Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive584

Please ban two users from article Gilad Atzmon

Unresolved

 – Moving back from archive in the hope of getting more input.— Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There has been a long term edit war between CarolMooreDC and Drsmoo on article Gilad Atzmon. They have been on various mediations and raised wikiquette alerts and suchlike but it goes on an on, the latest such complaint is at WP:WQA#User:Drsmoo (revised per comments).

I have suggested on the WQA that both editors should be banned from that article for some months and let other editors have a go at it. I think banning both would lead to least rancour between theeditors and hopefully let them both go off and do something more useful instead. Editor User:Malik Shabazz concurs with this view. Drsmoo agrees but CarolMooreDC is not happy with such a ban. Can this be done or is there a better way of dealing with a problem like this please? Dmcq (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact CarolMooreDC now says at the end of that WQA they agree with a voluntary block for two montrhs but wants something stuck in the article. your call. Dmcq (talk) 01:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

As Dmcq noted above, I support banning the two editors from the article, either temporarily or permanently. I tried to work with them on a compromise in April, but nothing came of it. Full disclosure: I've made a handful of small edits to the article. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:58, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the article ban, I don't think any changes should be made to the article per any of our wishes before the ban though, or any sections deleted by admins not working on the article. If the other editors working on the page feel that a section should be removed and changed, then they should do that themselves after discussion.

Similarly, earlier this year there was a 6 month lock on the article. Immediately after the article was unlocked, CarolmooreDC proceeded to remove a whole section, and the edit war resumed exactly as it had been. Along with the constant personal attacks against me on noticeboards. With a 2 month ban, it will just be the exact same thing again.

I have no objection to both of us being permanently banned from the article, IPs included, to prevent any sock puppetry. I have confidence that the Wikipedia community will ensure that the article follows guidelines. Drsmoo (talk) 12:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully people will read the whole Wikiquette Alert I initiated to deal with issues with Drsmoo in a WP:Biography of Living Persons which had had an WP:OTRS. It still had some WP:RS, WP:OR and POV problems which I could not address without constant reverts by Drsmoo and constantly being followed everywhere I tried to get neutral opinions with false allegations, among others, that I was trying to turn the article into a "defense of his anti-semitism." An obvious personal attack inferring I am an antisemite. This latest, not perfect, attempt for an NPOV section without WP:OR disproves that. CarolMooreDC (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

It was your Wikiquette alert that precipitated this. That you decided to completely impose your POV changes, re-lengthening the article you claimed you had shortened (which you shortened only technically, almost sarcastically, and that was about 3-4x longer than the Hipcorite and SlimVirgin edits) despite no one agreeing with them is another of the reasons this is where it is. You haven't waited for a single noticeboard to make a decision, or accepted any of them. I mean you were even working behind the scenes with other editors on your talk page, outside the article talk page, and badmouthing other editors http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carolmooredc&diff=279500434&oldid=279498060 "Also, what to do about Rance? He's been rather sneaky about getting his own writings in there without his name being mentioned (going to fix that now) but not as bad as THF and Drsmoo" Why are you so unwilling to let the rest of the wikipedia community, outside the two of us, work on this article by themselves? Drsmoo (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Drsmoo, you are bringing up inaccurately described or irrelevant issues from before the 5 month protection period. The only relevant issue from that time is an Admin's advice on April 6 that Drsmoo was being “unnecessarily confrontational” and, after further incidents, on April 9 against “derogatory views" against Atzmon or other editors. Obviously I should have come to Wikietiquette immediately after Drsmoo's first accusation against me once the article was unprotected. I see that Wikipedia:Civility#Dealing_with_incivility may recommend it more quickly than I originally had interpreted. I have learned my lesson. CarolMooreDC (talk) 20:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

And I should have reported you for incivility when you began attacking me over a year ago (October 2008) which you have continued until today http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Drsmoo&diff=prev&oldid=247998967 "your questionable edits which delete sourced material and defend only with POV personal opinions" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Gilad_Atzmon&diff=prev&oldid=247805478 "pushing your personal POV opinion" and on and on and on for over a year, even when you were censured for editing with "an appalling lack of good faith" you continued attacking me. This is the last time I'm going to trade back and forths with you, period. Please explain why you are so unwilling to let the rest of the wikipedia community, outside the two of us, work on this article by themselves? Drsmoo (talk) 20:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Will you two please stop bringing your petty bickering to every forum in which your names are mentioned. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:13, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment. I was involved with this article a while back (6 months+?), my involvement originating with a WP:BLPN post. It was obvious then that a number of editors were using the article as a battleground, with persistent attempts to quote the subject's political statements (he's a musician, BTW) out of context, and generally developing a WP:COATRACK. Many of the subject's statements are somewhat inflammatory in this controversial area, but attempts to explain the subject's reasoning were always resisted and sidelined, in an attempt (occasionally explicitly stated) to show that the subject is anti-semitic, rather than merely intensely critical of Israel.

Drsmoo was one of a number of editors pursuing this position, whilst CaroleMooreDC was attempting a more balanced article. Without delving into the ins and outs of the dispute resolution of this interminable issue (who said what to whom), it's clear to me that it is in the best interests of Wikipedia for Drsmoo to be permanently banned from editing the article. At the same time, I'd suggest a two-month voluntary ban for CaroleMoore. I think both can be trusted to use the talk page appropriately, but that remains to be seen. Rd232 ^talk 15:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have never once been warned of any bad behavior for any of my edits. Calling for me alone to be permanently banned from editing the article, solely because you disagree with my positions is disturbing; especially so, given that you haven't provided any reasons, and yourself state that my editing position is the same as that of many of the editors who have worked on the article (in fact the consensus.) The article has changed a great deal since you were editing it, and now uses solely quotes from high quality reliable news sources such as the Times of London and The Guardian, and no first person sources. After constant noticeboards, not a single one has found the sources and quotes used to be out of context. Drsmoo (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but it's not the case that you have never been warned for bad behaviour. Tedder warned you on 16 October, and I warned you on 12 November; in both cases, for edit warring and potential 3RR on the Atzmon article. RolandR 16:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

"solely because you disagree with my positions"... WP:AGF much? I stated my reasons above. To reiterate: I recall you clearly working towards making the article non-neutral (maximising criticism, often based on quotes without explanatory context; minimising elaboration of the subject's views), and that on occasion you explicitly stated your agenda, in terms of "exposing" the subject's anti-semitism, or some such. Rd232 ^talk 19:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment—it's certainly a problem when an editor makes over 100 non-minor edits to an article (or over 200 in Carol Moore's case) without adding new content, or adding very little new content. Even without an in-depth review of the case, it indicates that perhaps the article is better off without these edits. I support an indefinite article ban for Carol Moore, who has been edit-warring on the article for more than a year, and far longer than Drsmoo. As for Drsmoo, a temporary ban would probably suffice, as we haven't seen what his editing habits on the article would be like had Carol Moore not edited it, therefore I am in favor of giving him an extra chance in the future if he positively contributes to other articles on Wikipedia. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally I think Drsmoo and Carol are equally to blame for treating the article like a WP:BATTLEGROUND and should be treated the same. As far as Drsmoo's contributions to other articles are concerned, 38% of his mainspace edits and 57% of his Talkpage edits are on this article. If not for his interest in Freddy Adu, Drsmoo would be considered a WP:SPA. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Even if what you say is true (Ynhockey), not adding new content is a bizarre criterion for judging an editor's contributions to an article as useless. Rewriting, in an attempt to fix problems and find compromises, is at least as valuable as adding new content. Rd232 ^talk 19:33, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that Carol feels a post like this is appropriate while this discussion is going on makes me wonder whether she understands the problem with her own behavior. I'm beginning to wonder whether a permanent Wikipedia ban might be more appropriate in her case. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't be silly - that's a ludicrous over-reaction. She's talking about how dispute resolution works or not, in terms of her experience; and trying to do something about it. Rd232 ^talk 19:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Factual FYI. Since Malik Shabazz mentioned above that I tried to work with them on a compromise in April, but nothing came of it. I would just like to point out that he is discussing the Talk:Gilad_Atzmon/Politics_draft page set up by an admin after the article had been locked. And actually, with some help from Malik, Drsmoo and I did come to a "consensus," per this Talk Page section. Unfortunately no one knowledgeable of the issues and willing to opine was a sustained third party to our current talk page discussions on the unprotected article, which aggravated the situation. CarolMooreDC (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Per YnHockney, I think a more or less permanent article ban for Carol would be a good idea, and a temporary one for DrSmoo, who should be encouraged to branch out into other articles/subject areas. I think Malik might be being a bit stern: I don't think a WP ban for Carol is necessary yet. Instead, I'd recommend a ban on IP/Muslim/Jewish issues. See how Carol edits away from these controversial issues, and perhaps she will learn to moderate tone and POV, and work more collegially with people who disagree with her edits. IronDuke 05:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that this article is in the topic area of WP:ARBPIA, and thus any uninvolved administrator can impose the requested topic ban unilaterally under Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions after giving a warning about that case. If needed, a WP:AE request can be made to that effect. So extended community discussion about a possible community-imposed ban is not really needed here.  Sandstein  07:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately CarolMooreDC has continued her attacks on her talk page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Carolmooredc&diff=prev&oldid=330085952 "Drsmoo never got no matter how many times I repeated it." "let others deal with Drsmoo - if such others will do so - because he is FAR more problematic than me." "Drsmoo can't be allowed to rule the article through his habit of inferring antisemitism, constant edit warring and refusal to understand clear points no matter how many times they are made. That's more of problem than my merely being too stupid to figure out how to deal with him sooner." And towards Malik "Frankly calling for my banning from wikipedia for problems in one difficult article where you have your own biases does call into question your Admin NPOV"

The attacks go on and on and on. Drsmoo (talk) 17:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I see no personal attacks that merit admin action on her talk page. Tan | 39 17:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion archived prematurely

The discussion "Please ban two users from article Gilad Atzmon" seems to have been archives I believe because of inactivity for a day. There has been no action on it and it hasn't been dismissed for some reason, maybe people avoid it! Could it be reinstated or someone advise what should be done about something like that. I'm not sure what taking it out of the archive and reinstating means, would I just edit the archive to remove it then and just stick it back here again? Thanks Dmcq (talk) 01:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Seconds before you posted this, I brought the discussion out of archive, in the hopes that other editors will comment. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 01:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Please don't make a habit of doing that. AN/I has a high churn rate (for good or for ill) and the set archiving process respects that. If a thread hasn't received comment in 24 hours, that is an awfully good indicator that it has A: Been resolved or B: Grown stale. Either of those outcomes means the issue is no longer an "incident" requiring immediate attention. If a thread gets archived, your best response is to seek dispute resolution, not to bring it out of the archive. Protonk (talk) 03:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that it isn't 24 hours these days, but 18. I think it's been 18 for about six weeks, maybe? (Fuzzy memory for details.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Guess I better get with the times, eh? I'll start a thread about changing it back to 24 if this sort of problem crops up frequently. Protonk (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Archiving threads more than 2418 hours old is not very convenient for those of us who only check WP:AN/I maybe once every day or two. (My doctor prescribed this because I was exceeding my medically recommended daily allotment of wikidrama.) -- llywrch (talk) 16:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sandstein above says any administrator can take action according to Wikipedia:ARBPIA#Discretionary sanctions which I presume in this case would be to issue the standard warning. Or otherwise as Protnik seems top imply when this dies with no input it just disappears with no action. I see Drsmoo has already received a warning under it and CarolMooreDC has contributed to the page as an 'uninvolved editor' so presumably both are aware of it.Dmcq (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't disappear as an issue, just disappears from this page. Protonk (talk) 19:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

HamburgerRadio's fanclub

• User:HamburgerRadio (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

user/talk pages are getting slammed (looks like an ongoing problem, but I just noticed it?), with vandalism spreading to other users' pages who revert the damage or warn/block the vandals. In particular:

• User:Materialscientist (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• User:TheGrimReaper NS (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I couldn't find an awake checkuser on IRC and I gotta get off-line shortly, so I slapped a 3-hour rangeblock on the two narrowest pools (according to whois) within which the vandalism is occurring: 99.135.152.0/21 and 99.142.48.0/20. Others feel free to modify block as needed if there's serious collateral damage, etc. DMacks (talk) 09:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected HamburgerRadio's talk page for 1 week. Hopefully that should keep the vandals off his back for a while. Mjroots (talk) 10:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That's because CheckUsers always do their checks in their sleep :-) MuZemike 17:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Njirlu again

Resolved

 – indeffed and logged at Balkan Blocks Toddst1 (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Fresh off a 72-hour block for edit warring at Aromanians, Njirlu (talk · contribs · count) re-added his material to the article. One of the sources he gave didn't verify what he had added, so I removed it with that explanation. This evidently makes me a "rasist". Previously at AN/I, it had been suggested that should he resort to his previous habits of edit warring and personal attacks, a rapid escalation of sanctions be pursued. I suggest a block of no less than a week or a month in this case; this guy is not at all likely to understand the problems with his behavior.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Njirlu about this discussion. GiantSnowman 16:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I blocked indef, he had too many warnings. Secret ^account 16:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Good call. I just noticed he'd received a month block already. I'll log at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Macedonia#Log of blocks and bans.--Cúchullain ^t/c 16:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Whoops. Looks like a collision - sorry about that. Toddst1 (talk) 16:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Tirronan

User:Tirronan accused me of being a trouble making, POV spinning editor on my talk page after user:DITWIN GRIM reverted someone else's long standing work on the Napoleonic Wars article and just because I happened to be the last editor to have edited the article at the time I was accused of this so called POV. The work reverted by user:DITWIN GRIM had been on the article for a long time, far before I made my recent contribution to the article. The fact user:Tirronan knew about user:DITWIN GRIM reverting someone else's long standing work and then quickly accused me of creating this so called POV just because I happened to be the last editor to have made an edit to the article makes me believe that user:DITWIN GRIM is a sock of user:Tirronan as user:DITWIN GRIM has a very similar edit history and appears to have reverted someone else's work on the Napoleonic Wars article using user:DITWIN GRIM as a sock account. Bambuway (talk) 17:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I went to lengths and found out who the user was who originally added the so called POV work. It was user:Musse-kloge who added it on the 3rd April 2009 Napoleonic Wars: Difference between revisions. I reinstated user:Musse-kloge's long standing work because it is correct and not POV and no other user has ever taken issue with it before and so I've now added reference to it as well. I suggest it is user:Tirronan who should check facts in future and hold back on the POV instead of I. Bambuway (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

External links hit list?

Within the last hour or so, I noticed that several articles I watch have had external links to jewsforjudaism.org and outreachjudaism.org deleted all by the same editor, JonHarder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Curiously, on one of the articles, Messianic Judaism, he left an edit summary claiming that he was "promoting" the links to "See also" items Jews for Judaism and Outreach Judaism. Since both those links were already in the text of the article, having them linked in the "See also" section as well violates the MOS. Therefore, I deleted the "See also" listings and restored the links. Checking Mr Harder's contributions showed me that he seems to have been systematically eliminating links to these two websites. I reverted all such deletions I could find. One particularly dishonest one is this where the editor claims that he is "Remov[ing] ref that does not provide supporting evidence for statement." Here is the sentence in the article:

One outreach effort in 1996 at Texas A&M resulted in accusations of anti-semitism, stemming from a report in The Texas A&M Battalion that Short had told Jewish students that "Hitler didn't go far enough".

And here is a quotation from the cited webpage.

Tom Short, an itinerant evangelist brought to campus by the A&M Christian Fellowship, told one student that, because she is Jewish, she is going "to burn in Hell." He told another Jewish student that "Hitler did not go far enough."

So how exactly does that "not provide supporting evidence for the statement"?

Ok, so clearly something fishy is going on. Then I found this: User:JonHarder/todo

I don't know any other way to put it except that this looks like some kind of a hit list. Just look at it, it's a list of websites that apparently Mr. Harder would rather Wikipedia not link to and Wikipedia articles he'd like to substitute for the links. And what websites are on the list?

jewsforjudaism.org can be replaced with Jews for Judaism

www.uua.org may be replaced with Unitarian Universalist Association or Unitarian Universalism

pantheism.net can be replaced with World Pantheist Movement

naturalism.org can be replaced with Naturalism (philosophy)

yu.edu can be replaced with Yeshiva University

jtsa.edu can be replaced with Jewish Theological Seminary of America

rrc.edu can be replaced with Reconstructionist Rabbinical College

huc.edu can be replaced with Hebrew Union College

infidels.org can be replaced with Internet Infidels

atheists.org can be replaced with American Atheists

worldconvention.org can be replaced with World Convention of Churches of Christ

umc.org can be replaced with United Methodist Church

Some of dordt.edu can be replaced with Dordt College

Some of calvin.edu can be replaced with Calvin College

And in a less religious vein:

warplane.com can be replaced with Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum

arboretum.org can be replaced with Los Angeles County Arboretum and Botanic Garden

ojjdp.ncjrs.org can be replaced with Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention

equalityhumanrights.com can be replaced with Equality and Human Rights Commission

family.org can be replaced with Focus on the Family

heritage.org can be replaced with The Heritage Foundation

www.nationalreview.com can be replaced with National Review

www.townhall.com can be replaced with Townhall.com

www.chroniclesmagazine.org can be replaced with Chronicles (magazine)

So what's this all about? How exactly does it improve an article to delete a perfectly good external link and replace it with a "See also" wikilink? And where did Mr. Harder get the idea that this is some kind of "promotion"?

Incidentally, Mr. Harder has no problem adding links to gameo.org (the Global Anabaptist Mennonite Encyclopedia Online).

None of this looks right. I think Mr. Harder should explain himself here and I think the admins should consider deleting his "to do" page. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it would have been a good idea to talk to him first. Perhaps it is his opinion that placement in a "See also" section is more prominent than appearance in the list of ELs, and hence replacing an EL with a "See also" is a "Promotion". We don't know until he explains. Whether he has good reasons or not, this doesn't need admin intervention if he's willing to talk about it--and either persuade you that he's right or be persuaded by you that he isn't--and follow consensus once it has been reached. (With respect to the removal of the reference, that is perplexing. Perhaps he followed the second link to the website and missed that the title was also a link. Or perhaps he is concerned about the source as reliable for a WP:BLP? This also we can't know without hearing from him.) Wikipedia:Assume good faith requires that we "try...to explain and resolve the problem and not cause more conflict, and give others the opportunity to do the same." The "to do" page doesn't seem to fit any of the criteria of WP:CSD. Even if you convince him that the things he is intended "to do" are not a good idea, the page itself is innocuous, and he's been using it for a long time. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Done with judgment, I'm not sure this is not a good idea. If an organization is linked to its Wikipedia article within an article, we do not usually need an external link for its website as well--unless of course the article is about the organization or the site, or one of its branches or affiliates or otherwise particularly useful. However, putting them in see alsos is also generally discouraged if there is already an inline link. DGG ( talk ) 19:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

• Switching out ELs for seealsos is good in theory; in my opinion, the latter are more prominent. However, I'm wary about the targeting of the user complained about. If there are good reasons for doing so, and there are, then we should engage with this editor more. Sceptre ^(talk) 20:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

The switches done on the user page are all in line with our external links guidelines and I commend JonHarder for his willingness to engage in external links cleanup. The fact that they are all within one area of interest does raise some red flags, so I would urge JonHarder to take caution when switching out the links and not whitewash links that are being used as references. I would also urge him to broaden his scope, as we need more people who focus on EL cleanup across the board. ThemFromSpace 20:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Therein the peril of not using inline citation - careless or unaware editors can use ELs instead of references. Mind, I would have thought given the controversial nature of the subject matter that content such as that described above should be inline cited, just to be sure. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Response

I will address the two main areas of concern identified above: removal of a reference and conversion of external to internal links. First, the removal of a reference in Tom Short was a mistake on my part and it is correct to revert it. I must not have been firing on all cylinders at the time and probably clicked on the second link that goes to the site's main page (that second link almost certainly should not be there in the first place) and couldn't figure out how that was supporting anything, and just plain missed that there were two links within the "cite" template. That is the best explanation I can give, it is not an excuse and just another reason why my error rate never quite reaches zero, although I hope I am continually getting better. These types of challenges to my editing actually are helpful reminders about what to look for, things to double-check, and problem areas to avoid.

With respect to converting external links to internal links, I do this on the basis that Wikipedia should give preference and priority to its own content. This is implied with the standard order of appendices: See also, Notes, References, then External links—these give preference to other articles, then verification of the current article, and last and least, content on other websites. Preference for Wikipedia's own content is corroborated by the prohibition of most external links to an organization's main page embedded in the main body of an article (see WP:CITE). I believe an article is improved when a link can be taken out of the "External links" and substituted with the equivalent article in the "See also" section. When that other article is correctly written, the reader can trivially find its associated web page if desired. This has the real affect of giving them more prominence in the article. In most cases I leave it to other editors to remove these links from the "See also" section if they are not appropriate there, knowing that in some cases there might be a valid reason to repeat a link in "See also" that already appears in the article. But as a corollary, I believe that if a link is not appropriate in the "See also" section, then neither should it be in "External links."

I'll close with some comments on the general areas in which I choose to edit. I do a lot of External link cleanup and generally follow a thread of similar problems from one article to the next, adding all those articles to my watchlist to ensure my edits are not causing problems with other editors, and then I hang around some weeks to fix other problems. When I find that a particular external link is spread to several articles, I add that to my to-do list unless the external link is in just a few articles allowing me to fix them immediately. Paradoxically, I came upon the Judaism articles by following up on problems in the secularism-related articles; I have been following problems from one Christianity-related article to the next for a very long time. Recently, I went through many dozens, perhaps hundreds of city articles and very few of these had the entangling kinds of links as the former articles, so there was little need for me to note things to follow up on later; articles related to Mexico tend to have spam, but not links that can be converted to articles; food related articles are only slightly more problematic. What I'm trying to convey is that I edit in a variety of areas, but the religion articles tend to have many more problems that I don't have time to fix immediately, so I make a note to look at them later. One could speculate why identical external links are added to so many more religion articles than to other types. Partially I think it is because they are somewhat of a minefield of anxiety and more experienced editors are loath to step in and try to clean things up. I have been working in that area for some time and have found a formula that has been working well for me, allowing articles to be cleaned up with a minimum of drama from some of the less emotionally mature editors. ✤ JonHarder ^talk 20:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This seems like a well-reasoned and rational response to the concerns listed above. I'll second the commendation: cleaning up any nit-picky section of an article, esp. the ELS and refs, is really tedious, and it seems like you're doing a really good job. Overall, I don't think there's a problem here. Jhfortier (talk) 05:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As a regular participant at WP:ELN, I'd like to thank JonHarder for his efforts against "directory spam" (none of the orgs linked at Orthodox Judaism outreach#External links meet our standards).

Editors that haven't looked over WP:ELNO for a while might want to see the newest addition, #19, "Links to websites of organizations mentioned in an article – unless they otherwise qualify as something that should be linked or considered." The original impetus for this line was the ongoing problem with "[http://RandomCompany.com Random Company] did something..." links in article text, but it also applies to directory spam. Wikipedia is not a directory, even for the thousands of charitable and religious organizations that do something or another related to the subject. A DMOZ (or similar) link might be useful in these instances, but developing the articles to address the major organizations is even better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Pickbothmanlol

I really didn't want to have to bring this to ANI, as I am usually loathe to participating in Wikipedia "drama." However, I feel as though this issue must be discussed, and no one else has brought it up.

Pickbothmanlol registered his Wikipedia account earlier this year but was indefinitely blocked as a vandalism-only account on February 13. After this he had a long and accomplished career as a sockpuppeteer (see this SPI and this diff). On November 20, J.delanoy unblocked Pickbothmanlol after a private discussion, assuming good faith in hopes that he would not be disruptive.

Instead, Pickbothmanlol went on a disruptive nomination spree at AfD, nominating mostly articles that were either speedily kept or speedily deleted. He made a bitey MfD nomination of a userspace draft, which was speedily kept. He also made at least a couple AfD nominations without citing valid reasons for deletion, prompting results of "speedy keep." He also nominated Zink Dawg for adminship, only to withhold his support for that candidate just minutes later, resulting in a WP:NOTNOW closure. He filed numerous unsuccessful requests at WP:CHU and WP:CHUU, apparently never reading the rules laid out at those pages. He also created a personalized version of the AfD template and tagged an article with it; the template was deleted after this MfD. The final straw was when he disruptively re-opened a five-year-old VfD discussion, resulting in this ANI discussion and the reinstatement of the indefinite block on November 26 by EyeSerene. The consensus at the discussion, in which I was a participant, was generally that WP:COMPETENCE is required and Pickbothmanlol's behavior is so incompetent and bizarre that is disruptive.

Fast-forward to December 4, just a few days later. DragonflySixtyseven, an administrator, unilaterally unblocked Pickbothmanlol, writing, "based on extensive discussion with the user, and careful analysis of his editing, I conclude that he was not acting maliciously." Note that malice was not the reason for the reinstatement of the indefinite block; it was disruptive incompetence. Note also that DS unblocked unilaterally after multiple admins declined unblock requests and multiple users recommended that Pickbothmanlol come back in a few months (see user's talk page). On December 5, I noticed that Pickbothmanlol had been unblocked and I wrote the following on DS's talk page:

Hi, DragonflySixtyseven. When I saw you'd unblocked Pickbothmanlol, I was shocked. I agree that most of his edits have been in good faith, but frankly they have often displayed pure incompetence and ended up being disruptive. After a lengthy career as a sockmaster, Pickbothmanlol was unblocked as a sign of good faith in November. His bizarre and incompetent edits led to his being blocked again by EyeSerene after this ANI discussion. As you can see from his talk page, his unblock requests were repeatedly declined, and for good reason. Therefore, I ask that you reconsider your decision to unblock this user so soon after he was blocked, especially given the fact that his contributions show that he's back to some of his old ways. Thanks, A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 00:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It has been more than 24 hours since then and DS has not responded, neither on my talk page nor on his, even though he's edited during that time. Meanwhile, Pickbothmanlol has continued to show disruptive incompetence by:

• Opening a SPI where no socking was occurring.
• Going on another AfD nomination spree, including numerous cases where the articles were actually speedy deletion candidates.
• Creating this template using a nonfree image in violation of WP:NFCC#9. When a user removed it, citing that policy, Pickbothmanlol re-added it with the mocking edit summary "wahwahwah". I removed it again and warned him on his talk page.
• Violating talk page guidelines by using Talk:Netscape Navigator 9 "as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic" (rather than discussing improvements to the article) here.
• Nominating Netscape Navigator 9 for featured article review here (now-deleted FAR nom here), apparently without bothering to read about FAR's purpose. (For starters, the article he nominated is not featured....)
• Asking a borderline-incomprehensible question at an RfA here.

Since DS has not provided sufficient reasoning for unblocking Pickbothmanlol against community consensus, and because Pickbothmanlol's behavior since his second good-faith unblock has been disruptively incompetent, I suggest reinstating the user's indefinite block. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Pickbothmanlol, DS, and EyeSerene notified of this discussion. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 02:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing to say here except me and Dragon have privately discussed this on IRC. He has given me that one chance of being able to edit and I am grateful for it. Please don't take it away from me again so quickly. -Pickbothmanlol- 03:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I've been really busy and haven't had time to devote to composing a proper reply (and still don't, really). As for PMBL's competence, behavior/misbehavior, etc, I suggest a definite block rather than an indefinite one. Stern is fine, but not harsh: if he does something inappropriate, tell him so explicitly. If he does it again, block him for a week. He needs to not edit unmedicated, is what he needs. DS (talk) 03:12, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

His previous misbehaviour has been pointed out to him in an explicit terms on previous occasions. The record shows that produces no real improvement. This issue is not about his being medicated or otherwise, it's about his ability to participate constructively. I submit he cannot do so and in the interests of the project his account should be blocked. Crafty (talk) 03:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this looks like a bad unblock. I accept that DS acted in good faith in extending credit to Pickbothmanlol and seeing that he may turn out better, but he's either intentionally disruptive or not competent enough to be a quality editor, see WP:COMPETENCE. Its impossible to decide at this point, but it doesn't really matter. He's made little actual contribution to the project, has been unblocked in good faith multiple times only to engage in problematic behavior each time. Good faith is not a suicide pact, and we are not bound to extended it indefinately; additionally even if he is acting in good faith, if the results of his actions are disruptive to the project at this level, I am not sure it makes much diffference. With regard to DS wishing for an expiring block versus an indefinite one, what's the point?. Is there some magic number of days when this user will suddenly stop doing this behavior? I contend that he's been given ample opportunity to prove himself reformed, and has consistantly not done so. If we want to fix the problem, I would recommend some sort of indefinate topic ban from non-article space, not sure how that would be worded, but Pickbothmanlol is having problems that need to be remediated. --Jayron32 04:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's give Pickbothmanlol a chance to do some constructive editing. Topic ban from the problem areas for, say, 6 months. Plenty of other areas of Wikipedia to work on and prove that they can be productive. Mjroots (talk) 06:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Unilateral unblocks are almost always wrong, in addition to being rude. I support the reinstatement of the indefinite block until a workable modus vivendi supported by consensus is found, but I suggest that any person who apparently needs medication to edit Wikipedia usefully should not edit Wikipedia at all.  Sandstein  06:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• It's disappointing that DragonflySixtyseven didn't discuss reversing my admin action with me before diving in. I don't intend to reinstate the block, per WP:WHEEL, but fully support someone else doing so. My personal opinion, following an odd email from Pickbothmanlolafter I blocked them, is that the block was sound and they really aren't suited for this editing environment. Wikipedia is not the right place for everyone. EyeSerene^talk 09:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

When I look at Pickbothmanlol's edits, I see a lot of reasonably constructive edits, mixed in with occasional utter failures of common sense. He's done a lot to remove spam from Wikipedia, for example. But (in addition to the issues reported already) he's also reported a new user to UAA as "disruptive ... looks like a potential vandal", when that user's name didn't violate any existing policy and the "potential vandal"'s sole edit was in fact to add a reference; he's written a bizarre essay that glorifies Willy on Wheels and Grawp; and he's reported a sixth-grade class project to CheckUser instead of to School and University Projects. I admire some of the work that Pickbothmanlol has done, and the fact that he's attempting to get a better name (on that note, I don't understand why his name change to "Blush" was denied).

I hope that some resolution besides indefinitely blocking him can be found. I just don't know how to make someone gain some common sense, which is what he needs in order to help Wikipedia. rspεεr (talk) 09:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Would an admin please review the bizarre essay mentioned above. Per WP:DENY it is totally misguided and needs to be deleted (does it really need an MfD?). Johnuniq (talk) 10:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As long as it remains a user essay, I see no reason to delete it. I also disagree that it glorifies anyone, but maybe that's just my reading at 5:45AM. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You can go ahead and delete it, I have no idea where my head was when making that. -Pickbothmanlol- 13:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Endorse reinstating the block, with apologies to Pickbothmanlol for being the victim of admin misconduct. Two things I really don't like about DS's actions: The unilateral unblock and subsequent inability to respond to criticism because he's "too busy". If you're too busy to properly motivate and defend your contentious admin actions, then don't make them.--Atlan (talk) 13:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to pile on, but I was surprised to see Pickbothmanlol unblocked as well. At some point you have to stop giving second chances. After 40+ chances, it's probably time to give up. Gigs (talk) 14:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Reblocked: In view of the discussion above, I am reimposing the indefinite block for persistent disruption due to a lack of general editing competence. The block may be lifted after a few months if the user can cogently explain how his condition, medical or otherwise, has changed in such a way that he will no longer make disruptive edits, and if he demonstrates his competence by drafting a new article on his user talk page that meets, or comes close to meeting, WP:GACR.  Sandstein  18:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. A Stop at Willoughby (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Continued Incivility by Dapi89

NOTE: Moved here from AN <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello,

I had earlier filed an incivility report for user Dapi89 [[1]]. No action was taken but a few messages left on his talk page by different administrators.

Since the last incident, in my opinion Dapi89 continues his uncivil behavior. Here are some examples:

1) Accused me of lying [[2]]. I take this accusation seriously. An examination of the posts will reveal that the accusation of lying is without basis.

2) Called a post by me "drivel" [[3]]

3) Wrt post by user Hohum "silly thing to say" and "total nonsense". [[4]]

4) Wrt post by user Hohum "issuing simpleton statements" [[5]]

5) Again called a post by me "Drivel" and "your nonsense responses". [[6]]

I am trying to conduct the discussion with Dapi89 with civility, which is one of the 5 pillars of Wiki. Dapi89 has been banned 3 times before [[7]]. I would appreciate if an admin looked into this.

Thanks,

Steel2009 (talk) 06:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This editor has been consistently canvassing editors who have previously blocked me. This is incivility. Hand on heart; I'm not responding to any more of this guys baiting. His sole purpose during his few weeks on wikipedia, to which he has not contributed anything, and has had all bar one edit of his reverted, is a testament to his intentions. His claims that he is being reasonable are totally false. Using language to describe my points as "weak" is deliberately provocative. He needs to grow up, and stop trying to build a coalition by seeking out editors all over wikipedia to eliminate someone who he doesn't agree with. Dapi89 (talk) 14:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

One more thing: Steel2009 has been engaged in his own incvility - "absurd" and "silly" are certainly used to describe other peoples contributions. Double standards. [8] as noted previously [9]. Dapi89 (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Instead of saying that everything I do is "baiting", why don't you address the specific issues, such as your accusation that I was lying [[10]]. Can you back up this accusation with specific facts? Steel2009 (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Describing something as 'weak' does not sound like any kind of personal attack. Do you have any diffs to support anything that you have said. Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is absurd! Can't this be discussed without involving the noticeboard and without having to rely on abusive language to drive a point across? I gladly offer to mediate between the involved parties. This discussion here is not in favour of the article nor does it calm down the situation. MisterBee1966 (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Mr B, I believe you are well intentioned and respect you. I think there are two issues: 1) The discussion about what should be there in the article Blitzkrieg 2) The tone used by Dapi89 in his interactions. The post here is about the second issue rather than the first. The second issue is about how interactions happen in Wiki generally. However I do not claim that I am always right about everything. As I said, I respect you, and if you believe you can mediate I am willing to accept that. I would like Dapi89 to be civil in his interactions with other editors. It would also be nice if he were to retract the accusation he made about me lying. If you believe I should change my behavior is some manner, I am open to that too. Steel2009 (talk) 19:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick request...

 Done - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

courtesy blanked - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed/reformatted the above talk per guidelines and forwarded the request onto the appropriate mailing list. I hope nobody is against this; feel free to revert my change. (Will explain in more detail shortly.) --Mpdelbuono (talk) 19:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Just for a brief explanation of what I did there. I know it was BOLD removing something from a page such as this but WP:RFO states, the goal is to revert the change but do not attract additional attention. I removed the link that was posted here and renamed the title in hopes that it would not attract attention until it was oversighted. Now that it has been, I can safely indicate my justification without worrying about that diff. Thanks for the report, Adolphus79, but in the future your best way to request oversight is through the means specified at WP:RFO. Regards --Mpdelbuono (talk) 19:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you... I will take to RFO if needed in the future... - Adolphus79 (talk) 19:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Abusive editing by User:Jadams2484

Jadams2484 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been a disputant in the ongoing dispute surrounding Crucifixion in art, and has been vandalizing my talk page: [11]. User has now made this edit: [12] to my talk page, which I think is beyond the pale. User notified: [13]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Telling someone to consider killing themselves is way over the line. The editor does have an apparent history of some few good edits over a fairly long period of time, so I would be disinclined to an indefinite block, but I think this probably goes beyond just getting a warning. John Carter (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked for 72 hours; comments like that aren't acceptable. Shell ^babelfish 21:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that's an outcome that I fully support. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerns regarding comment removal

Will someone please censure this admin. When he didn't like what i said and refused to present a logical argument he resorted to abusing me then removed my comments to give himself the last word, even after I acknowledged my error! Clumsy and disgusting. Surprise me now with more abuse and removal of this request for his censure. Kevin McCready (talk) 04:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:TALK, there's nothing censurable about removing someone's comments from your own talk page. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As Sarek said, there's no issue here. By removing your comments, it's been acknowledged that they've been read. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Virtual steve may deserve censure for using that horrible blinking text.

Although in all seriousness, (and admitting ignorance to the specifics of the incident) I'd rather admins didn't remove messages and characterize those messages as prattling. Generally, admins should model the type of behavior they want.--Tznkai (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Ditto 42 and SarekOfVulcan, chummer. All users are permitted to remove any messages they wish from their talk page, provided they are not active block notifications, unblock requests made during same, and {{SharedIP}}. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 04:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Per above. I think VirtualSteve's response was quite understandable in the circumstances as further or no replies from VS would have likely led to more of the same. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec x3) Agreed with Tznkai. Also, although it's technically allowed and I even used to do it myself, I'm not keen on removing the last comment to a discussion, which gives the appearance to future readers that there was no further response. I'd rather people archive or remove entire discussions rather than select the last response so it looks like they got the last word. I'd like to see that as policy someday. Equazcion (talk) 04:46, 7 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. In general, removing a user's response to a section should only be done when you've told that user, in no uncertain terms, to stop posting on your talk page. I did that earlier this year with the (now-banned) LineofWisdom (talk · contribs) after I told him to stop posting; I wouldn't otherwise use it. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 04:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC x 5) Do you have any other evidence besides removing your comment from his talk page? There is no problem with removing comments from ones own talk page, per WP:BLANKING. Is this one instance what you want "censure" for? (after EC) I will concede Tznkai's point that the use of the term "prattling" is not model civil behavior, but admins are known to have emotions, and sometimes let something like that slip, especially if they feel hounded over an issue they have responded to. If VS has already said everything he has to say on the issue, it serves little purpose to keep asking him about it. So yeah, he shouldn't have used the term prattling. But a single instance of a term like that is not something that qualifies as admin abuse. --Jayron32 04:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess it's also the refusal to engage in a logical discussion and the constant abuse I get from him. Both behaviours should not be tolerated in an admin. The behaviour of User:Kevin (see my talkpage) was similar. I've taken the liberty to remove the resolved tag. Hope that's OK. I consider the issue is not resolved, and to place the tag there before I even have a chance to respond to other users seems a little rude. Kevin McCready (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What is your issue? Seriously? Your request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#McCready_edit_warring_topic_ban was literally put a few minutes ago, four days after this drama. You were complaining a few days about Kevin and then again the next day. Three admins tried to work with you, you play game with what you consider to be a proper review (feels like a bit like you are playing this to me), they've all told you to talk to ARBCOM instead and it's taken you up until a little while ago to actually do it? Can't you just wait for their response and focus on that or are you just itching to be completely blocked for disruption? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ricky you appear to make the erroneous assumption that the analyses of the admins involved are correct and mine is incorrect. If this is so then you would have had to look at my history since I joined wikipedia. Given the speed of your posting the other day on this matter, I doubt whether you would have had the time to do so. Please correct me if I am wrong. When I have pointed out why their analyses are incorrect, admins have withdrawn from my case and in one instance, now two it would appear, I have been threatened. Other users above have pointed out why Virtual Steve's behaviour is unacceptable. If you think it is "play game" to ask for logical discussion then I am guilty. The case I have brought here is obviously separate from my arbcom case. This case here on this page is about admins behaving badly. I maintain they should be censured for it. I'd like to see your logical arguments against. Please assume good faith and keep the goals of the project in mind. Kevin McCready (talk) 05:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The question is not whether or not he should have used the phrasing he did in that edit summary you cited. He probably shouldn't have. The question is if anything should be done about it. We don't go around formally admonishing, censuring, desysopping, whatever, every single time someone makes a minor error in judgement. Yeah, he screwed up. It just doesn't seem like the level of screw up that requires much of a response at this point. If you have evidence that this sort of thing is part of a long-term pattern of behavior on VirtualSteve's part, then there may be something to discuss. But asking for action on a single, isolated thing as minor as this seems vexatious. --Jayron32 05:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that in a situation where a group of admins each separately trying to discuss with you about whether you are or are not in a topic ban, each of whom after dealing with you no longer wants to bother, I fault the one consistent factor rather than assume a massive failure of our admin corps. You have been at this since October, and yet all you're done is complain that everybody who has bothered to assist you should be censured. I feel too involved to do more, but I find these persistent ANI discussion to be bordering on disruption. I guess I'll wait for my turn at the stocks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This problem has been going on for a year now. The topic ban has been reviewed on 11 Dec 2008, 20 Dec 2008, 13 Jan 2009 and again on 9 Mar 2009. Then I was asked to review the ban again despite my noting that I had nothing to add to my previous review. I'm not sure how long we should continue to beat this dead horse. It seems clear to me that Kevin McCready is more interested in vindication than getting the topic ban lifted, otherwise he would have availed himself of the ARBCOM suggestion much earlier. Kevin (talk) 06:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A topic ban from further discussions about the topic ban? =) -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Ricky and Jayron you appear not to be grasping the whole picture though I am glad that now there is acknowledgment of Virtual Steve's bad behaviour - I'm sure he'll apologise. Apart from the gratuitous abuse (if I had done it I'm sure I'd be blocked) the issue is admins withdrawing from discussion as soon as their logic is questioned. Kevin and Virtual Steve both had the opportunity here to answer some simple questions. Instead they withdrew and started a campaign of abuse. Kevin, it is plainly ridiculous to entertain the thought that I am interested in "vindication" rather than having the ban for edit warring removed. All I am interested in is someone applying logic to the situation. Instead I get abuse. Not a good look. Kevin McCready (talk) 07:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You ask someone about whether you are in a topic ban. The admins say they will do it and later renege and tell you to go to ARBCOM. Instead of doing that, you spend days doing nothing but badgering them and posting reports on ANI. Show me the pattern of abuse or I'm honestly blocking you right now for disruption. I've had enough of this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This is extraordinary. You admit that admins have reneged. Where I come from reneging on your word is a very serious matter. Evidence for the following is all available on my talkpage.

The simple test which admin Kevin said he would apply was whether or not my record since the ban for edit warring showed improvement. He then asked, paradoxically, whether I wanted my earlier history to be reviewed. I responded that what was important was my behaviour and contributions since the ban. And what do you know, he then purports to examine the lengthy history and, more amazingly, says he will only examine my contributions since March 2009, not my contributions since the ban was enacted, thus contradicting the terms he and I agreed to and, get this bit, his reason is that "he doesn't want to drag any old issues up" having just justified his decision that way anyway. Then, wonder of wonders, he says there are not enough edits to form a view. Funny that. Ignore a whole year's contributions and then say there is not enough evidence. He then claims some of my edits were reverted as POV and when asked to provide a diff comes out swinging and says I'm complaining that he hasn't done a proper review. Too right he hasn't.

Now Ricky, are you going to seriously tell me that Admin Kevin has conducted a proper review or are you going to abuse, threaten me and attempt to cower me? Would you review someone's contributions, ignore a whole year of them, and then claim there weren't enough to form an opinion? Kevin McCready (talk) 22:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

I warned him and I'm done with this. He's been at it with everybody since October and going back further. He's the one on restrictions, not anybody else. A simple "go to ARBCOM" doesn't take three ANI reports and a week of time (Kevin's reason was fine with me and he doesn't deserve this kind of berating). Feel free to unblock him if it affects his ARBCOM proceeding in any way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user blanking his Talk Page

I know editors can blank their talk page as they wish, but User:DisneyRah, who was blocked for copyright violations (he received three separate warnings, the last of which was a final warning, and was blocked after the fourth violation) has blanked her Talk Page. The only reason I didn't include her Talk Page in the block is because the Talk Page is needed in case she wants to appeal it. Is blanking under these circumstances permissable? If not, what should be the response? Should I restore the block notice and protect her page? Nightscream (talk) 04:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Users are not permitted to remove active block notices, so yes, restore the block notice. Do not protect the page yet. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 04:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I made a similar mistake once before regarding when a blocked user is or isn't allowed to remove the block notice. Apparantly, WP:BLANKING says nothing about removing a block notice while a block is in place. It just doesn't allow the removal of an unblock request while a block is in place. Upon reflection, I think the difference makes sense. Singularity42 (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• When you're blocked, you can only use your talk page to appeal the block. Not to carry on conversations or do anything else. If other warnings are blanked, we consider them read. Someone who blanks a block message, clearly didn't get the message. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• • I'm going to agree with MGM here. The spirit of policies like WP:BLANKING is that they apply to editors in good standing. An editor who is blocked is being asked to not edit Wikipedia at all. The courtesy of allowing them to edit their talk page while blocked is to allow them to appeal or discuss their current block. Activity which is unrelated to direct appeals or discussions of the current block should not take place regardless of what specifically is "allowed" or not by WP:BLANKING. If the user is being generally disruptive, by removing block notices while blocked, they should be discouraged from doing so. When their block expires, they return to "good standing" and can do whatever they want. But there is no compelling reason to allow a blocked user to obfuscate the reasons for their own block, or to continue to be generally disruptive. The user should be asked to either contest the block via the proper channels, or wait until it expires. Any other behavior is not tolerable. --Jayron32 16:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Then find consensus to amend WP:BLANKING. Users are currently allowed to remove block notices from their talk page. They're blocked, they want the notice removed, who cares. It's evidence they understand they are blocked. Tan | 39 16:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It does not matter at all whether a blocked user removes block notices or anything else except for declined unblock requests from his page. This is best ignored.  Sandstein  19:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing a block notice from one's own Talk Page does not fall within the spirit of Good Faith. Removing a record of one's behavior makes it more difficult for new visitors to the page to see that record, and form an accurate picture of the editor's standing. This is precisely what happened when User:JohnFromPinckney gave a copyright violation warning to DisneyRah, and later indicated that he didn't know it was her third. Moreover, the block page provides blocked editors with editing privileges over their own Talk Page as an option one can check or uncheck, saying:

Allow this user to edit own talk page while blocked (disable only for users known to abuse own talk page)

DisneyRah's blanking clearly falls under the definition of abuse, not only in light of her bad faith blanking, but these abusive edits as well: [14][15]. Nightscream (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• It's not counter to WP:BLANKING, best to just ignore it. It should be noted that the abusive edits might not have occurred had the bear not been poked and the page allowed to stay blank. –xeno^talk 22:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just ignore it, because it doesn't matter if it is blanked or not, he's still blocked either way. Prodego ^talk 02:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Eight Ounce Kitten

Resolved

 – All accounts blocked

Daniel Case (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Eight Ounce Kitten (talk · contribs) has created a series of doppelgänger accounts, including 3ight 0unce Kitten (talk · contribs), 8 Oz Kitty (talk · contribs), Ate Ounce Kat (talk · contribs), Ate Oz Kat (talk · contribs) and 8 Oz Cat (talk · contribs), none of whom have made any edits outside adding {{doppelganger}} tags. The main account had a tag falsely claiming to be a doppelgänger account of me! Their edits are rather dubious, including an edit war on Ghoul, a flurry of speedy and AFD nominations (one of which, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lynden Christian Schools, looks like it's on the verge of a snowball keep), and a gibberish sandbox at User:Eight Ounce Kitten/weeee. This user is clearly troublesome, but I don't think anything is particularly blockworthy except for falsely claiming to be an alternate account of mine. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 01:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Impersonation *is* a blockable offense, and for that, I'm gonna send these ones out to pasture. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 02:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, the accounts (of which there were many) were all sockpuppets of Pickbothmanlol (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), confirmed by checkuser. We've hardblocked the underlying IP range for a bit to stop him. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeated misuse of rollback function by User:Legolas2186

Resolved

 – Rollback revoked by Tiptoety. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 08:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Legolas2186 has an ongoing history of using the rollback feature – only to be used to revert blatant vandalism – to revert good-faith edits, which is unacceptable behavior. When I left a message on his talk page, he responded with a rather nasty/rude comment accusing me of being a sockpuppet, which he has for some reason done since I joined here. Some recent examples of this inappropriate behavior:

• 12:07, 7 December 2009 — reverts an IP's good-faith addition of a new paragraph to the article and a minor wording change
• 06:13, 7 December 2009 — not a necessary removal, though an explanation would definitely have been needed as this was not blatant vandalism
• 05:09, 7 December 2009 — again, needs an explanation as this is not vandalism
• 05:09, 7 December 2009 — judging from the rollback above the previous one, he seems to be using the feature in a content dispute, a big no-no
• 06:24, 5 December 2009 — reverts genre change and improper addition of hangon tag; not vandalism. This was the edit I warned him about.

This user does not seem to understand what the rollback feature is meant to be used for, and noting that he was blocked in July for a 3RR violation on Chillin (Wale song) and just two months ago, he was nearly blocked (instead agreed to 1RR for a month) for again violating the rule on Celebration (Madonna album). This user is too aggressive with rollback and has a history of edit warring, which is why I believe his rollback privileges should be revoked. Chase wc⁹¹ 22:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• I'll leave a message on his talk page. I'm inclined to remove the tool, but I would like to have him/her contribute to the discussion first. Protonk (talk) 22:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

  (ec) I would have to agree with Chase, especially with the third diff. That is not even content removal (as the warning he gave the user suggested) but copyediting. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Ok. Diffs like: this, this, this or this (maybe not on that last one) seem like appropriate uses of rollback or reasonable errors. However, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, or this are not. Sorry for the forest of diffs, but making a claim about use/abuse of rollback requires an abundance of examples. I want to stress that misuse of rollback is a big problem, but that the absence of an edit summary does not mean that communication is absent. If those talk pages were well attended or the editors on the other side of the equation were particularly uncommunicative or reticent, there might be some cause for us not to take the tool away. Factors may exacerbate the problem, such as edit wars using rollback (I only went through the user's contributions which were rollback edits, I didn't look at the page histories for other edits). One last concern. Wikipedia's collection of music articles are both updated by and under constant assault from IP editors. Unlike Tikhonov regularization or Total derivative, these articles are high profile and can be the subject of benign edits which are nevertheless unhelpful or innacurate (changing names, genre-trolling, speculation). Maintaining the quality of these articles is an especially thankless job because the Brahmans of wikipedia look down on music/pop-culture articles (contra Clovis I, where expansion and maintenance is uniformly treated as "increasing human knowledge"). So lets be cautious. Protonk (talk) 22:51, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(EC with two entries below) I am generally in agreement with Protonk on this one. None of the edits seems like outright abuse of the tool (such as using it to gain the upper hand in a rapid edit war). Probably a few less-than-ideal uses, but functionally, since he removed edits that probably should have been removed anyways, whether he did it via "two-click rollback" the function formerly known as "undo" or "one-click rollback" is mostly pedantic. Should he have left edit summaries or talk page notes explaining his action? Probably. Is it worth instantly removing the tool, or would a simple reminder to leave some explanation on reverts of good-faith edits, regardless of how many clicks he used to roll it back? The latter seems more appropriate. (after EC) And then again, whatever... Looks like action has already been taken. Easy come, easy go. --Jayron32 23:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• I get your point, but regardless of communication or not, Legolas rollbacked edits that were not vandalism and in one recent incident, used it in an edit war. This completely goes against what the function is for. Legolas is a good-faith editor for the most part and he definitely takes care of many entertainment/music articles. However, Twinkle's rollback tools seem better suited for him at this point. We should not reward users like him with privileges like this, and until he can learn to revert in better faith and better differentiate between vandalism and good-faith edits, he does not need the rollback tool. Chase wc⁹¹ 23:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed, and rollback is easy come easy go I have revoked the tool. Should he prove that he understands how to appropriately use the tool in a few months I would be more than happy to re-grant him the flag. Tiptoety ^talk 23:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
• A few points. 1. The sooner we get the hell away from the misconception that tools are rewards, the better off we will be. 2. Rollback is easy-come, easy-go, but my lesson from my last rollback incident was that removing the tool tends to piss people off. 3. I hate to invoke the A Few Good Men argument, but most non-RCP rollbacks/reverts exist in this nether region between vandalism and content editing. We have to respect that. This is largely moot as Tiptoety has removed the tool. I hope it resolves itself more neatly than other times. Protonk (talk) 23:10, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Legolas was found to have misused rollback in a dispute that was brought to 3RR in October, as noted above, and he already apologized for this usage on 3 October. An apology is good but a change in behavior is even better. In spite of my lengthy dialog (two months ago) with this editor regarding the definition of vandalism and proper usage of rollback, it seems there was no change in his behavior. EdJohnston (talk) 05:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• It's moot anyway. Tiptoety removed the tool and I have no intention of reversing (or suggesting we reverse) that action. Protonk (talk) 06:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Administrator's Noticeboard?

Resolved

 – IP blocked 3 months, invited to email OTRS. –xeno^talk 00:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I take it I am in the correct location for discussing burning issues with the administrators of this site? Well, assuming that is so, I would like to inform you that it is my intention to commence legal proceedings against yourselves for failing to keep the reputations of several of my clients intact, by permitting libellous edits to their biographical articles. I do not wish to disclose the exact sum of compensation that is being sought, nor at this stage do I wish to publically reveal any form of list of my clients. Suffice to say I would like to continue this exchange via email. I would be grateful if you could respond by providing a suitable contact email address should we wish to arrive at some form of settlement over this issue.

Yours,

Mr L Phillips QC —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.54.54 (talk) 00:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone know who at legal we should send this too, such as Mike Godwin?Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

We have a legal section now? And it's just an IP troll... Wow, they can SPELL. If it was in any way true, why not simply e-mail Jimbo Wales directly? The admins are volunteers, they don't have any liability unless they themselves added stuff. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've invited the user to email info-en@wikimedia.org who will forward it to Mr. Godwin if appropriate. –xeno^talk 00:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

What I meant to suggest, but wasn't sure exactly where to send them too. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Block the IP. WP:NLT. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Already done. –xeno^talk 00:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This is almost certainly a fake post. The Bar Council directory shows only six QCs with the surname Phillips: David Phillips, Mark Phillips, Richard Phillips, Rory Phillips, S.J. Phillips, and Stephen Phillips. None is a defamation specialist and it is very unlikely in the English legal system that a client seeking to correct damage to their reputation would be directly represented by a barrister. Sam Blacketer (talk) 01:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That is more than likely the case here, that it is a troll and fake post. But he did just ask during his unblock request for pointers to the legal department email so it could be "discussed" in private. And the info was kindly provided to him by Xeno. Now it's up to them, lol.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 01:10, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sam, by your own reasoning, is it not more likely that they would be represented by a solicitor, and that therefore you would naturally not find the writer's name in a directory of barristers? — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 03:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A solicitor who is a QC? They would still have to be registered as a barrister, one would think. Anyway, this is obviously simply an IP troll. Orderinchaos 05:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

IP troll — quite possibly. But on whether (non-barrister) solicitors can be QCs, your information is over a decade out-of-date. Please read Queen's Counsel#Modern reforms. — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 08:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Xeno is right about legitimate legal concerns. See Wikipedia:No_legal_threats#What_is_not_a_legal_threat for future situations.--Chaser (talk) 05:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

IP range blocked

Hi all. Due to some pretty egregious socking, I've softblocked 84.203.0.0/17 per checkuser, for two weeks. Disruption started up immediately the previous softblock expired, so back on it went. Keep a lookout for potential collateral damage (there should be little or none) and ping me if anything comes up. Thanks! - Alison ^❤ 07:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee Elections reminder: last week of voting

This is a short note to remind all interested editors that the December 2009 elections to elect new members to the Arbitration Committee is still open for voting. The voting period opened on 1 December and will close on 14 December 2009 (next Monday) at 23:59 UTC.

The voting this year is by secret ballot using the SecurePoll extension. All unblocked editors who had at least 150 mainspace edits on or before 1 November 2009 are eligible to vote (check your account). A list of votes is kept at the real-time voting log, and a separate list of voters is maintained on an on-wiki log. If you have any questions or difficulties with the voting setup, please ask at the election talkpage.

There are twenty-candidates standing in the election, from whom nine arbitrators are expected to be chosen. Prospective voters are invited to review the candidate statements and the candidates' individual questions pages. Although voting is by secret ballots, and only votes submitted in this way will be counted, you are invited to leave brief comments on the candidates' comment pages and discuss candidates at length on the attached talkpages. For live discussion, join #wikipedia-en-ace on freenode.

Follow this link to cast your vote

For the coordinators,  Skomorokh  08:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Opinions please on the use of multiple wiki-ids at the same time?

Resolved

 – Explicitly identified alternate accounts, being used in compliance with the alternate account policy. Nothing to see here and this is not the right venue to debate the meta issue on whether multiple accounts should be allowed. –xeno^talk 01:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I encountered today what I regard as a disturbing pattern of edits, from a contributor who makes use of multiple wiki-ids. Most of the edits by the contributer behind User:Boleyn, User:Boleyn2 and User:Boleyn3, uses these three wiki-ids alternately, mainly, or perhaps entirely, to manage the wikipedia's disambiguation pages. I described my concerns in detail here.

Basically, it seems to me that their pattern of using multiple wiki-ids is both counter to our policies, obfuscates responsibility for their edits, and could easily be interpreted as a pattern of bad faith.

In this example the person behind these edits made some edits that eroded the usefulness of the disambiguation page, using User:Boleyn3. Then a few days later they made a speedy deletion nomination of the damaged disambiguation page from User:Boleyn2.

I can see that the person behind these multiple wiki-ids has justified the use of multiple ids because their watchlist grew too long for a single wiki-id.

But surely, if this were a valid justification for using multiple wiki-ids, the person requesting this exemption from our policies should make sure the supplementary wiki-ids are used solely for reading articles, and monitoring changes.

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 23:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

if one chooses to use this method to keep multiple watchlists, I think the tendency to also use them to edit or comment on the pages seen on that watchlist would be very great, whether or not one realized it at the time. Given the names, I cannot see that any harm is done at all. If one used an less obviously related name, yes, that would not be a good idea. DGG ( talk ) 00:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Geo Swan, it's reasonable for you to raise this question, because this situation is not covered by Wikipedia:SOCK#Legitimate uses of alternate accounts, and of course any covert use of multiple accounts (or of undeclared edits while not logged in) is a serious abuse of Wikipedia's policies. However, in this case the account-holder has tried hard to show how the accounts are connected, e.g. "User:Boleyn is the same editor as User:Boleyn2 and User:Boleyn3. The sole purpose of having the 3 accounts is to increase my watchlist." Boleyn has 31,542 edits (count), Boleyn2 has 31,045 (count) and Boleyn3 has 15,438 (count) – all predominantly in article space, a vast effort for Wikipedia – and none of these accounts has ever been blocked. I know that a lot of these edits are tweaks to disambiguation pages, but that is a valuable contribution to our readers and reduces the chance that inexperienced contributors will attempt to create articles that already exist. I think you have probably found "the exception that proves the rule" in this case. - Pointillist (talk) 01:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like a problem, per WP:ILLEGIT it's only an issue if they're editing the same article with multiple accounts to give the false impression that multiple people are editing it. (For example, create an article with one account, then use a second account to remove a speedy deletion tag, or use 2 accounts in an edit war to avoid 3RR.) There's nothing in the sock policy saying that using multiple accounts to manage watchlists is permitted, but I'd say let it go per WP:IAR. This editor seems to be going out of their way to make it as clear as possible that all of these accounts are the same person (even redirecting user pages). -- Atama頭 01:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think "Ignore all rules" was every intended to allow sockpuppetry, was it? In my opinion we should make it very clear that editing from multiple accounts is prima facie wrong (i.e. regardless of Mens rea), except for situations explicitly allowed by policy. This principle should not be undermined. On the other hand, I have no problem extending the current policy to allow the Boleyn/2/3 watchlist approach, if the account-holder has explicitly linked the accounts from day one. - Pointillist (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:IAR is meant for anything that makes the wiki better if a policy is ignored. So yes it would fit in this situation. That being said as I mentioned below, the sort of action they are taking is explicitly allowed by policy so its not needed here. -DJSasso (talk) 01:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

More than "Is there any policy violation here?" the right question is "Is there any harm being done here?". If there isn't, simply let the user keep up with the good work MBelgrano (talk) 01:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Your approach shifts the balance of proof from the contributor to the community. The right question is "can any harm be done?". No harm can be done where the accounts are explicitly connected, but the community can't estimate what harm could be done if one person is secretly using multiple accounts. This is one policy that should be stated and interpreted strictly ...if only because we can't spare the admin/arb bandwidth to police borderline cases if there is a large gray area. - Pointillist (talk)

This clearly falls under Maintenance: An editor might use an alternate account to carry out maintenance tasks. The second account should be clearly linked to the main account. -DJSasso (talk) 01:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, this is a storm in a teacup. I think most long term editors and admins have linked accounts for different purposes. If they're used to abuse policy, that would be an entirely different matter, but this is not such a case. Seems this is more the case of an editor wikilawyering an uncontroversial speedy deletion. Orderinchaos 06:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. To further clarify, when I started editing disambiguation pages about 18 months ago, many of them had big issues and vandalism, partly, I feel, because few people watch these pages. Through the hard work of other editors and myself, I feel that they are in a much better state, but there is still a large amount of vandalism/people adding non-notables, and many editors who, in good faith, make incorrect edits as they are used to editing articles and aren't familiar with the slightly different guidelines on dabs. Having so many dabs on my watchlist has definitely helped maintain these. I feel that I've tried everything possible to make it clear that I am one editor, although of course I sometimes muck up and have a page on my watchlist twice. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thierry henry

Resolved

 – Please enforce POV edits" is not a legitimate use of the incident noticeboard. Orderinchaos 05:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The article has been subject to an edit war.The majority of editors feel that the handball incident and all the media coverage should be mentioned in the lead.Editors like [[16]],[[17]]keep on reverting edits.I'm not asking for a lead that bashes the character of the player,but at least mentions the incident in the lead as it was a major incident and has affected his career.--Kevinharte (talk) 03:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Editor attempting to distort the truth: the lead DID contain mention of the incident, and his "solution" of moving the entire text in the body that covers the incident to the lead, leaving a lacuna in the body, is disingenuous in the extreme. Chensiyuan (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Distort the truth? I think you've got that the wrong way around.--Kevinharte (talk) 10:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a content dispute that the two of you are pursuing across multiple boards and talk pages. You both might like to read WP:CANVASS for some of the reasons why we don't like this. I'd also urge that you cease talking in multiple places and start talking in one, and only one, of the places recommended by dispute resolution. Thanks. ⬅ ❝Redvers❞ 10:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Isonomia and keeping Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident managable.

Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident is very hard for editors to follow. It is made far harder by individuals who want to use the talk page to talk about the event, rather than proposing/discussing edits to the article. User:Isonomia is by far the worst offender in this instance. [18], [19], [20], and [21], are all examples of him starting new sections that are either mostly polemics against the editors editing the article or him attempting to discuss the topic, rather than the article. This user was warned for this behavior - by me here. His response [22] to my narrowly tailored warning was to discuss the name of the article.

Blocking this user for expressing his POV would be inapropriate at this stage. I merely ask that someone ban him from creating new sections on this one article talk page - a narrowly tailored remidy that would still allow him to participate in full. If he needed to insert a new talk page section, he could request that another user do so for him on that users talk page - mine, even. The talk page in question, however, is overburdened, and needs help to keep it viable and to prevent edit warring. Hipocrite (talk) 17:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What is the point, I'm going to get banned anyway just for trying to getting anything near NPOV. I have been complaining for ages about the disgraceful POV pushing on climate articles and the concerted efforts by certain groups of editors to censor these articles, to the extent it is impossible to contribute in any sensible way. There's no doubt that if anyone dares to include anything contrary to these editors POV they will get banned - and no doubt this is what is going to happen - the censorship is now an epidemic! If Wikipedia can't sort out its own house is it any surprise that editors are leaving in droves leaving nothing but these POV pushers.Isonomia (talk) 17:41, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

NPOV does not mean that fringe opinions get to be placed alongside mainstream ones to achieve "balance", this is perhaps the most common error made in political or otherwise controversial articles. It seems that you have been waging a 1-man war to rename the article "Climategate", and using blogs and such to support that point of view. This mirrors the birthers' attempts to get questionable material into Obama-related articles on the "evidence" provided by blogs. In short; not gonna happen. Tarc (talk) 18:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, not to be to blatently refocus, but I'm not interested in talking about PoV pushing and unreliable sourcing, but merely cluttering up the talk page with sections discussing the topic rather than the article. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 18:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Accusing Wikipedia editors en masse of censorship is a self-fulfilling complaint. Nobody wants to discuss content with editors who are hurling accusations of bad faith at them. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:TALK allows one to revert talk page additions that don't discuss ways to improve the article at hand. We regularly have to do some of that on Talk:P = NP problem where editors (socks?) keep adding unintelligible proofs, e.g. [23]. Pcap ping 18:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh please put me out of my misery. The very first article I read has this quote: "Climategate has become part of our vocabulary after the unauthorised release of emails, documents and code from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. Suddenly it has become one of the most searched terms on Google [Climategate results from Google] , with over 30 million results since first being coined just over a week ago. You would have to be Tiger Woods to pull more interest than that." [24] I simply cannot reconcile the unequivacable use in the media of the use of Climategate with the POV title that has been given to this article (and there are hundreds of other POVs in climate). To be honest I don't care tuppence for the feelings of the many editors that have allowed this pathetic POV push tocome epidemic in the climate articles. I would prefer to be banned for trying to get Wikipedia to tell the truth than to lend my credibility to articles that attempt to distort the simplest facts, like the name Climategate, or the fact that temperatures are currently cooling, or ... Isonomia (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Temperature does not equal climate. If this isn't evidence we need experienced scientists working on these articles I don't know what is. Also, "Climategate" as a title tells us nothing. It's just another stupid media neoligism, where they append "gate" the end and of some other unrelated word so they have crap to write about. The article on the Monica Lewinsky scandal isn't called "Monicagate", even though the stilly press were calling it that. Hell, even the article on the Watergate scandal is called "Watergate scandal", not just "Watergate". Media buzzwords are silly and not especially encyclopedic. 18:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)<>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk)

The problem that anyone who was skeptical of the "science" behind these articles has faced, is that the only sources deemed "reliable" were from the very "scientists" who wrote these emails. How do you fight censorship like that? The only "reliable" sources are climategate "scientists" and anyone else was being actively prevented from publication by these same "scientists". The stupid thing is that despite being told many many times by various people (all of whom got banned eventually for daring to speak up) Wikipedia permitted climate articles to restrict their source to the small climategate community. Now, not only is every climate article reliant on the integrity of this small group, but almost every editor that was willing to correct this censorship has decided that their time was better spent elsewhere. There are almost no editors left on climate who are not part of the "in" (i.e. climategate) crowd - many of whom are admins and will ban anyone like me for speaking out - so how on earth do you bring back a NPOV from a situation like that? Isonomia (talk) 18:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You could start on the article talk page or appropriate dispute resolution forum by making a calm, rational, non-accusatory presentation of the evidence behind your suggestion. On the other hand you dare the community to ban you for calling them names they might just take you up on it. I don't participate in climate change articles and from this little thread I'm already at the end of my patience hearing claims that everyone here is a POV-pushing conspiracy against the WP:TRUTH. I can only imagine how little patience regular article editors have for this. Whether by accepting consensus or getting yourself blocked, you may face the very real possibility that you cannot convince people of your position and that this project runs on consensus informed by reliable sources, not on political arguments. If the quote-unquote scientists (as you call them) have gained the upper hand in the scholarly and academic community, and the serious mainstream press, then Wikipedia will reflect that because as an encyclopedia we are for the most part a compendium of the established view, not the forum to air critiques and conspiracy theories about the establishment. Article titles generally reflect the formal, proper, non-colloquial titles for things, and in the case of events a dry brief title describing the event, rather than informal names however popular. Paradigm shifts don't start on encyclopedias, they end up there after gaining acceptance everywhere else. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, yes of course I'm having a rant - after all that time watching the POV push, to finally know it wasn't my own bias but a real conspiracy by this group to "hide the downturn" as they so aptly put it. To answer your point, I would like to spend the time going through all the articles detailing the POV, but without agreeing even very simple things like whether or not the BBC is a credible source (quoting them as saying the climate is currently cooling), I would be wasting my time. And let me be entirely candid, the kind of people who are likely to sceptical - are the how do I put it - selfish 4x4 petrol heads without a social conscience who aren't going to be spending their time here unless they get paid by the Heartland Institute. Anyone who attempts to edit Wikipedia as a sceptic of the so called "consensus" will have an uphill task even if the "other" side acted with good faith - when many are zealots who seem to work 24/7 on these articles, then banning me is the only humane thing to do! Isonomia (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Isonomia, I suggest that you calm down and listen to WD. He's one of our better editors. I completely agree with you regarding the bias in these articles and how it came to exist. But there isn't a chance of changing that overnight. It will take a long time and a lot of patience. Frankly, my experiences at ACORN and Ward Churchill academic misconduct investigation have led me to believe that even the smallest move toward NPOV, on politically charged articles, takes enormous amounts of work. Rome wasn't built in a day. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll head over there and take a look. Strictly as a content matter it does seem like the mainstream press seems to be having fun calling it "climategate". - Wikidemon (talk) 17:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Organized vandalism by at least three users

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/76.25.245.117 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Talex1029 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/198.178.254.2 —Preceding unsigned comment added by ColonelHamilton (talk • contribs) 06:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have warned the two unblocked cases, please let us know if vandalism continues specially at WP:AIV. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I have to wonder about the notability of the person in question, regardless of the vandalism. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've added a PROD tag. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody fix Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hayden Stone (Colorado)? (I didn't create it) 99.166.95.142 (talk) 17:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Trương Hoàng Phong

Resolved

Trương Hoàng Phong (talk · contribs) just performed this move of Yongle Era to Yongle era with a somewhat unconvincing summary. As far as I know the renaming is contrary to naming conventions, but the reason for this report is this set of moves [25] and [26]. They seem to indicate that the user is a sock of Yongle the Great (talk · contribs), who has been blocked. Favonian (talk) 10:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless "Yongle Era" is a proper name (I doubt that it is), "Yongle era" is the correct article name. No comment on the sock accusation, as I know nothing of Yongle the Great.--Atlan (talk) 13:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

He has been continually block evading but this is an old account. "00:09, 11 August 2009 (hist | diff) N User talk:Yongle the Great ‎ (moved User talk:Yongle the Great to User talk:Trương Hoàng Phong over redirect: hgghd)". I'm blocking this account as well. The article has basically no content and I've made it a redirect to Yongle Emperor which does have content on this period. If it ever grows large enough it can have its own article. Dougweller (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Support that. Until this editor shows some signs of responding to concerns, all we can do is WP:RBI and make it unproductive for them to sock. Unfortunately I believe this does mean removing their edits and blocking their socks on sight. EyeSerene^talk 17:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of section from talk page

Resolved

I object to the removal of this section from the talk page at Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident

Diff here: [27]

For background, the article page is semiprotected, so IPs cannot contribute to the article. The only way they have a voice is at the talk page. While I note that the complaint is quite short on specificity, I was in the middle of writing a post to request more specifics, in order to engage discussion. I disagree that WP:SOAP applies. It isn’t a rant about GW, it is a comment (albeit general) about the article itself, the very point of the talk page. I suggest a better approach would be to ask the editor to post specifics, and if those are not forthcoming, to collapse the discussion rather than erase it. By removing it, we are providing fodder for the belief that the treatment of this discussion is not even-handed. I want us to be even-handed, this removal does not send a good message.SPhilbrickT 16:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but where is admin intervention needed? Have you tried discussing the removal with the user who did it? Regards SoWhy 16:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This page used to say "This is not the Wikipedia complaints department" - what happened to that useful bit of information? Agree with SoWhy - I don't see a need for admin intervention. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Fair point. I did add a pointer to this discussion on the removing editor’s talk page, I’ll carry on the discussion there and see if it can be resolved there.SPhilbrickT 16:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

User:69.69.69.62

Resolved

See the user's talk page for constant warnings against vandalism:User talk:69.69.69.62

There user adds precious little to nothing constructive. Here are some random diffs I picked out of his contribs. This

• [28]
• [29]
• [30]
• [31]
• [32]
• [33]

Here is his latest, disrupting the Holocaust article. I hope an admin will finally stop warning and start blocking this IP. Thanks Stellarkid (talk) 17:14, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Done, but in the future please make such reports at WP:AIV for faster action. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Request more input regarding Tiger Woods

I'd like more input here please, particularly in the dispute section. I previously posted to the BLP noticeboard, but that did not get much response.--Chaser (talk) 18:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Neutralhomer

Resolved

 – User reblocked

I have blocked the above user for disrupting Wikipedia by continually adding non-free content. Please note, although I have been active in correcting these breaches of policy, I consider that my actions are an objective implementation of our policy; it is above a mere 'content dispute' As such I have not abused admin tools. However, if anyone would be happier to unblock and reblock, then feel free. The JPS^{talk to me} 15:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Not the best block, IMO. Regardless of it, Neutralhomer has explicitly agreed not to violate the non-free policy in the future. In light of this, I have unblocked. Tan | 39 16:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention. I have commented on your own talk page. The user has a history of this, and it is time that we strictly apply policy. Several editors have attempted to explain this to him, and I felt that a block was the only way that he might learn. My block was preventative. However, I accept your judgment. The JPS^{talk to me} 16:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you cite what policy you are going by in sanctioning this user? WP:NFCI #2 does not list a critical commentary criteria for logo usage, and Wikipedia:Logos#Logo choice addresses historical logos in that their usage should be specified in the image's rationale, but again, no specification of critical commentary within the article itself. Tarc (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Both images fail WP:NFCC#8 by a long way. We are not a repository for non-free logo galleries. He added the image claiming that there "was critical commentary" when (a) there wasn't, and (b) he knows very well that this means "critical commentary about the image", not "vaguely mentioning the station that the logo refers to". The user has been repeatedly warned about this before, and clearly doesn't think that WP:NFCC is worth following. Bad unblock - you shouldn't do this without knowing the history. Black Kite 18:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

BlackKite is correct. The section to which Tarc points describes the use of a historical logo as an alternative to the current logo in the infobox. It is convention that we accept one, current logo in an infobox. A gallery of non-free images without context is a breach of WP:NFCC#8. The JPS^{talk to me} 23:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and re-block him, then. (slaps own wrist, bad Tan). Tan | 39 19:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Done. Marked resolved. Black Kite 19:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to note that some of the logos Neutralhomer and The JPS were edit warring over (File:Wgh-am.png and File:WBQK-FM.png) are Public domain as they are in typeface, so they don't go by the WP:Non-free content criteria as they are free logos. Powergate92Talk 22:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Rioplatense Spanish

Resolved

 – Done by Hersfold. — Oli ^OR Pyfan! 22:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

We recently had a young, new user move the Rioplatense Spanish page without discussion. An admin was able to revert the changes and restore the page, but the accompanying talk page remains as Talk:Argentine Castellane. Would one of you fine admins be kinds enough to restore the title of the talk page too? thanks.--MartinezMD (talk) 03:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Revision to delete

Resolved

 – See WT:Revision deletion#Proposed additional text pointing to oversight and IRC for a related proposed policy page edit. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I need to report some revisions that need WP:Revision deletion. How do I do this without being public about it? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Special:Emailuser/Oversight. –xeno^talk 18:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The edits in question have been taken care of. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 18:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Eyes are needed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison between HMS King George V and USS North Carolina

Resolved

 – Thread will archive 24 hrs after the last edit, but if people keep agreeing it should be closed, that extends the time it's on here :) Maybe a {{resolved}} tag will help. It seems apologies and calm discussion on other pages has prevailed. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I nominated this page for deletion as I feel its not needed, but I have a major concern: Damwiki1 (talk · contribs), the article's creator, has left two messages on different user pages informing of the deletion and asking for assistance. On a hunch, I looked at the history of both pages; and one of the two pages - And heg (talk · contribs) was previously tagged as a sock of Damwiki1. I am concerned because this did not appear to go anywhere, and I know from experience that afd is a haven for socks, there may be an attempt at vote stacking. I have finals and will be occupied until Wednesday at the earliest, so if a few good users could keep an eye on this I would appreciate it. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I sent an apology to both users after I realized that this was against wiki policy. Both editors have been involved with the KGV class pages and I thought that they might want to know. This is was an honest mistake on my part. Damwiki1 (talk) 04:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

First, you are required to notify any other involved editors. I have done so. Second, Damwiki1 seems to have realized the issue per this comment. I can explain it to the editor further if needed though. Third, User:And heg hasn't edited for a few weeks so unless there is voting done at AFD, I think it's worth dropping. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I sent an apology to both users after I realized that this was against wiki policy. Both editors have been involved with the KGV class pages and I thought that they might want to know. This is was an honest mistake on my part. Damwiki1 (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Understandable. It seems counter-intuitive at times to say we don't want experienced editors to be notified but it keeps from gaming the system. I don't think there would be a problem with notification at the relevant WikiProject in the future. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I fail to see how edits such as this and this are canvassing in any meaningful way - they seem in line with WP:CANVASS as the editors aren't being asked to do anything in particular. I don't see how it's any worse than Tom's own post notifying editors with an interest in this topic of the AfD here (which I also don't think is canvassing). Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Moreover, raising a concern here that And heg (talk · contribs) is a sock puppet based on them being tagged as such once and claiming that this "did not appear to go anywhere" seems out of line given that this was actually investigated but not confirmed through checkuser and the editor who raised the sock puppet report acknowledged that the editors may have some relationship but were different people. Nick-D (talk) 07:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry all. I've been more or less off wikipedia for about two months. Revisiting for a few hours yesterday was suppose to help me get back into the feel of things here, but I guess I've been away long enough that I have gotten rusty at a few things. I can safely say I botched this one pretty badly, and for that I apologize to all. -- TomStar81 (talk · contribs) 76.211.107.188 (talk) 13:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It is a pity that TomStar81 (talk · contribs) did not see fit to place a notice on my talk page like the one he placed on Damwiki1's talk page. I had also put effort into the article TomStar81 nominated for deletion. Surely I also deserve to be told that he wants it deleted?--Toddy1 (talk) 22:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I must say that my experience as a wikipedian has been less than enjoyable, and this particular process (AFD) is supremely flawed, and should be stopped.And heg (talk) 04:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

@Toddy1: we are "encouraged" to notify the article creator when we nominate a page for deletion, but as a matter of course there is no requirement to do so. AS I noted above, its been a few monthes since I have been on here and I have gotten a little rusty with my procedures. For this I apologize, as it was not my intention to offend or upset anyone.

On that same note, this ANI thread I started should never have been opened, as it clears from the others posts that Damwiki1 is not engaging in any unsavory activity in the defense of this article. I believe then that the best course of action for all of us would be to move to have the thread closed and continue this discussion elsewhere; either the afd talk page or our own user talk pages. I reiterate that I apologize for moving on this too soon, as its obvious now that there is nothing behind these claims. I will exercise more caution about this in the future, and will accept a trout for this incident should one be presented. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree that this ANI thread should be closed.--Toddy1 (talk) 22:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:51, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel S. Peña Sr. (2nd nomination)

I have three concerns concerning this discussion:

• 1. As it previously closed as "keep", the renomination could be disruptive.
• 2. The claims for deletion are that it is an attack page; someone neutral might want to go through it and be sure nothing libelous is contained in the article.
• 3. There could be sockpuppetry going on in the AfD concerning:
  • Cablespy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Ludlom (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

The above two accounts have similar arguments and pretty much all of their edits are devoted to this guy. Someone else has raised this suspicion already in the AfD. In any event, this one might require an experienced set of eyes. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

AN is referring to abusive sockpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Inappropriate_uses_of_alternate_accounts.--Chaser (talk) 01:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think most admins know what abusive sockpuppetry is (and definitely in regards to AFDs), but thanks anyways. First, I don't think renominating following a discussion from May is particularly disruptive. The article was deleted twice before that (with 158 deleted edits remaining), so it's not like this has always been that clear-cut. Second, I think paragraph by paragraph quotes of allegations aren't appropriate under WP:BLP (and the use of primary sources is very concerning) but I'm not even sure what to keep in this mind-numbing paragraph. There seems to be some pruning already done so I think we can wait until the AFD is complete (looks likely to pass) and then worry about those editors and the article itself. A WP:SSI report (or a checkuser) may be useful as it's very odd for "new" editors to not only list articles for deletion but to list them under the WP:BLP policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It was intended for the two editors listed above.--Chaser (talk) 05:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, my apologies then. I should have left it alone. Nevertheless, it seems to be passing AFD and we can see how the SPAs deal with the article afterwards. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Unusual Unblock Request

I found this request. I haven't ever seen anyone who wants to extend their block period, so could someone please take a look at this?--Iner22 (talk) 19:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Template:Consent blocks are done from time to time, I invited them to email info-en@wikimedia.org to request the block. –xeno^talk 19:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I believe that it's the usual practice to accept such requests, though perhaps you ought to get this guy to ask the OTRS list from his official email account (to check it's not a student playing a joke)? ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 19:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That's what Xeno did. The blocked you linked to was also done on the basis of such a request.--Chaser (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I see that now that the edit-conflict that I mentioned above has come through. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►most serene─╢ 20:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This doesn't seem too unusual of a request. As a high school teacher, I can see how the school administration may want to prevent its students from making changes on this site.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Long term sock puppetry

In the past 12 hours, I have blocked two new obvious socks (User:Historiananna and User: Wiki Response) of the long term puppeteer outlined at User:Barneca/watch/Barbaro. This is a long term issue dating back two years now. It centers around the attempt to add information concerning the alleged current head of the Barbaro family by the name of Vitus Sebastian Barbaro. I have no idea whether these claims are true, however from what I have seen this person has not been able to provide compelling evidence of any sort either on Wikipedia or on any other website, like Royal Forums or Freebase. I am hoping that someone might have a better idea about how to deal with this beyond the whack-a-mole blocking of these obvious socks. I know IP range soft blocks have been used in the past. Thanks for taking a look. --Leivick (talk) 20:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If you file a report at WP:SPI and list every known sock of this person, it would be helpful as it will keep everything in one place, and checkusers tend to respond there faster than here. A checkuser can institute a rangeblock if feasible. --Jayron32 20:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and created a new SPI. I guess we will have to see what they dig up. --Leivick (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering the persistence of this hoaxer, I don't think there's anything Wikipedia can do other than playing whack-a-mole. Over 60 blocked sox hasn't dissuaded them in the slightest. They also have used several variable IPs and even if those were all permanently blocked, I think the hoaxer would just acquire another account. Edward321 (talk) 06:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cry for help or vandalism

Resolved

 – Reported to local law enforcement.

Durova³⁷³ 03:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Can a wandering admin or editor take a look here. [redacted link] I am tempted to take cries for help seriously, but I really can't tell here.  7  01:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like an old lady I used to have to deal with years ago when I collected the general rate. She used to ring up insisting that the FBI were watching her, and Special Branch were using electricity to strip the pile off her carpet. Because of this, she had been unable to get to the Post Office to pay her rates. I was never sure where you drew the line on 'genuine' in a case like that. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to revert and watch contribs for now, because I don't like the phone number being in there in case this is a harassment attempt. Googling the name turns up other similar posts in equally inappropriate websites.  7  01:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Then contact Oversight. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 01:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not that this necessarily means anything, but whois reports Texas rather than California. Equazcion (talk) 01:14, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Ignore previous comment, geolocate says Cali. Texas is the provider address. My bad. Equazcion (talk) 01:15, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Contact the local police department for the IP address. Either it's real and we've helped or it's a hoax and the idiot has learned their lesson. We aren't qualified to determine those kinds of hoaxes. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(Or third possibility, mental disturbance, which a visit from the police may be the first step to getting treated) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 02:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The phone number geolocates to the location the IP gave. I would be tempted to contact law enforcement and let them figure this one out. Tiptoety ^talk 02:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that this has now been reported (per above), I'm now oversighting that diff, as it contains non-public, personal information, and may not even be related to the the person who wrote it (aka trolling). If the authorities have yet to be contacted, just let me know and we can take it from there - Alison ^❤ 04:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I contacted the authorities about an hour before your Oversight, Allie...with a diff to that post (gah). They were confused enough already...email me for the officer's addy; here's hoping you kept a screenshot (I didn't). Durova³⁷³ 04:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Text forwarded to authorities; we can archive this now. Durova³⁷³ 06:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Archange50

New account, Has multiple warning and speedy deletes regarding copyright material on talk pageUser_talk:Archange50, and just created (previously deleted?) page Harold_Greenwald with single phrase "Fuck off" Gerardw (talk) 04:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Page deleted, no further action needed, I think Gerardw (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Charles Quieter

Resolved

 – MuZemike 07:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Author has by now created the second obvious sock to remove the speedy template. Does this meet WP:DUCK? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 06:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Lauranapiranha blocked 1 week, User:CharlesQuieter2 and User:Lauranapirhana indefinitely blocked and tagged as sock puppets of Lauranapiranha, and Charles Quieter has been deleted and temporarily salted. MuZemike 07:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thx. I think User:Conor427 is also a sock. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes. Missed that one. MuZemike 07:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Kristen Ringwald

Resolved

 – — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This "article" seems to be either vanity or worse. --Túrelio (talk) 09:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Article was deleted. Contributor was warned after a recreation. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot changing referencing style, again (dearchived)

As I have pointed out a couple of weeks ago, some users have been using bots and scripts to impose their own preferred style of referencing, the "named" references, on articles previously not using it.

This system (the same footnote re-used again and again) is common in some fields and used by many science journals. It is, however, absolutely non-standard in the humanities. Many contributors, not just me, do not like it and do not want to have this system imposed on all articles.

See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Replacing duplicate footnotes with named footnotes. User:Postdlf makes a good job there of summarizing the reasons against this style in three points. A fourth point is that of usability. Named refs makes references dependent on each other, which makes it more cumbersome to edit them, for instance to correct a page or page range, to add an additional source with a contrasting view, or to clarify how a reference supports the claim made. This point was touched on by me, earlier in that discussion, and expressed very clearly by User:Golbez in a previous (now archived) discussion (from July 2009).

The article Charles Boit, which I used as an example, had at that point been hit three times by this:

• First (30 July 2009) by User:Falcon8765, using a script called AWB.
• Second (10 August 2009) by User:DrilBot.
• Third (16 September 2009) by User:SmackBot.

I reverted this every time.

• It has now been hit again, a fourth time, again by SmackBot.

SmackBot, or rather its keeper, User:Rich Farmbrough, has previously been warned by the administrator User:CBM for this behaviour. CBM blocked SmackBot, then unblocked it on the condition that the feature was disabled. Rich Farmbrough agreed to this. (See edit link earlier in paragraph, it's all there.)

Thanks for your attention. --Hegvald (talk) 10:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked temporarily again, and will unblock again once this is fixed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering SmackBot/RF has already been warned about this and that these edits were never appropriate to begin with (as there is no general agreement that named refs are better), it would only be appropriate for SmackBot to be given the task of reverting its own previous edits. Who else is going to do this? --Hegvald (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't suppose User:SmackBot/References Log Log of ref runs would be of any assist as evidence?

When I've been hit by this it's made me assume I'd been a lazy/awful/terrible editor for non memorizing every last work of article guidelines. If I think that way, who knows how many others have been discouraged? This has covered an insane number of articles and as far as we know it could have started edit wars from article creators... especially since the edit summaries given have nothing to do with what was changed. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It should rather make you think "Thank goodness I don't have to worry about the niff-naff and trivia". Rich Farmbrough, 20:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC).

These bot edits of yours have had the misleading edit summary "general fixes". The problem here is that your way of "fixing" what you call the "niff-naff and trivia" results in a referencing style that is non-standard for many contributors and contrary to the way they are used to work, and want to continue working, with footnotes and references. While you may think that you are just polishing the formatting of these articles, you actually create an editing environment that is going to discourage some contributors from doing any additional work on these articles. --Hegvald (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've unarchived this, it's only supposed to be archived after 24 hours of inactivity but the bot is doing it after 18. I'm also unhappy about this and find named references often a pain. It needs more discussion. Dougweller (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've changed archiving on this page back to 24 hours; I couldn't find any discussion of the change to faster archiving, and anything less than 24 hours risks missing input from those far off the most active time zones. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what more there is do here. I'm informed User:Rich Farmbrough in case he wasn't aware that SmackBot had been blocked. As to the references style, this is ANI. Village pump, MOS, (particularly Wikipedia:Citing sources) are better places for that discussion than here. Like the British/American spelling disputes we sometimes see, I don't think this is really resolvable. Current policy is "follow the style already established in an article, if it has one; where there is disagreement, the style used by the first editor to use one should be respected" but people just have different preferences. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• But note that while editors making changes can do so across a reasonable spectrum of interpretation, bots cannot. Protonk (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
• Well, if Rich has been told before, and can't seem to run his bot appropriately without causing disruption, perhaps he should have to go through another bot approval process before he's allowed to run it again.--Crossmr (talk) 00:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
  • It appears to have been a good faith error and minor in the context of the number of edits the bot is performing. The damage done is not too significant. The best way forward might be to approach the AWB project about the fact that this is (incorrectly) classified as a general fix, which is the root of the problem. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
    • was this or was this not brought up before? Rich is an experienced editor and bot owner. If this was brought up before and decided to be an inappropriate change for his bot to make, I would expect him to no longer make those changes.--Crossmr (talk) 05:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
      • I don't think that's a reasonable expectation - people make mistakes, including bot operators. One mistake in the context of 2 million edits is not surprising. It is reasonable to expect Rich not to deliberately make those changes, but there is no indication that this was anything but an accident. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Trouble is, this isn't one mistake. RF has been asked before not to use his bots to change the formatting of references - Wikipedia supports more than one style of referencing, and there is no obligation to use the bot's style. It's not the bot's error - it's the programmer's error.Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have to repeat my question: Shouldn't SmackBot now be given the task of reverting its own previous edits? To clean up after a bot you need a bot, or it will take a week to revert what the bot did in a couple of hours. --Hegvald (talk) 01:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Reverting it would practically be impossible at this point, unless the magic feature listed at meta could handle it. Given it's been spread out and many articles changed since I have no clue.with the personal style of one user poisoning it. It's arguably the largest possible case of vandalism since it's deliberately removing content and replacing it with a personal POV with a deliberately misleading edit summary on top and in practically a hidden manner. Very depressing form of WP:OWN, but will probably have to be left at never permitting it again unless the bot can be given orders to only act places where it's still top/previous change, assuming compliance. If an editor chooses a certain method of style, it's disruptive to change it, period. Bot operator needs to form a community consensus on the sole form of referencing if such views are so fervently held, as was mentioned above.♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I don't see any evidence above of SmackBot removing content. Would you please either supply a diff or withdraw the accusation of vandalism? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It's not removing content (Datheisen seems to have got a bit carried away here I agree) but if someone repeatedly replaced the reference style in use in the article with a different style, against consensus and having been asked to stop; after the fourth time I think even you might term it vandalism. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Poor wording. It's removing formatting (only "content in terms of characters, not actual article substance which is the most basic form of what we call "content"), but it's still removing what someone entered with their own two hands and replacing it, and my resentment was surrounded on that. ... apologies, please. ... None to the any bot again seen trying this. Right. Head into desk repeatedly time. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If it has really happened this much I can't see any reason Rich shouldn't have to go through the bot approval process again before being allowed to run Smack bot.--Crossmr (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Since the discussion with CBM it happened that I made a short run using some old settings. It is probable that no more than a handful of articles, if that, were actually changed the way described. The only visible change in the article in question would have been in superscripts and the reduction of the notes from 23 to [16]. Given the number of articles that probably have had names added by various AWB users, and that the only complaint has been from one user on one article (although of course it would be that one that got changed again) , your suggestion seems a little over the top. Rich Farmbrough, 23:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC).

SmackBot is the highest profile user of AWB, but certainly there are a lot of others going around doing the same. If there are other bots, they should also be blocked until the problematic behavior is corrected. Non-bot users are harder to deal with, but a more stringent line could convince the writers of AWB to bring their software into compliance with the relevant guidelines. Christopher Parham (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as that goes I had put a feature request in to avoid applying this change in cases such as the above example, but I have not been following it. The discussion above suggests that citation style has been changed, and this is a hot-button issue. Of course that is not what is meant by the word style in the guidelines, that is the five citation styles. GRB 970508 uses the shortened footnote style, just as the article above, and uses de-duplicated named references. The citation style is the same, simply the repetitive columns of "Schilling 2002 p126" have been reduced, in that case from 53 entries to 34. If this were paper it would be a different matter, there would be a finger or ruler following the cites, and a another in the end matter, while the feet were used to control a book wheel (do Amazon do those?). Rich Farmbrough, 00:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC).

Presenting the same information to the reader in two different ways constitutes a change in style, for the purposes of WP:CITE. The "general fix" in AWB encourages users to falsely believe that there is consensus that named references are preferred over sequentially numbered footnotes. Christopher Parham (talk) 13:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) rev 5730 Change AWB genfixes not to implement named references for an article if there are currently no named references in the article. This should appease editors who believe this constitutes a change of reference style, hence contravening WP:CITE rules. Rjwilmsi 16:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User Sensei_2105

I am having problems with a new editor who is having difficulties working with guide lines and consensus. The Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Japan-related_articles)#Names specifies Japanese name order for people born before 1868 and Western name order for people born after 1868. Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_arts#Honorifics_and_academic_titles specifies that we follow the manual of style Wikipedia:NAMES#Academic_titles.

The user Sensei 2105 would like the article Takayuki Kubota to be named Soke_Kubota_Takayuki and to contain the titles 'Soke' and Grand Master'. He has not participated in the discussion Talk:Takayuki_Kubota#Requested_move but has attempted to undo the moves [34]. He has not responded on his talk page about title policy and he has repeated reverted the article to use titles. [35] [36] [37], the last with the comment 'no comment': [38]

Similar experiences with the article Gosoku-ryu‎ [39]].

Could I request advice and assistance concerning this user? jmcw (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

First, some friendly advice :) The best thing to have done would have been to let the editor know, on their talkpage, what they were doing wrong. There are templated notices and warnings available (such as {{uw-3rr}}), or a handwritten note sometimes works better. It's also considered good practice to inform an editor when they're being discussed here.

That aside, I've now warned the editor and linked to this discussion. We typically don't take admin action if the editor hasn't been warned, but from now on if they continue edit-warring you can drop a note back here, on my talkpage, or at WP:AN3 if they've broken WP:3RR, and someone will take another look. I hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 20:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the friendly advice - if you were on the talk page, you could see that I did attempt to talk with the editor before coming here. Let us hope the warning will help. Thanks! jmcw (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed that. It was specifically the edit-warring I was referring to; I apologise if I gave the wrong impression with my comment. Anyhow, glad to be of help and we'll see where this goes. EyeSerene^talk 21:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Sensei 0208 appears to have the same poor habits as Sensei 2105 [40]. jmcw (talk) 18:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Unban request by Wiarthurhu

Wiarthurhu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was indefinitely blocked by Cowman109 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) in 2006 for the following reason: "Consistent breaking of unblock terms through use of checkuser confirmed IPs and accounts, exhausted community patience, reinstating community ban". Wiarthurhu is now requesting unblock for the following reason: "indefinite block was set back in 2006, but this account has not generated any problems / complaints for a long time since then, am willing to switch to a time-limited topic block if that helps. Blocking admin has not been active since early 2009".

If the user is indeed community-banned, a lifting of the ban would need community consensus (and an admin willing to take responsibility for unblocking and supervision), so I am referring the request to this board. This is a procedural referral and I have no opinion myself.  Sandstein  21:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Support unban. A lot can change in 3 years. I'm willing to give him another shot, based off the calm manner in which he requested the unblock. Assuming a checkuser can verify there has been no abuse on other accounts, I see no reason against it right now. Worst thing that can happen is that the user continues to be disruptive, gets blocked, and that's that. --Shirik (talk) 21:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC) changed to oppose --Shirik (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Here is his ANI request for unblocking from sept 2006. Off2riorob (talk) 21:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to see comments from folks more knowledgeable about this user and any indications of more recent sockpuppetry, etc., if any, before opining on an unban. Anyone got any further detail they might be able to share? Tony Fox (arf!) 21:55, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If no further evidence of recent socking can be obtained, I'd cautiously support a straight unblock.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:01, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Um, no, violations from last year are too recent. Oppose. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Pending the confirmation by those involved in his original case and/or a checkuser who can confirm the claims that he is no longer socking, I am inclined to also conditionally support an unblock here. --Jayron32 22:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This is Iamandrewrice? Um, heeeeeelllll no. Not now. Give it another year, make no attempt to sock or edit Wikipedia in that whole time, and then maybe we can discuss. But not this level of problem. --Jayron32 23:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Here are sock details. Here is the ANI discussion regarding one sock User:Iamandrewrice from this board from Dec 2007. There are some quite strong comments on the second link to the sock discussion, like..this user should never be trusted. Well worth a read before passing an opinion. Off2riorob (talk) 22:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a comment there from User:MaxSem on the 2nd of June 2008 that says...per this he and his friends must appeal the ban directly to Arbcom . Off2riorob (talk) 22:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Oppose. Per SarekOfVulcan and the strength of comments at the previous discussions. Off2riorob (talk) 23:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oh, User:Iamandrewrice is Wiarthurhu? Oh hell no. Oppose Tony Fox (arf!) 23:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Re the possible confusion below: I'm still uneasy, as there seem to be some discrepancies either way here. Recommend the user go to ArbCom and sort it out with them; they'll have more access to technical information to work with. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose Not a chance, Iamdandrewrice is one of the worst possible candidates to consider unblocking. Horologium (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose, per above. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Strong Oppose unbanning user. If there was no sockpuppetry involved, I would be fully inclined to support unbanning. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 00:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Lor no. This is like giving JarlaxleArtemis the mop because he's good at pagemoves. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 01:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose such an unblock seems imprudent. Crafty (talk) 01:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Oppose based off the shown evidence. --Shirik (talk) 02:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Comment The general rule is 1 year of no editing at all before asking for a community ban to be lifted by the community. See {{secondchance}}. He has the option of appealing straight to arbcom but given they usually respect the community he probably won't get anywhere unless there is something we don't know. By the way, I'm big proponent of second chances, but I tend to start the clock over when I see repeated and ongoing violations. If he had violated once, I might not make him wait a full year since his last infraction. How about this: We keep him blocked and community banned, but we allow him to submit articles through WP:Articles for creation, with the proviso that he notifies the AFC editor that he is community-banned and that he is only allowed to submit articles, not edit them once submitted. If he can create a few good articles in the next few months I'll be much more open to lifting the ban even if 12 months haven't passed since his last infraction. I am also in favor of him being allowed to "edit by proxy" using the mechanism provided for in Template:secondchance. After all, that's what it's there for. Given his history, it will take a significant positive contribution over a significant period of time - months, not weeks - OR 12 months with no violations before I would lift the ban. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Addendum: Per User:Off2riorob's link I am saying keep ban out of respect for the previous community discussion and refer him to arbcom directly. I stand by my recommendations above: ARBCOM should seriously consider giving him permission to take advantage of secondchance and WP:AFC. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  In light of the name confusion outlined below the above comments may not be applicable to the editor seeking reinstatement. If he really has honored his ban for 3 years, then unblocking with a short leash for the first few months and few hundred edits is appropriate. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• According to User:Iamandrewrice userpage, "Per this, he and his friends must appeal the ban directly to ArbCom." So if this user is in fact Iamandrewrice, isn't his unblock request moot? Shouldn't he have to go to Arbcom anyway? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Technically, the decision to make him to go ARBCOM was made by the community. Since consensus can change, technically, the community of today, or the community of 2010 or 2011, is not bound by that decision. However, stare decisis and forum shopping likely indicate the community of today and likely the community a year from now will uphold the "take it to arbcom" decision. If he were to go away for 2 or 3 years and come back, it might be a different story - the community may lift the ban outright, or they may send him to arbcom, who might lift it. The point is, it will be within the community's power to do so if they so choose. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 02:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

PLEASE BE CAREFUL:

With respect - I think you're all making a terrible error. I was involved at center of the storm with both Wiarthurhu and Iamandrewrice. I STRONGLY do not believe they are the same person.

Iamandrewrice was giving me grief - and early on in the long chain of grief, I explained to Iamandrewrice about a previous encounter I'd had with Wiarthurhu a year or two before - hoping that this cautionary tale would convince him/her to calm down and try to behave more reasonably. Subsequently, when things had gone further down the toilet, Iamandrewrice made a sockpuppet called Wiarthurwho (note that: wiarthurWHO - not wiarthurHU) - probably in an effort to annoy me or perhaps to try to gain more notoriety - or simply to muddy the waters - I dunno. I suspect my efforts to calm Iamandrewrice down was merely WP:BEANS.

It would be a truly astounding coincidence if Wiarthurhu and Iamandrewrice were the same person - I stumbled over the two of them in completely different ways - years apart - they had very different editing patterns - nothing about their behavior was in any way similar. Wiarthurhu was obsessive about cars and planes and tried to stick pictures of his model cars & planes into articles. Iamandrewrice was editing an article about my old highschool...what are the odds that Wiarthurhu could figure out which school I went to 45 years ago?!?!? I carefully explained this at the time:

See Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Iamandrewrice#Iamandrewrice_2

So I don't think it's correct to conflate Wiarthurhu with Iamandrewrice - there is zero evidence that they are the same person - and lots of reasons why you'd believe they are different - and the wiarthurwho connection is easily explained by my failed efforts to prevent Iamandrewrice from climbing the reichstadt.

Hence, nearly every objection to unbanning Wiarthurhu (above) has really been a much more valid objection to unbanning a completely different user - so we should discount all of the discussion above and start over.

I think Wiarthurhu has been out of the picture for a long time - and is therefore (arguably) someone who we might consider unbanning.

I strongly advocate that everyone take a step back from their previous comments and re-examine this case on it's true merits.

I for one would cautiously back an unbanning of Wiarthurhu (but I'd certainly argue it's way too soon to even consider unbanning Iamandrewrice).

SteveBaker (talk) 03:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Nothing personal but to call whether or not one known sockpuppeter is allowed back because he may be confused with another more annoying sockpuppeter "a travesty of justice" is a bit melodramatic, don't you think? I'd like to see if Wiarthurhu has anything to say (even if it's likely to be ignored), but honestly I'm not that sorry that people who aggressive screw around years ago sometimes get mixed up with people who more aggressively screw around a year later. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Exactly what I was thinking. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 08:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

On the other hand, if the community is making a decision to disallow a Second Chance (or actually a Third Chance in Wiarthurhu's case) based on incorrect assumptions, than that would be wrong. I am not familiar with either the Wiarthurhu or Iamandrewrice. But based on a quick reading of those editors' comments and editing history -- I agree with Steve Baker that they are not the same person. Their writing indicates they are from different age groups and different nationalities. — CactusWriter | ^needles 09:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I agree, but being over the top doesn't really help anybody. May I suggest waiting for this to archive and trying again with cooler heads? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I also don't like over-the-top shouts -- though it did catch my attention enough to look further here. You maybe right that we have already poisoned the well on this thread. I'll wait to see if there are any responses from the above !voting editors after they log-on later. If nothing changes, then I agree that the discussion should start from scratch on another day with more complete information. — CactusWriter | ^needles 11:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if I came off as "over the top" - but look back at the history of the discussion above. There were a couple of supportive comments - then someone said that Wiarthurhu and Iamandrewrice are the same person - and then we find the original supportive comments crossed out and uniformly opposing comments from that point on...several of whom are actually talking about Iamandrewrice and not Wiarthurhu. Now, you may well say (and I might agree) that Wiarthurhu doesn't deserve another chance - but the case should be discussed on its true merits - and not on the basis of false information. SteveBaker (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

On the wiarthurWHO - not wiarthurHU well spotted SteveBaker. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Kdietz

He repeatedly reverted changes on 2010s, 2020s, 2030s, 2040s and 2050s, despite the advice to first discuss this change on the talk pages. --bender235 (talk) 23:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Kdietz (talk · contribs) of this discussion. GiantSnowman 23:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I received (or saw) no such advice. I thought my corrections to the pages were being somehow not saved. I was quite shocked to find that such a simple issue is a matter of some controversy. I will check the Talk pages before making such edits in the future. Kdietz (talk) 23:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I gave you the advice a few times through the edit summary plus I sent you a warning on about the 3RRs so i dont know how you didn't know or see them but i hope you will also check the edit summaries in future as well. Pro66 (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

In fairness Pro, new users might not use the history tab or a watchlist and therefore it can appear that their edits are "disappearing" since they don't see the edit summaries of the reversions. I doubt there was any malice in Kdietz's edits and I'm sure there is no need for admin intervention. Fribbler (talk) 00:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, your edits are incorrect (at those decade articles), Kdietz. GoodDay (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Kdietz, while I see you commented at 2070s] (which you oddly enough never edited, I think you'd agree that you should be talking on the pages where you are actually editing? Instead of Talk:2000s_(decade)#2000s_begins_on_2001.21 and every decade/century/year, wouldn't it be better to go to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years where it's been argued about multiple times? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me underline that suggestion. I'd be happy with decades starting with 01 myself, but it needs consensus and so far hasn't had it. Dougweller (talk) 10:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

vandalism by user: Rockinator555

Resolved

 – Indef blocked. Next time report to WP:AIV. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I request a block for user Rockinator555 based on these 2 vandalistic diffs: [41], [42]. Note that in the second diff he's defaming two living people.  Dr. Loosmark  18:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Attempted WP:Outing

Resolved

 – Delicious carbuncle has been unblocked, and there is nothing more to do here. NW (Talk) 23:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

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

• Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs)

Delicious carbuncle who knows full well that attempted WP:Outing is a blockable action, has done so anyway here with the telling edit summary " Ok, Benjiboi, if that's how you want it..." I have been WP:Wikihounded by them for months and would like to see what I view as harassment to stop. This is roughly my sixth request for them to leave me alone. -- Banjeboi 18:28, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

p.s. If someone would be kind enough to alert them I would appreciate it as I avoid their talkpage for obvious reasons. -- Banjeboi 18:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Done :) GiantSnowman 18:31, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I removed the link to get it out of subsequent revisions to the page history until this is resolved. Request WP:OVERSIGHT if necessary.--Chaser (talk) 18:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that sort of outing is unacceptable. Whether he is right or wrong, providing links to external photographs and names, and connecting that to an on-wiki personality seems to me to be an eggregious violation of WP:OUTING. --Jayron32 18:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him for two days in an attempt to prevent any further violations while this is discussed. I offered to copy any comments he had over here -- if I don't get them in a timely fashion, would someone else please take care of them? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi's identity is known and has been confirmed by him both in discussions and in his edits. It has been openly discussed several times - see for example Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 37#Benjiboi COI - how do we move forward. I posted the offending link on WP:AN, so I'm not sure why it is necessary to open a thread here. If my action is considered outing, I will be happy to refactor my comments. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Copied from usertalk by SarekOfVulcan (talk · contribs)

The outed editor disclosed this information on Wikipedia in the past, and he also created two bios about his fictional alter egos (written as if they were unique individuals). The bios have since been deleted. And the other guy gets blocked for "outing" rather than the apparent COI problems with this editor being dealt with. Huh?Bali ultimate (talk) 19:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

How was the alleged 'outer' able to acquire personal information of the 'outee'? see above. GoodDay (talk) 19:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Those links are valuable in that they show the ongoing drama being stirred up by Delicious carbuncle, including a relevant statement from Shankbone about his experience with them. What's missing from that narrative is this which is right smack dab in the middle which unambiguous also states that even if you think someone is COI editing there remains no excuse for harassment of any kind, this has gone on for months. While much accusations and general harassment ensue. What came of all that? The correct conclusion that a COI existed on some articles but no actual COI problems did. This again demonstrates that even though everyone else chooses to move on Delicious carbuncle insists on stirring drama and repeatedly dragging me to one admin board after the next, we've done COIN, BLP, ANI, AN, certainly I'm tired of this nonsense, I would hope others would be somewhat weary as well. I have generally stuck to just LGBT articles/subjects and am blissfully unaware of what Delicious carbuncle does outside articles where we intersect. I remain convinced they won't leave me alone unless ordered to. I wish they could just move on and leave me alone. -- Banjeboi 19:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

@GoodDay This edit by the "outee" [43]. The email he disclosed in that edit was the same email used by the fictional person that was the subject of the BLP created by Benjiboi that was deleted after this [44] discussion.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

@Benjiboi, per this [45]. Oh, brother.Bali ultimate (talk) 19:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any case for WP:OUTING. GoodDay (talk) 19:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the COI claims, that this diff has hung around for years and been discussed on multiple pages makes it impossible to rectify the situation. It's hard to see this as outing since those diffs have remained in the page histories and the archives for so long, including that AFD. I suppose you could still request oversight for all that, but I fear that time may have come and gone. I think Delicious Carbuncle ought to be unblocked.--Chaser (talk) 19:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Delicious Carbuncle knowingly violated WP:Outing, they even reference it in their very next edit. The only reason this is repeated anywhere is because they re-dredge it up, like we see here. -- Banjeboi 19:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem if anyone wants to unblock: I was just playing it safe. I'd prefer to do the unblock myself, if that's what consensus/policy calls for, but if I'm not here to do it, don't wait.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the key thing is that we get a commitment from him not to "out" Benjiboi with such a reference again. If he's already made such a commitment, I wouldn't favor unblocking.--Chaser (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I have requested that Benjiboi cease editing a list of pages I decline to provide here. If he cannot cease editing the pages I am thinking of, I suggest that he has placed individuals concerned about his behavior in a catch-22. Complaining about his edits without providing the full amount of information to justify the complaint is impossible. As such, I suggest that an uninvolved adminstrator ban Benjiboi from a privately listed series of articles. If an adminstrator bound by the foundation privacy policy contacts me, I will provide them with an initial list of articles that would resolve this situation. Hipocrite (talk) 19:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You just repeated what has already been stated; accusations were made and I posted that exact same diff myself. I have never purposely identified myself because of harassment both on and off-Wikipedia. This is fairly obvious to anyone who assumes who I am, my actual name, gender, etc. And, none of this excuses harassment of any kind. Even if you think you know who I am I answered that "smoking gun" diff as noted above. The rest remains recycling the same accusations again and again. If those articles have been deleted then the issue should be done, but certain editors just seem to want to try to re-fling the same muck repeatedly. Not because any problems have been shown to actually exist and not because I'm COI editing, but because no one stops them, no one cares enough to say it's time to move on. If Delicious carbuncle and enablers can't move on voluntarily then unfortunately other routes have to be considered. For months they have been the only disruptive factor in the equation. They cause drama, I try to answer the concern. I can't swear I've shown infinite patience but neither have I wanted to even interact with them. If they can't stop wikibullying then unfortunately I need others to step in. -- Banjeboi 19:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you ever requested oversight? You have to take some responsibility for fixing this old problem, otherwise any new damage is marginal.--Chaser (talk) 20:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was over and done, obviously it has to be oversighted now, as these folks can't seem to let it go. -- Banjeboi 20:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

To Hipocrite, just so we're all clear here, you have a list somewhere in your imagination that I should avoid because I may have a COI? I'll let someone else try addressing that concept. -- Banjeboi 19:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't post the list on-wiki because it is basically you and a list of people and organizations close to you. If I were to post the list, it would WP:OUT you. If you grant me leave to post the list, I'll do it. Otherwise, both you and I and everyone else reading knows what the list entails, and you are prohibited from editing articles on the list. Hipocrite (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous. You just missed the point of all the previous thread - a possible COI remains only that, if there is actual COI problem as spelled out at COIN then prove a problem exists. -- Banjeboi 19:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't do that without outing you. I have more evidence than that linked here, but it's still not for public consumption. Hipocrite (talk) 19:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Likely it should remain in your head then. -- Banjeboi 20:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This highlights the problem with the WP:COI guideline, in that editors are free to totally ignore it and any attempt to enforce it becomes harassment.   Will Beback  talk  21:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually this highlights that WP:Civil is under- and unevenly enforced. We can disagree with others without being disagreeable. We can discuss editing issues without violating civility policies. It's never acceptable to harass and bully other editors. It destroys community and is unneeded. The focus of this thread is Outing, that anyone feels that remains acceptable under any circumstance is problematic and that wobbly ways of justifying harassment continues is disturbing. It was wrong, they knew it was wrong clearly, and the did anyway and continue to do so. -- Banjeboi 21:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you suggest a way of discussing a COI that doesn't bring up the problems you raise? Or must we accept editors who have COIs, even if that biases the contents of the encyclopedia, to avoid hurting their feelings?   Will Beback  talk  21:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Outdent, I suggest a cautious post at COIN would likely yield the most constructive way forward. The point isn't that we don't hurt someone's feelings, but that we discern between a suspected COI and COI editing problems. Atama seems pretty on top of things there but others likely can also help. -- Banjeboi 22:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

One possibility is to create such a list and then immediately delete it, so that only admins can see the deleted revision.--Chaser (talk) 22:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If the accused is also an admin that may seem like a good idea, COIN is still the likely the best place to discuss the options as they are used to sorting out what is applicable in each situation. -- Banjeboi 22:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Or we could just email you the list.--Chaser (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle posted another message to his talk to be copied here. It deals with past edits by Benjiboi relating to his RL identity. I think it will be better to leave it there to be read, just in case this is found to be an OUTING violation. And yes, if it's agreed this isn't one, I'll be happy to post a suitably contrite unblock, as requested. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:06, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope it's obvious that this is simply more of the same. Instead of promising to leave me alone and avoid outing me in any way they instead compile a greatest hits against me adding nothing new and again trying to spell out even more of who they believe me to be. I think Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not therapy or similar concept that we work with and not opposed to one another. And we don't shelve WP:Civil to make a point. -- Banjeboi 21:22, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure a block was warranted. I'm concerned (per will, above) that we have successfully blocked an editor for attempting to investigate a COI. That's especially troubling when this isn't the first time Benjiboi has clashed over alleged COIs (most prominently at paid editing). Protonk (talk) 21:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. I was 'accused repeatedly of being a paid editor because I refused to out myself as not being one. There was no clash accept the ... incivility of several editors who should have known better. And Delicious carbuncle was not "investigating" but WP:Outing. A previous case was made and dismissed at COIN where Delicious carbuncle also harassed at least one other editor with accusations galore and was also summarily dismissed. So they know what WP:Outing is and they certainly know what WP:COIN is. No, this was not some investigative attempt it was the unfortunately miscalculated latest effort to harass me despite many requests to be left alone. -- Banjeboi 22:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't really fault SoV for being cautious in this situation (outing another user can be a big deal) but it has become fairly obvious that this information was already available for consumption and it can't really be said that DC is engaging in outing here. Best resolution IMHO would be fore SoV to do the unblocking, given the info that has come to light here. Shereth 21:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

This info has been perpetuated by Delicious carbuncle, they are doing so on their talkpage again. Every thread where they've pushed to out me it's blindingly clear that I wish to keep my private information private. That wikilawyering to get around Outing - well gee if I dig over here and dig over there and connect that to a diff from several years ago ... - that's a lot of work to Out someone. -- Banjeboi 22:11, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that any editor who writes two articles about himself can complain about being outed. This complaint itself appears to be "wikilawyering". If <x> has been hired by Michael Lucas, then it's fair to say that <x> has a conflict of interest regarding Lucas. If Benjiboi doesn't want these issues to be raised then he should avoid editing articles where <x> has a conflict of interest.   Will Beback  talk  22:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Have edited Will's comment to replace names with x's.--Chaser (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note Will Beback, seems to be Outing who they think is me to make a WP:Point, and that strong evidence? Isn't that only suggesting that Lucas and the DJ might have been in the same room at the same time? Isn't that just a press release for an event? Really? This seems another person who knows quite well this is unacceptable. -- Banjeboi 22:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Lucas is listed as the host of the event that premiered one of his movies, at which DJ <x> was hired to be a DJ.[] BenjiBoi has asked for this issue to be handled with discretion, yet he rejects Hipocrite's suggestion for one way of doing so. This issue will keep coming up until it's resolved.   Will Beback  talk  22:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

That is the flimsiest of excuses for trying to tie together an alleged COI imaginable. That remains a press release with little to prove that any two people there even knew let alone worked for or with one another. Are you seriously hoping to prove something? -- Banjeboi 23:00, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's hard for me to see this as a legitimate attempt to address a COI concern. The diffs are from around November 20, whereas the AN thread dealt with a more current AFD problem.--Chaser (talk) 23:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've unblocked Delicious Carbuncle. I too find it difficult to see how one could out an editor who has posted his email address & details on WP and never asked for them to be removed, and who has a record as a serial autobiographer. The only person who outed you is you. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I was about to, but you beat me by four minutes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Likely because it didn't seem like someone would bother to wikistalk and harass me and whoever I wrote about. If the new standard for Outing is that one has to have oversighted various Outing attempts against yourself we should make that clear. -- Banjeboi 22:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi posted an email address where they could be reached - while it can be inferred as being Benjiboi's address, that isn't necessarily the case. (For example, if my wife wanted to be reached, but didn't want to give her email online, she might reasonably offer mine). If we're going to respect the idea that editors can edit anonymously, then the only way they can surrender that anonymity is by saying "I am x". Inferring or deducing an identity, even by gathering evidence on-wiki, seems to me to be outing. - Bilby (talk) 22:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Benjiboi, you need to take some responsibility for your own mistakes. Either you outed yourself by posting your email address or someone outed you because you let them use your account. Either way, it's not the community's responsibility to clean up a situation that you let languish for years. Don't blame us if you haven't bothered to protect yourself.--Chaser (talk) 23:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Again, I certainly didn't expect to be wikihounded or harassed, what volunteer does? I will look into what makes the most sense. -- Banjeboi 23:42, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Carbuncle should be unblocked post haste, as the info seemed to be already readily available, and therefore he was not outing anyone. And maybe a serious investigation of the COI issues should be started, with possible topic bans from related articles. Just my opinion. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

He was unblocked and a COIN thread already happened. -- Banjeboi 22:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Alb28

Alb28 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This has just been raised at WP:BLP and a quick look into the users edits includes this. I think that this user needs their edits seriously looked at. Martin451 (talk) 01:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Also I think the correlation between this edit by User:Alb28 and this edit by the 3RR reported User:190.53.244.15 strongly suggests WP:Sockpuppetry as well. Moogwrench (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Have you taken this case into WP:RFC yet? 7107Lecker ^{Tischgespräch, außerdem...} 11:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not gone to RFC yet most of the contentious material has now been deleted by 3 diferent editors. I Think RFC is fine in regards to S/He NPOV issues which can probably be worked out at talk page. IMHO a large percentage of his edits were problematic and dubiously sourced. The bigger concern was the BLP issues - worst offences listed: First Edit on the account included (previously posted as ip) • 22:47, 1 December 2009 (hist | diff) Manuel Zelaya ‎ (Too much removed, including entire sections about Los Horcones and Hondutel. Restored and added more information.) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism) [46] introduced Los Horcones massacre into article from CIDOB [47]which is definitely not an RS Theen Reverted to reintroduce • 22:47, 1 December 2009 (hist | diff) Manuel Zelaya ‎ (Too much removed, including entire sections about Los Horcones and Hondutel. Restored and added more information.) (Tag: possible BLP issue or vandalism)

• 00:50, 7 December 2009 (hist | diff) N Marcelo Chimirri ‎ (←Created page with 'Marcelo Chimirri is a Italian-Honduran businessman.

[48] “1998 murder of a girlOn January 1998, Yadira Miguel Mejia was found dead in a septic tank in Honduras. Mejia was pregnant and according to her friend, the father was ….source is a blog [49] referring to a newspaper story.

• • 19:21, 8 December 2009 (hist | diff) N David Romero Ellner ‎ (←Created page with 'David Romero Ellner is a Honduran politician, journalist, congressman, convicted child rapist who was stripped of his parliamentary immunity and sentenced to ...')[50] source is a blog [51] and an oppinon piece in the WSJ [52]

In fairness while combing through the article I did find one reliable citation that was buried in a duplicate ref name in a website archivedlink. This verifies that he was sentenced for the offence and ref predates the political crisis.Cathar11 (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've told him on a revert about this thread and will post it to his talk page nowCathar11 (talk) 12:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed the edits and I do find that User:Alb28 is a gung-ho editor whose first language is not English. I do not believe that Alb28 is the same as the IP 190.53.244.15 due to their different use of English.

I have copyedited Alb28's work on Manuel Zelaya and Marcelo Chimirri and I have found in all cases that there are facts and Reliable Sources behind his edits. He does have a distinct target (Honduran officials who have been charged with corruption during the presidency of Zelaya) and does have a unique way of writing, but I find no attempt to circumvent or ignore the rules at Wikipedia. Madman (talk) 17:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Look, mentioning a rumor that the friend of a dead woman said that Chimirri was the father of the dead woman's baby (and thus possibly implicating him in her death) is sensationalistic and poorly sourced. I think that it is convenient that the same day a BLP-problem article Financial irregularities during the Manuel Zelaya administration gets created by one user, it is agressively wikilinked in another article, per above links. This, as I said before, suggests WP:Sockpuppetry. I think WP:Checkuser could actually illuminate the situation a little better. Moogwrench (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Tzniut

Resolved

 – requested page protection A8UDI 21:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What to do with Tzniut? A few IP users are making the same edit again and again, against three editors (me included) who are experienced Wikipedia editors who are knowledgable in this field. The edit is not vandalism, but represents an opinion which can not be presented in the way the edit does it (if at all). I have tried to contact two of the IP's on their talk page (User_talk:128.59.186.71 and [53]), but unsuccessfully. Actually, I wonder if they are different editors. Neither do they post on the talk page of the article. What can be done? Debresser (talk) 21:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You could request page protection, though without a history of recent vandalism, that might be unsuccessful. Astronaut (talk) 21:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Block them. Problem solved.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 21:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

 Done and ive requested page protection. Consider using the WP:UTM NPOV warnings for them then report IPs to AIV. Thanks A8UDI 21:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Telangana

I don't think there's a place to ask "please put this article on your watchlist" so I'm bringing the issue here. There's some political developments occurring in Telangana and many anon/new editors have been contributing to the article. Some edits have been good (which is why I'm reluctant to ask for a semi-protect) and others not so much. I've been cleaning up the worst of the POV/unsourced material and doing some copy edits as English is probably not the native language of some of the editors. I'd continue doing so but don't want to get caught up in a WP:3RR (technically, I'm reverting edits and no one's reverting back so I don't know how that's viewed). So can a couple people please watchlist Telangana and help out? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You might also want to look at the Content noticeboard for more eyes. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer - didn't know that existed. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerns over expected FFD vote-counting

Just liked to express my concerns that the admin willing to close the FFDs discussions for December 7 will have to master some excellence in weighting popular vote, policy knowledge, core-value commitement, personal attacks (with a varying level of civility) and discussions based on user reputation (admins vs frequently-blocked users).

Of course, I am an involved part. --Damiens.rf 17:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• So you want me to close a dozen or so FFDs where yours is the only delete vote as delete? Protonk (talk) 18:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I want you (or any other admin who volunteer to take the task) to weight the arguments against our policies and mission, and to avoid counting votes or weighting individual user's reputations. --Damiens.rf 18:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
    • By closing them as delete...Protonk (talk) 18:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
      • Or maybe by being unhelpfully sarcastic in a well-intended call for attention. --Damiens.rf 19:37, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
• Well-intended? Doesn't seem that way when you nominate a series of important historical images from the same subject area (Puerto Rico) in one day, calling people lazy, using words like "imbecile" 1 and engaging in edit warring 2. --Jmundo (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've looked at the page in question, and Damiens.rf's request is quite reasonable. There are a number of nominations where people are voting to ignore WP:CSD#F4 (images must have sources), or WP:NFCC#8 (non-free images must be significant). --Carnildo (talk) 23:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

While I did not vote! to keep all of the images, several of them were nominated with loose reasoning. Its ridiculous to suggest that an image of Hiram Bithorn is not relevant to Hiram Bithorn. The subject in question died decades ago and a free alternate has yet to surface. Juan Evangelista Venegas is the first Puerto Rican to win an Olympic medal and as such his relevance to Sports in Puerto Rico should be clear. However, in both of these cases he continued edit warring with several members (I was late to notice the issue, since by my arrival three more users had already expressed concern) of the project, refusing to pursue any consensus and responding with masked incivility. Even knowing this, he continued to nominate several images in what appears to be an attempt to prove a point. At a certain nomination the user went as far as suggesting that being historic does not warrant the inclusion of an image in a relevant topic. Its quite hard assuming good faith when an user ignores at least five active members of the project that monitors the quality of the topic. Labeling the response to this point proving as vote-stacking is ridiculous. - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with Damiens. There are a ton of non-free images of people that were/are being used to decorate a lot of articles, with the only rationale being "the person is mentioned in the article", which is clearly insufficient to meet NFCC. As often happens when we begin enforcing this policy in an area where it hasn't been enforced in a while, there's some backlash, and I think it is certainly appropriate to ask for extra sets of eyes on these discussions. (ESkog)^(Talk) 01:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • The issue is not modifying the use of some images, but the pattern of nomination relevant images (such as the ones used to depict people that have been dead for decades in their own biographies) for deletion without reasoning other than the user's POV that "the image its decorative". - Caribbean~H.Q. 01:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
    • There are two distinct issues that have come to light as this user has gone through the tireless work of reviewing these images - (1) non-free images without proper sourcing information; such images cannot be used anywhere under any circumstances - and (2) non-free images being used with the justification that "the person is discussed in the article", which is a clearly insufficient rationale. I think you're perhaps confusing some of case 1 with case 2. (ESkog)^(Talk) 02:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
      • That was only one of the examples, he has also removed several other images (Venegas' from Sports in Puerto Rico) under said rationale. Can you honestly say that an image of the first Olympic figure in a relevant article is "decorative"? Then again, the issue would have been avoided if the user acted in a civil manner to begin with. Tony is is patient man, but if your edits are called "idiotic" or jokes on a constant basis, then you can not place blame on him if he begins to discard the assumptions of good faith. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• Can I ask for him to stop the mass nomination and list the images at WP:PUR so we can fix the issues? We have a limited number of editors and it seems that Damiens has unlimited time to nominate Puerto Rican related images. I hope he is not trying to prove a point. --Jmundo (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
  • With most of the images, the only possible fix is to delete the image. Listing them anywhere else is simply delaying the inevitable. --Carnildo (talk) 22:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• It is true that I have been subject to personal attacks during the process, it should not have happened. I also warned the editor making the attacks with a possible "block" when instead I should have resorted to a discussion here, my bad (mistake). Now, there are many cited situations where a solution could have been found or a fix made by a simple discussion in a "talk page" before going on a mass deletion nomination of Puerto Rican related images. There are some images that are of historical importance which in my opinion should not be deleted. I do not believe in the cry of vote-stacking which has been made. Every member has a right to express themselves and to be heard when it comes to the deletion process. The closing administrator should listen to all arguments and then determine the proper course to take within Wikipedia policy, that is his/her job. However, take into consideration that many images do not deserve to be eliminated and that the excuses and cry of "decorative" is used all too often as a means to convince that there is wrong doing Tony the Marine (talk) 06:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Cathar11

Background: To my surprise I discovered that the articles about Manuel Zelaya lacked anything about Hondutel and the corruption investigations which were initiated by the FBI in the US. This was surprising, given that it has been one of the most reported stories in Honduran history. Newspapers have run daily articles for months. The article was like Richard Nixon article without a single word about Watergate.

The editor responsible for deleting other editors' additions is Cathar11 (talk · contribs):

• Extensive history of deleting citations from the largest newspapers in Honduras (La Prensa, El Heraldo, etc. [54][55]) and elsewhere ([56][57][58]), the Reporters Without Borders ([59]), the largest and best-known human rights organizations such as Association for a More Just Society/Revistazo ([60]) That is just to name a few. The users leaves comments such as "BLP", "unconnected", even though other editors' additions are well-sourced (and every Honduran newspaper has dozens and dozens of more articles if needed).
• Its has become more than obvious that the editor has a clear agenda to remove citations about the scandals.
• Perhaps it's time to do something about his disruptive editing. Alb28 (talk) 13:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

3 editors had to clean up this individuals attacks on BLPs, He uses poorly sourced, blogs and information that isnt in the articles quoted, and I can explain on a point by point basis most of the edits made particularily the ones mentioned above. I sugest he should reply to the AN/I about him which I didnt open but helped to clean up some of the mess he left.13:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

No one else except you have blanked entire sections of citations in a disruptive way. Other editors, including editor Madman2001 (talk · contribs), have already warned you. Alb28 (talk) 14:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have notified User:Cathar11 about this thread. — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

At this point, this still appears to be only a content dispute. Have you or others previously discussed these edits with the editor on their talk page or the article talk page? — CactusWriter | ^needles 13:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) I see there is already a thread about this issue started above at WP:ANI#User:Alb28. I suggest closing this thread to consolidate the discussion in one section. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope that the potential for an edit war has been reduced and that some sort of uneasy consensus has been reached. Certainly the recent events in Honduras has been rather polarizing, and this complaint is a byproduct of that. Madman (talk) 22:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

When new editors are BOLD, they should be aware that they may be reverted, per established consensus and the WP:BRD process. They should not automatically revert the reversion. Moogwrench (talk) 00:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Kils -- Violation of SPI-imposed restrictions, canvassing

Resolved

 – AFD closed, Kils cautioned --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Kils/Restriction is the end result of a SPI from a few days ago, which came after several days of messy happenings in lots of other places. This should be more straightforward to write up at least.

Per my mentions of these happenings on the talk of the user the SPI directed we report to here and here, which was after Cirt caught on here (who I give kudos to on following this basically all night). The violation is in regards to events at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uwe Kils (3rd nomination) and its talk page, the restrictions evidence suggests are being broken are mostly #3 and 4, which the user agreed to as a condition to an unblock last evening.
Here's some collection of the users canvassed (but far from the whole list): [61] [62] [63] [64] [65][66] [67] [68][69] [70] [71] [72] ... ... Thanks. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support block. Account Kils (talk · contribs) continued to spam canvassing to users' talk pages after I warned him about canvassing. Cirt (talk) 14:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

from Uwe Kils

I only asked them to vote, no influencing, and I was allowed to make comments on the talk page. Uwe Kils 14:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You were warned about WP:CANVASS and proceeded to do spam user's pages anyways. Cirt (talk) 14:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Clarification: There has been no block yet, but one is recommended due to the spammed WP:CANVASS and violation of User:Kils/Restriction. Cirt (talk) 14:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There was only one straight delete !vote on the last AFD apart from the nom, so it's kind of hard for him to notify both sides of the debate...Never mind, he managed it--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait a second -- why was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uwe Kils (3rd nomination) opened less than four days after Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Uwe Kils (2nd nomination) was closed as keep? While this is a fairly clear violation of the restrictions, it's also a pretty clear case of poking the bear. Let's speedy keep the AFD, ignore the canvassing, and save the restrictions for a point when everyone's calmed down a bit. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

He is still canvassing (just got a notice on my talk page). I was going to sit this one out because I initiated AFD#2, but this is getting ridiculous. Does donating a few photos to Wikipedia give you license to blatantly ignore policies and sanctions? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Jamie, if you nominated him for deletion, then it was not canvassing to notify you--quite the opposite--I think he may in fact be making a belated attempt to do things right. I do not think he knew that what he did was canvassing, or realise that he was violating the spirit of the restrictions he agreed to. In a more experienced Wikipedian I'd call this wikilawyering to take things this literally , but it is apparent that he is remarkably naïve in how to work at Wikipedia--just as he has been remarkably imperceptive over a considerable time in how to support the article, and a good deal over the top in writing it. This is an excellent illustration of why people generally should not write articles about themselves--even if they are clearly notable , they are unlikely to do so objectively. And for that matter, why they should generally not participate in the discussions about such an article, except to correct errors. I would support only a short block of an hour or so to make it clear that what is being done is not acceptable. As for the AfD, I support Fences and Window's suggestion there that it should be closed, and reopened in a month or so--if anyone wishes. The notability is supported by Sarek, David E, John Z, Eric N, and myself, among established Wikipedians who work in this sort of topic & do not take kindly to being canvassed & are unlikely to be affected by it. The only reason I myself had not !voted this time is that I thought it was an obvious keep, so I did not bother. DGG ( talk ) 17:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I'd just noticed this and was following up on it but you beat me to it. I'm not going to dispute closing the AfD either; there were numerous cogent !votes for keep the last time around. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

What Kils is doing is not explicitly outlawed by the terms of his restriction, but it's annoying, contrary to WP:CANVASS, threatens the integrity of the third AfD, and violates the spirit of the restriction. I'd favor a short (1 day?) block, as a way to (I hope) focus his attention a little more on the fact that we see his behavior as something that cannot be tolerated. (By the way, I too was canvassed...after I had already weighed in on the AfD. What's the point of that?) —David Eppstein (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It does not help matters that Kils (talk · contribs) decided to continue violating WP:CANVASS after receiving a warning at his talk page for doing so, and then again after receiving a notice regarding this very ANI thread. Cirt (talk) 17:40, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Notifying both sides of the debate, which he has finally done, is hardly contrary to WP:CANVASS. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have closed the 3rd AFD as too soon after the prior close. The proper procedure in this case would be to take the matter to WP:DRV to see if the shenanigans noted above played an unacceptable influence on the final outcome. Starting a fresh AFD only 4 days after the old one closed was a poor way to handle this, IMHO, and I agree that doing so may have been unnecessarily antagonistic towards the article's subject. Yes, he probably canvassed inappropriately, and yes the conflict of interest is something that needs to be addressed, but he's hardly familiar with Wikipedia's protocols and standards, and we should keep that in mind. --Jayron32 18:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete corrupt old version of an image

Resolved

 – Questionable version of image deleted.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The old version of File:AVMeiyappan_young.jpg (here) needs to be deleted, as it is causing trouble with Symantec security products. See the discussion on the technical pump. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Does it need to be deleted? If it's not active, I'd just as soon leave it where it is to keep the contribution history intact. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Theoretically, some old versions of Internet Explorer or Outlook Express could be induced to render the malicious code. It shouldn't be a problem otherwise, but I think it's best to avoid hosting archived malware lest we get used as a side channel for distributing such things - or worse yet, gain a reputation for being such a side channel; we are vulnerable to such usage, if people think of it. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the delete. There is really no significant change (image-wise), so this should be uncontroversial. Maybe credit the original uploader on the file page? TheWeakWilled (T * G) 18:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Please delete the image and do not link it above, I just got a virus warning from it. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 19:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, both the good and bad copies went bye-bye. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 19:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Fixed it. :-) --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that, a bit ill over here. -Jeremy ^{(vx.xv Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 23:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thinly veiled threat

Resolved

 – A harmless if racy joke, seemingly misinterpreted. –xeno^talk 20:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hans Adler, in a dicussion about doughnuts, implied that I would be eaten by a cannibal if I confused the definition of "Berliner" here. This was absolutely inappropriate. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 20:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You're kidding, yes? Crafty (talk) 20:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) A joke that is a little racy, but did it really need brought to ANI? –xeno^talk 20:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It was very inappropriate. I would imagine if I ever said that to someone that they would raise their eyebrows. I simply do not appreciate the ungentlemanly language. I'm not drinking buddies with Hans, I'm here to edit, not to be threatened. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 20:09, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You have serious problems with reading comprehension. I implied that if you can't distinguish the two meanings of "Berliner" correctly according to context you might end up eating the wrong kind. Unless you are afraid of being eaten by a doughnut your interpretation is not internally consistent.

Let's continue this discussion where it belongs. Hans Adler 20:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For goodness' sake. There's enough drama here without making up more. Hans simply meant that you might be considered a cannibal if you were to consume the wrong kind of Berliner, I'm sure. Kindly move along ... --AndrewHowse (talk) 20:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I see loud over right is still a problem in this world after all these years, Hans. Thanks :) GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 20:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The original posting here is about the funniest thing I've ever seen on ANI. I think (and hope) it was meant as humorous, in which case I'm glad for the rare opportunity to laugh while reading this page. Equazcion (talk) 20:17, 9 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion, wiki wiki wiki wiki. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 20:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Wow. All I can say. Isn't there a list page for stuff like this, I'm sure I ran across it before, some kind of humorous goings on on Wiki. Anyweay, would make an excellent addition. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This has no place here on ANI. It wasn't a threat, it was a literary illustration of why the terms are spelled/sound the same, but have grossly different meanings. How is this a thinly veiled threat is beyond me. I use literary devices like this all the time in my workplace. This is silly, and take it to the damned talk page. Paranormal Skeptic (talk) 20:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

That's a lot of cents. Discussion's resolved. Thanks! GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 20:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I once asked a native-born German about this "I am a donut" stuff. He acknowledged that it could be interpreted that way, but the key issue was, "We knew what he meant", and the sentiment was appreciated by the German people. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes I like a Hamburger. Wdl1961 (talk) 21:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Or a Frankfurter. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Taggerung549

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely. NW (Talk) 22:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Taggerung549 (talk · contribs)

I came across this user in the newbie contribs, I thought at first it was a mostly harmless user who just thinks WP is a social network, so I templated them, but then I noticed this diff: [73] where they solicit for talking to a 12 year old (or younger), they claim they themselves are 18. While not overtly sexual, it sure seems to have some connotations, and I'd thought I'd post it here for further input. Gigs (talk) 21:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... can we run a Checkuser on his/her account and send the IP address to the local police? See if they think that it's worth investigating? Because this seems very suspicious... --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 00:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

User: DriveMySol

Request Warning based on disruptive editing. The editors talk page shows a pattern of warnings about originally researched material and lack of sources. My concern was raised when the editor deleted the original research and citation warnings in the Synthpop article. Edkollin (talk) 22:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Continue warning with Twinkle or WP:UTM and then report them to AIV. A8UDI 22:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with A8UDI.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 01:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

User keeps removing speedy-deletion tag

Hi -- and if this isn't the proper forum for this notice, please let me know for the future, I just want to avoid 3RR. Despite my advice not to do so, User:Cyreneq and her IP address continue to remove the speedy-deletion and COI tags from her new article Cyrene quiamco. I'm not sure what the appropriate action is, but my thanks to whoever wants to take it. --Glenfarclas (talk) 23:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(Non-admin response:) WP:AIV is the correct venue and you are right that the contributor should not be removing the tags. However, I do not personally think this is a speedy candidate as notability is asserted. I42 (talk) 23:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye on it though. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 23:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the speedy tag. The article claims that the subject's designs are famous worldwide and seen in magazines. I don't think the article meets WP:BIO but that still doesn't mean an A7 deletion applies. I'd suggest either WP:PROD or WP:AFD. -- Atama頭 00:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Listed at AfD. Crafty (talk) 00:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Occasionally I look for author-deleted csd's; I'm happy to leave them to others to judge but this is the first time I've had a problem after advising the creator not to remove it herself. Thanks for the replies. --Glenfarclas (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Hauskalainen cannot edit

Resolved

 – Autoblock lifted, thanks for the note. –xeno^talk 01:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Hauskalainen's block has expired but he still can't edit: [74]. Can an admin have a look? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 01:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal threats and personal attack

Moot. See for more details. MBisanz talk 02:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Two new legal threats from User:Alastair Haines: "Since I was recently published in the US as a religious expert, though, there are also options I'd like to avoid like formal processes regarding whether Wiki can be classed as a service provider, if it has and exercises powers to restrict protected speech, like widely recognised religious points of view... I trust ArbCom to finally defend me. However, if they don't, and these repeated unsupportable challenges against my professionalism as a writer are permitted to be published, I have no choice but to defend myself."[75] "I have plenty of time, I've recently been published in the US, and I have legal advice for here and there. I don't want this to blow up in the face of our wonderful project."[76] He's also personally attacking me on other user's talk pages for seeking enforcement of previous ArbCom restrictions against him. Kaldari (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC) I've notified the user. --NeilN talk to me 16:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC) [Edit-conflict] I left him a request to clarify or reword those comments you mentioned, and also alerted him to the presence of this thread. Prodego talk 16:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC) For the record, that diff above ("personal attack") is not. Tan | 39 16:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Did you read the attack page linked to in the diff (especially the bottom of it)? That most certainly meets the definition of personal attack. Accusing me of "unwillingness to compromise, edit warring, biased treatment of a reliable source" and violating 3RR simply because I reverted a paragraph 3 times over the course of several days (a year ago!), and then advertising this as evidence of my "behavior" problems, sure feels like a personal attack to me. He's definitely not discussing content here. Kaldari (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Well, I disagree that the accusations aren't content related. I dunno, nominate it at MfD if you are so inclined. I don't see any admin action required here. Tan | 39 16:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Are personal attacks on Wikipedia ever not "content related"? To quote from Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done". Clearly he is disparaging me personally, not making a content argument. Kaldari (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Yes. And I agree with Tan that that's pretty far from a personal attack. Toddst1 (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC) I also wouldn't call it a personal attack. Prodego talk 17:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Indeed. Marked resolved, there's nothing to do here. Black Kite 18:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Unmarked resolved due to the other half of the complaint, regarding legal threats. Make sure you read the whole thread before marking it resolved Black Kite. That said, there is nothing to do now but wait for Alastair Haines to clarify his remarks, which I'm sure will resolve the problem. Prodego talk 22:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Yeah, missed that part - mea culpa Black Kite 00:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC) If I may, I would like to offer this diff [77] for those that may have missed it. Seems like a nice quick resolution is close at hand.--Buster7 (talk) 01:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Virtually every sentence in that diff is untrue. I have wasted plenty of hours discussing issues ad naseum on article talk pages with him, as have numerous other editors. He is, however, intractable in his POV and editing habits, as demonstrated by the following ArbCom decisions, amendments, and discussions [78][79][80][81], as well as his block log. I fail to see how his "appeal for peace" addresses the issue of the legal threats. Kaldari (talk) 18:03, 8 December 2009 (UTC) I do find it difficult to imagine that there is going to be a nice quick resolution when this was how he responded to a mere notification by Kaldari. Contrary to Alastair's assertion, the restriction Kaldari was seeking enforcement for was not invalid as ArbCom has noted on the clarification page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Alastair has been blocked twice before for making legal threats[82][83][84], so he is well aware of our policies in this regard. In addition, he was warned about making actual or perceived legal threats in his previous Request for Arbitration, so there is no excuse for his current behavior. Kaldari (talk) 20:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC) Suggest a block until he clarifies, as per WP:NLT. He has no excuse for this kind of crap with his past record. At some point we need to put our collective foot down. Ironholds (talk) 00:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC) I echo Ironholds suggestion. Adequately clarifying concerns over NLT is a priority; Wikipedia:Nlt#Conclusion_of_legal_threat specifies that it isn't merely the legal threat that gives grounds for blocking, but four other factors. We cannot look at these comments in isolation, but rather, we should look at them collectively, along with other context (such as his record). My conclusion is that an indef. block until he provides adequate clarification seems appropriate. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC) Sorry to but in here, as I am not involved in this case. However, I suggest to put this thing on hold until Haines returns to WP. Please see his talk page concerning the recent tragedy in his private life. --Crusio (talk) 07:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

User: Nouse4aname

Resolved

 – Page reverted back to remove copyrighted material and protected for 2 weeks. Will leave a note to the offending users. Jauerback^dude?/_dude.

I feel Nouse4aname should be block for persistent undoing on the Heineken Cup 2009-2010 page.--Dunshocking (talk) 13:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

And you should be banned for inability to grasp the rationale which was explained on the talk page? Minkythecat (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Nouse4aname (talk · contribs) about this discussion. GiantSnowman 13:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

This is primarily a content dispute over a flag icon in 2009–10 Heineken Cup. The viewpoint of the OP here, on the flag usage, is the same as several IP's observable on the article's history page. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The situation re: copyright status of a flag was given on the talkpage. Given there's not much argument over that issue, we're faced with a registered account and several IP addresses with the same outlook railing against their edits rightly being reverted. This should be closed as there's simply nothing to sanction / guide nouse over in any way shape or form. Minkythecat (talk) 14:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The only thing at this point is that the page might need to be protected. But which version is the "right" version? Probably Nouse4name's version, if using that flag is a copyright violation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The flag is a copyright violation. I have provided links to the discussion(s) where this has been firmly established to the main IP editor. It now seems that this IP editor has created an account and is accusing me of some form of vandalism. Although disruptive, reverting copyright violations is entirely acceptable in my point of view. I left the IP another (rather blunt) message regarding this issue after they restored the copyvio flag for the eighth time. If such edits persisted, I was intending to bring this to ANI myself, so I am glad the issue is now being dealt with. Please also note that User:Noq and User:PeeJay2K3 have reverted the same edits, for the same reasons. For the sake of avoiding an edit war, I will not revert the most recent edit restoring the COPYVIO flags, but it is clear from previous discussions that this flag should not be used: see here, here, and here in addition to the policy WP:COPYVIO and style guideline WP:MOSICON. Nouse4aname (talk) 15:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a wider issue at play here, copyrigting is a smokescreen and you know it. Glad there is a wider discussion, beyond the polar views of both sides. You fail to remember that removal of all flags was discussed as well. In the utopian Wiki world agression is unjust and does not help anyone or any issue.--Dunshocking (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I saw that "discussion", but that doesn't change the fact that you continued to re-add a copyrighted image. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair point. I apologise and apologise to Nouse4aname - we will see if he is man (or woman) enough to do the same. Peace comes from being able to contribute the best that we have, and all that we are, toward creating a world that supports everyone.--Dunshocking (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If it's a copyrighted image, then why is it on Commons, and part of {{Country data Ireland}}? If you really thought it was copyrighted, I would think you'd be edit warring there and not here. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The Four Provinces flag is not copyrighted, the IRFU flag is. The reason given in the old consensus for not using "4prov" was that the IRFU doesn't use it, the IRFU flag because of COPYVIO and the flag of Ireland because Irish rugby is All-Island. WP:RUIRLFLAG - Fribbler (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe someone could create a little bitty generic flag with the word "Ireland" on it, to fill in the gap. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, it isn't copyrighted. How is this a copyvio, when it clearly states on the bottom that it has been released into the public domain.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Different image. See explanation above. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Radiopathy & User:Jojhutton

Resolved

 – radiopathy blocked for breaching 1RR restriction. Content issue being discussed at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Abecedare (talk) 03:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This user has continued to undo my edits to various pages. I have asked him [to stop], but has just started up again. It is over a dispute over how cities in the United States should be written in articles. Although there is no basis for the inclusion of the country name (ie: City, State, Country), he insists that there is. All I want him to do is stop undoing my edits.--Jojhutton (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Jojhutton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user has been removing the term 'United States' and its abbreviations from infoboxes, citing WP:PLACE#United States. He has been told that he is misinterpreting policy and asked to stop [85], [86], [87], is edit warring with anyone who reverts him (please see contribs as this is too lengthy to link to here) and threatening an AN/I for me (and presumably others) for reverting him. Radiopathy •talk• 22:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

He posted an AN/I thread right above this one, RP. Crafty (talk) 22:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Can you clarify one point? It looks like Tinton5 was correcting you for doing the same thing a couple weeks back. Is there any strong reason for including the country designation (outside of the infobox, where it makes sense and doesn't interrupt the flow)? Including the country in the text itself where there is no danger of ambiguity just interrupts flow; if they want to know more about the location, they can click the city link and go there anyway. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

These edits are all in regard to the infobox. It is quite arrogant that the U.S. would be exempt from having the country listed. If this is the case, then it applies to every city out there, including Taiyuan, Qingdao, Jamshedpur etc. Anyway, it's being discussed here at the appropriate talk page. Erzsébet Báthory_{(talk|contr.)} 22:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I missed the earlier edits that targeted the infobox. The most recent edits were simply removing it from the text, but looking back further I see the edits that are touching the infobox. I agree that the infobox should keep the country designation. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To be fair, its not the fact that they are in the info boxes, but MOS clearly states that geographical areas in the United States should be listed as (City,State), not (City, State, Country), as they all have been. I would not be against listing the country somewhere in the info box, just not in that sequence, per every MOS in the modern world for the past 200+ years. Never, in the history of the world has an MOS ever said its OK to list U.S. geographic areas as (City, State, Country), nor can anyone link a wikipedia policy that does as well.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The MOS entry is specifically addressing whether the article title should include the country. It doesn't address general usage. From what I can tell, there is no policy on general usage, though a few discussions have concluded with a general impression that including the country in the text is ugly and unnecessary. In the infobox though, even if it is a little ugly, it doesn't disrupt flow, so you should really let it stay. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

A user in Asia or Africa who is not fluent in English or very knowledgeable about the US is not automatically going to know what a Nebraska or an Iowa is - they may assume it's the English-language name of some otherwise unidentified country. In my personal opinion it's bordering on ethnocentric bias to remove the country name from the userbox, and it certainly isn't helpful for international users. --NellieBly (talk) 00:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Radiopathy is continuing to undo my edits. can anyone please stop this guy?--Jojhutton (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is best to leave the articles as they were prior to either of you touching them for now. Edit warring won't solve anything, and the fair solution, for now, is to keep them in the pre-dispute state until consensus is reached. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My understand is that WP:PLACES is for article titles. If it doesn't then it suffers from American bias. SunCreator (talk) 00:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Its not a Bias, its MOS policy for every single publication on the face of the earth, for the past 200+ years. It hasn't changed here either. the problem with this web-site is that many people who make changes to articles have never picked up an MOS book in their lives. They don't understand how to write, but are somehow experts when they get behind a key board. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't work that way.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I think you previous knowledge of MOS elsewhere has put you off. It's not policy of Wikipedia(to my knowledge). Perhaps because wikipedia is worldwide?? Whatever the reason I don't see any sense in removing the country. SunCreator (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well actually it is, but its definetly not policy the other way.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Note that Radiopathy is under a 1RR (1 revert/day) restriction for edit-warring over country names in infoboxes without discussion. If the user resumes such disruption, they can be blocked. Abecedare (talk) 01:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that. Good info to know. We are currently discussing this at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names), if anyone wants to chime in.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I find the 1RR confusing. Is the reverting on The Beatles one revert or two? SunCreator (talk) 02:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

He has already exceeded his 1 revert rule several times. Is there an admin who can look into this a bit more?--Jojhutton (talk) 02:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Radiopathy for 1 week. The period is so long becuase the user has been blocked multiple times for edit-warring before, and even after the 1RR limit was imposed, the user has breached it several times, for which they were warned but no block were issued. Abecedare (talk) 02:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

At least my work is safe for a week. Thank you.--Jojhutton (talk) 03:04, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

True. But please don't just use the fact that the "other side" is blocked to continue the edits that were disputed. Instead the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names) should be used to resolve the issue and see where the community consensus lies. Abecedare (talk) 03:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm getting old I guess... "Fuu"?

Resolved

 – since no-one knows, I'll just ignore it Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the long rants posted on the AfD by User:Bubwater and insinuations of sockpuppetry (or whatever he's talking about) -- could anyone tell me what "Fuu" stand for? All I found was some Internet-slang dictionary that defined it as "Fuck you up" or "Fuck you"... in that case, is it a personal attack? I'm basically just curious as to where the tone of this whole mess going. Thanks! Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 07:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Beats me. Evil saltine (talk) 08:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd just ask what he meant. If he was trying to attack you, he'll have to be pretty creative to come up with a way around it when he answers. Equazcion (talk) 08:08, 10 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Epic Rage - Alison ^❤ 08:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind. There's no use in asking anything, said user just posted the next incomprehensible block of text. I'll just ignore it. It's heading for delete anyways. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 08:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's rage. I'd tell you where it was popularized, but that would be breaking the first rule. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 08:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll admit, I had a hearty chuckle at everyone's lack of understanding. The section title is awesome. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Stevieeee43 - Repeated copyright violation, help requested

Resolved

 – Contributor blocked for 48 hours. Article selectively deleted to remove copyvio. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Stevieeee43 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) created Johnny Martyn with a straight paste (unreferenced) from this obituary. I reduced it to a stub to remove the copyvio and referenced it. The user has been warned twice about this on his talk page. It has also been explained on Talk:Johnny Martyn. He has now re-added the material for the third time. Help please! Voceditenore (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Shopping for an appropriate forum

Hey, the shopping season has officially started, right? I'm looking for the right forum in which to discuss my concerns about a particular editor. There are several issues that touch upon many categories, while not fitting neatly into any single category. Do I shotgun my concerns to the various distinct but applicable noticeboards, or is there an industrious admin with significant free time reading this who can formulate a comprehensive, single course of action? Here's the background information followed by my specific concerns:

On November 6, User:96.231.137.242 added a paragraph to the Bill Maher BLP article. I removed it because it violated several WP:BLP policy stipulations including sourcing, verifiability and inaccurate contentious material. This was my first interaction with this editor. He repeatedly reinserted the content, so I warned him against edit warring and BLP violations. He was blocked for 31 hours for 3RR and edit warring. Immediately following the block of IP96.xxx, User:DyadTriad appears and continues arguing for the inclusion of that same paragraph, eventually re-adding it. Shortly after that, User:Valerius Tygart picks up the same argument, and starts re-adding the same content. I heard ducks quacking, so I initiated a Sockpuppet Investigation here. Checkuser confirmed 96.231.137.242 = DyadTriad = Valerius Tygart, among others. The editor admits using the many registered and unregistered accounts, but denies using them abusively - contrary to the findings of the SPI case page and the checkuser results. Several of his sock accounts were blocked, and the case archived. Since then, Valerius Tygart has resumed re-inserting the contentious paragraph into the Maher article once per day, each day, for over two weeks now — despite objections from editors on the talk page. In addition, this editor has been attempting to modify his archived Sockpuppet Investigation case page, to the point of getting himself blocked yet again for disruptive editing. Despite (and during) this block, as I type this, he is still maintaining his slow-burn edit war on the Maher article with his Tygart account.

As for forums, I could post on the WP:BLPN so that other editors can tell Tygart what he already knows: he's trying to insert poorly sourced content into a BLP that intentionally misrepresents the subject's views, against policy. But that doesn't stop the repeated reverts. I could post at the 3RR/Edit Warring noticeboard, but the once-per-day revert war doesn't technically violate 3RR, does it? Perhaps I should go to WP:RFPP and request page protection until the BLP violations are resolved? I could go to the SPI noticeboard and say, "Hey - this confirmed puppeteer is editing with some of his accounts while his other accounts are blocked for disruptive editing - what gives?", but the case is already closed. Any suggestions? Xenophrenic (talk) 22:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Here would appear to be the best place. Did the SPI conclude that Valerius Tygart was the sockmaster? If so, a longer block would seem appropriate. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

If what you say is true, then this reeks of gaming. I would suggest a longer than usual ban just to beat it into people's heads that no, we aren't idiots, and we can see what you're trying to do. Things like a once per day edit to avoid 1/3rr is clearly an attempt to skirt the rules. Give them a long ban, and keep them on a short leash when they get back. If they can't play nice, then indef-block. Throwaway85 (talk) 23:22, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that User:Valerius Tygart be indef-blocked for disruptive editing. Using an IP to tamper with his own sockpuppet report takes the cake. (If you're trying to convince people that you're an incorrigible sockpuppeteer, that's a good way to do it). He should be told that the block could be lifted if he would agree to edit with only a single account, and refrain from editing the Bill Maher article. He could still participate on the article's talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 02:53, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I was the admin who blocked IP 96.231.137.242 for edit-warring at Bill Maher, recommended the filing of the SPI, and then blocked the confirmed sock accounts after confirming that they were being used abusively. At that stage I blocked the sockmaster Valerius Tygart (talk · contribs) only for 31 hours in order not to be punitive, and assuming that the socking and disruption would stop. Given that the sockpuppetry has been goind on for over two years and has continued even after the SPI confirmation, I support EdJohnston's suggestion above. Additionally, the Bill Maher article can be semi-protected, if needed to prevent such disruption. Abecedare (talk) 03:32, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

That puts the icing on the SPI cake! Have you blocked the IP already? - _{Boeing7107isdelicious|SPRiCh miT meineN PiloteN} 12:36, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Tygart has used at least these 2 IPs since the closure of his SPI case: User:96.231.137.242 and User:140.139.35.250. They appear to be static, not dynamic IPs. Tygart claims to use multiple accounts "legitimately", but I stopped assuming good faith after checkuser J.delanoy confirmed Tygart = 140.139.35.250 = Dogwood123, but Tygart denies ever being deceptive or saying, I am not "Dogwood123". Either Tygart or J.delanoy is lying, and I know where I'd put my money. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:09, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Someone is playing possum. Still unsure of an appropriate forum. Xenophrenic (talk) 23:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Tygart apparently doesn't wish to comment in this matter — it has been a few days. Xenophrenic (talk) 22:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hello all. I'm just back at my desk after a few days & catching up on this.... I have already addressed the "sockpuppetry" allegations in the "Comments by accused parties" at the SP Investigation site (archived) & on my user talk page. I won't repeat that here, except to say again that I have never intentionally committed "sockpuppetry" (& I think intentional deception is part of the definition, right?) Also, I have never been abusive or disruptive on Wikipedia in any way (which is not to say I have never had heated discussions...) It is true that I am often lazy & do not bother to log on (even a couple of times since the SP investigation), but never with intent to be disruptive or deceptive. As to agreeing to edit only as Valerius Tygart, I certainly intend to do that ... and will strive to remember to not edit (accidentally) as an anon... It is a bad habit on my part to neglect to log on...

As for the supposedly "disruptive" edit I have been inserting into the Bill Maher article: it is a direct quote from Maher's show of 4 March 2005. I can find nothing in Wiki-policy that precludes it. It is authentic, well-sourced, relevant, non-libellous & constructively improves the article. Its source is the broadcast show itself & a periodical quoting & commenting on the remarks by Maher. Additionally, I am now adding a third source: an article from the 19 Sept 2008 Wall Street Journal also quoting the remarks. About three weeks ago I asked for a general discussion about all this on the Bill Maher discussion page. Unfortunately, only the editor who has had me blocked twice now (Xenophrenic) & initiated the (to me) spurious "sockpupperty" investigation has cast a vote on this issue. The stalemate between the two of us was the reason I asked for discussion in the first place and it is too bad that 99% of the discussion there is between he & I. He has reverted me repeatedly & I wonder why I am the one who is said to be "warring" & "reverting" & not he.... Thanks & waiting for additional feedback. Valerius Tygart (talk) 02:47, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Just noting that I've taken a second look with checkuser at J.delanoy's request, and the results are very clear that this is  Confirmed sockpuppetry. You were editing from the same computer with User:Valerius Tygart, User:DyadTriad, and User:Dogwood123, alternating between accounts each day for a bit. This appears very deliberate. I haven't looked at behavioral evidence, though, so I can't speak as to the disruptive bit. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 06:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Tygart doesn't deny using many IPs and registered accounts. He does deny using them abusively, while checkuser evidence clearly contradicts Tygart and indicates abuse. I noted 4 specific examples of sock abuse on the SPI case page, before I stopped looking. As noted above, just one of those examples: checkuser says Dogwood123 = 140.139.35.250 -- yet here 140.139.35.250 says "I am not Dogwood123", when questioned by someone suspecting puppetry during a consensus discussion. Deception is the fundamental form of abuse of alternate accounts. Deliberate abuse.

@Tygart: I cannot "have you blocked"; I can only point out your behavior and have others review it. I pointed out your edit warring, and someone else blocked you. I pointed out your use of multiple accounts, and someone else sanctioned you. Now you have continued with disruptive editing behavior, so I am once again bringing attention to it so that others may review it and hopefully provide a constructive solution. I cautioned you that I would be raising your conduct here for review, and your response was, "A threat. Do your worst." Xenophrenic (talk) 07:18, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This Wikistalk report might be of interest. However, I'm currently leaning against a block and towards a firm warning to stop edit warring (for both parties). I'll watchlist Bill Maher and will block if I see contested content being added/deleted without consensus. Uninvolved editors: Does that seem appropriate? NW (Talk) 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

(UPDATE) I'm copying Tygart's comment from his talk page to here, as I feel it is relevant to this discussion:

EdJohnston, I agree that, since I have stated my case clearly, there is not much point in repeating myself & we should move on. I have no problem in pledging to edit under Valerius Tygart only (... mind you, the User:140.139.35.250 account, which I have been accused of abusing, has a large number of users on it. Please don't blame me for everything that is done from that address!!) I don't, however, think it is reasonable for you to tell me to stop editing Bill Maher for now. No offense, but I just don't accept one editor with one opinion having that sort of authority.... Happy editing! Valerius Tygart (talk) 15:49, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I interpret Tygart's response to mean he stands by his denial of ever abusing socks (and now maybe it is "a large number of" other users at fault). It also appears he rejects the proposal to refrain from edit warring, positioning me as an adversary instead of a collaborating editor. I am not the only editor to object to his contentious edits. As I type this, I see he has again re-inserted the problematic content against the objections of multiple editors, accompanied by a lengthy talk page comment that essentially says, "despite your objections, it looks good to me so I'm reinserting it". I have reverted his edit. Xenophrenic (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Just checking in on the current status. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Here's my suggestion... Tygart claims that his use of alternate accounts has been legitimate. The community disagrees. Those alternate accounts are now indefinitely blocked. Whether or not he agrees that what he did was wrong, he should be warned that any use of alternate accounts will result in an indefinite block. This would even apply to "legitimate" alternate accounts, because the community's assumption of good faith has been exhausted at this point. Does that sound reasonable? -- Atama頭 20:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Such a warning seems to be in line with consensus, and solves the socking half the above described problem. As for the edit-warring half of the problem, it appears consensus is leaning toward taking it to WP:BLPN to get wider input. The only remaining issue is whether Tygart will continue to insert contested content into the BLP article each and every day while the notoriously backlogged BLP-Noticeboard gets around to looking at the situation. Xenophrenic (talk) 05:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If "the community's assumption of good faith has been exhausted" I am sorry for that. I have been clear about the motivations for what I've done & I still maintain that I have never done anything with deceptive or disruptive intent. An indefinite block on even my "legitimate" alternate accounts would be unnecessary, in my opinion, but it would also not greatly inconvenience me, so I have no strong objection to that. I think we should move past all this as unproductive.

As for Xenophrenic's "edit-warring half" of the problem, I will say again that I believe I have made a compelling case, at the Bill Maher talk page, for inclusion of the quote in question (three perfectly good sources, etc...). The suggestion of a "firm warning to stop edit warring (for both parties)" actually seems in good order to me because it acknowledges what Xenophrenic never has: that he is (at least) half the problem here. It is not true that "multiple editors" have contested the quote/content... One has (Xenophrenic) & one other has asked for additional sources while explicitly stating he is offering no opinion on the quote/content... The wider the forum for pursuing consensus on this, the better. That is why I asked for discussion on the talk page 3 weeks ago & that I why I lament that none (except Xenophrenic repeating himself) has occurred...

As a gesture of good faith, I will refrain from re-inserting the (to me) perfectly legitimate edit (for now) in the hope that responsible, good faith opinions from other editors will soon be forthcoming on the Bill Maher talk page. Valerius Tygart (talk) 14:47, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• Here is one editor claiming he isn't another editor. However, checkuser J.delanoy says both editors are you, Tygart. Was this the part you think we should move past, while still insisting you have never done anything deceptive?

• Here is another editor contesting your edits, Tygart. So yes, it is true that "multiple editors" have contested your quote.

• Saying that you will refrain from edit warring over contested BLP content isn't a gesture of good faith, it is a policy requirement. Thank you for finally agreeing to comply with it.

I came here expecting to see this incident archived. A simple "I'll stop socking and edit-warring" would have sufficed, since the admins have agreed not to pursue further measures, but Tygart insists on posting more denials and falsifications. He forgets there are diffs. This illustrates why a resolution has been difficult to achieve in 4 weeks. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore, Valerius, I do not appreciate my position being misrepresented. While I have decided to refrain from offering a position on the content at this time, saying that I'm asking for "additional sources" implies that I am accepting the ones you have offered and just want more. This is not the case. Your sources are unacceptable. Continuing to state that you have "three perfectly good sources" when these have been flatly and repeatedly disputed by two editors is part of the problem. Henrymrx (t·c) 19:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot say that I will "stop socking" when I don't believe I have ever done so. (Xenophrenic recently mentioned "wife beating" allegations in another context.) I cannot say I will "stop edit-warring" when the edit war -- countless, repeated reversions of my edit -- was initiated and maintained by another editor (Xenophrenic) who bears at least as much responsibility for the "war" (more, in my opinion). Finally, again no... the cited Robert Lanza edit was not me.... Sorry. I wish there were a way to prove it to you.

Henrymrx, sorry if I misrepresented you. I thought I understood your position. Apparently, I did not. (I still maintain, however, that the three sources are perfectly good.) I will not reference you again.

Valerius Tygart (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Come off it with the games please. You were blocked, you then moved to another account to edit, which is evading the original block, which is socking. There's no question. A block applies to a person and not an account. It is not up to you to say "I don't think I socked" when the community agrees otherwise. It appears you have two choices: a) accept and and admit that you socked, as per the policy - you will then probably be able to continue to edit under this account (and this account only); or, b) have this account blocked, and any others that appear. Your choice. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Summarized revisit / renewed request for admin attention

I am asking for assistance in dealing with a tendentious editor: User:Valerius Tygart. The above discussion is just a small sample of the kind of frustrating interaction I've endured for more than 4 weeks now. When faced with facts, links, common sense, diffs, logic, multiple editors and policy that all counter Tygart's position, he plants his feet and folds his arms and declares, "I'm still right, so there. Happy editing!" How is someone supposed to deal with this?

• "Finally, again no... the cited Robert Lanza edit was not me.... Sorry." - Valerius Tygart

Checkuser J.delanoy says it's Tygart. Tygart admits it is his account. Admin NuclearWarfare's Wikistalk report shows 3 additional confirmed Tygart socks also edited that same article. Even the behavior evidence shows they are the same editor. Yet Tygart, with a straight face, insists on an alternate reality. I've been trying to hold an article content discussion with this same person, so you can imagine my frustration.

• "I cannot say I will "stop edit-warring" when the edit war -- countless, repeated reversions of my edit -- was initiated and maintained by another editor (Xenophrenic)..." - Valerius Tygart

WP:BLP policy instructs me to remove Tygart's poorly sourced contentious content, and I have. I will continue to do so. Opinion pieces from ranting critics do not qualify as high-quality reliable sources of factual content. Saying "I know the quote (and above partial transcript) are accurate because I have the show on tape"[88] also does not qualify as a high-quality reliable source of factual content. When I cut & paste the actual policy wording from the policy page for his review, Tygart, with a straight face, insists it doesn't say what it says. C'mon ... this is ridiculous.

So now Tygart can't say he'll stop edit warring or stop socking (see above). In the face of those acknowledgements, I do not wish to re-engage him. Discussions with a pet rock would be more productive. Xenophrenic (talk) 19:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you really just do this? This isn't a court of law - dozens of admins are already watching, so you certainly don't need to offer a closing argument. You've made your case, others chimed in - if the admins didn't feel that immediate action was required, the additional prompt as if they're idiots was not helpful to your credibility or "case". Of course, getting the "last word" was also pretty sad - I think you've done more harm, and this shall now fade away into nothingness... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinions, Bwilkins, but I feel your conclusions are unwarranted. I did indeed make my first case (seeking advice and direction to a proper venue to resolve what I perceived as a content dispute and edit war), and others did chime in. I thought we had settled on a course of action (i.e.; Tygart will stop using socks; stop edit warring, while we hammer out a solution at BLPN). As I noted above, I expected that case to be archived. Since then, other interactions have transpired at the article talk page and my talk page of which you may not be aware. There is now a different situation. I did not additionally "prompt the admins as if they're idiots"; I submitted an additional report and attached it to the first one since they are related. Your "last word" accusation is nonsense - I just restarted the discussion (please see header), I did not close it with a "last word". I would appreciate your advice on how two editors can resolve a problem when one of those editors absolutely refuses to acknowledge the problem. Regards, Xenophrenic (talk) 00:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I will suggest this, Tygart, please stop editing in the middle of others posts. It doesn't help. It only misleads and keeps other editors from following the entire thread. You have been asked before not to do this, I am simply trying to remind you. Padillah (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Post disco

There is one user in this wikipedia, called User:RockandDiscoFanCZ, who seems to be highly interested in the topic of post-disco. As you can discover from his contribution, while having been agreed on the issue that topic is even a questionable one to be existing here, he has been adding the tag of 'post disco' to various articles about songs. Those addition were frequently based on his personal opinions on what a song sounds like and what the only 'righteous' version of the history of music is. That is clearly seen from his comments on his edits. Moreof, this user doesn't seem to have appropriate etiquette skills, as his discussion posts often feature strong words.

Since his registration about year ago, he had been already engaged into numerous controversies on the topics of Disco, Techno, Post-disco and on the obsession over genre infobox colours.

I'd like to request for the clarifying of this user's behaviour in terms of this project's rules and his edits made, thank you. -- Appletangerine un (talk) 15:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, nice. It looks like some kind of provocation. I have nothing to say. This report is just ridiculous. I've expected that Wikipedia is going to bankruptcy or something that serious and finally I had read some kind of "he is a colorphile, he doesn't belong to here, etc" stuff. Funny.

Also "... who seems to be highly interested in the topic of post-disco."/"Those addition were frequently based on his personal opinions on what a song sounds like and what the only 'righteous' version of the history of music is" - a point-of-view comments. Second comment tells to the world, that you have been watching me for a long time. Looks like a some kind of disliking obsession, you know.

"Moreof, this user doesn't seem to have appropriate etiquette skills, as his discussion posts often feature strong words." - personal "WP:OR" "attack".

Have a nice day, dude. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the user about this discussion. GiantSnowman 15:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably falls into the realm of dispute resolution. At first glance, I can't see any possible admin action. Tan | 39 15:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I spotted this problem, and the reality is that post-disco is not a genre, it's a myth, perpetuated by one specific wikipedia user. There's a discussion here, that sets out where the central issue lies, in summary, all musicological sources that feature the term post-disco (or postdisco) are referring to the era in popular music history when disco music was in decline. None use this term to describe a genre of music. The only source that uses it as a genre descriptor is an anonymously written Allmusic entry. Measles (talk) 15:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You can't say it's a myth and have an article at Post-disco with dozens of reliable sources (even though they look to be using the term for a variety of meanings). If he has a reliable source, then he's fine. If he doesn't, then it should be replaced with one (not replaced with another unsourced version). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If there's no agreement what the term means, it's hard to decide what sources are reliable on the subject, isn't it? — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:19, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted all of your conspiracy useless edits, because we're (Wikipedia) working so hard on that article and you deleted that article in a few hours, you just you... without talking with us. You're not a god or something like that and you CAN'T change/delete article without previous discussion. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 15:59, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Also I requesting that this new user will be checked for sockpuppets if he's not a user called User:Wikiscribe (i was not in wikipedia for a long time, when i came back... i had reverted that user called Wikiscribe and then appeared this curious stranger called Appletangerine un and he's mostly start reverting post-disco article. So strange). RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Ricky, please take a good look at the "dozens of reliable source" and establish exactly what they are saying; none claim that post-disco is a genre of music, except the anonymous single paragraph from the Allmusic website. I can't find a single musicological source that uses the term in the context of describing a genre of music, but it is consistently used to refer to an era of music, talk disputes this fact, and is at this stage POV pushing on the matter of post-disco as a genre of music. Measles (talk) 17:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Not getting involved. If it's not real, AFD it and move on. Otherwise, if you want to discuss sources, there's the reliable sources noticeboard and the talk page. I don't care either way but this is exactly why I hate music articles. For example, Let's Groove has R&B, funk, dance and soul all without sources and for post-disco, Amazon reviews, this blog review, and this non-rs shopping cart website. None of those pass WP:RS and it's actually possible to find real sources if people cared to. If I had my way, I'd remove all the genres but doing that ALWAYS results in a fight where everybody says "But I KNOW it's this type." Either you all take it seriously about reliable sources or let it be a free-for-all. I'd rather you AFD the post-disco article if you think it's really not a real topic. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more re:weak sourcing for music reLated content, especially genre specific items, requests for RS cites generally fall on deaf ears, hence the free for all you mention, and the bickering; taking the hard line is very time consuming. Measles (talk) 22:36, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It's really people's choice. The actual music articles that qualify as GA or FA don't have that problem. You can either take it seriously or play games making it up as you go along. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I hurt your feelings, dear fellow editor? All your last edits are just about [deleting post-disco from the database http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Appletangerine_un]and nobody's doing anything. Everybody (include mods - yes, I'm paranoid) supports this, and articles such post-punk, Hi-NRG, Eurobeat are full of original research/wp:synthesis, etc, why so rigorous about post-disco? Haha, I'm such an idiot, I think we should make a consensus... but we can't(?). RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 17:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

So what could a consensus on the topic possibly be like? I suggest there are two possible solutions:

• The way I suggested: to leave a short article on Post-disco, leaving all trivial information out from it. It means I suggest a version of the article simillar to that my version: [89]
• To merge Post-disco as a section in Disco article, as it seems to be a perfectly fitted place for it.

I'm not quite sure if the discussion on the possible consensus should be taking place on this page. The only thing that I want administrators' attention on, is User:RockandDiscoFanCZ's behaviour. While instantly underlying the need to form a consensus, he doesn't propose any possible solution for the problem, simply reverting all suggested improvements and changes on the pages, related to post-disco. I don't think it is the right tone in the formation of consensus to be a silent observer that is only either agrees or disagrees on changes proposed, not even explaining why a solution is bad or good. The other issue on his behaviour is his chat-like or message board-like manner of discussion (see his messages above), with all other strong words that he used used; that manner doesn't seem to serve constructively in a formation of any consensus or even in common communication.

I would also like to notice, that all changes done to post disco related articles by me recently were done in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia and the avalaible opinions on the topic, thank you. -- Appletangerine un (talk) 11:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• to leave a short article on Post-disco, leaving all trivial information out from it. It means I suggest a version of the article simillar to that my version: [90] - hell no, bad idea, it's shorter than article called Qishr. "We" tried to stripped-down version, but finally more sources were found. This step is back to beginning.
• To merge Post-disco as a section in Disco article, as it seems to be a perfectly fitted place for it. - yes, i was thinking about that, but I guess "post-disco" is notable enough for an article. If we think about it, Disco is not a genre neither. Disco is all type of music that is playing on Discothéque = disco non existing genre. Disco article? AfD! But we're not a musicology or something like that... but you know.
• More opinions/ideas to discuss, please.

"The only thing that I want administrators' attention on, is User:RockandDiscoFanCZ's behaviour" You are talking about "User:RockandDiscoFanCZ", not about actual topic = personal attack. You know what? The only thing that I want administrators attention on is your attacking on other editors and impetuous steps on post-disco article and on Wikipedia in general (deleting mentions about post-disco, etc).

"I would also like to notice, that all changes done to post disco related articles by me recently were done in accordance with the rules of Wikipedia and the avalaible opinions on the topic, thank you." You're acting too seriously. Be that serious on articles like Hi-NRG, post-punk, list of new wave artists, list of eurodisco artists, etc... THAT articles needs your help. You should change Wikipedia from the ground, you've got the power. RockandDiscoFanCZ (talk) 17:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Another IP hopping vandal

This has been raised earlier, most recently at [91] and, guess what? I've got another one- 74.96.126.175 (whois) has been, to put it mildly, making a nuisance of himself. Could someone find a way of blocking all these pain-in-the-backside IPs so I can find something better to do? HJMitchell You rang? 00:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, WP:RBI when they show up would best serve here, mainly because rangeblocks should be given with caution.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 01:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The sockfarm clustered at 71.174.135.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are geocgraphically unrelated to 74.96.126.175 (74.96.126.175). The former are in the Boston area, the latter in Northville, Michigan --4wajzkd02 (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Does this count as a legal threat?

Does anyone care to look at a death threat of sorts, given out in this edit? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 06:26, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It don't care what particular name you call it, that should not have been said. Threat of violence, legal threat, garden variety personal attack, its eggregious and should not be tolerated. It doesn't need a name to be bad. --Jayron32 06:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Reviewing that IPs contribs history, I blocked them for 48 hours. The edit you note above appears to be in response to being warned for making this edit. He attacked one user, was warned about it, and imediately set about harrassing the user that warned him. We don't need that shit around here. So he's gone for 2 days. --Jayron32 06:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not a legal threat. In the real world, standing by itself, it's probably on the legal side of harassment, but if there is ongoing harassment, this is part of it. A legal threat is someone saying, not clearly in jest, "I am taking steps to sue you," or "I am reporting you to the police for prosecution," "I am reporting you to your professional licensing board so they can end your career," or "I am calling your county mental health department so you'll be confined for observation for a couple of days." davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:25, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree that it is not a legal threat, and with Jayron32's comments and block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's very nasty, but obviously not a legal threat. Legal threats threaten legal action, whereas this (if serious, which is unlikely) threatenes illegal action! ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 17:39, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat?

Resolved

 – Latest unblock request declined, user talk page access revoked. Tan | 39 17:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

By Alice Mudgarden (talk · contribs) at User talk:MuZemike#RE, your "warning": [92]. User is notified of this discussion. Tim Song (talk) 09:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It's a very clear and convincing legal threat. I first wondered if there might be some justification for it, in which case one shouldn't overreact. But after seeing this overlap in interests I guess the only remaining excuse would be two users editing in the same computer pool, influencing each other. I am not going to check the details to see if this makes sense.

Bad username, by the way. See Alice Mudgarden. Hans Adler 09:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. If they change their mind, feel free to unblock. Shell ^babelfish 09:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Their sarcastic comments diguised as retractions of legal threats don't actually seem helpful. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I've declined their unblock request. They are still requesting an unblock, but don't want to edit, and are simply retracting the threat but not addressing the issue. Another admin needs to look at the latest unblock request. Canterbury Tail talk 17:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Spam links

Resolved

 – Tnxman307 has blocked them for 55 hours. GedUK  14:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This IP is persistently adding spam links to airport transfer sites to London Luton Airport, Brussels Airport and Brussels South Charleroi Airport despite warnings to stop. Could someone take a look at this, cheers. Nouse4aname (talk) 14:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. Please note that AIV is the better venue for these reports. TNXMan 14:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism on template page?

Resolved

 – Not vandalism. No admin assistance needed. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 17:08, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Messagebox Is that Latin or is someone just writing strangely? I Google it, and find the identical message spammed repeatedly on some pages. Google translator informs me it does not translate Latin. Shouldn't the message be in English? And does anyone know what it says? Its it vandalism? Why would so many other pages have it not once, but several times, as though it was spammed by someone? Dream Focus 17:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Lorem ipsum. Algebraist 17:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No, it's not vandalism. That "lorem ipsum..." paragraph is commonly used as placeholder text. The template is full protected; unless an admin suddenly decides to go rogue, we don't have to worry about vandalism there :) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 17:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

86.136.34.228 at System of a Down and other artists

Resolved

 – Toddst1 (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

86.136.34.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a run of the mill genre troll, except that they change the order of band members (which are listed in the order they are on album covers) and remove correctly wikilinked instruments. They are continuing to repeat the same edits despite numerous notes, cautions, and warnings. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, he hadn't edited for nearly 2 hours before the start of this thread, so I think that just the warning you gave him will serve. If he keeps reverting, then report him at WP:AIV.--Iner22 (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I doubt it. The last warning was before his last vandalous edit. The warning before that I gave several days/reverts ago. I will go to WP:AIV. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the vandalism. I've rejected the report at AIV. Toddst1 (talk) 22:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What I see is Floydian (talk · contribs) WP:OWNing the article and WP:EW to defend his/her control and WP:BITEing. Warned as such. Toddst1 (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I see this is resolved, but it looks like you missed this [93] bit of vandalism. Perhaps this is the reason Floydian is a bit annoyed. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep, now that is WP:Vandalism. I've warned the IP. However that doesn't excuse the WP:EW.Toddst1 (talk) 18:02, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't believe it's an edit war for an established editor to uphold consensus against an uncommunicative IP. In case nobody has noticed, this has taken place for a long time, well before 86.136... showed up on the scene. The exact same edit, reverted by several different editors on several different occasions, going back several months. The instruments are sourced (that is, Serj as a rhythm guitarist), and the other change, Backing vocalist to Live backing vocalist, creates a redlink from a bluelink. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

You may not believe it, but it is. IPs are not second-class Wikicitizens that can be reverted at whim. It's definitely problematic behavior for the IP to keep redoing the same edit over and over, but you should ask for assistance for an uncommunicative editor long before you breach 3RR. The only exception to this would be if the edits were blatant vandalism, in which case the reverts should be accompanied by escalating warnings and then a report at WP:AIV for a block. -- Atama頭 19:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It is blatent vandalism, according to WP:vandalism: ""Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is." The IP was warned not to insert their personal opinion when the article is sourced otherwise, they continued to do so. At that point it became vandalism. If an IP changed an obscure band's genre from rock to techno, despite several sources that say "rock" (in addition to the fact), and that IP was then reverted and warned, but they continued to persist, once per day, then what? Do I have to go through the trouble of calling another editor in to do the same thing I would, day after day (since the edits aren't vandalism by your obscure definitions, I can't go to AIV)? Why? The edit goes against core policy (verifiability/original research), the user was warned about it, yet made it anyways. That is vandalism. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Methinks you fail to understand the very policy you're claiming. WP:OR != WP:VAND. A violation of WP:V !=WP:VAND. The definition of vandalism includes nothing that you claim, according to the community. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well then maybe the community should rewrite WP:Vandalism, because the text I quoted from it that contradicts everything you just said. Funny, isn't it? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Floyd, you're missing an important point - right after the text that you quoted it says "however, edits/reverts over a content dispute are never vandalism". Yours is a classic content dispute. Nobody here has validated your assertion that you are not reverting vandalism, yet you continue to edit war, using your own definition. More disturbing is I see you've continued the edit war today. Frankly I'm surprised someone didn't block you for that last reversion. Toddst1 (talk) 23:31, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, then block me from System of a Down and let the article turn to shit. Problem solved, bureaucracy wins. The IP will be back tomorrow (it's a new IP too), and I intend to revert it should somebody have not already gotten to it before me (if you check the history of System of a Down, several different editors besides me have reverted this exact same edit). You decide what's best for the site and for the readers, clearly I know nothing. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:33, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Also... How am I in a content dispute, yet this does fit your definition of vandalism, Toddst1?[94] I'd honestly like to know where everyone is drawing their fine lines? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 23:48, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be hard to justify this edit as a good faith attempt to add encyclopedic material to Wikipedia. It's barely more than graffiti and I think you are rapidly approaching wikilawyering. Toddst1 (talk) 01:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems that's my only choice. I can't fight the edits made by this IP made against consensus and sources, but I can apparently assume good faith. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 07:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I think Floyd gets what the issues are at this point. Let's call this done. Toddst1 (talk) 18:50, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Admin Toddst1

toddst1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I would like to submit the administrator toddst1 for a "review" of sorts for his recent actions today. The admin has a conflict of interest with me (in my opinion), and in the midst of that stripped my rollback rights. In addition, he is frequently accusing me of edit warring in my attempts to A) Hold the well-discussed consensus viewpoint on biographical articles, and B) Counter a conflict of interest user from making a self-advertisement about themselves. The user is holding guidelines and policies on a pedestal and wikilawyering them rather than actually observing the issue - That of a genre troll and a COI that need to be removed to prevent daily vandalism (Please note I use vandalism in a broad sense, and consider that edits in bad faith are vandalism, even if WP:Vandalism provides a more technical definition)

A more detailed history

The issue began with me requesting the blocking of an IP (86.136.34.228, who is possible the same as 217.42.55.180) who on a daily, or twice daily basis, was changing the instruments of band members on System of a Down, which are sourced, to their own opinion, as well as removing a correct wikilink and replacing it with a link to a disambiguation page. This user appearred on November 30th,[95] however, the exact same edit has been performed by various IP's for a long time, and reverted just as often by regular contributors to the article. Of those contributors, I am the most active on wikipedia. Since then, I reverted the same edit by the same IP half a dozen times.[96][97][98][99][100][101][102]

Eventually, after first giving a nice warning on the issue,[103], waiting, and going through the warnings I am offered with twinkle,[104] and a week of reverting, I brought the ip to WP:AIV on December 7th.[105]. Toddst1 rejected the report saying the user isn't committing vandalism. I responded to take another look, was told the user was "incorrectly warned", and given absolutely no advice as to where to go (as is the normal for admin run operations, you get a generic response like you would from a company feedback line). Toddst1 decided this was not enough however, and decided to hound me around a little bit.

Two issues arose. One involving the mentioned editor at System of a Down, who Toddst1 proceeded to negotiate with and act like the user is here to do something useful (All but one of their edits have been reverted. The one unreverted edit was the addition of a comma), and slash me off as biting the newcomers.[106] At the same time, he posted a message to my talk page.[107] A day later, toddst posted at the IP's page with a Final Warning for something they were already warned for by User:Verbal (vandalizing my userpage).[108].

The second issue involves the article Ed Unitsky, a album artwork artist for several progressive rock bands. The subject of the article showed up and started making COI edits, boasting themselves highly. In the midst, they also added a rather thorough list of their works. The list was a nightmare of external links. I politely welcomed the user and fixed up the article to remove the multitudes of links. The editor returned, did not comment back to me, and undid the edits and added more external links. I once again partially cleaned the page and reverted a few tag removals. At this point in time, Toddst1 had come to my talk page. He then declared I was involved in an edit war with Ed Unitsky, locked the article, nominated it for deletion, removed most of its content (rather than making use of it), and then banned the COI user! After getting him to unlock the article, I restored Ed Unitsky's version, and began fixing all the external links into internal wikilinks. This only got me told rather quickly to revert or provide sources, to which I responded with WP:DEADLINE (I also note that only contentious material need be removed on sight from BLP's), as I can only work so fast to dig out this information. However, I believe the COI, while self-boasting, knows what works they have done. It is not reliable, but it is temporary for now. (Diffs are available by request to validate these events on Ed Unitsky)

I could go on, but I think this speaks for itself. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

EDIT: also note the circuitous discussion on my talk page. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so what you're saying is:

1. Rollback is to be used only for cases of clear and obvious vandalism

2. But you use a broader interpretation of vandalism than the Wikipedia definition

3. So you shouldn't be sanctioned for misuse of rollback when you rollback edits that fit your personal definition of vandalism

Am I on target here? —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 21:12, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

You're in the ballpark, Shadow. Rollback rules are rollback rules, no matter how ridiculous I personally think they are. However, the second part of this shouldn't be summarily dismissed. No judgment anywhere yet; I'm just saying we should take a closer look. Tan | 39 21:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I believe you're being just as much of a beaurocrat (I don't mean that in an insulting way just as an fyi). Ignoring the issue of unconstructive users in order to nit pick at pointless details, technicalities, and nuances. This was clear and obvious vandalism, as WP:Vandalism states, clear as day: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism. For example, adding a controversial personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism; reinserting it despite multiple warnings is." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Floydian (talk • contribs) 21:23, 8 December 2009

As a side note I would like to point out that the response that the user was "insufficiently warned" is on target with the general consensus of vandalism policies. The diff you posted indicates that 3 warnings were given. Typically the appropriate response is a fourth warning before going to WP:AIV. The fourth warning, more specifically, is the one which clearly indicates the consequences of continuing actions and the imminent likelihood of a block if things don't change. Occasionally, it's OK to go without 4 warnings by skipping one or more of levels 1-3, but generally the level 4 warning is a must before approaching WP:AIV. --Shirik (talk) 21:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I mistakenly assumed this was a final warning[109]... I thought I had selected level 4 final warning, and just now realize that I did not. However, I could have gained something from being told what you just told me when I brought this to AIV. I gained jack all from a generic "USER WAS NOT PROPERLY WARNED" message. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I totally understand as we all make mistakes. Please note that I am trying to enter this as an uninvolved third party in an attempt to reach a mutually-agreeable conclusion, and neither try to find fault in your actions nor try to defend the admin in question. I'd like to ask what type of response you would like to see. To be honest, were I an admin in such a situation I might have made the same response, noting that the warnings followed the typical pattern of 1-2-3 but were lacking a fourth. The user was, quite literally, insufficiently warned. All-in-all this is beginning to look more like a miscommunication issue than it is anything more, but that's just at taking a cursory glance at the dispute. --Shirik (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

A simple "{big red symbol} Give the user a final warning and wait for them to make another inappropriate edit, then come back" would have made it much more clear what the issue at hand was. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Comment Note that I declined the immediate request for re-adding the tool [110]. I make no further comment at this time. Pedro :  Chat  21:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I would also like to point out that the edits appear to be in good faith, and while you did ask him once to dicuss any changes to the page, it was somewhat veiled, and the rest of the message was to, basically, get his nose out. As well, I advised you to report to WP:AIV after another edit to the page, which was, I admit, a wrong decision to make, as I didn't look at his contributions to the page carefully. It appears to me that Toddst is fairly close in his observation that you appear to be taking ownership of the article, evidence being the edit summary here--Iner22 (talk) 21:27, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Which edit summary? There are a hundred there. I'd be happy to bring in the other editors who have worked with me in maintaining the article, which is in the list of most vandalized articles, and have them tell you the same thing - That is that the article was built by consensus. The fact that I did the reversions here is because they only come around every other week or so. Breaking the rules or not, I'm not leaving the unsourced and poorly made changes for a week on a heavily read article, when the end result would be the same. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There's really no way to kill the validity of your complaint faster than making blanket statements about the intent of all editors here. Try not to do that. Tan | 39 21:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not accusing anybody of not caring, I'm just wondering rhetorically. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 21:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment on Ed Unitsky

I came across this article observing that the subject of the article was having an edit war with Floydian after I had warned Floydian about edit warring on System of a Down as described above. However, the reverts Floydian were making were reverting tag removal and insertion of inappropriate WP:EL. It appears that the editor removing tags, Ed Unitsky (talk · contribs) was the subject and had clarly violated WP:3RR. I proceeded to remove unsupported claims in this mess of a WP:BLP. Then, thinking to end the edit war which had been going on for days, I protected the article. After looking further and finding almost no reliable sources and claims like "He is touted as the modern day Salvador Dali." and "Many seem to believe it is inspired from the Divine." it appeared that this editor was only here to promote himself. Finding a COI warning and an EL warning already on his talk page, I then blocked the user as an advertising-only account - all of his edits were to the article about him in the spirit of promotion. I continued to clean up the article and forgot to unprotect it until this morning. I unprotected it and then after Floydian had re-added much of the unsourced material, politely asked him/her to self-revert until sources could be found.

While it is clear to me that the editor Ed Unitsky (talk · contribs) is only here to promote himself rather than contribute to the greater encyclopedia, I should have engaged the user in discussion rather than blocking/protecting after I had edited the article so I have unblocked the user. Enough of this mess. Toddst1 (talk) 00:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't you see that's unconstructive? You know the users intentions! You should block the user, much the same as 86.blah should be blocked. It doesn't take one extra warning, a bunch of reverting (except now I'll be undoing the edits one at a time, so I can take more time to do the same thing) and 2 days to figure that out. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 08:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

BLP situations, especially when the subject is highly involved, need to be handled with higher principles in mind, as well as ensuring that links are appropriate and V, OR, RS and NPOV are strictly enforced. Open combat almost never works. I believe Toddst1 did his best in these circumstances. Orderinchaos 16:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thats what I was doing, removing many the external links, and changing the others into references. Toddst1 should have just banned the user, or given him a one and only warning (for spamming and COI) and end up banning him the day after when he ignored it anyways. He should have NOT locked the article when another editor was making the proper changes to it (an editor who actually knows the subject matter), and he should not have nominated it for deletion if he was locking it. That is the proper course of action. I was not in open combat, but at the next edit by Ed Unitsky (and before making a third reversion myself), I would have reported the COI. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 22:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for civility

Resolved

 – resolved by mutual agreement

It is with some trepidation that I report this, as I know I will be immediately attacked for being disruptive. Nevertheless... as a result of the Eastern European Mailing List ("EEML") proceedings, members of that list are being targeted for derision. If an editor has evidence they wish to present against me regarding my edits and conduct, there are appropriate avenues for that. Otherwise, they are not welcome to slander me in their on-Wiki conversations. I request that Triplestop (most recent editor and example) et al. refrain from further disparagement, specifically to refrain from using the term "web brigadier":

1. being called a "web brigadier" at Russavia's talk page
2. as Triplestop has actively participated at the EEML proceedings, I request attention from clerk KnightLago
3. I notify Triplestop of same
4. I clarify the purpose of my notification, a simple retraction would suffice
5. Triplestop summarily dismisses my request as "harrassment" with no acknowledgement of my concerns

My experience is that it is all too common a practice on Wikipedia to label expressions of concerns from editors one holds in contempt as harassment. Particularly as I have had no interaction with Triplestop prior to the EEML proceedings, "harassment" is their labeling me a "web brigadier." Off-wiki, as the result of my privacy being violated by the EEML proceedings and the gross mischaracterizations of my conduct entered as evidence ("intent" being based on taking personal correspondence in manners not intended while conversely having shown no on-Wiki disruption and no change in on-Wiki conduct), I am now labeled an "ethno-facist Eurotrash faggot," complete with my picture and personal contact information. I wish to clarify whether or not my personal integrity is now open for abuse and slander on-Wiki as well.
   So as to avoid the usual and immediate charges of block-shopping (I didn't even know what that was until accused of it the first time I asked for intervention with a combative editor simply to tell them to calm down), let me be clear: this is a request for civility and retraction with apology of uncivil remarks, not a request to block Triplestop. Blocking serves no purpose as it requires no apology on the part of the blocked party; furthermore, if Triplestop is blocked, it will only be pointed to as Triplestop's being the latest "victim" of the "web brigade." Thank you.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  01:43, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have been subject to various attacks because of my comments favoring harsh sanctions against the EEML members. If any uninvolved editor has any legitimate concerns I am more than happy to address them. Triplestop x3 02:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This really seems like a matter more for WP:AC/CN than for here. MBisanz ^talk 02:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The comment was retracted within a half hour of your comment on my talk page. Triplestop left a comment telling you that here. I also already told him to stop using the term. See here. This all occurred 3 days ago. KnightLago (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

KnightLago, this thread appears to coincide with this comment on Anti-N's talk page. Note that I did not use the term Web Brigade there. Triplestop x3 02:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Triplestop, I only saw deletion of mine on your talk page as "harassment." You did not notify me of retracting your comment, nor did you apologize to me, you could have done so on my talk page. So I have yet to see the civility I have requested, only your protestation here that (as an EEML member) I am subjecting you to attacks because you believe I deserve harsh punishment. That is hardly an improvement, and, regardless, is no excuse for being uncivil. Thank you, KnightLago, for your followup.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  14:49, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Apology offered and accepted here. We can consider this closed, thank you.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  18:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Request for blacklist thingamabob

Hi, for some possibly strange, or stupid reason, various wikipedia help pages are the target of people trying to advertise their company. Is there some way to prevent this sort of thing from happening? Perhaps add a regex for phone numbers or emails or addresses in a post?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 12:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Unless we know in advance what they're posting, there's no reliable way to block it. We already have a blacklist for a lot of bad URLs and an abusefilter to filter out easily recognizable bad contributions, but this isn't one of those things that could've been prevented. Is it even prevalent enough? The Abusefilter generally deals with problems that are widespread rather than single incidents. (In my opinion, help pages can be protected against vandalism if they're repeatedly abused since they are not as often edited by non-admins as regular articles) - Mgm|^(talk) 13:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • are you aware of other examples? Normally this sort of material can be removed easily enough. DGG ( talk ) 14:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• If it's just one editor, no need to modify the blacklist. If it's sock- or meat-puppets that are hard to block, temporarily adding the phone number or web site to a blacklist for new or anonymous editors might at least get their attention. A blacklist filter that logged the event to a place that admins followed would allow the editor's other recent and near-future edits to be scrutinized as well. With enough scrutiny, he'll get the hint. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• There are other examples, but I would have to search to find them. They're quite regular, if you know what I mean.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Buddhism

I'm not sure whether this is the right place to mention this. Please transfer if appropriate.

The other day User:Liamharper1234 was indef blocked for vandalism, including the above page. Now a new (?) user, User:Tran uh, has vandalized the same page. There's an obvious suspicion they're the same person. Peter jackson (talk) 18:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There's not really enough evidence to connect the two accounts (latter account only made one edit, the content of which was different than the former account). I would suggest watching User:Tran uh and reporting them to AIV if they continue to vandalize. TNXMan 18:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

User:NignogTheAfricanChildReturnsAgain appears to be an obvious block evasion account

Resolved

 – blocked by Tnxman307. Jclemens (talk) 20:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the vandal NignogTheAfricanChild has created another blatant sock, this time User:NignogTheAfricanChildReturnsAgain. This particular vandal had already created one previous blatant block-evasion sock (NignogTheAfricanChildReturns) that has already been indef-blocked for vandalism. SoCalSuperEagle (talk) 18:46, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about labeling or reporting the socking; just take it to WP:AIV next time. Tan | 39 19:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

IMO, both names are offensive and should not be createable. Maybe an edit filter block for "Nignog / Nig-Nog"? Mjroots (talk) 19:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Zapped the account. TNXMan 19:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Along with anything else in the 71 kB of List of ethnic slurs (properly formatted to avoid false positives, of course). Wow, I guess I am actually glad I have never heard of most of those. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Or not. Let's keep out the big ones, but most of those are so obscure that I can't see anyone being offended. Better to take it on a case-by-case basis than to block 71k of plaintext words for no other reason than that somewhere, sometime they were considered racial slurs. Throwaway85 (talk) 21:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Realistically, yeah, wait until it is a problem is a better strategy for all but the most obvious. Heck, I had to look up the present case. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/138.47.24.37

Resolved

 – schoolblocked for 2 weeks Jclemens (talk) 20:32, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Pretty much a vandalism-only account: [111] (BLP issue, looks like) [112] [113] (BLP issue on this one) [114] [115] Warned: [116] (a shame to have to do it all at once, but people had been failing to do so) http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Schizombie&curid=4001648&diff=330923599&oldid=294478355 Шизомби (talk) 20:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The IP is registered to Louisiana Tech University - Voceditenore (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Help please: User Makrand Joshi is personally attacking, harrassing me, recurringly over the past many months, almost wiki-hounding me

I am posting this issue out here after not getting an adequate response from user Makrand Joshi on the Wikiquette forum[117].

User Makrand Joshi [118]has been personally attacking and harrassing me recurrently by repeatedly calling me a sock puppet on the talk page of The Indian Institute of Planning and Management.

It started on 26th June 2009 with Makrandjoshi first accusing me formally of being a sock puppet Mrinal Pandey here [119] He changed my user page to say that i was a suspected sock puppet, here [120]

Then on 1st August 2009 he started addressing me again by the name of Mrinal the sock puppet, here [121] As user page harrassment, Makrand changed my user page to again say I was a suspected sock puppet, here [122]

He's continued since calling me a sock puppet here [123], here [124], here [125]. Here he's threatened me saying he's going to expose my being a sock puppet.

I had reported the user for edit warring here, [126] where the finding was that "Reporting user is arguably the more disruptive at that article, but also appears to be within the limits of normal editing-with-discussion." for which Makrand's response was "wifione's malciious and pathetic forum-shopping falls flat on the face". For which user Makrand responded with words like he knew why I was "pissed off" and why I was "so pissed off."

I request you to somehow help me stop this personal harrassment and wiki hounding against me which is happening repeatedly. He is now using uncivil statements and rants that now are aimed at gathering other editors against me. Please help as I know that even past offenders cannot be personally attacked like this repeatedly on talk pages and their personal user pages and I have only involved myself in protracted discussions. Please help Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:45, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

If there is no evidence of socking given or any followup action for it, it's a pretty clear case of harassment IMO. The article in question has a long history of serious COI-sock problems leading to (if I recall) a pile of CU-blocking. Flares up every few months. There is discussion, but there is usually mostly edit-warring and eventual blocks. I'm not sure we can do better than perma-full-prot...there's a ton of drama and ongoing admin time spent for usually little if any actual gain on the article quality. DMacks (talk) 07:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think calling someone a sockpuppet constitutes harassment. I do think the above user is a sockpuppet of a previous blocked account and is in fact now creating sockpuppets of their own. Dmacks, I had initiated a formal SPI some months ago which returned the result "possible" with admins and others agreeing that there is a lot of similarity, but since the sockmaster had been inactive for a long time, there was no direct IP-based evidence yet. I see another sockpuppet returning User:Suraj845, and yesterday I raised concerns about it to User:Tiptoety an admin who had run check-user detected and blocked sockpuppets last year. And User:Tiptoety has said she'll keep an eye on it. I have not renewed the SPI yet, but I think letting the admin involved in the previous SPI know of this is "followup action". There is clear behavioral evidence of sock-puppetry.

• I did refer to wifione as Mrinal a couple of times. But I stopped that months ago after wifione asked me not to. FWIW, wifione has been repeatedly calling me an SPA, and when pointed out by others that I was not an SPA, wifione (an account created fairly recently compared to my own) actually had the temerity to take credit for my editing. although to be fair, wifione did post an apology after being caught on this lie by another admin.
• I never called wifione pathetic or malicious. I said that wifione's attempts at forum-shopping (of which this particular instance is the umpteenth example) are pathetic and malicious. wifione has been forum-shopping against me on a continuous basis. And every time, the result goes in my favor. Even in the link above, when wifione talks about reporting me for edit-warring, he/she neglects to mention that the result of it - what I was doing was fine, and he/she is actually the more disruptive user. In the past, wifione raised the same point in 3 different noticeboards at the same time - really prodigious forum-shopping. And this forum shopping continues. Always targetted against me. If anything, I am being wiki-hounded. Every other day when I log into wikipedia, there is some new noticeboard complaint filed against me by wifione. And when that request does not get the desired response, he/she opens up another one.
• How is the phrase "pissed off" uncivil?
• wifione's editing record speaks for itself. The user is continuously trying to whitewash The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management page, trying to get any negative or critical information removed. His/her edits, which some other editors and I have painstakingly gone through and reworded, always exaggerate some things and praise IIPM in words that the cited source never mentioned. wifione's agenda, IMHO, is to turn the article into an advertorial for IIPM and remove all negative information.
• wifione's writing style, behavior pattern and editing are similar to previous pro-IIPM editors and sockpuppets. Pro-IIPM editors and sockpuppets who have in the past threatened me with a lawsuit, a beating, attack and murder. So if I suspect someone of being a sock-puppet, I am going to call them on it. And not just call them sockpuppet, but also point out evidence for it. Like I said, I have raised an SPI in the past, have followed up with the admin involved in that SPI yesterday. And if the sockpuppetry gets really disruptive, I will of course renew the SPI. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Wifione is also making it seem like I am the one hell-bent on harassing him while he is an innocent babe in the woods. So Here's a timeline of events. When wifione first appeared, I suspected him of being a sockpuppet and raised an SPI. The result of the SPI was possible. So I let it go for then. Then wifione raised a complaint on the RS noticeboard for the reliability of a source that has information that goes against wifione's ostensible opinions. That complaint went against him. Then again, wifione raised the request after a while with the same result. During this, wifione kept calling me an SPA everywhere, on the talk pages, on noticeboards, on talk pages of other users, and so forth. Repeatedly. Clearly baiting me. After other editors pointed out that I am not an SPA, wifione backed out with a faux-apology, faux because even after that, he claimed that he was responsible for my not being an SPA! wifione then tried to make wholesale changes to the IIPM page, essentially whitewashing negative information and putting in weasel-worded praise which was not in the sources cited, and continues to this day (you can see details on the IIPM talk page). And all along, wifione has been repeatedly forum-shopping, raising complaints about me all over the place. First the admin board, which was not in his favor. Then the wikiquette board, where an admin actually asked wifione to applogize to me! And now here. If here, the decision goes against him, I wonder where the next complaint will be raised. This is the definition of forum-shopping, going on an on until you get ba judgment in your favor. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:50, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

And FWIW, I agree with DMacks about perma-full-prot on the page. Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:25, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

It is surprising that user Makrandjoshi can feel he can accuse a user of being a sock puppet with so much alacricity. With respect to his points, I have mentioned my responses below and will wait for definitive response from the administrators against Makrandjoshi -

• Makrandjoshi mentions above "I don't think calling someone a sockpuppet constitutes harassment." I will await what administrators think of this statement of his.
• Makrandjoshi writes "I do think the above user is a sockpuppet of a previous blocked account and is in fact now creating sockpuppets of their own." I ask administrators, can users make such accusations for over four months, harrassing me by changing my personal user page, and continue editing under the reasoning that they are going to raise another SPI? Makrandjoshi also writes he has informed user Tiptoey and that constitutes his action against sockpuppetry. Does it? Evidently, there's something deeply wrong about my understanding of discussions.
• Makrand Joshi writes "I did refer to wifione as Mrinal a couple of times. But I stopped that months ago after wifione asked me not to." It's quite clear from the links I have provided above that neither did Makrandjoshi stop when I requested him to, he continued calling a sock puppet on and off.
• Makrandjoshi writes "wifione has been repeatedly calling me an SPA, and when pointed out by others that I was not an SPA, wifione (an account created fairly recently compared to my own) actually had the temerity to take credit for my editing. although to be fair, wifione did post an apology after being caught on this lie by another admin". If Makrandjoshi can provide a diff of his statements, it would make sense. It's worrying that Makrand can continue giving wrong statements. The reason I called Makrandjoshi an spa in August was because he did seem to be an spa. His edits on other pages started exactly after I had encouraged him to edit on other pages. His contributions are listed here [127]. You will notice the 8th August 2009 timeline. The reason I apologised to Makrandjoshi was clearly not because of any lying. I apologised so that we could get on with discussions in a constructive manner, here [128]. But does all this allow Makrand the right to call a user a sockpuppet repeatedly, personally harrasing the user?
• Makrandjoshi writes "I never called wifione pathetic or malicious. I said that wifione's attempts at forum-shopping (of which this particular instance is the umpteenth example) are pathetic and malicious". That's exactly what I have written in my above complaint. I am surprised Makrand is not noticing what I am writing. He also accuses me of forum shopping, a mistake credibly made by me the first time I ever used the wiki templates in my life. That done, does this, therefore, allow him to call a user a sock puppet repeatedly?
• Makrandjoshi writes "How is the phrase 'pissed off' uncivil?" Dear administrators, kindly inform me whether this statement is or is not uncivil so that other editors can start using the same with regularity.
• Makrandjoshi writes "wifione's writing style, behavior pattern and editing are similar to previous pro-IIPM editors and sockpuppets." He also says I am trying to harrass him on various forums. Can he provide a diff of the same? Or is he referring to the wikiquette requests I have raised against him on his behaviour? Is that enough to repeatedly call me a sock puppet?
• Dear Administrators, I mention out here that it is ironical that a user like Makrandjoshi has been allowed to continue on the whitelist for so long. Irrespective of everything, irrespective of whether (to cover his past accusations) he raiss another spi, how can there be justification for Makrand having called a user a sock puppet for so long? I will await your quick action Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:01, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• And all this is apart from numerous other personal attack that Makrand has done on me. For example, here [129], Makrand writes that You on the other hand are an IIPM employee who does this full time. Now, this is an action by Makrandjoshi to expose my personal information whether or not I am an IIPM employee and should necessarily qualify Makrandjoshi for a block as per Wikipedia NPA guideline. It is absurd that he can be allowed to do all this on a recurring basis, even on admin forums. He is using an Ad hominem argument against me. Perhaps he should see the chapter on Guilt By Association before writing all that he has written above. Dear Administrators, I await quick action please that behoves recurring personal attacks, harrassment, action to reveal personal identity. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 09:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
• In the same link above, Makrandjoshi also writes, "Are you denying being an IIPM employee?" I would like to address this as a clear Attempted Outing Harassment issue on user Makrandjoshi. I want to inform administrators that I am writing directly also to the oversight committee for deleting that talk edit from Wikipedia permanently, irrespective of whether I am or not an IIPM employee. And I still await when user Makrandjoshi will be blocked pending action. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 09:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Two choices: either file an WP:SSI right now or the next time I see a sockpuppet or outing attempt, you will be blocked. If it's true, we'll deal with it. Otherwise, it's nonsense that disruptive. Repeated on the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I realize I probably went overboard and violated WP:OUTING. For that I apologize to User:Wifione. You (Ricky81682) said I should start an SSI immediately. I wanted to ask you about another choice. According to Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption-only, "accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization" can be blocked indefinitely. I think based on User:Wifione's history, he clearly falls in this category. Every edit is aimed at reducing the negatives and embellishing the positives of IIPM. I can provide a long list of diff's if necessary. Should I start a separate request on the ANI for that, with supporting evidence? Makrandjoshi (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually, that's not necessarily a problem. For example, if an article were heavily and unduly skewed toward the negative then an editor who only removes negative info and embellishes positive would be improving the article. I've looked over a couple of edits from Wifione at the article and you might have a point, but it doesn't seem so blatant that the editor should be blocked; usually these issues are resolved on the talk page of the article as they're essentially content disputes. -- Atama頭 18:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've actually not cared to include too many other instances when user Makrandjoshi has continued calling me a sock puppet, has accused me of forum shopping and of a conflict of interest. For example here [130], here [131], here [132], here [133], calls me an IIPM employee again here, a clear case of another attempt of outing personal information [134], back to sock callling here[135], and again a sock puppet here [136]. All these links are besides the links I gave in the complaint above. It is surprising that the user Makrandjoshi is getting away with a simple warning after such a history of attempts to out personal information. I would request a block as a matter of corrective action and not as punishmment. If a block is not given after so many repeated attempts to out, accusations by Makrandjoshi, it would not IMO lead to his correcting his view in the future of taking up discussions proactively. One final look at his response after the warning by administrator Ricky is enough to give an idea of where user Makrandjoshi is coming from. I request a block for correcting his behaviour.Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk

Wifione, I apologize for speculating over your employment in the organization whose wiki page you were editing. It will not happen again. I inadvertantly violated WP:OUTING and I am sorry for that. However, I should point out that of the new links you have provided above, here, I did not talk about your employment, but you repeated what I said elsewhere. Nor did I raise any questions about your being an employee here, here or here. On none of those new links have I talked about your employment, but it has been you repeating what I said. Yes, I did talk about my suspicions of you being a sock-puppet, but 2 of those 4 links are from July end when I DID ACTUALLY raise an SPI against you, which returned the judgment "possible". At the other 2 links which are from the past few days, yes, I speculated about your being a sockpuppet, but I also provided, especially to User:Tiptoety evidence which backs my suspicion. After Ricky told me to either raise a new SPI or stop accusing you of sockpuppetry, I have stopped doing so too. It is interesting though that after I gave Tiptoety evidence about User:Suraj845 being a sock of User:Mrinal_Pandey, Suraj845 has been completely inactive. But that's a different matter. About whether you are a sockpuppet or not, ever since Ricky warned me, I have not expressed an opinion. And I will never in the future, discuss such a possibility on talk pages (if need be, I'll raise another SPI in the future if the editing gets disruptive). Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:17, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh and here, I did not even mention you. I was talking about User:Mrinal_Pandey (who was indef-blocked for sockpuppetry) and User:Suraj845, so I find it curious that you cite that as an instance of me calling you anything. Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:21, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Makrand,

• You write that you did not call me an IIPM employee in some of the complaint links Ive given above. Notice the punctuation (esp the commas) in my complaint and you'll realise why you called me all that I mentioned above in the exact links.
• You say that two of the four links where you are accused are from July when you did raise the SPI against me. Makrand, you raised the case against me on "26th June 2009". It was closed on "30th June 2009" here [137].
• Just above, you say you did not even mention me in one of the links mentioned above[138]. Let me write the exact line you mentioned in the link above: "pivotal, primary account is given more thought, be it iipmstudent9 or mrinal_pandey or wifione. But I guess we can't blame him/her for running out of ideas and falling into a rut when putting on such elaborate puppet-theater now".

• Beyond that I think it's a good proactive step you have taken to apologise. It's a big step for you and I know that. If you had heeded my requests on two wikiquette forums and innumerable talk page requests I wouldn't have come to the admin board at all. You have to realise that it has been very saddening to see a fellow editor try and convert another into a wall of shame in every second discussion. And I have shown 17 instances of you trying to do that. And I have not even shown out here your edit summaries where you have used extremely uncivil, rude and impolite words. You do notice that I still had not brought the outing complaint against you till I saw your response to my complaint on this administrative board, post which I also requested for a user block. You have to change your outlook towards other editors - comment on content with polite words, not on character of a person - it is a rule you should have known after years at Wikipedia. Make other editors enjoy the experience of Wikipedia. Try and do that in the future on Wikipedia.Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Drolz09

Drolz09 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki)

This account is using its user page to attack me[139] in violation of WP:UP#NOT. I have asked the user to stop, repeatedly, but the user will not. The current version of the user page is still devoted to me, and consists of selected quotes from my user and article talk page contributions.[140] This came about because the user has been engaging in deceptive and disruptive editing behavior on Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, particularly in this thread. The user has started the same discussion on that talk page, over and over again, proposing a POVFORK and is upset that consensus is against the creation of duplicate articles on the topic. I understand the frustration this editor is feeling, but I would like for this user to stop using its user page as a platform to attack me. Viriditas (talk) 12:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Viriditas has been engaged in a vendetta against me that has involved threats and personal attacks. My userpage was prepared with the eventuality of his pursuing formal action against me in mind. I have nonetheless avoided all reference to him on the page once he objected. Given the number of times he has invoked various wikipedia policies against me (which, upon my inspection, were manipulative and unwarranted) I am disinclined to delete my talk page based on his demand. Drolz (talk) 12:41, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I am currently working with other editors to ensure the page's compliance with all WP standards. Drolz (talk) 13:07, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• The page is now subject to an MfD, where opinion on how policy should be interpreted can be voiced. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This incident notice is quite premature. As I was (correctly) upbraided for bringing an incident here before exhausting resolution attempts with the involved party, so should this one be dismissed.--SPhilbrickT 16:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Link to MfD. That discussion seems to be more lively than this one, and is probably a more appropriate venue. If someone else agrees, would you please close this discussion? - 2/0 (cont.) 20:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but I want to point out that SPhilbrick is mistaken. I attempted to resolve the issue with the user several times, and the user refused to remove the material. It should also be noted that SPhilbrick appears to be advocating for Drolz09, which is fine with me, as the user needs all the help he can get. Viriditas (talk) 04:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Funandtrvl using "WikiCleaner" to bypass redirects

See also: Wikipedia:Redirect § Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken

Funandtrvl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was previously warned that he should not be bypassing redirects. I just gave him a final warning, and he is continuing ("copper extraction" to "copper extraction techniques", specifically, is a bad change). --NE2 18:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, was that a final warning? User:NE2 did not state that by using a uw-warning template, nor did said user use the word "final". At least when one is using "Huggle" that warning would be very clear to the user. Instead, I am interpreting it as a harrassing comment by User:NE2, and in fact, the sarcasm, as in "I'm telling Mommy" does not lead one to understand the seriousness of the threat. BTW, I am not a "he", but a "she". --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• I still fail to understand why this tool in its default state (?) make changes contrary to a long-standing guideline. My query back in October went unanswered. Perhaps we should disable it. –xeno^talk 18:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Good point. NicoV has been inactive since September (both here and on the German Wikipedia). He has been slightly more active on the French Wikipedia. Hans Adler 02:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Feeling harassed

Resolved

 – ...and being closed as original poster continues to refactor

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

Hi can an impartial admin, preferably a senior one who isn't involved with communicating with me currently, and doesn't have a working relationship or friendship with the other administrators and users who are communicating with me currently. My problem stems from being falsely accused of being a sock-puppet. I'm a relatively new user - I'm feeling sad and ganged up on - I'm completely innocent but I'm now being threatened with blocks for both being a sock-puppet (I"m not one, I'm being accused of being a sock-puppet which is false.) I responded to these false allegation and I admit I was really annoyed, I was then accused of personally attacking people and was threatened of being blocked for this. I had no intention of personally attacking anyone, I was feeling threatened and wanted to defend myself - nothing more. Here is an example of how I'm feeling attacked: the Joe McElderry heading and chat between Nacy and Pedro here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nancy - they're making an insinuation that I'm in the wrong, and a sock-puppet, without any real evidence, and Pedro says that I'm on a "final warning" over my attitude - and I really don't know what I've done wrong. I'm not a sock puppet, and have not had, and don't have, an "attitude." I've only defended myself, and described how this situation and other users are making me feel. I really am saddened by this whole situation, because I feel like no-one at Wikipedia is on my side here - and by "my side" I don't mean in a fight because I want peace and to be able to edit Wikipedia and become a better and more experienced editor with time. "My side" is the side of truth, peace, and respect. People have accused me, repeatedly, of being a sock-puppet, without doing an investigation into my IP address, or history of IP address - and I don't even look at my IP address, it's assigned to me by my ISP. I just want someone to see that I'm innocent, and this behaviour towards me is horrible, and if Pedro blocks me I feel this is completely unfair because I don't deserve it. I'm frustrated to the point where I feel like leaving Wikipedia, which is why I say I feel bullied, because if I leave Wikipedia now, I would have literally been bullied out of Wikipedia - by both being falsely accused of being a sock-puppet, and being threatened of being blocked when I defend myself against behaviour that feels threatening and abusive towards me. I'm taking my PLEA FOR HELP here because I'm at my wits end, and crying out for help here, please can someone look into my IP address history to show that I'm not a sock-puppet, and show that people who are either experienced admin or non-admin Wikipedians. I didn't post this on the sock-puppet part because it's more that just about a sock puppet issue, it's me feeling that Nancy and Pedro are "ganging up" on me and would like to block or ban me, given half a chance - and I'm not saying that they're privately saying to each other, "let's try and ban that Whitebrightlight guy," and then give a stereotypical "evil laugh" to each other - no, I don't know for sure what their intentions are, but I do know that the way they're behaving is making me feel THREATENED and INTIMIDATED, it FEELS like a clique of more experienced Wikipedains than me have decided that I'm a "problem" and a "sock-puppet" and are now looking at all of my actions in the worst possible light, like they're looking for me to put one foot out of place, (which if I was to do so would most likely be an innocent mistake by me due to my inexperience,) so that they can ban or block me or "prove" that I'm a sock-puppet. Again, I'm not personally attacking these people, I'm saying I feel threatened. If some impartial fair-minded administrator with CheckUser powers was to look into "my case," I'm confident that the truth will come out, that these sock-puppet allegations are entirely without foundation, and if anything, these sock-puppet allegations may be made with malice. So please, when investigating me so that the truth can come out, (which, as I'm 100% innocent, will prove that I'm not a sock-puppet,) please also take a look at the behaviour of these other users towards me, which should show that their behaviour has been less than friendly. Please, show me that there is another side to Wikipedia - a good, friendly side, that makes new editors welcome, and takes them seriously when they're feeling harassed. Thanks for your time so far, reading this, and I hope someone out there can simply serve truth and justice. Whitebrightlight (talk) 07:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Interesting point. I had a look at Nancy's user page and Pedro's page and they are not administrators, so they are definitely making this up by the looks of things. The bullies attempting to ban you are just personally attacking you or making a legal threat only based to you. As you're a new person, the bullies are refusing to do this as well. All of those are not acceptable to Wikipedia, at least you're not doing them. Just to let you know that I'm not an administrator, I just came here for reassurance. Why don't you ask someone on an administrator's talk page (If you can find one, that is). Minimac94 (talk) 07:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Both Pedro and Nancy are administrators, Minimac94. Icewedge (talk) 07:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Considering both Nancy and I have "Category:Administrators" and the admin logo on our user pages your minimal lack of research Minimac94 is disturbing, and you agressive "making this up" un called for. Pedro :  Chat  10:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

• Any checkusers out there want to look at this? I glanced at a few of the mentioned parties talk pages, and something does smell fishy. Plaxeco moment maybe? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've alerted both Nancy and Pedro on their talk pages, so we can get their side of the story as well. Jhfortier (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't really have a "side" to get out. Whitebrightlight came to my talk page to accuse me of leaving bullying messages for him[141] regarding Joe McElderry. I was confused as I had never left a message, bullying or otherwise, for Whitebrightlight however I had left a final warning for User:Hassaan19 on the same topic. User:Hassaan19 is no stranger to socking so I asked WBL to explain why he was leaving first person messages on my page about another user[142]. Now this has exploded on to ANI, a CU would be a good idea to confirm or deny the circumstantial evidence. I'm just about to leave the house & won't be online again until this evening. Nancy ^talk 08:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been involved in this "from the sides" and there's a fair bit of history to it. Here's what I can add.

Some background: Before Whitebrightlight came onto the scene, User:Hassaan19 was socking, using fixed IP 82.36.17.10 in addition to their account. They were reasonably open about this, but ended up !voting twice in an AfD. Eventually the IP got blocked permanently and then Hassaan19 got a 31 hour block for edit warring and repeatedly restoring an article against the outcome of the AfD. The points of note here were that I raised this at AN/I, User:EdJohnston was the primary involved admin, admin User:Nancy also issued Hassaan a warning (so the two admins talked on Nancy's talk page), and a typical edit when the socking took place was for the IP to recreate a page which was a redirect and update Hasaan19's user page which contains a list of created pages.

Then it gets interesting. Whitebrightlight made the exact same edit Hassaan19 got blocked for and then updated Hasaan19's user page just as the IP sock got blocked for. I notified EdJohnston of this as I thought it was suspicious, and he warned Whitebrightlight against socking. Then Whitebrightlight went to Nancy's home page (who has had no interaction with Whitebrightlight, only Hasaan19) and in the section where EdJohnston and Nancy discussed Hassaan19, says to Nancy "stop issuing bullying-tone messages to me" (my emphasis).

It is hard to explain the above (particularly the message on Nancy's page where Whitebrightlight refers to Hasaan19 as "me") any way other than that Whitebrightlight is Hassaan19.

I42 (talk) 09:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The WBL account does look fishy--created in August, then no activity until edits to the Joe McElderry article, then a quick jump into an AfD for an article Hassaan19 had been involved with. They also appear to have similar writing styles. Being recently falsely convicted of sockhood, however, I would like to urge caution. A CU is definitely in order. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:23, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I only got involved because I have Nancy's talk watchlisted. I feel my warning was perfectly acceptable for this [143]. Coming to ANI with ALL CAPS type shouting when you have yet to explain the diff above regarding the sockpuppet issues is probably not wise. So exactly why Whitebrightlight, did you respond in the first person to Nancy about a comment made to another user? Answer that and then perhaps people will take your bullying allegations more seriously. Pedro :  Chat  10:04, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Excellente! Coming to an ANI while shouting on an ALL CAPS message IS definitely unwise, except lines such as "If you continue to make personal attacks on Wikipedia, you WILL we blocked". Even those lines cannot be used too often. 7107Lecker ^{Tischgespräch, außerdem...} 10:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, I'm feeling harassed by Pedro and I've specifically came here to ESCAPE his/her harassment and find some neutral person - I clearly stated this. So for Pedro to come here and carry on talking to me is making me feel uneasy. I want someone who isn't involved, so is therefore neutral, to look into this. 142 has also been involved and left a "biting"-tone message on my user page shortly after I started editing Wikipedia. 142 and Pedro are two users who are making me feel harassed, and the text above by 142 is like something from a court-room prosecutor - twisted in such a way as to TRY to suggest I'm "guilty," without any evidence. So now, having came here for some refuge and even-handiness, I feel that those who are making me feel harassed and threatened, are perusing me here. PLEASE can an independent administrator, who doesn't have a waking relationship or friendship with these two (142 or Pedro) or Nancy, come and investigate. As I said, I came here to get away from harassment, so I'm not pleased that 142 and Pedro are here to seemingly muddy the water. In the text written by 142 above (s)he states: "I have been involved in this "from the sides" and there's a fair bit of history to it [...]" No, this is highly misleading from my point-of-view - 142 has been with the same clique of people who are either accusing, insinuating or otherwise supporting the false-hood that I'm a sock-puppet. This sock-puppet accusation remains the big black lie that it away has been. If 142 was confident (s)he could rely on the truth coming out, why does (s)he feel the need to come here, to (1) TRY to give the impression that (s)he's been involved "from the sides" as (s)he puts it, and (s)he puts "from the sides" in quotation marks for some reason. Well the reason to me seems that this is being said so that when the CheckUser proves that I'm not a sock-puppet, 142 and this "clique" who are supporting the accusation that I'm a suck-puppet, can then fall back on this supposed "circumstantial evidence," that 142 had moulded into a perfect fit. Well there is no evidence. There was a weak hunch that for some reason has turned into something that makes Wikipedia seem to me, from my perspective as a new member, a stuffy, cliquey, old-boys-type network when outsiders are made to feel unwelcome. Well it's not going to work. I have been, and remain, completely innocent. The little story from 142 above is just that - a fiction. What I've noticed is that when I defended myself before, my own self-defence was used against me, in an attempt to accuse me of violating the Wikipedia policy of personal attacks. An interesting note is, 142 has behaved, since he first wrote on my user page, like he has some authority - is (s)he an admin, or is this just the way (s)he behaves? Well I'm NOT making, nor have I made, personal attacks. I am defending myself, as I have done, and continue to have to do. Someone above states that I and Hassaan19 "appear to have similar writing styles." Well this is another vague courtroom-prosecution type statement that could be applied to anyone. APPEAR to have SIMILAR ... yes lots of people who write in the Englsih language and are using British English (which since Hassaan has make X-Factor related articles and this is a British TV show, which I've been falsely accused of being a sock puppet due to X-Factor related page editing,) could be said to APPEAR to have SIMILAR writing styles. It's the sort of comment that may make an initial impression, but when thought about, even a small amount, is revealed from being the vague, general statement, that could be applied to a lot of people, that it is. The whole of 142's statement above doesn't stand up to a small amount of analysis either. Also, I've had enough of Pedro and 142 treating me as though I'm guilty until I jump though the hoops that they put up for me to prove myself innocent. I'm not playing your games. This thing about me apparently writing the the first person is a non-issue, as an independent admin investigating would see, or as anyone neutral would see. My accusers have already, on an unconscious level, so it would seem, decided that I'm guilty, which is why they seem to have made the square pegs fit into circular holes. The reason for using the first person was I was replying to this: " 07:37, 7 December 2009 Nancy (talk | contribs) (72 bytes) (Reverted to revision 329844498 by Themfromspace; Redirect per AFD (note the as per the AFD discussion, recreation is only permitted if JM becomes independently notable of X Factor). " I left my reply on Nancy's talk page. This was Nancy reverting to the previous edit (i.e. the re-direct) below my edit which was the re-instatement of Joe's Wikipedia page. Nancy stated; " permitted if JM becomes independently notable of X Factor, " but I knew the policy was the top-three in music competitions, the three finalists in the case of the X-Factor, are permitted their own page, which is why I re-created Joe's page only once he was voted into the X-Factor final. So now my reply to Nancy's talk page should make sense - my reply was: "Joe is now in the TOP THREE or to put it another way he's a FINALIST ~ so according to Wikipedia rules, he warrents his own page now, so stop being a bully and let him have his own page... play by the Wikipedia rules please and stop issuing bullying-tone messages to me. " Since I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia, I thought at the time that since Joe was in the top-three, I was right to re-create his page. Now I'm unsure whether it was right for me to re-create, or whether, since the page was previously subject to AfD, this means another process should have been followed. I was frustrated, at the time, having had my page re-creating undone by Nancy. Now, Pedro has said that I was all-caps shouting, in his statement above. He then links to the article where he states that I was "all-caps shouting," but on the page he links to, I used capitalised words occasionally which were for emphasis, in the same way Pedro has typed ALL CAPS above for emphasis. I was, I feel, understandably annoyed by being falsely accused of being s sock-puppet, as I'm sure anyone would be. Therefore, I added emphasis to my post using caps. The majority of the quote of mine, Pedro links to above, is in lower case. So just as the messages above by 142 and Throwaway85 don't stand up to rudimentary scrutiny, Pedro's claim that I was "all-caps shouting" doesn't stand either - I used caps in the minority of the quoted text, and was not shouting but using the caps for emphasis. Whitebrightlight (talk) 12:30, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

To address your first point, you started a thread on AN/I about Pedro and 142. They are well within their rights to comment here, and give their side of the story. If that includes accusing you of something, they're well within their rights to do that as well. Calling you a sockpuppet merely means that it is likely an investigation will be opened, wherein your IP address, location, edit history, style, etc will be compared with that of Hassaan19. If it's determined you are the same person, you will be blocked. If not, you won't be. Any complaint against Pedro and/or 142 will be handled seperately from the sockpuppet investigation.

On a personal note, I'd council you to maybe take a break, relax a bit, and come back when you are less worked up. We are seldom at our most eloquent when we are emotional, and are usually far better able to present our concerns when we are calm. Also, perhaps jot down what you'd like to say in point form, and then briefly explain each point. A wall of text is an impediment to the reader's understanding, and will decrease the likelihood that they either comprehend your complaint or take it seriously. Throwaway85 (talk) 12:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh for goodness sake Whitebrightlight. Answer the question. Why did you post this. A wall of text about how I'm now here harrasing you (when you're here to complain about me - clearly you don't get this) is no solution. Just answer the question. Why did you post that, and why did you use the term me?. Pedro :  Chat  13:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah - I find in th e"wall-o-text" above "This thing about me apparently writing the the first person is a non-issue". Laughable how you accuse everyone else of lies and misdirection yet you dismiss the commen tthat clearly calls you as a WP:SOCK out of hand. Not it is not "a non-issue" and neither is you calling people bullies. Answer the question Whitebright pleae. Pedro :  Chat  13:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I have been "on the side" of this issue because I have raised my concerns via admins - at AN/I and in discussion with EdJohnston who took it up. For the record, my direct interactions with Whitebrightlight have been minimal: (1) The "biting tone message" I left was a standard level 1 template following two occasions where Whitebrightlight made unreferenced controversial edits in a BLP (so that he would understand why he had been reverted twice) - and this elicited the response "Also "142" don't send me messages, you're not above me so don't act like it." (to which I responded in kind); (2) I queried the use of the first person on Nancy's talk page; (3) I reverted changes to Hassaan19's user page. Not much to provoke all that vitriol above, or the similar here, which I refused to be drawn into. Of course, if there is sock puppetry going on then you have to also include all the direct interaction I had with Hassaan19 which ended up with them blocked. I42 (talk) 14:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Technical question: If the IP 82.36.17.10 used by the Hassan user were to be hard-blocked, would that prevent registered users on that IP from logging in? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It's an anon-only block; that means registered users are still able to edit under that IP. MuZemike 16:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The behavioral evidence for Whitebrightlight (talk · contribs) being a sock of Hassaan19 (talk · contribs) is pretty strong, but at this stage it would be best of a checkuser could take a look and provide a more definitive answer, so that all involved editors can more onto more productive editing. Can someone ping an available CU ? Abecedare (talk) 17:16, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

the use of "me" in this circumstance is not necessarily evidence against him, for only a sockmaster who had lost track altogether of what they were doing would have made such a blunder. The occasional caps & the writing style in the comments above indicates a just lack of understanding how we do things here, and should not be held against him. Id wait for checkuser. DGG ( talk ) 17:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There is also this, but I agree that there can be innocent explanations for all these actions. Hoping that a CU will be able to resolve the issue. Abecedare (talk) 17:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add, I did answer, in detail, the question about talking in the first-person. The answer is above, so why Pedro is repeatedly asking the same question, even though I've answered it in detail, you'd have to ask him. Also there is ZERO case that me and Hassaan are the same person, ZERO evidence. Whitebrightlight (talk) 17:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm stupid, and can't be bothered to read the wall-o-text above, would you mind giving me a concise answer as why you said the word "me" when you were refering to a comment made to another user? Just a few lines if possible. Pedro :  Chat  17:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Easiest thing for you to do, WBL, is to provide a diff to where I apparently left you a "bullying tone message". Nancy ^talk 17:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I've made the points I wanted to make, by the posts I've already made on this page. Progress can now be made when an independent admin addresses the issues I've raised in my original post; this admin may need to lease with an independent admin with CheckUser, who can look at my IP address history to address the sock-puppet allegations. Thanks. Whitebrightlight (talk) 18:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

If he's not a sock, he's doing a great impression of one - evading specific questions that need to be answered. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:18, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

CU can't prove that an editor isn't using another computer on another IP address, right? It can establish the locality, if there's no way of beating that. Dougweller (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Whitebright User:DGG seems to be a neutral Admin.Cool down a bit a provide the differences asked above.Preventive action is regurarly taken on WP you do not need to worry , Just cooperate, 'Please' I'm not an admin--NotedGrant Talk 18:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah - I'm not neutral. Check out my extensive history of disputes over content and project space with Whitebright. I hate this place. Pedro :  Chat  18:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Pedro I came here because I have your talk page on my watchlist I do not doubt you or your actions as an admin .My comment was aimed at the new user who is a sock and thinks that wp cannot survive without his pov My comment was just to assure the user that wikipedia is fair and that wikipedians do take action against problematic editors (even if they are at a position of authority).--NotedGrant Talk 20:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for my brusque reply and misinterpretation of your input. Pedro :  Chat  20:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

^ I came here to report harassment, now the same people continue to bully me as 142 is below saying, " his reaction to requests for explanation cast serious doubt on his ability to work collaboratively regardless," no the truth is 142 is showing that he's a bully and now you're falsely accusing me of being a sock-puppet and basically saying I'm not wanted here. Well I've certainly not been made feel welcome but have every right to be here. Whitebrightlight (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

^ I just posted something but it didn't show up. Well here it is again. Baseball_Bugs: I've addressed answered Nancy's question in a reply earlier on this page. Whitebrightlight (talk) 18:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

For those not willing to pour through the wall-o-text supplied above here's what I could find regarding the first-person response:

The reason for using the first person was I was replying to this: " 07:37, 7 December 2009 Nancy (talk | contribs) (72 bytes) (Reverted to revision 329844498 by Themfromspace; Redirect per AFD (note the as per the AFD discussion, recreation is only permitted if JM becomes independently notable of X Factor). " I left my reply on Nancy's talk page. This was Nancy reverting to the previous edit (i.e. the re-direct) below my edit which was the re-instatement of Joe's Wikipedia page. Nancy stated; " permitted if JM becomes independently notable of X Factor, " but I knew the policy was the top-three in music competitions, the three finalists in the case of the X-Factor, are permitted their own page, which is why I re-created Joe's page only once he was voted into the X-Factor final. So now my reply to Nancy's talk page should make sense - my reply was: "Joe is now in the TOP THREE or to put it another way he's a FINALIST ~ so according to Wikipedia rules, he warrents his own page now, so stop being a bully and let him have his own page... play by the Wikipedia rules please and stop issuing bullying-tone messages to me. " Since I'm relatively new to editing Wikipedia, I thought at the time that since Joe was in the top-three, I was right to re-create his page.

Hope it helps. Padillah (talk) 19:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for reading the wall-o'-text. And in the analysis there in is revealed the lie. The first ever comment by Nancy to Whitebrightlight was here [144] at 11:10 8 Decemeber as seen at[145] However Whitebrightlight requested Nancy to stop "bullying" ME here at 22:29 7 December - half a day before Nancy ever interacted with the user. Screw WP:AGF. A bit more WP:DENY of the WP:TROLL people. Pedro :  Chat  20:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I support the use of Checkuser to help settle this matter, but I do have my doubts. I think there's more bark than quack here; while I'm not all that familiar with Hassaan19 I did take the liberty of checking their contributions list and looking at their communication skills and this feels like a different person to me. This bizarre wall o' text seems uncharacteristic, though of course it might be an intentional obfuscation; but if so, why stir up this drama while unblocked? Again, run CU to help settle things because there's enough suspicion for it, but my gut tells me these aren't the same person. -- Atama頭 19:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The specific edit from Nancy was this. The text was an edit summary, generally directed and giving reasoned rationale for the change with no sign of "bullying-tone" that I can see. Whitebrightlight had edited the page several hours before and was separated by other edits.

I do not know if Whitebrightlight is a sock or not - just that the behaviour quite reasonably warranted investigation. His message to Nancy, the other accusations he's thrown around, and his reaction to requests for explanation cast serious doubt on his ability to work collaboratively regardless. I42 (talk) 20:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

How embarrassing that the most illiterate edit summary I have ever made becomes the subject of such scrutiny. C'est la vie. Nancy ^talk 20:46, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

^ Well now you're changing your position from implying I'm a sock-puppet to now saying you don't care, and then yet again smearing me by implying that my self-defence against untrue accusations and implications that I'm a sock-puppet mean I'm somehow bad for Wikipedia - and you've slipped in, "the other accusations he's thrown around," implying that I've somehow been making false accusations when I haven't - I won't make a personal attack against you whatever the provocation. All I would say is please if there are any honourable admins reading this, please see what's going on here and don't be taken in be crafty characters like 142 who try to attack me without breaking the rules of making a personal attack, and manage to pull the wool over the eyes of others that I'm somehow the problem when I'm a new member being victimised. Whitebrightlight (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

My position on you being a possible sock-puppet is unchanged. Hassaan19 is a confirmed sockpuppetteer so is being given close attention; your edits are extremely troublesome in that context and required explanation. In my opinion your explanations have been inadequate, your response has been extraordinary, and your interactions generally with other editors/admins (here and elsewhere) astoundingly inappropriate. Again, in my opinion, you cannot work collaboratively, Wikipedia is clearly not for you and you should leave - whether you are a sock puppet or not (which is the point I was making); all the Checkuser should do now is decide whether Hassaan19 goes with you. My opinion, of course, has no more bearing than anyone else's. I42 (talk) 23:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Not to be cavalier but is anyone going to do the CU? How will anyone know the outcome? Padillah (talk) 21:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I could go to WP:SPI and open a legitimate request given the diffs and this thread, but to be honest I really, really don't care anymore. Pedro :  Chat  21:07, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I suggested a checkuser look at this very soon after it was originally posted, and I think most of the hullaballoo could've been avoided if one had just looked into the situation. It will either clear the user or condemn them. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 22:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

^ Well Pedro I want someone who is impartial to CheckUser and listen to my original post, because you've made and continue to make unproductive posts. Whitebrightlight (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyone who brings a complaint here also opens up their own behavior to scrutiny. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:43, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Comment by WBL noted and, well, ignored. WP:DENY Pedro :  Chat  21:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone who has been following this going to file an SPI? I almost just blocked Whitebrightlight myself due to the sockpuppetry being pretty blatant. Fences&Windows 22:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

^ How can it be "blatant" according to you, when I'm completely innocent? What action is going to be taken against my false-accusers once I'm shown to be innocent? Whitebrightlight (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Filed at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hassaan19, to avoid WP:DUCK errors. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

^ Can you please explain what you mean by this, and will this finally clear me. Cheers for finally trying to sort this. :) Whitebrightlight (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

It means a checkuser will now investigate the matter to see if you are a sock of Hassan19, to avoid you being block by someone with a hunch that you are a sockpuppet. If you are found to be a sock, more than likely you will be blocked. If not, you will be apologized to by alot of people from this thread I'd say. Anyway, we'll all know soon enough. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 23:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Regretfully, I doubt I will be apologising to an editor who frequently describes others as bullies, responds to direct questions with obfuscation, and assumes bad faith at every turn; CU not withstanding. Pedro :  Chat  23:55, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

^ That doesn't surprise me since you have made me feel unwelcome from the beginning. Whitebrightlight (talk) 00:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser results state that Whitebrightlight and Hassaan19 are editing from different ISPs, but in similar geographical locations.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This is rubbish. This IP of Hassaan19 is in Birmingham - you can check for yourself. The CheckUser must be unfamiliar with England, because there's no way I could be moving between the two locations to get to the different IPs. I'd like a CheckUser from England to CORRECT this result, because I'm NOT in the same city as Birmingham, or the West Midlands or this area. Whitebrightlight (talk) 00:58, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Not really the most constructive response... If you want other editors to WP:AGF, calling them liars is not going to gain you any friends, especially if an issue of this nature occurs again. Jhfortier (talk) 01:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well there's no way I could make friends with such people anyway. Whitebrightlight (talk) 01:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Update - Following my vindication, I would like to call for an independent admin to investigate the unfounded allegations and harassment by user "142" and administrator "Pedro" against me, as I've not been proven to not be a sock-puppet of Hassaan19, and have has to put up with vile, incessant insinuation and bullying. Whitebrightlight (talk) 01:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Quit a few "independent" admins looked over this thread already. The allegations against you were obviously made in good faith, or a checkuser wouldn't have been called for and used. You continuosly calling it "harrassment" is winning you no friends or allies. If the admins who did look at this page thought those allegations were actionable, someone would've done something about it. The wiki is a collaborative community, you need to learn to work within that community, which sometimes calls for having a thicker skin. Sincerely, Heironymous Rowe (talk) 23:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC).

You have not necessarily been vindicated. A CU says that you're likely unrelated. The evidence at the start was strong enough that a well-respected admin and other editors felt the need to investigate. You have attacked everyone who basically told you to simply let the process occur, and if they're wrong, then it will drop. It was not bullying, it was your actions that led to the concerns. Rather than hit back (retaliation is bad), review your editing style, but more importantly review how you interact with others. This is a community. Yelling, screaming, attacking everyone (even those who try to help) and similar actions will likely find you back here again with a different result. At this point, I suggest you let it drop. If you continue to get specific "bullying" related to THIS specific incident from this point forward, then bring it forward. However, if your own actions create a new series of complaints, someone will use your past behaviour against you, and rightly so - that's called a pattern. I highly recommend you take a few days off, review your goals and editing style, then come back in such a way that you never give anyone a reason to complain. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser doesn't show 'vindication': it shows geolocation to the same country. IP location is not necessarily the same as physical location: my own IP address doesn't geolocate to close to where I live, it's about 100 miles out. Fences&Windows 15:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence and hasn't ever been any evidence because me and Hassaan19 are, and always have been, two different people who don't know each other in real life and are in every way unrelated. I created this page here to highlight harassment against me. I asked for a CheckUser to prove that the sock-puppet allegations are untrue. I know the IP that Hassaan uses is in Birmingham due to him telling everyone the IP he uses when logged out on his page. I also know that it would be impossible to edit Wikipedia from my location and Birmingham and give the time and date of edits that I have made, and are shown on Hassaan19's history and IP-edit history. The only way for this to be possible would be for me stop time, and to travel from my location to Birmingham and back using a teleportation device, to make the edits from my account and Hassaan19's account.

The one this this whole situation has given me is an understanding how it is for people who've been victims of miscarriages of justice. My situation isn't as serious as someone who's been falsely accused of a crime, for example. But I've had an insight into being made out to be something you're not. Well if there's such a thing as karma, I know the false accusers are not doing themselves any good. Whitebrightlight (talk) 20:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No miscarriage of justice here. There were completely valid points made and even the CU result isn't 100% conclusive one way or the other, though I personally believe that you aren't a sockpuppet as I said before. Your wish to stir up unnecessary drama has brought a lot of deserved negative attention to you, and you are far from vindicated. I'm also very curious about [146], where you have given yourself a barnstar and claimed that it was just given to you by an editor who hasn't edited Wikipedia for 5 months. Giving yourself barnstars is unimportant (though I'm sure many people wouldn't like it) but making false edits on behalf of other editors is a serious problem, and is sure to evaporate any lingering good faith the community would have for you. -- Atama頭 00:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

WBL started a few weeks after Underdog000 stopped. Then there's this peculiar edit to Hasaan19's user page[147] made by WBL and implying they are the same guy. WBL has some 'splaining to do if he expects to lift the veil of suspicion around him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

76.64.154.250 is apparently the same as Underdog000, and they are both connected with Ottawa. Underdog000 has existed for about 3 years but has very few edits over that time, so it's likely that's just one of many guises that user has. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Forging signatures is another Hassaan19-sock trait. I42 (talk) 07:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just looked at whois on the IP address Haassan19 uses (i.e. the IP declared on the checkuser request) and it is an old Telewest (now Virgin Media) one which contains only the TW/VM corporate addresses and does not mention Birmingham. How then can Whitebrightlight know that Haassan is in Birmingham by looking at the IP as he claims to have done above? Curiouser and curiouser. Nancy ^talk 07:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Well, at the risk of "bullying" WBL even further that's a very good question. I don't expect any answers from WBL as he's consistently managed to avoid the very very simple and direct question regarding posting in the first person so it's no tlikely he'll respoond to this. Pedro :  Chat  07:55, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ip2location.com/82.36.17.10 Sean.hoyland - talk 08:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Sean. Pedro :  Chat  08:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Sean. Nancy ^talk 08:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Uninvolved admin requested

• 188.192.121.123 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 188.192.127.100 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Both above IPs belong to the same user (they seem to alternate between them depending on which one is blocked). The anon has been trolling various milhist-related articles for a while now, and has been previously blocked for POV pushing and incivility. I had high hopes that they'd learned something about collaborative working after some interaction with them on the Battle of Verrières Ridge, but it seems not. They're still pushing a pro-German POV and insulting other editors ([148], [149], [150], [151]). I gave them a final warning some time ago, but I can't take action as I'm involved. EyeSerene^talk 10:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked both 2 weeks. Cirt (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Quick response, thank you very much! EyeSerene^talk 10:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, Cirt (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

...and that was even quicker. Slow down mate, you're making the rest of us look bad :D EyeSerene^talk 10:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, will do. :P Cirt (talk) 10:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

• Just a note that I've blocked 85.176.148.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) as well; the account appeared overnight but it's clearly the same guy evading his block. However, I am involved, so if anyone feels my use of the tools is inappropriate I'll reverse my block and let someone else handle it :) EyeSerene^talk 09:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Extended blocks on all three above IPs to one month, due to block evasion. Cirt (talk) 09:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Cirt. It's not like the IP doesn't occasionally have a valid point, but it seems they just can't edit collaboratively and any useful suggestions they make are lost in the insults, demands, accusations of bias and fakery, and general static. EyeSerene^talk 09:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries, Cirt (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Persistent personal attacks and disruptive editing by User:JettaMann

On Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, JettaMann (talk · contribs) is engaging in repeated personal attacks and disruptive editing despite a number of warnings. It appears from his talk page that he has a long history of tendentious editing on a series of articles. His problematic behaviour includes the following:

Personal attacks

• Repeatedly accusing other editors of being "AGW [anthropogenic global warming] activists", "AGW apologists", "POV dicks" etc: [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165]

POV-pushing and other tendentious editing

• Tendentious POV deletions of sourced content: [166], [167], [168]
• Promotion of fringe sources and using blogs as sources: [169], [170]

He has already been warned about his abusive behaviour by User:KillerChihuahua [171] and User:Scjessey [172], [173] but has ignored the warnings and continued regardless.

This editor has contributed literally nothing of value to the article and appears to be spending most of his time posting rants and personal attacks against other editors. I suggest (1) a block and (2) if it's not an indefinite block, then at least a topic ban from articles relating to climate science. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:18, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

There are two separate issues here. JettaMan has assumed bad faith and been rather uncivil about it, and should probably receive a block for it. The agenda-driven editing problem is more of a content dispute - not really an ANI-type problem - so any discussions of topic bans should probably be dropped until proper dispute resolution has been pursued. -- Scjessey (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

My suggestion of a topic ban is based on his hostile POV-driven attitude towards other editors. I don't believe he is capable of contributing effectively in this topic area, given the way he regards other editors who do not share his obviously very strong opinions on the subject. -- ChrisO (talk) 21:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I have experienced the same problems with him. There's a reason for WP:AGF. He's not the only one with that sort of corrosive attitude towards "AGW activists", but he's both the most hostile and one of the least likely to contribute useful ideas. Bear in mind that "AGW", as he calls it, is mainstream science. I think a topic ban would be very helpful - the article is bound to be contentious, which is all the more reason why we need editors to assume good faith. Guettarda (talk) 22:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

So... JettaMann accuses you guys of acting like a cabal, and to prove him wrong, you all come here to get him blocked. Drolz⁰⁹ 09:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked him 10 days for disruptive editing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed sock puppeteer: am I doing this right?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Resolved

Allowing the user to remove the sock puppet notification from his user page improves Wikipedia by allowing him to reform and leave behind his previous conduct issues. They remain in his block record where they would be found by anyone investigating further conduct issues in the future.

---

In late November a user called Flegelpuss was caught socking using User:EggheadNoir as a sock in order to give the impression of support for his views. [174]. He's back editing on the same talk page and this morning removed the "confirmed sock puppeteer" notice from his user page. I've put it back. Is that the right thing to do? The user disputes my action. --TS 04:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The "right thing to do" would be to block him.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Is that looking in the mirror? Off2riorob (talk) 04:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ummm... was that supposed to be some kind of insult?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 04:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well he was blocked for a week and his sock is blocked. The question is whether his account should remain tagged. --TS 04:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Who, 66..? that was fast.. Off2riorob (talk) 04:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The user argues that it's a "scarlet letter" and he shouldn't have to wear it now the block is over. --TS 04:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

So? That's not how it works. They get the "confirmed sockpuppeteer" badge, and that's that. If they feel that strongly about it, they can open a new account, blank their old one (except for the badge), and leave a message explaining that they will now be editting under the new one. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I always thought they had the right to remove the tag once the block was over. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 04:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless there are more socks let him get rid of it. In my experience we only put it permanently on accounts are indef blocked that have multiple socks. Reformed users should have editorial control of their page returned to them. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 04:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I suspect I will end up doing that. He is known now and is being watched. If he genuinely wants to reform then it's best to let him get on with it, while keeping and eye out. --TS 04:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I was under the opposite impression regarding the block badge. Hmm. The more you know. Throwaway85 (talk) 04:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony, you have a lot of nerve to report a fellow editor considering the fact that you violated the 3 revert rule in less than 3 hours: [175][176][177][178]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 04:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Removal of the tag is fine, since the socking block will show up in his block log... and Tony is perfectly within his rights to raise this question. AniMate 05:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

But that doesn't excuse him from violating the three revert rule. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 05:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If the block isn't active anymore, he can do whatever he wants, let him remove it. He screwed up, and as long as the lesson is learned, there's no need to force him to keep the tag around. Its in the page history and his block log. As long as he isn't breaking any rules right now, he should be considered an editor in good standing, and have the right to manage his own userpage as he sees fit. As far as the 3rr thing goes, we should drop that as well. If Tony doesn't continue to force the issue past say, now, there is no reason to make the 3RR violation a big deal either. Lets just call it lessons learned all around... --Jayron32 06:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, we all were edit warring (unusual for me, and definitely something to be ashamed of) but I had an admin come along and protect the article to force a discussion. But that's got nothing to do with this question. --TS 07:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"We all" here does not include me. I haven't made any edits on any climate article in nearly two weeks, just comments on discussion pages today.Flegelpuss (talk) 08:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless he's using a sockpuppet right now, why would it matter? It seems like trying to force someone to keep the tag on their page would just encourage them to make a new account. In any event, the fact that someone sockpuppeted at one time doesn't say anything about the quality of what they actually said. Drolz⁰⁹ 08:54, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It matters because it means he can't be trusted, and intellectual honesty is required to make this place work. It also says that the quality of his edits was so low that he felt it necessary to support them with a large quantity of accounts. In other words, it matters a great deal. Viriditas (talk) 10:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Possible Historian19 sighting

Would someone more familiar with the Historian19 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) case check out 41.140.34.22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? See this diff between one of Historian19's favored versions of the Netherlands article and the most current revision, against this diff between an IP editor's massive change from today change versus the same current version. --Dynaflow babble 09:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Known Historian19 IP range, cf. earlier 41.140.31.6 and 41.140.81.197. Blocked for a week. Thanks for spotting this. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Powergate92 patroling my edits

Today I received this message from Powergate92 (talk · contribs). This is most certainly not the first time that Powergate92 has commented in such a way. Beginning way back here when Mythdon was not banned, began Powergate92's unnecessary attention to my use of rollback (whether or not it was part of administrator's tools or javascript enabled). He has reported me to this board in the past He has also reported me for 3RR merely because he found out that I had performed more than three reverts in a 24 hour period (ignoring the fact that the dispute had ended and he did not bother to report the other user in the dispute or reporting me while we were in a dispute over said reverted content and he had gotten an administrator to revert me for him).

I am tired of this. I do not need anyone policing my edits, looking and waiting for reverts that they think are bad and seeking to get me punished for not following every single rule. Powergate92 has most definitely shown a propensity to just seek to get my editing privileges removed or restricted in some fashion. He is effectively treating me just as Mythdon had, but Powergate92 is not under any restrictions from this case. So I am bringing this to the community for assistance.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not "looking and waiting for reverts" like I said on your talk page "I was looking at my watchlist and I see an IP moved the hidden message in the episodes section of the Power Rangers: RPM article, so as today would be the day that the title for episodes 29 and 30 would be on TV Guide.com, I go to the TV Guide link and I see someone linked it to the episode list when they should have it to the TV listings (as the episode list only list episodes that have aired not episodes that will air, the TV listings list episodes that will air). So I go back to the Power Rangers: RPM article to fix the link and then I see that you reverted the IP good faith non-vandalism edit as vandalism." How is saying "I think Ryulong should use Twinkle's rollback (AGF) button for reverting good faith edits." at this discussion "unnecessary attention to your use of rollback"? Powergate92Talk 22:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like someone other than Powergate92 to say something about his behavior past and present.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hitting revert for vandalism instead of AGF'd? It happens. I've done it. You apologize, or the user accidentally warned says something and they talk it out, or it's never noticed. I have no idea how a third party would be brought into that specifically, so a diff would be appreciated if it were request.

• Ryulong; You did seem to take advice on the second ANI. I'm also going to assume you've known what 3RR is for quite some time and comprehend your past minor infractions. You've been here long enough to know the AGF vs Vandal Twinkle revert thing is pretty serious if at all frequent, but twice doesn't really count as that. I'm not the most qualified to state this, but checking those incident reports and seeing that Powergate92 offers zero diffs of actual premeditated harm or incivility? No action to take.
• Powergate92; is there a particular reason that you're the cause of all administrator reports filed against this user remotely relating to sought blocks? Can you offer any diffs that show continued abuses and would warrant continuous observation for several months? If so, they should be reported much sooner. That 3RR report listed 12 hours after the edit war is a bit saddening, as it means you must have been digging into contribution history to spot it. As someone calling for Twinkle to be taken away from an experienced editor, surely you know the primary use of blocks is to prevent future disruptions and not punish pasts. 12 hours after the fact being a pretty clear indicator of no further edit warring, especially from someone with zero past history of it. Last, no one but an administrator has any right whatsoever to threaten someone about their Twinkle rights, or threaten anyone like that whatsoever, for that matter. This threat was particularly discouraging, especially after a lengthy history of it being shown that Ryulong has never shown anything but good faith in edits with only a few questionable marks in those ancient ANIs.
  

Walk away, please. An apology with some honesty offered would be even better. Whatever your odd fascination is with Ryulong, make a point of leaving them be. Same goes the opposite direction. Anything. Voluntary lack of contact all places and at all times, basically. Shared project already? Try different articles. No one wants to waste time on higher dispute resolution. This matter may not be suited for ANI anymore if it for whatever reason it comes up again, though it shouldn't. Walk away, please, and save the whole community later time spent in dispute resolution when it's completely unnecessary with just a tiny bit of good faith from both parties. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see Powergate92 even remotely acknowledging your opinion in this case. In this regard, he is similar to Mythdon in that he will not change topic areas in the slightest.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll work from talk pages, if that's okay. Best to let this archive, though it is noted that Powergate92 hasn't reacted in any way, though the user has made edits since additional postings. Thanks for letting me know. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Having one person say "Move on" is not "resolved" in my book.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I marked as resolved since it was the extent that ANI can take dispute resolution, and the hope is that the other party will heed the advice and realize that the possibility of a block on next offense would cause it to stop. Usually, the easiest reminder before that step to either side is "you don't actually want to get blocked over this, do you?" ...If someone knows they've done no wrong, they can see if it continues knowing that'll be the end of it regardless. WP:WQA would be the step listed next up the scale for dispute resolution, but I cannot make any guess at actions there if there was not a specific final warning given in the past and a third party overview with suggestions given proved fruitless. Marking again as resolved as this angle of discussion is completely exhausted. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You are not an administrator who can decide whether or not action should be taken in this instances. You are a user who registered on Wikipedia two months ago. You do not know what can or cannot be done in this case. I would respect you if you did not act as judge and jury over a dispute between two users who have both been on this project longer than you have and one who used to be an administrator who helped diffuse these situations.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming to this late, Ryulong, but I am an Administrator, I have been around Wikipedia a bit longer than Datheisen, & I think she/he makes perfect sense here. You appear to have made a simple (& minor) mistake here, & Powergate92 has over-reacted to your mistake. That said, there really isn't much an Administrator can do than to encourage the two of you to either play nice or avoid each other. Any sanctions at this point on anyone would be overkill & may even result in a bigger problem -- or unneeded wikidrama. -- llywrch (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for me to "change topic areas" as I have been a good contributer to the television topic area. Powergate92Talk 23:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Here's some diffs for good faith non-vandalism edits that Ryulong reverted as vandalism: [179][180][181] If you would like me to look at Ryulong contributions, I would most likely find more in his contributions.

2. I was not looking at Ryulong contributions when I made that 3RR report, I was looking at my watchlist, Kamen Rider Decade is in my watchlist you know.

3. What doe's "the primary use of blocks is to prevent future disruptions and not punish pasts" have to do with "calling for Twinkle to be taken away"? Powergate92Talk 23:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

1) I shouldn't need to label reverts on my talk page. 2) Addition of unverified information. 3) Removal of verified information. And it is not that you are a good contributor to the "Television" topic area. It is that you are not a good contributor to the tokusatsu topic area.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, by the way, WQA is an "informal non-binding noticeboard" whereas AN/I is a notice board for when one "requires the intervention of administrators", at WQA we can't take any actual action, we can offer support and advice, but if you want intervention, then WQA isn't really the place. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Again? Powergate92, however innocently it happens and however much you may not be aware of the bias, your interactions with Ryulong haven't been productive. Your complaints typically aren't acted on because honestly, you're stretching to find something "wrong" with his edits/reverts/rollback etc. Its time to let it go; the next time you have the urge to interact with Ryulong, don't.

  Ryulong would you agree to make more liberal use of the AGF rollback and make sure the edit summary includes you reasoning (things like "removal of verified information" or "addition of unverified information")? If you save the "vandalism" button just for edits that everyone would consider vandalism (replacing an entire article with "WIKIPEDIA SUCKS" for example), you'll avoid any future concerns over your use of the tool. Reverting someone's edits to your talk page and labeling it vandalism certainly isn't going to win you any points. Shell ^babelfish 00:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  The "rollback (AGF)" button version is just weird. I usually just use the "restore this version" or "rollback" or the regular "undo".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  As long as you're not clicking something that identifies the edit as vandalism, that would solve the problem (wasn't this the same thing I said last time?). Obviously Powergate92 found a few instances where you did click the wrong button recently, so it pays to be careful when using those tools. If you're finding that you're having trouble, perhaps its best to stick to the standard undo or restore this version links. Shell ^babelfish 06:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  Apparently, he identifies vandalism differently than I do.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  No, Wikipedia identifies vandalism differently than you do apparently. The examples Powergate92 cited were not appropriate use of the world vandalism. If you feel differently, then perhaps we do have a larger problem here. Shell ^babelfish 19:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  I'll second Shell Kinney. Those edits don't fit with what WP:VAN defines as vandalism. -- Atama頭 21:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  The definition changes so often. And there are simply instances where I really do not want to type in any form of reason in the edit summary and I would rather go directly to the talk page (such as instances where I see the same deleterious edit repeated multiple times in the edit history). The popup that says "Put in something else for the edit summary" often gets in the way.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  Well no, the definition has been standard for the five or so years that I've been here. If you aren't willing to use edit summaries and avoid labeling good-faith edits as vandalism then we do have a problem. Shell ^babelfish 23:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  It's a very important distinction because if you revert a non-vandalism edit, you really should have a reason. Any other kind of revert is essentially a content dispute and you should have an explanation for what you're disputing. -- Atama頭 01:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  So removing clearly referenced content or adding entirely false and/or unverified content is not vandalism in any way?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  1. That info is not needed as it's just something that is said at the end of the next time promo. 2. The name has been said on fan sites like Power Rangers Universe Wikia so the user most likely added the info in good faith not knowing about WP:Verifiability. So yes the edits are not vandalism in any way as the users most likely made their edits in good faith. Powergate92Talk 03:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  1) It is still reliably sourced content and 2) no one should be using that particular Wikia for anything reliable. Even if it is in good faith, it is still incredibly wrong.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Correct. In the case of new contributors it may simply be a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies, in the case of experienced contributors there may be a valid reason for their edits (content disputes for example) or there may be an issue. No matter what the case, it is not vandalism. It might help to take another look at WP:VAND which specifically states "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism." Shell ^babelfish 03:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Repetitively and intentionally making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia --nutshell at WP:AIV. The most important word in the definition below is "deliberately". So no those cases aren't vandalism. Uninformed and inexplicable edits just aren't vandalism, just as Shell is spot-on. I see now where I made my mistake in the ANI at start and why sanctions were sought; It wasn't that you were scolded in general for being hounded and the view of your hitting the "VANDAL" TW button was a shove over the top, it's also due to a misunderstanding of the definition. Was a "final warning" type message to you appropriate? I still feel not, but now I understand it a bit better. Before clicking for any revert, think about how you felt before coming to ANI for this report when someone suggested your edits could be vandalism and disruptive enough to take away Twinkle access. Take a second to think about it before someone else is branded by you as the same. It's always an oddly human moment, even when I have no doubt, and Huggle reminds all its users of its serious nature by providing many other revert reasons. Ok. End side 'A'.

Powerguy92 needs "a talkin' to" yet? I don't know. Words a bit harsh in my view and I'm still really miffed from the decent evidence of contribution list hunting. If no warning had ever been given about smacking the red button in the past, isn't a final warning pretty brutal for Ryulong as a first warning on the matter? Likely all moot now since mutual avoidance should be a given. Unofficial advice to both, same as before; Think about what a pain ANI is and how only the truly disturbed like myself actually try to spend free time here. Toxic for most. You can both just call this whole ANI as a high-level or even final warning depending on future actions. Please play nice? Better yet, not at all? Great! Good luck to you both. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There was warning given before: [182][183] and an AN/I discussion. Powergate92Talk 16:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there was.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 01:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That second diff has nothing to do with rollback, Powergate92. You always do this. You post diffs that have nothing to do with the complaint to try and get me in more trouble. This has to end.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so you do randomly say "you should stop reverting things and labeling it as vandalism" but it still had nothing to do with that discussion on your talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring that for a moment, do you see that there are multiple editors here expressing concern about your use of the "vandalism" rollback? Shell ^babelfish 23:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Some people find it an issue. Namely those who see a target over my head.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That's really not the kind of response I was hoping for and you've managed to insult myself and other outside editors who have commented here in the same breath. So since nice didn't work, to put it bluntly, if you do not stop using the vandalism rollback inappropriately, you will have access to the tool removed. Shell ^babelfish 06:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong, based on your latest response I'm concerned that you are losing your perspective here. I don't see a target over your head, on your back -- or anywhere near you -- but I do see that here you are taking criticism badly. (In fact, I think most of your work up to this point is important, if underappreciated.) However, labelling other editors' edits as "vandalism" ought to be limited to only those changes which are indisputably so. In other cases, where a reversion is justified, one should use a different explanation, e.g. "tendentious edit", or "unsourced material", or "against consensus". (None of these examples should be construed as comments on the actual content in the articles under discussion.) Insisting that instances such as these are "vandalism" only serves to weaken the persuasiveness of that word, & inevitably leads to wikilawyering. -- llywrch (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Redheylin persistent removal of RS material.

• User:Redheylin removed reliably sourced material from the article on three occasions in a matter of days: herehereandhere and also removed cite request tags, I requested that he cease.
• User:Redheylin makes accusations that insinuate edits were bad faith and requests cites.
• Cite offered, yet User:Redheylin then removes RS material, claiming it is incorrect.
• User:Redheylin follows with further accusation of bad faith editing,
• User:Redheylin refuses to check the cites despite material being readily available. Measles (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• User:Redheylin then rewrites and misattributes content. Measles (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the Rajneesh movement article coming around again, I am not involved but I see there is quite a bit of content dispute going on there for a couple of weeks, perhaps the differing of opinions over content would be better served with a Request for comment.Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes: after prolonged enquiry passage has so far turned out to be single reliable source attributed to four, with a "cause and effect" clause that was pure OS. User will not properly discuss this and other changes and has reverted several attempts to modify, along with the usual accusations. Redheylin (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(The "misattributes content" presumably refers to the three citations left supporting nothing, as noted on talk page, as seen in diffs....) Redheylin (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The wikipedia has WP:DR to deal with low level content disputes like this, please try to be less confrontational in your editing and if issues arise ask for uninvolved opinions. Off2riorob (talk)

No, sorry, found and corrected an error in my citation. (Feel I ought to add; this came about because actual source of passage was not cited but attributed to four others.) Redheylin (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin's editing is both lazy and disruptive, he introduces unsourced content, and poorly cited material, yet demands that others provide detailed text for their citations; because what he is reading does not adhrere to his point of view.

Why is it that he is incapable of using readily available resources such as google scholar, google books, etc. or a library, like the rest of us, in an attempt to verify the citations, rather that accusing others of falsifying content and original synthesis?

His primary objection relates to the presentation of "spirituality as business", yet multiple sources discuss Rajneesh's activities in commercial terms, (see below) so what basis is there exactly for stating that this is a skewed point of view, for removing cited content, accusing an editor of NPOV infringement, and then rewriting the content with sources misattributed?

• Goldman, Marion S. (2005), "When Leaders Dissolve: Considering Controversy and Stagnation in the Osho Rajneesh Movement", in Lewis, James R., Jesper Aagaard Petersen, Controversial new religions, Oxford University Press US.

• Urban, Hugh B. (2005), "Osho, From Sex Guru to Guru of the Rich: The Spiritual Logic of Late Capitalism", in Forsthoefel, Thomas A.; Cynthia Ann Humes, Gurus in America, SUNY Press.

• Carrette, Jeremy; King, Richard (2004), Selling Spirituality: The Silent Takeover of Religion, New York: Routledge.

• Urban, Hugh B. (2003), Tantra: Sex, Secrecy, Politics, and Power in the Study of Religion, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

• Mehta, Gita (1994), Karma Cola: Marketing the Mystic East, New York: Vintage.

• Mehta, Uday (1993), Modern Godmen in India: A Sociological Appraisal, Mumbai: Popular Prakashan.

• Carter, Lewis F. (1990), Charisma and Control in Rajneeshpuram: A Community without Shared Values, Cambridge Univerity Press.

• Wright, Charles (1985), Oranges & lemmings: the story behind Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, Richmond Victoria: Greenhouse Publications Pty Ltd.

Measles (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User:AlasdairGreen27 trolling once more

AlasdairGreen27 (talk · contribs) - He's trolling again, and I'm not entirely sure what the appropriate response should be (particularly since I'm the one targeted this time, not a third party). After getting temporarily blocked a few days ago for repeatedly reinserting text calling another editor (AndreaFox2) a tw*t (and no, that's not an 'i' where the * is), he's now trolling again at Talk:Josip Broz Tito. Specifically, calling me antisemitic for daring to suggest that an antisemitic individual can be a reliable source for information that has nothing to do with Jews (he's been discounting sources based on ad hominem attacks like this, as opposed to addressing the substance of the source itself). It's gone beyond mere assumption of bad faith and is now going to active accusations, both in the text of the talk page and the edit summaries (which can't be undone so easily). Reverting his edits and warning him myself would be pointless (I don't like rewarding trolls), so I'm requesting help here.

I doubt he honestly believes any of it, but like the previous case, he either gets worked up, or wants to get others worked up, so he resorts to trolling. I've got a notification of this ANI post queued up on his talk that I will submit the moment after this posts. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Final warning given. That's almost just about enough of that. Tan | 39 22:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Shadow is Jewish, so knowing Al it might well have been a joke. In bad taste perhaps, but it got me laughing. ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, can't see anything funny about it myself. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, just because an editor behaves like a stubborn, bratty child doesn't necessarily mean that they are a troll.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes but when someone you have never heard of (AlasdairGreen27) posts on your talk page a notice accusing you of being a sock puppet for someone else you have never heard of (Brunodan) and follows up with a message that he is working on a sock puppet investigation against you then it becomes slightly disturbing. Especially when it appears that Brundodan is an Italian editor and you live in New Zealand! If Wikipedia has to have aggressive vigilantes (trolls?) then they should be required to do a minimal amount of checking before blazing away.Buistr (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the typical demographic of Wikipedia editors, your remark hits uncomfortably close to home. Jehochman ^Talk 13:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Gigs

OK, Hu12 and I do strongly disagree with the wording of the Rfc that has just opened, while both of us did try to provide a better wording. Strong words have there been said, some of which are to the strong disagreement of Gigs.

Gigs now plainly assumes bad faith on the editors (mainly administrators) who work on the spam blacklist, accusing Hu12 of admin abuse (something of which there they does not provide proof), and when called on that (and diff they appears to feel they has the right to say those things, because there were wrongdoings on them as well. I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gigs&diff=prev&oldid=330961978 warned Gigs, and asked him to retract, but no.

Could I have some uninvolved admins resolve this situation? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the diffs largely speak for themselves. My comments were in reply to Hu12's accusation that I opened the RfC as some kind of soapbox or petty revenge for a single blacklist request that he denied. That's clearly not the case. I don't believe there is community consensus for citing the reliability of a source in black or whitelisting decisions. The RfC is to gauge that consensus. As I said there, I could have made this issue personal, but I have tried from the start to avoid that. I could have opened a behavioral RfC, I did not. I'm merely asking for Hu12 to assume good faith on my part. Gigs (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Gigs, I'd like you to show proof of admin abuse, if that is what you claim. For now, you just believe there is no consensus (strangely, WP:RS, WP:V are based on consensus). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't specifically claim there is admin abuse. My comment was that I could have framed the issue as abuse, but I refrained from doing that, instead bringing the question to the community to see if there was consensus for these actions or not. I'm not disputing the consensus of WP:RS and WP:V, but I disagree that the consensus for those policies automatically means they are applicable to blacklisting decisions. Gigs (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"you are, by far, the worst offender" (to Hu12). What are the offences? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It all started in this discussion. Despite 3 weeks worth of good faith explainations from multiple established editors, Gigs continued to perpetuate his disputes by sticking to allegation or viewpoints long after they been rejected. Sadly what is easily assertained by gig's contributions is that he was driving for an Rfc, not discussion;

• "I object to this entire discussion as invalid on the grounds that it attempts to usurp editorial discretion and put it in the hands of a small group of blacklist maintainers" --Gigs (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[184]

• "It may be useful to open an RFC to see where the consensus is."
• "Before we take this to a wider audience"
• "If you truely want community consensus on this, then we need to expand the solicitation past just this page"
• "Here's my attempt at a neutral summary: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/RfC " Starts a draft RfC.
• ""All here" is a pretty biased audience of what, 3 or 4 people that have commented and are mostly also active in blacklist administration? Hence the RfC to widen the audience. "
• "If I don't do it now, it may come up later ..."
• " I'm giving you this opportunity to help frame the issue instead of slapping an RfC out quickly "

One instance Gig's fabricates an entire scenario about another case, ning.com;

• "the blacklist is now blocking thousands of sites on the grounds that just one of them was spammed. It is like IP blocking all of Russia because we had a single Russian vandal! This sort of prior restraint goes against the foundation of Wikipedia, and every wiki in general. It strikes at WP:BOLD and turns it into WP:ASKFIRST"

Despite the bad faith accusation, this case was explained.

I've even attempted in good faith, to correct some factual errors, however Gigs reverts it to an obvious POV version, and yet again, more bad faith statements directed at myself; "restored some of the removed facts, removed bias from others". Then, follows up by adding the comment "You have completely hacked it up, biased the facts section, and moved it to my userspace. Your edits are not constructive. Stop" states further "I have tried to retain as much as I could of your edits, while restoring the neutral facts that Beetstra and Strife and I collaborated on. "

It appears that despite explaination of facts from multiple established editors, gigs fails to allow for the possibility that he is indeed wrong, and continues to perceive his biases as neutral. Is Admin synonomus with "punching bag", seriously. I digress. Sadly, the RfC seems to be a case at an attempt, by gigs to further a position, rather than resolve a dispute. Which is a wholey inapropriate use of wikipedias dispute resolution process. --Hu12 (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Beetstra, the quote is obvious if you don't take it out of context: "you are, by far, the worst offender when it comes to blindly citing WP:RS for black and whitelisting decisions", is the full quote. I'm not going to respond to Hu12's wall of text. Gigs (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of this ANI is. I urge an uninvolved editor to review the diffs and close this matter, as it will be clear that it's a normal policy dispute which is dealt with through an RfC, which I have already opened. Gigs (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

" I could have just opened up an admin tool abuse RFC on you; I didn't." Accusing other editors of abuse is uncivil unless there is genuine abuse, Please explain. I'd like you to show proof of admin abuse. How many times have you been asked?--Hu12 (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• I can't see anything needing admin attention. I suggest this is closed, as it is just generating more conflict. Just let the RfC run. Fences&Windows 02:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that helps, Gigs: "you are, by far, the worst offender when it comes to blindly citing WP:RS for black and whitelisting decisions", proof the offence, Gigs. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Why bother asking again, we'll only get a Straw man reply. You, me and the others attempted in good faith to engage and discuss with gigs, but his adgenda doesn't appear to that of consensus building. Clearly he was upset with outcome of a blacklist request (reposted it twice), and as a result created the RfC as a platform to exploit for his viewpoint. Evidence of this can be found in My "wall of text", as gigs states, including repeating logical fallacys about policies (WP:V is not consensus), actively and intentionally keeping out correct and appropriate "Background facts" and mischaracterizing existing facts, all seem to show a significantly different motive, than the one he's attempting to portray. I could be wrong, but  Looks like a duck to me --Hu12 (talk) 09:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you two are continuing to attack me here. This is incredibly poor behavior. People have had a chance to read the diffs, which speak for themselves. Let it go. Gigs (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wheres the "admin tool abuse", Gigs? Whats incredibly poor behavor? Asking you proove, what you alledge?--Hu12 (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Time out you two three. ANI is not a place to prolong your own discussions/arguments. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Friendly" Block Warning

Resolved

 – No admin action possible or required here.

I have received an alarming message in the form of some "serious" advice regarding a "friendly" block warning from the administrator BozMo on my talk page. The undelying issue relates to an editorial dispute which I have proposed be resolved through the process of mediation. However, it seems to me that the process of mediation is no longer open to me, as I am under the threat of a block if I proceed. I would like this threat rescinded, so that the editorial dispute can be resolved through due process, as is the custom. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

To add the warning for disruptive wikidrama, and the observation that the only editorial dispute is a template which will expire in a couple of days or before under WP:SNOW and cannot hope to be resolved by mediation on this timescale. I am happy for any other admin to lift this warning if they feel it unreasonable in the circumstances.--BozMo talk 10:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be quicker if you would recind the warning yourself, and then we can go about our business as normal, and not have involve anyone else. This would be appreciated. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, because the warning in my view was completely fair and justified, and as far as I can see you are completely in the wrong. I am happy for someone to disagree with me, and that disagreement might prompt me to reflect on just how obvious it all is. But I certainly do not think the "business as normal" you propose is in the interests of the project. I have offered to discuss further on your talk page. Your persistence in bringing it here is a waste of community time. --BozMo talk 10:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Coincidentally, unilateral admin-imposed editor restrictions are a current topic of debate at WP:AN. A change to WP:BAN was attempted in order to make them officially acceptable, but was reverted after protest. Equazcion (talk) 10:44, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Business as usual being you endlessly pushing this merge proposal, despite considerable opposition worthy of a WP:SNOW close of the discussion, forum shopping it to RFC and mediation and what not? I think the warning is quite reasonable.--Atlan (talk) 10:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion, this has nothing to do with a unilaterally imposed edit restriction. I have no idea why you posted this here.--Atlan (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

An admin has told another editor that they aren't allowed to do something that they would normally be allowed to do, or else they'll be blocked, without any community discussion. That's the definition of a unilateral admin-imposed editing restriction, and is the very thing being debated. Equazcion (talk) 11:03, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

No, not as in my view. It is more like a 3RR warning as I see it. I told him that his disruptive wikidrama had gone far enough and if he continued it in the way he proposed he would be blocked for it. That is a completely normal disruptive editing warning. --BozMo talk 11:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you made what amounts to a 3RR warning as well, but you also told him that if he sought mediation he'd be blocked. Equazcion (talk) 11:27, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

On another note: I have to sympathize with Gavin on this. People opposed to a proposal often seem a bit too zealous in trying to quash it, rather than merely arguing against it. Leaving the merge templates up doesn't do any harm, and I understand wanting to seek uninvolved opinions when something like that happens. It can be frustrating. Equazcion (talk) 11:16, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I did sympathise with him too if you read my message.--BozMo talk 11:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which message you mean. Are you saying you support replacing the templates? It seems a silly thing to seek mediation for (he's just seeking it to get the templates back up), but I think the solution is to allow the templates back up rather than disallowing him from seeking recourse. Again I don't see the harm. Equazcion (talk) 11:27, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

The wording of the warning was what I refered to as sympathetic (by intent anyway). I understand it can be frustrating and offered to give him time to think it through and talk it through. But, the template was obviously inappropriate from the moment it was put there and disrupts the content of the encyclopaedia, not to mention the talk page etc. I do not think we should put the template back just to avoid hurting someone's feelings, I think WP:SNOW was a valid reason to remove it. And I think an improved understanding that making an inappropriate merge RFC as a first move into an unfamiliar area won't necessary get everyone's appreciation is needed. --BozMo talk 11:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If the merger discussion is, for all intents and purposes, finished, then the merge template can be removed. I don't see why the template should remain because 1 editor doesn't want to accept the outcome of the discussion. Gavin seems to believe the RFC serves as an injunction to remove the template while it is underway. The RFC is of course a separate thing.--Atlan (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The merge template was up for a grand total of 3 hours [185][186]. If this had gone on for a couple days I could see someone saying it's enough, and possibly that "disruption" were a valid point. This wasn't given a chance though. I'm not even sure that SNOW could be adequately declared after such a short period. Equazcion (talk) 11:59, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I think SNOW was called as much because it was an obviously inappropriate proposal as on number of votes cast or time. It was clear that it wasn't even the correct proposed merger if a merger was needed, as well as being clear that the merger wasn't needed. See the discussion, there is no one supporting it. If you make a clearly bad suggestion and everyone says so you don't sit and demand that it runs its course with article space tags. And you don't then demand mediation because you called it wrong. Is there an admin prepared to close this please? --BozMo talk 12:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I agree that's not very long, but the discussion seemed to have received adequate attention in that time. I've seen discussions running for days with less comments than this, e.g. at Afd. Anyway, no point in edit warring over a merge template. It's pretty harmless to leave it there, although that's moot now after so many opposes. The real problem in my view, is Gavin not accepting the result and trying to take this to multiple forums, which is really unwarranted.--Atlan (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the view that William M. Connolley took when he removed the template before the RFC was underway, and I understand where he is coming from. Whilst his views on the "issues" may well be vindicated, nonetheless RFC is a well established "process", and while its outcome may be a given in this instance, it is customary to allow, rather than impede, wider consultation to flush out these "issues". I think once BozMo had taken sides and thrown his cap into the ring regarding the "issues" [187], I am not sure that taking on the role of referee in order to control the "process" as well was correct, nor is a block warning helpful in resolving our differences of opinion.
I am sure we can cut a deal as the discussions progress, but I would like the block warning rescinded, as it is impeding the "process". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be perceiving the warning as a threat. BozMo has already stated he will not issue a block himself, but that someone else might if you keep up a disruptive course of action regarding the merge. That you find this warning restrictive is entirely your opinion, and you're entitled to it. However, I'll reiterate, the warning seems reasonable to me.--Atlan (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Personally, I am quite prepared to block you for disruptive wikidrama..." -- It was indeed a threat/restriction. Equazcion (talk) 12:55, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I will then assume that although it was a threat in form, it was not a formal block warning in substance, since BozMo was not going to enforce it himself, and the issue is therefore resolved. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Powergate92 patroling my edits

Today I received this message from Powergate92 (talk · contribs). This is most certainly not the first time that Powergate92 has commented in such a way. Beginning way back here when Mythdon was not banned, began Powergate92's unnecessary attention to my use of rollback (whether or not it was part of administrator's tools or javascript enabled). He has reported me to this board in the past He has also reported me for 3RR merely because he found out that I had performed more than three reverts in a 24 hour period (ignoring the fact that the dispute had ended and he did not bother to report the other user in the dispute or reporting me while we were in a dispute over said reverted content and he had gotten an administrator to revert me for him).

I am tired of this. I do not need anyone policing my edits, looking and waiting for reverts that they think are bad and seeking to get me punished for not following every single rule. Powergate92 has most definitely shown a propensity to just seek to get my editing privileges removed or restricted in some fashion. He is effectively treating me just as Mythdon had, but Powergate92 is not under any restrictions from this case. So I am bringing this to the community for assistance.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not "looking and waiting for reverts" like I said on your talk page "I was looking at my watchlist and I see an IP moved the hidden message in the episodes section of the Power Rangers: RPM article, so as today would be the day that the title for episodes 29 and 30 would be on TV Guide.com, I go to the TV Guide link and I see someone linked it to the episode list when they should have it to the TV listings (as the episode list only list episodes that have aired not episodes that will air, the TV listings list episodes that will air). So I go back to the Power Rangers: RPM article to fix the link and then I see that you reverted the IP good faith non-vandalism edit as vandalism." How is saying "I think Ryulong should use Twinkle's rollback (AGF) button for reverting good faith edits." at this discussion "unnecessary attention to your use of rollback"? Powergate92Talk 22:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like someone other than Powergate92 to say something about his behavior past and present.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hitting revert for vandalism instead of AGF'd? It happens. I've done it. You apologize, or the user accidentally warned says something and they talk it out, or it's never noticed. I have no idea how a third party would be brought into that specifically, so a diff would be appreciated if it were request.

• Ryulong; You did seem to take advice on the second ANI. I'm also going to assume you've known what 3RR is for quite some time and comprehend your past minor infractions. You've been here long enough to know the AGF vs Vandal Twinkle revert thing is pretty serious if at all frequent, but twice doesn't really count as that. I'm not the most qualified to state this, but checking those incident reports and seeing that Powergate92 offers zero diffs of actual premeditated harm or incivility? No action to take.
• Powergate92; is there a particular reason that you're the cause of all administrator reports filed against this user remotely relating to sought blocks? Can you offer any diffs that show continued abuses and would warrant continuous observation for several months? If so, they should be reported much sooner. That 3RR report listed 12 hours after the edit war is a bit saddening, as it means you must have been digging into contribution history to spot it. As someone calling for Twinkle to be taken away from an experienced editor, surely you know the primary use of blocks is to prevent future disruptions and not punish pasts. 12 hours after the fact being a pretty clear indicator of no further edit warring, especially from someone with zero past history of it. Last, no one but an administrator has any right whatsoever to threaten someone about their Twinkle rights, or threaten anyone like that whatsoever, for that matter. This threat was particularly discouraging, especially after a lengthy history of it being shown that Ryulong has never shown anything but good faith in edits with only a few questionable marks in those ancient ANIs.
  

Walk away, please. An apology with some honesty offered would be even better. Whatever your odd fascination is with Ryulong, make a point of leaving them be. Same goes the opposite direction. Anything. Voluntary lack of contact all places and at all times, basically. Shared project already? Try different articles. No one wants to waste time on higher dispute resolution. This matter may not be suited for ANI anymore if it for whatever reason it comes up again, though it shouldn't. Walk away, please, and save the whole community later time spent in dispute resolution when it's completely unnecessary with just a tiny bit of good faith from both parties. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see Powergate92 even remotely acknowledging your opinion in this case. In this regard, he is similar to Mythdon in that he will not change topic areas in the slightest.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll work from talk pages, if that's okay. Best to let this archive, though it is noted that Powergate92 hasn't reacted in any way, though the user has made edits since additional postings. Thanks for letting me know. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Having one person say "Move on" is not "resolved" in my book.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I marked as resolved since it was the extent that ANI can take dispute resolution, and the hope is that the other party will heed the advice and realize that the possibility of a block on next offense would cause it to stop. Usually, the easiest reminder before that step to either side is "you don't actually want to get blocked over this, do you?" ...If someone knows they've done no wrong, they can see if it continues knowing that'll be the end of it regardless. WP:WQA would be the step listed next up the scale for dispute resolution, but I cannot make any guess at actions there if there was not a specific final warning given in the past and a third party overview with suggestions given proved fruitless. Marking again as resolved as this angle of discussion is completely exhausted. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You are not an administrator who can decide whether or not action should be taken in this instances. You are a user who registered on Wikipedia two months ago. You do not know what can or cannot be done in this case. I would respect you if you did not act as judge and jury over a dispute between two users who have both been on this project longer than you have and one who used to be an administrator who helped diffuse these situations.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm coming to this late, Ryulong, but I am an Administrator, I have been around Wikipedia a bit longer than Datheisen, & I think she/he makes perfect sense here. You appear to have made a simple (& minor) mistake here, & Powergate92 has over-reacted to your mistake. That said, there really isn't much an Administrator can do than to encourage the two of you to either play nice or avoid each other. Any sanctions at this point on anyone would be overkill & may even result in a bigger problem -- or unneeded wikidrama. -- llywrch (talk) 19:41, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no need for me to "change topic areas" as I have been a good contributer to the television topic area. Powergate92Talk 23:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

1. Here's some diffs for good faith non-vandalism edits that Ryulong reverted as vandalism: [188][189][190] If you would like me to look at Ryulong contributions, I would most likely find more in his contributions.

2. I was not looking at Ryulong contributions when I made that 3RR report, I was looking at my watchlist, Kamen Rider Decade is in my watchlist you know.

3. What doe's "the primary use of blocks is to prevent future disruptions and not punish pasts" have to do with "calling for Twinkle to be taken away"? Powergate92Talk 23:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

1) I shouldn't need to label reverts on my talk page. 2) Addition of unverified information. 3) Removal of verified information. And it is not that you are a good contributor to the "Television" topic area. It is that you are not a good contributor to the tokusatsu topic area.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, by the way, WQA is an "informal non-binding noticeboard" whereas AN/I is a notice board for when one "requires the intervention of administrators", at WQA we can't take any actual action, we can offer support and advice, but if you want intervention, then WQA isn't really the place. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

• Again? Powergate92, however innocently it happens and however much you may not be aware of the bias, your interactions with Ryulong haven't been productive. Your complaints typically aren't acted on because honestly, you're stretching to find something "wrong" with his edits/reverts/rollback etc. Its time to let it go; the next time you have the urge to interact with Ryulong, don't.

  Ryulong would you agree to make more liberal use of the AGF rollback and make sure the edit summary includes you reasoning (things like "removal of verified information" or "addition of unverified information")? If you save the "vandalism" button just for edits that everyone would consider vandalism (replacing an entire article with "WIKIPEDIA SUCKS" for example), you'll avoid any future concerns over your use of the tool. Reverting someone's edits to your talk page and labeling it vandalism certainly isn't going to win you any points. Shell ^babelfish 00:09, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  The "rollback (AGF)" button version is just weird. I usually just use the "restore this version" or "rollback" or the regular "undo".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:18, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  As long as you're not clicking something that identifies the edit as vandalism, that would solve the problem (wasn't this the same thing I said last time?). Obviously Powergate92 found a few instances where you did click the wrong button recently, so it pays to be careful when using those tools. If you're finding that you're having trouble, perhaps its best to stick to the standard undo or restore this version links. Shell ^babelfish 06:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  Apparently, he identifies vandalism differently than I do.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  No, Wikipedia identifies vandalism differently than you do apparently. The examples Powergate92 cited were not appropriate use of the world vandalism. If you feel differently, then perhaps we do have a larger problem here. Shell ^babelfish 19:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  I'll second Shell Kinney. Those edits don't fit with what WP:VAN defines as vandalism. -- Atama頭 21:56, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  The definition changes so often. And there are simply instances where I really do not want to type in any form of reason in the edit summary and I would rather go directly to the talk page (such as instances where I see the same deleterious edit repeated multiple times in the edit history). The popup that says "Put in something else for the edit summary" often gets in the way.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:53, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  Well no, the definition has been standard for the five or so years that I've been here. If you aren't willing to use edit summaries and avoid labeling good-faith edits as vandalism then we do have a problem. Shell ^babelfish 23:48, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

  It's a very important distinction because if you revert a non-vandalism edit, you really should have a reason. Any other kind of revert is essentially a content dispute and you should have an explanation for what you're disputing. -- Atama頭 01:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  So removing clearly referenced content or adding entirely false and/or unverified content is not vandalism in any way?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:14, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  1. That info is not needed as it's just something that is said at the end of the next time promo. 2. The name has been said on fan sites like Power Rangers Universe Wikia so the user most likely added the info in good faith not knowing about WP:Verifiability. So yes the edits are not vandalism in any way as the users most likely made their edits in good faith. Powergate92Talk 03:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

  1) It is still reliably sourced content and 2) no one should be using that particular Wikia for anything reliable. Even if it is in good faith, it is still incredibly wrong.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent)Correct. In the case of new contributors it may simply be a lack of understanding of Wikipedia policies, in the case of experienced contributors there may be a valid reason for their edits (content disputes for example) or there may be an issue. No matter what the case, it is not vandalism. It might help to take another look at WP:VAND which specifically states "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not vandalism." Shell ^babelfish 03:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Repetitively and intentionally making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia --nutshell at WP:AIV. The most important word in the definition below is "deliberately". So no those cases aren't vandalism. Uninformed and inexplicable edits just aren't vandalism, just as Shell is spot-on. I see now where I made my mistake in the ANI at start and why sanctions were sought; It wasn't that you were scolded in general for being hounded and the view of your hitting the "VANDAL" TW button was a shove over the top, it's also due to a misunderstanding of the definition. Was a "final warning" type message to you appropriate? I still feel not, but now I understand it a bit better. Before clicking for any revert, think about how you felt before coming to ANI for this report when someone suggested your edits could be vandalism and disruptive enough to take away Twinkle access. Take a second to think about it before someone else is branded by you as the same. It's always an oddly human moment, even when I have no doubt, and Huggle reminds all its users of its serious nature by providing many other revert reasons. Ok. End side 'A'.

Powerguy92 needs "a talkin' to" yet? I don't know. Words a bit harsh in my view and I'm still really miffed from the decent evidence of contribution list hunting. If no warning had ever been given about smacking the red button in the past, isn't a final warning pretty brutal for Ryulong as a first warning on the matter? Likely all moot now since mutual avoidance should be a given. Unofficial advice to both, same as before; Think about what a pain ANI is and how only the truly disturbed like myself actually try to spend free time here. Toxic for most. You can both just call this whole ANI as a high-level or even final warning depending on future actions. Please play nice? Better yet, not at all? Great! Good luck to you both. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

There was warning given before: [191][192] and an AN/I discussion. Powergate92Talk 16:44, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there was.--Sky Attacker the legend reborn... 01:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

That second diff has nothing to do with rollback, Powergate92. You always do this. You post diffs that have nothing to do with the complaint to try and get me in more trouble. This has to end.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so you do randomly say "you should stop reverting things and labeling it as vandalism" but it still had nothing to do with that discussion on your talk page.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring that for a moment, do you see that there are multiple editors here expressing concern about your use of the "vandalism" rollback? Shell ^babelfish 23:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Some people find it an issue. Namely those who see a target over my head.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:02, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

That's really not the kind of response I was hoping for and you've managed to insult myself and other outside editors who have commented here in the same breath. So since nice didn't work, to put it bluntly, if you do not stop using the vandalism rollback inappropriately, you will have access to the tool removed. Shell ^babelfish 06:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong, based on your latest response I'm concerned that you are losing your perspective here. I don't see a target over your head, on your back -- or anywhere near you -- but I do see that here you are taking criticism badly. (In fact, I think most of your work up to this point is important, if underappreciated.) However, labelling other editors' edits as "vandalism" ought to be limited to only those changes which are indisputably so. In other cases, where a reversion is justified, one should use a different explanation, e.g. "tendentious edit", or "unsourced material", or "against consensus". (None of these examples should be construed as comments on the actual content in the articles under discussion.) Insisting that instances such as these are "vandalism" only serves to weaken the persuasiveness of that word, & inevitably leads to wikilawyering. -- llywrch (talk) 17:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Redheylin persistent removal of RS material.

• User:Redheylin removed reliably sourced material from the article on three occasions in a matter of days: herehereandhere and also removed cite request tags, I requested that he cease.
• User:Redheylin makes accusations that insinuate edits were bad faith and requests cites.
• Cite offered, yet User:Redheylin then removes RS material, claiming it is incorrect.
• User:Redheylin follows with further accusation of bad faith editing,
• User:Redheylin refuses to check the cites despite material being readily available. Measles (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
• User:Redheylin then rewrites and misattributes content. Measles (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

This is the Rajneesh movement article coming around again, I am not involved but I see there is quite a bit of content dispute going on there for a couple of weeks, perhaps the differing of opinions over content would be better served with a Request for comment.Off2riorob (talk) 20:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes: after prolonged enquiry passage has so far turned out to be single reliable source attributed to four, with a "cause and effect" clause that was pure OS. User will not properly discuss this and other changes and has reverted several attempts to modify, along with the usual accusations. Redheylin (talk) 21:10, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(The "misattributes content" presumably refers to the three citations left supporting nothing, as noted on talk page, as seen in diffs....) Redheylin (talk) 21:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

The wikipedia has WP:DR to deal with low level content disputes like this, please try to be less confrontational in your editing and if issues arise ask for uninvolved opinions. Off2riorob (talk)

No, sorry, found and corrected an error in my citation. (Feel I ought to add; this came about because actual source of passage was not cited but attributed to four others.) Redheylin (talk) 22:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Redheylin's editing is both lazy and disruptive, he introduces unsourced content, and poorly cited material, yet demands that others provide detailed text for their citations; because what he is reading does not adhrere to his point of view.

Why is it that he is incapable of using readily available resources such as google scholar, google books, etc. or a library, like the rest of us, in an attempt to verify the citations, rather that accusing others of falsifying content and original synthesis?

His primary objection relates to the presentation of "spirituality as business", yet multiple sources discuss Rajneesh's activities in commercial terms, (see below) so what basis is there exactly for stating that this is a skewed point of view, for removing cited content, accusing an editor of NPOV infringement, and then rewriting the content with sources misattributed?

• Goldman, Marion S. (2005), "When Leaders Dissolve: Considering Controversy and Stagnation in the Osho Rajneesh Movement", in Lewis, James R., Jesper Aagaard Petersen, Controversial new religions, Oxford University Press US.

• Urban, Hugh B. (2005), "Osho, From Sex Guru to Guru of the Rich: The Spiritual Logic of Late Capitalism", in Forsthoefel, Thomas A.; Cynthia Ann Humes, Gurus in America, SUNY Press.

• Carrette, Jeremy; King, Richard (2004), Selling Spirituality: The Silent Takeover of Religion, New York: Routledge.

• Urban, Hugh B. (2003), Tantra: Sex, Secrecy, Politics, and Power in the Study of Religion, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

• Mehta, Gita (1994), Karma Cola: Marketing the Mystic East, New York: Vintage.

• Mehta, Uday (1993), Modern Godmen in India: A Sociological Appraisal, Mumbai: Popular Prakashan.

• Carter, Lewis F. (1990), Charisma and Control in Rajneeshpuram: A Community without Shared Values, Cambridge Univerity Press.

• Wright, Charles (1985), Oranges & lemmings: the story behind Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh, Richmond Victoria: Greenhouse Publications Pty Ltd.

Measles (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User:AlasdairGreen27 trolling once more

AlasdairGreen27 (talk · contribs) - He's trolling again, and I'm not entirely sure what the appropriate response should be (particularly since I'm the one targeted this time, not a third party). After getting temporarily blocked a few days ago for repeatedly reinserting text calling another editor (AndreaFox2) a tw*t (and no, that's not an 'i' where the * is), he's now trolling again at Talk:Josip Broz Tito. Specifically, calling me antisemitic for daring to suggest that an antisemitic individual can be a reliable source for information that has nothing to do with Jews (he's been discounting sources based on ad hominem attacks like this, as opposed to addressing the substance of the source itself). It's gone beyond mere assumption of bad faith and is now going to active accusations, both in the text of the talk page and the edit summaries (which can't be undone so easily). Reverting his edits and warning him myself would be pointless (I don't like rewarding trolls), so I'm requesting help here.

I doubt he honestly believes any of it, but like the previous case, he either gets worked up, or wants to get others worked up, so he resorts to trolling. I've got a notification of this ANI post queued up on his talk that I will submit the moment after this posts. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Final warning given. That's almost just about enough of that. Tan | 39 22:40, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Shadow is Jewish, so knowing Al it might well have been a joke. In bad taste perhaps, but it got me laughing. ;) --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, can't see anything funny about it myself. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, just because an editor behaves like a stubborn, bratty child doesn't necessarily mean that they are a troll.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 02:19, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes but when someone you have never heard of (AlasdairGreen27) posts on your talk page a notice accusing you of being a sock puppet for someone else you have never heard of (Brunodan) and follows up with a message that he is working on a sock puppet investigation against you then it becomes slightly disturbing. Especially when it appears that Brundodan is an Italian editor and you live in New Zealand! If Wikipedia has to have aggressive vigilantes (trolls?) then they should be required to do a minimal amount of checking before blazing away.Buistr (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Given the typical demographic of Wikipedia editors, your remark hits uncomfortably close to home. Jehochman ^Talk 13:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Gigs

OK, Hu12 and I do strongly disagree with the wording of the Rfc that has just opened, while both of us did try to provide a better wording. Strong words have there been said, some of which are to the strong disagreement of Gigs.

Gigs now plainly assumes bad faith on the editors (mainly administrators) who work on the spam blacklist, accusing Hu12 of admin abuse (something of which there they does not provide proof), and when called on that (and diff they appears to feel they has the right to say those things, because there were wrongdoings on them as well. I [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gigs&diff=prev&oldid=330961978 warned Gigs, and asked him to retract, but no.

Could I have some uninvolved admins resolve this situation? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe the diffs largely speak for themselves. My comments were in reply to Hu12's accusation that I opened the RfC as some kind of soapbox or petty revenge for a single blacklist request that he denied. That's clearly not the case. I don't believe there is community consensus for citing the reliability of a source in black or whitelisting decisions. The RfC is to gauge that consensus. As I said there, I could have made this issue personal, but I have tried from the start to avoid that. I could have opened a behavioral RfC, I did not. I'm merely asking for Hu12 to assume good faith on my part. Gigs (talk) 23:06, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, Gigs, I'd like you to show proof of admin abuse, if that is what you claim. For now, you just believe there is no consensus (strangely, WP:RS, WP:V are based on consensus). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:09, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't specifically claim there is admin abuse. My comment was that I could have framed the issue as abuse, but I refrained from doing that, instead bringing the question to the community to see if there was consensus for these actions or not. I'm not disputing the consensus of WP:RS and WP:V, but I disagree that the consensus for those policies automatically means they are applicable to blacklisting decisions. Gigs (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

"you are, by far, the worst offender" (to Hu12). What are the offences? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 23:16, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

It all started in this discussion. Despite 3 weeks worth of good faith explainations from multiple established editors, Gigs continued to perpetuate his disputes by sticking to allegation or viewpoints long after they been rejected. Sadly what is easily assertained by gig's contributions is that he was driving for an Rfc, not discussion;

• "I object to this entire discussion as invalid on the grounds that it attempts to usurp editorial discretion and put it in the hands of a small group of blacklist maintainers" --Gigs (talk) 21:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[193]

• "It may be useful to open an RFC to see where the consensus is."
• "Before we take this to a wider audience"
• "If you truely want community consensus on this, then we need to expand the solicitation past just this page"
• "Here's my attempt at a neutral summary: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/RfC " Starts a draft RfC.
• ""All here" is a pretty biased audience of what, 3 or 4 people that have commented and are mostly also active in blacklist administration? Hence the RfC to widen the audience. "
• "If I don't do it now, it may come up later ..."
• " I'm giving you this opportunity to help frame the issue instead of slapping an RfC out quickly "

One instance Gig's fabricates an entire scenario about another case, ning.com;

• "the blacklist is now blocking thousands of sites on the grounds that just one of them was spammed. It is like IP blocking all of Russia because we had a single Russian vandal! This sort of prior restraint goes against the foundation of Wikipedia, and every wiki in general. It strikes at WP:BOLD and turns it into WP:ASKFIRST"

Despite the bad faith accusation, this case was explained.

I've even attempted in good faith, to correct some factual errors, however Gigs reverts it to an obvious POV version, and yet again, more bad faith statements directed at myself; "restored some of the removed facts, removed bias from others". Then, follows up by adding the comment "You have completely hacked it up, biased the facts section, and moved it to my userspace. Your edits are not constructive. Stop" states further "I have tried to retain as much as I could of your edits, while restoring the neutral facts that Beetstra and Strife and I collaborated on. "

It appears that despite explaination of facts from multiple established editors, gigs fails to allow for the possibility that he is indeed wrong, and continues to perceive his biases as neutral. Is Admin synonomus with "punching bag", seriously. I digress. Sadly, the RfC seems to be a case at an attempt, by gigs to further a position, rather than resolve a dispute. Which is a wholey inapropriate use of wikipedias dispute resolution process. --Hu12 (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Beetstra, the quote is obvious if you don't take it out of context: "you are, by far, the worst offender when it comes to blindly citing WP:RS for black and whitelisting decisions", is the full quote. I'm not going to respond to Hu12's wall of text. Gigs (talk) 01:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the point of this ANI is. I urge an uninvolved editor to review the diffs and close this matter, as it will be clear that it's a normal policy dispute which is dealt with through an RfC, which I have already opened. Gigs (talk) 01:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

" I could have just opened up an admin tool abuse RFC on you; I didn't." Accusing other editors of abuse is uncivil unless there is genuine abuse, Please explain. I'd like you to show proof of admin abuse. How many times have you been asked?--Hu12 (talk) 04:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

• I can't see anything needing admin attention. I suggest this is closed, as it is just generating more conflict. Just let the RfC run. Fences&Windows 02:24, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that helps, Gigs: "you are, by far, the worst offender when it comes to blindly citing WP:RS for black and whitelisting decisions", proof the offence, Gigs. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Why bother asking again, we'll only get a Straw man reply. You, me and the others attempted in good faith to engage and discuss with gigs, but his adgenda doesn't appear to that of consensus building. Clearly he was upset with outcome of a blacklist request (reposted it twice), and as a result created the RfC as a platform to exploit for his viewpoint. Evidence of this can be found in My "wall of text", as gigs states, including repeating logical fallacys about policies (WP:V is not consensus), actively and intentionally keeping out correct and appropriate "Background facts" and mischaracterizing existing facts, all seem to show a significantly different motive, than the one he's attempting to portray. I could be wrong, but  Looks like a duck to me --Hu12 (talk) 09:35, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you two are continuing to attack me here. This is incredibly poor behavior. People have had a chance to read the diffs, which speak for themselves. Let it go. Gigs (talk) 13:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Wheres the "admin tool abuse", Gigs? Whats incredibly poor behavor? Asking you proove, what you alledge?--Hu12 (talk) 17:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Time out you two three. ANI is not a place to prolong your own discussions/arguments. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:05, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Suicidal or depressed editor?

I recently reverted this edit, where the editor said "i hope i die". Would it be appropriate to respond to them in some way, e.g. offering one of the links to helping organisations listed on WP:SUICIDE Wikipedia:Responding to suicidal individuals? -- Avenue (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If having one's edit reverted, pushes one towards suicide; I'm not sure anything can be done. GoodDay (talk) 01:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I hate to sound like a jackass, but it looks like run of the mill vandalism to me. That said, I suppose a warning which includes a link, just in case, wouldn't go amiss. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 01:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What about Responding to threats of harm? --Bsadowski1 01:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Handy to have a strict policy. Guess you tag their talk with that template then. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 01:21, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I've used the template to respond on their talk page. -- Avenue (talk) 01:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I hope I die too, I just hope it's not until well past my life-insurance-actuarial-table predicted expiration date and I hope I'm in good health up until near the end. Hell, I hope I live to be 200 or more if I'm in good health, but eternity, on this planet? Nothing personal, and no offense taken, but no thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

So what's the alternative to someday dying? If it's being trapped forever in a small room listening to two twits argue over some subject neither understands, which I have no interest in, & both parties refuse to listen to me ("For the one millionth time, very small rocks do not float!"), I'd hope I die too. -- llywrch (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Severe personal attacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I don't have the temerity to mark this resolved, but it's clear there's no serious admin action that will be taken here. WP:WQA and other venues exist for dealing with this; if you feel Malleus' habits are disruptive, you could start an RfC, et al. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:56, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Are these comments [194] [195] [196] [197] [198] [199] [200] by Malleus Fatuorum anywhere close to acceptable? Since he seems to have quite a history of personal attacks, it may be advisable to block Malleus Fatuorum and protect his talk page for a reasonable period of time. Andrea105 (talk) 03:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, I'm not sure if I should agree or not. I've just been reading his RfAs (I've been reading through quite a few recently) and both of them list attitude problems, which I just encountered myself. However, because I have so recently had a dispute with him, I don't believe I should comment further for fear of bias. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 03:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Severe" personal attacks? This is a "severe" personal attack. Calling someone "half-assed" and behaving like a stupid Internet tough guy is hardly "severe".--66.177.73.86 (talk) 03:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The use of the term "severe" is obviously relative to the level of discourse generally expected from editors. Though comments like [201] are, of course, grounds for an immediate, indefinite site-ban, this does not imply that "lesser" personal attacks which do not explicitly threaten the lives of contributors are therefore acceptable. Andrea105 (talk) 03:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You know what I find really amusing? The IP who posted that threat was never blocked.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 03:48, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It is quite unfortunate that the IP wasn't blocked. However, I would hardly expect the standard for WP:NPA enforcement to be "if it isn't a death threat, we won't block you for it..." Andrea105 (talk) 03:51, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, I was thinking... Wikipedia has a policy against death threats, but Wikipedia never mentions anything about actual violence. So... if one editor actually killed another editor... it technically wouldn't be against Wikipedia rules. :-\ --66.177.73.86 (talk) 03:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What happens off-wiki, stays off-wiki. OK, seriously, if hypothetically I stabbed my neighbor, and he happened to be a wikipedia editor, I wouldn't expect to be blocked for it. However, if I found out where a Wikipedia lived and stabbed them for something that happened on-wiki or through Wikipedia, then I would be. If my off-wiki criminal activity brought notoriety to Wikipedia, I probably wouldn't be surprised if it caused a block, as blocks have been issued for similar circumstances in the past. Of course, last time I checked they don't have Internet in The Big House, so it's kind of moot. I wonder if in 20 years there will be a Category:Ex-cons who registered then went to prison then got out and associated userboxes??? Um, probably not. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:00, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, users can be blocked for their behavior on other websites, so I can't imagine why a user couldn't be blocked for stabbing someone in real life...--66.177.73.86 (talk) 04:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

By God there needs to be a new guideline on this one! Soxwon (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has gotten somewhat off track. Are Malleus Fatuorum's comments of such a nature that administrative action should be taken to prevent their recurrence? Why or why not? Andrea105 (talk) 04:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think he needs to be put in time-out until he learns how to play nice.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 04:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The above user speaks from experience, having been blocked 3 4 times in the last month. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You know, I'm trying not to personally attack anyone, but you're making it really, really difficult.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned with Andrea105's edit warring on Malleus's talk page. It is one thing to redact a comment, but it is completely different to do so on their talk page while in a conflict with that person. It is seen as antagonistic and definitely inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 05:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Though you're forking a discussion from Malleus' talk page, I'll respond here, since he can redact my comments there :) I was unaware of any generally accepted practice to permit editors to maintain on their own talk pages severe personal attacks and abuse directed against other contributors. Naturally, if this is indeed the case, I will modify my behavior accordingly :) However, my use of rollback was mistaken, due to Malleus' extremely harsh language. Finally, I am unaware of being "in a conflict" with Malleus Fatuorum prior to reverting his talk page insults -- indeed, the incident was first brought to my attention through the appearance of Malleus' insults on a RC patrol tool. Perhaps you could provide further evidence for your claim. Andrea105 (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, Ottava, you should disclose as a potential conflict of interest that you are facing the significant prospect of an extended site ban in this RFAr, due, in part, to personal attacks and incivility. Andrea105 (talk) 05:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless you're an admin carrying out admin duties, never edit somebody else's comments on their own talk page, for any reason. File a complaint if necessary, but don't mess with somebody else's talk page. Looie496 (talk) 05:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies -- I was unaware that user talk pages served as an accepted forum for unbridled personal attacks, insults, and abuse, unless removed by an administrator :) Andrea105 (talk) 05:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

They do not serve as an accepted forum for unbridled personal attacks, etc. However, even if they're being used in that manner, edit warring with someone over their talk page in this manner is abuse by you and approaches blockable conduct.

As Jayron says below, don't poke the bear. This is a form of taunting behavior - escalating a situation by continuing conduct which someone else has clearly indicated they find offensive and want removed. When it's a conflict on article or wikipedia space, that's one thing, but on a users own talk page it's not appropriate to keep pushing that much.

I am going to issue 10-second blocks to Malleus for the two attacks on The Coldplay Expert and Jadefalcon's talk pages, and 5 seconds to Andrea105 for the taunting. I AGF - but you broke the rules, and everyone has to pay at least a little penalty for this. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no. Blocks are preventative, not punitive. 10 second blocks are completely inappropriate, and you state outright htat it is a "penalty". WTF are you thinking, GWH? KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 16:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

While "fuck off" may be rude, it is not a "personal attack". Please don't conflate the two. Ottava Rima (talk) 06:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Please put down the stick and stop poking the bear. Malleus's comments are not excusable. That does not mean that we should work this hard to keep getting him to make such comments. I don't think there is anything defensable about Malleus's comments here, but on the other hand, I am not sure that any administrator action needs to be taken. If you don't want to read them, take his user page off of your watchlist. Sometimes, we don't have to block someone just because they break a rule. Sometimes we can just stop poking people with sticks, and let them calm down all on their own.--Jayron32 06:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, this is way out of line, its not just on his own talk page, he has also gone to Jade's and Coldplay's talkpages and attacked them there: [202] [203]. "Fuck off" is a violation of civil: "Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;", the fact that the violation was repeated after a caution shows that the user doesn't plan to change. I am normally fairly lenient with pretty much anything, this however, is not acceptable. (for the record, I was involved in the WQA as a third patry) Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 07:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This is why we ask people to stop escalating situations and come to ANI for help. Given all that came before - the comments are unacceptable, yes, but we also have policies against taunting, poking the bear, edit warring on other people's talk pages, etc.

If we simply blame Malleus for this and take severe action, we are to some degree judging him by past actions which may not entirely apply to this situation. This situation involved Malleus' returning to rude form in several venues, but I do not think that the actions before the general melee broke out on his talk page were actionable. Warnable and regrettable, yes, but not by themselves actionable.

What happened after involved significant multi-party escalation. It would not have happened had any side disengaged and deescalated. To some degree all bear blame for the results.

It is our hope that Wikipedia contributors will be adults and civil and constructive with each other. Disagreements are part of the territory, but butting heads - escalating into rudeness and both sides refusing to back down - is to be avoided. It's not collegial. It's not adult. It's not civil or constructive.

We have a tendency as admins to allow a certain amount of it to avoid suppressing vigorous debate and consensusbuilding. But in msny cases that means we fail to head off potential large problems early enough to keep them small. Many people should have stopped this; those that asked the combatants to please stop are to be commended. ANI was the correct venue. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:29, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you, I still stand by my original comment; Malleus's comments were unacceptable, and should be dealt with. However, the possible taunting, and "lastword" comments were not a constructive way to deal with the matter. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Malleus has for some time been aware that many admins and other users feel he regularly pushes or exceeds normal Wikipedia civility standards.

This was yet another foray past the line - however, as most of the worst of it came after the back and forth on his talk page started, it's not a good incident to chose to enforce strenuously. Hence my messages and the 10-second block.

If Malleus continues in this vein he will eventually firmly cross the line without provocation and firmer measures will have to be taken. He's been warned about that. He and others feel that the policy is unfair, inappropriate, or inconsistently applied, and he's made sure we're all aware of that.

If someone were to try and tackle the larger behavior in more depth here, they'd have to try and untangle the order of behaviors and provocations to see to what degree taunting played a hand in the details of each response. It's possible someone can do that. I don't think that it will be easy or reasonable, but that's my opinion.

It's easy and reasonable to say "some of this went too far" and issue enough of a sanction to hopefully end it there. If this continues tomorrow then further preventive blocks may be necessary - the event rises to the level of (really) blockable, overall. We need this event to be over, or at least deescalated to the point it's not actively policy-busting and abusive to participants.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

A month ago Malleus Fatuorum got a 24 hours block (not the first time) for personal attacks, this time he got a 10 seconds block! If this trend continues I suspect he will get a promotion the next time he attacks somebody. Sole Soul (talk) 10:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Some people here need to grow up. Being told to 'fuck off' is not a "severe attack", neither is "half-assed opinions" or similar. I suggest that anyone who thinks that Malleus has a problem attempts to work constructively with him on an article, when they'll find that he is as personable and helpful as the best editors on here. Parrot of Doom 10:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

And, err, this sort of thing? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 10:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, seeing somebody call editors such as Malleus an "abusive drama-monger", and then criticising only Malleus's response to that comment (as others do on that page) is typically underhand behaviour. Parrot of Doom 11:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

His comments at the edequette alrerts were rude, uncivil, a personal attack, and just plain being a WP:DICK I did nothing wrong other than defend User:Coffee and he got pissed off. THats not my problem. He needs to grow up and realize that some people will not take the BS directed at him.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 11:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

...if it isn't your problem, then why did you feel the need to comment? Also, you talk of incivility, and yet you've just made a personal attack. Isn't that "way out of line"? Parrot of Doom 11:59, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeh, working on the scale of "F*ck off" = 10 second block, "He needs to grow up" probably merits a 0.01 second block. On a less sarcastic note, Parrot of Doom: how come you don't think that telling another user to "F*ck off" is an attack, and yet you do think that asking a user to grow up is? Both are attacks in my opinion, but the first is more serious than the second. At wikipedia I don not think we should accept disparaging comments simply because they're not "[that] severe", all rudeness and personal attacks should be dealt with accordingly, for that reason Malleus Fatuorum was blocked, and Coldplay is to be warned: Coldplay: you do need to be more careful about what you say, I haven't noticed you being polite towards Malleus, or any other users you have conflict with, please improve. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 15:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that I thought that "Fuck off" wasn't an attack. I said (and why the fuck are you censoring the word fuck?) that "Fuck off" is not a "severe attack". That said, anyone offended by "Fuck off" clearly needs to grow a set of bollocks. "Fuck off" isn't an attack, its a simple and powerful way of telling someone to go away. Telling a user to grow up is quite clearly an attack. I've told people a million times, if they work collaboratively with Malleus they'll find him one of the most helpful editors on this entire project. If, however, they flounce over to his talk page and seek to lecture him on things, they'll get the sharp edge of his tongue—and I have little to no sympathy for them. Parrot of Doom 18:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Fuck off" may be uncivil, but "he should grow up" is a violation of WP:NPA as it is a comment on an editor and not an edit by implying that the other editor is a child. It's not a major transgression, but one nonetheless. However, combine overall behaviour into one big pot, it's perhaps more of an issue. I'm not commenting specifically on Malleus at this point, more general concepts. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:04, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking on more practical matters, the fact that we are supposed to block to prevent disruption means that it's well nigh impossible to effectively block a user for incivility unless it is excessive and ongoing. Violent outbursts, even a pattern of them, can't be adequately addressed by blocking without being putative. It's both a strength and weakness of the policy. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It may be more useful to calmly ask the user to refactor the rude remarks. The best result is if they are retracted. A block is likely to aggrevate that type of situation. Jehochman ^Talk 16:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Look this editor is being rude towards an admin so I defended him. And he attacked me at my own talk page. Just take a look. So I fought fire with fire. I dont want anymore drama so Im sorry that I said that but my comments werent anywhere close to what he said to User:Coffee he insulted every teen that edits this project.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 17:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

What I continue to find ironic is that this situation developed in the course of a WQA report complaining about the rudeness of this saintly administrator you were so keen to defend, a report in the course of which said saintly administrator was exceedingly rude not only to me but to several others.[204] Naturally, being an administrator, no action was taken against him. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:31, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know. We do share common ground there. I too feel that he was too blunt with his comments an was pretty rude. However your comments to him were no better. And your reply to Thejadefalcon and me was even worse. I apologized for my own comments but you have yet to do the same. You don't have to thought As im done with this Nothing good is coming out of this though.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

There's one key difference between you and I; you were wrong. --Malleus Fatuorum 18:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, seriously, guys... this was amusing at first, but now it's just sad. I have seen more intelligent arguments from preschoolers. You all need to grow up.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Look. How can you admit that saying F*** off is not uncivil? You attacked me on my talk page. How was I wrong. Dont you get it? Im done trying to explain it. You have provoved several editors and refuse to admit of any wrongdoing.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 18:44, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Friendly" Block Warning

Resolved

 – No admin action possible or required here.

I have received an alarming message in the form of some "serious" advice regarding a "friendly" block warning from the administrator BozMo on my talk page. The undelying issue relates to an editorial dispute which I have proposed be resolved through the process of mediation. However, it seems to me that the process of mediation is no longer open to me, as I am under the threat of a block if I proceed. I would like this threat rescinded, so that the editorial dispute can be resolved through due process, as is the custom. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 09:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

To add the warning for disruptive wikidrama, and the observation that the only editorial dispute is a template which will expire in a couple of days or before under WP:SNOW and cannot hope to be resolved by mediation on this timescale. I am happy for any other admin to lift this warning if they feel it unreasonable in the circumstances.--BozMo talk 10:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

It would be quicker if you would recind the warning yourself, and then we can go about our business as normal, and not have involve anyone else. This would be appreciated. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 10:36, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No, because the warning in my view was completely fair and justified, and as far as I can see you are completely in the wrong. I am happy for someone to disagree with me, and that disagreement might prompt me to reflect on just how obvious it all is. But I certainly do not think the "business as normal" you propose is in the interests of the project. I have offered to discuss further on your talk page. Your persistence in bringing it here is a waste of community time. --BozMo talk 10:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Coincidentally, unilateral admin-imposed editor restrictions are a current topic of debate at WP:AN. A change to WP:BAN was attempted in order to make them officially acceptable, but was reverted after protest. Equazcion (talk) 10:44, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

Business as usual being you endlessly pushing this merge proposal, despite considerable opposition worthy of a WP:SNOW close of the discussion, forum shopping it to RFC and mediation and what not? I think the warning is quite reasonable.--Atlan (talk) 10:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Equazcion, this has nothing to do with a unilaterally imposed edit restriction. I have no idea why you posted this here.--Atlan (talk) 10:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

An admin has told another editor that they aren't allowed to do something that they would normally be allowed to do, or else they'll be blocked, without any community discussion. That's the definition of a unilateral admin-imposed editing restriction, and is the very thing being debated. Equazcion (talk) 11:03, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

No, not as in my view. It is more like a 3RR warning as I see it. I told him that his disruptive wikidrama had gone far enough and if he continued it in the way he proposed he would be blocked for it. That is a completely normal disruptive editing warning. --BozMo talk 11:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe you made what amounts to a 3RR warning as well, but you also told him that if he sought mediation he'd be blocked. Equazcion (talk) 11:27, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

On another note: I have to sympathize with Gavin on this. People opposed to a proposal often seem a bit too zealous in trying to quash it, rather than merely arguing against it. Leaving the merge templates up doesn't do any harm, and I understand wanting to seek uninvolved opinions when something like that happens. It can be frustrating. Equazcion (talk) 11:16, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I did sympathise with him too if you read my message.--BozMo talk 11:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure which message you mean. Are you saying you support replacing the templates? It seems a silly thing to seek mediation for (he's just seeking it to get the templates back up), but I think the solution is to allow the templates back up rather than disallowing him from seeking recourse. Again I don't see the harm. Equazcion (talk) 11:27, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

The wording of the warning was what I refered to as sympathetic (by intent anyway). I understand it can be frustrating and offered to give him time to think it through and talk it through. But, the template was obviously inappropriate from the moment it was put there and disrupts the content of the encyclopaedia, not to mention the talk page etc. I do not think we should put the template back just to avoid hurting someone's feelings, I think WP:SNOW was a valid reason to remove it. And I think an improved understanding that making an inappropriate merge RFC as a first move into an unfamiliar area won't necessary get everyone's appreciation is needed. --BozMo talk 11:40, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

If the merger discussion is, for all intents and purposes, finished, then the merge template can be removed. I don't see why the template should remain because 1 editor doesn't want to accept the outcome of the discussion. Gavin seems to believe the RFC serves as an injunction to remove the template while it is underway. The RFC is of course a separate thing.--Atlan (talk) 11:47, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

The merge template was up for a grand total of 3 hours [205][206]. If this had gone on for a couple days I could see someone saying it's enough, and possibly that "disruption" were a valid point. This wasn't given a chance though. I'm not even sure that SNOW could be adequately declared after such a short period. Equazcion (talk) 11:59, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I think SNOW was called as much because it was an obviously inappropriate proposal as on number of votes cast or time. It was clear that it wasn't even the correct proposed merger if a merger was needed, as well as being clear that the merger wasn't needed. See the discussion, there is no one supporting it. If you make a clearly bad suggestion and everyone says so you don't sit and demand that it runs its course with article space tags. And you don't then demand mediation because you called it wrong. Is there an admin prepared to close this please? --BozMo talk 12:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec)I agree that's not very long, but the discussion seemed to have received adequate attention in that time. I've seen discussions running for days with less comments than this, e.g. at Afd. Anyway, no point in edit warring over a merge template. It's pretty harmless to leave it there, although that's moot now after so many opposes. The real problem in my view, is Gavin not accepting the result and trying to take this to multiple forums, which is really unwarranted.--Atlan (talk) 12:16, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I think this is the view that William M. Connolley took when he removed the template before the RFC was underway, and I understand where he is coming from. Whilst his views on the "issues" may well be vindicated, nonetheless RFC is a well established "process", and while its outcome may be a given in this instance, it is customary to allow, rather than impede, wider consultation to flush out these "issues". I think once BozMo had taken sides and thrown his cap into the ring regarding the "issues" [207], I am not sure that taking on the role of referee in order to control the "process" as well was correct, nor is a block warning helpful in resolving our differences of opinion.
I am sure we can cut a deal as the discussions progress, but I would like the block warning rescinded, as it is impeding the "process". --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 12:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

You seem to be perceiving the warning as a threat. BozMo has already stated he will not issue a block himself, but that someone else might if you keep up a disruptive course of action regarding the merge. That you find this warning restrictive is entirely your opinion, and you're entitled to it. However, I'll reiterate, the warning seems reasonable to me.--Atlan (talk) 12:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

"Personally, I am quite prepared to block you for disruptive wikidrama..." -- It was indeed a threat/restriction. Equazcion (talk) 12:55, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I will then assume that although it was a threat in form, it was not a formal block warning in substance, since BozMo was not going to enforce it himself, and the issue is therefore resolved. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

No edit summaries

User talk:Rahuljohnson4u has been warned over at least a year about making (usually) voluminous unreferenced edits without edit summaries, by several editors - 4 including me. He continues to do so anyway. His first language is not English and we've tried to be tolerant. It is becoming tiresome and he does not respond to these requests. I would appreciate it if an administrator warned him to fill in edit summaries. I have two of the other editors willing to proceed with mediation, but who needs it, really, if it can be avoided? Perhaps if he were warned by an administrator, he might take notice. This was suggested by one of the (non-participating) foursome, who managed to get him off his articles, apparently. We have not been so lucky!  :) FYI, the articles are on different topics, so I do not normally interface with these other editors. We only have Rahuljohnson4u in common!  :) Student7 (talk) 12:27, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Using edit summaries is good practice, but it is not a requirement. Is the editor being disruptive? Have you asked them to comment here? Jehochman ^Talk 13:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeatedly neglecting summaries can be disruptive, and users have been warned for it before. PS. I've notified the user of this thread. Equazcion (talk) 13:04, 11 Dec 2009 (UTC)

I think a bigger problem is that the user has been uploading images in violation of copyright. They seem to be having a hard time. Jehochman ^Talk 13:11, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

This user seems to be intent on doing good on Wikipedia but doesn't seem to know how to do so. I'd suggest some one adopt him or her if they are willing to be adopted. Rgoodermote  13:15, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Rahuljohnson4u has left eight edit summaries in the last couple of days, so possibly the message has been received. EdJohnston (talk) 17:30, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Misleading or inaccurate edit summaries are unacceptable, but absent edit summaries aren't proscribed by any Wikipedia policy or guideline that I'm aware of. Stop bothering him about it. -208.97.245.247 (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

User:173.13.112.253

This use just keeps making random vandalisms to Transformers fiction pages, and ignores any attempt to contact him, as well as all warnings. Can something be done about it? Mathewignash (talk) 18:26, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I reported them to administrators at WP:AIV, which is usually the best thing to do with vandals. The admins there will block them and take care of it. A little insignificant ^{Giving thanks to all that is me} 18:42, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Resolved

A new sockpuppet after User:Buck9999, User:Buck9998, User:Buck9997, and User:Buck9996 is User:Buck99996. Joe Chill (talk) 19:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

 Blocked - Next time, file an SPI case. Tiptoety ^talk 20:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I thought thought it would be pointless when it is obvious and SPI cases take a long time to get a response. Joe Chill (talk) 20:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Except that SPI cases for the same user are all kept in one place, making it MUCH easier to track long-term abuse. If this person gets half a brain and starts making random usernames to avoid detection, it would help to have all of his accounts he's used in one location, and SPI makes that much easier. --Jayron32 21:46, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Undue protectiveness on an article and edit warring

I tried to improve the Ribbon (computing) article. The small article was a mere stub that with a lot of the article just listed a critisism by some disgruntled employee and an arbitrary programmer. I removed the critisims as it was unbalanced for the small article and it was only negative opinion info and not factual information and thus not in accordance with WP:NPOV.

Some user named user:Intgr immediatly revert the POV removal without provding a reason in the summary : revert 1

In subsequent reverts he used some excuse that major edits should be discussed first on the talk page. This is not a requirement for wikipedia edits and he himself did not discuyss the POV content of edits but just kept reverting bakc in the POV information in subsequent reverts leaving alone a whole list of other edits I made to the article.

revert 2

revert 3

revert 4

revert 5

revert 6

revert 7

There is no reason for a user that does not contribute to the article himself to stop others from edits in obvious accordance with wikipedia policies (like removal of POV materials). This user seems to have some obscure motive for having the negative POV dominating the article content. Mayby he is one of the individuals that gave the critisism or something.

The user has been given a 3RR warning on his talk page a few days ago:

3RR warning]

but still user:Intgr continued to revert. Now he has started to threathen me on the talk page like he is some kind of admin or something. 86.83.239.142 (talk) 19:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

How about you open a discussion on the talk page? He doesn't have to be the one to initiate the talk page discussion, in fact, it's usually the Be Bold editor that initiates. See WP:BRD. You're both "threatening" each other, which is pointless. Discuss the edits, seek consensus, and if that fails, try WP:DR. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that the likely alternative to opening up a talk page discussion is that both of you get timeout blocks for edit warring. Given you both seem to be acting in good faith, that would be a real shame. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:10, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified Intgr of this thread. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:22, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree; both are cruising for a 3RR block. You can't waltz in to an article, delete a referenced section you say is POV, and when an editor disagrees and reverts, claim they have no right to revert you and refuse to discuss it. WP:BRD. Discuss on the talk page. Intgr should have asked for outside opinions before now, or started a talk page discussion himself, as this is not vandalism, but 86.83.239.142, you are in the wrong here, and by reverting 4 or 5 times in a day, and warning the other editor about 3RR, you could legitimately be blocked now. I suggest reverting yourself, and justify the deletion on the talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:20, 11 December 2009 (UTC)