Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 16:45, 11 April 2008

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Shortcuts

This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems.

Before posting:
- Take a look at 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

Noticeboard archives
Administrators' (archives, search)
342	343	344	345	346	347	348	349	350	351
352	353	354	355	356	357	358	359	360	361
Incidents (archives, search)
1135	1136	1137	1138	1139	1140	1141	1142	1143	1144
1145	1146	1147	1148	1149	1150	1151	1152	1153	1154
Edit-warring/3RR (archives, search)
462	463	464	465	466	467	468	469	470	471
472	473	474	475	476	477	478	479	480	481
Arbitration enforcement (archives)
312	313	314	315	316	317	318	319	320	321
322	323	324	325	326	327	328	329	330	331
Other links
Talk Sockpuppet investigations Backlog

User:Stone put to sky continues to make personal attacks

User:Stone put to sky has been blocked for 3RR violations, using multiple sockpuppets, personal attacks against me, and violating WP:Username by making attack accounts on my name.[1][2]

Warned again one month ago for new attacks.[3]

Continues now with new attacks.

"Blah blah blah. One hoppy 'roo can confuse even the best tracker. Trainor is Ultramarine's boy, and all here know it. What comes out of one goes right in the other, in and out in an ugly smear, and neither could reckon straight on the least part of their back yard, much less anything outside their beloved U.S. Keep your eyes on the content, boys, and stop -- how do ya say it? edit warring? Stop. I have nothing wrapped up in this place and will be happy to take your names before the grand board of hoo-hahs."[4]

"But anyone who knows wikipedia and has been around this page for any length of time knows that the only person who behaves dishonorably here is you"[5]

"You've been kicked out of Wikiipedia so many times that your backside has treadmarks on it."[6]

Aho aho is a sockpuppet of Stone put to sky.[7].Ultramarine (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some strong words are needed to calm everything down. Maybe some informal admin mediation? But certainly the atmosphere is too bitter.

As for the request user result, what does "likely" mean for Wikipedia's purposes? Is it treated as the same as "confirmed", or what? Sky has already been blocked for sockpuppet use. If people believe he is doing it currently then that should be stopped, especially as it is not a declared sockpuppet account. Given the level of disagreements over the article in question using sockpuppets is even more dangerous than usual - assuming he is. John Smith's (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a point of reference, of the four "likely" sockpuppets listed in the checkuser request, only User:Thecryptthing was indefinitely blocked - the others were not, however. I'm not sure why this is. John Smith's (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, Thecryptthing was blocked after an earlier case, along with the others that were, in that case,

Confirmed. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so that's why that account was blocked. But what happens with "likely" results? I think this is where I'm not clear on what should be done with these other accounts. It is suspicious that of the three not blocked, only Aho aho continued to post - the others stopped. John Smith's (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- Moriss levy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Thecryptthing (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Aho aho (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- YumpinYimini (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- Ultrastoopid (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
- UntimelyMaroon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  - Are all abusive sockpuppets of User:Stone put to sky per User:Thatcher's checkuser. All those accounts need to be blocked and SPTS needs to be blocked as an abusive sockpuppeteer. --DHeyward (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So can we get an administrative remedy here? A timed topic ban perhaps? Otherwise he will keep attacking these pages with socks. - Merzbow (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ultramarine and Stone put to sky have been editing warring on the same controversial page for months. I agree with User:John Smith's, the only person, to my knowledge, who has not been personally involved with Stone put to sky that some "informal admin mediation" is appropriate.Trav (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Close, but it's really Ultramarine and SPTS's army of sock puppets, including two that were crated to disparage UM's user name, that have been edit warring. User:Stone put to sky should be blocked for violating policy and it will end two problems. --DHeyward (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents are they should both be blocked. The page has turned into a war ground for both of them, the few attempts I make to reach a middle ground with either are often met with repetitive arguments, such as Ultramarines continued insinuation that there is a double standard, even though everyone has told him otherwise, and Stone's continued need to battle him. Ultramarines passive aggressive behavior should be examined, and Stones harsh replies to it. While I myself have been annoyed with Ultra for his constant circular arguments, and appeals to random policies as it suits him, the goal is to maintain civility on such a hot button topic. Due to both, primarily Ultra, and it seems the new arrival of DHeyward, I have had to step back from the article.

The participants on it seem to feel they are in a war for the United States, taking each item in the article as personal attacks, renaming the article after not even participating on the talk page, and worst of all appearing here to ask one of the problem people have action taken against them and not the other. Unfortunately everyone's, including my own behavior, has been sub par, perhaps the article should be deleted to save Wikipedia, what appears to be, a handful of good editors.

Just to add it was eluded by Giovanni33 that John Smith and himself are suppose to be avoiding each other due to past admin action, yet John Smith appeared on the page a short while ago, of course arguing the point counter to Giovanni, this article has been turned into a battleground, I am starting to wonder if anyone is really arguing over the article content anymore, or if its a continued fight over past issues. --N4G Miraflores 16:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Giovanni is incorrect. There is no restriction on either of us avoiding pages that the other works on.

If a community sanction is to be placed on both Ultramarine and Sky then that may be appropriate. However, that does not address the issue of whether Sky has been abusing sockpuppets. There was a "likely" result that was not properly processed. I still would like clarification as to how the administration deals with "likely" results and a formal decision made as to whether any action will be taken over the report or not. If it is left idle that will cause more problems. John Smith's (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article was a mess when I dropped out months ago and is still a mess. It's always been under attack by banned users and socks (socks of NuclearUmph and FAAFA were caught and banned there), when it's not under full prot. Certainly there has been bad behavior on all sides, but abusive socking is unacceptable and needs to be immediately addressed. The alternative is going to be ArbCom (which may in fact be the only entity capable of cleaning this up). - Merzbow (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Merzbow has a great suggestion, fully protect the article for a month to a couple of months. This has worked before. Everyone loses interest and goes their separate ways. Trav (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not exactly suggesting that as the best way forward, but it's a superior alternative if peace can't be had. But one of the reasons peace can't be had is due to socking. Why not this proposal: 1) Article is put on 1RR probation, 2) Anyone caught socking will be be subject to increasing bans, beginning with a week. To enforce this, we need an uninvolved admin to promise to pay attention to the article. This will save the community the time sink of an ArbCom case. Aside from that, I'm out of ideas. - Merzbow (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a note here, SPTS has been virulently aggressive towards anyone attempting to change the article in question to one different from his own POV. As a further note, given the results of the checkuser on SPTS, N4GMiraflores is likely his meatpuppet at the very least. I'll cheerfully submit to a checkuser to prove I'm not Ultramarine's sockpuppet or whatever-- in fact, I invite it. I'm glad this thread has been made, because the repeated incivil behaviour displayed by SPTS is unacceptable.

Ultramarine has been making good faith efforts to clean up a very bad article, attempting to engage in talk page discussion, and creating sandboxes. SPTS (and his allies), on the other hand blanket revert virtually every edit he makes to the article, and accuse him of bad faith, disruptive editing, and vandalism. Frankly, I think Ultramarine has been remarkably restrained considering the torrent of abuse that has been and continues to be aimed in his direction. Any intimations that he is as large of a problem as SPTS are, quite simply, false. The problem is with SPTS and the other editors who have WP:OWN problems with the article in question and resist any and all efforts at cleanup. Jtrainor (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what the difference between a "meat puppet" and a "sock puppet" are, however I already make it clear on my user page that I have an alternate account. It is one of the reasons I have walked away from this mess of personal issues, it has become too much of a distraction. It is difficult to look at that talk page and not realize you have stepped into a mine field of personal issues. Perfectly reasonable middle grounds are ignored, everyone has stake in the ground and refuses to move, everyone uses the talk page because they are required to, yet no one is interested in forming a consensus at all. Even this message requesting administrators assist the situation is split into a defense of one side, and an attack on the other. It is almost unbelievable that those who views are seen as defending the US position are all stating Ultramarine is not that bad, and all those seen as attacking the US, all see it as Stone is not that bad. Is no one concerned with the article itself? Do you think removing the alternate view is going to make the article any less of a mess that needs work? I think the best answer is to make the article disappear, that way all the editors can move on much like I did. N4GMiraflores is my alternate account, subsequently closed. --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A sockpuppet is an alternate account directly controlled by someone. A meatpuppet is someone you know in real-life who agrees to help you out when you get into disputes, etc. John Smith's (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway, I think that distracts from the issues at hand. First of all final action needs to be taken over Sky's checkuser report and whether a sanction is required. Second Sky and Ultramarine's actions more generally. John Smith's (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of sockpuppets, User:64.118.111.137 has shown up on the talk page and begun trolling. Given this thread and the user's contributions, I find the timing rather suspicious. Same user has also violated 3RR on the article itself in an attempt to remove tags. Jtrainor (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Four reverts (one over two edits), so yes, it's a 3RR violation. In less than an hour. I'm almost impressed. But if I read this right, the IP was not warned until the minute of the fourth, so I doubt anything will come of that.

However, I'd welcome a checkuser at this time. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow, was I wrong! one more revert within the hour, and yet one more revert while I was writing this! Mr. IP wants a time out. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:76.102.72.153 has now shown up as well. Fortunately an admin semi-protected the page. Giovanni33, however, has begun reverting the page to the version insisted on by the previously reported IP that was blocked for 3RR. Jtrainor (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is Giovanni33...see diff..[8] checkuser will likely show that Giovanni33 has repeatedly violated his 1RR restriction. I think a long term ban is long overdue on his account.--MONGO 10:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how that proves it is Giovanni - could be a meatpuppet or another independent user. I have filed a report to clear matters up. As for the Sky matter, can we please get an admin to confirm:

Whether any action is to be taken for recent activities as mentioned by Ultramarine.
Whether any action is to be taken over the "likely" sockpuppet report, where some "puppets" were not blocked and at least one has continued to edit. John Smith's (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probable sockpuppet

User:Rafaelsfingers was only registered at the end of last month and has jumped into the above article, State terrorism and the United States. It wouldn't surprising if he is a sockpuppet - could someone do a checkuser/file a report? I'm not quite sure what to do here. John Smith's (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have to deal with sleepers... great. - Merzbow (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How to deal with constant attempts to get others blocked?

How do everyone suggest dealing with attempts to get other people blocked, including massive incivility? See this and onward on my talk page. There seems to be a mess of arguments between User:Squash Racket, User:Nmate, and User:Hobartimus on one side versus User:Tankred, User:MarkBA, and User:Svetovid on the other. Some also seem to be using the warning templates aggressively probably in a harassing fashion. Now, I've blocked Svetovid earlier for continuous arguing and incivility from Hedvig Malina. Otherwise, I've told everyone to use the warning templates and WP:AIV. Any suggestions beyond removing all the comments my talk page and telling everyone to deal with it themselves? Block people for harassing other users? I've had some edit disputes, I guess, with a few so could an outside admin look at this? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm curious if anything should be done about the user who started this nonsense saying that he's complaining about me "as suggested" and "Let's see if we can't get him and his kind kicked out of here." Some meatpuppetry going on? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry no-one else has responded. As far as you are aware, are these editors only edit-warring on the Hedvig Malina article or is that part of a group of articles? I'm inclined to protect the article page for a day and give a stern conduct warning on the talkpage. Will there be many other editors caught by a article protection, from your experience? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:44, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit-warring at Malina seems to have calmed down, so I don't protection would be that necessary. Another article was been Bratislava Castle which again has calmed down. This seems like part of a larger nationalist argument that I cannot piece together. I'm just wondering if it's worth doing anything beyond wiping my talk page clean and ignoring everyone. How many times is it appropriate for admin to tell others than I am not interested in being their cop before *I* can just block them for bothering the hell out of me? Just need an outside opinion as to how to respond. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not posted anything on Ricky's talk page in the last couple of days and already apologized for the earlier comments there answering another editor's accusations (and suggested deleting the whole part or using a hide/show template).
Some users post reports there that belong on a noticeboard and if it goes unanswered, the administrator will probably think it's completely valid. If I cut and paste those reports to where these belong, I would edit others' comments which is not allowed.
Still I decided to pass on yesterday's new report there though I could have added a few things. Since Ricky asked me recently to use WP:AIV I stay away from his talk page.
What to do when another editor who received the same message reports others directly to Ricky instead of a noticeboard? Squash Racket (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the edit war has calmed down, I concur that you should wipe (or archive, just in case) the material and replace it with a notice that you do not wish to involve yourself with the matter (with a suggestion of taking it to WP:AIV). Like everyone here, you are a volunteer and you decide how you are going to help the encyclopedia. If you do get the sharp end of a few comments, and you are unable to ignore them, post a level4 warning and take it to AIV if repeated. I hope editing becomes more fun for you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You already got involved by your unexplained and seemingly biased comments and actions towards me, Ricky. You still haven't explained or apologized for that. Saying that you now don't want to be part of this seems a little strange now.--Svetovid (talk) 21:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I warned you about your uncivil comments ("Do have a look at the following articles: Fallacy, List of fallacies and specifically Ignoratio elenchi, Straw man, and Poisoning the well."), you went into a rant about nationalists again, and then I blocked you with an explanation. You had ample time during your block to request an unblock and if another editor thought it appropriate, he could unblock. I am not in the mood to rehash arguments you yourself used as a reason to complain to another user who posted it at WP:AN. You can't have it both ways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I have further told you that comments like this ("watch out or you may be blocked for complaining without any explanation from Ricky") are not helpful and rehashing arguments at Hedvig again and again simply to get a fact tag slapped on a page that you obviously wanted deleted from the start is also not helpful. If anyone else has a suggestion, I'm open to it. I'd suggest a block because I frankly have yet to see a lot of anything other than POV pushing from him (check his last edits for reverting back in a number of articles using popups). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are just statements, not explanations.
I listed the fallacies and nobody challenged that yet so my comment stands and your reaction to it was inappropriate.
"I'd suggest a block because I frankly have yet to see a lot of anything other than POV pushing from him." -> was this comment aimed at me? If so, I really would have to report this because you would have crossed the line of genuine confusion.
And to provide full information and avoid quote mining, here is the comment I made.
Moreover, why cannot I state my opinion on nationalism, especially when I was asked about it? How does that make my comment a rant?--Svetovid (talk) 21:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After being warned not to use "misleading statements" [9] by an administrator, to trying to get people blocked, Tankred first went "admin shopping" to user DDima, with the same misleading statement [10] , he was warned for citing a number of warnings (most of them given by user:MarkBA as harassment[11]) as "evidence". After he was rejected by user:DDima he went for AIV with the very same material now multiple times rejected [12] but now also falsely accused his victim of vandalism, but his complaint was promptly rejected, with one user charactherizing it as [13] "fraudulent report during a content dispute". Should he be allowed to shop the same material around to every forum and admin until he can mislead someone into a block? He was already warned and did it anyway and a quick look at his contributions shows other issues as well. Hobartimus (talk) 20:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although I understand that Hobartimus shares Nmate's POV, I cannot understand why he is protecting an evidently disruptive user. If this edit[14] is not vandalism, how would you call it then? As to the warnings, Nmate has received a nice collection from four different users ([15],[16],[17],[18],[19],[20],[21],[22],[23],[24],[25],[26],[27]). Just look at all his personal attacks, for God's sake (see a list that excludes the most recent ones at [28]). Tankred (talk) 01:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Typical forum shopping yet again. Posting the same thing but not posting all the previous reaction to the material depriving it from all context for the 4th 5th time?. Among the reaction is admin warning about [29] making "misleading statements" user comment describing it as "fraudulent report"[30] and the fact that WP policy WP:HAR, found at [31] states "Placing numerous false or questionable 'warnings' on a user's talk page, restoring such comments after a user has removed them,... in their user space is a common form of harassment." Let's see how many warnings came from user:MarkBA who was already suspected [32] of harassment of this user weeks ago? I count no less than 9 warnings coming from MarkBA in Tankred's post above and what is more alarming that even some of the remaining warnings came after MarkBA directly requested another user to "watch out" [33] referring to user:Nmate, and the solicited warning arrived one hour later of that message [34]. A case of mass warnings given/organized by a single user almost word for word matching the section from WP:HAR down to the "restoring such comments" part. This by the book harassment is now presented as "evidence" to strengthen a weak multiple times rejected case. When shopping around like this all the previous responses and rejections are swept under the rug and this is why we need a definitive answer to the question in the title of this thread "How to deal with constant attempts to get others blocked?" Hobartimus (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MarkBA - an editor with 7,500 edits, 1 featured article, 1 good article, numerous DYK articles, and 3 barnstars - retired because of Nmate's and your hostility. I fully understand his decision. It is hard to contribute to a project in which you are called names and your nation is being constantly ridiculed. But MarkBA was only on out of five editors that have warned or blocked Nmate. Thank you for diverting this discussion from Nmate's disruption to a retired editor, who cannot defend himself against your attacks. And this is also my last attempt to ask the community for help. Since no one is interested in dealing with Nmate's repeated personal attacks in edit summaries,[35] hate speech,[36] and disruptive editing,[37] I have no reason to waste more time in this discussion. Tankred (talk) 23:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tankred is an edit warrer. He/she started deleting my edits, multiple times under false summaries[38]. Look at Tankred's edit history:[39] and block log:[40]. He/She's massively edit warring on at least 20 pages. And it would be "uncivil" calling him a disruptive editor or vandal or something even "worse" wich can be derivered from the likeness of his edits and behaviour and style and what you can see easily? Where are your eyes at?

Tankred is the disruptive and agressive POV-pushing user, who tries to hide this, by accusing everyone else as acting like him. No no no no, Tankred starts it and then tries to show himself as (in the role of) the victim as well as the saviour of wikipedia. However he uses the NPOV and other policies not for Wikipedia, but against Hungarian users, and Hungary and Hungarians in general.

Tankred is the agressor, however, the users he/she harasses unfortunately respont almost in the same way :( I am sure, that Wikipedia without Tankred would be a better place. I suspended my editing because of him, alone. This user is the "nationalist, POV pusher etc. vandal", hiding it by accusing everybody else of being that. TANKRED STARTED ALL THE EDIT WARS. This was my last comment on enwiki, do not try to respond or send e-mail, i wont answer. --Rembaoud (talk) 14:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now, this feels familiar. Anyone have any suggestions beyond closing this as "this is not the complaints department" and go to dispute resolution? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not consider an article ban? A group of editors who've been part of highly contentious editing on Hedvig Malina in the past would be banned from directly editing that article for a period of time. In Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#General restriction Arbcom ruled that: Any editor working on topics related to Eastern Europe, broadly defined, may be made subject to an editing restriction at the discretion of any uninvolved administrator. For previous bans issued under this case see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Digwuren#Log of blocks and bans. EdJohnston (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please look into those edits a bit more before issuing quick bans. One editor didn't like eight references and kept deleting them. Most of the edits there are simply restoring this stuff. Svetovid was blocked three times for disruptive behavior regarding that article so now punish everyone for this?

Anyway the edit warring there seems to have cooled down since Ricky's intervention and the article appears to be stable now. Squash Racket (talk) 05:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Svetovid after reading my comment wants to prove at all cost that the article is not stable, so he reinserted the formulation "Slovak from Slovakia", but please don't buy into his provocation. Squash Racket (talk) 09:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see some examples of and evidence for the alleged POV-pushing. (You can list them on my talk page.)--Svetovid (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per my comment at your talk page, I am not interested in continuing to repeat myself with you. I will leave it to someone else. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a reply to Rembaoud.--Svetovid (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fredrick day threatening to stir up libel actions.

This user is blocked for vandalism and gross incivility. He's been evading the block by coming in with variant IP, sometimes just his local ISP block, likely, but also from various ISPs around the world. I was reverting his edits, as have some others. He then turned to some biographies of porn stars and removed unsourced material, claiming BLP violation. As he is a blocked editor, I reverted his edits, though in some cases I also posted to Talk, inviting any editor to review his edits, stating that I was not making any content decision in reverting him.

As he had, I am sure, planned, he reported this to WP:BLP,[41] where, as he has before, he stirred up a flap, with the first response being, from a number of users, that he had no right to edit articles. At this point I continued with my reverts. Then other editors arrived and protested at the return of BLP violating material to the articles (which is understandable). Then an admin unblocked one of the block-evading IP addresses,[42] though it was quite certain this was being used by the block evader. Because I was asked to stop the reversions where BLP might be involved, I have; however, this is background. The following is the occasion for this report:

User:Fredrick day (See Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day for a list of IP addresses and socks, the ID is not doubtful) wrote:

am I going to have to email those people to get some action taken? nobody is bothered that a unsourced claim about people having AIDS is being re-added to articles?[43]

so the answer is - I'll have to email each of those people individually and put out the audit trail that shows that I tried to remove libel from articles but it was felt best to add it back in.[44]

[edit inserted by Fredrick day]This of course misses out the context, that Abd kept reverting back out my appeals to the BLP boards to a) check my edits and b) to stop him reverting back in libel. I am well aware that I am now banned but at the time was blocked and more importantly - I had indicated by edit summary, what the BLP problem was in each article. This is all in the history - ABD preferred to just keep reverting them back out. Even in a situation where it was indicated that the article stated without sources that a woman had infected others with HIV. What option was I left with but to get a bit shouty? I'd tried removing the BLP vios,abd reverted me, I'd tried to highlight the BLP vios on the BLP page, Abd reverted me --87.112.67.187 (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, what I was doing was being explained, and legitimate users were being invited to undo my reversions if the edits were legitimate, my actions weren't based on content, it is as if I were a bot capable of identifying that an edit was made by a blocked user, but not capable of reviewing the content, so no content decision was made through them, and yet attention was called to them, ultimately through BLP, and, indeed, some users did revert some of my reverts, which was quite proper, all I was doing was placing, effectively, Fd's contributions in a kind of "submitted status," instead of allowing him to unilaterally edit articles, given that he is blocked and massively evading it. As I mentioned, I've stopped doing this in the same way, but the above shows that the blocked user is not acting for the welfare of the project, but to force his own agenda. More aggressive measures may be warranted, and, at least, his IP should be blocked on sight.

--Abd (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It does sound as though the blocked editor might be playing games with us. But I don't see the logic of you reverting his edits to biographical articles without checking the content. I think WP:BLP should take precedence over the more subtle issues you have mentioned. Nobody should act like a bot where biographical articles are concerned. Measures to prevent User:Fredrick day from editing biographical articles might be considered, but mechanical reverting should not in my opinion be one of the ways. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I've seen this game before. Banned user edits in such a way that when we revert him we do something worse, which of course is what he wants. It's a particularly refined form of malice. My recommendation is to just check each edit. Dynamic IP -- you probably wouldn't even have to bother to block unless he starts disrupting something, or vandalising again. Antandrus (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If he isn't banned, then you shouldn't be reverting all of his edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, does anyone actually think that he shouldn't be? -- Naerii 04:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm just saying that if he hasn't been banned by the community or an administrator, then his edits should not be undone wholesale.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop reverting edits that violate BLP. -- Naerii 04:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking is also seeming a little pointless as he appears to have a limitless amount of IPs. The best thing to do is revert, block, ignore (i.e. deny recognition) with the caveat in this case that you don't restore BLP violations. I know it's tempting to revert him as he is intensely obnoxious but by doing so you're playing right into his hands. -- Naerii 04:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't bother with the biography changes, but I did revert his edits to the BLP board. They at least were clearly intended to be disruptive and attention-seeking, and I thought that revert, block, ignore was the appropriate action in that case. I was a little hurt that one user said I was wrong to do it, and another admin unblocked one of the ips that I blocked without even contacting me, and if I was wrong to revert and block in that situation, I'd like to know so I don't do it again. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe in this case ignore, ignore, ignore would be better. — CharlotteWebb 13:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is a relatively experienced user very deliberately trying to get editors to fight with each other. He is block-evading, using various techniques, openly defiant about it, very aware that he can manage to edit even with quite a bit of effort made here to prevent him, though more could be done (IP block his home range, for example. The damage from a range block would be small compared to the damage he is regularly inflicting, and the message from an IP block gives ways to get around it, not difficult. There are not many edits from his IP block. He still has other ways to post, but they are, I'm sure, more cumbersome. He can make lots of them for a short time, but keeping it up would be another matter.)

I still believe that the simplest solution would be to bot-assisted revert all his edits, once he is clearly identified, *then* review them manually and bring in what is legitimate. This converts his edits into what I've called "submissions." Just as if we had moderated submissions. Which ain't a bad idea, all by itself.

This user regularly lies about what has happened. He knows that many readers won't bother to check, or that a superficial check may make it look correct. See above, where he claimed that "Abd kept reverting back out my appeals to the BLP boards to a) check my edits and b) to stop him reverting back in libel. I am well aware that I am now banned but at the time was blocked and more importantly - I had indicated by edit summary, what the BLP problem was in each article." No, I did not revert out appeals to the BLP board unless nobody had responded to them yet, the original and long appeal was left in. Besides, editors concerned with this stuff use watchlists, you can't keep edits out of vision by reverting it. I invited users to check my reverts and bring back in anything legitimate, since I knew that some of it was almost certainly legitimate. Now, what he wrote above is totally unreliable, he knew what he was doing, he set it all up so as to be able to make claims that would seem legitimate on the surface. Hence edit summaries can't be relied upon. If he can, he will use copyvio and BLP claims to justify many of his actions, as a cover. He's a deletionist, so all he has to do is claim a violation (copyvio is handy, just claim that something is improperly quoted and it can take some work to determine if that is true). The real situation here is that this is an editor who has had some success setting up wiki-riots. That he can succeed in this is something that we should notice. It's about us, not about him. He plays on all the suspicions that, it seems, many of us hold about each other. --Abd (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we are to believe he's trying to prove a WP:POINT that "ban-evading users can be helpful" and/or "it's easy to bait reverters into looking very stupid", but that he's skipped the low-lying fruit in favor of less trivial (and harder to find) issues which could, potentially, spare us from legal problems... something doesn't add up. So I have to ask, is it possible that at least some of the copyright and "BLP" violations were in fact planted by him beforehand (using whatever another account or IP)? — CharlotteWebb 13:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I reviewed the edit history of Sarah Harding, one of the articles he complained about, and none of the bad edits came from ranges he's known to have used. If someone reminds me what the other articles were I'll look through them too. I wouldn't put it past him, especially considering the vast amount of ranges he seems to have access to, but it'd be difficult to prove. -- Naerii 13:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd never add BLP to an article because I'm aware that I would be legally liable for that edit, if the living figure came knocking. I'd removing it from articles that are in disputed categories and so on. Abd idea of a bot revert of edits of banned users is unworkable because it would make the bot owner legally responsible for adding libel to article (remember the foundation position is that you are all responsible for your own edits and actions, they would not help you). Regardless of whatever made-up rules Wikipedia has, the law is clear, if you add or repeat libel, then you are responsible as if you had created the libel. Saying "well it is our wikipedia policy that we revert banned users" would not cover you in a court of law. --Fredrick daytime (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So (can I call you Freddy?) is your goal here to prove that certain policies do not co-exist well and that common sense should ultimately prevail, or that one particular policy ought to be changed, or that you should be re-instated as some sort of "user in good standing", or that User:Abd puts his antipathy toward you ahead of the project's best interests, or are you acting only out of genuine concern for the article subjects, or do you just enjoy watching other users' heads explode? — CharlotteWebb 14:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm too far gone to be re-instated as a user in good standing so that's not worth discussing. However, the most recent wikidrama we've seen here was kicked off two nights ago when I tried to remove BLP from a single article (a line in the Seal article about him working for prostitutes) - I was reverted and then when I headed over to BLP to bring it to people's attention, I was reverted there and the libel reinserted. I was a bit surprised at this, surely people were checking out if libel was occuring (and I was leaving detailed edit summaries of what I was removing)? So I'll be upfront, the following night (last night), I'd had a look at the porno categorizes and started to remove libel from there, At that point, I'll admit, I was interested to see how far people would go in their zeal to "punish" me. Frankly, I'm disappointed in the answer, people desire to play toughguy override their common sense about BLP - even when the edit summary clearly explained what the libel was. So yes in a sense, I guess I was testing policy - regardless of my status, is it really a bad thing that 2 things have been highlighted 1) that regardless of status, anyone bringing BLP violations to the BLP board should have those claims examined, not just reverted and that 2) regardless of status, that edits that seem to remove BLP violations should not just be reverted without consideration of what is being reverted back in. What I find most staggering is the claim that they should just all be reverted "because it's a lot of hard work to find sources"! that's is a shameful attitude for an ecyclopedia to take in regards to it's duty to Living figures. --Fredrick daytime (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to what CharlotteWebb says, there is no example of "certain policies do not co-exist well". Even when dealing with banned editors, WP:BAN is clear on this - "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of core policies such as Neutrality, Verifiability, and Biographies of Living Persons". There is no policy that says that BLP violations are added back regardless of who removed them, and anyone doing so should be jumped on from a great height in my opinion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asking somebody if they are trying to prove X does not mean I believe X is true, or that I even hold any opinion on X. I went on a limb to list several possibilities regarding Fredrick's actual views and motives. I was hoping a compromise of sorts could be worked out here, though I still have some doubt. — CharlotteWebb 15:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no sign of any effort to "jump from a great height" on those who inserted these allegedly violating claims (more accurately, they have been unsourced claims, low-lying fruit, when I investigated one it seemed pretty solid), but rather an attempt by Fd to get everyone else to jump on me, and on other users similarly aware of his shenanigans, based on some alleged disagreement about BLP policy, being deliberately set up by a blocked user who knows exactly what he is doing and how to get editors worked up, which he has done before (it's part of what he was blocked for in the first place). I'm finding certain aspects of BLP policy "not coexisting well" with BAN policy, on what may be deeper consideration than what is currently reflected on the policy pages. To really pursue this would probably involve consultation with Foundation legal advisors. Better procedures are needed. I have no intention to push the edges of BLP policy, it's important, and I don't blame other editors for being concerned. But be careful. This guy is lying about what happened, so don't jump to conclusions based on his reports. Know, as well, that he will report something that he knows could appear improper from a superficial examination, that is how he worked before. And, from what has been happening, it still works.

My possibly improper reverts are very easy to find, just look at Special:Contributions/Abd, all of them have clear edit summaries that are about the blocked user, not about the content, and are preceded by the edits allegedly fixing copyvio or BLP problems -- or other alleged problems. I have in some cases specifically invited other editors to look at the situation, and whenever another legitimate editor has intervened, I have taken my hands off that article. It's then up to that editor. Given that this information was already up, generally for a long time, my reverting it back in increases the risk to WMF, if at all, very, very little. Fd has claimed that I'm taking upon myself personal liability for what I do. Yes, I know that this could, under some extreme situations, be true. And that's my business, not anyone else's. Frankly, though, I take on more risk just driving down the street or owning a house. Much more.--Abd (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Don't be confused by the barrage of smoke set up by Fredrick day. There were a series of reverts which I did to the edits of a blocked user, and some of these reverts may have been inappropriate, they explicitly did not (much) consider content. Some were definitely appropriate, some, probably not, and Fd was deliberately setting this up so that a bad revert would be likely. Then, today, I made *one* edit to *one* of the articles where someone else, not me, had reverted Fd and Fd had again reverted back. What I did in my revert was *only* to restore the material and supply source, the fact involved is widely reported, and is actually in the article on the living person in question, Darren James, as well. I have no strong opinion on the reliability of the source, though I did check it, and what Fd has discovered may indeed be that there is a veritable hive of improperly sourced material in the articles on porn stars, but I see no sign whatever that the claim involved is controversial (though there is some question about the direction of infection; nevertheless, the original source I found, which, on the face, seems reliable, was old, 2004. The risk to Wikipedia of this material being up is minute. Nevertheless, even though Fd has again reverted it out, that is also harmless, our readers will not suffer for not being informed of something they could find in a few seconds with Google, and so I am not touching this article again. Besides, researching this, I get exposed to lots of material I'd rather not see. The question I have is, can we rely upon a known vandal and troll (one who seriously tries to get Wikipedia editors fighting with each other) to police these articles? One place I agree with him. If he edits an article, the edit should be examined carefully. Now, who is going to do it? And if one person does it, how do we know, so that many people don't duplicate the labor? I had a suggestion. Someone who knows he is a dangerous, blocked editor, who would not hesitate, I suspect, to actually carry out the threat to incite a libel action against Wikipedia, should immediately revert him on sight, and then other editors, more familiar with BLP policy and the general subject area, can look at the edits and quickly and easily restore them if they are useful. In this way, there is no duplication of effort, and the only harm is transient. This material was up for a long time, months at least, and being up a few more minutes isn't going to kill us. But that's my opinion, I'm certainly not going to force it on the community.--Abd (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

should immediately revert him - what part of don't reinsert material flagged as unsourced on BLPs don't you understand. It's irrelevant that people can find it on google, it's irrelevent, how long it's been there, it's even irrelevant that it might be true, because we are not interested in truth but verifiability from reliable sources. Your advice is very dangerous for a number of reasons - the main one, is that any editor who reverts the material back in will then be responsible (in the eyes of the law) if it actually was libel being added in. Be very very clear about this, as mentioned upthread, if someone comes knocking with a lawsuit, the foundation will hand over you IP and other identifying details about you. why? because YOU are responsible for the edits you make, not wikipedia, not the foundation. The correct way to deal with this is NOT Revert>>>check, it is check>>>>add in material that can be sourced. Abd should be asked to either a) stop repeating this advice on multiple boards and threads or b) be forced to add a disclaimer about the position of the editor who makes the revert. He is advocating reinserting BLP violation as a matter of course - regardless of my status, this would have massive ramifications and needs to stamped on immediately. --87.112.233.6 (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not advice, it was a suggestion, clearly, not to be implemented unless the community agrees. First of all, I'm not an anonymous editor. My real name is on my User page. And I'm not making reverts that risk BLP violations; I certainly may have done that, there was a fuss, and I'm not doing it again. I made one edit today that I do not consider a risk at all. Fd, who apparently can now edit with impunity, reverted it, and I don't care.--Abd (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amnesty, anyone?

Interestingly, Fd notes that he's too far gone to be unbanned at this point. But, he is arguably more disruptive and difficult to track when editing from all these IPs. I would rather see him edit from one account, so that his history can be more readily scrutinized. That would also facilitate his investing time in making some more constructive contributions, since he would not have to fear their reversion. Might we not extend amnesty, and allow him to edit under an account, in exchange for an agreement to follow Wikipedia rules? (And indeed, might we not extend the same offer to certain other users in a similar situation?) Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Say, aren't you a banned user who should be immediately blocked? Equazcion •✗/C • 18:56, 8 Apr 2008 (UTC)

might we not extend the same offer to certain other users in a similar situation? He means himself - this editor is the blocked user Sarsaparilla --87.112.233.6 (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That has been claimed by 87.112.x.x (which is certainly Fredrick day, I think it is also 87.113, 87.114, and 87.115, plus varios singlets of random ISPs around the world). Yes, there is reasonable suspicion that SLN is Sarsaparilla, and not surprising that Equazcion, a nemesis of Sarsaparilla, would notice it. There is a pending checkuser request to test this, I've commented there, confirming that the suspicion is reasonable. The suggestion is nevertheless worth consideration. And is likewise problematic. A great deal depends on details.--Abd (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, unbanning somebody because they go out of their way to prove that the ban was sound by vandalising and disrupting the project is probably not the smartest thing we could do. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with JzG. banning is banning. we unban to let folks actually contribute, not to control thier disruption. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adam.J.W.C. Stalking

Adam.J.W.C. (talk · contribs) has recently outed the identity of (or attempted to - I don't know if the identity they gave was correct), another editor. The edit in question was oversighted. Adam has since taunted the other editor with his claim to know his identity e.g. "did you get my Facebook poke?" Now he is querying on his talk page whether it is permissable for him to post photographs of people against their will. In my opinion this is both Wikistalking and real world stalking, and I believe it is appropriate to turf him off the site for good. Any comments before I do the honours? Hesperian 04:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh.... he made a general inquiry here regarding people in photographs, never alluding to "post(ing) photographs of people against their will." It was a question and not a forceful statement, and does not constitute stalking. And a Facebook "poke" isn't stalking. seicer | talk | contribs 04:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh... he published the identity of someone, poked them to prove he knew who they were, taunted them about it here, then started a thread about whether he would get in trouble if he posted a photo of someone and they complained about it? I reckon if it was you who had been outed, you'd be a little better at reading between the lines. Hesperian 04:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your statement hear is a bit misleading. I inquired of User:J Bar a few days back about posting photos with people in them. He did not respond until sometime today. If you look closely I am responding to the message that he left on my talk page, that is why I wrote what I did. If it wasn't for him replying to my question that I left on his talk page a few days ago. I never would have wrote this. You need to check the message that I left on his talk page and his reply days later, and then my response to him at the same time of the other incident. Please Check. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also User Jbar copies and pastes what you left on his talk page onto your talk page every time. You need to check the diffs a bit better and his take page.

You are giving us very little to work with, other than vague generalizations. A "Facebook poke" isn't stalking, and you have provided very little context or supporting evidence of anything else. Starting a general thread asking if posting a photograph with a person in it isn't stalking either. If the statement was phrased in a way that alluded to the publishing of a photograph on WP with an individual in it, then that could be a legitimate complaint, but I don't see that. Unless I am missing something here, isn't this where you should be adding in citations to your statements, or at least providing at least some documentation -- an OTRS #, for instance. seicer | talk | contribs 05:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It'd be difficult to do that - no-one who's replied to this thread are OTRS volunteers so aren't privy to that information. I'll ask and see if that information is available somewhere. Orderinchaos 17:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One editor outs another, outing edit gets oversighted, outing editor gets indefblocked. SOP in my book. In fact, I was thisclose to blocking him myself after reading this thread. But in lieu of that, I endorse Hesperian's proposal. Blueboy 96 05:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am in agreement with Hesperian and Blueboy - I saw the edit before it was oversighted. We do not need the drama of possible real life stalkers on Wikipedia and the indef block has a lot of precedent. Orderinchaos 08:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about a possible copyright vio.? This post at UER.ca from Hatsumi stated, "some disgruntled person steals your images, sets up a wiki, then sets about trying to get every location u know and love locked down while also trying to ruin urbex for ur whole city - then brags about it ?" The user disclosed in private conversation that it was Adam J.W.C., but has not provided any supporting evidence of such incident. Would it be safe to remove the images? seicer | talk | contribs 05:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are they uploaded here? If they are, gimme the links and I'll speedy the lot. Blueboy 96 05:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A lot. If you start at the top... But it's hard to determine which images are legit and which are not, and I couldn't garner any further information from Hatsumi @ UER. seicer | talk | contribs 05:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't help matters that the UER message board is behind a subscription wall. Still reason enough to watch this user's uploads VERY closely. Blueboy 96 05:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. I've sent in a request to have the thread made public, but it contained no other posts from the user except for that. The private correspondence was a little more detailed, but not by much. seicer | talk | contribs 05:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The images Adam kept stealing were Bunker today.jpg and Inside bbunker.jpg from the Bankstown Bunker article please also see : [45] Dmod (talk) 07:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have already explained this to you on the Bankstown Bunker talk page. I was given permission from the guy that runs this website [46]. If you look through the permissions for those images there are email confirmations from this guy, Peter Dunn who runs the website. The matter was taken care of on Commons once the mistake was pointed out to me. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't intend to war with you any further - I could go on about this issue forever. I just hope you can learn to listen, if you did the whole OTRS thing would have been avoided Dmod (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Its over and done with, like I said before once the mistake was pointed out that was it. Now someone has nominated the CC article for deletion, I am neutral to this but it might be of interest to both parties if it was deleted. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is over and done with? There was a complaint at the top of this section and it is usually an admin - and not the complained about - who either closes or somehow resolves the issue - and the issue seems to have been lost - would an admin please at least allow someone else other than the editor complained about to actually review the issue before attempting to divert the original point completely Satu Suro 11:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - revealing someone's identity on here in a fashion which actually had to be oversighted, then taunting them about Facebook just two hours after an oversighter deletes the offending edit, while implying geographical proximity to the person, is very menacing behaviour and completely unacceptable. It's most definitely not "over and done with". Orderinchaos 16:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have any issue with an indef. block for stalking, and continuation of such behavior after the outing was deleted. As for the images, I'm discussing the matter with a user from the Cave Clan group itself, and I am hoping that that issue can be resolved shortly. seicer | talk | contribs 19:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indiscriminate reverting

Adam has been persistently reverting edits made to the Cave Clan article wherever his contributions have been altered. He does this citing vandalism and advertising where neither seems applicable, and despite the objections of several other editors. I have attempted to discuss this matter with Adam on his talk page, however my inquiries have gone unanswered. He has recently[52] been challenged regarding similar editing practices on other articles and been blocked from editing Cave Clan.

Other editors seem to have been experiencing similar problems with Adam's reverting habits on Identity document [53] and a 45 revisions & 2 months revert [54] on John Wayne Glover. S.Nadir (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

I have blocked him per the discussion above and particularly the comments made by Hesperian in support of such a move. This makes no presumption on the separate issues raised regarding the images, those still remain to be resolved. Orderinchaos 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those discussions above should continue - he will probably be unblocked within 12-48 hours once he engages with the community about his recent behaviour. Orderinchaos 00:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think Adam deserves to be blocked for a period of time and so I endorse the block, however, I must admit that I'm not all that comfortable with a ban or an indefinite block at this point. It seems quite obvious to me that the other person's name was raised as a means of intimidating an editorial adversary and there are still concerns above about some of his images and his habit of edit warring and blanket reverting any edits to articles he's essentially taken ownership of. So I would support a fixed block of say a week or something like that with the understanding that the indefinite block will be immediately reinstated if he ever posts another user's personal details or possible personal details again and an agreement from Adam that he will stop the blanket reverts and edit warring and start to work collaboratively with other editors. Sarah 04:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I go with the "indefinite is not infinite" point of view. We have indefinitely blocked him, when we get a commitment from him that the behaviour will not persist, then we can unblock him or shorten his block to an appropriate finite length. From developments at his talk page I suspect we will get some kind of commitment to that effect soon. Orderinchaos 07:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The H-word and Dana Ullman

There's been quite a bit of arguing over at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation/Incidents recently, regarding User:DanaUllman (AKA Dana Ullman). Frustrations seem to be nearing the tipping point. Some admin comments would be helpful here, as nothing seems to be being done with respect to the comments already there. Relevant sections to this particular dispute include

A note to other involved editors: I'm deciding not to weigh in with any of my opinions here, as there were concerns about too much of that happening from involved editors in the Whig case. I can't stop anyone else from doing so, but it might be appreciated if we can keep this thread from becoming another battleground. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 21:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm going out on a limb here and guessing that one reason for the silence might be that people don't wish to plumb through the discussion without some summary first of what's going on. So, I'm going to go against my previous advice to explain how I see things. Basically, Dana has a chronic problem of misrepresenting sources in a direction that favors homeopathy. All the evidence is laid out in the above links. When these concerns are brought up with him, he starts quibbling. For instance, in the third section linked above, he pulled the discussion down into quibbling over the use of the word "retraction." It's gotten to the point where a lot of editors immediately distrust anything he says. He has a clear motivation to promote Homeopathy on Wikipedia, and yet he claims that he has no conflict of interest. (The difference between him and your average MD however is that the MD has no obvious financial benefit from promoting mainstream medicine on Wikipedia.) He's shown throughout his history here that he's practically unable to learn. I wasn't even able to teach him how to use diffs - in fact, he couldn't even tell the difference between a diff and a link to a section of a talk page. That's just one example of the difficulty in working with him. When it comes to sourcing, it's almost impossible to get him to interpret anything in any way except that which is positive for Homeopathy. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will also go out on a limb and suggest that the reason for the "silence" is the lack of justification in bringing this subjective appraisal of another editor's serious academic efforts to this Noticeboard. Dana Ullman has sought to bring true scholarship to the homeopathy articles on Wikipedia - which are blantantly slanted in their language toward an anti-homeopathy bias, with deliberate attempts by a number of editors to exclude positive research findings. Arion 3x3 (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahem, pushing the same flawed studies over and over on different talk pages trying to get around other editor's objections that they are flawed and unsable for the article(s). That's not a serious academic effort, and in wikipedia that's called POV pushing --Enric Naval (talk) 20:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did my bit here a long time ago. I don't regret that and, upon reflection, do not think that I should have consented to my original decision should have been overturned. Moreschi (talk) (debate) 20:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will be unlikely that you'll find an admin willing to take action on an AN/I request on this particular situation, for several reasons: a previous indefinite block was overturned, the mentoring situation is a bit unclear, and the pattern of disruptive behavior does not lend itself easily to quick, digestible presentation. If it has not already been tried, a user-conduct RfC may be the most appropriate setting to get more input. I don't think there's going to be a resolution here until a larger section of people weigh in. MastCell ^Talk 21:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring is finished since 1 March, like LaraLove says herself on Dana's talk page [55]. There is a message of her saying that the mentorship is still not finished, but it's from 25 February [56]

Also, notice this warning from Lara Dana, if there is another complaint about you editing article space without first reaching consensus, you'll be back on article probation. and this other one Dana, the agreement with your unblock was that you not edit the article space until consensus had been reached on the talk page(...) No pushing references of questionable reliability. If there is a disagreement about the reliability of a source, it should be posted to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.. I think that Dana has broken the promises he made on unblock and should be put on probation or blocked again. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Infophile appropriately sought to get uninvolved admins to comment, but none have. He initially tried to maintain a certain objectivity (good for him), but when that didn't work, he chose to make outlandish claims that I am "practically unable to learn." He further asserted that I "quibbled" over one editor's use of the word "retraction." Yes, that is right. I asserted that the word "retraction" was never used by the researcher in question, and the editor who put this word into his mouth was inserting OR. Ironically, I asked that he retract his word "retraction," but all we got was stonewalling. And worse, the editors with whom I have had a content dispute came to his aid and simply attacked me for dwelling on this issue. Yes, I prefer to dwell on following wiki policy, in this case, OR is OR...and strangely enough, the many editors who have cited chapter and verse to me about wiki-policy began complaining that I was encouraging them to follow it.

I do not have the time that some editors seem to have to mount a more thorough defense, though clearly, the extra time that select editors have placed into attacking me and my contributions has not generated the support for punishment they wanted. It is no surprise that the editors who have been most critical of me are people with whom I have content disputes. Because I do a darn good job at maintaining civility, despite having many sock puppets going after me and my contribution, the editors who do not like the NPOV evidence I bring are now going after the messenger. One previous admin warned me about the many socks that surround me.[57] I am not saying that the editors in this dialogue are socks, though admins should note that I am generally good at maintaining civility and at giving and demanding good faith whenever possible. Yeah, I'm not perfect, and yeah, I sometimes have written a date incorrectly (we all have) or mis-written the name of a journal, but my present record of providing good RS has led to many improvements in many articles. I am a useful resource to wikipedia, and to me it is sad that some editors who disagree with the information that I bring here seek to punish me. Ironically, previous Wiki-editors have sought to create more neutral language in various homeopathy articles, though other editors have insisted upon providing RS evidence for all edits or additions. I have sought to provide RS by my referencing of research, and the vast majority of the time, I bring this to the Talk pages. We may not always agree, but let's try to get along. For the record, my former mentor, [LaraLove] had actually received "hate mail" about me, though here she expresses pleasure and surprise that she hadn't gotten any recently[58] And then, because she saw that I learned how to do wikipedia, she ended the mentoring with no stipulations [59]. Finally, for people who are new to me, I am a relatively new editor who only became active in late November, 2007. However, as a newbie, I made some mistakes and for which I was blocked. Since becoming unblocked, I have provided many contributions to this fine but frustrating endeavor. DanaUllman^Talk 01:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, your misuse of edit summaries is getting worse and worse [60]. You claim to add a 2004 source by talk page, but the talk page is talking about how it's physically imposible that a 2002 TV program is testing a 2004 study. --Enric Naval (talk) 09:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(after throughly reading Dana's message) *ahem* Dana, had you followed WP:RS and WP:NPOV in the first place, or followed Jehochman's advice to take a holiday, or stopped pushing sources once they were found to be full of flaws, you wouldn't have put yourself into all these problems. It doesn't help that you keep avoiding the real issues and nit-picking at unrelated or barely related issues. You also look like you think that wikipedia is for making revolutionary science [61], which means that you never undestood the point of WP:OR on the first place --Enric Naval (talk) 10:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, when trying to argue that you aren't incapable of learning, making the very mistake I used as an example is not a good tactic. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 02:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A-ho, it looks like admins are once again paralysed by a CIVIL POV-pusher. Shot info (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention one who's milking WP:BITE for all it's worth. I think after your mentor is finished with you, that's a pretty good sign you don't qualify as a newbie anymore. --Infophile ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 14:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that Dana was denied unblock by 3 different admins before being mentored by Lara, see User_talk:DanaUllman/Archive_1 --Enric Naval (talk) 23:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What does LaraLove think about this? Dana was unblocked on condition of mentorship, as I understand it, and Infophile seems to be suggesting that the mentorship did no good. I have little interest into wading into this whole mess to do a thorough investigation of my own, but if the mentorship did do no good - and I'm not taking Infophile's word on that, which is why I'd like to hear from Lara - I say the indefinite block gets restored. I'll leave a note at her talk page asking for her thoughts, in any event. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's unfortunate that Lara hasn't commented, but based on my own review of the evidence provided, I would favour a restoration of Dana's indef-block or an indefinite topic ban from homeopathy-related articles (which would likely work out to be the same thing, given the single purpose nature of the account). The reasons for it now seem every bit as valid now as they were in November. I'd restore the block or issue the topic ban myself, but I suspect that I'd be perceived as too involved, given a small bout of involvement I had with the homeopathy article on the pro-science side. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the details of Dana's mentoring can be seen here, if anyone cares. Before I really comment, I'd like to point out a few things:

Dana making wiki-markup mistakes is irrelevant and pointless to even bring up.
Every editor with good intentions deserves a chance to edit Wikipedia. So I really don't care if three admins or 30 refused to overturn his block before I did, or who I pissed off in the process.
Dana's had to deal with a lot of bullshit in his time here. Most of which he's brought on his self, but abusive sockpuppets and hate mail (I assume it wasn't all sent just to me) are just a couple of the issues. And he has managed to stay pretty civil through all of it.
Speaking of sockpuppets, I seriously, seriously doubt Dana has any.

Now, as far as his recent edits. I haven't seen them. He says he's made constructive, lasting improvements to various articles. If this is the case, a ban would be a detriment to the project. If administrative action is indeed necessary, an RFC/U with more than three diffs would be the best course of action. When I ended my mentorship of Dana, it was with no expressed conditions. At that point, if he didn't have a grasp on acceptable behavior, that was his problem. On his own. Good luck. That's exactly what I said and exactly what I meant. If his edits warrant a block or, less likely in my opinion, a ban, then that should be determined through the proper channels. Not some weak ANI thread. Lara❤Love 04:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think a RFC/U would be ok. The probation report page has tons of diffs dated after the mentorship end, and the diffs before that date can be used to show that the same behaviour continues. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sock case

~~See Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/DanaUllman. A checkuser should be used to confirm it --Enric Naval (talk) 01:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)~~ It got closed 5 minutes after opening it, the closing admin says that it lacks evidence for checkuser --Enric Naval (talk) 01:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attacks, incivil and abusive edits/edit summaries by User:Gennarous

I'd like to draw your attention to the personal attacks and gross incivility employed as standard by Gennarous. My belief is that his/her method deters other users from editing, and thus I call into question the benefit to the community of such editor and suggest that action may be necessary.

Users that disagree with Gennarous are seemingly "stalkers" [62][63][64][65][66][67] "ignorant human beings" [68], "commie trolls" [69][70] and vandals [71][72] prone to "typical communist behaviour" whose edits will be reverted "tomorrow when you are at school". [73]. The user is given to edit war above consensus [74] to support his/her personal POV [75], especially in relation to the Mussolini family [76] [77][78][79] with abusive edit summaries [80] where he/she seemingly doesn't even bother to examine what other editors do - these for example during a recent edit war over what the 'main' Syracuse is: [81] [82]. There are many other such examples, and I can go further into the hist contribs of this editor. However, I think that's sufficient, and importantly visitors to User talk:Gennarous can see what upset this user is causing in the community. Many thanks for your attention. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And having been notified of this discussion, the user promptly does this [83] AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that AlasdairGreen has started this thread after the attentions of his pro-communist propaganda edits were brought to light. On the article Rab concentration camp despite three people telling him he is wrong[84] Alasdair has gone on a campaign to slur Italians in the article. Refusing to enter discussion on the talkpage in an attempt to wind up editors.[85] He removed citation requests from the article and a tag bringing to attention its POV status.[86] In an article where he has attempted to depict Italians as some sort of holocaust killers, despite the fact that three people on the talk have pointed out to him that this is a prisoner of war camp.[87] AlasdairGreen27 has attacked and mocked the Italian people in the content of the article saying they all have "amnesia", this despite the user Bedford pointing out that it is POV. Three different users have added the POV tag, three times he has removed it without solving the problems.[88] He has also trolled the article Walter Audisio, in regards to Benito Mussolini. Alasdair's anti-Italian propaganda and hatred is also exhibited on the Dalmatian Italians page amongst others,[89] where he comes to blows with other editors about Italians where he uses abusive language about Dalmatian Italians "it's all a pile of bollocks".[90] - Gennarous (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the Rab concentration camp article: There was not a single editor in the last three months that said the current version of the article by User:AlasdairGreen27 would not be neutral. Today User:Gennarous edited the article in an extremely revisionist way [91]. I do not want to start a discussion about the article itself though, but just wanted to clarify Gennarous' "constructiveness". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomis (talk • contribs) 11:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I think all of my edits are OK. I'm happy to have my whole edit history in every article, every talk page checked. I think I'm quite a good Wikipedian. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (before the Red mist - and the capitalisation is deliberate - descends and I do something I will regret) - Wikipedia has a policy regarding NPOV. Not anti-Communist POV, not pro-Vegatable Rights POV or Lets-All-Sit-Down-and-Have-a-Calming-Drink-of-Tea POV, but NPOV. Every time I see someone justify their actions as "anti-communist" I have this barely checked urge to plaster hammerandsickle templates over their userpages. Please, you defenders of democracy and free speech, just stick to violations of Wikipedia policy/guidelines and not indulge in your morally petrified interpretations of who is and isn't permitted to say what and where. It is hard to take seriously complaints of POV when an opposing one is so obviously (red) flagged. </rant ends> LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC) (it is hard being a liberal...)[reply]

Though many of AlasdairGreen27's diffs are relatively old, I do agree that Gennarous seems to be unable or unwilling to remain civil. Then again, some of AlasdairGreen27's edits aren't much better.[92][93] Overall though, AlasdairGreen27 seems to be the far more civil of the two.

I have been giving Gennarous some steadily-escalating warnings since April 2, [94][95][96][97] but he doesn't appear to be listening. If Gennarous could acknowledge the problem and make a promise that he was willing to try and do better to abide by WP:CIVIL, I would say to give him another chance; but if not, and/or he continues with this kind of behavior, I would support administrator action to rein him in. Though some of Gennarous's work is good, that can't excuse this steady pattern of antagonistic behavior in what are already powderkeg articles. I have no opinion on the content that is being disputed, but it is essential that editors remain civil with each other while they are in a dispute, otherwise it just magnifies the problem and makes it that much more difficult to find a solution. --El on ka 08:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Alessandra Mussolini was the article where I stumbled upon Gennarous. He constantly reverted edits by an IP which removed [98] a sentence about her education, stating that the university never issued such degrees [99]. Gennarous reverted without any comment, and when I tried to argue with him and asked him to cite his claim, he called me a communist repeatedly. [100] Later he attacked me on my talkpage. [101] I don't have a problem with giving him another chance if he promises to cease such behavior, but then again, he has done this in so many articles already. lomis (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And he doesn't stop. Now he called another user and me "Eastern Bloc neo-Balkan nationalists" [102] for trying to keep a concentration camp article neutral. Though I actually start to find this amusing, nevertheless he really should get banned or at least be given a last warning. He has done this far too often, in my opinion. lomis (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lomis is voilating WP:STALK, by stalking me to an another article to continue a dispute. After Lomis followed me to the article in question, he then vandalised an article with numerous sources from scholars and historians by blanking 75% of the article.[103] I warned this user above stalking me and blanking sourced information[104] yet he ignored it and removed the warning from me. I would like somebody to take a look at this Lomis character, since coming over here from the German Wikipedia he has contributed nothing of worth, all he has done is attempted to remove sourced information, motivated by political opinions[105]. Is there any reason a user who has contributed nothing is allowed to follow me to continue a dispute and generally act in a wild manner? - Gennarous (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A note to all participants: though you may or not have valid points on the article content, ANI is really not the place to sort out content disputes. This board is more for immediate problems with user conduct and serious policy violations. If the issue involves anything where an administrator actually needs to research sources to figure out who's telling the truth and who isn't, then that's probably going to be more complex than what you need an admin for. Instead, on issues of content, your better bet is to try one of the steps in Wikipedia dispute resolution, such as requesting comment from other editors, or perhaps posting at the the reliable sources noticeboard, where you can get the opinions of other editors on whether or not sources are appropriate to include in an article, and perhaps on whether or not those sources are being properly interpreted. --El on ka 21:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only one comment: Gennarous must cease to politicise content disputes. Instead of accusing others of communism, Islamophilia, and slandering Italy (always without any basis) he should concentrate on discussing content and especially sources at the talk pages when his changes are disputed. This is all a part of not just civility but assuming good faith. Srnec (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gennarous has been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR edit-warring and incivility. Further details have been posted at User talk:Gennarous#Block, if any other admins would like to review and/or comment. --El on ka 21:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:McJeff

Every since he has had a problem with me here: List of characters in Bully, he has been uncivil and shown a lot of bad faith. A few recent examples: [106] (first time he blanked my comment on the talk page). I reverted it, and told him about Template:Notyours. Later, he once again blanked my comment out: [107]. Then there is this: [108], which I see also as bad faith. It should be noted I hadn't edited that Bully list page (or it's talk) for a while, so his original attack (found here: [109], wasn't necessary at all. There was no need to drag past editors into the discussion, and basically drag their name in the mud because of past disputes. Then he butted into this alert: Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Angrymansr, due to past issues with me. I also posted this at Wikiquette alerts, the issue with him seems to fit both pages in my view. RobJ1981 (talk) 05:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rob posted this exact same thing on Wikiquette Alerts already.

Not to mention he has been reported on wikiquette alerts by me about a week ago, where he was told by an administrator to knock it off. Exact quote. McJeff (talk) 06:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend you avoid each other. Stifle (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- I don't think that's fair to be quite honest - why should my wikipedia editing be constrained because he won't quit harassing me after having been told to knock it off? McJeff (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit hard to avoid him, when he follows me around on Wikipedia and posts on a majority of the same talk pages I do. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We've been involved in a grand total of three articles. One of them was your bad faith AfD on Vicious and Delicious. Another was the List of Characters in Bully. The only article you were working on that I later stepped into is Smackdown vs Raw 2008, and that was after Angrymansr brought your behavior on that article to my attention on your warning at Wikiquette alerts.

And might I remind you that you were instructed to stop the bad faith attacks on me, and that accusing me of wikistalking is bad faith, especially since it's not just a false accusation but a blatant attempt at smearing me? McJeff (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't talk about smearing: when you do that to me on the alerts page, and everywhere else where you mention my name. I wouldn't have such a problem, if you didn't drag me into the Bully talk page again. Just because my name was mentioned, didn't mean you needed to respond in the way you did. I clearly wasn't editing the talk or article, so my name didn't need to be mentioned (except for the fact that I didn't edit there anymore). Then all the removing of my comment (that you finally realized wasn't the correct thing to do), didn't help matters. Don't get me started on the AFD. I had every right to nominate it, and it wasn't in bad faith. You and Dan took it personal, that's not my problem. Don't make up things (and/or twist things around) to make me look bad, so you look good to the editors that read this. RobJ1981 (talk) 06:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What makes you think I took the AFD to Vicious and Delicious personal then? I didn't know the article was up for deletion until McJeff asked me to join the debate. He asked me that since he knows I'm a wrestling fan. Secondly your comments there at the debate, You say there thats it's likely that he told me to join the debate, which isn't true, then you stated that I didn't make any edits to wrestling articles, which is true yes, but that does not mean that I can't voice my opinions on a wrestling subject, or if wrestling article should stay. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 10:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are acting as if he was the one who mentioned your name first out of the blue on the discussion page. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 09:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You had a right to AfD Vicious and Delicious. That doesn't mean you did it for the right reason. For that matter, I had every right to participate in the Angrymansr user alert, so maybe you should stop bringing that up like it matters. McJeff (talk) 07:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with User:Stifle on this one. If you guys can't make an actual effort to "just get along" than you should both make the effort to avoid each other. It isn't down to either one of you. My suggestion is for you both to stay away from any articles currently in the middle of your dispute and to double check your own civility on talk pages, edit summaries, etc. to help make sure these sort of issues don't occur again. Jasynnash2 (talk) 08:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried my best to leave the article we both have edited (the Bully list), but he didn't want to leave things alone. Now, it's Jeff, Dan and Angrymansr ganging up on me... just to cause problems and harass me. RobJ1981 (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arcayne

Resolved

– Substantive matters being dealt with in another place

Kbthompson (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let's put it another way ... what do you expect this notice board to do? Kbthompson (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My first and most important request is that Arcayne be directed to support his specific allegation ("Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks") underpinning his formal effort to ban me, failing that it should be immediately withdrawn and if it proves to be as utterly baseless as I allege there should be a sanction. I would also request that Arcayne be directed to not accuse me of Sock-puppetry and to not follow me around threatening me or changing my talk page edits and include a time-out on reverting my article edits.75.57.165.180 (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd direct you to the notice board header - particularly What these pages are not - you should find the right forum at Are you in the right place?. This page is NOT part of the dispute resolution process - and so can take none of the remedies you seek. The WP:Wikiquette alerts issue against User:Arcane was already dealt with there, and any further bite of that particular cherry is likely to be resolved as the last one was. The Sockpuppet matter is ongoing - and if you are, as you claim, unrelated to the other AnonIPs, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. The only other resolution I can entertain is semi-protecting the articles that are in contention - this would obviously disadvantage yourself more than User:Arcayne, so not something I shall do unless I feel the situation warrants it (other admins' mileage may vary). Be assured they'll be a lot of eyes on this, so I would respectfully advise all parties to keep it cool. Kbthompson (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have claimed all the IP's. I even used a specific identifier to remove all doubt, I used the symbol before Arcayne entered the discussion. Here is a quote from Arcayne himself noting my identifier:

Every other one of the likely socks of the anon show similarly abusive editing patterns, and all use the '♠' as an identifier. Arcayne

The symbol was affixed because of the rapid nature of the discussion. It was lost on nobody - as Arcayne himself so pointedly notes. There were no incidents whatsoever from those IP's of "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks".

There is really no substance, nothing at all. It never happened. Arcayne has made it up an effort to ban me - The only thing that exists is a static IP address. There is no pretense whatsoever that there is more than one user using those IP's at all.75.57.165.180 (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... and as I said, this is not the forum for resolution of such matters. The process is evidential and an admin will review that matter in that forum. Bringing up the matter in multiple forums is 'forum shopping' and strongly discouraged. Kbthompson (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never previously initiated an action against Arcayne. What is the correct forum for this kind of abusive bullying, stalking, reverting, etc?75.57.165.180 (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the response Arcayne received to the action he initiated against me in the other Forum:

Clerk note: Since the IP does not deny being the same person on a dynamic range, I'm not sure what Checkuser can do to help :). -- lucasbfr talk 08:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Which forum addresses abusive use of Wikipedia forums to harass and harm? Which forum considers McCarthy like baseless user charges? Is there no limit to a members ability to completely fabricate formal charges without even a single example of the charge?75.57.165.180 (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why must you consider dragging this issue through the mud? You've already been told to take it to dispute resolution. This thread has been marked as resolved, and I see no further reason that it needs to continue here (or at WQA). You've been forum shopping, and by the looks of your recent edits, perhaps a bit too obsessed with the case in itself. seicer | talk | contribs 17:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has filed a formal charge against me without a single piece of evidence, not one diff. I have NEVER initiated a single action against this individual at any other Forum. There is NO forum shopping. I guess I just believed in the core Wiki philosophy "The basic right of all Wikipedians, public editor or anonymous wiki account holder is the same - a reasonable request for citation must be respected. ".

Arcayne has used the formal levers of Wikipedia power in an effort to ban me - I've asked for nothing more than a single shred of evidence. I apologize if I am out of place, or that my honest, civil and supported defense is now "obsessive". No links, no diffs=Good/Citations, Reliable Source=Bad? 75.57.165.180 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Edit conflict] If I were the AnonIP, I would take a day off from wiki, or have a cup of coffee, and just calm down. It has been pointed out (ad nauseam) that you both need to pursue some form of dispute resolution; and there will be a forum there where you can have someone help untangle this mess. This is just becoming disruptive, and I feel, not helpful to you. Kbthompson (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see: you complained about Arcayne, absolved; it now appears that his sockpuppet counter claims are resolved. The process is evidential, and has been followed in those places. This is not the correct place to consider these matters and a recommendation has been made that allows you to resolve your disputes within the system. Kbthompson (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You sent me here first:

My personal opinion is that it is a storm in a teacup and the two parties should go there to sort out their differences, rather than forum shopping for a resolution in their own favour. Kbthompson (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Now you are suggesting that I go to WP:DR? I looked at your second link and it is a resource for resolving disputes about content. I have explicitly stated that this is not a content dispute - nothing that I have written has even the hint of a content dispute. I shall do as I am directed though and post this dispute in DR.75.57.165.180 (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, that is a partial quotation. At wikiquette, the admin closing the case against Arcayne suggested dispute resolution. I reiterated that advice, I went on to describe the matter as a 'storm in a teacup'. You have consistently been directed to dispute resolution, this forum is unable to provide any of the remedies you seek (see above).

I have communicated with Arcayne and asked s/he to treat you with respect and civility and make a genuine attempt to settle your differences. Basically wikipedia is about trying to create quality content for an encyclopaedia, and NOT about managing the relationship between you. In the previous thread to this one, User:Stifle provides some good advice to two editors in a similar dispute, and that is if they can't get on, to avoid each other.

I closed this off as resolved because when I concentrated the previously unstructured debate on the outcomes you were seeking from this forum, they were identified as not being appropriate for this forum. It seems to me that the behaviour dispute has already been dealt with at wikiquette, and the sock puppet issue is also resolved. You complain that formal charges have been laid against you - but they've been resolved without any sanction. There is no 'punishment' for Arcayne reporting you to suspected sock puppets, just as there is no 'punishment' for Arcayne being reported to wikiquette. I still feel that to pursue sanctions when the issues appear to have been dealt with is fruitless and disruptive. I would urge both of you to concentrate on the content of articles and to assume good faith on the part of the other. Kbthompson (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, hear, the issue is now about communications and relationships and Kbthompson offers sage advice. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC).[reply]

"It seems to me that the behaviour dispute has already been dealt with at wikiquette, and the sock puppet issue is also resolved. You complain that formal charges have been laid against you - but they've been resolved without any sanction. There is no 'punishment' for Arcayne reporting you to suspected sock puppets, just as there is no 'punishment' for Arcayne being reported to wikiquette."

Responding directly to the quoted matter above, the formal charges he brought against me were done without ANY evidence. This is unacceptable. He had no more basis to accuse me of "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks". than I do of you.

What is the Wiki standard of evidence required to bring formal charges? Society always punishes those who make false accusations in official forums(Not a single citation was ever presented.). This is not a one-off, Arcayne has brought charges against numerous editors and multiple administrators[143] and on a near daily basis posts threats of formal charges and sanctions against various individual editors. What is the policy?

(Note: I did not initiate any action at Wikiquette - this is not a quid pro quo matter.)75.57.165.180 (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As said before, your options can be found under WP:DR. You may not have read that policy in full as you appear to have followed advice from its top sections. DR applies to content disputes as well as behavioral disputes. Since you have complaints about the behavior of Arcayne, your options are e.g.: talk page discussion, mediation, RfC/U. I would say it isn't worth it though. Simply keep your interactions with Arcayne to a minimum and on-topic and don't overreact to accusations you know to be incorrect. If you need the advice of an experienced editor, you may want to register a user name and put a {{helpme}} or {{adoptme}} tag on your talk page. Avb 14:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did miss the comments in WP:DR that addressed non-content issues. A final question then, Is there a Wiki standard for supporting formal charges and accusations with a citation or evidence?75.57.165.180 (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on the forum (examples: WP:RfC and WP:RfAr require such formal evidence). However, accusations that are not supported by diffs or other links to problematic edits are generally not taken seriously and editors who keep accusing others without merit don't have a good reputation. Other things that come to mind are a WP:guideline called Don't bite the newcomers and an essay called No angry mastodons. Also worth noting is the principle that admin tools and especially WP:BLOCKs are not to be used as punishment. If I find the time I'll post a couple of pointers on your talk page. My advice re Arcayne remains: let it go. Avb 16:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Social network aggregation

Igorberger keeps removing my valid AFD nomination of Social network aggregation. Angrysusan (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to be confused between the templates from his edit summary that you are marking it with a CSD tag, I'll drop him a line just to let him know. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He keeps calling me a vandal and erasing my messages pleading with him to actually read the tempaltes he is removing. Angrysusan (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[144] and now calling me a troll and claiming I put 10 CSDs on the article. I never once put a CSD on there, and was just trying to get him to listen on his talk page, but he keep deleting. What's up with this guy? Angrysusan (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think if you search the archives here you will find his name has come up before in the last month or so. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ref the user who posted this, anyone know the likely main account of that user? It's an obvious sockpuppet, and the AfD as edit one suggests a problem. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being Stalked by user:Maher-shalal-hashbaz

About a month ago, this user jumped into a disagreement I was a part of, and escalated it into a revert war. After attempting to get me blocked the page was temporally locked and the users who were part of the initial disagreement, came to a consensus while Maher-shalal-hashbaz spent his time arguing that The Wrong Version was protected.

Now a month later he has followed me to another article, and is actively attempting to turn it into another edit war. After cleaning up and discussing an issue with a misguided (but well meaning) editor Maher-shalal-hashbaz is taking the opportunity to start another edit war. Already he is dropping 3RR warnings on my talk page, citing my six undos to the article in the past three months (despite him having just as many in the past week).

In the end, I am wondering if there is anything that can be done about this. Or if I am stuck having to repeatedly revert this user on every single page I edit for the rest of my life. Can I get any help? --T-rex 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have placed a note on your talk page asking him 'not to template the regulars'. I'd suggest that you ask for a consensus in the talk page of the relevant article, and then perhaps get another editor, or admin to carry it out. There's the Request for Comments process if you need to get other opinions on a topic. If the editor is uncivil or impolite, a request to look into it can be made at WP:Wikiquette alerts. Have a read of the advice at WP:DFTT for avoiding edit wars. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, but the issue does not appear to be confined to any individual article, so I'm not sure a request for comment will really clear anything up long term. The lack of civility doesn't really bother me, at least not as much as being unable to prevent him from continuing to undo every change I make to any article. --T-rex 18:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem, what might appear to you to be a consistent pattern of stalking is always difficult to prove within the normal give and take of editing. Someone else might have a better idea - but sometimes a 'stalker' will give up if they know others are watching. Otherwise avoid them and seek consensus. Kbthompson (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASIOC

There's some serious SPAing and forum shopping going on from both sides of this debate. It's gotten pretty out of hand. Would someone mind taking a look at it and closing it if need be? --Smashville^BONK! 19:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least one account (AnteaterZot) who participated has been confirmed as a sock per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Boomgaylove. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read through that one when going through WP:AFDO earlier today. What a mess. Apparently, the Subaru Impreza has a pretty loyal fanbase. The general accusation is that those voting to "keep" this organization's article have been forum shopped on their own forum, encouraged to "join wikipedia". Been trying to get "involved" on NASIOC to find the relevant thread there...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. 18 pages long. And stickied. --Smashville^BONK! 20:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That absolutely needs to be linked to the AfD. I'm on it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Linked. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a quick update, some of the members of the sock farm identified here participated on the delete side of that AfD. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of undeleting NASIOC; it is clear that a band of sockpuppets intentionally created and disrupted the AfD and I don't believe we can credibly say that it was performed in good faith. This is without prejudice to the article being renominated for AfD; I agree there are sourcing issues, but given the confirmed fact that the AfD was launched and supported by a sockpuppet ring, this cannot have been considered a fair process. FCYTravis (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What!? The closing admin provided his reasoning. I don't get this at all. Also, I notice you voted keep. To avoid the appearance of conflict of interest, I think you should not have undeleted. Take it to deletion review if you disagree. Friday (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The fact is that the AfD was launched and supported by a sockpuppet troll farm. That is manifest bad faith and it cannot be allowed to stand. FCYTravis (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a clear consensus among established editors. I don't care who started what. Friday (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think we should care. I can't make heads or tails of a consensus from that mess - and yes, some of the article's supporters are guilty of the same thing. But that doesn't mean we should condone the malfeasance of sockpuppets who have engaged in long-term disruption of the encyclopedia and the deletion processes. If the article is truly unworthy, then another AfD should end with the same result - only without making it look like a sockpuppet troll railroaded the article into oblivion. FCYTravis (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, say you say you can't close it.. but someone else already did. Did you take it up with him? Why not use normal channels? The close looks like a good call in a tricky situation to me. We can judge the case on its merits without regard for who started what. Friday (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not use normal channels? Pretend that troll-driven AfD nomination never existed. Nominate the article for deletion yourself right now and start the clock. If, as you say, it's an open-and-shut delete case, then it'll be deleted in five days - and there's not an appearance of bad faith based on the fact that the AfD was started by a sockpuppet troll farm. There is no deadline - having the article up for another five days isn't going to kill us. FCYTravis (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been deleted again - based on a sock-farm trolling AfD. I'm not going to wheel war but it is a very sad day for the encyclopedia when we allow a confirmed sockpuppet farm to troll our deletion process so badly. Just awful. When outsiders look at this, they see nothing but suck. We took the bait - hook, line and sinker - and any attempt to rectify that, fails. Pathetic. FCYTravis (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why not start a deletion review? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pathetic? You voted keep for an article and when it was deleted per consensus, you overturned the AfD and restored it. Do you honestly not see why this is a problem? --Smashville^BONK! 04:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you honestly not see why we should consider AfDs which are started in bad faith by a confirmed sockpuppet troll farm to be patently invalid? If that hadn't been the case, I wouldn't have touched the article. But when we delete articles based on bad-faith trolling AfDs, we make ourselves look stupid at best, and complicit at worst. FCYTravis (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You restored an article that you participated in the deletion debate on the opposing side to the conclusion. After another admin deleted it. You didn't even discuss it with him. So are we just going to cave because of umpteen SPAs posted on the page and called us douchebags on their message board? And now they threaten vandalism and all of such and we're just going to give them their way so we don't look "stupid"? --Smashville^BONK! 04:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are we worrying about whether or not we're "giving them their way?" The actions of people on a forum should have nothing to do with our decision. You're making this into some sort of "us vs. them" thing - and that's bad. That's turning it into something personal, which we should be above. We ought to be making decisions based on guidelines and policies, and the attitude of "omg we can't give them their way" is poisonous.

The point is that we should be doing things right, so that there is not the slightest appearance of impropriety. By sustaining a sock-farm-based AfD, we are creating a massive appearance of impropriety. The solution is not to cover things up and hide and run away and shout "OMG WE CAN'T GIVE THEM THEIR WAY" - the solution is to do things right. So a known user should renominate the article for AfD, and if it's really deletion-worthy, it'll be clearly and unambiguously deleted. FCYTravis (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(side note: I just randomly wikilinked "appearance of impropriety," not really expecting it to be an article. But it is. Cool.) FCYTravis (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Restoring the article to the opposite result of your vote most definitely gives the appearance of impropriety. What are we covering up? That a sockpuppet was correct? The fact of the matter is that most of the trolling on this was done via SPA NASIOC editors. But my main problem is that you are sitting here going on and on about impropriety and all that when your own action with this is extremely uncouth. I mean, I'm sure you have good intentions, but the fact that you've already restored it once has killed any appearance of propriety this would have. --Smashville^BONK! 05:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After all this crap, any thoughts on this planned attack on Wikipedia ..??? perhaps its time to blacklist this site?--Hu12 (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought we just said bad-faith AfDs were OK. If it was OK for a sockpuppet troll to bad-faith AfD-nominate NASIOC, what's your problem with NASIOC members bad-faith AfDing a few articles in return? Bizarre. We reap what we sow. FCYTravis (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I just went through it to identify the confirmed sock (or other blocked) participants:

Nominator: User:Moosato Cowabata

Deletes: User:Willirennen, User:Garth Bader, User:Lara Dalle, User:AnteaterZot

Keeps: User:Baldcyclops

So of the confirmed socks and vandal accounts that have been blocked, they are predominantly on the deletion side and most of the above indicated sock/vandal accounts made multiple posts in the discussion. With that said, there are a slew of other accounts the made few if any edits to anything other than this AfD. There were also some false tagging within the discussion. Someone said, for example, "Hobit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic," which is of course is just not true. There may also be some kind of retaliation editing going on outside of the discussion. One account accurately called the nominator a sock, but has also prodded an article with a name that is phonetically similar to the nominator account's name. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for doing that digging, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Just more evidence that this is a fatally broken AfD which should not be sustained. FCYTravis (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am always happy to help. :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(multiple EC) FCYTravis, if you disagree with the result, take it to DRV. Just because it was nominated in bad faith does not mean the good-faith comments from established users are magically invalidated. Nor does that mean future trolling is acceptable; kindly cut the hyperbole. Le Grand Roi, AfD is not a vote. The established contributors who commented clearly showed that the "sources" in the article are trivial name-drop type mentions, are unreliable, or don't even mention the subject at all. No substantial independent reliable sources=no article, regardless of vote count. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly, AfD is not a vote and as it is a discussion, it was a discussion marred and guided in large part by at least a half-dozen confirmed sock and vandal accounts that made a tremendous amount of edits to the AfD and certainly influenced the direction and tenure of the discourse. Were it a vote, it would be much easier, because then we could just discount the blocked accounts, but in a discussion people are influenced by each other and how the discussion progresses. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How did they influence the votes? Would secondary sources have existed if there was no sockpuppetry? --Smashville^BONK! 05:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, consider this delete comment by Redvers: "The number of single purpose accounts flooding this debate has, of course, influenced my decision." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, AfD is not a vote. Pretty much all AfDs end up with invalid deletion rationale. And considering the single purpose accounts came from NASIOC, I fail to see how starting another AfD that will again be flooded by NASIOC editors will make the issue any better. Especially when, again, there was a clear, strong consensus to delete. The number of socks and SPAs from each side do not change the fact that there were no secondary sources. Again, would secondary sources have existed without the sockpuppetry? Because that was the main argument for deletion. --Smashville^BONK! 05:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You say above: "How did they influence the votes?" then you say "AfD is not a vote". If it's note a "vote," then "votes" can't be influenced. I don't point that out to be flippant or anything, but it just seems contradictory, especially, when I stated above that "Yes, exactly, AfD is not a vote and as it is a discussion...", so I don't see why it's worth stating, "First, AfD is not a vote," when I already said I agree with that concept. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A 7-6 "!vote" is not a "clear, strong consensus to delete." The closer was incorrect and based his decision on sockpuppetry. That is a fact. FCYTravis (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is definitely no consensus expressed in that AfD. Subtracting all sock and meatpuppets (defined as users who signed up exclusively to participate in this AfD, and CheckUser confirmed sockpuppets), the !vote was 7 to 6. FCYTravis (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote. It's based on consensus. Your keep votes were: "Agree with Hobit that this meets WP:N, and it appears that the article has been updated recently to add references to meet guidelines. Not sure why this is AfD", which was proven to be false since the references were all either unrelated to the subject, from social networking sites or the subject itself; "other aspects aside, appears now to have independent references", which again, was shown to not be the case; "Encyclopedic automotive special interest group. I think there's something about it in one of my back issues of Car and Driver, but unfortunately they're all back in California right now. I'll give a look at the college library tonight," which has no basis in Wikipedia guidelines or policies; "References meet WP:N in my opinion. Not a lot of blogs get mainstream press, but this one has (though fairly minor, but more than "in passing")", but again, not one person was able to provide these references in "mainstream press"; an SPA vote by Manarius: "It should be noted also that when one puts the search term "Subaru" into Google, NASIOC does appear on the first page of results" Google hits is neither a valid keep nor delete reason; and "Why is this even listed?? There is no viable reason for deletion" which again, is not a valid keep reason --Smashville^BONK! 05:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeps: Beethoven05, Casliber, FCYTravis, Hobit, Manarius, Mww113.

Deletes: Friday, Redvers, Smashville, Tanthalus39, Rocksanddirt, Keeper39, DeLarge.

Take this to deletion review then. seicer | talk | contribs 05:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not a vote. The number of votes for each side is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that it was established after a 7 day AfD that there were no reliable secondary sources on the subject. --Smashville^BONK! 05:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You keep changing the goalposts. First, it's an alleged "consensus" to delete. Well, no, I've destroyed that. There was no "consensus" to delete. This needs to be re-run. Period. FCYTravis (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have never once changed the goalposts. There was a clear consensus to delete. It was established that the article did not meet WP:N. I mean, it was an exceptionally clear consensus. Not one person argued a valid keep argument. It was pointed out by several editors, including myself, that the article lacked secondary sources and no one could find any. That is a clear consensus. --Smashville^BONK! 05:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when was 7-6 a consensus? I'm sorry, but you keep talking about a consensus as if you've established one. Well, no, you haven't. There were a bunch of sockpuppets masquerading as a consensus. Five of them, to be exact. The AfD close is patently invalid, you know it, and you're creating a lot of drama when the easiest way to do this would be to throw the article up on another AfD, let it run, and if there's a real consensus to delete, then it'll show up pretty clearly, won't it? That's all we're asking for - another AfD free from patent trolling, sockpuppetry and bad-faith. If there's a clear consensus to delete there, then I'll shut up. FCYTravis (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is AfD a vote? There was not one valid keep argument. Don't talk to me about creating drama, as you were the one who restored the article after participating in the AfD and continue to argue against the outcome of it.--Smashville^BONK! 05:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And the issue would be easily (and permanently) settled by a re-run AfD. If you're so confident that the article deserves deletion, why are you so vehemently opposed to re-running it? If you're right, it'll be quickly deleted again, this time without bad faith sockpuppetry and trolling. FCYTravis (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you creating more drama? Take it to deletion review. If it doesn't pass, so be it. If it does pass, so be it. No need to drag this through the mud any further. seicer | talk | contribs 06:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note from me as the closing admin--I have to admit, I was pretty close to closing this as an unresolvable train wreck and relisting it. But enough established editors had contributed to the discussion that I was able to discount the socks and SPAs and determine there was consensus among them to delete. Blueboy 96 18:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I've started thinking about this further...and, while I 100% do not agree with FCYTravis restoring this article with no discussion, why wouldn't we consider Subaru's magazine a reliable secondary source? I mean, the organization is about Subaru, but it's not affiliated with them...so how would that be a primary source? I hate to take it to DRV yet again, but I'm starting to lean towards the fact that we do need another discussion on this. I find it hard to believe that one of the world's largest auto clubs would not have any secondary sources...I just don't know that we know where to look. I also know that there are tons of niche magazines that I'm sure don't post all of their articles online...not everyone has made it all the way into the information age. --Smashville^BONK! 18:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I opened a DRV discussion. --Smashville^BONK! 19:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exceedingly WP:BOLD editor at AFD

Resolved

Calling it resolved. Further comments to my talkpage, if necessary! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Recently User:Dustihowe has apparently taken upon himself to non-admin close a handful of AFDs less than a day after they were opened with very few people participating in the discussion. I full disclosure, on of this closures was one of my noms: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sovereignty Restoration Act. I would have left a note on his talk page, but others have already tried discussing the issue with him without any real result. I hate to escalate this when it looks like Dustihowe is just trying to do what he thinks is right, but condoning this type of behavior will quickly make AFD unusable. Burzmali (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Burzmali, this is an overreaction. I am one of the administrators that is working diligently with Dusti. You should have gone to his talkpage first, or to one of the talkpages of another editor before this. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now that I've looked further into this, you have made absolutely no attempt to resolve your obvious difference of opinion with Dusti. I'm not endorsing his early closure, but you didn't even notify him of this post on AN/I. This noticeboard is not the first step. Saying an editor is "on the loose" is not exactly constructive either. I recommend an apology to Dusti, and then we'll work out the issue at hand. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keeper, I find an attempt by another editor to resolve an issue of this kind User_talk:Dustihowe#A Request to be quite concerning. His rationale in his closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sovereignty Restoration Act and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Acceleware seems to be based on personal opinion, which would be fine if he'd added it to the discussion, but as it is he seems to be effectively making his opinion the deciding one... ? Incidentally I see he hasn't been notified of this thread, so I have.-- Naerii 20:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, I'm not endorsing his closure (s), and said so on his talkpage. I've said so many times on his talkpage. He and I (and Cameron and Fabrictramp and others) are working with him and his closing. His heart's in the right place, these were too fast. All that to say, ANI isn't the right forum, even if it was, it's titled antagonisticly, and it's premature, with no attempts at resolution from the noticeboard poster with the AFD closer. Unnecessary. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record, I'm not working with Dustihowe on AFD closings, just on basic editing. My only input to him on AfDs is that I think his time would be better spent participating in the discussions to get a feel for how they go. I'm not a fan of non-admin AfD closings, because in my experience they cause more grief than help. (Nor am I a fan of all the speedy keep and speedy delete closings I've been seeing lately. The vast majority are AfDs that should have run a full five days.)--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as for the thread on his talk called "A Request", that's from a deletion nominator that doesn't like how the debates have closed. I've looked at both of the debates that Dusti has closed from that particular nominator, and the nominator is making an unreasonable, perhaps even biased, request. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's appropriate for non-admins to close AfDs that aren't unanimous, to be quite honest. -- Naerii 20:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I admitted in my comments to Dustihowe that the AfDs probably would have closed the same way, so I'm not sure where you read a bias into this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not notifying him, I got distracted after leaving the original notice. Two people have already voiced disagreement with him over his non-admin closures and his exchange with Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) convinced me that I would be wasting electrons disagreeing with him on his talk page. I'm not calling for him to be drawn and quartered, but I don't think closings AFDs after a hour or two because you disagree with the nominator is really a behavior to encourage. Burzmali (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Burzmali for your civil response. Trust me, I'm not encouraging his behavior. If you have 10 minutes, peruse his talk archives. You'll see my name in there about, oh, I don't know, 50 times, working with him on AfD closures. I've gone so far as to tell him to stop. He has been improving greatly as of late; these last couple are out of character for him. I'll say again to Naerii, I'm not endorsing his closures. I think this could be better handled on a talkpage, that's all, and its customary, even if a dispute is a repeated dispute, it's new to you and Dusti. Assuming good faith, at least a single attempt at communicating with him would have been better and perhaps helped bring a faster conclusion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, as long as the "powers that be" are aware of the situation, I'm satisfied. Burzmali (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a very nicely-worded warning on his talk page.[145] Repeatedly disrupting the AfD process by arbitrarily deciding when to close things is unacceptable; I'm hoping this can be resolved without a block being used, but I'd definitely consider it an option. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing the situation, I have to agree with EVula that this editor has already received plenty of input as to the propriety of his AfD closes. If he choses to disregard this final warning, I would strongly support a block. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not in favor of keep or delete, however the closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Sovereignty_Restoration_Act after 4 hours and only two votes raises questions.--Hu12 (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a grossly improper closure, as is the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concordia Student Union after only some 22 hours. I've reverted both and restored the AfD notices. They should be allowed to run through to the normal conclusion. If the articles survive AfD, fine, but they should first be reviewed on AfD in the proper way. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A further thought: I see from Dustihowe's contributions that he has closed many AfDs lately. Given the poor quality of the closures mentioned above, I suggest it would be worth someone having a look through the other closures to see if there's a systematic problem here or just a one-off. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As you asked, I checked through the recent ones and the only one that I thought might be questionable was 1 delete, 2 merges, 1 keep, closed as redirect after 2 hours. There were a bunch of snow keep closes but as they all had 5-6 keeps I'm not too concerned. -- Naerii 02:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even snow-closes I'm hesitant to have him do, given his established history of questionable closures. About the only one I saw that didn't make my eyebrow raise was one where the nominator withdrew the nomination. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In spite of what he wrote, that wasn't a redirect, but a cut & ~~copy~~ paste merge, here. I'm off to repair that per procedure at Help:Merge. At this point, I tend to agree with EVula that this contributor should stop doing these until he is on more certain footing with them. (As to the case of Sky Soleil, mentioned just below, I don't feel that was a matter of re-closing it just to remove his name; the closure was changed from "keep" to "no consensus", which is a very different result.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve been looking at everyone’s comments and observations. I think that Dustihowe my be guilty of being overzealous but I'm sure this can be looked at with less hammer and more guidance. I have not seen enough conversation with Dustihowe to warrant the reaction that I’m seeing. Yes, review his non-admin closures of AfD. Yes he was wrong in a couple of them and that can be fixed. My suggestion to Dustihowe is to relax a bit and take a step back to reflect on the AfD process and the mindset involved with the community. I can understand a frustration with some of the decisions etc, but the whole idea of AfD is discussion. I myself in some of my comments will say “This should not be around for 5 days. Speedy Close” and yet is sticks around. Let’s assume good faith with Dustihowe and show a little more guidance.

In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sky Soleil I am disappointed. It appears that it was felt to re-open it, and then immediately close it with different comments, etc. I have yet to do a non-admin close and I was about to do it to this one, but Dustihowe got there before me. I get the distinct feeling that this was done to remove Dustihowe’s name from it and to change the comments regarding the closure. It feels… vindictive.--Pmedema (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I'm mentioning a potential block is because there have been efforts to provide guidance. I'm not a fan of blindly repeating the same act for the sake of doing it; if your tactics prove ineffective, change tactics.

As I've said numerous times, while I'd prefer to resolve this without a block being used, I'm honestly losing faith in the situation. When I told Dusti to flat-out stop closing AfDs, he instead offered to explain his rationales, which is largely irrelevant to the fact that he needs to stop; he's yet to say "okay, I'll stop", instead opting to protest somewhat. He's had one administrator (Keeper) guiding him for AfD closures, but even he has recommended he to stop; that has been met with disregard, and now he's got several other administrators advising him to stop, and one flat-out telling him to stop or he might get blocked for disruption of process. If he chooses to ignore the warnings, he's well within his right to do so; really, whether he gets blocked or not is up to him. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I withdrew my AFD nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concordia Student Union. While this means that I agree with User:Dustihow's conclusion that the article WAS notable-- I do not agree with the non-admin close in that instance. Closing the AFD early was out of line, but not in bad faith. Therefore, I do not support a block, as long as he knows to chill out with the AFDs for a while. Incidentally, I would not support promoting him to admin for a while--at least until he has demonstrated the restraint required to handle the toold that come with being an admin. --SevernSevern (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--SevernSevern (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the interests of "moving on"...

Dusti and I have come to a "training" agreement on my talkpage. In the interest of transparency, I would like anyone that has an interest in this recent activity to chime in there on my talk. Yays or nays? Additional input? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For those who've read this far: I have made a few non-admin closes today (and previously) and I would welcome any feedback on them. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mr. Wheely Guy

Resolved

– ON WHEELS!!!!!

This user page - acceptable or not? Saw it while checking the usages of some commons images of dubious value. First time I've put anything here, I think, so if this is the wrong place, feel free to tell me to take it elsewhere. Brilliantine (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm, while WP:USERPAGE gives users a whole lot of control over their userpage, wikipedia is not a porn site and I really see no way that this is constructive what so ever. Have you tried asking the user to remove it? Tiptoety ^talk 22:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalised as instructed to.... Ryan Postlethwaite 22:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How could I resist? I moved it to User:Mr. Wheely Guy ON WHEELS!!!!. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't seem the original user added it himself but a rather perverted vandal instead.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know- mr wheely just put "you are all free to vandalise, ' and a User:Morecomes added the porn, someone else the cow. Looks a bit chan-ish, but might just be genuine wiki-ers having a laugh. special, random, Merkinsmum 22:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do not think there is anything that says they can not request users to vanalize their page, and honestly I know a bunch of other users who have pages just like that. Tiptoety ^talk 22:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah - User:UBX/hornysonofabitch, User:Ewlyahoocom/WikiPr0n, User:Cyde/Weird pictures are a few examples. They should all be MFD'd and deleted, but too many people enjoy Wikipedia providing them with GFDL porn galleries. Neıl ☎ 22:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all in the censoring wikipedia camp, but maybe there should be some kind of guideline on this. Or maybe not. Are all or any of them on the bad image list? Might be a good idea to place the there if not. Brilliantine (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue here is more about user inviting others to vandalize their userpage. Tiptoety ^talk 23:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's all about the wording... I mean, the line between good faith edits and vandalism is blurred at the best of times, and even Jimbo encourages others to edit his page, just in slightly more guarded terms. There is precedent for images such as this to be placed on the bad image list in any case, to avoid their placement where their presence would be likely to be unwelcome. In any case, the bad image list is in need of an overhaul in general, containing as it does a large number of deleted images. Brilliantine (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I took him up on the offer also. KnightLago (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals taking time on my page will take time away from them vandalizing real articles. So everyone is free to screw around with my user page all they want. And of course if you don't like what someone (such as that porn guy) puts on my page then anyone is free to revert it. Mr. Wheely Guy (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Resolved? Tiptoety ^talk 03:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. Neıl ☎ 12:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Death threat

Resolved

– Resolvedresolvedresolvedresolved. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Appleappleappleapple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Corvus cornix_talk 02:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blockedblockedblockedblocked. Thatcher 02:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:DrHeLpErZx

Resolved

Continually deletes the AfD tag from the article he wrote about himself: DrHeLpErZx. This is despite being warned by another editor on user talk page: [146]. Can we get him blocked for a while, at least while the AfD has a chance to run through? Thank you. Qworty (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That revision was not the proper warning to place. I replaced it with the L2 AfD tag removal warning, and gave an explanation why other editors frown on such actions. DarkAudit (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD snow-closed, placed on watchlist; will salt if recreated. Black Kite 10:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Special:Contributions/130.113.111.210

Resolved

User:130.113.111.210 persistently adds unverifiable information on Peter J George article in which the nickname "Ruddiger" is added. It is explained to this user many times that sources have to be verified online to be valid but ignores it and just insists it can be found in the 2003 academic calendar which is only available in paperback form. 218.102.179.31 (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What gave you the idea "that sources have to be verified online to be valid"? It's not true; never has been. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, what is this "academic calendar" and is it a reliable source? --Orange Mike | Talk 05:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An academic calendar, in Canada (not sure about elsewhere, but I presume not in the States, since you're unfamiliar with it) is an annual university publication that lists university regulations, courses offered, etc. In general, I think it would be a reliable (albeit self-published) source, but I'm a little confused as to why it allegedly includes a professor's nickname. That certainly isn't true of any university calendar I've ever read (not that I've read all that many). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! In the States, they're usually called "catalogs" and have gone (mostly) biennial or online-only, due to the cost of printing. I used to maintain a library of those for a state educational agency. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the calendar in question *is* available online, here. I'll try to find the referred to information. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't been able to find the information in question. In any event, I've left a note on the article talk page explaining policy and asking for assistance in locating the actual cite. I don't think any admin action is required here. Marking resolved. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The so called claimed "trivia" section cannot be found online. On the other hand, if sources cannot be verified online how can you make sure whether the user is posting rubbish or not. Do you really expect anyone to go through the trouble to verify his source. If it were anymore, it should be the original poster to do that 203.218.143.38 (talk) 06:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith includes an assumption that a cite to a non-online publication is legitimate. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit-warring on talk page

Resolved

Nothing for admins to do. Orderinchaos 08:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate a review of the matter at my talk page relating to a blocked user who has contacted me and expressed an intention to engage in a campaign of edit-warring and harassment against a person who is the subject of an article, using public kiosks and other hit-run means at User talk:Retarius#Freddy. Another user is insisting on deleting the material, including my attempt to defuse the situation. I have asked him to desist but he refuses and insists that he will determine what's allowed to be on the page. I won't characterise his behaviour beyond saying that I think an analysis of his talk page contents and relations with other editors will reveal a pattern. Retarius | Talk 07:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will vouch for the other editor. No admin intervention is needed. Perhaps the intervention of a friend instead.... Hesperian 11:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As will I. I'd also mention to Retarius that we really shouldn't be engaging with people who use threats and vandalism and block evasion to try and get BLP-violating content into articles. Admins and, if necessary, OTRS can deal with those matters appropriately. Orderinchaos 14:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Iolani School- 204.130.130.185

Resolved

I believe that this IP address should be permanently blocked. I also attend this school, and I have noticed vandalism levels going way too high. I am currently working with school administrators on this problem, but until further notice, 204.130.130.185 should be blocked from editing Wikipedia because whoever did this is still on the loose causing trouble elsewhere and will not stop. In addition, the problem still resides on new people to the school and others who are new to Wikipedia. There are multiple vandals at Iolani, and I think should not be overlooked. Once again, I am still working with school administrators, but this means the vandals are still free to do whatsoever they want, so until further notice i would like to request ip address 204.130.130.185 be blocked permanently or until further notice. Look at the user contributions of this address if you don't know what I mean.
Thanks, and I hope we can track-down and destroy this vandal!
---->B4lyphe<---- (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, I have reviewed the User talk for this IP Address, and I do confirm this is vandalism. Also, there are a few edits that are legitimately not vandalism. These edits were done by my friend Midorihana and she agrees to making compromises at school to make Wikipedia a better source for information. If you are ready to "pull the trigger" you may when you get this message.
---->B4lyphe<---- (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already taken care of: {{schoolblock}} applied 23:22, 7 April 2008 by Blueboy96 for 6 months. Bencherlite ^Talk 10:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Opportunity to nip conflict in the bud

A recent ArbCom ruling emphasized "the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground" on 9/11-related issues "so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles". I regret to report that there seems already to eb an opportunity for an uninvolved admin to implement this ruling now. A discussion is developing here. Two editors have already taken it upon themselves to identify my suggestion (to keep the article as it has been for more than four months) with conspiracy theorising and POV-pushing. If those accusations are justified, I should of course warned not to pursue this discussion (in line with discretionary sanctions). If they are not justified, MONGO and DHeyward should be warned to stop throwing labels around and discuss the question in a civil manner.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Add "trolling" to the list of insults.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ruling applies to conspiracy theory POV pushers regarding the 9/11 articles. Basboll is one of those persons that baits and disrupts these pages making them almost impossible to improve. He and I have already tried to take each other to arbitration but the recent ruling nullifies any further need to tolerate ongoing mischaracterizatiobns and allegations by Basboll...he needs to be topic banned as a single purpose account who has incessantly tried to promote fringe theories as facts.--MONGO 10:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also request an admin for two reasons. 1.) Thomas objected to the mass deletion of a long standing section without discusion and is immediately accused of POV pushing. 2.) It appears from this, this and MONGO's statement above that some believe the findings of the 911 arbitration only apply to conspiracy supporters. It should be made clear that problematic behaviour by anyone will not be tolerated. Wayne (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've examined the article history and talk page and all I can see is someone boldly removing a section, someone else reverting it and it then being civilly discussed on the talk page. This is entirely the correct procedure for editing articles. MONGO's description of Thomas' notification of the discussion on the talk page as "trolling" is entirely unjustified an inappropriate. Whether Thomas has previously behaved as a troll or SPA account is beside the point (I have not investigated thoroughly enough to determine that), the edit in question was certainly not trolling. MONGO, you are hereby warned to remain civil at all times and to assume good faith, especially in relation to September 11 (this warning will be repeated on your talk page to ensure you see it). --Tango (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, MONGO is excessively harsh to Thomas, but Thomas is inclined to keep asking until he gets the answer he wants (as indeed are many of those who espouse the various Truther theories). It will be interesting to see if the arbitration ruling genuinely can restrict to a meaningful degree the endless querulousness of those who assert parity between Truther theories and the mainstream view. I'm not sure Thomas would be the best test case, though. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tango. I actually reverted after I posted above as Thomas was "too scared" to do so himself considering the reaction he got for critisizing the deletion. I point out to Guy that while I have the same hope, the ruling is also meant to restrict the endless querulousness of those who attempt to prevent "truther theories" being given their due weight. Wayne (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User ImatrollROAR

Resolved

– blocked

User:ImatrollROAR created a provocative username and has proceeded to vandalize the userpage and talkpage of User:Utgard Loki‎. --Joe^Talk_Work 12:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dbachmann on Egyptians

Looking for opinions. User:Dbachmann was edit-warring on the article Egyptians after being solicited by User:Funkynusayri to make changes that had not yet gained sufficient consensus on the talk page. He broke 3RR after I left him a note, reminding him of that and his latest arbitration. Another editor is now blocked, but not Dbachmann. The blocking admin is saying that I might have broken 3RR myself, though looking back at the history again I don't believe I have [147]. Still would like to address Dbachmann's conduct here. I consider his comments on the article's talk page to be attacks rather than constructive criticism. In the past, I would have said that these types of eruptions were out of character, but lately I'm not sure. Discussion with blocking admin is here. — Zerida ☥ 12:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any attacks. I do note, however, that I copped it from someone on that page for accepting your definition of them as "pan-Arabist". Apparently that was an attack - by you and I. Which should remind us all not to throw the word "attack" around. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:VegitaU

Hi. Regarding vandal edits here over the past few days: the above user has stepped forward here to own up. The IP addresses that he used - 136.160.138.51, 136.160.150.110 and 136.160.154.150, to name only the three which affected me, were given blocks for vandalism. I believe that the user himself requires an additional block for extreme disruption (I was not the only recipient of this stressful and unacceptable bahaviour, and I lost a lot of valuable editing time dealing with the user's idiocy).

If a block is not forthcoming, it will clearly set a precedent for any so-called reputable editor to carry out such experiments in the future. If there have been unpunished examples of this before (I have not checked), then conversely this is as a result of such lack of punitive measures. I have not taken this up with the user; I have no intention of having anything to do with such an immature mind. I would appreciate some action or at least a reply. If this is the incorrect place to take this, please point me in the direction. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has already been dealt with in a section above, titled University System of Maryland IP vandals. - auburnpilot talk 13:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Klejas

Can someone stop this Klejs character and also undo the moving-articles damage he has done? [148] Thank you! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He seems to have stopped for now. I think he doesn't quite realise he isn't on the Polish WP. Maybe. Or something. Anyway, I undid his move and put the resulting redirect up for CSD; all his other edits have been reverted (including one self-revert), so no harm done. -- Zsero (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Barneca

I am concerned about the way User:Barneca treats new editors and first time vandals. I think he is often too heavy handed with his block botton and is often quite rude in his communications.

I just wrote this on his talkpage:

As a reformed vandal myself, I am concerned about your permanant blocking of User:Dem5844. The user made 2 vandalisms and then you harshly blocked him. I think you are often too harsh with blocks. I also think you should try and be a bit more patient with these people to see if they can be reformed first of all, otherwise me might be losing potential future editors. I think that User:DuncanHill makes a very very true and important point on his user page when he says "I used to enjoy editing Wikipedia. I don't any more. Until Wikipedia finds a way to deal with the arrogance and siege-mentality of some admins, it will remain an unpleasant place to be."

He wiped the comment off his talk page, and said that i wasn't welcome on his talk page :(. I dont think this admin knows how do debate things reasonably so i wanna complain about him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.248.48 (talk) 13:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This editor on a dynamic IP was offended by a 1 day block yesterday. Sorry I can't provide diffs now, as I am headed out the door for a few hours, but see the contribs for most of the IP's posting on my talk page today and yesterday for a taste. All the same ISP, all with the same ax to grind. I'm not interested in engaging them anymore. I've discussed this with one or two people yesterday; look thru my contribs from yesterday if you can't wait, otherwise if anyone here asks for them, I'll try to point to those conversations when I return. --barneca (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look through your contributions and the above IP's contributions and previous contributions with similar IP adresses and concluded that the IP above is trolling rather than making a serious criticism. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually barneca all I want to do is strike up dialogue with you over this complaint and then put it behind be, but you are so stubborn you wont talk to me, therefore I will go on and on and on until you do want to talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.248.48 (talk) 13:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In my experience, and to paraphrase Yogi Berra, if somebody doesn't want to talk to you, you can't stop him. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected barneca's talk page for a bit. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 14:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You also unreasonably blocked me hence why i had to reboot my connection - i dont want to be a sockpuppet, but I strongly believe I have a right to defend myself here.

anyway what i wanted to say was this

Why won't anyone take my feedback seriously? Yes I have vandalised recently, i dont know i did it exactly, but i know deep down it was a rather pointless excercise which wasted my time and the time of those ediors who had to revert my vandalism, so for that i am sorry. However it is only once you have vandalised that you get to be on the receiving end of the admins punishments, and I feel, as a vandal who could have probably quite easilly been reformed there and then, that User:Barneca's interventions worsened the problem. Therefore I stand by my aforementioned complaint/constructive criticism, and i god damn wish that some admins around here would take on board this feedback, after all it's not everyday that you get a recently reformed vandal trying to offer some constructive feedback. 79.77.251.12 (talk) 14:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that its currently standard procedure to indef block vandalism-only accounts? Mr.Z-man 15:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is. And the most constructive feedback you can provide is productive editing. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocks aren't a harsh punishment. Not editing Wikipedia isn't painful at all; my granny does it every day. Blocks aren't a punishment at all, they're just what we do to prevent vandalism. They don't have anything to do with the vandal personally, really; the block just stops the avenue by which vandalism happens. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 16:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the Dem5844 block, I don't see that as particularly heavy-handed, just efficient. We're far too lenient at times with vandals anyway; if we identify someone as only here to be disruptive, I don't see any point in bending over backwards with good faith; WP:AGF isn't an order to divorce ourselves from reality. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I discussed this a little with Yamla yesterday: User talk:Yamla#Some feedback. Comments on my talk page about this are welcome. --barneca (talk) 16:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to compile a list of unfair blocks by User:Barneca

Resolved

– Original blocks endorsed, socking IP blocked MBisanz ^talk 17:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am motivated to compile this list having been rather rudely and harshly treated by User:Barneca, who when I tried to talk to him about it, just shunned me and refused to listen. Having looked at his past history I noticed he has been involved in countless controversial blocks, therefore I am compiling this list to raise awareness of mean admins who can sometimes be more detrimental to the WP community than vandals can.

I have found two examples to kick off:

Dem5844 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Nevergonacatchme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.251.12 (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All I see are two examples of editors blocked for blatant vandalism; you'll have to put forward a more convincing case than that. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 15:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dem5844 was a vandalism-only acccount. Two other admins declined requests for unblock. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Most of User:Nevergonacatchme's edits seem to be vandalism to a high school's article, then the insertion of a misspelling into an unrelated article. Nothing to see there. Where's the rude, harsh meanness? You could find examples of me being way meaner than that, and I'm not even the one being criticized today. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ANI#User:Barneca for more whining from the IP address. seicer | talk | contribs 15:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both blocks endorsed. The first never made a good faith edit, the 2nd made some edits that might have been in good faith, but weren't constructive (perhaps they could have been educated rather than blocked, but the block is justifiable). --Tango (talk) 15:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would normally have tried education on the second one, but the username tipped the balance for me. --barneca (talk) 16:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just became aware of this situation, and even though it is closed I'd like to make one minor point, as the whistle-blower on the second user. His/her last edit was not just a changing of spelling, but changing (maybe inadvertently) a link to a photograph. Blocking was what I expected to happen when I blew the whistle on him/her. --RenniePet (talk) 19:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse both blocks. Mind-boggingly obvious examples of vandalism-only accounts. EVula // talk // ☯ // 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also endorse both blocks. Also endorse Barneca "shunning and refusing to listen", as it is a completely logical step when dealing with a troll, according to the third part of RBI. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Barneca may have been quick on the block button (truthfully I'm not confident enough to go into that sort of thing yet) and all of us are harsher than we should be sometime but, User: 79.77.251.12 should understand that vandalism is harmful without question and no excuse can be made for blatant vandalism. I'd suggest that the IP editor create a username and contribute constructively in future. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Additionally the IP user should probably consider civility issues himself as I've just noticed his comments on User:Barneca talk page (which personally if it was me I'd consider vandalism and probably warn 79.77.251.12 as such. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me thinks that since he is trolling for replies at various forums (now at the Help Desk), that the IP address is a sock of one or both of the blocked users above. seicer | talk | contribs 16:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to comment here if I may. I spoke with Barneca about the blocking of the first user, as at first I felt it was a little quick. Barneca civily spoke with me and defended his? block. At that time, I still didn't completely agree with the block and saw that Dem5844 had previously requested an unblock, and was denied- with a stipulation. That stipulation is located on his talk page and at this time, I feel the block is justified because Dem5844 is refusing to comply with the terms set forth for him? to be unblocked. (BTW FWIW all he has to do is copy and paste an article and suggest changes to make it better). Barneca is doing a great job as an Admin and I feel this ANI is out of order. Dusti^{talk to me} 16:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c so not changing indentation)

I'm relatively new at this; anyone who wants to review my block log and provide feedback is ~~welcome~~ encouraged to do so.

Might as well ask this here as somewhere else: Considering the ease with which this IP changes, and considering his post at User talk:Barneca/Unprotected shows he doesn't plan to stop any time soon before asking me why I don't respond to a seemingly reasonable request, please review the history of their previous incarnations over the last couple of days what's better in cases like this: ignore (much easier to do now that my talk page is protected, but they're still disrupting ANI, Help desk, reference desk, other user talk pages, etc.), compile a list of IP addresses and ask someone who knows how to handle this kind of thing to figure out a range block (ISP might be too heavily used by others, I don't know), or start compiling information to report abuse to their ISP? FYI (incomplete list, not sure if it's worth it to continue compiling it):
User:79.69.175.62
User:79.69.206.164
User:79.69.199.112
User:79.77.219.111
User:79.77.248.48
User:79.77.251.12

Thanks for any comments. --barneca (talk) 16:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The answer is simple Barneca and I told you it many times. As I said to you on your talk page:

"Why won't you discuss this with me? I know I am just an IP to you, but in reality I am a person, a person with some behavioural difficulties in the real world, albeit regarded by most of my teachers as very bright. Because of my behavioural difficulties, once I get something in my mind, I find it very hard to let it go, however I know if you just replied to me and said something along the lines of, hi, thanks for your feedback, I have read and considered what you have said, then i know I would be able to let it drop and get on with the stuff in the real world that i should be doing. If you blank this again I will be really hurt. 79.77.251.12 (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)"

Of course every case is different but when an IP wants to dialogue and it will result in peace in the community then surely that's what you should do no?

OK, well im going to let this rest now. I think I'm going to create an account and start contributing to the project in my own way, after all i guess the best way to change things is for me to work my way up to admin and then I will be able to treat others how I myself would like to be treated. I'll be sure to be careful in my choice of username though, unlike poor old user:notgonnacatchme. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.251.12 (talk) 16:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Best of luck to you. --Tango (talk) 16:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(←)This IP is most likely a sock that is disgrunted because Barneca blocked one of his accounts, we should probably dismiss it as frivoulous. There is also the fact that the user has vandalised and trolled [149] after his complaint, wich would clearly explain previous blocks. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the IP has said he/she is going to let it rest now, it would be best if we did too. Also, that diff isn't vandalism and certainly isn't trolling... --Tango (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? how is it relevant to the reference desk? regardless this is obviously vandalism. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How helpful is this? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The ref desk is a place for asking question, he was asking a question. Those two diffs are rather less constructive. --Tango (talk) 16:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we consider this resolved, blocks endorsed? Toddst1 (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I know this is resolved, and I should let this die, and I'm feeding trolls and everything, and maybe I'm even taunting, but I literally just can't pass up telling somebody about this. Based on their reaction, and based on their tell-tale "Iam" instead of "I am", I think I just blocked the "future admin" account this editor just created! [150]. Who needs Checkuser when you're as psychic as I evidently am? --barneca (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL - just listen to yourself barneca, I am the real IP from earlier, I have nothing to do with User:Dark3345. If you can prove a link, i'll give you $5,000 reward, if you cannot prove a link then I suggest you hone your admin skills a bit before jumping to false conculsions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.136.72 (talk) 18:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is funny. There are definite similarities in the writing style and even the formatting. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 18:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FisherQueen - I swear to almighty god, on international law, wikilaw whatever, that user has absolutely nothing to do with me. I guess this is a classic example of the boy who cried wolf - sort of, just i never denied the fact that i thought Barneca was a bad admin, so why would I deny it now. Anyway I figure there are three explanations:

1 - Tottally unrelated conincidence 2 - Another editor read my comments and set up a hoax 3 - Barneca himself may have staged the hoax to try and stitch me up - unlikely but maybe a slim possibility —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.136.72 (talk) 18:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Definite similarities. Worth a checkuser? (Not sure there's much point - the IP range is too big to block, really.) --Tango (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser says they are unrelated: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Dark3345. --Tango (talk) 19:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me while I go buy a hat so I can eat it. Apology here: [151] --barneca (talk) 20:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Was Barneca right to threaten me with ISP action?

Resolved

Just because I strongly disagree with the way he goes about his admin tasks. You can see the offending threat this page along with a list of my previous IP's. BTW i dont mean to be a sock, I cant help it that everytime i log on i get given a different IP. I wish really it wasnt the case. 79.77.136.72 (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see such a threat. Could you quote it so I have something to search for? Thanks. --Tango (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The user is trolling. I think we need to revert block ignore until he stops. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the trolling observation. Toddst1 (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the person who is threatened with a complaint to the ISP is a currently blocked vandal who is avoiding the block by setting up sockpuppet accounts or editing anonymously, as seems to be the case here, the threat would be entirely appropriate. It is trivially easy to abide by WP:BLOCK. If you are blocked, refrain from editing. --Yamla (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, trolling is usually viewed as a deliberate attempt at causing drama and minor mayhem. I think the IP probably feels strongly about his/her position and views their behavior as legitimate. Let me just say this to the IP though, you've made your case - on Barneca's talk page and multiple times here at ANI. The issue has been marked as resolved, there is nothing more than can be done. Just let it go. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe the IP is acting maliciously, nor are they deliberately creating sock puppet accounts. It's obviously a dynamic IP addy. Nevertheless, I suggest creating an account, letting this go permanently, and giving serious consideration to participating in the project constructively. Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as resolved. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

independent admins help required on this one please

Resolved

Please take a look at the aforementioned link. Basically I am an outspoken critic of User:Barnecas admin style however I have now been falsely accused of being another vandal. I will go as far i need to in order to defend myself on this one. Hopefully somebody can prove that i have absolutely no link with this individual. I am really really upset by this incident - no joke - people may say things like that online but i am sweating and my hands are shaking right now, that's how wound up i am by this whole episode.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dark3345&action=edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.215.172 (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure they will be willing to help. Wildthing61476 (talk) 19:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Helpfully put, Wildthing. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marking as resolved. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone stick a cork in this guy, please? HalfShadow (talk) 19:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to start deleting his edits rather than replying to them. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted justice theresa, and it seems that is what i now have got. Please see the evidence below that shows that I am not related to the other user dark3345, separated by an ocean according to user:thatcher.

[[152]] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.133.250 (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~I think the idea that we should indefinitely block a user based on their first two edits is lunacy. Is there really widespread support for this?~~ Never mind, go about your business. 86.44.28.245 (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Threat

What should be done about this? Carcharoth (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you reverted the IP, and I've blocked it. Personally I intend to ignore but others might want to report it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 13:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP belongs to Yazd University of Iran. No calls to Iran for me. - auburnpilot talk 13:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why would calling Iran help, anyway? Carcharoth (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was only half serious, but I don't see a need for help anyway. Reporting it to a university, when an IP owned by a university makes a threat, can be helpful because they can frequently track it to who made the comment. I guess you could call the Saudi embassy if you really wish to contact somebody. They'd have a way of contacting his people. - auburnpilot talk 14:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting, though, the difference in the response seen here between other types of IP threats (say a school-related threat or a threat to commit suicide) and this one (a specific threat against a living person). I too personally tend to ignore as Theresa does, as I'm sure the person concerned (the Secretary-General of the National Security Council of Saudi Arabia) has security people anyway. Oh, and I don't want to cause an international incident between Saudi Arabia and Iran, so I'm leaving this one alone and will ignore (with unspoken caveats) in future. Seriously, though, what does Wikipedia:Threats of violence say about stuff like this? Not a lot, as it turns out. Carcharoth (talk) 16:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Partly, if not wholly, because TOV is disputed at its basic level and work hasn't gone into providing guidance for various types of problems. WP:SUICIDE (which isn't just about suicide, but that is the shortcut I remember) might have more information. Avruch^T 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This should be taken seriously, but without specific information as to a date, time or mechanism of threat then it's difficult to report. Furthermore, threats outside North America are difficult to appropriately report as they may not speak English. I would suggest revert, block, ignore. Bstone (talk) 21:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can just imagine trying to report this and having the Secret Service, or whatever, descend on you when someone gets the wrong end of the stick and thinks the person trying to report it is making the threats! :-/ Moral: report to people in your own country who speak your own language. And no, it hasn't been reported anywhere as far as I know, and I'm still talking in generalities. And this time I really will keep away from this thread and go make to doing boring DEFAULTSORTS. Carcharoth (talk) 22:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sock and/or meatpuppet issue with WSEAS and related articles

These articles continue to be recreated by multiple user accounts despite being deleted each time as blatant advertising (G11). The images have also been re-uploaded. The related articles this time are WSEAS, Wseas, World scientific and engineering academy and society, and Nikos E. Mastorakis.

Please see prior discussions at WP:ANI#Ongoing_COI_issue_at_WSEAS and WP:COIN#WSEAS. Thanks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mokedi

Kind of a borderline vandal IMO. All his edits to date have been totally self-promotional including his image uploads. Just came back on to repost a NN bio about himself, one that was deleted back in March. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article's been deleted, but the images are still there. Thanks. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Image deleted under G11. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truly odd userpage

Resolved

– Speedily deleted

Came across User:Adam's Body in Noah's Ark today. Apparent attempt to build a fairly odd article in userspace. No other contributions by user. Not sure where to take this one. Is AFD appropriate for a userpage?Kww (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there really is a "joke" somewhere in there, I don't get it. Tan | 39 16:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily delete as

Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc.

per Wikipedia:UP#NOT Toddst1 (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also WP:Soap, no article edits at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, if anyone looks at the page history, I accidently added a speedy delete tag while browing the options. I rolled it back as fast as I could. Oops. Tan | 39 17:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It can't be speedied but I think a MfD would be ok (done). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What looks like the same article except for the last sentence is at a blacklisted site http://hubpages .com/hub/Adams-Body-in-Noahs-Ark -- space added in link so I could put it here!Doug Weller (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedily deleted as copyvio of hubpages. Toddst1 (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser, 3RR or admin attention; IP removing tags at Savant syndrome

Savant syndrome is not a recognized medical condition, but one author (Donald Treffert of the website Wisconsin Medical Society) has written a lot about it.

Several Utah Educational Network IPs have been removing {{onesource}} and {{unreferencedsect}} tags from Savant syndrome for days; 205.118.77.60 (talk · contribs), 205.118.77.79 (talk · contribs), 205.118.77.104 (talk · contribs), 205.118.77.156 (talk · contribs), 205.118.76.186 (talk · contribs) and more. The IP almost always edits between 13 and 18 UTC, mid-day Utah. Jfdwolff (talk · contribs) has already left a stern warning at 205.118.77.60 (talk · contribs) to no avail.

Aetoss (talk · contribs), who edits Savant syndrome from Comcast between 22 and 2 UTC (Utah evening) has added several times his own Youtube video[153] on Kim Peek to Kim Peek (a "savant" according to Treffert), who is a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, while the Utah Educational Network IP in Salt Lake City alternately removes the tags from Savant syndrome.

Two different issues, not sure if they are related or if a Checkuser is warranted, but individual attention is needed to the IP removing tags. There's also a new user Mansley 28 (talk · contribs) in the mix, who appeared about the same time as Aetoss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And, another one now, in spite of warnings and talk page requests, 205.118.76.193 (talk · contribs). [154] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have now sprotected the page and will wait for someone of the 205.118 range to come out the woodwork. With regards to Aetoss, I would strongly recommend a checkuser request. JFW | T@lk 19:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paulinho28

Resolved

– Administrator action is unneeded. Metros (talk) 19:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have been monitoring User:Paulinho28's behavior since he signed my autograph page, added a barnstar to his talk page, which was credited to me, and then removed his autograph. When browsing the history of Wikipedia:WikiProject Homeschooling/Members, I noticed that he had added his name and then removed it immediately. I found this strange so I asked him why he did this[155]. He removed the notice immediately [156]. I found this a bit strange, so I asked him again.[157]. Once again, he removed the question [158], and I got a rather rude response from him, asking me to leave him alone[159], which was unsigned (as are most of his posts). So, I left him a quick notice reminding him to sign his posts[160]. He once again removed the notice[161] and what followed was a second rude respose, in which he lied saying I had bothered him 10 times[162]. So I gave him a soft warning[163]. This time he got even more angry, and said that I abuse other users[164]. I gave him another warning[165], and he responded asking when he did this [166], and then removed the notice [167]. Soon after, I gave him a final warning which he removed[168], which tells me he read it. Here is some other information I found on this user's past.

Continues to blank talk pages without responding to concerns, leaving only positive comments.
Has been blocked four times in the past four harassing users and making personal attacks: [169]
Was suspected of sock puppetry, but removed notice from his talk page.
Has removed speedy deletion tags.

Since he has been previously blocked for this behavior, it is not like he didn't know any better. I think he should be banned for this behavior. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 18:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what you're finding rude and attacks doesn't appear to be that way. Asking to be left alone by a guy who keeps restoring unwanted comments to your talk page isn't necessary rude on the part of the person receiving the posts. Can you display evidence of the user taking off speedy deletion tags? Metros (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Without actually reading any of the diffs, most of the time if someone is telling you to leave them alone, do so. Continuing to alert them of things, even if you are indeed doing it under good faith and you say it in the nicest of ways, only serves to exacerbate the situation. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After randomly sampling about 15 article edits made over the past 48 hours I found only helpful ones. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previously, he also said he would stop personal attacks: [170] he also changed the template to make it looked like his unblock request had been granted: [171] - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 18:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other interesting diffs, in many he has been warned. He has also abused the unblock template way too many times. Sorry if they're out of chronological order: [172] [173]

[174] [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182] [183] [184] [185] [186] [187] [188] [189] [190] [191] [192] [193] [194] [195] [196] [197] [198] [199] and of logging out to vandalize the blocking admin's page after the block was denied.[200]. You should also look at the edits he made with his sockpuppet IP. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 18:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a pretty serious personal attack against a user that warned him [201]. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 18:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like he had a very bad day on 6 February, over two months ago. Is there anything in the last week or so? I can't find anything. Gwen Gale (talk) 18:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, here are diffs from the speedy tag that he recently removed[202][203]- Diligent Terrier (and friends) 18:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you see the diffs that he did with his IP address after logging out? I don't think they're in that set above. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 18:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is obviously him ... the IP is also from Italy and he vandalized both of the people who warned/blocked him [204]. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 19:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and as was said by Gwen Gale, that all happened February 6/7. Is there any abuse recently? As for the renoval of speedy deletion tags, while a user should not take the tags off a page that s/he create, it's not as bad in this context because he took off an inappropriate tag (db-repost doesn't apply for articles that were only previously speedily deleted). Metros (talk) 19:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about the uncivil comments today? He had been blocked for such behavior in the past and should have known better. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 19:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which are those? He asked you to stay away and you didn't stay away. His deneanor wasn't particularly rude and it was only as a result of your refusal to leave Paulinho28 alone. Metros (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When a user lies and says that I have bothered him ten times and that I have been abusing other users, I have to at least warn him. - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 19:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think what he meant is, you've edited his talk page nine times today. Might I suggest letting it go for now? Gwen Gale (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At the time he posted that I had only edited it twice. But saying that I abuse other users is offensive. Can an admin at least issue a warning for that? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 19:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both behaving as badly as each other, I can't see what administrator action is required here George The Dragon (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Diligent Terrier has behaved rather shamefully in harassing this user, and the user has responded poorly. The blatant attempt to dig up old stuff and blacken his name here was also not a good idea. For someone who is considering adminship in the future I would have expected a lot better. Nothing for admins to do here. Orderinchaos 23:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where to request protection of blocked user's talk page?

Resolved

– Semi-pp 72 hours --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

199.254.212.44 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for 72 hours within the last hour. He or she has moved on to massive abuse of the ip's talk page. Apparently reporting the ip to WP:AIV again doesn't work, since the helperbot removes the entry due to the already existing block. Anyway, where would I report this and request that the ip be blocked from abusing his or her own talk page? (And, is it even appropriate for me to do so?) Thanks. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine to report it here. The page has been protected. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It would actually probably be a good idea to extend the user's block. The 72 hour block expires in about half an hour. Should a bit extra be tacked onto this since it's safe to think that the IP will abuse outside his talk page after the block expires? Metros (talk) 18:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually protected for 71 hours, to match the block. But I didn't realise it was about to expire. Leave it with me. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've renewed the block and the protection to a week. Not so much for the page abuse, more for the harassment of other editors. It's a college and I have left a warning that the next block will be longer and result in a report to the college authorities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Debo7 at Papoose (rapper)

User:Debo7, previously blocked for continually readding BLP violation has returned to continue readding the same material.[205][206][207][208][209][210][211](etc.) New final warning on 4 April. New instance of same BLP vio 9 April. Editor does not believe there is anything wrong with sourcing, believes interpretation is "common knowledge", believes editors removing material are vandals who need to "swallow (their) pride and let this go", etc. Material is sourced to an online stream of a song and the associated forum thread. Material claims song is a "diss track" against another rapper re handling of alleged shootings, an alleged fight with a third rapper and says the song contradicts the rapper's prior statements on both. - Mdsummermsw (talk) 19:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've left the user a warning about edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slow-burn edit war on People's Mujahedin of Iran and related articles

I've been editing Wikipedia for a little over a year now. As long as I've been active on this site, there's been a war over the referenced article, as well as on NCRI, Massoud Rajavi, and Maryam Rajavi. Most of the activity involves trying to portray this Iranian group (generally considered a terrorist group in the US) and its founders in a more positive light.

Examples: [212] [213] [214] [215]

Edits (especially lately) are generally subtle, and tend to minimize negative information about the group and its founders. Sourced information is removed, and replaced by positive material of tangential value. Efforts have progressed from inserting material blatantly lifted off the subjects' web sites, to more subtle forms of POV-pushing. The primary users are the following WP:SPAs:

AlborzTaha (talk · contribs)
Tib72 (talk · contribs)

While these editors make fundamentally the same edits, I don't see evidence of coordination and I don't believe they are the same user. Feel free to run a checkuser though.

Both I and BoogaLouie (talk · contribs) have attempted to clean up this article and engage with the users. Efforts to establish communication and dialog on both the users' talk pages (here and here) as well as on the main article talk page have been unsuccessful.

Essentially this is an edit war that never approaches 3RR per day, but is nonetheless damaging to the articles. I'm looking for a strong admin warning, if not a topic ban. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 19:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have only been making edits to the article since late February. I've been attempting to cleanup the article, and my edits have been reverted pretty consistently by AlborzTaha (talk · contribs) and Tib72 (talk · contribs) with little or no edit summary, and no comment or explanation on the the talk page. --BoogaLouie (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While I agree this looks like a slowly plodding edit war what I see are some thinly sourced edits and maybe overly PoV edits. Has anyone thought about calling an WP:RFC first? Some kind of dispute resolution may be more helpful than asking for admin intervention here. Gwen Gale (talk) 20:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the main problems we are dealing with the is that the other two users don't seem willing to communicate. I'd be happy to try an RFC, but given past history I don't see a lot of hope that this would help. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bringing this here without first trying the dispute resolution process is a bit of a leap. They don't need to participate in an RfC. However, it could bring helpful input from other editors. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, having never started and RFC before, should we start one for all four articles, or just the main one and go from there? Thanks! // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 23:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd start with one but that's me. See WP:RFC for how. If you need help, let me know on my talk page and I'll be happy to pitch in :) Gwen Gale (talk) 23:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rjecinas deleting and bullying

He keeps deleting arguments I wrote in Talk Pages of Nikola Tesla and [Josif Pančić]], explaining that he "does not allow me to edit". Now he threatens me (see Talk Page in Nikola Tesla article) that he will have me blocked, and then delete all my contributions. I have never been banned from Wikipedia, nor accused of vandalism. Ever. This is my only account, and I am not always logged in, and the IP's I'm signed with then are from the same IP-pool used by 60% of Internet users from Serbia. If this user "Rjecina" harasses and bullies all newly registered or inactive users from Serbia, I suggest that his edits (i.e. brutal deletions) be checked. I feel tired and frustrated that a person can so brutally delete someone's effort and spared time. I stress that we are talking about contributions in the Talk Page. A false claim had been made in the main article, I edited it and wrote an explanation in the Talk Page, and then this "Rjecina" comes, reverts my edits and deletes the arguments I offered in the Talk Page, so that no one can read them any more. That is preposterous! Marechiel (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading this right up until I saw the word "Serbia"... This may be unfortunate, and this editor may have a valid complaint, but as soon as I see a whiff of nationalism in a section I find myself tuning out.

Marechiel, do you have any supporting diffs regarding your allegations. Even those admins made of sterner stuff than myself are going to need to find evidence for what you are saying. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marechiel has in his own words used 3 accounts to edit article Nikola Tesla in only 25 hours [216] and his latter statement is saying that he is having other IP address which he use [217].

Marechiel (if this is right name) is in his own words clear example of user which is using multiple anonymus IP to edit articles ! He is saying that he is not puppet of banned user Velebit which has been banned because of multiple accounts but checkuser will show this. I do not understand why Marechiel is calling me to solve "conflict like man" [218]after my comment that I will ask checkuser report if he is not puppet of Velebit ?--Rjecina (talk) 07:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? Rjecina, your English reading comprehension seems to let you down here. Marechiel said no such thing. He was simply editing logged-out, and he stood up acknowledging the IPs were his afterwards, so that's by definition not sockpuppetry. Also, Marechiel is quite an old account (editing since April 2006), which makes it fairly unlikely he's himself a sock. On the other side, Marechiel, while there is no written rule you can't edit logged out, if you wish to contribute to longerm contentious articles I would strongly recommend you don't do that; always log in to avoid suspicions and make your editing more transparent. Rjecina, please stop treating Marechiel as a sock, there are at present no grounds for doing so. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Validity of block on Henrik Ebeltoft

Dear all, I blocked Henrik Ebeltoft on the basis of this checkuser - Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Henrik Ebeltoft - after discussing it with another admin. Since then there is divided opinion on its validity and Henrik Ebeltoft has requested to be unblocked. To be fair to him I have said I am happy to unblock if the consensus is the block is unwarranted. Thus here is a request for more admin input to review here please. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Sorry, discssion on talk page)Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Casliber, I have added an opinion on your talk page. Regards, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, there's really no evidence there at all. No vote stacking, no block evasion, no use of anon editing to edit war. An IP Henrik Uses -- a university IP -- was used by a vandal at some point, and the IP has been blocked. So what? Mango juice^talk 20:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm wondering why Casliber decided to block 2-1/2 months after the CU was run. Thatcher 21:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Given all he sock confirmed yesterday we were looking at accounts which behaved similarly. it looked like it had been left hanging with no follow-up. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Harassment

I am in a process of starting an article, [219] which is currently in my user space, where i am working on it. This proposed page was nominated for speedy deletion two times first by User:Marathi_mulgaa and then again by User:Reneeholle as soon as it was copied from french wikipedia for translation [220],[221], and both times it was rejected, then the page was nominated for MfD [222], which was closed with Keep, and User:Reneeholle along with Sethie were cautioned for WP:COI and collateral attack on the article by the closing admin.[223]. I though that after this closing i will be able to work in peace and complete the article [224], But Sethie and marathi_mulga are continuously vandalizing my user-space, even after I made them a request, [225] as not to destroy any attempt that i am making in writing the article, informing them, that once i am done with the article, i will file for RfC about wikipedia policies, concerning the article.

But they are continuously reverting whatever i am trying to do in my own user-space. [226],[227][228], [229],[230],[231],[232], [233],[234]. this list is endless.

Then a notice at BPL was also filed [235], where it was again rejected [236]. All this is in addition to calling me with various names, and associating me with various blogs and organization, [237].How can i write the article ? what is the next step i can take in preventing them from disrupting ? --talk-to-me! (talk) 21:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked both Sethie and Marathi mulgaa for 12 hours for edit warring, and have explained the reasons why. I have informally warned Reneeholle, since I note that they have stopped reverting and have attempted discussion. I strongly suggest that any further discussion is politely and comprehensively responded to, for the improvement of the article. I would hope that Sethie and Marathi mulgaa will also be part of that discussion. If not then I suggest reporting any further edit warring to AIV.

I note that Cult free world (talk · contribs) has been a frequent subject on these boards recently, so I invite review of my actions here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are two sides to every story as they say. User:Cult Free World fails to tell people that the reason his article was nominated for speedy deletion is because it is previously deleted content (four times previously deleted). It had just been speedily deleted from reposting here, and then was moved to talk space where it was again speedily deleted here. He then reposted in user space. When the speedy delete tag was removed, I posted an ANI report per administrator advice here. On that ANI report I was told to file an MFD (see third post in ANI report above). It was hotly contested and a cleaned up version of the page (not containing libelous material) was what was kept. Immediately upon the MFD close, User:Cult Free World reverted to the libelous version here. He received a block for personal attacks a few weeks ago here. Throughout this process, I have attempted to engage Cult Free World in discussion about sources and he has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks.

He also mis-represents the MFD. The closer noted in the "Discussion" section here that there was a "WP:COI collateral attack on the article" meaning that instead of focusing on content, the attack focused on COI of the user, i.e., the closer continued, "the claims appear to be actually made against User:Cult_free_world and comments on his or her user or user talk page and not material in the article under nomination." As noted above, by the time the closer reviewed the article the libelous/unsourced contentious material was gone, i.e., "a quick review of the article did not indicate any such issues. Therefore, these matters have not been considered in this closing. Raise any such issues at WP:BLP/N, WP:ANI, or by contacting WP:OTRS." The whole paragraph must be interpreted in context so as not to mis-construe it.

Finally, User:Cult Free World has filed numerous complaints and most have been ignored, here or he has received comments on his behavior here.

I hope you can understand that to those of us active on the previously deleted content (for which this differs very little), that it seems like a real attempt to circumvent deletion review and manipulate the evidence (for instance, archiving the talk page related to the proposed article today; leaving a clean version for the MFD closer to review and then immediately reverting it). It is my understanding that editors should delete libelous, defamatory, and unsupported/unsubstantiated material in any space, because it puts Wikipedia at risk. And, there is a whole section in the User's current page where he quotes in length from a newspaper article ruled prima facie libelous and defamatory, with no corroborating evidence or secondary source evidence (this seems like a huge violation of Wiki policy, which is why I objected to it). I followed the MFD closer's advice above, where he says to post complaints on the BLP board. Throughout this whole process, I have followed admins' advice to the "t" and there is a lot of history associated with this user and these topics that may not be apparent when evidence is archived and selectively presented. Thank you, Renee (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. Regarding the blogs and evidence that this user is User:Rushmi/User:Shashwat pandey, I can email any interested admin firm evidence, but cannot publically post it because it "outs" the user, a violation of user policy. The user is not abusively using separate accounts, hence, I have not filed on the sockpuppet board.

Someone else has. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 09:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrick day edit warring over user page

User:Fredrick day is blocked. Known IP of his has edited User talk:129.174.91.115, revert warring with IP of User:Sarsaparilla (and myself). The page being edited is for IP that was used by Sarsaparilla for two days, being IP for George Mason University, used by Sarsaparilla extensively in a session beginning at 15:00, 8 April 2008 and ending at 01:31, 9 April 2008. This IP is unlikely to recur for Sarsaparilla and thus placing a sock puppet concern template on it is inappropriate. Please look at the edit history of the Talk page in question.[238] It tells quite a story. I'd suggest semiprotection of that Talk page, and attention to the sock activity for Sarsaparilla and Fredrick day. See Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day, for IP information re Fredrick day. --Abd (talk) 21:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked both IP addresses for block evasion. Abd, I must strongly caution you against the edit warring you were involved in here. You reverted 3 times, even though you knew the other editors were evading blocks. Next time, please just report them earlier. Mango juice^talk 02:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking single IPs for these editors is likely to be singularly ineffective, they come in with different IP regularly. Sarsaparilla uses a recognizable IP, for George Mason University, which I understand cannot be range blocked because the block is used by many students. Fredrick day most often uses a particular range starting with 87.112-87.115 or so, which is probably his home variable IP, he just reboots his modem. But he also picks up other IP from, probably, unsecured routers in his neighborhood, and he apparently uses open relays around the world. Yes, I reverted 3 times in 24 hours, which I'd not do with any registered editor nor with ordinary IP editors. I'm a little disappointed that Mangojuice did not take that edit out, nor did he semiprotect the article, so busy is he with criticizing my action. Unfortunate. Yes, I will report earlier. However, in toto, I reverted five times over three days, and Fredrick day reverted eleven times, Sarsaparilla six times. Fredrick day reverted five times in 24 hours. --Abd (talk) 04:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I didn't protect because the block should be sufficient. And I didn't remove the paragraph because it is accurate -- that is an IP address being used by Sarsaparilla. Yes, you behaved better than they did... but they are blocked and you aren't. Mango juice^talk 12:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

God Save the South (talk · contribs) and anti-Semitism

This comment, especially the code words, "Jew comedian", is something that Nazis or the Stormfront would use to describe a Jewish comedian, except in a very anti-semitic sense. He was blocked for edit warring on the Ku Klux Klan article, and it is clear from his edits and posting of photographs of Klan rallies as being a member of that Neo-Nazi organization (note the Nazi salutes in some of the pictures in the article). My battle with the admin who unblocked him is legendary, so that's irrelevant. As a "Jew", I do not appreciate nor tolerate anti-semitic comments by a Neo-Nazi. This guy needs to be thrown out of the project. There is no apology that I will accept for anti-Semitism. If you need significant links to online articles that show the extensive Nazi use of "Jew Doctor, Jew Lawyer, Jew this and Jew that" I can provide it to you, but I hope most people reading this will understand the despicable connotation in that type of code word. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see how this username, combined with those edits, will be able to persist in a collaborative environment. Grand master ka 21:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And note his use of the confederate flag. How offensive. But specifically, I will not stand by anti-Semitism. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is he a self-professed Neo-Nazi? Using "Jew" as an adjective rather than noun is a common, albeit offensive, error in English. ~ UBeR (talk) 21:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't "commonly" hear people use "Jew" as an adjective, and when they do it's rarely an "error" but more often simple anti-Semitism. But that's just me. MastCell ^Talk 22:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming good faith is one thing, but a professed neo nazi KKK member using it is a whole different story. "Jew Comedian" is an offensive and not very common usage. Give me a break UBeR. Give me a freaking break. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, OrangeMarlain, I would appreciate if you could keep your cool please. I asked if he was self-professed Neo-Nazi--he has said he is not--and you have not been able to definitively say otherwise. It is a common error in English, so in the absence of any provided evidence to the contrary, it would probably be best to assume good faith, or at the very least refrain from calling him a racist and engaging in unabated incivility. It does not help your argument. ~ UBeR (talk) 00:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, you're right let me cool down. Let's be civil to people who use terminology like "Jew Comedian" and "Negro." Sorry. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this user needs to be shown the door. His push to change "cross burning" to "cross lighting" in the Ku Klux Klan article was a horribly offensive maneuver. He has consistently shown that he is only here to whitewash the KKK article and/or upload pictures of Klan rallies. His one contribution of the infobox to the KKK article only furthered the evidence backing his whitewashing attempts. Frankly, he is of little use to the project. He has already been the source of much strife between several editors. Do we really need an editor like this? Baegis (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I see in this editor's contribs, mostly, is an effort to promote the US Ku Klux Klan. I see no effort to build encyclopedic, sourced articles. WP:Disruption was written for accounts like this. (Please note below however, the editor has said he'll apologize to Orangemarlin and abide by consensus in the future). Gwen Gale (talk) 22:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. False apologies mean nothing to me. If this was an inadvertent slip of the fingers, I would have been offended, but apologies would be accepted. But let's add up the problems: An offensive name + nearly a SPA with regards to KKK + Confederate battle flags + uploading of Klan rally photos with Nazi salutes + tendentious edits to KKK which whitewashed the Klan + "Jew Comedian" = anti-semitic behavior. Again, why are we tolerating it? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if using 'Jew' as an adjective is offensive, I will change it immediately. I simply noticed in the article Jews that they prefer to be called Jews, and not 'Jewish people'. By the same token, I would have said 'Protestant Comedian', not Protestantish. However, there are many unique cases in English on how we use words, and I will remember this in the future. I only wish OrangeMarlin had alerted me to this on my talkpage and not here. As for editwarring, I was unblocked to allow me to participate in discussion (which I had not done) and am willing to obide by consensus. My edits since my block are testiment to this. I will apologise to OrangeMarlin personally, as I realise he is very sensitive to issues surrounding Judaism. --God Save the South (talk) 22:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And could someone uninvolved please tell OrangeMarlin to mind his civility and stop his continual use of words such as 'racist' and 'neo-nazi' to describe me, of which I am neither. That is as offensive to me as anti-semitism is to him. --God Save the South (talk) 22:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taken altogether, your user page and editing pattern could reasonably lead someone to start using those words to describe your edits. While I do think those labels are so over-used as to have become almost meaningless and certainly distracting, if someone has been hurling them your way you might want to think twice about what you're doing here. As for Jew comedian, I've never heard that syntax in anything but hateful screed. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on his edit patterns, I see no reason for this user to be allowed to continue to edit WP. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 23:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have not been editing for long enough to form a pattern. I have many areas of interest, and indeed of expertise, that I have yet to edit under. Completely unrelated to race or racial topics. Surely if an editor joins, and his first edit is for example to an article on Stalin, are we to call him a Communist? Of course not. I have apoligised to OrangeMarlin and rectified my error, can we leave it at that, and get back to improving the encyclopedia? --God Save the South (talk) 23:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see pattern enough and I think you know what you've been doing. Nonetheless, if it were up to me I'd be willing to see if you can stop making tenditious, disruptive and combative edits but if someone blocks you for disruption they won't get any argument from me. Meanwhile, if you don't understand how pasting CSA battle flags onto your user page and aggressively editing Ku Klux Klan makes most editors highly wary of your edits, please think again. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serious troll warning here in my opinion. And if so, why is it being fed? --Apis O-tang (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We all have our various biases, views etc. He may well have other areas of interest about which he can make excellent edits, and his edits on these issues may now become constructive. Ayway, the rest of his 'Jew comedian' comment goes on about the Jewish gentleman dressing up in a white robe and mocking the KKK. If he was really a neo-nazi, he wouldn't appreciate that comedian's humour in the way he does. special, random, Merkinsmum 23:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

His edits constitute anti-Semitism. So are there varieties of anti-Semitism that are acceptable? Using Jew Comedian is acceptable because he appreciates that comedian's humor? Here we go again. Because he's nice about it, we accept racism and anti-Semitism. That logic is just not acceptable. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based upon his prior edits, which I have had to clean up previously, and his combination of his userpage and username, I'm holding him on a tight leash. seicer | talk | contribs 00:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone disagrees with this, speak now or forever hold your peace. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No issue with that here. seicer | talk | contribs 00:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree with warning, Indefinite Block necessary I think it violates my personal belief set that "Jew Comedian" is acceptable in polite, civil company. However, added with everything else, including a previous block, why give him a chance? Why do we expend this amount of energy on what is essentially a racist editor? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If we just rap this guy's knuckles, how much do you want to bet we will not see more trouble out of him? I think he needs a bit more than a warning. Something so he knows that people are serious about CIVIL. Remember, CIVIL is of paramount importance now in the new political correctness.--Filll (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

While completely overlooking the fact that he A) personally apologised for offending you and B) You've taken just about every available option to piss all over him. I think you need to take a break, Marlin. HalfShadow (talk) 00:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for sticking up for the little guy on this one. Let's completely ignore the fact that this editor is a single purpose, racist, POV pusher and attack those editors who are offended by this behavior. OM did everyone a favor by bringing this to the attention of the entire community before the editor in question causes more problems on articles. Baegis (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, an edit such as this one seems a little bit partisan. The only proper source about Shockley is ...Shockley himself?--Ramdrake (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[239] seems pretty accurate to me, of course the only reliable source about what someone believes is the person themselves. Unless historians can read minds now, idk. -- Naerii 01:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What people literally say in public isn't exactly the only valid source for a biography. One can deduce things from standpoints and actions and numerous other sources (relatives, friends, colleges and so on).--Apis O-tang (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, HalfShadow, you're way out of line. Corvus cornix_talk 01:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the one calling people 'neo-nazis' But hey, whatever. HalfShadow (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me clarify that my only reason for the warning is so that another admin doesn't pipe up and say "he wasn't warned, maybe he's having a bad day (or week, or month), he actually made a constructive edit or two" yada yada. There now can be absolutely no doubt that he knows this behavior has no place in Wikipedia, and the next time he's gone. If another admin disagrees and wants to usher him to the exits they'll get no argument from me. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as a genyoowine bubba born and bred (Deanburg, Tennessee, between Medon and Henderson), I have looked at every one of this feller's edits, and don't see a thing there but whitewashing and apologetics of the purest neo-Confederate flavor. If he sees a distinction between that and the actual neo-Nazis, that's between him and God (or whatever he worships); but I am not inclined to cut him any slack whatsoever. (Cross-"lighting"? Right; sure. And Rehnquist was helping the Mexicans vote in 1964.) --Orange Mike | Talk 02:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you only knew how your name cracks me up, but that was very funnyOrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the alleged sins of GSTS or appropriate disposition of the matter, the gross incivility and borderline hysteria OrangeMarlin directed towards Hersfold on his talk, is absolutely beyond the pale for an administrator. There is no excuse, none at all, for that kind of behavior. Anyone who was not himself an admin would have been instantly blocked for it. 130.56.65.24 (talk) 02:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Hersfold threatening to block Orangemarlin is so much more civil. Corvus cornix_talk 02:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a side note, i have studied this users edit history, some of it is quite shocking. He/she also calls black people "Negros". I can provide a link if needs be or would it be better to start a seperate report on this? The user clearly has a far right political ideology to say the very least. Realist2 (talk) 03:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite a couple of "civility trumps racism" editors above, I think we're mostly rational people. Not only am I a "Jew Doctor", but I guess most African-American editors are "negroes". People of Wikipedia--exactly where does it say that a racist neo-Nazi like GSTS deserves any further cuddling from us? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 04:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop calling me a god damned Nazi!!! My grandfather fought in World War II and his father in World War I, for America!! Now stop calling me that crap! --God Save the South (talk) 04:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could maybe buy the "Jew comedian" as an accident, but coupled with using the word negro repeatedly? Nope. We don't need editors like this. Ani Mate 04:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who cares if your grandfather or father fought in a war for the United States? This is about your actions, not theirs. If you feel perfectly comfortable using the term "negro" and other slang or derogatory phrases... seicer | talk | contribs 04:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeremiah Wright served 6 years in the military, more than George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, et. al., and people still see fit to call him un-American. Sorry, the "but my grandaddy did this..."-bit won't work you out of this one. Grsz 11 04:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been mostly avoiding this discussion due to my past involvement in the situation, however I won't stand for further accusations against me. I did not threaten to block anyone. My only administrative action in this case was to unblock GStS in the first place, and apply a temporary topic ban for the duration of his original block. Aside from that, I have not to this point applied any topic bans, protected any pages, blocked any users, or made any statement that implied I would in regards to this case. Any assertion that I have done otherwise is false and rude. Now then, here's what I see as currently going on, and what I propose be done about it. Shout at me if you like (I'd be mildly surprised if I wasn't from one side or another), but I'm hoping we can get this discussion back on track and actually achieve something here.

Now, I do agree that GStS has a rather far right wing view of things, and has made edits and statements which are very controversial and/or offensive in nature. He was blocked for edit warring on the KKK article, for inserting a clearly pro-KKK point of view into the article. Blocks are intended to stop users who are being disruptive, who either do not understand or choose to ignore policy. The unblocking process is intended to give a second chance to users who demonstrate that they are willing to make constructive edits to the project, that they understand the policies they violated and are willing to improve upon their previous actions. GStS requested to be unblocked so that he could discuss the edits he was making, and in doing so identify or change some sort of consensus on the article. This was done; obviously not to GStS's liking, but in his defense, he has kept to that decision and moved on.

Now, there is a discussion on whether or not to include a "in popular culture" section in the article. Things got dragged in here when GStS used the term "Jew comedian" and it was seen as anti-Semetic, by someone who we already know is strongly against GStS's very presence here. He has since edited his comment and made an effort to move the discussion onward. GStS has now been warned against making any further racist comments, but it seems that's not enough for everyone. So, here's my summary of what's going on - on both sides - and my proposed resolution.

Summary of the problems:

God Save the South (talk · contribs) is a self-declared member of the KKK (I think, and apologies if I'm wrong, but I believe everyone is assuming this from his comments in the "Cross lighting" discussion), and thus has a conflict of interest in editing Ku Klux Klan
Because of the above (or vice versa) GStS has strong political and social views that have been expressed through his edits which, clearly, are problematic (note that I do not disagree with this assessment)
Orangemarlin (talk · contribs) and Baegis (talk · contribs) both strongly oppose GStS's presence on the project as an editor, and their comments in respect to this matter have been seen as incivil (While I have been on the receiving end of these comments, I would note that this observation has been made by other editors, including but probably not limited to HalfShadow (talk · contribs), 130.56.65.24 (talk · contribs) (whoever that may be), and UBeR (talk · contribs), just pulling from this discussion)

What I propose we do about it:

The warning against GStS to cease and desist in racist comments stand, noting that such a block should probably be reported here for review (especially since the warning was issued as a result of this discussion)
God Save the South is banned from editing Ku Klux Klan and related articles - as he has a conflict of interest there and that is obviously the main forum in which potentially racist comments would come up, it is in the best interests of the project, GStS, and other users to steer him away from that field. This ban may be enforceable by blocks of steadily increasing duration, and such blocks are to be held separate from the warning mentioned above.
God Save the South is requested, but not required, to request a change of user name to something less potentially controversial.
In an effort to avoid future tensions, God Save the South, OrangeMarlin, and Baegis are all requested to remain civil in their conduct with other users, particularly with each other. It may also be good to recommend to each of these users that they make an effort to avoid those on the other side of the fence for a time, so as to prevent more of this Wikidrama coming up.

Why I propose this:

Looking at what GStS has done, and the astounding level of civility with which he has handled all of this, I feel that he has the potential to be a useful editor (call it a gut feeling). While he is certainly interested in the topics he's been involved in, that doesn't seem to be the best place for him to be because of his views. However, on that topic, we do not block users because they themselves hold objectionable views. We block users because they express objectionable views in a disruptive manner. We also try to assume good faith whenever possible, and encourage users to be productive. To that end, it is probably best to move him away from a field in which he will be seen as disruptive and towards one where he can be a constructive editor. In the event he does continue to be disruptive, then yes, block him until the proverbial pig gets off the ground.

Having completed his speech, Hersfold gets off the soapbox, straps a bullseye target to his chest, and waits for the firefight to begin. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, you're overcomplicating it. Would Encyclopedia Britannica employ someone who burns crosses and is an open member of the KKK? Probably not and thus you have your answer right there about what needs to be done. --B (talk) 05:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is Klan membership a valid reason to block an editor? And to Hersfold, if I stopped editing every article that I had an affiliation with, it would leave me with notsomuch. the_undertow ^talk 05:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that, but how many articles do you have so strong a relation with as to call it a conflict of interest? Probably very few, especially compared to the fact that we have 2 million articles to choose from. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When they use the word Jew and Negro like he has, yes, that's a pretty valid reason. Grsz 11 05:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't block on the sole reason of being in the KKK, but on the basis of using racial slurs and etc. He's already on a very short leash. seicer | talk | contribs 05:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe he doesn't know about the connotation. "Jew lawyer" is bad "Jewish lawyer" is okay. Perhaps now that he is no longer ignorant on the subject, he will not use those terms anymore. the_undertow ^talk 05:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using the exact phrase is one thing. Characterizing people by ethnicity first is a sign of a seriously defective world view. To me, this looks like the classical apologist spiel. "Look, the jews are making fun of immigrants. Since they are non-WASP as well, it must be ok to do so....". Yes, GSTS is civil in a superficial manner, but, given the combination of username, flag display and edits, I cannot extend good faith to him. I also could not find any non-trivial positive contributions in his edit history. So I'm fine with Raymond's warning, but I would not oppose a direct block, either. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it helps, or wheter I should even pipe up, but until this thread I had no idea that calling someone a "Jew doctor" was bad, whilst calling them a "Jewish doctor" is ok (but then, afaik I don't know any Jewish people). Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 09:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps this is a national/regional difference. In my little corner of the South (I too am from Confederate Flag territory...and find other reasons to be proud of my state), nobody would call anyone "Jew anything" without intending to be offensive, and nobody would hear it that way without recognizing that intent. I mirror Stephan Schulz's position here, that I support the warning but would not oppose a block. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I too support the warning but would not oppose a block at any time. A clueless slip by a sheltered editor might be one thing but this sad combination of username, userpage, article, photos, edits and vocabulary choices has been an unmistakable, hateful and willful disruption. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<outdent>As the original blocking administrator, I would endorse a block. Edit-warring and disruption on this scale is damaging the 'pedia. Rudget (review) 15:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone but me find it ironic that our 'big mean racist' has been, at bare minimum, multiple times more polite than the topic creator? Or is it okay because the TC is 'on the right side'? 15:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd say that (along with the apology, however taken by other editors) is why he's gotten off with only a warning and not an indef block. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Privatemusing posting for banned user

At Wikipedia_talk:OptOut#This_proposal_is_much_too_weak Privatemusings (talk · contribs) has reinserted comments made by banned user Mr. Brandt. Mr. Brandt confirmed on WR after having been blocked here that they were indeed his comments. Privatemusings should already know better than to post for a banned user and to revert the removal of a banned users comments. Further, one of the principles in his arbcom was that users should not game the system, proxying of an unbanned user for a banned user would seem to be just that. MBisanz ^talk 21:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll also add that Mr. Brandt's statement implicitly threatens that hivemind will be expanded unless his views are headed, which seems like a threat to me. MBisanz ^talk 21:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is not gaming the system. Posting for a banned user is addressed here. ~~Please assume good faith.~~ NonvocalScream (talk) 21:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That policy says

Wikipedians are not permitted to post or edit material at the direction of a banned user, an activity sometimes called "proxying," unless they are able to confirm that the changes are verifiable and have independent reasons for making them. Edits which involve proxying that has not been confirmed to that effect may be reverted.

Isn't it worse then if Privatemusing is acting on his own to say hivemind will be expanded unless Mr. Brandt's views are heeded? MBisanz ^talk 21:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should use common sense here. I am not seeing the disruption. NonvocalScream (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- That only takes into account content edits - no-one should be posting for banned users in discussions. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Precisely. The rule is quite clear about that (and the language about verifiability confirms Ryan's position.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I interpreted it as "Can be verified that so and so made it (DB)" and "has independent reasons for making them (pm had an independent thought/point". NonvocalScream (talk) 22:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Surely there are worse things to worry about that comments from someone who has been on the wrong side of the BLP situation and obviously can speak from experience. None of us have had our biographies up, I assume, so let's use a little commonsense here and, at the very least, turn a blind-eye. George The Dragon (talk) 22:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - I do not see "proxying", I see someone reporting what was said elsewhere by another (banned) individual. Proxying is the act of making statements or decisions or actions on behalf of another party (proxy voting) whereas PM is copying what Brandt wrote elsewhere - including the request to have it copied - and placing it for discussion, without making any comment on the content. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(eep! - edit conflicts! - and thanks for the note, nonvoc...) - seriously folks, this is pretty straight forward. The post is relevant, unsuprising, uncontroversial, on topic, and I found (and find) it interesting, so was happy to take responsibility for reposting / reporting it... hope this is no big deal, and we can all move along....(would a third person re-write help? - happy to do that too...) cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 22:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proxying for a banned user is forbidden, with the one exception spelled out in the policy, is forbidden. I strongly suggest you not do it again. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think he was proxing. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not think much of the re-posting the comment from the banned user that I removed. I don't think it is worth taking any action over, I just don't think much of it. _(1 == 2)^Until 22:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not see anything to really warrant action in this case either. Perhaps you may remove the comment and rephrase it in your own words. That may help. NonvocalScream (talk) 22:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This over the top rules lawyering is making me ill. Majorly (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removed again - banned editors aren't allowed in discussions here. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a note at the page, and have discussed this a little with Ryan on IRC. My reading of the discussion at this page, my talk page, and the talk page in question, is that there is a consensus to allow me to report the post, and I would like to see it restored. I have no desire to upset anyone however, and will step back now I have made my view clear! Everyone's welcome for tea at my place if they'd like it.... Privatemusings (talk) 23:50, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it's clear here that you shouldn't be reposting messages for banned users, which is exactly what you did here. Brandt aint allowed on here, especially in discussions related to WP. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Echo Majorly here. Viridae ^Talk 23:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is about not feeding the raccoons. They may be acting in a kind manner now, but if you feed them they will eventually cause damage or hurt someone. Users who are banned are banned for a reason, sometimes for very good reasons. They are not welcome here, and they should not be made to feel that they are welcome. Just my 2 cents on the matter. I ask that you do not return the post for that reason, post a link to the diff if you must. _(1 == 2)^Until 23:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taking a quick break out of my night and limited time to post here. BLP has been a long contentious issue and DB has been a long contentious article subject here (Since early 2005 IIRC until last month). Like I have been told by many people before about just about every rule and policy here, they are not suicide pacts. The posting was highly relevant to the subject at hand and offers the perspective of someone who has been involved highly with the issue and eventually was banned for it. The views are relevant. People are smart enough around here to weigh them appropriately. Banned means banned. But damnit, use common sense! spryde | talk 01:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Banned means banned, not editing via proxying or anything else. Banned means no editing on wiki at all, including by proxy. 68.10.193.214 (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another thing "banned" means is "the community isn't interested in anything you have to say. Go away." --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But that is not clearly not so, we are interested in his comments as members of this community, Brandt is highly intelligent and experienced (not a ranting teenager) and by doing this we play into his hands. Given that he is someone whose only interest in wikipedia up till now has been removing his own article but having achieved that has made an interesting and constructive comment (albeit somewhat paranoid) I find it disturbing that his contributions shopuld have been removed. save that for the bad faith users. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The previous comment was that user's third edit. Their first edit occured about an hour ago. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 03:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC) (Note: This referred to the comment that's been snipped as "trolling", which was by User:Roderick Stiphington)[reply]

Yes, I snipped it, sorry, should have updated your comment. Having looked around for a bit, I'd guess [[User:Roderick Stiphington is a sockpuppet of User:The Defender of the Wiki. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rape of the World confusion

The user User:Emdm2007 seems to have problem with the article Rape of the World. Obviously there seems to be confusion whether this is vandalism or not. Look here for example. All of his reverts are the same.

If this isn't vandalism, then why...

1) ... does he "unlink" the If I Was Your Vampire?

2) ... does he write mOBSCENE despite the rules say it must be written Mobscene? (I personally disagree with this rule but at least I obey it)

3) ... does he link Irresponsible Hate Anthem to Antichrist Superstar (the album page)?

4) ... does he remove Lunchbox from the set list despite that we both know he played it?

5) ... does he unlink Antichrist Superstar (the song) ?

6) ... does he remove Intro and If I Was Your Vampire from the another setlist? And again, unlink Coma White/Black?

I sent multiple warnings to his IP addresses, look at the article's recent edit history and the IPs' talk pages.

I also reported this on 3RR page. The article was semi-protected because it seemed the edits were only coming from anonymous IP addresses. But now he has registered an user name for doing the edits. The administratiors say this isn't "clear vandalism" so he won't be blocked. I really don't know how else to handle this except blocking the user but I guess that's up to you. I'm tired of fighting Rainrem (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there sources at all for these set lists? Perhaps the user saw/heard of shows where it wasn't this set list which is why he's taking out things like Lunchbox and If I Was Your Vampire and such. Metros (talk) 23:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I'm not sure which ones are counted as trustworthy. For example, this set list is from a Finnish fan site. I was in that concert. Since we currently don't have any sources for the set lists, I'd rather have the correct listing than an incorrect one. An another option is to remove the set list, of course. But many people wouldn't like that Rainrem (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where is this rule about mOBSCENE? I don't see anything on the talk page about this, but I see that it's the trademarked usage based on the article. Metros (talk) 23:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I remember there was talk about changing to changing any article/track/etc. title to "Something Like this", unless the first letter was lowercased and the second letter uppercased, like "iPod". I didn't actually see that rule on any official page because I didn't bother to look. but I think that's the reason why, for example, the track "EAT ME, DRINK ME" isn't all uppercase on the article either, even though it should. I don't really care so much about that part on his edits, I just thought I was following the rules. The more important question is removal of information without providing a reason or such. Rainrem (talk) 23:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, here we go Wikipedia:NAMING#Use_standard_English_for_titles_even_if_trademarks_encourage_otherwise Rainrem (talk) 23:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improper block

Hello administrators. User:Raul654 has blocked User:NCdave for a week. This block is in response to some edits NCdave made to the Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed article. However, as NCdave pointed out on his talk page, and as I repeated on Raul654's talk page, Raul654 did not have the authority to block NCdave, as Raul654 has been involved in content disputes with NCdave at the aforementioned article. Wikipedia's blocking policy states that:

Administrators must not block users with whom they are engaged in a content dispute; instead, they should report the problem to other administrators. Administrators should also be aware of potential conflicts of interest involving pages or subject areas with which they are involved.

Please review this situation and take appropriate action. Thank you. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 00:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To me, the more important question is whether NCdave needed blocking, and the answer to that question is clearly "yes." He's been engaged in tendentious editing across a wide range of articles for a long, long time. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After a quick review of not the whole thing, a some kind of block for disruption seems appropriate. The only inappropriateness was that an "involved" admin performed it. NCd needs to be mindful of collaboration, and that topics around evolution, and intelligent design draw from the most arguementative selection of wikipedia users. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 00:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raul654 has a history of blocking users with whom he edit wars. There is no reason to believe any other administrator here is willing to inform Raul654 about proper procedures here, because here at Wikipedia users who have a persona that can fallaciously be appealed to, procedure does not matter. ~ UBeR (talk) 01:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you prepared to back up this canard with an RfC or RfA, or will you just hand wave and not provide proof of your claim? Corvus cornix_talk 01:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What good do you think an RfA will do when people only appeal to authority? Look around, the evidence abounds. ~ UBeR (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not willing to back your words, then you're in serious violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Corvus cornix_talk 02:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

~~wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=14964 Here is a forum where the issue is discussed. Not much hard evidence is given, but UBeR's opinion seems to be shared by others.~~ JBFrenchhorn (talk) 02:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, now THAT is a reliable source. (note: I removed the linkage.) Corvus cornix_talk 02:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you do that? JBFrenchhorn (talk) 02:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links to that particular website are deprecated. Corvus cornix_talk 02:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as it was my edit that NCdave replaced, I don't think a block was necessary, and I doubt that an uninvolved admin would have given it. No disrespect for Raul, but NCdave is an editor as well, and a one week block seems excessive to me. Mackan79 (talk) 02:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for using that link to WR. I wasn't aware that WR is an anti-Wikipedia site. Also, I apologize for suggesting that Raul654 regularly misuses his admin powers. I have no evidence of that. I know that Raul654 is a valuable editor who has contributed much to this encyclopedia and has been here far longer than I have. This is in fact the first time I have disagreed with Raul654 over a blocking. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 03:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I do have evidence. As User:The Evil Spartan stated here:

If he has a problem with my previous actions, come out and say it. Otherwise, it's clear that they are what they are - empty claims, without merit.. I do have a problem with your previous blocks. I believe you have repeatedly blocked users with whom you are in an edit war or whose edits you found disagreeable, under sometimes misleading edit summaries, and always for far longer than allowed by WP:BLOCK. Since you asked for examples, I will provide almost every non-checkuser, non-maintenance, non-vandalism block you have done in the past several months:

Special:Contributions/88.97.182.121 - (The Great Global Warming Swindle) 1 week for "vandalism and POV pushing" for this. No warning, Raul directly in an edit war with this user.

Special:Contributions/24.99.55.240 - (WTC) 1 week for "vandalism" (in fact, was POV pushing, had no warning, did not deserve block).

User_talk:Obedium - (Global warming) - As stated on the talk page, "Really, the problem is that Raul654 is in an edit war with this user, and blocked him inappropriately. The indefinite block is only an extension of that. ~ UBeR (talk) ". Raul in a direct edit war with thisuser.

Special:Contributions/199.82.243.71 - (The Great Global Warming Swindle) - blocked, apparently, for having the chutzpah to state this. Reverted by Raul. Raul in a direct edit war with this user.

Special:Contributions/69.29.207.159 - (Intelligent Design) blocked for this innocuous mistake.

Special:Contributions/204.9.255.65 (Intelligent Design) "vandalism" - blocked for this and removing a small section, without warning. Article which Raul edits, giving opposite point of view.

Special:Contributions/Mawest217- (Intelligent Design) - blocked for "vandalism" for having the chutzpah to add an {{NPOV}} tag to an article you routinely watch: [240]. Reverted by Raul, in a direct edit war with Raul.

Special:Contributions/204.52.215.13- (Intelligent Design) - blocked for POV pushing for again, adding POV tag: [241]. Speaking against Raul's POV on an article he routinely edits.

Special:Contributions/67.180.115.190 - (Intelligent Design) blocked for "POV pushing" for [242]. Reverted by Raul, in an edit war with Raul.

Special:Contributions/207.250.84.10 - (An Inconvenient Truth) - blocked for inserting the word "controversial", with a source, and after using the talk page, and in a direct edit war with Raul: [243].

Protected article - (Global warming) protected your own version of the page: [244]

Yqtb: (Intelligent Design) locked his talk page for removing a message from you: [245], which is allowable by policy (not to mention blocking him 24h for quite mild vandalism on an article you were involved in).

Special:Contributions/70.144.68.148 - (The Great Global Warming Swindle) - blocked for "POV pushing": [246]. Reverted by Raul, in an edit war with Raul.

User:UBeR - (global warming) -blocking for 3RR, etc. on an article which you clearly have a stake: [247].

Special:Contributions/Brittainia - (global warming) - edit warring.

User:Rtc - (Intelligent Design)- blocked for "trouble-making" (which, as every time, involved a point of view opposite your own)

User:Iantresman (ultimately global warming related) - blocked for "harassing" a user whose POV you agree with on the articles they were editing.

Special:Contributions/65.202.145.2- (The Great Global Warming Swindle) - blocked for a week for POV pushing for this (reverted by yourself of course, which is not POV-pushing, and certainly not justified without a warning, and most certainly not from an admin who is POV pushing in the opposite direction.

Special:Contributions/68.145.124.154 - (The Great Global Warming Swindle) - blocked for edit warring with you.

Special:Contributions/Zeeboid - (The Great Global Warming Swindle) - blocking an editor with whom you were in dispute, and losing a good contributor for it while at it.

Special:Contributions/216.67.29.113 - (ID)[248], etc. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive229#Admin_blocking_a_user_with_whom_he_was_in_an_edit_conflict ANI thread.

At this point, I tire of going any further back than April (I believe the mountain of blocks above suffices). So, no, to answer your questions, my statements were not "empty claims, without merit." The Evil Spartan (talk) 13:13, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

-- Naerii 04:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all of the edits above were clearly problematic, and should have been instantly reverted.

Most also don't count as simple vandalism, though, by anyone's definition. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...half of the list above are sock puppets of User: Scibaby. Calling User: Zeeboid a "good contributor" must be some kind of joke - he was the meat puppet of a radio talk show host only here for provocation. I've looked over the edit history of "Expelled". Raul has made 10 edits in the last 4 month, and as far as I can tell, only one of them (the latest) reverting NCDave. That is a mighty low-intensity edit war.... Raul has warned him against tendentious editing two weeks ago, however. We cannot interpret "being on the other side in a discussion" as "being in a conflict" - its normal that our good editors are on "the other side" of POV-pushers. Also, a participation on a talk page does not "a conflict" make - we want our admins to communicate before they take out the banhammer, not to hover over the pages and strike without warning. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is that in response to me? Because if so it makes no sense. Perhaps you've put it in the wrong place? --Relata refero (disp.) 09:50, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's in reply to Naerii quoting Spartan - I got confused by the indention level. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First, TheEvilSpartan's summaries of the above blocks are highly misleading, if not outright false. I'm not going to sit here and jusity every block, but just to give a few examples, consider this edit that EvilSpartan classified "an innocent mistake". An anon changed every instance of teleological (the correct word) to theological (the wrong word) - something he shouldn't have done anyway. He somehow managed to spell "theological" correctly in the edit summary, and mispelled it every single time thereafter. That's not an innocent mistake - that's intentional vandalism with a false edit summary. user:216.67.29.113 I blocked because I caught him with checkuser gaming the FA process, disrupting an article while logged out and logging in to file an FAR claiming it was unstable. The only relavant question on the AN was whether or not the account block should have been indefinite. (It was upheld). Obedium, a user I blocked for POV pushing, turned out to be a Scibaby sock. Scibaby was community banned for using massive numbers of sockpuppets to push POV. Iantresman is community banned for POV pushing (and the arbcom has twice upheld it and refused his appeals). Brittainia I blocked because - at Raymond's suggestion, I ran checkuser and found out "she" was a sockpuppet of user:Rameses. I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

As to the current block, NCDave has been warned on three separate occasions that his editing is tenditious.[249][250][251] In fact, there was an entire talk page thread at Talk:Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed dedicated to his problematic editing on that article. He was given more than sufficient warning. At the time I issued his final warning, he claimed I was involved in in a dispute with him (he collected every edit I had ever made to the article - regardless of whether or not they pertained to him - to claim I was involved in a personal dispute with him). Claiming he is involved in a dispute with an admin seems to be his favorite tactic to prevent admins from sanctioning for his behavior. At the time, I informed him that this was not the case. He continued his disruption, culminating in today's block. Raul654 (talk) 07:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to make one final note that I find JBFrenchhorn's actions here very fishy. He filed this complaint here and never notified me, as is generally expected and/or required. Raul654 (talk) 07:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, although I did state my opinions on the issue on your talk page, I did not notify you of this thread. I should have done so, and I apologize. JBFrenchhorn (talk) 07:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Raul, why are you suspicious of anyone with an opposite viewpoint? I read over your history of blocks and many of these constitute admin abuse. I mean, come on! A WEEK LONG BLOCK!? The second edit he made was one that several users thought should have been made. Are you going to block them too? If you want someone blocked that you are disputing with then please let someone else handle it and don't abuse your admin powers! Saksjn (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I make no judgment to the previous blocks which seem to have been generally reasonable, but I would note that the two warnings other than Raul's here come from "Angry Christian" and FeloniousMonk, which suggests they may not have been entirely neutral (I believe both are on the other side of these content issues). The other seems related to another page. As to the specific edit, it was entirely appropriate, adding the word "reportedly" to a characterization about a movie that hasn't come out yet. I think an unblock would be reasonable. Mackan79 (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greeting: "Metal up your ass :) "

I've encountered two user pages, User:Jacob Green696 and User:Riverpeopleinvasion that have put scripts on their userpages that blink the greeting "Metal up your ass :)" at the bottom of every visitor's screen that visits their user pages. I've warned both of them about WP:Civil and removed the script from their userpages (User:Riverpeopleinvasion twice). Is there anyone here who thinks that's an acceptable greeting? Toddst1 (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. I've removed the code from both pages. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 00:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it should be an issue. Far more offensive material is deemed to be not worthy of forced removal. If it wasn't blinking, would it have been a problem? --Onorem ♠Dil 00:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would you greet your mother or child that way? Is it a WP:Civil greeting? Or if you just warned someone and they replied with that, would you consider it Wp:Civil ?? Toddst1 (talk) 01:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's a completely different discussion. --Onorem ♠Dil 01:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They didn't do any of that. I might agree that annoying little boxes with blinking text popping up on your screen could be considered offensive. As I understand it, it wasn't a personal attack on someone (or a group of people) so I don't really see the harm?--Apis O-tang (talk) 01:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not a straw man. It's not polite and it's very unpleasant, intimidating language. Anyway, blinking is banned, I got told off just for having a blinking sig once, so did Ryan Poselthwaite. And I don't think we can expect much from users who have "metal up your a*s" on their page, but we shall see..."special, random, Merkinsmum 01:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be removed if it was simply a link to our article on the subject? I agree that the blinking part is annoying, but it certainly doesn't seem like a big enough problem to be at AN/I at the moment. --Onorem ♠Dil 01:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know this is something from a band (see Metal_Up_Your_Ass.) Maybe if they linked to that from their page people would realise it's not a personal insult/rudeness for the sake of it? special, random, Merkinsmum 01:36, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm old enough to remember the album with that name and do. But that's not the context it was used in. There's a song called I Wanna Fuck You and I don't think it would be appropriate to have that as a random phrase on my userpage either. Toddst1 (talk) 01:47, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It also wasn't used as a greeting for my mother, or a reply to a warning, but that didn't prevent you from using those situations for your complaint... --Onorem ♠Dil 01:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is directly answering the question above. I think the analogy for civilness of a greeting is valid. Sorry your standards are lower. Toddst1 (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also disagree that the civility of "I wanna fuck you" and "Metal up your ass" are directly comparable. --Onorem ♠Dil 01:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point was it's not OK to put a phrase randomly on your userpage just because there's a song or an album with that name. In the context of the album they're fine, but if that's all that was in a section of my user page, neither would be acceptable in my opinion. And adding a smiley afterwards? Toddst1 (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The editor concerned is into metal, he's changed the message to say "I live, breathe and love metal!" or something, so I think that album was what he meant, or something else about Metal music. Whereas I initially though he meant a gun up your a*s! special, random, Merkinsmum 02:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth bearing in mind that these editors are still doing their GCSEs- they're 15 or 16.special, random, Merkinsmum 02:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is obviously possible to conceive this as being offensive, but it's also clear this wasn't intended to be offensive. Should all content on user pages that might be conceived vulgar/offensive be removed? Then the user page realm would end up very barren. It's not like anyone has been intentionally hurt or harassed. --Apis O-tang (talk) 02:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not intentionally maybe, but it says "Metal up your ass, so it appears to be addressing the person viewing it.special, random, Merkinsmum 08:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The users in question have now been notified of this discussion... --Onorem ♠Dil 02:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok when i put the greeting there i did not intend for it to be offensive or a personal attack to anyone. I just put it there as a joke, it isn't actually meant to offend anyone and i don't see how it could. It doesn't refer to putting a gun up your ass and smiling it is about the type of music, metal. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is incivil, impolite, and lacking in common decency. The users visiting those pages should not have that forced upon them. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that the majority of users would see it as an insult, but more of a joke. Especially with the added smiley at the end makes it obvious that it is a joke and no harm is intended. Riverpeopleinvasion (talk) 14:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heyy we were both just messing around. If it's that big a deal just tell us and we'll do something about it. Besides you have no right to delete all three codes. Only one of them said Metal up your ass:).Jacob Green696 (talk) 15:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tell you guys what,I'll change it to Metal up my ass

When did everyone become so sensitive on here? When we cater to these folks who get offended at every little thing that our 80-year-old grandmother might not like, we divert attention away from the project and into little silly discussions like this. Don't look at their damn talk page if you don't like it - it's not mainspace. Tan | 39 15:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CIVIL has so much sway because this is an open, collaborative project with many, many kinds of editors from all over the world. Collaboration, tolerance and kindness are the glues which keep Wikipedia together, along with WP:V. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. However, when editors become overly sensitive to perceived slights (and this one is passive, not an active slight), Wikipedia becomes an "I'll report you!" playing field. There is no other arena in my life where people are expected to behave perfectly - my job, my family, my friends, etc. When people are passionate about something, they're going to say things that are passionate. Yes, we should minimize this and not let it cause major conflict - but making a big deal (such as bringing it to ANI) about some random Metallica quote on someone's talk page is just WikiDrama. Tan | 39 16:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Yes, I tend to agree, a quiet discussion on the users' talk pages would have been a more helpful start. WP:ANI's not meant to be an outlet for tattle tales. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does anybody hvae any objections to what I have done on my page. I changed the "Metal Up Your Ass" to "I <3 Metal". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacob Green696 (talk • contribs) 16:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Opinion - experienced sleuths needed

Dear all, this checkuser - Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Boomgaylove - showed up User:Willirennen and User:Knock-Off Nigel to be socks. Willirennen has asked for an unblock here with a fairly detailed explanation of how this might have come about. My question is is this plausible and hence is an unblock warranted? All experienced wiki-sleuth sockhunters welcome. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe this user had a friend using nine sundry Wikipedia accounts on his own home computer without knowing about it. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Willirennen's unblock request was just granted here.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also have lots of trouble believing his houseguests (whom he says he cannot "pinpoint") studied his contribution history before opening accounts and editing similar articles from the computers in his home, all without telling him a word about it, as he claims. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DUCK ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it would have been helpful to see this thread first, but I'm giving the editor the benefit of the doubt based upon my judgement. I'm monitoring his edits, and if there is anything out of line, I'll reblock. seicer | talk | contribs 01:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't examined all of Willirennen's and Knock-Off Nigel's contributions in detail (to say nothing of the other supposed socks), but the pattern on March 7 of this year looks suspicious to me: From 14:51 to 15:49 K-ON performs a string of edits, mostly tagging articles for speedy deletion and commenting in AfDs where he had been the nominator; then Willi performs a quick string of constructive edits from 15:53 to 16:10, whereupon K-ON suddenly pops up for one edit at 16:15 to respond to two comments at one of his AfDs, and Willi then continues editing from 16:23 to 21:14. Deor (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK..Deor, good sleuthing, that does look ominous. That makes three additional editors suspicious and one prepared to accept Willirennen's explanation....shall we wait for some more eyes? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs)

My unblock can always be reviewed; it's not static, and if there is enough consensus or agreement that the editor has been socking it and editing disruptively, then I have no issue with an indef. block. seicer | talk | contribs 02:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An indef block is not required. Asking the user to edit with one account only would be the better choice. If he denies the SPs again, and if he/she persist, then yes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that might be ok, though I would say any further denial of these socks would be worrisome. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a quick note, in addition to User:Willirennen and User:Knock-Off Nigel turning up as socks per the checkuser, the two accounts do have some history of participating on the same side in AfDs with all sorts of IP and single-purpose accounts. Two examples are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Natasha Collins and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASIOC. In the first case, consider this progression of edits from both accounts: [252], [253], and [254]. In the second case, Willirennen was on the same side as all of the following, which have also been blocked for a variety of reasons: User:Moosato Cowabata, User:Garth Bader, User:Lara Dalle, and User:AnteaterZot. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I have been out and about today and I think a better explanation is needed per Deor's findings. I am having a hard time seeing it as anything other than sockpuppetry. I will ask him. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:01, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the above, I think a "one account only" warning is OK in this case, for now at least, because we don't need to flip-flop on this. In general, though, the "room mate" excuse is about as plausible as "the dog ate my homework". Guy (Help!) 11:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blatant spam, vandalism and attack account needs to be permablocked

DJS92 (talk · contribs) is not here to contribute constructively. Since registering, he has engaged in petty vandalism [255], [256], [257], has spammed articles by adding his non-notable self and non-notable friends to lists of people appearing in films [258], has spammed by adding links to his own youtube garbage [259], and made unacceptable personal attacks on others [260]. He is currently temporarily blocked for spamming [261], and is most likely guilty of sockpuppeting too (on the account he spammed). If you ask me, the one-month block should be extended to indefinite. This behavior is unacceptable. Nobody of Consequence (talk) 02:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did not find many good edits in his contribution history. Most were vandalism/personal attacks along with having an advert for a userpage and vanity additions to mainspace articles. Increased to indefinite.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 02:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) someone beat me to it :) seicer | talk | contribs 02:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I was the the object of this user's "affection", I did my best not to make it personal by issuing an indef-block, but I'm glad to see that I wasn't overreacting with the blocks I had issued. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Taos High School

Because of an edit war at Taos High School, I have fully protected the article for two days and requested the time be used to discuss potential improvements on the talk page. I'd appreciate others' reviewing this action. Aleta ^Sing 03:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, you protected over this?? While this editor is not strictly a vandal (although he was also removing maintenance templates), I see little point full protecting over the actions of a single, disruptive SPA. Someguy1221 (talk) 03:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am trying to encourage talk page dialogue which would have been impossible if I had banned him. Aleta ^Sing 04:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have to to go to bed. If others think a different course of action best, I trust you will act accordingly. Aleta ^Sing 04:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm still here for the moment. It appears that we have a role account. Taostiger has admitted to being a group of people editing under one name. How do we handle this? As I understand it, role accounts are not allowed, correct? Aleta ^Sing 04:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Role accounts are not allowed. Unless only a single user agrees to edit with the account henceforth, it should be blocked (an admin may block this account without asking for such an agreement, though). Gwen Gale (talk) 04:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(ec):::In that case, should Taostiger be blocked now in regards to this comment and countless others where Taos says "we?" Also, the user keeps going on about how he/she/they will remove all of the information added to the article. We've tried to explain that it's not their decision, since information added to this site is now part of WP. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that a 3RR block is in order at the very least, if not indef for being a role account. Comments? -MBK₀₀₄ 05:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can we atleast get the crap that's there now out? Grsz 11 04:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll make sure to let those who have worked hard on this article, that the consensus is to "get the crap that's there now out", how revealing. --Taostiger (talk) 04:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grsz11 should not have said it was crap. I think he's referring to POV content and the unnecessary information mentioned on the talk page. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 04:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As a self-professed Role account, and a username violation, this user should be blocked indef. Grsz 11 05:00, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you appreciate and encourage the interest of individuals, couples, groups, etc. to contribute. All this energy towards an article about a HIGH SCHOOL!! --Taostiger (talk) 05:06, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All are encouraged to contribute...individually. But this is an encyclopedia...content in the first person is entirely inappropriate. We don't let an article about a company that says: "We offer the finest in the most high-tech toothbrushes," stay on here, and this should be no different. Grsz 11 05:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A contribution is a contribution whether it's from 1 person alone or 100 people working together. The point being, whether it's an "I" or a "We", I thought WP was an opportunity to share and exchange of information, which is what was attempted but definately not appreciated. Once again, this is about a high school article...... OMG--Taostiger (talk) 05:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But we don't allow accounts that are under the control of multiple people, period that is not just our policy, but on many other wikimedia projects as well. The exchange of information is what wikipedia is for, but this is an encyclopedia, and must have some standards with regards to verifiability, point of view, sources, etc. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The account is under my control. The information and data gathered for the article was from the group. We worked together entering the information under my supervision. I completely support standards regarding what you mentioned. But please be aware of the method of delivery these standards are introduced to the contributor. If they are done respectful the respect is naturally reciprocated. Simply deleting without offering assistance was our experience. Positive reinforcement and encouragement should be the norm, it works great at Taos High School. --Taostiger (talk) 05:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not entirely certain (based on your description), but that may still pose a problem. For legal reasons relating to the GFDL (at least I believe that's the root of the policy), each account's contributions must come from one, and only one, person. Being the only person with the password may not be sufficient here. (Others, please correct me if I'm misinformed). Best, --Bfigura ^(talk) 05:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If in fact only one person is doing the actual editing, regardless of how many people read over his shoulder and suggest wording changes, then in my opinion it wouldn't be a role account. As long as the owner of the account takes personal responsibility for everything posted under that name it hardly matters what form of off-WP research is done to create that content (providing no copyvios, of course). Loren.wilton (talk) 08:49, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, if only one person has asserted personal responsibility for all edits ever made (or to be made) using the account, it's not a role account. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks

Notifying people here, since this page is tangentially related to that discussion and shares a similarly appropriate userbase.

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Admins willing to make difficult blocks. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing? ;) 195.216.82.210 (talk) 09:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty neutral on this. Imagine the notification is from me, if that'll make it easier on 'ya ;) dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I may be wrong but, I don't believe that just notifying people of a discussion constitutes canvassing. Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you're right. Notifying people who're interested in the subject is fine. It's only notifying just those who'd support your angle that's unacceptable. WilyD 13:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted text removed

Text is copied from USA Today article. John Nevard (talk) 04:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't post it here, that rather defeats the purpose.... anyway, we do allow blocked quotes, so as long as it's formatted properly to make it clear it's quoted text, and properly cited, it should be fine. However, someone could keep an eye out for 3RR stuff. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not quoted. It's a copyright violation. John Nevard (talk) 05:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the user's talk page, it looks like there is some effort to try and get it quoted - which is why I said that. cf. Bertrand Russell, which has several long blockquotes from works that are still under copyright. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a couple of sentences and you know how to use the edit button. Next time try paraphrasing if there's a copyright violation this minor. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing history page of vandal still needs clean up

As requested in a now-archived incident report, "Persistent vandalism of Heath Ledger by apparent sock puppets?", the editing history of Heath Ledger has been cleaned up; however, the same deleted material still remains in the blocked vandal's (vandals') "User Contributions" editing comment of JasonCarteret, which also still needs administrative clean up; please see the earlier report and blocking of the related vandal user accounts. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 05:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unacceptable links??

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bukkake&diff=204836791&oldid=204783365

I'm pretty sure these links are not acceptable in Wikipedia. I'm not sure if the reason is spam, porn site, commercial site OR all of the above.

What is a suitable warning to give to the IP who posted this? Wanderer57 (talk) 06:09, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's not really any template that works too well - I gave the IP a {{uw-spam2}} just now, but a typed message would have worked too. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All Hallow's Wraith (talk · contribs)

i'm attempting to head off a potentially nasty revert war. if someone can please tell me how to handle this, it would be great. over the past week, All Hallow's Wraith (talk · contribs) has twice run though my contribs, reverting my edits. in a range of about three hours this, he has made more than sixty uncommented reverts, and changes counter to policy. after asking him to stop, he yet continues. fighting my initial urge to retaliate in-kind, i though it best to seek an alternate route. please help. --emerson7 06:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I've only reverted some of emerson7's edits on pages that I have previously edited myself - I've not followed him to new terrain. I've not made any changes counter to style guidelines/policy pages - in fact, what I did revert were two things in every case: emerson7's occasional changing of "{{reflist|2}}" to "<references/>" in the reference section (something that does not seem to be supported by any policy, and contradicts a majority of articles that have a reference section), and emerson7's removal of the term "née" from articles, which I didn't see any reason for. We initiated some discussion today, which looks like it has fallen through (in response to my last post on his talk page, he simply repeated a warning on mine). He's made one off-hand comment ("the level and degree to which you require 'consistency' is...forgive me for saying this...consistent with the symptoms of a obsessive compulsive disorder") of the kind I usually wouldn't bother complaining about. And that's really about it. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that {{reflist}} is preferred, but two columns is silly for fewer than half a dozen refs. I'd also say that the two of you should seek a third opinion or some kind of dispute resolution. Guy (Help!) 08:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- The nexus of the "ref" dispute is probably more about "reflist" having a smaller resulting text size than "references/" (a lot of the reverting was to the simple "reflist", which doesn't create columns). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So someone is trying to "fix" a css variable they don't like by reverting to an old and deprecated way of formatting reflists. Pointless. If they think that the font size in reflists is wrong, then they should propose changing it, not selectively reformat articles with an uglier markup. Sheesh. Guy (Help!) 15:20, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

brandon lang

Could someone take a look at brandon lang, or Brandon Link which it redirects to, with an eye to seeing what is going on and whether it is an appropriate page for Wikipedia? It isn't real clear to me that this is an encyclopediac page, and I'd be inclined to request deletion, except that I seem to be involved with the page (I deleted an instance of pretty obvious vandalism by a recent contributor, which he claims isn't vandalism.)

He is now accusing me of deleting lots of other "useful" information from the article. I haven't done that, and in fact have only made one edit (a revert) to the article, but I see others editors are having considerable fun deciding just what belongs in the article and what doesn't. The editor I'm involved with is probably a newbie, so confusing me with "the establishment" may be a natural mistake. In any case under the circumstances I'd rather not be the person that nominates this for AfD.

I get the feeling there may be fewer editors here than would appear to exist at first glance, I think a lot of those redlink editors may be socks of each other. Thanks, Loren.wilton (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My thought is that the article as it stands should be deleted. It is a biography of a living person that doesn't prove notability, contains no references or citations from reliable third party sources, and can't even agree on the subject's name (even the interview calls him Brandon Lang not Link and no citations seems to exist for the name change. As I haven't contributed at all I'll take to to AfD where parties can discuss the article on its merits (or lack thereof). Jasynnash2 (talk) 09:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin take a look at this Brandon Lang/Brandon Link/Brandon Lane/Mike Anthony/etc situation. It seems that User:Quadzilla99 redirected the Brandon Link page to Brandon Lang back on 2nd April 2007 at 0713. Then on 30th January 2008 at 0612 User:85.177.209.159 Redirected Brandon Lang to Brandon Link insisting that this was the persons real name and that Lang was made up for the movie. Neither the AskMen.com interview or the ESPN.com interview I can find make mention of a name other than Brandon Lang. I'm afraid that an actually valid article may have been lost in creating a hoax or something. Either way his most commonly known by name seems to be Lang and therefore even if they are all the same person and meet notability requirements the article would seem to belong at Brandon Lang. Thanks. Sorry wasn't logged in Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pro-Pain

Hi. I am currently engaged in a bit of an edit war with an IP address at this article. This basically consists of them adding a copy and pasted "official bio" from [262], incorrectly capitalising some words and adding a parent category as a category to the article. I have now reverted these several times (over the course of a few days). I have attempted to explain my actions via the users talk page, and have now issued a 3RR warning as they seem to be ignoring my requests. In addition, looking back through the history of this editor, this edit summary suggests that there may also be a conflict of interest here....

[263]

I am unsure as to how to proceed with this, as they are ignoring my advice and just reverting my edits, despite clear explanations of why I am removing the content. Regards Nouse4aname (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per history, following is found: "(cur) (last) 2007-08-23T17:52:27 71.203.0.174 (Talk | block) (3,598 bytes) (Edited out inaccuracies., corrected spelling of members. Edited in shortened official bio, and additional ex-members. These changes were made by the band themselves.) (undo)", which indicates that the IP is probably owned by the band them self, and thus it's a COI/NPOV violation. _→AzaToth 09:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So how do we resolve this? I have also reported it here now. Nouse4aname (talk) 09:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive editing on Amdo

I'm having difficulties with a tag team of User:Blnugyen and User:Khoikhoi on Amdo. The statement is sourced to two sources, one of which is an article carried by China's Xinhua News Agency, the other is an academic book.

User:Khoikhoi removes a sourced statement from the article: [264], saying that "Xinhua is not a neutral source"
I restore the statement, informing User:Khoikhoi that there are in fact two sources, one of which is not Xinhua: [265]
User:Blnugyen removes it again, [266], this time saying 1) Xinhua is PRc mouthpiece, and 2) something about press freedom in China, the relevance of which to a history and geography article I fail to see.
I restore the statement, this time inviting User:Blnugyen to discuss on the talk page: [267]; see Talk:Amdo
User:Blnguyen reverts again, refusing to listen and refusing to discuss. [268]

This is beyond a content issue now, because I've pointed out three times that the basic premise for Khoikhoi-Blnguyen's removal of the statement is wrong, since there are two sources and not one, as Khoikhoi-Blnguyen assumes. Blnguyen continues to revert without discussion. This is not the first time I have run into Blnguyen, and I have no desire for this to escalate. Could someone please press Blnguyen to discuss on the talk page. Or just to read what he is editing before he edits.

Thanks, --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think that BLN is aware of the recommendation to discuss, he probably doesn't think its warranted in this case. This isn't yet an edit war.

If you believe your second source is reliable, take it to WP:RS/N for discussion. Generally translated sources are acceptable, but we frown on using exclusively translated/nationalistic sources for disputed points. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, because Blnguyen is a well-known POV warrior and tendentious editor, right? Oh, wait, no he isn't. More of a multiple FA writer, admin and CheckUser actually. So perhaps when one of the project's best and most trusted identifies a problem with a source (in a language that he, but not most of us, can read), the source is the problem and not Blnguyen? Guy (Help!) 11:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guy, you must be new... one of our checkusers and oversighters is an unrelenting Irish POV pusher. Sceptre ^(talk) 11:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Blnguyen has posted on the talk page after the posting of this report. He has said that no source published in China can ever be reliable. I doubt the veracity of that statement - but where should I take it?

Relata refero, I wish you would put aside prejudices and look at issues in substance before making comments like these. Blnguyen is an experienced and valuable contributor, but that does not mean he is not capable of... shall we say... extremely strong views in certain articles, such as those concerning Tibet.

Guy, you're commenting ad hominim. Inform yourself of the matter before commenting. Actually, Blnguyen is not Chinese, so I don't understand why you assume he can accurately assess the reliability of the source. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The idea that a Chinese news agency's pronouncements should be taken with less than a full pound of salt is, I venture to suggest, controversial. I know who Blnguyen is, and what kind of person; one of the fairest around. If you want to talk ad-hominem, how about that opening sentence, up above? A "tag-team" indeed? Or is it just that they agree the source is unreliable and you refuse to accept their judgment? In the end the onus is on you to justify inclusion of disputed text and "make the nasty men go away" does not count towards that end. Guy (Help!) 15:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UPN Vandal

Resolved

– Deleted hoax articles, blocked socks

Normally this well known vandal (see [269]) just uses dynamic addresses and is easily reverted, but today he's started creating a bunch of socks, is being unusually persistent, and I'd appreciate some help dealing with it. He started this morning as Special:Contributions/172.135.11.117, creating his usual hoax entries on Kung Fu Panda, then disappeared for a while before editing Dr. Seuss's Horton Listen the Whos, a new page created 9 minutes earlier by brand new user Special:Contributions/RSA66666. The page is a blatant hoax, a mishmash of pieces of other pages tied together with UPN's usual writing style. RSA66666 went on to create a second hoax, Tenacious D in 3-D, and his pages are being defended and added to other pages by a new ip: Special:Contributions/220.233.240.154 (again, same writing style, hoaxing, obvious sock). Finally, yet another user has appeared: Special:Contributions/Friends66666, adding pages in support of 220.x's edits.

AIV has dealt with the original 172.x address. I'd go to WP:SSP again with the rest, but the way he's acting more will just pop out of the woodwork and take longer to clean up; it would help if this was nipped in the bud. Bazzargh (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And another Special:Contributions/RTA66666 Bazzargh (talk) 12:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The articles he created were copy and pastes from existing articles and are thus GFDL copyright violations and I will delete them as such. This is sufficient evidence to block RSA66666, RTA66666 and Friends66666 as abusive socks of the UPN vandal. --NrDg 13:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User: Paul20070 - Requested deletion of userspace

I am the above user and am currently trying to assert my right to disappear. I would like my userspace deleted. However, I'm unable to follow the proper procedure because I salted my password. There's currently a debate going on as regards several sockpuppet accounts which I discovered being edited from my PC here so I'm not sure how this affects my wishes. Due to the circumstances, I have retired from actively editing, but forgot to request deletion of my userspace before I left. I have advised by Pedro that I should come here and make my request, where an admin with checkuser priveleges might be able to confirm my identity. I've also made similar requests to Alison and Jimbo Wales and plan to make a note in the checkuser debate. Thank you. Paul20070 81.152.149.124 (talk) 12:26, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless conflict with John

John keeps removing the "Afro-Caucasian People" category from Sydney Tamiia Poitier, arguing that no proper source is given. On the contrary, this info is duly sourced and relevant, as Ms Poitier is a notable biracial (i.e. : she is the notable daughter of a very notable black man, who is notably married to a somewhat notable white woman). This information is in no way defamatory and does not invade Ms Poitier's privacy. The same thing goes for Ruud Gullit, whose relevance as a "multiracial icon" I had duly sourced and Thandie Newton, whose biracial heritage is also sourced. I have found exchanges with John (who has come to the point of being needlessly agressive and threatening) to be extremely difficult to cope with, and can no longer believe in this user's good faith. He keeps ignoring any sources that are given to him and indulges in extremely tiresome debates, motivated by what I suspect to be ideological/personal reasons. I am also quite baffled by his behaviour on such a trivial detail. Since I do not want to waste my time on a nerve-wracking debate and or any kind of conflict with John, I would just like him to be reminded that he should refrain from completely pointless edit warring. Behaviors such as his are the best way to disgust users from contributing to wikipedia, their good faith notwithstanding. Thank you. Wedineinheck (talk) 12:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I and another admin have pointed out several times to this user the constraints of WP:BLP and WP:V. It was all at his user talk until he removed it with the summary "removing the trash talk". Alternatively, Wedineinheck, you have the right to WP:FORK and create a project with different rules where people are classified, apartheid-style, according to "race", as it seems you would like to do. I wish you well in either case, but as long as you are still editing here, please do not add or restore racial categories for which there is no evidence, especially to articles on living people. It is courteous to inform an editor whose conduct you complain about here. --John (talk) 14:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that this editor is continuing to do what I strongly advised him not to do. Adding Category:Courtesans and prostitutes to the article on Quentin Elias seems highly questionable, and Ruud Gullit may well be notable as a "multicultural icon", but that is not the same as saying he is properly a member of Category:Afro-Caucasian people, as has been pointed out already. Maybe it is no bad thing to get some more eyes on the problems associated with contentious use of categories; other users besides this one may have misunderstood our policies. Basically, a category cannot be added unless there is good, verifiable evidence to do so. Same as everything else. And, like everything else, we need to be extra careful when dealing with living people. --John (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Folks that want some background on this will want to read this version of Wedineinheck's talk... The case has been made in depth that raciality has to be established by sourcing, and further, to include it in an article, there has to be reliably sourced reference material that the raciality is significant to the person's history, career, etc. Merely stating that the person is notable is not sufficient to justify inclusion. (contrast Vin Diesel where this has been done, with Sydney Tamiia Poitier, where it has not) This is essentially a content debate, except that W has been warned multiple times not to revert removal in violation of BLP, and is on a path to get blocked over it if it's not discontinued. It appears to me that W is trying to forestall that by preemptively making the opposite case but I hope that is an incorrect evaluation. ++Lar: t/c 16:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Another instance of a hatchet job by "insiders" on the unsuspecting

If you would like to see what sort of hatchet job can be done by Wikipedia "insiders" on unsuspecting "outsiders" who happen to stumble upon bogus articles concerning their field of expertise, have a look at the recent AfD discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Myrzakulov_equations_%282nd_nomination%29

Carefully read, the history of the event should be pretty clear, although this is only the end result as it appears after numerous deletions and other manipulations by User: Cheeser1, involving contributions to the debate that had been provided by well-meaning and well-qualified "outsiders" who had only their expertise in the subject to offer, but no Wikipedia experience, skills or history. The criticism by the shocked Nominator for Deletion of how the procecss was proceeding: by bullying, unauthorized deletions of valid comments of experts; false accusations of "sock-puppetry" and every other dishonest manipulative technique in the book were systematically deleted, re-ordered, and scrambled by User: Cheeser1, who seemed well-trained and experienced in these skills. All this was witnessed by, and supported by no less than seven Wikipedia "administrators", despite the nominator's repeated (unheeded) pleas for assistance. The "talk" page for the AfD , in final form, consists mainly of the attacks by User: Cheeser1 on the nominator's integrity, and that of other experts in the field who had volunteered their opinions. Besides this, there was a "behind the scenes" campaign to impugn the nominator's good intentions, and integrity, on the "adminstrator's notice board" that is now so buried in the innards of this site that it is probably unrecoverable. All of this, needless, to say, was going on till the very end, without the Nominator's knowledge, but with the apparent approval of various "administrators" involved in this "back yard" discussion of tactics and process.

In the end, the debate was cut off without the Nominator being given the opportunity to make the summary of his argument for deletion, which had been announced since the very beginning of the discussion. Instead - perhaps more appropriately, given the circus that had been created by User: Cheeser1 - and blamed by him, and others, upon the nominator - the last words were those of the author of the AfD article, who called upon God to support her in her cause, since she had been under attack previously by the "Russians" and had already endured two wars!

I was the Nominator for Deletion of the article, and I know of no "Russians" to have taken any part in the debate, but Iearned a great deal about Wikipedia from the experience. More generally, I learned much about the sinister consequences of anonymity combined with aggressive instincts, and ignorance. I immediately deleted my user acccount, and have no intention of making further contributions to Wikipedia that would expose me to the machinations and dishonesty of such experienced "insiders", whose skills and aggressions seem to have been honed mainly by playing out fictional battles in video games.24.202.238.172 (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Previous AN/I discussions have been recovered from the innards for any interested (1, 2) --Onorem ♠Dil 13:31, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) Although you are logged out, you have identified yourself as User:R Physicist. It appears that you are disappointed by the results at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myrzakulov equations (2nd nomination). Much of the chaos there appears to have been caused by your tactics, which had a very disruptive effect. Rather than blaming others, I suggest you look at your own actions, hear the feedback that others have provided, and think about better strategies for the future. No administrative action is required at this time. Jehochman ^Talk 13:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no "attacks" and only see your disruptive editing styles and practices. What administrative action is required here? seicer | talk | contribs 13:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After making the above comment I noticed that R Physicist has exercised the right to vanish. That right does not include returning as an IP to take pot shots at content adversaries. Perhaps we should block this IP for a while to aid the user in vanishing. Jehochman ^Talk 13:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The IP address is now taking a much needed one-week vacation. seicer | talk | contribs 13:52, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wait. I'm confused. If someone exercises the right to vanish, does that mean we block them automatically if they return? I don't see that anywhere here or on meta. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but if they return only to disrupt and accuse other editors of crap, then yes. You can't exercise your right to vanish, then return and abuse the process and try to hide. seicer | talk | contribs 14:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How does identifying himself as the moderator mean he's trying to hide?

Has he made this point elsewhere? If not, how does reporting something at AN/I count as disruption? He's reported it, other people can express their disagreement, we don't have to then block the IP, particularly not saying "much needed vacation." Would you rather he went off to Wikipedia Review? --Relata refero (disp.) 14:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate block - he's not banned, and I don't see what's disruptive about this section. --Random832 (contribs) 15:15, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded, after an initial statement of 'no admin action required' and without further warning an questionable admin action. It also raises the question if we want to hear feedback ourselves or just give that advice to others.--Tikiwont (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I watched that AFD and it seemed to me that User: Cheeser1's interference with the communications of User:R Physicist was too uncivil and bitey. User: Cheeser1 subsequently removed a 3RR warning that I placed on the talk page of another inexperienced editor involved in this fracas. User: Cheeser1 seems to think he can amend the comments of others as he pleases. This seems disruptive since, if we are unable to communicate, then much confusion and frustration will result. It seems apparent that User:R Physicist is still boiling with rage about his treatment here and, as he seems to be a senior academic, this seems a poor outcome for this project. Colonel Warden (talk) 14:53, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"I think we really need to much more strongly insist on a pleasant work environment and ask people quite firmly not to engage in that kind of sniping and confrontational behavior. We also need to be very careful about the general mindset of "Yeah, he's a jerk but he does good work". The problem is when people act like that, they cause a lot of extra headache for a lot of people and drive away good people who don't feel like dealing with it. Those are the unseen consequences that we need to keep in mind." That quote, by Jimbo himself, adequately explains that just because he is a "senior academic," that does not excuse his poor behavior. I'd rather see a lot of diligent, polite editors who may not be as "intelligent" than one "intelligent" editor driving away many or causing disruption. seicer | talk | contribs 14:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both Cheeser1 and R Physicist behaved poorly. The latter should have been extended more courtesy since he is new here - this is the point of WP:BITE. I suppose that there are technically better ways of dealing with someone who is too prolix, e.g. condensing their comments into a show/hide toggle. I'm not sure how to do this technically myself. The technical details of this place require a huge learning curve aand this is especially true of forum-type threads which the software seems to support poorly. Colonel Warden (talk) 15:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They're not the only ones who behaved poorly - "Ngn" - who appears to have a conflict of interest - really _was_ making implications that the attempt to have it deleted was some kind of russian conspiracy. --Random832 (contribs) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Quite so. That's no reason to drive him away, however. I too watched that AfD, and found it extremely confusing, but with inappropriateness on both sides. We aren't supposed to be pushing experts away, we should go the extra mile to keep them. On the one hand we tolerate enormous rudeness in areas where we believe anti-science editors have to kept in line, and on the other hand this... Not good. Incidentally, who has been driven away by User:R Physicist?

I note also my concerns above are still unanswered. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seicer's comment appears well-intentioned, but more concern with consequence and the darker side of human motivation seems necessary. From my perspective, User: Cheeser1 behavior just gets winks or is at least ignored by otherwise respectable math/science editors. MIT's current User:Stevenj and MIT's former User:Michael Hardy are good examples of such math/science editors who engage in debates with Cheeser, who never, ever tell Cheeser to stop. To me, Jonson's and Hardy's silence on User:Cheeser1 amounts to him or her being a teacher's pet sanctioned bully of theirs. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New Grawp blocks

Just as a heads-up, I've just blocked two of the recent vandals to J. K. Rowling, today's FA, as sockpuppets of User:Grawp. Seeing as they both edited the same article in the same way within minutes of each other ([270] [271]) in classic Grawp-esque style, it looks pretty obvious. Because of Grawp's recent abuse of {{unblock}}, I also pre-emptively protected both user talk pages. On a somewhat unrelated note, J. K. Rowling is now also semi-protected due to heavy vandalism. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 13:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Someone might want to check out the AfD of the J.K. Rowling article that was just created as well. Wildthing61476 (talk) 13:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indef. blocked Jhvbhjvjhvjhv (talk · contribs) for that, and closed the AfD. seicer | talk | contribs 13:56, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not Grawp, but User:Primetime. Thatcher 15:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. seicer | talk | contribs 15:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does the page really need to be protected until the 12th? Per WP:MPFAP, the article should only be protected for extreme circumstances and then only for a limited amount of time. KnightLago (talk) 16:29, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IAR, I suppose. This article was getting banged up real hard. bibliomaniac 15 Hey you! Stop lazing around and help fix this article instead! 16:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insulting and etiquetting

Hi. There're few IP-addresses that posted several messages with insulting and etiquetting content.
Please see the contributions of 209.215.160.101 and 4.231.207.47, the ones from 26 and 27 February.
In these messages those users (or user, maybe he uses proxy) wrote things like these:
All dates as from 2008.
209.215.160.101.
He also etiquetted me on Italian Wikipedia, as well as other Croatian users.
- 21:52, 26 feb, [272]"tornatevene voi due (Kubura e Araldic) nella vostra nazionalistica Wikipedia croata!" (go back you two to your nationalist Croatian Wikipedia!)
- 22:06, 26 feb, [273] He posted this message:
"L'utente Kubura è un ultranazionalista croato che critica ogni aspetto dell'italianità in Istria e Dalmazia. Nella Wikipedia inglese ha fatto bandire un nostro Wikipediano di nome Giovanni Giove, usando ogni trucco ed irritazione possibile. Questo Kubura agisce insieme ad un gruppo di fanatici nazionalisti slavi (come lui): uno di loro nella wikipedia italiana è un certo utente:Aradic-it. Si notifica precauzione nel trattare questo fanatico ed il suo gruppo. Ci si augura che presto vengano banditi dalla Wikipedia italiana Kubura ed i suoi fanatici nazionalisti balcanici. Alberto"
Translation:
"Kubura is a Croatian ultranationalist that criticizes every aspect of Italianhood of Istria and Dalmatia. On English Wikipedia he made our Wikipedian of the name Giovanni Giove banned, using every possible trick and irritation. This Kubura agitates together with a group of Slav nationalist (like him): one of them on Italian Wikipedia is certain user Aradic-it. ...in dealing with this fanatic and his group. It 'd be greeted if Kubura and his group of Balkan nationalist 'd be banned from it.wiki as soon as possible."
Sorry for grammar errors, and errors in translation (it's easier to translate Italian into Croatian). I've done the additional text formatting (underlining and bolding).
Compare that message with this one, by user:Pannonicus, from , 16:12, 3 March 2008, [274]
"One final question to a possible administrator reading my last post on Dalmatia topics: why only GiovanniGiove has been banned? The harassment done by Zenanarh (and others like Kubura) to whoever disagrees with croatian nationalistic points of view is totally similar -or even worse- to what has done GiovanniGiove. Even user:Dewrad has experienced this harassment."
Very similar word and sentence pattern.
Now, to works of 209.215.160.101 in English. He posted them same evening (as in it.wiki) a little before. Articles affected are Talk:Dalmatian Italians‎, Talk:Italian cultural and historic presence in Dalmatia‎, User talk:Zenanarh‎, User talk:Dewrad‎.
- 19:30, 26 February, [275] (edit comment: "Oddly doctrinaire anti-Italian Balkan contributor...gg") GG? Giovanni Giove??
- 19:31, 26 February, [276], (edit comment: "Oddly doctrinaire anti-Italian Balkan contributor...gg") GG? Giovanni Giove??
- 19:36, 26 February, [277] " agree with you, Dewrad. These fanatic Balkan Croats, Serbs, Albanians,..,...... are INSANE." There he insults several nationalities.
- 20:24, 26 February, [278], "I agree with you, Dewrad, these Croats are insane. Just read above the silly explanations of Zenanarth....they are "exactly" (but "mirror reversed") like the fascist italian explanations about their Italian Zara, Istria and Dalmatia". He repeated, so we see it's not accidental. And even compares them with fascists.
Now compare with user Pannonicus's message ("totally similar" and "exactly"). Do we have a case for checkuser here?
4.231.207.47. Articles affected are Talk:Italian_cultural_and_historic_presence_in_Dalmatia, user talk:Dewrad, user talk:Zenanarh, Talk:Dalmatian Italians:
- 19:40, 27 February, [279] (support to editwarring)
- 19:43, 27 February, [280] let's do WIKILOVE...Mary(sarcastical term for call for edit war?, see comment in next message)
- 19:45, 27 February, [281] "These fanatic Balkan Croats, Serbs, Albanians,..,...... are INSANE." (edit comment: let's do WIKILOVE...Mary)
- 19:48, 27 February, [282] revert (edit comment:"Let's do WIKILOVE....Mary"
- 16:12, 3 March [283], appears user:Pannonicus with attack on Croatian users, and defending of banned user:Giovanni Giove.
Alltogether, calling whole nationalities as "insane" is not nice. Term "nationalist" has very negative meanings in Western sociology. Call for revert wars is not nice. Defending the trolls, or equalizing the banned users with users that argumented their claims on arbitration, is not nice. In fact, that's trolling. Starting some new "clashes" and "discussions", without reading (or with ignoring of) previous argumentation and arbitration, is just another trolling behaviour. Those attempts of starting have appeared on few places (see the messages of Panonnicus and 209.215.160.101. Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For the history of GiovanniGiove, see here, especially here. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Let's do Wikilove IP is in fact User:Marygiove. Why she (I presume it's she) prefers to edit while not logged in we can only wonder. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, either Giove is a really common name and all people with that name automatically know FloNight and JamesF... or obvious sock is obvious. Sysops! --Relata refero (disp.) 16:13, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sock or meatpuppet - blocked indef either way. ([284]) Moreschi (talk) (debate) 16:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IP-switching anon making racist edits and comments at Talk:Germans

Resolved

– IP address blocked for racist commentary. seicer | talk | contribs 15:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

here here and here, possibly the same anon IP is inserting and reinserting the same nonsense, along with some choice anti-semitic words. Can somebody deal with him? Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 14:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

this shouldn't be a redline

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:NewvanHove.png#Summary

BTW this noticeboard page is 405 kb long and takes 5 minutes to download on my slow connection. Not happy. Mccready (talk) 15:23, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Main page article has been semi-protected

Someone semi-protected J.K. Rowling. Generally, shouldn't Main Page articles be unprotected? Karanacs (talk) 15:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Depends how hard it's getting hit. And that article is getting spanked. HalfShadow (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this thread here from earlier this morning, it'll explain why. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should unprotect. Per WP:MPFAP, the article should only be protected for extreme circumstances and then only for a limited amount of time. Current protection runs till the 12th, which is a long time for an article on the main page. Looking at the history of the article, editing of it has virtually stopped. I think the ability to allow new and unregistered users to edit is more beneficial than preventing some troublemakers. Troublemakers who can be dealt with in the usual way. KnightLago (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Violation in Kina Grannis

I found this note on my talk page today. Apparently, there has been conflict over some material in the article. This is a serious violation of the 3RR. I thought I would bring it here to see what everyone else thinks should be done. I suggest, since an IP is involved, semi protecting the page and a issuing a warning (poss. level 2) to all involved parties and watching the page. However, I'm new to something like this so maybe I'm wrong. Dusti^{talk to me} 16:10, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobic attacks at Murder

By User:198.36.23.110 See diff]LeadSongDog (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 72 hours. Please use AIV for reports of this nature in the future. seicer | talk | contribs 16:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. WP:ATTACK isn't very direct on that guidance.LeadSongDog (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hate when they do that to gay people. I'll fix the page.Jacob Green696 (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly racist editor at Talk:William Shockley

This edit makes me think the editor in question is pushing a racist POV. Closer examination of his contri butions seems to confirm it. Can a neutral admin take a look-see an see if any action s warranted? Thanks!--Ramdrake (talk) 16:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive IP

Someone please cool down this offensive anonymous IP: [88.196.139.227], [88.196.141.180]. All of his article edits are reverts and he constantly loses his temper by calling others "racists" and using phrases like "ethnic slur", "shame on you!", etc. Beatle Fab Four (talk) 16:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1,430: / Line 1,430: @@
 ::::I couldn't agree more. However, when editors become overly sensitive to perceived slights (and this one is ''passive'', not an active slight), Wikipedia becomes an "I'll report you!" playing field. There is no other arena in my life where people are expected to behave ''perfectly'' - my job, my family, my friends, etc. When people are passionate about something, they're going to say things that are passionate. Yes, we should minimize this and not let it cause major conflict - but making a big deal (such as bringing it to ANI) about some random Metallica quote on someone's talk page is just WikiDrama. [[User:Tanthalas39|<font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">'''Tan'''</font>]]  |  [[User talk:Tanthalas39|<font color="#21421E" face="Papyrus">39</font>]] 16:38, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
+:::::::(ec) Yes, I tend to agree, a quiet discussion on the users' talk pages would have been a more helpful start. [[WP:ANI]]'s not meant to be an outlet for tattle tales. [[User:Gwen Gale|Gwen Gale]] ([[User talk:Gwen Gale|talk]]) 16:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 :::::Does anybody hvae any objections to what I have done on my page. I changed the "Metal Up Your Ass" to "I <3 Metal".  <small>—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jacob Green696|Jacob Green696]] ([[User talk:Jacob Green696|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jacob Green696|contribs]]) 16:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards

Revision as of 16:45, 11 April 2008

User:Stone put to sky continues to make personal attacks

Probable sockpuppet

How to deal with constant attempts to get others blocked?

User:Fredrick day threatening to stir up libel actions.

Amnesty, anyone?

Adam.J.W.C. Stalking

Other image problems

Indiscriminate reverting

Blocked

The H-word and Dana Ullman

sock case

Personal attacks, incivil and abusive edits/edit summaries by User:Gennarous

User:Arcayne

Being Stalked by user:Maher-shalal-hashbaz

Exceedingly WP:BOLD editor at AFD

In the interests of "moving on"...

Death threat

Edit-warring on talk page

Iolani School- 204.130.130.185

Opportunity to nip conflict in the bud

User ImatrollROAR

User:Dbachmann on Egyptians

User:Klejas

User:Barneca

I want to compile a list of unfair blocks by User:Barneca

Was Barneca right to threaten me with ISP action?

independent admins help required on this one please

Threat

sock and/or meatpuppet issue with WSEAS and related articles

Truly odd userpage

Checkuser, 3RR or admin attention; IP removing tags at Savant syndrome

Where to request protection of blocked user's talk page?

User:Debo7 at Papoose (rapper)

Slow-burn edit war on People's Mujahedin of Iran and related articles

User:Rjecinas deleting and bullying

Validity of block on Henrik Ebeltoft

Harassment

Fredrick day edit warring over user page

God Save the South (talk · contribs) and anti-Semitism

Privatemusing posting for banned user

Rape of the World confusion

Improper block

Greeting: "Metal up your ass :) "

Independent Opinion - experienced sleuths needed

Blatant spam, vandalism and attack account needs to be permablocked

Taos High School

Editor persists in readding copyright violation to 2008 Tibetan unrest article

Editing history page of vandal still needs clean up

Unacceptable links??

All Hallow's Wraith (talk · contribs)

Disruptive editing on Amdo

UPN Vandal

User: Paul20070 - Requested deletion of userspace

Pointless conflict with John

Another instance of a hatchet job by "insiders" on the unsuspecting

New Grawp blocks

Insulting and etiquetting

IP-switching anon making racist edits and comments at Talk:Germans

this shouldn't be a redline

Main page article has been semi-protected

3RR Violation in Kina Grannis

Homophobic attacks at Murder

Possibly racist editor at Talk:William Shockley

Offensive IP