Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
On how things can be read
Line 1,064: Line 1,064:


:::Per Andy above, wifi doesn't give people access to his account; further, the edit itself was obviously that of someone at least familiar with Wikipedia, if not of the temperament and personality Rod has displayed on-wiki in the past. I am fairly certain that these circumstances do not allow for the account to have been compromised. The diffs above all seem characteristic of one experienced person who's simply taken DGAF too far. [[User talk:Sonia|<font color="#CC0099">sonia</font><font color="black">♫</font>]] 07:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
:::Per Andy above, wifi doesn't give people access to his account; further, the edit itself was obviously that of someone at least familiar with Wikipedia, if not of the temperament and personality Rod has displayed on-wiki in the past. I am fairly certain that these circumstances do not allow for the account to have been compromised. The diffs above all seem characteristic of one experienced person who's simply taken DGAF too far. [[User talk:Sonia|<font color="#CC0099">sonia</font><font color="black">♫</font>]] 07:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
:Reserving judgment until Rod responds, but the assertion that an edit might have been inserted into his unsecured wi-fi is not particularly credible, speaking in my personal experience as a computer security practitioner. [[User:Jclemens|Jclemens]] ([[User talk:Jclemens|talk]]) 07:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Revision as of 07:43, 13 November 2010


    Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

    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. (archivessearch)

    Ongoing conflict over links and content of the Qumran article

    For more than a week I have been involved in a slow edit conflict, not really knowing how otherwise to proceed, over the Qumran article. This is an article about the archaeological site of Qumran. I am attempting to make sure, as I see it, all content is on topic and neutrality is maintained.

    1. When the person I am in conflict with wants to post external links that are about other aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls and material of his own production, I remove them. They are already to be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls article, so he's getting the publicity there. At the moment he is no longer trying to post one of his papers, the published one, though he continues to insert his unpublished paper as an external link and has decided to add a link to a Dead Sea Scrolls organization, an organization I long ago created an article for which has the link, The Orion Center, an article that can be accessed from every Dead Sea Scrolls related article through the navbox I put at the bottom. In an effort to clarify the problem to the editor, I divided the remaining external links into two categories, "Scholarly articles about the site of Qumran" and "Other links about the site of Qumran". The editor now removes these categories in order to insert his links.

    2. The editor also inserts a comment, I consider both tangential and argumentative. He considers it background to his interpretation of the site. I work on the notion that if material is about the contents of the scrolls, then it is not directly relevant to the site of Qumran. The particular comment follows information about a scholarly opinion from Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, the person who first suggested that the scrolls came to Qumran from Jerusalem, an opinion which reflects a particular approach to the analysis of the site. The editor wants to insert this afterwards:

    Rengstorf (p.15) also asked: "What is the explanation of the fact that the Essenes, who, it is claimed, speak, among other things, precisely about themselves and their views and customs in the Dead Sea texts, but always use other names for themselves?" In fact, many scholars have concluded that the Hebrew origin of the name Essenes indeed appears as a self-designation in some Qumran scrolls.

    The "In fact" ushers in unnecessarily argumentative material about the Essenes. This for me is clearly not related to the site of Qumran. The editor believes that the Essenes were responsible for the site of Qumran, which is his prerogative, though here the material is gratuitous.

    Here are my last two edits: [1] and [2] They represent the battleground.

    To sum up the positions, I'm arguing lack of consensus, relevance and neutrality, a conflict of interest, and original research. He's arguing for relevance and against censorship.

    The conflict is probably exacerbated by the fact that the editor and I have had conflicts on internet for well over ten years. It continues in a mild form on the discussion page

    My desire here is to find some efficacious resolution to the conflict. I'm not interested in any punitive action or discouragement of editing. I just don't want to have to continue in this tug-of-war which is for me fruitless. I can of course abandon the article, though it is the only one I do much work on (though I have written over a dozen articles for the DSS topic), but that would be to me to say that I have wasted my time. The best solution in my eyes would be if I could find an administrator who would be willing to spend the time needed to adjudicate the problem. Though this is a highly specialized topic, an understanding of the problems shouldn't require more than some patience. I would have tried a third opinion but there was no way I could think of providing a neutral presentation of the "facts".

    Thanks for your consideration. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The material that Ihutchesson removes from the article should remain in the article because they are descriptive of current major issues in the discussion of Qumran, as I document with peer-reviewed scholarly publications by numerous scholars. Some of my improvements to the article remain. And the link group headings are inaccurate and misleading; I have suggested that link annotations are more helpful for readers. I have published in multiple peer-reviewed scholarly publications, have archaeological excavation experience in Israel, and have a Duke U. Ph.D.; I have not seen any such scholarly peer-reviewed publications from the one who deletes major scholarly views and who classifies links as "scholarly" or not. The article version without the observations that he deletes is certainly *less* "neutral." I recognize that there are issues on which there are different interpretations, no consensus yet. I seek representation for major issues, giving both sides, and giving the reader options to be aware of and to read a range of the major viewpoints. Let the reader decide. The reader cannot be well informed if major viewpoints are censored out of the article, as one editor (who acts as if he owns the article), unfortunately, does. Let the readers have all relevant major facts. Coralapus (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus[reply]

    This editor has missed the point about my removal of his unpublished research interpreting some of the contents of the scrolls. The article is not about what may be in the scrolls but the site of Qumran. There are other places where he would better find grounds for posting his material, for example in the Dead Sea Scrolls article, where it seems to be more relevant than an article about the archaeological site, if his original research (WP:OR) is well adapted to be anywhere on Wiki going by the Wiki ethos. And posting one's own materials does seem to be a conflict of interest (WP:COI).
    The inclusion of material purely because it can be hitched onto another piece of information by the same person, thus allowing for a gratuitous comment still seems to me to be argumentative, provocative and unhelpful in its context.
    He has also upped the frequency of his reversions: in the last 24 hours it was three times. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    In simple terms, the majority view of archaeologists and scholars about Qumran is that Essenes lived there; a minority view is that Essenes did not live there. I hold the majority view; he holds the minority view. He misleads readers by excluding--on quite changing, ad hoc, any means to an end grounds--sufficient material from the majority view to be proportionally represented. The scrolls are archaeological facts relevant to the site, in the majority view. I seek to have both views represented and let the readers decide. He prefers to slant the article to the minority view. Readers would be ill served by his biased editing. I allow both views for readers to consider. I have not erased in the bibliography his non-scholarly article that represents the viewpoint of no one (to my knowledge) besides him. That, in an abundance of allowance of a distinctly minority view. His approach, simply, is to seek to erase that with which he does not agree, while pretending to neutrality. I have written articles for Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, Anchor Bible Dictionary, and other peer-reviewed journals and books, and I know that his approach is neither fair nor scholarly. Coralapus (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus[reply]

    This noticeboard is not a forum to debate your views about the Essenes. It's a place where administrators consider the conflict set before them. I think you misunderstand what Wiki does and are breaking the rules
    1) posting your own materials as references,
    2) insisting on material that isn't directly relevant to the article, and
    3) publicizing yourself rather than working on a good neutral article.
    Your publications are very nice, but again tangential here. Besides, you had editors there, while you are the editor here, and you don't seem aware of the necessities of the job of keeping to the topic or evaluating the worth of the materials you present. For some reason you refuse to see that gratuitous mention of Essenes in a place where such mention is not needed doesn't help the article. Consensus for your material has not been established and I stress that it is your material. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually discussion of Essenes is called for. Descriptively, it is one of the main issues. Your exclusions are unbalancedCoralapus (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus[reply]

    We are dealing with the site of Qumran, not your musing on the Essenes. Obviously your claim that a discussion of them "is one of the main issues" is false regarding the article and shows that you aren't interested in the site of Qumran at all. You have been trumpeting the Essenes from one end of the internet to the other over the last ten or so years, insinuating them everywhere you can. Please try to see that you are not dealing with the site of Qumran, but your pet interest. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Actually I have peer-reviewed publications on archaeology, Essenes, and scrolls and care about all three. And archaeological experience in Israel. (And "Jannaeus" is linked at Bible and Interpretation, a location you use for links). It is simply a fact of history of scholarship that Essenes are relevant to Qumran. Your personal wish and intention to keep that away from readers, to hide the question, the debate, from them, is a clear-cut case of bias. If your bias is sustained, readers loose.Coralapus (talk) 09:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)CoralapusCoralapus (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus[reply]

    If I took a poll of the scholarly internet groups you have been ejected from or cautioned on, what percentage of people would claim that you were a good judge of bias? Please, you need to realize that you are too involved with your own views to do balanced editing on the Qumran article. You cite your own material. You link to your own material. You push your own views to extreme lengths. And all that is totally against Wiki policy. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I do wonder whether, given your history of using aliases on sites that explicitly forbid that, and your use of names quite similar to names of real scholars--i.e your use on ane [ancient near east] and orion [Dead Sea Scrolls] list of "John J. Hays," when there is a real Hebrew Bible, John H. Hayes--I wonder whether Raphael Golb (another sockpuppet) was encouraged by your use of false names, indirectly or directly. (?) In either case, a reader of an article on Qumran should be informed of the majority view as well as the minority one. Just because you temporarily managed to exclude majority views elsewhere hardly recommends a repeat obscurantism. I have added links to other scholars.Coralapus (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus[reply]

    An entertaining kneejerk reaction doesn't change the basic problem that you are not helping the article with your lack of perspective, a lack endemic in your willingness to inject your own materials wherever possible and pervert what the article says to your own tangential ends. (You didn't do the poll.) -- Ihutchesson (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps you think it is funny, but did you apologize to Prof. Hayes? And, if you care to reply: was Raphael Golb encouraged by your use of false names?Coralapus (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus[reply]

    You are making a false accusation in public, Stephen Goranson. There are laws against such abuses. This is endemic of your inability to stick to the subject. You inveterately introduce content inappropriate for the context in which you work: your own original work, your partisan views. Your comment is merely a continuation of the same kneejerk, showing your guileless attempt to think that someone would misspell the name of the person they were supposedly trying to imitate. That's fantasy. We should note that I am here under my name and you are here as a sockpuppet. Now please put aside this misguidedness of yours and try to concentrate on what is beneficial and neutral in the presentation of the Qumran article.
    It seems that you have stopped inserting references to yourself in the article for the moment and I thank you for that. However, I don't see why you removed the headings "scholarly articles on the site of Qumran" and "other links to the site of Qumran". They represent the groups of links they described. What is wrong with them exactly? You are still maintaining the tangent about the Essenes added to a sentence about Rengstorf. He is clearly there because he was first to propose the Jerusalem origin of the scrolls, an act of credit where credit is due. Your insertion has nothing directly to do with the context, so why do you keep reinserting it? -- Ihutchesson (talk) 07:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I asked a question; unanswered. Coralapus (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus (Stephen Goranson)[reply]

    Please explain your question. --Ihutchesson (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Your unnecessary and inaccurate heading of "scholarly" excludes Qumran im Netz, while including another that is less so--hence, inaccurate. Coralapus (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus (Stephen Goranson)[reply]

    There were two headings. One was about scholarly articles, the other was for other links about the site of Qumran, which includes the possibility of Qumran in Netz. No inaccuracy shown. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I put in a reference to a major question--the name Essene found at Qumran or not--surely relevant--with a VanderKam reference, which you erased. I will replace that major point of view of VanderKam, Isaak Jost, Melanchthon, Wm. Browmlee, C. Murphy and C. Evans and many others. You should not censor that. Not prevent readers from knowing the relevant *fact* that several scholars find the Hebrew of the name Essenes in Qumran scrolls, as a self-designation. Erasing that would be censorship, bias, distortion, obscurantism. Coralapus (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus (Stephen Goranson)[reply]

    Rengstorf's mention is a historical one about the site. Your dragging in of Essenes purely because he was mentioned is an argumentative tangent. You do not have a consensus for this tangent. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "Rengstorf's mention is a historical one about the site." Yes. And the site is Qumran. Hence relevant. He and numerous other scholars say it is relevant. The question is plain, though perhaps you do not know the answer. The link headings misled, on plain reading. What is different about a mention of an article by me compared to mention of an article by other editors (including you)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coralapus (talkcontribs) 11:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I have put no references to my work in the Qumran article, unlike you who go around putting your stuff wherever you can. Beside Qumran, other Dead Sea Scrolls topics you've inserted yourself (& the articles I have already complained about) are:
    The Dead Sea Scrolls: [3]
    The Essenes: [4]
    The Wicked Priest: [5]
    The Copper Scroll: [6]
    You have also specifically inserted your own name in these articles:
    Murphy's Law: [7]
    Limerick (poetry): [8]
    Serenity Prayer: [9]
    Scrimshaw: [10]
    Bob's your uncle: [11]
    All of this is disguised under your pseudonym, Coralapus, so that no-one could see what you were doing. Coralapus has advertised Stephen Goranson as a librarian at Duke University, a Duke researcher, and an ADS member (from the American Dialect Society List). In fact, Coralapus may have inserted every reference to Stephen Goranson on Wikipedia. If there is not a sin-bin for such behavior on Wiki, there should be. You have the audacity to try to libel me over using a pseudonym on internet about ten years ago and here you are using a pseudonym to disguise yourself while you parade your wares, showing how you use Wikipedia.
    I want to try to maintain a neutral article on Qumran. I don't want to have to deal with your insistent insertion of your name and biases. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 18:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose ban of both users. Jehorn (talk) 18:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It is your prerogative to make such a proposal. It is important to note that when I first posted on this noticeboard, I was seeking administrative help find a reasonable resolution to a problem that was not going away and could not be resolved by we antagonists. What you see here is what I knew to be the case, our inability to end the dispute. I did not, and do not, know how to put this to an end without outside intervention and I couldn't find any Wiki solution, so I came here. I wanted help. I could abide with any decision. I have no desire to stop Coralapus from editing. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 20:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposal to amend ban on SRQ imposed at ANI: from 1 year to indef

    Community-banned unanimously for 1 year for "constant issues with collegial editing"[12] (only to have the ban reset after subsequent sockpuppetry[13]) SRQ continues to disrupt article and userspace through her use of different IPs and named accounts that are routinely being discovered. When the initial ban was reset, it was to be followed by an indefinite block after the ban's expiration: I propose implementing a permanent siteban instead so that her edits can continue to be reverted on sight. The socking has become more frequent and harassing in nature towards her usual targets Crohnie (talk · contribs) and especially DocOfSoc (talk · contribs), and there is neither hope nor intention of this former editor returning constuctively here. With a lengthy and growing list of mostly "one-or-two-off" IP sockpuppets, she mocks the CheckUser process by challenging its ability to detect her, and has recently taken to blaming others for her sockpuppetry[14] (while blatantly and disruptively socking). Many diffs can be provided upon request, but I feel there is more than sufficient cause for a permanent community siteban to be implemented, rather than the fixed-duration community ban that is overdue for another "reset". Doc talk 04:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note This is a request to amend the ban from 1 year to indefinite, so I have updated the header. It appears that there are 21 confirmed socks, 68 suspected socks, and possibly more that have not been tagged. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support per Bwilkins, HJ Mitchell, EdJohnston, and others below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strongly Support Comment to follow. DocOfSoc (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose I don't think she's gone completely out of hand. She still made an entirely constructive revert to a living person just recently before she was blocked. Minimac (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Clearly SRQ cannot adhere to Wikipedia's rules. One occasional good revert does not make up for the harassment and socking she's done and continues to do. AniMate 07:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support I originally had hoped that she would see WP:OFFER or return after the block to edit constructively. I also supported the revdel of her very personal request since it showed some humility and seemed the right thing to do. However, the behavior before the block was so disruptive that when coupled with a complete lack of respect for the block and thumbing her nose at the community (especially the admin who showed some heart) means that it seems appropriate. If an extension of indefinite does not have consensus then it at least needs to be reset to the last edit confirmed to be by a sock and maybe even extended for continued disruption.Cptnono (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support Enough is enough, once you start socking that much there's no hope. --Rschen7754 07:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support. The disruption was so persistent that the 1-year ban was unanimous, and this degree of socking is simply outrageous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Support This user will never stop. She has admitted to stalking my edits and that of DocOfSoc over at Wikipedia Review where she immediately set up an account after she was blocked. The latest sock that was blocked put this disgusting message on my talk page on 11/08/10. There are more of her going to editors that don't know her to cause problems like this on 10/26/10. If there is a checkuser about I would also appreciate a checkuser done to get rid of any sleeper accounts she may have too since she said she would set up a bunch of accounts to drive us crazy. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGalTalk 11:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, with the proviso that "indef" in this case means "at least 1 year" from its imposition. Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunate support I'm one of those who believe that SRQ was pushed into a series of actions that led to the original block. However, their actions since that time have led me to believe that they don't give two craps about policy around here. They had a chance to perhaps come back. They blew it and got a 1 yr ban. They then had a chance to come back after that, and they continue to thumb their nose at policy. Well sorry, as much as I supported them originally, I have to say "feckit, you wasted my faith in you". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC) No longer 100% convinced. Also, responses to my question below are from those with whom SRQ has significant non-positive interaction which waters down the overall argument. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reluctant support. It's always a great shame when it comes to this for a once productive editor, but we can't excuse the repeated socking when it's used to harass and attempt to upset other editors. SRQ, on the off chance that you might read this: Please, stop this nonsense, disengage with Wikipedia and serve your time quietly before it's too late for you ever to return. Indefinite does not yet have to mean infinite. Yet. But if you keep this up it will. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support, having had quite enough after participating in the latest unblock-my-sock discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support -- If this editor ever decides to start behaving well, and wants to return to the encyclopedia, they know what they have to do. No sign of that so far. The IPs would be hard to rangeblock, and there is a large number of them. See the suspected and confirmed socks as well as WP:Sockpuppet investigations/SkagitRiverQueen/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose procedurally. Because of the model currently in place on WP, indef bans to stop sockpuppetering simply don't work because making a new account or switching IPs to get around a block is too easy. It's best to give the user the possibility to give up sockpuppeting and a chance to come back. -Atmoz (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose Support I doubt it will help keep the socks away. Someone who already does this much socking is probably not going to stop. On the other hand, enough is enough. Inka888 01:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support It won't stop the socking, but it will make it easier to deal with. RadManCF open frequency 02:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Serious question

    As I would hate to impose a permaban on anyone based on evidence that was not beyond doubt, I have a serious question. First, I believe SRQ was on Verizon - which admittedly has thousands of editors coming from there. As such, SPI's would be quite a challenge. I know I gave a pretty damning !vote above, so I want to ensure that the socking is really coming from them. "Suspected" socks means squat to me. Even supposedly "proven" socks can mean that someone is an excellent impersonator - and we have had damn well enough of those. What really are the odds that someone is not effing us over and pulling some damned fine wool over our eyes? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think it would have to be the most epic case of sophisticated trolling ever if that were true. Socks like recently revealed Lazuli Bunting (talk · contribs) edit obscure articles that SRQ is the prime editor for[15] in ways identical to her (esp. changing to surnames later throughout the article)[16], and then try to get the same two users (Crohnie and DocOfSoc) "in trouble". That is how they are discovered: the socks keep repeating the same behavior. Some socks like True Crime Reader (talk · contribs) last a bit longer, until they predictably start harassing the same users and frequenting articles that SRQ did. With her avowed devotion to edit here, and admitted off-site socking[17], I can't see anyone wasting their time to so closely imitate her. The massive list of suspected IPs was compiled when the SPI was in progress, and the attempt to confuse by changing IPs so frequently is obvious and still continues. A contribution check for any IP or sock, suspected or confirmed, shows this can be no one else. I received an off-wiki legal threat from SRQ just two months ago in response to referencing her medical condition on someone's talk page (which she revealed on WP); and she recently responded instantly with IP socks (always Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon) after I tagged a sock that I was wrong about being her. She's actively watching, socking, and stalking edits, and there's no reason not to be positive that 99% of these are her. I've repeatedly asked for CU backup to tie named accounts together: to no avail. Doc talk 18:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment as promised with "Strongly support, earlier" I made my first edit in Wiki on April 8, 2008. From November 4, 2008 until the present, I have been maligned, excoriated, libeled, vastly insulted and stalked by SRQ, minus the few months I did not edit, totally discouraged and nursing my bites inflicted by SRQ, when I was an admittedly clueless "Newbie". She dragged my name thru ANI, without informing me, which discouraged admins from assisting me, when I begged for help. Too bad she took this road, she is a bright, talented editor, who can not hide her obsessive and unfounded loathing for me and others. (for her personal agenda tool lengthy to list here) Despite her egregious interference, I have survived to edit another day with great support. She must be unequivocally stopped. She has an admitted "medical condition" which affects her judgment, and enhances her ability to inflict pain. After 2 and half years, (it felt much longer,) 17 ANI complaints, 21 confirmed socks and 68 suspected socks, it is time for all of us to admit that her case for being a Wiki editor is hopeless. I do not state this lightly and do so without any retaliatory or vengeful motives whatever. She is sad case.DocOfSoc (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Addendum to Serious question: Bwilkins, you have been an enviable supporter of SRQ. I never report a sock puppet of hers unless I am 100% sure. Having been her target literally hundreds of times, I can assure you. when I know, I know unequivocally. Bless your good heart and honest efforts. DocOfSoc (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question #2 What happens now? Does the ban reset? What are we supposed to do when she is here again and she will be, the same as always or have the rules changed about how we do the reporting? These too are serious and not sarcastic questions. I just don't understand what the purpose of doing this was for again, so here I am to find out. Oh and is there a chance that a checkuser is about to check for a sleeper accounts so we can at least know she hasn't built up a cache of awaiting accounts like she said? Thanks for your responses, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Before this discussion, the ban was only for 1 year; each time the user tried to violate it, the ban would be reset each time (making a nightmare trying to figure out when the ban expires after each violation). Presuming that the user was not detected for 1 year (or stopped socking), then the ban would no longer be in force. This would leave the indef block that an admin imposed - in order to have that lifted, the user would then only need to convince 1-2 admins that no more socking would occur and then that would be that; they'd be free to edit.
      • What this discussion does is make the ban indefinite so that there's a more stringent requirement than convincing 1-2 admins - now, the user will need to appeal to the Community before they can be unblocked under any circumstances. There's also no longer a need to go through the complicated process (for each violation) of resetting the ban because now the ban is not for a definite (1 year) duration; it's in place (indefinitely) for as long as the Community deems necessary, so there's nothing to reset (as such). Edits by that user can be reverted as if they are obvious vandalism rather than worrying about whether the ban has been properly reset or not.
      • Hope that helps. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks, it does help, --CrohnieGalTalk 10:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Move To Close

    With this being a few threads away from being archived without decision, having been here twice as long as the "24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members"[18], and having a rather decisive 14-3 consensus of support, I feel it's time for an uninvolved administrator to close this thread with the decision to move SRQ down to the appropriate spot on the List of banned users as a result of this discussion. Doc talk 01:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Bzzt. This user is already banned with an expiry of indef. This thread is nothing more than a failure to deny recognition. You want SRQ to stop? Then stop responding to teh soks. Dropping each other notes about the lastest IP from Verizion, posting SPI junk about them, and regularly coming to ANI is exactly what perpetuates this. WP:RBI, littluns. Jack Merridew 01:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I beg to differ, Jack (good to see ya again, BTW). She's banned for a limited and ambiguously "re-setting" duration, not indef: that's what this thread is about. When socks continue to come at and harass "teh" editors (whether they "respond" or not), it's not about just WP:RBI. This should clarify whether she's banned with an expiry of indef. "It's not going to make her stop socking" is not the best reason to oppose extending the ban, IMHO. A large segment of editors on that list were banned because of socking subsequent to their community bans. Doc talk 01:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, SRQ is blocked indef and I very much doubt any admin would be willing to unblock if she asked, so it is a de facto permaban already. And I don't think there's any ambiguity in the resetting of the one year community ban, it gets reset every time SRQ uses a sock. Every time. She has to stay away for one whole year, and after that try to convince someone that she understands her errors - I really doubt that will happen, but I agree with the few dissenting voices that removing all possibility of redemption is either counterproductive or pointless. Franamax (talk) 19:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The primary everyday functional difference between a community ban and a permanent indef block is that the banned user's editing can be reverted on sight, and does not put the reverting editor at risk of a 3RR violation. If the de facto permaban also allows this to occur, then I suppose there is little difference between them. Still, considering her behavior since being blocked, I think it would be more fitting for her to have to convince the community at large to be reinstated, as she would if community banned, rather than simply convincing any single administrator, who may or may not be totally aware of the circumstances, to unblock her once her one year ban is up (if it ever is). (I would hope that any admin approached by her would perform the due diligence of checking into the background story, but stranger lapses have happened.) For these reasons, I still believe a community ban is called for. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I think that if your communbity ban has expired but you are still blocked, you are still a banned editor, and if you get into an edit war using sock puppets, which is the only way the issue could come up, it would seriously prejudice your unblock request - so if the editor truly changes their behaviour, this won't happen. They will still have to pass the unblocking hurdle, and that won't be 'til at least 23Jul next year, but as far as I'm concerned will be a year from, like, 3 days ago. After that I guess I would just use "rv - block evasion / banned user" and do it as much as needed. Who would file the complaint, or better, has there been a problem with this before? But really, if you're spending as much time as to make 3 reversions you should pass it to an admin before the troll wins. So if I saw it happening in a pattern I would pass it over to AIV first, to get a quick response or RFPP if appropriate, then AN/I if needed, at which point I would claim immunity to 3RR if it ever came up. Defending the wiki, done properly, is a pretty high card to play. As far as the editor being unblocked by a naive admin, I would say trust the reviewing admin, but that might make you spit milk up through your nose. :) Seriously though, I think the admins who watch the unblock requests learn pretty quickly about their orange bar lighting up and they probably wouldn't miss the half-dozen comments below the unblock request. But even so, that possibility presupposes one whole year (minus 3 days) of total quiet. That would be a good thing IMO. Franamax (talk) 00:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    SRQ is already a "unique case" on the list of banned users under "Bans of fixed duration (currently active)", having a far longer entry because of the original reason for banning, and because of the clarification of the reset. To keep that page accurate, another reset notice (and another admin resetting) would have to be added, and this entry would become even less "standard" pretty quickly I would think. Several of her off-site postings at the "troll forum" (where, not surprisingly, she is also socking, even by their standards) prove utter contempt for this project, the same old stubborn determination that she is right and WP is fundamentally wrong, and a hypocritical "flip-flop" in her former condemnation of socking (I've got the diffs and can present them here, but DFTT, right?). SRQ could have waited out the ban and honored it, and she did (and does) not. She could have socked away peacefully, editing content, and never been discovered: but the same disruptive edit-stalking behavior always resurfaces. All of her socks were discovered initially because of disruption, and only after adding "2 and 2" with the edit histories was it painfully obvious who it was in each case. She does not want to participate in a community project: she wants it her way. And there is no changing that.

    WP:List of banned users states under "Banned by the Wikipedia community": "Users who alienate and offend the community enough may eventually be blocked indefinitely by an administrator with no administrator willing to unblock them. Although this has, at times, been considered a de facto ban, only an official community (or ArbCom) WP:BAN allows any editor to automatically revert all edits by banned users (and their sockpuppets) without violating WP:3RR." An indefinite block does not equal a community ban. I further think that it would be more unusual to keep resetting this ban, especially when she's apparently made no effort to actually appeal her initial ban (and still could, even if her ban was extended to indefinite) than it would be to make the next logical step and simply "file her in" with the rest of the community-banned users. Doc talk 02:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Verizon Abuses

    A huge amount of abuse has come from Verizon ranges recently; see WP:ANI#Zsfgseg: Narrow range blocks seem to be possible below for more info in this. Access Deniedtalk to me 19:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Access Denied, what are your recommendations? --A. B. (talkcontribs) 22:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    edit warring on WP:Carlingford Lough

    Carlingford Lough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    3 users are involved in tag-teaming edit-warring on this page. All three Users have made contentious revisions without discussion first. These Users have supported each other in countless discussion topics, swaying consensus. This has to stop! Users involved are the usual suspects of Virtual Revolution,O_Fenian and Mo ainm. This is somewhat of a contentious edit as they wish to remove 'Northern Ireland' from the body of the infobox.

    Here are the diffs:

    Can an admin pick this up and deal with them?Factocop (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    •  
      1. I received a warning for my previous edits and apparent spillover. I opened up a discussion on the topic to discuss further. I have posted a very compelling argument that none of the said users have been able to respond to.
      2. I was unaware of Talk:Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border#Requested move
      3. The 3 users I have mentioned have also commented on the Giant's Causeway page. so what?
    • The 3 users troll pages like a pack of wolves making edits and swaying consensus with their greater numbers. It would be a real shame if this is to continue.Factocop (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    To assume that editors with the same views are acting in concert, or suggest they have ownership issues or similar, can be a breach of WP:AGF.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am not suggesting anything, it just very suspicious that they should appear on the same page at the same time to make the same edit and without raising the change in the discussion topic. Very suspicious.Factocop (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh, of course. You're not suggesting anything, it's just "suspicious." If I could roll my eyes any harder, they'd pop out of my head. You're making a very blatant suggestion of WP:MEAT here, without evidence. I'd suggest you retract that statement. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 18:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Currently blocked for 48 hours, unable to retract at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The article should be reverted to it status before the edit fighting began & then protected. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Well thats what I tried to do, revert back to the original but obviously very difficult to do with a clique of users intent on forcing the issue.Factocop (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thats a mistruth look at the diffs supplied by Uncle G Mo ainm~Talk 15:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • well if I have made 2 reverts and Mo,O Fenian and VR have made 3 revisions collectively then that would mean that the page is not in its original state.Taxi!!!Factocop (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • It's a clear infraction, with these edits here and then here there is not "IF" in this matter. --Domer48'fenian' 17:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Factocop was WP:DUCK blocked as a sock of the Maiden City. Somehow he then persuaded Shell Kinney that although he socked as Pilgrisquest, and apparently edits in the same IP range as the Maiden City, and he edits just like the Maiden City, he isn't the Maiden City. If there is more evidence now that his edits make it probable that he is the Maiden City, then the correct course of action would be to reblock as a sock of Maiden City. I'm not familiar with the Maiden City's edits, so I'll go with the opinions of others here. this is the archive sock investigation, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City awaits your new evidence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Factocop and Blue is better are  Confirmed with regards to each other according to MuZemike. Pilgrimsquest was  Confirmed that this account is the same as Factocop (talk · contribs) by Tnxman307. So regardless of the The Maiden City they are still a sock and block evading editor. Have I got that right? --Domer48'fenian' 19:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Holy smokers, how'd Factocop manage to get unblocked? GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I asked the same question a few days ago, when he was edit warring over the Irish name of a soccer stadium. He had been indef'd at one point,[19] but somehow he convinced an admin that he wasn't a sock. Even disregarding that, he's got a pretty impressive rap sheet for a guy who's only been registered for 2 months. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder, what is the Irish for "He gawn, bye-bye!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Tá sé imithe buíochas a ghabháil le Dia. --Domer48'fenian' 22:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The Factocop accounts needs to be blocked as a sock-puppet. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm surprised he hasn't been already. This needs an immediate indef placed on the main account. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 23:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sure the admins will take care of it once they've finished their weekly bowling outing. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait, why wasn't I invited? *sniff* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, bowling is dullsville. Sometimes it's so quiet you can hear a pin drop. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note: it is correct that I blocked Factocop per WP:DUCK as a sock of TMC (TheMaidenCity). Blue_is_better was blocked per the CU evidence of being Factocop. This "spilling over" of one dispute to another page about Northern Irleand being/not being a country is similar to TMC's MO. I've asked Shell Kinney for clarification on the unblock. It was based on private evidence so if she can comment I've asked her to leave a note here--Cailil talk 10:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • In the meantime, could you extend the current temporary block until you get an answer? It's due to expire soon, and it's clear from his talk page (including reference to this discussion as "rubbish") that the block has so far done nothing to change his approach. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible socks

    Factocop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Blue is better (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    Pilgrimsquest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    The_Maiden_City (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    BritishWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Not a sock.

    Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City/Archive

    BritishWatcher was not mentioned in the SPI, and is still active, but here[20] Blue is better indicates he is a sock of BritishWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which he immediately reverted when he realized that he had given the game away.

    Here[21] and here[22] Pilgrimsquest claims to be a sock of Factocop while denying being Blue is better (nor Maiden City, in another link).

    If you look at their histories, they are all pushing the same anti-Republic of Ireland viewpoint and sharing invective for specific other users, especially O Fenian.

    Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The difference is that I've seen BritishWatcher make intelligently-thought out edits. Although, both Factocop and BritishWatcher do suffer from WP:IDONTGETIT, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:IDECLINETOREADTHATPOLICY, and WP:WHONEEDSCOMMONSENSE at times. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That may well be, but the blocked editor Blue is better appears to be a sock of BritishWatcher. The checkuser is feverishly studying this matter, as we speak. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Has an SPI been filed - where? Has BW been notified? If BW is a sock, he should be treated no differently and suffer the same fate as any other sock. Many socks make intelligent edits, that does not excuse the behaviour. A CU should clear it up fairly quickly. --HighKing (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have notified BritishWatcher. The SPI at the top of this sub-section is the only SPI that I'm aware of. Supposedly, the admin who released Factocop from bondage recently is looking into this situation. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure the edit given above where blueisbetter replaced BW's sig proves anything, it stood for awhile. I actually remember it, considered it a Blueisbetter mistake at the time. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It actually only stood for a minute or two, as he reverted himself. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is a lot of similarity of interest in one side of the British Isles topic, and a degree of similarity in style, although BritishWatch, while he can get chippy sometimes, doesn't seem to go ballastic like those other guys do/did. So it could have been a mistake, but it's a weird mistake to make. I'd just like to have a checkuser look into it. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    I am not a sock and i dont mind a checkuser making sure if it is really needed. The second post currently displayed on factocops talk page is by me asking him to read the IMOS and that it needs to say Derry. Ive also undone quite a few edits where people change Derry to Londonderry. I am not a fan of the present agreement on use of Derry / Londonderry but ive not gone around changing it like some socks have. Ive undone such changes and even reported some to AIV. Ive not been active in recent weeks on wikipedia, some of the things that have been taking place over the past month or so on here have been pretty depressing. This sadly reaffirms it even more. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    'Tis best for everyone, that the CUs be run, so as to clear up any doubts. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree. And I'd feel pretty fooled if BW turns out to be a sock because he certainly doesn't act like one. So I'd still wager he's not one, but a CU will confirm. --HighKing (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to clear things up, Factocop appealed to the Ban-Appeals SubCommittee with the claim that he was not Blue is better. The Arbs reviewed and decided that claim was correct; I carried out the unblocking, but I'm just the paper-pusher there :) I don't believe the bit about Pilgrimsquest was brought up at all during the review. With that in mind I re-checked Factocop and confirmed that he is also Pilgrimsquest (talk · contribs) and Dame edna uk (talk · contribs); I have blocked the Factocop account indefinitely. Blue is better is unrelated (but iirc the last SPI found different socks there) and BritishWatcher is unrelated to all of the above. Shell babelfish 17:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Would I be right in saying that User:Clonbony is also a sock of Factocop, based on this report? --Domer48'fenian' 19:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm..based on the data I would have said Clonbony was unlikely (but a single-purpose spam account), probably best to ask MuZemike directly since he may well have information I don't. Shell babelfish 20:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I never doubted BW. Somehow, I couldn't ever picture him wanting to hide United Kingdom with a pipe-link. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As I sampled BritishWatch's contributions, I became reasonably convinced that he was not a sock of "Factocopy", but I wanted to be sure, and checkuser has since cleared him. If Clonbony is a sock of both Facto and Maiden, then Facto would indeed be a sock of Maiden after all. I'm not so sure that matters at this point. I think there is enough awareness of these one or two sockfarms out there now, to raise a red flag when or if yet another seemingly new account dives immediately into these orange-and-green controversies from out of the blue. (Did I leave out any color metaphors?) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not to use purple prose, but I think you meant to say "yellow-bellied sockfarms" if that's not too violet an adjective. THF (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't know how close I came to saying that, begorrah. But the purple prose one is good. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for replying Shell and just as a note to everyone TMC has a history of 'stirring it' so that claim to be BW was probably just a disruptive attempt to cause trouble for BW--Cailil talk 20:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The fact he reverted it almost instantly is what led me to think that it was a Freudian slip (I've seen it happen before). But I couldn't find anything else to concretely tie them together. But it's better to know than to wonder. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I asked for conformation on User:Clonbony being another sock of Factocop. --Domer48'fenian' 22:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, User:Clonbony is  Confirmed as User:Factocop, along with User:Dame edna uk. I have also double-checked and verified mine and Tnxman307's earlier findings that User:Pilgrimsquest, User:Blue is better, and User:NI4Life are also confirmed as Factocop. –MuZemike 22:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unless it's possible for one person to edit in two completely separate locations simultaneously, BritishWatcher and Factocop are Red X Unrelated. –MuZemike 22:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    So is Factocop also Maiden City? This seems a little confusing.
    I see that at least one other major sockfarm, the one connected with Schwyz, was taken down today. It's starting to look like the climactic scene from The Godfather. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    ...only everyone has nice warm feet... HalfShadow 23:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nice work cleaning out the sockfarm MuZemike, it dose seem to point to Maiden City being the sock master though. Confusing, but a result all the same. --Domer48'fenian' 23:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In the bigger picture, it really doesn't matter whether it's one guy, two guys or a hundred guys. Regardless of how many they be, they be gawn. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    I am glad i have been cleared, i too found it odd at the time when he changed my signature, remember seeing it at the time. Thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Observing who started this thread initially, this is a textbook WP:BOOMERANG. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    147.114.44.200 etc.

    147.114.44.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    147.114.44.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    147.114.44.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
    147.114.44.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    The IP 200 had claimed to be Factocopy, but has never been blocked. He also mentioned 209 at one point, and 209 was confirmed to be an IP of Facto's. The others listed also appear to be Facto's. Shouldn't that IP range should be awarded a lengthy block? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If it shuts down the sock factory for the time being, I'd say go for it! --Domer48'fenian' 19:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Could these IP's be linked to Maiden City? If so it would clear up that loose end? --Domer48'fenian' 19:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Factocop has used at least one of these ips. It seems to be a proxy server for a very large company.  pablo 19:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Does that mean he's an employee of that company? Or is he "piggybacking" somehow? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Some useful information can be taken from this template which was placed on one of the IP's on practical steps which can be used to address the problem should it persist. --Domer48'fenian' 20:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "Verbose rap synopsis meme" revisited

    Original ANI post here. Though most of the fans of this meme have given up on adding the synopses, now an User:Rooot is trying to circumvent the consensus by adding a news blog post about it as if it is a notable meme (which it is not), a violation of WP:Notability and WP:UNDUE, and perhaps WP:POINT. Root also made a personal attack and removed the subsequent warning from their talk page). Would appreciate back up on this as it's not as much of a slam dunk as removing the silly summaries. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you are failing to assume good faith here. It clearly has taken on a life of its own and is notable. The edit in question was a single line referencing this fact. Don't try to portray me as having put in even a segment of the "synopsis" in an attempt to circumvent anything. This was the entirety of my addition: "In early 2010, a highly-detailed 'synopsis' of this song was added to its Wikipedia page to much fanfare and media attention." (with citations) Rooot (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    One blog on one fairly minor news source is not sufficient to show it either 'taking on a life of its own' or 'fanfare and media attention'. The fact that it is a 'single line' edit is largely irrelevant and, in any case, when you consider the overall length of the article, creating a whole section about this is most certainly giving it undue weight.--KorruskiTalk 22:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that, as the lone entry in the "legacy" section, it drew significant attention. However, that section was not created just for this piece of news, but could easily be filled in with all kinds of other cultural responses to the song. This is common practice on Wikipedia articles. The reason I made the section was that it just didn't seem to fit into any other existing section. Furthermore, stop pretending it is just one isolated blog. As I mentioned before, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of internet sources on the subject viewable with a simple Google search. Please do not try to diminish my position because of the simple fact that I only linked one of them as the citation. If you would like, I can go back and cite 50 different sources. Either way, the fact remains that the creation of the "synopsis" has become a notable, newsworthy cultural event. Rooot (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Wait. We're linking to an off-Wiki article which describes an on-Wiki edit which has been removed? Does navel-gazing not apply here? Corvus cornixtalk 02:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And apparently Rooot is willing to edit war to get their way: [23]. Corvus cornixtalk 02:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, they have not yet, so lets not convict them of such a crime until they do it. --Jayron32 03:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The original assertion is that the edits are a "violation of WP:Notability and WP:UNDUE, and perhaps WP:POINT". Are you able to explain how the edits are a violation of each of those policies? Otherwise, just dropping them in adds no value, please.Cander0000 (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no reliable sourcing for the claims made in the silliness, just people's interpretations. Re-addition, up to and including edit warring, for which you have been blocked before, is the POINT problem. Corvus cornixtalk 19:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This isn't re-addition. Rooot (talk) 00:03, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Zsfgseg: Narrow range blocks seem to be possible

    Unresolved

    Still waiting for a response from admin on the possibility of these rangeblocks. Access Deniedtalk to me 07:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    User:MuZemike just now lifted the edit filters and rangeblocks designed to stop Zsfgseg because it was starting to seem like he was impossible to deal with and that the huge range blocks were doing more bad than good. (He has access to several /16 ranges spread out throughout a /6 range.) But now I think I've found some narrower ranges after looking at some of his IPs used:

    Inside 71.247.0.0/16

    71.247.0.0/18
    • 71.247.18.231
    • 71.247.21.15
    • 71.247.31.211
    • 71.247.36.167
    71.247.240.0/20
    • 71.247.247.222
    • 71.247.249.238

    Inside 71.249.0.0/16

    71.249.56.0/21
    • 71.249.59.77
    • 71.249.61.177
    71.249.64.0/21
    • 71.249.64.163
    • 71.249.66.28
    • 71.249.71.183
    • 71.249.71.184
    71.249.96.0/19 (busiest range by far)
    • 71.249.102.13
    • 71.249.105.53
    • 71.249.105.138
    • 71.249.105.178
    • 71.249.107.65
    • 71.249.107.152
    • 71.249.110.200
    • 71.249.112.51
    • 71.249.114.245

    Inside 68.237.0.0/16

    68.237.80.0/20
    • 68.237.82.181
    • 68.237.85.214
    • 68.237.93.95

    Isolated IP Addresses

    • 165.155.192.79

    Cheers, Access Deniedtalk to me 05:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Possibly stupid, or even inappropriate question, but.... given the efforts being put into dealing with this, are we absolutely certain that Verizon will not help, or even respond, in any way, no matter how much they are asked in different ways? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Basically, there are two ways this should be approached for vandals like this (note that this is not the only active vandal; this would also pertain to the Scruffy vandal, for instance). If we're blocking and protecting too much, a different and hopefully smarter approaches to dealing with the vandalism need to be taken. The second approach is to simply stop trying; I hate to be defeatist, but if we know we cannot, with our software, stop these vandals, then there is simply nothing we can do. I know it sounds like letting the socks and vandals win, but is it worth the increased effort to go at great lengths to stop unstoppable vandals? –MuZemike 08:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    My 2c is that it is worth the increased effort (until smarter approaches are available). --HighKing (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This sockmaster must be very nasty to justify rangeblocks as large as /18 over an extended period. Nothing presented here in this report shows any serious abuse, and there are no links provided to a fuller discussion anywhere else. If User:Access Denied wants to pursue this further, they should consider opening a new report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Zsfgseg. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    EdJohnston, this has been going on the past 6 months or so, and he is already community banned. See my talk page, User talk:The Thing That Should Not Be, this ANI page, and a couple other admins' pages to see what he does. There is very serious abuse going on here, and some people don't have the patience (unlike other users) to deal with this on a daily basis. However, I suppose that's the cross I bear, and that's my consequence for blocking the user in the first place. –MuZemike 18:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if we rangeblock all those IP addresses, that does not stop him from his disruption. Many times he likes to "play" with his talk page like requesting unblocks to make his block longer or says that he is Zsfgseg and that we should unblock him because he is Zsfgseg. In order to stop him, we would have to disable the range's talk page ability as well and I don't think that's a good idea. Elockid (Alternate) (Talk) 18:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would an abuse report go anywhere, or would we just get the standard "thank-you for your time, have a good day" response? Also, unrelated, did I calculate those ranges properly? my point is, Wikipedia is not a play pen, no matter what he likes to think. Access Deniedtalk to me 02:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Use a script, block the 1024 /16s. Direct all complaints to the ISP. Maybe then we will get some action from them. T. Canens (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, then we'd be blocking 67,108,864 IPs. That's not worth it because of one editor. And the ISP proably still would not budge. Access Deniedtalk to me 04:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes, it's bad. But "when all reasonable attempts to control...disruption...have failed, [we] may be compelled to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia and to the community" (quoting arbcom, with modifications). Same principle here. And a large number of complaints from Verizon customers is probably our best shot at getting the ISP to act. If you want to be conservative, maybe we can block each and every /16 he is on instead, but given the abuse coming from Verizon ranges,including this one, I'm not optimistic. T. Canens (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Actually about 8 or so ISPs cone from this /6. Access Deniedtalk to me 07:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Does he have access to all these ISPs or just Verizon? If it's just Verizon then we just need to block the Verizon ones. T. Canens (talk) 18:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          Not sure; that single isolated IP traces to the New York City public school district though so we have a good idea where he lives. Access Deniedtalk to me 19:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How should this be approached?

    It seems we have four choices right now. Access Deniedtalk to me 08:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Approach 1: Softblock entire /6 range

    Softblock the entire /6 range, which contains over 67 million unique IPs. Use a script to block all the /16 ranges, and create a bot to hand out necessary IP Block Exemptions.

    Discussion
    • Do this, force Verizon to act. It's something we should consider seriously, if all else fails. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 23:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This would be an end to the "everyone can edit" bit, which should probably have wide support and the consent of the federation. I'm not opposed to this per se, but wonder if the action might cause more churn than the vandalism which we are otherwise unable to deal with. Jclemens-public (talk) 04:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Approach 2: Softblock all Verizon IPs

    Go through the /6 range and softblock all IP ranges which belong to Verizon. An incredible amount of abuse has come from Verizon IPs, including Zsfgseg and Grawp AKA Hagger. 

    Discussion

    Approach 3: Selectively block /16 ranges

    Individually review contributions from each /16 range using X!'s tool. Hardblock the ones in which the vast majority of edits are abusive. Use CheckUser to hand out necessary IP Block Exemptions.

    Discussion

    Approach 4: Implement narrow rangeblocks as suggested above

    Implement the narrow rangeblocks suggested above. Use checkuser to hand out IPBE, and make more narrow rangeblocks if the need arises.

    Discussion
    To me, this is the best choice. Major collateral damage is a big no no. Access Deniedtalk to me 08:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Contacting the ISP should be the first step, preferably coming from someone with the authority to say they're speaking for the Foundation rather than just as a concerned editor or admin. If that fails, we can and should block as necessary. But it seems improper to just assume the ISP won't care and won't do anything without even trying first. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • We tried it with Grawp, IIRC. Verizon didn't seem to care. T. Canens (talk) 18:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, as I recall, several attempts have been made to contact Verizon with no luck whatsoever. The Thing T/C 19:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          Are you kidding me? That idiot wasted hundreds of hours of admins time, spent all his free time libeling people, outer hundreds of Wikipedia editors by mass-creating hundreds of accounts the included their phone numbers (or so I've heard) and they don't care? What is wrong with those people? Access Deniedtalk to me 19:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          Verizon is a business. It'll only react when the situation affects its Public Relations, and most Verizon costumers don't give a damn about Grawp or Wikipedia's problems. In fact, the media often paints Wikipedia as the problem rather than the victim. Verizon handles abuse on its Internet service the same way Google handles abuse on YouTube. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    being threatened on wikipedia

    hi i dont know if this is right place. i receive this vandalism on my page [24]. i think its related to discussion im having here [25]. user there canvas 2 other users to get more keep votes and when i mention this one of them vandalize my page with no explaination here [26] . because latest vandalism and threat is right after i ask person to explain many times why they remove image from my page with no explaination and they are rude to me[27] i think its related. not sure what to do now. thanks. sorry if this wrong place please tell me where. :) SunHwaKwonh (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The IP address that vandalised your page has already been blocked. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    i see thanks. since i start the delete discussion many people have bothered me i have think that one of these users log out to vandalize my page? is this possible? should i stop using wikipedia because im in danger now? SunHwaKwonh (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it is possible for people to log out of Wikipedia. But then they give away their IP address, so that makes them look even sillier than they already are. What makes you think you are in danger? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    you see what comments were left on my page? they dont seem danger? SunHwaKwonh (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's called vandalism. Get over it, move on. LiteralKa (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Oh, IIRC the edits in question were only racist, not threatening. LiteralKa (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Why was I not notified that I was being discussed? Again, you asked me once, a suitable answer was given by another member of the community. LiteralKa (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (ec) I deleted the offensive revisions. Highly, highly unlikely that was User:LiteralKa. In fact no way. (By the way, parallel discussion on my talk page.) Be advised that anyone who comments on GNAA in any forum is subject to trolling. We can protect your user page if it becomes a problem. Antandrus (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    First, SunHwaKnowh accuses me of canvassing; now he's accusing me of vandalism. Neither LiteralKa nor I defaced his userpage. By attacking the GNAA redirect, SunHwaKwonh has painted a large target for trolls and vandals on himself. That vandal could be anyone. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    it is strange that IP who vandal my page dont even vote in delete discus. literalka removed image from my page with no explaination text. also IP who vandal my page says they arguing with me here so must be someone i already meet and talk with. only 2 of those people. i say maybe you vandalize i not accuse. you say you would not say things like post on my user page? also you did canvas you supposed to notify people in nonpartisan way but you only notify people who will vote keep. then you say it not a vote so doesnt matter. not add up. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Look, I defended myself so many times on the other discussion. Like RL0919 and I have said, this is becoming repetitive. I did notify those users in a nonpartisan matter, and even RL0919 agrees: The postings he has made so far seem to be limited and neutrally worded. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • im sorry i cant assume good faith these two users are being rude and condesending and i dont want to be vulgar threatened so i have to do this. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I was never rude, and there are sysops here to protect you from threats. Please remember that this is the Internet and that you are anonymous. You are safe, and you don't have any real threat to worry about. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • is not true goatse organization of hacker so not safe. you been rude like treating a baby. also why you look at every edit i make? scary. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Please don't be paranoid. Goatse Security has only exploited website and browser vulnerability. They never broke into anyone's computer. They can't figure out who you are, since you are using a fictional character's name as your pseudonym. The only person who should be afraid of privacy issues is me, since I'm extremely transparent. I'm not sure what your baby comment is referring to. I'm not treating you like a child. I'll answer your question with another question: Why were you viewing my contributions and the messages I leave other users? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • because you did it to me first thats how i learn you can do it. that dont answer why your still do it and a lot more. i dont think its your real name and you cant prove it so stop saying that its weird like im supposed to believe everything you say since you always use policy for your own goals. but doesnt matter why are you so defensive here. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I had the pop-ups gadget enabled, so when I hovered over your username, I saw that you had a copyrighted image on your userpage, so I removed it. I then check your contributions in case you had violated the image policy elsewhere. That's my explanation. I'm being defensive because you're accusing of breaking policy and vandalism. And now you're accusing me of manipulating policies. Don't I have the right to defend myself from such claims? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • yes but why are you still looking at all my edits. thats how you know to come here even though i didnt know i had to tell you. anyway if my claims are false people can see it themselves by looking at it. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There isn't anything wrong with viewing other users' contributions. I have the right to know about any discussion concerning me. Right now, it appears as if you prefer closed discussions and leaving individuals such as myself out of the loop. Wikipedia is supposed to be transparent. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • stop putting things in my mouth. i asked a question you dont have to get offended , every time i ask something you and others think im attacking you im just asking . this is what i mean being you being rude. you have right to know about this but im asking how you found out because i forgot to tell you, i dont know procedure. my mistake. but how did you find it. this isnt helping anything why are you arguing here. you just have to say its not you who do vandal to my page. are you saying it wasnt you who put such horrible things. not accusing you of canvas here i only mention it. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • i probably not reply to what michaeldsuarez say unless it really important because he just try to make me angry. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not putting things in your mouth. You asked me why I viewed your contributions, and I answered. I already said that I wasn't the vandal, yet you continue to push and push. I'm not trying to make you angry; I'm simply trying to help you understand my position. And you did accuse me of canvassing when you started this threat. You did more than just mention it; you attempted to draw a connection between the alleged canvassing and the vandalism. I'm looking for sympathy from you, not anger. The Internet is just text, so I'm can't convey the tone of comments properly. If you perceive my comments as rude, then that reaction was unintentional and I'm sorry for that. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • after what you put me through with stalk me on here and denial of canvassing which you did clearly according to policy i state on delete discussion , and then after the terrible things put on my page you have no sympathy for me and you dare ask for sympathy FROM me?????? i cant believe it. someone threaten to do X rated things to me and you have no sympathy and demand sympathy. how can you say you not try to anger me after asking sympathy. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I'm not sure whether you realize this or not, but I never seen the vandalism done to your userpage, and I can't ever see that vandalism since it was oversighted. I'm not sure how you were threatened, and I can't ever be sure. I never stalked you; I simply didn't want to be left outside the loop. Anyone can view anyone's contributions. Can you please try to understand the situation from my side of the field? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • you are asking so but you never try to see from my side. to me it look like you canvassing. i still thin you canvass. if you apologize i think you better person but you deny deny deny. and i know it true because you do what policy say you should not. so why should i feel this way for you now after being threat? when you find this long time after you should stop looking at my contribitiions. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • admin here [28] say we cannot convince each other so we both say everything about each other here so we can stop ok? SunHwaKwonh (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just so watchers of this thread are aware: The discussion at User_talk:Antandrus#thanks has expanded significantly. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Reading all of SunHwaKwonh (talk · contribs)'s posts, I feel that we are being trolled. Goodvac (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that after several rounds of trying to get SunHwaKwonh (talk · contribs) to accept that Michaeldsuarez (talk · contribs) and LiteralKa (talk · contribs) had not done anything wrong, and subsequently warning him to stop making baseless allegations, I ended up blocking him for 24h after he tried to start an RfC in the middle of the deletion discussion, and continuing to allege that everyone who had already contributed had been canvassed by Michael. His unblock request alleged that I am also biased (what a surprise), which failed to impress the reviewing admin. I suspect he may return when his unblock expires tonight, in which case, I think more weight may be given to the opinion above. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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


    User:MickMacNee has featured here before, and a couple of weeks ago received an indef block (his nineteenth) for repeated incidents of edit warring, pointy and tendentious arguments and personal attacks on other editors. The recent ANI discussion [29] included the following (prescient) statement from an admin: "In view of his block log I do not believe that any assurances he may give about future good conduct are credible, because his persistently aggressive mode of editing can only be explained as reflecting aspects of his character that are very difficult or impossible for a person to change at will. As such, I ask that any unblock of MickMacNee be considered, if at all, only after thorough discussion in a community forum and accompanied by measures that prevent his returning to the topic areas in which he has been disruptive."

    He was subsequently unblocked by an admin who was in personal communication with Mick, an action the blocking admin opposed [30]. Subsequently, Mick filed this AfD in which all the behaviors he's been noted for over the years just keep rolling on. Some sample diffs: [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38]

    As Sandstein accurately commented in a discussion of the block removal, "MickMacNee has given no credible assurances for future good conduct or even that he understands why he was blocked." Folks, come on. This is the way Mick argues. This is the way he's always argued on Wikipedia. He is going to keep on with his tendentious, combative, disruptive behavior, and he will continue to provoke other editors into slugfests, as long as he's allowed to do so. May I respectfully ask what you are waiting for?  RGTraynor  18:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm inclined to send this to arbitration. The second mover needs to get a wakeup call in these unblock wars, rather than punishing the third mover. Protonk (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh, I wasn't thinking of seeking to censure the unblocking admin; regardless of my view on his judgment in this matter, I have no reason not to think he was acting in good faith.  RGTraynor  19:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Scott acted in good faith. That's not sufficient. Performing contentious unblocks in the face of disagreement from the blocking admin and some in the community is a serious problem and exacerbates other problems. Were I or any other admin to reeves his decision as he reversed the original decision there is no doubt we would be desysopped quickly. I'm not suggesting that we do that to scott but we have to talk about the problem his action represented and the problems it may have caused. Protonk (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've taken the liberty of correcting your AfD link above, as the link was broken. David Biddulph (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Frivolous complaint. Suggest closure and consideration of sanctions against the complainant. You can't get into a pissing contest with someone at AfD then drag them to ANI with a load of diffs, most of which show your opponent correctly drawing the attention of participants to relevant guidelines/policies/essays. I don't believe MMN has been any more uncivil than RGTraynor. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • On further examination, it seems RGTraynor has just picked every edit by MMN in that AfD. Only the second-to-last is anything more than fair comment (and not, I might add, because he uses naughty words). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Eh? "My 'behaviour'? You can just stop your sly insinuations and general dickish posts right here thanks." is fair comment? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fair point, though I've seen worse go unnoticed. This feels a lot like running to teacher after you picked a fight with the school bully because you know he's already in trouble. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Erm? First off, I'd recheck that "further examination." Not counting opening that AfD nor counting where Mick made responses to several different editors in the same diff, he's made eighteen diffs. I highlighted eight; would you care to retract that "has just picked every edit" remark? Secondly, while "blame the victim" presumes there is a victim in this matter, you seem to be falling into similar behavior. I'd prefer not to believe that you'd be so opposed to WP:AGF as to claim that no one who can be construed to have a grievance files such a complaint other than through malice or with an ulterior motive in mind. Surely, for instance, in the debate about Mick's indef block just two weeks ago, you didn't ask for sanctions on any of the twenty admins and editors who endorsed that block, even though some admitted to having a history with him themselves. That being said, Mick's long and colorful history speaks for itself, and no further debate from me is needful or appropriate. If people feel that ArbCom is a more suitable venue for this matter and an admin wishes to file such a case, fair enough.  RGTraynor  02:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Endorse Close. Consider WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED N419BH 19:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict) This really needs to go to ArbCom. MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been obnoxious across many areas of WP: I can count four separate admins who have applied indefinite blocks, and yet he is still allowed to edit. The fact that he occasionally makes valid contributions should not mask the fact that he has shown himself over a period of more than two years since his first block to be incapable of conforming with the constraints of a collaborative project. Physchim62 (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • (edit conflict) user notified. I have been involved with MMN only since his last unblock on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 32‎. Although I'd say his behaviour (discussing with very many opposing votes) seems to become counterproductive (in my eyes), there is not much he has done wrong. In the deletion discussion named above, 2 users discussed his 19 blocks and suggested not to listen to him anymore, which was hardly a comment 'on the subject'. As I said, I have no idea on his full history and how that should be taken into account, but the most recent comments seem to simply take a battle between RGTraynor and MMN here.... L.tak (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This comment to another person participating in the Afd was hostile and the type of comment that the civility guideline was intended to address. Mick's repeated aggressive conduct towards other users is off putting to the point that another user would think twice before approaching him to discuss an issue, or participating in a discussion where he is involved. I agree this needs to go to ArbCom since the Community is not able to sort this out. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well I am in no way uninvolved here, but I will say this on the complaint. I've seen Mick say much, much worse things than are seen in the diffs here. Mick isn't a nice person, he isn't pleasant to work with, and I don't think he should have been unblocked. That being said, nothing in this complaint, if treated independently of the rest of his long and troubled history, would come close to warranting a block. Even with his history, these incidents don't indicate that another block is needed, at least not yet. Taking this to ArbCom now won't be useful either. Wait for another big incident before going to the Arbs, give them something fresh to work with. Sven Manguard Talk 20:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm confused about this one. Did he refactor someone's comment or am I missing something? Sven Manguard Talk 20:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Close. Neither MickMacNee's nor RG Traynor's behavour in this AfD is exactly exemplary, (and Traynor's bringing this here is questionable). As they have both made their view abundantly clear, I suggest they both unwatch it and let others decide the outcome.  pablo 20:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • To me it is abundantly clear that this belongs at Arbcom. While the behaviour at this AfD would not be anything sanctionable as a one-off event, it's equally an umpteenth example of an AfD being overwrought by MickMacNee's overly aggressive mode of discussion. The unilateral lifting of his last block against community consensus just underlines that this is beyond the ability of community consensus to resolve, and is hence one of those situations best solved by arbitration. ~ mazca talk 20:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's either that or a personal interaction ban with ... everyone. Rd232 talk 21:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mick should be banned from AfD's (atleast for his own good). As to how long? that's up to the community. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • What, again? Obviously the community is not handling this, so dump it on ArbCom; it's their job. Jack Merridew 22:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Would a community ban be quicker and easier? Mick could always appeal it to ArbCom in his inimitable manner should he wish to. Physchim62 (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I think I agree that this is a three pipe arbcom problem. The community cannot resolve this. It must go to arbitration. --23:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

    I have to agree. I think ArbCom may be the way to go here. The community has failed to handle this, though the last block really should not have been reversed and that probably needs to be addressed at ArbCom as well. AniMate 01:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, so who's going to take it there? Physchim62 (talk) 02:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I cannot say that I am surprised. I will write a request for arbitration.  Sandstein  14:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Longevity-related articles

    A number of editors are concerned that articles related to long-lived people are being treated as a walled garden. Various threads are going at FTN and RSN, plus discussion on a number of talk pages and WikiProject World Oldest People. There is an open medcab mediation on Longevity myths, currently moving very slowly. It would take anyone a while to read up on it all, and I don't expect that. But I would really appreciate effective action on the conflict of interest issue. This thread on COIN has not resulted in any clear-cut yes or no. The diffs are provided there. Could a completely uninvolved admin look into it? Otherwise, I fear that it will drag on into an ArbCom case. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    (Non-administrator comment)J Just a comment by some one who has been observing the COI and WP:MEDCAB case and Related threads, and see mostly conensus against you. Thus I personally view this a Forum shopping. Focus on the WP:MEDCAB case resolve issue there instead of coming here to get something done about Ryoung122 The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As someone who I guess is involved at this point, or at least outspoken, I don't see a consensus against Judith. I see general disinterest in addressing this issue. Yes all the wikiproject members don't agree with Judith, but what neutral voices have really weighed in here? Most of the posts, at various noticeboards, have just fallen on def ears. Personally I think this is a shame, because this case represents a serious trivialization of the project.Griswaldo (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (ec)I came to this set of articles in response to a post on WP:FTN about the still-thorny question of how we handle "myth" in relation to the Bible. Before that I had not come across longevity articles at all. I have been discussing on FTN very patiently but the issues involved go beyond fringiness. So it's not forum shopping, but unpacking separate questions for appropriate dispute resolution. I left the COIN thread running for a long time to see if it would get uninvolved input. And it's far from being mostly consensus against me - see RSN today where User:GRuban has been convinced through argument. The medcab case has for several days now been just issues between me and JJB, which we could have resolved civilly on talk pages anyway. I would really like admin comment on the COI, which has in the past attracted the attention of arbitrators. RA, if you would like to comment on the medcab page then I will be interested to read your perspective. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Disinterest in a COI case is usually means lack of a real case. My observation is a our "Experts are scum" mantra in action. Ryoung122 has been an asset to area where there is a lack of expertise in Academia. So far from I what observed his work has not been anywhere near the trouble some experts have caused on Wiki. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Except for when the supposedly reliable source he runs claimed someone had died based on the word of an anonymous government official, prompting protests from a member of her family, see this for details. O Fenian (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The government (A RS!) reported her death! End of story! Not Ryoung122! I am not seeing what you want me to see in that link.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No, the government did not report her death. Some anonymous government official told Ryoung122 she had died, and Ryoung122 reported it as fact. Since when do the deaths of living people get sourced in that way? You will also note that the editors involved in the walled garden insist that for their claim of death to be contradicted a news report stating she was alive was required.. O Fenian (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I said this over at the WikiProject talkpage; expert input is welcome, but not to the exclusion of policy. To elaborate on the example I used over there, we don't allow Moonies to have the final word on what members of the Unification Church clergy are notable or the information required to insert claims about them; similarly, the experts on centenarians shouldn't have the final word on which ones are notable or what the sourcing requirements are. And no, anonymous tips to a specific editor (like the one in the example) don't pass RS; how can we possibly verify that? There is a bit of a walled garden mentality; it can definitely be fixed, but we can't have people with major COIs stonewalling every attempt to break out of said mentality— which is why I took a look at it, to give it a fresh set of eyes. I'd encourage other uninvolved editors to do the same. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I confirm everything Blade, O Fenian, Itsmejudith, and Griswaldo have said above. I'm disappointed that RA characterizes O's link as saying a RS reported the death, which indicates indifference to standard WP:BLP policy that a recent death be cited to an accessibly linked RS (or perhaps a view that Ryoung122 is a walking RS). I'm disappointed that RA characterizes the COI link, our second strong consensus that Ryoung122 has massive COI, as lack of a real case (rather than a COI finding without an enforcement option). I respectfully request an uninvolved admin make a recommendation on how to prosecute a COI finding not voluntarily admitted by the COI party nor enforced by anyone. Earlier today I listed some options here, ANI being one of them.
    Though the issues are widespread, I think these are salient and diffs are available: (1) Ryoung122's return from indef block being accompanied by a promise to avoid COI, which appears totally forgotten shortly after; (2) Ryoung122's failure to comment at mediation cabal for 2 weeks now, while continuing strongly incivil and POV editing; (3) Ryoung122's propagation of POVs into many other editors' minds (some stated to be teens) over a 5-year period such that these concerns, when stated by one or two individuals, often get drowned out by an apparent consensus that is no different from (are we still calling it) meatpuppetry. Specific instances of content issues abound, but a simple one to understand is that we had a bolding war of about 15 cycles of editors restoring bolding to a date, clearly contrary to WP:MOSBOLD, citing such reasons as IAR, we've always done it this way, and all the researchers think it's important to keep the date bolded; such that an admin had to threaten a block for the very next revert. Incredibly entrenched. Looks like I've gone long again, please propose a best option. JJB 02:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
    (ec)As anyone can see there is hardly a consensus against IMJ efforts. This area of the Wiki needs lots of cleanup. There is no anti-expert anything going on here and I highly resent the accusation from ResidentAnthropologist. We all recognize the expertise, and we are not arguing against it. We're simply asking for people to abide by Wikipedia policy in relation to things like WP:N, WP:V, WP:BLP etc. Ryan is an expert in an area that covers information that is mostly trivia. Good for him. But that doesn't mean we need to follow his lead an disrespect the afore mentioned policies on his say so. No way. When subjects aren't notable they should get the axe. When reliable sources are needed we need more than the word of his yahoo group and when reporting the death of a BLP we most certainly need more than his say so. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ryoung122 even considers his fellow verifier, Louis Epstein, more a rival than a friend, and considers the GRG founder, Stephen Coles, to be less reliable than himself. If Ryoung122 thinks even the GRG pages are unreliable until he double-checks them, this is a bit more than just COI going on. Anyway, repeat, respectfully request uninvolved admin. JJB 02:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
    COMMENT: THIS IS LITTLE MORE THAN WIKI-STALKING BY JJBULTEN and "friends" Itsmejudith, Grismaldo, and DavidinDC.
    Ummm, if I'm to be accused of wiki-stalking, in all caps, no less, it might bolster the accusation if I had actually posted to the thread in question. Regardless of bolstering, it's required, if I'm to be discussed, that the person initiating the discussion of me put a notice on my talk page that looks like this:

    Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

    I'm just sayin' David in DC (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    First, a response to O Fenian:

    Sometimes referees get calls wrong...in virtually all sports, from football to baseball to tennis. That doesn't mean they aren't the refs...and it's only a problem when they are caught cheating (as in the NBA). Margaret Fish's death was reported by the UK government, erroneously. I in fact helped clean up the mess, but when it comes to JJBulten and Itsmejudith in particular, they aren't going to let facts get in the way.

    Let's examine some facts:

    1. Itsmejudith and JJBulten have launched non-consensus attempts to delete or merge articles such as Oldest people and Longevity myths. This is not an issue of trying to create or save an article on every centenarian or supercentenarian. This is an issue of editors who don't particularly care for the field attempting to annihilate it.

    2. We can see how JJBulten is being lawyerly in his discussion of Louis Epstein. First, he accuses me of being "friends" with Louis, now he accuses me of not being friends in an effort to isolate me. Then he attempts to divide me from Dr. Coles...this reminds me of Jesus, who after being accused of being a drunkard, said that when John the Baptist didn't drink, you said he had a demon...which way do you want it?

    3. JJBulten has already identified that he has a COI: he doesn't agree with the mainstream scientific view that humans don't live to 950 years old (because the Bible says Noah was 950). I don't see him denying that, anywhere. JJBulten's actions are akin to a Creationist editing articles on Darwinism while calling out scientists as if they have a COI. I find this highly disturbing. If appeals have to be made to the Wikimedia Foundation, they will be made. Allowing a religious fundamentalist to suppress science and education on Wikipedia is simply unacceptable.

    4. Speaking of divide-and-conquer, JJBulten was against Itsmejudith's attempt to delete or merge the longevity myths article, so the idea that they agree on everything is not accurate.

    However, it is clear that their actions on this and other threads are not appropriate. Their own actions have been questionable at best. Comparing material on supercentenarians to articles on Moonies is like Bishop Eddie Long claiming to be David, when he is in fact Goliath.

    The reality: it is, in fact, the editing of JJBulten that is religious in nature and up for discussion regarding fringe theory.

    If we use Google search to find articles on Eugenie Blanchard in the news:

    http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=Eugenie%2BBlanchard

    We find that this is quite mainstream. In fact, it's the skeptics' point of view, not the ideas being pushed by JJBulten (pro-religious) or Itsmejudith (pro-deletionist).

    This field has been around for more than 140 years. We find newspaper stories about it in the New York Times from 1909. Who is the fringe theorist here? Who is the editor who is abusing their position by attempting to use Wiki-lawyering to overturn long-established consensus?Ryoung122 20:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Don't you want to present something in your defence rather than chucking dirt indiscriminately in all directions? If JJB's edits unduly promote a particular religious perspective then there are ways of dealing with that. To uninvolved admins: Robert Young is a paid investigator for the Gerontology Research Group. He has authored a book, derived from his MA thesis, that is available for sale online. He clearly has experience in investigation of suggested cases of extreme human longevity and should be quite capable of making useful additions to the encyclopedia, but instead he has created a walled garden of articles that are expected to mirror - to the letter - his web pages. A group of people have been gathered in a WikiProject with a membership that overlaps with a Yahoo! group. Itsmejudith (talk) 21:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rubbish. Any supposed "walled garden" of longevity articles is not down to Robert Young. Most users who regularly contribute to those articles respect his opinion as an expert on the subject. There has been considerable discussion over many aspects of these articles and frequently some disagreement. What I, and it appears many, if not most, regular contributors to those articles object to is what appears to be a campaign by a minority of users to eliminate Mr Young's contributions and impose a regime of article style and content which not only contradicts the consensus in those articles but does not appear to have any constructive merit for the articles themselves and is merely pedantic rule-following. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 23:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Comment: The "walled garden" charge falls flat once the evidence is examined. For example, the List of Living supercentenarians includes references to www.recordholders.org (the Epstein list), and instead of maintaining the exact ranking of the GRG list, merges them together.

    The real issue is that Itsmejudith and JJBulten, in particular, have attempted total deletion or merging of mainline articles. If this were just an issue of whether to keep a marginal article, there wouldn't be an issue. But even though I and others supported deletion of marginal articles (such as 103-year-old and 105-year-old siblings from Ireland), there has been ZERO attempt by JJBulten to compromise anything. More than that, he then typically recruits Grismaldo. Let me be more specific. This is bullying-type behavior, sort of trying to get a three-to-one or four-to-one fight. JJBulten has even scoped out people I had issues with in the past and attempted to bring up long-dead issues that were resolved. That is nowhere near an attempt at resolution, it's an attempt to make the problem worse. It's like trying to "win an election" through negative campaign ads. But guess what? Wikipedia isn't about winning elections, it's about attempting to present encyclopedic material objectively. It's not right what JJBulten in particular has done because it's a violation of Wiki policies.Ryoung122 23:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You either aren't listening or pretending not to. Just to begin, I wasn't comparing the content of articles on supercentenarians to articles on the Unification Church or its dedicated followers, which should have been fairly obvious. What I'm actually saying is that we don't allow Moonies to hijack articles about the Unification Church, even though they would probably know far more about its inner workings than the rest of us. It's the same thing here; you may be an expert, and your input is certainly welcome, but you have to work within policies such as WP:N or WP:NPOV. I'm looking at this completely from an outside perspective, having watched but never edited the subject area, and I'm seeing a problem. When you've got several editors telling you there's a problem, you might just have to accept that there may actually be one. What I'm suggesting is that you step back from something that you're obviously very attached to and allow people with a less biased view to have a look. What you, as an expert, may consider notable may not be to everyone else; this isn't a personal thing. For instance, I'm very into Burmese history and politics, and the name Mark Farmaner is very significant to people like me; however, you'll see that the link is a redirect to the Burma Campaign UK because outside of that specific field, he's almost unknown. It's the same thing here; just ease up a bit and allow some outside input. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Boxer Rebellion

    Boxer Rebellion is a controversial topic, because there are two versions of it:

    • (1) Version one: The Chinese government official version, in that version, Boxers were patriotic anti-imperialists hero.
    • (2) Version two: According to independent historians (Chinese and non-Chinese, including Yuan Weishi, 侯宜傑, (中国社会科学院研究员) Boxers were bandits, killers, rioters and arsonists. I have read a lot of assays, books, including 庚子國變記, 拳變餘聞, 西巡迴鑾始末, and 「神拳」義和團的真面目, books by Jane E Elliott, Peter Harrington, Michael Perry, Albert Feuerwerker, S. Cheng, Larry Clinton Thompson, and Xiaorong Han. After reading so many books, I know that the current version of Boxer Rebellion is a unbalanced and misleading article, which required a complete rewrite.

    When I tried to discuss with Дунгане on ways to improve the content of the article, Дунгане began to accuse me of being a racist and a lier:

    It is very clear that Дунгане is more interested in conducting in personal attacks against me, than trying to improve the article. I strongly feel that such a conduct should not be tolerated among wikipedia editors. Arilang talk 00:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Separating the issues is of paramount importance here. Disputes over content are not the province of admins, and if they can't be sorted out on the relevant Talk pages, should be referred to some form of dispute resolution. Personal attacks, however, should be supported by clear examples. Thus far, your complaints are too vague to be actionable. Sorry but we aren't psychic, so please try to narrow down your complaints. Rodhullandemu 02:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Laundry List of Bad faith edits by User:Arilang1234
    Hello, everyone, I'm afraid that User:Arilang1234 has been exhibiting blatant POV and has not shown and interest in constructively contributing to wikipedia. This is not a mere dispute, i actually tried to talk it out with Arilang, but unfortunetly, he revised massive sourced sections of the article without giving an explanation, falsely claiming that the "Lead section changed per talk page discussion", no one except Arilang had agreed to change anything in the lead on tthe talk page.
    Also, Arilang displays extremely hateful and uncivil language toward manchus in his sandbox intro
    Arilang violates WP:SOAP by suggesting that wikipedia articles are to be edited for political reasons
    Also, lets take a look at Arilang1234's earliest edits on wikipedia- quote directly from what Arilang added to the article in 2008- "The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme." he and some hired Mongols fought off a group of barbaric attacking Boxers with wooden sticks - Manchu tribal rulers chose to remain ignorant and barbaric
    I hope you will objectively analyze Arilangs "contributions", to the article, and his massive copy and paste from wikiesource into the talk page, claiming these wikisource text should be used as a "reliable source" for the article.
    User:Arilang1234 does not understand that wikisource is not a reliable source- [39]. Not only That, even if wikisource is counted as a reliable source, User:Arilang1234 has either not read it, or, I'm afraid to say- has lied about the contents, saying "You need to be able to read Chinese", yet the majority of the wikisource article is about the Communist party against Japan, not just the "Chinese Communist Party only attack KMT", as Arilang claimed here
    Arilang is also engaging in Ad hominem Straw man attacks, claiming that the "Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China" was used as a source in the aritcle, yet i only see western sources in the refernces, none of them from the "Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China".
    in another edit, User:Arilang1234 either did not read the content, or, again, i'm reluctant to accuse people of this, but this is the only other possibility- lied when he said "Remove unreferenced content", since there was a reference in the information he removed
    User:Arilang1234 claims here that "Jane E. Elliott's book is not about Boxer, it is about art.)"
    Yet anyone can see the description of Jane E Elliott's book "Some did it for civilisation, some did it for their country: a revised view of the boxer war", on google books is "This book marks a total departure from previous studies of the Boxer War. It evaluates the way the war was perceived and portrayed at the time by the mass media. As such the book offers insights to a wider audience than that of sinologists or Chinese historians. The important distinction made by the author is between image makers and eyewitnesses. Whole categories of powerful image makers, both Chinese and foreign, never saw anything of the Boxer War but were responsible for disseminating images of that war to millions of people in China and throughout the world."
    In addition, Arilang1234 has frequently insulted dead people because of their ethnicity, calling Qianlong Emperor a outdated,backward barbaric chieftain, just because he was a Manchu.
    Arilang thinks its okay to say barbaric Manchus, which is clear racism against Manchus.
    Arilang also thinks wikipedia is a platform to accuse Manchus specifically of perputrating atrocities.
    Arilang also does not understand that the article is not "limited" to actions only done by Boxers, just because it has "Boxer" in the title, Boxer Rebellion. According to Arilang's logic, all references to British should be remove from the French and Indian War article, since the title only says French and Indian, yet the British played a major role in the war
    arilang seems to think that since the title only contains the words "boxer rebellion", that the article should only be about Boxers, and that massive sections should be deleted because they don't contain the word "boxer".
    Quote from Arilang1234- " have make a judgement based on commonsense, is that the Chinese official version cannot stand up to scrutiny, in short, their effort to promote Boxers as national hero is just pathetic."
    Since when are wikipedia users allowed to insert their own personal opinions and use wikipedia as a soapbox?
    I also do not appreciate the threatening tone Arilang1234 is displaying in this question against me. not only is it threatening, it is completely irrelevant to the article.Дунгане (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Arilang1234 does not understand that original research is not allowed in wikipedia

    User:Arilang1234 should take a look at Wikipedia:No original research- "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

    Arilang1234 said above- "After reading so many books, I know that the current version of Boxer Rebellion is a unbalanced and misleading article, which required a complete rewrite."

    Apparently, Arilang1234 does not comprehend that original research is not welcome in Wikipedia.Дунгане (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • User:Arilang1234 also using straw man attacks

    NO WHERE in the Boxer Rebellion article, did i edit that the Boxer were "anti imperialist hero", and no chinese source, government or otherwise, was used as a reference by me or anyone else-

    • User:Arilang1234 has a history of making hateful, racist comments on Boxer Rebellion talk page, and threatens to attack people

    Quoted directly from User:Arilang1234- " when it comes to the subject of history, we need to be more firm towards lies and cheats. Do you follow internet news Benj? There is this guy by the name of 阎#年, he is 72 yrs old yet was slapped in the face in public! Because he shamelessly advocate Manchus rule on CCTV. If I happen to be there, I personally will throw some rotten eggs on his face. "Old Chinese communist education history text books blamed the western power on everything, is just like putting the horse behind the cart. Yes, western powers were evil, we all know that, but what about Manchus, have anyone really really have a closer examination and analysis on Manchus, WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN THE PAST 300 YEARS? Why didn't they adopt modern western weapons(or at least buy them, if they cannot manufacture them), Why did they stick to bows and arrows when fast loading rifles(Wincester) could be bought in international markets, instead they spend massive amounts of silver bars on garden building. My conclusion is the Manchus deserved every battle field defeats they got in the 2 opium wars"Дунгане (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Arilang1234 does not understand that wikipedia is NOT a political platform
    In addition, he seems to think that wikipedia is a political platform for him to put issues in the "spotlight. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotionДунгане (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Arilang1234 use wikipedia to advance ethnic hatred against non han chinese races

    [40] [41] [42]Дунгане (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Stop creating a new sub-section for every single qualm you have with this editor. Just use a simple, bulleted list, instead of what I term to be spamming ANI by making this bigger than it is.— dαlus Contribs 03:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hehee - I was gonna say that if this becomes a standard AN/I report procedure, we're in for some serious trouble... Doc talk 03:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Pot, meet kettle. One says "barbarian", other says (in effect) "Nazi". Are we done here? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not so sure. Дунгане put a lot of effort into this report (duh ;>): and this random diff stands out to me in particular. "The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme."[45] That's a really terrible, unreferenced "addition" to the article. Sure, that's possibly just a content dispute, but "overzealousness" (is that even a word?) in reporting shouldn't necessarily reflect negatively on the issues brought forth. Дунгане: "short and sweet" is often the best way to go about it, but each case is different. Doc talk 04:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good thing there wasn't a Wrestler Rebellion; those buggers fight dirty... HalfShadow 04:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What I meant was (and is):

    • Arilang, you don't have to change your views, but quit throwing "savages" and "barbarians" around.
    • Dungane, you don't have to change your views, but quit letting "white supremacist[s]" out of the box.

    Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I noted Arthur Kemp, a White supremacist's views on the Boxer rebellion were similar to Arilang here to refute Arilang's ad hominen attack that in which he claimed that since that the view in the article is the same of that as Mao Zedong, that it must be falseДунгане (talk) 04:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Arilang1234 had added the word "undefined" across the article, breaking numerous links and causing massive mispelling, not only once, but twice here and here
    I'm not a tech guy, but i seriously doubt Arilang's explanation, which is that his "PC had been planted with some sort of bugs". If we look at the way Arilang inserted "undefined" into the links, it looks as if he did it in almost the same places, but added one more in the second attempt, almost as if he did it manually.
    In addition, Arilang1234 made five consecutive edits to the article and one to the talk page in between the two edits when he inserted undefined all over the article, and nothing happened in those edits. they are listed here-[46][47]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boxer_Rebellion&diff=prev&oldid=395301531[48][49][50]
    I find it nothing short of amazing that this was the result of a bug in Arilang's PC.
    He also thinks its okay to test the article instead of the sandbox, leaving another editor to remove what he added during the "test".
    As Arilang1234 stated above, he wants a major rewrite of the article. So hypothetically, if he slipped in the word "undefined", all over the article, instead of blatant vandalism, which would be seen right away, later, he could come back to it, and fix it, by "rewriting" the entire article to his own POV.
    And i've been advised not to add more incidents to the list, so after this, i will not report anything unless it is ongoing in the article.Дунгане (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm the third opinion editor that got requested to take a look at the dispute. From a third party perspective, this dispute basically boils down to this:

    1. Arilang notices that the article has a POV slanted in favor of the Boxers (which is true).
    2. Instead of changing the contentious content, he leaves it as is, and adds more contentious content in favour of the opposite POV.
    3. Дунгане begins to revert him.
    4. And thus, we have this dispute. They've been going back and forth, over increasingly trivial problems.

    Now, it should be made clear, the original article did have POV problems. But the correct response was to discuss the POV content, gain consensus, and change it, not to add more controversial content, but from the opposite POV. I've been trying to remove POV from both sides, although there is a lot of cleaning up to do.--res Laozi speak 06:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible case of WP:OWN at G.A. Siwabessy

    Editor User:Hahndyto has repeatedly removed things from this article such as:

    • Defaultsort and categories
    • Persondata
    • An interwiki link
    • Tags such as multiple issues, orphan, poor English, and rough translation, without the issues being addressed (diffs: [51], [52], [53], [54], [55])
    • Syntax fixes (diff: [56])
    • Conversion of external links to Wikipedia articles to internal link format

    He/she has also re-added some things that were taken out such as:

    • Notes about the author of the article (diffs: [57], [58], [59])

    Additional diffs showing examples: [60], [61], [62]

    There are more diffs, but I think these show what I'm talking about.

    I've tried to explain that other editors are allowed to edit this article, and that some of the things being removed are standard to Wikipedia articles and should be left in, but I don't seem to be getting through. Can someone help? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    tagged under G12, it said at then end The article had been published in magazines Tabaos, Media Information & Communications, for limited community, Maluku Foundation Scholarship Fund (YDBM), Volume 7, No. 3, October 2010, Jakarta The article reads like a bad translation of such an article as would be published Foundation's website or News letterThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The images he uploaded to Commons are all blatant copyrigh tviolations and I've tagged them as such there. - Burpelson AFB
    The G12 was declined becuase the source the Author claims its copied from is not an online source. Thus the Admin was unable to verify wehther or not it was a copy vio when the idividual says it right there in the above diff. Ug The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03
    54, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

    Do you have Sheldon Lennard Cooper in a can? Would you like help putting him in one?

    I was watching The Big Bang Theory tonight, when one of the characters mentioned Wikipedia. To be precise, it was Amy who mentioned it, the nerdiest of three women in the scene. These women were having a slumber party, & Amy, who had never been to a slumber party, consulted Wikipedia for ideas of what to do at one. Which led me to look at Slumber party, where I found a rather surprising assertion which I reverted. (This is the reason for my comment to Wil Wheaton in the edit summary.)

    Silly me. I had no idea this assertion about "harmless experimentation in lesbianism" was an important part of the plot of tonight's episode. (I should mention here that Wil Wheaton had nothing to do with that episode, to make it clear that I am not violating any of the rules regarding WP:BLP.)

    I'm not sure what more need to be done at this point than perhaps semi-protecting this article. Or maybe we can call up one of the show's creators & ask him if his refrigerator is running. But I thought some folks here might like to read about this as a change from the usual WikiDramaz. -- llywrch (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ehh...I would say semi-protection not needed, most likely. It's now several hours after the show aired, and nothing has happened since you're revert, so it's not exactly moving at a fast pace. I think if a few people here who will be on for another couple hours would volunteer to watchlist it, we should be good. This might be worth posting at Wikipedia in culture, though. =) Ks0stm (TCG) 05:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That also looks like a coincidence, but I could be wrong as I don't watch that show. We're officially cool now! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Never having seen the show in question, I'm curious how Sheldon Leonard figures into the old joke about Prince Albert. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 13:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Fixed. Wil Wheaton, Dr. Cooper's arch nemesis, made me confuse the two. (And I should know how to spell Wheaton's name; I happen to have his autograph.) -- llywrch (talk) 22:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    RevisionDeletion noticeboard (II)

    (Moved to WP:AN) FT2 (Talk | email) 06:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Deletion of user talk page

    Hi, I'm responding to a user's rquest to have his old talk page deleted, since he's no longer active after a ban. Since the request was made by email to the OTRS team, its contents are confidential, so I need an administrator to contact me through the email link on my user page. (Btw. I'm just relaying the request and have no opinion as to the rules or routine regarding talk page deletion). Cheers! Asav (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Sent you an e-mail. Courcelles 10:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Possible Suicide Threats/Death Threats

    Forwarded to the Foundation, we're on it. Thanks! Christine Moellenberndt, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Resolved
     – Korruski says WMF is on it move along The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I guess... start the routine... sombody... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 10:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    more... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I have contacted the Wikimedia foundation. An admin will need to block the user and someone with checkuser access will need to find their location.--KorruskiTalk 11:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI - I have received confirmation that someone at the WM Foundation is looking into it.--KorruskiTalk 11:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't get to post this until now, but the Foundation has it and we're on it. Thanks! Christine Moellenberndt, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 17:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Vandalism

    "NOTICE: This article is a fork of the article Đeravica because they refuse to change the name to albanian. there is an ongoing edit conflict with the serbs over the names in wikipedia."

    As there are no ongoing edit conflict, i am asking for a block, as nothing else helped. User is not willing to cooperate, which is clear from his "they refuse" attitude, and other posts on wiki. And also, he is pointing to the national origin of editors, which is unacceptable. --WhiteWriter speaks 11:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Final warning given for copyright-violation. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 11:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello. I am an active wikipedia editor. I am willing to cooperate. Lets resolve this. Where is the copyright violation? James Michael DuPont (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Cut-and-paste copying within Wikipedia is a copyright violation when it does not maintain the relevant article history. Of much greater importance, though, is that such "forked" articles are not allowed by Wikipedia policy, even if they have correct attribution. Gavia immer (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A copy-paste move is indeed a copyvio but not a daunting one, since it can easily be fixed afterwards with a move, which also moves the contrib history. Nor was this vandalism. However, it was indeed a PoV fork, which isn't allowed, along with what was more or less a non-consensus beginning of a page move, both of which are not only disruptive, but since it has to do with a topic area under Wikipedia:General_sanctions, any uninvolved admin can either sanction or if need be, block such behaviour rather swiftly. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok. I see the problem. I will not make forks. It was just an expermiment to try and resolve the issue. Obviously this is no place for experiments, because the issue is very serious. Please accept my apology. There are very many places that I have seen where important information is missing like the albanian names from Kosovo articles and where also the point of view seems to be not neutral. I will work on fixing them inside the existing naming scheme and without copying articles. We have been trying to recruit new editors and alot of them dont want to help wikipedia because they feel offended that the place they live has a different name and seems to be biased. That was my motivation to try and resolve that. I see that it was the wrong way. thanks Mike. James Michael DuPont (talk) 11:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally we go with the most common Anglicised form of a name for the article title and mention any variations prominently in the first sentence or two of the lead (see WP:UE). That, plus redirects from the alternatives, should hopefully handle the mechanics of naming and finding an article. It is difficult where national sensibilities come into the equation, but hopefully sticking strictly to the naming conventions at least produces a consistent result. Sometimes we just have to accept that we can't please everyone. EyeSerenetalk 12:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    In Kosovo the articles are using mostly serbian letters that cannot even be typed. This is not very optimal. Also The links between the articles are also all in serbian, so if you dont know the serbian name, but know the albanian or english name it is hard to navigate. My patches to include the albanian names of the links are also being removed. It seems that the only place we can agree to add them are in the lead of the article. this is not really optimal. If we could at least list both names for the links, I would be happy. James Michael DuPont (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Current names have been agreed by community consensuses as most common, and most appropriate. Also, some of them are English common names too, so those were not used just as being Serbian, it were used per wikipedia guidelines regarding names. Also, your addition of dual language links in EVERY POSSIBLE PLACE makes articles completely unreadable. And also, this is not wikipedia only for local community, this is at first encyclopedia for English speaking community, and names have been chosen appropriately. Who wants to find article by their other names, can use redirects, but articles should have other languages only in lead, as explained by EyeSerene. --WhiteWriter speaks 14:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There has never been a consensus that the names of the cities of Kosovo should be in Serbian. --Sulmuesi (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:OWN and WP:COI at House rabbit

    User:Ed Brey is violating WP:OWN and WP:COI at House rabbit, e.g. [63] and [64]. Does not listen to article talk page consensus re proper pronoun usage and makes the page his personal playground in other ways (e.g., insertion of self-promoting links). Also see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#He/she or it when talking about pets? --Morn (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I know that you've been referred here, but the person who referred you here was wrong. You have a plain, garden variety, content dispute. At best, the thing that involves administrators is the edit war between Wjemather (talk · contribs) and Ed Brey (talk · contribs). Administrators are not content arbitrators. Decisions as to content are made by the editorship at large. Every editor is capable of involvement. What you really need are more editors to come to the talk page, to supplement the mainly two editors that are there. You need third opinions. You've got some at the MOS talk page. Maybe some administrators, with their hats on as ordinary editors, will provide additional opinions. But there are, comparatively, few administrators and a lot of editors. AN/I is not a good third-opinion-seeking mechanism. Uncle G (talk) 16:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm counting six editors on the talk page who say it should be "it". That count does not include me, nor those editors at the MOS talk discussion (where "it" was also the consensus), nor reverts from "he/she" to "it" by IPs like this edit: [65]. This is not really a content dispute; instead it's about a single user violating the rules of WP conduct (WP:OWN and WP:COI). And using "it" or "he" is a question of proper encyclopedic writing style, not content. --Morn (talk) 19:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ownership, very probably. Especially since this has been one editor trying to fight off unrelenting modification since 2007. Conflict of interest, I doubt. How can one possibly have a conflict of interest as to what is the correct pronoun for the prose in an article about rabbits? Content dispute, very much so. This is exactly a dispute as to article content. One person wants one word; several others want another. Uncle G (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • The COI refers to that link to his web site: [66] --Morn (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excuse me Uncle G, but I looked at the article for the first time after seeing the notice at MOS a couple of days ago. There is clearly a problem with the article, that is not being helped by User:Ed Brey's insistence that his version stands. I have simply reverted to what appears to me to be a clear consensus with Ed being being in a minority of one with his opinion. I would tend to agree with you that this is the wrong venue at this time, and I am trying/have tried to engage Ed in discussion to explain to him why there are problems with his, but have not managed to get anywhere yet. wjematherbigissue 19:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, and the problem is that it's just the two of you. You need to get some third opinions in. AN/I isn't the place to seek third opinions from the editorship at large, for the reasons already stated. List the article at RFC. Ask the MOS editors for their help, not just their opinions. Uncle G (talk) 22:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • There's little point in soliciting more opinions IMHO. Everyone except Ed already seems to agree that "it" is correct, and even if we had the opinions of ten times as many people who think the same, that probably wouldn't stop Ed from reverting. --Morn (talk) 23:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Would have been nice if Uncle G had actually looked into the matter before commenting, but perhaps that's asking too much. wjematherbigissue 00:57, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I looked into the matter, and the fact, that you don't like but that is true nonetheless, is that you have a content dispute over pronouns for which we have normal dispute resolution processes. You're looking for a way to pass the effort onto administrators. That doesn't happen. Get those third opinions. There are big boldface notices at the top of this page that this noticeboard is not a part of our dispute resolution processes. Uncle G (talk) 01:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Lady Gaga song articles

    Resolved
     – Reporting user blocked Gavia immer (talk) 20:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Since early April, users Tbhotch and Chasewc91 have breached multiple policies regarding song articles about Lady Gaga, with Tbhotch refusing to accept the general consensus that writing credits should be attributed to the stage name not the real name, whilst Chasewc91 keeps suggesting that Alejandro is a synthpop song, when in reality, it is a song with electropop and disco influences. I would be grateful if these two are banned from the Wikipedia community altogether. 12:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.208.210 (talk)

    I moved this here from WT:AN, where it would have passed unseen. I note that the IP has not notified either editor mentioned above. Gavia immer (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Followup: I've notified all editors of this thread. Gavia immer (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd have to wonder where a consensus to credit stage names arose from. Song credits are a fairly serious and precise matter of legality; when ASCAP cuts a check to her every month, the name on the paper is most certainly not "Lady Gaga". Tarc (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Almost always, the name on the logs is the stage name, the contract with the (song/composition) performance rights group such as ASCAP carries both the stage name and the legal name, as do their databases. The stage/marketing name is always the name to credit, that's what it's for. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Close this, block the user per block evasion CharlieJS13 (talk · contribs) TbhotchTalk C. 18:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    IP hopper Armenophobe

    I'm coming here with this as the only response I got down at WP:CCN was this editor trying to censor my post: Someone (from Turkey according to geolocate) has been going between articles relating to the Urartu empire and removing references to Armenia. He's left me a message on my talk page accusing me of being an Armenophile, but beyond that refuses to talk about his edits. I've quit leaving warnings, because he switches to a different IP address every day. Banning probably won't accomplish anything with the IP hopping, I'm thinking page protection is going to be necessary. Special:Contributions/78.182.3.207, Special:Contributions/78.182.11.67, Special:Contributions/78.180.98.119, Special:Contributions/78.184.226.130, Special:Contributions/78.190.176.59, Special:Contributions/78.190.178.106, Special:Contributions/78.180.112.18 (same pattern, also attempted to delete the above list from my post at WP:CCN). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, I would notify the editor, but as he keeps hopping IPs there's no guarantee he'd get the message; although considering his attempt to censor me at WP:CCN, I'm guessing he's stalking me and will be aware of the discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Tha EnSiGN--regularly adding unsourced info to album articles without discussion

    Tha EnSiGN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

    User: Tha EnSiGN has a history of making changes to album articles, mostly to the producers or extra performers on those albums. The user has a talk page full of templated and untemplated warnings about this behavior. I, unfortunately, have little knowledge of the subject, so I'm not sure if these are legitimate or not. But this seems vaguely similar to other reports I've read on ANI before of long running socks who do the same thing. Looking through the editors history, I see no response to any of the reports, no use of article talk pages, and no edit summaries. Anyone else think this looks suspicious? off to notify now Qwyrxian (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No Legal Threats and User THF

    User THF has come quite close to violating the No Legal Threats policy, here [67]. When I warned him about this, he blanked his talk page [68], as "vandalism". I filed a report to WP:COIN about THF, diff link. This user's behavior is erratic and disruptive across multiple pages on Wikipedia, probably due to the offsite conflict of interest that is ongoing. If the user cannot abide by multiple warnings given to him by separate users including Jehochman (talk · contribs) and Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs), and does not abide by No Legal Threats, then an admin should block. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    There's no Wikipedia-related lawsuit, and there was no legal threat. Cirt is harassing me by making an inappropriate COIN report in retaliation for an editing dispute on a different article: his complaint is that I disclosed a conflict of interest and then discussed the subject on a talk page, which is explicitly permitted by WP:COI and WP:COIN. He's also violating WP:MULTI by harassing me on multiple message boards on the same topic (this is his third one). Can someone end the wikidrama and ask Cirt to stop being disruptive? Thank you. THF (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    THF (talk · contribs) has received COI warnings from multiple users including Jehochman (talk · contribs) and Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs). When a WP:COIN report is filed, he responds by posting to my talk page in close violation of No Legal Threats. That is why the issue was brought here to ANI. -- Cirt (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This situation arises from THF's continued editing at an AfD ([69]) in relation to a BLP subject who has sued him. Continuing to post to that AfD after an administrator has advised you to stop is, well, not advisable. This issue will be handled by other editors and THF's input is neither needed nor helpful. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with this comment, by Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You can end the drama yourself, THF. I'm amazed that you do not understand the basics of the no legal threats policy. One of the very foundations of that policy is that it is not in your own interests to come to a wiki and publicly comment in writing on matters that involve lawsuits that you are currently party to. Has the recent Cooks Source infringement controversy débacle taught nothing about the errors of putting admissions in writing? Don't come here. Don't comment. You're on a wiki. Everything that you do here is in public, visible to the entire planet, and in writing. It's not in your interests to be discussing your lawsuits anywhere in Special:Contributions/THF and it is not in our interests, as people who wish no involvement in the matter ourselves and who moreover don't want the opposing parties in the lawsuit coming here and arguing their case, to let you. Take your involvement in this matter entirely outwith this project, please. Uncle G (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree with everything said in this comment by Uncle G (talk · contribs). There is simply no reason for THF (talk · contribs) to continue referring to and posting about this manner on wiki in Special:Contributions/THF, over and over again. -- Cirt (talk) 17:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    @Uncle G (talk · contribs), I basically asked this question of THF at his user talk page, he responded by page blanking that part out. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 17:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the lack of helpful response from him, I suggest a short block if it continues, or possibly even now to prevent continuation. The involvement is totally improper. DGG ( talk ) 19:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • DGG, I agree with your comment at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#No_Legal_Threats_and_User_THF regarding THF (talk · contribs), how do you suggest admins proceed from here? You seem to be a neutral party to this particular issue involving this user THF (talk · contribs), perhaps you could carry out the admin action you have proposed? -- Cirt (talk) 05:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • the most recent edit of his I see relative to this was at 14:58, November 12, 2010 (edit) [70]. Conceivably the discussion here has convinced him to stop this line. I have left him a note to the effect that if it resumes, I shall block, in order to reinforce it. And I shall. I'll check in the morning. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Agree with this assessment by admin DGG. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 06:45, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • I agree with the analysis of the problem by Cirt and DGG. From now on we should have no patience for inappropriate comments by THF. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Alan Wolk he said: "I have serious concern that Wolk will sue Wikipedia and Wikipedia editors if his Wikipedia presence is not to his liking." I think a block under WP:No legal threats is justified if User:THF continues in this vein. EdJohnston (talk) 06:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • It can also be read as a well-intentioned warning. The silence can, too, be read as actually doing what was asked and not discussing this anymore anywhere on-wiki. So really there's only a problem if there's further on-wiki discussion, as DGG notes. I was going to say pretty much the same thing earlier myself. Uncle G (talk) 07:39, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Persistent sockpuppet

    Resolved
     – SPI created. Editors directed there to comment. MC10 (TCGBL) 20:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Shaniceymcmb (talk · contribs) is the same user as 10alatham (talk · contribs); other accounts that have been blocked include 2012alatham (talk · contribs), 2014alatham (talk · contribs) and Alex "Coyle" Latham (talk · contribs); can an admin intervene please? Thanks, GiantSnowman 17:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I've opened a new case for this at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/10alatham. — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 17:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, I've added the other blocked users to the SPI as well. GiantSnowman 17:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A drv question

    update: I have been emailed a copy of the full source to this userspace page, by a previously uninvolved administrator. (Thanks!) It confirms my skepticism that the pages merited deletion. I would still really appreciate advice about where to have an official determination on whether the page was really a copyright violation. Geo Swan (talk) 21:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    A userspace page I created was deleted as a COPYVIO earlier this week. The administrator in question has informed they will not email me the source. So I initiated a DRV. In that DRV I did not request restoration. I merely requested the source be emailed to me. The administrator who closed the DRV explicitly stated that they did not want to take a position, one way, or another, whether the material was a copyright violation.

    This second administrator said he would email me the portion of the user page that was not an "identical copy" of the source page. What he or she emailed me was about five to ten percent of the userspace page -- essentially worthless.

    I asked the second administrator, several days ago, where I should get the issue of whether or not the page was a copyright violation resolved. I asked them to reconsider their decision to not email me the full source of the page. They haven′t been online.

    I won't go into all the details as to why I disagree that the page was a copyright violation, as per Feith v. Rural. The details are here -- Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 8#User:Geo Swan/Guantanamo/Brookings lists of released captives, User talk:Lifebaka#Your assistance please. The only thing I will add is that the initial deleting administrator's opinion seems to be that the last quarter of the very long page contained a few phrases -- sentence fragments that constitute a fraction of one percent of the page -- are sufficiently original that they are copyrightable. It is my opinion these these few sentence fragments do not pass de minimus, and are not copyrightable. An uninvolved third party has pointed out that, even if the few sentence fragments were copyrightable, since they constituted such a tiny fraction of the page, they would be includeable under the fair use doctrine.

    So, I'd like to know

    1. whether DRV is the appropriate venue to resolve whether or not the page violated copyright.
    2. whether I can get the entire original source of the page emailed to me.

    Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 18:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think there is no reason the source should not be mailed. I myself, however, do not want to take admin action regarding Geo. The copyvio is trivial and probably fair use. Myself, I think the initial speedy deletion was unjustified, and the speedy close to the DRV after only 3 hours improper, because additional time should have been allowed. DRV is meant to be a discussion. (I for example follow DRV regularly, and check it daily, but I missed being able to comment. I check it daily, not hourly around the clock.) The only people who had time to discuss were the admin who did the original deletion, one consistent opponent of this group of articles, and 1 person who expressed no opinion over the issue of copyvio. In fact, neither did the closing administrator for the DRV express an opinion about copyvio. If he was unwilling to make a determination of copyvio, he had no basis for not mailing the article. DGG ( talk ) 19:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    With respect to the last point, the admin did have a basis for not mailing the article — Wikipedia administrators are volunteers and are not compelled to take any action. If one admin is uncomfortable, unwilling, or simply unavailable, find another one who is prepared to evaluate the situation and render assistance as appropriate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are absolutely correct that wikipedia administrators are volunteers, just like the rest of us. However, since the closing admin didn't feel comfortable going on record as to whether the page was or wasn't a copyright violation I am sure you can understand why I am mystified that they closed the discussion at all? You haven't said -- do you think DRV was the wrong venue to seek resolution over the issue of whether the page was a copyright violation? If you think it was the wrong venue, would you be so kind as to recommend the correct venue? Geo Swan (talk) 21:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    could you elucidate? we are --all of us-- discussing process, not anarchy. I think most of us on all sides are trying to avoid making it a battleground. But we are all of us trying to deal with copyvio questions properly, which is necessarily a little bureaucratic. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Is there any connection to this incident and the fact that Fram and Iqinn have recently nominated 34+ of Geo Swan's user subpages for deletion? This smells of Wikibullying to me. These multiple actions (coming from an admin, no less) against an editor in good standing are troublesome to me, although admittedly I may not be aware enough of the history of the situation to comment. SnottyWong chatter 00:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No admin has to offer mailing article copies; anyone of us is free to say, please ask someone else, or even ignore a request. But if we choose to do it or refuse in a particular case, we must do so in conformity with policy , & making correct factual judgments. We admins are responsible for what we do, and for how we do it. An admin who does not want to take responsibility in a particular case should let someone else handle it. I do this all the time and so does every admin--none of us deals with everything we see, just what we are prepared to deal with. DGG ( talk ) 05:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    could someone please look at recent reverts and vandal warning issued to me by this user, and give him a polite WP:AGF warning. thanks. i can't edit his talk page and let him know about this thread.188.2.48.67 (talk) 19:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you informed BR about this thread pursuant to the instructions you got when you started this thread? Hipocrite (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Try reading the post before complaining about it, Hipocrite. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    My bad. I've informed BR of this thread, in addition to cautioning him about poor templating. Hipocrite (talk) 19:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for informing me of this. My talk page is semiprotected because of frequent harassment. I see now that we're dealing with a serial IP (using several IPs) who has been repeatedly - in spite of other editors' reversions and objections - deleting referenced material and otherwise being unconstructive. My intentions are good, but I'm not perfect. I'm trying to protect the project and may have used the wrong template, but I chose the mildest one, since mass deletion of references is usually referred to as vandalism, even if it's of a mild type. How should we deal with this IP user? They have been requested to start an account but haven't done it yet. All their edits need to be collected in ONE edit history. Right now they are avoiding the scrutiny of other editors by scattering their edits between several accounts. Permanent semi protection of the Quackwatch, Stephen Barrett and NCAHF articles would be one way to avoid these situations. That way IPs would have to use the talk pages more and get consensus before making such radical and controversial edits on these very touchy articles. This happens quite often, and semi protection for a week isn't good enough. It needs to be permanent. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    'protecting the project' from me? i feel like a criminal now :P if you were not serious, you would be funny. that article lacks reliable secondary sources that talk about it in depth, and therefore its notability is dubious. it has bunch of dead links so that it would appear as notable, and once they are cleaned, it becomes very obvious that its notability is practically non-existent. 188.2.48.18 (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Your attitude isn't really the way to approach this. And IP-hopping doesn't make you look good, either. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:04, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    it takes two to tango. [71] 188.2.48.18 (talk) 03:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Except this isn't tango. Your being snobbish and condescending. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 03:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    BR is 'protecting the project' from me, and now I am being condescending. interesting. 188.2.48.18 (talk) 03:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    For those who wish to know, 188.2.48.0/24 would be the most effective method of dealing with this issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:41, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you suggesting a rangeblock? Right now I'd be happy if the Serbian IP editor would get an account so their editing history would be collected in one place. IP hopping after having been advised amounts to a violation of our policy against avoiding the scrutiny of other editors. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It's only avoiding scrutiny if the user is doing this on purpose. Have you any evidence that he's resetting his IP to keep being an annoyance?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:09, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "Avoiding scrutiny" has to do with its effect here, not necessarily with motives. It's avoiding scrutiny regardless of motive. I'm not implying it's deliberate as there are other reasons for why IPs often change. The end effect here is still the same - other editors get confused and have trouble knowing who is speaking. If they had a stable IP it wouldn't be a problem. Since it's the same person, they should get an account when they have been notified that their actions are disruptive and confusing. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are the Serbian IPs (so far)

    Brangifer (talk) 05:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    McYel

    Resolved
     – Blocked indef, potentially identifying information removed from user page.  Sandstein  22:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    For your consideration, McYel (talk · contribs) is posing as a generic black power bible nutcase. But I have the suspicion that this is an act, and that we are in fact dealing with a troll. The reason for this suspicion is that when transcluding Image:Egyptian races.jpg he gave an 'alt' tag of "A cartoon centipede reads books and types on a laptop". [72] You will probably agree that this isn't quite in-character for this type of user. --dab (𒁳) 19:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ah wait, I just realized that the centipede thing may originate with an incredibly naive perusal of the Help:Files tutorial. So maybe this is the genuine article after all. Either way, some people should probably look into this. --dab (𒁳) 19:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I just realized that this user had been indefblocked twice already and then unblocked upon promising to improve his behavior. Since he now started mass-crossposting his thing to talkpages, I have indefblocked the account a third time. Feel free to still look into it if you like. --dab (𒁳) 20:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Good call. Looks like some kind of mental issue, falling under "Wikipedia is not therapy". Fut.Perf. 20:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, good block. MC10 (TCGBL) 20:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, I don't think he's blocked. I can still see his page and talk page and the stuff about his parent's names and bdays, which is seriously uncool (and dangerous) for him to have on a Wiki The Eskimo (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He still has the privilege to edit his own talk page, which is standard procedure. If he continues the nonsense posts and doesn't submit a proper unblock request, that privilege will likely be taken away, which is also standard procedure. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    WMC and Hipocrite blocked

    WMC and Hipocrite are now unblocked Raul654 (talk) 01:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.


    This is probably in the wrong place, if so someone move it - I don't usually do enforcement.

    After this exchange here, I have blocked William M. Connolley and Hypocrite for one week. These guys obviously still do not get it. They are supposed to desist from pursuing this battle, and turning up to oppose an RFA and then saying "we can't say why" is either pushing at the bounds yet again, or deliberate disruption. The crats can decide whether the votes count, but it seems a clear case of pushing at the topic ban - and contempt of a very clear community request for this nonsense to cease in every shape and form. Enough is enough.

    There may be others involved in the RFA who should also be given an equal block.--Scott Mac 22:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, that'll teach me to vote (or !vote) at an RFA, knowing that you can be blocked for doing so... Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Bad block. What do you expect them to do? Not vote against a candidate they do not trust? There is no interaction ban, and they are not banned from interacting in community decisions. In fact, Arbs have actively reaffirmed their right to participate in the ArbCom election. I see no reason why they should not be allowed to vote in an RfA. And politely refusing to elaborate on topics covered by the topic ban has also been recommended as best practice. Yes, people are pissed off. Yes, the mob is swinging torches and pitchforks. But that is no excuse for an unjustified and unjustifiable block. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:29, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    This already has been discussed in detail already at Wikipedia:BN#Opposes_without_accompanying_rationale. Your swooping in later to fire off blocks only served to reignite the flames of a matter that was essentially settled. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Procedural comment only: Scott MacDonald, you may want to explicitly state on the user talk pages whether the blocks are arbitration enforcement blocks or not, given that special procedures apply to the review of such blocks. For future reference, WP:TW supports the corresponding template, {{uw-aeblock}}.  Sandstein  22:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Sandstein. I'm a bit not up on that stuff, so grateful for the heads up. Although I'm not clear whether this is an enforcement block, or a disruption block for gaming - or whether it matters. They know what they are doing, and they know what disruption it will case. This is calculated trolling, nothing less--Scott Mac 22:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the distinction matters with respect as to who may lift the block under which circumstances (see WP:AEBLOCK).  Sandstein  23:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    OK, I'll wait on one or two more comments. I'm willing to back peddle if that's the consensus. However, it is no conincidence that these guys keep finding ways of carrying on that "just, technically" stay within the letter of the ban, but push us a bit further. My view is enough is enough.--Scott Mac 22:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Might it also be "no coincidence" that you take swipes at WMC in threads posted to WR? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure what this is about. It looks like an assumption of bad faith....but I don't even know what this refers to.--Scott Mac 22:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, that's just too good. Might I say that faux-naive really isn't your style? Let me refresh your memory with an example.[73] Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not going to comment on William's block. I think the block of Hipocrite wasn't a good idea. He's certainly allowed to voice his opinion at RfA - any RfA. It just looks to me like he's trying to participate in an RfA (which is certainly not forbidden) without running up against even a very activist interpretation of his topic ban. I think Hipocrite has clearly been respectful of the spirit of his topic ban since it was placed; if you've seen him pushing the boundaries elsewhere, let me know, because I haven't seen it. I'd advocate undoing this block; I say that as someone who was active in the climate-change ArbCom case, and as someone who supported (and supports) the RfA in question without reservation. MastCell Talk 22:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've unblocked Hippocrite. He's got not history of pushing at the ban (that was my error) and he will stay away from commenting on editors involved in CC pending any arbcom clarification.--Scott Mac 23:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    From my brief reading, it looks like a catch-22 for all concerned. Time to turn our brains on and use common sense, I think. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 22:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Scott, I hate to tell you this, but I think these blocks were a mistake. First, the editors affected do have a sanction against them for this. Second, they do have a right to comment at an RfA. Third, perhaps their comments were (or were not) a little too coy or passive-aggressive, but if so, just let them stand; right now they're probably helping Sphilbrick's nomination more than they're hurting. Fourth, I believe it's better to discuss this and get a consensus before blocking -- nothing in this case required immediate unilateral action. Fifth, I think bureaucrats are capable of running RfAs without others' help. Sixth, in some ways, this sets the 2 blocked editors up to claim global warming martyrhood; they may even appreciate having been blocked.
    Sometimes it's just better to passively tolerate a small dose of irksome drama if the more active alternative, a block, is going to create a bigger show. --A. B. (talkcontribs) 23:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    A. B. said everything I was going to say, plus some. Scott, if you are thinking about reversing your own blocks, I'd say move ahead on that. --RL0919 (talk) 23:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree; both were bad blocks. A.B. said it. Just one editor's opinion. Saebvn (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't want to wade into whether or not this was an appropriate block, but I will note that it would have been possible for WMC and Hypocrite to register their oppose !vote and provide a concise justification, couched in general terms, without going anywhere near the limits of their topic bans. They did not do this; instead they !voted in a manner guaranteed to prompt questions which they knew they would be unable to answer. Thparkth (talk) 23:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you kidding me? What, exactly, was my oppose !vote but exactly that? Please paste it here for everyone to see. Thanks! Hipocrite (talk) 23:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As SM obviously unblocked Hipocrite, and apologised, I respectfully suggest that this thread focus on his block of WMC, if anything. - jc37 23:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You said "I do not trust this user not to abuse the tools to push a fringe POV". In my (rather lightweight) opinion, that read as an argument against the candidate on climate change content grounds - whether it was intended that way or not. You could have said "I am not persuaded of his ability act neutrally in contentious areas" which would have made the same point without inviting drama. All the same, I'm sure you made a good faith effort to comply with your topic ban on this, and I'm glad you're unblocked. Thparkth (talk) 23:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm just flummoxed by these blocks, especially since ATren, also topic banned, voted in favor of this candidate and was not blocked. It seems entirely arbitrary. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I agree with with the many other people in this thread who have pointed out that these are bad blocks. What's worse, as ScottyBerg pointed out, is that there appears to be an element of selective enforcement here. Why was ATren not blocked as well? How is his comment there different from WMC's and Hippocrite's, except that he supported the RFA? Raul654 (talk) 23:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    The blocks may or may not have been bad. But I posted here noting that others may wish to look at other users. I didn't see ATren. But really, since when did anyone have to block "everyone doing x" before blocking "anyone doing x". We've never worked that way, and you know it.--Scott Mac 23:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Now that you've noticed ATren, why aren't you blocking him? ScottyBerg (talk) 23:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You think it would be wise when I've carried out a contentious block and asked for review for me to start adding to it? If my blocks are bad they'll get undone - if more are needed other can do that.--Scott Mac 23:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me rephrase my question: if you'd noticed ATren, would you have blocked him? If not, why not? I'm not suggesting he should be blocked, but just trying to figure out the basis for these horrid blocks. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:28, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Shouldn't Scott Mac be sanctioned now, for behaving like a completely dishonest arse and misusing his block button? Malleus Fatuorum 23:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    You're assuming those are considered bad things around here. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 23:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I know how it works here. If Scott had been a regular editor who misused his rollback button it would have been taken away pronto. But he's one of the Immortals, so he gets away with murder. Malleus Fatuorum 23:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't have phrased it quite that way, but I think you're absolutely right. ScottyBerg (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    First things first, the users he blocked should be unblocked before we start focusing on sanctions, as someone mentioned above we should be focusing on the block of WMC. Thenub314 (talk) 23:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You focus on what you like. My attention is drawn to the evident dishonesty of these blocks, and yours should too. Malleus Fatuorum 23:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I have now unblocked both users. I asked for a review here, and it is evident that there is significant disquiet about the blocks. I am big enough to read consensus and humble enough to back down in the face of it. That's exactly why I posted here for peer review. Thank you to those of you who took the time to review the actions and offer you opinions and honest criticism. I'm happy to admit, that I've obviously misjudged the mood in relation to these things and I'll learn from that. I do, however, want to strongly protest at the unnecessary and unjustifiable assumptions of bad faith that a minority of those who have offered an opinion here have engaged in. Calls of "dishonesty", and vague innuendos accusing bias and partisanship are not something I expected, and have absolutely no place in proper wikipedian discourse. Shame.--Scott Mac 00:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No opinion on the block, since I haven't followed its history. However, agree in total with the second half of your humble post. "Shame" indeed; it's the usual suspects, with the usual axe to grind. "Honi soit qui mal y pense", or WP:AGF: you pays your money and you takes your choice. No obloquy should attach for an honest mistake. Rodhullandemu 00:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep in mind that some of the editors here are basically anarchists. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If you don't want to be accused of dishonesty then don't behave dishonestly. Simple. Malleus Fatuorum 00:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Malleus, please cool it. Scott made a bad call, but he's trying to rectify the situtation. Inflammatory rhetoric is not helping. Raul654 (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How can he possibly rectify it? The damage is done. Malleus Fatuorum
    I haven't. I'll say nothing more about your abusive assertion, I don't believe calling people liars is particularly helpful.--Scott Mac 00:37, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. However, I also think that you lost your objectivity. First, blocking because of a perceived "mood" is a bad idea, wether that perception is right or wrong. Blocking based on an ArbCom decision without knowing what that entails is also not too hot. But what really concerns me is this discussion of Wikipedia review. You keep bad company. There may be valid reasons for that, but you even howl with the wolves. And after spending time in that echo chamber of agitation, you come here and block two editors from one side of the debate, but not one from the other side, who has done the same deed in the same place. I'm quite ready to accept that you did not notice this, but the question you should ask yourself why you didn't notice it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:01, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You have now twice accused me of bad faith and hidden agendas. I have already denied exactly the assertion you make, and now you repeat it. I don't know what else to say except your personal attack is a nasty smear. If you have evidence for disbelieving my assurances then produce it. I am, for what it's worth (and it really should not matter), a strong believer in climate change who has no involvement in the wikipedia dispute whatsoever. I have no acted in a biased way, and do not expect to have my integrity called into question by the likes of you.--Scott Mac 01:06, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Is this intended to be in reply to me or did it appear in the wrong place? Given that I especially stated that I'm ready to believe that you failed to notice the asymmetry in your actions, how did I accuse you of bad faith? Bad judgement, yes, and I stand by that. Bad faith, no. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    (EC) Scott, I've worked happily with you before regarding BLP-related issues on a climate contrarian.[74] But the way you have acted here has made me lose confidence in your forthrightness. It's not so much your views as your dissembling in the face of criticism, such as your feigned ignorance when I brought up your comments in the WMC thread on Wikipedia Review. I feel like I've been taken for a ride. Very disappointing. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Dissembling? "lose confidence in your forthrightness". What am I being accused of? One post to WR, making a humorous comment that people with strong views will tend to think that more important than anything else. I'm genuinely taken aback by this whole thread. The block may have been overkill, but I have been nothing less than objective. If you are unable to believe me about that, I can't help it.--Scott Mac 01:24, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Your grasp of English appears to leave something to be desired, not unusual amongst admins. I never called you a liar; what I said was that you behaved dishonestly, which you did. Malleus Fatuorum 00:44, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:DIFFs please, or retract per WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. You've been warned above. The alternative is a block. Rodhullandemu 00:51, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Which, considering it's Malleus will probably last all of 30 seconds, because the rules only apply to other people, but hey... HalfShadow 00:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)}[reply]
    @Malleus: Don't make accusations you're not willing and able to back up with some evidence. Doing so makes you look bad, not the person you're accusing. Rd232 talk 00:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And now the usual threats from the usual suspects begin. You boys just make me laugh. Malleus Fatuorum 01:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You should not make unevidenced accusations of bad faith. It is not a laughing matter: if you have something serious to discuss, then let's do so, with evidence. If you just have suspicions, kindly keep them to yourself (and avoid the Boy Crying Wolf effect). And if you're just pissing about at ANI for no good reason, please stop it. Rd232 talk 01:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Talking about shame, do you intend to tell WMC that you unblocked him? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:34, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. Let's let this thread close down. Scott brought his action here for review, and he took the responses on board and reversed his own action in light of them. That's laudable administrative behavior, the sort of thing we want to see (and encourage) from admins. Let's not spoil the moment with accusations and threats of civility blocks. MastCell Talk 00:59, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Let's not forget that this is a wiki, when anything can be undone. Scott brought his block here for review, and it was found to be less than satisfactory. He need not have done so although given the subject matter, he should be commended for seeking community input. However, there is no reason why that should have resulted in the usual criticism of Scott as an individual or admins as a community. "One swallow does not a summer make", as the proverb goes. But it does have to be noted that some editors take any error, minor or otherwise, as an excuse to take issue with our structures, without offering a cogent alternative. The proper venue for doing that is by way of a request for comment, as opposed to sniping at individual editors in the apparently forlorn hope that someone else will do it on their behalf. There are two ways of putting this: "Shit or get off the pot" and "Put up or shut up". There may be other ways, but they don't currently seem to apply. Rodhullandemu 01:16, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Spam links to a "emerging religions" book

    An IP 128.157.160.12 is adding promotional links to their new holy book and saying such things as ""I have recently read this book and find it to be just as reliable a source of information as the Book of Mormon. Could you please let me know why this data was removed? I certainly hope this is not some Wikipedia editor trying to oppress an emerging religion". I've twice removed the material, sourced to an ad site for the book and to facebook, pointing them to WP:PROMOTION and tried to explain to them that this isnt a site for promotoing their beliefs or getting converts. I'm now at 2 reverts and they have reinserted the material. Could I get some outside eyes on this please> Heiro 22:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hate to be rude here but that really wP:BITEY, he is not a Spammer but a "true believer" here to share about his faith. I'm heading over now. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    He is not a "true believer." I had a look at a google, and his "book of Zelph" is a parody of the "Book of Mormon." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if he was a "true believer", pray tell what is the difference between someone here to "share about his faith" and someone here to share about his personal website, book or other creation? Both objectives seem to be promotion, something that should be avoided no matter what the reasons behind may be. --Saddhiyama (talk) 22:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Facepalm Facepalm So Much for WP:AGF. My point is "true believer" then it would likely be counter productive to make the individual feel like we are trying to censor him. In that case we should welcome the individual and help him understand our complicated rule book about wP:NOTE, wP:RS and such not act like they phamacuitical company or Publicist. However since is obvious a NOT the Case Forgive me for assuming good faith on the part of the the IP in question. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Could we bring some "Revert, block, ignore" love to the target pages, please? Thanks for the notification, Heironymous Rowe. --TS 22:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe no one noticed the sarcasm in "every bit as reliable as the Book of Mormon"? But what about Zelph itself? Is that entire article a hoax? Or is it just this "Book of Zelph" that's a hoax or parody? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    No its a legit Figure Google Scholar no comment on whether he deserves his own article though The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Gibraltar

    Not sure this is the right place to post this, since the article is currently under discretionary sanctions imposed by Arbcom.

    The Arbcom decision provides discretionary sanctions - after a warning - if an editor "repeatedly or seriously violates the behavioral standards or editorial processes of Wikipedia" on Gibraltar-related articles, and explicitly reminds editors to assume good faith. In light of this serious accusation of bad faith and the editor concerned's refusal to withdraw it in that thread (twice), I should like to ask that an uninvolved administrator give such a warning to User:Imalbornoz. Pfainuk talk 23:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    For information, I've walked away from this discussion as I saw it producing nothing productive. I'm only commenting here as Pfainuk drew this to my attention. To my mind, its a rather lame dispute that could easily have been resolved through discussion. Rather silly really, goodnight one and all. Justin talk 23:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope that Imalbornoz will respond here. The line that Pfainuk found offensive was "Have you looked at any source at all? Or is it just the usual disruptive edit warring just for the sake of it?" EdJohnston (talk) 01:36, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There was also the line "I get that you prefer that Wikpedia's users get the wrong information (for I don't know what absurd reason)." Pfainuk talk 07:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Justin A Kuntz is in fact showing a very WP:disruptive behaviour after his return from his 3 months topic ban, trying to impose controversial edits (which had been under discussion for over a year and upon which a consensus had been -finally- reached during his absence: this is his first edit after his return; it had been under discussion from July 2009 until April 2010, and then a consensus was reached), edit warring[75][76][77][78][79][80], accusing other editors[81][82][83][84], going into endless discussions (see his first and second comments in the talk page after his return from the topic ban, not exactly very uncontroversial)...
    Please, just take a look at the history of the article and the talk page during and after his topic ban and compare the amount of clear signs of disruptive editing: battleground type discussions, accusations, reverts... (as a reference, look here for the typical signs that the WP guideline lists:[85])
    Regarding what I suppose triggered this report: I suppose that seeing Justin revert the article to a version that he obviously knew was wrong[86][87] (please see the edit summaries) has been the last straw. I try to assume good faith, but he keeps sticking to a behaviour that strikes me as not too WP:COMPETENT. That's what I've meant with the comment that EdJohnston brings from the talk page. Regarding user Pfainuk, he is a quite more reasonable editor, although I suppose that his friendship with Justin makes him see the latter in a (not too justified) positive light.
    It would be nice if an admin could take a look and see whether any discretionary sanction is justified on Justin or any other editors -including myself- in order to make it less painful to keep improving Gibraltar related articles. Thank you very much. Imalbornoz (talk) 02:26, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hojay23

    This user has made the same repeated vandalism/hoax edits like this: [88] [89] [90] [91] [92] [93] I didn't use the formality of the wikiwarning, I don't even know where that format page is. Instead, I gave him a stern warning in english, which you can find on his talk page. He has continued to make the same edit, fraudulently calling somebody (presumably himself) the winner of an event, in record time, that he did not win. There is public record of those results on this official website. Trackinfo (talk) 04:52, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Google's logo today celebrates Robert Louis Stevenson's birthday. If you click on it, the first Google hit is to Wikipedia's page. I just reverted vandalism on the page, but it's good to keep some eyes looking at the article. Corvus cornixtalk 05:22, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Semi protected for 24 hrs - lots of vandalism today.  7  07:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    This is an account created on October 29, Contributions. The Editors first edit was to create a Category Category:Northern Ireland election stubs and second was creation of Template:NI-election-stub. This shows high suspicious familiarity with our systems. It strikes me as clear block evasion but as I dont edit in the topic area I have no idea who would fit the MOThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 05:30, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How does this make them suspicious? Perhaps they retired an old account. Perhaps they've just read Wikipedia for years. There's nothing vandalistic about the edits. Corvus cornixtalk 06:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Rodhullandemu admin account

    Incident

    Rodhullandemu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) stated on my talk page that another person in his house may have accessed his admin account.

    His contribs in the same editing period indicate concern that either 1) his admin account is not secure, 2) he edits under the influence (including use of tools), or 3) he made the post himself. The edit summary, to an IP on 4 November at 01:38, of the post in question (and there are others similar) is:

    Background
    1. On 20 October Rodhullandemu closed an ANI discussion with "Wankers".
      Rod's response
    2. On 31 October, in a different incident, Nuclear Warfare warned Rodhullandemu that if his behavior continued, he would be seeking a lengthy block. (NW indicated that was the second warning: I am unaware of the first.)
      Found. On 29 October, Rod told MF to STFU. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    3. Today, Rodhullandemu began poking Malleus Fatuorum again, casting aspersions upon MF and his article editing (see WP:WBFAN for evidence of MF's editing), and after being asked to back off,
      1. continued the discussion on my talk, where he claimed his admin account was used by another person.
      2. He continued on Malleus's and my talk even after I told him he might want to stop digging and take the night off.

    Rodhullandemu's contribs during the editing time frame on 4 November show

    1. he used the tools to block an IP at 00:22 (I don't know how to supply that diff), (I did it TbhotchTalk C. 06:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC))[reply]
    2. the "fuck's sake shut up" "wanker" post to an IP was at 01:38, and
    3. he posted to Jimbo's talk page at 01:59.

    A review of his other contribs in that time frame reveals other problems, and a continuous editing session until 02:11 UTC.

    Disengage from Malleus

    Independently of whether Rodhullandemu's admin account is secure or he edits under the influence and what is to be done about that, I request that the community consider that he should be asked to refrain from any engagement with Malleus Fatuorum, either at ANI or on user talk.

    I will do notifications next. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    His explanation for the drunken edit makes no sense. He challenges you to attribute it to him? Does he mean beyond the fact that it's his account that made the edit? Also, someone connecting to your WiFi wouldn't give them access to your account. They have to be on the same browser and PC. Something is rotten here, and it isn't my socks. --Andy Walsh (talk) 06:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    "someone connecting to your wifi" > try Firesheep. Works. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 06:15, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What I'm more concerned with is the admin logs. Surprisingly, he hasn't made any incorrect actions during the compromisation. Minimac (talk) 06:33, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Firesheep is irrelevant: see Wikipedia:ADMIN#Take care and Wikipedia:Security. Compromise of the tools is serious business (but then, so is his continual poking at Malleus). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree, highly suspicious here. Rodhullandemu's general conduct would probably be better suited to WP:RFC/U (of which one is long overdue, imo, but let's not digress); in this case the apparent compromisation of an admin account should lead to (a) an emergency desysopping if he hasn't regained access; or (b) a strongly-worded admonishment about ensuring the safety of his admin account if he has. Strange Passerby (talkcontribs) 07:20, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Andy above, wifi doesn't give people access to his account; further, the edit itself was obviously that of someone at least familiar with Wikipedia, if not of the temperament and personality Rod has displayed on-wiki in the past. I am fairly certain that these circumstances do not allow for the account to have been compromised. The diffs above all seem characteristic of one experienced person who's simply taken DGAF too far. sonia 07:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Reserving judgment until Rod responds, but the assertion that an edit might have been inserted into his unsecured wi-fi is not particularly credible, speaking in my personal experience as a computer security practitioner. Jclemens (talk) 07:42, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]