Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
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

User:SqueakBox and paid editing (again)

Unresolved

 – Split 77kb+ thread to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents/User:SqueakBox_and_paid_editing_(again) --slakr^\ talk /

Block of User:Collect by User:2over0

Resolved

I have to disagree with the 1-week block of Collect (talk · contribs) by 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Collect is a longstanding contributor, and has always been firm but within policy. I'm not seeing any warnings or attempt to work with the user before the block. Kelly ^hi! 02:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect is a long-term contributor and certainly aims to improve the project, but also has a history of edit warring without meaningful contribution to ongoing dialogue, especially on political topics. They also regularly make comments that serve to inflame rather than calm a situation, and has been warned to this effect in the past. Looking at the history of Glenn Beck and talk, Collect stands out as failing to contribute to resolving this morning's discussion-by-edit-summary. I chose 1 week based on the block log and usertalk history, which show similar issues cropping up repeatedly. The most recent block was three months ago for 72 hours, and was lifted "by mutual consent". If anyone thinks that I should not have escalated the term of the block based on this, I would not object to the length being reduced.

As Collect is currently blocked, I will be checking their talkpage for comments to copy to this discussion. Anyone else should, of course, feel free to do the same. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect hadn't edited Glenn Beck for 11-12 hours before you blocked them. Was the block for Glenn Beck or for something going on at Wikipedia:Activist? What action was taken in regard to other editors at the Beck article? Kelly ^hi! 03:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I only see a single edit by Collect at Glenn Beck and it certainly seems to be a reasonable one. Kelly ^hi! 03:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Very questionable block. Either provide diffs to support your block or Please revert it. Pointing to his block log is no evidence of a need to block him. Fences&Windows 03:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I saw the diffs on his talk page. Totally unconvincing; 2over0, you seem to have been trigger happy here. There's nothing to justify a block, let alone a week. Fences&Windows 03:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

2/0, can you be clear? Was the block for edit-warring at Glenn Beck or for something else? Kelly ^hi! 03:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• To preface, Collect and myself have had significant editorial disagreements in the past, and likely will do so in the future. I cannot see how "It certainly states his own opinion of his own position -- the cavil that "dunno" somehow reduces the value of the statement is withot reasonable foundation." or this diff are grounds for a block. This is a singularly bad block. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect has a long history of less than constructive editing and I believe that a short block such as this one will help him to become a more constructive editor. TFD (talk) 03:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Half a day is not so long that an edit warring block would be stale. As detailed at the blocking statement, the edits to Glenn Beck and talk were the impetus for this block. I mentioned the edit to the essay purely because I checked Special:Contributions/Collect as part of due diligence, and noticed that the edit summary was impolite.

Two other editors who had been having a bit of a tiff at Glenn Beck worked out their differences, for which I thanked them and recommended Requests for page protection in the event that discussion breaks down again. I do not think that any other action is warranted at that article just now, but articles on controversial figures are prone to flare up without warning.

The single edit was part of an ongoing edit war, which is part of the problematic pattern here and for which Collect has been warned. There were several different reversions going back and forth, but the history is clear with regards to that material. By itself, I would neither count that edit as unreasonable, but most content disputes have reasonable arguments on both sides. It was not a vandalism revert, supported by clear talkpage consensus, or otherwise exempt from the provisions at WP:EW. - 2/0 (cont.) 03:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just not getting how a single edit on a page makes him blockable for edit-warring. Can you provide diffs on how Collect caused problems that required blocking them to prevent damage to the project? Kelly ^hi! 03:41, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of Collect and think it is appropriate for admins to keep him on a short leash generally. However, I have to agree that the diffs provided don't seem to make an adequate case on their own. Perhaps there is more to it (in which case, providing evidence of behaviour immediately prior or warnings would be useful). Otherwise, I would have to agree that the block should be undone. --FormerIP (talk) 03:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

2over0 has provided zero "real" evidence on this page to support this block. I am ashamed for all users who use numbers at the begining and end of their handles. --Threeafterthree (talk) 04:09, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• This block is outrageous. Collect should be unblocked immediately and unless 2/0 can provide a reasonable explanation he should be banned from acting against this editor going forward. ATren (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If the block is improper, it should be reversed. No need to escalate with the outrage. Lambanog (talk) 05:30, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's worth discussing whether this block is part of a pattern of poorly-justified blocks. If it is, an RFC or something similar might be appropriate. --Captain Occam (talk) 13:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Would someone please unblock Collect? This was clearly a terrible block

2/0 cited 3 diffs. The first was a revert in a minor edit war and is the only one remotely actionable -- but 2/0 took no action against the other warriors, each of whom reverted several times. The second diff 2/0 cited was a comment on the talk page that is completely innocuous, and which 2/0 is misrepresenting. The third diff was actually a proper revert of a pointy, sarcastic edit on a contentious essay. Again, 2/0 said nothing about the initial provocation. The edit comment questions the pointy edit but is not remotely problematic.

There is no basis for even a warning here, let alone a week-long block.

This is one of the worst blocks I've ever seen, and it should be immediately reverted. ATren (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - I have to admit I'm a little puzzled at the delay in the unblock, given the comments above. Kelly ^hi! 06:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Collect has commented on his talk page here. Kelly ^hi! 06:08, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• I support an unblock. According to 2over0's post on Collect's talk page, Collect seems to have been blocked for a week because of three edits. One revert at Glenn Beck; this comment, deemed uncivil; and this edit summary. Is that really all there was? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• This was clearly a wrong block to make. The diffs in question are not anything that any user should be blocked for, the only contentious one being the first, and since it was a single edit, it does not constitute an edit war. Silverseren^C 06:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Unblocked

I've unblocked per seeming consensus in the discussion above. I do this without implying any criticism of the integrity or general judgment of my respected colleague 2/0 but it seems the consensus here is that this block should be undone. --John (talk) 06:22, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was going to give it a few more hours in the hopes that someone else would see the same pattern I do, but there is unarguably consensus here for your unblock. Thanks to everyone who took the time to review the edit history. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:50, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Explanation needed from 2/0 for block?

Don't we need some kind of explanation for this really strange block? Kelly ^hi! 06:36, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I second this. This goes well beyond a simple judgment call. The three diffs he presented were not offensive whatsoever, and he outright misrepresented the second and third. ATren (talk) 06:44, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• I wouldn't mind seeing an explanation for it. It was undone quickly, but it has added to Collect's block log. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:29, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Atren seems to be using this to continue his onslaught on Shell Kinney on her talk page. [1][2][3][4] That does not look so good. (Isn't Collect one of the users whose edit warring resulted in the locking of Communist terrorism several times and who has been discussed multiple times at these noticeboards?) Mathsci (talk) 10:28, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• I agree that some explanation is needed for this block. I’ve experienced something similar to this from 2over0 last June, when he blocked me for two weeks with a summary "repeated edit warring, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, disruptive editing, and assumptions of bad faith", but was unwilling to provide any diffs of the behavior that led to my block either when he was asked about it in his user talk, or in the subsequent AN/I thread about this. In response to the AN/I thread, Georgewilliamherbert vacated the restrictions on my account (which the block had been replaced with), but 2over0 still never provided any diffs of the behavior for which he blocked me. I don’t have very much experience with 2over0, but based on my own example as well as the current example, it seems that 2over0 may have an overall pattern of poor judgment when it comes to blocking users. --Captain Occam (talk) 11:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• The question is whether this block was justified, not previous ones. 2over0 attributed the week-long block (which began without a warning at 02:36 Jan 8) here on Collect's talk page to these three edits:

1. One revert at 15:53 Jan 7 (nearly 12 hours before the block) at Glenn Beck, where a user was repeatedly removing uncontentious material sourced to CBS, and Collect was one of the editors who restored it. 2over0 said this was objectionable because it "continued an edit war already in progress."
2. This post, just before the revert, at 15:37 Jan 7 (12 hours before the block) to Talk:Glenn Beck, which 2over0 said was ad hominem. It was explaining why the CBS material was reliable: "It certainly states his own opinion of his own position -- the cavil that "dunno" somehow reduces the value of the statement is withot reasonable foundation." That is not an ad hominem comment, and even if it were it would not be a reason to block.
3. This edit summary at 00:58 Jan 8 (around 90 minutes before the block) at Wikipedia:Activist, which 2over0 said was the kind of edit summary that should be avoided. The edit reverted this addition to the essay by Mastcell: "If your irony detector has started beeping incessantly, then you've probably noticed that this essay is a case in point," not exactly a helpful edit. Collect reverted it with the edit summary: "it would be nice to at least pretend that the edits are to improve the essay really." In the interests of transparency, Short Brigade Harvester Boris restored Mastcell's edit, and I removed it.

It appears from the fact that the first two edits were innocuous, and from the timing of the block, that the trigger was the edit summary at Wikipedia:Activist. Even if that edit summary was inappropriate—and if it was, it was slight—it can't justify a block, never mind a block for a week. Given that the issue at Activist has become related to the climate-change dispute, and there has been concern before at 2over0's admin actions in that area—though I don't know whether the concern is justified—I feel that 2over0 does owe a further explanation. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:45, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Taken in isolation, SV is correct. The essay however is spin-off of WP:ARBCC and a political football, perhaps not to be taken too seriously. The problems with Collect's editing mentioned in this RfC and the subsequently declined RfArb unfortunately still cloud the issue. Like SV, I don't see any relation to other blocks by 2/0. Collect has been explicitly warned about edit warring and, in particular, about joining in edit wars, as recorded under WP:DIGWUREN.[5] That warning, however, was specifically about articles connected with Eastern Europe. That could also have led to some confusion. Mathsci (talk) 12:11, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I said this block should be examined in isolation of other blocks in Collect's block log. I didn't say I saw no relation to other blocks by 2over0. He has indeed used the tools a fair bit in the climate-change articles, though I haven't looked to see whether there's a pattern. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 12:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• - Awful block - No discussion just the admins arbitrary opinion that they see a pattern, perhaps the admin would take his own block on board in relation to his own account - one weeks removal of his own editing privileges. admins should think to themselves before they make weakly claimed reasons to restrict contributors by blocks for extended periods of time ..if this block is rapidly overturned and consensus is against it being correct or warranted that I will take it on-board and commit to and restrict my own account for the same time period - this would at least encourage them to give such punitive actions the thought it deserves.Off2riorob (talk) 12:01, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That is an interesting point, perhaps there should be (not just in this case) a case for the idea that if blocks are overturned then the blocker should be blocked for the same amount of time by bot. I do find it odd that we can take into account CXollects past endevours to establish a patern but not 2/0's.Slatersteven (talk) 13:02, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Slater, we don't block punitively, and an automatic block everytime an admin makes a mistake (and admins are human) can only be punitive. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

As in this case we do appear to block punativly (and this does not read like a mistake, its not like he has not done it before) It seems to me there is a problom with admins who are immune from sanction and yet behave in appaling ways. I think there may be acase for tighter controls on admin actions.Slatersteven (talk) 13:20, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec, of course) By popular request: I occasionally monitor a few hotbed political topics with an eye to reducing edit warring and urging calm. Glenn Beck lit up like a sore thumb when I checked in. The recent history contained three highly active editors, Collect, an edit-semi-protected request, and a BLP vandal. One of the highly active editors seemed to be editing mostly tangentially, using well-expressed edit summaries, and generally refraining from revert warring. Two of the highly active editors talked to each other about WP:3RR and agreed to wait for more discussion. Said discussion convinced me both that neither editor should be blocked and that the article should not be protected.
This brings us to Collect; this edit was the fourth in a string of re-re-reverts. Especially on a controversial article, this sort of back and forth without intervening substantive discussion is edit warring. Collect's edit added fuel to an already burning fire. The most pertinent discussions at the talkpage at this point are here and here. Collect's sole contribution to that discussion was to accuse a fellow editor of obstructionist malfeasance. This is not the sort of comment to encourage collegial debate and collaborative editing. As I stated a few hours ago, I chose the block length as a standard escalation of the previous blocks.
Both edit warring on contentious political articles and making unproductive rude comments are a continuing pattern with this editor. I warned Collect for similar edits to Mass killings under Communist regimes and talk back in October. Since then, the pattern has continued with problematic edits at such pages as Communist terrorism and talk, John Birch Society and talk, Carl Paladino and talk, Unite Against Fascism and talk, and Talk:Fox News Channel. Reading the relevant discussions, it is clear that Collect's contributions often serve to foster ill will and promote an adversarial editing environment. Collect does good work in maintaining high sourcing standards in our BLP articles, but in political articles far too often sinks to edit warring without substantive discussion and unproductive comments directed at other editors to the detriment of productive discussion.
I bow to the consensus here that this does not represent a pattern in need of redress, but I have been asked to provide a more thorough analysis as to why I felt that a block would best serve the encyclopedia. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:32, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Gosh uyou do not seem to indicate you meant anything at all by your apology to me. Shall I go on? I did not say anyone was "guilty of obstructionist malfeasance" on Glenn Beck to begin with. As for the Mass killings/ Digwuren warning - I invite every single admin to examine my edits thereon. Including my "violation of 1rr where there was a clearly posted restriction" where the "clear posting" occurred after the edit! And I invite every admin to examine my edits at Communist terrorism as well. Indeed, I invite any edotpr or admin to point out all my improper and intemperate edits. And I would ask everyone to note that I post often on talk pages, please check my edit stats. So if this is what is meant by your "apology" I fear what your "umbrage" would be :). Collect (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

"...And "edotpr" is "Russian" for..." ;> Doc talk 14:14, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Likely "early morning typins skills are reduced" or the like. Collect (talk) 19:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

In answer to SlimVirgin's implied question above: I was unaware of the edit to Wikipedia:Activist until I checked Collect's recent contributions as part of due diligence before blocking. The edit summary jumped out at me, so I included it merely as an aside. - 2/0 (cont.) 13:38, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

• Yes Collect has long term problems with editorial relations. No your justification of the block was radically inappropriate. Particularly when dealing with editors with long term problems you should be extraordinarily correct. Your selection of edits to block over, and your continued mischaracterisation of hostility in the talk page edit indicates you need to avoid dealing with this particular constellation of social sciences issues as an admin. Fifelfoo (talk) 13:46, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't there some kind of admin guideline regarding the use of tools within articles they themselves have edited or in topics they have an specific interest in? If not, there should be, as in "Do. Not. Use." and refer to RfC/U. Not supporting that that's necessarily what's going on, but it seems to be the implication above. It is a serious issue in general, though. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 14:07, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the policy is at WP:INVOLVED. Like everything else, I drifted into this area after it showed up at WP:AN3. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

What was it that showed up on WP:AN3? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:26, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

These many months later, I honestly could not say. Probably Mass killings or Holodomor or something like that. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see the connection. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Neither do I, but there is significant overlap in the active editors. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Question for 2over0

• 2over0, thanks for the explanation. The concern is that you use the tools a fair bit in climate change/science articles, and that it tends to be on the same side (if that's not correct, my apologies; this is based on a scan of your block log). Collect's revert [6] at Glenn Beck—an article related to climate-change because of Beck's views—was accompanied by an explanation on the talk page beforehand. [7] Is that the post you say accuses someone of obstructionist malfeasance?

  You thanked the user who had engaged in most of the reverting for not continuing with the edit war. [8] Then a minute or two later you blocked Collect, after she had reverted POINTy material [9] added to Wikipedia:Activist by an editor you're quite closely associated with. Collect's every edit to that page that I have seen has been to try to smooth out the differences between the two "sides," so it's unfortunate that it appears (stress: appears) to have triggered a block.

  Whether it's fair or not, perception is the thing that matters when judging an admin's involvement. With that in mind, would you be willing to agree not to use the tools in relation to climate change (broadly construed), or in relation to any of the people who regularly edit in that area? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 14:23, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I had thought that I already have been avoiding climate change related articles since about May or June of last year (excepting the ArbCom). It was a cesspit; I have not seen it at WP:AE lately, so maybe the editing environment has improved. I suppose given his political views I can guess at Beck's stance on climate change, but it does not seem to be mentioned at the article, nor does there seem to be much overlap with the regulars in the climate change topic area. SlimVirgin, I know we disagree about some small matters at WP:SCIRS, but for the most part I edit science articles in preference to adminning them. Political commentators and historical controversies are deliberately pretty far from my core interests. Gloria Allred is probably the closest article here, and I only watch that because it is such a BLPvio-magnet.

Looking at my contributions history, this matter was my first edit for some three hours. Obviously I am the only one in a position to know my actual state of mind, but three hours sounds about right to sift through a day of heavy editing, a week of heavy talk, four sets of contributions and talkpages, and compose a few messages. Please notice that I also thanked the other editor concerned four seconds after your link. Then fifteen seconds later I posted the block notice. - 2/0 (cont.) 15:05, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

That doesn't really address the issue. The point is that you're seen (I stress: rightly or wrongly) as an admin who takes sides over climate-change and related science issues. Mastcell is an editor you support; he nominated you for adminship. Two hours after Collect reverted him, you blocked Collect. You say the block wasn't connected to that revert, and of course I take your word for that, but it looks as though it was, and that is the difficulty

During your RfA, you said you would not be able to use the tools in certain scientific areas. You wrote: "As for potential future administrative actions in the area, they would be severely circumscribed by WP:UNINVOLVED. The articles actively edited by myself or an editor about whom I have formed an opinion covers, I suspect, most of Category:Pseudoscience and its proper subcategories." The question here is: are you willing to extend that self-restraint to articles and editors related to climate change, broadly construed? I think an agreement from you about this would put minds at rest. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 15:51, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

But Cla68 contends that your WP:ACTIVIST essay is unrelated to the CC case. If it is related, he is in violation of his arbcom sanction ("initiating or participating in any discussion substantially relating to these articles anywhere on Wikipedia, even if the discussion also involves another issue or issues"). You can't have it both ways. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

If you think you're doing 2over0 any favours by posting here with that attitude, you're wrong. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Involvement

SlimVirgin -- You stated that "The concern is that you use the tools a fair bit in climate change/science articles, and that it tends to be on the same side". First off, admins focusing in a particular subject area in which they are familiar can be a very good thing. If they know about the subject, they are more likely to be able to detect good sources from bad, undue weight to things that go against expert consensus, etc. If they have been involved in that topic on Wikipedia for a long time, they are likely to know the history of problematic editors, understand all of the long-standing interpersonal conflicts, etc. This all puts them in a more informed position, which makes it more likely that they'll do the right thing. The involvement only becomes a problem if they start using their tools to help lend undue weight to certain ideas, allow the use of low-quality sources (or prevent good ones from being used), or sanction editors that are making valid edits. Second, you stated that his use of tools "tends to be on the same side". I'm assuming that you're saying that his use of tools is more often used on editors who are inappropriately trying to insert "climate change denial" statements that go against scientific consensus. There is nothing wrong with this, any more than there would be with using tools more often on creationists in evolution or flat earth-ers in geography. It's far more likely that a person that strongly believes in something that goes against consensus is going to make problematic edits, and therefore more likely that such a person will have admin tools used against them. That said, I'm still not sure I agree with this particular block, but given Collect's long-term disruption, I don't see it as terrible either. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 17:03, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that it's good when admins are familiar with an area qua admins. But there's been consensus for some time that we shouldn't use the tools in areas we edit in a lot, unless it's a straightforward issue like vandalism; i.e. it's not only specific articles that can trigger a conflict of interest. 2over0 made clear during his RfA that he wouldn't use the tools in the area of pseudoscience, and the argument of certain CC editors is that opposition to the mainstream amounts to a fringe position. So that's a bit close for comfort. Admins also have to be seen to be even-handed. If 2over0 has issued blocks on both sides, that's fine (there was definitely poor behavior on both sides), but that's not what I saw from a quick scan of his block log.

Anyway, the question is whether 2over0 will agree to withdraw, or whether further dispute resolution is needed, and that's something only he can answer. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:47, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Any administrator sufficiently familiar with an area to make the editorial judgments that Jrtayloriv mentions above (especially assessment of use of sources) is likely to be able to help more by doing three things: (1) contributing as an editor to the articles; (2) explaining to other editors what problems exist with various sources; and (3) helping to form an editorial consensus that uninvolved administrators can use to see who is editing against said editorial consensus and/or editing in such a way as to promote poor or misleading use of sources. In the model Jrtayloriv suggests, such "judgments" take place inside the admin's head and are explained in warnings or blocking statements. It is better for such judgments to be laid out in the open prior to sanctioning, with sufficient clarity that other editors and uninvolved admins can judge the matter for themselves. This is a general point, though, as I can't recall offhand the level of editorial involvement the two editors here have in the topic at hand. In an ideal world, editorial discussion alone would be sufficient to resolve disputes without administrator intervention. Carcharoth (talk) 19:54, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a position that is scarily divorced from reality. I've tried "contributing as an editor", "explaining problems" and "(trying to) form consensus" for about 7 years. I still do. It works very occasionally, and only if you invest an enormous amount of patience and effort. But almost invariably, an admin who learns enough about a complex topic area to make informed decisions about content will also come to be involved. That runs through admins really quick, leaving those either structurally unable to become qualified, or deliberately pretending to be uninvolved while pushing an agenda behind the scenes. Building content is the purpose of this encyclopaedia. It should be clear that admins (and ArbCom) cannot operate as content-unaware automatons, and still help improve the quality of the content. It's a well-known effect that if you use a proxy-indicator to measure performance, people will quickly learn to optimise the proxy, not the performance. In other words, if you value civility over neutrality, people will become civil POV pushers. In general, if you value knowledge of and adherence to Wikipedia rules and regulations over domain expertise, you will get people investing their time in Wikipedia space, arguing on AN/I and before ArbCom, or creating new shortcuts to beat people they disagree with. If following Wikipedia procedure harms content and content creators, WP:IAR has to come out with a vengeance. And that requires active and informed admins, not a kind of "neutral super-admin" that circles the Wikipedia in a teflon-spandex dress, refrains from constructive work, and only swoops in from afar to judge situations on the most superficial criteria. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, Stephan. I find that uninvolved admins are often able to make better decisions precisely because they don't get bogged out in the details of the dispute, and aren't swayed by their own opinions. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 10:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, you are wrong. Of course there is a difference between involvement and bias, and that difference is not well-reflected in WP:INVOLVED. A lot of the relevant information is in the details. And just because an admin has not edited in an area does not mean she no opinion. Her a-priory opinions will likely be coloured by her cultural outlook, and, given the composition of Wikipedia editors, help to re-inforce systemic bias. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Involvement as an editor almost always entails bias, whether the editor is aware of it or not, and always leads others to suspect bias. The perception of fairness is what matters. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

While appearances matter to a degree, I prefer substance over appearances. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The substance and appearance in this case are that some CC editors were being opposed on an essay. An admin seen as a friend of theirs blocked an editor who reverted one of them. Other editors with sympathies in the same direction arrived to defend the admin and try to close down discussion about it. So—no lessons learned from the CC case. Everyone looks bad, some more time is wasted, and some more trust is lost. What's the point? SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Mu. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

And now William Connolley has arrived to restore the edit Collect was (it appears) blocked for removing. [10] SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 11:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Does this comment serve any purpose except for further promoting the WP:AGF violation that this is somehow connected to climate change? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) I agree with Stephan Schulz. As far as I know Future Perfect at Sunset and Dbachmann are our most active and by far most successful admins in the general area of ethnic disputes, especially in the Balkans. That's because they are knowledgeable in that area and can easily tell little known facts that are hard to find in the scholarly literature from politically motivated disinformation. I have been watching FPAS' talk page for a long time, and it's obvious from the complaints he gets there how well it works: Editors from both sides of a dispute frequently complain about the behaviour of someone on the other side, asking FPAS to do something, but it's very rare that an editor complains about FPAS himself.

This works so well because in most Balkans conflicts the situation is ultimately symmetric: There are nationalists on one side, nationalists on the other side, and there are serious scholars who do not side with either side. As a result, admins automatically appear fair simply by being fair and representing the scholarly side in every dispute.

Areas such as global warming, where science itself is under a well organised attack by political forces (in the real world the phenomenon and its continuity with the tobacco/breast cancer link denial has been researched by scholars; in Wikipedia its manifested by extensive socking and off-site canvassing), are different in that a fair admin who also understands and represents scholarship has many more occasions to sanction editors on one side than there are opportunities to sanction someone on the other side.

In such a fundamentally asymmetric situation fairness cannot be measured by simplistic counting. This is structurally the same canard as that of a "liberal bias" of the US mass media, which actually have an enormous right-wing bias, as the comparison to media in Europe and elsewhere shows.

Involvement of admins is not about knowledge of a subject or editing in the large area. It's about interpersonal disputes and concrete disputes. There is a tendency for every rule in guideline to be interpreted in a more and more fundamentalist way, and that's always a bad thing. Do this with WP:INVOLVED and you will ban those from admin work who understand a dispute and are best placed to resolve it – unless they are willing to engage in unnatural behaviour such as refraining from editing where they are knowledgeable. Nobody wants to let the admins of the Chinese Wikipedia, and only those who don't understand English, work here and let our admins deal with conflicts over on the Chinese Wikipedia. I guess we will never reach that level of absurdity, but you have definitely reached the point of diminishing returns in strictness of WP:INVOLVED interpretation.Hans Adler 12:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The point I was making is that any editor of a topic (who happens to have the admin tools) can explain to other admins what is going on in a topic area and what action is needed, rather than taking the shortcut of taking action themselves. Unless you are saying that it wastes time to explain to others why action is needed in a particular case? Those admins who are saying that their content expertise is needed to be able to administrate an area, have you ever tried administrating in areas that you know nothing about? It should be theoretically possible. Sure, it is a balancing act between staying aloof and getting dragged into content disputes, but then every admin should know that already. A little bit of knowledge of a content area can inform the decisions made, but it shouldn't dominate the decision-making process for admins (for editors, of course, knowledge of the content is paramount). Carcharoth (talk) 07:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be promoting an impersonal bureaucracy. It's not practical, and it would not be an environment in which editors and admins would enjoy contributing their time to the project. Hans Adler 10:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Stephan says above: "if you value civility over neutrality, people will become civil POV pushers" - the irony is that elevating civility considerations to the same level as POV pushing considerations is exactly the trap that the civil POV pushing essay falls into. The primary consideration should be whether someone is pushing a point of view. Not whether someone is civil, or uncivil, or has purple skin. Look past the civility considerations and try and discern if they are pushing a point of view. Sure, someone being civil can obscure POV pushing, but the point is to identify the POV pushers, not to identify the civil POV pushers and leave the incivil POV pushers alone. The key is to identify POV pushing and take action against it. There may be a subset of POV pushers that hide under a veneer of civility, but that doesn't mean they require more attention than all the other POV pushers. Civility and POV pushing are two separate things, and conflating them when dealing with them does more harm than good. i.e. Sanction civil POV pushers for being POV pushers, but cite WP:NPOV when doing so. The shortcut WP:PUSH should really redirect to an essay on POV pushing (rather than one on civil POV pushing), as civil POV pushing is only a subset of the overall set of POV pushers. Finally, when you have an incivil POV pusher, it is imperative to sanction them for being a POV pusher, and not to take the easy option of sanctioning for incivility. Carcharoth (talk) 07:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it's time we made clear that admins are expected to be entirely uninvolved when making decisions that could turn out to be contentious. It used to be the case that we had to avoid using the tools only on specific articles we'd edited, but over the last couple of years, there's been a move against that narrow definition of "involved," so that most admins now know not to use the tools in general topic areas they've edited a lot, unless the decision is an uncontentious one (dealing with vandalism, and similar). I think we should add something about that to the various policies, so there's no misunderstanding about it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the relevant policy was already clear, and did address the issue of involvement in broad topic areas. I've made it a bit clearer with this edit. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 08:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I am pretty sure that your edit changed the policy significantly. Ncmvocalist reverted you, and I endorse the revert. The involvement rules have become overly strict in practice, in some areas recently. I see this as a problem that needs correcting, not as a fundamental shift in policy that should be written down and applied to all areas.

Please seek a consensus on the talk page first. Hans Adler 11:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

So when a user has been found to have acted incorrectly and has not said they will not do it again what would the normal course of events be exactly?Slatersteven (talk) 19:44, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Repeated patterns of behaviour are significant. 2over0 blocked Captain Occam.[11] He refused to give a reason for the block which was reversed by another admin. The same has happened here. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:14, 9 January 2011 (UTC).

There's no repeated pattern of behavior. Following the link you provided, 2/0 explained that RL events prevented him from commenting on the block of Captain Occam. Here, he has commented. No similarity, no pattern. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

More history and discussion of this disturbing incident is here. [12]. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

What Xxanthippe has written is incorrect. 2over0 lifted the block himself, so that Captain Occam could participate in the ArbCom case. That is easy to read in the link she provided and also in Captain Occam's block log. [13] Had there been any problem, it would have been considered during the ArbCom case. The block log shows that Captain Occam was blocked for "Repeated WP:edit warring, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:disruptive editing, and assumptions of bad faith" and unblocked to participate in the WP:ARBR&I case. Mathsci (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That’s not what Xxanthippe is talking about. When 2over0 unblocked me, it was only to participate in the arbitration case, so I was still disallowed from participating in every page at Wikipedia except for the arbitration case and discussions that were specifically related to appealing his decision. In other words, I was “topic banned” from every page at Wikipedia. This is the decision which was later reversed by Georgewilliamherbert. Here is the diff of where GWH did so.

It’s also important to remember that for the first day that people were asking 2over0 for the diffs of the behavior for which he blocked me, he was still active at Wikipedia. This should be obvious from the fact in the discussion about this in my user talk, he was replying to my questions about it; he just wasn’t providing any diffs. He also replied to the first several comments about this in his own user talk, still without providing any diffs of what he blocked me for. He didn’t go offline until after he’d been refusing to answer people’s question about this for around 12 hours.

Just because ArbCom didn’t make a decision about this doesn’t mean there wasn’t any problem. The initial arbitration ruling about a series of articles often doesn’t address every single aspect of the conflict related to them, and the reason for that is just because ArbCom doesn’t have time to deal with everything at once. To go with another example of this that I’m sure you remember, several people brought up during the case that User:Ferahgo_the_Assassin shares an IP address with me, and that my topic ban should therefore apply to her also, but she was not topic banned during the case. My topic ban wasn’t applied to her until around two months after the case closed, by NuclearWarfare under the discretionary sanctions. If you think that ArbCom not ruling on something during the initial case means that there’s no issue worth ruling on, then you would have to also think that there was no justification to extend my topic ban to Ferahgo, and I know you don’t think that. --Captain Occam (talk) 04:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Whatever the details may be, the common feature is that 2over0 applied a ban that provoked a public outcry that in turn led to the lifting of the ban. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

(ec) Captain Occam's block and conditional unblock by 2over0 and his later conduct during the ArbCom case—a day after GWH removed 2over0's unblocking conditions stating, "This is not an invitation to resume any disruptive behaviors"—were discussed explicitly in the ArbCom finding. Ferahgo the Assassin was topic banned on October 7, one and a half months after the close of the case on August 25 (not three as initally stated by Captain Occam [14]). Mathsci (talk) 05:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

2over0's response

• I've asked 2over0 to say here whether he's willing not to use the tools again in relation to climate change and connected articles/editors. And obviously not to use them again in relation to Collect. That would go some way to resolving this. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Yes. I voluntarily withdrew from the area half a year ago, and there was enough discussion and concern during the ArbCom case to convince me to make my withdrawal permanent. Glenn Beck does not at present appear to be covered by the climate change probation (nor should it be unless he has made some significant statements about the issue). I am not sure what position is being ascribed to me at that article, but I will recuse myself from it and closely related articles as well - we have enough admins that my absence should not be noticed. Climate change editors is a bit more nebulous, but I will recuse myself from any issue involving an editor I know to be involved in that family of articles. If I did not know already but a due diligence check of their recent contributions reveals non-trivial (i.e. anything except recent changes patrol) climate change related edits, I will let someone else handle it. I will consider myself bound by WP:INVOLVED with respect to Collect (talk · contribs). May I respectfully suggest that a Request for comment be initiated if this does not sufficiently resolve the issue? If it is more complex, then the discussion could benefit from the more structured format. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Thanks for agreeing to that; I think it will help a lot. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This would be a satisfactory resolution of the matter. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC).

ANI isn't RFC/U or User talk:2over0

Sorry for pointing this obvious fact out. I feel obliged to mention it though. Is there any administrative action left to consider here? Looks like there isn't. Is there any reason why this thread should not be archived and discussion be held elsewhere? NW (Talk) 05:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I would support closing this thread and continuing the discussion in an RFC/U. I don’t feel that it’s my call to decide whether an RFC should happen or not, though. It ought to be up to Collect, and the other editors who’ve objected to 2over0’s block of Collect. Do any of them think an RFC/U is appropriate? --Captain Occam (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Not unless there's evidence of a continuing pattern and continual failure to recognize error. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 02:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Profanity and admission that user will completely ignore all wikipedia rules

Arky91 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made some very disturbing comments on my talk page, here, following my warnings to him about on his talk page about adding unsourced information. He's used a highly offensive term about black people in addition to tell me to fuck sources and articles. Plus he has a conflict on interest in editing Polow da Don as apparently he works with him! -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 01:55, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

editors with blatant disregard for rules and those who cannot be WP:CIVIL to others have no place in the community that is wikipedia. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:01, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've blocked them. We don't need users who act like that. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:09, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I've just requested on your talk page... can that edit bu him to my talk page be Rd2ed? (hidden/deleted) -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 02:11, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:17, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, that sort of language sounds suprisingly like Hitler's talk of how Jews had no place in the "German racial community."see here. Now Arky91 has been singled out, stripped of his rights, and evacuated out of Wikipedia with nary anyone speaking in his defense as a person. Well, dammit, I will stand up for Arky! He was a good man, and a good editor. He deserved better than to just be summarily "indefinately" blocked like some poor Jew placed into "protective custody" indefinately by the Nazis... Rettien (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You've just compared another user to Hitler and the Nazis; I'd suggest you retract the above statement. GiantSnowman 23:39, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm am grossly offended by Rettien's comments. ... tut just because rules were broken and action taken I don't deserve to be treated with disrespect. First I was called an offensive term for black people, then I was told to fuck wikipedia sources and now I've been compared to Hitler. Erg! Can I suggest Rettien is warned for that comment? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Do I even have to point out that this is a sock? HalfShadow 23:56, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I did suspect that might be the case. Block and tag as such? or SPI? -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 00:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You ain't blocking or tagging anyone just yet, here in America people have things like due process. This isn't the Third Reich. You just can't "disappear" anyone you dont think fits into your vaunted community of the master race... Annanovis (talk) 02:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC).

• Both User:Rettien and User:Annanovis now blocked - troll sockpuppets of somebody. NawlinWiki (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How very boring and predictable. I have to say we used to attract a more sophisticated class of trolls. Going straight for the nazi accusations is just weak. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You know... I used to remember those days when you had to file SPI reports because there was actually a sense of ambiguity or uncertainty. But these days..! -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 03:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Godwin's Law on speed? --Blackmane (talk) 01:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I like how he says "You just can't 'disappear' anyone you don't think fits..." just before the admins indeed "disappear" him. Alas, Beeblebrox is right, that kind of troll is becoming the Arky-type. :( ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at CheckUser, Arky91 is  Unrelated to both Annanovis and Rettien. Looking at both technical and behavioral evidence, Annanovis is  Confirmed as banned user Wiki brah (talk · contribs) while Rettien is  Likely. –MuZemike 10:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ye Gods, him again? After nearly six years? The Brazilian coke fiend? It seems odd that this character would just pop up again after a huge break; what other accounts does he currently have? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Also raises the worrying possibility that it might be an adult who should know better; a ten-year-old child would have grown and changed at least a bit in six years. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 15:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Excessive block on user:Binksternet

I was rather disconcerted to see that Binksternet (talk · contribs) has just been blocked for three months by Xavexgoem (talk · contribs).

The backstory seems to be ongoing content disputes on a number of Iran-related articles, not a topic or articles I'm familiar with. There has been a past 2 week block in December for this, per this WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive657#Kurdo777_reverting_Binksternet, resulting in a two-week block that was reversed a few days later on Binksternet's offer of a voluntary 1RR restriction.

The new block, six times any previous block, appears to be as a result of changes to Prostitution in Iran and this edit sequence: a single reversion (labelled as such, per agreement) followed by a couple of minor copyedits. That was a response to this deletion, taking a 23k article down to 3k - always an eyebrow raiser. The deletion, of content which could be seen as less than favourable to Iran, was done three times by User:علی_ویکی over two days and reverted, by two different editors, not just Binksternet. Although User:علی_ویکی has recently been warned over their edits, I can see no mention of their repeated deletions here, and certainly no three month blocks!

Clearly this is a result of a content dispute: the crux of it relates to the practice of Nikah mut'ah, the ironically-named institution of the Chastity House, and their relation to prostitution. Note that this is not a debate over the interpretation of Nikah mut'ah and whether it is prostitution or not (that's a cultural matter far beyond WP:ANI's remit). Rather the question is whether a referenced and balanced discussion of the topic should be included in the prostitution article, or whether it should be removed entirely and not mentioned. The balance of the disputed content is arguable, as such things rightly are, except that the detail of the content itself isn't even being addressed here, it's merely being removed en masse. Any semblance of NPOV here would, whatever one's position on prostitution and Nikah mut'ah, seem to require some mention of it (with our usual difficult hurdle of careful neutrality), not merely this blanket removal.

I cannot see justification for this block, I cannot see justification based on this reversion, I cannot see any justification for the length of this block and I'm concerned that edit warriors on the other side of this argument aren't even being warned for it, let alone blocked with this severity.

A disclosure of interest: I have no past involvement with the Iranian articles. My only real contact with Binksternet has been at Coanda-1910, an article of equally problematic nationalism. On that article, I didn't find Binksternet's edits to merely be beyond reproach (despite immense provocation), but their rewrite of a difficult article to be an exemplar of how to achieve comprehensive neutrality amongst bias, vested interests and conflicting sources. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd like to know why the jump from the previous block of 2 weeks in mid-Decemeber to a 3-month block. If the normal progression would have been 1 month, what egregious factor was present to justify the skip to a significantly loner block? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm tempted to archive this right now because of the lack of any attempt to discuss this with Xave before coming here. May I ask why you didn't do that? NW (Talk) 02:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Their talk page announces that they're too lazy to use other editor's talk pages, and this seems the appropriate forum to query the actions of an admin. As my action here is, put simply, to accuse an admin of being trigger-happpy, when they have demonstrated the ability and willingness to block editors for three months, I'm rather reluctant to do it on their talk page, at risk of receiving such a block myself. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm If Xave blocked you for questioning his block, you would have an easy case for desysop-by-motion at ArbCom. That...isn't likely to happen. And he never said that he wouldn't respond—he said that he would respond on his talk page. NW (Talk) 02:25, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm yourself! I have previously been blocked by an admin for questioning their blocking of another user. Whilst they were indeed later de-sysopped for another matter, the response of other admins was that "I'd asked for it" by questioning their judgement. So please don't tell me that all admins are paragons of impartiality. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it would've been best if this stayed open. If it's a fear that an editor could be blocked for questioning an admin, then AN/I is really the only option. Can't come to AN/I if you're blocked. Xavexgoem (talk) 12:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a copy/paste of my response on my talk page. Please review my actions. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. I saw that the AN/I thread was archived. I'll explain why I did what I did:

• His most recent block was for 2 weeks. He was warned against tendentious editing in general, and tendentious editing in Iranian political articles specifically. He made a compromise on his behavior, so I unblocked him early on good faith.
• His main antagonist, Kurdo, reported that Binksternet was then hounding him at Kurdish people. I didn't pay any mind since they hate each other (for all intents and purposes).
• Then Kurdo tells me that Binksternet followed him to Prostitution in Iran. When Kurdo asked Binksternet about why he was editing that page, Binksternet says he followed User:Munci from Irredentism and saw that he had also edited Prostitution in Iran, and that it was a coincidence. Here's the thing:

• Munci made his last contributions to Prostitution in Iran more than 1,250 of his edits ago and more than half a year ago.
• It is exceptionally unlikely that Binksternet read Irredentism, then selected Mundi in that page's history amongst other editors, followed the contribs of that prolific an editor over so many of his edits, then by happenstance found Prostitution in Iran and edited it not 4 hours after Kurdo edited it for his first time.

• In other words: He was hounding Kurdo, and offered an implausible rational for how they happened to be editing the same article for the first time in such a short time-frame. I now have no reason to believe that Binksternet followed Kurdo to Kurdish people with good intentions, and I have no reason to believe that Binksternet will stop if he's unblocked.
• Wikihounding is unacceptable. It is distracting, a huge breach of trust, and ultimately harmful to the project.

Finally, this is his 6th block. He knew better. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, this has nothing to do with the edits made to Prostitution in Iran. I hope that's clear. Xavexgoem (talk) 11:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Clarification and timeline:

• Kurdo and Binksternet have a poor history largely from a difference of opinion. So, content. But then it becomes behavioral:

1. Kurdo, for the first time, edits Prostitution in Iran on Jan 3, 21:31 UTC
2. Binksternet, for the first time on that article, edits its talk page on Jan 4, 01:01 UTC
3. Kurdo confronts Bink about it (here)
4. Bink replies that he followed Munci's contribs from the article Irredentism (here). He would have had to go through some 1,250 edits spanning 6 months to find Munci's contribution to the Prostitution article([15]. Despite the improbability of following Munci for some 1,250 edits, he then edits the article just 4 hours after Kurdo does.

That's an improbability on top of an improbability. Why would Binksternet lie about how he got to that article? Xavexgoem (talk) 14:27, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

My fairly substantial response is (as ordered) at User_talk:Xavexgoem#WP:AN.2FI.23Excessive_block_on_user:Binksternet Andy Dingley (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll copy and paste the exchange. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Exchange between Xavexgoem and Andy Dingley

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I would agree with much of what you say above: particularly the past accusations of edit-warring and the comment about Kurdo777 (talk · contribs) that "they hate each other". I would support (most reluctantly, because this situation is never good) the December block and also the December unblock with the 1RR restriction. Yet this wasn't a topic ban. We have editors who clearly have some subject interest in Iran, and who were told to change their editing behaviour, but not told (almost surprisingly) to change their subjects. What can one expect such editors to do, other than to edit articles on Iran? In particular, editing articles on other Iranian topics, and carefully following the restrictions agreed, would seem to be the sort of result that we'd hoped would happen, given the conditions agreed. You have said that this is "nothing to do with the edits made to Prostitution in Iran." — yet that's the only edited article you link on the block notice! I don't follow your logic on Irredentism, probably because I'm unfamiliar with the backstory - but shouldn't we be judging the edits here, not trying to construct complex reasonings for why they went to particular articles? Such constructs are both shaky, and should also be simply irrelevant. So what of the other edits, edits so problematic that they warrant a 3 month block? Looking at Abadan Crisis timeline I would have to support Binksternet's position here: sources that are of evidently indistinguishable reliability (Although I am no scholar on this area) disagree. In which case, our neutrality requirement is, AIUI, to include both sides, suitably worded to indicate that they disagree and that we are witholding judgement on backing either. These (unless I'm missing some edits somewhere) are either what Binksternet was adding, or something so damned close to it that I can't see the gap, and there's certainly no discrepancy to warrant this severe block. There's also the issue of even-handedness. Some of these edits are probably not the most neutral ever, and may even justify their blocks. Yet it takes two to edit war. You described the relationship with kurdo777 (talk · contribs) as they hate each other, a reciprocal dislike, not one-sided. Abadan Crisis log is of ping-pong reverts by both sides, yet where are the warnings and blocks aginst those other editors? Reversion tennis looks bad on both sides, but why is only one being taken to task for it? Again, as I understand our ideal neutrality behaviour in such a case, we should include both sides' sources and leave them both displayed, but unjudged - which is the action Binksternet took with edits such as this. Edit summaries of "Conclusive photographic and scholarly evidence" mean nothing of the sort - the photograph has no provable date, there are "scholars" on both sides. This might not be the greatest editing ever, but it's caused by two sides, not one. We're also I'm sure both familiar with editors who readily agree to such bans, then fail to follow them (block away!). Yet this just didn't happen here: I can't see it stepping outside the very careful bounds of the 1RR restriction agreed in December. Maybe that restriction wasn't the right choice, maybe (not my view, but I can see its merits) there needed to be a topic ban too. However this is the restriction that was agreed - it seems strange to agree such a restriction, then block anyway even when it was observed. Comments from others such as, "The whole thing turned from a content dispute into outright harassment a long time ago" are hardly helpful. If it was so bad a long time ago, then the block should have been imposed a long time ago, and if it wasn't, then the chance was missed and we don't leave such Damocletian blocks hanging over the heads of editors indefinitely. Blocks are protective, not punitive. We judge the edits, not the editor. It is simply wrong to block Binksternet in January for edits that were not in January, when his edits in January met the agreed restrictions. As to "this is his 6th block", then perhaps it is so - and as we seem to have a practice of gradually escalating blocks, I'm particularly surprised to see an escalation from 2 weeks suddenly to 3 months. Finally, collateral damage. Coanda-1910 has already seen an edit that I knew was coming and could practically have written for them. A persistent POV-pushing editor undoubtedly saw this block as an opportunity to reinsert their favourite claim. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC) He was blocked for hounding Kurdo, whom he has a poor history with. It has nothing to do with the edits he made. What he had said to Kurdo when confronted was that he was at the page Irredentism and looked at its history. Near the top is User:Munci. He says he followed hundreds of Munci's contribs and that's how he found Prostitution in Iran (and happened to edit it just 4 hours later after Kurdo first edited it). Forget about it being about Iran: this could have been Binksternet following Kurdo to List of Splorges in Spleeland (forgive me, I'm not creative), then Binksternet saying that the reason he was there was because he was reading George Washington (totally unrelated, as irredentism is), checked its history, found User:Arbitrary, went through hundreds of his contribs, and happened to land on the list article four hours after Kurdo did. Then I'd block him for hounding Kurdo, like I did. Again: not about Iran. As you'll read below, I did skip the 1 month progression. He can always appeal. Finally, the block was justified. You may disagree with the length, but the block did need to happen. If it were some other admin, it may have been 1 month, it may have been indef. At any rate, neither that other admin nor I am responsible for the "collateral damage". If he cared enough, this wouldn't have happened. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC) He didn't edit on Spleeland though, but on Iran, an area of clear past interest to both of them. I still can't see this as convincing evidence of malice. As to blocking for past history, then I see that as just wrong. That's what December's block was for - and his actions since then, as far as we can robustly prove them, have met the restrictions agreed in December. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC) How is the evidence not clear? What are the chances that Binksternet actually made such a detour through hundreds of an unrelated editor's contribs and happens to land on an article that his long-time antagonist just edited for the first time four hours prior? Is it not more likely that Binksternet followed Kurdo's contribs? And if so, why did he lie about it? Xavexgoem (talk) 13:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC) I haven't seen this "lie", or link to such a claim, so it's hard to comment. How did Kurdo find it after all? Maybe it's just an Iranian article with a controversial high-traffic revert on it, and they all landed there. What about Aliwiki's edits here? Maybe it was through that route. I don't believe such a case is provable with any certainty either way, certainly not to the level necessary to justify blocks of this size. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC) You're just not listening. Xavexgoem (talk) 15:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Thankyou for posting the relevant diff, I've now found it, which makes this discussion rather clearer. Before accusing other editors of "not listening" though, I would please ask you to remember that most of us have no past history with the Iranian articles and the editors concerned. You might recall a comment in an obscure thread, I have to go and search for it. You're right, it seems unlikely. I suspect (as wild supposition appears to be allowable today) that Binksternet had actually followed Aliwiki and simply mis-remembered how he found the article (Maybe you might, but I know I don't keep navigation logs to this level). Or he did follow Kurdo's edits, which still isn't a proscribed act. Even if he told deliberate lies about what he did afterwards, not even that is something that we regard as warranting three month blocks (many examples passim). I'm seeing a lot of edits here. I'm seeing some edits to controversial content from Binksternet which I'd still regard as acceptable, even under his constrained editing. I'm also seeing ones like this from Kurdo, throwing around wild accusations of editors acting in collusion, American political bias, spite and the usual wikivitriol - whilst at the same time it's Kurdo who's removing good cites to Iranian sources presenting an opposing view. Now please, tell me again (and thanks, I am hard of hearing as it happens) which of these editors is the one warranting the 3 month block, whilst the other doesn't even rate a warning? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC) The one doing the hounding. But so long as you're supposing things despite the evidence, I guess no answer will do. It would have been enough for Binksternet to leave Kurdo alone. But, again, so long as you're supposing things despite the evidence, that won't do either. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC) So is "the one doing the hounding" making this edit, or this edit? The same content dispute, one editor putting a reasonably drawn case up for mediation, the other foaming and frothing to lobby an admin. What did we expect and require Binksternet to do after the December unblock with restrictions? Did he comply and behave according to that? Andy Dingley (talk) 16:36, 10 January 2011 (UTC) I'm not suggesting Kurdo's any different. But he didn't hound Binksternet to a page he had just recently edited, and then lied about how he got there. If Kurdo did, then he should be blocked. I'm not playing tit-for-tat, here. I saw Binksternet hound Kurdo, I blocked Binksternet. He can appeal. I suggest you take all concerns to AN/I so I know what the rest of the community thinks. I may have been over-wrought, but if so, not by much. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Question re your comment above I didn't want to bring this up on the incident noticeboard as I thought it could end up with a lot of digression to no great purpose. My apologies if that's not the way its done. You said "and I have no reason to believe that Binksternet will stop if he's unblocked." Which I can read as either 1) they won't learn if the block is shortened, or 2) an indefinite block is the answer. Could/would you clarify the matter for me? Thank you. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC) I didn't word that too well. Maybe I should say "I have no reason to believe he'll stop by a block alone, but he needed to be blocked". Indef is stupidly excessive, and would've lead to AN/I threads (sigh). 1 month is something that you can sit out, and given the circumstances and his block log, 3 months seemed the better option. If he just sits it out, there's no guarantee that he'll come back a better editor. There's no guarantee for 3 months, either, but it gives more opportunity and incentive for him to make a good appeal. I hope he appeals, because he's a good editor otherwise. Just to reiterate: he knew he shouldn't have done this, he did it anyway, and then he lied about it. So yes, I skipped the 1 month progression. Xavexgoem (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC) (slip this in here - thanks for the clarification. 82.70.225.100 (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)) I'm still unclear as to what the "what" is. You pasted a message about Prostitution in Iran, then claimed that wasn't relevant. The edits over the 1953 coup, a past problem area, don't seem especially problematic. I cannot see any robust evidence for a claim of wikihounding when it's over two articles about Iran which have every likelihood of simply being shared areas of interest. Besides which, is wikihounding of itself even a blockable offence? Take a look at WP:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive662#User:SergeWoodzing_and_User:Pieter_Kuiper_yet_again, where one of the most persistent hounddogs in the business gets away with it and the editor reporting is warned for "crying wolf". Now Kuiper has been hugely disruptive at Commons in the past, somewhere that's usually light on drama, and it's about as clear-cut as "hounding" can be. Yet if this ANI is a precedent, following and overlapping is no crime, until the edit itself becomes problematic (presumably then it would be taken account of in the response). Andy Dingley (talk) 13:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC) The article is not relevant. The hounding is, but I do need to say at which articles this was taking place. I don't see it as acceptable that an editor hounds another and then gets away with it. How is the evidence not clear? What are the chances that Binksternet actually made such a detour through hundreds of an unrelated editor's contribs and happens to land on an article that his long-time antagonist just edited for the first time four hours prior? Is it not more likely that Binksternet followed Kurdo's contribs? And if so, why did he lie about it? Xavexgoem (talk) 13:48, 10 January 2011 (UTC) "more likely" just isn't enough, when you're talking on 3 month blocks to editors who are otherwise making an evident effort to comply with previously agreed restrictions. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:05, 10 January 2011 (UTC) By more "more likely", I mean "99.99%" positive. And it's not like because he made restrictions on himself he's free to hound editors in the same topic area with the same editor and get a new block progression. Xavexgoem (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Block appealed

Binksternet has appealed the block with a lengthy and detailed explanation, clarifiing the situation and his intentions rather well. Any admin considering the appeal should avoid a WP:TLDR temptation and read the whole thing. I think it warrants a reduction in the block length. I will abstain from taking action since I have already expressed my personal support for Binksternet. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think at this point, no admin should unblock pending the outcome of this discussion. Since this matter is before the community, it doesn't seem right for an admin to act unilaterally. That having been said, I support the block based on the evidence, but think that the block length should be reduced to one month. --Jayron32 03:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• I am the only administrator who has closely followed the various disputes involving Binksternet. I fully support the block and its length. This is Binksternet's fifth block in just six months. Each block, he has made empty promises to reform his behavior, only to return to gaming the system following his unblocking. I see no reason to assume good faith with him anymore - he is neither a newbie nor an uninformed editor. He knew very well what he is doing, and simply refuses to get the point. Even his appeal is full of deceptive, misleading, and untrue statements. The content-related discussions are completely irrelevant to the essence of the block. The main issue is Binksternet's harassment of another editor who he has a dispute with. He has done this by singling him out and joining discussions on unrelated pages in which he has had no prior interest or history in order to repeatedly confront the other editor. All of this behavior appears to be with the aim of giving irritation, annoyance and distress to the other editor. This is a classic example of WP:HOUNDING. His disruptive behavior coupled with his long history of edit warring and continued tendentious editing is sufficient enough to warrant a three month block. Khoikhoi 06:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• I am not convinced that "following another user to an article" constitutes valid evidence of "wikihounding" in the first place. People follow other people to articles all the time. I do it too. As WP:HOUND itself clearly indicates, there may be very valid reasons for doing so -- for instance, perceived persistent patterns of problematic edits of another user that are in need of correction. As it now stands, the evidence adduced for this particular block consists of only a single instance of editing an article after somebody else. In the absence of clearer evidence that (a) the pattern of "following" was clearly motivated more by a desire to thwart the other user than by concerns over content, and/or (b) that the edits were in themselves highly problematic (and more so than those of the opponent in question), I see little basis for this block, and certainly none for a block of this length. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• WP:HA#NOT is quite specific on this point, "However, there is an endemic problem on Wikipedia of giving "harassment" a much broader and inaccurate meaning which encompasses, in some cases, merely editing the same page as another user."

To claim that Binksternet's editing at Prostitution in Iran thus qualifies as hounding we would have to show that it was also either uncivil, outside good faith, a deliberate attempt to escalate a dispute, and was also not otherwise defensible as an attempt to enforce policy, including WP:NPOV. Yet the actions of those editors in conflict with Binksternet is to discount the multiple Islamic jurists cited in his addition — an action that only makes sense from the highly POV stance of seeing this topic as an embarrassment to Iran. One might yet disagree with Binksternet, but one cannot claim his actions to be other than a GF attempt to defend NPOV, with robust sourcing behind it. He might even have been wrong, but we are still required to AGF of editors whose actions are compatible with its broadest scope. This was an editor under a 1RR restriction, which they observed, with no topic ban and no specific interaction bans, who acted as their judgement saw necessary to carefully defend neutrality, one of our highest principles. AGF exists so that we do not block editors for differing in judgement with them, and this is just such a case. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Similar to Jayron, I support the block based on the evidence above. The frequency of disruption from this user is very problematic and I don't see it changing anytime soon. The fact that this is yet another ethnic/nationalist area of disruption make me think that even more. The only way I would support shortening this block would be with a topic ban. I should point out that I have previously blocked this editor. Toddst1 (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Unlike Toddst1, I see Bink changing. He will make a strong appeal, he will be unblocked, and he will keep his promises. I have no doubt about it; he's done it before. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Note: I've reduced to 1 month, per the consensus here. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What consensus?? Toddst1 (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any consensus that the block was too long. However, it does look as though Binksternet may be willing to go along with some kind of unblock agreement. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Me, Andy Dingley, Jayron, Fut Perf, Amatulic. I think keeping it at 3 months would've been fine, too. It's a minor point. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Unilateral unblock

This sends the wrong message. Binksternet is not a newbie, and he certainly already knew better. Unblocking against the consensus here will simply embolden this editor to engage in further disruption. He is not even topic banned and the 1RR promise is nothing new - he has made similar promises the last time he was unblocked - only to game it later on. Khoikhoi 08:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

attempt to tone user down

I need someone to ask Frannamax to tone down his threat to block me. He wants to block me for signing with a comedy style line at the end of my signature. This line is causing no harm, he just doesn't like it that's all, i can tell. I'm going to totaly ignore Cuddlyable 3's objection due to his problom with excessive pranking. I can tell by the way he posts, having known a prankster for 8 years. Frannamax needs to let it go, it's my signature, not his. It's not like inna is saying "Hey frannamax, honey, can you get Nissae Isen's Man to stop saying that? thanks." so he's just saying that because he himself doesn't like it. That's no reason to block me, and claiming it is against pollicy is bull sh**, whether you believe that or not. Please tone him down a little, thanks and regards, N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 02:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Read my post on your talk page again. That is not at all why I have warned you that I will block you. Franamax (talk) 02:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Franamax (talk · contribs) and Cuddlyable3 (talk · contribs) notified. GiantSnowman 02:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Good, This block threat has to be canceled though, I mean over a signature? come on! N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 02:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You need to drop your "freedom of speech" argument. The bill of rights does not apply to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Well florida doesn't apply to me as i am canada not florida. Anyway, your stupid asking me to not use that comedy line at the bottom of my signature is like saying, Hey baseball bugs, don't use "What's up dock " at the bottom of your signature, because it was often said by Mell Blanc. Same old Sh**, different case. If florida doesn't like it, florida can freeze. That's saying something as I was in Florida last year. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 02:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Canada or Florida or Timbuktu don't matter. There is no such thing as "freedom of speech" at wikipedia. And if a concensus of admins was that I should alter my signature, I would do so. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It isn't a concensis of admins on me, two users mearly don't like it and one has admitted that the comedy line is allright, so no reason to press the matter forword, I would like a block threat is canceled type of message on my talk page, because it is just a signature, like yours. You say what's up dock? and i say Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line, same thing, comedy line in our signatures. There, we found a common ground. I bet floridans would agree with me that it's just a signature. I make reference to it because in one of your pollicies it says that this is run by the state law of florida. But i'm sure floridans agree with me, as do people around the world do. My signature is fine, Right florida? right everyone? Please let a floridan say "It's cool" or something, I mean i have nothing against them. I mearly am saying that i coulden't care less about whether the state law has something against my signature, even if it did it woulden't apply in Manitoba Canada, because though we may have similar laws, they're not exact clones of eachother right? For the record, i do want some floridan support, to show that i'm not against them. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 02:59, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

My impression, NIM, is that you have been persistently failing to hear and accept the feedback you have been getting not just from Franamax but from a number of RD regulars on a number of points of conduct and content. I think Franamax's position is entirely reasonable at this point. I think Franamax and others have been exceptionally patient with your behavior over the past couple of months, and I think you should make every effort to understand what you are being told and why, and to modify your behavior here at wikipedia accordingly. WikiDao ☯ 03:02, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Get it straight my man, this has nothing to do with the law in Florida or anywhere else. This is a privately run website that makes it's own policies. If you come into my place of business, I can kick you out for any number of reasons. For example, let's say I sell children's toys and you are in my store loudly carrying on about how you got laid with some stripper the night before. I would ask you to be quiet, and if you didn't I would throw you out and tell you not to come back. It's nothing to do with the constitution as you are on private property. I'm not interfering with your rights to do whatever you want in a publicly-owned space or your own home, but we are each of us free to decide what we will and will not tolerate on our own property. Wikipedia is run by volunteers who uphold the policies established by our community. You break those rules, and you will be asked to stop. You keep it up and you will be blocked. If you want to change those rules that can be discussed, but there is no absolute right to free speech in a private place. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You keep citing laws and freedom of speech and such. Those are irrelevant. Wikipedia is a privately-owned website, and it can set its own rules. There is no freedom of speech on wikipedia; there is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. It doesn't matter if you're in Canada, Florida or Jolly Old England. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, i said i want floridan support . Either way, that's still no reason for those objections on my signature. Users put messages at the bottom of their signatures all the time, and yes i understand it, that's how i see it, that they object to the name, and want to block me because of the comedy line, but that's just one user. The other was wondering about it, so i told them, then they go about saying they don't care and noone cares, which lead me to Cuddlyable's problom with excessive pranking. Why do yu sign that way, because of this, noone cares, i don't need to hear the background on it, then don't ask. kind of situation is going on with Cuddlyable. Don't sign that way it's against pollicy, no it isn't, reconsider, maybe it isn't but it is an existing person, tone it down, be less authoritative, fine, it's alright, good thanks. kind of thing is going on between Franamax and I. There, summarized with my messages and how i understand it. Now you know why i want that threat canceled, and how i know of cuddlyable's problom with excessive pranking. Whether it is true or not, that's still no reason to send an admin after me for signing that way. Baseball bugs signs "What's up dock", and i'm sure some don't like it, but i don't see one person asking why they are quoting something said by Mell Blanc, so i don't see the objection for a comedy style line "Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line", which is nothing major, it's just a comedy-like line, there's nothing wrong like Franamax said. So i don't see why you are not canceling that block threat. Please, I need a message from a Floridan who is on my side, Regards, N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 03:14, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Florida has nothing to do with it. And I've never had any complaints about my signature. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

@N.I.M.: I'd like to know what your purpose in being here on Wikipedia is. You have editied since mid-November, have accumulated 428 edits, and only 64 of those -- 15% -- are to articles. Most of the rest are to the Wikipedia domain(45%) and user talk pages (31%). This is not a social network, talk pages are there to facilitate the editing, and the Wikipedia domain to assist in the running of the place, neither are intended as chat rooms. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:17, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

At least he will depart AN/I after this discussion and not stalk it offering his opinion wherever it isn't required, like some people do. It is shocking sometimes the types that think to offer an opinion here, especially the ones who have been blocked multiple times over their career. Weakopedia (talk) 08:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict)My opinion is that you are behaving disruptively right now by excessively repeating the irrelevant and unsubstantiated claim about "Cuddlyable's problom with excessive pranking". This has nothing whatsoever to do with Cuddlyable3, please leave that user out of this discussion. WikiDao ☯ 03:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Kenney, it's none of your business what i'm here for, and WD. If someone asks me why i do something, then says that noone cares about the reason, that's standard prankster behavior, and having known a prankster for 8 years, i'm able to pick up on that. And again to Kenny, if i decide to tell you why i'm here, then i will, until then, don't ask, you'll get the same response. WD: Maybe Cuddlyable has little to do with it, but i did have reason for those comments. The disgussion is resolved, and why florida baseball bugs? because your pollicies are based off state law, and I feel if a floridan says "Enough, it is clear that Franamax is fine now, threat is canceled" then maybe it would get those who keep contradicting me to flash back to normal and not a "Let's gang up on N.I.M. hey everybody! Gang up on N.I.M.!" kind of a field. I feel this way because a good deal of posts have been against me here, on this thread, and I don't know if anyone here is getting my point. Are you? if so, could you summarize my point so I know you get it? i'll help you from there, and if you don't need to know it, then you have no reason, pollicy or not to say i'm doing wrong with a comedy line. Franamax says it's alright, and I just need proof that Ca3 is alright with it too, then it's going to be all right from there. Please find the point in my messages previous, and see if you understand it by sumarizing it. Like i said, i'll be happy to help if you need clairifications. that's what talk pages are for, communication. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 03:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, if the community decides that you're not here to improve the encyclopedia, then the community has the power to prevent you from editing, as does every admin here, so I suggest that you might want to cut the crap, listen to what you're being told and start to contribute productively to the project. As Bugs implied, no one has the God-given right to edit here, and from what I've seen in your contributions, your edit summaries and on your talk page, you've really not contributed much -- certainly not enough to justify the attitude you're projecting. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

@N.I.M. why do you want so much to post "Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line" ? You say it's a comedy style line, but do you think it goes on being funny every time you interrupt the work here with it? I hope you will read the comments [16] [17] I put on your page. I regret the need for my closing sentence which was: Just as singers have to be protected from over-obsessive fans, Wikipedia has to be protected from a person who blindly pursues their own agenda. That is not a prank. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 03:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh kenney, look, i tried to stop a dispute on List of WordGirl Characters, I did over 48 hours of research for the 2011 episodes of season 8 of cyberchase, I ask questions at the ref desk some times out of curiosity and others to improove articles as i did to List of Kim Possible Characters, so your statement that i haven't contributed productively is crap, utter crap. All comunication with you Ken is no longer welcome to me, don't talk to me again, because we're going to get nowhere, and noone has summarized my point yet anyway. And for clairification, the reason behind the prank comment is not about the 'behind the singers back' thing, more of the 'noone cares about the background of the line' thing, when you asked about it yourself, though indirectly, you still asked. This is resolved, any more questions can be asked on my talk page, but i don't want any more comunication with Beyond My Ken unless they can find something posative about me or my contributions. Sorry Kenney, but i don't want a war to start.

Please note that my username is not "Kenny", but "Beyond My Ken". You may also use "BMK" to refer to me as well, if you prefer, but since "Ken" is not my RL name, and is not a name when used in the expression "Beyond my ken", "Kenny" is not appropriate.

I stand by my assessment of your edits, and I predict a block in your future if you don't adjust your attitude. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

According to EO,[18] the term "ken" in this context means "within range of sight". It's not a very common expression anymore, but in The Sound of Music, the song "Sixteen Going on Seventeen" contains a line about "timid and shy and scared am I, of things beyond my ken", or something like that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Really? Strange, because I played that part (Rolf Gruber) in a high school production (mumble mumble) years ago, but I don't recollect those words. Maybe that's where I picked it up, andit just stuck. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it was "16" (Liesl?) who sang that line, but I'd have to check. I have to tell you, that is not exactly one of my favorite things from that musical. But it's there. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In the movie, at least, both Rolf and Liesl sing that lyric, "...things beyond your/my ken." Don't know about the stage play. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

General comment: A CU might be considered here, since the exbihibted behavior borders on trolling. In my experience, it's relatively rare for a new user to carry this much of a chip on their shoulder and to project such a strong attitude of privilege. JMHO. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In general, editors who insist on retaining a signature that's considered disruptive inevitably will get indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how it is disruptive, is there any suggestion on what i can do to keep my signature, or to change it while still giving the same comedic message? should i say Inna instead of Elena Apostoleanu, if that's what you're saying, then by all means i'll put it to that, or should it just be "Go behind the line." N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 04:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You could start by explaining just what it's supposed to mean. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:44, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

See my talkpage, i explain it there. Summary here for your convenience: I told my former T.A. Mrs. H that I had a iki account, and heard that i could change my signature, and Mrs. H said "Why not use go behind the line, but you have to give me a list of singers you like. this way we're getting the go behind the line in there with a singer's name." she says it is supposed to be like a quote said on Reno 911, so i said okay. Singers i had to choose from include Kerri Kenney and Inna, for full list see my talk page. What line? I used to accidentaly wait in front of the pink line at the buss stop at when i was in middle school. Mrs. H would walk up to me and do a vary good trudy wiegel version of saying "Go behind the lin, uh , mr. " then she'd laugh. There, for full explainiationsee my talk page, name probibly was bleeped,out but the T.A. i'm refering to is Mrs. H. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Elena Apostoleanu go behind the line. 04:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Is this better? N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Go behind the line. 04:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I see. An obscure but seemingly harmless joke. If I understand right, "Go behind the line" is another way of saying, "Back of the line", or "Get in line"? And I take it Nissae and Elena are the names of folks you once knew? Unless you have permission to make their names public, you're best off dropping them... which I see you've already half-done. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→

Nissae Isen is Google-able, and Elena Apostoleanu. Very doubtful N.I.M knows them personally. Mrs. H is presumably well-known to N.I.M., since apparently she was using his computer at 1 in the morning. That full name is what I revdeleted from WT:RD. Franamax (talk) 05:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The implications of what you're saying are a tad disturbing... like if I were to rename myself "Mae West's man | I miss you Mae!" only it's worse if it were a living person. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:45, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I personally would prefer to see a different choice of user name, given the way Google does its indexing. But according to WP:RFC/NAME, it's OK. Now if that name gets linked to disruptive behaviour and AN/I threads, the person whose name it is might not feel the same way... Franamax (talk) 06:11, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I know Nissae, hense the line "I miss you Nissae", which is exactly right. Last time i saw her was january 2010, hoping to see her again, so hense the I miss you Nissae. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Go behind the line. 07:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I must say, i rather liked that discussion about the expression "Beyond my Ken", i'm going to see if i can find that in that musical. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Go behind the line. 12:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that I've removed NIM's malformed attempt at placing a Resolved tag on this thread. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:37, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Enough. This NIM person's signal/noise ratio is so low as to render him or her blockworthily timewasting. It's time for NIM to go to some other website. -- Hoary (talk) 15:40, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Nissae Isen's Man's explanation of what the issue is here is incomprehensible. Franamax, what do you want this person to stop doing and why? Uncle G (talk) 16:26, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I don't want anything from this thread per se, however I expect them to comply with what I posted at their talk page under "Removed material" viz do not post names of private living individuals. I'll say though that I'm very concerned with their behaviour over the last few days, starting with rhis thread. I've spent a fair bit of time trying to help this editor for the last few months and my patience is very near to an end. I'm not hopeful they will ever become a net benefit to the project and currently they are wasting far more of other editor's time than they are contributing to articles. I'm not the one who brought it here, but right now I'd largely agree with Hoary above. Franamax (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Just some background: NIM is a blind user who uses a Screen reader to help them work within Wikipedia. There are often misunderstandings in both directions (i.e. NIM misunderstanding something someone else has said, or others being unable to understand NIM). He's generally well-meaning, but there have been a number of conflicts of this nature over the past few weeks. --Jayron32 16:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Note also that NIM used to edit as User:204.112.104.172, and may have been the user responsible for that IP being blocked a couple of times for disruptive editing. I say "may have been" because this user also has a history of claiming that other people come over and use his/her computer without his/her permission to disruptively edit WP (which I mention in light of this user's present claims that "Mrs. Whomever" has logged into N.I.M.'s account recently for the purpose of "giving permission" for NIM to use her name here, which is the issue that prompted Franamax's warning, which is apparently what prompted NIM to start this thread in the hope of getting Franamax to retract). WikiDao ☯ 20:50, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

convenience break

We'll stop trying to 'judge judy' me by those posts, How was i supposed to know that that friend of mine was editing disruptively on wikipedia, when he falsely claimed he was mearly playing a game, a game with no sounds. By bringing that up, you're just making me feel wrong for trusting him. Mrs. H has nothing to do with him, his mom has delt with him and there like i stated countless times will be no probloms from him in the future. Mrs. H was visiting me the other night, that's how she was able to post. She has made judgements like i state that I have no idea about, and won't try to understand, but she means well. She's genrally nice, unlike george (not his real name), who duped me. You can't keep reminding us of those edits, and tell me again, where did george get that false claim about someone else sharing my ip? He got it from a novel we read, no two ways about the truth. I cannot remember what novel it was in grade 9, but there was a character in it that George liked that was named Annika, and i assume that he wanted to use that name because of a character he likes. Cutoff ties mentions that we both ask about voice actors and want to write movies, well, it's a common interest we share, as well as a grammar weekeness. That's how we became friends, (no not the whole storry, just givving the obvious), so there. Settled, please quit mentioning my IP edits of august and september, and some into october because it is humiliating remembering that I was duped like that. He turned off my screen reader so I woulden't know what was going on. I was busy doing something else at the time and gave no thought, then I checked my history. All those wikipedia pages showed up, and I realized that he created this fake claim about Annika. He is the prankster that i knew for 8 years, apparently 9 years. Hope he's not finding a way on to other sights. Anyway, back to the event summary: I saw he even got my IP blocked, just around the time when he was supposed to be showing me some tricks he learned on how to edit wikipedia. My visual consultant coulden't help me because school wasn't started yet, and pluss how can i have edited when George ended up getting it blocked.

There's one user i would like to thank for blocking out george's nonsense for a while, fences and windows. Thank you. After the block, George went on Wikipedia when he was supposed to again be playing a game while i watched movies, and he kept on doing this without my knowledge. In late september, i beat him at his own trick and tricked him into showing me exactly how to edit and how to do the basic stuff like signing. Later, he was still editing, and stopped when he went away on a trip, which was around when i created the account. When he got back, he his mom and I gathered and I told Mrs. **** (diferent person, george's mom) about what was going on, and i told them that George could never touch my computer again until he learns to be better with that stuff, and that's serious. It was agreed, so, george is gone. Hope this helps, any questions i'll be able to answer, but no using anything what so ever as evidence against me because i can proove it wrong with one thing, fact. Sorry about the length but every time my block with IP is mentioned, i'm going to mention this, as a motive for people to quit judging me about it. Thanks for helping me frannamax, I do want to improove the encyclopedia too, and by asking questions at the ref desk, i gain that knowledge, some times for curiosity, others to improve articles. Please, no more IP, IP is history, along with George. Thanks for your time, questions about George can be asked on my talk page. No nonsense about "Yeah, sure, you're lying" kind of thing at me please, and thanks franamax for all the help. thanks all of you for all the help. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Go behind the line. 22:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

That was a really tl;dr way of saying, "Yeah, I let someone else use my computer and they vandalized Wikipedia, but that was a long time ago." — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

From WP:SIG Keep signatures short, both in display and in markup. N.I.M., your sig is too long, please truncate it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC) Withdrawn, as I see the sign has been truncated considerably by removing the name. It's still long, but not outside of usual norms. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Jayron32 writes above: NIM is a blind user who uses a Screen reader to help them work within Wikipedia. But I see little if any sign of work; I just see blather. For those who want to tell the world about their catchphrases, their little jokes, their housemates and their other domestic circumstances, the gods have provided Blogger and WordPress. -- Hoary (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Precisely was I was referring to when I said "cut the crap and contribute". Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

And all of said "blather" may have a real-world impact on the living person named in NIM's username (about which I agree with the concern expressed by Franamax above[19] and at RFC/NAME. (I ask at Franamax's talkpage how I might most appropriately go about re-opening that issue for further discussion, if that is still possible after the "Allow" closure of the discussion at RFC; comments on that by others would also be welcome there). WikiDao ☯ 00:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, so I suggest blocking the user and replacing the content of the user page and user talk page with the usual terse templates. -- Hoary (talk) 00:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

This is a silly ad hominem post directed at me by N.I.M. It seems that N.I.M. is willing to cease quoting the name of the living singer Elena Apostoleanu in signatures. What remains is for N.I.M. to indicate in few words an understanding that it was unacceptable. I have no objection to the words "Go behind the line." in N.I.M.'s latest signature. Their distraction would be less if they were put in ^{superscript font} like Baseball Bugs does with ^{What's up, doc?}. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, i can't do the fontie wontie thing, I don't know how, and I can't always rely on others to do that for me. You can't block me just because you think i'm not contributing, look at some of the articles i have contributed to rather than what i haven't contributed to. Besides, you can't block me just because of your point of view, then someone will unblock you and critticize you for irrational blocking or something like that. It's not like what it used to be when users could be blocked mearly for little reasons, like being annoying. I wish i could change the faunt but i can't, sorry. If hoary tries to block me then they may be critticized and i'm sure they woulden't want that. I don't have time for their nishnash about my supposed issues. I feel they are overreacting and need to tone it down and quit trying to gang people up on me. I don't need people ganging up on me. This is how i feel Hoary is treating me, "I'm hoary and I want everyone to gang up on N.I.M. and oust him! Come on everybody, get him out of the sight because he is a useless piece of s***!" Even if it isn't true, that's how their comments are making me feel, so hoary, you need to also cut some crap out as well. I mean that in the most civil way possible. N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Go behind the line. 10:23, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so maybe the Elena Apostoleanu was wrong, it was a good intention though, you know that right? and i still go by what i am saying to hoary about the critticizing they will get if they block me for being annoying. I don't like seing people being critticized, but when it needs to happen it will happen. By telling Hoary that they are not to block me over their views, i'm trying to save them from criticism because i believe in world peace. We all believe in world peace, right? N.I.M. I miss you nissae! Go behind the line. 10:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

New signature = N.I.M. miss you. Go behind the line. I'm still getting the message to her, just in a more vague way. N.I.M. miss you. Go behind the line. 11:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Per this, I request an immediate indefblock of the above editor. It's the end of the night for me so I won't act when I can't respond. I'll enact the block if necessary between glass of water and cup of coffee tomorrow. Enough is enough. Franamax (talk) 12:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey, don't block me, i said i realize that the Elena Apostoleanu thing was wrong, and what i was pointing out was that Hoary's idea of blocking me would trigger critticism, and I feel there is enough war going on in the world. I don't believe in leaving people in the dark, which is why i have said many times, If you have any questions, ask me and i'll be happy to help, but a block? that's a bit of an over reaction here, especially as i said i realize the E.A. was a mistake. I just want to save someone from critticism, is there something wrong within that? if there is let me know. If there is a rule against trying to save them from critticizings then let me know, i can't follow a rule i have no idea about, regards, N.I.M. miss you. Go behind the line. 12:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Ok, so sig is changed. I think the only remaining thing is to emphasise to NIM to cut the crap and get down to contributing to the wiki, with the proviso that if we see any more drama and no content work it is not going to go well for them. Also to strongly suggest a name change given their non-credible claims about really being "Isen's Man". --Errant ^(chat!) 13:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

She has no problom with that, so i don't se why you do, however, I am currently trying to find a source for something i found out about new episodes of the show Biz Kid$, when i find out where to find it i'll put that in. I really am Nissae Isen's man, she has no prob with it, i'll be back after school to see if i can find out more about season 4 of biz kid$ N.I.M. miss you. Go behind the line. 13:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well you just changed my mind. You cannot claim associations like that, now supporting some form of block if you do not stop. --Errant ^(chat!) 13:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support block. (BTW please note that this user is quite adept at eating up a lot of time and attention.) Again, please consider this diff mentioned by Franamax above. User is an obsessed fan claiming an intimate connection with a minor voice actress. Because that voice actress's name is part of NIM's username, and because this user has been signing with "I miss you {actress's name}!", NIM's userpage is steadily climbing the hit-list in google searches for that actress. Given NIM's activity at WP -- which rarely involves anything like contructivly helping to build an encyclopedia -- we are contributing to having a negative impact on this actress's real-world reputation by continuing to permit NIM's activity here, which, again, is not constructive, is regularly complained about at the RD, and ought to be dealt with conclusively as soon as possible. WikiDao ☯ 15:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support block - the user ID amounts to stalking, and he should not only be blocked, but his user ID should be deleted and salted... and watch out for recurrences. And another thing: I don't believe, for one minute, that this guy is blind or whatever. The behavior reminds me a bit of the user ItsLassieTime, though that could be a coincidence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:02, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support block. Protecting a real life person from from an obsessive and/or deluded fanboy should be the priority here, and these nonsensical claims are getting too close to cyber-stalking - and those Google searches are getting way too creepy. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  Just to clarify - it's his user name, claiming he has a personal association with Ms Isen, that is the problem. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 17:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Comment - the signature is only half the issue here; the other half is this user's name of "Nissae Isen's Man" - again, Nissae Isen is a BLP, a minor Canadian voice artist and actress, as confirmed by a brief IMDB page about her. An article about her was deleted by AfD on 16 March 2008. GiantSnowman 17:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I would think if he simply had "[whoever] fan" as his user name, that might be acceptable, as I've seen it elsewhere. The implication that he "knows" her somehow reminds me a little too much of well-publicized news stories I'd rather not name specifically. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

For your discretion BB, I mark that you are a good chap, man. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Even a blind squirrel, such as I, finds an acorn now and then. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Neutral. N.I.M. has removed the singer's name and that is slow progress. I can help N.I.M. with the font of his slogan. N.I.M. you have to type "tags" before and after the slogan. The tags look like I show here but without the spaces: < s u p >Go to the end of the line. < / s u p > Then people will see ^{Go to the end of the line.} and not be so distracted. Cuddlyable3 (talk) 17:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Quick question (sorry, I can't easily find the answer in amongst the tl;dr from a certain editor above and elsewhere). Has NIM been explicitly asked to agree to a username change, and either refused or not answered? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Franamax raised the concern about the user's name with the user when the user chose it, but then took it to RFC/NAME before explicitly asking the user to change it (the result, ill-considered in my view and discussion-closed before I saw it, was "Allow"). WikiDao ☯ 17:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm a little late to the party here, but I've left a simple request at NIM's talk page here. Maybe it's too strongly worded, but I agree with comments of several people above that we should take the possible impact on the actress seriously. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Block We are here to build an encyclopedia. This user seems to be more of a hindererance then a help. Their signature seems to be WP:POINTy though i can't figure out the point they are trying to make.--Guerillero | My Talk 00:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked

I've indefblocked the account (at least) until they can prove their association with the named individual. I think that eventuality rather unlikely, rather I think we're dealing here with a plain old competence issue, possibly one that can be solved by the route of waiting until one is a year or two older. As far as cleaning up the BLP issues, I'm thinking the best approach is to change and/or remove the use of the two living names (NI and EA) from talk pages and {{noindex}} the user and user talk pages. That way renaming the account won't be necessary. I'm interested in other thoughts on the issue though, and the availability of a bot to make the changes. Franamax (talk) 20:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you be prepared to consider an unblock of the account if they fulfill all of, (1) agree to immediately request a rename of their account, and (2) agree not to discuss NI or EA further, and (3) agree to attempt to edit more constructively? I share others' views on the inappropriateness of the username and the claims related to it, and I don't enjoy reading the blathering either, but I do feel we've jumped quite quickly to what is effectively a permanent block based on what we expect they can't prove. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that (3) is the most important here. Keeping in mind Arthur C. Clarke's comment on magic and technology, there comes a time where sufficiently incompetent behavior becomes indistinguishable from deliberate trolling, and this user is perilously close to that line. There's not much point in having them change their name only to have them continue to suck up time and resources with more "blather". Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Have you fully reviewed the account history? I don't think I'm acting too quickly at all, there are several months of recurrent problems, it's just come to a head in the last few days with BLP issues that have to be acted on firmly. In any case, I'm not going to unblock the account at all, I'll leave that for a reviewing admin. They do have an alternative on the first condition and that is to state that they were telling a story, which can then be viewed against the pattern of story-telling coming from the IP address/account. There are additional troubling issues, here are two: they state vision-impairment and problems with their JAWS screen-reader, yet JAWS apparently has no such issues with Wikipedia content; and their former T.A. (whose full name I revdeleted) who is such a good friend that she was at their computer at 1 AM, making the same type of spelling mistake as N.I.M., used to tell him to step behind the pink line on the ground - seems a rather unfair thing to do to a blind person, dunnit? On that last, it is certainly possible their vision-impairment was acquired later, but it becomes very difficult to keep track of all the stories. Look again at what actual article edits they've made, and all the other activity. If you can construe a possibility of "net-positive" editing from that, perhaps you can make a more detailed case for them. Me, I just don't see it. Franamax (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• • Nor me. I don't think we need to spend yet more of our time wondering why it is that NIM contributes so little that's worthwhile and has already wasted so much of others' time. Wikipedia is "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit", but there are certain implicit assumptions about the "anyone" that NIM violates. -- Hoary (talk) 00:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• The block seems a sensible move. I'd already noindexed^{diff1, diff2} the user and talk pages. pablo 21:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Good block. Since being blocked, NIM has said: I also want to keep my name. I just feel proud of who I love, is there anything against that? I don't think I need comment here on this; I suggest replacing the content of NIM's user talk page with a template. -- Hoary (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

And now they're working on revealing their own name. I'm starting to think of a full shutdown as they don't seem aware of the full implications of revealing personal information. Franamax (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It may not appear it, but I'm trying very hard to AGF here. Even so, the whole thing just does not hang together for me, the gestalt feels all wrong. I'm concerned that we're being played, and I'd like to reiterate my suggestion that a CU would be a good idea. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

CU doesn't work that way though. Name your suspected puppetmaster and show your evidence. Otherwise they'll just send us trotting along to go fishing somewhere else. Franamax (talk) 01:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I still like my dumbass approach of asking them to change their username, and, if they say no, treating it as acceptance that they don't want to come back. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

OK. The person that I've been trying to defend (I'm so silly), either thinks that Judge Judy is a court and they can threaten editors with it, or thinks that some editors might think so. Either way, we seem to have WP:NLT violations here. Someone may wish to lengthen their block, or something. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 04:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think everyone ought to have at least some representation by an experienced editor here (ie., at ANI), so thank you for serving that purpose in this case, Demiurge! :) However, please see my current assessment of this case on the user's talk page, here. There is a very reasonable likelihood, in my opinion, that this user is not a physically disabled child but is in fact a troll. WikiDao ☯ 05:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Trolls and physically disabled children and confused people and invaders from outer space who make legal threats should all be treated exactly the same. This is because the reaction is not for the purpose of WP:THERAPY or legal defence of Wikipedia or intergalactic war or some inspired moral purpose; it's because legal threats, if even vaguely plausible, can have a significant negative effect on the ability of other users to express their views. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's not a remotely credible legal threat, it's just the last TV show they watched. Another attempt at bargaining will likely be next. Eventually they will come to terms with being blocked Franamax (talk) 05:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've recently posted my NLT concerns to NIM's talk page. My understanding of NLT is that it's closely tied with the notion of chilling effects -- it's not whether the threat is credible or sustainable but simply that it is made. Granted, this is a borderline case, but threatening the project with a bizarre set of demands (however ridiculous the premise) is unacceptable behavior. I feel that a retraction should accompany the rest of the unblock conditions -- again, however, unlikely meeting those conditions may be.

On a related note, I've been considering whether the removal of NIM's talk page permissions is appropriate (which is the NLT consequence I had in mind, but conflating the two may be a bad plan). Given that much of the concern is the widespread use of others' real names, is NOINDEX a sufficient precaution? I'm not up on the technical details of how it's implemented by MediaWiki, but there seem to be WP:BEANS issues. Franamax has email enabled, as do I and several others here, so moving the appeals process off-wiki may be preferable. — Lomn 15:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I would like to get the name-change through if at all possible. They were oh-so-close. Franamax (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

And I suppose I should reword to "not credible as a legal threat". Judge Judy is not the legal system or anywhere close to it. If they contacted the show they would be told that both parties must consent to participate. A legal threat has to involve the actual legal system. There are lots of other threats intended to have a chilling effect that don't fall under NLT, such as threats to contact major donors, Cade Metz of The Register, etc. We don't block for those, at least not under NLT. Franamax (talk) 17:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Although it might be interesting to see what Judge Judy would say about this situation. Several colorful Yiddish metaphors come to mind. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The user NIM wants to change his ID, but continuesd to profess the fantasy that the actress in question is a friend of his. This cannot be good. For more info, check out the most recent ramblings on his talk page. Ugh. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I cannot see this editor being productive any time soon. Now it seems he is getting his 13-year old 'girlfriend' to send an e-mail to confirm that blah blah blah.^diff YHBT. pablo 14:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

13, allegedly? Yikes. There's more trouble right there. I noticed that under his IP 204.112.104.172 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (pointed out by WikiDao earlier) it was the same kind of rambling nonsense before he got his ill-advised ID. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeh, someone needs to shut down the talk page access and blank it off given the new bunch of text on there. If true it is a pretty bad outing, if untrue it is just trolling and not worth worrying about. --Errant ^(chat!) 15:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That text about the age 13 and age 18 thing is wandering close to coming under the second sentence of WP:CHILDPROTECT. I'm not prepared to say out-and-out that they're a troll yet, but I really do start to wonder. But I think it'd be nice to get the account name changed anyway. Since they've explicitly requested it, is it possible to just go ahead and do that? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

[comment voluntarily removed per request] WikiDao ☯ 23:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If you have serious concerns about violations of WP:CHILDPROTECT, contact ArbCom rather than making vague accusations here. Please consider removing your comments. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

[comment voluntarily removed per request] WikiDao ☯ 23:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You should really read the policy again, more closely. From the policy: Comments posted on Wikipedia suggesting that an editor may be a pedophile will be RevDeleted promptly, to avoid issues of privacy and possible libel. You should raise your concerns only by email; questions or accusations directed against a particular editor in project space may result in a block for the editor who posted them. Can someone please revdelete all above comments pertaining to WP:CHILDPROTECT? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No objections. I did indeed not read that closely enough. I'll step back now and let proper procedure take its course. WikiDao ☯ 19:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• I think this is a good time to end the legal threats portion of this thread. If there is an ongoing issue, or question whether a particular diff violates WP:NLT, please email the legal queue and it can be resolved there (send it to info-en@wikimedia.org). Thanks ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• The user has requested account renaming to User:Comet Egypt, I am trying to shepherd it through. If any passing 'crats happen to read this, giddyap! :) Franamax (talk) 00:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The change of name would resolve one suite of problems, but it does nothing about the behavioral concerns that have arisen during this discussion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that well-meant but patently obvious remark. If you read beyond just this single page, you'll see that I set two conditions for unblocking. The second will be much harder to satisfy. However we do need to reduce the amount of unsolicited dating advice [20] which is also no doubt well-meant but not our place to give out. Renaming will let us get on with cleaning up the gsearch problem. Franamax (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that wasn't meant as criticism of your efforts, which have been above and beyond. But, yes, I have read well beyond this AN/I entry, and, to me, it remains a distinct possibility that we're being trolled. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've considered that possibility, but for one thing they have always used the same static IP. I'm not able to match it up against any other troll-models of which I'm aware (which is why I think CU would be unproductive) and if that's a returning troll, well I appreciate good craftsmanship and I would just like to meet them to shake their hand and congratulate them on their work and hope to gain some insights into how they go about things. There are definite and major problems with the account, but I'm reading it as genuine. Not necessarily the explanations given, but a unique individual. Franamax (talk) 02:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that is still a possibility. BTW, the name change is done; good luck with the next phase. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are not the only one with that suspicion, Beyond My Ken. Many of the editors who have interacted with this person at the RD have long suspected that this is a troll, plain-and-simple. After quite a long time of stretching my own assumption of good faith, that is now my firm opinion, too.

Franamax, your patience with NIM is indeed admirable. And you will recall that I supported your defense of him when he first began claiming to be blind. User:Kainaw, and even you yourself recently, have found good reason to doubt that claim. I think now that we have been being trolled all along. And that is particularly offensive because of the amount of tolerance for disruption and time-consuming assistance NIM has been given by well-meaning folks such as you and I on the basis, at least in part, of that claim of physical disability.

It is very disturbing that NIM is still claiming an intimate relationship with the child actress named in his present username. It is very likely that that relationship is either imaginary or inappropriate or both, and we have done that child actress a disservice by permitting this editor to edit for as long as we have with the use of her name in that way. We should get that cleaned up as soon as possible; let me know if/how I can help with that.

Finally, your first condition for unblocking was that N.I. convince WP:OTRS that the relationship is real and the outing of it in the way it has been here is acceptable to her. Now that NIM has claimed to be an adult (disturbing in itself, given his areas of interest and activity here) and that NI is a minor, I think that it should rightfully be required now that her parents contact WP:OTRS and convince them that they are aware of the relationship, are okay with it, and okay with that relationship being made public in the way that it has been. I do not think NIM should be unblocked or permitted to edit again under any username until that condition is met. WikiDao ☯ 03:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Nope, we are not a nanny. They no longer use the other name, that is all we care about. I will let you know on your talk page how you can help with cleaning up the past record. Outside of some very narrowly-defined areas, we simply don't care what our editors do in their spare time. You should forget all about any claims you may have read, we have absolutely no way of knowing if any or even one of them is true. You can pursue whatever you want as a private individual, but barring some cleanup, Wikipedia doesn't care. If problems come up in future, they will be dealt with oh-so-swiftly. Franamax (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I mean I do not really think that relationship exists at all. And given the problematic and unconstructive history of this editor, the likely impact (professionally and personally) on the child actress of the gsearch issue, and the fact that the editor is still insisting that this at-most-thirteen-year-old girl is standing right there with him at the computer and is refusing to contact OTRS to clear this matter up: I do not think this user should be unblocked, unless at least your first condition is met, regardless of name-change. I do not think that will happen, which is as it should be imho. WikiDao ☯ 03:42, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Referring back to the 2nd post in this sub-thread, no we can't set an unblocking condition that is impossible to satisfy. If you posted repeatedly the moon was made of cheese and I blocked you for it, I can't insist you go to the moon and bring back some cheese to get unblocked. And although I certainly can, nor should I force you to admit you were lying about the cheese, humans have this thing about being forced to humiliate themselves. We don't care about motivations or underlying character here, all we can do is to judge actions and outcomes on-wiki. The editor's actions have resulted in an outcome of an undesirable BLP situation. Renaming and appropriate modification of existing sigs will remedy that problem. The initial actions will be countered and the outcome will be neutral. For me, this is an acceptable resolution to my first unblock condition. None of this goes down the memory-hole, it is still in the various histories and you'd be surprised at how long the institutional wiki-memory is. And as I said, the second condition will be much more difficuly to satisfy, the user is still indef-blocked and both myself (at minimum, probably others too) and another wholly uninvolved admin will have to sign-off for an unblock. Franamax (talk) 05:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

More administrators needed on unblock-l

As happens from time to time, we don't have very many administrators active right now on unblock-l, which is the mailing list on which blocked users are invited to submit requests for unblocking. If a few more admins would get involved on this list and respond to some of the pending and incoming requests, it would be very helpful.

Editors or potential editors writing to this list include both editors who have been blocked by administrators for misconduct and are appealing their blocks, as well as many would-be editors who are caught up in rangeblocks or IP blocks and need accounts created. I venture to think that most people who are thinking of making an initial contribution and get a complicated rangeblock notice just wander away, so responding quickly to the subset of them who write in asking for information or accounts should be a high priority for the administrator corps.

Several administrators have done yeomen work in keeping things under control on this list, but more help is urgently and continuously required. My thanks to anyone who is able to pitch in. Newyorkbrad (talk) 02:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• Can I again say that a ticket system (X! has proposed one before and I think could create one) would really help? Also, does anyone have boilerplates saved onwiki? If I can remember where they are, I might actually respond to some requests :P. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 03:29, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
  • The ticket system is kind of on the backburner behind the Peachy burgers and the Toolserver chops. Once I get around to it, though, it should be a cinch to write. I plan to do so before the summer rolls around. (X! · talk)  · @253  ·  05:04, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
    • And can I back the call for help. Most of the ones I see are just caught up in a school/range block etc. Dougweller (talk) 08:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

How do I join?·Maunus·ƛ· 08:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

See this link - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I echo Brad's request. It's really not so bad on the list and a few pairs of extra eyes would be greatly appreciated. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I recently returned to unblock-en duty, and it's true that most of the requests are from school administrators or people caught in wide rangeblocks. It's pretty simple (and funny) to spot those who have spamming or pure self-interest in mind, yet think they're being clever and disguising their intent. Spend a few minutes with us dealing with unanswered requests - it won't take very much out of your Wikiday and you'll get a glimpse of what it's like to be an innocent on the end of those 'you are blocked' messages. KrakatoaKatie 04:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Going to a ticket-like OTRS system (as oversight-l) wouldn't be a bad idea as far as organization and status are concerned, but I'm a little concerned, as with OTRS and oversight-l, about the extensive usage of "canned responses", which may be a little off-putting for some people. –MuZemike 21:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• I unsubscribed from unblock-en-l because of the volume of traffic that filled my inbox up. Aside from subscribing through a dedicated email address, one cannot "dip in" and handle a few requests; it's totally overwhelming IIRC - and worse, when you do read the mass of messages, most of them will already have been handled by another volunteer. I remain wary of OTRS, both because it adds an additional level of bureaucracy to getting e-mails handled and because I'm not convinced that it is well-managed (to say the least), but it might be the best option - for this mailing list at least. AGK [•] 01:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I would certainly contend that unblock requests via email is still very much necessary, as some users are too new or too wiki-illiterate to know how to post an unblock request, and some people are more comfortable with communicating via email. As AGK pointed out, though, we could use a better way to organize the requests; even WP:ACC is not a bad system as far as organization of processing of requests are concerned. –MuZemike 10:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Using Gmail seems to sort out the traffic from the list and ensure I'm not responding to something already handled. As for the template, I'll admit to finding it hard to use when trying to use it to decline or unblock someone, it isn't intuitive and I don't do it often enough to remember what I'm not supposed to do. Dougweller (talk) 10:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

How do these usernames get allowed?

I've just indeffed SHlTbag 12 (talk · contribs) after a 2-minute career editing Wikipedia. How do these usernames get allowed in the first place? Isn't there some kind of filter in place to prevent these from being registered in the first place; and if not, why not? Mjroots (talk) 09:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how i managed to beat you at reverting them Mjroots, gotta be faster next time! who knows why, a filter would certainly be handy --Lerdthenerd wiki defender 09:31, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I was concentrating on preventing further vandalism by judicious exercising of my banhammer. Undoing the damage did not require admin's tools. Mjroots (talk) 09:33, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

You could utilize MediaWiki:Titleblacklist to prevent such usernames, but you do need to be careful about false positives. I'm sure a regex on shitbag would be fine, but just plain shit would not (i.e. Pushit, Finishit, Shittah, Shittimwood, etc). –MuZemike 10:19, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, but this was SHlTbag 12, using two capital letters, a lowercase letter L, a capital letter, three lowercase letters, a space and two numerals. Shltbag should be blacklisted as it's obviously trying to evade a filter should one exist for "shitbag" (in all forms). Mjroots (talk) 10:47, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Request made at MediaWiki talk:Titleblacklist. Mjroots (talk) 10:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm surprised this wasn't at least reported by the bot at WP:UAA, it usually reports homoglyphs of profanity (sh1t,fuk, and the like); I guess the "shit" regex missed this one. Not sure where the regexes the bot uses are specified or if the developers need to change it, but it might be worth tweaking it to report "shlt" in the future since it seems to have missed it. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 14:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

It was reported, see below. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:56, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

My mistake; when I searched for the name in WP:UAAB I guess I didn't go far back enough in the history. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 13:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There's no way a bot or filter can spot every possible version of this (think of l33tspeak). All new account creations should be noted on the RC patrol IRC feed, if they're not already. 67.122.209.190 (talk) 15:24, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

All new accounts are listed here, Special:Log/newusers... There are a few users who regularly patrol that list (and some bots that do the same). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

This account was caught, but since (as mentioned above) "shit" can be all right in a username, it needed review first. And it was blocked before that happened. See here - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:55, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The account was blocked primarily because it was abundantly clear that it was not being used for the improvement of Wikipedia. The username issue is secondary. I am aware of shit needing caution because of the India name issue, but obvious attempts to circumvent filters should be acted upon. Mjroots (talk) 18:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

But, it did get reported, so it would have been acted on (and was acted on, by you). So what's the problem...? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 19:23, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that there may be legitimate uses of "shit", but 5hit, sh1t, shlt, 5h1t and 5hlt are all obvious attempts to avoid a filter, thus they should be blocked. Mjroots (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Seen this one at AFD. Most likely Japanese but it made me laugh. I'm Minna Sora, no shit.. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Tbh I'd rather you didn't use ANI to make fun of another contributor's username. Jafeluv (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Community ban proposal for User:Jacob Hnri 6

Resolved

 – Jacob Hnri 6 community banned - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Not sure if it will make a behavioral difference but it will free us up to rollback all of his edits without violating 3RR. This is following up on the above thread "Multiple 'Empty Trend' User accounts". Propose community ban for Jacob Hnri 6 (talk · contribs).

• Support as nom. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 15:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support -- 37 block evading accounts in 12 hours is ridiculous. Personally if it were me, I'd just do it. He's already defacto community banned, and his accounts are obviously vandal only. I really doubt anyone would call you out on it, and it's certainly within the spirit (and possibly even the letter) of the rule. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:30, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support 37 block evading accounts in 12 hours is ridiculous no its inexcusable. MuZumike mentioned the possibility bot creating these that makes him 10X more important to be able to roll back efficiently. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:06, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Enough is enough, most definitely this user isn't here to contribute constructively and has exhausted community's patience. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 22:08, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Vandalism is inexcusable, and sockpuppeteering a series of vandalism-only accounts is intolerable. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:21, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support evidence seems convincing, and some of the best users have sanctioned it. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 23:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough. The extensive socking is enough for me to say support to this. --CrohnieGal^Talk 9:58 am, Today (UTC−5)

Note: Apparently, our vandal is 11 years old, going on 12. Another reason why children should not be touching Wikipedia. –MuZemike 01:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Great. Well anyway, ban discussion has run 24 hours so I'm marking this resolved and tagging him as banned. Maybe in another year or so he/she will start focusing on girls/boys and leave us alone. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

User:BWFC 2-0 YCFC

Resolved

 – ^{sock blocked, contributions deleted. --Jezebel'sPonyobons mots 14:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)}

This user continually removes deletion tags from his articles that have been nominated for deletion. He has been warned by myself and another editor that if he continues he will be blocked, but he continued to modify the AfD templates:

1st occurence: He removed the AfD template I placed on article Philipp Prosenik.

diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philipp_Prosenik&action=historysubmit&diff=406759546&oldid=406758957

• I informed him that only administrators should remove AfD templates.

2nd occurence: He removed the AfD template User:Ponyo placed on article Aziz Deen-Conteh.

diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Aziz_Deen-Conteh&action=historysubmit&diff=406891051&oldid=406884320

• User:RGTraynor reverted the edit.

3rd occurence: He removed the AfD template I placed on article Philipp Prosenik for the second time.

diff:http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philipp_Prosenik&action=historysubmit&diff=406883303&oldid=406850920

• User:RGTraynor informed him that doing removing the template again will result in be blocked.

4th occurence: He modified the AfD template I placed on article Philipp Prosenik to link to the wrong AfD discussion.

diff: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Philipp_Prosenik&action=historysubmit&diff=407090025&oldid=407089825

• I reverted his edit and reminded him that he would be blocked if he persisted.

He doesn't seem to care that he has been warned multiple times that he will be blocked if he does not stop. Could someone please look into this situation? Epass (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• I've warned him twice on his talk page, and sent him a more specific note about why the articles he's creating have been all nominated for deletion. Seemingly he doesn't believe the warnings; in any event, he's yet to respond to any inquiry or message.  RGTraynor  21:28, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, he isn't communicating, which is not a good sign. We'll see if he responds here at all. Dougweller (talk) 22:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not in any way condoning the AfD template removals (it is pretty clear about no one removing them, unlike PRODs which authors can technically remove on their own), but is there a reason these articles weren't either CSD'd or PRODded before going to AfD? It might be somewhat overwhelming to someone to see all of one's creations chopped at in a manner they don't understand with the AfD boxes. I'm also in no way supporting or opposing whether the articles sh/could have met deletion requirements... I'm just like to hope there's a tiny bit of good faith left to offer. Removing the bot-placed possible copyvio template, on the other hand, is a rather one-sided argument.

Anyway, you guys have it covered. WP:FOOTY's sizable !directories of oh-so-many things are a deep, dark, damp place to crawl around and from personal experience it's better to grab stuff like this asap before a user might create dozens (or, say, 100+) possibly delete-needed articles on the subject. It's been known to happen. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 06:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Mm, but so what if they were prodded? Obviously the creator would have removed the prods, the articles would have gone straight to AfD, and we'd be right here anyway, only with the inexperienced creator with the notion in his head that it's okay to remove templates. Prod templates are not one bit less "OMG what are they doing to my ARTICLES???" than AfD templates.  RGTraynor  12:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

It's yet another 10alatham sock. Their standard MO is to create articles on non-notable youth team footballers, often by copyvio, then remove the tags to force AfDs thereby causing maximum disruption. I'll do another SPI report, but if someone with the tools wanted to WP:CSD#G5 the articles in the meantime... cheers, Struway2 (talk) 13:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked the sock, but somebody will need to nuke the articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

All nuked, per WP:CSD#G5. –MuZemike 18:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Freakum Dress

I'm coming to ANI because an unjustified deletion. Kww (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) commented me that the correct venue was WP:DRV, in which I'll take it as well, but I'm posting here because this is an admin issue.

Kww deleted the page Freakum Dress with the justification of WP:G4 (Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion). G4 states that "A sufficiently identical and unimproved copy," and "This excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version". I cannot see the article in 2007, and I really don't think that the current vesion is sufficienty identical. It was deleted twice in that year: because it was a nonsense "Freekum Dress is the rumored fifth single from her CD B'Day", and in a more serious second AFD, were the article maybe was a stub, I don't know.

The article, which is almost a copy of Jivesh's sandbox User:Jivesh boodhun/Freakrum Dress, pass WP:GNG: Significant coverage, Is reliable, Has sources, Independent of the subject and it is presumed, but according to Kww, it fails WP:NSONGS (a subtopic of WP:N) because it never charted or had a cover. The true is that many articles which never charted nor have covers, exist in Wikipedia, as an example: D.S. (song).

I am here because Kww, with a cocky attitude, commented me Have fun... my deletion will probably get upheld (90% chance or greater). This is untrue, assume that all people share your POV is an arrogant attitude, specially from an admin who does not understand what is WP:IAR (admins can read my comment when I reverted one of his edits) IAR states: If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it. Jivesh cleary improve the article against what NSONGS states, but Kww insist that this is not correct and re-create the article for people comment in a third AFD would be irresponsible. If this is not the correct venue, (beside DRV) where I can comment about the abuse of his admin tools. Sorry for my bad English. Tbhotch^™ and © 22:22, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll stand behind my G4. This article was deleted three times before. The second AFD specifically calls out the reasons for deletion as the fact that it hasn't charted or even been released as a single. Those facts have not changed. Nothing in the information added by Jivesh addresses either of those issues, and nothing in the relevant guideline (WP:NSONGS) makes those issues unimportant.

I do fully understand what WP:IAR is about. Unlike Jivesh, I wouldn't consider a Wikipedia that had articles about every song ever released by every artist and improvement. WP:NSONGS reflects current consensus about what songs received articles, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Freakum Dress (2) clearly indicates that this topic doesn't contain anything to make it an exception.

WP:DRV is where this should be discussed, if it must be discussed at all.—Kww(talk) 22:32, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Just to point out that Tbhotch has opened this discussion at both ANI and DRV. As a side note, is there any problem with claiming a trademark and copyright on a username? I obviously won't act on that today due to WP:INVOLVED.—Kww(talk) 22:38, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) And how about WP:GNG, it passes the 5 points, and I told you If you really believe this will be deleted in any AFD, re-create it and wait for it, Wikipedia won't stop existing just because of this. For the trademark symbol (™), Use of this symbol does not mean that the trademark has been registered as registered trademarks. Tbhotch^™ and © 22:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

There's sure a lot of original research and unsourced claims in that userfied article, as well as stuff that has nothing to do with the song. Corvus cornix_talk 22:39, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I said "which is almost a copy", not "is the same". Tbhotch^™ and © 22:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) I neither agree or disagree with the decision. I'm indifferent. but in this instance as the deletion was carried out it should have been taken to WP:DRV. I believe the main issue is the deletion of the article not Kww's deletion of it. (read that last bit carely... there's a difference). Thus this ANi is actually inappropriate because this is effectively a glorified content dispute. I recommend this ANI is closed and allow the DRV to run its course. If Kww's actions are proved wrong he will be scolded through that for deletion but ANI is not a place to discuss whether deletion was correct or not. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 22:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, DRV is the location for this. FWIW, I'd say that when every link on the "Critical reception" section is a review of the album this track is on, and not this track itself, that pretty much points to it being non-notable. Black Kite (t) (c) 22:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly... independent coverage means independent of the album as well as 3rd party. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

In the interest of full disclosure, I also did a speedy on File:Freakrum Dress Beyonce.jpg. It was a montage of six separate images from the music video, with a fair use claim that didn't give credit to the creator of the montage. Improperly licensed, and no way to ever pass WP:NFCC.—Kww(talk) 22:46, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• I won't comment on the article as this is being discussed at DRV already. If you feel this is part of a pattern of poor use of admin tools Wikipedia:Request for comment/Kww is a redlink. Turn it blue. If you simply disagree with this one deletion the let DRV handle it. I would suggest you two just avoid each other, you don't seem to get along very well. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:46, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, until today, I don't think that Tbhotch and I have had any serious disputes. I know he monitors my edits, because whenever I forget a semi-protection template he slaps one on an hour or two later. I've never been certain if that's something he looks at in general, or if I'm part of a group of people that he monitors.—Kww(talk) 02:39, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• As Kww stated, this is the very first time he and I get into a conflict, so I don't think this will be frequent. But no Kevin, I do not watch your edits, most of time. I use the protection log for the pp-semi. Tbhotch^Talk and C. 07:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The song didn't receive a conventional physical release as a single, but it was given promotion independent of the album, so the statement "[i]t wasn't released as a single" is rather misleading—particularly given that digital downloading is redefining the definition of a "single" (see Billboard). Also, Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Albums and songs states, "A separate [song] article is only appropriate when there is enough verifiable material to warrant a reasonably detailed article; permanent stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album." I'm not sure how "reasonably detailed" is defined, but I'm pretty certain that the article isn't a stub. The B'Day article is already very long, and though at a glance it appears to be in need of a little tightening, I'm not sure it would be appropriate for content containing information specific to the song to be included in the album article. In any case, AFD is for proposals for deletion, not merging—if you think the article should be merged somewhere, please follow the instructions at Help:Merging and moving pages#Proposing a merger. Notability is rather the issue here. But notability does not mean a song should be released as a single. Also, maybe in other place the song is not notable enough but in Europe, it is. I was thinking also of merging; B'Day was just revamped by me and I personally assert that its long and need professional copy-editing. Everything important in the article is already mentioned in the mother article. 11:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Article restored

User:Theuhohreo took it upon himself to recreate the article yet again. I consider his intent obviously disruptive, and would appreciate someone else talking to him about the inadvisability of bypassing WP:DRV.

That said, I've restored the history and begun the AFD cycle for the article. Hopefully we can just salt the thing this time and avoid repetition of the problem.—Kww(talk) 19:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Tbhotch's sig

Tbhotch's signature contains both a trademark symbol and a copyright symbol. These symbols have specific legal meanings, and should not be used otherwise -- this is not a social network site, this is an online encyclopedia. I request that Tbhotch remove them from their sig. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:35, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

• I don't now which is your country, but we use the word "please", hope you someday use it as well, and this is not the correct place for talk about how I sign. Reserved signature: User:Tbhotch 00:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict)Oh and Wikipedia:Signatures talk nothing about using symbols, you just must not use images. I agree with the CC-SA-BY license of my edits, but I still being the holder of my edits: "Attribution". Reserved signature: User:Tbhotch 00:13, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• And again, wrong venue for that request. At the top of the page it says "To report improper usernames, see usernames for administrator attention." Try somewhere else. This noticeboard is not a dumping ground for general complaints. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, it's in response to a comment that I made above, and it isn't about the username: it's about the signature. Signature complaints don't have a specific noticeboard, and WP:ANI is where they are normally handled. I note that Tbhotch has modified his signature, so hopefully the whole issue doesn't matter anymore.—Kww(talk) 00:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  I was wrong about the noticeboard, thank you for correcting me. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 11:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Well the ™ symbol does lead to User talk:Tbhotch, where this should have been written. Try talking directly to Tbhotch. Uncle G (talk) 00:10, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• I agree with that but just as a point of procedure a signature is not something UAA would deal with. The name itself needs to be a problem, and there sre no symbols in his actual username. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC) (all rights reserved)
• This is ridiculous and has absolutely no business here. Unless a person's sig is disruptive, it's no business of the admins. And it's Tbhotch's own business what sorts of design aspects he adds to his signature. Corvus cornix_talk 00:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • If the sig had come to my attention elsewhere, I would of course have brought it to Tbhotch's talk page, but as it came to my attention here and had already been mentioned here and the user was obviously monitoring here, it seemed perfectly reasonable to deal with it here, where other folks could comment on it, and a sense could be found if the sig was disruptive or not. Folks have got to stop being so damned bureaucratic and territorial about where stuff goes and apply a little common sense. I've seen it much too often that someone comes here with a problem that could be fixed or explained in less time than it took someone to blow them off with "This is not the right place for this, take it somewhere else". Obviously, big problems that need considerable input are better off going where people are acclimated to specific problems, but, come on, if you can fix tghe problem, fix it, and then tell them where they should go the next time the problem comes up.

    @Tbhotch: I apologize for not saying "Please". As I just snapped at my 11-year old son, I believe I must be a bit cranky for one reason or another. Thank you for altering your sig, I sppreciate your collegiality in doing so so promptly. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

    • You have this backwards. It's being "bureaucratic" that has people posting requests to a general audience on a noticeboard addressing the person concerned indirectly, rather than just talking directly to that person. It's exactly the sort of bureaucratic style that has people bringing-things-to-the-committee, in the third person (just as here), instead of just talking to people straightforwardly.

      In fact, one can find linguists talking about the tendency for bureacratic and legalistic speech to employ the third person over the simple and straightforward second and first person of everyday discourse. (Christopher Williams is one, but there are many others.) Far from other people being the bureaucrats here, what you did was exactly bureaucratic in style and form.

      And you didn't think your "I've seen this many times" rationale through. Only Tbhotch can adjust xyr signature. The rest of us cannot. Again, talking to Tbhotch directly, rather than bureaucratically posting a third-person request addressed to people who couldn't even do anything about the issue, was, and is, the right thing to do. Uncle G (talk) 01:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I did address Tbhotch directly, I merely did it here, because it came up here, rather than on his talk page, where I would have brought it if it hadn't come up here. As it is, the effort to shut down this discussion by stamping a "resolved" on it prematurely has not been helpful, as Tbhotch has said on my talk page that his change to his signature is only meant to be temporary until it is determined whether it is disruptive or not. That conversation needs to take place here and not on one editor's talk page, as it involves commuinity policy matters, and this is where discussions about sigs take place.

My feeling is that the copyright symbol and the trademark symbols have legal meaning in a publication' (of which this is one), and should not be screwed around with. That the sig policy doesn't mention not using them is an oversight, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't act in the best interests of the project and let Tbhotch know that he needs to make the change permanent. We're not someone's weblog, we're supposed to be a serious online reference resource, and we can't be throwing around use of symbols like that just for the hell of it. 02:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

In which way this affect your life, or Wikipedia, tell me, just tell me 1 problem, Legal issues? Are you saying I'll sue someone for use my username without my permission, or someone will sue me becuase of trademark laws? I commented you in a polite way, giving you 6 points of why those symbols are not problems, what exactly are you trying to do here, block me? ban me? Tbhotch^Talk and C. 02:42, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No, I'm saying that we are a publication, that copyright and intellectual property are issues that we take very seriously, and that we should not be using the copyright symbol and the trademark symbol as if they were random non-meaningful symbols. Your explanation of your use does not in any way negate that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

If the problem are the 4 copyright symbols, this is the wrong place, go to WT:Signatures instead and make it a rule. Tbhotch^Talk and C. 02:51, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

The absence of a "rule" saying your signature is specifically prohibited does not mean it is therefore automatically appropriate. I would have to agree that the symbols you were using (and seem to be indicating you will use again unless prohibited from doing so) have very specific meaning, a meaning that is somewhat in conflict with some very fundamental policies of this project. I think it's a relatively minor issue, but one that you could avoid very easily. Are you refusing to do so because you were asked to do so impolitely? There are a whole host of other symbols that you could use, including a very versatile alphabet. jæs (talk) 02:58, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

jæs, do you do not get mad if someone one day suddenly see your name and arbitrary comment that "æ" is wrong, because he cannot typeface it, and ask to the community for your username change WITHOUT taking it with you, NOR give a reason for it (Note that Ken never commented why this was an issue before I requested him why this was an issue)? Tbhotch^Talk and C. 03:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, I somewhat anticipated that could be an issue from time to time, and have User:Jaes as a doppelgänger! That being said, this isn't a matter of your username, but rather your signature. I realize you obviously put some thought into utilizing the ™ and © symbols. But there are other character possibilities which pose no potential for causing confusion regarding the ownership of your work here on Wikipedia. Sincerely, please consider these alternatives? jæs (talk) 03:16, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As User:Kbdank71 pointed, we do not sign in articles, this in any sense will "confuse" anyone, we irrevocably agree to release our contributions under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 license. We follow rules and community consensus, and if there's any of them, why I should consider to user others symbols, if there's any about a "TM" and a "C". It's the first time this is an issue, and maybe the first time an user use legal symbols as decorative letters and someone consider it a legal problem. Tbhotch^Talk and C. 03:24, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Since we don't sign our content additions, I'd have to say this isn't disruptive. --Kbdank71 03:11, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point. It's not disruptive in the least. Beach drifter (talk) 03:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I was surprised he had "Tbh®tch" or other variants, when the most obvious is "Tbhot©h". But we shouldn't have disruptive signatures. :) ←8@$é6@!! 8V9$ ^{VV4@+'$ VP, Δ0©¿} ©@®®0+5→ 12:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Facepalm GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 12:21, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the "resolved" tag, as Tbhotch has said that his removal of the symbols from his sig is temporary at this time, and permanence is contingent upon the outcome of this discussion. Further, this is the place to discuss specific sigs, not WT:SIG, which is where the sig policy is discussed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 09:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• As an outside observer, I'll chime in and say that the trademark and copyright symbols in the sig are not a good idea, and should stay removed. Even if it's just for style, there's too much chance for confusing new editors or giving the wrong impression to experienced editors that a claim is being made. Copyright is a delicate issue here, and not one we should be taking lightly. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • I recall some weeks or months ago there was a complaint about the user called ""Access Denied", for somewhat similar reasons, that it was confusing to newbies. However, they let AD keep his name. I wonder whatever happened to that user? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • I agree with HandThatFeeds. These symbols should be reserved for the legal claims which they assert, and not used as decoration. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Itsbydesign

User:Itsbydesign has made many edits and un-constructive reverts at Number Ones: Up Close and Personal and File:Jj noucaptp.jpg over the past two weeks. The user originally uploaded File:Jj noucaptp.jpg on December 30, and I uploaded an different version more than a week later. Since then, User:Itsbydesign has made numerous reverts (as have I, I admit) without discussions.

I started a discussion at Talk:Number Ones: Up Close and Personal concerning the poster and left User:Itsbydesign a message asking them to discuss this matter, but never got a response from the user, while they continued to revert without discussion. I requested User:Legolas2186's assistance in this as he basically sided with me on Talk:Number Ones: Up Close and Personal (which I believe falls under Wikipedia:Third opinion).

The user has also been left many messages on their talk page by other users concerning their disruptive edits. User has also been blocked before for their disruptive edits.

I am aware of the 3RR rule and I understand that I may have broken it within the last week, and if I am punished for it, i'll understand why. I am requesting that he is blocked again for their disruptive edits. Thank you for your time. - Gabe 19 ^{(talk contribs)} 07:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I warned both users shortly before this ANI thread [21] [22]. Itsbydesign replied with "He asked my opinion on the subject matter and I gave him my opinion. He revert an image based upon the criteria I upload the original image. And his rationale was based upon language. This was explained to him twice by different editors. If I feel the image needs to be reverted then I will freely revert the image. Do as you please and I will do the same." I'm not even sure the argument is being made here, let alone the logic behind it. Strictly speaking from a policy point of view, the revision which stands at a low resolution, 200×360, should be used. Other than that, it's all a "I like this version, but not that one" POV. — ξ^xplicit 07:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't know what their argument is either concerning the image, but its also edits that they have made on Number Ones: Up Close and Personal. In the edit summary for this edit they say "removed redundant column from tour date table"; I added that column based on the tour itself, it was stated that a song would be dedicated to each city, and that column (properly titled Dedicated song) served the purpose to signify the dedicated song to each city. They even removed the two column addition that was added that organizes the references section. All of this is un-constructive editing. - Gabe 19 ^{(talk contribs)} 08:09, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm kinda surprised by Itsbydesign's comments and continuing the reversions, even now, 5 mins ago. Is he not concerned with the serious consequences that comes out of it? Oh well, concerned admins here will be a better judge of it, but seeing Itsbydesign's editing hisotry, this is a pattern, of reverting everybody's edits on the musical tour articles. And Gabe19, you should have stopped reverting the image also, and notified admins of this issue. Now you both have been involved too much. — Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Those comments were made one hour *after* you posted your comments here, not five minutes. What I am not concern with is your thoughts on my edits, since you been trying to get me blocked since you got upset because I removed unverifiable material from Who's That Girl World Tour and you slyly placed my user name in with a sockpuppet case that had nothing to do with my edits or even the subject of the articles I edit. Anytime someone disagrees with my edits, you jump on the wagon to start your attacks. As previously stated, this is all being chronicled and is not going ignored.Itsbydesign (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree Legolas, I admit I should've stopped a long time ago but I think I was just caught up in the moment. Also I didn't know where to report things like this until you told me about ANI, being here this long, you'd think I have known about ANI. - Gabe 19 ^{(talk contribs)} 08:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

As previously stated, when Gabe19 asked for my opinion, I gave it to him. My opinion on this matter has not changed. If you stopped someone on the street and asked, "What's you're opinion on taxes?", they will tell you. You cannot expect to ask the same person the same question two days later and expect the opinion to be different. Gabe19 originally stated that he reverted the edit based upon his opinion that it looks better without text. He made no mention of "official" poster or "small resolution". He then continued to revert the image (after I gave my opinion), only commenting with emoticons and still commenting that the image was revert based on his feeling. He then decides to open a discussion after 9 reverts without zero explanation of reasoning, besides his personal feelings that he expressed earlier. Since Gabe is enjoying playing this game, he seeked the help of Legolas to gain favor, seeing that Legolas has a "vendetta" against me and would side in his favor (as he has made no contact with him/her since July '10 concerning an edit to "Ray of Light" article). Even when an editor independently tried to provide assistance, Gabe still reverted. Throughout this whole ordeal, Gabe19 has made no reasoning for his image besides it being "official". In my message, I advised Gabe that image reverts are meant to enhance the image and a blank poster is not an enhancement over the original image. Additionally, I advised him that image he uploaded did not adhere to the rationale based on the image page and then no response, just a series of reverts. Although the reverts were ridiculous, I feel my actions were justified. If he card so passionately about the subject matter, the discussion would have began after the first revert, not the ninth. Itsbydesign (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Itsbydesign, I have to ask, why did you knot take your argument to the talk page, like I requested?. I'm still not even sure what your argument is. My argument regarding File:Jj noucaptp.jpg was and is simple, its the official poster. The image you uploaded has foreign text and promotes the Hong Kong date, Hong Kong isn't the only date on this tour, besides, this is the English version of WIkipedia, we shouldn't be using images with foreign text, and it isn't a "blank poster", as you you claim. I asked User:Legolas2186 for his opinion based on Wikipedia:Third opinion, and because he is a well-respected editor that has been on Wikipedia for many years. I'm not sure why your even bringing up Ray of Light, but that was what, 6 months ago? What does that have to do with you and your disruptive edits? — Gabe 19 ^{(talk contribs)} 21:25, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Itsbydesign, I've also battled with you over NKOTBSB Tour & Speak Now Tour and everytime I've tried to make contact, you don't respond. You just revert when I supplied you with references to a venue on for NKOTBSB in Calgary. WestJet (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked user Time Will Say Nothing

Time Will Say Nothing (talk · contribs) (see [23] was indefinitely blocked for legal threats. He is now editing as 87.112.86.251 (talk · contribs), which he admits here [24]. He's been using other IPs as you can see by his statement at Talk:Robert Shaw (theatre director) where he says 'this IP was blocked' whereas in fact that IP has never been blocked. I could go to SPI but I'm wondering if there is anything else that can be done here. My own opinion is that the talk page edits should be deleted and perhaps even page protection is necessary if range blocks aren't practical. Dougweller (talk) 08:35, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Here's the previous SPI for reference Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Time Will Say Nothing/Archive. Sean.hoyland - talk 08:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

87.112.86.251/32 is possible; the others are too many. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

SPI filed Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Meh. He has a huge WP:COMPETENCE problem, mostly just here to disrupt in an SPA area. Community ban him and lets get it over with (sad as I am to say that) --Errant ^(chat!) 09:20, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

There are a lot of bits out of that talk page that, if not directly legal threats, refer back to the original legal threats (assuming IP identity) in both enforcement and spirit. I leave that to interpretation on if it constitutes the immediate need for a block while the SPI is ongoing. ♪ Tstorm(talk) 09:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protecting the article and talk page would go a long way towards nipping this in the bud, since he's only interested in Robert Shaw. Whacking registered accounts is much easier than short blocks for IPs. AniMate 09:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Really, enough is enough. Talk:Robert Shaw (theatre director) is now filled with time-wasting tendentious editing with completely spurious interpretations of "policy" and accusations against other editors by an indefinitely blocked user, who is openly violating the block, and who has no intention whatsoever of changing. See this Wikiquette Alert, these two previous AN/I discussions, and this AfD for background to this saga. Given the hopping IPs, I'm not sure what another SPI will accomplish. I too would suggest semi-protection of the article talk page. No other IPs have edited it apart from the ones Time Will Say Nothing uses and those of what he calls his "supporters". If they attempt to start editing the article, semi-protection may be required for that as well or putting it under pending changes. He has already attempted to edit it while blocked using his sockpuppet Hohohobo. Voceditenore (talk) 09:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection requested --Errant ^(chat!) 09:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Robert Shaw (theatre director) now semi-protected for 1 week [25]. 87.112.86.251 now blocked for one week [26], following this comment (as usual completely wrong) on the IP's talk page. A breathing space, but I'm sure the whole thing will start up again once the page protection and IP block expires, or earlier if he simply changes IPs. Voceditenore (talk) 10:30, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Jimbo posted to the Robert Shaw talk page saying he's removing anything unsourced. It's not just the Robert Shaw page that has been involved, it's his grandfather's article Martin Shaw (composer) and Up to Now (Shaw autobiography) Dougweller (talk) 10:40, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Those pages probably need semi-protection as well. Doc talk 16:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

TWSN ban proposal

Let's just do this. Please pile on.

• Support Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:29, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support editor is just not able to contribute without seeing a conspiracy and throwing out wild accusations --Errant ^(chat!) 09:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Heiro 10:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Favonian (talk) 10:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support "At that point it may be that other users who support me will get involved again, although I have asked them not to." Meat puppetry, too, even? Add it to the list. Just too many profound (and most importantly, totally incurable IMHO) problems for one editor to have. Doc talk 13:31, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support Per nom. Show sockpuppeteers the door. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 14:05, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support (albeit with vague reservations about the wording of "Let's just do this. Please pile on.") I was previously inclined towards accepting that this user had a good faith belief that several dozen Wikipedia editors were all in a conspiracy against him. I am now not so ready to accept that, following his making implications that Babel templates were suggestive of a conflict of interest. That really is too weird! There is no hope of this editor participating without being disruptive. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 14:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban, but support lengthy block on the order of 1 year. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• support, stuff like removing comments that complain about his edits, derisive comments to the other editors[27][28], claiming that avoiding the block via IP is editing "transparently"[29]. He has not learned to edit collaboratively here, he doesn't want to learn, and he keeps claiming badly-supported stuff about the supposed motivations of other editors. Yep, there seems to be a WP:COMPETENCE problem here. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support (changed my mind to a long block per valid arguments of other editors below, then back to support) primarily to allow editors to revert inappropriate edits by him (and his sock/meat puppets) without running the risk of violating 3RR, which a 1 year block would not accomplish. Normally, I'd prefer a 1 year block, but I'm sure that we have not seen the last of this editor, whose behaviour and attitude have been and continue to be very detrimental both to the project and to its volunteer editors. Would a topic ban (with the topic broadly construed) allow any inappropriate edits to be reverted without violating 3RR? If so, I would support that instead of a site ban. Voceditenore (talk) 16:36, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose site ban; personally, I don't think their behaviour so far has been egregious enough to warrant a ban; I agree there are serious WP:CIR and WP:HEAR issues here, but I think those are best handled through a lengthy block. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 16:43, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
  • We've had copyright infringement, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, personal attacks, accusations of cyber bullying (which is why I supported his original blocking for his own safety), leagal threats, block evasion/socking and edit warring. All of which is not so much malignent as having a lack of WP:COMPETENCE, I supported a ban because the user creates a lot of drama and until he is able to demonstrate adequate competence should not be unblocked --Errant ^(chat!) 16:48, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
    • On that I too agree: this user should not be unblocked, unless they show that they understand what they did wrong and undertake not to do it again; but I think that an indef is just as good, because, quite frankly, after all this fuss, I don't think any admin would lightheartedly unblock such a user, without being certain they've learnt their lesson. But, at the same time, I don't think they've repeatedly shown that they only maliciously intend to make Wikipedia worse, which is what, in my opinion, usually warrants a full site ban (but again, that's only my opinion). Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose ban per Sarek and Salvio. Nothing here warrents a full siteban, but a lengthy block several months is obviously needed. -Atmoz (talk) 18:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose; like the opposers above, I do not feel comfortable banning this user. As far as I'm concerned, the disruption has not lasted long enough nor been abusive enough to warrant a ban. I agree that a lengthy block would be better in this case. HeyMid (contribs) 18:27, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

How long would "long enough" be? He's been displaying the same attitude since at least November 2009. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Still, I do not feel that a ban is the right step to take at this time. HeyMid (contribs) 20:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support Enough is enough. --John (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support I was thinking of not commenting, but things have changed and I now have good reason to believe that this editor's behaviour is not going to change. Dougweller (talk) 20:17, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support This user has made it quite clear he's more interested in his agenda than building an encyclopedia in a collegiate manner. He has rejected help, tried to game the system and generally displayed complete indifference to other editors concerns. Socking is just icing on the cake. An indef is best until he chooses to change his approach and demonstrates a willingness to learn Wikipedia's processes & follow them. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 21:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
• Question Can someone please explain what the position is re others reverting this editor if he only receives a long block rather than a ban? Will the 3RR still apply to other editors if he is only blocked? This editor will never let go of Robert Shaw (theatre director). Whether it's a block or ban, he will continue his attempts to evade it. He will return again and again to edit war and threaten other editors the minute he thinks the article does not project his desired image of the subject. He will also do this to any other article related to Robert Shaw. He has stated quite plainly, that he is not at interested in contributing anything to Wikipedia, apart from what he is "interested in posting". I understand that some editors have behaved even worse without being site banned. But really, what is the advantage to this project of not showing him the door? A the moment I can see only detriment. Voceditenore (talk) 23:41, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

  That's exactly the point of a ban; if this user is not banned, 3RR will apply, and one will have to file an SPI and wait for the result before being allowed to fight this; anyone who does so w/o a conclusive SPI-result will likely be blocked for edit-warring. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 02:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Topic ban? That's what I thought and changed my !vote above back to support. But if read WP:BAN correctly, a topic ban would also allow reverting without violating the 3RR rule. If so, would the opposers here go for that in lieu of a full site ban? I'd support that. Besides, even bans aren't permanent, he can always appeal it later. Voceditenore (talk) 08:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Same difference; either way will work just fine, since he's explicitly stated he doesn't have any interest in other topics. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 09:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Support - This user has selective reading issues, and responds to calm words with thunderous rebuttals that generate more heat than light. And, unlike Salvio giuliano and anyone else basing their opposes on his rationale, I heavily doubt a lengthy block will calm him down; if anything blocks have thus far only exacerbated the situation, as he's threatened to report blocking admins to the UK police for violation of cyberbullying laws (nevermind that he's been told that Wikipedia is only bound to United States laws). If there were even a small hope for an epiphany here, I'd oppose, but honestly this man is on a mission from God, and heaven help anyone who even breathes in his direction. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 04:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support - This user is clearly interested in doing propaganda instead of contributing to an encyclopedia. And with that said, enough is enough. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 04:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support site ban. User is clearly a net negative to the project, and IP socking for block evasion shows contempt for Wikipedia policy. In response to those favouring a long block instead, note that the Standard Offer applies. LK (talk) 08:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I've supported the ban, but as I'd originally suggested a topic ban on any articles related to the Shaw family I'll support that as an alternative if that's more attractive to those who don't want a site ban. Dougweller (talk) 09:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
    • Thing is, he's already shown a willingness to agree to a condition, then violate it immediately. Even if we topic ban him, this is his only area of interest and I expect he'll go straight back to editing there once unblocked. Or, at the very least, disrupting talk pages of those articles as he has been wont to do. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The repeated legal threats (even in the numerous unblock requests for making legal threats) and socking, combined with a long history of disruptive editing, are clear signs of an unreachable user. They have been given enough chances to prove that they were here for constructive editing, and they proved instead to be a net negative. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saddhiyama (talk • contribs) 15:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal attacks and repeated accusations from User:Py0alb

I recently responded to a query from this user on the help desk, and as a result of the discussion, the user indicated that they had been warned for vandalism on a page, and that 7 different editors had been reverting them; they also indicated that they had been "blocked" from editing the paragraph they wished to change, which I took to mean that they had been blocked from editing wikipedia. Given that the user's only contributions were to the help desk, it appeared to be a case of block evasion and I filed an SPI regarding the apparent block evasion (or at the least an attempt to avoid scrutiny, since the user has avoided several requests to provide diffs, an article, or any others details about the incident to which (s)he was referring at WP:HD). Another user pointed out that I may have misinterpreted the user stating they had been "blocked", which may be true, I'm uncertain. However, the main issue is that the user has since made repeated accusations that I have some sort of personal issue with him/her and repeatedly accused me of "personal slurs" wherever possible, which is a personal attack, imho. Some diffs: [30] [31] [32] [33] [34]. I have done my best to ignore the accusations, but it's bordering on harrassment now, and the user even reinstated an edit I removed from my talk page while I was writing this thread. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:22, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Note that I am willing to accept that my premise for the SPI report may have been a misunderstanding, and I said as much when another user pointed that out in the SPI, but it certainly wasn't a groundless or frivolous SPI. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 23:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi Giftiger! I hope you are well :-) Look, you know as well as I do that if any of the admins would be interested in looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Py0alb then it becomes very quickly clear that you were the one attacking me and I was the one attempting to defend myself from some unpleasant and unwarranted accusations. Either way, your behaviour in this matter is not particularly befitting of a senior wikipedia editor. I wholeheartedly welcome an investigation into the origins of this extremely weird dispute Py0alb (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Looks like a reasonable mistake over some confusing wording, for which he has apologised. But there was nothing unreasonable. I recommend instead of making vague statements about how badly your edits have been treated (it happens more than it should, sadly) either show us some examples or just head off to work on content. Mildly uncivil comments to other editors are not helpful --Errant ^(chat!) 23:50, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I respect your opinion as I've seen you around a lot Errant, but do you really feel that the comments in the diffs I provided amount to "mildly uncivil comments"? I only really consider a couple of them actual personal attacks (the ones which I redacted), and perhaps when taken in isolation the comments don't warrant sanction, but the combined repeated unsupported accusations of bad faith and personal attacks despite both warnings and explanations from me speaks of combined problems with WP:HOUND, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF in my albeit involved opinion. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's late, incoherence is a trait for me at this point ;) you're right, I'd say mildly uncivil on their own, all together a case of friendly advice to drop the stick and leave you alone. I'm usually in favour of considering these sorts of things misunderstandings born out of a perceived upset, but the reply below suggests a reasonable explanation won' work. *shrug* Certainly Py0alb should be chilling out and not chasing (I hesitate to make a full suggestion of hounding) you. --Errant ^(chat!) 00:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Who has apologised? giftiger certainly hasn't, unless filing a complaint making further accusations is some new method of apologising. I am more than happy to leave this alone and move on, this is not what I envisaged the outcome to be when I tried to make a helpful suggestion on the helpdesk. I just felt I should make a brief comment to defend myself from yet another unwarranted accusation. Certainly he should drop the stick and leave you alone

I have been waiting for an apology from giftiger for a number of false allegations all day and I am still waiting. I won't hold my breath --- Sorry if that was confusing, my computer logged me out for some reason Py0alb (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It seems the article in question was Spin bowling, then, and that by "blocked", Py0alb meant their changes were rejected in a pending changes-protected article. Frankly a good portion of this fiasco could have been avoided if the user had indicated the specific incident in the first place. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 00:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As they say, it is better to wait for an apology than to keep demanding one. By continuing to demand one, any apology you would get is guaranteed to not be sincere. –MuZemike 09:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

BLP concerns in userspace?

Resolved

 – - oversighted Skier Dude (talk) 21:52, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at this userpage and tell me if it's alarming? In my mind, it's okay to out yourself as a 13 year old by name, but not other 13 year olds. tedder (talk) 23:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I see it was deleted. FYI, in future it is best to take things like that to WP:OVERSIGHT via email due to it being an outing (i.e. to avoid the risk of publicising it more :)). --Errant ^(chat!) 23:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and will do. I couldn't remember if it was a problem or I would have started with that (or an admin-level revdelete at least). tedder (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, anything which may be considered personally identifiable information directed another wikipedia editor should go straight to oversight, especially when minors are involved. If you're unsure, contact oversight. It's better to be told by an oversighter than it's not oversightable than to spread an outing further. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 01:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Oversight requested. Skier Dude (talk) 03:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Superpolochile

This is the second time I'm reporting Superpolochile (talk · contribs · logs) This is a WP:SPA. He has been warned several times against deleting sourced content and adding promotional giant pictures[35]. Can anything be done about this? I don't know if a page protection will suffice.Likeminas (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Blocked 31 hours for disruption. He's been over-warned and knows what he's doing isn't acceptable. KrakatoaKatie 04:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

We may have a sock Ceolider (talk · contribs · logs) - is there enough similarity for a DUCK block? Active Banana (^bananaphone 18:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to note last night that Superpolochile uploaded a bunch of copyvio images to Commons, which he tagged PD-self, that were easily found with a simple Google image search. I tagged all of them for speedy-deletion as copyvios. The Ceolider sock did the same thing, uploading copyvio images, but there are only two. I'm tagging them now. It would be a good idea to check the Commons contribs of any future socks. Sorry about making a bunch of work for Commons admins - if they can block him indef for these copyvios, I'm all for it. :-) KrakatoaKatie 01:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

184.75.57.250

Resolved

 – Blocked for 31 hours by User:Nakon. JoeSperrazza (talk) 07:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

IP account that has been engaged in vandalism since October of 2010, can it be blocked? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/184.75.57.250

It already has been. In the future, WP:AIV is the proper place to report this sort of thing. --Jayron32 06:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

User talk:Labra65 masquerading as admin

Resolved

 – indef blocked by Adambro (talk · contribs)

See: Labra65 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Shirt58 (talk) 10:44, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Already blocked. Pedro :  Chat  10:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks all.--Shirt58 (talk) 11:09, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Query

Isn't there a banned editor whose specialty, before they were banned, was articles about higher mathematics? Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Review editor "Johnny Cache"? I cannot recall his WP username. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:06, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you thinking of user:Likebox? I know he worked in advanced math topics and he's indef blocked, though I don't if he's banned. Fluffernutter, previously known as Chaoticfluffy (talk) 19:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Likebox may indeed be the user I was thinking of, thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

User:Twobells

The above user is engaging in an edit war at Richard I of England, repeatedly removing sourced information ([36] [37] [38] [39] [40]) against consensus (consensus demonstrated: [41] [42]). Nev1 (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

This seems to be a clear case of one-sided edit warring: one editor deleting material and being reverted by multiple others who have a talk page consensus to include the material. A recent comment from Twobells seems to indicate that he will be seeking outside dispute resolution, which is a better approach. Hopefully that means his deletions will stop for now, in which case a block seems unnecessary. --RL0919 (talk) 14:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I left a message on Twobells' user talk page[43] to encourage him to pursue dispute resolution rather than continue the edit war. I have the article watchlisted now and will block him if he repeats the deletion again. --RL0919 (talk) 14:46, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Would you PLEASE give me a moment to make my case without constantly causing an edit conflict here.Twobells (talk) 14:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I am twobells and suggest that two editors are practising homophobia, there are only two historical figures having a 'sexuality' entry both of which are English kings. That there is even a 'sexuality' entry at all seems bizarre and out of place not only on wikipedia but in the 21st century. These two editors suggest that removing the entry is 'censorship', I say that they want to re-enforce intolerance. A administrator (Adam Bishop) even suggests that homosexuality didn't exist in that period, so my question is why are editors promoting that description in a suspect entry? @ RL0919 As for 'one-sided', that is ludicrous as an edit war takes TWO sides which suggest you as a administrator are biased and that you might learn from being a little more objective. My argument is that any mention of sexuality belongs in the main article, examples:

Philip_II_of_France who was said to have been the lover of Richard, no entry.

Or Marcel_Proust a great lover of homosexuality?....no entry.

Or Jean Cocteau a great promoter of homosexuality.

or Roland Barthes a devout homosexual yet NO mention.

or Jean Genet no entry.

or Marie Antoinette where are all these entries?

They do not exist because they are written into the body of the main article as any good piece is but when I want to delete the entry and rewrite it into the main entry I am threatened with a block.Twobells (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

At no point did you say that, you simply removed the entire section and made accusations of homophobia. Moreover, the choice of section vs integration has been discussed before. Consensus can of course change, but your belligerent behaviour isn't an attempt to work on consensus but to override it. Nev1 (talk) 15:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I wrote that it suggests homophobia, how else can people perceive it when viewed together with the balance of the vast majority of wiki articles?

That you have been unable to address my central point about other entries and wiki best practice is telling.

As for the previous discussion on the entry and whether Richard actually WAS gay it was suggested that Flori's work was preeminent over John Gillingham who is by far the leading historian of Richard the 1st but was ignored in favour of Flori, Flori never actually communicated with any contemporary historians and ask their opinion but read their work (none of which suggested Richard was gay) then declared Richard a homosexual which reflects exactly the same problems that originally existed with the Agincourt entry in that a single French historian was considered premier against the vast majority of contemporary international historians because it suited the French editor's world view and I see the same sort of partisan approach here.Twobells (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Uh what's a devout homosexual? Nil Einne (talk) 18:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

One who prays a lot? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:14, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of HIV-positive people

Is due to close. Best, NonvocalScream (talk) 15:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Working on it. --Jayron32 15:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done. --Jayron32 15:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Access Denied is going bad

WP:DNFT WP:RBI
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Within the past 3 days, 3 SPIs for Access Denied, who betrayed the trust of Wikipedia, when he made sockpuppets. The cateogry Wikipedia sockpuppets of Access Denied is now at 27. User:Soap is doing rangeblocks now--and it appears Access is using a cell phone to make socks. Is there any [suggested] method to stop Access? I'm about to send him an email. --Perseus, Son of Zeus 15:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC) WP:RBI. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 15:57, 12 January 2011 (UTC) No, there is no way to stop someone editing Wikipedia, save for physically stopping them or blocking every IP range in existence. AD 15:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Would anyone object to me moving his CSD examples into my userspace? I can make good use of them, and I don't want them wasted because he went batshit crazy. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:07, 12 January 2011 (UTC) I almost jumped, Aiken drum, when I saw your sig "AD." I'm not sure if the "edit=autoconfirmed" will work on this page, as Access making tons of socks. On his other sock, Denial of Access, he said, "If you unblock me I will tag my socks that I've been creating since August. Then you can reblock me." I don't believe him. Link: [44]. --Perseus, Son of Zeus 16:16, 12 January 2011 (UTC) I'm not convinced this discussion is worth entertaining, it's simply feeding the troll here. It's best to observe WP:RBI and WP:DFTT. GiftigerWunsch [TALK] 16:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC) I entirely agree with Giftiger. This thread should be closed, imho, and Access Denied should just be ignored. This dramafest is exactly what he wants... Salvio Let's talk about it! 17:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC) This, huh? --Perseus, Son of Zeus 16:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC) When all other methods have been exhausted or ineffective (range block, IP block), RBI is our only course of action. Like Giftiger wunsch, I don't expect this discussion to bear fruit. Access Denied brought this upon himself, so there's nothing else we can do here. Goodvac (talk) 17:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC) This is some of the most inmature trolling I have ever seen in this project, I would have proposed a ban, but that what Access Denied wants. Ibluffsocall (talk) 17:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Going? He's been doing this since December. HalfShadow 17:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Community ban proposal WP:DENY is one of the most misunderstood essays on Wikipedia. Doing anything whatsoever based on what we think a troll thinks or wants is providing recognition. The only true way to deny recognition to trolls is to treat them all exactly the same as each other and give ZERO thought as to what they want or do not want, whether they may want to be banned or their socks found or whatever. It would be even better if there was an automated bot that would just handle this stuff mechanically, but since that option isn't available, the next best thing is to follow the policy and previous common practice to the letter. Per ongoing disruption, I propose a community ban for Access Denied. Support as Nominator. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Pointless No one is going to unblock him or stop blocking his socks on site, or reverting his edits. Formally banning an already indef blocked editor who insists on continuing to disrupt Wikipedia is mindless bureaucracy and serves to purpose. --Jayron32 18:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC) What Jayron said. Plus, you have how much proof that these are User:Access Denied's sockpuppets? NW (Talk) 18:21, 12 January 2011 (UTC) This sock, which made this edit, was confirmed as his account here. 28bytes (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC) I have to agree with Jayron32, a ban seems like overkill at this point. Petty vandalism with quickly-blocked obvious-it's-him socks doesn't really require much other than RBI. 28bytes (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Because if you revert his edits when he's just blocked, you can still violate 3RR. A ban allows us to rollback all of his edits without violating that. - Burpelson AFB ✈ 18:42, 12 January 2011 (UTC) If an administrator blocks you for reverting a vandal/sockpuppet, please tell me so that I can indef block them for being a moron. NW (Talk) 18:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC) NW is correct; reverting officially-banned users may be an exception to 3RR, but so is reverting obvious vandalism; fairly obvious that Access falls into the latter category. --Dylan620 (t • c • r) 18:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC) I'm just saying what the policy says... - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose per concerns by NuclearWarfare and Jayron92. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Oppose ban and support closing (or even removing) this discussion per WP:RBI and WP:DENY. HeyMid (contribs) 19:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Seems nobody wants this so I've withdrawn my proposal. I don't see what's so different about this particular troll, though. Why ban anyone? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 19:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What can be done when a user makes multiple accounts to post the same text?

Resolved

 – Semi-protected one week. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Editors Alasiri2, Alasiri1 and 69.22.170.137 have all posted the same paragraph on CAPTCHA. It seems to be pointless to warn any of them since they appear to already know that creating a new account is a way to keep posting the content. HumphreyW (talk) 16:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Go to RPP and request full protection. --Perseus, Son of Zeus 16:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Semi-protection at most.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

As all the accounts involved appear to be spamming the same forum link, blacklisting is another option to consider if the behavior resumes following expiration of the page protection, or if it spreads onto other articles. --- Barek (talk) - 18:22, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Some problem

The last time I made a point here that I am not allowed to edit on pages related to Britain, I stated some facts and I even got blocked by an Admin. Now it's the same again. Not even discussions are allowed. Those Admins who were batting for constructive discussion must visit the page and understand what constructive discussion means[45]. What I can see is, only personal attacks, original research, the so called synthesis and more personal attacks to block a discussion from taking place. EyeSerene where are you.Bcs09 (talk) 16:37, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

One can consider EyeSerene where are you and your continued vociferous protesting as further harassment, which can land you another, and longer block. Please watch yourself. –MuZemike 17:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

No one is suggesting you are not allowed to edit articles related to Britain, simply that some of your edits aren't agreed with. G.R. Allison (talk) 17:36, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

If your post is a complaint about my actions Bcs09, it would have been polite to have notified me rather than leaving me to chance across it. I can understand that you were upset that I blocked you. What I can't understand is how you're completely and consistently missing the point in all this. For clarity I'll set out what struck me as I read up on the background before responding to—and ultimately blocking—you in your earlier ANI thread:

• You were unhappy about the removal of the Indian navy from the Blue-water navy article and posted a number of comments about how at some point in the future it will have various capabilities (see Talk:Blue-water_navy/Archive_2#Indian_Navy). This is a subject that has also concerned you on Indian Navy ([46], [47]).
• With your suggestions rejected by other editors, you then propose the removal of the British Royal Navy from the article.
• When other editors decide to remove the entire "Navies with limited expeditionary capabilities"section (which included the Indian navy) from the article, apparently because it has become a bit of a magnet for original research and nationalistic puffery, yours is the only dissenting voice of the seven or so editors that commented. A very clear consensus emerges. You challenge it without providing a single reliable source (and only one source of any sort that I spotted) on the talk page to support your position. Unwilling to accept the verdict of your peers, you then post a vague complaint to ANI, insult the editors who've been working with you, and accuse the uninvolved admin (me) who responds of covering for them.
• As an adjunct to the above, on Talk:Great power you started the threads Talk:Great_power#Britain disputing Britain's inclusion; Talk:Great_power#India advocating India's inclusion; and today Talk:Great_power#Removal_of_Britain_from_Great_power_list which is self-explanatory. When referred to the sources by other editors you complain of "wild accusations, personal opinions and unwanted comments"[48] and return to ANI with the same vague complaints as last time.

To me there's a clear pattern in the above and frankly you're skating on very thin ice at the moment. Part of the role of administrators is to protect Wikipedia's most valuable resource—our productive editors. This includes preventing their time and energy being wasted in endless tendentious argument and repeated explanations of policy with other editors who "just don't get it". You've shown no indication that you understand why I blocked you or what the problems were and are with your content suggestions. Unless you adapt to the way Wikipedia operates and show some sign of being able to comply with our content and editor conduct policies and guidelines—especially WP:CONSENSUS, WP:NPOV, WP:POINT, WP:NPA and WP:OR—I wouldn't be surprised to find your time here prematurely cut short. EyeSerene^talk 19:43, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Bcs09 appears to possibly be permanently banned user:Chanakyathegreat, who was banned permanently for the very same editing warring as Bcs09 was temporarily banned for. Quite vivid blur (talk) 00:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

No "appears to be" about it. Checkuser for Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chanakyathegreat/Archive confirmed it. The admins let Bcs09 continue on despite being a sock of a disruptive user. That was based on "good behavior". Evidently the behavior has slipped a bit since last summer. Technical note: Chanaky was indefinitely blocked, but not banned. Likewise, Bcs09 was temporarily blocked, recently; not banned. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

fort plank article unstable!

Resolved

 – Deleted, watchlisted

can someone look at the article Fort Plank, the articles history since the 6th of january is just one long edit war, its heavily unstable and i don't know what the right version is any more, User:Brianm2484 has been deleting as an account and possibly as an IP, today he reverted an experienced user, the when i reverted his IP he deleted the reference! whats going on over there? --Lerdthenerd wiki defender 17:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

It's a copyright violation of the provided reference, in either form, and I have marked it for speedy deletion as such. Note that dumps of multiple long paragraphs of unwikified text are always copyright violations - there is nothing that compels this to be so, but it is true in every case that has ever happened in the history of Wikipedia. Note that having an edit warrior edit war to omit changes attributed to a second source is also typically a big hint. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

how did something like that, survive from the 6th of january? why did no one think to delete it? --Lerdthenerd wiki defender 18:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know. I bring the matter up because I mark such things as obvious copyright violations all the time, and administrators (and others) should be aware of the general principle here: such an editorial syndrome always represents a copyright violation from some source, and "at best" it is just undetected. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

okay so if this article gets re created with the copyvio, just keep speedying til it gets salted--Lerdthenerd wiki defender 18:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

More or less. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Please note that with my revert I tried (but failed) to warn the user to use the talk page to discuss the article. I remember having typed an edit summary to explain what he should do, but the summary somehow got lost (in Huggle2's engine perhaps?). Anyway I clarified (and put a welcome msg) on the user's talk page. DVdm (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I see some outing in the edit summaries. (The article is now deleted so non-Admins can't see this). I'm not sure what to do about that and about the editor doing the outing, who is exploding on his talk page. Dougweller (talk) 19:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I blocked him indef. I was about to revdel the edit summaries, but that was obviated by the article deletion. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've also redacted the mentions of other editors' names on his talk page and asked Oversight to look at it. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Suspicious POV editing?

New User:Ludovica91, first action was to open an SPI at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/EmirKaraman - valid, but it doesn't look like the actions of a genuine newcomer. Then proceeded to get into tendentious editing at Western Asia and Georgia (country). Also apparent attempts at ownership, with edit summary comments like "leave us Georgians out of this mess of a group. We had enough of this western asia" [49], and "this article is about us Georgians and it is not your personal webpage. You have no right to insult us like this" [50]. There is some discussion happening at Talk:Georgia (country)#Lede again but Ludovica91 isn't really acting very collegially, and there's a report at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts, but I thought I'd bring it here in case anyone shares my thoughts that this might be a bit sockish and might recongnise the MO. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm looking into this. I think their edits today may have provided a useful link to other editors, but I'd like to contact the other checkuser who was looking into the situation. TNXMan 18:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks - I see they've breached WP:3RR at Georgia (country) now and have received another edit war warning for it, and I have a message at my Talk page -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The editor tells me they're not autoconfirmed and can't edit this page, so I've suggested they make their comments on their own Talk page - so need to keep an eye on that. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Editor has added comments at User talk:Chipmunkdavis#Edit-war? and at User talk:Boing! said Zebedee#Georgia "POV" editing -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 19:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

That one is blocked, and we immediately get another one registering and making the same changes - User:Mikhailfr. -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 21:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Blood libel

Resolved

 – Protected for one week by User:Jclemens

Excessive vandalism... requesting pending changes protection and/or protection from anonymous IP editing. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 19:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Jim Bowden

This is case of repeated COI editing. It's all by IPs. I was considering posting this on the wp:COIN or wp:RPP, but it doesn't quite seem to fit.

To summarize, the subject, Jim Bowden, is a former general manager of a few baseball teams. He's a radio personality now. He was a controversial general manager, and was being investigated by the FBI when he left the profession.

There have been quite a few repeated edits removing sourced negative information from the article. Some are blatant (changing sourced "he was universally disliked" to "fun loving character" [51] and strange changes to his age [52].

I noticed that all the IPs originate from Los Angeles. Which brings up to Jim Bowden's current job. http://twitter.com/jimbowdenxmfox. I suppose it is this connection, and the persistence of the similar edits that led me to post here.

Diffs:

general tidying up of sourced negative info, inserting unsourced/promotional: [53],[54],[55],[56],[57],[58],[59],[60]

more of the same removal of negative info, changing disliked to fun-loving appreciated: [61],[62],[63],[64]

Thank you, --CutOffTies (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Saying "he was universally disliked" is a serious allegation against a living person; it's potentially seriously defamatory, and needs multiple reliable sources. What you call "sourced" is a single opinion piece that quotes a single unnamed person, that doesn't come close to supporting the claim it purports to cite. The best that single article could be said to support would be something like "a Cincinnati Enquirer story claimed that Bowden was unpopular with his peers", but even then it doesn't belong in the article without corroboration. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 21:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

What does "universally disliked" mean anyway? That even his own mother doesn't like him? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the wording in the article should be improved, but that's not the issue I was bringing up here. If there's no further input on thelong term pattern of IP/COI editing, then please resolve this as a stupid post by me. Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 22:02, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

You're right to be concerned about the IP's edits (they're also unacceptable, not least because they're unsourced too), but the COI policy does allow individuals to access pages about themselves, and some of the stuff they've removed certainly should have been removed. If there were an acceptable article which someone was replacing with encomium, that would be an issue (whether done by the subject or not); but right now there's some bad stuff and fixing that, belt and braces, should be our concern. -- Finlay McWalter ☻ Talk 22:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I removed the universally disliked. I suppose this would be different if the IP editing didn't put things like "His fun-loving character was appreciated" and removed the sourced FBI investigation. Regardless, this doesn't appear to be an issue for ANI. Thanks. --CutOffTies (talk) 22:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit Warring on Nadine Coyle WP

Northern Ireland is a complex issue, even on Wikipedia. It's the whole 'Two men in one trousers' thing. In any case, if folks want to carry out this discussion, please do it on the article talk page or another venue. There's no need for administrator action here. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 23:38, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

User:O_Fenian is edit warring on said page. The dispute is over a source. The source does not prove that 'she' is Irish. The user alleges that if you delve further into the website, and to do so you need to pay a membership, that the relevant information is there. Given that Wikipedia is a FREE to view website, should the sources used not also be FREE to view, or how else would you verify that the information is correct? I have requested the user to find a source that is free to view but he/she is unwilling to budge. Please advise?Afterlife10 (talk) 21:01, 12 January 2011 (UTC) I'm sorry O_Fenian, but I've made the mistake of assuming good faith with you in the past, and given your history of POV pushing, how was I to know that this case was any different?Afterlife10 (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC) The source does indeed prove it, but Afterlife10 is unwilling to assume good faith or pay to see the source. A quote has been provided but that has not been accepted, and instead he is promoting his somewhat bizarre opinion that if a source is not free to view it cannot be used, and started an edit war to exclude it. O Fenian (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Nadine Coyle is Irish; removing that (very correct!) information is, in my eyes, disruptive. GiantSnowman 21:11, 12 January 2011 (UTC) GiantSnowman, feel free to follow the link, sign up for membership and verify the source. Thank you.Afterlife10 (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Another source has been provided, so that's not an issue. GiantSnowman 22:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC) No, sources are not required to be free - just WP:VERIFIABLE. In some articles the references used might not be available from a public library and there might need to be a subscription or membership fee. Also, sources need not be verifiable by everyone to comply (experts and authorities might have access to those references that other members of the public may not). There is nothing that says sources should be free or universally available. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC) The edit war seems to be over "Northern Irish" vs. "Irish". Have the people of Northern Ireland ceased to be Irish? I wouldn't think so. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:39, 12 January 2011 (UTC) I'm pretty sure there is no problem in describing someone from Northern Ireland as Northern Irish...unless I am wrong and wikipedia really has gone to the dogs?Afterlife10 (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC) How is Northern Irish not Irish? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC) When it is British. But then you raise the point that if Northern Irish is Irish why can it not just say that Nadine Coyle is Northern Irish?Afterlife10 (talk) 23:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Irish is Irish. The Irish Rovers are from Northern Ireland, but they don't call themselves the Northern Irish Rovers. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Thats fascinating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_Northern_Ireland#cite_note-GFA-0. Opening line to this well sourced WP - Northern Irish people or people of Northern Ireland are "all persons born in Northern Ireland and having, at the time of their birth, at least one parent who is a British citizen, an Irish citizen or is otherwise entitled to reside in Northern Ireland without any restriction on their period of residence,"[1] by joint agreement of the British and Irish Governments.Afterlife10 (talk) 23:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC) "“I’m not into that whole LA approach to fitness. I keep telling people, I’m more European in my attitude. I’m Irish for God’s sake, we don’t work out!”"[65] [my bolding]. Can we mark this as resolved now? Fences&Windows 21:45, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Even without that source I just gave, removing a valid source because you can't access it yourself is disruptive. Fences&Windows 21:49, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Removing a source that readers can not access is hardly disruptive.Afterlife10 (talk) 22:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Some readers can't access it, some can. GiantSnowman 22:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Ok, thanks, GiantSnowman. I'll make the assumption in the future that every reader can read a pay per view source. Thanks for the advice.Afterlife10 (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Books are considered valid sources in general, right? That's a similar situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Pay to view sources are discouraged but not disallowed. Why is there a big load of brown stuff hitting the fan over Irish vs. Northern Irish? Ireland is an island. The amount of hot steam from this conversation made it seem as if the source was claiming Coyle was Dutch! Lol, everyone should take a chill pill. Pay2View sources should be treated the same as books... they are an inconvenience but they're not totally unverifiable. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 23:20, 12 January 2011 (UTC) The majority of sources are either not on the internet - or if they are, they aren't free. You can't write an encyclopaedia on just free internet sources! Fainites barleyscribs 23:33, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• Why has no one linked to WP:PAYWALL yet in this discussion? It specifically states that ease of access to a source (or lack of ease) does not make the source unreliable. We are allowed to use sources that require a payment to access and other users should [WP:AGF|assume good faith]] about the information used from those sources unless there is an easily expressed, genuine reason not to assume good faith. I'm not seeing that here. It should be listed as Irish, Northern Irish is Irish. This isn't a North Dakota vs. South Dakota type of thing. Northern Ireland is still a part of Ireland. (Now, if people express themselves as British in that region, I suppose some case could be made, but the subject of this discussion clearly expresses herself as Irish). Silverseren^C 23:40, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Ah, you closed it as I was typing. I wonder why I didn't get an edit conflict. :/ Silverseren^C 23:41, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I've had that happen occasionally. I have to assume or guess that when you hit "save", there's a certain amount of behind-the-screens work that has to occur, and while that is happening, the database record for the page is locked, and if someone else hits "save", they'll get an edit-conflict message. But if the timing is just right, you might hit save just after the page is unlocked, so no edit conflict occurs, and it looks as if two edits occurred at the same time, which they really didn't. (Techies, feel free to jump in here if you're reading this.) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

RevDel needed at school article

This edit [66] appears to be one student naming another (a minor) as having accessed porn on school computers. Goes well beyond the level of vandalism we should tolerate concerning private individuals, especially children. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:04, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. Fainites ^barleyscribs 23:24, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I revdel'ed a few more revisions as the name was not removed until several edits later. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:47, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Personal racist/ethnocentric attacks.

This is regarding the Momo page; an Asian food. Momos are part of Newari cuisine in Nepal. I edited the page by including the Newars in this page. The user Channarichan deleted the Newars from the page. When I asked her/him through the talk page as to why he deleted The Newars from the page this was her/his response on my Userpage' "too bad....ur race is mixed...so you are excluded....only the mongolian race allowed....you are not one of them...you are different...go edit some curry wiki page...not here..." This is a racist statement. I was offended by this statement so I wrote back, "You need to stop your ethnocentrism and racism.

Whether you like it or not, momos are part of Newar cuisine. Too bad for you. http://www.gorkhapatra.org.np/detail.php?article_id=14534&cat_id=10 Your exclusion of Newars based on them being a "mixed race" is racist and ethnocentric. Your statement "..go edit some curry wiki page...not here..." is offensive. http://www.nepalitimes.com/issue/2003/08/29/Leisure/3918 If you exclude the Newars from the momo page and make any more racist, ethnocentric and offensive statements to me and/or any ethnic groups, you will be reported."

Her/his response in my Userpage is this, "u r pathetic...have u ever seen ur face...please, go eat some curry...and leave us alone...momo is originally tibetan....so im doing a favour for the other ethnic minorities in nepal....its the same as excluding bahuns associating with momo...newars are mixed-race, so they are excluded from momo....anyways, if i wanted to, i can erase the word nepalese from this momo wiki...since it is TIBETAN FOOD. PERIOD."

This person has been attacking me repeatedly with a racist attitude. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobbyCtkr (talk • contribs) 02:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

• I have given the guy the last warning (and also reformatted the references to Momos being Nepali food so to make it clearer Alex Bakharev (talk) 02:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Proxy fraud in Articles for Deletion

1. As of 21:48, 5 January 2011, somebody hidden behind a German proxy 82.199.137.20 placed a {{subst:afdd}} template onto a page International Delphic Council.

This template is used in Russian Wikipedia to set up a common article deletion procedure. In English Wikipedia this template does not work (since local syntax is {{subst:afd1}} etc.)

2. 3 minutes later, at 21:51 (same diff, right part), this mistake was corrected by an anonymous user from Moscow, Russia (IP 85.140.130.136).

3. At 21:55, 5 January 2011 the same quasi-„German” user (82.199.137.20) saved the text of his application for deletion at the relevant page. This text was anonymous also in the sense that an applicant did not sign it with ~~~~: a bot Sinebot did it next minute at 21:56.

At 08:05, 6 January 2011 admin KrakatoaKatie found out, that 82.199.137.20 was a proxy and blocked it (ports 22, 25, 3128, 5666, 5910) with an expiry time of 3 months.

---

Evidences show that all three abovementioned edits are logically and technically the consequent chain links of the same "consubstantial" procedure.

From a formal point of view, there are two IP's — BTW is this a reason for this fraudly published application was not deleted together with blocking its "source", a proxy?

Actually, step No.2 (template correction from Moscow) was a prerequisite for the proper completion of step No.3, since it is the only means to provide publisher with a correct link to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Delphic Council page. An assumption that there’s another way (to open this discussion, one may type this link manually) does not fit with the fact that at his first step somebody from behind 82.199.137.20 preferred to use the template. Coincidentally — in a syntax, well known in Russian Wikipedia.

Minor indirect evidences of the Russian origin of a fraudly published application

1. The syntax and the style of the document. Multiple usage of quotes around the words intentionally used in the opposite sense is also rather Russian than English specificity, but what is more important here is a
2. type of quotation marks. These are not ASCII-34 (") straight quotes, as Arial font shows. The quotes used in this application originate from MS Word — which substitutes straight quotes with the paired ones. Also coincidentally, the defaults for this substitition for the Russian version are the same, as one may see in the in the application text: ASCII-147 (“, HTML &ldquo;) before, and ASCII-148 (”, HTML &rdquo;) after each word.

The present application concerns "Russian" exclusively in the sense of an origin of an IP 85.140.130.136. An assumption I hereby request to confirm, is that

• whether the edit No.2 performed at 21:48, 5 January 2011 from Moscow (85.140.130.136), may be treated as originating from the same source, as edits No.1 and No.3, tagged by German proxy 82.199.137.20?

Presumably, 85.140.130.136 (or IP near it, in 85.140.0.0÷85.140.255.255 spread) may be logged among the users who clicked at the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion or another pages, looking way to correct the syntax for a {{subst:afdd}} template. His possible clicks at International Delphic Council shortly before 21:48 may also be treated, as a sign of sock-puppeting in this fraud action.

Note 1: The severity of this specific offense is aggravated by the fact, that actually English Wikipedia was attacked by a hacker from another namespace. I know that apart from IP’s there are other technical means of identification (browser version, computer name, screen resolution etc.), and that cookies we are required to accept may also be helpful in this case. One successful case of investigation of such fraud may have a synergetic effect in strengthening barriers protecting honest users of Wikipedia from cheaters, no matter which were the incentives of their fradulent activities.

Note 2: a local request in ru-wiki for further investigation of activites from Moscow IP was posted by me yesterday. Cherurbino (talk) 02:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the merits of the AfD, but that one was definitely incorrect. I removed the AfD template and restored the AfD to the version that the closer of the first discussion had. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 02:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, Sarek. I did not notice any traces of your edits in the pages concerned. Which template replacement do yo mean, and where? (mb a diff here may help). Cherurbino (talk) 03:00, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I did not touch with the merits of the article itself here. These shall be the subject of a separate motivated objection which shall be posted in AfD section in a short time. Here, at this noticeboard I consider only fraud, as an improper method. Also, references to the 'coordinated activity' (sockpuppeting) here are merely an alternative treatment of what is seen as an "activity from 2 IP's". IMHO closer explanation of this phenomenon is that a 'hacker' may have opened another browser to look for a proper template, and this browser was not set to work via proxy, thus disclosing the original operator. Cherurbino (talk) 03:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Editing from a proxy is not a blockable offence, and neither is using more than one IP necessarily a violation of the sockpuppetry policy. Had these IPs gone through and vote stacked at an AFD, that would be another matter, but they didn't. So where is the fraud that needs to be investigated? Someguy1221 (talk) 05:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Someguy1221, it depends on the type of proxy. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 06:12, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think editing from an open proxy is. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Open proxy IPs are blockable on sight. If unsure if an ip is an open proxy, they should be reported to the open proxy project. The use of open proxies by an account is not necessarily a blockable offence for the account, unless used for sockpuppetry. Sailsbystars (talk) 06:21, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that open proxies should not be blocked on site. Rather, I am pointing out that if an editor uses an open proxy, but then stops, his actual IP address need not be blocked as well. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: «Editing from a proxy is not a blockable offence» (Someguy1221): there are different reasons for using proxies. This specific case, when an author, presumably sitting in Moscow, intentionally pretends that he is from Germany — is fraud. He 'pretends' not only by using a forged IP. He 'plays a role of a German' also in the text of his application: here he writes: "7 links lead to Russian press (?) which I can’t properly analyze". I can't beleive that a person who knows how to reset a proxy and a port in his browser to look like German knows nothing about translate.google.com and other online translating utilities. You see, guys, he 'overplayed' here. So this action cannot be treated other like fradulence.

Re: «if an editor uses an open proxy, but then stops, his actual IP address need not be blocked as well» — what he did, is already done. So I agree that blocking a specific IP (and, blocking proxy, as well) is of zero importance for the future. So, what I am asking for, is not to block, but to confirm, that the original source of the entire action (setting AfD) was computer(s) which originally accessed Internet between 21:48 and 21:55 on January, 5, from IP 85.140.130.136 in Moscow. Cherurbino (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Will Beback

Just a note - I'd be really, really appreciative if administrators in a content dispute didn't show up on my talk page making vague threats without evidence, despite requests. And a side note - I'm willingly hands-off all the Sarah Palin articles (I've tried to help with them since before this insanity) but it would be super-duper awesome if, at the very least, ONE SINGLE ADMIN would step up to deal with issues at these articles. It would be hard to find a bigger nest of BLP violations and POV-pushing. Kelly ^hi! 03:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I've been a bit baffled by Will and his recent actions surrounding the Palin articles, but his "warning" Kelly and then responding that a request for a "careful" explanation of his reasoning would be accompanied by "formal" action is beyond inappropriate for an involved administrator, let alone relating to an article subject to probation. The Palin articles are regularly subject to anonymous and single-purpose drive-by pov-pushing, and the editors (from both "sides" — or no particular side — of the political spectrum) that do their best to try to ensure the end result is neutral and reliably sourced deserve a tad bit better than careless accusations and threats from an administrator that ought to know better. (I've left Will a note regarding this discussion.) jæs (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

warning you that you are making a lot of reverts i did not realize there was a limit? approaching the 3RR limit, should we lower it to 2 reverts? Will would you consider a voluntary break from this topic? after reviewing your contributions, i am concerned there is a chance you are pushing a pov. the best/easiest solution to this issue, is maybe if you refrain from engaging this topic. i think the amount of time of your absence should be decided by you. Darkstar1st (talk) 04:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'd be happy to join the other contributors in this thread in a break from the Palin articles. However I don't see what POV pushing you might be alluding to. Could you please provide diffs that show a pattern of POV pushing behavior on Palin-related articles?   Will Beback  talk  06:58, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

For a number of reasons, Sarah Palin articles draw a lot of attention, and a lot of that attention is detrimental. She is constantly in the spotlight, and makes news seemingly almost every day. So, unfortunately, the obvious solution - full lockdown of the article - is not possible. The only alternative in a case like that is for a small number of BLP defenders, such as Kelly, to stand up to the constant flow of editors who want to post every freakin' negative thing they can get their hands on, in defiance of any article probation and of the BLP rules. Keep in mind that BLP matters are of paramount importance to the wikipedia owners, much more so than concerns about edit-warring and the like. The fact that Palin is a media lightning-rod does not exempt her article here from the BLP rules. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I think admins like Will Beback are an asset to wp - the detractors above hypocritical, worthless POV pushers. Sayerslle (talk) 06:23, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Or, howabout that reasonable people can still disagree and come into conflict, and there's no need to demonize either side in any dispute, especially not with baseless, rude personal attacks as you just did... --Jayron32 06:26, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe Sayerslle was referring to the "toxic authoritarian Right," which is apparently how he defines any editor who does not agree with him on the content that he wants or believes must be inserted into the Palin article(s). This would be a good dime a dozen example of why users like Kelly are pretty damned invaluable, and pretty difficult to come by at the various Palin articles — and a good demonstration of why Will being careless in his accusations in the midst of a content dispute (and stifling any questions about his behaviour with threat of "formal" action) is a very bad thing. jæs (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Wow, I've never before been accused of being a TAR baby. It almost makes me regret having voted for Obama. :) You're right, Kelly is vital to trying to keep political articles neutral, and has kept this up valiantly while many of us long ago gave up on trying to fight the mongrel hordes. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Mongrel hordes? Buster Seven Talk 06:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

One of the first and most important steps in dispute resolution is to raise the concern with the editor. See WP:DR#Discuss with the other party. I have made no threats, vague or otherwise. My post was to raise a concern that Kelly is perhaps exhibiting signs of ownership of Palin-related articles. I don't believe I'm the first editor to do so. I do not suggest that any sanctions or remedies be imposed on Kelly. Rather, I was trying to give a heads-up to avoid anything like that happening. If Kelly would like to have other editors or admins help by taking up the slack in watching the Palin articles, then picking fights with or reverting those who show up won't encourage more participation. Further, I believe that Kelly's editing has tended to promote a pro-Palin POV, and to minimize other POVs. While I think everyone endorses vigorous enforcement of BLP, BLP does not require or sanction the routine deletion of negative material which is properly source, relevant, and necessary for NPOV. To avoid ownership concerns, it would help if Kelly could be more accepting of edits that don't breach BLP, but which don't fit Kelly's POV about the topic either.   Will Beback  talk  06:51, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

"I have made no threats, vague or otherwise." I don't know how else to define the response you gave when Kelly asked you to provide evidence of your accusations: "If you like, I can make a more careful evaluation, but if I do that then it would no longer be an informal warning."^[67] Not only is that a pretty clear threat, but it sounds like a veiled threat of administrative action. Given your heavy involvement in several content disputes at various Palin-related articles, tossing around threats of "formal" action is highly questionable, let alone when someone is asking you — in good faith — to explain an accusation that several other editors here also believe to have been uncalled for, no? jæs (talk) 06:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Kelly, I see no justification for bringing this complaint, based on my own review of the edits that Will was responding to. For example, your removal of the url in the ref for the After Health Vote, Threats on Democrats NY Times story at http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/25/health/policy/25health.html seems to me enough of a red flag all by itself to support Will's polite expression of concern on your talk page, even without consideration of your other edits. Regardless of anyone's view on this, though, a moment's reflection will make it obvious to any experienced editor that there's no action that's going to be taken against anyone on the basis of this thread, so I'd respectfully suggest we close it and all move on to more productive activities. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

how long does a through review of the article history take one? perhaps less time than it took to write this. i just did and could not find anything of note. Darkstar1st (talk) 07:36, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the diff, I would doubt that was an intentional "removal." God knows I'm still terrible at remembering the proper format for cites, and frequently copy, cut, and paste from other live edit areas. Since Kelly was adding several other references in that same edit, that seems like a plausible, good faith editing error to me. Kelly did not remove the reference, and I'd hardly call the edit, otherwise a productive one, a "red flag." The threat of administrative action by an involved administrator, however, is a very big red flag. jæs (talk) 07:47, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As a related aside, I really don't know what's going on with Will, but I'm beginning to seriously question his editing and tactics at the Palin-related articles. jæs (talk) 08:01, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Concerns have been raised by other editors over Will Beback's treatment of BLP articles. So, this instance isn't the first time. In my opinion, he might need to stay away from BLP articles for awhile. Cla68 (talk) 08:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

There have been no serious accusation of any BLP violations on my part, here or in any other context. Please don't make unsupported accusations. Doing so repeatedly is a form of harassment.   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

If he is sincerely suggesting that talkingpointsmemo.com is an acceptable reliable source, no less for an article subject to wp:blp, then I have to agree. jæs (talk) 08:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think I made any such suggestion. Instead, I was asking for more information. Please assume good faith.   Will Beback  talk  08:48, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't assume anything other than good faith. You said: "In general, sources from big companies [like TPM] are assumed to be reliable, because they're likelier to have an editorial process and because they have a business that can be sued for libel if there are errors." jæs (talk) 08:52, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

BobJohansen

Resolved

 – Blocked

This user has been warned multiple times and continues to vandalize Talk:2011 Tucson shooting - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:53, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, Teh Truth. –MuZemike 07:40, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Frantzedward.cha

Frantzedward.cha (talk · contribs) seems to have some competence issues and repeated disruptive edits. To wit:

• Microstub on a person notable only for one show; no categories or sources. This was just one of several, most of which were A7'd.
• Repeated changes in very short periods of time, often to fix a mistake
• Changing a voice actor credit from the right name to the wrong one despite IMDb and other sources confirming that the character is indeed voiced by William Salyers; history shows other additions of similar inaccurate/unsourced info
• An mess of a stub article with no references or categories about a non-notable TV movie.
• Repeated creation of unsourced BLPs on voice actors (Jeremy Shada, Matt L. Jones, etc.)

I see that in February, this user got up to a level 3 warning from now-retired user Baa about creating repeated unsourced BLPs; said warning went entirely unnoticed. After that, the user was uploaded about a dozen images with bad copyrights, and got a 31-hour block for doing so. Immediately upon unblock, the user added inaccurate info to The Penguins of Madagascar and Ed, Edd n Eddy, getting up to a "final" warning.

After that, yet more bad images which got deleted, and repeated addition of unsourced material to The Suite Life Movie. They have since escalated to outright hoaxing on The Chowder Movie, an article about a patently nonexistant movie related to the cartoon Chowder.

In short, it looks like this user seems to be more than a little short on WP:COMPETENCE. While some of their edits are useful, there's just so much crap amid what little positive contributions they make and it's causing everyone headaches. They are not responding on their talk page, nor are they showing any signs to become a better editor. Nothing at all has changed in their edit history in 11 months, which is more than enough time to learn how to do things right. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 06:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I would agree. I noted this user around a month ago, and was somewhat disturbed by the lack of clue, but was quite busy at the time and so didn't try and address it. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 06:08, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds very much like this chap. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

In fact, after looking at the contribs (and especially the deleted ones) it so obviously is this person that I've blocked per DUCK. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:06, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, not so sure now. Article interest - check. Unhelpful edits - check. No edit summaries or communication - check. But some others aren't quite the same. Black Kite (t) (c) 07:15, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

As far as CheckUser is concerned, everything else is  Stale, so I have virtually nothing to go off of, except approximate geolocation data, which shows the same metropolitan area as the long-term abuser in question. –MuZemike 07:37, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

i.e. that was from the LTA link Black Kite provided above. Otherwise, I cannot conclude anything else. –MuZemike 07:38, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Franamax and the artist now known as Comet Egypt

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – I should have read through the tl;dr threads that commonly populate the top half of AN/I. Apologies to Franamax; complaint withdrawn as warrantless. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 08:09, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

(Note: I have no dog in this fight; I am reporting it based off of what I've seen on WP:CHU and reading about it from there.)

About a month ago, Franamax (talk · contribs) had a concern with Comet Egypt (talk · contribs)'s name, which at the time was User:Nissae Isen's Man, and reported it to RFCUN (here). After a month of debate, the ultimate consensus was to allow the username.

Fastforward four days to today. When looking at CHU I come across a rename request filed by Franamax, who claims it is the only way for a user to get out of a block - levied by Franamax for disruptive editing. After X! (talk · contribs) performed the rename, Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) voiced his concerns, and I quote:

[...]This username was specifically discussed and allowed on WP:RFCUN, and here we are four days later [...] and the same editor complaining there has blocked the editor and forced them to change their username after it was determined the username was perfectly fine?

Note, I make no comments on the merits of Franamax's block, provided that the reason for the block was indeed disruptive editing. My issue is that the events after the block appear to be a blatant attempt to dodge the consensus reached by other users at RFCUN by blocking him for a reason unrelated to his username and forcing him to change his name as a prerequisite for an unblock. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 07:34, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

The use of "disruptive editing" was indeed my rationale for the block. Subsequent to that block, serious BLP concerns arose which rendered the use of that username unviable. I would indeed not countenance an unblock without that username (and the sig and Google search results thereto) being changed. I would urge you to read the #attempt to tone user down thread above and consider changing the title of this thread. Franamax (talk) 07:54, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Ack, Franamax, apologies, and I apologie for the show of bad faith. I'll point that thread out to Nihonjoe and archive this thread after I have done so. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Hyper Combo K.O.!)} 08:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Regardless of the reasoning behind the original decision to allow the user to keep the name, BLP takes precedence, and the name had to go. But even if the user had already called itself by its current name, it would probably still be on ice due to its approach to editing. In short, Franamax did the right thing. I would even say that Franamax has been more generous to the user in question than he needed to be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:02, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

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