MuZemike 05:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have also requested CheckUser in that SPI per the likelihood and evidence of further abuse via sockpuppetry. MuZemike 05:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

From the SPI report: Russellfl5 (talk · contribs) is  Unrelated to Baxterword (talk · contribs).  Confirmed PuddyKat (talk · contribs) = Russellfl5 (talk · contribs). (Check done by Nishkid64) Icestorm815 • Talk 14:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you all for your quick action. Reporting someone at AN/I does not make me feel real good about myself, but I guess I am glad I did it. I do appreciate, from all of you, your serious consideration, which led to the block and the unmasking of a sock puppet--I wouldn't have thought of that myself. Which is why you guys have the admin job and I correct comma errors! Thanks again, Drmies (talk) 15:45, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

By the way, I received an email message from Russell, accusing me of lack of balls and inviting me to call him and all that: "If you have the BALLS why don't you call me RIGHT NOW AND WE'LL TALK?" (He included his cell number...) I don't know if, after the block, he still has email privileges. Also, I should just ignore this, right? Or should I just call the local newspaper, haha? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:01, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Local newspaper would be more satisfying, but ignoring is best -- unless he starts slinging legal threats around, in which case you should let us know again -- you shouldn't have to stand alone for good-faith edits.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Block his ability to send emails, please. MuZemike 16:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, that was apparently already done, and the user still was able to send an email. MuZemike 17:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Which account did you receive the email from? User:Russellfl5 has email sending blocked. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Whoa, I never thought to check. The email came from his own email account, not through Wikipedia. So he had my personal email address already at Monday, June 29, 2009 12:27 AM. No wonder he had my work phone number at 10AM. This is creepy, but as I understand it's been 'handled' already at the sysop level. Brrr. Drmies (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Adjusted block on PuddyKat to do the same. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 18:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Broy7 seems to be an obvious site abuser

User:Broy7 Has been warned twice already by me and refuses to respond or discuss. Numerous examples of blatant removal of material on dozens of articles. Deletes vast sections of articles and gives reasons like "poor grammar" or "bad English." The grammar and English on the page will be fine..........then what they leave of the article they mess it up with grammar errors and bad English on purpose. Unreal the nerve they have.

Constantly removes sourced and pertinent info from numerous pages, even entire sections of articles that are sourced and pertinent, citing "bad English" and "poor grammar," only to then leave a bare bones article, to which they then go through again and purposely put bad grammar and English on what is left of the page. Reverts back any restores of pages and reverts unlimited number of times, usually within an hour or less. If someone adds something new to an article this user works on or has worked on in the past, then within an hour, maybe less, the page will be reverted back. No matter what the add is, how pertinent it is, if it is updating an article, correcting an article, adding a source, whatever........it will be reverted back.

There are it seems in the dozens of articles now in a relatively short period of time that the user is doing this to. Most of them just include taking an article and deleting most info on it and leaving an edit summary like "greatly improved this article that was done so badly", or "fixed the terrible English in this article". Of course, there was no fixing or improving, just deleting of a whole lot of stuff and then purposely messing the English and grammar up. It seems that all articles relating to Lithuania Wikipedia project are what the user is targeting, at least for now anyway. If you try to talk to this user and explain about new material being added to a page that was a pertinent update or a source being added and that it should not be reverted back you get no response. You also get no response if you try to inform them of the 3 revert rule. This user is an abuser - one of the worst I have seen yet. I would not put this here lightly, but this user is certainly purposely trying to mess up articles. That is very obvious. This user might even be worse than Downwards. Wiki Greek Basketball (talk) 08:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The first few diffs of Broy7's that I reviewed seemed like good edits. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you please provide us some links to this purported "problem behavior"? I checked out several of the edits and I do not see any obvious issues. Shereth 14:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

They are feuding at Šarūnas Jasikevičius (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Ramūnas Šiškauskas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Naturally neither one is using the article talk pages, Basketball's first edit to User talk:Broy7 assumes bad faith [49], and Broy7 has never posted to use own user talk page. Thatcher 15:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Longstanding edit war on Syrian/Egyptian articles

Hey. I wasn't really sure where to post this since it's been growing in the past few days, so if it's in the wrong place, please let me know and I'll take it elsewhere.

Basically I became involved in this issue as a third opinion to settle a dispute. Two editors have been going back and forth on Asmahan and articles related to that one about whether she was Syrian, Egyptian, or Syrian-Egyptian, or some combination involving Lebanon as well. Turns out that one of the editors was battling on the page as an anon IP before he registered as Arab Cowboy. Either way, this issue has been going on for nearly two months and resulted in an admin fully protecting the page. The editing has recently spilled over into other articles.

The reason I wasn't sure as to where to post this is because it touches so many different issues. It largely looks like one user being a tendentious edit warrior, but maybe not. And it is a content dispute, but after two months of issues, I don't really get the sense that this one editor is going to respect any sort of consensus that comes out of an RfC. The main discussion I've been involved with is at Talk:Asmahan. But I'm really not sure how to proceed from here, so any advice would be helpful. Thanks. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Um, just as a follow-up, the two editors are Arab Cowboy (talk · contribs) and Supreme Deliciousness (talk · contribs). — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"She was born on a ship heading from Greece to Lebanon." In other words, she was born in international waters -- which is going to complicate even a civil discussion of the matter. Aiyaiyai. Annyong, my advice is to get the parties to supply reliable sources which show that this is a point of contention beyond Wikipedia's little world; if they exist, use what they say. If none are forthcoming -- that is, except for these two, no one actually argues over her nationality -- then use Occam's razor & go with the simplest statement, such as she was Egyptian citizenship of Lebanese (or Syrian) parents -- or simply have the article state she did most of her shows in Egypt. (Even better, use what the reliable secondary sources say.) But getting a pair like these to accept that Wikipedia's not going to print The Truth -- only statement of what notable people think is The Truth -- will require a lot of patience & tact. Good luck. -- llywrch (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editor Wikifan12345 possible sockpuppet for banned accounts

Wikifan12345 is a disruptive and tendentious editor who exclusively edits Israel/Palestine articles from a pro-Israel perspective. Full disclosure: I've had problems with him/her in Israeli Settlement but I've also noticed him causing problems in 1948 Palestinian exodus and Mohamed ElBaradei, the latter in which he has continually refused to accept a consensus against including a section about Israel. He pushed the issue to mediation and then refused to accept the outcome after the mediator told him to accept the consensus.

I noticed on his userpage ([50]) that he has listed 3 accounts under the heading R.I.P. (meaning rest in peace, one would assume). The 3 accounts are pro-Israel accounts (Malcolm Schosha, Tundrabuggy, Jayjg) that have been admonished for violating Wikipedia rules.

Tundrabuggy was blocked indefinitely for sockpuppeting after they evaded detection for 10 months during a 1 year ban on their original account (Dajudem) that resulted from CAMERA fiasco.

Malcolm Schosha was blocked indefinitely after a number of virulent personal attacks against pro-Palestinian editors.

The fact that this user has created a memorial for a number of blocked users shows that he is not going to accept community standards, and that he regards Wikipedia purely as a battlefield rather than an encyclopedia.

This also raises the question of whether Wikifan12345 is a sockpuppet of one of these banned accounts or is a CAMERA meatpuppet. Halfacanyon (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This looks suspiciously like a tit-for-tat of WP:Wikiquette_alerts#Halfacanyon_accusing_me_of_POV-pushing.2C_lying.2C_etc... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Halfacanyon, where has Jayjg been admonished for violating Wikipedia rules as stated above? --Tom (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Here and here. There are also earlier arbitration cases, but those are the most recent. Halfacanyon (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if that is the same as violating rules, but got your drift, thanks, --Tom (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 is evidently not in the same time zone as any of the other three editors. It's usually a good idea to check such things before making public accusations. Hans Adler 15:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Halfacanyon

For someone whose account has been active for one month, this looks like another tit-for-tat... seicer | talk | contribs 15:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone reaaaaaalllly learned Wikipedia quickly! ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If Halfacanyon walks like a duck, then quacks like a duck... duck-billed platypus? IronDuke 16:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

But unlike Wikifan I'm not maintaining a memorial of sockpuppet accounts that have been banned on my user page. Now _that_ is quacking like a duck Halfacanyon (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, of course. IronDuke 18:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

His addition of this smartarsed edit and immediate removal is ... well ... interesting (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What's "smartarsed" about saying I have nothing to hide? I removed it because I thought he may have been asking Wikifan due to the indenting. If he isn't then I stand by my comments. Halfacanyon (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I will respond to this in a couple of hours. I am busy at the moment. this is too funny. : ) cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Remarks by Seicer, BWilkins and IronDuke above are unclear, unhelpful and distracting. Please find a useful WP:-policy yourself. A user promoting CAMERA-banned user on the user-page cannot claim a pro-wikipedia-attitude. -DePiep (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I could give less than a flying fuck about "CAMERA", Israel, or the original topic at hand. I'm curious as to why, an account that is only one month of age, is so well versed in our policies and prior incidents that his editing scope has been very narrowly defined to include only a handful of articles and an obsession over one particular editor. So, please take your POV ranting elsewhere because I have no claim, nor have I edited, in the realms that you noted above. seicer | talk | contribs 17:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

DePiep, if you have nothing to add, you needn't feel you need to comment here. Seicer, a CU check might be useful to see which other account(s) Halfacanyon has, but the account itself is a disruptive, "bad hand" account, and should probably be blocked in any case. Your thoughts? IronDuke 18:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(editconflict see Wf12345 after this:)

re seicer: CAMERA was the topic. You changed the topic/sectiontitle (disruption). Then, writing "less than a flying fuck" is not civil. IronDuke: "nothing to add"?: if I cannot follow the talk here through deviation etc., I am perfectly entitled to ask for clearness etc. I was not commenting, I was asking for clarity. Please do your private fightings elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

CAMERA was mentioned briefly (and quite unconvincingly) by the probable sock Halfacanyon; that you continue to raise that issue could be construed as you meatpuppeting for an abusive sock -- possibly himself a banned editor. I'm sure you don't want to be seen as doing that. And your request for clarity was, ironically, not particularly clear. If there's something about you didn't understand about what I wrote, I am happy to clarify. IronDuke 20:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

re IronDuke(out-of-chron!): briefly or whatever quality: it was in the original report, then seicer changes the topic/sectiontitle, and then he/she writes "I'm not interested" (in other words). I don't raise it, I return to it from seicers deviation. And I wrote yours remarks 'are unclear, unhelpful and distracting'. If not clear, you could have asked for an explanation. I assume you were well aware that the topic was moving. Finally, could you clarify your remark "I'm sure you don't want to be seen as doing that", because unspecified it could be read as threatening. Now we can go back to the subject: Wikifan12345 -DePiep (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Seicer is an editor in good standing, Halfacanyon is an obvious disruptive sockpuppet. Whatever Seicer wants to do is, I'm sure, far closer to the interests of the project than Halfacanyon. Some of your remarks seem garbled, so I'm not quite sure how to respond to them. I think my remarks about the dangers of your being seen to meatpuppet for a disruptive editors are quite clear (and not at all threatening); indeed, an increasing number of (uninvolved) users seem to be of the opinion that you have things very, very wrong here. There's no shame in being wrong, only in continuing to be wrong when the truth becomes clear. I would back away from this, if I were you (NB: Not a threat, just good advice). IronDuke 21:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Try again. I've been around here for over three years, as an administrator and as an editor, and anyone with a bit of experience can easily detect a meatpuppet and/or a disruptive sockpuppet. Since you apparently have issues comprehending what I am writing, let me make it clear: I have no issue with any of the articles mentioned, and have never edited any of the articles mentioned nor have any inclination to do so because it's something I could care less about. Therefore, my "flying fuck" comment is directed towards that, not any one individual, therefore it is not an uncivil remark. Unless you are truly offended by the word fuck. seicer | talk | contribs 20:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

re again seicer (a-chron). Three years or zero: I react to what I read, whatever your resume. - On first exchanges. If you can recognise or detect a puppet that well, you could have written that more clearly and less fuming. It really was getting into a tit-for-tat-for-tit, unreadable for a fresh reader like me. I need to point out that you first inserted a new sectiontitle, and then went off-original-topic. - Then reacting to me. Next, if you are not into a detail of the topic, you could have skipped that in your reaction (you could have left out your whole first sentence, at no cost and all gain). Finally, since you mention adminship, I find your line of talk and the change of topic, eh, disturbing in Wikipedia-sense. (You're the first admin I meet that writes "I'm not interested in your topic"). And after writing to me "your POV ranting" leaves for you the sweet invitation assuming my good faith. -DePiep (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent): Ok, I'm back. Are we going to close this? User:Halfacanyon has been very hostile from the moment I started editing Israeli settlements. He reverted every single one of my edits claiming I deleted sourced material and removed references. I tried to explain to him I simply removed duplicate references and told him to re-direct identical references in the future. He is also following me around in other articles I'm editing, such as 1948 Palestinian exodus . As far as sock-puppetry is concerned, I don't know what to say. I consider it a compliment for someone to accuse me of being an alias of User:Jayjg. I posted a brief wikietiquette alert following Half's mean accusations that I am a POV-pusher. I suggested Half and I go through dispute resolution to avoid edit warring but he has yet to respond. I posted a lengthy explanation for my edits at the settlement talk but that has gone no where. I would greatly an uninvolved and experienced admin/user weigh in on the discussion. Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(This understandably to be read as a re to the previous section #Disruptive editor Wikifan12345 possible sockpuppet for banned accounts. Due to the disruptive edit by seicer, inserting a new sectiontitle out-of-chron, out-of-place, it might read illogic). -DePiep (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's all the same section. DePiep, I see you are concerned about my "memorial" of editors Malcolm, Tundra, and Jayjg. I thoroughly enjoyed collaborating with those users and whatever flaws they might have does not change my opinion of them. Plenty of pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian editors share respect for retired users, I am certainly not the first to do this. Everyone who edits the Israel/Palestinian articles harbor some kind of bias, but that is irrelevant. I provided a comparison of my edits and Half edits in the talk, I suggest you look at it. If you believe my rewrite screams Zionist propaganda let me know. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to W12345, he's definitely not Jayjg. There is nothing wrong with worshipping banned editors, and since WP promotes AGF, then an accusation of guilt by association is certainly 'bad faith on Halfacanyon's part. This whole disruption/sockpuppet double accusation is quite absurd when the real basis for this useless discussion is that Halfacanyon does not like a w12345s pro-Israel editing. --Shuki (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

DiPiep, please stop trying to obfuscate things here. "I don't give a flying fuck about CAMERA" is actually quite important here - the articles or topics themselves are not the issue, so your posts seem to be the ones becoming disruptive. A "new" editor, who was the subject of a Wikiquette filing later filed a tit-for-tat ANI filing, accusing someone of being a sockpuppet, and it appears to be solely for the intent to discredit them. Anyone can easily tell that Wikifan is not any of his "heroes" as listed on his page. I fully expect that Halfacanyon is some with whom Wikifan has had past incidents, and this is their way of getting back. If anyone is a sock (or even meat), it's Halfacanyon. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

re (a-chron) thank you for clarifying. Please accept my initial question: the posts by you three editors (now top of this subsection) were unclear for a fresh reader like me, indirectly and insider-only-like. Read like there is something invisible. I want to be able to understand Wikipedia, so I ask. (Question left: why not created a fully new section?). -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

DePiep, not to be insulting, but WP:ANI may not be a good place for you to understand Wikipedia - it's a location where problems are brought in front of admins, so it's very full of insider-related discussion. It's not typically meant for "normal" editors. Indeed, by watching, you can learn a lot, but make sure not to comment unless you understand the process when complaints are lodged. However, let me answer the question: a complaint was lodged by User:Halfacanyon about User:Wikifan12345...turns out that Halfacanyon was apparently the real problem, so you make a subsection and continue the discussion. We often call this situation the "Plaxico effect", as Halfacanyon effectively shot himself in the foot here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this might be out of line but I have a turbulent history with User:Jersay who was banned for sock-puppetry at List of terrorist incidents, 2009. As far as I know, his most recent sock is User:Pattywack. However, Half's posting style appears to be a lot more intelligent than Jersay's but I figured this was worth a mention anyways. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's an old tit for tat thing (I love WP for actually relating to this behaviour). I'm now leaning towards Halfa being related to Special:Contributions/Ewawer. If so, very good separation of personalities, but some crossovers. Ewawer is a sex-lover, from Australia, Jewish and/or has an affinity for Christian issues with some pro-Arab edits. The Ewawer personality also has inconsistent edit interests. Halfa has also edited Christian pages, yet not entirely anti-Israel, maybe somewhat leftist anti-Zionist. --Shuki (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

← OK, this has probably degenerated far enough. Halfacanyon (talk · contribs) is obviously not a new user, and I think that the general trend and consensus has been to tighten up a bit on the flood of agenda-driven socks on Israel/Palestine articles. Accordingly, I've blocked Halfacanyon indefinitely. I can't say with certainty which account is behind Halfacanyon, but whomever it is, they need to go back to using their main account to edit this controversial and sock-ridden area (assuming their main account has not already been sanctioned). I think a checkuser would be worthwhile to look for sleeper accounts, though probably of limited utility without a clear idea who the main account belongs to. Insofar as Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) is concerned, nothing presented here as evidence here indicates any issue requiring urgent administrative action against him. MastCell ^Talk 21:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Kingweenie and Richard Perry

Would like further instruction on how to properly handle this matter. I'm unsure whether this is a copyright violation, a conflict of interest, or a BLP issue, or all three. User keeps removing the tags I placed at Richard Perry and states he has "tried many times to contact Wikipedia about the various changes that need to be done but we get no replies". -- œ^™ 16:24, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Problem user on 112.201.*.* range

I've noted that several users from the 112.201.*.* range have been vandalizing several articles, especially on articles and related pages connecting to Filipina singer Regine Velasquez. I'm thinking that vandal who used those IP address is also the vandal who originally used 202.138.180.35 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and you may find that some of the pages vandalized by this user are being vandalized by the vandals on 112.201.*.* range.

The following are the ones from which the user vandalized the articles. The vandal also says the opposite of what he did on the edit summary:

• 112.201.24.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 112.201.71.111 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 112.201.100.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 112.201.12.192 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 112.201.43.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 112.201.58.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 112.201.48.41 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• 112.201.85.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

What can be done against this guy? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is probably your best bet, given the limited range of articles he/she hits. Tan | 39 16:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Those are for the articles hit. But they're numerous, and the user seems to be range-hopping. Is a rangeblock also possible? Also, can I list the all of the articles hit? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Given the length of time that this user has been editing, and that 65,000+ IPs would be affected by an effective rangeblock, I don't see a rangeblock as a possibility. Regarding what to list at RFPP, I would start with perhaps the three most "popular" targets, and add the rest as they are vandalized. Note: I have not looked into any pagehistory at all to determine the scope of the alleged vandalism; that will be up for the addressing admin at RFPP. Tan | 39 16:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

They're all within 112.201.0.0/17 if that narrows things down any better (but only down to around 32 000 IP addresses, unfortunately). MuZemike 16:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's assuming that the lower and upper IP addresses above define the "limits". I would say it's a good possibility 112.201.11.xxx pops up, etc. Blocking the whole 112.201.xxx.xxx range seems to me to be the only effective block; but it's a moot point - as you said, 32K IPs is still probably unacceptable collateral damage. Tan | 39 16:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I am personally not involved in developing the articles, as I am personally not a huge fan of Velasquez. Also, it seems that most of the vandal's edits are reverted by MS. But still, I will keep an eye on the articles vandalized by the user for future reporting. I brought this up because the this vandal's MO is almost the same as the one on 202.138.180.35, as well as many other IPs (some at the 124.104.16.0/21 range) that vandalized the related articles. (Considering 202.138.180.35 hasn't been used since last January because of the block imposed on that address, it seems the vandal has now found a new bunch of IPs to vandalize from.) - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 16:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Threat of violence - Lancashire, England

I recently deleted some threats of violence from an article. In the past, I have simply deleted such edits and not taken any further action. In this case, however, it does not appear to be the typical schoolchild type threat - the threats are very specific in terms of named targets and place where they are employed. If there are any editors willing and able to make an appropriate report to local authorities in the area of Lancashire, England, please contact me. -- Ed (Edgar181) 17:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

The ordinary telephone number, accessible internationally, for the police station at Thurnham Street, Lancaster, Lancashire, LA1 1YB, which covers the Lower Lune Valley area, is +44 1524 63333. Callers within the U.K. can also use 0845 1 25 35 45, of course. Jonathan de Boyne Pollard (talk) 19:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. If someone local could assist, that would be helpful. Otherwise, I'll make the international call. -- Ed (Edgar181) 20:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Moving / renaming entries

I am a comparatively new editor, and wanted to report (without names) an incident which I experienced. I'd appreciate if you advise if this practice is in line with Wikipedia's rules:

I posted an entry, which after some discussion was approved. It was posted under my original title. After that, one of admins posted another entry under the same title. He/she used Wikipedia administrator's rights to move my original entry to a different title he invented, and to name his/her article with title used originally by me. In result of this operation, the search for my original string in Wikipedia now leads to the new entry, not to my original article as before. The same happens in the Google search, creating confusion. The administrator explained his action as follows: "...moving to make way for clearly notable topic", which appears to me as a case of subjective judgement of prioritization, when a single administrator decided which entry is more notable, according to his/her personal tastes. However, I may be wrong. Please, tell me if this practice is acceptable in Wikipedia. Thanks in advance. --Witizen (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)Witizen

In the general case in which you frame the question, there is no single answer; it depends on the specifics of the situation. In this specific case, it appears they did not use their admin right to move the page, and any editor could have done that. It's a standard Bold editing decision. It seems pretty reasonable to me. If you disagree, start a discussion on the article talk page, or on the user talk page of the editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Especially considering that Wirtland was already redlinked from a National Register of Historic Places list, and Wirtland (micronation) wasn't linked from anywhere until you added it to the Micronations portal. I'd call this a good move, especially considering that Nyttend went out of his way to make sure your article remained findable from the original location.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. A hatnote at the actually notable Wirtland article seems more than generous. — Satori Son 18:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Two IP editors reverting each other, possible inaccurate edit summaries

IP editors 70.112.199.125 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and 86.158.237.39 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are reverting each others' edits to a wide variety of pages. I specifically noticed them putting multiple sockpuppet templates on each others' talk pages. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Now add 86.151.126.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), after 86.158.237.39 was blocked. --A More Perfect Onion (talk) 17:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, two banned users... 70.112 is Hkelkar and 86.158 is Nangparbat. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Is there a reason why we don't ever report long-term abusers like these two to their ISPs citing breach of TOS? With most ISPs that is cause for losing access. → ROUX ₪ 18:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In theory it is, and people have done so in past cases, but there's not a very good track record of this actually working when the ISP gets contacted by a random person with no official status on the website affected. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So why don't we have Cary (second choice) or Mike do it? This sort of long-term abuse is detrimental to the entire project, and I suspect something on WMF letterhead coming from the legal counsel to one of the largest websites in the world would make them sit up and take some notice. Fill the appropriate CU information into a form letter and send it off. → ROUX ₪ 18:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• Two reasons that the Foundation does not pursue these problems more aggressively. One, it could be seen as undermining WMF's section 230 immunity, under which individual editors and not the WMF are responsible for content and management of the site. Two, if an ISP ever refused, the WMF would either have to launch a legal offensive that would cost a considerable fraction of the budget (for being the 8th or whatever biggest website in the world, WMF is run on the ultra-cheap) or admit to being a paper tiger. Besides, if the WMF ever did decide to man up and take on a problem editor, these two are way down on my list of targets. Thatcher 19:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
• I'd just like to add that it would be bad PR to do this-- headlines would argue that Wikipedia vandals are so out of control we are resorting to legal action. We need to show that we can take care of this sort of thing "in house". ⟳ausa کui ^× 22:06, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Further intervention required?

I'm not sure what policy is regarding vandal IP edits in relation to FBI alerts, but should this edit be reported somewhere? ponyo (talk) 17:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Report it. Even if it isn't credible on its face it's still a threat against a state official and should be reported to the appropriate investigative body. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Cardmaker)} 17:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem doing so, but being from Canada I'm wondering what the best way to go about it would be? ponyo (talk) 18:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Call or e-mail the US Secret Service, as per this page. John Carter (talk) 19:52, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Edit war over a cleanup tag

DocKino (talk · contribs) is continually reverting my addition of a cleanup tag to Film noir. I've explained the issue on the talk page but he is reverting with summaries that have devolved to "It's been removed. Accept it." I didn't want to make a federal case out of this but he has chosen to revert war rather than discuss... rather than trying to get him blocked I thought I'd bring it here, where hopefully someone can tell him the best course of action might be to actually address the considerable issues with the article, rather than angle to prevent people from putting the appropriate cleanup tags on. --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

That is probably the most accurate use of {{essay}} I have ever seen, FWIW. → ROUX ₪ 18:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Probably best to try 3O first, and if that's not successful try WQA. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointers... sorry if I was abrupt in coming here. I will remember WP:3O next time (although I always hope there won't be a "next time"). --Chiliad22 (talk) 18:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Compromised account, AgoINAgo

[[::User:AgoINAgo|AgoINAgo]] (talk · contribs) claims that they picked up the account name and password from a website. —LOL ^T/_C 18:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as a compromised account - seemed to be a bit of trolling as well. Thanks for the report, LOL. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmmmmm "Thanks for the report, LOL" - your account name makes it particularly hard to sound sincere! ;-) Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 18:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:70.189.122.208

Resolved

I've block this IP address indef due to someone creating numerous talk pages with no articles; obvious vandlaism. Bearian (talk) 20:19, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It appears to be a dynamic IP, I've set the expiry to 2 weeks. No prejudice for reblocking if they re-offend after that, but we should not block IPs indefinitely. Please see Wikipedia:Blocking IP addresses & break your habit of blocking IPs indefinitely. –xeno^talk 20:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

O.K. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

cheers. =) –xeno^talk 20:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• My first legitimate use of Special:Nuke. Very special. ;-) It seems to be a repeat vandal who has also used the IPs 70.234.105.193, 70.142.52.40, 70.128.106.25, and 70.234.150.190. They all appear to belong to AT&T's DSL service in Tulsa, Oklahoma. --auburnpilot talk 20:59, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

2009 Israel Defense Forces T-shirt affair: Edit war ahead?

Hi, I improved the article greatly (well, forward it is). Since a few hours User:Jalapenos do exist is swamping the newly created section with weasel, fact, hih, fv templates. Since [one] I edited seriously three times to delete a bunch of his templates, and in the end he puts in more. Also: the article is in an AFD here, probably related userpolitics? Anyway, I feel an abuse of my good faith. Any advice? -DePiep (talk) 23:37, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Your last edit summary sounds like a challenge about edit-wars ... not good. Yes, a lot of the words in the article are weasel words. I expect that the article will be rightly deleted shortly, based on the current state of the AfD. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Of course, the advice was asked into improving the article, and how to react to an editor adding 25 huh-like templates to a section. Editing and improving is allowed during AFD. Especially since the section involved is a serious argument for a keep. Do you really mean I could frustrate an other AFD by behaving like the editor? Further, I don't think it is a good idea that you advise me here while voting delete on the same article. -DePiep (talk) 00:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I recommend then either allowing the valid templates where they belong, or remove the weasel words and unreferenced facts. My !vote to delete has nothing to do with the templates, but the notability of the subject matter. You've been on Wikipedia long enough to know these things. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Long enough to know? Sounds like you don't trust my question here. Anyway, you're invited to re-read the article, weigh the well-referenced new section (even now), and reconsider your vote. -DePiep (talk) 00:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wipeout International Editions

We have taken great care to update the International Edition section of the Wipeout (2008 Game Show) page located at Wipeout_(2008_game_show). The section accurately lists all the international versions of the show. An unregistered user from the following IP address User talk:83.85.168.35 has added numerous countries that do not air Wipeout. They have engaged in an edit war and done this appx. 20 times. If you look at their TALK page they have been warned and blocked but they continue to add the countries without any reference or backup. All of the current countries include information about hosts, networks, etc. They are simply adding the name of a country with no information or backup. "MattMDK (talk) 23:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)"

...and the IP user has a fairly nice block history from this article. They just came off another last week. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:58, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Concern at DRV

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked as a sock puppet of User:Biaswarrior. MuZemike 00:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 June 29 has five seven successive nominations from a new user who's (alarmingly) called "TheGriefer", and I'm having trouble assuming good faith where he's concerned. Might these be disruptive nominations? Outside views would be welcome.—S Marshall ^Talk/_Cont 00:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Blizzocked as a sock of User:Biaswarrior. MuZemike 00:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Tothwolf and Eckstasy

• Tothwolf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Eckstasy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

After inadvertently stepping on a landmine by nominating List of quote databases for deletion, I've been barraged with personal attacks, accusations of bad faith, off-wiki harassment, and veiled (on-wiki) bragging of denial-of-service attacks, mostly initiated by Tothwolf (talk · contribs) and Eckstasy (talk · contribs). Please see the discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of quote databases. I'm not sure where to go with this... sorry for not detailing all the grisly details, but a quick read of the AfD (and advice) would be most appreciated. Thanks in advance. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)