Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive594

Disruptive edits, nationalistic POV pushing, removal of references and edit war

Massive POV pushing at protected article Romania. The story:

Background information: Transylvania had/has a mixed Romanian, Hungarian and German population and was part of Hungary before 1918. After World War I the territory became part of Romania after the Treaty of Trianon was signed in 1920.

A Romanian user, Criztu began to remove Hungary related edits -or edits made by Hungarian users- on January 25 2010 when he changed Kingdom of Hungary to Habsburg Empire but that was later corrected. (Transylvania was part of Hungary before it became part of the Habsburg Empire) At 20:40 user Criztu re-added the information in an incorrect way, but another user fixed it (see this link).However user Criztureverted this edit with a comment "much better order", although it was incorrect. Another user fixed it again, but it was reverted again by Criztu ("nopeee, this is chronologically better"). After user Qorilla specified the date (exactly how long was Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia ruled by the Romanian Prince Michael the Brave), but was reverted by user Criztu and he added unsourced information about the oppression of the Romanian people by Hungarians. (see link) On 2010 January 27 he made an edit with the following comment:"dear hungarian friends, i know u hate the formulation "Transylvania united with Romania" but the international law (Hungary adheres to it also) recognize Romania as a unitary state. so please" On 2010 January 27 Criztu, with the comment "slavs were nice people, we forgot to put them in the paragraph tho." added the following unencyclopedic text: "The Slavs also settled this beautiful land during this period", but his changes were reverted by another user, but Criztu made a revert too. On 2010 January 28 heremoved the information that Hungarians are a sizeable minority in Transylvania, although 1,434,377 Hungarians live in Transylvania, according to the Romanian census from 2002 (see article:Hungarians in Romania). On 2010 January 28 his edits were reverted by another user with the comment "to eliminate POV and ideological edits", however, Criztu reverted this edit too, but User:Man with one red shoe reverted him again and warned him to do not push his POV. On 2010 January 28 User:Rokarudi expanded the article, with the information that the defeated Hungary was forced to sign the Treaty of Trianon, which outcome was that Transylvania became part of Romania. User:Criztu moved to the talkpage and requested sources to prove that Hungary was forced to sign the Treaty of Trianon "dear hungarian person, who thinks it is a fact that Hungary was forced to sign Trianon Treaty"..."Please provide a reliable source publishing "Hungary was forced to sign Treaty of Trianon" (See: [[Talk:Romania#Hungary forced to sign Trianon Treaty and other stuff]]) When I saw this I added two reliable, English third-party published secondary sources to prove this, (including Encyclopædia Britannica) but he immediately removed the reference and reformulated the article to hide this fact, so I reverted him and I asked him to prove his statements. Meanwhile, Criztu reverted my revert and marked it as "revisionistic POV" (Britannica!). User Criztu thinks, that according to the text of the treaty, which is a primary source "Hungary renounces, so far as she is concerned, in favour of Roumania all rights and title over the territories (including Transylvania) Transylvania)", so Hungary gave Transylvania to Romania, and he doesn't accepts the aspects of moder, neutral sources written by historians that as a defeated country, Hungary had to sign this treaty with this text. He pushes his POV and the "text of the treaty" (Although I told him this "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors"), and he removes everything, what doesnt fit into it (reliable, modern, published english sourcesfrom historians). The discussion is useless. See the "efforts" of the discussion: 0 effect.

Sources which prove that Hungary was forced -but according to Criztu revisionist POV pushers- to sign the Treaty of Trianon:

"Although two million Magyars lived in Transylvania, Hungary was forced to sign the treaty of Trianon on 4 June 1920" From: Spencer Tucker,Laura Matysek Wood,Justin D. Murphy, The European powers in the First World War: an encyclopedia. Taylor & Francis. 1999. p. 691. ISBN 081533351X, 9780815333517.

"[Hungary] was forced to sign the Treaty of Trianon" (June 4Chisholm, Hugh (1922). The Encyclopedia Britannica. The Encyclopedia Britannica Co.. p. 418. ISBN 081533351X, 9780815333517.

I am requesting administrator intervention to resolve this problem.--B@xter⁹ 16:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

First, you are required to notify people if you are reporting them here. Second, walls of text are very likely to be ignored (and personally, I'm not bothering). Third, content dispute stuff isn't appropriate here. Follow dispute resolution, and this isn't the next step. Fourth, I think this is moot as User:Anonimu has at least acknowledged the concern here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Please inform people corectly: I was making edits to Romania article, and 2 Hungarian editors reverted my edits with following reasons "i don't like your changes" and "you wrote this beautiful land". I told them they have to give me a valid reasons for reverting my edits. Instead of reaching a consensus in [Talk:Romania] page, User:Rokarudi started reformulating the text of the article in what i consider a POV. I have detailed for them in the Discussion page how his forumlations like "Hungary ceded Transylvania to Romania" or "Hungary was forced to sign Trianon Treaty" can be considered POV, and i propsed that we use the formulations that are also used in Trianon Treaty and Hungary articles : "Hungary signed Trianon Treaty" and "Hungary renounced claims over teritories of defunct Austro-Hungarian Empire" which is the formulation of the treaty itself. [[[User:Baxter9]] pops-up out of the blue and adds citations to User:Rokarudi stating "i am not interested in this discussion". I have messaged him in protest, and expressed my doubt about his interest in reaching a consensus, since he didn't bother clearing whether Hungary was forced to sign a treaty or how did Hungary ceded Transylvania, in the Trianon Treaty and Hungary respective articles, while ROmania article does not discuss history of Hungary. And here he is, presenting the situation in what i consider a distorted way. Criztu (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Andrewrp

This user reverted me at WLOT-LP. I tried to ask them why they reverted my edit ([1]), as I see nothing wrong with it, but they reverted my leaving a message ([2]) and reverted WLOT-LP again. Since they won't answer me, can someone help? 69.221.165.95 (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are obviously advertising that the t.v. station is for sale, and have a link to the site where you can but it. That is Spam and advertising, which is prohibited. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 01:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Andrew seems to have responded to you on your talk page. Wikipedia is not for advertising, please. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I answered at Andrewrp's talk, since they messaged me. Read the article- it's talking about an ownership battle. That isn't my site. That's also violating WP:AGF to say I'm "obviously" doing something. 69.221.165.95 (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It is spam, as the pdf offers contact info to sell the station. Please see THIS

User did not respond to my messages, says he quits wikipedia. I believe this incident is resolved. And to any admin that may be reading this, let me point out that this was never or was never intended to be an edit war. I would not have broken 3RR if he continued. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 02:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

From what I've read so far I think your actions were blatantly wrong. I think you attacked this IP too quickly. The IP then contacted you on the talk page to find out why you reverted it and instead of calmly explaining your reasoning and cordially suggesting the conversation be continued on the talk page so that the discussion is in the open you reverted that. I think a new user who didn't know much about wikipedia would view that as actively adversarial. I don't blame the IP's frustration with you. As for the merits of the IP's edit; the argument for removal due to Wikipedia:Spam#Citation_spam seems questionable. If a radio station is trying to sell itself then this information is important for the article to include. The reference the IP used seems fine to me. Its a primary source, but just because it includes some contact information doesn't invalidate it. If you could have found a secondary source to replace it and tried to include it instead then I would have seen your point. But if there is only a primary source to provide this info, I think its inclusion is more important than the more secondary concerns that the reference has contact information of the station. I guess what I'm mainly saying is that this wasn't a clear cut advertising issue and that you should have conducted the conversation on the articles talk page so that all could see. I think the desire to talk about it on the IP's talk page can seem like a strange type of control issue.Chhe (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"If a radio station is trying to sell itself then this information is important for the article to include." Absolutely not per WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. Without independent sources, this is highly promotional and inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Image BLP?

Resolved

 – Image in question deleted, user account that uploaded it has been indefinitely blocked and may appeal on their talk page if they so choose, no need for further admin action.

--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Dougweller asked me to take a look at File:Sex Tourists Thailand.jpg to see if I believed it constituted a WP:BLP concern. I do, both in title and in its usage. While the individuals are not named, they are clearly visible and recognizable by anyone who knows them. The uploader claims to have permission from the two gentlemen (Talk:Sex tourism#BLP concerns), but this is not verified, and there's no mention of permission from the lady. (He says the same here, also indicating the picture was taken specifically for this article...three and a half years before it was uploaded, according to metadata.) Moving this image to a neutral title will not resolve the matter, given the purpose for use. Since images are not my major area I bring it here for additional review. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Deleted: G10. The uploader's other contributions hardly add to their credibility. CIreland (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There is

1. No need for an image of what someone who is a sex tourist looks like in this article.
2. No evidence that the people in the image are indeed sex tourists
3. No evidence that they are in Thailand. The proliferation of Heinz tomato ketchup bottles and common North American sugar and salt sachets seems to suggest they are not.

So this image shouldn't be here. And that's even before the potential personal attack/BLP indicators. Canterbury Tail talk 13:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• (EC) I would be listing it for Deletion, Not only is there a BLP issue (which doesn't even demonstrate the subject title it is trying to cover as it's just looks like tourists drinking at a bar) but also seems not to be the uploaders own work according to the information they have given in the summary. Bidgee (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Endorse the deletion, and was just about to advocate for it here. There's absolutely no way for us to know that we have the permission of everyone in the article to use that photo, that they were in fact engaging in "sex tourism," or indeed that they were even in Thailand. Inherent BLP problems make deleting an easy call I think. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 13:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I support/endorse the deletion of that image as well. Pcap ping 13:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I endorse this deletion also. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Add to this, the same uploader previously did this and several other rather dubious edits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that kind of seals it, doesn't it? :/ Thanks for the swift feedback (and handling, CIreland :)). I almost speedied (and probably would have if I had noticed that he claimed it was taken especially for the article, when it was taken in 2006, before posting it here), but I've not handled much by way of BLP images. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the user in question, I recently left them a message on their talk page after reviewing (and reverting) their edits. They were given feedback last year in regards to their behaviour, and it has recently continued (with no intervening edits). They appear to be a low-grade vandalism-only account, except that they have the appearance of acting in good faith. I say appearance because they made this edit, which does not look like the typing of someone alive during World War II, in addition to the use of the "imho" edit summary here. The rest of their edits vary between unhelpful and vandalism. Could an admin please take a look? Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Orr Cohen (talk · contribs) Having reviewed all the contibutions of this user, I have indefinately blocked the account as vandalism only. WP:AGF only goes so far. This is simply a troll. Please review his contributions yourself if you have concerns about my action, I'm sure you'll agree with it when you do.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I endorse this block. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I was late leaving the house for worldwide cinema broadcast of a Terry Pratchett play (Nation) from the National Theatre, London, & really shouldn't have been looking at my computer at all!. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible link spamming

Since the word "wiki" is often mistakenly equated to Wikipedia, I suspect this job ad might lead to a spam attack that would earn someone money if it's not detected in time. Please be on the look out for anyone with a name that resembles one of the bidders or try to pry more details from the project creator by making a bid to get more information. See http://www.getafreelancer.com/projects/601428.html for more information. - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reported the ad for abuse. I'm not willing to add my personal details to the website, so I'm unable to post on the project board. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM

Could an uninvolved admin possibly take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM and maybe have a quiet word with Hutch48. He has taken this nomination very personally and is being rather intimidating to other contributors and potential contributors [3] . There is more but AfD is only short - it's probably easier to read it in its entirity than by diff, but he has also made his comments about other contributors on another editors talk pages [4], and he does have a very recent history of being totally offended whenever someone makes any comments to one of his articles [5][6] note edit summary (Magioladitis added an orphan tag to JWASM) [7] (response to Orange Dog querying notability of a different cyberwidget) [8] editor opined that article should not actually be about how to create compiler code.

NB - although I have not ventured to offer an opinion in the AfD, as I don't want any more comments about my technical knowledge, I have notified Hutch48 of this thread. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of your complaint. To save retyping my response to the actions of the compainant, please refer to the discussion page related to the deletion of the JWASM page. I have asked that editors properly comply with the rules of Wikipedia as stated in the direct URL that I have cited.

Hutch48 (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As you can see. Hutch48 continues to argue that I "broke the rules" by PRODding an article about some compiler code that had no sources verifying notability (indeed, at the time did not even make any claim to notability, just to usefulness) and appeared to me to be completely non notable under Wikipedia definition, Magioladitis "broke the rules" by tagging the article as an orphan, and OrangeDog "broke the rules" by listing the article for deletion. While he is entitled to his opinion, I do not feel he is entitled to continue to intimidate other editors away from AfD. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we have someone with some serious WP:OWN issues. It should be pointed out that a lot of times when an editor can't prove the notability of their subject, they take to attacking other editors. All I see are walls of texts, none of which establish notability. More so, looking at his contributions, I'm more concerned about how Hutch48 (talk · contribs) is continuously harassing OrangeDog (talk · contribs). --Smashville^talk 16:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the facts speak for themselves so I'll try not to get into any arguments here. I would however appreciate a retraction and apology from those who have accused me of bad faith editing. As for the MASM article, I left my comments on the talk page and editors may act on them as they wish. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hutch48 does have some serious ownership problems, specifically in the belief that people who don't "have sufficient historical or technical knowledge to comment on an article of this type". Similar language along these lines has continued at the AfD. -- Atama頭 23:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that Hutch48 has taken his bat home. I would guess this incident can be closed and the Afd left to run its course. (And I never signed this post!!! Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC) )

Oh very interesting [9] Hutch48 appears to be the admin of www.masm38.com's forum (no outing, he put the url and his real name on his userpage and he uses a similar username to his Wikipedia one at this forum), and according to him, Wikipedia is now scheduled to go down the tubes because we trashed his article. Unfortunately for him, even the code nerds aren't taking his complaints too seriously. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Although all of the admins are apparently driving around in Lamborghinis with their Wiki-riches. Hmm...apparently my check has been lost in the mail. --Smashville^talk 15:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that always the way :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to thank the Wikipedia admins and editors for sticking to the established rules in a fair and unbiased manner. In the last decade, Steve Hutchesson (Hutch48) has rarely shown any "social" or diplomatic skills, in such conflicting situations on the internet, outside of ad hominem and other forms of bullying. As for OrangeDog expecting an apology, just be thankful that an entire USENET slander campaign hasn't been waged against you and Wikipedia as a result. Thanks and please keep sticking to your guns. As for the JWASM page itself, I wish to request a delay in any approval of its deletion. I would like a chance to review and bring it up to Wikipedia standards over the next week. It's a very useful tool, perhaps even the unofficial successor to MASM itself, and I wouldn't like to see the corresponding page lost as a result of the shortsightedness of one Steve Hutchesson. Thanks much. SpooK (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Afd is currently pretty cut and dried, so I'd start by throwing out some good notability refs rather than fiddling with the text. Post 'em in the Afd if you have 'em. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This has now progressed to pretty blunt personal attacks. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 02:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come on, it's right there at the top of my user page. I'm more concerned about his characterizing requests for sources as "a pile of FUCKING GRAFFITI". —Korath (Talk) 04:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he already mentioned as much. But given his tone and other comments, looking at your user page wasn't my first instinct. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 05:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems probable to me that JWAsm is notable, even if the current people involved are too busy being conflicted to look up sources :-P . Even if the page does get deleted, I'd definitely do it without prejudice, and it would help if we point out to Spook that it's possible to ask for the original text of the article, if he wants to make a new and improved version. (We should also take some time to explain how and where to look for reliable sources :-)).

If you know that I'm an eventualist, I suppose it's redundant to mention that I'm dismayed by all this "the article needs to be perfect RIGHT NOW" attidude I see displayed these days. It leads to lots of preventable conflict, as well as much redundant effort.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, a lot of the problem has been Hutch48's terrible attitude, where all he keeps doing is insisting (often sometimes with swear words) that everyone else is incompetent and breaking the rules. And Doktorspin's continuous wikilawyering that the rules somehow don't apply in this case hasn't improved the atmosphere any. All it needs is one source - say Sourceforge recommending it as the alternative to MASM, or some nerdy but noted in field online journo saying this is going to have an impact. The information is going to be in places like that - but Hutch48 recommending the forum where he spent 48 hours trashing Wikipedia isn't helping his cause at all.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

As I indicated, in dealing with Steve Hutchesson, don't expect such situations to do anything but degrade... rapidly. In his mind, if you don't agree with him, you are either wrong or misinformed, but never justified. The exception being if you have something of value for him. You'll notice that on his forum, japheth (the current developer of JWASM) is calling Hutch's general decision to no longer edit Wikipedia articles as a "positive outcome." Historically, such "back talk" would generally result in humiliation/slander/retaliation and/or banning. However, JWASM being the most probable successor to MASM, well, we can see the need for one to bite their tongue if the future of their "legacy" was dependent on that person's efforts. My entire point in mentioning this is that you have recent and direct proof that Steve Hutchesson will not respect you, Wikipedia or its rules, so you have very few choices on how to deal with him... usually dwindling down to writing him off as a troll and banning him, for most people. So far, your (admin's/editor's) choice to be as diplomatic as you are about the situation has been admirable, professional and much appreciated.

Now, to put a more positive spin on this situation, and as a party not invested in the success/development of JWASM, I am willing to write a review of JWASM and post it on something like ASMCommunity or Slashdot. It will be a non-trivial and unbiased, although technically oriented, review of JWASM... what it is for, what it can do, recommendations/advantages/disadvantages vs MASM and other assemblers, etc. Overall, I know this situation must seem somewhat rather silly, especially when certain "others" cannot make the distinction between an encyclopedia which requires significant verifiable resources and a technical manual, but it is rather important to the assembly language community; and potentially important to other software developers that could benefit from the knowledge of this tool's existence.

I have come to the conclusion that whether or not the JWASM page is deleted in its current incarnation is of no consequence, as it is clearly outside of Wikipedia's guidelines. I believe a page similar to NASM or GAS with relevant links to resources, including a link to the review I write, should be sufficient for notability/relevance and other guidelines. That being said, I hope the my explanation/proposal is sufficient enough to keep the revised/new JWASM page safe from deletion. Thanks for your patience, understanding and any further advisement/direction that you may give regarding this situation.

--SpooK (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That would I think be helpful. If the page is not kept, one that covers WASM and JWASM is likely to replace it, as WASM has the necessary notability, and the two make a progression. Whatever happens, a critical technical review posted to an appropriate community would be useful for others to reference - with this kind of subject, the necessary references are going to be tucked away in unusual sites that are viewed by their community as reliable sources.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

+1 Informative. ;-)

Thanks for the feedback, Elen. I've submitted a review/story to Slashdot. I'll attempt to get the "others" involved by referencing it in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, and hopefully they participate positively and get this thing going in the right direction.

(And another +4 Conciliatory : I know that score doesn't exist on Slashdot, but on Wikipedia, people are willing to go a long way for you if you are willing to work towards consensus. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, if anyone wants to wallop Spin with a trout, please feel free. He really isn't helping attempts to resolve this amicably. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I pity the admin who's going to read that 128K Afd... Pcap ping 15:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, this is getting ridiculous. Can someone do something about this (RE: Hutch's comments at the AfD today)? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 15:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that you are trying to go head to head with someone that simply will not concede. Give him an inch, and he'll take a mile. Another part of the problem is that the entire situation is not so "cut n' dried" so to speak. If the rules and guidelines were facts and not opinions/suggestions on how to best operate given a multitude of situations, and thus not subject to multiple and varying interpretation, AfD's would not be required. As a prime example, WP:NOTINHERITED makes concessions in certain situations and therefore is not absolute. To perhaps the benefit of your position, I think what Hutch48 doesn't realize is that his latest arguments are further justifying why JWASM should be apart of the Open Watcom Assembler page and not a separate/independent page. In the end, and unless you ban/block him, Hutch48 will have, at least, the "last word" in the discussion... you can be assured of that. In my history in dealing with him, your best bet is to go ahead and let him finish on his rants. If you've made valid points for the AfD to conclude as a deletion, no further amount of indirection is going to nullify them or reinforce his position. Now, to be fair, I do personally find your "Then bother to read a dictionary and find out what inherited means." statement to him rather rude and antagonizing. Never mind that someone of his age and understanding is probably well aware of the dictionary meaning(s) of inherited. However, you are trying to argue the dictionary value of "inherited" (a near absolute) and use it to reinforce the non-absolute terms of WP:NOTINHERITED. In short, it's a non sequitur and your near ad hominem does nothing to reinforce your position or your latest plea about him here. SpooK (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind if he spends 160+kb ranting, what I object to is repeated accusations of bad faith or disruption on my part. I concede that my final comment was a little rude, but it directly mirrors the previous response he gave me. It will also probably be the last time I respond to his comments. I though it was a suitable response to highlight his repeated assertion that JWASM is notable because its license is notable or because its owner is notable. I thought I'd better post here again as Hutch said that he would no longer participate[10], but has continued to do so. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, its best to continue to let him look like the aggressor. I honestly can't say that JWASM is notable enough to warrant its own page based on the premise that the source code base that JWASM has been essentially "forked" from is, in itself, from a notable tool. Again, this favors more a merge than it does a keep or delete scenario. I also agree that this situation has gotten way out of hand. However, and less I am mistaken, the AfD closure and review process are not far off... thankfully there will be an end to it :P SpooK (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know anything about this discussion until now. The horse has bolted, but it should not go uncommented on. A simple Google search will show that SpooK has had a running feud with Hutch48 for several years. One cannot take any of his comments about Hutch48 as anything but pure personal bias. This thread originally from alt.lang.asm is merely a taster to show the two going hammer and tongs. Not a pretty spectacle on either side. Programmers tend to get personal because they put a lot of themselves in their intellectual work, but this should not concern us here and SpooK's comments are of no value here. This is years of mutual disrespect. -- spin^control 23:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:StuckWithMeFan113

Resolved

 – indef'ed Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

StuckWithMeFan113 (talk · contribs) has received over 3 dozen warnings over the last couple of months related to non-free image uploads (lack of licensing info, lack of fair use rationales, etc). He has not responded to any of these and merely continued the behavior, receiving a final warning from User:TreasuryTag on January 1. The behavior has still not stopped; he continues even today to upload non-free images without any license info or rationales, and has even taken to falsely uploading them as {{PD-self}} in order to avoid WP:NFCC (see [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], and [19] for examples). Since TreasuryTag's final warning was not followed up on, I believe a block is in order. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder, he may be a sockpuppet of User:Stuckwithmefan112. That user account also had similar warnings and was blocked twice by User:feyday then indefinite for ignoring image upload warnings. I agree with your block decision. The block should be indefinite in my opinion. Minimac94 (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Obvious sock, endorse indefinite block. I will do it myself unless anyone has any objections (or it hasn't been done already). SGGH ^ping! 19:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked for one week. Do we stretch to an indef block as per the previous account? SGGH ^ping! 19:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Upgraded to indef. He'll be back. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This is NOT a legal threat

Resolved

Please note that I am going to vandalise your website, and you may not legally block me for doing so. Ha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.217.155 (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the user without warning. he came straight here, stated his intention to vandalise and knowledge of policy, then proceded to threaten to rape an established contributor. However, given that I gave no warning I would appreciate a review of this block. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Support People with those attitudes don't deserve warning, and I was thinking of filing an abuse report with his ISP. Rodhullandemu 19:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely a good block. I was in the process of doing the same. you beat me to it. Resolute 19:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

31 hours seems light, considering the threat of personal violence made at User talk:Moonriddengirl. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I see ZScout ramped it up to 72 hours. Blueboy96 19:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

He made an abusive unblock request, which I rolled back. I also shut off his talk page. Any available checkusers may want to have a look--something tells me this isn't a new user. Blueboy96 19:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. However, I also suspect it may be a proxy. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Endorse - They seem to know what they're doing I concur most likely not new. No warning was needed IMHO. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a seasoned troll who will be on a new IP in five minutes. Please RBI. I got fined £1,000,000,000,000 earlier[20]. See my talk page for more history. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't stop us checking out the IPs for proxies and shutting them down as appropriate. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

They are not proxies, but he uses both BT and Tiscali - two of the largest dynamic ranges in the UK. If you want more of his IPs there's a link on my talk page (as well as my block log) to some more. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Nonsensical idiocy. Perfect block. Agree with Blood Red Sandman. SGGH ^ping! 19:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you send me $100, I will be more than happy to assume all risk and consequence should that fine not be paid.  ;) Resolute 19:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Simonpettersen

I've just indeffed Simonpettersen (talk · contribs) for uploading this file after a final warning not to upload copyright images to Wikipedia. This editor has a long history of uploading copyrighted images without an appropriate licence or fair use rationale. Suggest that any unblock is conditional upon a ban from uploading images to Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Suspect that any other images he's uploaded should be deleted as well, given his disregard for copyright. Blueboy96 20:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedist / Ulises Heureaux

Encyclopedist was unbanned by an admin, Alison, under his account Ulises. Said account was blocked again in January 2010 because of abusive alternate accounts, even though he didn't do anything in a while. So what do you do now, start a wheel war? Loopknow (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but could you please clarify your question? Both Encyclopedist (talk · contribs) and Ulises Heureaux (talk · contribs) are currently blocked indefinitely. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, it's our old friend Grawp. Blocked indef. Blueboy96 20:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Patel

Would anyone mind giving this page a look-over? I think I've reverted it to the cleanest version, but the page was a mess when I came across it, so I'm unsure. HalfShadow 21:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Block

Resolved

Could an admin block this account User talk:J.delanoy is an imbecilic motherfucker, I have reported it to UAA but seems to be heavily backlogged. BigDunc 11:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by Willking1979. BigDunc 11:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Something that blatant could probably be taken to WP:AIV, where it might get faster results. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

J.delanoy seems to have a fan here, has the IP been traced and blocked yet? raseaC^{talk to me} 13:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same question. J.Delanoy himself is a checkuser, and it would certainly be ethically justified for him to use his skills in isolating that character if he wanted to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's actually better suited for WP:UAA. Master&Expert (Talk) 11:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Whichever one gets faster results is the one to use. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:JBsupreme moving an article just before nominating for deletion

Just recently, User:JBsupreme moved Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients to List of Internet Relay Chat clients [21] without an edit summary and I couldn't see a reason for that. Especially because it obviously is a comparison article and he said on the talk page that he'd nominate it for deletion "next week" [22]. Therefore, I requested the move to be reverted [23]. I also notified JBsupreme on the user talk page about that [24]. Now, JBsupreme nominated the moved article for deletion: [25]. This initial version of the AfD lists one previous 2007 AfD about a totally different article located here and not the recent one to the old title of the article here. To illustrate that the old AfD isn't about the same article content, one can take a look at the version the 2007 AfD was about here. I have the strong suspicion that this move right before AfD'ing the article was intended and that JBsupreme intentionally didn't link the most recent AfD about the article which resulted in speedy keep to game the system. I didn't attempt to resolve this dispute with JBsupreme directly, because he didn't reply to my message about the requested move and my involvement in the recent Arbcom case about JBsupreme and others, where he refused to comment. I'm not sure the current state of the AfD is how it should be and would ask an (uninvolved?) administrator to fix the issue. Also, JBsupreme not using edit summaries when making that nomination for deletion wasn't appropriate, he was told to use them just a few hours before making it [26]. --thommey (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The allegation that I didn't respond is false; I posted a response to you on the article talk page nearly 3 hours before you posted here. If you will look right above on the talk page of that article, there has been an ongoing discussion regarding the indiscriminate nature of this list (or "comparison", if you will). I see that the article has been moved back to "Comparison of" rather than "List of", which is fine, but the rationale for deletion still stands. Thank you for the note in any case, I hope this draws more eyes to the problem with these type of indiscriminate lists which are using Wikipedia as a directory service for non-notable software applications. JBsupreme (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't even disagree with removing some clients from Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients - deleting the article is a different thing. And this thread is neither about restricting the list nor about the AfD itself. It's really only about your behaviour. Moving the article to hide the previous AfD on your AfD and not using edit summaries is clearly gaming the system. You've been told to use edit summaries before (your edit summaries have also been a topic of previous AN/I threads), and I'm still waiting for your reason for an obviously pointless and wrong move a few days before nominating the article for deletion. Unless you provide one, I can't see any other reason than the gaming, no matter how hard I try. --thommey (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that it was a wrong move, which is why I moved it in the first place. If someone wants to institute mandatory edit summaries into MediaWiki I'm fine with that. JBsupreme (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It is already mandatory to use edit summaries when proposing or nominating for deletion. It is also required to link to prior AfDs. JB, you;'re experienced enough to know about this. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Re [27] which is a veiled personal attack in itself: Please stop making those attacks without evidence. And I wrote "maybe" because I acknowledge there is a chance I'm mistaken and not seeing everything, but actually it's pretty obvious now. --thommey (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your "maybe" is a veiled personal attack. Do not add it back. JBsupreme (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

BlackJack evading block

Resolved

 – He's out for a week. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 23:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

BlackJack (talk · contribs), who was recently blocked for abusing sockpuppets, is evading his block by editing as an IP (86.148.207.61 (talk · contribs)). He has also made what may be considered a legal threat.[28] Could an admin please block this IP. Thanks in advance. --88.110.56.81 (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 1w. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 23:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A series of range blocks requested

I have been dealing with an unregistered vandal for the past two months and due to his increased activity over the past week, I have been able to narrow down the ranges IP addresses he uses amongst those available to users of SBC Global. A full description of the vandal (and the dozen or so IPs used so far) can be seen here. I am requesting that the following ranges of IP addresses to be blocked until SBC Global/AT&T responds to the abuse request:

• 76.200.100.0/22 (76.200.100.0 - 76.200.103.255)
• 76.202.56.0/22 (76.202.56.0 - 76.202.59.255)
• 76.204.76.0/22 (76.204.76.0 - 76.204.79.255)
• 76.205.24.0/22 (76.205.24.0 - 76.205.27.255)
• 75.36.128.0/20 (75.36.128.0 - 75.36.143.255)

This is much more effective than protecting the pages that are most often hit, because there have always been beneficial edits to these pages by unregistered users in the past. This one individual for some reason has been repeatedly removing references from these pages and does so even after he has been reverted on the same IP a few moments beforehand. These are as narrow I can make the ranges.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This was originally posted over at WP:AN but I got no response.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's a pattern to the edits, it may be more appropriate to use an edit filter, depending on what that pattern is. Do you have some diffs so I might be able to take a look? (You didn't mention any particular IPs so I don't exactly know what to look for.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The only common pattern are the articles hit and the references removed from them constantly. All of the IPs used can be seen here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember working on this filter now that I look at the description... It was being handled by filter 286 but it was causing performance problems and there were no hits, so I deactivated it. I will re-enable it and see if I can't resolve the performance problems. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) After working with it for a bit I got it to a reasonable point for now. It's currently running log only while I verify it, so a few things might still get through. The best course of action for now is, if you see another thing that should have been hit by the filter, leave me a message on my talk page so I can investigate it. Administrators: I leave it up to you if you want to mark this resolved or if you want to go through with the range block. I am sufficiently satisfied that this will keep this particular pattern of abuse at bay for now, but... well... WP:BEANS. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just semi protect the articles concerned? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not have all these pages semiprotected. There are a bunch of useful contributions from IPs that I don't want to lose.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just implement flagged revisions already? JBsupreme (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please institute these five range blocks? The vandal had come back again today and if these ranges were blocked, then he would not have been able to remove the references again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you have a diff for this? If it happened before 15:54 Eastern 30 Jan then it was because the filter was not yet set to disallow as I was waiting for a final verification on the filter before activating it (it is set to disallow now). If it happened afterwards, I would like to see the diff so I know what needs to be adapted in the filter to catch it. I'm not sure blocking nearly 10000 IPs for such a minor issue is a good idea, especially when it's something that can be handled by a filter. Some things take time to perfect, and there's no real "damage" here (such as oversight issues, etc.). But this is my personal opinion. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 09:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Threats of violence

Resolved

 – Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Should pages such as this be deleted as threats of violence? Or should the account be blocked because of that plus the dumb edit to Beeblerox's userpage? ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 19:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Pretty obvious troll, I think. Blocked indef, userpage speedied. Blueboy96 19:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Word of advice, don't bother talking to the "Colonel Sanders vandal," it's a complete waste of time. I'm going to re-block with talk page and email revoked. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Peter Symonds already got it. He'll be back in a week or so, make the same idiotic edits, and get blocked again in about five minutes... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Breeblebrox, you might wanna mulligan on that estimate; he hit thrice yesterday. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 09:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Joe Chill needs to chill

Resolved

 – Joe Chill will chill out tonight. Bearian (talk) 03:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It all ends in good company.

He keeps calling another user a dick, a troll or a combination thereof. See [29]. Pcap ping 23:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Lulu always assumes bad faith to me in software AfD and I'm sick of it. Being civil to him got me nowhere. If someone can get Lulu to stop, I'll stop. Joe Chill (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You know what, Joe Chill and I have had our differences in the past. In fact, we still do. But it is pretty obvious that the person he is interacting with is indeed trolling. Sad. JBsupreme (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The subject line of this ANI is probably a true enough statement. WP:CIVIL is a good idea, definitely. But I don't see anything actionable or that needs wider involvement, just from a few snippy comments on my user talk page. I appreciate the concern shown by Pcap, but I have thick skin, and no harm was done. LotLE×talk 23:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop skipping over your uncivil comments. Joe Chill (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If someone wants to stick some template urging civility onto my talk page, I acknowledge that some of my comments were also on the snippy side. So please, some uninvolved party, slap a template on my user talk, and on Joe Chill's, then we'll hold hands and sing songs together. Ever mellow, LotLE×talk 23:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Like "I assume Joe Chill's boilerplate failure to find (by not looking for) sources is some sort of automated response, since it never varies based on AfD topic.", "Sorry, Joe Chill, I simply do not believe you have looked for sources prior to most of those rapid and boilerplate !votes.", "Always voting delete to every topic, with no discussion of the nature of the software, nor any indication whatsoever that you have looked for sources, and always using exactly the same boilerplate phrase, looks a lot more like WP:POINT or WP:SOAPBOX than it does like good faith.", "Have you considered looking in Google searches, or in a library, rather than only under rocks in your backyard?!", "If you would state relevant evidence on AfD discussions, rather than snotty pokes at editors who find notability of topics you nominate, it would be a lot easier to imagine good faith on your part." (I didn't say anything bad in AfD except my opinions which are different than his), "Your behavior is unseemly and unhelpful. Just saying "ignore notability" is not a useful AfD approach.", and "It's just so cute, Joe Chill, how you follow me around on AfD, claiming that every indication of notability of a topic magically doesn't count, no matter how prominent... and that the only criteria should be WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which prompts deletion of all software articles." (on an article that I nominated). Pcap, remember when he called you one of the rabid software deletionists? Joe Chill (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of templates either. Here's an idea. Reduce the drama, drop the name calling, drop the unnecessary personal attacks, and let everyone go about their business. Joe Chill has his own interpretation of notability (as we all do) and I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that he performs due diligence before nominating something for deletion or commenting in a deletion debate. Fair ??? JBsupreme (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If Lulu assumes bad faith at me again in software AfDs, I'm bringing it to ANI including the uncivil comments that I quoted above. Joe Chill (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Btw. According to WP:CIVIL, ANI is the appropriate place for:

• Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents page. For death threats, racist attacks, threats of violence, legal threats, and other cases where immediate action is required, use the Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents page to contact the site's admins.

Somehow I think that Joe Chill calling me a "dick" or me accusing him of WP:POINT are... well, not exactly death threats. Even sarcasm--of which I am guilty--is, well, not exactly violence, y'know. Happy joy joy. LotLE×talk 00:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it also says: "When incivility rises to the level of disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing, blocks may be employed, as explained in those policies." YMMV. Pcap ping 00:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you honestly see no problem with his comments? Joe Chill (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... I guess it's true that Joe revealed my birth name, "Dr. Richard (Dick) Troll". :-). LotLE×talk 00:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I guess you know now that Joe is sensitive to accusations of bad faith and lack of due diligence, even if you have no problems with name calling. Now that you've both let all the poisons hatch out [30], perhaps we can lower the DEFCON level and resume a more civil dialogue at (software) AfDs... Pcap ping 01:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have had interactions with Mr Chill on several occasions, mostly unpleasant. For instance when I have complained on his talk page about particularly bad "cant find sources" deletion nominations. The entries are routinely dismissed as "stupid question" etc, and I'm a dick. He is also doing some fine work, but some sort of cool down would be appreciated - Power.corrupts (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I never called you a dick. I called them stupid questions because the answers to all of them were that we have different opinions on notability, but you never accepted that answer so you kept on posting on my talk page. Joe Chill (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be in full support of any block of Joe Chill at this current time. Despite the work he has done on Wikipedia, he has also shown evidence of losing his cool time after time (this is not the first time this user has fired WP:NPA-violating comments at other users. Take the "mostly unpleasant" interactions that Power.corrupts claims to have had with this user as a further example of this sort of thing happening in the past). Joe Chill has, at times, been a great contributor, but when one repeatedly calls another editor along the lines of "Dickish bad-faith asumming troll," that user has taken things way too far.--^Trust_Me^THROW! 01:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The only other user that I said personal attacks to was Michig after he called me a troll, reverted my edits, and told me to leave Wikipedia. All of the admins in ANI sided with Michig despite all of my diffs. Any other times, they weren't personal attacks but people for some reason thought that they were. I never said anything bad to Power Corrupts. All that I said to Power as that his questions were stupid. The reason for that was that all of the questions where variations of the first one which I already answered. Why is that people always get mad at me and never users like Michig and Lulu who start it by being uncivil? The first thing that starts disputes between me and other others is that they can't accept the fact that I have different opinions on notability. Joe Chill (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm about to pour a nice glass of scotch, I invite you all to join me. JBsupreme (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Best to end it this way. Pcap ping 02:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Indiana Department of Homeland Security copyright infringement of wikipedia material

In the pdf produced by the Indiana Department of Homeland Security for racial profiling, the vocabulary section on page 3/4 is copied from wikipedia, yet there is no attribution to Wikipedia or even a mention of it(wikipedia)...

The purpose of the pdf is "To research positions related to the topic of racial profiling post September 11, 2001 with a primary focus on citizens of Middle Eastern descent, and to give an informative speech."

It uses 7 terms from Wikipedia: Racial Profiling, USA PATRIOT Act, Bigotry, Internment, Terrorism, Counter-terrorism, The War on Terrorism.

The original discussion is at Wikipedia:Village_pump (miscellaneous)#Indiana Department of Homeland Security Racial Profiling pdf.Smallman12q (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Would WP:OTRS be able to help you out here? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. Any contributor can contact them about this, though only a substantial contributor of content can take real action. The steps to take are at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks#Non-compliance process. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you think I did the right thing with this SPI case?

I filed an SPI case both concerning Nintendofan5000 and Bambifan101 who are both blocked for sock puppetry in terms of similarities with edits and both usernames containing the word "fan" and a number at the end.

Look at the SPI case for more information. Thanks. Micro-Cruzer (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are also a sockpuppet and I claim my five pounds. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this user might be worth a look as a sock of Pickbothmanlol as requested in the SPI case that he just submitted. Renny The Bat (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the joke is on you. Micro-Cruzer (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Both blocked as sockpuppets. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

So wait, a sockpuppet reported another sockpuppet? Thanks guys! JBsupreme (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems to happen a lot around here. I guess we should be thankful they don't make them smarter. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As well as Plaxico-ing himself, this puppeteer also has a habit of impersonating and joe jobbing other people with their SPIs[31] I assume it's probably User:Pickbothmanlol, but you never know. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Logged out bot?

I just saw this at UAA. Is this a logged-out bot? The Thing // Talk // Contribs 03:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's one of the toolserver IPs, so yes, it's someone's bot logged out. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sheesh... I sure hope nobody blocks that IP! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange series of edits: socks?

If you look at the history of The Stolen Earth, there are a series of very strange edits from very strange accounts, which look like they may be socks designed to harass Sceptre (talk · contribs)? ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 12:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think they are sockpuppets but I'm not sure, I'll leave this to Checkuser if possible. Minimac94 (talk) 12:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears that they have been blocked by Versageek. For future reference, I believe that WP:SPI is the place to report suspected sockpuppetry. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:26, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, but I wasn't sure who they were socks of :P ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 12:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You had a clear reason for believing they may be socks of each other. That's enough. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob

Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have previously expressed concerns about the behaviour of Off2riorob at the Wikiquette alert board and feel that attention from administrators may be warranted as the user continues to respond with hostility to honest criticism, for example by accusing me without evidence of sockpuppetry and stalking. (I am not "Nikolay S. Boriso", nor am I User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris, as Off2riorob implies; neither have I sought out confrontation with this user.)

In my Wikiquette alert (linked above), I noted that the user seemed to be continuing a disturbing history of edit warring and confrontational behaviour that had resulted in eight blocks in the span of several months. My concerns were seconded by Jusdafax, who had recently been on the receiving end of similarly confrontational behaviour. Looie496 closed the alert as resolved after "Off2riorob has acknowledged overreacting, and apologized for any offense."

In response to a question from User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris at BLP/N, regarding an ongoing incident in which a user characterised prominent climatologists as criminals, Off2riorob responded:

"That comment is a million miles away from Libel, you should respect other users comments even if you disagree with them, using weakly claimed libel to remove another users comment is disruptive to the editing environment, if you really think that something libelous has been posted, take it to ANI and see if you get any support to remove it, you should only touch another editors comments in very serious situation, otherwise, leave them alone"

WP:BLP makes quite clear that potential violations should be removed immediately, so I made the following comment:

"I agree completely with Short Brigade Harvester Boris: there's no question as to the target of this attack, and as such it clearly violates WP:BLP. I will remove the comment myself if necessary. I also share Boris's concerns that this board has become somewhat of a low-traffic corner of Wikipedia where at least one editor with a disturbing block history and ongoing behaviour issues regularly imposes (or attempts to impose) decisions."

I did not name the editor specifically, and I feel in any case that my concerns about the current state of BLP/N are sincere and well-founded, as evidenced by the behaviour I've observed and by what I view as a strange interpretation of WP:BLP (that potential violations must be reported to and discussed on ANI before removal), but Off2riorob immediately responded, accusing me of attacking him or her out of desire for retribution. Off2riorob placed a civility warning on my talk page. After I responded on the user's talk page, the apparent sockpuppetry and stalking accusations were made. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• It was completely clear that it was me he was talking about, if you don't want a civility warning you should not talk about other editors on discussion boards like that, I stand by my comments as correct.This report is also empty of any offense and is basically another attack on me. I would also like to point out that I have not mentioned any sockpuppetry. Off2riorob (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

How do you explain the diffthen? -- Why do you refer to the editor using another name? FormerIP (talk):50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I see, that is nothing to do with anybody it has somehow got pasted in from an email address I was working with, and relates to this article Nikolay_Sergeyevich_Borisov it has nothing to do with anything related to this. Off2riorob (talk) 02:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. You can see how it might have been misunderstood, though? --FormerIP (talk) 02:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I only just saw it when you posted the link, I can see the point now, but I assure you it is nothing more than a coincidence. Off2riorob (talk) 03:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• What rules are you alleging were violated? -Rrius (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• I'm having the same problem as well! Sir Floyd (talk) 03:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

All this is entirely too weird. How about everybody just drop it? Besides, it's Saturday night and we should be doing something more fun. Which I think I will go and do about right... now. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• ?? SBHB, while normally I feel you're on-target about most of what you say, this one's kinda making the little needle on my "????"-O-Meter go to about ....welll, maybe not eleven, but at least six. This looks to me like KCACO feels as though his concerns have been dismissed in the past, so I'd rather not do anything likely to incite the same reaction here. (Besides, it's now Sunday morning, so "fun" comes off the menu, to be replaced by any mild misery of your choice.) Now--to the original issue: KCACO, your interpretation of BLP is definitely closer to the mark; the comment in question, characterizing the climatologists as criminals, should absolutely be removed, unless it's sourced to the gills. O2RRob, you've been here long enough to know that--and ESPECIALLY w.r.t. the recent BLP-related kerfuffle, I'd think it behooves everyone to be extra-, EXTRA-careful with BLP questions. It may not meet the narrow legal definition of "libel" but it's definitely got no place in the article unless it's rigorously sourced--you can't just go around calling ppl "criminals" unless they're currently wearing prison jumpsuits. Finally: I'm withholding judgement on O2RRob's behaviour; however, I will say this much: O2RRob, I've seen several comments at AN/I and AN w.r.t this kind of behavior from you; while you can always dismiss one or two reports as random crankery, once we get to this point it might be time to consider taking some of these criticisms on-board. Just my own opinion, anyhow. GJC 11:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out to you that the comment was not in the article but was expressed as a comment on the talkpage. My comment regarding the removal of content on the talkpage of the climate change article was in respect to the wider issue at that board and connected boards, it has become almost common practice there for editors to remove other editors posts for one reason or another and one editor has recently been restricted for that, what can I say about the criminal comment, I don't see it as desperately in need of removal and it wasn't removed and as yet it is still there. Actually I had replied about the issue just previously more privately to Boris on his talkpage here , you may want to look at that to get the whole picture. Off2riorob (talk) 12:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, the comment was on a talk page and was clearly not meant as an accusation of criminal behaviour, but as a general insult. Why exactly would that be so clearly violative of BLP that it needs to be removed? -Rrius (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Rrius and Sir Floyd ask what violations were committed. WP:OUTING, for one. Off2riorob addressed me by name, and it wasn't my username. It's difficult for me to accept, given this user's past behaviour, that this was some sort of mistake. Furthermore, the name Off2riorob used was quite similar to the username of SBHB, who just happened to be involved in the same discussion. I've said my last on this particular episode, but it may be useful to keep a closer eye on this user's behaviour. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 17:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This report was groundless and so are your claims of outing completely without detail. Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Your "for one" appears to have been a misunderstanding, so is there now any rule you feel was broken? -Rrius (talk) 19:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Advise

Should anything be done about this post? Debresser (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, he's done a fairly good job of making himself look like a frothing lunatic without any help from us. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC).

I've removed the rant - I can't see how it was helpful on that talk page. Emotions on that article are high enough as it is. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I also though that would be the right thing to do, but wanted an outside editor to assess the situation perhaps more objectively. Debresser (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps someone could also take a look at the "Prelude" section of Cave of the Patriarchs massacre. I had raised concerns about the inclusion of quotations from an Israeli report in a section entitled "Prelude" in the past, in part because I am aware of an ultranationalist revisionist view of the massacre that justifies it as self-defense. This logic is spelled out by a user on the talk page, who insists on this text because "the" Arabs were plotting something and thus the dead were guilty by virtue of their being Arabs. I have argued that cutting out this or that piece of the report and recontextualizing it as a "Prelude" to imply something is inappropriate.

Debresser is one of the users who had insisted on that text in the past. The rant Debresser brought here appears to have been triggered by IP's outrage at mention of Hamas and "kill the Jews" in the Prelude section: Debresser's own preferred text. I still believe the text is inappropriate, and that it serves to muddy the waters of a clear-cut massacre of unarmed Muslims at prayer by artificially introducing anti-Jewish sentiment and anti-Jewish militancy into the narrative. Any takers? Cheers, DBaba (talk) 19:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Help building SPI case

I'm starting to see a rash of recreations that I think are pointing me towards socking by a banned editor (probably MSoldi), but there are some things I can't see that I need to be sure. Could someone tell me

1. Who created the three previous versions of Tyler Ward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)?
2. Who created the previous versions of Autumn Goodbye (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)?
3. Who created the previous versions of Degree Girl: OMG! Jams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)?

Thanks.—Kww(talk) 18:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Checking this out. Mjroots (talk) 18:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Tyler Ward was created by Tehmen (talk · contribs) (22 Jan 2007), Cami2349 (talk · contribs) (7 Aug 2009) and Luka89 (talk · contribs) (27 Jan 2010).
• Autumn Goodbye was created by MSoldi (talk · contribs) (17 Aug 2008), Yoelmo (talk · contribs) (27 Oct 2008) and BlondieX (talk · contribs) (3 Feb 2009).
• Degree Girl: OMG! Jams was created by User:Soronow (2 May 2008), Cartoonzaq (talk · contribs) (8 Jul 2008) and Luka89 (talk · contribs) (31 Jan 2010).

Looks like there's a connection between 2 of the 3 articles. Hope that helps. Mjroots (talk) 18:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, once you throw in Autumn Goodbye (album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), it's 3 for 3, tying Msoldi into 2 of them and Luka89 for all 3. Now figuring out exactly what the connection is is the puzzle.—Kww(talk) 19:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Tag war by User:History2007

History2007 (an interesting username) has been repeatedly removing the very long-standing {{long}} tag on Catholic Church. Diffs follow. It is a snake-pit of an article; but removing the incentives to do something about its obvious and agreed problems does not help.

Would somebody have a word with him? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the tag had been there before and removed by other users. The article has been emotionally charged for months, with Pmanderson as a participant, but I had not been a participant in said disputes before. The placement of the tag by Pmanderson was called a surrogate tag by others in any case. So it does have a long history. No remedy was suggested, except keeping it there, as on talk page. The practice of placing surrogate tags when other disputes run into quicksand must not be encouraged. History2007 (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• History2007 is about as disinterested as a political protest, as his comments show.
• But the article has a {{POV}} tag, so what does History2007 suppose this to be a surrogate for? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• The assumption that a tag is for some other nefarious purpose than its proper function - especially after repeated assertions (one here) that the {{long}} tag is because the article is very long - is either a manifestation of telepathy, or unwarranted bad manners. Which? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have ventured to reverse one more of History2007's edits. He has now removed the infobox, possibly because its description includes the word large. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 22:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

SchoolcrafT - please stop this guy

Resolved

 – 48 hour block by user:Blueboy96

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

A while ago, Todd Schoolcraft created an article about a scenic route in West Virginia - Mountain Parkway Byway. More recently, a member of the taskgroup for that area User:Bmpowell edited the article for content and I did a copyedit. Ever since then, SchoolcrafT has edit warred over every single edit, and the article has been on full protection twice. He has repeatedly tried to move it to various different names Northern Webster County Mountain Byway and Backway and Northern Webster Co. Mountain Byway and Backway and has been trying to create another copy of the article, that doesn't contain our edits. His first try was The Mountain PArkway, deleted by MuffledThud. His latest is Mountain Parkway (Norther Webster Co.) redirected to Mountain Parkway (Northern Webster Co.), which is currently tagged for speedy as a copy/paste duplicate of an existing article.which Blueboy96 just got, ta.

This is not some mountain man who "don't do this new-fangled interweb wickypeedy thang, boy", this guy has (according to his userpage) a BsC in Information systems. After lengthy attempts to explain, I have concluded that he's not doing this because he doesn't understand how Wikipedia works. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:34, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

There are other issues at play with this editor as well. He uploaded several images to Shooting Range that he claimed he owned, but were obviously screenshots. I spiked them all per F9, but now he claims they aren't. Those by themselves weren't enough to block, but per this discussion, I'm giving him a 48-hour time-out. Blueboy96 22:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Blueboy. He did the same at Mountain Parkway Byway, uploaded a load of photos which he claimed to have taken...until someone pointed out that he'd need a time machine to have done it. And he uploaded a pile of voice clips which he claimed to have made, then admitted they were someone else's voice. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and for some reason, he keeps trying to either archive the entire talk page of the article [32], delete the talkpage, at one point he copypasted the talkpage to his userspace, at one point he insisted that we all use a subpage of the talkpage for discussion of the article (we all said no), he's created the article SchoolcraftT/Mountain Parkway, which he then redirected to a subpage of his userpage, which he then redirected to Mountain Parkway (Northern Webster Co.).

He's a menace. Please do something. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad Block

Could someone have a look at this bad block on Domer, he has asked Elonka to provide diffs to show the reason for his probation, I too have asked and also One Night in Hackney has asked. Now he has been blocked for alleged harassment when all he was doing was to ask a reasonable request for clarification per WP:ADMIN. I am unable to follow this thread this evening as I must go to work but some eyes would be appreciated. BigDunc 20:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears the block came after Domer said he would start an RfC on Elonka, which Domer said he was seeking answers before he took this step as is required. BigDunc 20:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems like another issue that could've been avoided with WP:JDI. People tend to continue answering a stubborn user and then call them disruptive when they continue to respond. This doesn't jive with harassment in my mind. Harassment is when you do your part and stop responding, and the user continues posting to try to get a reaction. That's not what happened here, as far as I can see. Letting Domer have the last word would've quelled this, I think. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:28, 30 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at his talkpage, you'll see that didn't work -- I stopped responding, but then even after his block was up, he made a beeline to my talkpage to continue the demands, with the support of his ally BigDunc. Anyway, if any other admins care to review the situation though, here are related threads:

• User talk:Domer48#January 2010
• User talk:Domer48#History
• User talk:Domer48#Remove this unsupportable block
• User talk:Elonka#FYI

In a nutshell: Domer48 was placed on ArbCom Enforcement probation in November 2009, requiring him to adhere to 1RR on all articles in the Troubles topic area. He violated this once in December, and again about a week ago, both of which incidents resulted in a 1-week block. During the most recent one, Domer started wikilawyering up a storm, insisting that the original probation was invalid, and demanding diffs to prove that he was edit-warring. Dozens of diffs have been provided, by multiple admins (see above threads), but no matter what's provided, he keeps saying it's not enough. He has been strongly encouraged to pursue this through a more proper venue, such as filing a thread at WP:AE and requesting that the probation be reviewed, but instead, he's just been camping on my talkpage and repeating over and over that he wants diffs. Considering his long block log already, the latest block seems appropriate to me. I invite other uninvolved admins to review the situation and offer their own opinions. --Elonka 20:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of the posts on your talk page appear to be from BigDunc, not Domer. Regardless, that thread grew largely due to your willingness to participate in it. The user was then blocked for "harassing" you. Once you give an answer you feel is satisfactory and you don't want to be bothered anymore, I think you should stop responding. Users shouldn't be blocked because they were continuing an exchange with a willing participant, IMO. I've seen this kind of situation before and I find it illogical how much it's an accepted consequence of stubborn behavior around here. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:49, 30 Jan 2010 (UTC)

One runs out of options quickly when a user will not get the point. A good idea in such a situation can be to draw outside scrutiny to the situation. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, Domer48 should be unblocked, as he wasn't vandalizing Elonka's userpage. Having said that, he should discontinue contacting Elonka at her talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Following a request by Domer48 by email I have reviewed the above matter briefly. The emplacement of the probation by Elonka and their subsequent involvement in enforcing it is a matter for dispute resolution and I have no opinion to give. I am, however, concerned that continued efforts by Domer48 to seek an explanation they find satisfactory is construed as "harassment", and the comment that since failing to receive a response they consider valid they were contemplating opening an RfC is a "threat". I am seriously perturbed that actions and comments that define the steps necessary in attempting dispute resolution have been conflated into a blockable offence. Given that Domer48 may have been upset at the probation and the earlier block under its auspices it might be suggested the language used by the editor could be incivil, but this is not the case either. The only action by Domer48 that appears to justify the second block (for 2 weeks) is persistence in returning to the issue and arguing the rationales provided are unsound - but surely that is an aspect of dispute resolution; seeking specific responses where provided answers are considered unsatisfactory? - which is something that has divided opinion in relation to content discussions.
My view is that Domer48's block for "harassment" should be lifted and that they should be permitted to continue editing while they proceed to the next level of dispute resolution (compiling and filing a RfC). Since they are using that process it should be understood that Domer48 has no reason to continue contacting Elonka over this matter, and I would expect Domer48 undertake not to do so. I also think that admins need to recognise that their actions will, from time to time, be strongly disputed and as long as no obvious violation of policy is committed that they need to allow aggrieved parties to exhaust all avenues of DR without resort to sanctions, especially in the first instance but also as a third party. It is part of the remit of sysops involved in enacting probations, restrictions and sanctions - the incidental aptitude for being a lightning rod.
In conclusion I feel this is a bad block, in that it represents actions deemed appropriate per Dispute Resolution as being "harassment" and "threat"s and should be lifted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Upon further review, I note that the current block is not in response to the proposed filing of an RfC. However, my general points relating to terming DR processes (the questioning of rationales and dissatisfaction with the answers previously provided) as harassment stands. I have struck as much of my earlier comment as possible without diminishing the focus. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur with LessHeard vanU, though rather than an RfC, a better option (and probably much less disruptive and drama-prone) would be a thread at WP:AE to request for the probation itself to be reviewed. If there's a strong consensus that the probation was inappropriate, then an RfC might be the next step, to question whether the admin acted improperly in implementing it in the first place. But to follow the proper course of WP:DR, AE should be the next step. --Elonka 15:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

So folks, does this mean D48 is to be unblocked? GoodDay (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

If Domer48 is willing to give assurances that if unblocked, he will resume constructive article work, and pursue normal methods of dispute resolution such as a thread at WP:AE about his probation, I would have no objection to an unblock. The proper procedure would be for Domer48 to go to WP:AE and request a review of the probation, with the {{Sanction appeal}} template. --Elonka 16:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me there is consensus to lift the bad block, so are any admins going to do this? As for preconditions there shouldn't be any. BigDunc 18:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe, the blocking Administrator must do the unblocking. Thus avoid any potential wheel-warring. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That is the recommended procedure, and I am waiting to talk with LessHeard vanU before I lift the block. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 19:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ioeth and I have agreed to review the matter tomorrow, in light of some intervening incidents - and D48 has concurred. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

PIPony22

PIPony22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would some administrator take a look at User:PIPony22's contribution history? They seem to have mostly spent their time marking various userpages with sockpuppet templates referring to themselves, but they also just created the inappropriate page Wikipedia:Don't edit with a iPad, which seems to indicate that they aren't here to be constructive. Thanks in advance. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

None of the edits by this user make any sense to me, and some are outright disruptive. I am indefinitely blocking the user as a disruption-only account until a good explanation for any of this is forthcoming.  Sandstein  22:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the three userpages he made (two as U2 and a third as G3; the latter is the userpage of a fallow account from late '06). I'm also nuking the category he made; I think this is XXV or PBML. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 23:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

According to e-mail correspondence I am now receiving, this may be a very young person who also has a behavioral disorder. Under these circumstances, I am leaving the block in place per WP:THERAPY, and will try to get this point across to my correspondent.  Sandstein  23:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to tool on untrusted host in protected template (Template:Copy to Wikimedia Commons)

{{resolved|Link has been removed. — Martin <small>([[User:MSGJ|MSGJ]] · [[User talk:MSGJ|talk]])</small> 11:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)}} From Template talk:Copy to Wikimedia Commons#New server:

Please revert. This is a rip of Magnus' tool on an untrusted host run by a user blocked from editing on both this wiki and on Commons. multichill (talk) 10:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The original changes were made by MSGJ (talk · contribs) on the request of MisterWiki (talk · contribs). This sounds like something that should be dealt with quickly. Brian Jason Drake 11:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I just looked a little closely at this situation. MisterWiki made the requests about two months ago, before MisterWiki was blocked for 10 years. Brian Jason Drake 11:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

 Removed by billinghurst. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wider issue?

It seems to me there's a wider issue here that isn't resolved. And just to be clear, I'm not directing this at MSGJ in particular. Should we really be linking to random tools by random editors? Particularly when they require the user to login or at least identify themselves to use the tool, and therefore an unscruplious host could use it guess the person's IP, or worse hijack their account. IMHO it would be wise if we only allow such links at the toolserver and perhaps highly trusted hosts (which means way beyond simply not being blocked) Nil Einne (talk) 01:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, it's a CABAL!!! No seriously this is messed up.

Resolved

 – An old version of the notice which has already been changed. No issue for administrator intervention. Proofreader77 ^(interact) 00:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

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.

---

Anyone else seen these notices being posted by User:Ikip?

Click here to automatically add this project to your watchlist

Hi Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive594, I would like to invite you and anyone watching who shares an interest in moving forward constructively to a discussion about Biographies of Living People

New editors' lack of understanding of Wikipedia processes has resulted in thousands of BLPs being created over the last few years that do not meet BLP requirements. We are currently seeking constructive proposals on how to help newcomers better understand what is expected, and how to improve some 48,000 articles about living people as created by those 17,500 editors, through our proper cleanup, expansion, and sourcing. These constructive proposals might then be considered by the community as a whole at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people. Please help us: >> User:Ikip/Discussion about creation of possible Wikiproject:New Users and BLPs <<

(refactored) Ikip 23:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't allow private clubs on-wiki do we? Aren't WikiProjects open to all comers? At that very least I believe the link at the top is a cross-namespace redirect and should probably be speedy deleted as such. Wait no it's just a piped link made to look like a real WP namespace page. I don't know people, this just really rubs me the wrong way. Policy discussions and proposals are supposed to be open, but Ikip seems to want to only discuss with those he believes are "on his side" until they have something concrete to present. I'm as aware as anyone of how annoying it can be to open a discussion and then see it veer off on some unexpected course you never intended or anticipated, but isn't that kind of the point of having open, transparent discussions? Beeblebrox (talk) 23:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder what he plans to do when 'uninvited' people post to his private club page. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

WP does not thrive on "invitation only' - whether an on-wiki or off-wiki site, and I approve of neither. Would you propose, say, that if an admin set up an off-wiki club for discussion that you would urge stringent penalties? At least this appears to be open to all - as it is, indeed, on-wiki. Such can not really be said about off-wiki sites. Collect (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh noes not invitation only cabals or off-wiki admin clubs. It's his userspace, he can do whatever he wants. That said, he isn't going to get anywhere with something people outside his club will accept. Prodego ^talk 23:19, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there any guideline that says that wikiprojects should be open to all? If not, then there is nothing admins (or anyone else) can do - except propose such a guideline. As for exclusiveness, I want to be included in WP:Wikipedians with an article about themselves and the fact I am not notable enough to have one is simply another form of oppression yadda, yadda, etc. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

re Allowable exclusivity - I believe it should be acceptable to have an exclusive group restricted to those who have uploaded a CC licensed image of their muscular buttocks.^{Sci-fi TV character allusion} LoL That way when they strenuously disagree with someone else's proposal they can begin with a personalized image-linked: My muscular buttocks!...  :-) -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 23:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we don't allow private clubs on-wiki do we?

Your wrong Beeblebrox. I refactored that invitation days ago, as shown above, to most editors and invited everyone to comment, and apologized for being naive, above is the refactored invitation, which with a two second message, I would have been happy to explain.

Only off wiki clubs are tolerated, and flourish because wikipedia has no control over them. Ikip 23:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This looks like a fork of the current RfC. What's the purpose of this?--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Self electing groups, initiated by our dearly departed MickMacNee, established I think firm consensus against self-electing groups. I would not be too worried about the possibility that the talkpage in question is a fork of the current RfC, given that as Prodego notes above any decision reached in it regarding matters under discussion at the RfC won't hold water because of their relative size and advertisement.  Skomorokh  23:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A number of editors have declined to participate because it's closed. We've settled the spamming part and there's been enough complaints about calling it a WikiProject to make that clear. Is there something specifically Beeblebrox you would like done? It's a wiki, if someone uninvited chooses to comment, on a technical level, he cannot stop them. If he wants to revert all comments by uninvited editors, I'd say he should be allowed to war over that but he then shouldn't be surprised if that drives others away. Otherwise, the RFC is the formal mechanism that's followed and people should remain freely allowed to have their own discussions. I think going to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people and saying "a discussion on a subpage of my talk page with only the people I invited came up with this" isn't going to get a lot of traction but nobody says everybody has to do everything the same way. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Apparently this was changed days ago and I somehow saw the old one without seeing any refactor or apology referenced above by Ikip. I ran across this in an archive that I was glancing at for wholly unrelated reasons so I guess it just didn't get changed. I did go to the "project" talk page, and saw several other users expressing these same concerns, and they had received no reply. Anyway, it seems there is less of an issue here than it appeared. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:21, 1 February 2010 (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.

4chan username vandalism

Guess the widdle 4chan kiddies couldn't get a date on a Friday night beyond the inflatable type. The new user log's getting hit with the usual BS.--PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh they can only dream to someday own a RealDoll. I think for now it's Rosey Palm and her 5 Sisters, maybe some low-quality internet pr0n on the side. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: How do I get a hold of that rollback tool which deletes the names from the log? Me like... --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Well, the little tools are watching the goings-on here. They're so cute when they're little, no?  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Cute? Ehh, not so much. >:) —DoRD (?) (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's nothing more to done, let's WP:DENY and move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I just label this 'ANI Thread of the Week' :) - i'll go through the userlogs later today and scrub the worst of them per WP:RD2 - Alison ^❤ 05:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The participation in this thread seems to suggest either that several Wikipedians are likewise dateless on a Friday night, or that their idea of a date is editing Wikipedia together. I'm not sure which to go with, here. Badger Drink (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Dateless and damn proud of it. What's YOUR excuse? ;) GJC 11:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Dating is a waste of time (except for Prom, Military Ball, etc); I do service to the local community on Friday nights. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed rangeblock

Resolved

 – This needs to be handled by a checkuser at WP:SPI AniMate 06:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

IPs on the 69.171.x.x range have been trolling/stalking for quite some time. The first attack directed towards me from this range occured in November of 2009, as seen at [33]. Most recently, the IP range has been responsible for blatant User:LBHS Cheerleader vandalism to seemingly random pages pages recently edited by me as seen at [34] and [35]. In November, I complained to the RO, Cricket Communications, only to be told that I would need to file a police report for them to do anything. I proceeded to file a Better Business Bureau complaint in hopes that the issue would be resolved without the need for a range block. They responded that they would forward the complaint to their upper level IT department. However, it is clear they have done absolutely nothing, and because the troll is on a highly dynamic IP range, blocking individual IPs is quite ineffective. Perhaps it's time for a range block; I suggest range block using a template similar to that we had used on Opera Mini IPs before they set up XFF headers in hopes that they will either set up XFF headers (if they're using proxies) or terminate this troll's service. We block Best Buy store chain IPs and open proxies because there's nothing further we can do about vandalism from those sources, and these IPs are indifferent. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 01:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

DENIED! Rat the LB (talk) 02:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Another sockpuppet. Joe Chill (talk) 02:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And another reason to block the range. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Listen to Queens much? Another one bites the dust alright. (in response to a deleted comment). PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That was the funniest vandalism that I've seen. Joe Chill (talk) 02:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And yet another one's gone. Your point? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thought you were another sock. Sorry. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 03:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

BLP RFC Closer Needed

Now overdue. Original thread at: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#BLP_RfC_Closer_Needed. My best to whichever admin decides to take this on, -- Bfigura ^(talk) 03:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Could several admins perhaps work this out together? It's an awful lot for one to go through and sort out. ThemFromSpace 03:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably not a bad idea. I'm going to wander over the RfC and put it on pause if someone hasn't done so already. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 03:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks... actually it's an early close but I think everyone wants that so we keep up momentum. I note your (Bfigura's) comment on the RfC talk page that closing the discussion is more of a starting point for guiding the community toward consensus than a declaration of what consensus is at this point. If we can tease out the 3-5 ideas that have wide support the next task is to turn one or more of them into concrete proposals. I think any help in summarizing and guiding that discussion will be very useful. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If there was ever any discussion not to close early, it would be this one: what arb com did in its try at it sufficiently demonstrated the reason. DGG ( talk ) 05:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we agree. It's not cutting off discussion but organizing the 500K+ wall of text so that it can become more focused. That's better done by continuing on a fresh page, no? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) As said above it's not an early close, rather a pause of the discussion and an effort to summarize where we are so far, which personally I think it absolutely necessary and seems to be okay with most people. The discussion long since passed into the unmanageable realm, plus a huge percentage of the community has had the chance to comment. Highlighting the key points and proposals and then refocusing the discussion based on that summary is the only way to accomplish anything in the end, though obviously discussion will continue. Hopefully, though at this point who knows, there's an "uninvolved" admin somewhere who can do a summary. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yup, what Bigtimepeace said. It's definitely only a pause for reorganization. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 05:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with closing down that page and regrouping. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 05:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Stephenxinju and User:Abaobao

Resolved

 – Page nuked and spammers warned--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Stephenxinju (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Abaobao (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User:Stephenxinju and User:Abaobao appear to be spammers. Is a block in need?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the page, warned the users, and salted the page for a day. Further spamming should be reported to AIV. TNXMan 03:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll mark as resolved.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You might want to delete the talk pages too. I saw the same spam posted there (it looks like he blanked it himself but it's in a past version).

--SuaveArt (talk) 04:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If they've removed the ad from their talk page themselves, I don't see a reason to delete it entirely. Abaobao has received a final warning from NawlinWiki. TNXMan 04:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick block needed

Resolved

 – blocked by MastCell as a Sock of User:Scibaby Frmatt (talk) 05:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Institut fur Klimatologie, Scibaby's incarnation of the moment. Thanks. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Rodhullandemu and User:raseaC - New user experience

Resolved

 – Not an issue requiring admin action. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Noah Ringer is not the best editor, in fact, he may be a vandal. But I want you all to look how his edits - which could be in good faith, have been handled by these two users. Often we talk about the 'welcoming atmosphere' of Wikipedia being eroded, well take a look at the experience of this editor.

• Noah makes this edit
• He receives this warning from Dorothybrousseau for 'vandalism
• Noah reverts
  • and leaves a rather poorly formatted warning back to Dorothybrousseau
• Noah recieves this message, mentioning that he made previous 'vandalism' edits (not under this account)
  • Presumably with this IP
    • Retaliatory message by Noah
    • and another 'warning' to Dorothybrousseau
• Rodhullandemu leaves a NPA warning
  • Noah removes the PA
• In the mean time, reverts had been going on over the initial edit
  • Noah tells Rodhullandemu he is not vandalising and again - These are his edits to the page: [36] [37] [38]

• This is where things go wrong: Rodhullandemu responds with "Get a clue, please"
  • Noah gives an annoyed, but civil response.
    • Rodhullandemu responds: "Please point out which of my 70,000+ edits do not constitute "a good example". Also, as an Admin, I am duty-bound, and empowered, to enforce editing policies and standards of behaviour. If that means knocking heads together, I'll knock heads together, even if there is only one head to knock."

• Simultaneously raseaC leaves Noah a warning for leaving silly warnings
  • Noah asks 'how is leaving warnings vandalism'
    • raseaC's response: Giving other editors silly 'warnings' is unconstructive and therefore vandalism. Don't do it.

At this point, I get involved. I replaced the warnings on Noah's talk page with a "Hi how can I help you" message. RaseaC adds his back, telling me never to refactor his comments again. I leave both raseaC and Rodhullandemu notes (raseaC a nice one, Rodhullandemu, not so much). A sample of their responses indicated that I would not be able, or willing to try to resolve this issue of how new editors should be treated:

• Rodhullandemu: Editors who don't get it, even when told, are expensive in terms of hand-holding, but I am not a nanny- I am, if you like, an enforcer.
• raseaC: I disagree, anyone with a shred of common sense would know that his interaction with that user was inappropriate.
• raseaC: Problem editors are more likely to remember a message from a WP:DICK than a template warning from another editor. If they were serious about helping chances are they'd consider it a lesson.

I ask you: how should this new user, regardless of their intentions be treated? Clearly some positive edits - removing the PA, asking why something was wrong - some wikilinking. Is this an appropriate way to to treat new editors? I spent a lot of time formatting this in an easy to follow way. For the full conversations both editors had with me Rodhullandemu and RaseaC. I have no objections to Dorothybrousseau's behavior, which I think shows the right attitude to have. Prodego ^talk 01:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest you review the very first diff you give, and note the preceding edit - a reversion of vandalism by Rodhullandemu. Then click to see what that vandalism was, and the name that was included in the inappropriate text... "Noah Ringer". I think you will find that the account Noah Ringer is the same individual that was vandalising the articles by inserting the name Noah Ringer as an ip. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC):

• That IP is linked a few lines down from that first diff. :) Its not so much that this editor is perfect - I'm saying that the response was not in line with the vandalism and mistakes he made, particularly given that he did show at least some level of good intentions. Prodego ^talk 01:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

SRSLY? "Noah Ringer is a reincarnation of David Carradine"? WP:REDFLAG! Rodhullandemu 01:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is the nonsense that started this incident. It didn't fill me with any confidence. The same editor clearly started an account, which by any standard is a single-purpose account. I go further: I pointed out that if this editor is Noah Ringer, the actor, he should say so, otherwise, this is an impersonation account. He hasn't, as far as I'm aware, done so., and is blockable for that alone. However, this is not an "incident" requiring admin intervention, although the usual unnecessary drama may well ensue. If anything, if belongs in a Request for comment, if the editor bringing it here thinks it has the legs to survive there. No admin action is suggested, nor even, in my view, worthy. If we can't just get on with our jobs, which we do conscientiously, and continuously, without interference from those who don't have the full picture, we are doomed tr failure. Rodhullandemu 01:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, about 90% of all editors, good or bad, start off looking like SPAs. And yes, I do expect there to be an attempt to help new users understand our rules, not kneejerk reactions to ban them for various misdeeds. If this editor is indeed Noah Ringer, we're talking about a very young person who would benefit more from guidance than hostility. Risker (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Any person who is the reincarnation of David Carradine would be considered precocious to be speaking, let alone editing Wikipedia (I am fairly sure that karma does not include time travel, well not the last version I read on WP anyway). More to the point, I would note that RH&E was previously involved with this ip (Special:Contributions/67.64.157.147) and given the preferred subject matter and actions found there I should think that AGF need not have been overly extended to this user. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let's get this clear: do you seriously think this and this were inadequate to indicate to this new editor that his contributions were problematic? And if so, youth aside, he can clearly string words together. So why did he not ask for guidance, and why, when threatened with blocking as an IP, did he then create an account to avoid blocking as an IP?. Sucks. Anyone who can spell "reincarnation" correctly ain't that naive. Rodhullandemu 02:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Lols. WP rules trumps common sense again. I'd like to point out that despite Prodego removing my contributions to a third party's talk despite not consulting me first I was only to happy to take his concerns into account and adjust the warning so in effect this situation was sorted way before this thread was started. This is the mother of all non-issues. Admins must be bored. raseaC^{talk to me} 10:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well, let's have it then. Prodego, what admin action, if any, are you requesting be taken here? I don't see it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• I'm pointing you to the number one problem Wikipedia has - that being the complete destruction of a welcoming atmosphere. All I want is agreement on how to treat less than ideal editors (or even vandals). Prodego ^talk 07:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with RaseaC. This is not an issue for admin attention. The village pump would be a better forum. RadManCF (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. I think you are looking for either WP:WQA or a user conduct WP:RFC if you are not asking for any administrative action. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Rama

I'm slightly gobsmacked... but Rama has been adding {{di-replaceable fair use}} to a whole raft of Holocaust and POW images. These include File:Holocaust123.JPG, File:Soviet Prisoners of War.jpg, File:WieselAuschwitzpits.jpg and File:Mass Grave Bergen Belsen May 1945.jpg. When I asked him about File:Holocaust123.JPGFile:Dachau cold water immersion.jpg, he wrote "Obviously not. I would not have made the edit then".[39]

I've asked him for more info, so I'm hoping that he'll respond soon, but something doesn't seem quite right to me. Any admins have an opinion on this? I only take it here because I don't feel that this is a content dispute, this looks suspiciously like POINTy behaviour. I could be wrong here though, but does not seem likely.

I'll let Rama know about this thread so he can respond. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Of potential relevance here is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rama. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rama. I think a topic ban may be in order to curb the disruption resulting from their actions taken in light of their extreme views on fair use and replaceability. –xeno^talk 16:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. He doesn't seem to have much discernment in this matter. I take a dim view to most fair use images, but in his case it's ridiculous! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, please check this slightly inappropriate edit summary. Should someone block him for a day or so to get him to engage with this discussion, since he doesn't seem to be stopping? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone take action to make sure none of the images he's tagged are deleted until this is resolved? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Deletion_process_is_dysfunctional --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, just for a summary:

• one can't summarily delete frivolously uploaded non-Free material
• one can't tag it for review, it is "only slightly less disruptive than" [deleting images] [40] (!). Tags get mass-reverted, even when the image is so very much irreplaceable that it is actually available on Commons (File:Israel'sDepartmentStoreboycott.jpg and File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-14469, Berlin, Boykott-Posten vor jüdischem Warenhaus.jpg)
• one cannot explicitly replace images in the articles because it is "No consensus. Combative. Pointy". [41]

Assuming that everybody is aware of the policy Wikipedia:Non-free content, I would like to ask the assembly how exactly one is supposed to remove superfluous non-Free material. If, as I assume, there is no possibility to do that, I suggest the participants above devote their energies to abolishing the policy rather than to lynching the people trying in good faith to implement it. Rama (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

So, what, images from the Holocaust are being marked as "replaceable" ? What should we do, Rama, hold another one and invite wiki-photographers to it so they can then properly license them? Tarc (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Rama might have invented a time machine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that User:Rama does not always work within process, and I don't think it's a good idea to start tagging these articles for speedy deletion without discussion, I think it's important to recognize that there are valid concerns here. There is more than one image which might represent the horrors of the Holocaust; some of them are free. Can a free image like File:German atrocities. Germany, Poland & Czechoslovakia, 1945.jpg adequately convey what is conveyed by File:Holocaust123.JPG? That one may be a matter for consensus, but it's not an unreasonable stance if Rama believes that it can. Rama, you ask where to go to remove superfluous non-free material; are you familiar with the largely forgotten process board at Wikipedia:Non-free content review? It seems to be engineered for precisely such situations as this. Granted, it's not quick, and getting somebody to actually close discussions there is a feat in itself. But it provides a forum to explain why you think the image is replaceable and by what and for others to agree or disagree. And I have optimistic hopes that if more people know about it and use it, it might actually function better. Alternatively, you can also discuss that at the talk pages of the articles where such images are used. If you replace a non-free image with an appropriate free image, explain why at the talk page, and the replacement proves uncontroversial, the unused non-free image can be tagged for {{Di-orphaned fair use}}. Given the circumstances, I would give it a day or two before tagging it, myself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That relies on assuming good faith in Rama's actions. Through several AN/I discussions and the RfC, I believe I have enough "clear evidence to the contrary" to kick AGF to the curb. Tarc (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Outside of this situation (that is, two ani threads & the RfC), I don't know Rama. I think there has been a tendentious tendency to delete material against process, which I gather has resolved, and a worrying tendency to persist in the face of community input, but I'm inclined to suspect that he means well. (If it had all been Holocaust-related content, then I'd begin to worry there was a political axe being ground here. It's not, though.) Even if Rama has gone about it the wrong way, I just think he has an, um, unusual interpretation of "replaceable" and probably feels he is doing a service to Wikipedia and our reusers by trying to keep images to guideline. I don't think Rama should continue as he has, but I think in all fairness we do need to acknowledge that he may have what he feels are good reasons. Suggesting alternatives that aren't disruptive seems to me like a good idea. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I know Rama well enough to know that while he is being disruptive, there is no ill-intent to his actions. Certainly you could in no way call him a holocaust denier - his actions have nothing to do with the topic itself, but are merely his stance against fair use images. Normally I would find this admirable, but in this case it's really pushing things. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider File:Dachau cold water immersion.jpg replacable. Nor do I think that File:Exocet imapct.jpg would be possible to replace. So why did these get {{Di-orphaned fair use}} added to them? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Rama, it is clear from discussion here and on your RFC that your view of what constitutes "free use" and "replaceable" differs significantly from the Wikipedia consensus. What will it take to get you to stop trying to impose your view on everyone else? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Many of these images are quite unique. This one, for example, is one of a series of famous photographs taken by prisoners in Auschwitz and smuggled out by the Polish underground. They are in the public domain in Poland, but because Wikipedia's servers are in the United States, all we can do is claim fair use—though this one may be PD in the United States too under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, because it entered the public domain before January 1, 1996. We claim fair use for it on WP only because the PD situation isn't entirely clear. We obviously can't find out who took this image and track that person's family down, and it's clearly not replaceable. We have to claim fair use for most Holocaust images for similar reasons.

Given that the prisoners took and smuggled out these images—at great personal risk to everyone involved—precisely to make sure people believed what was going on, it seems bizarre to delete them from the encyclopedia that's meant to contain the sum of human knowledge. This is one of the more tragic aspects of that knowledge. If ever a fair-use claim were justified, surely it's here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Slim, I have to say that is the best summation of this whole issue I've read on this thread. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Another aspect of SV's point is that these images illustrate the degree of the widespread abuse of opponents of the Nazi regime, even though there are free images that show similar scenes the fact that there are others from different locations and timeframes more clearly illustrates that such practices were endemic. Reliance on a couple of free images would diminish that perception. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very good point. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 09:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Tarc and Baseball Bugs, welcome to Wikimedia Commons.

Tbsdy: File:Exocet imapct.jpg is not needed in the article. This image should be linked in "external images", not hosted on Wikipedia as Fair use. It is not inherently notable. I refuse to discuss editorial issues regarding the Holocaust, so I will not answer regarding File:Dachau cold water immersion.jpg. Per Non-Free policy, I do not have to, it is up to the people who want to keep the image to prove that it is not replaceable.

Jayjg , have you stopped beating your wife?

SlimVirgin, under your statements, I agree that this image could be claimed, but it needs to be discussed for itself in the article and in its label. This is done properly in Night_(book), but not in Holocaust. Furthermore, I refuse to believe that this is the case of all the images in the article, especially with the couples File:German atrocities. Germany, Poland & Czechoslovakia, 1945.jpg - File:Holocaust123.JPG and File:Israel'sDepartmentStoreboycott.jpg - File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-14469, Berlin, Boykott-Posten vor jüdischem Warenhaus.jpg. Clearly, the real reason for the presence of these non-Free images on Wikipedia as little to do with their superior quality, and very much to do with people not looking up the categories on Commons (we have not one, but two categories devoted to Soviet prisoners of War in the Second World War, on Commons).

LessHeard vanU, a superficially better presentation of a topic does not authorise a violation of the policies. Furthermore, your implicit assumption that Commons holds a limited sample of images of the Holocaust and related topics is not verified, the sample covers a long period of time and many locations. Rama (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

With respect to "Per Non-Free policy, I do not have to, it is up to the people who want to keep the image to prove that it is not replaceable": it is difficult for them to do that if you do not follow the processes and notify them. Usage instructions are written on the template itself. For example, after this tag, you should have left notice at User talk:Fastfission and you should have put {{deletable image-caption}} on the picture at The Holocaust and Nazi human experimentation. That would give interested contributors notice of your concerns and opportunity to respond. The lack of communication is an issue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

1. Per Moonriddengirls quote of your comment "...to prove that it is not replaceable" is to require proof of an absence - not possible. There can only be good faith opinion that it is not replaceable by readily available media. 2. Your response to mine; "superficial" is judgemental, and it is your judgement against the many that have raised concerns in respect of it which is at issue here. Note this discussion, where you hold one interpretation against several and yet declare yourself unconvinced; that is not how consensus works. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There is literally no way to replace File:Dachau cold water immersion.jpg. If you will not discuss this issue, then I think we have a problem and I think that you should be banned from anything to do with holocaust images. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand [42]. Wikipedia guidelines are that one cannot use a non-free image to represent a topic for which there are a lot of free images (for example, WWII in the Pacific), unless the image is iconic (for example, Raising the Flag at Iwo Jima). Rama (see RfC) consistently interprets this as you may not use a non-free image of a historic topic at all unless it is iconic Consequently, because all of the Holocaust images are of historic topics, he believes the non-free ones can only be used if you can show that they are iconic. If they are not (or if that is a totally undefined term in this case), then according to the way Rama interprets things, they can be replaced with pretty much any image of the holocaust that is free, therefore they are replaceable, therefore should not be used. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What additionally concerns me is the game-playing. For example, he'll replace this image with this one (using no edit summary), bizarrely claiming that they are "equivalent", and then tag the original image as "orphaned fair use".[43] Jayjg ^(talk) 00:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Self-promotion, edit warring, and possible sock at All-American Basketball Alliance (2010)

User: Plaintalk2010, who apparently is the author of the book Plain Talk Volume 1-Everything you ever and never wanted to know about Racism and Stereotypes, recently added a blatantly self-promotional passage to the article All-American Basketball Alliance (2010). I deleted this passage, but he restored it. Another user then deleted the passage, but he restored it again. I removed it again and gave Plaintalk2010 a level three "uw-advert" warning, as well as a 3RR warning, on his talk page. Subsequently, however, User: Geoffgregg (whom I suspect may be a sockpuppet of Plaintalk2010), re-added the unsourced, promotional passage, and I deleted it yet again. Looking at user contributions for both Plaintalk2010 and Geoffgregg leads me to believe that the sole purpose of both accounts on Wikipedia (whether the latter is a sock of the former or not) is to advertise the book Plain Talk Volume 1. I think administrator intervention may be necessary.

P. S: The article Plain Talk Volume 1-Everything you ever and never wanted to know about Racism and Stereotypes also was created by Plaintalk2010 and appears to be intended as self-promotion. The only references for the article are people's blogs, and the book itself may not be notable. I'm seriously considering taking it to AFD. Stonemason89 (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Corowitz started the Plain Talk... article... less than 20 minutes later, User:Plaintalk2010 made his first edit... which just happened to be on the Plain Talk article. So Corowitz is another user who should be checked out. [44]. Rapido (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction, and you're right about Corowitz; I looked through that user's contributions and although some of his edits went as far back as 2009, there were very few of them and they were mostly (if not totally) unconstructive. Stonemason89 (talk) 16:29, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have started a sockpuppet investigation here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Plaintalk2010. Rapido (talk) 18:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

And I have place a sockpuppet investigation warning template on Plaintalk2010's talk page. Stonemason89 (talk) 19:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Altho' for some reason it's not appearing on this page Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations, so perhaps I made an error in submitting the report. Rapido (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It now is appearing. Perhaps there was a delay of some sort, but everything seems to be fine now. Stonemason89 (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I had to manually list it, as the automatic bot is broken. Didn't realise that before, as it wasn't made obvious. Rapido (talk) 14:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/coloryourface

Could somebody please close this? A self-nom who's only edits are to that page. Obvious sockpuppet has !voted support.--^Trust_Me^THROW! 08:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the request for admin action is ripe. The nom hasn't been transcluded yet;) ^Bongo_matic 08:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I deleted it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Indiana Militia Corps

I've been trying to clean up some of the POV and unref assertions in Indiana Militia Corps, but have just noticed that this was deleted following WP:Articles for deletion/Indiana Militia Corps (2nd nomination). Can an admin please check to see whether the content has substantially changed from the deleted version? Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 09:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Is the subject still notable for inclusion on Wikipedia? It seems like all the references come directly from the group.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:57, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The content has not substantially changed, and I have deleted the new version WP:CSD#G4. I closed the AfD, which had a clear consensus to delete as not notable, only the article author JP419 (talk · contribs) dissenting. His first reaction was to nominate for deletion an article about another militia corps - see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michigan Militia. When that was kept, he protested on my talk page and I directed him to DRV which is where he should take this rather than simply re-creating his page. JohnCD (talk) 10:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not the article author, I've just been trying to improve the article for some time, but I work long shifts and don't have much time to be online... I cannot do that if it's deleted, and also I might add that JohnCD is wikilawyering me to death on this. he is also mischaracterizing my actions - which was NOT the first thing I did. The first things I did were to use the talk page, but more importantly look for the articles I know are out there. But why not waste my time by deleting the page before I get a chance to post?? He did not give me sufficient time to respond, or to research what I can do to improve/etc what needs to be done. Against the spirit of Wikipedia, and the Five Pillars, he has pushed to delete ASAP. There are other articles less noteworthy I mean notable that are being left up, so this is certainly looking like a POV way to strip content from the wikipedia. I already told a few others that this BS and wikilawyering is making me think that I should withdraw altogether from WP and encourage others to do likewise. This is not how we improve relevant content, and I for one am sick of JohnCD's circular arguments. He's not God here and shouldn't act as though his word is the last. There's a remedy for every situation and he's been ignoring everything I've said. I am at the point where being ignored is pi$$ing me off and I'm about ready to demand arbitration. Barring that, I'll drag up and join those who call for a boycott of Wikipedia. JP419 (talk) 11:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

...Or, you could ask someone to WP:USERFY the deleted article for you, so you can work upon it and the reasons why it was deleted when you have the time. When it is ready (all properly cited to reliable independent sources) then it can be returned to mainspace. As for the rapid deletion, if an article is recreated with exactly the same problems as were given as the reasons for the earlier delete then there is no need to rehash the arguments. Only where there are significant changes is there a need for an extended discussion. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

In view of JP419s statement above, I've userfied the article at User:JP419/Indiana Militia Corps so that it can be worked upon and improved until it is ready to return to mainspace. Mjroots (talk) 16:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Indiana Militia Corps, part deux

I know there is a thread above regarding this article, but I think that JP419 has taken this issue to another level. He has been claiming that the article "Indiana Militia Corps" was "improperly deleted" by JohnCD, even though during the deletion debate JP419 was the only person who voted keep. He has admitted to knowing members of the group featured in the article, and his COI is showing. He also claimed during the deletion debate that,

• "Indiana Militia Corps has become truly notable within militia social circles, but only AFTER the ADL, SPLC and Homeland Security gave them free publicity (My inside sources explain that membership is BOOMING since early 2009). With new members joining, their operations are sure to increase, and consequently they WILL be in the news... it is just a matter of time, and I bet we won't have to wait long. Deletion anytime soon would be premature, to say the least."

Of course many of us have disagreed with community decisons, but JP419 is taking this personally. To prove his point, JP has nominated Michigan Militia and Mark Pitcavage for deletion. He did this not because he felt they deserved deletion, but to apply the arguments at those pages to the "unfair" deletion of the Indiana Militia Corps. He has as much at Talk:Michigan Militia: "My apologies for the AfD nomination. I was using this as a test balloon to prove bias between this and other militia pages that have been deleted. The decision to keep was the desired result and I wish to thank everyone that contributed! If I violated a rule by doing this, again an apology - I'm not a 'wikilawyer' and wasn't trying to offend." During his complaints to all that would listen, a copy of the deleted page was then put into JP's userspace for presumed incubation. JP linked to the userfied version of this article at Indiana Militia. I am saying this all only because JP seems determined to prove that the community consensus to delete was wrong to all that will listen, and is beginning to flog a dead horse. Most admins will AGF, but I think people should know the whole backstory about the article and the editor involved. Angryapathy (talk) 17:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This report is a little stale. See also http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xeno&oldid=341140521#Indiana_Militia_Corps –xeno^talk 17:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• I haven't looked at the other one yet, but the AfD nomination of Pitcavage is WP:POINTy and I think he should be called on it. Niteshift36 (talk) 18:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Death Threat by User:69.208.116.249

I have just reverted a death threat to "kill soneone (sic) at the mall today" by 69.208.116.249 at the page Sex organ. Chances are high it's just some heavier-than-normal vandalism, but the usual Huggle auto-warning does not seem to be enough in this case. Could an admin take a look at this and advise on what actions (if any) should be taken? If judged as serious, perhaps the admin could move forward on the matter themselves? Better safe than sorry; and I personally think alerting appropriate authorities might not be a bad idea. Thanks. Jusdafax 15:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I contacted SBC abuse regarding the matter. I doubt they'll respond directly to me as this is typically something of a private matter, but hopefully they'll take the issue seriously. Naturally, they have the tools of tracking down who the user is, and we do not. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 16:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, good. Thanks for taking action. Jusdafax 17:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

request for opinion: definition of reverting

Resolved

 – Not an incident, really belongs at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). –xeno^talk 17:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

An editor either doesn't agree with the WP:WAR policy—particularly the WP:3RR remedies—or is confused as to meaning. Please add to the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring#What is reverting.3F. —EncMstr (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

J.D. Salinger

There is a big mess over at Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 January 28#File:JD Salinger.jpg. It's getting out of hand.--Blargh29 (talk) 07:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

OTRS request as copyright holder has requested deletion, so it's gone. Nothing else to see here, folks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not how OTRS or Fair use works. IFD should proceed as it was and the image should be restored while it does. Prodego ^talk 07:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, image was restored. IFD seems to have calmed down though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've contacted Mike Godwin because WP:CONSENSUS does not override US Copyright Law. Pcap ping 19:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well Fair use is far far broader than our interpretation of when we use Fair use, so I can't imagine it being much of an issue legally. I could of course be wrong. Prodego ^talk 20:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

He seems to agree with you. :-) Pcap ping 20:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring at Kick-Ass and Kick-Ass (film)

I have filed a report at WP:AN/EW#User:70.29.59.12 reported by User:Jezhotwells (Result: ) about an edit war involving User:70.29.59.12 who appears to have now created an account as User:Rightous. This editor(s) keeps inserting potentially defamatory material about Marvel Comics into teh articles Kick-Ass and Kick-Ass (film), despite warnings by several editors. As no admins sem to have edited at WP:AN/EW for fifteen hours or so, i am requesting that an admin takes a look. Sorry if thsi is the wrong place to report this. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User is still at it. Tripped abuse filter 249: Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits. Jarkeld (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Both users are blocked now. Evil saltine (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

New IP making the same additions to the page: 70.26.52.194 (talk · contribs). Jarkeld (talk) 15:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

New IP was blocked for 48 hours, FYI. -- Atama頭 22:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Craziness at probation noticeboard

Resolved

 – The edit war ended when the editor self-reverted. Administrator attention on this area is still urgently required.

For the love of $DEITYOFCHOICE, would an admin please step in and semi-protect, or liberally issue blocks, or whatever it takes to stop this? Over at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement an admin closed an unproductive discussion (his judgment, not necessarily mine) with instructions to bring further concerns to his talk page. User:Unitanode summarily reopened the discussion, then someone else re-closed it, and now there's edit warring over reopening the discussion. This is nuts. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• An admin inappropriately closed an on-going discussion of blatant probation violations by WMC, SBHB's WikiFriend. Just clarifying. UnitAnode 15:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• WMC was warned not to use derogatory terms in this highly contentious debate. In response to his warning, he called the editors who reported him "idiots and yahoos". Another case was opened to report his latest abuses, 2/0 failed to act, and now SBHB and the rest of WMC's bodyguards are misrepresent this as "unproductive discussion". The problem here is WMC's brazen violation of a sanction, and 2/0's refusal to act. At least 5 editors (2 previously uninvolved) have expressed concern about this. Can a truly uninvolved admin deal with this straightforward enforcement of sanctions for a problem editor? ATren (talk) 15:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

  From what I've seen of the discussion, it looked very much like a pile-on by WMC's political opponents. Don't forget that he is being targeted by an off-wiki campaign at the moment - the recent flurry of mostly spurious enforcement cases has clearly been driven by the desire of one side of the argument to get rid of a prominent advocate of the other side. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with Boris that a number of editors seemed determined to be disruptive on the enforcement page by gaming the system. There have been repeated attempts to get WMC topic banned for spurious reasons. Semiprotection or blocks of editors like the two "pile-ons" above might help to impose some discipline. Mathsci (talk) 15:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

  Note that WMC's "idiots and yahoos" smears were completely unprovoked. He was actually responding to 2/0's warning not to use such terms. There is no evidence whatsoever that he was baited into those smears. WMC is the aggressor in these conflicts, and to accuse those reporting him of "piling on" is shooting the messenger. ATren (talk) 15:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

  When a small group of users keep writing the same thing, hoping at some point it will stick, that is "piling on". GoRight and Abd were no different. Mathsci (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I'm not Abd, nor GoRight, nor Scibaby, nor any of the other so-called "bad guys" you would like to associate me with. In fact, I am sympathetic to WMC's views. I only object to his tactics, which are disruptive. In this case, I simply supplied diffs of WMC calling other editors idiots and yahoos, after being warned not to. Do you support such attacks? At least half a dozen other non-Scibabies agree with me, by the way, so the "WMC is being harassed" meme holds no water here. ATren (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't seem helpful to write in such an inflammatory way. Abd and GoRight persistently repeated assertions about other users, which could not be substantiated by diffs. There doesn't seem to be much difference here. MastCell's warning was unambiguous and hopefully users will take note of it. Mathsci (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

MathSci, all I'm presenting is diffs - how can a diff of WMC calling other editors "idiots" not substantiate that claim? Really.

And as for MastCell's warning, you'll note that I also opposed the revert of the close, and suggested he revert and take it up with Prodego directly. Which he did, because he is reasonable. Contrast this to WMC, who not only fails to respect 2/0's warning to respect others, he directly defies it with more derogatory language, language which he has never withdrawn. ATren (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

All I'm doing is presenting diffs It's clear that you are wikilawyering and spending considerable effort trying to analyse WMC's edits. However as 2/0 has pointed out, you are failing to see that WMC has heeded his warning and is editing helpfully and carefully. I am sure that if you analysed my edits, which in my interactions with you might show some signs of fatigue, you would be able to point out minor lapses in the wikipedia civility code. I would ask you to reread what both MastCell and 2/0 have written without trying to interpret it through wikilawyering: if you think there is any ambiguity, why not ask these administrators directly, instead of wasting time here? At the moment your persistent comments and wikilawyering just seem to be disruptive no matter how many self-justifying statements you write. Your final goal seems clear, even though it might be disguised by the tactics of a civil POV-pusher. Please stop. Mathsci (talk) 07:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made my points above, and your response is baseless and inflammatory. Bottom line: there is no ambiguity in the word "idiot". There is no need for me to respond to this further. ATren (talk) 13:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wat you have written seems to be nonsense. At the moment you don't seem to be contributing anything constructive to this encyclopedia. You have trolled on my talk page (why?). I hope in the near future you'll learn to edit more helpfully Mathsci (talk) 01:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've self-reverted the close. It was ill-considered on Prodego's part, and I'm extremely tired of the one-sided naturse of that "enforcement" page. It has to end. UnitAnode 15:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
• And, for the record, WMC's defenders have now so muddied the waters at that page, that it's almost impossible to even dig up the diffs where Connolley called his opponents "yahoos and idiots" in the immediate aftermath of being "required" not to make such statements. It truly is a mess, but not for the reasons some would have you believe. UnitAnode 15:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's unwise for a non-admin to revert an administrative action. Unitanode should know better, frankly, and it only adds to the unnecessary drama.

On a separate issue, I do think it would be useful if more admins could participate in managing the climate change article probation. There are only a handful active at the moment (2/0, Lar, BozMo). This puts an undue burden on a few individuals and makes it slower and more difficult to resolve issues. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand where this is supposed to be going. Many fairly spurious, and one or two substantial, cases have been filed against William M. Connolley in the Climate change probation. Two administrators have already looked at this latest case and both decided there was nothing actionable. The second admin closes it.

Then somebody starts edit warring on the enforcement page. Do you really want a previously unengaged admin to come along and conduct multiple blocks or bans? Because the way things are going, that's where this incident is leading. --TS 16:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

A block or ban to discourage this sort of nonsense would probably be a good idea. Edit warring on a probation enforcement page is practically at a Darwin Awards level of stupidity. -- ChrisO (talk) 16:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

He's already self-reverted. It was ill-advised, especially given the uneven-level of enforcement on that page, but it's now moot. ATren (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, what are you talking about, "multiple blocks or bans"? For what? Presenting diffs of a problem editor calling other editors "idiots" after he was warned not to? How is that blockable? Seriously. ATren (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. Nowhere did I say that presenting diffs is blockable or bannable. Escalating a dispute should be done by dispute resolution, not by edit warring and then complaining about the actions of non-participants in the edit war, and not by repeatedly bringing up pointless and doomed cases on one forum after another. --TS 16:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, SBHB brought it here, so your forumshop claim is bogus. And, for the record, the probation page is dispute resoultion, except that legitimate disputes are being swept under the rug. Please stop misrepresenting this situation. ATren (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I refer to your edit on this page at 15:25, with the edit sumary "The real story" in which you tried to turn this edit warring report into a complaint about the conduct of admins. --TS 16:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Tony, there you go again. In fact, that was in response to Boris's call to "liberally issue blocks". Stop muddying the issue with unfounded accusations against me. ATren (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ignore the changed landscape post-Copenhagen and leave the articles locked in the GW glory days of 2007. Given the aggressive warnings for "advocacy" being handed out (advocating improvements to the article really not welcome), the other absurd accusations (huh?) and the constant personal attacks, the stone-walling of every NPOV attempt at editing looks relatively good-natured. But I wish more people had contributed to my Improvement Chart here for when we eventually have to come back, learn something and actually write an informative artcle. MalcolmMcDonald (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Final warning issued ([45]), as this is the second time a complainant has reverted an admin's close of an enforcement thread. MastCell ^Talk 19:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Problematic User Keeps Being Problematic After RFC, Breaks Restrictions

Request already posted at User_talk:Tiptoety#User:Collect_-_Note_his_past and more aggressively at User_talk:Gwen_Gale#User:Collect_-_Time_to_back_up_your_words. That's enough. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

---

Can you guys take a look at this and decide if it merits further action?

We had a RFC about User:Collect (see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect). Two of the problems were disruptive editing and wikilawyering. It seems the user is continuing with this same problematic behaviour: [46] [47] [48]. Also note that he had already broken his RFC restrictions. [49] Phoenix of9 22:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's see -- multiple posts to Gwen Gale, multiple earlier posts (including an interesting oppose at Ironhold's RfA) and a post to Tiptoety as well. Forum shopping to see what you can do to me, and I simply have had nothing to do with you at all. Seems pretty clear. By the way, try reading WP:False consensus as well. Gwen's restrictions on me expired in November, 2009, so this is getting to be a real pain, Phoenix. Thank you most kindly -- and note that Ikip apologized for that RFC <g>. Collect (talk) 22:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Phoenix, you note that he broke them in July and want to report that now? You've asked an admin here, you're done. Frankly, I don't see why you shouldn't be stopped for harassment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I was talking about what happened yesterday.

From RFC: "Given Collect's behaviour following the unblock, I'm restricting Collect to 0rr (no reverts or undo edits any kind) on all political articles and political BLPs for 6 months: He is free only to revert the most straightforward kinds of vandalism. If he makes a single revert to any political article or political BLP, I will block him from editing for at least two weeks. Editors can report reverts either to my talk page or to WP:ANI and cite this RfC close." This was broken here: [50]

From RFC: "If Collect edits tendentiously or disruptively again, I will start a thread at WP:ANI asking for consensus to block him for at least 1 month for disruption. Editors can likewise report disruption either to my talk page or to WP:ANI and cite this RfC close." This was broken yesterday: [51] Phoenix of9 22:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)At least he was not the one who kept sending me harassing emails <g>. I commend the following to you for further reading <g> [52] shows how far he carries the animus. (after ec) Oops -- looks like he really wants to show how much he can harass now (sigh). Collect (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

This is not harassment, this is follow up. Even now, you are continuing with your typical behaviour. One of the problems we talked about in RFC was about you giving insufficient information that distorts what actually happened (in Wiki, when dealing with problems) and that distorts what the sources say (in content discussions). And now you are doing it again by including a diff to RFA while you are failing to mention this: [53] Phoenix of9 23:12, 31 January 2010 (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.

I'm "involved"

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.

---

Take this to my talk page, where it most likely belongs. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, Phoenix says I am involved in this whole situation because I edited Mass killings under Communist regimes some time ago (I think my comments are in archive 6 of the talk page). Is there an uninvolved admin who has another view? I'm dropping this before I block him indefinitely or something out of anger. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, we intersect at 17 articles as notorious as Edward_Moskal, Georgism, Jerry_Seinfeld, Jon_Peters, Los_Angeles_Times, Martin_Gardner, Sark, Tampa,_Florida, Thomas_Edison and Vincent_Price. Your few minor edits (all in a row) at Mkucr occurred on 9 Dec 2009, and seem scarcely enough to accuse you of any "conflict of interest" here at all. Cheers. Collect (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

3 admins all involved refuse to punish Collect and one threatens the complainer? Suggest RFC on all the admins, they need to be held accountable. If phoenix starts, I'll support. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.175.73.195 (talk) 00:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I thought I was clear but I'll try to make it clearer this time.

• We had a RFC about User:Collect (see: Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Collect). Two of the problems were his disruptive editing and wikilawyering. It seems the user is continuing with this same problematic behaviour. He got blocked for disruptive editing in Mass killings under Communist regimes yesterday. [54] And used same wikilawyering techniques to get out of it [55] [56].
• I wrote about it in Gwen Gales page [57] and then notified the blocking (and later unblocking admin), assuming he wasnt aware of Collects past: [58]. When Gwen Gale refused to move this to ANI [59] (contrary to what she said she would in RFC), I moved it here, and then we had this interaction with Ricky81682 here: User_talk:Phoenix_of9#Forum_shopping. It should also be noted that Gwen Gale is another involved admin here: [60]
• So does Collect's continued disruptive behaviour merit further action? Phoenix of9 02:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

So far every admin who has responded has been not neutral or involved in your opinion, am I correct? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And I'll add that Tiptoety unblocked noting that. Which you informed. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Non-admin comment. To my knowledge, Collect is not under any sort of "no-tolerance" regime or suspended sentence. I think I am right that User:Gwen Gale is willing to impose a block if he slips into generally disruptive behaviour, but this does not necessarily mean that he gets stronger sanctions than he otherwise would any time he steps out of line. Phoenix, if you think Collect is showing a pattern of disruptive editing, you should bring this to Gwen Gale's attention, but I don't think you can expect her to act on anything other than very clear evidence. If on the other hand, you think that any time Collect gets a ban it should automatically be multiplied in length then, although I'm sure you are sincere, I think you are just wrong.

I'm sure Ricky and Gwen could make these points for themselves but, since the suggestion admin bias has been brought up, I thought a comment from a non-admin who is not predisposed to defend Collect (which I am not) might be helpful. --FormerIP (talk) 02:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I already said Tiptoety unblocked ("then notified the blocking (and later unblocking admin)"). I've never said he was not neutral or involved or whatever, he hasnt even responded to anything (prolly hasnt seen any of this yet). He unblocked before I messaged him. And as I said, the reason I messaged him was because I thought he wasnt aware of Collect's past. Phoenix of9 02:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

FormerIP, the reason that I didnt continue this with Gwen Gale is that she is not neutral. [61]. So I really dont wanna carry on via Gwen Gale.

And the problem isnt Collect not getting heavier punishments but it is the fact that he still continues with his problematic behaviour, even when he's answering to this ANI complaint, accusing me of forum shopping, harassment and stuff I explained here: [62], besides his disruptive editing. Phoenix of9 02:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you are obliged to go through Gwen Gale, but whatever admin or forum you favour, you really ought to provide a point-by-point account of the behaviour you are talking about. --FormerIP (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2010 (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.

Suspected banned user reappeared

Banned user User:The cows want their milk back is suspected to have reappeared as User:The Phat Cow on Talk:Cornwall. Making the same kind of edits. "How can I be a sockpuppet of someone who's blocked?" (I never said who he was a sockpuppet of) --Joowwww (talk) 21:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm blocking him; I interacted with the previous account enough that I'm confident it's the same person. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Could you look at the recent edits of User:The Quill too? Similar edits to The Cows, and failure to respond to requests to discuss changes. DuncanHill (talk) 22:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about that account; I think it might well be a different person who just has similar 'interests.' I gather that there's some sort of conflict between Cornwall and the rest of England. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Why not report at WP:SPI? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible image upload issues with SchoolcraftT

I blocked SchoolcraftT (talk · contribs) yesterday for 48 hours for WP:OWN issues with Mountain Parkway Byway, as well as egregious copyright violations on Shooting Range (video game). However, I'm concerned there might be more serious issues at play here.

Unless I'm very wrong, all of the images that he has uploaded and claimed as self-created have NO metadata on them. Given the sheer volume of images he's uploaded to both Wikipedia and Commons since October, as well as the fact he seems to have a misunderstanding of copyright (he claimed that screenshots of video game images can't be copyrighted), I think this merits further investigation. I thought about placing this in the previous discussion about this user, but felt a separate discussion was needed to get as many eyes on it as possible. Blueboy96 22:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There are 20 files on that list. Two of them are .ogg files that were previously discussed. As I remember he claimed to have recorded them in his own voice and later admitted this wasn't true. This one he claims to have created by himself, although it's clearly too old for that. It's probably old enough to be PD, but there's no way to trust that unless it's uploaded by someone who will be honest about its source. This looks like an aerial photograph, so it's unlikely he took it himself. The rest look like they could have been taken by any jamoke off the street with a camera, so I'm willing to trust that he did, unless you think his credibility is so destroyed that they should all go. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on a number of images I surveyed, I would conclude several of these came from a video (they were 640x480 and all similarly grainy/blurry, as you'd expect in a compressed video file) and at least one appears to come from a printed publication. That said, several are high resolution images that could have easily been made by him. The lack of metadata could be the result of passing them through a photo-manipulation program that either manually or automatically scrubs such info. I checked several through TinEye and got no hits, so there's no way to prove he didn't take them. If I were more bold, I'd delete everything as a matter of caution and because the user doesn't seem capable of saying anything other than "This *is* mine!" — Huntster (t @ c) 23:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Zscout370 nuked em. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That image Steven found was enough for me. Bmpowell and Elen of the Roads invested a lot of time back in January explaining copyright to him, and he had ample time to change the information on that page to reflect it. I decided that I couldn't in good conscience allow this user to edit until he understands how serious this is, so I've lengthened the block to indefinite. Harsh, I know--but I don't think we have much room for leeway, given what turned up yesterday. Blueboy96 23:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you get more credit for turning it up than I do. All I did was look at the list you posted. I agree that once someone makes it clear that they're going to keep violating copyright in spite of having it explained to him like he's an eight-year-old, decisive measures have to be taken. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 23:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it...

Resolved

 – now blocked Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody explain why a vandalism report is rejected after this? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearly not resolved, even though the originator of the thread is the one who closed it. Blocking this user because the subject of the article has the same name as the person who keeps creating the article? So it's okay to create the article over and over again so long as he uses a different username? Woogee (talk) 23:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, he can't recreate the article because it has been salted, nobody but an administrator can create it now. But I understand your point, the editor received repeated vandalism warnings and then was only softblocked for their username(?!). That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. -- Atama頭 01:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I declined the AIV because I don't consider a new user's removal of speedies to necessarily constitute vandalism, and the other edits could be seen as good-faith attempts to be productive, even if the article were eventually to be deleted, as it was. Sometimes the best way to get people to miss something is to put it right in front of their face, and you'd be surprised if you didn't involve yourself regularly how many newbies, who are entitled to the same consideration we all got at that stage, miss the text about {{hangon}} and just keep taking the tag down (and they may not necessarily click on the new messages banner and read the talkpage messages, either). For that reason I declined it as an AIV as beyond that page's rather explicitly stated scope. Had it been reported to COI, things would have been different. Had it been reported to UAA instead, the nature of the contribs would have been irrelevant and I would have done what I've done many times with UAA reports under similar circumstances: softblocked, yes, even where people have removed speedy tags. And pretty much all the time that's all the message they need, whether we've salted the article or not. Daniel Case (talk) 03:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You can then go ahead and apply that rationale to any vandal: "Oh, maybe they didn't read the messages. Let's not block then...." Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Big difference ... this was someone trying, in good faith, to create encylopedic content. Clear vandalism doesn't get that consideration. Daniel Case (talk) 00:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible POINTy editing by DoktorSpin

Resolved

 – No admin action necessary. Tan | 39 04:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Since an AfD closed against his opinion, Doktorspin (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly prodding articles in the same field[63][64][65] and removing references[66][67][68]. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 23:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Please do not make speculative accusations and assume good faith. I marked two problematic pages for deletion. One of these was removed without any rationale by SarekOfVulcan, so I undid the removal, requesting the rationale. As to the references removed from the Open Watcom Assembler article, I actually read them and they proved to be useless. I cited them in the summaries. -- spin^control 23:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

OrangeDog has now removed the PROD making the incorrect claim that no rationale need be supplied for removing the PROD. This is in strict contravention of the first indication in WP:CONTESTED: "Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page." -- spin^control 23:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:CONTESTED states, "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a {{prod}} tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith." It wasn't even in bad faith; he just didn't give a reason. Don't revert him, take it to AfD and move on. American Eagle (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. -- spin^control 23:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)How can you be in "strict contravention" of something that you're only encouraged to do? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

OrangeDog has now reverted the unhelpful references to the sick Open Watcom Assembler article, supplying no rationale against my clear indications. This is unfortunate behavior from a Wiki editor. -- spin^control 23:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As to the original complaint, I do have to agree with Doktorspin, it's best to AGF on the proposed deletions, and as to the reference removal, see WP:BRD. Spin was bold in removing them, you reverted in protest, now is the time to discuss the merits of the references, not time to report people to noticeboards. Spin, you seem to be under the misunderstanding that discussions should take place in edit summaries; they don't. They should take place on the article's talk page. That is where you can place your rationale for removing the references, and where OrangeDog can explain why they should remain. -- Atama頭 00:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. I put as much as I can in the summary as a rule. I've put a discussion on the talk page. -- spin^control 00:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• As a participant in the AFD Orangedog mentioned, I can say it's not shocking to me at all to see DoktorSpin acting in this way. As for AGF-ing, it's not necessary, when bad faith is clearly present. He's removing references from articles. That is most certainly demonstrating bad faith on his part. UnitAnode 00:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Be good UnitAnode. I find your response offensive. You were responsible for making accusations of bad faith in that AfG, as well as accusations of meat-puppetry. Try to respond to the discussion and not attack the person. -- spin^control 00:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No one made "accusations" of meatpuppetry, they demonstrated with links that there was meatpuppetry happening. UnitAnode 00:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

For some reason you confuse discussion of the progress on a Wiki article with meat-puppetry. There was no way to extract co-ordination from the links, so you were called on the false accusation. You still have not substantiated it. Please don't continue. -- spin^control 00:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• AGF isn't a suicide pact. WP:DUCK looks more applicable here. WP:User:Doktorspin might want to refresh his reading of WP:POINT sometime soon. Niteshift36 (talk) 00:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could cite exactly what you already have in mind, thanks. -- spin^control 00:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• What I already have in mind? What are you talking about? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comment that I might want to refresh my reading of WP:POINT. You seemed to have something specific in mind. This sort of discussion sometimes makes it hard for people to follow what one is saying. -- spin^control 01:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Doktorspin is engaging in pure WP:DISRUPTIVE editing. He should be blocked ASAP. Pcap ping 00:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Besides my not noting the fact that I shouldn't replace a PROD, where is your beef? I have left that issue alone, since it was clarified by American Eagle. -- spin^control 00:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I answered that on your talk page. But since you want to ask it here, I'll answer it here. You don't replace the PROD because is violatates PROD policy to do so. That's why. The policy states: "If anyone, including the article creator, removes a prod tag from an article, do not replace it, even if the tag was apparently removed in bad faith." Is that a clear enough answer? Niteshift36 (talk) 00:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion. My comment 00:52, 2 February 2010 was clearly addressed to Pcap. -- spin^control 01:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I know who it was addressed to. But any editor can respond. You might want to get used to that. Obviously you missed the one I directed to you, which was "What I already have in mind? What are you talking about?". If you have something to say, just say it. Niteshift36 (talk) 01:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Besides stripping all references from articles, http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Microsoft_Macro_Assembler&diff=prev&oldid=341365081 this] is clearly a bad faith edit. Nobody can say in good faith that deleting Microsoft's Assembler is uncontroversial. Pcap ping 01:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I clearly cited the content of the references. Please read them and tell me how they provide serious third party sources for the article.

As to MASM, read the page and tell me what information there is about the assembler that is not either primary source or unreliable sources. -- spin^control 01:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You are clearly a troll, and I hope an admin shows some balls to indef you:

“ WASM

The WASM assembler is included with the Open Watcom C++ compiler. The syntax resembles MASM but is somewhat different. Not fully up to date.

JWASM

JWASM is a further development of WASM. It is fully compatible with MASM syntax, including advanced macro and high level directives. JWASM is a good choice if MASM syntax is desired.

”

From Fog, Agner (2009), Optimizing subroutines in assembly language (PDF) (2009-09-26 ed.), p. 13. Pcap ping 01:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Look, I argued against Doktorspin in the drama-filled AfD being referred to repeatedly. I have a strong disagreement with them regarding article inclusion and notability. But they have a right to propose an article for deletion if they feel that it isn't warranted, and if they feel that references cited don't back up what they should be referencing, then that justifies removal in good faith. There is now a discussion on the talk page, albeit a brief one, but never the less this is how content disputes should be resolved.

I do have some concerns. There has been a bit of edit-warring on Doktorspin's behalf, including the reinsertion of the references after OrangeDog restored them. There were of course the mistakes about the proposed deletion policy. But those are minor problems. I'd consider any further violations of the PROD policy to be deliberate disruption, but mistakes are mistakes, don't nail a person to a wall over them. I think this deserves a trout at the most. A bigger trout to Pcap for the personal attacks, however. -- Atama頭 01:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

He stripped the reference quoted above from Open Watcom Assembler, together with other two print references (you can search them on google books) multiple times "non-substatial" "no value", leaving the article completely unreferenced. Presumably his next step was to prod it as having only primary sources as he did [69] [70] with the Microsoft Assembler (obviously an uncontroversial deletion... not!) Pcap ping 01:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

But that didn't happen, and it could have; the references could have been removed in the same edit as the proposed deletion if that was the intention, but no proposed deletion occurred. Doktorspin made a mistake at the MASM article, but despite what others have claimed, reverting Sarek's removal of the prod tag happened before the warning about not doing so at this ANI. (After all, the warning was in response to the revert.) It is certainly possible that all of this behavior is in retaliation for the results of the recent AfD, but it's also possible that DS has decided to take a stronger deletionist/exclusionist stance after having WP:N explained in great depth. I don't know the motives, and neither does anyone else. What I do know is that the only real disruption I see was putting the prod tag back, and that was an acknowledged mistake. -- Atama頭 01:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't seem to get the full picture here. Doktorspin is one of the main editors to the MASM article; Pcap ping 02:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is patently false. I've added a few links and a navbox I'd created for assembly topics. I put none of the substance in the article. -- spin^control 02:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

By edit count you are the 2nd editor there (see image). I admit to not having checked all your edits, but you've been preserving the sorry state of that article up to the point when you decided it needs to be completely deleted. Amazing change of attitude. Pcap ping 03:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

he was actively preventing (crufty?) material from being removed a few days ago. His latest change in attitude is simply WP:REVENGE for losing his favorite article, after making 90 posts in the 170Kb JWASM AfD, the most relevant one being:

“

Unfortunately, you still have missed the point. If you can't understand the issue of what notability can be in the assembly language community, then you shouldn't be posting uninformed opinions. The opinion based on the lack of knowledge of the issue displayed here should mean that most of the assembler articles would need to be deleted. This sadly is an expert area and people who know nothing about it should either leave it to those who do know or simply band together and remove nearly all the assembler material on Wiki. You seem to be incapable of understanding the notability issue and how to gauge it in this field, so you can resist understanding and be coherent or learn about what you are giving opinions on. -- spin^control 06:57, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

”

Emphasis his. I hope this clears things up. Pcap ping 02:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you stop leveling accusations at me. Citing me doesn't change the lack of reliable third-party sources for any substance on the MASM page. -- spin^control 02:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope it's plain clear to everyone what this is about: some obscure assembler got deleted (actually redirected), so Microsoft's got to be deleted too! For great justice! Pcap ping 02:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I made a specific complaint against the MASM material. All your handwaving and psych evaluations will not change that. -- spin^control 02:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, an article on a topic with 1,000+ google boks hits obviously needs to be deleted per WP:N, WP:AGF, and block log. Pcap ping 02:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you would like to use some reliable third party sources in the article, that would be fine, given the current lack of any in the article. -- spin^control 02:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Pcap ping 03:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You are trying to make some point. -- spin^control 03:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It should be clear from the above citation that the Abner Fog reference adds nothing extra to our knowledge of WASM, so it has no relevance. -- spin^control 02:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Both of you; cut it out. This isn't the place to hash out your arguments, and definitely not the place to discuss content. Take it to a talk page of a page relevant to the issue. Marking resolved; no admin action necessary. Tan | 39 04:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Admin help needed

Resolved

 – Blocked indef by me Daniel Case (talk) 03:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Game'o Whales has spent the last few days edit-warring to include a tendentious and discredited conspiracy theory in the Prescott Bush article, which is bad enough, but has now moved to harassing me on my talk page with fake vandalism warnings. Assistance is appreciated. THF (talk) 03:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd block on username alone - it's an obvious play on "Jimbo Wales". —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 03:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Uncivil behavior and edit warring by User:86.44.33.121

Assistance in the form of warnings and explainations have been offered to the editor and he has responded with either a refusal to accept responsibility, to learn the applicable policy or just with personal attacks. Editor left this post on User talk:TheJazzDalek "maybe next time someone points out how ill-researched a nom of yours is, you'll realize it instead of frankly reacting like a douche. just putting it out there, u no". Warning about WP:NPA was placed on his talk page here: [71]. The editors response was: "i was perfectly cool thanks. please don't be a busybody" [72]. Unproductive exchange followed, including these replies [73]. Then the editor was given a 3RR warning here: [74]. His response was to again call me a busybody [75] and [76]. He claimed I warned him about a null edit. I went to his page and gave him the diffs for revert #1 and #2. [77]. His response: "You're seriously a moron." [78]. I think this has gone beyond WQA at this point. Niteshift36 (talk) 04:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for a week. Tan | 39 04:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User Ryulong trying to sabotage GA process

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

WP:RFC is that way <--- Viridae^Talk 05:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Since February 2007, editors have been trying to elevate University of Miami to Good Article status. The last three times, User:Ryulong has conducted edit-wars which repeatedly disqualify the article as not being "stable." He has expressly opposed us submitting the article for GA. [79] and [80]

To meet the concerns in the GA review, I have split off a separate article for University of Miami School of Business Administration, but Ryulong has arbitrary twice removed this article redirect1 and redirect2

Could an administrator please help because we only have a seven day window to bring this article up to GA standards in response to the critique, and User Ryulong has explicitly stated that he wants to stop the GA process. Racepacket (talk) 04:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to contact you on your user talk page as well as the talk page of the original article and the article you split off. This is just you being a stubborn editor again. I am certainly not disrupting the GA process. This is you incessantly sending this page to GA despite two consecutive failures because of our inability to work on this article together.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is this an admin issue at all? Is there any evidence that either party to this dispute has attempted the normal progression of dispute resolution? There is:

• Third opinion
• Request for comment
• WP:MEDCOM and WP:MEDCAB
• Editor assistance requests
• content noticeboard
• WP:ARBCOM after all of the above have been tried.

Admins are not mediators and we aren't here to pick sides in a dispute. If there is a dispute, work it out or seek help in the form of mediation or another noticeboard... --Jayron32 05:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I opened an RFC on Racepacket in the past. Nothing came of it. If anything, this is just a study in assuming bad faith.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:19, 2 February 2010 (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:BKLisenbee using User: 64.128.245.110 evading topic ban and editing pages under mediation?

Possible topic ban user making mass edits to pages in mediation.

Re edits by User:64.128.245.110 See range of edits [81]which fall under User:BKLisenbee topic ban [82]and recent edits conform to the users past editing POV and style.

User:BKLisenbee who is topic banned from a wide range of pages is likely the editor using a Florida Ip to make edits on a series of pages .User talk:FayssalF has been emailed regarding this but seems less active. Perhaps an admin could protect the pages until he has a chance to review. Edits on [83] violate WP:BLP, all the edits made seem to violate WP:NPOV.

Mediation was ongoing on User:FayssalF/JK however User: BKLisenbee ceased participation. All these recent edits bear the same character and tags in edit summery as User BK:Lisenbee [84] see Users edits prior to 27 July 2008 and note similer language.

The anon User is also removing links to secondary sources hereand elsewhere, reference links to secondary sources see Tangier and useful external links to travel articles.

This user was banned permanently from Wikipedia see [85]but was allowed back to in order to participate in mediation. However obviously noting User FayssalIF being less active appears to now have returned as an anon Ip to continue POV editing , mass external link deletions and major page editing of pages under mediation. Perhaps the IP might need blocking also for the moment.Catapla (talk) 12:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Note left on both users talk pages with link to this discussion. Catapla (talk) 12:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Note left for User talk:FayssalF Catapla (talk) 13:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ip blocked 48 hours for ban evasion per WP:DUCK, giving FayssalF time to review. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: FayssalF has long dealt with this issue (involving edit warring and serious conflicts of interest) and would seem to be a bottomless well of patience. In July 2008, FayssalF proposed a topic ban for the two users involved in the dispute (link). By that time, FayssalF was the only admin willing or able to regularly deal with the situation (I and some others have occasionally intervened). As of August 2008, the topic ban had already been violated, and I indefinitely blocked BKLisenbee and another account (link). In my opinion, neither of the editors should have had any further involvement with Wikipedia. FayssalF, however, reasoned that as the two editors made over 90% of the edits to the articles in question, that topic bans blocks, etc., were ultimately not going to prevent the involve parties from editing the articles, and it was clear that the users would find a way around any sanctions placed upon them. Thus he unblocked BKLisenbee (link). I have never thought it was fair for FayssalF to shoulder the burden of dealing with the two parties. He has previously appealed to the community for assistance although admittedly I, for one, have had little time or motivation to deal with the issue. But I think the community is going to have to find some other means of handling this, instead of depending on FayssalF. My $0.02. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I should clarify that the other party to this dispute has agreed to engage in the mediation process following the topic ban. My concerns remain, however, about WP:COI on both sides of the dispute. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A completely justifiable concern and topic bans can never be lifted. The issues re WP:BLP are of concern . re recent edits. User talk:FayssalF or other editors he approves are the only people who should be editing any of these pages while he sought a/ mediation re content and b/ as there have been literally 100,000 words splashed on talk pages over the years, indeed that might be a low estimate.He did good work re secondary sources of which there is a vast amount. However having made decisions re points several points the mediation continued with one party absenting themselves from it.Recent edits have hidden weasel words, NPOV and contra BLP edits behind previous footnotes to secondary sources etc. and eliminated sources from external links. The volume of correspodence is also ridiculas and Wikipedia is merely one of many sites that one side in this issue have bombarded with complai nt and unsourced assertions. There are ample secondary sources that can be used reference to this controvsey from news media and specialist magazines that is voluminous so that is something that is 100% verifiable.I.e. there is a controversy discussed in reputable media that must referenced in any article. That is an inescapable fact.Catapla (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

GovDizzo

I have deleted User talk:GovDizzo for perpetuating a hoax. I believe this is the third deletion, so I have indefinitely blocked the editor from Wikipedia, and I've salted the page. As they cannot contest the block on their talk page, I am sending this here for review. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've heard the guano thing before, chummer, but I can't remember where. (I initially thought I read up on it on Snopes, but a search for guano there turns up nada.) I'm pretty certain it's a hoax. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 09:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Blueboy96 STOP Him

Resolved

 – for the moment anyway

It is alleged that Blueboy96 is deleting images out of process, using his tools to further an unique and unsupported interpretation of fair-use policy, he is also alleged for major vandalism on Shooting Range (video game) --4.248.56.122 (talk) 12:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Obviously User:SchoolcraftT from above, avoiding his block. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was mistaken in removing the comment by 4.248.56.122 and referring to him as banned. I have blocked the IP for evading the original block. Evil saltine (talk) 12:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(sigh) And I just unraveled an obvious block-evading sock, SchoolcraftJT (talk · contribs). I should have expected he'd start socking it up--he is an IT professional. Now I know why I fired up my 'puter after work ... Blueboy96 13:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Like I said the last time, this isn't some grizzled mountain man who doesn't understand the internet. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

John254 strikes again?

I encourage everyone to speak in my defence. Andrew the Assasin (talk) 16:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sock needs looking into?

Would someone mind peeping at the above and Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Purposal_to_tag_for_sock_puppetry_in_AfD? I know that the user in question has been listed on WP:SPI, but I'm not sure of the evidence connecting them to that particular sockmaster, so I've listed here for a more general look-over. I'll notify the editor. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 16:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I will cooperate fully and carefully during this SPI case. However if your uneasy about the problem, you can always block me until the case proves my innocence. Andrew the Assasin (talk) 16:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

..or as a vandalism-only account. Rodhullandemu 16:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to put a spanner in the works but... but is Andrew the Assasins really a vandal only account? This edit[86] looks pretty competent if you ask me, I know there has been a investigation already but if a potential editior is at stake perhaps it's worth looking at. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 18:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

His other edits were vandalism, and that one proves that he's a sockpuppet. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 18:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok TreasuryTag, maybe I got it wrong. But, don't accuse me of being a sock, I'm only finding my feet as a wikipeidan by editing in and around the community portal. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 19:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Also TreasuryTag, John254 had a 20 day hatus before he allegedly edited in the form of andrew the assasins, I however have not edited until the 18th. Perhaps you should consider logic before you acuse fellow wikipedians as sockpuppets/vandals etc. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 20:14, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What are you going on about? TreasuryTag never called you a sockpuppet. Joe Chill (talk) 20:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I never suggested that you were a sockpuppet. I suggest that you "consider [sic] logic before you acuse [sic] fellow wikipedians [sic] as [sic]" of false labelling! ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 20:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. Have a piece of fried chicken hey! Spread the wikilove. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What is ANI without some drama? Find a link to John254's latest member of the family to Pickbothmanlol's family. I will assure you that you will find a connection weather you like it or not. P-B-M-L-254 (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

From this being your first edit, you appear to be a sockpuppet. Joe Chill (talk) 23:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I should nominate you for adminship. P-B-M-L-254 (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey I'm not a sockpuppet. Oh was the 'competent' link proof that Andrew the Assasin is a sock puppet? Sorry I'm not good with wiki jargon, I don't speak the wikipeida lingo. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Good one P-B-M-L-254! Oh drat. Please do nominate me for adminship! I am competent... Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion I fear is becoming out of control. Should Andrew the Assasin be unblocked? Yes or no? Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

What would you recommend, bearing in mind his last few edit summariess, and particularly the last one before he was blocked? Rodhullandemu 17:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearly no. Woogee (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I would recomend giving him some tasks to prove he is competent and blocking him for a set amount of time(e.g 24 hours) however the general consensus is a no and if he did want to be a part of wikipeida he would have requested to be unblocked or something along those lines. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Curious account

Can anyone make any sense out of Санта Клаус's main user page? Seems to be implying he's setup specialized accounts. But is a contributor to ar.wikipedia... is it possible they allow this sort of thing and there is a misunderstanding? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Weird. Do you think he's saying he has 5 or 6 accts, one specifically for defending another accts edits, and one specifically for promoting/defending the sunni point of view? If so, boy needs some serious talkin' to. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Completely unacceptable. Basically admits that he has a stalking account and an harassment account. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Notified Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 07:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

At least 2 of the accts named are actual user accts, User:Tarawneh and User:Petra, but no User:Osama or User:Azddy. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Out of mild curiosity, his username is "Santa Klaus" in Russian/Serbian Cyrillic. Orderinchaos 15:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Might be worth a mention to meta and whatever wikis he's actually editing (in particular Arabic). I don't know but I'd assume most wikis have similar rules against that sort of thing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Did any of you bother to read the history on that page? That content wasn't even placed there by him.. not only that it looks like an IP tried to have teh content removed as not created by the account holder..--Crossmr (talk) 12:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

not to mention Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Azdpetratarawsanata have a look at his writing there. Far more coherent than what is on that page.--Crossmr (talk) 12:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The history shows that he's never edited that page. However, he's been granted rollback rights? Why would someone who never edits their own user page to remove pernicious vandalism be granted rollback rights? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Is this your first day? [87] He asked for it to be deleted. The account isn't active anymore[88]. This is someone trolling him. Reverting the IP was the wrong move and it may be the actual account holder.--Crossmr (talk) 12:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That attitude is completely uncalled for, Crossmr. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 12:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, it's not. I've been here for several years. The reason you are able to use this noticeboard is because I started the original. Now back to the issue at hand - if they were granted rollback rights in 2008, and they have only just now decided to have their page deleted, and the account is also dormant, does this indicate that they should have been granted rollback rights? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

pwned.  GARDEN  12:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the EC with that utterly useless comment. This took me all of 30 seconds with a couple of ganders at a couple of page histories and a contrib history to note that this is an inactive account previously targeted by socks, with a note not created by the account (which he seemed to miss) and to note that the user previously had his page deleted (which he seemed to miss).--Crossmr (talk) 12:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't the content of your discourse that was the problem, it was the manner in which you delivered it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

*sigh*.. go look at the logs again. He was granted rollback in April 2008. He had his user page initially deleted in December 2008. His last group of real edits was in August 2008, after he was given rollback. he made one edit in February 2009 and nothing since then. If you look at his talk page history [89] you'll see he was targeted by socks a few times. He was granted rollback, used it for a few months then left the project. Months after leaving the project he had his user page deleted. In May, a few months after his last edit a brand new sock showed up and added that to his user page. Obviously since he wasn't editing anymore he didn't see it. Perhaps for some reason he happened to check his old account and noticed some sock had put something there and marked it for speedy. Maybe he doesn't have his password anymore. Either way, the claim of sockpuppetry was put there by an account with no other edits on an inactive users page almost 1 year ago who was previous target of socks..--Crossmr (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That makes sense. I have indefinitely blocked NOPV (probably bolting the door after the horse is bolted... but why keep an attack account open?) and deleted the user page. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

While we're on the subject

PeterXaver (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - appears to be one of these. Anyone familiar with this particular sock family wish to take a look? I don't want to start a SSP report or engage the editor (e.g. by notifying them) per WP:BEANS and WP:DFTT... sooner or later they're going to stop giving themselves away and would hope they grow bored of socking before they become more serious at it. - Wikidemon (talk) 13:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked per WP:DUCK. —DoRD (?) (talk) 19:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Stormfront

68.118.202.49 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log) Could someone have a look at what this editor is doing at this article. I really haven't got time for intricate policy arguments right now. I'll just briefly say that I don't think he's doing the article any good and probably never will. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

A quick look at his block log and edit history (posting autofellatio images on user talk pages) should be instructive. I know IPs can change, but this one doesn't seem to have. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That (the autofellatio) could be from another person. But yeah, it's starting to look like that this person is intent on edit-warring. –MuZemike 17:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• The IP is behaving badly, but I think he actually has a somewhat valid point about the neutrality of the SPLC. I commented in more detail on the talk page. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Note this IP has been reported to ANI before, here on January 9. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 17:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

While it's theoretically possible that the IP has shifted to another person since the last round of trouble, the edits coming from it are of a piece with the previous disruption and have followed hard upon the expiration of the most recent block. Since he seems quiet for now, I won't make any further fuss, but I think we all know we're going to be discussing him again. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

First I do not think that it is appropriate for Steven Anderson to post a complaint here about my in-good faith editing of "Stormfront" to remove POV bias from that article. Wikipedia articles are supposed to state the facts, not advance a political / social agenda. Including quotes from ADL and SPLC or referencing these organizations as more trustworthy than the subject of the article itself is clearly POV editing. It would be like using quotes or assertions from Rush Limbaugh in the article on the Democratic Party. We should stick to ostensibly neutral sources like the news media or government agencies when writing articles. We should not jump to follow the conclusions of non-neutral sources when characterizing the nature of an organization. Stormfront does not describe itself as a "hate site," so why should Wikipedia characterize it as such and cite anti-Stormfront organizations to back up this opinion. I encourage editors to browse Stormfront themselves to see what it is about. Surely then they will not be so hastily prejudicial against it. LastI know nothing about the autofellatio images listed above. This is a dynamic IP address and changes frequently.

--68.118.202.49 (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Please, if you're going to discuss this, be honest. You've removed sourced items that were properly presented and injected your own POV characterization over and over. You've tried inserting non-reliable sources. Now I grant you that the SPLC and ADL may have neutrality issues, but as was discussed on the talk page, if the material is clearly shown as their opinion and not stated as fact, that is reasonably neutral. A review of your edit history shows a strong case for agenda pushing and "white washing" of Wikipedia. And I'm going to plant a BS flag on your claim of "my IP changes frequently so it wasn't me". Looking at the edits made before the autofellation edits and the ones after all look like you. So you expect me to believe that your IP changed for a few minutes during those edits, then back to you? Not buying it.Niteshift36 (talk) 22:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And he's still doing it. [90][91][92][93][94] His talk page history is riddled with warnings about this crap. He has a huge one at the top telling him that more of this will result in a longer block. And he's now way past WP:3RR. Will an administrator please step in? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The material he was attributing to the SPLC and the ADL was actually supported by 18 reliable sources, already on the page. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed the contentious section of the article. Where have I attempted to inject my POV? I can not prove a negative with regards to the IP address. Cheers.--68.118.202.49 (talk) 22:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Just as a friendly reminder, with editors like this one, we need to start putting warnings on his talk page about the 3RR before he gets to revert #10. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, what we need to do with editors like this one is issue a lengthy block as soon as they re-show their faces instead of letting them disrupt the project for 6 and a half hours. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• True, but there's not always an alery admin around. AIV wouldn't be a help without some warnings. I'm just saying. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to beat a dead horse, but he was so obviously a returning racist vandal, clearly violating a number of different policies, for which he'd been repeatedly warned and blocked, I didn't see what possible use there could be in another warning. Still, it was six and a half hours from the time this was posted until admin action happened. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've blocked this IP for three months, and requested oversight of their last, egregious edit. Jehochman ^Brrr 22:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

  This was User:Trollskar, by the way. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 22:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:REVDEL, criteria 2: Grossly insulting, degrading, or offensive material against a person, group or organisation. Just do it yourself, there is no actual content in the edit that needs to be removed, just the edit summary. nableezy - 22:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish I could. The feature doesn't seem to be enabled yet on this Wiki. Jehochman ^Brrr 23:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Uh, just a quibble about the original report. There are two possible articles that could be referred to as "Stormfront": one is a redirect, the other is an infamous website. The link above points to the redirect, & if this individual was edit warring over a redirect.... -- llywrch (talk) 05:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, my bad. I meant the article about the website. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Man on a mission on a dynamic IP

For the past week (since 24 Jan, possibly earlier) an editor has been consistently re-adding POV content and BLP violations (accusations of "corruption" that are not supported by his references) to the following BLP's:

• Henry Paulson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• John J. Mack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lloyd Blankfein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

and the following articles on financial firms:

• Cheyne Capital Management (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (protected by me yesterday)
• Goldman Sachs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Morgan Stanley (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

As far as I can see, he's only tried using the talk pages once (Talk:Cheyne Capital Management), and that was to demand that his "neutral" version be reinstated after I protected the page (before "zOMG involved admin protecting pages they edit" comments pop up, note the timestamps; I started reverting the edits after I protected the page, when his other edits were brought to my attention). However, I've probably now become "involved" by reverting his edits, and don't want to court drama by protecting anything else myself.

The user has a new IP every few hours. In roughly reverse chronological order:

• 89.194.130.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.194.142.218 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.194.197.163 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.194.134.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.194.203.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.194.134.110 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.194.2.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.194.196.222 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 89.194.162.72 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It appears he is using Orange Mobile, so if I understand right, a rangeblock isn't feasible (although if there are rangeblock experts out there, please see if I'm wrong). So could an uninvolved admin please review, verify protection is better than rangeblocking, and semi-protect the articles? Thank you. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC) (editor notified at latest IP talk page: [95].)

Ah, one of these. IP, you still need sources, even if something is "true". Also, "least biased version" does not mean "version I agree with most". Considering yourself to be unfailingly neutral is a form of megalomania. --King Öomie 15:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that guy's persistent. I'd say a short protection is probably better than a risky rangeblock and after that, if yu ignore him, maybe he'll go away? HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 15:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A rangeblock is feasible here, but since the problems are limited to specific articles I think protection is much more appropriate. All articles (except the previously protected one) semi'd for two weeks. Tan | 39 16:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

preventative block on Polaron

I request that an admin block User:Polaron for a time, in order to prevent growth of problem documented by me at User talk:Polaron#Canaan edits and edit restriction. I am not sure exactly but believe P's edits may be in violation of current 6 month edit restriction. I am sure they are in violation of P's agreement to abide by rulings of mutually-agreed mediator (and administrator) User:Acroterion. I've posted also at User talk:Acroterion and User talk:EdJohnston (another admin who has been involved in creating and enforcing the edit restriction on Polaron), but I don't know if they are around.

Currently P appears to be going on a deliberate spree to create many problematic redirects, in response to my pointing out problem with 2 that he had made and the possibility that they were not constructive and/or were in violation of edit restriction or agreements. Each new one created is going to create more mess, more administration in wp:RFD processes and otherwise.

So I ask for a temporary block, say 24 hours, to allow discussion at P's talk page by P and those involved in policing his editing. --doncram (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've looked at Polaron's redirects: they don't violate his editing restriction in my opinion ("converting articles into redirects or vice versa"), but I think that he should be adding the relevant information to articles (with sources) first, then creating redirects to point to the sourced content, rather than creating a series of unsourced assertions via redirect that no reader will ever see or understand. I see this as a separate issue from his editing restriction, but as informal mediator in the dispute between Doncram and Polaron I've renounced administrative action, and in any case consider myself involved. This appears to be an issue of WP:RS/WP:V. Polaron is essentially making an assertion via redirect, which is fine as long as there's something in the target to back it up, but I find few examples in the latest redirects to substantiate them. Acroterion _(talk) 18:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, could an uninvolved administrator please impose the block? Administrator and mediator Acroterion has now replied at User talk:Acroterion#request a block that he feels too involved to take the administrative steps and has to recuse self (and now above). This is just a preventative block to force some discussion. Edit spree has in fact continued, and the user has not once replied. I myself don't have time for this now, would appreciate a block being imposed. I may or may not be able to reply here promptly, if there are further questions. This is a case of editing to disrupt the wikipedia, which will causing considerable work to cleanup, while alternatives are clear. Help! --doncram (talk) 18:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Lost my List

Resolved

 – WP:DNFT --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Not sure if this is the correct place to ask, but my PC crashed and most of the info is not recoverable. One of the spreadsheets I lost was my list of Log On accounts for Wikipedia. They all had the same password, so thats no problem, but I can't even begin to remember all of the accounts. Can I somehow get a list if I provide my IP address? Thanks in advance. 173.124.74.164 (talk) 01:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Why did you have more than one account anyway? NW (Talk) 02:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC) You've already given us your IP address. MBisanz talk 02:07, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I recommend a checkuser on this IP and a temporary block on the accounts on it if they look like socks or vandalism only accounts. Having multiple accounts (unless approved like some users are) throws up too many red flags for me. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC) If they're WP:SOCK violations, I recommend blocking the IP as well since they won't get caught up in an autoblock unless they log into one of the accounts. PCHS-NJROTC (Messages) 02:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC) This section needs to be retitled, "Lost my socks!!!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Isn't this like coming to a police station and saying you've lost the combination to your cocaine safe, and can you break in for me? Canterbury Tail talk 16:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Yes. Or like if "Plaxico" shot himself in the leg there. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Or like this sliver of an old Cheech and Chong bit, where they're having problems starting their car (presumably with controlled substances stashed in the trunk) and Chong yells to some nearby police, "Hey, could a couple of you pigs come over and help us?" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Hey! Let's assume a little good faith here. Having multiple accounts isn't strictly forbidden, and 173 may have a good reason for them. I haven't seen a checkuser on this IP yet, so maybe we should hold off with the accusations until we know more. Buddy431 (talk) 21:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC) It seems a bit suspicious that someone needs an Excel file to store the account names and can't remember any of them... that sounds like they have a lot of accounts. Rapido (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC) There is an actual legal case in English law in 1725, known as the "Highwayman's Case", where a group of highwaymen disagreed over how to properly split their loot & sought help from a court of law to settle the matter. (I know nothing more about it except for this cite: R.E. Megarry, Miscellany-at-law [1955], pp. 76f. Maybe someone with access to the proper resources could write a Wikipedia article about it.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Ex dolo malo. Rapido (talk) 19:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC) How do we know this person isn't just fishing for passwords? Woogee (talk) 23:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Well, seeing that editors are supposed to email ArbCom to let them know about legitimate alternate accounts, why don't you email them and ask them what your accounts are? I assume they keep such things in some kind of record. -- Atama頭 23:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

incivility, personal attacks

Resolved

 – The user that started the thread was indefinately blocked themselves for continued disruptive editing here and elsewhere immediately after his prior 12-hour block expired--Jayron32 21:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
{{Resolved|Neptunerover (talk · contribs) is indefinitely topic banned from the reference desks and associated talk page per discussion below. Also noting that, while there is some support for an indefinite block, that doesn't seem to have consensus at present. But Neptunerover should realize that the community is on the verge of exhausting it's good faith an patience, and if the user doesn't demonstrate a willingness and ability to build the encyclopedia, or at least not impede others in the effort, they are likely to be banned soon. Abecedare (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)}} Does this consist of the entire resolution? Were there not more than a single issue here? Does Steve get even a warning about incivility? Was it noticed that some votes were stacked by TreasuryTag? --Neptunerover (talk) 20:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Yes. No. No. I didn't "stack some votes" – though invite you to verify your accusation using clear diffs if you can. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 20:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I find it interesting that TreasuryTag sees fit to answer on behalf of Abecedare concerning the decisions surrounding the resolution. Is this an indication that TreasuryTag was involved in deciding the matter? --Neptunerover (talk) 21:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC) The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. I wish to notify of some difficulties I am having with User SteveBaker who left here on my talk page some threatening sounding personal attack statements. He indicates an intent to stalk me through my edits. The user has an extremely negative tone and is always trying draw me into arguing with him. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Without trying to excuse his tone, he has made some comments which seem to deserve a little bit of attention. Could you provide comments and more history on how this incident came to happen? It wounds like there are two issues here, Steve's obviously inappropriate threats of wikistalking, but also the question of whether you have been contributing positively to the reference desk. Could you provide some more history about this dispute? (Also, could you sign your ANI notification on his talk page?) Frmatt (talk) 03:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) I imagine he would be better at pointing out exactly what has caused him to react toward me in such an extreme fashion. I often notice him 'fly off the handle' and lose control of his civility toward me, but usually I don't let it get to me. These threats and his language however, I don't feel they are appropriate for Wikipedia. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Having done a little more looking into this, I've discovered a little more. YOU initiated the conversation with him here, he asked you not to talk to him any more in the exact same conversation, yet you persisted in talking to him (see the rest of Steve's talkpage). I am not involved in the Ref Desk, yet it seems to me that your best course of action right now would be to disengage from this user for the forseeable future, and understand that he may possibly know more than you about WP, and that his comments (with the exception of the incivility in the one you posted here) were meant to give you helpful advice and not that he's out to get you. Familiarize yourself with the requirements for posting to the Ref Desk and do your best to follow them. Frmatt (talk) 03:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I don't talk to Steve on his talk page any more. You point out the past. He hounds me elsewhere. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC) "the past" being just 19 hours ago. SteveBaker (talk) 07:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC) RESPONSE: User:Neptunerover has repeatedly posted responses on the Science Reference desk that are clearly WP:OR. He told one of our questioners that somehow the solar system is set up around the number 10 and that's why we count in base 10...utter nonsense - and very much in line with NeptuneRover's personal view of how the universe 'ticks'. He has repeatedly used Wikipedia to promote his own ideas of how the universe works - and that is not acceptable here. At least one page from his user area was recently deleted under MfD due to his misuse of Wikipedia for this kinds of OR promotion. I have warned him on several occasions and yet he continues to violate the core WP:NOR principle and to post misleading and flat out untrue answers to people who come to the ref desk to get serious answers to serious question. This is extremely bad for our users and for our reputation - so something has to be done to curb this activity. I have conducted an extended and friendly conversation with NeptuneRover on my talk page - explaining as patiently as I can that he simply isn't allowed to do this kind of thing here. That clearly hasn't worked - he continues to post OR answers on the Ref Desk. So I have informed him that I will be paying careful attention to his posts in the future and that I will be registering complaints whenever he breaches the OR pillar in the future and doing my best to explain to our questioners why his answers are not the truth as we know them. Sadly, this will make NeptuneRover look foolish - but there isn't much I can do about that. There is admittedly a thin line between patrolling a problematic user's edits and "stalking" - but I believe this is clearly on the acceptable side of that line. I felt that he needed a strong warning in order that we may be able to avoid a long train of upheavals and upsets. As you will see, I was careful to comment on the content and not on the user in compliance with WP:NPA. SteveBaker (talk) 03:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Comment - SteveBaker is one of the most reputable and respected contributors on the Science Reference Desk. He does have a history of brusque-ness; he probably should have slowed down and worded his message to NeptuneRover a bit more politely. However, NeptuneRover's contributions to the reference desk and the talk page have been overwhelmingly disruptive. His posts range from incomprehensible gibberish, bad jokes, and general nonsense. He hasn't been particularly responsive to earlier, more polite warnings - and so I can understand SteveBaker's frustration. It's unfortunate that NeptuneRover feels persecuted, but we have high standards on the Reference Desk, outlined by our very specific guidelines. If NeptuneRover can't contribute encyclopedic, referenced content, then he should not be contributing on the Reference Desk. SteveBaker's note on NeptuneRover's talk-page may have been brusque, but it is accurate and justified. Nimur (talk) 03:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC) The 'nonsense' you point out was a request for clarification equaling in substance the question initially posed, which itself would be considered nonsense by your summary. The 'incomprehensible gibberish', I was drawn into. The other, well, I erased it. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC) While I can understand your concern, there were better ways to go about monitoring this user's edits. Bringing it here would have been a good start instead of making comments that obviously express your frustration, but definitely cross the line in terms of civility. You have been very patient, but the better way to deal with this would have been to share the frustration around instead of keeping it with the (relatively) small number of people who watch the Ref Desk. Frmatt (talk) 03:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC) NR: Could you post your responses at the bottom of the section so that it is easier for people to find them? Frmatt (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC) How do people know what I'm responding to then? I'm a slow writer. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC) According to the definition of wikistalking: "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles.” In the same article, the subsection on threats clearly says: “Statements of intent to use normal Wikipedia processes properly . . . are not threats.” I suggest Steve’s professed intentions are all quite reasonable and for the benefit of the encyclopedia as a whole. His tone is understandable, given the their history. Bielle (talk) 03:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC) (Note correction in italics for greater clarity. Bielle (talk) 04:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)) Are you saying it's understandable that he's mad because he's been mad all along? That makes sense, but it doesn't excuse anything. --Neptunerover (talk) 03:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Bielle: you're right that it isn't technically Wikihounding, but given the tone, it is reasonable that this might be construed as following someone's edits to create distress. Yes, technically there's nothing wrong with Steve's use of Neptune's history (and future history), but the tone of incivility was what led me to call it wikihounding. I'm more concerned with the lack of response and understanding from Neptune about what the problem here actually is. I'm quite happy with Steve's explanation of his actions posted above, and certainly have no problem with him making the productive changes and fixing problems as they arise. Frmatt (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC) (out) Is User:Neptunerover really here to help build an encyclopedia? [96] Less than 10% of their edits are to articles, while over 40% are to user talk pages, 13% are to their own user pages, and over 25% are to Wikipedia space -- that seems like someone who sees this site as an opportunity for various kinds of social-interaction, not like someone who's interested in improving the project. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I'm not sure what those colors mean, what is Wikipedia space? --Neptunerover (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC) You're soaking in it. [97] Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I would really like to AGF here, but you're making it really difficult, Neptune. If you can't read a simple pie chart, then why on earth do you think you would be qualified to post at the Science Reference Desk. Anybody with an elementary school education knows how to read a pie chart. I'm beginning to think that you are either here solely to create problems and disrupt Wikipedia, or else something else is up here. I think that an explanation of why you are here would be helpful to everyone. Frmatt (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC) What are the qualifications BTW? Is there an exam I missed? --Neptunerover (talk) 05:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Well, If I'm allowed to make insinuations too, then let's compare the blue from my pretty pie to this one and see who is soaking in just what [98]. I wonder if perhaps someone is jealously guarding their turf? This[[99]] question from earlier evidences Steve's overwhelming need for control. He feels he must understand everything. If he can't understand the OP's query, he's not going to understand my answer, yet he still passes judgment on it. Steve requires that no matter how many different cultures and languages and differences are represented here within the encyclopedia community, any question posed, or answer provided, must conform to his strict standards of making sense to him. You know, I don't think I've ever said anything mean to Steve. It's not in my nature to say unkind things. He has been on me though since over a month ago. Ad Hominem all the way. I've tried to explain the nature of our differences to him, but all he wants to do is preach at me about how wrong I am at my every move. So I let him be, but he comes after me. Every chance he gets it seems, he takes the opportunity to dismiss and discredit my views, which are not mainstream enough for him. Plainly WP:NPA. --Neptunerover (talk) 05:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Making insinuations about my contributions here isn't helping. The administrators were asked by you to make an investigation of an extremely serious accusation. Now they are asking you questions in order to help make their decisions. I strongly recommend that you answer them straightforwardly and honestly - this is not a game. But since you are evidently going to make insinuations, you should examine the all-important red slice on that chart. That wedge represents 3,435 separate edits that I have made to main-space articles. Out of the nearly 20,000 edits I've made, fewer than 300 have ever been reverted - and most of those were eventually reinstated by other editors. The pie chart doesn't show it - but that red slice includes two WP:FA's and several WP:GA's that I wrote almost single handed. I've been writing and improving articles over a period of more than five years. During that time I've been nominated for adminship twice (I turned it down on both occasions because I really don't need the hassle of dealing with miscreants). I've never had a single block or sanction of any kind placed against me in all those years. I think it's quite clear that I have only the best intentions in my support of Wikipedia and that I do my very best to uphold the core principles upon which it was founded. It appears to surprise you that I care enough to defend the reference desk from 'original research' - it really shouldn't. Anyway, it's safe to say that the admins weren't asking about my contributions. Please have some respect for this forum and answer their questions. SteveBaker (talk) 07:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Your red is mostly in the past Steve. Look at your bars under the pie. You're all blue these days. Anyway, BMK started it by bringing up my pie chart and making insinuations, as if trying to justify your WP:NPA actions. Is the pie chart the cookie cutter that decides if users are allowed to stay? If so, you better watch your pie chart Steve, you've got a lot of blue lately. Certain colors are more desirable than others, I guess. --Neptunerover (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC) SteveBaker alternates between editing heavily in article space, and editing heavily on the Reference Desk, making undeniably valuable contributions in both places. APL (talk) 17:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Neptuneuser: Neither the quality or quantity of SteveBaker's contributions are at issue at this point. There's no hard and fast rule about how much people should edit to specific areas: everyone contributes as they can and where they're interested, but your editing history is such that it appears possible that your participation here doesn't have improvement of the encyclopedia as its focus. Instead, it appears possible that your intention is to create controversy, screw around with people's heads, and cause disruption: in other words, trolling. I would ask you to address the question -- what is your intention in editing here, and what have you done to improve the encyclopedia? (Please recall that you have no inherent right to edit here, and if you're not here to help the project, perhaps you had better not be here at all.) Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I'll not be forced into responding to an irrelevant question. I say you have no right to demand a summary of my intentions here. Whatever was pertained to in Steve's message on my talk page is irrelevant to these proceedings. What is relevant is his tone, form, and manner of expressing himself in violation of WP:NPA. Certainly there is another place where we can discuss pie charts and their implications. My complaint here concerns incivility. --Neptunerover (talk) 11:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Incidentally, here are two questions from the Entertainment ref desk which I am particularly proud of answering. [[100]], [[101]] I consider myself here to help and not be mean. I don't know about everybody else, but that's me. --Neptunerover (talk) 11:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC) This section starts with a complaint alleging a personal attack and an intent to stalk. I have reviewed WP:Reference desk/Science and User talk:Neptunerover and conclude that there is no personal attack and no intent to stalk. SteveBaker spoke plainly in order to avoid any possible misunderstanding, and to alert Neptunerover that due to violations of WP:NOR their contributions would be monitored to ensure that future claims include references. SteveBaker should be commended for taking the time to work towards correcting an obviously unsatisfactory situation, and Neptunerover should read the advice given on their talk page. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I point out for you this line from WP:NPA, "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done." --Neptunerover (talk) 12:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC) We are adults here, and when appropriate it is ok to say "This is complete bullshit" when referring to another speculative piece of WP:OR written as an answer at WP:Reference desk/Science#Perpetrual-reality. The complaint written by SteveBaker (note that the peculiar image was later added by Neptunerover) does not attack a user. The complaint specifically calls a particular piece of text "complete bullshit", and then cites the WP:NOR policy with a patient explanation that breaching NOR after clear warnings will lead to trouble. Neptunerover is not correct: the complaint was forceful but it was not a personal attack because the complaint was (correctly) focused on breaches of the WP:NOR policy. Johnuniq (talk) 23:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC) While I don't want to respond to Steve's angry rant on my talk page because I don't like looking at it, there were a couple of polite approaches to me, and so I feel obligated to answer them with a summary here since it addresses the issue that launched Steve into his tirade. Background I don't keep a full reference library in my head (that I know of) with exact records for everything, but I know a lot of shit (Steve calls it bullshit on my talk page). Just because I don't remember the specific TV show or article or whatever the heck it was that gave me my understanding of whatever, that doesn't mean my answer is wrong, and it should not preclude me from providing the best answer I can, even though specifics might not be immediately forthcoming. There are rules [[102]] about how to deal with Steve's concerns, and these indicate a requirement for politeness. Reference I don't remember what the show was; trying hard to remember now, I think it was a 4 hr series on Discovery called Einstein's Universe or something like that (which I do have on VCR tape around here somewhere, having a somewhat extensive multimedia library as I do). There was one scene, and I can remember the image of a mobius-shaped universe with the narration saying something to the effect of, "Some scientists have speculated..." Since the OP's question seemed rather speculative, I pointed him to a direction where actual scientific speculation has taken place, without regard to how worthwhile such speculation might be. Mine is not to judge. I also felt that leaving a paragraph summary of my reasoning there with the answer I provided to the OP was uncalled for, especially considering the OP's apparent difficulty with English. Why introduce unnecessary crap? --Neptunerover (talk) 13:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Comment SteveBaker is a tremendous asset to Wikipedia. I'm not trying to get Steve into trouble. He is obviously extremely smart. He has limited ability to control his responses though, which I recognise, but I'm not going to walk on eggshells just because someone has a tender hair trigger anger response (I'm not that meek). I do nothing directly at Steve unless he asks it of me. Sadly all he asks of me is for argument and conformation to his specific world perception, which from this [[103]] can be seen as perhaps narrower than the perspective of others (though certainly no less valid from its own perspective). It is his way of dealing with this through anger that is my concern. --Neptunerover (talk) 14:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC) At best, Steve should get a warning. His comments were a touch incivil. That said, he's right. If you had said, "I seem to recall a show about a mobius universe," instead of presenting it as your own idea, it would have helped. At this point, I think it best the two of you avoid one another, and Neptunerover be more careful to provide sources for your claims. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 14:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC) These rules are about answering questions on the desks. "In particular, don't poke fun at a poorly written question.", "...if you think you understand the question, feel free to state your assumptions and attempt an answer." I don't think I was being too bold by not providing extensive details from the start. --Neptunerover (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC) My comments on Neptunerover's talk page have been described as 'brusque' and 'a touch incivil' - and I'm prepared to accept that. But I plead in my own defense that it is only possible to push WP:AGF so far - and Neptunerover went beyond my personal breaking point by continuing to flaunt WP rules in posting original research in response to serious questions from the general public. I would be more than happy to disengage from Neptunerover, either formally or informally - but that will be difficult for me if he continues to post to the science reference desk - and doubly so if he continues to post his typical brand of original research there. The only way to avoid contact under those circumstances would be to require either Neptunerover or myself to desist from posting to the WP:RD altogether. I do not wish for the actions of a disruptive user to divert my considerable efforts to support the WP:RD - but if I were required to do by a decision here - I'd obviously comply. However, I'm 100% sure that if you !voted amongst the regular contributors to WP:RD, they would confirm that this would be an injustice and damaging to the service we provide there. The other way to make this "disengagement" effective would be to require Neptunerover to desist from posting to the reference desk. That would probably work - but perhaps it's a bigger sanction than is justified since all we really need to do is to curtail his posting of original research there. I would be the first to agree that if disengagement is the solution then it would be unwise for me to be the one to judge and take action on what is OR as comes from Neptunerover. However, I believe there is at least one Admin who is a WP:RD/S regular - perhaps giving that person a formal role in monitoring Neptunerover - with the power to take prompt action in the event of further WP:NOR infractions would be the best course of action. SteveBaker (talk) 16:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC) For such a new user, Neptunerover seems to be having a lot of issues. Perhaps he should consider the possibility that the problem is him and not everyone else on Wikipedia. APL (talk) 17:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I just remembered, back when his user stuff was being deleted, on my talk page he described those debates as "It's like a game of chess to me, and I love chess. "(He goes on like that for a paragraph or so.) I propose that Neptunerover is causing trouble here because he enjoys the attention. That may also explain his reasons for posting absurd physics theories. APL (talk) 17:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I don't cause trouble. I'm simply not afraid of it. If somebody wants to start something with me, I don't run and hide. You misrepresent so much in your statement about me. There was nothing being deleted at the point of which you speak. There was a MFD at that time, but no one voted in its favor. (there may have been an old MFD sitting there waiting for the axe, but all that was over). Why would I enjoy attention? Is there an attention thing here going on? Could it be that I am perceived as stealing the attention of people here who are more deserving of it? That might make sense. Just because I'm not after attention, that doesn't mean that other people here aren't. Do attention seeking people get jealous of the attention given to others? Maybe somebody is jealous of me. He who screams the loudest at me might be the most jealous. I wouldn't know though, as jealousy is not in my repertoire. --Neptunerover (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I think that says it all. APL (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Just reading through Neptunerover's contributions on the current Science RefDesk page and talk page, I can't find even one that looks genuinely helpful, unless you find semantic hair-splitting, half-remembered I-think-I-saw-this-somewheres, wild speculation, and a vast lack of sources to be helpful. Also see [104]. Contrast Nr's 157 edits at RD/S to SteveBaker's 6,297 edits there. Everyone who works RD/S knows that if Steve takes an interest in a thread, his response will be comprehensive, well laid out, logically developed, sourced where necessary, and helpful in the extreme. We also know that Steve does not tolerate bullshit well on science topics. I'd say there's a simple solution. Neptunerover stays off RD/S until they can develop the ability to supply precise, sourced, non-speculative and on-topic answers. Steve shouldn't be using a threatening tone when discussing it (i.e. mentioning blocks), but he's perfectly within his rights to scrutinize Neptune's edits. That's standard procedure when an editor is suspected of editing disruptively. Injecting unsourced non-scientific material into science-related articles and pages qualifies as disruptive. Franamax (talk) 18:37, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Also Neptune, just to put your mind at ease about the size of Steve's pie-pieces, have a read here. And thanks Beyond for that "you're soaking in it". Hasn't that ad been off the air for decades? :) Franamax (talk) 18:48, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Support topic-banning Neptunerover from the reference-desks. However, there is also a more general behavioural issue here, typified by Nr's continued insistence that calling another user a "jackass" and a "piece of trash" is acceptable and not, in fact, insulting or inappropriate in any way. This is an editor who clearly has a fundamental problem with the entire basis of a collaborative project. ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 18:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I think you're on the wrong page here. This is a referendum on SteveBaker. You might be able to start your little campaign somewhere else though. You should look around and let me know. --Neptunerover (talk) 19:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC) I would also Support a topic ban prohibiting Neptune Rover from the refdesks, at the very least the science desks. Neptunerover confuses question-askers with absurd theories[105], he contributes little or nothing that is accurate and useful, and he delights in wiki-lawyering[106], and painting himself as a victim in issues that he has clearly instigated. No good will come from his continued 'contributions' to the reference desk, but a good deal of hassle will as somebody has to explain to question-askers why each of Neptunerover's stupid answers is wrong. (Since patent nonsense cannot be reverted on sight like we would do in article-space.) APL (talk) 20:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Support topic ban Searching Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science for "Neptunerover" shows many messages confirming that Neptunerover's contributions are largely WP:OR or are just fun comments that conflict with WP:NOTFORUM. Johnuniq (talk) 23:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC) In that, Neptunerover, you would be only half right. Any concern about the behaviour of an editor raised here by another editor always results in the contributions of both being examined, in the specific instances and on Wikipedia in general. Behaviour does not exist in a vacuum. Bielle (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Neptunerover's on a 12-hour enforced wikibreak at the moment. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Not an official mentor, but left an offer of an extra set of eyes and a double-check for this user on their talk page. Frmatt (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC) The editor doesn't seem interested in being helped, per the discussions on his or her talk page. My (very non-admin) opinion is that a topic ban is just fine, but only as a necessary first step. I see very little possibility of a topic ban reigning in this person; in fact, it would probably just encourage them to spread out into other territory. At least that's the personality I perceive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Support ban against Neptunerover editing at the Ref Desks. I am also a ref desk regular, and I agree with Steve and Franamax's assessments that Neptunerover's contributions there are unhelpful and disruptive, and he has shown he is unwilling to work within the confines of expected standards there, even when those standards have been explained over and over. If SteveBaker showed a touch of anger, it was only because AGF is not a suicide pact, and Neptunerover has long since left the limits any reasonable person could stretch AGF to fit. His other comments about getting entertainment out of generating drama only reinforce that a ban is the only way to go. --Jayron32 03:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Support ban against Neptunerover editing at Ref Desks. His contributions there have been disruptive for the most part and looking at his talk page today (esp this) he still doesn't get it. Also, this is no longer an AGF issue, Neptunerover has been reasoned with, provided multiple explanations and chances (just look at the MfDs for examples of this behavior) and he either genuinely doesn't get it or is just trolling. Either way a topic ban will be help us avoid this disruption and get on with building an encyclopaedia. –SpacemanSpiff 06:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Indef block of Neptunerover. Per his talk-page, I just declined his unblock request as he continues the same hair-splitting and circular discussion pattern that led to his block. Even while blocked. Even about the block itself. Disruption is disruption, whether this user recognizes it or not. It's clear he doesn't, which is precisely why I declined to unblock and would feel comfortable extending it--blocks prevent disruption and wasting of everyone's time that would be better spent building an encyclopedia and answering readers' questions. His behavior creates drama but little if anything else and no inclination to learn to improve. DMacks (talk) 07:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC) He's going to be unblocked very shortly, if not already; let's see what he does, though I'd liberally support an indef-block the minute he puts the first Wikitoe out of line. His unblock request was very much in the same vein as, "trash is recyclable so it's not an insulting name," and this is just unpleasant. ╟─TreasuryTag►Regent─╢ 07:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Concur, as I'm convinced we've run with this long enough. — Lomn 14:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Support a topic ban, and if NR continues to play games, move to Indef. Reading a bit more in-depth, I have to question a lot more of his answers on the Desk, and his responses here and on his talk page have become quite bizarre. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 13:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC) For the record, here User:Neptunerover seems to insinuate that Lomn may have violated WP:DFTT by talking to Neptunerover. Given Neptunerover's past editing patterns, I wouldn't call it impossible that he deliberately outed himself as a troll. Huon (talk) 16:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC) For the record, what I insinuate is that the moment I bring a complaint against one of the elite here, many a troll pops up unrequested at my talk page offering me much free advice on just how I should step into line. What is that? This is supposed to be where we are dealing with it. Why do they go there unless to antagonize me? --Neptunerover (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Arbitrary section break (Neptunerover) notice of antagonizations After this[[107]], Steve left his comment on my talk page (the reason I started this ANI). I pasted the "reference requests and factual disputes" paragraph from the rules on answering ref desk questions under his statement, with these sentences in bold: "If you believe a response should provide a reference, but does not, feel free to politely ask for one. If you think somebody else's answer is wrong, add a comment explaining why you think so, and provide evidence, if possible." Following that paragraph, Lomn added this [suggestion], which I consider antagonization leading up to the block. The wolf comes hidden in sheep's clothing, acting like he's there to help me by calling me names "hey pal, you better not be a stupid jerk anymore, and I'm just being your friend here telling you that.." HA Steve called me a name one time [here]. As an example of Steve egging me on, when I asked a question on the Science ref desk one time, rather than inform me right away that I had come to the wrong place with my question, the first person to answer does so using a big long statement pointing fingers and giving advice[wrong, wrong, wrong], and then later, after the argument had gone on for some time, the whole argument got blamed on me for posting an inappropriate question. Why didn't they say that right off the go? I could easily have been told to take my question elsewhere. I call that egging me on. --Neptunerover (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Support indef block of Neptunerover (talk · contribs) per past offences, WP:HORSE WP:DEADHORSE, [108] and particularly [109] – ╟─TreasuryTag►constabulary─╢ 17:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I thought TreasuryTag already voted at least once. I see no declaration by him of just what these latest edits he brings up are in violation of. I feel this latest vote is not adequately supported. --Neptunerover (talk) 18:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC) (I was responding to individuals there, on their own talk pages, and if those individuals have difficulties over my edits, then that might be another case, but TreasuryTag indicates no significance for them other than what might be taken from a biased point of view.) --Neptunerover (talk) 18:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC) There is no !vote duplication here. Before TreasuringTag was advocating a topic-ban to keep Neptunerover off the reference desks, now, after this latest volley of posts from Neptunerover, TreasuryTag has increased his recommendation to a long-term overall block. APL (talk) 19:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC) support investigation into TreasuryTag's pattern of activity surrounding user Neptunerover. --Neptunerover (talk) 18:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I welcome scrutiny, as always. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 19:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Point of fact: Through my providing [this answer] to a science desk question [[110]], research was conducted and an article was improved. (although there was some misunderstanding at first regarding my statement.) --Neptunerover (talk) 17:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC) comment Just because somebody does something different, that should not be grounds for attack. Instead, why not be helpful and say, "hey, that's different; that doesn't sound right to me; why do you say that?" or any other variation that fails to point a finger at anyone. Assertiveness is very important in human communication and ought to be a pillar here. People who don't understand it are destined for mix-ups. --Neptunerover (talk) 18:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC) proposal How about if I could write an essay about trolling and its relation to trolls, Wikipedia style, as far as I understand it. I know there already is such an essay, but mine would be different and undoubtedly shorter. I submit that there are trolls here among us. I understand that intentions may not be evil, yet actions suffice. The only ones afraid of such an essay would be anyone fearing exposure, yet if their intentions were never evil, then such an essay offers them no harm. Who could possibly be against an intense psychological study of human interactions on Wikipedia? Anyone? (fully referenced, of course groan) An assertiveness training guide for the unwary boy, those hooks sure do look like tasty treats!. --Neptunerover (talk) 19:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC) The 12h block has not improved Neptunerover. He continues to link to the perfectly normal actions of the people around him as proof of some grand conspiracy against him. It's clear that if he's allowed to continue posting he will continue to muck up the reference desk with nonsense, and he will continue to post frivolous complains wherever he think he can find an audience. I don't know how much weight non-admin !votes carry in these sorts of things, but I also support a long term block of this user.APL (talk) 19:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC) One fish. I just offered to do something that could be beneficial, and not just by occupying my time and keeping me away from the ref desks, which I don't think I've threatened lately. Not since this has become serious. You realise this is serious, don't you APL? --Neptunerover (talk) 19:44, 2 February 2010 (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. NeptuneRover indefinitely blocked After reading through this thread and reading NeptuneRover continuing to make false accusations of vote stacking towards TreasuryTag after Abecedare placed the resolved tag onto the discussion and after being warned by Abecedare on his talk page, it appears to me that this user is not here to contribute to a harmonious editing environment and I have blocked him indefinitely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smashville (talk • contribs) 21:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC) The preceding comment went unsigned due to some bad wikicode far above. –xenotalk 21:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Thanks...dumbass admin who did it kept trying to fix it and kept getting EC'd. --Smashvilletalk 21:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:SuaveArt indef'ed.

Resolved

 – Community ban enacted. Tan | 39 04:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked this user indef (replacing SarekofVulcan's existing, iteratively escalated two-week block) because he simply cannot seem to leave another user alone. See the past archives of this page and his talk page for prior complaints, and User talk:SuaveArt/mentoring for my attempts to coach him out of his antagonistic and destructive behavior.

This post is a call for a community ban. Alternatively, if another administrator wants to pick up this user for mentoring in two weeks (once the original block for repeated personal attacks and harassment will have expired), I'll wash my hands of him and remand him to someone else's watchful eye and short leash.

• Endorse community ban, as mentor and proposer. Jclemens (talk) 17:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Non-admin endorsement. I've seen the previous ANI threads on this editor and a skim of his talk page shows that he's had plenty of warnings but has continued behaviour which, at best, could be perceived as aggravating an already inflamed situations and, at worst, are just plain wiki-stalking, harassment and trolling which cannot be tolerated. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 18:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Involved party endorsement I have encountered SA several times here. His bad faith nominations of Christian related UBX's along with his POV input in Christian articles shows that he has a personal agenda and is not editing in good faith. We already have enough POV pushers here but a POV pusher and a wiki-hounder is way too much.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment perhaps we should just put SA on editing restrictions. How about:

• Indef topic ban from any Christianity related articles.
• Indef 1RR per page per week.
• Indef no talking to User:Seregain.
• SuaveArt can get these restrictions removed by either appealing to Arbcom, the ANI or Jimbo.

--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Given his past failures to adhere to similar, informal restrictions... do you really think this will be effective? Or will we just be back here again next month? Jclemens (talk) 19:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Non-admin and involved endorsement. I agree with Jclemens. The user has been give so many chances to change, but as soon as his block expired, he made more personal attacks against Seregain (and virtually all of his other edits have been rightfully reverted). Three blocks and dozens of warnings. I (non-admin) endorse an indefinite ban. American Eagle (talk) 19:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a formal ban would show SA that we mean business here. Can we at least give it a thought?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 19:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse ban unless another admin is willing to mentor. Pcap ping 19:46, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Uninvolved party endorsement His actions are unwarranted, and he obviously doesn't show that he cares. Dusti^SPEAK!! 20:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Ban When the mentor who has tried in good faith to help can't see any other way it makes a pretty compelling case. User's current unblock request is more "I didn't do it." Wikipedia is not a battleground, and we shouldn't hand-hold this user any more. Show them the door. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Ban I am one who normally opposes such, but his positions about other editors are beyond reason here. Where the mentor is the proposer, I am not one to demur. Collect (talk) 21:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Update: They've just blanked their userpage and replaced it with a retired template. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• I suggest this discussion be carried out. The user took a wikibreak a week ago, but came back right. It wouldn't be suprising it the user is retiring to avoid a ban, and plans to return editing in the future. (His wikibreak came right before a block as well.) I realize I'm somewhat WP:ABFing, but I'm bring up the worst-case. There is enough consensus to warrent a ban, regardless of a quick retirement. American Eagle (talk) 22:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse ban Clear-cut case of Wikihounding. There's no room for that kind of behavior here. Blueboy96 22:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - Could someone review the message SA left on his talk page? It strongly smacks of a parting shot and a call from him to another editor to continue targeting me. Seregain (talk) 23:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse ban - And recommend blanking the talk page with a template to remove attacks outlined by Seregain above. -- Atama頭 23:52, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse - I'm not a sysop but this seems like a prudent decision. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Endorsement from uninvolved editor - It's a problem when editors simply cannot disengage. I'm not impressed with the user's overall history, especially his block log. Indef block that no one is willing to undo = defacto ban = might as well make it a community ban. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse as someone who has run into SuaveArt before and found him to be less than workwithable. His single-minded hounding of Seregain in the face of mentorship and a prior block seems like he isn't interested in playing nice. --Jayron32 03:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No point in dragging this one out - virtually unanimous with the exception of CE's counterproposal, which got no support. Ban enacted, marking resolved. Tan | 39 04:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Note:I also approved the ban. I just made another proposal as well. So it was unanimous.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:DavidHuo

The executive summary: The user DavidHuo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to be a low edit count SPA who is here to add an unsourced POV opinion piece (which he calls "undisputed facts") to the Australian Labor Party article. He has threatened to edit war his proposed changes in and plays poorly with others. The article is fully protected for about another 20 hours, but it's clear I am no longer an uninvolved admin, so I'm asking that someone outside this situation come in and look and decide what to do.

Where this is likely coming from: there are two Labor ministers in Australia, one state (Michael Atkinson) and one federal (Stephen Conroy) who have been accused of proposing rather drastic censorship of the Internet of one form or another. They've both at one time or another for this and other reasons, also attracted the wrath of the gaming community and one of the rival parties, the Australian Greens. While you can go look at the edit histories of Atkinson and Conroy, I'll save you time and tell you they've been a right mess all year due to activists on one side and loyalists on the other, with the good faith editors (of whom there are sadly too few) trying to neutralise both.

This particular editor, though, seems to have been trying to bring the battle to the Australian Labor Party article with this edit which, apart from exhibiting WP:SYN problems and rather poor wording/spelling, is entirely unsourced (and somewhat of a joke towards the end). My own discussion with him, following from my granting a warning to him and protecting the article after he edit warred with another user, has hit a dead end - he refuses to acknowledge there is any problem with his edit, has a very poor understanding of Wiki policy (perhaps from a refusal to read it, as he's been linked enough times), and has become somewhat abusive (even using caps). His threats to edit war further, c.f. "If you do not put the information back in, I will be forced to make a the requested changes" and "The ALP will wear Atkinson on their brand, amongst others, and I will see that the information is not censored." .7 are of concern, but as I can't act further as an admin anyway as he has accused me of bias and I don't particularly want to be an involved editor, I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could have a look and decide where to go from here.

I personally think he should be given one more chance and then a block if he muffs that up, but that is the last word I plan to have on the matter. Orderinchaos 15:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a clear-cut case of a new user who has no idea of how wikipedia works and is making threats in attempts to WP:OWN articles. He needs careful monitoring. Timeshift (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding meaningless comments to Talk: page threads to stop the bot from archiving

I've run into an odd situation on an article talk page. I've noticed that some articles have extremely (really nonsensically) long archive intervals for threads; up to 365 days in some cases. In my view, when a thread hasn't been commented on in a reasonable period of time (say 3 months), then the discussion is effectively over: the likelihood of the original person coming back to respond is by then low, and in any event, the issue, whatever it might have been, has effectively been resolved by the passage of time.

On one article, after I adjusted the bot settings from 200 days to 100, I was reverted, with the claim that there was a "consensus" that 200 days was better.[111] In addition, User:Canadian Paul added a bunch of comments to threads, mostly meaningless, in a deliberate attempt to stop threads from being archived.[112] I removed the purely meaningless comments[113] - i.e. the ones that said "Commenting to prevent archiving", which I felt were simply disruptive, and commented to that effect on the article talk page. In turn, Canadian Paul reverted me, insisting that he had only added his comments to "on-going discussions"[114] - this, despite the fact that the he had to deliberately make comments in those threads to avoid bot archiving precisely because there was no "on-going discussion" in them. In fact, in one thread he's been adding "Commenting to prevent archiving" comments since May 2009! He also stated that it was my actions that were, in fact, disruptive.

While this is a specific issue regarding one article Talk: page, it also has broader implications regarding archive bot settings, and whether one can add meaningless statements to a thread simply for the purpose of thwarting a bot archive. I've seen this done on other article talk pages; where editors make comments at lengthy intervals, just to ensure a particular thread they are interested in doesn't get archived by a bot, and in the hopes that they can wear down those who disagree with them through attrition. Thus, I've brought the issue here. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:37, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Canadian Paul notified. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:40, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

User:Canadian Paul told not to do that. Prodego ^talk 20:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. After looking at that talk page, his behavior seems pretty nonsensical. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:43, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

After looking again, I can see the need in this kind of article to maintain a list of people who are imminently going to need to be added to the article. Perhaps the list of potential candidates should be consolidated into one section, or a subpage. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:55, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Subpage seems a good idea. Could transclude it, keeping the main page cleaner, and the lists easier to manage. Prodego ^talk 21:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You know, I like some of the changes that User:Equazcion has done and I think if these had been discussed beforehand, with a chance for the very few regular visitors to the talk page to comment, this whole silly mess could have been avoided. If some time has been taken beforehand to look at the page and understand why I made those comments, this didn't have to go all the way to WP:ANI. Furthermore, I find it entirely inappropriate for anyone's comments to be removed from a talk page (unless of course they're obviously violating a policy such as WP:BLP), and there's no excuse for someone who has been an admin for over five years not to know that. I added those comments in good faith... as Equazcion has shown, there was a better way to achieve my goal, but why couldn't User:Jayjg have simply commented on the talk page and discussed the issue rather than just flat out reverting? As for the issue itself, I don't really mind the changes, I think they work, and I think the comment recently left on the talk page is worth looking at. It says anything else I have to say on the issue right now. Cheers, CP 21:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, Canadian Paul, it's quite rare that on talk pages with "very few regular visitors" people object to autoarchive settings, so that they must be "discussed beforehand". As for why I couldn't have discussed it on the talk page instead of flat out reverting, um, huh? I made the edit, and you "flat out reverted" me:[115], without discussing on the Talk: page! You have the cart before the horse. Jayjg ^(talk) 02:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I too jumped to a conclusion pretty quickly, at first, without really looking into why you made those comments. Sorry for that. For the record, I do now think CP's actions were warranted. As he alludes to above, I've condensed the discussions that are necessary to remain on the page into a single section that's now transcluded from a subpage. Without any actual dated signatures on the main talk page, the section shouldn't get auto-archived, so no further "bump" comments should be necessary. Equazcion ^(talk) 21:23, 31 Jan 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if modifying a signature to say 21:23, 31 Jan 20 50 (UT C) would fool the bot into thinking the section has "recently" had a comment. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:BEANS. Pcap ping 00:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Pcap, the bots work for us. We are allowed to disobey, circumvent, or even poke them with a stick. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it would anyway. It would be easier to program a bot to look at the edit history than to dig through the comments themselves. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually MiszaBot does work by checking signatures. Parsing a bunch of text that's all in one place is easier than checking through the history, and since comments can be moved between sections/deleted altogether/etc, that would make the history method pretty hard. Putting in a future date probably would fool it, I think. Equazcion ^(talk) 05:07, 1 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Modifying the signature works. I placed a 30 day RfC, but the talkpage had an archival period of only 7 days, so I had to add a month to my signature to fool the bot. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How about just letting MiszaBot recognize a <noarchive/> tag, or some such? --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Misza13 (talk · contribs) doesn't really have the cycles to update the MiszaBot code these days. Fake timestamp works fine. See User:DoNotArchiveUntil for a more elegant way to do this. –xeno^talk 16:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have offered to fix it myself then, but the solution you provide looks elegant enough. :-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 16:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You might still want to offer your services to Misza, I know there has been several requests for fixes or enhancements over the last little while they he was unable to act on. –xeno^talk 16:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

problem with User:Thirteen squared issueing a warning for a comment posted on a talk page

i received a warning for my attempt to start any kind of a dialogue related to sasha cohen's anti semitism as being both hurtful and a major stumbling block to his status as observent Jew. this is not a new issue and has been considered by many people and groups among them the Anti Defamation League. what i did on a talk page is not out of order and i am fully within my rights according to the rules when making the statements that were removed. someone must hold either the editor or the encyclopedia accountable for refusing to acknowledge the hurtful anti semitism displayed by Cohen in his numerous acts. a talk page is where this kind of discussion supposedly happens. the decision to threaten me with a ban for something deemed a blatant attack (when the first reason given for removing my addition was that it was a source of discussion that shouldn't happen on a talk page (ludicrous)) is actually the moderator being derelict and abusive. there was no clarity in the reasons given for removing the addition i made the first time 13squared did so. as a result i altered the addition in a way that would seem less offensive in order to get an adequate response (this was a talk page not the article) 13squared ignored the 3RR rule and threated me with a ban after just one revert. i enjoy using wikipedia and hope people allow free speech to happen. i am requesting that the warning be removed and the discussion allowed to happen at any level.Grmike (talk) 09:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

Isn't this at AN right now? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 09:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

i'm not familiar with the normal produre that's taken when a novice editor attempts to challenge a warning or ban handed down by someone else (not sure if they also are editors or moderators). i removed it from the other page after reading the notice at the top. is this where this kind of discussion happens ?Grmike (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

is there any real chance the warning for vandalism will be lifted ? i don't appreciate being accused of vandalism for raising a valid point and objecting to something directly related to the article on its talk page.Grmike (talk) 10:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)grmike +

- ::(cur) (prev) 18:42, 31 January 2010 Thirteen squared (talk | contribs) (36,317 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by Grmike; This is NOT a forum to discuss any alleged antisemitism or his observance, previous sections were discussing the article, NOT him, this is just a rant. (TW)) (undo) + ==User:Buleboy96== - (cur) (prev) 07:29, 31 January 2010 Grmike (talk | contribs) (37,024 bytes) (this is just as relevent as the the previous heading and comments therein. more reason why he should never be considered an observant Jew.) (undo)Grmike (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

As it says at the top of this page, you are required to notify this contributor that you are discussing him here. Since you have not, I will do so after leaving my comment. The major issue here is our biographies of living persons policy (BLP), according to which the discussion cannot, as you request, "happen at any level." As BLP applies to every page on Wikipedia, we must be conservative in discussing living people; in talk pages, "contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related or useful to making article content choices should be deleted". Under that policy, your comment is inappropriate, as speculating that Nazi Germany would have embraced Cohen's act is not related or useful to making article content choices. If there are reliable sources discussing issues of anti-semitism in Cohen's act or actions, then the matter can certainly be discussed in terms of how best to represent that in the article with due emphasis. While Wikipedia is all about the exchange of information and ideas, there are limits to the free speech Wikipedia allows. These particular limits were designed both in sensitivity to the real-life potential of harm to living people and to the real-life potential of legal harm to the project. (A few other examples of limitations are the ability to insert personal commentary into articles and to discuss the subjects of articles, as distinguished from the improvement of articles.) I believe that the removal of the comments was appropriate under policy; the specific warning template he left you was not the proper one, however. I don't believe that your edits constituted vandalism, although something in the Template:Uw-biog1 hierarchy might have been appropriate. But you are free to remove that warning yourself. 3RR is unrelated to this situation; he hasn't accused you of edit warring, and so far no edit warring seems to have happened. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. You've said it better than I could. Also, yes, I should have used a different template. I had clicked a different template, but upping it to a higher level flipped it back to vandalism, which I did not catch before I submitted it. Sorry about that. --13² 14:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

the wikipedia article In My Country There Is Problem makes it clear that his anti semitic act was embraced by people who share a view of the Jews in a way that compared to those in nazi Germany. neo nazi's exist today and it is those kinds of people that Borat was trying to appeal to in his anti semitic sketches (many nazi's today hide their identity so they are part of the group of people Borat was trying to entertain, by appealing to them he allegedly exposed them). the objective of the anti semitism by Borat was to appeal to the worst kind of anti semitism as to bring it out of people for the world to see. how is it wrong or inapproprite to connect that to nazi Germany ?

"While we understand this scene was an attempt to show how easily a group of ordinary people can be encouraged to join in an anti-Semitic chorus, we are concerned that the irony may have been lost on some of your audience – or worse, that some of your viewers may have simply accepted Borat's statements about Jews at face value" statement by the ADL. how is it unreasonable to assume people with nazi views would embrance his act ? this i consider an effective comparison because people don't realize how subtle anti semitism among the people at that time became full blown very quickly. people know how the situation ended in the world war and many Jews who survived it vowed never to take it lightly ever again.Grmike (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

That specific statement was in relation to a specific song and it is properly sourced on the article the statement is attributed to. The statement is about the song, not Cohen, nor does it imply he is antisemitic, or that he spreads anti-semitism, or anything at all to do with Nazi Germany. You are making the jump from a simple statement that some people might not understand Cohen's intent to him being anti-semitic, which is a violation of WP:BLP. This is the same issue with the messages I previously removed and why you were warned by myself for it. --13² 22:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sasha Baron Cohen wrote the song it has everything to do with him and an attitude that perpetuates the dangerous notion that anti semitism must be embraced, used in order to be defeated. Cohen agreed to play the part of someone inciting Pogrom. six million Jews were killed during the holocaust as a result of anti semitism. Cohen has full control of his chacters he's a writer and chose to play the part of an anti semitic man. as Sasha Baron Cohen and not Borat, he finds anti semitism funny. his passive approach to the issue even after displaying flagrant anti semitism.Grmike (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

This board is not for content disputes, but for situations that require administrator interventions. I have never seen anything involving Sasha Baron Cohen and have absolutely no opinion on whether or not his humor is anti-semitic. While others might, it doesn't belong here. The reasonableness of your conclusions about how Nazi Germany would have felt about him are completely immaterial, even if they should happen to be 100% true (and I have no idea). Either way, such speculation is outside the allowance of our policy...and that holds as true at ANI as it does at his article's talk page. If a previously published, reliable source has opined that "So-and-so's humor would have been right at home in Nazi Germany", such a comment might be appropriate for inclusion in his article, with full attribution as to who said so, if it does not reflect undue weight. Discussing whether or not such a comment is appropriate for inclusion, with full attribution, would be appropriate on the talk page. Stating that you think so yourself is not appropriate. We aren't here to air our views on anybody. We're here to create a document reflecting the balanced views of previously published, reliable sources. All that matters is what those sources say and determining how those sources may best be represented. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As Bruno he thought it humorous to say "We have chosen your baby to be dressed as a Nazi Officer, pushing a wheelbarrow, with a Jewish baby, into an oven" http://www.entertonement.com/clips/pwdnhwsccn--36

As Bruno Sacha Baron Cohen makes several references to Nazism and Hitler. These references include a quick goose step, a stiff arm salute, and a nostalgic reference to the way Bruno's fellow Austrian was ultimately treated by the world.

this wasn't an attempt to "expose anti semitism" but an attempt at humour. why wouldn't that appeal to nazi Germany it suggests that what they did can be considered humorous. As the illinoistimes put it "While some may point out that Cohen is taking advantage of the ignorant and misinformed, that doesn’t make their behavior any less horrific".Grmike (talk) 23:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

I am not arguing with you over whether or not he would appeal to Nazi Germany. It doesn't matter whether you think he would; it doesn't matter if you convince me that he would. All that matters here is what reliable sources say. If you want to discuss Cohen's alleged anti-semitism, you must do it within the context of sourced and attributed commentary of reliable origin. You cannot publish unsourced views about him that may be libelous on any space in Wikipedia, including ANI. If you want to convince others that Cohen is anti-semitic and would appeal to Nazi Germany with your own logic, you can't do it on Wikipedia. Again, it doesn't matter if you're right. What matters is that we comply with the policies created at least in part to protect the project from lawsuits. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Whoops. Sorry I didn't catch your message before leaving mine with the edit summary of trying to get help from an admin. I totally didn't mean to do that. --13² 23:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

He is a satirical comedian. Quit comparing him or his actions to Nazis or the Holocaust and stop making baseless accusations that he's promoting antisemitism. You have zero proof that he finds antisemitism funny or that he deliberately promotes it. This is flagrantly offensive and a severe violation of WP:BLP. This is, again, why I reverted and warned you. --13² 22:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

does a comedien make jokes he doesn't find funny ? with every post comes another reason of why you 'warned me'. you could have told me to remove the reference to nazi Germany but allowed me to note where the article's deficiencies. instead you all but banned me from the article and its talk page. great job at stiffling freedom of speech. it's acts like these that lead to fewer members, edits, by making people discontented with the site. talk pages frequently include opinion mixed it with questions and facts pertaining to the article. my comment about Cohen being guilty of gross anti semitism was not unfounded considered the ample opinion pieces and journalistic articles pointing to the fine line between between it in his writings and acts. he has appealed to neo nazi's, i didn't realize nazi Germany was so much differentGrmike (talk) 00:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

Do not continue making references to Cohen "being guilty of anti-semitism", gross or otherwise, unless you include a reliable sources. If you do so again, here or elsewhere, you are liable to be blocked for violating our biographies of living persons policy. You may discuss sourced commentary about Cohen's behavior; you may not make potentially libelous statements about living persons here or anywhere else on the project. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/04/sacha-baron-cohen-bruno

" 'Throw the Jew Down the Well' was a very controversial sketch, and some members of the Jewish community thought that it was actually going to encourage anti-semitism" borat wrote and acted it out. you can find the same kind of reactions to his other acts not related to Borat but Bruno. not even the Anti Defemation League can say with certainty that he isn't promoting anti semitism. isn't promoting something essentially being guilty of it in some way ?Grmike (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

(edit conflict) With respect to the material that you had before you altered it, that's a content issue, which doesn't belong at ANI. You are welcome to discuss Cohen's comedy with properly sourced & attributed information at the article's talk page, where interested contributors will help determine how best to represent it in context and with proper weight. You may not draw your own conclusions or advance your own arguments about it. Focus on what others have said, and do not accuse people of "being guilty of anti-semitism" or appealing to Nazis of any stripe unless you are quoting (and citing) a reliable source.

With respect to the material you've just added, first, you would have to cite a source that the ADL has said that they cannot say with certainty that he isn't promoting anti-semitism. (Quoting Cohen talking about his fictional character isn't remotely the same thing.) Then you would have to quote somebody saying that his possibly promoting something is the same as being possibly being guilty of something. Otherwise, you're looking at synthesis, which is as bad as no source at all when it comes to WP:BLP. Your conversations about living people on Wikipedia should be as "verifiable" as your additions to articles about them should be. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Lord help us if Grmike comes across The Producers (1968 film) and its ditty Springtime for Hitler; or perhaps A Modest Proposal. We'll be here all night. Grmike, it is called satire. It's a dangerous thing often misunderstood by readers or viewers. But that's all beside the point. There is only one point here: you must provide reliable sources for assertions of the sort you are making. And there is a single corollary, which is that if you continue to make assertions in the absence of sources, you will be barred from the site. It is not a freedom of speech issue - we never had any interest in your speech, nor mine. We are interested in what reliable sources say. You have been given enough good advice in this thread. Now we're at the point where you either heed the advice, or you go away. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The Producers is slightly different in that it mocks the perpetrators of genocide, not the victims (as Cohen's acts appear to do). It's a relevant discussion, but Wikipedia probably isn't the place for hypothesis of what Cohen's intentions are, and whether or not he is genuinely anti-Semitic. I am sure there are criticisms of Cohen which are well sourced and could be added to the article. I feel it's a bit harsh to threaten Grmike with a block, as he is obviously acting in good faith, and also personally incensed by Cohen's attempts at humour. Rapido (talk) 00:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

We'll have to differ as to what exactly is being mocked by Brooks or Swift. The point here is a repeated libellous assertion made as part of an argument, after good advice has been given that the assertion should not be made absent a compelling source. And very seriously, Grmike can either heed that advice, or take his/her assertions elsewhere. BLP is neither interested in good faith nor in personal motivation. It is interested in protecting the LP from exactly the sort of unfounded allegations being made by Grmike. --Tagishsimon (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

do links to youtube videos of cohen's material appealing to people with obviously hateful views of Jew (in the comment section), who explicitly talk about allegiance to hitler and or nazi organizations count ? what if the youtube video comments are overwhelmed by those types of remarks, and people who see it as innocent satire are the only ones who appear irritated ? there's no indication from anywhere that hate groups find Cohen's material distasteful, suffered from lack of interest in their groups yet that is the excuse Cohen gives, that makes his remarks harmless. his wikipedia page doesn't give the other side of the story, which is that his contributions to the character of bruno have no such objective and that they make even stronger references to nazi germany http://www.entertonement.com/clips/pwdnhwsccn--36]Grmike (talk) 01:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

No, they don't count. Please read reliable sources and WP:BLP for more information about the kinds of sources that can be used for controversial or negative information about living persons. The Wikipedia page can only give the other side of that story if that story is being told by fully reliable sources. And this conversation is archived (if you look at the header "Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive594"). If you have additional questions about sources that are appropriate for BLPs, you may want to ask at WP:RSN. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

CatNazi

Resolved

 – The CatNazi became tame! —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 22:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• CatNazi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Please see:

1. Special:Contributions/CatNazi
2. Special:DeletedContributions/CatNazi

Thoughts? Cirt (talk) 22:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems at least like a username violation if nothing else. --Smashville^talk 22:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It is an obvious single purpose account. JBsupreme (talk) 22:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, now what? Cirt (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked; smells like PBML. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 22:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Cirt (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This was confirmed as PBML here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw. JBsupreme (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Haiduc

User banned by arbcom. MBisanz talk 02:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I recently became aware of this editor because of my participation in the following afd [[116]], which is on a content/pov fork on the sexuality of Baden-Powell (BP) the founder of the scouting movement. It was created by the above editor when he couldn't write about the presumed sexual desires of BP for boys to the extent he wanted to in the main BP article. He just made the following statement in the AFD, which speaks for itself (you'll have to take my word for it that there is no scholarship on his presumed sexual desire for underaged boys). What could be more interesting than to have an analysis of the life of an important and still influential figure that shows quite clearly that the motivation of his life-long work with boys and very authentic love for boys was indeed a very rounded and balanced kind of love that did not in any small-minded way exclude the erotic, emotional and affectional aspects yet did, high-mindedly, exclude the sexual aspects?[117] He appears to be an agenda account pushing the idea the Pederasty is healthy and acceptable. Many of his edits are using offline sources to assert that this or that historical figure was a pederast. Here's a recent example [118] (one of hundreds, it seems). His top edited articles below. * 967 - Pederasty * 809 - Historical_pederastic_relationships * 495 - Homosexuality * 269 - Pederasty_in_ancient_Greece * 207 - Pederastic_relationships_in_classical_antiquity * 198 - Anal_sex * 190 - Hoop_rolling * 148 - Mark_Foley_scandal * 142 - Harmodius_and_Aristogeiton * 129 - Pederasty_in_the_modern_world I submit this is not the sort of editor that's appropriate to have around here, given the tens of thousands of children at play.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I agree, some bleeding heart will bring up WP:CENSORED but exposing children to offline s**rces is totally unacceptable. He should source the Greco-Roman stuff from Google News like everyone else. Holly25 (talk) 23:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC) There is of course no general problem with offline sources. The problem in this case is that in the very limited set of his contributions that i have been able to review, he's misrepresented the sources; he's twisted them. He's, in effect, asserted things that were not contained in them. I suspect that might extend to many more of his offerings, but have no easy way to check. Again, my concern is that he's someone that thinks it's acceptable to have sex with adolescent children, and is using wikipedia to bolster the case.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Well, can you show some recent examples of sources being misrepresented? I don't see the problem in the King Mu diff you've provided. Holly25 (talk) 00:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC) While I agree about the creeptastic nature of his original research and fascination on the topic what is the actual "incident" being reported here? Nefariousski (talk) 23:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC) The incident, such as it is, is the persistence of a pro-pederasty pov pushing account on a website filled with adolescent children.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC) While I agree that the evidence towards him pushing a pro-pederasty pov exists and that your assertions are likely to be correct I have a hard time understanding what you are aiming for bringing this up here? Surely he can't be blocked on the grounds that he's creepy or pushing a pov that children shouldn't be exposed to can he? I mean if that's grounds for punitive blocking then I've got one hell of a list of users to post here. Nefariousski (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I can think of at least one administrator who has issued blocks of this nature in the past. –xenotalk 00:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I think it has come before arbcom too. ViridaeTalk 00:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Just for clarification I'm in no way supporting the statements or actions or in any way in defense of User:Haiduc. Just unsure of the goal of this AN/I posting. Nefariousski (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC) The goal is an indefinite block in service of stopping a pov pusher who distorts sources and who might be putting children in harms way.Bali ultimate (talk) 00:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Please see this for a similar situation. The difference is that in that case, the evidence was off-wiki, while in this case the editor is actually professing his belief on-wiki. Linked in that discussion is an ArbCom case where ArbCom said that the "Wikipedia is open to all" statement has its limits. Another discussion along these lines was here at AN, where it was closed with the note that ArbCom should be consulted about sensitive matters like these. I agree, I don't think that ANI is going to settle this issue. -- Atama頭 00:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Do we have actual proof of advocacy? I mean, the guy's interests are creepy, I agree and his behaviour on AfD's I have seen him participating has been quite tendentious, but I don't see explicit pedophilia advocacy. --Cyclopiatalk 01:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Haiduc has been banned by the Arbitration Committee, and should not be unblocked without the Committee's permission. Steve Smith (talk) 02:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Strong support for that, the comment that Bali started this thread with also creeped me out when Haiduc made it. Off2riorob (talk) 02:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC) A few people asked me for "proof." Well, this one diff really says it all. But there are 100s to choose from. [119].Bali ultimate (talk) 02:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Cleanup

To keep easy track of the articles created by this user, which have been submitted to AfD, here is the list so far:

• Historical pederastic relationships
• Pederastic couples in Japan
• Albanian pederasty
• Sexuality of Robert Baden-Powell
• Kenneth McLaren

Copyright Violation in MASM page

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. —DoRD (?) (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am unable to revert or edit the MASM page due to conflict of interest issues and blocked Wikipedia access to web pages on my site as inappropriate to the topic. Editor sarekofvulcan has deliberately bypassed my control of ownership of this copyright material and relinked to archived copies of my copyright information. Would administration please resolve this issue as I have raised the issue on the talk page for MASM but cannot revert it myself because I have been an editor on this page previously while it is under dispute on varous matters. Hutch48 (talk) 22:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not the proper venue. Discuss at the article talkpage or WP:CV. —DoRD (?) (talk) 00:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Block Evasion by blatant marketer.

Reporting User:Centralwashu, a blocked user, for creating User:Cwumarketingalum. See here for more Gosox(55)(55) 23:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm guessing an IP ban would be the way to deal with this? Gosox(55)(55) 23:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Notified. Gosox(55)(55) 23:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The username block template, with autoblock disabled and account creation enabled, invites users to create a new account. It is not technically block evasion. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm the admin who blocked Centralwashu. I only blocked the editor for username violations per WP:ORGNAME. The editor would not be evading a block by creating a new account; in fact, they are encouraged to create a new account that complies with our username policy. However, two things; Cwumarketingalum isn't much better (really, not any better at all) than the old user name. And I'm not convinced they are the same editor. The original editor seemed to be representing the university, the second editor is only claiming to have graduated from there (hence "alum"). Seeing as the second account hasn't made any edits I'm not tempted to actually do anything at this point. -- Atama頭 23:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

And I'm the editor who warned and eventually reported Centralwashu. I don't see a problem with the new username. I was concerned about the first one because it appears to be a role account. This new one - at least judging solely by its username - does not. There may be COI issues if he or she becomes heavily involved in articles related to his or her alma mater but that's a different kettle of fish. --ElKevbo (talk) 00:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This might be a difference between a single-purpose account called "BurgerKing" editing Burger King with promotional info, and an editor named "WhopperLover" who edits a variety of pages. And I'm also not sure they're the same person, but I agree that it seems coincidental that one appeared shortly after the other was blocked. -- Atama頭 00:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Naming of Peterhof and Kronstadt

Ezhiki has changed the German name - place situates in Russia - from Peterhof/Петергоф to "Petergof" and is going to change Kronstadt/Кронштадт to "Kronshtadt". --WPK (talk) 23:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be only a disagreement about naming conventions -- and does not require administrative action. I see that you have already been engaged in a long long discussion with Ezhiki on their talk page about this same subject. Since the discussion is only between the two of you, you can seek out WP:3O for another opinion. Otherwise you may wish to use WP:RFC. — CactusWriter | ^needles 00:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Blackmagic2604/Abby_92

I want someone to check-user both Abby_92 and Blackmagic2604. Since Blackmagic2604 vandalized my User-Page and I know who did it since it seems she has a grudge against me

All the accounts she had were AngelofMadness, Abby 82, Queen kitten, RubyGloomFan, Kagome 77, Vitamininsultandbully, Nohappiness2009, Khate3798743493, AngelofFadness

I don't care what she says about this I already know it was her and she better stop with the immature behavior

And of course she will deny owning all of those accounts and claim she is being framed so she can get away with all the immature acts she does but oh well whatever.

Black Rose (talk) 01:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems to belong at WP:SPI. A very small percentage of admins are checkusers. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 01:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

MarshalN20

I'm here again with this hounding case which doesn't seem to stop. Toddst1 was in charge I believe but he's on a wikibreak.

On the past September I noticed MarshalN20 and Unknown Lupus were making offensive comments on the Diablada talk page such as this: [120], [121], [122].

I asked them to stop but MarshalN20 reacted against me in a disproportionate aggressive manner. That led to a Mediation Cabal which now is on formal mediation and also to a RfC on MarshalN20's conduct, nothing helped to solve the situation.

On the formal mediation the mediator is supposed to be Ryan Postlethwaite but I think he perhaps forgot to watchlist the page or he was too busy so he didn't mention anything else after our opening statements. So I wrote him to check where he was [123] and yes I was offended by the attitude MarshalN20 had in his opening statement so I pointed that out. I dedicated to edit other articles meanwhile and having a workshop prepared for the mediation, which I consider is a legitimate civil way to deal with the situation. MarshalN20, was spying on me and got upset about that (regardless he also had not only one but 1, 2 , 3 sandboxes for purposes like this) and went to complain on Ryan's talk page [124] which I consider was disrespectful so I asked him to stop [125], then I tried to reason with this person on his talk page where I repeatedly asked him to avoid conflict till Ryan gets some time, but he then started gaming to collect material against me, so even though the only comment I ever made after months of dealing with this user was saying that he was acting like a dog marking his territory on articles and biting others, for which I said twice [126] [127] that if that offended him I apologize, now he's inflating all this and using diffs that doesn't show or prove anything at all with this RfC against me, RfCs are not meant to be used as personal attacks or harassment besides the case against him is already on formal mediation. I had to stand this person humiliating me, insulting me for my nationality for months and he threatened me to continue doing such things [128]:

I can and will keep using whatever wording pleases me whenever I do my writing.

I really consider this is a very serious case of harassment which needs to be solved immediately, for MarshalN20 and Unknown Lupus, and of course I'd be willing to be subject of evaluation if I ever acted wrong, but I consider that in Marshaln20's case it has been a long path of misconduct, observe his attitude from 2008 [129], he also he threatened to physically hurt other users [130], he recurred to outing, he canvassed to fight against me and I seriously think this needs to be addressed by the administrators soon. Erebedhel - Talk 01:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I forgot to place the ANI notice before, now I did it. Erebedhel - Talk 05:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hmm, it seems that posting this on Saturday night wasn't such a good idea, nobody seems on. But anyway, I suppose that Marshal will read the notice and post a reply here, I'd advise to check carefully the diffs provided by both of us. Perhaps today I'll have a hectic day so I'm not sure if I can follow the debate here (but I'll try to check whenever I can). But I think this has a simple solution as I asked Marshal which is just try to avoid any more confrontation till we get any response from the mediation, I already asked there and I hope Ryan can have some more time. We don't have the same interests so I don't think there is any need to seek unnecessary confrontation. Can anybody just help me to make Marshal understand that at this point making more problem won't get anywhere, and keep an eye so we keep our word? I honestly don't want to have any more interaction with him till mediation starts but I don't consider I've ever done anything wrong to be virtually banned from Wikipedia just because Marshal's attitude towards me. Erebedhel - Talk 10:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment

• 1. So, I make an RfC in order to discuss your conduct in such a way that we can work out our problems (Because that's what an RfC is for: so that we can establish that there exists a problem with your attitude and that you should work in improving that problem); and in retaliation you poast an ANI?
• 2. I have not set anything in motion to "virtually ban" you from Wikipedia. An RfC is just to discuss your conduct, not to ban you.
• 3. Thus far, you're still proving that you have conduct problems. You take the slightest issue and turn it into an atomic bomb. I attempt to find a solution with you by creating an RfC in order to discuss your attitude, and yet you continue to mud-sling and keep accusing me of things that were done several months ago.
• 4. You simply do not know what happened between "EP" and "Selecciones de la Vida." You were not there. The final outcome of that case was that everyone had done something wrong. In other words, the situation didn't "punish" me because, as it was shown, everybody had been insulting and bothering each other.
• 5. I have never threatened to hurt another Wikipedian. All I said in that statement was that I don't like the lad and that I wouldn't like to see him in person. You're once again demonstrating that:
  • You make up things in your mind that are not there.
  • You like to create flashy arguments when people are trying to help work out a solution with you.
  • Instead of understanding why other Wikipedians are having problems with you, you solely focus on blaming us for the situation.
• 6. You called me a dog, you tell me I bite, and you tell me that I "mark my territory." All because I moved a bibliography section above the references. I don't need to "inflate" this because it already is bad.
• 7. I have sandboxes of my other works in progress. How is that bad? I'm working on the Diablada, translating the Pachacutec article into English, and attempting to summarize the Land Campaign of the War of the Pacific. Seriously, how is that bad? You're again demonstrating those 3 points I just made.
• 8. Everything you post in Wikipedia is available to the viewing of all users. I'm not "spying" on you. This is not a James Bond movie, and I don't have an agent number. However, that would be rather cool. Obviously, I'm interested in what you are doing in regards to the Diablada article. Nothing more.
• 9. I asked Ryan, our mediator, to evaluate what you were proposing to add into the article. Obviously, you don't have that material in your workshop in order to keep Wikipedia warm and cozy.
• 10. Finally: With everything Erebedhel keeps showing, particularly his demonstration of my "past bad actions," it demonstrates that this user is hounding me. I feel deeply harrassed by such actions which have no other intention but to disrupt my enjoyment of editing.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 14:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll just answer some points which I consider important to clarify:

1. RfCs are meant to be used as an early step to solve a problem, the RfC on MarshalN20 already lead to Mediation now starting again one in retaliation to "make me look bad" is a highly uncivil act and worst if it's after a long conversation where I asked repeatedly to calm things down. Besides no matter how much "dirt" MarshalN20 tried dig on me, most of the diffs he provided are WP:PLAX, he apparently believes that any diff will suffice as long as he make an elaborated description to make it look "evil" e.g. here he labels it as: Presenting evidence for Original Research in the Diablada article but when we open the diff is a section that MarshalN20 opens in the talk page mocking about my name and offending me, my response to that is listed as "evidence of failing" labeled as Editor becomes aggressive after my presentation of Original Research in the article, again when we open the diff I say clearly that I'll ignore his personal remarks and provided the links that prove that what I did wasn't original research and it was backed with the very same source he was using before. Also all the "evidence to try to resolve the dispute" were my initiatives, it's evident that this isn't a RfC to solve any kind of dispute as I already tried it before, is actually being used as a personal attack and is mocking the system.

2. I do feel virtually banned because MarshalN20 is following me to seek problems and humiliate me for my nationality, I think that's enough. I couldn't work peacefully on Wikipedia since I asked him to please stop insulting my country, he attacked me since them no stop and I exhausted all the means to solve the situation yet MarshalN20 don't seem to stop. I just want to avoid more confrontation till mediation starts.

3. For me insulting other countries for over 5 months is not a light thing people who use Wikipedia to spread hatred propaganda against another country does not belong here. And I'll not tolerate any more of MarshalN20's comments about Bolivia.

4. MarshalN20 said clearly: "I can't stand the lad. If I ever see him in person, well, let's just say he better hope to never wander into my sight. lol." on [131].

5. It was a WQA, WQAs don't end in banning, but MarshalN20's attitude through the whole debate was completly uncivil. And nobody other than him and his buddy ever had problems with me and it's clear that is more a matter of racism and hatred than anything I ever done which is highly unacceptable here, everywhere else my works has been greatly appreciated and respected.

6. I explained perfectly well why I made that observation, because he isn't interested in an article yet if he has a problem with someone he fights to the end then marks his territory to show he won every now and then, MarshalN20 is playing WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT.

7. I never said it was a bad thing to have sandboxes I clearly said it was a perfectly civil way to deal with the situation, what I did say was that it offended me that MarshalN20 made such a big deal for me having one while he had 3.

8. Well that's the concept of "spying". i didn't say it was wrong, that's why there is a link in my user page and a big warning sign saying it's a temporary job.

9. "warm and cozy"? So calling the entire population of a country "ignorant" and "brainwashed" keeps the environment "warm and cozy"? I highly doubt that anyone visiting my workshop would consider it "offensive" while anyone reading MarshalN20's comments on many talk pages would be easily offended.

10. I find it completely ironical that this person after months of harassing me and humiliating me now pretends to play the victim. So I ask please, this situation has to stop and has to stop now. Erebedhel - Talk 19:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I like this discussing with numbered points. It really helps out. Thanks for following along.

1. I wasn't mocking you. I simply confused your name with Ethelred the Unready, which sounds like "Erebedhel" (Notice that it took me a series of months to get your username correctly remembered). Some people used to refer to me as "Marshall." I didn't feel insulted. Why would I feel insulted? You just keep demonstrating that you take the most minor of things way too personally. And you were using original research.

2. I made an RfC not to put "dirt" on you. I made the RfC in order to focus on your attitude. Why don't you want to accept that you have attitude problems?

3. By using some simple psychology, it shows that the RfC you made about me was meant to put "dirt" on me. I am truly disgusted by such actions and intentions. However, my RfC is sincere and wishes to seek a true solution to this situation.

4. I'm not following you. I was simply going to talk to Ryan, our mediator, and then saw that you had made a comment about me in his talk page. I went on to your talk page in order to see if he had replied to you, and then found your "workshop." Hence I began to read it because it was in regards to the Diablada. Afterwards I decided to ask Ryan to read your workshop and evaluate what you were going to be proposing. That is when you began to personally attack me.

4a. I didn't say that I was going to physically hurt him. My point was that I can't stand him and wouldn't want to see him in person because I don't like him. You are accusing me of things and I feel deeply insulted by these claims of yours.

5. You are the one who is following me. Not only that, but you are also looking at my history. Here you suggest Ryan to hound me. You are the one who keeps hounding me!

6. I'm no longer insulting Bolivia at all. I admit that in the past I did, and administrator BozMo gave me a warning. I promised administrator BozMo that I was going to stop, and so I have. You are the one that keeps seeking me out.

7. No. It's not correct to personally insult other Wikipedians. Instead of accepting you did something wrong, you keep trying to justify yourself.

8. You weren't in the WQA discussion, you weren't involved in that at all. I don't know how you can so openly speak about this as if you had been involved.

9. I didn't make a "big deal" about it. I simply asked Ryan to evaluate it. Ryan could have simply said: No. However, it was you the one who began to attack me.

10. What are you talking about? I'm not saying that calling people ignorant is "warm and cozy." Why are you making up things in your mind?

11. I'm not harrassing you and much less am I humiliating you. I don't understand what your problem is. Perhaps you need a break?--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

This has to end

I'll finish this because in the top it says "Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion" I find it disappointing that nobody cared to look at this, In my history on Wikipedia I never addressed in a disrespectful manner or infringed any policy, this person is gaming the system in order to keep me out of the project, I tried all the procedures to solve this situation and after months I still can't find a solution. It's evident just by looking at MarshalN20's talk page and the Diablada talk page that I was the one being humiliated by these two individuals. I'm deeply offended and disappointed, I did nothing wrong I worked in an entire academical way and I'm proud of the way I contributed to this project. It's sad that a person with no education or manners can destroy all that and even feel proud of it, it's a shame. Erebedhel - Talk 02:09, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't want you out of the project. All I'm asking you is to please be neutral in your information. Yet now you insult my education, again, state that I have no manners (despite you just personally attacked me), and claim that I am some sort of destructor (once again attacking me). Thus far, you are the one who is showing no respect, you keep humiliating me in ANI, and yet you try to tell people that I am the one who is being "evil." You're confusing me quite a bit sir.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Get away from me, I asked you to please let's don't have any more interaction till mediation start. why is it so difficult to understand I don't wnat you following me and calling me "ignorant and brainwashed" just because of my nationality, you said it at least 5 times during the weekend yet you want to play the victim. Saying that Peru overlaps Bolivian culture is by no means "neutral", banning a 10 years and 107 pages study by the UNESCO isn't "neutral", presenting rants of a person who didn't even finished school as the basis of an article isn't "neutral", you're not the holder of the truth that's why we are on mediation because of your attitude against a country that have never done any harm to you, I'm tired of your attitude, I'm tired of your pettifogging, I'm tired of your gaming and I'm above all I'm tired of your irrational hatred, you won't come here to play the victim here after what you have done to me. Can anyone please close this thread? I'm exhausted. Erebedhel - Talk 05:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Huh? Peru does overlap Bolivian culture, much in the same way that Bolivian culture overlaps Peruvian, Chilean, and even Argentinean culture; because all cultures in the region overlap each other: hence why the term "Andean culture." You're being nationalist towards Bolivia and highly xenophobic of Peru. You keep personally attacking me without any actual proof, and such things are not going to be tolerated in Wikipedia. If you're exahusted, please take a WP:BREAK.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 13:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's not what you said, besides this isn't going anywhere. Erebedhel - Talk 18:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

End this

Fellows, I just need to know the following:

1. What do you want administrators to do?
2. If this has a mediation going, then can you not resolve this in mediation?

Please provide some short answers to we can either get some resolution to this issue, or at least point you to the right place. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The mediator only opened the case and we wrote our opening statements here on December since then he hasn't been active, I wrote Ryan (the mediator) to check if he forgot about it. After I had problems with Unknown Lupus, MarshalN20 came to "defend his friend" and has been harassing me I asked him to please let's ignore each others till the mediator starts the case but MarshalN20 doesn't want to stop. So I'm asking an administrator to avoid us having more conflicts till mediaton starts. I promised not to edit the mediated article but MarshalN20 has been following me around to other articles where I work to fish for diffs for his RfC on me which is highly upsetting. Erebedhel - Talk 03:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

All right. So what do you want administrators to do? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well for me as I told before is a case of hounding I feel they are trying to drive me crazy till I lose my patience and then collect diffs, I won't take the bait but I don't find it nice either. I don't know what administrators do in these cases, but I suppose a warning for the 3 of us to keep us away from each others till mediation starts would suffice, and if anyone goes to seek troubles and gets uncivil then banning. Erebedhel - Talk 04:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. Besides I'm reporting MarshalN20 for incivility, he has been referring to Bolivians as "ignorant" and "brainwashed" several times, according to him since he's insulting Bolivians in general is not a "personal attack". Once BozMo asked him to lower the tone but he continues with it and after that he threatened Xavexgoem [132] and me [133] to continue doing it. Erebedhel - Talk 05:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There have been insults flying about on both sides. You have also used incivil language, to the point of comparing MarshalN20 to a dog marking his territory. That's pretty insulting.

Here's what I propose: both of you cease the insulting language, with no more suggestions about the character of the other. Both of you cease with the RFCs and wait for mediation. Both of you need to stop sending messages to one another.

I think that this is a pretty intractable situation, mediation is definitely needed. However, as neither of you seem to be able to get along and things are rapidly escalating, you both need to stay apart. Marshal and Erebedhel, will you both agree to this? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry for that, I apologized for it before [134] but I do it again. I have no intention to continue interacting with MarshalN20 till mediation starts but I'd greatly appreciate if we could agree to not comment on each others anymore. Besides I'll abstain to participate on the RfC as I believe it'll only create more stress. I really hope that the mediation can start anytime soon. Thank you for your time Tbsdy. Erebedhel - Talk 09:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

All right, that's fine. As Marshal is not here to comment, I'm going to say that we put restrictions on Marshal and Erebedhel from interacting with each other on their respective user talk pages until mediation officially starts. What do other admins say? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course I wasn't here to comment; I can't be in WP 24/7. I agree with you Tbsdy, I should not discuss anything with the other editor. However, this other editor keeps lying about my actions and I dislike the idea that you could be believing such claims. Firstly, I already explained why I sent a message to Ryan (also my mediator); I wasn't trying to "defend" Unknown Lupus. Next, I have not been hounding this editor at all; the RfC I made is solely made up of his behavior in regards to the material we have been discussing (Nonetheless, I also found out he had previously made an ANI in which he was talking bad about me and once again found that in Ryan's talk page he was refering to me as a "Patroll" that did bad edits). Finally, I have not called Bolivians "brainwashed" and "ignorant" since I talked to admin Bozmo; what you show in terms of Xav is my response in regards to him telling me not to mention "POV edits" or "Biased edits" (Which was an irrational claim from his part since that was the whole purpose of the discussion), and what you show about yourself is simply me stating that I will not restrict my language to solely words you like. To make matters even more ironic, on the next paragraph I explain that using "brainwashed" was inappropiate and that "ignorant" is not so much as an insult in comparisson to other words of similar use. However, I think the most important thing to understand is that it wasn't me the one who contacted Erebedhel, he was the one who began the argument again. Having said that, I don't want to discuss anything else with him either (despite I made an RfC with the intention to discuss his conduct and help him improve it).--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 12:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I phrased that badly - I really meant that I had a proposal to the wider group of admins. Sorry to imply anything negative about you being away, that was not my intent. I'll be honest here and say that I've not really looked into matters very closely, and to be frank the large wall of claim and counter-claim made my eyes glaze over so I've no idea what either of you are truly fighting about :-) I thought that I'd leave that for the mediator to sought out...

Given that I won't be the only one here to have done this (and I do suspect that's why I'm the only admin to really comment in this whole thread), would it be worthwhile for both of you to forget past wrongs, apologise to each other for any misunderstandings that have occured and then discuss the issues you have in the article in an adult fashion? If you could do that, I don't think you would need mediation, and which would certainly free up Ryan's time.

What do you both say? Can you metaphorically shake hands and forget the whole business? It's not easy, certainly I always find it hard, but in this case it might be the best way. The only thing here is that you must both be willing to do so. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said before, I'm willing to leave all this behind and move on, if I offended MarshalN20 I'm sorry. I recognize that for anyone would represent a very difficult task to read all over the talk pages our comments and check the sources used, and I highly doubt anyone would have the time or patience to look deep into it. My proposal since the beginning was to avoid commenting about each others, I would work on my workshop, MarshalN20 on his and then clean the talk page on the Diablada article as it only presents insults, and start over based on our proposals debate on how to organize the information in the main article in a ordered way just talking about the content and avoid making personal remarks. That's how I conceive the solution to this. Erebedhel - Talk 23:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I wouldn't mind setting an end to this problem. I only have 2 requests (just 2):

1. I'd just like for Erebedhel to please stop blowing up things and being so "touchy." He seems to constantly see my "tone" as angry.

2. Could Erebedhel please come up with a shorter way to refer to him? I'm afraid to call him in a shorter term because he constantly takes my statements as insults. "Ereb" would be a simple nickname.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 00:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both, this sounds like an excellent way forward.

• Erebedhel: Firstly, thank you for being willing to apologise for any unintended offense, this is certainly helpful. Let's do as you say and wait for the moderator to make an appearance - if Ryan hasn't responded in a few days send me a message and I'll see if there is anything I can do. Would you be offended if Marshal and others shortened your username to Ereb? Sometimes it can be difficult to type out, my own username is Tbsdy lives, which was originally Ta bu shi da yu, which is an absolute pain to type out so everyone shortens it to tbsdy (and some even type it out wrongly as tbsy)... it's just a convenience thing.
• MarshalN20: thank you for agreeing to help end this issue. With regards to Erebedhel's touchiness, I think this can be a difficult thing to change, and everyone feels annoyed at times. The main thing here is to find ways to deescalate the situation, which is what I think is happening here between the two of you. Thank you for your part in this. With regards to shortening the username to Ereb, see above as I've asked him if that is OK. If it isn't, then I hope you will give him some understanding and honour the request to type it in full as a matter of respect.

If both of you can agree to these things, then I think we can mark this thread as resolved. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I woulnd't mind being referred as Ereb, actually MarshalN20 called me that way before and I didn't get offended for that. I'll continue with my plan and wait till Ryan makes his appearance for some days, if not I'll send you a message to see what can we do. Meanwhile I hope each one can work peacefuly on our projects. Thank you Tbsdy for your time and congratulations for the new baby. Erebedhel - Talk 03:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So that's that then. Thanks Tbsdy. I really hope this agreement works well. And thank you Ereb for agreeing to ending the problem.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 05:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Jason Tyler

This is now straying off the topic. Benjiboi has now stated that he is not being paid to work on articles, I think if there are concerns otherwise then some firm evidence of this be provided by those who are making the assertion. Asking him to provide substantiated evidence is quite unreasonable, if he does this he effectively outs himself. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 05:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This BLP on a male performer in gay pornographic films was prodded, which I removed explaining - 2002 Grabby Awards winner, "Best group scene", 2003 Grabby winner, "Best group scene"; Deep South: The Big and the Easy from Falcon Studios thus meeting WP:Pornbio. I was going to add more sourcing including this information to the article when I started the next day but someone added a Speedy delete tag and it was deleted within hours. I asked for that admin to restore but they have yet to respond. Another article under the same name was started and also deleted, I don't believe the two people have any connected besides the name. Can someone restore the older Jason Tyler article so I can work on that? -- Banjeboi 07:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC) That article history is a nightmare to anyone concerned with BLP policy. My strong recommendation is that this does not get restored. Benjiboi, I suggest that you go to Wikipedia:Articles for creation with your revision. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 09:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC) That's a fairly reasonable request. Could you userfy the pornographic actor version from a week or so ago and I'll simply let the sources lead the way? -- Banjeboi 11:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot about this (if im busy i see the new messages thing, look at the message and then sometimes forget it). The article version you request is completely unsourced, as are others before it, so nothing to work from. Because of GDFL you can't have the single revision only, and as Tbdsy says, the thing is a BLP nightmare so I strongly discourage restoring the lot. It will have to be done from scratch. ViridaeTalk 11:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Your involvement in this matter is duly noted. -- Banjeboi 12:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Benji -- are you involved in the gay porn industry in any way, shape or form? I remember your two autobiographies (the ones under pseudonyms) sort of indicated that you were. But i could be remembering wrong. Also, is your political activism related to changing societal views of sex involving "normalizing" porn? Just trying to gauge if you have a conflict of interest here that might explain why you fight so hard to prevent blp vios from being deleted in the porn corner of wikipedia.Bali ultimate (talk) 12:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC) And the assuming bad faith award complete with back-handed insults goes to ... . Your willingness to delete almost anything under the flag of BLP - no matter how illogical - is truly remarkable and a disservice to encyclopedic content. Correctly identifying someone as a pornographic actor when reliable sources clearly do so is not a BLP issue. Please find some other venue to promote this absurd logic, editor A adds sourcing to prevent content from being deleted ergo must be doing so to promote a novel agenda, etc etc. Please take your drama-mongering back offsite. -- Banjeboi 13:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC) You've dodged the question: Does your political activism and/or your involvement with the pornography industry present a conflict of interest with neutral editing at the gay porn articles? I think it does, but am willing to be convinced otherwise.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Well let me be more clear, you're being quite WP:Dickish and for all your harassment and bullying I see no reason to entertain your tin-hat theories and veiled accusations. If you'd like to reveal all your offsite activities that have anything to do with Wikipedia and it's editors then perhaps myself and others could follow your lead to being more transparent. Until then I see no reason that any editor has to justify working on pornography subject areas which you simultaneously disparage me for working in while demanding that someone (else) fix. Perhaps you could lead by example and work to source an unsourced BLP rather than simply disparage the subject area altogether. -- Banjeboi 13:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC) You're still dodging the question (and apparently misunderstanding it). Conflicts of interest, particularly when not acknowledged, are corrosive to the trust vital to a productive editing environment. While I could in theory have a few COIs on wikipedia, i studiously avoid those areas where i might so as to avoid even a suspicion of impropriety. If you think i do have a COI in one of my editing areas, i'm willing to listen. As for you, you wrote two BLPs about yourself that created the strong impression of a COI. That impression has yet to be dispelled.Bali ultimate (talk) 13:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC) On the surface that indeed sounds bad, there is more to it but I feel absolutely no need to out myself or the others involved in those four-year-old newbie mistakes. As you have such a compromised trust I'm not sure why you would accept my word but I'm already on record as neither being a paid editor or profiting in any way in this subject area. I guess I should feel complimented that you presume I have anything to do with the gay porn industry but if you need something to obsess about it. So be it. I'm sure Delicious carbuncle will be along shortly to try to throw muck on my name but that seems rather routine and increasingly, tired old news serving only to wikibully. -- Banjeboi 14:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Which of your many names would you like me to throw muck on, Benjiboi? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Just as a point of information: I believe you're "already on record as " asserting that you are "neither being a paid editor or profiting in any way in this subject area". Assertions are different than substantiated claims. It's interesting how reluctant you are to devise any means of proving your assertion, given the potential ramifications if the COI charge is actually true. But our policies prevent pressing you on the point, it seems. ++Lar: t/c 20:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC) RELATED: This seems like an opportunity to mention that there is an RfC currently underway about including redlinks in List of male performers in gay porn films. Without attempting to express my own view here, that would mean that Jason Tyler, lacking an article, would be included in the list. The relevant background can be seen on the talk page, any of the five previous AfDs for the article (including the most recent), and this thread at AN. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Actually it's not related but given your poor judgement in this area it's understandable you would confuse a request to undelete with an RfC to delete entries that likely are notable but don't yet have articles. As noted above Jason Tyler has won two major awards in this field thus his article - hypothetically at AfD - would indeed be kept. Like many articles in the area it was targeted and deleted because the right editor(s) didn't save it in time and the other editors concerned didn't bother to see if reliable sourcing did exist. But you can invent your own explanations and fill in hypothetical gay porn cabal tales and invent all sorts of ways to disparage me and out who you think I am, really, after several months one would hope you actually had something positive and collaborative to offer besides combatting other editors. I've only seen you attempt one dramatic episode after the next to delete information. It's quite disruptive and interfering with improving these articles. -- Banjeboi 14:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC) One more time - I have suggested several times now that properly sourced articles be created for any notable performers that are currently red links. That is expanding gay porn content, not deleting it. I do not know how you can so consistently fail to understand that this is not about you nor about the inclusion of gay porn performers in Wikipedia. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Your track record in this area contradict your assertions, every involvement of yours on that list has been to delete wikilinks and sourced content. It's quite disingenuous to pretend that you're trying to expand coverage when you insist that every entry without an article already built has to be removed. Luckliy other editors with less emotional investment seem to be weighing in. Luckily the article was also protected to help you avoid edit-warring. -- Banjeboi 14:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Benjiboi, I got tired of dealing with your distortions of my actions long ago, which is why I started this thread at WP:AN to explain myself. I think it also answers Bali ultimate's question. Feel free to have the last word. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC) And ... end scene. And yet you interject in an off-topic discussion just to push more invective, just to repost more tin-hatted theories and just to take a few more digs. Whatever's going on in your imagination is clearly more interesting than reality. Please don't pretend you had any other goal here than to re-muck what is clearly a subject which you have lost rationale judgement and axe to grind. Whatever you do on the other websites is your business, but you constant harassment of others is well-documented in these boards; usually a couple at a time. I think the relative concept here is WP:Drama. -- Banjeboi 14:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I think the correct venue for this is Deletion Review. I suggest that only the article(s) not the editors , be discussed there. DGG ( talk ) 19:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockfarm...DUCK alert

Resolved

Having some trouble with User:Mistaknleytaken, User:ImaSteveWillfan, User:Havingfuneveryday and User:Anotherdaygoneby vandalizing page (and their AfDs) they created. Seems all are new accounts and both are making the same general edits. My Duck-o-Meter is off the charts with this one. Could someone do a CU and see if they are related? I will keep an eye on them. Thanks :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Havingfuneveryday‎ has been blocked by Floquenbeam‎ for Abusing multiple accounts: on SMP Studios Entertainment. Other three obvious socks remain unblocked. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

All blocked...marking resolved. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Fox News Channel

Could someone please semi-protect this page. An ip hopper keeps removing cited information without consensus. Two ips have already been blocked this hour alone, but a third has just popped up. Could the page be semi-protected please?--Jojhutton (talk) 03:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFPP is that way.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 week, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. It looks like Jeske Couriano protected it indefinitely, but then undid the editing protection when he set the move protection. Not sure if was intentional or not, probably best to check with him. TNXMan 04:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The prot was in response to a 4chan raid thread and was removed once said thread 404'd. The move protection was already in place when I protted and unprotted the article. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 06:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

There is talk regarding whether the Poll is non-biased. Jojhutton shouldn't really talk because he's broke the 3R rule just as much as me.--69.214.14.0 (talk) 04:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Since you are evading a block, your edits are vandalism. And thats not covered under 3RR--Jojhutton (talk) 04:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee

I've been dealing with a incredibly rude user called MickMacNee over the past day and his behavior has escalated to the point where it necessitates greater community attention at this point.

My interaction with this user began when I removed an expansion tag that had been there for over two years[135], figuring that no one wanted to expand it given that time frame and someone could expand it if they wanted to in any case without the tag.

The user reverted me[136], stating it was a valid section for the article. I reverted him[137], since I thought my first edit summary may not have been as indepth as it should have been and it may have been a misunderstanding. However, apparently it was not a misunderstanding and the user was interested in an edit war[138].

So, to avoid escalating things into a true edit war, I decided to try and work out a way to make the article better in tandem with the user, which ended with the user telling me to "get fucked".

Regardless of disagreements, this user's behavior is unacceptable, considering that this seems to be a recurring behavioral pattern, and i'm not sure other methods that the user could be made to follow proper standards of Wikipedian etiquette. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:39, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"I see no need to prove it to you." - if anybody thinks you aren't anything other than a wind up merchant (and I note this user only registered in September 2009), I would be truly be amazed. MickMacNee (talk) 17:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

See what i'm talking about? I am at a loss towards this user's poor behavior, so I leave it to you, and hope the user can stop this confrontational behavior. I'll check back at the article in a few days and i'll check back here in awhile in case i'm needed for any more input. I hope the user can rehabilitate their behavior and become a more constructive editor. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked MickMacNee for a week for that edit. Way over the line and wholly unacceptable. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Only a week? I've come across this editor before. Very confrontational, especially when a discussion is occurring where editors do not express a point of view that MMN agrees with (example). Had I come across this I would have indeffed. MMN needs to learn to calm down a lot, and remember that other editors are allowed to have a different point of view to his. This is just the latest in a long line of blocks. Suggest that any future recurrence of this is dealt with by a long block. Mjroots (talk) 18:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

usually I escalate blocks in circumstances like this but I took into account the fact that their last block was 4 months ago. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

That's fine, Spartaz. I'm not about to go over you and extend the block on MMN. However, we could impose a civility restriction under WP:RESTRICT if there is consensus to do so.

Never saw a civility probation that worked but I suppose there could be a first time for everything.... Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well if I ever see anything like that again the block will be indefinite, so civility probation will not be required. Prodego ^talk 20:05, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually forget it, I'm making it indefinite now. Prodego ^talk 20:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder if perhaps a Civility Restriction would be a better alternative. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

No, civility restrictions just end up being abusive to the user (who is then baited at every turn) and to the community (who is now told to accept the user's faults since he is under restriction). In six months I'd be willing to listen to him if he wanted to come back. MBisanz ^talk 20:28, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've dealt with MickMacNee in many different situations since I joined WP over 2 years ago and have found his behavior to consistently exceed that which is permitted of editors. I endorse Spartaz's initial block and Prodego's extension. MBisanz ^talk 20:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I endorse any solution that brings a specific result: an end to the user's uncivil behavior. An indef block may just encourage them to create sockpuppets that engage in the same behavior, but if the user doesn't change their behavior, that may be necessary. I am biased since I am involved in this dispute, so please take my comment with a grain of salt, but I hope this user can be rehabilitated if that is at all possible. Doc Quintana (talk) 20:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the fact that this sort of thing has happened with the user countless times, and the user had made it clear that blocks are not going to change his behavior then I endorse the indefinite block. I believe it should be reviewed after 6 months or so has passed. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:36, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of blocks being dished out for breaches of WP:CIVIL. Too many times I've been on the receiving end (and 99% of those times, absolutely nothing happens...) And I've bumped into MickMacNee on occasion and even seen many breaches of WP:CIVIL. But. I would say that saying "Get Fucked" on his own Talk page is not deserving of an indef block. The guidelines say to avoid profane language. It doesn't say it's taboo or deserving of a block. Also, the reason given - that the editor's attitude not compatible with this project - is not in any policies that I can find unless I'm missing WP:ATTITUDE. Perhaps the admin is using their own moral compass and was offended by the word "Fuck". But that's no reason to hand out a block - just cos they feel like it. Any chance we could be enlightened and instead return to the more precise and exact method of blocking for breaches of policy, pointing out the policy, and pointing out the breach. --HighKing (talk) 22:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

As an addition to the comment above which Chillum responded to regarding a pattern of behaviour. As is often the case (to my dismay), there is also no evidence presented of "an ongoing pattern of such behavior". If there was, I would have expected to see warnings posted on his Talk page. Also, indef means that this editor may never be unblocked too - hardly fair and since he is not a vandal, will only end up hurting the project. I would fully support proper enforcement of WP:CIVIL, but this turn the knob All the way to eleven block is wrong.

There's plenty of evidence if you only care to look. December 2008 (my first encounter with MMN), December 2009 (still no change), plus the AfD I linked to earlier. Mjroots (talk) 22:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with this block is that it seems to me that we're being led along to come up with our own reasons. It seems that the evidence has *not* been presented - we're just being told to look around ourselves. That's funny. Tragic too. Is that really how things are supposed to be done around here? It's *that* easy to hand out an indef block? Just wave your hands around and hope there's enough evidence if you only care to look? --HighKing (talk) 22:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Um, "yes". If only you care to look, which you choose not to do and instead act like everyone's making an insane mistake simply because you're too damn lazy to go look. The rest of us here are either a) familiar enough with this user to not have to go looking for past warnings, or b) industrious enough to familiarize ourselves with the situation before making comments about how things are tragic and funny. Either look around for it, or quit commenting about the lack of it. No one here wants to hold your hand. Tan | 39 00:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:No personal attacks which is a policy and says Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. MickMacNee made a personal attack on "his own talk page" which is actually "anywhere in Wikipedia". Rapido (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Good indef block, should probably have happened sooner in view of that block log. Unhelpful unblock request declined.  Sandstein  23:40, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Indef block is very harsh and heavy handed considering the guy does make valuable contributions to the project despite his often confrontational attitude. It seems to me that he has not been in as much trouble of late so slapping an unexplained indeterminate sentence on him will probably give him the impression that it's some kind of vendetta against him. I thought the original block of a week seemed fair punishment for intemperate language. It is out of order that there was no justification for the block escelation on his talkpage, just a 4 word notification. People should not be indef blocked on a whim. I think he should be unblocked after a reasonable amount of time (a week) on condition that he gives a formal agreement to avoid profane language on Wikipedia. King of the North East 23:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose indef block. Presumably opposing The Cabal and posting after this issue has been so swiftly "resolved" will earn me a block too... However I feel that I must speak up on User:MickMacNee's behalf here. This indef block is disproportionate and unjustified. It is a harmful action to the encyclopedia as a whole if editors who make positive contributions like this are excluded. We have a seemingly infinite patience with vandals, but see a failure to suffer fools gladly as far worse than being the fools in question. This is wrong.

I don't understand why Mick's attitude is so regularly combative, and why he can't see that taking part here requires a certain attitude that he might not accept, but is required to comply with - because the overall project just works better that way. For that reason I've not opposed blocks before, nor would oppose this one week block now. As Mick has himself said before, such a block is an opportunity to work on research or authoring off-line, something that he has frequently used before to produce good and valued content (and sometimes it must be said, good content that was anything but valued by other editors who felt somehow diminished by another's contributions).

An "indef block" is indeed not a definite block, but it is a definite and endless change of status. It makes the blocked editor a non-person, someone who forever more will first be assumed guilty, no matter what the facts of the matter. Look at our past track-record here as a community: it's far from impressive. I cannot support such a measure to an editor who has frequently been far from civil, but to whom we are all still required to assume their underlying good faith, something of which I've yet seen nothing to dissuade me. Yet supposedly we don't support punitive blocking, only protective blocking...

I oppose this block, and I oppose the haste with which it was applied. I don't expect my word to count for anything, I'm not after all An Admin, but I'd like Mick to know that his efforts were appreciated and that at least some editors didn't go along with it. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:55, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Indefinite can be very short. If Mick gave a convincing promise to not be abusive towards other editors in content disputes then I imagine he would be given that chance without delay. The problem with a fixed duration is that it is blind, instead of checking if the user is ready it simply flips the switch. Indefinite only means that there is no automatic unblock and that a human has to decide to unblock. So far Mick has responded to this by blaming others, lets wait and see if he can acknowledge the problem and take an effort to address it. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:59, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The casual manner in which the block was upgraded to indef. was guaranteed to create drama – it was ill-judged and unnecessary. Maybe if these decisions were taken with a little less haste and without getting cocks out on the table (Mo Mowlem just said it to Gerry Adams and Martin McGuiness) more effective decisions would result. Leaky Caldron 00:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

My point is this this is not an "upgrade". A convincing endeavor from Mick to not repeat this sort of thing like he has so many times in the past and the block can be over today. Indef is not a greater or lesser block than 1 week, it means that a human decides when it ends and not a timer. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 00:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I am somewhat puzzled. Here we have a block, if we're to believe Spartaz's comment here, for writing "Get fucked" rather than a presumably acceptable equivalent such as "Get lost" or "Go away". Déjà vu all over again. Didn't we have this same problem with something Malleus wrote recently? Profanity doesn't make a comment abusive. Anyone who parses the imprecation "Get fucked" as anything other than an inelegant variation upon the theme "Please leave my talk page forthwith, and never return, thank you" is trying rather too hard to be offended. An apology for the edit-warring and combativeness, fair enough, but anyone who things MMN should apologise for writing "Get fucked" needs to work on their perspective. Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

"Get lost", "Go away", or even "Please leave my talk page forthwith, and never return, thank you" would also not be appropriate responses, "Get fucked" is far more blatantly unacceptable than either however. Prodego ^talk 01:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think there is ample evidence which shows that many editors, administrators too, use exactly the same theme in their dealings with others. Comments such as this are not uncommon. And that includes a bonus feature which you won't find in a simple two-word response, a comment on a contributor which some policy somewhere says to avoid. Angus McLellan (Talk) 01:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

You seem to think with this comment that WP:AGF is an inexhaustible well of goodwill that overrides everything else; even given WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, there comes a time when goodwill is exhausted, and ArbCom have recognised this in the past. We are all volunteers, and we are all human. None of this, to my mind, implies that we should not, when circumstances demand, call a spade a spade. That's plainly unrealistic, whatever model of courtesy Jimbo proclaims in interviews; he isn't at the coalface, and we are. Rodhullandemu 01:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I kind of touched on this on Mick's talk page already, but it seems to me that there is a bit of a double standard here. I don't want to appear to be making excuses since I generally agree with HighKing about Civil not being applied often enough, but I want to point out that Mick's recent content conflict behavior (in reverting changes to a certain Wikipedia space page) was simply echoing the behavior that several admins made acceptable recently. The language used/temperament clearly displays that Mick needs a break anyway, but it at least appears that what is OK behavior for admins may not be OK for non-admins, which doesn't seem like the way we should be headed. (To be clear, I'm not referring to the deletions, but the petition which was a precursor to all of that. Mick has been involved in both areas for weeks though, just for your information)
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• Good Blocks, especially the {{indef}} one. Mick's been a major contributor to teh toxic environment — we're better off without his contributions. Someone please mark this {{resolved}}. Happy editing, Jack Merridew 00:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Finally, the community has stood up to MickMacNee and put him in his place. He may not have been blocked in the last 4 months but he has recieved countless warnings for his abusive behaviour and use of socks. Hopefully this can put an end to such unwarrented, disgraceful behaviour. 95.149.78.143 (talk) 15:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor has admitted fault and apologised

See MickMacNee's second unblock request. The editor seems sincere and recognises his faults. Given that this indefinite block was of the straw-that-broke-the-camels-back variety, and in light of the willingness to reform, I propose that the block be returned to Spartaz' original weeklong period so that Mick has the chance to get a handle of whatever external circumstances he cites as contributory to his poor behaviour and reflect on his future participation in the project. In the meantime, I suggest the rest of us take up on his suggestion and initiate a user conduct RfC to flesh out the concerns raised above. In a week's time, we can regroup, see where things stand, and re-assess the issue from a calmer perspective.  Skomorokh  02:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur and said as much on MickMackNee's talk page. Tan | 39 02:53, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

With the apology in mind, I have made it so. 1-week block. Anyone refactoring (down or up) may go ahead without saying so much as "boo" to me. GJC 04:47, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree, i have asked this editor to calm down a little, to no avail, but an indefinite ban seems particularly harsh. Ikip 06:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think anyone suggested a ban. This is an example of an "indef" block doing exactly what it should, the user is making an effort to improve and now "indefinite" duration has become a "definite" duration. People all to often confuse an indef block with a ban or forever block. After reading his latest unblock request I agree with 1 week as reasonable. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to say in Mick's defence that he wished me well on the birth of my child. I think that Mick can sometimes get pretty close to things and, like many of us, feels passionate about the project. I understand MB's stance, but I do not think that an indefinite block is warranted. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - indef block is way excessive. This is a user who for as long as he is on Wikipedia (I hope a long time) will likely express his views forcefully and not to everyone's liking, but is a net positive for the project who simply believes a lot in what he says and does. Whether I'm arguing with him or agreeing with him, he has a forthrightness and honesty that means you always know where he stands on an issue. I hope he can change the way he expresses to more match community expectations without losing that forthrightness. Orderinchaos 14:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think people are misunderstanding the meaning of an indefinite block. It does not mean "you're blocked until someone can be bothered to unblock you, which won't be anytime soon". It means something more like "there's a major problem with your editing, for which you have been blocked. The block will not be lifted until such time as you agree to address the issues that you have been blocked for". This can mean that an editor may be unblocked within the hour if he responds positively to the block notice. A poor response and the block stays. The indefinite block here was justified. Mjroots (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We cant continue to let MickMacNee behave the way he does only to fake an apology when it looks like he is down and out. Sure he will remain quite for a few months now but you can rely on him being disruptive again in the future. 95.149.78.143 (talk) 15:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Er, and you are? Ericoides (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Rashaibrahim

I'm not sure if this is the right place, but I'm sure someone here will know where to point me or how to help me all the same. While I was checking out some things this morning, I ran across User:Rashaibrahim/Interstate 69, an archived version of an article posted in the User namespace. It doesn't have its categories commented out like most draft pages in User namespace. When I went to post a comment on this user's talk page, I noticed that someone commented about this same issue with other "drafts" back on December 13, 2009 and again on January 11, 2010. Checking the user's contribution list, he has several articles this way, many of which show no signs of activity beyond being re-created in the User namespace. If he were actively editing articles in his user space for inclusion in mainspace, they'd show editing of some sort, so this looks like a violation of user page policy to me. In fact the only edits to the histories of these articles is to remove interwiki linking or comment out the categories, all by other editors. Imzadi1979 (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

• User:Rashaibrahim/Alfred Hitchcock
• User:Rashaibrahim/Alfred Nobel
• User:Rashaibrahim/argentina
• User:Rashaibrahim/Ciara
• User:Rashaibrahim/Black Eyed Peas†‡
• User:Rashaibrahim/Flax†
• User:Rashaibrahim/SWAT
• User:Rashaibrahim/BMW M5†
• User:Rashaibrahim/porphyria†
• User:Rashaibrahim/divya bharti†
• User:Rashaibrahim/Nissan GT-R†
• User:Rashaibrahim/list of social networking websites
• User:Rashaibrahim/List of cities in Canada
• User:Rashaibrahim/Charice Pempengco
• User:Rashaibrahim/Little Women
• User:Rashaibrahim/Interstate 69
• User:Rashaibrahim/Cradle of Filth
• User:Rashaibrahim/Pseudomonas
• User:Rashaibrahim/zucchini
• User:Rashaibrahim/hyphen†
• User:Rashaibrahim/torrie wilson†
• User:Rashaibrahim/LL Cool J
• User:Rashaibrahim/competition*
• User:Rashaibrahim/Joe Satriani
• User:Rashaibrahim/Derivative (finance)
• User:Rashaibrahim/Battlestar Galactica
• User:Rashaibrahim/Quality of service‎
• User:Rashaibrahim/Thermostat†
• User:Rashaibrahim/delta force
• User:Rashaibrahim/David Blaine
• User:Rashaibrahim/Trance music
• User:Rashaibrahim/Model United Nations‎

† Page blanked ‡ Page recreated again * Twice blanked the mainspace article, both times immediately reverted

This fellow's only article-space edits were to blank a page twice, and he has no WP-space or talk page edits. Why is he here? Mangoe (talk) 17:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be no reason for those pages to be hear. Even at best they're making his user pages appear in mainspace categories so at least should have the categories deleted from them. Canterbury Tail talk 17:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. These should all be sent to MFD. GlassCobra 17:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I wasn't exactly sure where to go with what I found, but I was pretty sure it needed deletion, which has been done now. Thanks again, Imzadi1979 (talk) 22:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Ummm, can someone also take a look at

• User:Rashaibrahim/alfred and
• User:Rashaibrahim/algorithm

--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have deleted them on the same basis as above. The editor never appears to have done anything to the pages since their creation, although an interwiki bot led me to this on the Arabic Wikipedia, which looks like the same thing. Not sure we can do much about that, though. --Kateshortforbob _talk 10:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So I was trying to set up a new category

called Category:Hal Blaine Strikes Again - which I eventually did, but first I created one called Category:Hal Blaine Strike Again. No s on the end of "Strikes". It would be nice if someone with the appropriate skills would delete that category for me because I don't know how. The only civility problem here are the things I'm saying to myself. You don't want to know. Thanks, Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 07:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

DES ^(talk) 08:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban clarification: Grundle2600

Just to clarify, does Grundle2600 (talk · contribs)'s topic ban apply to articles of the highly-politized and controversial climate change issue, and if not, should it? Grsz¹¹ 14:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Text of the relevant ban, from WP:RESTRICT: Grundle2600 is subject to an indefinite topic ban - he is prohibited from editing any pages relating to US politics or politicians. Climate change as a political issue worldwide, but I am not familiar with the editor so I am not sure how the ban should be interpreted. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I believe it was more about politicians. There was certainly a lot of soapboxing when I was dealing with them and they couldn't seem to let things go even after several folks intervened. If the content being propped up largely ties to associating politicians with varying sides of an issue likely they should desist lest the topic ban be more widely construed. Frankly they would do well to get many months of uncontested and uncontroversial editing in before going into areas that are a part of the culture wars. -- Banjeboi 15:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The topic ban is clearly about "US politics and politicians," not just the latter. In particular situations where debate around climate change is a political issue in the U.S., I would suggest that Grundle needs to avoid those articles. For example, the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident (while originating in the UK) has been a significant topic of debate in the U.S., and indeed a couple of months ago the White House press secretary formally responded to a question about it. Other prominent politicians like John Kerry have weighed in as well. There are aspects of the incident which do not relate directly to U.S. politics and it might be possible for Grundle to stick only to those, but better safe than sorry when it comes to a topic ban. On the other hand, if Grundle wanted to edit the article on Global warming that probably would not be a problem since it's a much more broad topic, and very little of the article relates to the political debate in the U.S. So I'd say this should be considered on a case-by-case basis, but in general Grundle should avoid any article that touches on political discussion about climate change in the U.S. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 15:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur with BTP here. I also find edits like this one rather concerning. This user needs to realize that he is on a last chance; he is not in a position to stir things up in this way. --John (talk) 15:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's clearly no good, also edits like this. Discussing American politicians on user talk pages, or suggesting that his woes are the result of political POV pushers (and encouraging other editors to take that same view), do not really violate the letter of his topic ban, but they certainly violate the spirit. Grundle is literally on his fourth or fifth chance here, so one would hope that our collective tolerance level will be low. An extraordinary amount of time has been wasted discussing him in the past. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 16:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I won't make edits like that on users' talk pages anymore. For the record, that particular user had no objection to my edit, and I thought that he, I, and Fox News all had something in common, in that liberals hate us for citing any negative information about our current President. That's why, just as Fox News was the only TV network to report that negative information about Obama, there are only a very small number of editors here who are willing to add negative info about Obama to his articles, but we have all been topic banned. Just as you can't rely on CBS, ABC, NBC, or CNN to find out that Obama's promises of "transparency" are bogus, you can't rely on wikipedia to find out this information either. Topic banning me, and removing my contributions from the Obama articles, has made the encyclopedia worse, not better. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I really wouldn't have to stretch far to see this last post as a violation of your topic ban. I suggest you talk about something else.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I was defending myself from an accusation that was made against me. All I ever did here was to add well sourced, relevant info to articles. Those who try to whitewash political articles ought to be ashamed of themselves. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I love to read a wide variety of news sources, about a wide variety of topics. Oftentimes while doing so, I'll see something that I think would be a good addition to wikipedia. So I add it. I have always cited my sources. I have always been civil and polite. The fact that I have been banned and blocked for making such additions says more about the people who ban and block me than it does about me. I really do believe that there is a deliberate attempt here to whitewash political articles. I obey my topic ban to the best of my ability, but sometimes there's a fine line between what is political and what isn't. The constant threats to block and ban me say more about the blockers and banners than they do about me. I just wish I could keep adding relevant, well sourced content to the encyclopedia, without having to suffer the frustration and time wasting of these ANI discussions, and without being restricted by any blocks or bans at all. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yea, well, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Regurgitating the old and tired "all I ever did was..." Mr. Innocent shtick shows that you still do not have the slightest idea about basic editing policy here. Tarc (talk) 22:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, while I have read the various wikipedia editing policies, I agree with you that there are certain things about the policies that I am not familiar with. Unfortunately, the administrators here have refused to answer my questions concerning these matters. Grundle2600 (talk) 23:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the above comment a direct violation of Grundle's topic ban? I'm sure there was something somewhere abut his stopping asking those questions. Woogee (talk) 01:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I voluntarily agreed that I would not ask the questions anymore. But I wasn't asking them again - I was just agreeing with Tarc's claim that I was indeed ignorant of some wikipedia policies, and I was explaining that my ignorance was because the admins refused to answer my questions. Of course in the same section where I agreed not to ask the questions anymore, it was also agreed that I was allowed to talk about politics on the talk pages of editors who were willing to let me, which voids the entire reason why this particular ANI complaint was filed in the first place. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, bravo, good sir. *golf clap*. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't edited Climategate in quite some time. My comments on those users' talk pages were not about suggesting changes to articles, and the users were OK with my comments. If any particular user tells me to avoid discussing any certain topic on their talk page, I will of course obey their wish. But to have a general conversation about politics, where I don't suggest any edits to articles, on the talk page of a user who is OK with it, doesn't go against my restrictions. I think each user should be allowed to decide what can or can't go on their talk page. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I think comments like this break the spirit as well as the letter of your restrictions and I am ready to enact a long block if I see more comments like this one. --John (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for the warning. I will do what you so. I don't want to get blocked. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I changed the title of this section from "Grundle" to "Grundle2600" because there is another user named User:Grundle. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Fine with that. --John (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think Grsz may be referring to some comments that I made (which you can read here) about some redirects which were about climate change. My concern there was with scientific openness and honesty, not politics. However, since I do not want to get blocked, I will add those to my ever growing list of things to keep away from. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Just replace "US politics and politicians" by whatever Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck etc. etc. talk about and the problem is solved. Count Iblis (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's funny, but not accurate. I don't get my info from either of those two sources. And if you look at the userboxes on my userpage, you'll see that I'm libertarian, not conservative. When I added info about Obama stopping the federal raids on medical marijuana in states where its legal, and extending benefits to homosexual partners of gay federal employees, no one objected, and no one removed it. It's only when I add things that are critical of Obama, such as claims of his lack of transparency by the mainstream media, that people object and delete the info. Nothing positive about Obama that I have ever added to any of his articles has ever been deleted. It's only the negative stuff about him that I add that gets deleted. Wikipedia:NPOV requires that both the positive and the negative be included, but a lot of people here only want the positive to be included. Grundle2600 (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The accurate replacement terminology would be to ban me from adding any "criticism of liberal politicians." Grundle2600 (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Grundle, rather than causing a ruckus every month or so, can you please simply agree to stay away from political articles and avoid all of the drama that invariably accompanies your involvement in them? I don't want to lose you as an editor, but continuing to test the boundaries of what is and is not acceptable is likely to result in a long-term block, if not outright ban. Your contributions to controversial areas have been deemed unacceptable by the community. Could you please simply agree to not edit in those areas, so as to avoid further drama? Thanks, Throwaway85 (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

In this particular case, my edits were during discussions about science, not politics. But since there is sometimes a fine line between the two, I have agreed to stay away from those discussions. That being said, there was nothing controversial about my comments in those discussions. Also, the only time my political edits have ever been criticized or deleted was when I added negative info about liberal politicians. All of the positive info that I have ever added about liberal politicians is still there - none of it has never been deleted. So "controversial" really means "critical of liberal politicians." Grundle2600 (talk) 02:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

While it's sometimes debatable about which articles are political and which ones aren't, I don't think anyone has accused me of recently violating any specific policies. The only issue here is what constitutes political, and what doesn't. If a famous movie actor has two sentences about politics in their 10,000 word article, I wouldn't call the article itself political, but I would avoid editing those two sentences, or adding any new political info to the article. But the rest of the article is still something I can edit. Grundle2600 (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I personally am fine with anything that doesn't lead to us having this same discussion in March. Your self-imposed restrictions seem reasonable to me. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User "Dirtyjew,allahpraiser,biblebasher-lover" making disruptive edits

Resolved

 – Username blocked by User:Zzuuzz. A no-brainer really. Abecedare (talk) 23:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Really hard to AGF on this one. Considering the repeated edits to the creation myth page and related pages and the ongoing debate over using the term creation myth at various articles I'd recommend a Check User / Sockpuppet investigation of Dirtyjew,allahpraiser,biblebasher-lover.. Nefariousski (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

As a minimum, it is a serious WP:UAA issue. --Cyclopia^talk 23:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked as such. It looks like a common vandal to me. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to avoid going to WP:UAA right away because from recent patterns of vandalism on related pages regarding the "creation myth" controversy I thought it best that it was investigated as a sock first. Nefariousski (talk) 23:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe someone could add the blocked template to his page? Nefariousski (talk) 23:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

He'll know from the block message. Maybe we should just delete the talk page. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 23:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm all for that suggestion Nefariousski (talk) 23:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw the subject title, and thought to myself, Wow! Who would think that someone with the username "Dirtyjew,allahpraiser,biblebasher-love" would make disruptive edits? Because that sounds like the kind of person who would be a total asset to the encyclopedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 13:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Logged out bot?

Is 66.171.182.55 (talk · contribs) a logged-out bot? Woogee (talk) 03:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yup. Looks like one of the AIV Helperbots. TNXMan 03:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know how to fix it? Frmatt (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the last few edits at UAA, it appears to be logged back in. Not sure about the how or why though. TNXMan 03:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I run one of these bots, hold on while I get some info. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a bug in the older version of the bot and I have already made a change that should fix it here. I noticed that after releasing a new version announcement on the bot operator's mailing list the some of the bots where still editing while logged out. I sent out an e-mail to all of the bot operators asking which version they are running and from one IP. Only 1 operator responded and he was running the new version(with the fix) and his IP has not been editing logged out since the fix. I am assuming that those bot operators that did not respond are the one's editing while logged out due to not being upgraded.

If editing while logged out is disruptive the the heading on WP:UAA(or any other page it serves) can be adjusted to require version 2.0.21 which has the bug fixed(I hope). This will tell any bot below that version to not edit the page. If that is the consensus then I can make that change, there are at least 2 bots running the new version and they should be able to handle the load until the others are upgraded. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I have no problem with the bots editing while logged out. It's pretty clear who/what they are and they're not disruptive (and thanks for maintaining them, by the way!). TNXMan 13:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe the helper bots all run on the toolserver, I have a vague memory of this problem being brought up before, and someone mentioning that editing while logged out was against the toolserver's terms of use. Not sure if this is true, but if it is then the older version should be stopped. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, not all of them. At least one runs off the tool server and it was editing while logged out a while back, but the rest of them run in separate locations for redundancy. The one on the tool server should be upgrade or turned off per the rules of the server. That is beyond my control, I am not sure which of the operators run the one on the tool server. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 14:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

81.144.203.173 at Kent School

Resolved

 – IP blocked --Taelus (talk) 15:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• 81.144.203.173 Continues to insert WP:BLP sensitive material without adding a source, to Kent School. He has violated 3RR while doing it and added some incivility to my talk page for pointing out what's wrong with his edits ([139], [140]). Has also edited as 86.180.20.87. It doesn't like he's willing to stop and listen, so I request someone make him stop.--Atlan (talk) 14:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for 3RR/BLP violation. JamieS93 15:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

{{resolved|He'd better stop shooting himself in the leg, or he'll have no leg left. –MuZemike 02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)}}

Unresolving, please see below,— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Sock blocked.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

After User:Silverlife was blocked indefinitely, he used his account before that one (per his user page) which is User:RegularBreaker. Joe Chill (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike he is on to us. Five Ton Sockpuppet (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Im not an admin, but a better place for this thread would be at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Although taking a quick look at the edits of both usernames, I don't see any evidence that the accounts were used wrongly. I didn't see any over lapping edits on any articles. Other than what Silverlife had typed on his page, which isn't evidence enough for my taste, I don't see how they are linked at all.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

From an earlier edit on his user page: "Silverlife is RegularBreaker: Reloaded." He even admitted that RegularBreaker was his previous account in an ANI topic. He attacked me on my talk page, two zodiac groups on his user page, a bunch of editors on the ANI thread, he attacked Hell in a Bucket, and he used an IP to re-add the personal attacks about zodiac groups. It doesn't matter if he's going by the rules now because he is going against his indefinite block which is against the rules. Joe Chill (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Just like you did with Lulu when you called him a dick? Five Ton Sockpuppet (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sockpuppet. There is actually WP:DICK and Lulu did keep on attacking me in AfD when all that I did was have different opinions than him. Joe Chill (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Joe Chill. Anyways I filed an SPI case like Jojhutton suggested for you. Five Ton Sockpuppet (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats the best way to deal with it. Most likely it is the same account, but I urge you all to remember, that its real easy for someone to say that they are someone else. All they have to do is type it and click save. Its real easy. I saw a thread here a few weeks ago, where that happened. the two accounts were completly unrelated, but a long time and respected user was accused of sockpuppetry, simply becausethe new account claimed to be the other. It was a real mess for that user, but it was all worked out in the end. All I am saying is that we must not assume that two accounts are related, until it is proven.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise!! –MuZemike 02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not do anything matter to you or your life. So please stop (mess with me). You're not welcomed to type about me in every corner.

Reason: I don't want to mess with you, because... (If I say anything related-to-you, you'll say that I "personally attack". And I'm truly really tired, I won't say)

Thank you so much, Joe Chill, if you can do. Take a time and enjoy your life. R•B²_talk 05:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What? Joe Chill (talk) 05:10, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Who knows? I'd not worry about it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Check out new me at User:RegularLife R•L³_talk 19:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked, not really smart to announce your evading your block at ANI before proceeding to attack other editors. --Taelus (talk) 19:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone might need to block 123.27.26.xxx and/or perhaps protect the userpages of Atama and Joechill [141] [142]. Rapido (talk) 21:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Matter at hand

I was aware that Silverlife was blocked indef for continued personal attacks and evasion to continue those attacks. He is obviously evading his block. Sure, PBML did interfere, but he was not the main subject of this report. SL was, and as he is obviously evading his block, he needs to be blocked. If he wishes to edit again, he may request an unblock request at his other account's talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked him. It's about as clear a case of WP:DUCK as I've ever seen. Let's go over the quacks here:

• RegularBreaker stops editing in early July 2009.
• A couple of weeks after the editing stops, Silverlife is created. His first action is to declare himself to be RegularBreaker.
• Silverlife is also idle, until January of this year, where he starts editing the same kinds of articles as RegularBreaker, and communicating in the same way.
• Silverlife gets blocked for continual disruption.
• RegularBreaker comes back a few days later, after being idle for 6 months. His first action is to blank out his user page, in an attempt to undo his self-outing. He denies being Silverlife so that he can evade his block. (Correction: I don't actually see where he "denied" his identity, his only responses to accusations of block evasion are requests to leave him alone.)

Really, does anyone actually need a checkuser to confirm this? I don't, and neither did the SPI clerk (MuZemike) who questioned why the investigation was necessary. Just RBI and get on with things. -- Atama頭 22:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with the block. I would have blocked also, but I wasn't sure as to why the user wasn't blocked earlier. (He disclosed this username back in July of last year.) I thought there was something else going on here in which I wasn't aware of. Perhaps I was a bit hesitant because I already got sandbagged earlier when I blocked a user with absolutely nobody telling me that there was already a discussion to unblock said user in which I knew nothing about. –MuZemike 19:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Originally it looked like the editor had created Silverlife as a new account and abandoned the old one, you'll see there is no overlap at all between the contributions of the two accounts. The editor even declared their identity. While not exactly conforming to our policies for alternate accounts, it seemed harmless enough and the editor was being transparent (at the time) so I don't think anyone was moved to block either account. When Silverlife's disruption was enough to cause that account to be blocked, I think that people forgot that the old account was still around. Why nobody blocked RegularBreaker for block evasion at the start of this ANI report, that I don't know, not once did the editor actually deny that they were the same person. -- Atama頭 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

THF Incorrectly applying categories based on personal opinion and uncivil editing

THF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) has been adding the category American Liberal Organizations to a variety of articles incorrectly. Longstanding consensus and practice has been that organizations must self-identify to be included in this category, otherwise it fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. In fact a number of similar categories (such as Liberal Websites and American Liberal Politicians) were deleted because there weren't enough self-identifying examples to justify a category which is otherwise completely subjective and arbitrary. I've explained this to THF but they continue to add this category based solely on their own POV rather than any objective criteria. Any attempt to correct this is reverted, usually with a personal attack in the edit summary.

Further, attempts at discussion have met with extremely nasty comments, immediate assumptions of bad faith and numerous other personal attacks. For example this is how a discussion was started on my talk page. I encourage anyone interested to read through this discussion and make their own judgements.

I'm not really sure how to proceed here. This is fairly disruptive behavior and clarification/intervention is needed. Thanks.--Loonymonkey (talk) 04:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Try dispute resolution. From a quick perusal of your talk page and the articles in question, there's no admin action warranted. Tan | 39 05:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute that doesn't belong on ANI; indeed, Loonymonkey is violating WP:MULTI by raising a new thread here rather than letting it develop on WP:NPOV/N where I tried dispute resolution. For the record, Loonymonkey has made multiple unsuccessful attempts to delete categories, and, when he didn't get his way at CFD, just went ahead and indiscriminately deleted categories that were uncontroversial descriptions of the organizations in question. (For example, People for the American Way, which the New York Times and the article itself describes as liberal.) I viewed this as POV-pushing because in multiple articles, Loonymonkey would remove the adjective "liberal" (even when the organization self-describes), but apply a different standard for organizations in the center-right, and retain the adjective "conservative" (even when the organization doesn't self-describe). I tried to reason with him, perhaps clumsily, and he snapped at me and falsely accused me of personal attacks. I tried cleaning up after his disruptive edits, but he would just blindly revert me, often with an insult. Other editors have taken issue with Loony's edits, one calling it vandalism. I won't respond further here; this is just a further violation of WP:TEDIOUS by this editor. THF (talk) 05:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I know you're a lawyer and all, and I agree with your general gist, but you might consider toning down the rhetoric. Violating WP:MULTI and WP:TEDIOUS? Violating? One is a suggestion on a behavioral guideline page; the other is an essay. Your argument would be stronger without the hyperbole. Tan | 39 05:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Also for the record (and this will be my last post here) much of what THF says above is false. The issue is that THF has yet to provide a single cite for any of these organizations he claims self-identify as liberal yet reverts any removal of the categories (which are incorrect without self-identification). The fact is, they don't self identify, yet I've met with nothing but insults from this user when trying to discuss it. I'm baffled by the insistence that if I edit one of these article I must also edit a "conservative" article or I'm not neutral. And their case is not strengthened by linking to an example of someone else's false accusation of vandalism. I'll try dispute resolution, thanks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 05:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no queston whatsoever that PAW is a liberal organization. The question is what's the user's motive in that categorization? Is it for factual purposes, or is it just pejorative labeling? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

AFAICT, all the labels were applied in good faith to organizations which clearly fall into the categories, which are not pejorative categories. Emily's List had its "progressive" category removed even though EL uses the word "progressive" and the first line of the article has "progressive" in it. As the categories involved have been proposed for discussion (deletion), I worry about "intent to depopulate" categories as being worrisome. Collect (talk) 11:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Progressive" and "Liberal" are two different things, particularly given that liberal is often used pejoratively. And many of these organizations are neither. The Sierra Club? Various civil liberties advocacy groups? Are civil liberties inherently liberal? I have many Republican friends that would disagree. And once again, no, the category was not depopulated. Dozens of articles were added to it and this was reverted. The article is in the same state it was a week ago (or at least was until THF added them back in). If anything, the category has been over-populated, not depopulated in the last few days. --Loonymonkey (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Since the organizations frequently say they back "progressive" or "liberal" causes or candidates - yes the words are not "pejorative." Even the NYT uses the words. Collect (talk) 20:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:IMatthew

Resolved

 – Unequivocal final warning issued by Wehwalt. Throwaway85 (talk)

Complaint and resolution

(I have been told by a few other people to wait untill this happens again but I'm not going to wait to be attacked again to bring this up. Sorry) I the past few months and weeks (and even days) User:IMatthew has been, uncivil, bitey, rude, attacking and has even resorted to blackmail. Because I spelled one word wrong.... The most recent inappropriate action by IMatthew has been is comments that he made on my talk page on February 1 of this year. (NOTE: this entire discussion can be found on my talk pgae) You see, User:Abce2 and I were haveing a discussion and then IMatthew (again) injects himself into the conversation by telling me that I spelled a word wrong. (He has a habit of pointing out the mistakes that I make and makeing them public).[143]. I replied and asked him kindly to please stop pointing out the obvious to me as he always does.[144] His reply was along the lines of, "I'll stop when you stop messing up".[145] His reply started to "tick me off" as I expected him to comply and back away. Rather, he continued so I said that I can spell anything that I want to wrong, but he needs to stop hounding me over this issue. title=User_talk:Coldplay_Expert&diff=next&oldid=341171534 Not only did he not back down, his reply was rude, nasty, a personal attack and totaly uncalled for. [146] He stated that I was an "un-educated 11 year old". Once again, his attempts at provokeing me payed off and he got the reply that I belive he wanted to hear.[147] I also pointed out that he past 8 contribs out of 13 have been to my talk page.[148] Not only that but according to an edit counter, IMatthew ranks 9th (behind myself) in the number of edits to my talk page with 33.[149] He ignored the facts that I told him and said that he would take my talk page off of his watchlist and leave me alone.[150] Yet he came back anyway, and said that I'll never go anywere on Wikipedia.[151] After seeing the whole discussion, User:Ajraddatz reverted his toll-like comment.[152] IMatthew just reverted it back.[153]. He finally backed down when an admin came along and reverted his edit again.[154] Yet, he came back later that same day asking for a diff on a PA.[155] I gave him one but he denyed it.[156] User:ZooFari tried to end the issue again[157] but to no avail.[158] I finally told him to go away[159] but he fell back on his promise to unwatch this page and leave me alone by telling me to strike my own comments out and basically apologize.[160] I told him again to go away.[161] His reply was once again, provokeing in nature and his edit summary comfirms that.[162] This continued on and on[163][164][165][166][167] He finally left when I brought up last month's incident which I will now explain as well. (False) Accusations of sockpuppetry by IMatthew Rather than give you all another 20+ diffs, I'll just provide a history of the page before it was deleted. The sections of intrest are entitled "You have e-mail" and "Behave". [168] I'll post the full text of his "e-mail" to me here. Text of email removed per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Durova#Removal of private correspondence. Daniel (talk) 10:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC) He accused me of being the sockrunner of User:December21st2012Freak and said that if I do not give him any names of "my socks" then he will get me blocked. Other evidense of IMatthew's intolerance of other editors includeing myself To User:Pedro after allegations of IMatthew spamiming[169] To me after My defense of Pedro's comment. [170] (Funny how he can say go away on his page but he will not follow it on my page) My kind reply to him. [171] His mean reply to me.[172] User:Thejadefalcon's reply to him in defense of me.[173] IMatthew's repy to Jade (or lack there of. He reverted his edit and called him a "troll")[174] Ensuing edit war.[175][176][177] My reply to him over calling Jade a "troll".[178] IMatthew's rude, and insulting removal of my comment and his mean and uncalled for edit summary "Coldplay, I don't have any race cars or legos and this talk page isn't a playground. Please use my talk page to discuss matters actually related to Wikipedia, or stay off of it."[179] Another attempt at reason with IMatthew.[180] Conclusion These 30+ diffs all show the same thing. Despite multiple attempts to talk to him, IMatthew is an uncivil rude and at sometimes, hounding editor who wishes to assert his own opinion(s) into other peoples conversations. This is only the tip of the iceberg. I am sure that others have had their own issues with this person in the past. I am asking that IMatthew cease his own "troll"-like comments to others and leave me alone. Thank you.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 03:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Ahh, you're just like me when I started here on WP back in 2008. Well, I've read your accusations and honestly, you're over-reacting. I will admit iMatthew can be kind of nit-picky but he tries to make people better editors. If anything, you're the one being rude. He's only here to help and you're acting as if WP is just another social website and you can attack back people you don't think treat you right. I don't mean to be rude or anything, I'm just letting you know, as I used to be the same way. Peace out. --SAVIOR_SELF.777 05:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Because this is obviously a civil attempt at helping out any situation.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 05:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I've ceased useing it a social networking site a month ago. Malleus will support that statement as well. IMatthew has been a total jerk to me and several otrher people since october-november. I am not over-reacting at all. Im sick and tired of being treated like a piece of garbage by him. No offense but IMatthew would not know what an act of wiki-love/civility is if it hit him on his head.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 05:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I'm fairly certain that IMatthew thinks that I am the cause of all of this and that he is 100% in the right.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 05:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I think Coldplay has a valid grievance here. I don't see where he is going over to iMatthew's talk page and initiating this behavior. I could be wrong, maybe I'm missing something here. But from what I've seen on Coldplay's talk page, iMatthew has become an intrusive presence. It seems as if Coldplay can't even be comfortable on his own talk page. I don't know what remedies are available to Coldplay, but I believe he's being sincere in coming here and asking for help. When this began, it probably didn't rise to the level of requiring an administrator's attention. But iMatthew's behavior does seem persistently harassing. It appears iMatthew refuses to disengage when repeatedly asked to do so by Coldplay. I'm not suggesting banning someone from a talk page because the talk pages are for communication. But they are not intended for this.Malke2010 06:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC) While I think IMatt's contributions on CE's talk page were certainly uncalled for, I don't think there's anything actionable here. Since Soap's post on Matt's talk page, Matt has stayed away from CE. There was more than enough mudslinging on both sides here. Both of you, just stay away from each other. Matt, whatever your beef with CE is, just let it drop. If it's really a problem, someone else will pick up on it. CE, please just let it go. Stop participating in the argument, and there won't be any argument left. Also, please avail yourself of your spell checker. It's not a big deal, but it does make a difference as to how people perceive your contributions. You will only be doing yourself favours by polishing the way you present yourself. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC) ← The least you could have done, Coldplay, was wait until he was actually online to chip into this thread. --81.151.78.29 (talk) 12:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Sorry but Im not going to back down again on this. IMatt left because he realized that I was on the verge of bringing this to the attention of you all here. I am not going to wait for this to happen again before I act. He needs to disengage and leave me alone now. I am certain that he will continue this when he returns. My aim to to prevent that from happening.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 13:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC) @IP. Now who are you the sock of? This is your first post.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 14:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Like Malke, I think CE has an extremely valid grievance here, and there is certainly evidence for an administrator's attention. I'm the farthest admin from being the civility police, but from what I can see, IMatthew needs to disengage from this immediately. As in, yesterday. Clearly we should wait until we hear that side of the story, but from the diffs presented here and a bit of research into the contribs around the same timeframe, I cannot see that CE provoked IMatthew. Addendum - CE, ignore the IP. Don't take attention away from your main point here. Tan | 39 14:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you Tan. I wish that I posted this before IMatt went on one of his breaks but I cannot take this anymore. I just want to be left alone so I can get back to editing articles. And about the IP, I'll ignore it.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 14:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Don't dwell on this thread either, CE, inasmuch as you shouldn't be looking for "punishment" for whatever transgressions IMatthew has committed. Like Throwaway pointed out, try ignoring him yourself. I know you shouldn't have to do that, but occasionally it's a lot easier on you, me, and everyone else just to be the bigger person and ignore the bullshit. That said, we'll wait here for IMatthew's side. Tan | 39 14:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Ok. I'm not looking for revenge, just peace and quiet from this guy. I'll wait until I hear more opinions on this issue.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 14:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I agree with Tan (and it's not often I can say that :-) ). IMatthew needs to stop picking up on every little typo/spelling mistake that CE makes even on his own talk page. It's just not helping either of them. --Malleus Fatuorum 14:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC) That goes without saying. As far as actual admin intervention, does Matt's behaviour warrant a block? Of course we need to hear his side before anything is done, but there's nothing here that seems like it can't be solved by a stern warning and complete dissociation, enforced if need be. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Well, IMatthew seems to have taken the old "I'm too busy" way of dealing with this, so it's not likely he'll respond to this thread.--Atlan (talk) 15:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC) CE consulted me before bringing this here. I really meant for him to try something else over a period of time before he brought this here, but now that it is here, he does have a legitimate grievance. IMatthew's actions do not seem to be building the encyclopedia. While "ignore him" is sound advice, we are all human (I assume) and it is not always a realistic course of action. IMatthew's actions are detracting from the project. Pure and simple. He ought to cut them out or prepare to have that done for him.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC) FWIW, IMatthew hasn't edited since his last exchange with CE. He claims to be gone for a week, so any block imposed now would be meaningless. Short of a community sanction barring interaction with CE, I can't really think of anything that can be done until he returns. A stern (only) warning seems to be about the best bet. Would an RfC/U be appropriate? Throwaway85 (talk) 15:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC) I don't think a block would be meaningless. If a block is not imposed, then it sounds like, "It's okay to behave this way so long as you take off and don't respond on the AN/I. Wouldn't everybody like a self-imposed block to keep their record clean? Sorry, iMatthew deserves a block whether he's here to enjoy it or not.Malke2010 16:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Tend to agree with Make. Block him for 24 hours for incivility, it will not inconvenience him but will put him on notice that third grade behavior towards other editors is not tolerated. Yes, CE could have ignored him. Guess what, not everyone is capable of totally ignoring taunts. That does not give the taunter carte blanche to continue his behavior. A short block seems in order.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Couldn't agree more. I was once blocked for 10 seconds I recall. I was hardly going to notice that either, was I. Different rules for different editors once again. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Again, can we please wait until we either hear from IMatthew here, or he starts editing again (meaning he's ignoring this thread)? It's cliche and bromidic, but blocks are preventative. This thread can be the warning, or someone can leave one on his talk page, but I'd like to hear from him first - and unless the taunting (really, that's what it is) continues, I don't think a block is necessary. Tan | 39 16:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Agreed. What good does it do for him to come back and see that he was blocked as the result of an AN/I thread he never knew about and didn't take part in? If anything, that's just likely to further inflame the situation here. There's a difference between what's just and what's likely to result in a deescalation, and I think we must push for the latter. Throwaway85 (talk) 16:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Well now that we are all on the same page bout his actions, I do not agree to block him at all until we hear his side of the story (or lack there-of). When he returns we can give him a stern warning that his actions are not in good faith and that he needs to stop or this will continue. I am all for a ban from any kind of interaction with me or anyone else here how as the same issues with him though.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 17:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC) And look, I got a warning for cussing him out om my talk page even though he provoked and taunted me endless times and even said that I was a sock runner. This guy has no idea what AGF is. If I got warned for loseing it then someone needs to go over to his TP and do the same.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 17:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC) It's okay, CE. One way or another, his behaviour will stop. You have several admins taking an active interest in the case. Should he return and continue his hounding, he will be blocked. In the meantime, I think it behooves us to figure how to handle the situation in such a way so as to defuse the tension. A punitive block at this point would do more harm than good. Wehwalt or Tan, would either of you be willing to leave a final warning on his talk page, or should we wait for him to return and proceed from there? Throwaway85 (talk) 17:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC) This may seem stupid but I am afraid that if we wait for him to return, this whole thing will blow over and IMatt will get away with it scott-free. This happened last time when I started a WQA on him. No one payed attention because he left right after I started the WQA. He seems to sneek away whenever things start to get too hot and that's why he never gets in trouble. On the other hand, I am always on almost everyday so I am the one who gets all of the comments about "me being the bigger person" ect ect. Look, If IMatt is so grown up and mature then he should'nt be doing this. People keep on useing the fact that I'm a minor as to why I am at fault "you're immature so it's all your fault. You need to be the bigger person" Well It's time for him to be the "bigger person".--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 17:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Not stupid at all, as that's exactly what will happen, and everyone here knows it. --Malleus Fatuorum 17:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Then I'm all in favor of haveing Tan or Wehwalt go over to his TP now. It will still be there when IM returns.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 18:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Seems reasonable. FWIW CE, I had no idea you were a minor, nor do I think you need to "be the bigger person". IMatt's behaviour is clearly unacceptable, and should be addressed promptly. My hope is that you, too, will take something away from this. I'm not suggesting you did anything wrong, but if something like this happens in the future, here's my recommendation: The first time someone brings a concern to you, discuss it with them. If you think it's baseless, thank them for their feedback and let that be that. If they bring it up again, tell them that you understood their concern the first time, and do not wish to discuss it further. If they continue to pester you, simply revert their edits to your talkpage (you're well within your rights to do that), and ignore them. If it continues, contact an admin. You'll find if you do things this way that you won't get nearly as stressed out about it, as it is much less distressing to simply revert and ignore a user who is hounding you than it is to engage with them. Nevertheless, you are still within your rights to ask an admin to intervene. Throwaway85 (talk) 18:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Good advice Throwaway85. Coldplay is younger and iMatthew claims to be an adult with a job in real life. Picking on a kid? Sorry, something needs fixing here. A block could do it.Malke2010 18:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Sigh. There doesn't seem to be consensus for a block. This time. I've issued a very strong warning. Hopefully, there won't be a dry seat in the house.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you Wehwalt. Maybe now this will end. Do you all think that IM will even reply to this thread? My guess is that he will stay off-wiki for a while (longer than a week) just to let things die down and people to forget. But I'm willing to give him the BOTD. Perhaps now I can finally be left alone after over 6 months of non-stop drama related incidents. From the User:Gurrenlaggan incident, to the NoR needs to stop reverting good edits fiasco, to the OSK and NoR are socks (or are they) incident, to the First IM issue, to me loseing it over the Wikipedia Review, to Me and Malleus argueing over it, and now this. Perhaps now I'll no longer be a center of attention.--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 19:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Well I wish you the best of luck. If you'll forgive yet another nugget of wisdom from an ancient university student, pick an area that you're interested in and quietly edit those articles until everything blows over. Some places (and, unfortunately, people) on Wikipedia are drama loci. Stick with something that makes you happy and let everyone else bicker. I'll be keeping an eye on IMatt and your talk page to nip any further problems in the bud. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Thank you Throwaway. Now should this thread be marked as resolve?--Coldplay Expért Let's talk 19:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Yes. Throwaway please mark it closed.Malke2010 19:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC) Done. Collapsing so as not to take up all of AN/I. Throwaway85 (talk) 19:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Stürmkrieger's SPA edits to Bosniaks

Resolved

 – Indef-blocked.  Sandstein  21:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User: Stürmkrieger is a single purpose account. His prime purpose on Wikipedia appears to be to provoke Bosniaks (Bosnian Muslims). I warned him of Balkans Sanctions on 8 January User_talk:Stürmkrieger#Balkans_Sanctions. His old account (see User talk:Der Stürmer) was indefinitely blocked for having Nazi links to the username, he claimed this wasn’t his intention but his new account User:Stürmkrieger sounds just as Nazi in tone and can be interpreted as “storm warrior” which seems like a reference to Sturmabteilung. His explanation about it being a football nickname might be acceptable if he didn’t appear to be a Croat nationalist editor whose only role on Wikipedia appears to be nationalist in nature. Extreme Croat nationalists often have Nazi links through the Ustaše. I don’t think this is a case for a simple change of username which is why I am reporting to AN/I and not UAA. This is because his additions to Talk:Bosniaks (the only article he makes any contribution on) are generally uncivil and provocative. I feel his additions appear to be racially motivated in a negative way. This is made more evident by the name of the account. Examples of his additions are “I hate to tell you but you are (like every other Bosnian Muslim) totally wrong ... Bosnian Muslims (or as they call themselves Bosniaks)“ [181],[182], [183],[184],[185],[186],[187]. There should be no room on Wikipedia for this type of single purpose editor. Polargeo (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support block or at least long-term topic ban. I've looked over a sample of his contributions, and found nothing either polite or constructive. And the username, in pidgin German complete with Heavy Metal umlauts, is problematic in itself, as it indeed suggests identification with Nazi elements. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 17:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have indef blocked. Look at the editor's first edit, declaring themselves as the blocked editor Der Stürmer. That editor was blocked for having a username with Nazi propoganda, and was asked to create a new account. They did so (after asking 3 times to be unblocked), and made an account with a name that was just as objectionable as the one before. The POV edits are just icing on the cake here, really. I've hardblocked the editor, I think we've given them enough chances already. -- Atama頭 18:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Outcome of discussion about playmate notability policy

Maybe some administrator(s) would be the right person to state the outcome of the recent discussion contesting item #3 of the notability criteria for porn performers. The criterion states that if someone "is a Playboy Playmate", that she is notable. The discussion focused on either or not this is in odds with WP:BLP#1E.

I tried to implement the change in the policey[188] but it seems my views interfered with my interpretation of the debate outcome (if any). I would like someone to step in and do the Right Thing. --Damiens.rf 16:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think any consensus was developed in that short discussion. Perhaps frustrating, but I think either more discussion or a different venue would be required.  Frank  |  talk  16:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What would be the proper "different venue"? for discussing a perceived incompatibility between policies? --Damiens.rf 16:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, now you want me to say something useful? :-) Honestly I'm not sure; how about WP:P* or WP:RFC?  Frank  |  talk  16:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This looks like an issue easy to decide in a straightforward yes/no RfC. Pcap ping 16:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:P* would not be a good place. The criteria was created by the folks there, so their opinion is already knows. It should be a place where a more broad audience (at least include those interested in the broader policy WP:BLP#1E) would take part.

Is it really need to start an RFC? While some argued against the removal of the criterion, there was not really arguments for how it does not fails WP:BLP#1E. Are RFCs productive in such discussions? I'm not that familiar with them. --Damiens.rf 17:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, there's WP:SILENCE to consider. My answer above reflected that I don't think consensus was established. Finer points about the policy itself and its relationship to 1E are probably not productive on this page.  Frank  |  talk  17:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

By "police" I assume you mean "policy"? I've amended the header but will leave it to you to correct your typo. –xeno^talk 17:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I was about to ask how I can apply to join the Playmate Police. Sounds like fun. :) -- Atama頭 17:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Thanks, --Damiens.rf 17:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I have created the RFC at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people)#RFC: Every playmate is notable. I hope we can build something from that discussion. --Damiens.rf 20:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Threat made by user

I'm a neutral Third Opinion Wikipedian who issued a Third Opinion at Talk:Kundalini_yoga#Kundalini_Yoga_Benefits yesterday. When I went back to see if the dispute had settled, it had not but had instead expanded. One of the two disputants who were involved in the 3O request, Fatehji, was not, however, involved in the expanded dispute, so I checked his user talk page and found this message from the other disputant Atmapuri, sent five days ago. The message ends in a threat of spiritual cursing:

"Anybodies edits on the page of Kundalini Yoga, which are not in line with the will of God, lead directly to hell. Whoever feels confident enough to know what that is, is free to make them. For you however, is this THE LAST WARNING! If you think you can not be cursed in the grain of sand on the beach of an ocean in your next life, you are mistaken."

If I had spotted this prior to issuing my Third Opinion, I would not have opined and would have reported the threat here immediately, but I didn't. BTW, the article in dispute was fully page protected by NJA due to edit warring between these two editors. Best regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've notified the user in question for you!

To be fair, they look pretty disruptive, but if their "threat" is to put a curse on you, I'm not sure how seriously it should be taken... ╟─TreasuryTag►belonger─╢ 16:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, you got there before I did, but it was the other user that made the threat and I've notified him. Between believers, which seems to be the case here, a threat of cursing is as real and as damaging as a threat of legal action or violence. Regards, TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 16:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, threats of curses are psychological harassment and can upset some editors, but as a first offense and in isolation it is unworthy of much action, give him a level 4 warning about it and if he curses anyone again treat is as a civility violation. Off2riorob (talk) 17:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done — TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 18:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Besides the curse, the editor doesn't seem to understand the proper use of article talk pages, which he seems to be using to preach. Dougweller (talk) 18:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What if we cast an itching curse with a protection spell back at him? I mean, clearly I get that this could offend people who believe in such things...I guess. --Smashville^talk 19:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Surely I deserve a curse sent this way for having protecting the page? Anyhow the same editor did threaten to challenge my admin rights, in case anyone is interested. I simply ignored it. NJA (t/c) 19:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I doubt he'll do it. The curse would barely be justified (even with a Ravenloftian rationale) and he's not taking into account the possibility there are other worlds with sapient beings out there - worlds where such vague curses are good-luck exhortations. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 19:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry, I've cast an anti-desysopping-via-curse protection spell. --Smashville^talk 20:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

AlexLevyOne-Numéro1Mondial

Resolved

Hello, please block Numéro1Mondial who is an AlexLevyOne's sockpuppet (see checkuser verification on fr:). Thank you in advance, Moyg (talk) 20:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. JohnCD (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And tagged. Tim Song (talk) 21:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat at Hentai

Resolved

 – IP blocked for legal threats; and we go on with our lives

An IP editor has made this legal threat regarding an image on the article Hentai (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (NSFW). Nihonjoe (talk · contribs) has already left a note about not making legal threats on the IPs talkpage. Looking though the article's, there appears to have been several attempts to remove the image since it was added in July 2009. There may be a need to make this a protected image. —Farix (t | c) 22:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked. He's said very clearly that he will be suing Wikipedia, which means his lawyer needs to contact Wikimedia counsel. If he was lying, that is his responsibility to clarify. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:17, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:JBsupreme "revenge" deletion and general belligerence

There has, sadly, been a rather bad editing pattern for a while by JBsupreme (talk · contribs · logs). He frequently places {prod} and AfD tags on articles without any edit comment, in the hope of "sneaking by" a deletion without any concerned editors becoming aware of it--and also generally to make it difficult for admins to follow the edit history of articles. Within AfD discuissions, JBsupreme is consistently belligerent to other editors, insulting anyone who believes a given article should be Kept, I suppose in an effort to bully through the deletion result. A large number of editors have complained of theses behaviors on his talk page, since long before I ever became aware of JBsupreme's existence, and several of them have brought the matter to ANI previously.

In response to these many complaints, the editor has not altered his behavior, since for whatever reason, s/he simply seems to want as many articles (but especially software-related articles) deleted as possible. In general, a large majority of this editor's edits have been deletion nominations; I am not sure if the editor has ever actually contributed to improvement of any article.

I recently placed another polite notice on the talk page of JBsupreme urging use of edit comments, and he promptly removed it with a personal attack in the edit summary (a rare use of the summaries by him, perhaps ironically):

• [189] (Undid revision 341447627 by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk) troll elsewhere please)

Following that, JBsupreme decided to extend the "revenge" effort to trying to delete first the biography about me (under my outside name, of course) at:

• [190] no edit summary, naturally (article: David Mertz)

And then to look around for articles I have created to slap a nomination on:

• [191] no edit summary (article List of Python software)

I honestly don't know how to approach this particular brand of disruption, but it seems to be ongoing and getting worse. There are a number of hard-working editors who must simply spend all their attention on trying to fix the harms caused by JBsupreme, and that fact is highly destructive. LotLE×talk 19:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• An anon also noted on my talk page that JBsupreme was already prohibited from the belligerence in arbitration. LotLE×talk 20:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you feel you have a case, a request for comment on user conduct is probably the best way to deal with this. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If the claims check out (I haven't had a chance to verify them yet), an RfC is an unnecessary waste of time. The editor could be banned from deletion work for some period, and restricted from further harassing LOTLE, or else warned to stop under threat of restriction, either by community consensus or administrator discretion. LotLE, you say that he he has nominated articles "such as" the one you list. Are there others? - Wikidemon (talk) 19:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I was looking around at edit history while posting this. I have revised my wording to indicate that it is just the one software article currently "revenge nominated" LotLE×talk 19:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTE --User JBsupreme has beeen informed of this matter -->User talk:JBsupreme#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents...Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand what "in the hope of "sneaking by" a deletion without any concerned editors becoming aware of it" means. Is it more likely to be seen in an edit summary that just happens to be racing by on Recent Changes than by people looking at the articles if they really care about them, and seeing the tags? 67.51.38.51 (talk) 19:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The people who care about them will have the articles in their watchlist, and will see the edit summaries of the last N edits, rather than checking through every single article on a weekly basis. If there's nothing to catch their attention out of a large list of edits, that's what "sneaking by" would refer to. Also, you're supposed to notify the main contributors to an article on their talk page: I can't see him doing that for the last few days' batch of AfDs. Holly25 (talk) 20:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The afd template says Please consider notifying the author(s) by placing {{subst:adw|Guide to deletion}} ~~~~ on their talk page(s). If you believe the notification should be mandatory, take it up on the deletion policy pages, not here.Woogee (talk) 01:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

"It is generally considered civil to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion." It would never be mandatory because popular articles can have hundreds of minor editors making it impractical. But that isn't the case if you make a habit of never notifying, even on low-traffic articles. That's a pattern going against what would generally be considered civil, not a problem with the existing rules. Holly25 (talk) 15:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Re:67.51.38.51: Unfortunately, JBsupreme has also done something to hide the TOC on his talk page, which makes linking to sections difficult. The following (quoted) gets at the gist of numerous complaints by editors:

27 Edit summaries for PROD nominations
Just a friendly reminder to use an edit summary when proposing deletion for an article. Edit summary usage is always good, but it is especially important that edit summaries are used when proposing deletion. The reason for this is that articles proposed for deletion that later have the {prod} tag removed should not be proposed for deletion again, but rather sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The only easy way to check if an article was previously proposed for deletion is to look at the edit history and the edit summaries people have left before. Thanks! --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 18:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Or also:

37 Prods
Howdy. FYI, if an article is tagged with {prod} and it is then contested, you aren't supposed the tag the article with {prod} a 2nd time.--Rockfang (talk) 05:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, many AfD nominations are filed, but in a manner to try to hide notice of them from interested editors. Editors frequently complain about this to JBsupreme, such as:

30 AfD setups
Hi JB. I've mentioned this to you several times before, but I will remind you again. Please be sure to follow all the steps at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#How to list pages for deletion when you nominate an article. I fixed this one for you. Thanks. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 01:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking through User talk:JBsupreme shows a large number of other similar complaints, many discussing previous ANIs on the matter. LotLE×talk 20:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters has been trolling AN/I and elsewhere for quite some time now. He can keep on doing that if it suits him. There are edit summaries for the deletion nominations of both articles posted. I do admittedly slip up on occasion and forget to add a summary for a prod at times, but neither of these two are valid examples of that. Furthermore, it is not up to me to decide if the David Mertz article is notable, that is a community decision based on how WP:BLP, WP:BIO, WP:GNG, and any other relevant policies or guidelines are being interpreted at the time. JBsupreme (talk) 19:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: This seems to be retaliatory spiteful actions by JBsupreme (talk · contribs). This is a nom by JBsupreme (talk · contribs) of an article (admittedly by the subject on his userpage) which is a real-life bio page about the other editor in the dispute, Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. This is a nom of a page created by Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters. These actions by JBsupreme (talk · contribs) are highly inappropriate, disruptive, and indeed seem to be retaliatory in nature. Seems like a clear-cut case of WP:WIKIHOUNDING. Cirt (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) As a matter of assuming good faith, JBSupreme offers a fair explanation on the lack of edit summaries. LotLE hasn't provided any proof for the speculation that the incomplete AfD procedure reflects an intent to deceive people, although there's some evidence that it's a recurring pattern. (addressing JBSupreme) If you try to remember in the future, problem solved there. The name-calling is a problem, though, as is the apparent vendetta. Are you telling us that you just happened upon that article on your own, and decided out of the blue to re-nominate it barely three months after it survived its last deletion nomination? It would appear that your dispute with this editor carried you there. Back to the original complaint, I think it rests on an assumption of bad faith that others may not be so willing to make. The easiest solution, I think, is for the two of you to try to see the good in each other and make up, or failing that, just disengage. Yes, there was some hounding, but the damage can be undone easily enough. The nominations ought to be withdrawn, but both of those articles will likely survive AfD even if carried to its full term. Just my opinion. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree with Wikidemon that the two AFD nominations should be withdrawn, and then the two editors should agree to disengage from each other in the future. Cirt (talk) 20:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

From a completely uninvolved point of view, this looks like a case of wikihounding which is in violation of an ArbCom ruling in which JBsupreme "is warned to refrain from incivility and personal attacks". It appears to me that some sort of action against JBsupreme may be warranted. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 20:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for pointing that out, I was unaware of that ArbCom ruling regarding JBsupreme. This certainly seems to merit administrative action. Cirt (talk) 20:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, JBsupreme has called me a "troll" and some other insults on some AfD pages (which I'm having trouble locating, however, in a quick search). That probably violates the arbitration ruling on WP:NPA. However, my concern really is not that my fragile feelings were hurt by being called a mean name... rather, I find his disruptive behavior around "delete by every means (including deception, bullying, etc)" to be the underlying issue. LotLE×talk 21:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I knew that name sounded familiar. This has been going on for quite some time.[192][193] Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I recently observed behaviour of JBsupreme which looked to me like deceiving and I filed an ANI thread about it a few days ago, which went basically uncommented and went to the archive. I just want to mention it again, in case it is part of a bigger picture and relevant here: [194]. JBsupreme, please don't take this as a personal attack, I only mentioned it. --thommey (talk) 21:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• • With respect to the AfDs, an AfD on David Mertz could possibly be in good faith--a simultaneous one against Mertz' RL field of work-- List of Python software, after a unanimous first AfD, makes it seem otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 23:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    • This editor strikes me as one who has difficulty letting things go when consensus is against him. Resolute 05:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
      • I endorse the above view of Resolute with concern. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC).

drama stirring sockpuppets of banned users nailed themselves here.

Sockpuppeting also? It looks like as well as the other things, JBsupreme has created a WP:SPA sockpuppet to cast the only other "Delete" !Votes on the mentioned articles (other than the !votes as JBsupreme himself:User:CatNazi. This account put some "attacks" on User talk:JBsupreme, but that looks like a ruse to hide the sockpuppeting, IMO. LotLE×talk 22:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC) See section below. Is there any particular reason to suspect it's JBsupreme? You've had trolls after you in the past, right? Also... I find the name kind of funny but I'm wondering if I shouldn't. Is there any special significance to that particular choice of username? - Wikidemon (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC) The appearance just in time to !vote on losing AfDs that JBsupreme has pushed is one indication. The tone of the "attack" against JBsupreme also reads just a bit too contrived, and the tone reads just a bit too much like the same style as JBsupreme. But the thing that tweaks my sockpuppet meter is that CatNazi uses the same odd formatting glitch as does JBsupreme on AfDs (i.e. use a ":" rather than a "*" at the beginning of a !vote; this error is certainly not unique, but JBsupreme does it entirely uniformly on all AfDs). LotLE×talk 22:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC) You can't possibly be that dense. JBsupreme (talk) 22:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC) It does look very suspicious. Just created fresh today. JBsupreme is the likely master, considering the recent trouble that he has been in as of late. I caught him before, trying to move another editor's comments on this very page. Even if JB is not the master, his recent actions are very suspicious--TrustMeTHROW! 22:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I noted the suspected sock CatNazi is a PBML sock. For the benefit of users unaware of PBML's modus operandi, he impersonates other users specifically to get them into even more trouble. In short, it's more likely, given CatNazi's deleted contributions, that this is Pickbothmanlol, and not JBSupreme. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 22:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I am not familiar with PBML, but if, as you say, his MO is impersonation of other users then that seems like a very plausible identity. On the other hand, I cannot see the harm in a checkuser, as Trusted Throw requests below. LotLE×talk 22:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC) My suspicions were confirmed by Alison with regards to CatNazi - pegged as PBML. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 00:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC) You "caught me" in an edit conflict where a paragraph was moved from one place to another? Get over yourself. JBsupreme (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC) I would run a checkuser on JBsupreme, just to be safe.--TrustMeTHROW! 22:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Hmmm. While on the subject of socks and running a checkuser "just to be safe" It is curious that this account -- Trusted Throw (talk · contribs) -- was created not more than 5 days ago [195] and has since managed to poke its head into all of these discussions. JBsupreme (talk) 23:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC) SPI filed under Pickbothmanlol's name here. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 22:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC) Shenanigans. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Trusted_Throw for details. JBsupreme (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC/U

It's unclear to me where this issue is best be debated, but there's also Wikipedia:Requests for comment/JBsupreme, which seems already endorsed by two editors. Pcap ping 22:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't remotely look like it is endorsed by two editors.--Crossmr (talk) 01:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

True, one of them was a sock nailed above. Pcap ping 01:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:84.61.165.65

I didn't know where else to report this since technically some may question if it's vandalism. User:84.61.165.65 has been continually re-adding a signed comment to replace a redirect in main space [196]. I don't believe this can be considered simply a 'newbie mistake' as they have edited articles before and they've been blocked twice for various other things and have a history of disrupting the RD and other places (primarily asking silly questions like why can't X be a word in Y language, recently making silly claims about the Australian Aboriginal flag). Special:Contributions/84.61.165.65, Special:Contributions/88.76.229.55, Special:Contributions/88.78.236.1, Special:Contributions/88.77.251.184, Special:Contributions/88.78.5.162, Special:Contributions/88.77.230.244, Special:Contributions/88.77.254.193, Special:Contributions/88.78.2.122, Special:Contributions/88.78.239.53, Special:Contributions/88.77.239.146, Special:Contributions/88.77.243.108, Special:Contributions/88.78.6.57, Special:Contributions/88.78.8.180, Special:Contributions/84.62.213.156, Special:Contributions/88.76.254.9, Special:Contributions/88.77.234.55 (probably more then this). They also appear to have somewhat of a history of trying to add silly/pointless things to articles, e.g. [197] (note that the use of templates here further suggests they aren't simply a clueless user, and in case there's any doubt it's the same user see this [198]) Note that while the IP looks up to Germany, they clearly have a good command of the English language. In terms of the comment they're trying to add, it's appears to be true, but there's definitely no point to an article and I don't see much point for a disambig page; there appears to be only one other possible target I'm aware of, part of the name of a character in an anime series. If someone else feels there's a better way to handle this then just blocking the user, be my guest, I wash my hands of it. Nil Einne (talk) 19:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

IP was just blocked for a month per AIV report. Edit: removed resolved tag, didn't see other IPsThrowaway85 (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry just for clarification, I only put those IPs since I had gathered them earlier for somewhat unrelated reasons and to show the extent of the disruption from the IP on the RD (although most of those were only a few edits). The IP is clearly dynamic so it's possible they may come back, but there's little point doing anything with the other IPs and I don't think the disruption meets the level necessary for a range block yet. Also, for future info, the IP usually geolocates to ESSEN, NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN although occasionally other places in NORDRHEIN-WESTFALEN. A few times the IP either doesn't geolocate at all or geolocates to Berlin which I presume means the geolocation isn't properly set up so it's geolocating to the home base for the ISP, Arcor DSL. Cheers Nil Einne (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Geolocate should never be viewed as exact, it merely gives a rough idea of where an IP originates. Barring any further activity, are you alright with marking this resolved? Throwaway85 (talk) 23:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

B once again

Resolved

 – Page was protected by an admin & thread 404'd. Jarkeld (talk) 23:00, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

/b/ attack at Osaka. Thread at: /b/res/194078892 Jarkeld (talk) 22:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please look at activity of BellsFromSeychelles

Resolved

 – The edits aren't vandalism so much as a lack of discussion on consensus. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This user made some edits that I disagreed with. When I asked if we could discuss it on the articles discussion page the edits escalated and appear to me to be vandalism, or at least a heavy attack to ruin the article. Please check this out. The page I am concerned with is the David Carradine article.--Ishtar456 (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothing really concerning here. You both edit that page, and I could see where you are coming from since you seem to have a strong emotional attachment with the page. Just try and talk it out with him and come to a consensus. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Incident with User:Nothughthomas

(for reference: Nothughthomas (talk · contribs · global contribs · logs · block log)

User:Nothughthomas placed a speedy deletion tag on David Lewis Anderson (since deleted) requesting speedy deletion under the A7 criterion. The article, however, had assertions of importance and notability which made it not meet A7. I removed the tag, provided an explanation both in the edit summary and the talk page, suggesting AfD or PROD instead, then left a friendly message on Nothughthomas' talk page, suggesting the same. The user blanked their talk page and placed the db-person tag on the article again, with an edit summary saying they would "file a complaint" against me. I then noticed there had already been an AfD discussion on that article, so I replaced the tag with {{db-g4}} and wrote another message on the article's talk page explaining why that was the proper tag to be used in this situation. I then went and wrote another message on the user's talk page, explaining the same thing. They somehow took that as a threat and began to go off on me, accusing me of violating policies and making personal attacks both on their own talk page and on the article's - for the record, I did neither. The user edited a completely unrelated comment on my talk page and again accused me of vandalising their talk page and said they'd file a complaint about me, at which point I decided to simply not say anything to them anymore. Afterwards, I noticed that they left a note on their user page and the article's talk page saying they were quitting Wikipedia because of personal attacks from me (they don't directly say it, but they repeatedly accused me of calling them a "crazy old bat"). I feel bad for turning someone away from Wikipedia, and I do believe that the user, with some guidance, could be very useful to WP because of their expertise in certain fields. However, they have also been blocked three times for pretty much doing the exact same thing. I asked User:NuclearWarfare for assistance and they suggested I post this here. XXX antiuser ^eh? 06:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have had serious run-ins with Nothugthomas previously. I refer everyone to the following talk page conversations:

• Talk:Art Bell#Obama vote
• Talk:Václav Klaus#I Ask Consensus for a Substantial Rewrite of this Article by a Native English Speaker
• Talk:BBC#Clarified the BBC's Status as Britain's Semi-Official State Broadcaster
• Talk:Dog#Carbon footprint

I would seriously consider blocking this editor for making consistent personal attacks and completely derailing any discussions on articles they suddenly appear on. When the editor is asked directly on their talk page, they normally tell the other party they are attacking them, even if they are not and then demand they leave them alone. However, their behaviour continues.

I am also concerned with the bizarre behaviour exhibited on their user page, not to mention the decidedly ridiculous discussion on Talk:Dog, which seems to have been a disruption because of conflicts over Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. Furthermore, the whole BBC discussion only occured because of disputes at Fas News Agency.

As I have been involved with this editor in the past I will not be able to take any admin action. However, I recommend an indefinite block in this case as they are significantly disruptive. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Apologies to the admins who have to sludge through these personal grievances and ongoing drama/soap opera.

The entry in question was an unsourced UFO conspiracy entry (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Lewis_Anderson&action=edit&redlink=1) that had previously been deleted by 6-0 acclamation. My speedy deletion was upheld by an admin and it was deleted over userid:antiuser's objections which he made primarily on notability grounds (he only offered a tangential objection on inappropriate tagging, the crux of his argument was over a scan of a letter the conspiracy theorist maintained on his website, antiuser claiming it proved notability). As for his claim I said he called me a "crazy old bat" ... I double-checked logs, apparently he only called me "crazy", I misread the "old bat" part, my apologies to him for assigning an insult to him that he only partially made. User:antiuser also spammed my Talk page after I requested, on five separate occasions, he leave discussion about the entry in question on the entries talk page.

The other user, Tbsdy lives, repeatedly "appears" in any entry I participate in editing to take the opposite position of mine, regardless of what that position is. He has filed repetitive complaints against me, frequently accusing me of "personal attacks" but never providing an actual source - just general links to talk and discussion pages - and threatened me repeatedly and is the cause of my previous wiki-break. Regrettably it appears he ducked into adminship during my wiki-break, I can assure that any review of our previous interactions would have quickly kiboshed the community's decision to grant him admin privileges given his rather off-kilter way of interacting with other contributors, specifically me.

Per my previous conversation with another admin I'm not replying to any of his specific, further accusations in hope he'll get bored and move on with a minimal amount of disruption to wikipedia. Please also note that this users presence in this ANI discussion is as a result of targeted lobbying userid:antiuser is doing User_talk:Tbsdy_lives#Discussion_at_WP:AIN_you_might_be_interested_in, an apparent effort to "game" the system and "stick it" to those who are raising issue with the UFO conspiracy / tin-foil hat entries.

Apologies again to involved mods for getting pulled into this soap opera. I'll not be monitoring this section any further, but please feel free to contact me via Talk if you have specific questions. Thanks and best regards - Nothughthomas (talk) 07:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please provide diffs of when I called you crazy. If I recall correctly, I said "that's crazy" in response to something you mentioned, but not to you directly. The article was speedily deleted per the G4 criterion, being a recreation of deleted material. It did not meet criterion A7 as the article contained assertions of notability. As for the "spamming" of your talk page, I was only replying to the points you were bringing up and trying to make you aware of what the policy is. You were the one who treated a friendly note as a "threat", as you so put. As for your allegation of "targeted lobbying", I was merely notifying another user that I know has had a run-in with you in the past that I had started a discussion about your actions in this case. I have also notified User:Fastily, who as far as I know is completely uninvolved. Like I said, I believe you could be a productive editor if you so wanted, but you choose to be confrontational, uncivil and disruptive instead. XXX antiuser ^eh? 08:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The link is above, in my original message. Thanks. I'm sorry you took exception to my objection over your claims that "David Lewis Anderson" met notability guidelines (in point of clarification, this was antiuser's original objection before he moved on to the question of the SD criteria tag), however, the issue was upheld by 6-0 acclamation. If it is your intent to file ANI complaints when speedy deletion occurs over your objections I have no problem with that and AGF, but please please do not lobby other contributors on their talk pages to flock here to support you in an ANI discussion. Discussion should be kept here, where it is transparent. We don't need vendetts hammered out in smoke-filled back rooms. I AGF that your lobbying was unintentional. Thanks. Nothughthomas (talk) 08:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You know that's not the reason why this incident was filed. Please don't lecture another user about supposedly lobbying when you have yourself engaged in this practice. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This all seems like a bit of overreacting from multiple different parties. Cirt (talk) 08:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I believe the only party overreacting here is Nothughthomas. So far as I can work out, antiuser basically advised Nothughthomas that he/she had used the wrong template on a speedy deletion. We are now having a discussion on WP:AN/I after Nothughthomas retaliated with the following edit. I've asked antiuser to leave this thread alone to stop the drama, which they have agreed to do. Like I say, I think Nothugthomas has proven that he/she cannot contribute in any productive way to Wikipedia and I would again suggest an indefinite block. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick addendum - I initially declined the speedy deletion because the article contained a claim to notability. It was only after I did a search for it that I found the AfD on it and replaced the template for CSD G4. XXX antiuser ^eh? 09:23, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Update - I've just gone into mild arrhythmia (I'm okay), which is what happened last time Tbsdy started going after me. I was warned by my doctor not to participate in wikipedia any further, or to create a new username, so that I don't get upset when he comes after me in the future but I just couldn't leave well enough alone. My fault. I'm afraid, for my health, I won't be able to monitor this discussion further. Please do not take my forthcoming silence as acquiesance to any faux point or accusation thrown at me; I'm sure many will be forthcoming. I believe an actual thorough reading of any of the links Tbsdy or User:antisuer provided will more than acquit me of this frivolous vendetta ANI (this is their M.O. - overwhelm the board with multiple links and then vaguely proclaim loudly the links contain evidence of my "personal attacks", when - if someone actually reads the links they provided - it can be seen no such thing occurred). The community upheld my request for speedy deletion of entry David Lewis Anderson, an entry for a conspiracy theorist who claims he invented a time machine and is being chased by the "New World Order", and I trust the jurisprudence of the admins and community to see through this rather transparent vendetta from the UFO/Bigfoot crew as well in my health sabbatical. Thanks; I'm sorry I'm not stronger to go tete-a-tete in these brawls anymore. Nothughthomas (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I rather suspect that the only heart I have ever made flutter is my wife's. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for possibly further stoking the fire, but this comment on my Editor Review is more proof that User:Nothughthomas fails to understand the reason why this incident report was filed. I never tried to push POV anywhere - I merely declined a speedy deletion nomination that did not meet the criterion and then corrected it to use a criterion which applied. This user seems to have a pattern of overreacting and just making stuff up whenever anyone disagrees with what they're doing. XXX antiuser ^eh? 19:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You're offended by me rating you as "GOOD"? (This is what I was talking about, above, when I said this contributors M.O. was to throw out a link to a discussion I participated in and say I did something awful there, I can only assume with the assumption that no one would take the time to click the link and read. How anyone could be offended by being rated as "GOOD" in an editor review is really beyond me and leaves precious few alternate explanations.) Nothughthomas (talk) 22:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed this review. I see this as a general attack on them, and not productive whatsoever. Stop interacting with this editor please. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've had some encounters with this user, in fact I blocked him at one point early in the Climate Change probation page process. I am not sure that he quite grasps how to interact with others here effectively, as it seems that anyone that turns up on his page to offer any constructive feedback of any sort immediately gets accused of pestering him. In view of his continued challenges, and of his own stated health issues... maybe parting ways is appropriate. ++Lar: t/c 21:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

First, in point of clarification, I was one of no less than 6 contributors blocked within a 24-hour period after the probation on all climate change entries was enacted. Second, it's unfortunate you're suggesting disallowing participation in wikipedia by contributors on the basis of physical disability. Third, I am not a "he." Fourth, I have clearly enumerated the rules for participating on my Talk page therein and offered anyone who is discontent with them the opportunity to choose not to participate there. There is no record of me being abrasive outside of my Talk page. The reasons for these rules I've been forced to implement are also clearly stated there, are just and reasonable and - ultimately - beyond the purview of the community as no content on my Talk page is outrageous. If you don't like what's on my Talk page, don't go there. Quite simple, really. Thank you. Nothughthomas (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Show Nothughthomas the door. --MZMcBride (talk) 21:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This user is probably something other then they wish to appear to be, I don't believe a word on their userpage. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm being block shopped to the best. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/MZMcBride_2/Evidence#Evidence_presented_by_Durova Nothughthomas (talk) 23:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Nothughthomas is now accusing me of "flooding admin talk pages with every conceivable complaint" and "lobbying" to get her blocked. I simply asked User:NuclearWarfare for advice on how to deal with this user prior to initiating the incident report and asked two uninvolved admins (User:Fastily and User:Wehwalt) to look at this incident report. At no time did I attempt to steer them toward either side or make any accusations regarding Nothughthomas. XXX antiuser ^eh? 23:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I stand by each and every word of what I said. If someone is being "block shopped" that person has a right to raise an objection. I have done so privately to an impartial admin so as not to contribute to the significant disruption of the "Now nothughthomas is saying this!!!" hysteria that is being stoked and fueled here by one contributor. You have complained the UFO conspiracy entry was deleted, you have complained I rated you as "GOOD" in your editor review; clearly there is nothing I can do that will not offend you. I'm at a total loss. However, You have asked for "advice" from no less than half-a-dozen admins. I will not stand by while another contributor is "block shopping" me, no matter how many more complaints you file against me in the interim for such frivality as rating you "GOOD" instead of "EXCELLENT." Please stop the disruptive complaining. Nothughthomas (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Someone block this editor?

Can someone please put an indefinite block on this editor? Honestly, it's getting out of hand. There have been numerous blocks on them already, and now that they are harassing antiuser I really think that my earlier suggestion seems more relevant than ever. If ever I've seen an editor who can't participate productively on Wikipedia this is now. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I have advised the user to take a break due to health issues. Hopefully this will give the individual time to think things over and reflect on the situation. Cirt (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

They've technically been on a wikibreak through this entire process, it doesn't seem to have stopped them. XXX antiuser ^eh? 00:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

[199] Cirt (talk) 00:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw that, but there's also [200] XXX antiuser ^eh? 00:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

During their "break" they have been attacking antiuser. I don't consider this to be much of a break. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose block. Let's see if the break I suggested takes. If not, and if there is disruptive behavior after this, then I will block the user myself. Cirt (talk) 00:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • All right. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Not much of a wikibreak. They are now back. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Totally misread that. They are off. When they return, I'm fairly certain that this behaviour will continue. We'll see. I'll be keeping an eye on them. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Agree with Cirt. Let's wait and see if they can stick with the wikibreak. We don't want anyone to die over this. XXX antiuser ^eh? 01:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
        • I'm sorry, but I just think that's their way of dealing with issues when it gets a bit hot due to their disruptive editing. In two weeks time they will be back again, and by this time they will believe that everyone has forgotten about this. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
          • @Tbsdy - feel free to message me, if that occurs, at that point in time. Cirt (talk) 02:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Is anyone else seeing this as a blatant troll? If you read the above, this fragile old lady seems to have an excellent grasp of all sorts of policy, uses terms like "block shopping", can dig up old arbitration cases... and then somehow manages to completely misunderstand antiuser's changing of a CSD tag despite having it spelt out clearly what actually happened? Her account was created on 22 December 09 and yet she's already been to a doctor about WP, and the doctor was WP-savvy enough to recommend a different username to avoid associations with her (month-long) past? She awarded herself this barnstar after only 10 days? The "cat lady trying to blame dogs for the sinking of the Maldives" schtick? The deliberately PC "78 year old grandmother, Tourette's syndrome, recently lesbian, environmentalist with Meteorology PhD" who nevertheless is fighting against the "manipulation" of climate change articles by her fellow environmentalists? And to top it all off, after massive disruption ensues, she's suddenly in danger of a heart attack? Holly25 (talk) 00:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, as a matter of fact, yes. I think this is a troll account, and if it isn't then incredibly disruptive. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree that this editor is not what they appear to be, and that their purpose here is not to improve the encyclopedia. Typical of this type of user: only 13% of their edits are to articles, over 40% are to User: Talk.[201] They're either here for the drama, or to back-handedly push a POV (climate change disbelief), or both. Either way, they're disruptive. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I find it incredibly perplexing that this editor has not yet been permanently banned. Please anybody willing to believe that this is a little old lady with a weird cognitive disturbance coupled with conveniently timed periods of apoplexy or somesuch, just look at his or her output.

But I'm not writing him or her off. Let's just wait and see. Over to you. --TS 01:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not happy about being accused of wikistalking and abuse of power. Cirt asked me for evidence of this, so here it is:

• On their user page Here, here, here, here and here.
• On user talk pages, here, here, here, here, here, here (accusation I will impose a block a block while noone is looking!), here (referring to me) and here.
• On WP:AN/I here, here ("Regrettably it appears he ducked into adminship during my wiki-break, I can assure that any review of our previous interactions would have quickly kiboshed the community's decision to grant him admin privileges given his rather off-kilter way of interacting with other contributors, specifically me"), here and here.

Surely folks can see how disruptive they are? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

They're either crazy, a troll or both. In any case, they don't seem to be contributing anything to WP, but rather only causing disruption and drama. XXX antiuser ^eh? 02:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The disruption is spilling into main article space. Have a look at Talk:State media, which I just stumbled upon. They wrote that "independently reviewed the cited reference and can find no evidence the above phrase exists in the cited page, or the preceding or following pages", but a quick check of Google books for this source shows this to be untrue. I don't think they did review the book at all. They also got into disputes over "state controlled" in Fars News Agency and BBC, where they were categorically told they were wrong and not to change the article against consensus. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Is there also perhaps a problem with this username, "Nothughthomas"? The user's initial few weeks of editing all centre around challenging criticism in the Christopher Monckton article. Hugh Thomas was Director of the Centre for Policy Studies during the 1980s, where Monckton worked as an advisor from 1982-1986. This could be a malicious attempt to create the impression that Monckton was editing his own article and dropping a cryptic hint in the username. Holly25 (talk) 03:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I am suitably convinced of the need to bock that I have indef (but not permanently) blocked. I do not know if they must remain permanently blocked. They may be able to engage positively in the future. Please use normal administrator discretion on unblocks if there is reason to believe they will participate positively in the future. Please feel free to unblock without asking me first if you believe that they've convinced you of that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm convinced of the need to "bock" :) , but I endorse this block. ++Lar: t/c 03:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Captain Typo rdies again! Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks George, I think that's a reasonable response. But I just don't see any evidence that they can contribute to Wikipedia in an acceptable manner. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 03:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No objections to the block. Though I would have preferred this went differently. :( Cirt (talk) 06:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

As do we all... it is never pleasant to have to block an editor, and George has given them the option to eventually return. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I also think this block is (sadly) necessary. Good call. Olaf Davis (talk) 08:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I notice that they have apologised to AntiUser. However, they have not apologised to myself for the accusations of abuse of power, that I "slipped into" adminship during their wikibreak, or that I have been wikistalking them. Nor have they acknowledged that they routinely make wild accusations against others. Until this is at least acknowledged, I strongly suggest that nobody unblocks them. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

British National Party

I'm trying to improve the article on the British National Party and have improved the thing a fair bit so far, copy editing it down and putting it in a more WP:Summary style, trying get it to follow the WP:Article size, WP:MOS and WP:Not news. Making sure everything has got a reference with a book and is evenly weighted, etc. In following with the advice on the last peer review. Yet a small vanguard (Snowded and Verbal) of non-contributors, who have absolutely no intention of putting in the Will and Energy to the article which I can, wait around by the sidelines, reverting apparently for no other reason than WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT (the former, at least has openly admitted to being a Marxist, which may or may not be motivation when considering the article subject). In any case, I got a consensus on talk where Will Beback and Gabagool also agreed it must be shorter and in a summary style.

Yet when I started to work on it this morning, boom, there is Snowded, over my shoulder reverting for no particular reason. I have said to him, that I am willing to dicuss any specific content issues he may have on the talk, but he just doesn't seem to listen. He seems to be more interested in getting in the way of the article progressing to a higher quality standard. Its starting to annoy me, because he doesn't cop on. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a pre-emotive strike as I asked Yorkshirian to consider a self revert before I posted the report below. I think we all want the article shorted and of a higher standard, but that does not authorise Yorkshirian to make 5 reverts against three editors over three days without really using the talk page. --Snowded ^TALK 08:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) ANI report prepared in parallel to the above

User:Yorkshirian was readmitted to the community after a long ban last year. I was one of the editors who supported that as s/he appeared to have reformed and is a good content editor. However the old ways seem to have come back. Yorkshirian is currently focused on the British National Party and has been making a series of edits, many of which have improved the article. However several have also been contentious. Most recently a major set of changes were made to shorten the article, these were reverted here with a request to discuss by one user Yorkshirian then restored the changes without discussion and they were reverted again here by another user

Discussion on the talk page indicates an agreement that the article can be improved, but doubt is cast on several of the changes by Yorkshirian who is asked to summarise the changes for discussion and consensus. Yesterday Yorkshirian simply put the changes back in place a day later saying that no one had stated a rationale for opposing his changes (which is misleading to say the least) here, and the changes were reverted with another request for discussion

This morning the changes were back again, diff here I reverted with a talk page request and within minutes it was back again. I then reverted once more and placed a warning on the users page here which was simply deleted and the page restoredagain to Yorkshirian's material. So over three days we have five reverts by Yorkshirian, edit summaries which imply a consensus when none has been achieved. (I think I have all the diffs right, but its all there in the page histories). I have brought this here rather than treating it as a simple 3rr given the editors past history. I still think Yorkshirian is a useful editor, but when it comes to right wing politics or the catholic church s/he can get carried away. There needs to be some sanction or restriction - maybe a 1RR per week or similar. --Snowded ^TALK 08:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be disingenuous at the least. As anyone can easily see, I have entered the discussion on the talk and am always willing to discuss any specifics. How else would I know that both Will Beback and Gabagool agreed on there that the article must be shorter to comply to the guidelines? Needless to say, I have not violated the WP:3RR anyway, nor do I intend on doing so. Snowded's attempts at trying to get in the way of the article being moving forward, seem to me totally political and non-constructive. - Yorkshirian (talk) 08:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Yorkshirian is making large, unilateral, and contentious changes to a controversial article without getting agreement. The consensus on the talk page is that discussion is required. It is disingenuous to say that Will supports Yorkshirian, he has expressed support for trimming the page, but not Yorkshirian's methods. His continued editwarring, misleading edit summaries, biased removal and summary, and disregard for other editors and consensus building on the talk page need to be tackled. At the very least, either the page should be locked so he is forced to discuss, which unfortunately means the page can't be improved in the meantime, or he should be blocked or banned from editing the page for a time until consensus on how to trim the page (what to summarise, what to spin off) is decided. Verbal chat 08:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the average observer, from a simple comparison, will be able to see which is more in following with WP:Summary, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:Article size and WP:MOS—the progressive constructive one or the flyby politically motivated revert one. It seems somewhat comedic, that the two people whose sole contribution to the article is reverting any edit which does not coicide with their political views (as if some sort of police guard), claims somebody else who is actually trying to construct is edit warring (!). A simple look at the history of the article shows the contribution-vs-noncontribution, construction-vs-nonconstruction, effort-vs-timewaste. As I have said, I am more than willing to discuss content specifics on the article, and have done. Yet there seems to be an unwillingness from certain quarters to speak in specifics (and its obvious why). - Yorkshirian (talk)

The various accusations and assertions above are part of a historical pattern with this user. What we have seen in a battery of changes which are hard to monitor, no discussion of known controversial issues and (If you look at the Dewsbury example on the talk page) a failure to provide supporting material. Yorkshirian seems to be under the impression that volume of edits gives her/him some special status and exempts him/her from the need to use the talk page. Also if someone agrees the article should be shortened (everyone) it doesn't mean that you have agreement for your version of the changes. Its really very simple, if a change is challenged then discuss it, and that involves responding to people not simply reverting every 24 hours.

--Snowded ^TALK 09:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Content dispute. Try Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, but given the number of people reverting, I'd say a discussion seems appropriate and deleting 20k characters at a time (and 30 sources) seems a bit excessive. In my view, as to this comment, if nobody is raising points as what should by changed, Yorkshirian, you could always offer that instead of just repeating that it should be summarized. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've made a section on the talk for the final part of the history as you've suggested. - Yorkshirian (talk) 09:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Snowded's comments above. Also the suggestion of 1rr/week is a good one. Mjroots (talk) 09:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I find the continued personal attacks by Yorkshirian particularly disturbing. Verbal chat 09:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• I'm busy preparing a detailed report on Yorkshirian's blatant POV editing and misuse of references on the BNP article. As the Dewsbury Reporter situation is mentioned above, I'll address that now. Yorkshirian has added a reference to that paper dated 1 July 1989 claiming there is a story titled "Saturday rioting". I've alrady obtained a copy of the Dewsbury Reporter that covers the riot, and it isn't dated 1 July 1989, the name of the story isn't "Saturday rioting" and it doesn't reference the sentence Yorkshirian added it to. Anyone needing verification that I do in fact have a copy of the edition in question is welcome to email me (known racists excepted) or alternatively ask ArbCom member SirFozzie (talk · contribs) who I have emailed verification to and I've also asked him to comment here. Yorkshirian's claim that he isn't edit warring is a false one, he's been edit warring for weeks to remove any attempt to bring the article in line with what the references actually say or remove the blatantly false ones he's added, he may have only broken 3RR once (see here) but he's made three reverts during a day on multiple occasions as the history of the page shows. He's also making spurious accusations of vandalism (something that in addition to his edit warring and attacks has already caused one RFC and ArbCom case) such as this and this. Something needs to be done about Yorkshirian, if nothing is done today I'll finish my detailed report and we'll go from there. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 13:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've taken a look at this article for the first time. Just discussing the edit first mentioned, it seems clear to me that the revert, [202], of Yorkshirian's edit was perhaps over extensive. It restored some quite peripheral material, especially the last two paragraphs of section 1.4.3 , such as the quote of an un-named detective that he was disappointed in the light sentence. I question also including such details as the ages of the defendants. It also included an extremely detailed description of the 2007 split. The sections restored also contained a variety of unsourced opinion, e.g. " although this has not been the case in any previous court cases." On the other hand, Yorkshirian's version, while shortening the description, also removed them both as separate sections, which seems clear under-emphasis. As frequently is the case, somewhere in the middle would be better. I think the editors involved should be able to find a compromise version DGG ( talk ) 13:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Despite ONiH offering physical evidence to prove that Yorkshirian has made up the reference, Yorkshirian still maintains his reference is verifiable. Perhaps, until SirFozzie is available, some well respected admin could email ONiH and ask to see the evidence and post here when they have received it? BigDunc 14:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Just passing through the drama pit, no previous involvement in this issue. I just wanted to point out—before anyone wields the hammer—that ONiH's evidence (as described) wouldn't prove that Yorkshirian made up the reference, just that it isn't in  ... a differently-named article in a different edition of the newspaper. From the one that Yorkshirian says. Um. Steve ^T • C 15:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well read it again, the evidence does prove it, since the Dewsbury Reporter is a weekly newspaper. BigDunc 15:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it could still be an edition from a different week. However, I think that 1st July 1989 was a Saturday, and the paper is printed on a Friday. Unless the print day has changed there is something fishy going on. Quantpole (talk) 15:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have commented on the information sent to me at the talk page discussion. SirFozzie (talk) 17:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I issued a warning at User talk:Yorkshirian#Edit warring at British National Party, failure to assume good faith, and personal attacks; as there is now active discussion at Talk:British National Party#Specifics, I do not think a block is necessary at this juncture. The personal attacks above and elsewhere are particularly troubling. - 2/0 (cont.) 16:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, its a matter of regret that it had to come here to get that discussion running, and I didn't seek a block, just some collaborative behaviour. Hopefully that will now happen. --Snowded ^TALK 06:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)