Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive616

Tbsdy

Resolved

 – No further comments or actions necessary. Thank you. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 07:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

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

See this. The links present in this comment pretty much constitute an enemies list, which usually isn't allowed. The comment was removed once, but an admin restored it for some reason. Can we perhaps remove it again?

PS. I've not notified Tbsdy of this discussion, as I'm almost certain he would not appreciate any sort of communication from me. Anyone else can feel free to do it. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:03, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree it's an enemies list; it looks like a genuine cry of distress on exit. And this thread looks like giving the hive one last good whack. But that's just my opinion. Others' mileage may differ. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 17:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Overreact, much? So he's made some links to users he doesn't get along with in a comment. Doesn't look like an "enemies list" to me, especially as the names are only visible as pipelinks. This AN/I post is unnecessary drama, especially as the user is claiming to have retired. I've read the preceding AN/I post and it's pointless drama too, though that time instigated by Tbsdy. Do some editors not have anything better to do than bicker at each other? Fences&Windows 17:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Whatever TSBDY decides to do, I will support. However, his rubbish and attacks I will not [1]; if he wishes to be clever, then he needs to find another forum. I am more than hapy to be banned over this myself and break 3R if need be, he implies he was driven off by 3 editors. In his dreams, this may be so, in reality it was not, so I do not see why those three editors have to pay the price to protect one "Admin" who should have been desysopped months ago! I was pursuaded against my better judgement not to over-react to him over the BP fiasco, I kept my temper and sanity over the latest outpourings from him. Now, enough is enough if he wants a fight he can have one! I am happy to oblige, I will not be emotionally blackmailed!  Giacomo  17:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Yeah, do you want to wind the rhetoric back a little, Giano? ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 17:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
• Whatever you mean by "emotional blackmail", you clearly want to let someone else manipulate you and your emotions. A reasonable, calm person would simply ignore the comment and move on with his or her life. Instead, you are deleting a comment, leaving behind strange edit summaries. Since when is it okay to delete a talk page comment just because it contains a link to deleted material? That's just bizarre. -Rrius (talk) 17:59, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Giano, I think it would be best to leave it. And that doesn't mean I'm defending what happened. But there are a few user pages with not nice stuff about me on them, including one from someone who refuses to edit until I'm desysopped, though that person continues to edit, I continue to admin, the user page continues to note the false prediction, and we've all survived. TBSDY was here for a long time and is clearly upset, so a small parting shot can be overlooked. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 17:57, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• As someone else on the enemies list, I'd be inclined to leave it alone, per SV. If you just can't bear to do that, consider redacting the links to Giano's now-deleted subpage, and his username, and anyone else who doesn't like being listed (e.g. Equazcion, I assume), rather than the whole thing. But otherwise, it is better to let sleeping dogs lie. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I don't agree. The matter should have been dealt with ages ago, and as usual it falls to me to ensure it is. Where are the Arbs who claim they are monitoring this odd situation? Nowhere to be seen. As usual we have clueles admins runing about like ants. TSBDY obviously is watching like a hawk wanting some excitement in his life, perhaps we should give him some! Or do you seriously imagine he is honing up on the finer points of Baroque architecture as he claime the penultimate time I hade to take his rubbish. Nope the matter needs dealing with, or he wil be back in 5 minutes wanting his precious bit back - a bit that should have been forcibly removed months ago! I have been an example of patience where TSBDY is concerned, no one's patience lasts for ever, certainly not mine. The Arbs had better sort it - or I will! I have no fear of bans and blocks beter that than being attacked by TSBDY every five minutes.  Giacomo  18:09, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Still not winding back the rhetoric, are we, Giano? I know that you're always given lots of rope on WP, but, really, there's being a drama magnet and crossing the line into making drama. Please don't cross that line. Please. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 18:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Redvers. The mattter has now been resolved by an Arb. Please do not use double rhetoric when talking to me, one of us is quite enough, and I am the master. The matter is now resolved to my complete satisfaction, you may all resume your content work now.  Giacomo  18:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Well done, Giano: the thread ends with my opinion of you unchanged. And we've got a new essay out of it. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 18:30, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

"An arb"? Do you mean an "admin"? Of course you're happy, an admin protected your preferred version. -Rrius (talk) 18:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Nope, I meant an Arb, I always say what I mean. Oh and Redvers, I am distraught, your opinon matters so very much to me.  Giacomo  18:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

By Wikipedia's only certain law, the version protected is always The Wrong Version^TM. Nothing can be assumed from the version protected. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 18:36, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

How is the person's arb status at all relevant? Unless you are holding out on us about a relevant arb discussion, the only thing relevant is that an admin protected page in the midsts of a content dispute. I suppose you are desperate to put some official imprimatur on your case, so nice try. -Rrius (talk) 18:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it's a coincidence that Newyorkbrad, an arb, on the same talkpage instructs that the page remain deleted and now Risker, another arb protects it with the edit summary: "will reduce when this issue is resolved"? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Umm, did you actually read that edit summary before pasting it? It clearly says "when this issue is resolved". That means it is not resolved. -Rrius (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Does it have to be resolved for the Arbs to be looking into it? I thought that first they have to deliberate and then they resolve. Maybe you have another idea of how this works. Anyway do you think it a coincidence that two arbs have come to this page? Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 19:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• On closing this discussion: I'd just like to point out that the talk page was protected to stop the edit warring, presumably pending the outcome of this discussion in order to decide the fate of the content in question. Closing this means the page either remains protected, or the warring starts again when protection is lifted (one could reasonably predict). IMO the discussion should be allowed to continue. Right now it's just bickering between involved parties, but when more outside involvement comes along, I think this thread could indeed resolve things, at least to determine where consensus lies on the content. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• I don't consider myself an involved party. I was at this page for another reason, saw this discussion, and weighed in. When I read the "offending" user talk comment the second time, I saw that Giano had reverted it as a personal attack, and was himself reverted, then reverted it again with the nonsensical edit summary, "Removing links to dleted content. For the 2nd time. Please follow a link before claiming it is not deleted. This edotr says he does not want to edit, please help him!" That is a bizarre thing to say and in no way justifies the revert. -Rrius (talk) 19:02, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sure that no one doubts that you were "at this page for another reason, saw this discussion, and weighed in.". However, it all resolved here now, for the time being, so please do not let us delay you from that "another reason."  Giacomo  19:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I realize you wan't to bring the curtain down as fast as you can, but the matter is not resolved. The relevant page is protected, and you still haven't bothered to explain how it is a personal or attack or how it is invalid to link to articles that, if you "follow the links", have been deleted. -Rrius (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Good evening Rrius - that's an interesting spelling - how should one pronounce it, I am fascinated by language and pronunciation should one roll the "r", it sounds a little Welsh to me - is it?  Giacomo  19:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• (ec) At this point, I'd just leave it alone, per IAR if necessary. There's no need to get into a fracas about it at this point. Tbsdy doesn't look like he's coming back- if he does, then we can worry about it. But let's just drop it and leave it be until then. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 19:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Leaving a user talk page in a protected state when there was none of the sort of user misconduct that normally precipitates such a step is not a suitable resolution. That is especially true where, as here, an editor alleges a comment made on that talk page by the "owner" of the talk page was a personal attack, but where no one has agreed with that assessment at the AN/I raised about it. -Rrius (talk) 19:23, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• There is nothing left to discuss here, comment is gone. Please allow the user closure. Off2riorob (talk) 19:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have no objection.  Giacomo  19:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Again, the comment is only gone because the page is protected, which is a temporary measure to stop the edit warring. Protection presumably needs to be lifted at some point, so consensus should be determined on the content prior to that. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• If we need consensus here's my 2 cents. Let's not split hairs about personal attack or almost personal attack. Is there any benefit to the comments remaining there. It certainly doesn't help content wise. It doesn't help those angered at being named. And frankly it doesn't help TBSDY who self admitedly needs to disengage. I don't care what you call it but the way it is currently resolved IMHO is best for all involved and uninvolved. (If we don't need further consensus consider this endorsing resolution.)--Cube lurker (talk) 19:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I want to close this, the issue is over, there is nothing left to talk about. Any objections? Off2riorob (talk) 19:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• No.  Giacomo  19:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I am unarchiving this section as not resolved. As was pointed out, the protection of the talk page does not solve the issue, and is ostensibly only in place until it is. It is not acceptable to have a retired editor's talk page permanently protected, not when it is supposedly being done to allow him closure, but in the act removing his closing statement, and especially not when it has been done at the request of his wiki-enemy, who declares he will be happy to be blocked over the issue. Sorry to have to put this so blandly, but I have an admirer here myself it seems, who has taken a liking to removing my posts without even the simple courtesy of telling me. MickMacNee (talk) 23:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Tbsdy retired while blocked, got his user talk page deleted against policy, and then continued to use his talk page to score points (while its history is hidden from some of those he chose to link to from it). He seems to want to have his cake and eat it. DuncanHill (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• I've corresponded by e-mail with the user concerned and as they couldn't do it themselves they agreed to my suggestion to place 'retired' templates on the user page and user talk pages. I've also reduced the protection on the user talk page to 24 hours, but not removed the protection entirely given the potential for further disagreements here. I would suggest that this thread is now marked as resolved, as that is the best way to let this user disengage from Wikipedia. Any further comments can be made at a later date. Carcharoth (talk) 07:45, 25 May 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.

Semi protection of Paul_Gray_(American_musician)

Resolved

 – Page is semi-protected now. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:25, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This is being vandalised several times a minute, it'd be good if it was protected ASAP. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't even know where to revert to. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The page is such a massive fucking mess I can't even find a valid revert point. HalfShadow 21:43, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

This needs to be semi pro-ed quick, there is so much vandalism and EC's, cant keep up with it. Full of obscenities, etc. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 21:45, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL, someone got it. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 21:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It has been reverted to previous good version and all relivent information readded. So all is good. I think this can be marked as resolved for the time being. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 21:54, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad my reversion to its state before today worked :). -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 21:55, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps we should have a particular rule concerning newly deceased people: semi-protect the article for 24 hours following knowledge of their death. I realize this sort of falls under 'no pre-emptive protection' but 'dead famous people' tend to be a vandal magnet. (See also Ronnie James Dio) A 24-hour semiprotect might curb this. HalfShadow 00:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Recently deceased people should not be allowed to edit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Indef blocked user evading his block

Resolved

 – IP blocked

The account Samofi was indefinitely blocked by administrators a few days ago for disruptive editing and POV pushing, however his IP address (User:78.128.181.9) was not, therefore the blocked user continued to edit in the same disruptive way, (i.e mostly ethnicity related edits) which is WP:EVADE. Please compare their contributions. Note that Ip 78.128.181.9 confirmed (User:78.128.181.9. I think its me, sometimes Iam not logged and write. Last user is not me. --78.128.181.9 (talk) 07:14, 9 May 2010 (UTC) Ok, so iam sure its me now :) but Tobar888 is not me. --Samofi (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2010 (UTC)) that he is blocked user Samofi. His sockpuppet (User:JanVarga) was blocked yeterday.--B@xter⁹ 06:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of image

Nothing to see here
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – Bullshit sense...tingling... HalfShadow 00:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC) Please see this discussion. Several editors expressed their opinions on the image in question, and the end result was looking like a clear "Keep" consensus. However, user:Edgar181 then stepped in and trumped these votes by stepping in and deleting the image, before closing down the debate. Furthermore, he wrongly summarised that the result of the vote was "delete" despite it clearly being otherwise. This is an abuse of administrator privileges/community process here, and I must bring this to your attention. 79.75.230.195 (talk) 16:29, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Strangely enough, even a single Delete vote trumps the ramblings of a group of anon editors who couldn't string together a decent rationale between them. I'd suggest you stop wasting everyone's time here. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Before BK beat me to it, I was going to post that Edgar's decision may have had something to do with the fact that the only "keep" votes were by anonymous IPs whose only recent contributions were the deletion discussion itself and one or two related discussions (such as this one). – ClockworkSoul 16:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC) According to the log entry, the file was deleted under CSD G3 as "vandalism". The only problem I see here is that Edgar181 didn't mention this in his closing statement. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC) Indeed. And having looked at the image and judging from some the comments on the FFD, it's probably speediable under WP:CSD#G10 as well. Oh, and all but one of the IPs is probably the same user. Black Kite (t) (c) 16:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC) More than likely.. and clearly trolling too.. as I refuse to believe that they sincerely thought admins would be stupid enough to not see right through this lame attempt at gaming the system. -- œ™ 07:32, 23 May 2010 (UTC) I second the above IP. I came to offer my thoughts and am disgusted they have been disregarded in such a callous manner. This seems to be very much a typical conspiracy of anti-stabbing activists as can be found all over the internet.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.178.143.69 (talk) 19:48, 23 May 2010 "anti-stabbing activists" = law abiding citizenry? LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC) IP blocked for trolling. Acroterion (talk) 20:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC) Please note that XFDs are a discussion, not a vote. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 00:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC) That's the best laugh I've had today, which gives you an idea of how the day has gone. A string of "Keep" votes, all from IP's, several of which appear to be on the same subnet, following by "Result was: DELETE". As if the admin were saying, "Thanks for your input. See ya." Fittingly followed up with an illustration of the WP:Plaxico Boomerang effect. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC) WP:Plaxico needs to be an actual redirect...it's just too funny. — Scientizzle 01:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC) I've been persuaded that it's a BLP violation, or more to the point, others consider it a BLP violation, and it's not worth fighting for. Also, too often we've had to explain it, which kind of undermines the joke. So we're transitioning to the more broadly recognizable "boomerang" effect. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC) I second it being the funniest thing I've seen today, its not often that you get 6 IP's (+1) voting on the same XFD and than accusing the closing admin of misconduct.   «l| Promethean ™|l»  (talk) 19:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC) I blocked the OP after he resumed at Edgar181's talkpage. They've posted an unblock request ... Acroterion (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC) I I think you'll find that only legitimate edits have been made by me over here at this IP... Acroterion (talk) 01:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.217.113.18 (talk) And the story continues, forged sig above, but no escape from SineBot. Acroterion (talk) 22:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC) I may not have won this battle today, but mark my words, my day will come! THAT IMAGE WILL BE ON WIKIPEDIA, WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT. There is nothing you can do to prevent this in the long run. 79.75.155.145 (talk) 10:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC) [2] You OK? ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 11:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Important notice

Resolved

_{towels have been issued to the towelness, and trowels to the easily gullible. SGGH ^ping! 10:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)}

All administrators should ensure they know where their towel is before taking admin actions today.

That is all.

Guy (Help!) 10:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect this frood may have an undisclosed conflict of interest here. Olaf Davis (talk) 11:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Block review: Malke 2010

Resolved

 – user takes responsibility, now unblocked thanks to great work by SGGH and others. Toddst1 (talk) 14:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just blocked Malke 2010 (talk · contribs) for disruptive editing. The user has been on a bit of a spree lately making accusations against others and general WP:TE, recently blocked and unblocked by Gwen Gale (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). I'd appreciate a review of this block. Toddst1 (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll take a look. To help narrow my search, is this all to do with Michael Collins again? SGGH ^ping! 21:29, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

In general, but not limited to it. A related post above is User:RepublicanJacobite_Personal_Attacks_and_Removing_edits_from_Article_Talk_Page where I first encountered this editor. Toddst1 (talk) 21:31, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, even I would find [3] this a bit offensive (I happen to know something of Irish nationalism and its history myself) but Malke has a history of using the talk page for what it isn't for [4] [5]. User has previous for disruptive editing and has a rap sheet with 1 week block(s) there before. Perhaps as a 'cooling off' block the period may have been a bit long, however there is the WP:TE and general disruption in the face of consensus to consider. A difficult one, as he is a busy defender of his own viewpoint but doesn't know when to let it go. SGGH ^ping! 21:37, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I would be willing to discuss it with the user on email and see if they will accept some points of order, and then the block can be shortened with certain... assurances? With a bit of know-how on Irish history 1880s-1970s I might be able to engage him in a useful way. SGGH ^ping! 21:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest anyone reviewing the block takes note of the hectoring by this editor at User talk:RashersTierney#Personal attacks, where they repeatedly assert that another editor using the phrase "convoluted logic" is making personal attacks and seem to have great difficulty dropping the stick and moving away from the dead horse. O Fenian (talk) 21:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Malke was poked with a stick too many times and she bit the hand that poked her (naturally) RJ needs to back away as well and both parties need to leave each other alone. Perhaps a topic ban in Irish related articles can keep them away from each other?--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:42, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Today's incidents have little to do with RepublicanJacobite, other than him being involved in the underlying article dispute. O Fenian (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

O Fenian, you are absolutely correct, the block today had almost nothing to do with RepublicanJacobite(I won't claim it had absolutely nothing to do with it, since it was probably a spark to the current situation), and everything to do with the exact reasons Toddst1 gave for the block. One just needs to go through Malke's edits today(particularly the ones directed at Todd and RashersTierney. Dave Dial (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Let me have a talk first, if others permit, I might be able to talk a way through before topic bans and things come into it, anyone have any objections? SGGH ^ping! 21:43, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

None at all. Just as long as both users leave each other alone with no exeptions.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 21:45, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

None at all. I would strongly oppose any topic ban for RepublicanJacobite, while he may have made a few over-the-top comments during heated discussions (such as this Malke was just as, if not more, abusive) he has acknowledged it got out of hand, a few incivil comments do not justify a topic ban. O Fenian (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I have left a message offering a talk, but stating that there will be some changes that are not negotiable. If the worst comes to the worst all we will end up with is a blocked user, which is what we have now. I'll let you know, but if there isn't anything further this can probably be closed down for now. Agree? (And I think I just got an email) SGGH ^ping! 21:51, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

To me, and regardless of this current situation, this block is long overdue. This editor attacked me out of nowhere recently on a talk page [6], then when I asked them to strike or collapse the segment, they got even nastier [7]. I honestly do everything I can to avoid them now, because I just don't want to deal with them. Their editing can be quite off-putting, and they need to learn how to edit in a cooperative manner without resorting to attacks and tenditious editing to get their point across. Dayewalker (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Blasted software deleted my email, had to write it again, but ball is rolling. SGGH ^ping! 22:39, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with White Shadows. The block was good, but having seen this unfold earlier, I think there may be a more peaceful solution to this. Without slighting the blocking admins in this case, I'm slightly curious as to why Malke was blocked earlier and not RJ, whose comments seem to have been probably about as undesirable. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:47, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

I've got a answer to that question though many people won't like it, RJ is likely friends (or more respected by) to some extent with the blocking admins. (proven otherwise) He recieves a meager warning and Malke gets a week block. There's a fine example of admins useing double standards for you...--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 01:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

• Isn't this area still under probation restrictions? --John (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Malke is a keen writer and from what I've seen, always edits in good faith. However, since her first edits last summer she's been drawn to only the most high traffic political topics, which are prone to more disagreement, dodgy, sometimes awful widely published sources, edit warring, sniping and sundry banes to enyclopedic editing (open or not) than any other areas on en.WP. Much of her contribution history is one of ever more tendentious editing whilst seeking behavioural sanctions against editors with whom she disagrees as to PoV. Going by her edits, in my outlook she gives heed only to what she might skim from quick reads of policy shreds which she then wields to forward her own editorial goals (which I don't claim to understand), towards which she edits unwaiveringly and at such speed that when she runs into big editorial and other bumps here, she becomes careless. Taken altogether (from the outlook of en.WP's policies) she seems to have wholly muddled truth with NPoV. For Malke, this has rather much the same outcome as baiting: Editors whom she has badgered wind up posting weary comments about her which would otherwise be taken as straightforward snark. Some editors give up spending their volunteer time trying to deal with her and hence are driven away from articles. I was hoping there was a way to skirt a long block like this, but I've foreseen it for some time and believe it to be preventative. I'd like to think there's still hope she can make a big shift in how she edits here but if she doesn't, a siteban is foregone. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I've ascertained some things from my email communications from Malke so far. I am largely inclined to agree with Gwen Gale's assessment above, which I find very perceptive. It seems that she does plunge head-first into controversial topics, and I think she takes some negative comments on her editing as personal attacks a little too seriously. She then, of course, retorts. She also appears to have a tendancy to escalate things a bit too readily (she made a logical argument regarding the inclusion of a Category:Cathilic people (or similar) along the lines of "what else do you have to do other than be Catholic to be in the Catholic people category" however she then threw away the logical with the very next sentence: "this is religious discrimination" and then something about the "Irish Holocaust". This kind of escalation is going to attract negative comments regardless of what the original logic is. I do feel that she is not the only guilty party, I have found some of the comments regarding "trolling", her intelligence and capability to be somewhat offensive, and a couple even I of the thick skin would have considered an attack. Yes, she has failed to drop the stick on occasion, however I also believe she (with her rather forthright, uncompromising editing style that needs tailoring) has hit a hard group of editors who have issues of their own and may in fact be suffering from a bit of WP:OWN. Unfortunately, she is one of a number of people who treat Wikipedia as a place of academic debate, when in fact it works differently to any academic or research environment I have ever worked in. Instead, she was barraged by that familiar line of three-letter-acronym blue-links that we are so fond of (WP:NPOV, WP:TRUTH, WP:TROLL, WP:RS, WP:V) and it has all gone downhill from there.

I am going to email toddst1 for some diffs, not because I disagree with the block but because I want a couple of specific examples that drew his/her attention, so I can help the user further. If this should be successful, I'm going to suggest for discussion reducing the block to a day or two. Thankyou, Gwen Gale, I may email you too. SGGH ^ping! 09:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not uninvolved, having had a number of run-ins with Malke2010 on the Karl Rove page last fall. Count me as one of the people who left off attempting to edit that page rather than deal with this editor. As recently as a few days ago I warned Malke on my talk page to "learn to walk away". Now we are here discussing Malke's latest block. Malke2010 really shows no desire to learn from mistakes.

Frankly, I hold little hope that Malke is salvageable, though again I don't pretend to be uninvolved. I have great faith in admin Toddst1, admire his efforts, and completely agree that the reasoning for the block under WP:BATTLE and WP:TE is both correct and proper. But this needs to be said: Malke2010's block is long overdue, and in my view, if anything, is far too short. Jusdafax 15:48, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

So, your not uninvolved and you think Malke's block should be longer and you think that his account in un-salvageable, thanks for commenting. Off2riorob (talk) 17:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

To put your comment in perspective: A quick look at the Off2riorob talk page shows that in fact just two days ago you warned Malke2010 (in terms remarkably similar to my own to Malke2010 on my talk page) to learn to withdraw, and further that you two appear to be in off-wiki communication via email, just so the record is clear in this thread. Comments are being sought about Malke's latest block, and after full disclosure, I have every right to respond based on my numerous highly unpleasant experiences with an editor now found, by Wikipedians in authority, to be tendentious. Jusdafax 19:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

You can respond but you are overly involved with edit war history and in such issues, experienced editors and Administrators move to a neutral position and attempt to help the issue, your involvement and inability to disengage make your comments detrimental to neutral discussion. Off2riorob (talk) 19:43, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Jusdafax has every right to inform ANI of his views, particularly since he is happy to acknowledge his own position. Trust the admins to see his position, particularly since he has stated it. :) In the mean time I have sent Malke the diffs Toddst has provided me with, however I have made it clear that I am not willing to campaign with her for the reversal of the action, just willing to assist her in preventing it from happening again. SGGH ^ping! 19:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. My thanks. Jusdafax 19:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Yea...thanks Off2riorob (talk) 19:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, when I look at the diffs that have been provided here, I see this as 6 of one and a half dozen of the other. The majority of the diffs I looked at have baiting and aggressive edit summaries that accompany some equally unacceptable comments by the other editors involved. Comments like "This is not a forum for your ranting about British hatred of Catholics." and "Rubbish; as usual, you are being evasive and showing your intention is disruption." as well as posts that are designed to denigrate the recipient [8]

and the history discussed on Malke's talk page about an editor telling her to lob off and not post to his talk page but followed that up with templating the regular speaks to what this editor has to deal with and wind up blocked when other offending parties are not for the same type of behavior. There seems a disparity in handing out blocks to me. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it there are other parties who should have a share of the responsibility, however I do think Malke has some other issues regarding her editing, however at the moment our email contact may be reaching a more promising conclusion. SGGH ^ping! 21:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SGGH in that some situations, other editors may have a share of the responsibility. However, Malke wasn't blocked for one single act of incivility. There's a history of behavior here, as evidenced in the comments of Jusdafax and my own diffs above. I've never made a personal attack against her, and her venom was sufficient that I took an article off my watch list. Whether or not she was "baited" on one article, there's still a history there. She needs to understand policy, and simply disregarding her own personal attacks while blaming other editors for conflict isn't going to lead to harmonious editing. Dayewalker (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur, and I assure you that I am not disregarding her actions in this. I have made it very clear to her that "Wikipedia will not change for you" and that if she does not agree, she shall not get help. I have pointed out that she is highly culpable. SGGH ^ping! 23:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Malke said she was sorry on her talk page. Any longer block is punishment, which is forbidden. If the sorry turns out to be a trick, then re-block is possible. Punishing others is not using a mop. It is using a gun. Any evidence that the sorry is not genuine? I haven't done extensive diff research but AGF means we accept sorries without being paranoid or doubting good faith. 03:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asorg (talk • contribs)

For the record, after Malke's latest unblock the user went to SGGH's talk page to make a dismissive comment, which shows, in my view, a patent lack of contrition. That this was comment was made even before this ANI thread was archived speaks volumes. As Dayewalker notes above, "there's a history of behavior here", and I submit Malke shows every sign of going right back to WP:BATTLE mode. Jusdafax 17:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Retaliation by blocking administrator

I made a neutral and polite comment above. Immediately afterwards, the blocking admin, Toddst1 made a personal attack on me accusing me of edit warring on a page that I haven't edited in days and am not fighting. This is an excuse. Todd is harrassing me. This is really abuse of power and intimidation.

I, therefore, withdraw my comments about Malke. I support Todd's block. Malke's block should be extended to 1 year, not 1 week. I 100% support Todd and fully oppose Malke now. Todd has my full support. Please accept this apology and do not follow me around or pick fault at my edits. Asorg (talk) 03:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• This editor(Asorg) is a sock puppet for the blocked user JB50000/Gaydenver. Per duck. Dave Dial (talk) 03:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see the duck. Can you be more specific?

As for the alleged retaliation, I had tried to address this on the article talk and my talk but apparently I didn't. Toddst1 (talk) 04:11, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I used User Compare on the two. They both have similar, if not almost the same, editing times. I'll get a print when I remember how to access the index.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:08, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked along with some other socks. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User Vranak - disruptive editing and incivility

Vranak (talk · contribs) - I had thought this was a new user, based on editing behaviour. I encountered the editor at EverQuest, and the editor assures me that wp:consensus and wp:pillars are not as important as doing what the editor determines to be best for WP. There is a section about editor behaviour at Wikipedia talk:Reference desk#more User:Vranak, and various warnings on the editor talk page.

However, when I decided to open an ANI incident today, I saw the editor was indeffed here back in 2007 for sockpuppetry and incivility, and the block log shows the editor was allowed to return to editing after expressing understanding and assurances that behaviour would not be repeated. Those assurances have not turned out to last through to 2010.

While I am certainly not known for kindness, this editor's abuse of those who don't hold opinions acceptable to the editor is way overboard. While I agree that Ref desk talk is not the place to discuss a block, calling the other editors fascists is not acceptable. I have placed a template notice for the ANI thread on the editor's talk page, and will add a point to it at the (misplaced IMO) discussion at Ref Desk.- Sinneed 18:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sinneed, you are a fascist. Plain and simple. Personal attack? You're damn right it is. Stop being a fascist though, and I will stop calling you one. Vranak (talk) 18:37, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 3 days per that last comment as well as similar ones. Such stuff is completely unacceptable here. –MuZemike 18:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Editor response was to attack the blocking admin. - Sinneed 18:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Ignore the idiot. WP:ROPE. Guy (Help!) 20:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sinneed, I did notice the WQA posting at the time - I don't think uninvolved perspective will assist in this particular situation. His most latest comment during his block suggests that he made a conscious choice to adopt this sort of approach. Other than echoing what Guy said, all I'd suggest is to remember WP:NOTTHERAPY. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Well, misguided I would buy into, and unacceptably abusive. Sometimes, a stern voice, uninvolved, explaining that "This must stop." can help some editor who might one day make many useful contributions. It doesn't seem to have helped in this case. I do apologize for not linking the WQA thread, I had intended to.- Sinneed 20:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Vranak does not seem to be gaining either coherency or civility during his block. See this post where he starts with fantasizing about making a death thread (against Sinneed?), and ends up speculating on Sinneed's astrological sign! APL (talk) 04:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

All I can say is don't feed the trolls. He's only digging his own hole and is well on his way to another indef block. –MuZemike 05:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is in no way acceptable, particularly given the other edits he has also made during his block - if an administrator went to indef block the user, I'd endorse it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• • Meh. He's currently blocked, and seems to have stopped his post-block trolling many hours ago. If after the current block, problematic behavior restarts, we can revisit the idea of an indefinite block (and by revisit, I mean drop one as fast as humanly possible). At this point, extending the block would seem to be retributional, if you ask me... --Jayron32 06:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Jayron. Blocked users often get angry and throw tantrums on their talk page . If mentioning death threats and calling editors Fascists continues until the end of the block, then perhaps his talk page should be protected for the duration of the block. That would be preventative, not punitive. Extending the block because of his ranting there doesn't seem wise, psychologically. Yes, I know WP isn't therapy, but there is no need to make an angry person even angrier unless it really serves the encyclopedia. ---Sluzzelin talk 06:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

My thinking was that an indef block would help extract a guarantee for the long term that the user will change their approach for X Y and Z reasons...if it restarted after that, then at least the next course of action is simple (outright community action). Technically, the indef block need not take longer than the current block, unless the editor has no interest in changing the approach that led to the block prior to the trolling. That was the preventative side I was looking at. That said, I can appreciate the hesitance/disagreement in adopting that approach, and of course, the fact that where people feel a block is unjustified, they say things in anger (not sure if that really was the case here though). Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying, I didn't see that point. In Vranak's case, I am not sure of anything either, including what exactly motivates his behaviour. One thing I remember, however, is that he has socked at the reference desks before, and I guess I'd prefer having his edits (which, to be fair, aren't always this bad) out in the open. We already have a couple of sockmasters trolling the desks, and it is bothersome, because they aren't always recognized immediately, and occasionally even succeed in getting constructive editors at loggerheads with one another. (The desks as well the trolls feed off our policy of assuming good faith, though in different ways). I certainly wouldn't want to add another shapeshifting nuisance to our list of "regulars". ---Sluzzelin talk 06:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Judging by his comments on various pages, it seems Vranak believes Vranak is always right. He doesn't care about citations or Wikipedia policy, he believes he is in the right and will not be persuaded otherwise. He's either a very subtle troll, or really does not "get" how Wikipedia works. Either way, I expect he'll be right back to the same behavior when his block wears off, and we'll be right back here talking about an indef/ban. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Rihanna fan still proving problematic despite a previous recent ANI

Ok some of you might remember this ANI report from April 25 about user Iluvrihanna24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). His/her last comment was "sorry! ... i will be more careful and think before i act. Sorry for any inconvenience caused." This follows comments i had about about him/her refusing to listen to the community consensus, take heed of warnings and follow protocol. Since then its been a non-stop uphill battle against the user:

• adding poorly sourced info which breached WP:CRYSTAL. April 30, 2010
• impropper sourcing April 30, 2010
• addition of poor source May 1, 2010
• unsourced synthesis of information May 9, 2010
• trying to use WP:Other stuff exists argument May 15, 2010
• Unsourced information May 17, 2010
• removing sources and changing numbers in a way which breaches MOS:NUM May 19, 2010
• Unsourced addtions May 19, 2010
• 2nd MOS:NUM issue also addition of unsourced information May 21, 2010
• WP:MOS violation, changing number to # May 22, 2010
• Adds rockstar 101 back to infobox even though it has no firm release date (only radio date). May 22, 2010.

From Iluvrihanna24's talkpage there are lots warning from myself and other users. I just dont think he/she will learn. I ask him/her yesterday did i ask him to refrain from MOS:NUM violations and asked him/her to clarify if he/she had a source for this edit and i also reminded him/her of the previous ANI and thought that the way things were going i would notify them that it might be appropriate to open another. He/she has not responded though its obvious from [this edit that they were active after recieving the message. i think its time for admin to intervene as the user is tendiously editing. Lil-unique1 (talk) 20:29, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I had to repost this because i posted it several days ago without any comments from any administrator. there is genuin concern here that we have a tenditious editor who's been the subject of past ANI's and recieved many final warnings but simply hasn't learnt. Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Back from traveling tonight, and will look into this tomorrow. At first glance, I'm concerned that it's going to be impossible for me to act on because it's hard for me to identify behavioural guidelines or policies that he has violated.—Kww(talk) 06:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, looked it over. Problematic? Certainly. Blockable at this point? I can't see hitting the button as being the proper solution. Two solutions come to mind. First, choose a single aspect of the behaviour you find problematic (unsourced material, for example), and systematically step through the warning cycle, building a clear case that the editor ignores properly formatted warnings and repeats the behaviour after a final warning. Do that, and it will be a case that nearly any admin would intervene in. Alternatively, look into WP:RFC/U. My preference would be the WP:RFC/U route: this editor doesn't strike me as being a vandal, just someone that doesn't quite grasp why some of his edits are inappropriate.—Kww(talk) 15:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Okies well basically he/she is constantly violating WP:crystal, WP:verifiable, changing sourced information, multiple insertion of unsourced information, MOS breaches and he/she promised in the previous ANI to discuss their editing more which they failed to do. hope that helps. Lil-unique1 (talk) 15:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Peter Pilz

Peter Pilz (talk · contribs)

Have removed unsourced, poorly sourced, and possibly original research material introduced by Peter Pilz (talk · contribs) on three different pages. Requests for better sourcing have been ignored, and reverts continue. I do not wish to violate 3RR, so am bringing this matter to the attention of administrators. Again, this is occurring on three separate pages:[9] [10] [11]. Akerans (talk) 17:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I note that this is a new user who hasn't discussed any of this. I've left a note on their talk page - hopefully they will be willing to discuss this. ETA This material amounts to accusations of illegal activity and as such I think it needs to be redacted. Second opinion? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I've done a temporary redaction; I went back to Akerans' last version, then protected the article for 3 days (admin edit only). At the very least we need better explanations and sourcing on the claims. Normally in content disputes we are ok with protecting a wrong version, but obviously potentially defamatory claims are an exception... I recommend discussion on the article talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Would an intelligent administrator please email me?

Okay, I don't want to start another drama thread, so would an administrator please email me? PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

ANI is made by drama ;). <redacted> Kalakitty _talk 23:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I hate to assume bad faith, but you're edits are suspicious as heck for a newbie. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 23:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have off-wiki edits in a few Wikia projects. :P <redacted> Kalakitty _talk 00:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh. Sorry for the ABF then; blame the sockpuppets. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 00:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You'll probably have to change the signature, though. I'm well aware of what swastikas represent in different cultures (PLEASE don't give me a lecture, I'm an Asian History major in school), but that's not a good idea. Even if you aren't a sock, that'll attract a lot of attention; the last time someone came here with a signature like that (see here), it turned out to be a sock here for trolling (I was an IP at the time). The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 00:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't want it to be a problem for me in the future so considered it removed. ...' Kalakitty _talk 00:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Just as I thought there's no such thing, Wikipedia:Intelligent Administrator. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 01:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No one intelligent has ever become an administrator; because if you were intelligent, you would know better than to volunteer. –xeno^talk 01:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. Nobody intelligent would go through an RFA --Ron Ritzman (talk) 02:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you notice how the title suggests some administrators are not intelligent. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 02:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not really meant to mean that. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Laugh out loud for real, good to see there's still a sense of humor within the Wikipedian population. ;) PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:05, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I fixed the redlink. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 02:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Kalakitty

Kalakitty's immediate knowledge of signatures, AfD, edit notices, and AN/I does ring alarm bells, and using a swastika in their sig reminded me of Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive597#Main_Edges_use_of_swastikas_in_signature. Fences&Windows 16:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have removed from Kalakitty's user page wikicode which overlaid the title of the page (i.e. "User:Kalakitty") with other text, something about being bad with computers, on the basis that the page is not Kalakitty's to alter in a manner which makes it hard for other editors to identify it. Considering the swastika, the editor's obvious knowledge of the ins and outs of Wikipedia (AN/I, AfD, sigs etc.) and this bit of obscure wikicoding, I suggest that the editor is not a newbie, and is probably a sock of another editor. User:Main Edges turned out to be a sock of Pickbothmanlol, and it may be that Kalakitty is as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to ruin the fun, but I believe that this account's purpose is no longer needed. As you already know, I am learning from my mistakes. I happen to have another account that I edit from my aunt. I have a account already about to be over one month old that you will not find unless you know what town from North Florida I am using to evade your stupid blocking. Go ahead, block this account, it will be the last easy one you will get. Either way, I have won because CheckUser depends on I.P. Kalakitty _talk 22:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Enjoy the barnstar Ken. Kalakitty _talk 22:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, okay. Blocked. —DoRD (talk) 22:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Metal Storm

The Metal Storm page was, as far as I recall, deleted a week or two ago as being advertising. Shortly after, the Metal Storm (webzine) article was renamed to Metal Storm since there was no longer any disambiguation needed.

Now the original Metal Storm article has reappeared in the original place - the webzine has moved backed to it's place, but the talkpage for Metal Storm (webzine) is now attached to Metal Storm.

I can't see from the history of the article who did all the deleting and undeleting so I am leaving a message here. Weakopedia (talk) 07:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I think that it was just that the talk page wasn't undeleted when the article page was; there was a redirect from the move of the magazine article (to make way for undeleting the article), but the article talk didn't come back.

I undid the redirect and am looking for any deleted revisions of the Metal Storm weapon talk page.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:07, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Something odd happened with the history undelete. I don't understand what happened at this point; any experts about history undeletes in the house? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What exactly is the outcome you want? Stifle (talk) 09:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Last night, the 78 ish revisions I clicked "restore" on didn't show up in the history when I checked, for about 15-20 min after restoring it. They're there now. Not sure if someone did something, or if there was a cacheing issue, or if I was just being a n00b and missed something obvious last night. But all appears well now. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't mind knowing how it got from being deleted to reappearing, as I cannot tell from looking at the history. Weakopedia (talk) 09:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Fastily (talk · contribs) or John Vandenberg (talk · contribs) would be able to shed some light on it for you? [12] – B.hotep •talk• 14:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Spammer

Resolved

Smith1656 (talk · contribs) appears to be a spammer - every single edit, back to July 2009, is spam. Could someone please deal with him? -- ChrisO (talk) 08:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed the edits and find none that aren't the insertion of inappropriate links, often spamming and promotional, including putting in adverts in the form of prose, I have indef'd the account as spam/promotional only. SGGH ^ping! 09:02, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

What's interesting is that he edited on 3 different dates for 3 unrelated companies. Might be a "spammer for hire". The first one is disturbing because he was spamming directly for a large and otherwise respectable company, not just a small time affiliate/reseller. Back in my nanae days we used to call this mainsleaze. If true I have to wonder if North Face knew that they hired someone who was going to spam Wikipedia. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 11:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

North Face haven't spammed Wikipedia. The content of that site is merely an excuse for displaying adverts. MER-C 13:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

He emailed me with an unblock request, I told him to use the template. I can't help him anyway, being the admin which gone done the thing that he takes issue with. SGGH ^ping! 19:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Canadian VC Featured Article has been vandalised on the home page version

Resolved

 – Total awarded: 0. Agree that it's a confusing statement to make that "it can be awarded more than once" but continue to say "it's never been awarded": this should be raised at WP:ERRORS. –xeno^talk 20:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It says 'The Victoria Cross can be awarded more than once, but no one has received the Canadian medal since its inception.' It should say 'The Victoria Cross can be awarded more than once, but no one has received the Canadian medal more than once since its inception.' (as per the article itself. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 10:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't vandalised, I believe it is an error by an admin tweaking it. I think WP:ERRORS would have been a better place to report this though. Fixed it. SGGH ^ping! 10:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The Canadian award has not been awarded at all to anyone. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That option hadn't occurred to me and is a credible alternative. But it would be a complete non-sequitur to a sentence that begins "the CVC can be awarded more than once"! That it has never been awarded is by far the significant point and it is only this that should be in the lede. I'll take it to the article page. Thanks for tip re WP:ERRORS. --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 11:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Climate Change related RfC requiring closing

Is there an admin who has not edited any Climate Change/Anthropogenic Global Warming article, of some little fortitude, who is willing to close the merger RfC at Talk:Bishop Hill (blog)#Straw poll? The poll is quite respectfully conducted, and should be fairly easy to determine. Thank you. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Pretty Please? There are cakes and ale on offer... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. Heh, I was planning to ask for my cakes and ale, but now I read the hidden comment I see I should have checked the small print first... Peter 23:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please block User:152.98.218.27

Contributions mostly vandalism: [13]

Just a note for the future: If you wish to report vandalism, users or IPs, then you can do it at WP:AIV. Treylander 20:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Warned user. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 22:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Lloyd Bankes

For some reason that I don't understand, the Lloyd Banks article is being hit hard with BLP violations against John Corso/John Zandig. As far as I can tell, there is no connection between the two, but the Corso attacks are being made on the Banks article. Now, a new User, Lloyd Bankes (talk · contribs), has shown up, note the name, attacking the Zandig article. This guy needs to be perma-banned. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:12, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely. If more socks emerge, a checkuser may need to look for a rangeblock. Thanks for calling this to our attention. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Copyvio question

This edit, where the user removed the copyvio tag, may very well be legit. But I'm not sure. How can I know? — Timneu22 · talk 00:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

As a starting point, you might try leaving a note on the editor's talkpage and ask him or her for some backup information. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well their edit summary says they've emailed the OTRS permissions address, so I'd say keep an eye on it and if nothing happens after a few days, re-tag it. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The instructions at the copyright area (which may not be entirely clear) is to use {{subst:copyvio}} in cases like this so that the pages are blanked pending verification of usable permission (and follow the steps on the resulting blanked page to notify the user and list the page at the appropriate daily WP:CP page). I have done that for this page. VernoWhitney (talk) 04:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Pernicious vandal

Resolved

 – page was protected-IP was rangeblocked as sock of Swamilive

For the love of all that is good, someone please block 216.26.213.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Warned up to the limit and reported on AIV but it's taking forever for someone to review the report. Take a look at the history of Brigadier general for an idea of how annoying this is getting, even for vandalfighters. — e. ripley\^talk 02:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone did it. Thanks. — e. ripley\^talk 02:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is serial vandal Swamilive. I have in turn rangeblocked 216.26.192.0/19 for 2 weeks and semi'd some of their most targeted pages. If any administrator feels this is too excessive or too soft, please feel free to unblock or extend the block. Elockid ^(Talk) 03:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A "terrorist" user

Resolved

 – Blocked. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:37, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have already filed a report at WP:UAA about User:DonkeySheepTerrorist and I have left a note on the users talk page. I wasn't sure how to report this but this user seems to have some kind of love for terrorism. The only edits are in fact on inappropriate pages this user has created about terrorism. I wasn't sure whether to bring it here or to WP:AIV but I think an admin should give some kind of opinion. Best, Treylander 20:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Gone for a UAA violation, SPA and vandal only account, heavy POV and extreme lack of understanding on what Wikipedia is. Quite a resolute action to take, however given the content I feel necessary. The user is free to create a new account. SGGH ^ping! 20:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

As long as the user edits constructively, I have no problem with them being here :). Treylander 20:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

He can request an unblock if he wishes, but hell have to demonstrate he has learned what Wikipedia is first. SGGH ^ping! 10:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Farsight001 and Afterwriting to be disciplined

There were several non-registered users who expressed their opposition to the content of the [Catholic sex abuse cases]. Their contributions to the article content quality discussion are deleted by these two users and the non-registered users marked as 'edit-warring sockpuppet trolls' , vandals', and other flavours of the street language

Here is a number of their talkpage content removals and personal attacks:
here: in principle to including any information added by such an offensive and edit-warring sockpuppet troll who constantly flaunts policies for his own ideological agenda.
here:removing rampant trolling and soapboxing
here: deleting soapboxing
here: Not only is this anonymous editor a persistent troll but he is also a persisent sockpuppet as a little research has demonstrated. I really don't understand why some editors are continuing to feed the troll - it's a waste of time and energy and only encourages his continuing abuse of policies and intimidation of other editors. Enough is enough! Afterwriting (talk) 05:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
here:96, per your past editing suggestions and constant soapboxing, we all know quite well that what you just said about your motivations is not even remotely true. You tried to get all positive wording, and all defense of the Church removed whole-sale from the article multiple times. Do you really expect us to believe that you actually want an accurate representation after moves like that? And to others who may be familiar with the user, does IP96/IP71 remind you of Giovanni33?Farsight001 (talk) 02:26, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
here: cut the crap [14]:Again, the phrase evidence vs propaganda is completely unacceptable in an encyclopedia (Actually here he removed well sourced addition to the section)

Such behavior of these two users is below any tolerance and Wikipedia guidelines.--71.163.237.120 (talk) 20:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment I've attempted to request mediation on this matter with the Mediation Cabal whether that is the appropriate venue to solve this something I'm not totally sure about, but some sort of mediation for Catholic sex abuse cases would be good. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment There is not several unregistered users. There is one IP hopper - the one who made this report. The editor, who has edited from the 71, 96, and perhaps 69 "regions", and behaves IDENTICALLY no matter which IP they're editing from. They are repeatedly adding BLP violations to the article, which we of course have to remove, and utterly refusing to discuss their changes to the article on the talk page except to mock us for disagreeing or accuse us of trying to whitewash the article, which I personally find interesting as I don't exactly see how one could whitewash an article of this nature. They also have an obvious familiarity with wikipedia, which makes me suspect that they are a logged out editor. Personally, the editing style reminds me of long time banned user Giovanni33, but that might just be me. Let me say, and I fully understand that this may make any sanction against me even more likely, I would whole-heartedly accept a block of my account if only this accursed WP:TROLL get blocked too. That way the rest of the editors can go back to editing productively instead of having to spend all their time on the IP hopper. I've never seen an editor warned so many times before without getting blocked, even an anon. (and if you're wondering where the warnings are, the IP hopper deletes them all from the IP's talk pages almost immediately after they are added.)Farsight001 (talk) 21:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Semi protect the article so the IP can not disruptively edit. Ah, the article has been fully protected for two weeks. Difficult to block him, keep the article semi protected so that any hoppers can not edit the article and then if the user sticks to one address then use warnings and policy to deal with any disruption. Off2riorob (talk) 22:40, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment The same street language used to escalate pointless accusations: 'repeatedly adding BLP violations' which is just a figment of imagination of this person based on his arbitrary interpretation of a Wikipedia rule; 'utterly refusing to discuss their changes' while this person removes my explanation of changes in its inception.'cut the crap', 'troll', 'soapboxing' 'puppet' - is it the way of 'go(ing) back to editing productively'? --71.163.237.120 (talk) 23:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

As you are an new user I just posted you a menu of links on your user page and suggested you familiarize yourself with a few before getting into edit conflicts and you simply deleted it, are you not interested in our guidelines and policies? The only article you have edited is now totally locked to editing for two weeks, perhaps you could take the time to get an understanding of how things work round here.Off2riorob (talk) 23:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• I am telling you that you do not see, or not wanting to see, what is the real problem here. Your comments are here and there (talkpage) are just continuation of the attacks on me and others I am complaining about here. Therefore, for being malicious, your comments on my talk page were deleted. --71.163.237.120 (talk) 23:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

When I am in similar situations and can't see what the problem is I take myself off to the bathroom and take a good look in the mirror. It is in no way malicious to post a set of helpful links to our policies and guidelines to a new user that is getting into disputes, perhaps you are not interested but I suggest you take the time to read some of them. Off2riorob (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Then do what you advise. A self-promoted advisor forgets the basic ethic rule - advise others only when you are asked to. As to this case, I restored the parts of the talkpage which are deleted by Farsight001 and you accused me for 'Talkpage revert of other editors comments. (TW)' Now you went even far: you (a self-promoted judge now) found me guilty as being a 'new user that is getting into disputes' and who is 'not interested' but 'I(i.e.you) suggest(ing) you(me) take the time to read some of them'. Tell us what you have seen in your mirror.--71.163.237.120 (talk) 00:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It is amazing and truly illuminating that you are jumping down the throats and accusing of incivility and attacks even the people who are just trying to help you out. (and no, I'm not talking about me. I originally was, but that is long past) Off2riorob was simply posting a list of helpful links to your profile because he got the impression that the problem was infamiliarity with wikipedia policies, which is nothing to be ashamed of, and you delete it, and call him blind and "malicious". As for a basic rule of ethics to advise others only when asked to - that is absolutely ridiculous. Should I advise my nurse regarding her almost giving meds to an allergic patient only if she asks for said advise? Because if I did keep my mouth shut unless she asked me to say something, we'd have more than a few dead patients here.Farsight001 (talk) 00:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Response from Afterwriting: This complaint against me and Farsighting has no credibility. It is simply a continuation of the unacceptable behaviour of just one anonymous user who keeps changing IP addresses. This user has persistently ignored BLP and various other important editing and behaviour policies. Anyone reading the edit history should easily be able to tell by the edits themselves, the edit summary comments, the article's discussion page and the constant blanking of IP talk pages, that this is just one anonymous editor - not "several" at all. Unlike myself and Farsight, who try to be responsible editors who respect the BLP policies, this anonymous user instead chooses to blatantly ignore the BLP policies and persistently misuses the article to attack the Roman Catholic Church in general and to vilify the Pope and others in particular. His current complaint against both me and Farsight is just another part of his ongoing campaign to intimidate other editors and to impose his soapbox POVs on the article. Just going by his responses above it should not be too difficult for any reasonable person to detect that there are significant problems with this user's attitude and behaviour. Requests to have this persisent anonymous BLP policy abuser blocked have not been acted on. Had he been blocked weeks ago - as he clearly should have been - then we might have avoided the history of edit-warring. Just go and read the edits and comments of the anonymous editor in recent weeks ( using about four or five different IP addresses ) and it won't be difficult to see the problems that Farsight, myself and other responsible editors have been confronted with - just one anonymous editor who has been constantly seeking to intimidate other editors and impose his POV on the article. His false "complaint" against us is just another part of his personal campaign. Afterwriting (talk) 09:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Til Eulenspiegel on talk page

User Til Eulenspiegel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Genesis creation narrative has been removing sourced statements ([15] and [16]). On talk page, refusing to provide sources ([17], [18], [19], [20]), upon insistense to do so, assumption of bad faith and personal attack. DVdm (talk) 12:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User notified on talk page. DVdm (talk) 12:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

At least three other editors removed the same bit from the article after I did (yesterday) and it's a consensus issue. I am being singled out only because of what I'm saying on the talkpage, but I'm not edit warring on the article today, and I'm not going to leave the discussion page today much as some editors wish I would. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 12:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

That is correct. You have been "singled out" because only you are disrupting the talk page and making personal attacks. All the best.Griswaldo (talk) 12:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• This boils down to: Til Eulenspiegel (a) disagrees with some other people and (b) is responding to their intemperate comments with equally intemperate comments. Everybody needs to chill. This is Wikipedia, nobody dies because a page temporarily reflects The Wrong Truth. Guy (Help!) 12:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Well my personal advice on the talk page has been to ignore discussions that are not based in policies and guidelines. I do not think it is fair to characterize the situation as simply two sides of an intemperate discussion. One side is frustrated by the fact that Til is consciously ignoring policy while that side produces sources in good faith to back up their position. But like I said I think its better to ignore the disruption this causes.Griswaldo (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please stop this person from making his WP:POINT? See [21] and [22]. DVdm (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I might ask that you be summarily stifled too, but I don't think wikpedia works the way you imagine! Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 13:49, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Given that Til has explicitly stated his entire point on the Talk page is to "protest," I've reminded him that being WP:POINTy is something that can result in a block. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Rahujapawan

Resolved

 – Issue seems to be with the editors understanding of copyright (or lack thereof). Useful links left on their talk page. TFOWR^propaganda 12:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Rahujapawan has made no useful edits. I reverted or marked for deletion all edits not already deleted. Acts like he is 6 years old. WAS 4.250 (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Notified of this thread. Off2riorob (talk) 16:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: not looked at all their edits (there aren't that many, maybe 10?) but this set look like someone who's not sure about copyright, rather than an out-and-out vandal. Is there a good "copyright 101" template or text I could either dump on their talk page or point them towards? TFOWR^propaganda 16:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Copyright is a good place to start. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe {{Nothanks}} is a good one.  --Joshua Scott (LiberalFascist) 19:50, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:COPYPASTE is another copyright specific one that's a little lighter reading than WP:C. VernoWhitney (talk) 19:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, everyone. I went for WP:COPYPASTE with a suggestion that Wikipedia:Copyright was useful background reading. I'm liking {{Nothanks}}, but felt a less templatey post might be more helpful this time. Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 12:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Using refactoring to stifle criticism

There's a long-standing conflict ongoing at Talk:Elvis Presley. One recently reported incident still remains on WP:AN/I as I write this (#Onefortyone). In that discussion I make a reference to an analysis of conduct of various editors on the Elvis talk page (#Statement from meco). Now, go to that page and try and find it! Can't find it? It's there, just try a little harder.. Still can't find it? Well, about 4/5 down on that discussion page you will see a big yellow box and below it on the right side of the page it reads [show]. That's how you get to see the information that used to be easiily accessible on that talk page. I request that appropriate censuring measures be applied towards the editor who "refactored" this information, basically into oblivion: PL290 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). This blatantly self-serving censoring (as my findings strongly pinpoints this particular user as one of the sources of the poisoned atmosphere on that talk page) is done in this edit, marked as minor, with the edit summary reading: "reorg to clarify for newcomers--too many misunderstandings already". __meco (talk) 14:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The "long-standing conflict" is ONE TROLLING EDITOR (141) pushing tabloid junk about Elvis over the last 5 years or more. He's now being aided and abetted by this Meco guy, who despite being on wikipedia for also about 5 years, couldn't find the collapsed endless-loop stuff, in addition to arguing 141's case despite his apparent total ignorance of the guy's behavior over 5 years. I had to show him where the collapsed section was. We seem to have the troll leading the incompetent, at this point. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

And I might point out that Baseball Bugs is also one of the users who would be particularly well served by having the section of analysis on the Elvis talk page kept well hidden. __meco (talk) 15:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I would not be well-served either way. I'm neither an Elvis lover nor an Elvis hater. However, wikipedia would be better served by not having this tabloid garbage in the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this, I support the collapsing of the thread. That section is so long as to be unreadable. Uncollapsed, it chokes the entire page. Consensus seems pretty clear on the topic, in any case, and I support it. I haven't read all of the above section here at ANI, but it seems that a small contingent of editors who support fringe viewpoints are flooding that page. More eyes on it would probably be appreciated. Dayewalker (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I suppose meco would also consider the archiving of discussion to be "refactored... into oblivion"? The alternative to putting such a long discussion behind hidden tags is to move it off to its own archived page. Regardless, either way that discussion is over. Time to move on. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

However, the fact remains that some important threads relating to the topic of the Onefortyone case on this noticeboard and including much material in support of my view were made nearly invisible by a another user who is deeply involved in the content disputes on Talk:Elvis Presley. This suggests that the changes weren't just made in good faith. Onefortyone (talk) 18:52, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Made nearly invisible" is a complete falsehood. It's right there, under a "Show" button, which is common practice with long (especially off-topic or circular) discussions. If nothing else, a diff can be given to the specific comment that's at issue. If it's not a specific comment, people can be pointed to the collapsed discussion. This is a non-starter. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Mbhiii misuse of IPs and edit warring

Mbhiii's IPs have crossed 3rr today at Tea Party movement:

• [23] Continuing to force in an image over another
• [24] Revert
  • [25] Not 3rr since it was consecutive but another revert
• [26] Revert
• [27] Revert
  • [28] Not 3rr since it was consecutive but another revert

The above is a violation of 3rr and and looks like it could be an attempted circumvention of 3rr. The IPs have also been used in a way that could be given an allusion of support (WP:ILLEGIT) at Talk:Tea bag (disambiguation) and the article in question.

It has been all but established that 74.242.231.200 (and similar IPs from the Raleigh area) and 12.7.202.2 are Mbhii. #12 was essentially admitted to here. In this diff, a similar IP to 74.242.231.200 which is close to #12 making contentious edits on the same page. Instead of listing everything, please see the archived sock puppet discussions.Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mbhiii/Archive and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/JustGettingItRight/Archive (please note that JustGettingItRight was not checked and is no longer accused)

I personally have been annoyed by the IPs continued reverting, refusal to allow for the IP notification shared IP template on his various IP talk pages, and violation of nonfree image policy so I am not the best editor to listen to when it comes to argument of his disruption. So please see the user's talk page where numerous editors have expressed concerns over a misuse of IPs and reverting over a period of more than a year: User talk:Mbhiii#3RR Warning, User talk:Mbhiii#Sock, etc., User talk:Mbhiii#September 2009, User talk:Mbhiii#Sockpuppets, User talk:Mbhiii#Edit war warning, User talk:Mbhiii#Edit warring is bad. - This is 3 warnings, and all are level 4 warnings., User talk:Mbhiii#Edit warring and IPs,User talk:Mbhiii#Your edits at War on Drugs have been reported at the 3RR noticeboard, and User talk:Mbhiii#Reverting. Again. Again.. Even the IPs have several warnings but they are always blanked.Cptnono (talk) 04:17, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Notifications at User talk:12.7.202.2, User talk:74.242.231.200, User talk:74.162.153.141, and User talk:Mbhiii.Cptnono (talk) 04:24, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Five reverts today on Tea Party movement from sock 12.7.202.2 (talk · contribs), w/ edit summaries:

• [29] Undid revision 364124067 by 65.41.106.90 violates wp:npov

• [30] Undid revision 364057180 by Boromir123 for whom "nice" trumps relevance

• [31] Undid revision 364091022 by Cptnono per Talk

• [32] Undid revision 364112560 by Arzel deciding, by himself, that a reporter's commentary on an academic study from a large university, constitutes proof that it is "flawed"

• [33] You are, of course, correct, EXCEPT when presenting direct evidence of an ongoing corporate sponsorship of Tea Party activities. How better to show this?

†TE†Talk 16:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Continued misuse of socks and crossing 3rr at Hyperbole today:

• [34]
• 19:41, 25 May 2010
• 21:41, 25 May 2010
• [35]

And at Sunscreen controversy with a single IP (including removal of a copyvio template)

• 20:00, 25 May 2010
• 20:03, 25 May 2010
• 21:02, 25 May 2010
• 22:15, 25 May 2010

A few pages of massive reverting and violations of the sockpuppet policy. How long has this been going on?Cptnono (talk) 22:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A complicated one. I've looked into the various links etc above and I agree that the three IPs are almost certainly the same editor. I've blocked each for 1 week per WP:DUCK. The Mbhiii account hasn't edited since the 13th March but I agree the edits are of a similar nature and the IPs are very much in the same range as those formerly used for socking, so I've also blocked that account for one week. Due to their apparent battleground mentality and long history of falling out with other editors, edit warring, and socking, I believe that if a subsequent block proves necessary it will likely be indefinite.

Additionally, due to the amount of recent edit warring I've protected Tea Party movement (fully, though thinking about it that should perhaps have been semi only - I'll go and change that in a sec). I don't think it's worth protecting the other articles yet, though obviously if socking resumes - which does seem likely - that's an option too. Hope this helps, EyeSerene^talk 17:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Langenstein's edits on Waddell and Reed

Langenstein looks like an SPA whose sole purpose is to remove negative information from the article Waddell and Reed, and has added promotional links to the article. If you take a look at Special:Contributions/Langenstein, you will see that this user removes all negative information that has been added whether it was unsourced and needed to be deleted or was sourced and should have stayed, even the information about Reuters' accusation that Waddell & Reed accidentally triggered the recent flash crash by selling enough E-mini contracts into a market nobody knew was illiquid before the sale. I restored and sourced the accusation and also added information about it denying the accusation. Langenstein then removed all of that. I have done a bit of removal myself, though it was links I felt were spam. Later, I discovered that Langenstein was responsible for the apparent spam links. I left a {{Welcomespam}} message on this user's talk page, but he or she continued anyways with the deletion after I properly sourced the accusation and denial.

Could someone else here come in and help me with this situation? I do not know how to continue without starting an edit war. Jesse Viviano (talk) 03:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Besides templating the user, did you make any effort to engage them in meaningful dialogue? The text of that template reads like a formletter and is easy to ignore. He may be unaware that what he is doing is wrong, and also may be unaware of how to edit Wikipedia the right way. Before admins act, what effort has been made on your part to see that he has been given the opportunity to learn how to do it the right way? --Jayron32 03:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That was quick. I left the Welcomespam notice because I am not good with words on social matters thanks to my Asperger syndrome, and am challenged to try to come up with something more suitable than that. I am much better with words when dealing with technical matters than when I am stuck with a social matter like this. I also left a notice that he or she was being discussed here on the user's talk page. This is why I asked for help. Jesse Viviano (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

As soon as I added the citations and the denial, I felt that I could not consider myself an impartial third party qualified to try to deal with the conflict. Jesse Viviano (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You're doing fine. I've added the article to my watchlist. — e. ripley\^talk 14:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

As soon as my back is turned...

The boomerang came back. Blocked 2 weeks as block-evading IP sockpuppet of Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki). Tim Song (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Once again an administrator has visited the sins of another contributor on the citizens of London, and denied them editorial access to Wikipedia. Did he/she not notice this [36] before going for the block button? In this field, everyone has the same editing style. Compare my contribution [37] with Chris Bennett’s: [38]. The objection will no doubt be raised that I can’t prove that I prepared my contribution completely independently of Bennett, but I will gladly show to anyone interested my copy of Simon Cassidy’s analysis of Harriot’s work printed from the net on 19 May, 2010. Unfortunately I can’t put it on commons because of copyright restrictions. If you’ve not been following the saga, I am the person whom Bennett, in his more printable comments, describes as "the intercalary fool". The abuse, from Bennett, Jc3s5h and Joe Kress, all first level editors who should know better, has been ongoing for three years, accompanied by blatant meatpuppetry. Occasionally the campaign planning is done on – wiki . See [39], [40] and [41]. Mostly, however, it’s off – wiki: [42] (Jc3s5h blanking Kress’s talk page). Bennett is quite candid about it being a joint enterprise [43] where the phrase "we’re all out to get you" implies a minimum of three people. Bennett was exposed as a sockpuppeteer and vandal [44]. 3RR is ignored, but sometimes there is an attempt to evade it, with one doing two reverts then handing over to one of the others to continue. Jc3s5h breaks 3RR with [45], [46], and [47]. He starts up again with [48] and [49] then avoids a 3RR violation by passing the baton on to Bennett’s sockpuppet 71.136.67.20. Bennett is then reverted by an administrator [50]. Bennett then comes out of hiding [51] and avoids a 3RR violation by passing the baton back to Jc3s5h: [52]. Bennett then switches sockpuppets to 71.136.34.7: [53]. He switches sockpuppets again: [54]. There is then another switch of sockpuppets to 69.241.124.150 [55]. Having run out of sockpuppets he comes out of hiding again: [56], [57]. To avoid a 3RR violation he then passes the baton back to Jc3s5h: [58]. Mercedonius Bennett violates 3RR with [59], [60] and [61]. Julian calendar Bennett makes reversions: [62], [63]. To avoid a 3RR violation he passes the baton back to Kress: [64]. Jc3s5h claims OR in 2010 [65] and Kress gives him a leg – up: [66]. Jc3s5h then picks up the baton [67], [68]. Bennett then announces ‘’’the intercalary fool is back’’’ and performs a two – stage reversion: [69], followed by a one – stage reversion: [70]. He then gets a leg – up from Kress (diff cited at the start of this report). Bennett’s sockpuppet 71.136.57.160 does a reversion [71]. He then switches sockpuppet to 69.241.124.150 and reverts again [72]. Impending 3RR violation drives him out of hiding again for his next reverts [73] and [74]. You can predict that Jc3s5h will be the next to revert, and so it proves: [75]. After a new section is added Bennett reverts: [76]. Jc3s5h then gives him a leg – up: [77]. Roman calendar Bennett violates 3RR with [78], [79] and [80], but he just keeps on going: [81]. Gregorian calendar Jc3s5h violates 3RR with [82], title=Gregorian_calendar&diff=prev&oldid=354315705 and [83]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.101.215 (talk) 12:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Outside opinion here. Your link where you say Bennett is exposed as a sock-puppet would serve better purpose if it were linking to an WP:SPI report, not a diff that references yet another diff in the edit summary, which just shows the edit of an anonymous IP address in no context. Regarding the "we're all out to get you" comment, that seems to be taken out of context. He didn't say "we're all out to get you". He said "You probably think we're all out to get you". Also, the first 3RR example you show is reverting edits done by a user evading their block (the talk page for the user he reverted has a block notice for just that). Hazardous Matt (talk) 13:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Here’s the link between 69.241.124.150 and Bennett: [84]. See link no. 265 above to tie the IP to Bennett. The first 3RR violation is link no. 252 above. The “block notice” to which you refer was penned by Bennett himself. 86.152.101.215 (talk) 14:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC) Again, if you have suspicion of sockpuppetry, you should open an WP:SPI case. Having no knowledge of Bennett's editing pattern I'm a little hesitant to say "yes, he's a sock-puppet who wrote 'fart poop'" (an edit that's three years old from an IP that could have been used by any number of people). Also, have you notified any of the parties involved as required? Hazardous Matt (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC) I'm notifying the parties as requested. 86.152.101.215 (talk) 14:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Jrfoldes Edit Warring and Spamming Fansite/Copyright Violating Link

This editor is apparently a "big" fan of You Can't Do That on Television. He has created several articles for cast members that violate WP:BLP with their only "source" being a fansite for the series that is neither a reliable source nor appropriate for linking due to its distribution of copyrighted materials, violating WP:COPYRIGHT. I CSDde and BLP Prodded several of such articles created for the series, I also gave the series article a massive clean up to remove a ton of unsourced, fany info, BLP violations, copyvio issues, etc. When one such article, Chris Bickford, was deleted, the user left a note on my talk page asking why I deleted it. I explained I was not an admin and why it was tagged. An admin seconded my response. Jrfoldes responded by claiming there were "sufficient" references (link to the fansite noted), and claiming I was going after his articles (as a side note, my attention to these articles came while checking the contribs of User:ChipmunkRaccoon who made some copyright violating articles). I replied explaining the errors he was making[85], but he is either not reading it or ignoring it. He also has ignored the various warnings and notes on his talk pages. He is just reverting everything, repeatedly, despite the multiple warnings about the links violating WP:COPYRIGHT and not being acceptable. He has now done six reverts to restore these links[86][87][88][89][90][91] (and yes, I am over 3RR as well, but this is a copyright violating issue, and I feel it falls under the exemptions for 3RR).

He also continues to restore Vanessa Lindores, which was redirected to the main series article per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vanessa Lindores less than a month ago,[92][93][94][95] and tried removing several BLP prods while restoring, again, the copyright violating link.[96][97][98] and making bad faith accusations.[99]

In pulling together this report, I noticed he filed an WP:ER request[100], however from said post he clearly is continuing to ignore the warnings and the discussion on my talk page, and my edit summaries which also clearly point out the issues. From a note on his own talk page[101] and another editor's page[102], he clearly has read at least some of the messages left for him, but either doesn't understand them or just doesn't care to actually listen. His responses indicate some serious ownership issues withe these articles. As I have noted above, due to his continued restoration of these copyright violating links, I am now also over 3RR. I had filed an AIV,[103] but at this point I'm thinking it is beyond that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've fully-protected both articles for three days. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 01:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: Chris Bickford was deleted by User:UtherSRG per CSD. This deletion was endorsed by a second admin on my talk page. User:Tcncv just restored the page in response to Jrfoldes's "Editor assistance" request. I have now sent it to AfD. User:GB fan also removed the BLP prod on Amyas Godfrey in response to the ER,[104][105] which was against the guidelines at Wikipedia:BLPPROD#Objecting which requires a reliable source, but we talked about it on his talk page and he has now redirected it the same as the Bickford article mentioned below. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC); updated 18:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

In light of the BLP content of the AfD and the article, I've deleted the Chris Bickford article, made it into a protected redirect, and will be courtesy blanking the AfD. Jclemens (talk) 06:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't GB fan and Tcncv be notified of this discussion? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 18:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Both are aware of it. If someone feels a more formal "ani notice" template is needed, will add it, but both were just notices of updates to the articles Jrfoldes' mentioned in his edit request. I've also reworded my note above, as GB fan was acting in good faith and my original wording unintentionally made it sound otherwise. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Wow, this is spectacularly lame, isn't it? Guy (Help!) 21:12, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats by IP against Awickert

Sorry to bother you folks on AN/I, but...

An IP user who alternatively is 75.166.179.110 or 69.171.160.130 has:

1. Accused a bunch of established WP editors of being BP employees because of his/her disagreements with them regarding the recent oil spill; see:
   • Talk:Deepwater_Horizon_oil_spill#Vote_Rigging.3F
   • Talk:Tony Hayward
   • OhanaUnited's talk
   • 2/0's talk
   • Talk:BP
2. When I removed the Talk:BP stuff per WP:NOTFORUM and its generally looking like a not-so-helpful rant, the IP made a legal threat against me on my user talk page, among some other stuff. See the fourth changed paragraph on this diff for the threat itself, and the whole section at User talk:Awickert#Are You Employed Directly by an Oil Company or Indirectly as a Sub-contractor or employee of a Subcontractor by an Oil Company for the whole shebang. I decided to drop the issue at this point, but the fact that the IP is continuing to make accusations (see above bullets) makes me think that dropping it was a bad idea and that they should not be allowed to continue to poison the atmosphere. Awickert (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

   The way I read that is not as a legal threat to sue, but as an imprecation to tell the truth else one could be legally liable for not doing so. Leaving aside the tenuous legal rationale, I don't see the "legal threat" as actionable at this point per WP:NLT, but I don't have a particularly good feeling about this contributor, either. Jclemens (talk) 06:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

   Allrighty, though I'm no lawyer, the words made me very uncomfortable. In any case, it is total WP:ABF. Maybe I shouldn't have gone through the trouble to bring this up: the IP has now gotten mad at me again (see my talk). In any case, I don't think that folks should be running around here pointing "COI" fingers at everyone who happens to disagree with them. Awickert (talk) 07:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Bah, foolish. I've got to your talk page Awickert (apologies, I could see no other common ground) and told the IP to grow up. He's just chucking CABAListic theories around, and it's disruptive and annoying. SGGH ^ping! 10:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems a clear case of harassment and attempted coercion using legal threats (borderline or not). Continuing such activity should result in a block. And yes, I have a geological background and did work for an oil company some 35 years ago. Vsmith (talk) 12:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

As Jclemens commented here: "The way I read that is not as a legal threat to sue, but as an imprecation to tell the truth else one could be legally liable for not doing so."

So was my intention. I was doing exactly this, as he described.

Two more questions--

Question 1) Is this page (here)-- the same place where I would ask Admins to make a judgement as to whether or not, based on his statements on his own Talk Page, Awikert has a conflict of interest that would preclude him from editing an oil company-related article?

And Question 2) If you take a look at the "Deepwater Horizons" Wikipedia page ("Deepwater Horizons" is the Wikipedia page about the "Gulf of Mexico Oil Rig Disaster")--

There is a question that I placed (in the Discussion area), trying to determine how to ask for a Wikipedia investigation into whether or not various "User Page" identities might be working for BP (and attempting to spin the two "Gulf Oil Disaster" related Wikipedia articles in BP's favor).

I asked there if Wikipedia had a policy for investigating editorial conflict of interest, and if so, how could I make such a request?

Reasons why I ask these questions (Specific area of concern related to my call for a Wikipedia investigation)-- (This would be in reference to both the "Deepwater Horizons" article, and the "BP oil" corporate Wikipedia articles)--

A) Both articles constantly have title change reverts if there is any attempt to change the current article title (or the article section, in the case of the BP page) from the obscure and hard-to-search "Deepwater Horizons" to the readily recognizable "Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster".

B) I am concerned that "Deepwater Horizons" would not be recognized by most people as actually being the current "Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster" and that it's very odd that both articles keep getting title reverts back to "Deepwater Horizons"

So here is my question--

How does one formally ask Wikipedia to investigate possible editorial conflict of interest related to this? Is there a way for Wikipedia to investigate whether or not people doing these aggressive reverts might actually have oil company connections?

Is this (page) the place where I would request such an investigation, and if so, how would I proceed?

Please note:

• • I am not just calling for a look to be taken at Awikert, but also other Users who also appear to be aggressively hiding or burying the "Gulf Oil Disaster" titles as well.

Thanks for any info on where and how I would proceed with this.

• • Discussion page on "Deepwater Horizons" (the strangely labeled Wikipedia article about the Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster) has more details.

75.166.179.110 (talk) 13:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• According to you it seems that the world is divided neatly into two: those who support your edits in every detail, and oil company shills. You are this: wrong. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• Agree with Guy. The right place to be wrong is nowhere, but the least wrong place to be wrong about this issue is Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Be advised that people there will probably laugh you out of town with your current claims. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)
• (e/c) Answer to Q1: Independent admin opinion: Awickert does not have a COI to edit that article. Answer to Q2: There is actually a noticeboard for this kind of concern, but rather than point you to it, I will save you, and everyone else, some time. There is no conspiracy of BP sleeper accounts editing the article; thus the article talk page is a fine place to discuss this (as, evidently, it has already been). I note that typing "Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster" (or almost any other permutation you can think of) into the search box seamlessly redirects you to the correct article, so I don't see what your problem with the current name is. --Floquenbeam (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no way for me to know who might be editing the articles on behalf of BP Public relations and who is just a personal user.

That's why I want to know how to ask Wikipedia to investigate this.

What is the procedure? How does one ask for such an investigation?

Again it seems very odd to me that these article and section titles keep getting changed from "Gulf of Mexico Oil Disaster" to "Deepwater Horizon" (which most people would not recognize and would be harder to search on the Internet).

Why do these reverts keep happening? I'd like Wikipedia to investigate. How do I make such a request?

75.166.179.110 (talk) 14:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There is no such process. If a clear and obvious COI is determined, requests can be made to the user to restrict their edits to the talk page. That does go both ways. <humor>Hmmm, why don't we also demand who might be editing the article on behalf of radical environmental groups and who is just a personal editor? </humor>

If you truly feel there's a problem, see the dispute resolution page for various options. Ravensfire (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You just did. The answer to such a vague inquiry is "no." You would have to first identify a specific editor or editors you believe to be acting in a conflict of interest, and provide evidence of such. If you have no evidence, only vague suspicions, you won't get anywhere. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I would point out that User:Awickert has been editing since 2008, and the vast majority of his edits are unrelated to BP, but I don't feed conspiracy theorists. It doesn't matter if you search for either subject, because you will get redirect to the same article, no matter what the title is. There are several redirects:

1. Gulf of Mexico oil platform explosion (redirect page) (links)
2. 2010 Explosion on Deepwater Horizon drilling rig (redirect page) (links)
3. 2010 Deepwater Horizon drilling rig explosion (redirect page) (links)
4. 2010 Deepwater rig explosion (redirect page) (links)
5. 2010 Gulf of Mexico oil spill (redirect page) (links)
6. Deepwater Horizon oil rig explosion (redirect page) (links)
7. Gulf of Mexico Oil Spill (redirect page) (links)
8. Gulf of Mexico-Transocean Drilling Incident (redirect page) (links)
9. BP Gulf of Mexico oil spill (redirect page) (links)
10. Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill (redirect page) (links)

Stop flogging this nonsense. SGGH ^ping! 17:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

IP blocked for 24 hours. SGGH ^ping! 21:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough and unapproved bot jobs (again)

Rich Farmbrough (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

On May 10, I brought a thread to ANI about Rich Farmbrough's use of AWB to run large-scale, unapproved bot jobs from his main account (archived thread). Today Rich is running the same job again, despite the comments on the ANI thread that he should avoid this. Seriously. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see consensus for anything there. Why is what Rich is doing a problem? I don't mean on the macro scale of "He can't DO that", I mean are the edits improving the project or arent' they?--Wehwalt (talk) 15:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

He's breaking the bot policy in numerous ways, remember the bot policy is there for a reason, not just because we like red tape. For example, to name just two parts of the policy he has seemingly ignored, tasks like this should be run on a separate account (so as to be marked with the bot flag, and so as to not clog up a user's contributions page), they should be approved by BAG, and have some time at BRfA for community input (like the rest of Wikipedia, everything should be collaborative, this helps weed out errors, and provides extra ideas, Rich has been making a number of mistakes in his unapproved tasks, which I believe is largely due to him skipping this stage). - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 15:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If I may ask, what are examples of some errors that he has made? --Kumioko (talk) 16:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

In this edit, he erroneously removes see also links [106]. That diff is from the last time he ran this task without approval. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) They are linked to in the previous threads, just in the one thread linked to by CBM, there is this error. Also, in a thread created by Xeno somewhere it was pointed out that Rich was making three edits to each page in a row, where the same job could have been accomplished with one. Just things like these, I expect there are more, and even if there are not, the reason that BRfA is there is to check these things, because of the potential damage a bot completing 10 edits per minute can cause. Even if the bot hasn't made any errors in the past (which is not even true in this case) it stills needs to go through BRfA, since BRfA is a preliminary measure - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: Who knows – the term "general clean" is so vague that nobody can tell what these edits are actually supposed to do. The point here is that large-scale changes (this one is over 500 edits in the last 2 hours or so) need to be clearly described and agreed-upon, which is what the bot approval process ensures.

In the last ANI thread, Rich received feedback such as

• "I'd like to propose that something be done to assure that he can't run bot tasks without approval again. ..." Equazcion 00:52, 2010-5-10 (UTC)
• "Rich has been running bot tasks, both approved and not, sometimes insignificant, from his main account for some time. I've approached him several times with the suggestion that he move it onto an actual flagged bot to no avail. ... " –xenotalk 00:56, 2010-5-10 (UTC)

It's hard to reconcile these with the same task being run, in the same way, a second time. If you were a bot operator, would you view those as supportive? — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

If he's allowed to run bots without approval so long as they are improving the project, does that mean everyone can run bots without approval so long as they improve the project? VernoWhitney (talk) 16:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

'fraid not ;), and he's not allowed to. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, despite being aware of this thread for a half hour ([107] [108]), Rich has continued the bot job without responding here in any way. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

He seems to have slowed down a bit, but still manages to make mistakes which then require reverting and redoing, which could be avoided if he examined the edits properly before submitting them. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps this should go to WP:RFC/U. I stand ready to certify. –xeno^talk 16:40, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A BRfA has also now been created (but not yet transcluded), but he's continuing to make these edits. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course that's not nearly good enough, since bot approval requests are to determine whether or not you should be running it at all to begin with. Seems like a token gesture so all the complainers might be appeased. No, though. I'd like to see an RFC/U too. Equazcion ^(talk) 16:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sure, maybe RFC/U is the way to go from here. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 16:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm deeplly, deeply unimpressed to see someone who's supposed to be setting an example behaving in such an un-collegial fashion. I would also like to see an RfC/U. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 17:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think the issue here is the assumption that it is a bot doing the edits. It's not a bot, but rather normal user edits with an automation tool; therefore a bot approval is not required. Confusingly Rich Farmbrough does have a bot User:SmackBot, but it may make communication considerably more difficult because if you talk to Richard about bot edits he will naturally be thinking his bot User:SmackBot. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 16:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

  Much of the time it seems that he sets it to auto-save (he has apparently modified the AWB code), so it is automatic rather than semi-automatic. A bot by any other name... –xeno^talk 17:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

'it seems', 'apparently modified' ... is that speculation or has Richard actually modified the software? The Contributions are slow, a bot would be much faster imho. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As I mentioned above Rich slowed down since this thread was created, previously he was doing around an edit every 6 seconds. Also, if you take a peek at the previous ANI threads about this, you'll see Rich as good as admits it is automated, also the normal AWB would stop when he gets messages on his talk page, which this doesn't seem to do, it's also rather unlikely he really sits in front of AWB for hours at a time just pressing save, as well as this he seems to make a large number of mistakes, which he then reverts manually (similar to the way you'd fix a bot's mistake, whereas if it was semi-automated he'd be able to prevent the edit even happening), - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that he is sitting at his computer for hours-long stretches (including Christmas Day) pressing "save" at times reaching speeds close to 30 edits per minute [109], but I subscribe to occam's razor. He has also never denied modifying AWB, despite the numerous times I have suggested he has done so. –xeno^talk 17:23, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, an explanation of this is required. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

As to bot tasks I just had Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot XXIX approved and that is now running, and will be moving on to Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot XXX shortly.

Meanwhile there is much other work that need to be done, just for this one fairly small piece - tidying up the {{Portal}} templates which have like most of WP grown organically and need a refactor. Inevitably some percentage of this will be more effectively done with AWB than Firefox - I already have 127 tabs open in one window on one PC, but it would be possible to use FF.

Most of these edits are trivial to check - which doesn't mean error free of course, and it is useful to do as many as possible in order to pick up any unusual situations.

Ok taking the dog for a walk, back soon. Rich Farmbrough, 17:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC).

Rich, it's not okay for you to "approve" trial of your own tasks (or to run unapproved/prior to approval), neither is it okay for you to run bot tasks on your main account. If these edits are so trivial to check, why do you keep missing mistakes? Making so many edits at that rate actually makes it very difficult to check them properly. Maybe you could clarify as to whether or not you are actually checking these edits properly before they are made? - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 17:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you'll find Rich is not running a bot but doing it manually on his main account with AWB because that is what the Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot XXIX says to do. However, I would agree, Rich needs to explain himself considerably. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 17:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I also glanced at the BOT requests above and noticed that there is a mention of other minor edits. This bothers me a bit and I think that those minor edits should be clarified. --Kumioko (talk) 19:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Space Shuttle orbiter

An(other) IP editor has added a factual error to this article. (I have corrected) See [DIFF]. They said it was a "rocket explosion", which is wrong according to the NASA report. (not even an explosion, that was such anothers error, also fixed) They seem to be ignoring messages on their talk page. I welcomed them and requested edit summaries with little to no reaction, certainly no written reply.

Full details on their talk page HERE. I AGF but they are making a lot of changes (Contributions) to a few articles and not talking. I am concerned about other possible errors. Can someone get their attention? Regards --220.101.28.25 (talk) 17:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a bit premature, to be honest. An editor made a mistake, you've corrected it and left a note on their talk page. If they repeat the mistake, and make no effort to communicate, then you should definitely look at dispute resolution. Incidentally, you posted on their talk page half an hour ago - I'd leave it a wee bit longer before deciding that they are ignoring you ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 17:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks TFOWR, but did you actually look at my several messages to them? as I am also worried I am a bit over the top, but a mistake like this is worrying. I think that all this editors edits may need to be looked at. It is ≈4:20am (local) down here in Oz and I will likely not be able to do it(and sleep too!). It's not really a dispute, they are just not communicating. (maybe a leetle 5 minute block to get their attention?) Though they seem to have stopped editing now. (Darn it!) Regards, --220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't thin a block is appropriate. I'm not sure that your message about the Orbiter article implies that a reply is needed, and certainly the minor edit marker before doesn't need replying to. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the user hasn't reinserted the same material after being messaged, has he? That could be taken to mean that they have read it, and unless they are inserting obvious factual errors into the other edits, there is little reason to assume they mean ill. Unless, of course, I have missed something. SGGH ^ping! 18:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes. You welcomed them (nice one, by the way!), you reminded them about using edit summaries, you reminded them again, then you alerted them to the error you'd fixed. I'd strongly disagree with a block - even a short one - in a situation like this. All of us make mistakes from time to time, and this mistake was made once and hasn't been repeated. I agree it would be better if the other IP was responding to talk page messages, but many editors don't. That's not normally a problem, and I believe it's not a problem here either. It can become a problem - if the editor repeatedly made the same mistake - but it isn't yet. Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 18:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact you, I presume accidentally, removed your first warn about citations here. Other than that, which they may not have seen, the only message that may have needed a reply is the most recent one, and even then it doesn't need a reply. SGGH ^ping! 18:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

@ SGGH, no they have not made any attempt to re-insert it. My only other point, until I 'snoop' around more, is they were IMHO overlinking the lead paragraphs. As for the Cite warning, I thought it was too much at the time, (my POV is slightly different now!) so I replaced it with an edit summary request. I concur with your other points.

@ TFOWR Thanks, (But it was only a template welcome! ie { {subst:welcome4} } ) I also concur with your other points.

Thanks both of you for your swift attention! I will advise if I find anything 'sus'. See what happens tomorrow. Happy editing all!--220.101.28.25 (talk) 19:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A welcome's still a welcome! I'm reasonably sure every "welcome" I've given has been a template ;-) TFOWR^propaganda 19:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Spun883 and IP sock editing disruptively

Spun883 (talk · contribs) 70.52.202.169 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

This user has been POV-pushing on several truck articles, asserting that they aren't pickup trucks. He offered no evidence to support his claim yet insists for the rest of us to provide a source to disprove his opinion. The IP was previously blocked for edit-warring to insert false information on HSV Maloo and other articles that directly contradicted the cited source, the user account was blocked shortly thereafter for evading the block.

The current disruptive editing regards edits made to Ford Explorer Sport Trac and Chevrolet Avalanche saying that they are not pickup trucks, and removing content] from Pickup truck because he doesn't think they should be there.

While there are no references (at this time) either way, our own article on pickup trucks defines them as a vehicle with a cab and an open bed, which includes the ones this user seems to think otherwise on.

I gave the IP a level-3 warning, and the user account a level-4 warning after he logged in to avoid detection. The account later posted a message to my talk page, playing dumb and pretending not to know what I was talking about, then removed my warning from his talk page, calling it "harassment".

The IP vandalized the article again, conveniently at the exact same time as the user account was editing. This should warrant a block since it occurred after the level-4 warning and I made it clear the warning applied to the account and the IP. --Sable232 (talk) 22:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Kushsinghmd

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

Key problem: Persistent and prolonged reverting activities that remove citations. In some case up to nine (9) citations were removed. [110], [111]], [112], [113], [114]

Further details: Kushsinghmd has recently begun to make contributions on en.wikipedia [115]; almost all contributions have been confined to one article. The initial edits were reverted by a number of different users: e.g. [116] or [117]; these edits by Kushsinghmd primarily removed references and were partially identified as vandalism. Kushsinghmd's reverts activities on the aforementioned article were preceded by a number of IP edits (originated from a range of IPs in Canada owned by McGill University and Bell Canada) which had culminated in a 30 min revert session involving two other users. E.g. [118] or [119] These IPs were also subsequently involved in continuing revert activities throughout Kushsinghmd's activities. One of the aforementioned IPs made minor correction and clarification edits on the article's talk page and a user talk page to posting made by Kushsinghmd. [120], [121], [122],[123] It its suspected that these wholesale revert activities that removed citations --in addition to Kushsinghmd's activities -- were carried out by the same person operating Kushsinghmd's user account. Mootros (talk) 20:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion to the substance of the argument that you and the other user have been edit warring over but the citations that are being removed are inappropriate. None of the sources, which are all links to details of specific fellowships at various institutions, support the statement that "the position of research fellow normally requires a doctoral degree, such as PhD" - using these sources as such is synthesis. Links to the French, German, English, Italian and Chinese Wikipedias wouldn't be appropriate to support the (untrue) statement that "normally a single language edition of Wikipedia has over 500,000 articles". Guest9999 (talk) 21:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I take this as resolved here and may pursue this via an arbitration process elsewhere. For the record, I will refrain from inappropriate edit warnings and revert activities. Also for the record, I have struck out the use of condescending and harassing language deployed by Kushsinghmd on the article's talk page [124] Mootros (talk) 21:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Administrator: as it is clear from the discussion page of Research Fellow, that other users have been approving the recent changes that I made to the article, while on the other hands they found user Motroos very Hard headed person, up to the point that another user quited the discussion because of the insistence of user Motroos on providing wrong information and his persistent work to undermine MD degree and even trying to excluded it from the article. Anyways , regarding the yesterdays edits that user Motroos is reporting here , these were done because of the acts of user Motroos where he disregarded the whole discussion board specially yesterdays' discussion about the position of MD and PhD and ignored all the presented information, and failing to respond appropriately to the presented objections, so he insisted on changing the order of degrees and switiching positions in yesterdays edit (which led to edit war), and when asked why he is changing positions , he failed to answer. So I reverted all these actions which I consider very unethical, and unappropriate edits and labeled them as vandalism since they affect the integrity of the article. Yet after a period of lock, he went back again and removed the MD degree totally from the article taking only his opinion into consideration and disregarding all the other opinions. And now, he coming to report the incident with complete dishonesty, without telling you the whole truth that he switched positions deliberatly after failing to to provide evidence for his claims, and also hided that he today deleted the degree complelety , changing the article to what he originally wanted before all these discussions happened. thanks 22:20, 26 May 2010 Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment: The article got full protection for one hour, after I had reported activities at the WP:AIV that I –at the time had perceived– as vandalism. [125] Mootros (talk) 22:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Back to his old tricks...

Resolved

 – Stars4change (talk · contribs) is blocked indefinitely. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Stars4change has been repeatedly warned and blocked because he/she refuses to stop using talk pages as forums. Stars has once again returned to his/her old tricks: [126], [127], [128], [129]. I'm not sure what else can be done to communicate to this user considering he/she has had two blocks and almost all of his or her talkpage is dedicated to warning about posting inappropriate content and soapbox violations. Soxwon (talk) 22:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Talk has been deleted, I have left an final warning. If I am not mistaken the last example is May 19th? Would this make a block punitive? SGGH ^ping! 23:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually you are right, they are current - however when I went to block someone else got in and blocked it as a sock. SGGH ^ping! 23:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a her, actually, Sundiiiaaa (talk · contribs · count) (and later, Sundiii (talk · contribs · count)). Blocked long ago for the same thing (inappropriate See alsos, forum crap in Child Labor, Wage Labor, drivel about maglevs and tower cities). Blocked again indef. If you see similar behavior crop up on any of these topics, let me know and I'll indef block again. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

User Athenean

Resolved

 – Stupidus Maximus blocked indef as a Guildenrich sock by yours truly. Tim Song (talk) 00:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Athenean is becoming very disruptive, and deleting the arguments of my defence. He treats W:SPI as his personal page. Here [130] and [131]. I think someone should take action. He also pretends to be an admin here, [132] and warned [133] I think an admin should block him temporarily, so i can work for my defence. I am not sure, but he was blocked before. Stupidus Maximus (talk • contribs) 23:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Re #299, he created a separate, bizarro "Corfu Channel Incident" section in an attempt to make a chaotic SPI even more chaotic SPI. Re #300, I have no idea what he is on about, nor have I ever pretended to be an administrator, this is crazy. I would be delighted if any administrators would be willing to look at the SPI itself, which has been dragging on for almost a month now. The publicity for it that this report generates is welcome. Athenean (talk) 23:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ok, if you want publicity, you have it now. Stupidus Maximus (talk) 00:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Rokarudi and irredentism

There is a certain user with whom I have a history that keeps making ethnic-based edits. His latest such contribution towards the betterment of Wikipedia is a little more unusual because it openly promotes irredentism.

More specifically, the User:Rokarudi has added a map illustrating a territorial administrative division which ceased to exist almost 150 years ago and which is at this moment is used for depicting the territorial autonomy initiative of the Szekely minority in Romania, has added this map on articles describing settlements which used to belong to that unit almost 150 years ago. Edit samples: [134], [135], [136].

My arguments against his edits are the following :

• "Szekely land" ceased to exist almost 150 years ago and has no official recognition in any way, neither in Romania nor the European Union.
• It is not a geographical region per se, and the User:Rokarudi has used it in the lead, which is innapropriate and promotes irredentism.
• "Szekely land" is listed as one of the irredentism movements in Europe : [137] under Europe/Hungarian. Note: "Szekely land" is a Hungarian claimed region in Transylvania, Romania.
• Also WP:PROMOTION (that deals with nationalistic promotions)

Using in the lead, "Szekely land" has clear irredentism conotations. Like I said, there is an initiative, spearheaded by an ethnic Hungarian party UDMR which would make the Szekler Land concept an official one. As of today they have not managed to achieve this, yet the User:Rokarudi claims this is a "reality" [138], [139].

To sum it up, the User:Rokarudi openly promotes Hungarian irredentism by adding the mentioned map in various articles about settlements, mentioning the respective settlement as still belonging to the "Szekely land".

This user has previously tried to make other ethnic-based edits that have no place on an encyclopedia and failed after mediation was initiated ( [140], [[141]], [142]). I have to mention that I tried talking about the issue[143],[144] but the user blindly reverts, avoids any conversation to reach a consensus, offers no valid arguments for changes, except nationalistic ones and I believe he just enjoys edit warring. My attempts to talk about this problem have been called "harassment" [145].

The user always attacks my reputation and does not attempt to provide a reasonable explanation for his edits. I am currently under 2RR and this is the main reason he enjoys edit warring with me, hoping that I might repeat the mistake that lead to my 2RR temporary restriction. iadrian (talk) 00:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: If anyone looks at my talk page, he/she can see and judge the nature of this dispute. Might be, it is the fault of others, but Iadrian yu attracts edit conflicts wherever he goes. Previous block record here: [146]. Dahn correctly summed up the nature of the reporter's activity with respect to me as harassment at section "Mures river 2. Rokarudi--Rokarudi 00:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, the nature of this dispute and your POV are easily seen at your talk/user page.
• Regarding edit warring, this is your biased opinion. The matter of fact is you have not managed to offer any reasonable arguments to sustain the changes you pursued ([147], [148], [149]).
• About user Dahn and what he said can be easily checked, if necessary, and the conclusion of that discussion is a little different than what you are saying.

Most importantly this is your n-th time of clearly avoiding a discussion and attacking me personally (some would call this harassment) without offering a single argument about the issue at hand. iadrian (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

No, MOST MOST IMPORTANTLY this is not an administrator issue. We aren't here to solve your problems or to decide whose hair is split correctly in disputes over the content of articles. Please, both of you, seek help via dispute resolution. There are many many venues where you can get outside help in resolving a dispute like this; the admins are NOT one of those venues. --Jayron32 01:15, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I also suggest Wikipedia:Requests for comment. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 01:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Onefortyone

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

Taking this to the experts: What's to be done, if anything, about the user Onefortyone? He's been registered for nearly five years, used IP's before that (and since - all having 141 as the second node), and his M.O. has to do with incessantly trying to post fringe theories about Elvis Presley into the singer's article and other related articles. He was already put on probabation once (4 years ago) for pushing the notion that Elvis was gay. His more recent topic has been an obsession with a claim from Elvis' ex-doctor (an obvious conflict of interest as sources go) that Elvis died from a shortage of Ex-Lax. So I wonder what the next step should be? Another request for probation? An RfC? An admin boldly indeffing this guy? The dilemma is my suspicion that he's sincere, actually a fan of Elvis, who just wants this fringe stuff in the article. (Others, on the Elvis talk page, are not so generous, calling him an out-and-out troll. The truth may be a bit of both.) I've notified the user about my intention to post this, and I also mentioned it at the Elvis talk page.
Thank yuh ver' much. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:44, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps we can direct him/her to wookiepedia or somewhere else on wikia to write the elvis article there? - Wikidemon (talk) 11:52, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Question I take it that Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone is no longer in effect? Admittedly it is quite old. SGGH ^ping! 11:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the article bans were lifted. TFOWR^propaganda 12:01, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec)No longer in effect, for at least the last 2 1/2 years. What's remarkable to me is how old it is and how the user has somehow stayed (mostly) under the radar all this time. Most obsessive users like that would have been taken down by now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:02, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The previous bans are no longer in effect, but the ARBCOM decision is! Mjroots (talk) 12:06, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

My reading of the remedies is that additional article bans can be imposed. Would they need to be imposed by ARBCOM, or would one admin be able to do it (subject to review here, etc etc)? TFOWR^propaganda 12:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I have asked at Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests whether cases can have their penalties enforced after closure without re-opening. SGGH ^ping! 14:15, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

We have an article on "Toilet-related injuries and deaths"? Wow!

Yeah, and it's a really shitty way to die. (Booyah!) HalfShadow 16:31, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The editor does seem to have a very narrow area of focus - The King, and a small number of articles relating to His Grace. Could the editor be encouraged to work outside this area? I suspect a proposal like that, backed with sanctions for non-compliance, would quickly determine whether this editor is interested in building an encyclopaedia or pushing fringe theories. This proposal based on asking myself the question: "What Would Elvis Do?"

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 11:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC) A lay preacher in the First Presleyterian Church of Elvis the Divine (UK).

It appears that a single admin could impose a new ban. Under 'Remedies' the Arbcom decision has this language: "He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research." Check the Log of Blocks and Bans to see that two different admins placed article bans on Onefortyeone in 2006 using their own discretion. EdJohnston (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

141 is liable to argue that it's not "poorly sourced", because it's verifiably Elvis' ex-doctor saying it. The real problem is that despite being told a hundred times that it's inappropriate to the article because of (1) no consensus; (2) undue weight; (3) fringe theory; (4) conflict of interest on the part of Elvis' ex-doctor; and (5) the doctor himself has had his medical license revoked; 141 keeps trying to add it to the article on the grounds of "balance". So it's garden variety disruption. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The diagnosis of 'garden-variety disruption' seems to apply. Onefortyone has continued to revert his eccentric theory about Elvis's death by constipation back into the article, and has chosen not to respond here. Since we have good documentation of his misbehavior on the Elvis Presley article going back to 2005, when Arbcom made their ruling, I think we've easily reached the threshold for an indefinite block. Hope of future reform (after five years) seems out of the question. Unless consensus here is against it, I'm planning to indefinitely block Onefortyone from editing Wikipedia. I will leave him a note about that, in case he has any response. EdJohnston (talk) 17:17, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Given the (long) history: support indef. TFOWR^propaganda 17:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

No objections. If he thinks he's being treated unfairly, he can post an unblock request, but his 5-year history on this particular topic works against him. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps topic ban from Elvis and toilet related topics? :) SGGH ^ping! 17:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll see your quip and raise you one "I agree" ;-) If 141 was prepared to a voluntary Elvis+Toilet ban, I'd be happy for the block to be flushed away. TFOWR^propaganda 18:36, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

In seriousness though, it would be a good idea I think. Seeing the one-topic nature of the users edits, a topic ban is as good as an indef block here. It will solve the issue, and may encourage the user to edit other areas more constructively, and it would also have the benefit of not being an indef ban, seeing as that is a last last resort ideally. SGGH ^ping! 18:46, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment from a regular Elvis Presley editor, before this conversation is blown away by the voluminous response from Onefortyone that will doubtless soon follow. I think I probably speak on behalf of most or all other regular editors of that page when I say this: while the five-year history speaks for itself, meaning that any temporary Elvis restriction would be short-sighted, we would not wish a harsher disciplining of the editor than necessary to free the topic from the problem. I think a permanent topic ban will be welcomed by the editing community of that page, but perhaps that is sufficient; it would be my personal hope that the editor would indeed find a niche for an effective and well-received contribution elsewhere in the encyclopedia. If monitoring were later to show continuing problems, then wider sanctions could be judged appropriate at that point. PL290 (talk) 19:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

" before this conversation is blown away by the voluminous response from Onefortyone that will doubtless soon follow" - Just gotta say you have quite the crystal ball there! Active Banana (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeh, too bad we didn't take bets on it. As for you, we must "a peal" to your good senses. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'd like to get the discussion back on the topic of OneFortyOne's topic ban or block. There were a few comments above about this, but I don't think there are enough to say there's a consensus yet. As far as I can tell, OneFortyOne isn't happy with the idea of a topic ban (see below), and doesn't seem to indicate that they're aware of the issues that prompted this ANI discussion (or even, in my view, the prior ARBCOM cases). With that in mind, I'd like to propose the following: "OneFortyOne is indefinitely blocked. This block will be lifted if OneFortyOne consents to a topic ban covering those articles covered by OneFortyOne's current probation." Aye, nay, maybe? TFOWR^propaganda 12:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)
  • That might work. I've concluded that either the user is a genuine troll, or else fits Hanlon's razor. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Tangent

Just a question. For what specific reason should I be blocked or banned? Would you please tell me which of my recent edits has violated my probation? All of my contributions are well sourced and I am always discussing my contributions if some other users think that this is necessary. What should be wrong with this edit or this one or this one? The latter was added because another user detected a recently published new source and was of the opinion that it should be included in the article. Furthermore, it should be taken into account that the same few users who have requested this case are deeply involved in current content disputes and are frequently removing what I have written. They are now also manipulating the Elvis talk page (see below). Could it be that I am still the victim of harassment as in previous cases of a similar kind? As ARBCOM member Sam Blacketer who analyzed such a case said early last year about my edits: "his more recent additions appear to be reliably sourced .... While the talk page can get heated at times, I am very reluctant to sanction an editor merely because they happen to be in a minority." Onefortyone (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Being sourced is not a free ticket to inclusion, it's simply one of the minimum requirements. You have been told, over and over, why your various attempts at posting this junk (over the last 5 years) are inappropriate, and you won't pay attention. Contentiousness, disruption, incompetence, you name it. That's the reason, if it comes to that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

So it is only your personal opinion that my well-sourced contributions are "junk", and therefore you have opened this case. I see. Onefortyone (talk) 15:32, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Being sourced does not make them valid. As you have been told many times already. You're an endless-loop troll. And sooner or later, even your current buddy Main Engine Cut Off will figure that out. See ya. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I would call this an unjustified personal attack by the user who opened this case. Onefortyone (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Then you should report it here. TFOWR^propaganda 16:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Onefortyone

It is understandable that the administrators are not fully aware of the whole story. Here it is.

To my mind, there are some Wikipedians (who may be part of an Elvis fan group) who frequently remove my well-sourced contributions to Elvis Presley and some other articles, even if they are very short. See [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166]. I have a suspicion that there is a small circle of Wikipedians who frequently cooperate in editing and may know each other. See [167], [168], [169], [170], [171]. They are deliberately harassing me by repeatedly deleting my contributions and attacking me on the talk pages, simply because my edits are not in line with their view of Elvis, although I am very carefully, and frequently, citing my sources, among them reputed Elvis biographies, books by people who knew the singer well (such as his personal physician), and critical university studies. Furthermore, there can be no doubt that in the past I have been more than once the victim of attacks by sockpuppets of Elvis fans. See [172].

Most of these Wikipedians use the same strategy as my old opponent Ted Wilkes alias multiple hardbanned User:DW did in the past over and over again: personal attacks (accusing me of outright fabrication and insanity, calling me buddy, a liar or troll etc.), deliberately claiming things that are not true, and removing content they do not like. See, for instance, these absurd claims by User:PL290: [173] [174]. More important, however, are the frequent personal attacks by DocKino. See [175] [176] [177] [178] [179] [180] [181] [182]. In like manner, in an FA discussion DCGeist has called some of my critical remarks about the Elvis article, “dross”, although these remarks were supported by another user’s comment. See [183].

To my mind, DocKino is identical with DCGeist. Both users are situated in New York City, both are film experts and interested in the B-movie and Sex Pistols articles. Their editing styles/methods are similar (see [184], [185]) and their edit histories reveal that they must have the same sleeping time. Furthermore, as an editor not formerly involved both in contributions to, and content disputes concerning, the Presley article, DCGeist has an all too specific knowledge of Elvis-related details, as it could only be expected from DocKino. See [186]. More problematic is that DocKino and DCGeist cooperate in achieving FA statuses arguing on the related discussion pages against other users as if they were two different Wikipedians. See also [187].

Moreover, Doc Kino and User:PL290 are often working hand in hand on the same Wikipedia articles, for instance, Elvis Presley and The Beatles, endeavouring to suppress all opinions not in line with their view. See their edit history and Talk:The_Beatles/Archive_23#There_are_no_critical_voices_to_be_heard. In working together, these editors are also happy to avoid the 3RR. PL290 even goes so far as to remove contributions criticizing his attitude from the Elvis talk page. See [188], although, on the other hand, he participates in personal attacks against me. The same Wikipedians also show evidence of misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view as they more than once removed a sourced alternative point of view. See diffs above.

Interestingly, even some old arbcom cases from 2005 are once again used in order to compromise me and my recent contribitions. It should be noted that it was Ted Wilkes alias multiple hard-banned User:DW who took me to arbitration simply because he didn’t like my contributions. In 2005, the arbcom unfortunately said, "Onefortyone ... may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research." However, it was my opponent Wilkes who was later hardbanned. As far as I can see, I have not violated my probation since that time, as I am always citing many reliable sources (including published books, academic studies, articles in reputed periodicals, etc.) in order to support my edits. For a list of sources I am using, see [189]. In a subsequent case the arbcom said that my former opponents "Ted Wilkes and Wyss have repeatedly insisted on an unrealistic standard with respect to negative information regarding celebrities that is current in popular culture, gossip and rumor Talk:James Dean#Removal of "Rumors" section and Talk:Nick Adams#Rumors, gossip or speculation contravene official Wikipedia policy." Therefore, according to the arbcom, Ted Wilkes and Wyss were banned from making edits related to specific subjects, and they were both placed on Wikipedia:Probation. In 2006, there was this subsequent arbcom decision confirming that my "editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content." Furthermore, the arbcom said that my opponent Lochdale "has removed large blocks of sourced material from Elvis Presley" and that he "shows evidence of misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." Therefore, Lochdale was the person who was "banned indefinitely from editing articles which concern Elvis Presley." One year ago, there was another attempt by Rikstar and some Elvis fans to ban me from Wikipedia. It failed because the arbcom rejected the case. Arbcom member Sam Blacketer says about my edits: “his more recent additions appear to be reliably sourced .... While the talk page can get heated at times, I am very reluctant to sanction an editor merely because they happen to be in a minority.”

Concerning the Elvis Presley article, I have been a regular contributor for several years, having added material to the sections on

• the singer's manager, Colonel Tom Parker (see [190], [191], [192], [193], [194], [195], [196], [197]),
• the world-wide Elvis industry (see [198], [199]),
• the Memphis Mafia (see [200]),
• Elvis's death (see [201], [202], [203], [204], [205], [206]),
• his consumption of drugs (see [207], [208], [209], [210], [211]),
• Priscilla Presley (see [212], [213], [214]),
• Elvis's close relationship with his mother (see [215], [216], [217], [218], [219], [220], [221], [222], [223], [224], [225]),
• his youth and early stardom (see [226], [227], [228], [229], [230]),
• the allegations of racism (see [231], [232], [233], [234]),
• Elvis's male friendships (see [235], [236], [237], [238], [239], [240], [241], [242], [243]),
• the FBI files on Presley (see [244], [245], [246], [247]),
• the singer's movies (see [248], [249], [250] [251], [252], [253]),
• his musical career (see [254], [255], [256]),
• his final stages in Las Vegas (see [257]),
• theatrical plays and music by other musicians relating to Elvis (see [258], [259]),
• Presley and the Beatles (see [260]),
• the Elvis cult and its critics (see [261], [262], [263], [264]),
• Presley's political beliefs (see [265], [266]), etc. etc.

This endless list shows that I am not a troll as my opponents falsely claim and that I have added much material to all sections of the article and also written a critical section on the Elvis cult which has been totally deleted from the main article for inexplicable reasons and despite the fact that other users were of the opinion that it belonged in the article.

For a third opinion concerning the questionable attitudes of my opponents, see also this recent statement by user Meco, who says

my impression is that 141 certainly isn't the only problem around here. I would go on to contend that they aren't the biggest problem either. In fact, I'd even be open to the belief that they are right and that a vociferous pack of entrenched editors have assumed ownership of this article and are actively attempting to malign and shut this user out of the would-be consensus-building effort which article editing on Wikipedia is supposed to be.

So I do not understand why anybody who is aware of the whole story would earnestly propose an indefinite block on me. Onefortyone (talk) 00:24, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Would you agree to a topic ban of the form outlined above by SGGH? TFOWR^propaganda 00:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

In view of the frequent personal attacks on me by my opponents, I do not think that a ban against me is justified at all, especially since all of my contributions are well sourced and fully in line with Wikipedia policy. To my mind, there is only a content dispute about the inclusion of some additional information in the Elvis article. For a third opinion on what is actually going on, see Talk:Elvis_Presley#This_talk_page_is_poisoned. Onefortyone (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

141 reveals that he sees this as a WP:BATTLEGROUND. It's worth pointing out that the squabble he had 5 years was over trying to promote some theory that Elvis was gay (which I'm sure would have come as a surprise to both Priscilla and their daughter). Now you've got this ex-doctor cooking up this theory to try and avoid the blame for himself having done to Elvis approximately what that one guy did to MJ last summer. The ex-doctor is a primary source about himself, so I don't see how that qualifies as a "reliable" source under wikipedia policy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Just for the record. You are right that the sources I have provided in support of the opinion that Elvis may have had a homosexual affair with his best friend Nick Adams (to be found, for instance, in Albert Goldman's Elvis biography, in a book by celebrity biographer David Bret and in a manuscript by Elvis's Stepmother, Dee Presley) caused some outrage in 2005 among Elvis fans such as Ted Wilkes whose contributions formerly dominated the Elvis article. However, Wilkes was banned from Wikipedia by arbcom decision and more recent publications by reputed Elvis biographers Alanna Nash and Kathleen Tracy seem to support the claim of bisexuality. Notwithstanding, this detail is not even mentioned in the present version of the article. And I still do not understand why a single sentence summarizing the opinion of Elvis's personal physician about the cause of the singer's death to be found in a recently published book should not be added to the article, especially in view of the fact that the theories by the other doctors are already included there and some other editors (among them the editor who first detected the source) were also of the opinion that the said detail should be added. Onefortyone (talk) 03:52, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Onefortyone calls it a content dispute; that is not new, or entirely untrue. However, the term masks the reality, which is non-collaborative editing, against consensus, for unwarranted promotion of fringe theories. This single editor has persisted, for a period of many years, in regular disruptive editing, dominating the Elvis Presley article talk page with voluminous posts which push the same minority fringe agenda over and over again, and repeatedly placing material into the article against consensus. This current conversation is already following the usual patterns of diverting the issue by arguing about specific sources, pointing the finger elsewhere, or innocently protesting inability to understand why others deem content inappropriate (a holow "innocence", given that during his domination of the two recent Elvis Presley Featured Article candidacies—when, tellingly, his arguments for inclusion of such content received no support whatsoever from the body of reviewers in either of the two candidacies—the editor, who calls those who disagree with him "Elvis fans" and his "opponents", acknowledged himself that he is in a minority). The fact remains, consensus is ultimately what demonstrates what content is appropriate for a mainstream encyclopedia, and the consensus in question is well established on the article talk page, and involves numerous editors (some of whom have been discouraged from further contribution by Onefotyone's pattern of behaviour)—as can be seen by any who will look at the history. That same consensus was reaffirmed by the wider Wikipedia body during the two FA candidacies. We do not know why Onefortyone has demonstrated an obsession with the Elvis articles, forcing a fringe view, from a minority of one, against all the other involved editors. We have to accept the reality that a Wikipedia editor could be identical with Presley's discredited doctor, which would explain the vested interest; alternately, other reasons may apply which are out of the editor's control. Whether Onefortyone wishes to build an encyclopedia remains in doubt, given the narrow focus of contribution and the refusal to collaborate. These are the issues, and they are not addressed by turning once again to debating sources, when consensus has shown over and over that the material in question is not appropriate in a mainstream summary of the artist's entire life and career. PL290 (talk) 07:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• (tl/dr) HalfShadow 16:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Statement from meco

I would suggest that the initial diatribe from Baseball Bugs is not taken on face value. A discerning reader will immediately recognize the tone and style of their post belying a less than honest intent on this editor whom I have just exposed as an ingenuous demagogue who will employ every simple rhetorical ploy in their little bag of dirty tricks to rid themselves of a vexing opposition, that is, short of actually addressing the grievance raised and material subject at hand. Ad hominem is the first and primary tool applied in discussion by this user, and if any individual editor ought to be censured in the debacle which I have witnessed, it is Baseball Bugs.

Everyone knows that most people aren't going to analyze years of edit history, dozens of lengthy sections filled with heated discussion and on such a basis make up their well-informed mind about the comprehensive truth of the situation. Most people are perhaps going to study the discussion on this page somewhat closely and sample some of the links that are selectively offered (unless they are too numerous) and basically make an intuitive choice about which of the editors that are personally involved in the conflict they are going to pay credence to. Let me therefore offer a small tool which I devised yesterday when analyzing one major section on the Elvis talk page, the most recent discussion about including Elvis' personal doctor's recent postulation that The King died from constipation (a section also containing two sub-sections): Talk:Elvis Presley#This talk page is poisoned.

Without considering the pre-history of the conflict I narrowmindedly focus on one discussion. I summarize the individual posts and comment on the tone, style and, as I am able to judge, intent of the poster. Suffice to say that unless what I uncover in my analysis is more or less diametrically misrepresentative of the corpus of that page (which I haven't assayed) then the description provided by Baseball Bugs at the top of this incident report should be apprehended with utmost skepticism.

What I basically find in my analysis is that the accused user, exclusively referred to as 141, presents themselves in an impeccable style, responds to all queries factually and politely, but more importantly never loses their composure in the face of blatant provocations and incivilities by several of the other editors.

I find furthermore that three editors in particular, PL290, DocKing and Baseball Bugs, act in concert to derail all attempts to focus on the material issue being raised. And I will point out that it was not 141 who started that thread about including the constipation information into the article. I did, never having visited this particular Wiki-community previously, but based on having read multiple news headlines in major mainstream newspapers on the issue. I dare characterize the conduct of these three editors in that section as pack behavior, plain and simple.

I notice that the initial discussion in the present section uncritically accepts the premises offered by Baseball Bugs and the only real discussion is what type of sanction is to be leveled at the "problem user". I think this is very unfortunate. I personally also strongly take issue with the notion asserted by multiple editors that a user focusing on a small number of topics over a long period of time is a problem to be corrected. We all have different modes of editing and we all have different motivations for coming to this project to contribute. Not being a generalist is not a reason for criticism, and certainly not for censure.

Has WP:AN/I really become this skewed and complacent that some level-headed administrator isn't going to enter the arena and call out the travesty kangaroo court that is currently being manufactured set up? __meco (talk) 08:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Meco, as I pointed out on the article talk page, as a recent arrival on the scene you have badly missed the point. Your assessment is fatally flawed because, by your own admission, you have only looked at very recent discussions. In view of that, it's amazing that you can dismiss ANI as "skewed" or "complacent" as you just did in your closing sentence. You may claim that "Everyone knows that most people aren't going to analyze years of edit history, dozens of lengthy sections filled with heated discussion and on such a basis make up their well-informed mind about the comprehensive truth of the situation", but that is in fact precisely what responsible admins who frequent this page will do (and have already done, now and at earlier times, in respect of this particular editor). Please stop jumping to conclusions based on your own very selective and recent observations, and you will see that the real story is very different. PL290 (talk) 08:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That is simply nonsense. Making such assays is time-consuming. I'm certainly not out-of-the-blue asserting that administrators and other interested editors won't study the matter in-depth as opposed to accepting cursory versions from the involved parties. It boils down to the following: If someone does make the extensive effort of doing their own investigation into the pre-history of such a case as this one, they are certainly not going to return to this discussion not mentioning that they have made a thorough probe and give representative examples of what they found. Or is your intimate knowledge of human behavior so shallow that you assert just that? No, it isn't, because you are both cunning and skillful at sophisticated manipulation of a discussion arena. Would someone who spends maybe forty-five minutes, maybe a couple of hours, or more, studying past discussions and conflict flare-ups return to this page with the only remark: "I agree that we should probably give this user an indefinite block since they have been engaging in this type of behavior for several hears." You, PL290, are in fact employing some very advanced manipulation techniques of your own, such as appealing to secret codes: "it's amazing that you can dismiss ANI as 'skewed' or 'complacent' as you just did in your closing sentence" – translation: "those who read this page are decent, honest and hard-working contributors to the project, I have trust in you, but meco doesn't. Are you really gonna take his side against mine?" Or: "that is in fact precisely what responsible admins who frequent this page will do" – translation: "those admins who haven't made a thorough investigation before giving their opinions are irresponsible. I assert that the admins involved in the current process are responsible! If anyone just felt a sting of bad conscience, I have now effectively preempted their coming out with it." But you are good PL290. You are one of the better ones. Too bad you don't use those skills in the service of good. __meco (talk) 09:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

If Main Engine Cut Off had spent half the time looking at 141's history that he spent constructing that Martin Luther-sized megillah on the article talk page, he would maybe get the point that PL290 is making, above, that 141 has been pushing fringe theories about Elvis for 5 years and simply won't stop, despite arbcom rulings and blocks by others in the past. Persistent, disruptive defiance of consensus (as well as logic and reason) can result in being prohibited from editing a particular subject. That's standard procedure. It is not wikipedia's place to promote fringe theories. Along with his admitted selective reading of the 141 issue, Meco may have overlooked that I began this item with "What's to be done, if anything, about the user Onefortyone?" Maybe the answer is "nothing", but maybe it's "something", which is why I wanted the admins to look at it. And for the record, I got into this because Elvis happened to be one of the thousand or so items on my watch list. Despite any accusations 141 may have leveled, I am not now, nor have I ever been: afflicted with severe gastrointestinal ailments; any kind of homosexual; nor (gasp!) a member of any Elvis fan club. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:29, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not buying the whole "we don't know the whole story, a terrible injustice is being perpetuated" thing. ARBCOM looked at this; we know what they found; we can see that the issues that led to the original case are still ongoing. Everything else is irrelevant. Up above a solution has been proposed which would enable Onefortyone to continue editing (i.e. consent to a voluntary topic ban on Elvis-related articles). If Onefortyone isn't OK with that solution, the only other alternative would appear to be that the 2006 ARBCOM ruling is enforced, i.e. that Onefortyone is blocked. Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 12:01, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

What about the personal attacks frequently made by the other users? See [267]. I still do not think that a ban against me is justified at all. ARBCOM has carefully analyzed earlier cases of this kind, when small groups of editors took me to arbitration. In all these cases, the ARBCOM’s decision was to ban my opponents from the related articles. The ARBCOM clearly said that my “editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content. To a greater extent he allows the reader to draw their own conclusions.” See [268]. The fact remains that the Elvis article is currently dominated by, and debate is only among, a handful of editors, most of them part of a group that frequently removes my contributions and makes personal attacks against me on the talk page. That’s why I call these few editors my opponents. They often leave important alternative voices unheard – voices being supported by reliable sources. The problem is that only some Wikipedians are interested in Elvis Presley and that for several years I have been the target of attacks by lots of Elvis fans, simply because I have a more critical view of the singer. Therefore, it is very easy for this small group of editors who cooperate with each other to claim that my editing is against consensus, allegedly “for unwarranted promotion of fringe theories,” or that the “material in question is not appropriate,” although it is well sourced and to be found in many publications on Elvis. If there are third opinions by other users supporting my view, they are gagged. See also Talk:Elvis_Presley#Recent_Reverts, [269] and this recent statement. My contributions are not fringe views shared only by a minority, as PL290 falsely claims, but in most cases opinions supported by mainstream biographies, university studies (among them social and gender studies), publications on the rock’n’roll era and books published by people who knew the singer well. As arbcom member Sam Blacketer said early last year about my edits: “his more recent additions appear to be reliably sourced .... While the talk page can get heated at times, I am very reluctant to sanction an editor merely because they happen to be in a minority.” As can be seen by any who will look at the history, only one of my recent contributions to the Elvis article was not removed by my opponents. This one. However, the second sentence was later removed. More critical edits are frequently removed, although they are well sourced. As for PL290’s false claim above that my arguments for inclusion of additional content received no support whatsoever from the body of reviewers in either of the two FA candidacies, see these commentaries by other users: [270], [271], [272]. When I took up SandyGeorgia’s point that there is little on Elvis’s personal life to be found in the Wikipedia article (see [273]), DCGeist replied, “Ignoring the dross...” See [274]. As for the disruptive editing dominating the Elvis Presley article talk page, it should be noted that on April 15, PL290 has removed one of my critical remarks from the talk page. User Sinneed said, “I agree that the above remark should not have been removed.” On May 11, 2010, user Meco said, “I don't see that you are addressing Onefortyone's argument in a rational manner.” Onefortyone (talk) 14:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Separate issue entirely. Create a new thread at the bottom of this page - or at a more appropriate venue - if you want to discuss other issues. This thread is discussing concerns over your conduct, and, in particular, your compliance with an ARBCOM decision. It would be too easy, otherwise, to get bogged down with lengthy rebuttals and counter-claims. TFOWR^propaganda 14:44, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the "Remedies" section of the ARBCOM decision OneFortyOne refers to above is here: Onefortyone remains on probation with respect to editing articles which concern celebrities, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Onefortyone#Onefortyone_placed_on_Probation. I'd suggest any topic ban should incorporate this, more recent, ARBCOM case and include all celebrities. TFOWR^propaganda 14:54, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Could any administrator tell me which of my recent edits has violated my probation? I did not insert poorly sourced information or original research. To my mind, there was no consensus on the talk page that the additional information concerning Elvis's death (to be found in a recent book by Elvis's personal physician) should not be included in the article, as there were other editors (including the editor who has detected the specific source) supporting the inclusion. It should again be noted that ARBCOM has carefully analyzed earlier cases of this kind, when small groups of editors took me to arbitration. In all these cases, the ARBCOM’s decision was to ban my opponents from the related articles. The ARBCOM clearly said that my “editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content. To a greater extent he allows the reader to draw their own conclusions.” See [275]. This is still the case. And the frequent attacks I receive are certainly of much importance, as they clearly demonstrate my opponents' biased attitudes. Onefortyone (talk) 15:05, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

For starters, there's your frequent attempts to re-insert the same nonsense despite the lack of any consensus to do so. And speaking of "personal attacks", where's your evidence that any of us are in an "Elvis fan club"? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:15, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

So you call the view of Elvis's personal physician published in his recent book "nonsense". I see. As far as I can see, there was no consensus to omit this specific detail. Onefortyone (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

He's not a doctor, and his claims are a conflict of interest. Not a valid source. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:43, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The sourcing arguments are those typically posed by fringe theorists who are trying to get their pet theories into wikipedia to lend them some artificial notability. That kind of thing is the reason we fight it. It's not appropriate to use wikipedia to give false credence to fringe and biased sources. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:06, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This may be your personal opinion, as you are deeply involved in the current content dispute. However, other editors are of a different opinion. Onefortyone (talk) 15:14, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

No, not really. This ARBCOM case resulted solely in you being put on probation and being banned from certain articles. The article ban was subsequently lifted after one editor was found to have misbehaved. I'm concerned about your use of the word "opponents" above: Wikipedia is not a WP:BATTLEGROUND. Indeed, I would suggest - without prejudice to ARBCOM - that it is this attitude, historically and continuing - that has brought you to ARBCOM, has brought you to ANI. Selective reading of ARBCOM rulings only goes so far - sooner or later we all read them too. TFOWR^propaganda 15:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I count at least a dozen places in this discussion where he refers to his "opponents", as if he thinks wikipedia is a video game or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Interestingly, TFOWR, you are only referring to the earliest arbcom case. Did you realize that, in 2005, a sockpuppet of a multiple hardbanned user took me to arbitration who was later banned from Wikipedia for one year and did not reappear? As for the later ban on me, the unjustified article bans were immediately lifted, due to abusive sockpuppetry on the articles by another editor, who requested these bans. To my mind, taking me to arbitration or asking for bans seems to be a usual game by my opponents in order to harass me. This was also the opinion of one of the arbcom members in a later case. Onefortyone (talk) 15:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

You've used the term "opponents" a dozen times just in the above discussion, here on this page right now. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

That's nearer my reading of the cases, yes. Would you care to strike out that part above where you suggested that the ARBCOM’s decision was to ban my opponents from the related articles? Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 15:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand your argument. As the subsequent arbcom cases concerning the same matter show, Ted Wilkes and Lochdale were clearly banned by arbcom decision from the related articles. Onefortyone (talk) 15:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Hence your block was lifted. But aren't you still actively subject to the ArbCom restrictions? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've looked at the "remedies" sections of two separate ARBCOM cases: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Elvis; the latter case did result in an article (Elvis Presley) ban for one editor. The former case did not. Both cases either placed you on probation or continued the probation, for articles involving celebrities. Above, however, you stated that "the ARBCOM’s decision was to ban my opponents from the related articles". Ignoring the colourful use of the word "opponents", only one editor was "banned" - and it was a ban from one article. This kind of selective reading of ARBCOM cases neatly avoids the real remedy proposed:

Onefortyone is placed on Wikipedia:Probation with respect to the biographies of celebrities. He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research.

There seems to be a consensus here that you have disrupted an article and/or its talk page by attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research. Rather than indefinitely block you from the encyclopaedia in its entirety, it's been proposed that we should first see if you are prepared to accept a ban on editing articles about Elvis. Are you?

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 15:59, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not think that there is a consensus here that I “have disrupted an article and/or its talk page by attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research.” This is only the biased opinion of some of the participants in the recent content disputes on Talk:Elvis Presley, as they apparently do not like the new material to be found in a recently published book by Elvis's personal physician. For a totally different view, see the third opinion by user meco above. As for the blocks or bans on my so-called opponents in the arbcom cases, see [276], [277], [278], [279], [280]. I still do not think that I have violated my probation. However, in order to calm down the emotions and to show good faith, I would like to have a personal break from editing Wikipedia for about a month or so. Would this be acceptable? Onefortyone (talk) 16:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

This was an even earlier ARBCOM case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Wilkes, Wyss and Onefortyone, relating to "homosexuality". Was that the one you meant to post?

A personal break is perfectly acceptable - no one can force you to edit here ;-)

When you return please do remember your probation and give serious thought to accepting a topic ban. It will be infinitely preferable to an outright block.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 16:21, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The case you have mentioned was a subsequent case, where ARBCOM member Redwolf24 requested "a merge to the previous case on Onefortyone seeking an addendum stating that Wyss and Ted Wilkes lay off 141. In my personal opinion they have been harassing him, and I've seen them go out of their way to revert him." This was a clear statement which shows that I have been the victim of harassment for a long period of time. And you may get the impression from this 2005 case and the personal attacks I am receiving now, that I am still the victim of harassment. The ARBCOM said,

“Following the decision attempts to edit by Onefortyone and his mentor FCYTravis were thwarted by reversions and edit warring by Ted Wilkes and Wyss.” “Onefortyone complained about the edit warring and Ted Wilkes and Wyss were warned. Ted Wilkes responded that he intended to continue with his behavior.” “Ted Wilkes and Wyss are banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality.” “Ted Wilkes is placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If in the opinion of any three administrators, for good cause, he is responsible for disrupting the functioning of Wikipedia, restrictions may be placed on his editing, up to and including a general ban of one year.”

As Wilkes violated his probation, he was banned for one year. See [281]. It should further be noted that there was another subsequent case concerning the same matter. In this 2006 case the ARBCOM decided to ban Lochdale from the Elvis article. These are the facts. Onefortyone (talk) 17:07, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as you seem to be active again, I'll reply:

The case you have mentioned was... No. This was the case you mentioned. I asked you to clarify that it was the case you meant to mention, as it appeared at first glance to be related to "homosexuality", not "celebrities" or "toilets". Prior to you mentioning it above I was unaware of it. I am still unclear as to how it relates to your later two cases, both of which resulted in or confirmed your probation on articles related to celebrities.

That other editors eventually were blocked or banned as a result of the first (?) ARBCOM case with which you involved (i.e. the "homosexuality" case) isn't hugely pertinent to your behaviour on celebrity articles, your probation on celebrity articles, or your recent conduct that resulted in your probation becoming widely known.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 12:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There seems to be some misunderstanding. All these arbcom cases are related, as they are all subsequent to the original case of September 2005. The arbcom wasn't aware at the time of the first case that Wilkes was a sockpuppet of a hardbanned user and that he was harassing me. According to arbcom member Redwolf24, the so-called "homosexuality" case of December 2005 is a "merge to the previous case on Onefortyone seeking an addendum stating that Wyss and Ted Wilkes lay off 141. In my personal opinion they have been harassing him, and I've seen them go out of their way to revert him" (his words). See the case you have mentioned [282]. Onefortyone (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Moved comment that was inserted part-way through an earlier comment. TFOWR^propaganda 15:39, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

So would you please tell me which of my recent edits has violated my probation? All of my edits are well sourced and I am always citing my sources (books and articles on Elvis, university studies etc.). What should be wrong with this edit or this one or this one? Onefortyone (talk) 14:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You're arguing in this very thread about using Elvis' ex-physician as a source, despite the obvious conflict-of-interest concerns being explained to you. TFOWR^propaganda 15:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

As for the alleged conflict-of-interest, see my contribution on the Elvis talk page: [283]. Onefortyone (talk) 15:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You see, that's my concern right there. You're on probation on that article - you simply shouldn't be pushing that at all. Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 16:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your argument. As far as I can see, I am not pushing the new theory about Elvis's death. Others were of the opinion that a short note should be included in the article, as the book is written by Elvis's main physician, and I included it. Yet it was immediately removed by the other users. I reincluded it because there were different opinions about it on the talk page, and it was again removed. Because of the current dispute, I have not reincluded the quote from the said book and I do not intend to reinclude it in order to calm down the emotions. However, the question remains, what is so difficult about adding the short quote to the article together with a well-sourced additional remark from a reliable source that there may be a conflict-of-interest. This would be in line with Wikipedia policy. However, the other users have not yet provided such a remark for inclusion in the article. Onefortyone (talk) 16:20, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You're on probation for that article. You should not be re-adding content after other editors have removed it, whatever your justification. There's a content dispute - obviously - which needs to be resolved, but it won't be resolved while an editor on probation ignores a revert, ignores the discussion which I would hope would follow. With respect, you do not seem to understand what probation means, and you do not seem to be able to abide by it. You do seem very good at throwing in tangents and red-herrings, however, as this thread demonstrates. TFOWR^propaganda 16:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I still do not understand your argument. Firstly, I am only on probation for having once or twice inserted poorly sourced information or original research in 2005. Since that time I am always citing the sources I am including in Wikipedia articles, as the arbcom has confirmed, and in the current case the source the other user has detected is a recently published book, which is certainly not poorly sourced information. Secondly, as the talk page shows, there were different opinions about the book by Elvis's physician. Thirdly, it has not yet been appropriately considered that I may be the victim of harassment by the person who has opened this case. Onefortyone (talk) 16:58, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Firstly, you are on probation.
  • You've stated here that you've added content, been reverted, then re-added similar content instead of discussing the issue. This is the concern.
• Secondly, what happens on the talk page is all well and good as part of a discussion about a content dispute. This is not that discussion. This is a discussion about an editor who appears not to understand the terms of their probation, and how we as a community act to prevent further disruption.
• Thirdly, I directed you to the approrpiate forum to discuss your complaint about that editor. Throwing it in during a discussion about you is inappropriate, a red-herring, a diversion. Please take it to the correct forum.
  • Personally, I would imagine that the editor in question is getting extremely weary repeating the same things over and over. I know I am.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 17:06, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You are right that I am on probation, but for having included poorly sourced information in 2005, not for re-including a well-sourced quote after intensively discussing the topic on the Elvis talk page. Interestingly, user Baseball Bugs, who opened this case, was part of this discussion and didn't accept my argument. Another user, Colonel Warden, did accept it. For the relevance of the source in question, see also Colonel Warden's opinion below. Onefortyone (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say why you on probation: the reasons can be read by anyone simply by clicking on the links I've peppered throughout this thread. The reasons are, in any event, completely irrelevant - another spectacular red-herring. The reasons are not important: what matters are that (a) you are on probation, and (b) what the terms of the probation are (i.e. that if you behave as you appear to have behaved recently (see my comment You've stated here that you've added content, been reverted, then re-added similar content instead of discussing the issue above), you can be topic banned). This thread is about whether you would accept a topic ban (and I gather you wouldn't) and, if not, what steps to take next: I advocate a block, as I think trying to explain your probation to you is most likely not going to be very successful. TFOWR^propaganda 17:27, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

141, you're either being deliberately obtuse, or you really need to read up on the meaning of "probation." I'll quote the arbcom decision:

• Onefortyone is placed on Wikipedia:Probation with respect to the biographies of celebrities. He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research.

This does not mean "only stuff which you inserted when the probation was put in place." It means any poorly sourced information or WP:OR. Consensus is that what you're trying to include is poorly sourced. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 17:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I see. However, to my mind, I didn't include poorly sourced information in the current Elvis article, as some editors were of a different opinion, as the talk page shows. I also do not think that the reason why I am still on probation is irrelevant because I am on probation only because of the specific reason (and because a sockpuppet of a multiple hardbanned user who wanted to harass me took me to arbitration in 2005), and it is a fact that I have not violated this probation for several years. Furthermore, I have re-added similar content (a very short quote from Nichopoulos's book) to the current Elvis article only after intensively discussing the issue on the talk page. This is not unimportant. The question remains how the content dispute should be resolved. I have declared above that, in order to calm down emotions, I do not intend to re-include the Nichopoulos quote in the Elvis article, although I still think that I am a victim of harassment by some other users. As for the question if a topic ban or block is justified (I personally do not think so), what about asking some members of the 2005 and 2006 arbcom cases if they are of the opinion that I have violated my probation? It may also be a good idea to assign a mentor to me, for instance an expert in writing biographical Wikipedia articles not previously being involved in content disputes on Talk:Elvis Presley, with whom I may discuss future contributions, if some editors have problems with my edits. Onefortyone (talk) 18:28, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm open to both suggestions, though I don't believe it's necessary to get an arb to make the call as to whether you've broken your probation. My reading of your probation is that an admin can make that call.

Incidentally, the key thing for me - the key thing that says you've broken (and do not understand how you've broken) your probation - is your comment about the content dispute. If there's a content dispute at all you should not add disputed content. I'm glad you say you won't now re-add until the content dispute is resolved; the problem is that you have already added content disputed text during a content dispute. It is precisely this that your probation prohibited.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 18:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

So any user on probation should not be re-adding content after other editors have removed it, whatever his/her justification? I didn't know that there is such a rule. Wouldn't this be carte blanche for every Wikipedian who has an axe to grind with the user on probation? Once a well-sourced contribution another user doesn't like has been removed from the Wikipedia article it cannot be re-included by the editor on probation. Is that really true? Onefortyone (talk) 19:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

How on earth did you read what I said and infer "any user on probation"?

This was the remedy proposed during the Arbcom case that put you on probation: Onefortyone is placed on Wikipedia:Probation with respect to the biographies of celebrities. He may be banned from any article or talk page relating to a celebrity which he disrupts by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research. You've acknowledged that you added content. You've acknowledged that you were reverted. You've acknowledged that you then re-added the disputed content. I struggling to see how you can't join the dots between what your probation says and how you have behaved. TFOWR^propaganda 20:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You said above, "You should not be re-adding content after other editors have removed it, whatever your justification." That's why I thought that this is a rule for "any user on probation". Am I right that your argument is that I have violated my probation because I have re-included a short quote from a published book written by Elvis's main physician in the Elvis article, which was disputed on the related talk page and that such things are not allowed for users on probation? Anyhow, the question remains, in doing so did I really "disrupt" the Elvis page "by aggressively attempting to insert poorly sourced information or original research"? I still don't think so because re-including a very short quote from a recently published book which includes comprehensive commentaries about the cause of Elvis's death is not the same thing as inserting poorly sourced information. I didn't even violate the 3RR. On the other hand, if other editors have immediately removed the said quote from the Elvis page when the dispute on the related talk page was still going on, then these users are right? Onefortyone (talk) 20:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"You" means "Onefortyone"; "Your probation" means "the probation Arbcom placed on Onefortyone"; "You should not be re-adding content after other editors have removed it, whatever your justification" means "Onefortyone should not be re-adding content after other editors have removed it, whatever Onefortyone's justification" I can't really make this any clearer. This thread is about your behaviour (i.e. Onefortyone's behaviour). TFOWR^propaganda 10:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether you haven't noticed this or merely are attempting to perpetuate the veneer of a material process still taking place here, but since two administrators visited these proceedings on the first date that Baseball Bugs opened this on May 22nd, none other have. I even went to the talk page of this noticeboard, partly in order to entice out some admins to take an active interest in this discussion, and my post engendered a new debate among admins there, however not about 141 or the problems at the Elvis Presely article. __meco (talk) 13:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A little from column "A", a little from column "B" ;-) I'm keen to keep this discussion focussed on the original complaint, and specifically how it relates to Arbcom (Arbcom trumping ANI and other WP:DRs etc), so I've avoided anything that deviates from that - but, to be honest, I hadn't seen your post at WT:ANI before now. Xeno suggests that RfC/U or mediation might be appropriate, or back to Arbcom. Onefortyone suggested contacting the original arbs for comment, and I'm open to that suggestion. We certainly need a resolution that makes absolutely clear what's expected of Onefortyone, with no room for mis-interpretation. Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 13:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Colonel Warden

• There seem to be widespread press reports of the Elvis-constipation theory. For example, here's a recent and reasonably well-informed commentary on the matter. Given the prominence of this material in the media, we should expect some discussion of our treatment in the relevant article(s). This occasion therefore does not seem adequate reason to pillory user Onefortyone. Accordingly, I oppose any extraordinary measures at this time. Interested editors should just place the relevant article(s) on their watch list and participate in any content discussions which may arise. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Blogs are not relevant sources. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:33, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
    • blogs that are blog in name only are reliable sources. Like when a newspaper makes a blog that has the editorial oversight the same as columns are reliable sources. It is self-published sources which are not reliable which is what most blogs on the internet are. If these blogs are published freely without editorial oversight, then they're not reliable unless the writer is a recognized expert in the field, if they are, they're just like any other column.--Crossmr (talk) 12:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Just an additional question. User:PL290 made massive changes on the Elvis talk page in order to support his personal opinion that Nichopoulos, Presley's main physician, is not a reliable source. See [284], [285], [286], [287]. This means that important threads discussing the topic relating to the above request and including opinions by users Baseball Bugs, Onefortyone, meco and Colonel Warden are no longer part of Talk:Elvis Presley. I do not think that this is in line with Wikipedia policy. Onefortyone (talk) 20:11, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That is a blatant falsehood. PL290 grouped the various endless-loop discussions and collapsed them. They are still on the talk page, despite 141's and Meco's claims to the contrary. The collapsed stuff is endless-loop stuff. 141 may be sincere, but he's been told over and over that this single-biased-source-tabloid stuff does not belong in the article. He was told that 5 years ago in regard to the "Elvis-was-gay" kick that he was on at the time. Yet he's still beating that drum, as recently as yesterday. I don't know if it's trolling, or incompetence, or Hanlon's razor, or what, but he won't stop. He's been at this for 5 years already, and I guaran-darn-tee you, this will continue perpetually, until he's either topic-banned or blocked altogether. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:38, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, a book written by Elvis Presley's personal physician is certainly a reliable source according to Wikipedia policy and not "tabloid stuff". User PL290 has added a "clarification" to Talk:Elvis Presley that falsely claims that there was a kind of "consensus … that the discredited doctor's opinions, such as those published in his 2010 book, and including his attempt to emphasize constipation as the likely cause of death, should not be propagated by Wikipedia." See [288]. Other users who participated in the discussion such as 24.61.236.106 (who detected the said source), Onefortyone, Meco and Colonel Warden were of a different opinion. Furthermore, the threads including the discussion are no longer directly visible on this talk page and some links leading to the original threads do not work any more. I would call this manipulating the Elvis talk page in order to promote a personal agenda. According to Wikipedia:Refactoring talk pages, "Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page. If there are recent heated discussions on the talk page, good faith may be lacking. If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted." This is a very clear statement. As for the current dispute, at least two editors who have extensively contributed to the talk page, Onefortyone and Meco, object to the changes being made by user PL290. These are the facts. Onefortyone (talk) 13:43, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

A book written by a guy whose license to practice medicine was suspended and then revoked, and who may himself have been the one who killed Elvis. No conflict-of-interest there, no sirree. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

The points you make and that have been consistently made from the glances at this ongoing feud that I have seen are completely non-sequiturial. This doctor is an important and notable first-hand witness to the issues on which he makes his statements. This "Oh really, are we going to listen to a convicted felon?" type of rhetoric is completely lame. Whatever conflict of interest and self-serving purposes one may wish to attribute to him also does not disqualify his salient testimony. It simply calls for these possibly influencing factors to be brought to the attention of the reader. __meco (talk) 20:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

1) This guy lost his license to practice medicine. That's one strike against his credibility. 2) He's the only source for this. That's two. 3) He has a distinct conflict of interest as Elvis' personal physician, and stands quite a bit to gain by continuing that association after Presley's death. That's three strikes, I'd say he's out as a reliable source. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The points above demonstrate that Nichopolous is not a reliable source for statements of fact about Elvis. However, by our policies, he is a reliable source for his own opinions. It seems there is some notability to his claims (see the Telegraph commentary "Now Dr Nick claims: 'Elvis died of constipation'. But I'm not so sure", referred above). It is important to remember that although it's not our place to promote fringe theories, it's also not our place to suppress them either. NPOV requires "that articles (i) accurately reflect all significant claims or viewpoints published in reliable sources and (ii) give prominence to each only in proportion to the weight of the source" and I'd recommend reading WP:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transcendental Meditation movement/Proposed decision for ArbCom's current guidance on these issues. It seems to me that there may be a case for including a brief commentary on Nichopolous's theories in the article. Although the majority of editors to the article conclude that these theories don't deserve to be included, a significant minority seem to believe that they should be mentioned. That is not consensus, and the way to solve the dispute is find a consensus, although that may not be easy. Is there no form of words that could be included that everyone could live with? In any case, I cannot see that any form of block (a preventative measure) is appropriate here: Onefortyone has clearly stated he will not re-insert the material. It is understandable that it can be tiring to try to seek a consensus with someone whose views diametrically oppose your own, but it is inappropriate to try to relieve one's own frustrations by attempting to seek to have others blocked. --RexxS (talk) 04:11, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Cher article

Thread's dead, baby. Thread's dead. —Seems to be productive talk and editing at the article, though. Ya'll can have the last word.

Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I edited Cher article making changes in Infobox and external links and Wildhartlivie reverted it back so we started to revert each other. Then she posted to community about the edit war and they protected the page because of my dynamic IP and I think it's unfair. Then I remembered that I have account on Wikipedia so since now I will post from this name, but I think that she will revert my edits further. All my arguments about my edit at the bottom of Talk page. Please sorry for spelling. --Vt-88 (talk) 00:10, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Your making good faith edits but they have issues. I would not recommend war editing you will hit WP:3RR. Discuss it on the talk page, but I suspect you will learn that WP:CONSENSUS will be against you with good reason. Regards, SunCreator ^(talk) 00:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks SunCreator. And yes, there is good reason to object to the edits, not to mention this editor failed to respond to the WP:3RR report. I don't know why you posted here, except to basically announce that you don't intend to stop, despite the myriad objections to your edits, VT-88. Your interpretation of what happened is flawed. The article was semi-protected because it wasn't possible to block you for edit warring when you have a dynamic IP. The semi-protect was placed because your edits were unacceptable. That you got around to registering an account doesn't remove your obligation to stop edit warring. The problems with your edits are the reason for the reverts and that doesn't change either. I will indeed revert your edits and again report you for edit warring if you persist in instituting the problems that you did. Don't do it. Registering an account doesn't relieve you of taking responsibility for the edits you make. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:53, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I for one would like to see more discussion and understanding instead of "you are wrong and you will be reverted". Perhaps having a real dialog and coming to consensus would be beneficial. Just as Vt-88 does not get to decide what is/isnt relevant to an article neither can Wildhartlivie unilaterally decide either. I'd like to see more editors get involved in the discussion and a true consensus, civilly, become established and politely explain the wiki-rational to Vt-88 on why he/she is wrong. And I do believe that editor is wrong, I'm just not happy about the method taken in showing them to be wrong. This can be used as a teaching example to make that editor a better contributor instead of slapping him on the nose with a newsaper because he peed on Wildhartlivie's rug.Camelbinky (talk) 02:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly right, but BITE and OWN are constant problems with this editor.—Chowbok ☠ 16:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Please disregard anything the above editor states. He is a notorious wikistalker of mine who pops up anywhere I edit to post tendentious and harassing posts that are designed to denigrate me and posts personal attacks against me. He once hosted an attack page about me that was eventually deleted and aligned himself with a now banned editor in perpetuating attacks on me. His persistent comments include accusations of ownership and bite. He's a nuisance editor who spends a large portion of his Wikipedia time following me around, launching arguments, inserting himself into discussions that did not previously involve him and making pointy edits that tend to highlight his biases. Of the 61 edits made in May 2010 up to the above edit, 19 of them were to me, about me, or in response to me or edits I have made. That includes this edit, where he is trying to encourage an editor to open a RfC/U on me, this one where he blatantly calls me a hypocrite, this little mess where his sole intention was to force me to explain why an incorrect edit was reverted, and He didn't bother to respond to a complaint made here about his conduct, but still shows up whenever I am involved in a discussion here to disparage me and also ignored it at WP:WQA. He once posted his wish that I burn out and eventually get banned. This is a bad faith editor who has a grudge he keeps nursing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Battleground much? Thanks for the reminder about an RFC/U; I think it an appropriate step and may undertake it myself. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 18:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Jack, your comments cross into battleground themselves. And that you state clearly here after my post about Chowbok's antics that you might do that yourself basically endorses what Chowbok does. That is where the RfC/U belongs, not from someone who has made it his life's goal these days to harass me, a behavior that led to the requirement by ArbCom, that you have a mentor to contain your behavior toward another editor whose wiki-live you decided to make absolute hell. You have simply transferred your poor inter-editor behavior from that editor to me, and I have to wonder how ArbCom would view this transfer of spite to another editor. Maybe they should be pointed to your campaign against me, ya think? And you want to be an administrator. This sort of conduct isn't conducive to that goal. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

WHL, I'm well known to the arbitration committee. I talk with a lot of them. I am one of the most scrutinized editors on this project. My past is well known and I rather expect you're missing most of it. You're not the first editor to try and use my history; you won't be the last. nb: it went quite against the last editor who tried it.

I've read what you say Chowbok does. I'm also seeing that he's saying things here and elsewhere that I agree with. If he says or does something that I see and that I disagree with, I'll say so. Ok?

Sincerely, Jack Merridew 00:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There's something quite disconcerting to see an editor brag about his clout with Arbcom and insinuate that they have his back, or brag about it going "quite against the last editor who tried it". Sort of flexing your cheerios in a way that is meant to be intimidating. Fact is, that sort of arrogance isn't a pleasant thing to see, it makes you look small and frankly, it doesn't work. Harassing other editors is something that you're skilled at, but I don't think you're all that. Wikistalking, tendentious editing, harassment, these are all things that any editor here should not have to put up with. Both of you kindly give it up. And let's not forget this little post to WP:Edit warring that you claimed was content dispute and ownership that were in fact reverts to falsified content by a repeat vandal. More examples, to you, of what you view as ownership. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

What you seem to have missed was the many times I tried to explain why his edits were wrong and he'd even sort of agree, then revert back to the same or nearly the same version. I took the puppy outside, showed him where to pee besides my rug and he'd make motions like he'd pee in the yard and then come right back and pee again. Gave lip service to "yeah, I see your point" and then make the same edits. He refused to learn and would simply reinstate his errors. How do you "teach the peeing dog" when he won't stop peeing? Absent that, he will be reverted when he removes genres, associated acts and the other errors are returned. The other part that is missed here is that this editor has been present sporadically on Wikipedia since November 22, 2006 and is mostly a single purpose account, editing the Cher article or related ones since he arrived. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:08, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Gave lip service to "yeah, I see your point" and then make the same edits."

No, it's not true. Everything's completely different. I agreed with you on one thing - Cher's child name in "Alias" section and I didn't touched it since then. On the talk page I give you explanation on your every single claim about my edit as full as I could, while you have less and less reasons with every next answer and keep reverting whole my edit.--Vt-88 (talk) 05:54, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be overlooking that editors here have agreed that your edits are not appropriate and correct. It is true. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:00, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Both parties need to stop edit warring. I agree with the concerns above about Wildhartlivie's abuse of reversion; I've urged her towards less of this before. The IP edits I looked at certainly seem to be in good faith. The IP geolocates to Russia and the Vt-88 account is years old, pre-dates SUL, and is not unified. Further, the account has edited Cher and related articles before and does not seem to have gotten into any trouble with their other editing.

Vt-88, welcome to the English Wikipedia; I see you got a plate of cookies. This notice board is a pretty rough and tumble place and is where a lot of the project's WP:BATTLEGROUND problems are addressed. Well, sometimes. There are some issues, it seems, with parts of your edits the Cher article. I'll be glade to help with whatever errors there may be in the edits you're trying to make. I'm very good at editing here.

Wildhartlive, you revert too much. You need to listen to people when told that you bite newcomers, and have ownership issues with your articles.

I will look at this article in more detail and read the talk page. Much of the rest of this clash of views is about Cher being first and foremost a musician, but also have done significant acting; a wiki-project-war? I had those as a kid, but we used tree forts and threw crab apples ;) Sincerely, Jack Merridew 22:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No, this has nothing to do with her music career vs. her acting career. It isn't a wiki-project-war. Not at all. It has to do with the editor, essentially a single purpose account, making incorrect edits and pressing forward even after explanations were given why his removals were not correct. You've made your comments ad nauseum about you view of my editing and I don't think you really have an idea of what goes into recent changes patrol, but it involves reverts of incorrect, poor edits or vandalism. It has nothing to do with ownership, it has to do with removing errors. I'd really appreciate it if you'd stop with that observation. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:09, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

How about the dozens of other editors who have also made that observation? Should they also stop? How many people have to tell you you have a problem before you will acknowledge that you might have a problem?—Chowbok ☠ 23:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

How about you stop wikistalking me and posting tendentious comments and making personal attacks and pointy edits all over Wikipedia? Dozens, my ass. Please, anyone reading this, look above where I outlined the above editor's extremely poor behavior toward and about me. The problem with you, Chowbok, is that you have waged a very nasty assault against me wherever you possibly could, that led you to align yourself with SkagitRiverQueen, because I objected initially to your changing citation styles contrary to guidelines to garner consensus first. I'd think you would finally accept that your foul conduct regarding me is the makings of a RfC/U in itself. Please leave me the hell alone and stop wikistalking and stop waiting for and trying to push me into "burn out and get banned", as you said. There is nothing that you can possibly say at this point that has any weight as far as I'm concerned, it's content of derision that is totally and completely incivil. The bottom line here is that you show up to discussions on this and other pages and do your level best to hijack the discussion from the issue at hand to steer it toward your incivil and aggressive vendetta against me. I'd suggest you stop. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Vt-88, If I had seen those first edits while on recent changes patrol, I would have reverted with twinkle and given multiple level vandalism warnings on your talk page. I don't see a problem with Wildhartlivie regarding WP:OWN. On the contrary, the arts/entertainment articles would not be as good as they are if she were not on them. She's taught me and other editors a lot about what is relevant and how to avoid bloating an article. Wildhartlivie works very hard for Wikipedia. I can see where she attempted to get Vt-88 to see what needed to be done, but for some reason he/she didn't do it. You can't keep reverting when an editor legitimately points out you've made a mistake. Wildhartlivie is very easy to get along with and is amenable to teaching new editors. I think she deserves a lot more respect than she's getting here tonight. And Cher's page is one that gets hit with a lot of shall we say, 'unhelpful edits.' Vt-88's edits sure looked unhelpful to me.Malke2010 03:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

It should also be mentioned that EdJohnston protected the page. He's a very reasonable fellow and an excellent admin. It's apparent he saw what the problem was. Plus, it appears that most, if not all, of the edits are just nonsense.Malke2010 04:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) If I may address Jack Merridew, you mention above the following, "Wildhartlive, you revert too much. You need to listen to people when told that you bite newcomers, and have ownership issues with your articles." If - as you mention, they are Wildhartlivie's articles, then she "owns" them. I understand it is a mistake, but these types of errors occur with everyone. Perhaps a little less drama and mutual understanding that established editors, may have insight to what is more appropriate in an article, could be addressed in a co-operative spirit, rather than a disparaging one. But heh, I'm just the ten foot Gorilla on this page. Victor9876 (talk) 04:08, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Enough of the garbage "ownership" accusations; it's so commonly tossed about, and is more really "trolling" than anything. Clog up more threads with this nonsense? Really? Drop it, fellas, why don't you? You're not getting WHL blocked or banned for "ownership" or "biting", so give it up already... Doc9871 (talk) 05:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Really sorry to see you revert to form here, Doc. The concern about her ownership is commonly tossed about, and not just by me. You know this and yet here you are, inappropriately hitching your wagon. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Victor. That's not a mistake, it's a reference to our policy Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. Chowbok referred to it, too, when he capped the word "OWN", as the usual shortcut to the policy is WP:OWN. Doc9871 is experienced enough here to know this and I'll throw his characterization of this as 'trolling' right back at him. He's acknowledged that he's trolled me before and recently promised to cut it out. It's sitting right on my talk page a few sections above your post there; see the tidy thread. It is certainly the case that established editors often have more insight than editors with less experience; that's really not the issue here. This is yet another instance of the oft-seen pattern of WHL dictating what shall be allowed. Rather than address specific issues with an edit or series of edits by whomever, she regularly reverts to the the last version that she edited. As she's a gang of enablers that support her, and Doc's one of them, she frequently wins these little edit wars with less experienced editors, such as Vt-88 and the IPs he was on. Vt-88 seems to have not returned to this discussion and may well amount to yet another victim of the toxic environment that is such a well known issue with this project. Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Jack, WHL and I did not always get along: witness my very first post to her page[289]. While WHL may have her "gang" of supporters, she also has many enemies. That's natural - we all have friends and enemies (hopefully less of the latter). If her enemies can comment on her, so can her supporters comment on what could be construed (by some) as "trolling" by the same group of editors time and again. I really don't see how my commenting here is any different from you or Chowbok; none of us were involved in this particular incident. I haven't broken my promise, and I'm not trolling you here. RFC/U would be the place to deal with WP:OWN and WP:BITE issues for WHL, not here. Right? Cheers, Jack :> Doc9871 (talk) 20:09, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what that 'retired' from WP:CRIME articles statement is about. Seems it might have been due to some push-back about her editing, but I'd have to look. I have noticed that she has a flock of enemies, SRQ being the obvious one. And note that I've not supported SRQ; I'm not impressed with what I've seen there, either. If a behavioral trait is an oft-repeated concern, an RFC/U is an appropriate step in WP:DR. I've said above that I am considering that route. It is one of the latter steps; talking is expected to be attempted first. She and her friends, such as yourself, are not much acknowledging this area of concern and this does serve to coax the RFC/U towards the top of the stack. RFC/U is about seeking outside input and hammering-out voluntary steps towards reducing concerns. It is frequently an expected prior step in DR before the acceptance of an arbitration request. A pattern of regular reversion of edits by others is always a cause for concern and a strong admonishment from some uninvolved bigun might be the best outcome of this incident. A 1-revert/day restriction could help, too. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 22:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Do what you feel is appropriate. While I am friends with WHL, I don't condone every single thing she does; that would be absurd. We all mess up, and we must be held accountable for it when we do. I'll blindly follow no one, and if you have concerns about WHL's editing pattern, I'd recommend the proper channel. If you think 1RR is in order: move on it. I'm sure you'll hear from "friends" and "enemies" alike. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 23:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You should really re-think your polarization of things along friends/enemies lines. It's a WP:BATTLEGROUND approach, and it's not healthy; not for the project and not for individual editors. "Messing up" implies a one-off aspect which will typically amount to small-beer. Long-term patterns of messing up without listening to concerns are of much more concern. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 23:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Then file the RFC/U, please. I do find it odd that what started this was an editor with 49 total edits since November of 2006. Sleeper sock? Not yours, but someones... Doc9871 (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an RFC/U to file. Not at this point, anyway. Calling Vt-88 a sleeper is pretty bad faith, methinks. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 23:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

How about a SPA, then? Under 50 edits (7 deleted) in almost four years. Then dragging WHL to AN/I (with diffs). Clearly not a new editor - no? Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 00:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Jack, you have screamed WP:OWN from the rooftops, even when I've made reverts on articles upon which I have never edited. Your dancing about comments that you are going file a RfC/U is essentially entertaining a threat, and that's become quite old, and it's compounded by the tendentious Chowbok pushing you on it. You've not availed yourself of dispute resolution steps besides popping in here to further your POV of my editing. I do recent changes patrol, that's all about vandalism, unsupported and unsourced edits, and what amounts to trash edits. Yet you kvetch that I "make too many reverts" - I don't see you bitching to other editors whose entire wiki-life is reverting nor did you note that the vandalism and content errors are legitimate reverts. You also are overlooking that. You have been tendentious toward me also, and that hasn't been missed by multiple editors. You pop in to revert a lot of edits I make, witness the RfC results on Al Pacino and the spin off of his filmography and the fact that you made reverts on those changes because I objected, and no other reason I can glean from that andd the RfC/U didn't support the spin out. You reverted it simply because I did it. That is the whole purpose of WP:POINT. There's evidence that you also wikistalk me and pick battles where there should be none. Why do you think some editors come in to support me, unless they find something wrong with things you and Chowbok are doing. You also seem to overlook the fact that this article was semi-protected which forced the editor to trot out an old account to continue the same behavior. The fact that you missed the bottom line on this particular issue is typical, as you try to make it about WP:ACTOR, when that has NOTHING to do with it, the acting work is not even involved. And being retired from crime articles or why I did that is frigging NONE OF YOUR CONCERN. It had nothing to do with anything except the stress from those articles on my health, an issue with which you are familiar, have commented on and have pushed the stress level on me at every opportunity. You also are overlooking that multiple editors here have stated clearly that they do not agree with the edits made by VT-88, and that when he came in today and undid my last edit that he basically returned the infobox content, mostly, to what was already there. Think that means he didn't listen here? I'm frankly tired of you and Chowbok turning up to try to cast a negative light on me whenever the opportunity arises. And here I was thinking that we'd found some, if not happy, at least some level of being that was a progressive step. Apparently that isn't possible with you unless Arbcom forces it. I fail to see how a 1RR could be justified when I've never been blocked for 3RR violations. Wildhartlivie (talk) 23:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This edit was a revert of WP:Vandalism; no question, as Mr DeVito is not known for being tall. Good revert. As to DR steps, I have tried talking with you and you'll have none of that. I didn't ask about that Retirement from CRIME — Doc brought that up and I didn't even bother looking at what you said in reply. Cheers, Jack Merridew 00:27, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll bother - look no further. Cheers ;> Doc9871 (talk) 00:32, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, mostly what you've done is demean me and post hostile and assaultive posts to me. It's sort of hard to sort actual attempts to "talk" from animosity. That started way back and it's quite hard to take anything you say as good faith because it is so mixed up with spite. And for another of my "too many reverts": Would this qualify? Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:13, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Repeated user talk page message addition

Resolved

 – User has stopped editing for now

User:99.70.91.145 keeps adding the same message to my talk page after I've removed it. Not sure how to go about stopping it. Falcon8765 (talk) 03:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

99.70.91.145 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) needs looking at in general; they have repeatedly posted BLP-violating content on Talk:Elena Kagan and now are attempting to place it in Talk:Elena Kagan/Archive 1. Probably they need a time-out. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It's over, unless the user begins editing again this shouldn't be a concern any longer. FinalRapture (talk) 03:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I know it's policy to let users know that they're being discussed but I think at this point all it is doing is blowing into smoking embers. rev FinalRapture (talk) 03:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

These edit summaries [290] placed when deleting warnings from their talk page look VERY familiar to me. Does anyone else notice that? I can't remember the name of the sockmaster though. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:33, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's be realistic here, just because they say 'God Bless you' doesn't automatically link them to a puppeteer, it's pretty generic. Also I highly doubt that it's a shared IP, that was unnecessary. FinalRapture (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

FinalRapture, I agree that the notification may have been taken the wrong way; It took me over three minutes of posting through multiple edit conflicts to do it, and of course in the meantime those edit conflicts were caused by the IP repeatedly blanking the page, so it may have inflamed things. However, I think that any other course of action would have had the same result (a big flameout) and it is a requirement to see that editors are notified of these discussions. I also agree that if the IP has stopped, there isn't anything else to do here. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Marking as resolved. FinalRapture (talk) 03:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Sirius black1996 and Cross Timbers Middle School

Skipping the story, the user is trying to help but unfortunately not following the WP:MoS, or really any guidelines what so ever. I've tryied to get their attention by numerous talk page messages, and even rolling back the article (to it's stub but acceptable quality) to get their attention (and fix the page). Nothing has worked. At this point I think we're going to need big flashing red lights to call attention to this needed talk. I'm pretty sure the user also has a COI with the subject as well. FinalRapture - † ☪ 04:56, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User might also be related to User:Kayla.mock15 who has done alot of work to the page as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking that as well. FinalRapture - † ☪ 05:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

{{fact}} tagged to death. Most of this reads as a blog, I also have concerns of this being an outright copyvio. Also, there is a photo (now removed from the page, see the history) that needs to be removed completely from Wikipedia. It is of kids (I am guessing) of the school and obviously we don't have permission (and neither does this person) from the parents of those kids to post said picture on an extremely public website. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Neutralhomer, you've been here long enough to know better, but incase it slipped your memory, WP:POINT applies to "fact tag bombing" of an article. We have {{Unreferenced}} and {{refimprove}} and {{inline}} for the express pupose of noting the need for citations without destroying the readibility of an article. Where an occasional cite tag is needed, fine, but it gives the appearance just trying to make a point regarding the need for citations here. Please remove those fact tags and replace them with one of the banners instead. This is nothing to say about the appropriateness of the article itself, or the behavior of the article's creator or other editors here. But seriously, don't do this. Its not good. --Jayron32 05:18, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I sense a misguided and inadequately-supervised school project. Sadly, the same kind of thing has happened with university articles, with no better quality results. I started to clean but, really, what use? The editors have not been willing to communicate and don't know what they are doing (or don't care but AGFing here).- Sinneed 05:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Being that I have been trouted for my "tagging to death" of the page (mea culpa) I went through and found several copy-vios and linked and deleted them. I am going to remove the {{fact}} tags (per trouting) and replace with the above linked templates. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Sock of banned user disrupting wikipedia while record-breaking SPI is still open

Resolved

 – sock blocked, at last. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Stupidus Maximus (talk · contribs) is a disruptive nationalist editor who is almost without a doubt a sock of the banned Guildenrich (talk · contribs). On May 1st I filed an SPI [291], which, incredibly enough is still open. Though the DUCK evidence is overwhelming, he has managed to cover his tracks IP-wise and the investigation has now stalled. Meanwhile, he is extremely disruptive, falsifying sources, trolling, and revert-warring. Examples:

Example #1: A few days ago, he blanket reverted [292] a number of perfectly harmless cpedits of mine [293] without so much as an explanation. He only relented after I threatened to go nuclear [294] [295] disingenuously claiming to have made a mistake (and after mocking me to fix it myself [296]). He then continued trolling my talkpage [297]. I do not for a second believe it was a mistake: He has never edited that article before, he evidently went through my contribs and saw a perfect opportunity to spite me.

Example #2: A few days ago, he rammed through some changes to Lunxhëri without bothering to consult anyone, and then he he created this [298] as a way of mocking others. I mean, look at that. He basically took the old version of Lunxhëri and pasted it to that flea thing.

Example #3: A few days ago, he was trolling User:Alexikoua's talkpage. Take a look at these exchanges: [299] [300] regarding this dispute: [301] [302] [303]. Apparently, it's perfectly ok for him to add a bunch of Albanian nobodies, but god forbid anyone add any notable Greeks: In that case, it is necessary for them to be found on Google Books [304], but for "his" notable people a raw google search turning up junk is more than sufficient [305]. It's impossible to get a word through with the guy. Any attempt at engaging him is met with trolling and mockery: [306] [307]. This exchange here [308] is also illuminating. He never answers a question posed to him. He just throws around cryptic non-answers and deliberately plays juvenile mind-games with anyone who tries to reason with him. Other users also find him extremely disruptive [309].

Example #4: After unsuccessfully trying to assert that Thanasis Vagias was Albanian [310] using a 19th century source, exactly in the manner of User:Guildenrich, he then adds another source, but is careful to once again remove that Vagias was Greek, though without removing C.M. Woodhouse, the source that describes Vagias as Greek. When I bring it up on the talkpage [311], this is his response [312]. Such games and deception are his bread and butter. It is impossible to discuss anything with this guy, it's instant evasion, obstruction and mockery at the first attempt.

If he wasn't so disruptive, I'd be willing to wait for the SPI. But the disruption is ongoing and shows no sign of stopping. Would someone please look at the evidence in the SPI and end this? I have never seen an SPI drag on for so long (24 days and counting). I know it's a long and messy SPI (partly because Stupidus and his allies have done a great job disrupting it), but the evidence is clearly presented, easy to follow, and overwhelming. Yesterday it was at the top of the list of cases needing administration, but today I noticed it fell to #5. Unless someone looks at it, it will never close. Meanwhile, Stupidus is on the rampage. Athenean (talk) 22:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I have told you, I am not Guildenrich. You have acused other users of sock:Guildenrich [313], and pretend to be an admin [314]. You accuse me of falsify sources, give me proof. I apologized to the user Alexikoua [315]Stupidus Maximus (talk) 22:58, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is wrong, after creating a mess in this article [[316]], M. Stupidus apologized to me [[317]], but without restoring the parts he previously removed without a reason. I've kindly advised him to do so [[318]], but I was completely ignored.Alexikoua (talk) 23:07, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

2(edit conflicts)Case found here. It was already declined by Tim Song because there was nothing J.delanoy could do. wiooiw ^(talk) 23:01, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The CU was declined, but the WP:DUCK evidence is pretty strong. All I ask is that someone take a long hard look at the behavioral evidence. Athenean (talk) 23:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

If it was a duck, you would not need all the evidence above. Thats a few paragraphs long.wiooiw ^(talk) 23:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The evidence above is to show that he is disruptive, it is not the evidence that he is a sock. That evidence is available at the SPI. Athenean (talk) 23:15, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I think User:wiooiw's reasoning is specious. He seems to be saying that ducks don't generate that much evidence. Huh? The more evidence, the more likely a duck.

@alexikoua:No i didn ignore you, i just dont read to much your User talk:DragonflySixtyseven talk page [[319]]. Stupidus Maximus (talk) 23:21, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

See what I mean about disingenuous mockery? Stupidus is one of the top contributors to User talk:Alexikoua [320]. Athenean (talk) 23:17, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Alexikoua and you is also top contributer of my talk page. [321] Stupidus Maximus (talk) 23:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you both getting at with who's is the top contributor on you talk pages? wiooiw ^(talk) 23:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I could have worked for an article, but Athenean takes my time with ANI.Stupidus Maximus (talk) 23:41, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Athenean, what do you mean "his allies"? wiooiw ^(talk) 23:46, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Read the SPI, it's all there. Athenean (talk) 23:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Administrator is needed to check this spi (I'm sorry wiooiw this might be a tough situation for a newbie to handle), since his disruptive activity is very active.Alexikoua (talk) 08:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Note that the SPI case has just been updated with a CU finding of "possible". That, together with substantial behavioral evidence, should really lead to a clear sock block, in my opinion. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:01, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Although S.Maximus, knows that after the cu a ban is very likely he continues his activity, like [[322]] using irrelevant edit summaries (a 'dyk nominated' article some weeks ago), or creating copy-vio issues [[323]].Alexikoua (talk) 14:14, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(←) Blocked. W/r/t the delay, the best way to ensure that an admin will look at an SPI case promptly is to avoid making it 68kb long. Tim Song (talk) 00:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Kang Hyun Min

Resolved

 – User has been blocked. - Chugun (talk) 09:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Kang Hyun Min (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See also: His log/move (all these are wrong), Put Template:Block on my user page, Attack by edit summary.

This user makes wrong moves such as removing Dong and makes personal attacks. This user blocked in ko.wp by same reason(attacking other people, making wrong move permenantly, using sock puppetries to avoid his block). Ko.wp block log is here: (log of his sock puppetries). By this log, these users are his sock puppetries (I don't write if there isn't any contributions on en.wp).

• 141.223.171.51 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• 141.223.171.52 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log))
• Ilovephos (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Cheongryang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 정준하뱃살 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 연화는 멋쟁이 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I am tired to revert his wrong works(I am mainly in ko.wp, not here).

ps. Am I writing in right place? En.wp is too complicated. - Chugun (talk) 09:26, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

:-) I have a slightly different problem at commons.wiki - it's so much simpler compared to en.wiki that I get really confused!

A block on ko.wiki won't carry over to en.wiki (each *.wiki has its own policies), however socking here is an issue. I'm concerned about this edit (the "block" you linked to above) and this edit is less than civil. You've clearly tried to communicate with them on their talk page (I suspect that was what made them "block" you) and I can't see any attempt by them to reply.

I'm not an admin, so I can't do anything other than ask Kang Hyun Min to communicate more and "block" less. It's entirely possible that my next suggestion isn't the best option (if so, I assume someone else will comment), but I'd suggest that the next step you take is to file a report about Kang Hyun Min at this place. It deals with civility issues by editors here at en.wiki, and I think they'd be good people to talk to Kang Hyun Min.

Good luck! TFOWR^propaganda 18:03, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It is true that blocks do not carry over automatically, but if a user blocked on another WMF wiki come here and engage in the same disruptive conduct, the block is highly probative evidence of the productiveness of attempts to get them to stop. AGF is not a suicide pact, and I have blocked all accounts indefinitely. Tim Song (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks :) - Chugun (talk) 09:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Roman Catholicism--yes, Roman

Is there anyone around with a good enough memory, going back a couple of months, who recalls edits being made similar to this one, removing the "Roman" from "Roman Catholicism"? There was an account, and then a couple of IPs, who made these kinds of edits. I'm going to plow through some of the articles edited by this IP, Special:Contributions/71.145.146.64, to see if there are any article where this happened before, but I'm suspecting puppetry of some sort. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:39, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• I have found another IP, Special:Contributions/71.145.168.215. User:MrCren has made similar edits in overlapping articles, but they choose their words differently. Drmies (talk) 17:48, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
  • The user I was thinking of was User talk:Rev.JamesTBurtchaell,csc. Drmies (talk) 17:50, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It's frequent, and I try to clean it up when I see it. I don't know about sock-puppetry, though you never can tell. User:Sunray, User:MrCren, User:98.192.224.211, User: 71.200.152.165, User:71.145.168.134, User:71.145.150.136, User:71.145.146.48, User:71.145.140.146, User:67.177.95.127, User:76.205.126.35, User:65.33.17.157 have been involved, unless I've slipped in editing slightly. There are many more. The IP editors are not unlikely all the same, and it's not sock-puppetry to use different IPs when that's just what your ISP does. See WP:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive595#Holy war (sort of). Tb (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Haha, so I can leave this holy war to you? Keep the faith! Drmies (talk) 18:47, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Nope, please help! Current disruptive IP is now also making specious "grammatical corrections" to avoid split verbs and such. Tb (talk) 19:00, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone with a passing acquintance with the Roman Catholic Church talk page will know there's a lot more than just one person with very stong views on this one! I wouldn't jump to conclusions. Johnbod (talk) 20:35, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

As I say, "I don't know about sock-puppetry." In my opinion this comes up now and then, and needs diligence, but there is no policy that can be done. Where we had multiple users doing clearly the same edits, it was different IP editors at different times, likely explained not by sock-puppetry, but just by the same person not always being on the same address. Tb (talk) 21:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Whether there are sockpuppets here or not, this is an old bone of contention. I remember quibbling over the point with some now-gone editor many years ago, who seemed to be unaware that there are many Christian sects -- even Protestant ones -- who arguably consider themselves "Catholic" because they use the Nicene Creed in their liturgy. The tribulations heresy & orthodoxy present us! -- llywrch (talk) 06:15, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• User:71.145.146.64 is back again today, with the same specious edit histories (addressed in his personal talk page where they are clearly incorrect). The point seems to be that some Roman Catholics don't like the term, and don't use it, and insist that none do, but in fact, many others use it and don't object to it, including in extremely prominent positions (the Vatican, or religious orders such as the Jesuits or the Cistercians). So "respect our self-identification" is trotted out, which isn't even a rule, but even if it were, isn't relevant here. I don't think sock puppetry is at issue, but I think the behavior is repeatedly disruptive. Tb (talk) 17:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

block of User:Breein1007

According to WP:ARBPIA, sanctions by uninvolved admins may be placed on editors only after these editors have been warned by an administrator and notified of the ARBPIA case: "This notice is only effective if given by an administrator and logged here." (Template:Palestine-Israel enforcement.) A non-admin who has been desysoped for abuse of his admin privileges has been going around issuing these non-effective notices to a number of editors. User:Breein1007 first asked him to stop, then removed his non-effective notices from the editors' Take pages. User:Georgewilliamherbert, who is apparently a friend of ChrisO, and who has some past history of false accusations against Breein the blocked Breein for disruption. I can't see how Breein's actions were disruptive. If anyone needs to be sanctioned their disruptive editing it is ChrisO, who is issuing notices while not an admin. Powder Hound 3000 (talk) 21:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Who's sockpuppet is this? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a pretty strong accusation to make, without any supporting evidence. Are you looking for a block yourself? Powder Hound 3000 (talk) 21:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious. I suspect this is a sock of User:NoCal100. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:02, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPI is that away. Please be ready with solid evidence, and I suggest getting your apology in order, as I am not a sock, of User:NoCal100 or anyone else. Powder Hound 3000 (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The notification has been provided in the past by other non-admins (Jaakobou comes to mind). Frankly, I don't know why the template language says that the notification must be given by an admin; the ARBPIA decision doesn't say so.

Having said that, I'm indifferent on the subject of Breein's block. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

ChrisO has put a note on the Arb page requesting a reword. I suggest that neither he nor this reporter edit the template again until someone answers that. SGGH ^ping! 22:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Link: Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Palestine-Israel articles#Modification to notification template. Comments would be welcome. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:03, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Back to the block itself...

I have warned Breein1007 repeatedly not to take administrative actions themselves, as they have consistently managed to get policy wrong and to take a decidedly non-neutral approach to administrative stuff. They are singularly unsuited to be taking actions themselves in issues like this. It's entirely appropriate for them to be notifying an uninvolved admin or a noticeboard, which is what I told them to do before repeatedly.

The wording on the ARBPIA warning/notification template does contain a phrase that it needs to be left by an administrator, which has not been enforced consistently before and which as is noted does not appear in the arbcom findings themselves. Pointing out that a non-admin made a notification and that there might be a problem with that, and the template, was entirely reasonable - there's some ambiguity there. Simply bluntly reverting said warnings is not OK. It's particularly bad for an editor who's been sanctioned for ARBPIA violations and who has been blocked for disruption and who has been individually warned not to do administrative like stuff themselves, as they keep making a hash of it.

Breein1007 has been skirting along the line of disruptive to the point of longer term sanctions on and off for months now. I am hopeful that a short 24 hr block here will divert them away from crossing the line. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Breein1007 is not an admin, so obviously he was not undertaking any " administrative actions themselves". If "It's entirely appropriate for them to be notifying an uninvolved admin or a noticeboard, which is what I told them to do before repeatedly." , then that goes double for CHrisO. Powder Hound 3000 (talk) 22:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Removing an administrative warning or notice is an administrative action. Leaving warnings or notices is an administrative action. Breein1007 has repeatedly done these types of things in ways that were improper or increased conflict rather than decreased it. He's been told not to. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

"Leaving warnings or notices is an administrative action" -- Huh?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I might add that Breein1007 was not one of the users whom I notified, but he still took it on himself to twice delete the notifications from the log [324] [325] and to advise each of the notified editors that the notification was invalid and could be ignored. That was unhelpful, to say the least. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Breein has now posted a reasonable unblock request. It would be good if an uninvolved admin could take a look. Powder Hound 3000 (talk) 01:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Geez, the stink of socks in here is terrible! Can someone please open a window? Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm no one's sock, and I find this block highly troubling. While I myself wouldn't remove things from the log, non admins should not be posting to it. There might have been a better way for Breein to do it, but blocking him for this is utterly unacceptable. IronDuke 02:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if Powder Hound is somebody's sock, Breein's unblock request deserves the courtesy of a response from an uninvolved administrator. Anybody? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would unblock now, since he's said he won't do it again - hopefully the message has got across this time. The block has served its purpose. -- ChrisO (talk) 08:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblocked, hoping that there are no more problems of any kind with this editor. Dougweller (talk) 08:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

BTW: No freakin' way is (talk) a sock - he knows far too little. Shame on you! ;P Doc9871 (talk) 08:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I think this settles it, as long as Breein understands he should be more careful in the future, and George understands he was wrong about policy, and wrong to block, and will also be more careful in the future. IronDuke 12:22, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

The unblock had nothing whatsoever to do with GWH's behavior, it was issued on the basis that Breein said he wouldn't repeat what he did in the future. I don't believe that reflects at all on the blocking admin. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

That's correct. The unblock was purely on the basis for Breein's unblock request and the discussion here. In no way was it a reflection on the blocking administrator. Dougweller (talk) 13:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies if my remarks were construed to mean the unblock meant the initial block was improper. I deduced no such thing, but I can see how people would have gotten that impression. Nevertheless, based on the facts that are available to me, the block was grossly improper. I realize that admins are rarely called to account for run-of-the mill bad blocks by other admins, and realize further my carping about it will not likely change things, but it needed to be said, and now has been. IronDuke

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicaragua

Resolved

 – Nicaragua is protected for one month. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

start blocking this too

prone to vandalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.106.65.11 (talk)

You are probably looking for WP:RFPP. NotAnonymous0 did I err?|Contribs 02:30, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 03:36, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Trace Cyrus needs protection, ASAP

Resolved

 – All pages listed have been protected. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Normally I would have put this on WP:RFPP, but that takes too long. The Trace Cyrus page is getting hit hard by lots and lots of vandals. Please protect immediately. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 05:53, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Endorse Protection Request Appears several vandals or one putting in a lot of effort. I endorse the protection request. Basket of Puppies 05:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 day, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. If it comes back tomorrow, we can extend. --Jayron32 06:00, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Many of the vandals came from the Phillipines, but there were also vandals from California and Australia, so there must have been some kind of co-ordinated attack. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Looking further, there appears to be a lot of vandalism associated with The Maine (band) and their associated acts, including A Rocket to the Moon and The Summer Set. Don't know what's happening, but there are lots of IP editors and brand new accounts appearing suddenly to vandalize all of these articles. Trace Cyrus is a former member of The Maine, and therefore is a part of this attack. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

All of these have now been protected by various admins. GedUK  10:04, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Craftyminion

Resolved

 – Craftyminion (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked for one week. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Craftyminion has removed good faith additions to Tony Abbott and Talk:Tony Abbott saying it's vandalism. I asked him why and reverted his "vandalism" removal - this was his response was "eat me" and he reinstated his edits. I've had a look at the rest of his contributions today - most appear to be unjustified reverts of established editors, with edit summaries that incorrectly label "vandalism" or are uncivil. --Merbabu (talk) 11:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh - has just been blocked. --Merbabu (talk) 11:43, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked this editor for a week due to this and a string of similar uncivil incidents - relevant diffs are at User talk:Craftyminion#Blocked. The one week block duration has been set in recognition of the fact that they they were blocked for an indefinite period for disruptive editing in September last year (which was lifted 3 weeks later after they acknowledged misbehavior) and the repeated warnings they've been given by various editors for incivility since the block was removed. Nick-D (talk) 12:10, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikistalking by an anon

I am begin wikistalked by an anon: [326], the top three edits are undoing or removing my work. Mitsube (talk) 07:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I left a followup for the IP on their talk page - this is suspicious but not serious so far. It would not be OK for it to continue that much longer, without a good explanation of why / what's going on. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Mitsube is an extremely problematic editor who asserts ownership of many articles related to reincarnation, refuses to allow skeptical sources, whitewashes facts relating to the point that there is no scientific evidence for reincarnation, and is a persistent forum shopper whenever he is resisted. His first response is always to revert and revert and revert and then when he baits others into edit warring with him, he reports them to the edit warring noticeboard. He is fishing for someone to block his enemies. Classic POV-pushing. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:57, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I decline to take admin action, as I tend to agree with SA. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if Mitsube is a problematic editor, actually especially if he's a problematic editor, the particulars here actually make it worse, though. Because that means that the IP is likely one of his usual opponents, who's gotten frustrated with the acceptable range of responses to perceived problems Mitsube has committed and is now blatantly sockpuppeting to just revert him everywhere.

Which is not even vaguely ok.

Vigilantism against editors perceived to be annoying is against policy as much as any other random harassment is. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

"Perceived to be annoying" is incorrect. "Violating Wikipedia policies" is the way SA and I see it. "Adding misleading information in violation of WP:COI" (which is not policy) is what (one of the) IP(s) is saying. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:21, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Investigating whether the IP is one of his regular opponents seems a reasonable sockpuppet investigation. (The IP is not me.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:23, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur. The IP is not me either. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:13, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I do not see Mitsube as a problematic editor. It's bad form to attack an editor who feels threatened and under attack. I realize you were trying to accuse Mitsube of hypocrisy in some way, but it sounded more like axe grinding. Ok, so you have had previous conflicts with the user. Why were you not able to resolve those disputes? I get the sense that it is more important for you to continue these conflicts than to do the hard work necessary go solve the problem. Have you tried talking to the user about your concerns in a civil manner without accusations and attacks? I find it a bit strange for you to be indirectly supporting the anon harassment of an editor with which you have had a past history of conflict. Viriditas (talk) 04:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

These are ongoing disputes that are all inter-related, Viriditas. Looking at the talk pages and the histories of the pages that Mitsube edits will give you a good idea for why his activity is problematic. Crying wolf and forum-shopping are tactics this user has used to get the upper-hand in disputes. He is very heavy-handed when it comes to claiming victimhood. You can either interpret this as an actual persecution or an attempt by Mitsube to strong-arm an ownership of articles. Claiming that three reverts is "harassment" is a real stretch. Mitsube has reverted me on a variety of articles far more than three times, but I'm not claiming he's harassing me. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

For the second time, I'm not seeing any problematic behavior from Mitsube. Here, I see a good faith request for help, and I'm discouraged that instead of offering to help, you came here to attack and berate him. Please try to resolve your personal disputes in the appropriate place rather than continue them here. ScienceApologist, I would like to remind you of a few things regarding "problematic editors":

• Wikipedia:General_sanctions, Pseudoscience, ScienceApologist is uncivil, ScienceApologist has edit warred, ScienceApologist cautioned
• Wikipedia:General_sanctions, Martinphi-ScienceApologist, ScienceApologist misuses sock-puppets, ScienceApologist limited to one account, Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to pseudoscience, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process.
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Fringe science, ScienceApologist banned from Wikipedia for three months for disruption, gaming and wikilawyering.

Can the same be said of Mitsube? Mitsube has been blocked once[327] for edit warring since he began contributing in 2008. Although ScienceApologist has been editing since at least 2004 under the present account name, since the time Mitsube has been active, ScienceApologist has been blocked more than a dozen times (and many more before MItsube become active). ScienceApologist has also been cautioned and sanctioned by arbcom. ScienceApologist, you are in no position to call Mitsube a problematic editor, nor do you have any authority or standing to do so. Viriditas (talk) 04:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It looks problematic to me; requesting help on stopping justified anon reversals of his edits. (I haven't checked all of his edits, but many have been in support of WP:FRINGE views.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

ScienceApologist is under no editing restrictions whatsover, no arbcomm restrictions and has been completely rehabilitated in the eyes of the policies, guidelines, and procedures of Wikipedia, ScienceApologist and Mitsube are simply Wikipedians. However, Mitsube has shown a callous disregard for other editors with whom he has disagreed, has forum-shopped and requested sanction against me in an action which resulted in a lot of wasted time but no ruling against me, and has the general bad habit of reporting those with whom he starts edit wars for edit warring. I will continue to work diligently with Mitsube to protect this reference from his problematic behaviors until he either changes interaction styles, editing habits, or is removed from Wikipedia. On that you have my word. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I suspect this IP address is an open proxy, but I'm not at home to check. Hipocrite (talk) 20:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Noel McCullagh and User:Barentsz

Barentsz (talk · contribs) has been using the article on himself, Noel McCullagh, as a soapbox for his views on how he's been mistreated by the Irish government. Whereas he may have been mistreated, and I for one strongly support the legalisation of medicinal cannabis use, I do not think Barentsz is helping himself or the project by using Wikipedia to argue his point. The editor in question freely states that he has a crippling illness, and he created the article about himself here. He freely admits that he is the subject of the article: Talk:Noel McCullagh/Comments. However, his edits have been almost purely to his own page or to pages which closely relate to him, and are almost always extremely in-depth legal arguments related to himself: [328] [329], and includes occasionally blanking the very article he created: [330] [331]. This edit contains an example of the sort of unconscious soapboxing I've come to expect through dealing with the editor. However, his article has also been used as an attack page by others at various points, something which I fixed in 2010041210034987, therefore Barentsz does have a valid reason to be anxious. Barentsz is no doubt an extremely intelligent and committed individual, but given the soapboxing, I feel that a topic ban on issues surrounding Ireland, Medicinal Cannabis, Noel McCullagh and European travel treaties is in order. To that end, I would like to gauge the community's opinion on whether a topic ban would be appropriate, or if something else would be more appropriate. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 15:28, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You describe problems with him at the article on himself, then ask for a much wider topic ban. Are the problems limited to the article about himself, or is his editing problematical on the other articles? If the former, then I could support a ban on the auto-biographical article, but would not generally support the wider topic ban. - TexasAndroid (talk) 16:02, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel that the problems extent to anything with which he is personally involved, and I suspect that he only edits articles to 'soapbox' his views. To whit, the only articles he has edited are:

• • • North–West (European Parliament constituency) - the constituency in which he stood as a candidate, massive COI problems
    • Noel McCullagh - himself, massive COI problems
    • Progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy - {probably) the condition he has - possible COI, but no problems
    • Judith Sargentini - a few edits on his current political representative, but nothing problematic
    • Schengen Area and related articles - part of his legal argument as to why he's allegedly banned from Eire, involved in ongoing and possibly future legal challenges he will make, therefore massive COI implications
    • Earl of Clancarty and William Trench, 1st Earl of Clancarty - no problems here, just a local toff
    • Medical cannabis - quite obvious COI implications here
    • Athlone - town in Eire, no problems here
    • Natalizumab - an MS medication, but no real problems
    • Democrats 66 - possible COI given that his edits involve medicinal cannabis policy, but no real issues
    • Area of freedom, security and justice - massive COI, given that he has legal challenges relating to this legislation

The above is why I think that it should be limited to anything involving the legal cases with which he's involved, which therefore includes the rather narrow definitions of EU travel law, medicinal cannabis advocacy, and himself. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:24, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Note the links above to Common Travel Area and Area of freedom, security and justice. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:14, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Also note that most of the sources are either primary sources, or ones to his own website/blog. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Has any other form of dispute resolution been attempted? I see a lot of talk page messages but those can always be dismissed as the views of individuals... I wonder if, for example, an RfC/U might help him see that there's a problem? SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless the word "Barentsz" relates to the subject of Noel McCullagh it won't be a WP:U violation SGGH ^ping! 17:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to confirm that I did mean WP:RFC/U not WP:RFC/NAME. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, my time at WP:UAA has led me to always think of RFC/U as Request for Comment on Username. :) SGGH ^ping! 17:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

• Add: links to mcula.wordpress.com and mcula.files.wordpress.com as "sources" - including for documents which are freely available online via Hansard. I support a topic ban. Guy (Help!) 20:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

IP issues death threat

In Talk:Dmitry Gayev, which I recently deleted under G10, 199.88.96.136 (talk) issued a death threat to the subject. I've never dealt with this kind of issue before, so I'm not sure what other additionally steps should be taken and would appreciate the input of others. Thank you. — ξ^xplicit 20:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be directed at the world, or all of us, rather than an individual, and vandalism rather than a threat. The IP looks like an educational institution, or a library full of schoolkids. An anonblock would be appropriate, not much else IMO. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:51, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the threat directed at Dmitry Gayev, the title of the talk page? Regardless of whether the IP belongs to an educational institution or to a certain individual, I don't see why death threats should be taken lightly. — ξ^xplicit 20:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing to suggest it is anything but simple vandalism. I concur with zzuuzz. Prodego ^talk 20:59, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed; such a vague and undirected threat that I see no reason to treat it as anything but a vandalous student. The IP has been intermittently vandalising for a while, I have {{schoolblock}}ed for a month. ~ mazca ^talk 21:34, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice - Keegscee community ban proposal on AN

Pursuant to various discussions elsewhere, I have initiated Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Keegscee - community ban proposal. For non-immediate-incident related ban proposals, there is consensus that AN is the right main noticeboard; I am posting this notice on ANI to get broader awareness and input on the AN discussion. All comments should be made on the AN discussion.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

IP:79.72.164.88 putting wrong information on "Isang Lakas" Page

im requesting to block IP Address 79.72.164.88 because he/she continues reverting my reversion, he continues to put wrong not-yet sure characters on the page for example. captain barbell, dyesebel, darna. which are still license to the other rival station (GMA7). captain barbell for example, the rival station(GMA7) will do a remake again of its other version also on GMA 7. 2 versions are with the same station/channel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MsGanda (talk • contribs) 05:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• You want WP:RFPP. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, this is a longish-running revert war between two WP:SPAs, Knight Crawler X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and MsGanda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and a series of IPs all form the same block so almost certainly a single individual, over "an upcoming 2010 Philippine TV fantasy series" - I strongly suspect COIs at work. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

PS. Corrections: revert war between MsGanda and 79.72.164.88 & Knight Crawler X & 79.72.164.88, and not between MsGanda & Knight Crawler X., Please work on this Please, and one more thing Edits/Reverted Edits by MsGanda, Knight Crawler X, & Basilicofresco are all correct, The IPs Continues to Hijack & Vandalize The Isang Lakas Page, I wonder why they continues to put wrong information on the Page While The Show is not-yet to be Broadcasted/Telecast. Please im requesting to block 79.72.164.88. Thanks & Godspeed. im already tired of Editing & Reverting wrong information given by The IPs who hijack & vandalize the Page Thanks Again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight Crawler X (talk • contribs) 04:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

False accusations of harassment

Resolved

 – Both editors warned. One might hope TT and RAN would think about making up, or stay away from each other for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) started this thread accusing me of harassment a few days ago, in which there was an overwhelming consensus that I had acted appropriately. I am still on perfectly good terms with FeydHuxtable (talk · contribs), who was in the minority believing that I had crossed the line; I am really not a vindictive preson.

But I cannot accept Richard Norton still maintaining that I was targetting him, which – I'm sure I need not point out – is related to WP:HA#NOT, which notes that "unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly."

He just will not drop the stick. While he is not following me around (I must admit this, to be fair to him; he was anyway a particpant in the discussion I'm about to link to...), he is just being excessively unpleasant and since the view is that I was not harassing him in the first place, please can he be asked to drop this?

I am actually beginning to feel quite intimidated by this, and would welcome community views on whether the diff I just provided is in any way acceptable, partly due to its fairly random insertion in the discussion, and partly due to the consensus that my actions were proper. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 21:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but yes, I'd agree that the AfD comment was uncalled for. It's not egregiously out of line, however, and I'd suggest that you ignore it. AfDs can be rather contentious, and this exchange doesn't seem to be beyond the pale. Deor (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that unless someone explains to Richard Norton that it was out of line and not to be repeated, he will trot around and keep making such remarks, which is hurtful to me and just unacceptable generally... ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 21:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've left him a warning similar to the one I left you. Behavior in these bilateral AfDs has gotten out of hand. I for one am not willing to tolerate more of this sort of unproductive sniping at each other. Shimeru (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Shimeru's comment on RAN's talk page was all I would have done, too. I moved some of the off-topic stuff to the AFD talk page. The sooner you two learn how to ignore each other the better.--Chaser (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oh dear. I have a small problem – he's still at it – please can something be done about this? I really cannot continue on Wikipedia if he is going to be badmouthing me like that at every opening. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 08:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  And on Commons as well. This is absurd. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 08:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, Gwen Gale has left another thoughtfully worded warning on his talk, to which I have added a line about the commons comment. SGGH ^ping! 09:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The locking of article Tony Abbott

Resolved

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:RFUP

The article Tony Abbott has recently been locked to all editing for 5 days. Abbott is a famous politician in Australia, running for Prime Minister, so the debate is always heated. However, locking the article stops all editors, when only a handful are edit waring. My request is that the article gets unlocked, with an admin to keep an eye on who continues the edit war, to deal with those editors individually. Most of the warriors are up to 3 reverts per day, so if they continue they can be dealt with. Thanks, Lester 00:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You should probably request unprotection at WP:RFUP, but correct me if this is the correct venue. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I didn't know about the other venue. Will try there first. Cheers, Lester 01:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've created an edit notice for the article, and reduced the protection level to semi for the remaining duration of the original protection in accordance with the message on Bradjamesbrown's talk page. I suggest that any editing not in accordance with WP:BLP is dealt with harshly, as is any future edit warring on the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

IP 24.46.81.2 changing talk page comments

IP User 24.46.81.2 was warned by User:Therefore and me about vandalism to David Vitter. Therefore made the first two warnings, and I made the level four warning. The IP then made a few idiotic comments, to which I snarkily responded. Then, the IP completely changed my comment in a non-complementary way. I reverted. IP then restored his nonsense and added more commentary. I reverted one more time, but I don't expect it to hold. I really don't want to get bogged down in this, but I also don't want words being attributed to me that aren't mine. -Rrius (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

IP is on a final warning. Suggest that it be acted on if there are any further disruptive edits. Mjroots (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've sliced away his silly comments, tempted to protect his page to annoy him! :) SGGH ^ping! 09:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

IP:79.72.164.88 putting wrong information on "Isang Lakas" Page

im requesting to block IP Address 79.72.164.88 because he/she continues reverting my reversion, he continues to put wrong not-yet sure characters on the page for example. captain barbell, dyesebel, darna. which are still license to the other rival station (GMA7). captain barbell for example, the rival station(GMA7) will do a remake again of its other version also on GMA 7. 2 versions are with the same station/channel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MsGanda (talk • contribs) 05:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• You want WP:RFPP. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, this is a longish-running revert war between two WP:SPAs, Knight Crawler X (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and MsGanda (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and a series of IPs all form the same block so almost certainly a single individual, over "an upcoming 2010 Philippine TV fantasy series" - I strongly suspect COIs at work. Guy (Help!) 10:08, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

PS. Corrections: revert war between MsGanda and 79.72.164.88 & Knight Crawler X & 79.72.164.88, and not between MsGanda & Knight Crawler X., Please work on this Please, and one more thing Edits/Reverted Edits by MsGanda, Knight Crawler X, & Basilicofresco are all correct, The IPs Continues to Hijack & Vandalize The Isang Lakas Page, I wonder why they continues to put wrong information on the Page While The Show is not-yet to be Broadcasted/Telecast. Please im requesting to block 79.72.164.88. Thanks & Godspeed. im already tired of Editing & Reverting wrong information given by The IPs who hijack & vandalize the Page Thanks Again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knight Crawler X (talk • contribs) 04:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

False accusations of harassment

Resolved

 – Both editors warned. One might hope TT and RAN would think about making up, or stay away from each other for now. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:23, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs) started this thread accusing me of harassment a few days ago, in which there was an overwhelming consensus that I had acted appropriately. I am still on perfectly good terms with FeydHuxtable (talk · contribs), who was in the minority believing that I had crossed the line; I am really not a vindictive preson.

But I cannot accept Richard Norton still maintaining that I was targetting him, which – I'm sure I need not point out – is related to WP:HA#NOT, which notes that "unfounded accusations of harassment may be considered a serious personal attack and dealt with accordingly."

He just will not drop the stick. While he is not following me around (I must admit this, to be fair to him; he was anyway a particpant in the discussion I'm about to link to...), he is just being excessively unpleasant and since the view is that I was not harassing him in the first place, please can he be asked to drop this?

I am actually beginning to feel quite intimidated by this, and would welcome community views on whether the diff I just provided is in any way acceptable, partly due to its fairly random insertion in the discussion, and partly due to the consensus that my actions were proper. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►cabinet─╢ 21:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but yes, I'd agree that the AfD comment was uncalled for. It's not egregiously out of line, however, and I'd suggest that you ignore it. AfDs can be rather contentious, and this exchange doesn't seem to be beyond the pale. Deor (talk) 21:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that unless someone explains to Richard Norton that it was out of line and not to be repeated, he will trot around and keep making such remarks, which is hurtful to me and just unacceptable generally... ╟─TreasuryTag►CANUKUS─╢ 21:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've left him a warning similar to the one I left you. Behavior in these bilateral AfDs has gotten out of hand. I for one am not willing to tolerate more of this sort of unproductive sniping at each other. Shimeru (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Shimeru's comment on RAN's talk page was all I would have done, too. I moved some of the off-topic stuff to the AFD talk page. The sooner you two learn how to ignore each other the better.--Chaser (talk) 22:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oh dear. I have a small problem – he's still at it – please can something be done about this? I really cannot continue on Wikipedia if he is going to be badmouthing me like that at every opening. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 08:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  And on Commons as well. This is absurd. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 08:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yet again, Gwen Gale has left another thoughtfully worded warning on his talk, to which I have added a line about the commons comment. SGGH ^ping! 09:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The locking of article Tony Abbott

Resolved

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:RFUP

The article Tony Abbott has recently been locked to all editing for 5 days. Abbott is a famous politician in Australia, running for Prime Minister, so the debate is always heated. However, locking the article stops all editors, when only a handful are edit waring. My request is that the article gets unlocked, with an admin to keep an eye on who continues the edit war, to deal with those editors individually. Most of the warriors are up to 3 reverts per day, so if they continue they can be dealt with. Thanks, Lester 00:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

You should probably request unprotection at WP:RFUP, but correct me if this is the correct venue. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 01:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. I didn't know about the other venue. Will try there first. Cheers, Lester 01:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've created an edit notice for the article, and reduced the protection level to semi for the remaining duration of the original protection in accordance with the message on Bradjamesbrown's talk page. I suggest that any editing not in accordance with WP:BLP is dealt with harshly, as is any future edit warring on the article. Mjroots (talk) 09:30, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

IP 24.46.81.2 changing talk page comments

IP User 24.46.81.2 was warned by User:Therefore and me about vandalism to David Vitter. Therefore made the first two warnings, and I made the level four warning. The IP then made a few idiotic comments, to which I snarkily responded. Then, the IP completely changed my comment in a non-complementary way. I reverted. IP then restored his nonsense and added more commentary. I reverted one more time, but I don't expect it to hold. I really don't want to get bogged down in this, but I also don't want words being attributed to me that aren't mine. -Rrius (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

IP is on a final warning. Suggest that it be acted on if there are any further disruptive edits. Mjroots (talk) 06:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've sliced away his silly comments, tempted to protect his page to annoy him! :) SGGH ^ping! 09:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Bio Article being vandalized with false sexual info - need article deleted ASAP

Resolved

 – we're done here. we'll take care of it. comments @ AfD are welcome Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello,

I am writing in regards to my recent biography that was put onto wikipedia. In reviewing it the last few days I have noticed someone adding false and misleading information on it, and I need to have that stopped or the article deleted via Speedy Deletion ASAP. I am an actor on TV and film, and have also been the victim of an internet scam over the last 6 months. This person uses various aliases and tries to change my bio to show me as some kind of gay pornstar - it's a sick joke but its not funny to me. As a professional actor this is libelous and while completely false it is damaging to my source of employment.

Please lock down my article so that no one can add material, or if that is not possible then please delete it ASAP under the guidance for db-attack mentioned in the speedy deletion section. This is crucial, otherwise I will be forced to take legal action. They are using various log-ins as shown on the history log, and I would prefer the article just to be deleted.

Thank you,

Pete Freeland [email reoved] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freelapl (talk • contribs) 13:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying you will sue wikipedia? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Is he replying to your question here? – B.hotep •talk• 14:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to but kinda new to this...Yes, I would consider it but the main thing is to get my profile under control and prevent this vandalism! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freelapl (talk • contribs) 14:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The person editing your article has now been blocked (by FisherQueen) and the article sent to AfD. – B.hotep •talk• 14:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you but they are using various identities, if you look in the history for the last 2 days you will see them using multiple IDs to falsly add 2 end items on the filmography with 2 fake URL's in the references section. I've gone online to edit and deleta them but I really need it controlled or deleted altogether. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Freelapl (talk • contribs) 14:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This was all related to an article at Pete Freeland which is currently being discussed for deletion here. - Sinneed 14:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I noticed this even before I saw this discussion. I've blocked the person in question, and I'm watching the article to revert it again. In addition, I've begun the discussion process which will likely end in the deletion of the article. If the problem continues, I can block the article from further edits, as well. Be careful- do not threaten legal action against Wikipedia unless you really, really mean it, because that requires us to block you from editing until your lawsuit concludes, and there are much easier ways to solve this problem than with legal threats. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 14:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I understand and am new to Wikipedia but learning FAST! I certainly meant that I would not do legal action against wikipedia. I have a hunch who is doing it, a guy in Toronto area that is a little mentally off based on the strange messages I get from him. You guys are the best! Thank you so much for responding so quickly!! Freelapl (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible Account Hijack

Resolved

 – No issue here, and the subthread has died a well-deserved death. GedUK  08:42, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this violates any policy but I think I ought to bring it to the admins attention. This User:Oking613 made an edit to Flag of England here which didn't fit in with the page description. That edit then was reverted by the same user here but seemingly telling himself off not to add it here in the edit summary in a manner that looks as if someone else has hijacked the account and may defame this user's reputation. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Or perhaps they meant (by the edit summary) "[I have] read the discussion. [I] understand..." – B.hotep •talk• 15:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur. Syrthiss (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I may have made a blooper there by placing the wrong edit, this I believe is the right one. Anyway the tone seems to say, "You, read this. Now do you get why this is not in, comprende?" The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 15:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't see it like that at all. In any case, you could have queried it with them first. – B.hotep •talk• 15:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

By Occam's razor, B.hotep's interpretation is far more likely. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:27, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I also don't see this as a hijack. The word read can be both "Read this now!" and "I have read this". English is a fun language... Bradjamesbrown (talk) 15:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Red, read, read, reed, bread, breed... no, my account hasn't been hijacked. :) – B.hotep •talk• 15:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

The C of E

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.

---

While we're here I'd like to ask about The C of E's name and sig. Wikipedia's user policy doesn't allow promotional usernames, and "The C of E" seems designed to advocate for the Church of England. ("C of E" being a well-known colloquial expression in the UK.) Also, signing with "God Save the Queen" seems inappropriate, as a partisan expression. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:44, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's so not a problem, any more than Hello Control (talk · contribs) should be disciplined for promoting A Bit of Fry and Laurie. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 17:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm familiar with the program, but don't recall the expression – but in any case the program is not an existing and ongoing social institution of tremendous reach and influence, so I don't think the analogy is all that good. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

This is one of ten sketches in which it was used, but that's not the point. The point is, I don't think that the username is promotional (for all we know, it could be ironic!) and I certainly don't think it's in any way harmful. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 17:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe I disagree. The sig is harmful in that it's a partisan expression, which, by its very nature, is exclusionary. I don't believe we'd allow a sig that said "Obama is the best" or "God bless the Pope" or "Allahu Akbar". (The Queen being both Head of State of the UK and other countries and the head of the Church of England, both political and religious examples are appropriate.) The atmosphere here is supposed to be collegial, and such expressions do not appear to me to promote collegiality. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

@"ironic" - Yes, that occured to me as well, but, unfortunately, without a typeface or special symbol to indicate irony, there's no way to tell from the name itself, so its impact is going to be on the basis of what can be seen. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Did you notified C of E about this? Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 17:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No, since this is a thread The C of E started, I assumed he or she would be watching it. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:59, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've notified them now. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, but he's not "promoting" the Church of England. He started editing since August 2008, and some rules has changed since then. "Promotional usernames are used to promote a group or company on Wikipedia.", Yes maybe, but are you sure that "C of E" doesn't means for him another thing? Tbhotch^{Talk C.} 18:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Your point about the rules changing over the years is a good one, and I did take into consideration that he or she has been editing for a while without, apparently, the name being brought out as a problem. Nonetheless, I do think the name itself is clearly promoting an organization, regardless of whether The C of E's editing has been promoting it, a claim that I am not making. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Really, just drop it. Nobody is going to convert to Protestantism just because of his username. You seriously need to stop seeking controversy: not one other person in this discussion agrees with you, so 'CofE' clearly isn't that dreadful a moniker. ╟─TreasuryTag►quaestor─╢ 18:25, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Ummm. It's really a bit early for "stick" warnings, I just posted the comment a half-hour 45 minutes ago, there's still time to hear from The C of E and get some other opinions – after all, only 4 people have expressed opinions. I'm afraid I also take exception to your accusation that the purpose of my comment was to stir up controversy, and I'd appreciate it if you would strike it. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:29, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I count five people who believe that the username is not disruptive, and one who believes that it is. This suggests a certain imbalance, which I somehow doubt will tip in your favour after hearing the "other opinions" you are awaiting. Hence the WP:STICK suggestion (not warning). I will strike no part of my comment, and stand by it entirely. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 18:32, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I find your "suggestion" untimely and unconvincing. Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I'd bet good money that within 24hrs, the ratio of inappropriate:appropriate opinions on the username will be no greater than 1:3. So we'll see what's untimely and unconvincing. "Thanks" – ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 18:37, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You may well be right, but at that point, the results would no longer be "unconvincing" and suggestions to drop the stick would no longer be "untimely", would they? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing about The C of E's name that runs afoul of WP:U. His sig... *shrug* I think you'd have to be looking to be offended to actually object to it; it's a common phrase. EVula // talk // ☯ // 18:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

There are many "common phrases" which would not be allowed in sigs. I don't think I need to enumerate any. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:13, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(@ Beyond my Ken) Did you bring up your concern with them before bringing this matter to ANI? Syrthiss (talk) 18:06, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

No, I did not, and I can indeed be faulted for that. I simply reacted to the name (which I've never come across before) when I saw it here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:11, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You can always create an entry at WP:RFC/U where users experienced in this kind of area dwell. I don't believe anyone would begrudge such an entry - I certainly wouldn't. Although I would propose that the signature is acceptable, I can understand the objection to it. SGGH ^ping! 18:22, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there is that option, but I'm afraid I'm not a great believer in the efficacy of RfC/U. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

My name is not intended to be promotional I just picked it at random really. God save the queen is really only pledging my alleigence to my head of state. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:31, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Quite. It's simply the British national anthem. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 18:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course I know that -- it is, really, entirely the point. Such expressions have no place in a signature, since they are, by their very nature, partisan, and partisan expressions help to divide up rather than bring us together as a community. I have no objection whatsoever to your love of country (how could I?), but it doesn't seem necessary to express it in a signature, the sole purpose of which is to identify you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

So you'd object to Stars and stripes (talk · contribs) and Union jakk (talk · contribs) and Ghana (talk · contribs) and England (talk · contribs) then, would you? ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 18:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, actually, for various reasons. With a practically infinite number of possible names, there's absolutely no reason for names such as those. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I've never read anything so ridiculous in my life, and I've read this – you are simply being over-the-top objectionable for no good reason. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 18:57, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well Freedom of Speech and all that. But anyway, I'm afraid i'm sorry I didn't notice that my username had suddenly become a problem after 2 years of having it (1 with GSTQ) and th\t i'm supposed to be on a Semi-Wikibreak due to exams so i'm not contunuously patrolling or online. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You're name's fine, just ignore him. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 18:46, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I only brought it up about an hour ago, so you didn't really miss anything. Also, let me apologize for not bringing it up on your talk page first -- but since we're here: if the name was picked more or less at random, would you be adverse to a change? I know you've had it for almost 2 years, and have probably grown attached to it in the meantime, but maybe you're also bored of it? I dunno, seems worth asking. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, for Heaven's sake, Ken. Why on Earth are you trying to browbeat this user into changing their bloody username? It's absolutely fine; you are the only person who has had an issue with it in over two years!! Just leave them alone. ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 18:50, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

@TT - You're really not being very helpful. I understand your opinion, as I'm sure everyone else does. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

You are surely not describing your activities in this thread as "helpful"?! ╟─TreasuryTag►You may go away now.─╢ 18:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

A woman went to watch her son, Kenneth, play in goal for the local youth football team. He eventually let in a goal which, really, he should have easily caught. One of the other mothers said, "Why on earth didn't he get that?!", to which Kenneth's mother replied, "Well... it's beyond my Ken." – names are what you make of them. And... I'll get my coat... :) – B.hotep •talk• 18:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I have to decline as I just like it too much. And since i've used it for 2 years and I have a working reputation with Wikiproject:Lists so if I changed it people at first glance wouldn't recognise me and i'd have to start all over again building my working relationships. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

That's perfectly understandable. Do you think you could see your way clear to changing your sig? Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:53, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:DEADHORSE – please, please leave it, Ken. There is no reason for him to change his sig. Nobody cares except you. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 18:56, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I fail really to see why I should, as EVula said, you'd have to be looking to be offended by it for it to actually be offensive. I've dealt with people who oppose my views and they've never had a problem with it. And as TT said, it's fine as consensus seems here to reflect that opinion. So, i'm sorry, again. Thanks for the offer but I have to decline. The C of E. God Save The Queen! (talk) 19:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, well, since I have no inclination to take this any farther, I think that is that. I'm sorry you don't see my point, but that's OK, thank you for considering it. Treasury Tag: your behavior in this thread has been perfectly childish, go to your room, please - and no dessert tonight! Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:04, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Well-crafted. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 19:18, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c)When I see the phrase "God Save The Queen" it doesn't trigger a wave of patriotic fervour so much as a brief burst of guitar followed by the phrase "we mean it, man". Just saying... this doesn't necessarily have to be taken as partisan, and usernames with some cultural significance are okay. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't it followed by "A fascist regime / Made you a moron / A total H-bomb"? Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:43, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Just to let you know ahead of time, Beyond My Ken, I am not suggesting with my username, that people read Mein Kampf. I wouldn't have believed this had I not seen it myself. However, having been put through the ringer myself with a nuisance charge from this user, it's not entirely surprising.Mk5384 (talk) 06:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it took me a while to place exactly who you are -- I had to flip through your contributions to get a clue. So, you're talking about the whole megillah where you insisted that Black Jack Pershing's nickname should be "Nigger Jack" and fought tooth and nail about it, all the while insisting that you had absolutely no ulterior motives, right? The big stink where you had half the editors on Wikipedia telling you that you were wrong, and showing you evidence, where you finally backed down with ill grace, yes? That's where I "put you through the ringer", is it? Well, sorry about insisting that Wikipedia reflect historical reality rather than your little preconceptions. I see that you've returned to your favorite subject, though, with 25 edits to Nigger. Have fun. Beyond My Ken (talk) 13:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

See what I mean?Mk5384 (talk) 15:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, if Ken is happy to close the thread on the name, then there is no need for us to re-open NiggerJack stuff here, I move to archive. SGGH ^ping! 13:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection. Beyond My Ken (talk) 14:05, 28 May 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.

List of psychedelic plants and User:Farfromhere001

I found List of psychedelic plants in a state of serious despair willing patrolling RC. Since the edits were all left by the same user and his IP I reverted to the pre state. I left a notice on his talk page wanting a discussion about it but I have not been able to get him to sit and talk about things, all he wants to edit the page in his way, not complying with Wikipedia standards, having broken wiki code all over the page and overall seemingly doing more harm. FinalRapture - † ☪ 03:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Probably complete protection of the page to force the user to talk should be necessary. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Why would we prevent all editors from editing a page if only one editor is being problematic? If the problem is one editor then he or she should be blocked. ElKevbo (talk) 05:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:PP states "Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others." Just saying... Basket of Puppies 06:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, working on something else, didn't see this come back up on the list. The reason I suggested full protection was that semi-protection wouldn't stop this guy as he has already hit the magic number for semi-protection to have an effect, so to protect the page from this guy, it would require full protection. Sadly, yes, the problems of one will effect everyone who wants to edit the page. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:19, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Which I guess it why WP:PP says not to protect the page but rather block the individual offender. Basket of Puppies 15:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've left the user a personalized message on his talk page (and have also, unfortunately, felt it necessary to revert almost all of his edits that hadn't already been reverted). Perhaps if he familiarizes himself with our policies and guidelines a bit, he could become a productive editor. Deor (talk) 06:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Possibility of a connection with B767-500 (talk · contribs) see DIFF where Farfromhere001 (talk · contribs) re-reverts a reverted B767-500 edit into Miracle fruit. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 08:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've given him an indefinite block, explaining that he can be unblocked if he cooperates. I suggested he create articles in his userspace, but I'm wondering if that's enough. Maybe insist on a mentor? Or just ban from article space if anyone thinks he has anything to add? He was recreating speedied articles rapid fire and swearing at editors in the article itself. Dougweller (talk) 16:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Commercially Interested Censorship

Hello at Wikipedia,

I would like to inform you that the user Akerans performs censorship on other users' articles. That is the only way he contributes.

He also, which is IMHO the most serious issue here, PRETENDS TO BE OFFICIALLY REPRESENTING WIKIPEDIA!

>Please, see the history of my Contributions and my Talk page to assure yourself.<

Despite he, in his messages, appeals to the Wikipedia's Neutral point of view, he does not respond to allegetions of being a representative of a commercial subject on which an article on Wikipedia he censors (edits; even though DELETING is the only way he does so), which IMHO speaks for itself.

>Please, see the history of his Talk page to assure yourself.<

PLEASE, PROTECT WIKIPEDIA FROM POLITICAL AND BUSINESS INTERESTS!!!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter Pilz (talk • contribs) 13:56, 28 May 2010

From the post the above editor left on Akerans talk page: "Is censorship the only reasoning you have, tovarish Goebbels? Do you (Zionists at CME)....As a typical jewish businessman you do not respond questions,". This is also at the help desk.Dougweller (talk) 13:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have told the account on its talk page and I will tell it here, if it makes one more disruptive ethnic or racial slur on Wikipedia, I will block it for the rest of this week. I'm tempted to block it outright. SGGH ^ping! 13:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have reviewed the edits, this user is trolling, dropping racial and ethnic slurs around the place, and making a noise because it's large BLP violations are being reverted. I don't think we should ever have to tolerate that. SGGH ^ping! 13:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I had to do some RL stuff, but I've now reviewed them also - he's claiming that a company owned by Ronald Lauder, a Jew, is breaking labour laws, but offering no evidence. Clear BLP violations. I'm surprised the pages were protected. I don't see Pilz as an asset here. Dougweller (talk) 13:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Asking people whether they like Goebbels better than Beria isn't the best start on Wikipedia... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 13:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, he is on 31 hours at the moment, but if I sniff some continuation of his nonsense-editing on his talk page during the block we might consider it a no-hoper. SGGH ^ping! 13:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact he is edging himself perilously close to an indefinite block on his talk. SGGH ^ping! 14:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• I upped to Indefinite, he is here on a mission to post egregious WP:BLP violating content about someone against whom he clearly has some kind of agenda. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems to be on a singular mission and I can't see how the editor could provide Wikipedia with any positive contributions, while surly would continue to violate BLP, along with other basic guidelines. Dave Dial (talk) 14:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

His replies are humorous, but foolish. I have reminded him that access to his talk page can also be restricted. SGGH ^ping! 15:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Which, given his subsequent additions, I have done. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Automatic archiving

Resolved

 – Do'h — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Why was this archived - it's stamped yesterday morning.Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Archiving on AN/I is set to no replies in 24 hours. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Duh, I was looking at AN, which is 48! Sorry. Dougweller (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Mute Swan

Resolved

 – Not an incident and doesn't require administrators. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 15:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There are too many photos at this article. I want to delete some, but they're all so good. B-Machine (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

This requires admin action why? — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

No need to be a wise guy, you jackass. If you don't want to do anything, just delete this post. B-Machine (talk) 16:05, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but was there really a need for that? I suggest that you retract it. At the top of this page is an explanation the things this page is for, and discussing the number of photos in an article is not one of them. Try opening a discussion at the proper forum: the article's talkpage. —DoRD (talk) 16:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Alma Mater Society

Resolved

 – Move done. Thanks. Codf1977 (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Can I have some help with undoing a copy'n'past page move.

Alma Mater Society was about the Alma Mater Society of Queen's University.

207.6.167.127 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) this morning converted it to a redirect to Alma Mater Society (disambiguation)

then the same user then copy and pasted the text over to Alma Mater Society of Queen's University

I think the rational for the move was correct, just the way it was done was wrong.

I have undone the edits, but cant do the last steps which is to move Alma Mater Society to Alma Mater Society of Queen's University and then do either :

• set the new Alma Mater Society page as a redirect to Alma Mater Society (disambiguation)

or

• move Alma Mater Society (disambiguation) over the new Alma Mater Society page

Thanks.

Codf1977 (talk) 16:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I think I have done what was needed. SGGH ^ping! 16:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) For future reference, there's a page for this sort of request. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 16:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Looks good - thanks. Codf1977 (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks DoRD - learn something new every day.Codf1977 (talk) 16:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

IP evading block

Resolved

 – Fresh IP blocked—Kww(talk) 22:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:12.7.202.2, User talk:74.242.231.200, User talk:74.162.153.141, and User talk:Mbhiii were blocked for edit warring and socking. (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive616#User:Mbhiii misuse of IPs and edit warring) Just recently, User:74.242.252.148 from a close location (Raleigh, NC area) has edited two of the same articles with the same edits as the blocked IPs.

• [[332]] (previous attempt [333]
• [[334]] (previous attempt [335])

Cptnono (talk) 23:01, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Continued evasion of block

This was properly closed out above by Kww but it is still ongoing. User:68.210.144.13 has just made the three simalar edits on three articles that Mbhii's IPs were working on before being blocked. The IP does not match the location so I believe he is using a wireless device, proxy, or simply calling up a buddy in Louisville.

• [336] Edit to Tea bag (sexual act) adding "humor" to a subsection for the third time or so. Previous [337]
• [338] Edit to Progressive Party (United States, 1912) again discussing Theodore Roosevelt. Previous: [339]
• [340] Edit to Hyperbole again inserting a long section on the Pope. Previous: [341]

I also noticed that User:98.69.170.215 made a very close edit to Sunscreen controversy that removed a copyright violation template. There may not be enough evidence with this one and they are out of Atlanta. Recent: [342] Previous: [343]

So at this time, 68.210.144.13 should be blocked as a meat or sock puppet. I don't know what needs to be done with Mbhii and his IPs but an extension in the block may be appropriate. Also, is there another way I should be reporting this if it continues? Should the articles be semi protected if volume increases or would that be overreacting?Cptnono (talk) 01:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Mbhii indefinitely for his ongoing block evasion; it clearly demonstrates that he does not respect Wikipedia policies. If more IPs pop up, post them here and we'll keep blocking those as needed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:47, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You responded with the blocking before I even finished this report I think. And there is another IP who has had problems with that IP who jumped in too. The guys was just swarmed. Kind of a shame since it looks like he is trying at times but he really should have learned what is frowned upon by now. It appears that he has changed tactics with another IP out of Louisville (65.80.37.13). I removed the resolved template since this might be ongoing.Cptnono (talk) 03:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

File:Amy Pond3.png & Talk:Amy_Pond#Image_Discussion_Redux

This file is currently part of an RFC. User:TreasuryTag has tagged it for deletion on the NFC/copyright grounds even though the RFC still has some time to run. I reverted this as inappropriate - the file needs to be accessible/referrable to during the RFC process and we traded this back and forth again. As User:TreasuryTag is in favour of keeping the current image I don't think it's a good idea for him to to try and get the image deleted at this time, but he's insisting on keeping the deletion tag on the image. I'm not looking for any sanction here, more some kind of feedback on whether this is correct as we're on the edge of an edit war/3rr. Exxolon (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• The image is a non-free one, and is not used in any articles. It hasn't been used in any articles for well over a fortnight. WP:NFC and WP:COPYRIGHT are very clear on this matter. Exxolon is free to put the image anywhere else on the Internet and link to it if this is his concern. As it happens, the RfC is about three-quarters completed and there is a clear consensus for the image in question not to be used anyway, though this is, of course, irrelevant. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 14:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  I agree with this comment, by TreasuryTag (talk · contribs), above. -- Cirt (talk) 14:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  It's not being used in the article because TreasuryTag reverted it being put in the article in the first place! If the RFC concludes the current image is preferred this image can easily be deleted. Chucking it elsewhere is not a good solution - other image hosting sites may not be accessible due to blocks/filters, the image needs to be here for evaluation. Exxolon (talk) 14:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  It's not being used in the article because TreasuryTag reverted it being put in the article in the first place! Wrong. It's not being used because there is a clear consensus not to use it. If you don't want to host it elsewhere, then don't: it's entirely up to you. Wikipedia's copyright policies, though, are not up to you. ╟─TreasuryTag►Woolsack─╢ 14:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  Er...this edit [344] clearly shows you reverting it's addition. Maybe that was backed up by the previous consensus (which for the record I was unaware of at the time - it was hidden in the talk page archives) but that doesn't change the fact you did revert it's addition. Exxolon (talk) 14:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) I'm not disputing who physically removed it. I'm saying that the reason it is not used in the article is not my removal, but the motivation behind my removal (the consensus), but this is anyway a discussion completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, and I will not be engaging further in it. ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 14:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• The original copy of the image can, presumably, still be seen and linked to even if the local copy is deleted. I'm not sure that we necessarily need a locally cached copy during the RfC - we can simply direct interested parties to the original, BBC copy. TFOWR^propaganda 14:28, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  Ah, splendid, TFOWR, you have the perfect solution! There we go! Exxolon, you may link to the original copy of the image if you wish. ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 14:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  Hmmm...I can see TFOWR's point but I don't think that's an ideal solution either. Off site images can be moved, have titles changed,be deleted at any point or even be overwritten. Also having access to Wikipedia doesn't necessarily imply access to the BBC website - this is not a good solution in my book. Exxolon (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Then, as above, don't use it as a solution. That's your choice. Wikipedia's strict copyright policies are not your choice, though. (Also worth mentioning that there's only a few days between the image being deleted and the end of the RfC anyway.) ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 15:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  I am going to write to the BBC and demand that they never remove that picture. ;) I do contribute to their wages after all. – B.hotep •talk• 15:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Umm, it's pretty clear that you can't unlink something and then nominate it for deletion on grounds that it's not linked from anywhere. Bad form. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  That's an intersting point of view, not only because of the months-old RfC consensus that the free image should be used, but also because Wikipedia:Image use policy#Deleting images clearly identifies as one of the steps preparatory to nominating images for deletion, "Remove all uses of the image from articles—make it an orphan." ╟─TreasuryTag►Not-content─╢ 14:36, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  I suspect that instruction refers to criteria for other deletion rationales, but I have raised the question on the talk page. It's still bad form to claim that something is deleteable because you took the actions to make it that way.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  (edit conflict) Hmm—re-reading it, I agree that it is ambiguous. However, I am confident that I acted properly (especially given the consensus), and if the worst sin I may potentially have committed was being of "bad form" then I can't claim to be overly bothered by the point. ╟─TreasuryTag►secretariat─╢ 14:51, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  Respectfully disagree with SarekOfVulcan, because there had been prior dispute resolution on this exact issue, and the image was not supported by consensus. The actions by Treasury, in this case, were therefore appropriate and inline with consensus. -- Cirt (talk) 14:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  I see your point, Cirt. I accept that TT seems to be acting within consensus here -- I'm just not convinced that consensus is correct at the moment.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• The free image is perfectly acceptable so the unfree rationale falls on its face, that is not especially controversial. Guy (Help!) 15:12, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• I agree, the free image serves the same encyclopedic purpose, so the non-free image completely fails WP:NFCC #1. While there are valid reasons in the linked-to discussions for finding a better picture, they aren't convincing that the free image isn't an adequate representation of the character. VernoWhitney (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• I actually disagree there -- as I commented in the RFC, the free image is a picture of the actress in costume as the character -- not the character. It's perfectly acceptable in the Karen Gillan article, but I don't think it's appropriate for Amy Pond.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• If the image was of Gillan off to the side having a smoke break or something, yea, I could almost see that point. But this almost looks like it was taken during an actual action sequence. Tarc (talk) 16:03, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm personally of the opinion you could probably make a pretty fair case for deletion of the current image under the "derivative works" clause of copyright policy/law but I won't try and get it deleted under this criteria as that would be a conflict of interest on my part. Exxolon (talk) 16:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  Very wise. ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 16:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  You don't see the parallel I take it. Exxolon (talk) 16:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

  No, more like I don't give a shit. If you want to try and nominate the free image for deletion, go ahead. I won't complain; I'll likely be amused! ╟─TreasuryTag►sheriff─╢ 17:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• The fact that there's a perfectly good free image (two, actually) means that we simply can't use the non-free one and so it must be deleted; WP:NFCC#1 is the relevant policy. Black Kite (t) (c) 17:43, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
• While yes, the act of making something deletable and then nominating it for deletion is bad form, that's not the case here. The thing that made this (and every other possible non-free image) deletable wasn't consensus or the presence or absence of the image in an article. If a free image exists all non-free images are off the table and to be deleted from the encyclopedia, period. Doesn't matter what consensus is, nor does it matter how much better the non-free image might or might not be: It's not up for debate. Between two non-free images or two free images, by all means let the debate continue in a polite and aboveboard manner. In this case, however? Nuke the non-free image--there's no debate to be had, just a reiteration of the policy. Jclemens (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat again

Resolved

 – Re-blocked without talk page access. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

User:45g, already blocked indef for socking and legal threats, has included a legal threat in an edit summary to his talk page here. A removal of talk page access is probably best here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:22, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh the huge manatee

For those who remember "bigotgate", the Sue of record has been given a peerage in the dissolution honours list, as has Ian Paisley. Both of these are likely to prove controversial and cause another spate of Lame. Guy (Help!) 16:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The trouts are loaded and waiting. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 16:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Gillian Who? Nah, never heard of her. I make a point of stabbing my eyes out with a fork every time I see a newspaper or a political commentator ram their views down my throat that bigotgate was the high(low) point of Gordon Brown's election campaign. I prefer to let Wikipedia admins tell me what is and isn't notable. MickMacNee (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Delete. NN ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 20:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

An encyclopedia is not a newspaper or a tabloid, Mick. If we went by your, ahem, logic, every headline at TMZ.com would be of encyclopedic value. Tarc (talk) 14:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Chris Bennett and Jc3s5h

Resolved

 – Blocked Jclemens (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

On 7 March 2010 Chris Bennett posted a personal attack on another contributor at Talk:Julian calendar [345]. This was reverted by administrators and editors on numerous occasions, as it was repeatedly reintroduced by Chris Bennett and Jc3s5h, both of whom appear to be problem contributors [346]. I removed it this evening giving fair warning [347]. It has again been restored by Jc3s5h. 78.151.240.205 (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Please read the big orange notice. I have done it for you this time. SGGH ^ping! 21:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Hardly a personal attack, pointing out to a serial sockpuppeteer that their contributions are likely to be ignored. I note that this report came from yet another UK-based IP, though that might be assuming bad faith. Black Kite (t) (c) 21:38, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that this has been resolved, since nobody has yet to block the IP as a sock of User:Vote (X) for Change. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 21:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked and re-resolved. Jclemens (talk) 22:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I am the victim of the above – mentioned hate campaign which is still going on after three years. I don’t want people to get the impression that the diffs cited are the totality of the campaign. They are only the tip of the iceberg. Accusations like “all pretence of reason is cast aside, revealing the pitiful, naked troll beneath” from a contributor whose views are shared by no other academic in any university cannot be justified under any circumstances. The following sections consist entirely of POV rants and ad hominem attacks.

• Talk:Mercedonius#Length of Mercedonius
• Talk:Mercedonius#Resolution of Length of Mercedonius issue
• Talk:Roman calendar#Length of intercalary month
• Talk:Julian calendar/Archive 1#Bissextile Day
• Talk:Julian calendar/Archive 1#28-day intercalary month
• Talk:Julian calendar/Archive 2#Correct observance
• Talk:Julian calendar/Archive 2#Celsus and the Triennial cycles:A Proposal

Vote (X) for Change is an account I created less than three months ago to promote my view in a ballot which was in danger of collapsing because the promoter was blocked. When I had finished with the account I added a “former account” template to indicate that I would not be using it again.

The fact that I had stopped using this account was the trigger for these people to start alleging that I had been banned.80.5.88.40 (talk) 09:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible messing around using socks

Ladyspyde‎ (talk · contribs) and Zynthax (talk · contribs) appear to have been playing around with each other. They could be the same person, looking at the gibberish being posted. ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 00:35, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I blocked one account 24hrs. The other hasn't edited since the warning, so no action there.--Chaser (talk) 02:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It's not gibberish, by the way. Google translate tells me it's Filipino and it appears that they're probably just a couple of friends violating WP:NOT#MYSPACE. —DoRD (talk) 03:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Now we have socks. Ladyspyde‎1 (talk · contribs) and Zynthax1 (talk · contribs). ~NerdyScienceDude (✉ • ✐) 18:11, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Both new accounts blocked. —DoRD (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't the original accounts be blocked as well for socking? —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Self Harm

New User threatening SELF HARM in edit summary NOTE has E-mail address too!. HERE --220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Notifying oversight. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:34, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Think we should go through the same steps as WP:SUICIDE with this one? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:37, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Better safe than sorry! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 06:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Notified checkuser. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:45, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur.--Wehwalt (talk) 06:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Yup. SGGH ^ping! 09:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

My spidey sense says they're being dramatic and not serious; however, I agree that it's past the point that the WP:SUICIDE process is justified. If the CU can localize them, a report to their local law enforcement and visit to make sure the threats of self harm weren't serious seems appropriate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• If y'all want to bug the cops, I guess I can't stop you. But this is just some punk wasting our time, and I've blocked them indef. --Floquenbeam (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC) (p.s. that email address will turn out to be a friend's email address, not the vandal's.)

Maybe so, but it isn't worth the risk - and the police won't mind. It's their job. SGGH ^ping! 11:31, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I really disagree with that, but like I said, I won't try to stop you from doing what you think best. In the mean time, hopefully they're autoblocked and will leave us alone for a while. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I know my local police would always rather people reported and let them look into things than run the risk of not reporting and something horrible happening. DuncanHill (talk) 12:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur with SGGH, Georgewilliamherbert and DuncanHill. See WP:SUICIDE-Contact local authorities, Quote:

"Law enforcement and emergency services have consistently stated that such reports are not a waste of their time, even in cases where the suicidal statements are determined to be a hoax or non-immediate threat."

Nothing to lose, everthing to gain IMHO. And the Cops can give the punk a well earned 'kick in the arse' too. if it is a hoax! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 12:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The police would never ever do anything about an unidentified IP address that has said I a am going to kill myself on a web site. That essay is a bit much imo. Off2riorob (talk) 12:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) WP:SUICIDE is an essay, not a guideline or policy, and one that a lot of people disagree with. If you think this is the right thing to do, then fine. All I really want to do in posts like this is continue to point out to people reading these recurring threads that they are under no obligation to do something they think unnecessary. If someone sees something like this and calls the cops, fine. If someone sees something like this and doesn't call the cops, fine. We all do what we think best, and it is not a policy or requirement to report to ANI a vandal playing the "don't revert my vandalism or I'll cut myself" card for laughs. --Floquenbeam (talk) 12:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There's arguing "essay vs guideline vs policy", and then there's "common sense" and "the right thing to do". –MuZemike 14:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

So you're the ultimate arbiter of what the right thing to do is? Nice to meet you, God... Badger Drink (talk) 16:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• The police have repeatedly said they want to be informed of these things. Let's not second guess them, ok? No editor is required to do anything, but try not to discourage them from doing so. Basket of Puppies 16:58, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Agree with the Basket. The worst that happens if we call it in is that seats open up at Dunkin' Donuts (or Tim Hortons). The worst that can happen if we don't call it in is ... well ...--Wehwalt (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Also agree with Basket of Puppies; however, it seems a bit futile. Just because Leggymcgee! (talk · contribs) threatened his/her life on the Internet does not actually mean that they will. However, I do agree with the essay, especially this section. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Well, since this happened some almost 36 hours ago, either the person is still getting a giggle over this, just got out of the ER for stitches or has long since bled out. We need to cut through some of the red tape, someone find a damned checkuser (hell, bug 'em all, if ya have to) and call a number. One of these days this stalling I have seen and almost talking people away from calling is going to cost someone their life and we will be partially responsible and the media will ask the big question "why didn't we stop it"? Will our answer be "we were too busy figuring out what to do" or "we were too busy discouraging people from calling and doing a checkuser"? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Over 36 hours ago a checkuser responded to your request. Feel free to call the relevant authority. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Samofi

Would an admin please review the recent talk page comments of this indef-blocked (battleground) editor, who appears to be trying to carry on his mission (good Slovaks vs. bad Hungarians) rather than addressing the reasons he was blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:08, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It also appears that this user keeps editing with a number of different sockpuppets(see user page), while using the old talk page as well. The latest of them appears to be rather obviously user:MarekSS, just look into the Samofi talk page and compare in detail with MarekSS edits. This user obviously rejects the notion that he could be barred from editing, and instead picked up the pace since his indefinite block. Hobartimus (talk) 19:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Please show proofs for your accusations against me. The articles where I made edits are different of the ones where User:Samofi or his confirmed sock User:JanVarga had conflicts. (MarekSS (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC))

You may wish to take this to WP:SPI for the sockpuppeting issue. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:40, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Anon vandal is back

Resolved

 – User:Chris Neville-Smith is semi-protected indefinitely. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:45, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone's vandalising my user page. I would normally give some warnings on vandalism, but this edit makes me suspect it's the same gentleman who previously persistently vandalised several pages I was editing, as I previously reported here, and consequently any warnings I give will be ignored. (The history of my user page should be self-explanatory.) Do you want me to attempt to give these warnings anyway, or do you want to intervene now? Thanks, Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone blocked for 12 hours. Is there a reason not to just permanently semi-protect your user page? Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Unless my information is out of date, I don't have the means to semi-protect my own user page, but I will if someone shows me how. However, this is vandal is who I think it is, last time he/she moved on to vandalising pages I was editing instead. Thanks for the block though. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 16:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

You don't have the ability, but I do, and I just did. If you want it un semi-protected, just ask. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 16:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Weren't there recent discussions of the propriety of keeping one's user talk page permanently semi-protected?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Bradjamesbrown protected Chris Neville-Smith's userpage, not his talk page. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep, all the vandalism was on Chris' user page- which I protected, not his talk. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

That's fine.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Mafia

Resolved

 – Vegaswikian has now reclosed the discussion and moved the page back to Sicilian Mafia. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I closed a move request to move Mafia to Sicilian Mafia, but was reverted by DonCalo (talk · contribs). He asserts that my closure was inappopriate (see User talk:Ucucha#Re: Mafia); I disagree and would like to have some uninvolved people look at the matter. Ucucha 19:13, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the same user who makes statements like "Of course the English speaking world is not concerned what the rest of the world thinks if it does not fit in their narrow-minded Anglo-Saxon perception of reality" and was involved in this discussion, and in fact opposed the move? And then this involved user reverts a change he does not agree with, a change made by an uninvolved administrator? If an admin is uninvolved, and makes a move, and if a user disagrees he brings it up on the new talk page using process, he doesn't cut the rug from under the feet of the uninvolved admin. Regardless whether the move stands or not, I think DonCalo should be reprimanded. SGGH ^ping! 19:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I think there was consensus and that you were correct in closing the thread as move. And I entirely agree with SGGH. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 19:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with SGGH as well. The consensus was definitely present on the talk page. The term Mafia is very vague, and does not imply that the article would be about the Sicilian Mafia. Moving the article was the correct decision to make; DonCalo reverted without consensus. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:43, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Vegaswikian (talk · contribs) has now reclosed the discussion and moved the page back to Sicilian Mafia, so there's nothing further to do here. Ucucha 19:52, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:GAN Backlog

There are ALOT of articles awaiting GA review on the WP:GAN page, some dating back to March 2010. Could a few good admins take a look at the articles listed, review them and get back to the users. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:29, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, regular users can do this too. If you are good at reading articles and reviewing them for what is and isn't GA quality, please break up some of this GAN backlog. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, at the beginning of April, we were over 450. That doesn't mean, however, that we should let it get back up there again, let alone keep it as it is right now. –MuZemike 23:46, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

• Some good work has been done to review some of the articles and it is much appreciated. There are 158 articles (as of this writing) that still need to be reviewed, so if you can read and review articles and know what is and isn't GA quality, jump in and help out. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

user:Kushsinghmd & User:Mootros

Does the following non-constructive behaviour by Kushsinghmd constitute some form of harassment? Especially how Kushsinghmd consistently focuses on me and not the on article or the issue in question

• Talk:Research_fellow#Non-English_sources

• [348]

I find it interesting that user started deleting what I write or strike it out. I guess on a discussion page, user should either respond appropriately, but not delete an opinion simply because he dislike it. I reverted these edits many times, and in the label of of two of them I have asked him not to delete what I have written. However i found that he didnt respond to my request, which i attributed that he might not read the edit label, so I prefered to tell him directly by in a user message. If he find it harrasment , that is his problem, I ffind it extremely harrasing to delete or strike out what I spend time in writing. thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 20:30, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• [349]

It is very Harrasing to me when He just label my name on the notice board, when the incident involves him too. I would ask for more honesty in presenting nformaton, thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 20:31, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Many thanks! Mootros (talk) 19:42, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mootros: do you call that me mentioning your previous claims are harrasement ?!!!

Please first state clearly, did you make those claims or not ?! and they came out to be false claims or not ?!

Dear Admins: It is really a great opportunity that Dear Mootros is invloving you, and I believe it is really an improtant issue. User Mootros has been wasting much of time making all sort of false arguments. Please review the whole discussion page carefully, and I hope that you really intervene to solve this problem soon, and stop such unacceptable acts. Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC) Here is one of the false claims that User Mootros made, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Research_fellow#Reverse_alphabetical_order, and then when asked to back up his claims, he failed and striked out!! yet when I mention such incidentor similar he calls this Harrasement ?! Kushsinghmd (talk) 19:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Also I find it interesting that Mootros is saying that I am focusing on him for the following reasons:

1. Please review all my comments, I never focused on him personally, but I am focusing on the content he is providing in the context of RF article, which lead him to start a war edit several time. If you find any comment out of this context please notify me.

2. However user Mootros, tried more than one time to divert he discussion to my location asking where I am located , which i would consider completely irreveant to any article, and should be considered as personal inforamtio

3. also today he provided a translation, and tried to focus the point onto himself asking: "am I not reliable ?!" ...what is that ?! he is asking not to focus on him, yet asking a question about himself, wondering if he is reliable or not ?!! and when I answered then he says, hey that harrasment, let make a report. I hope that admind would interven effectively into this topic of the Research Fellow, since it seems that the way that user Mootros is following will not lead to any improvement. Thanks again Kushsinghmd (talk) 20:01, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• It seems to me that Mootros is pushing the bounds of novel synthesis and providing selective translations to support his thesis. It also seems that Mootros and Kushsinghmd have been arguing for a long time, with Kushsinghmd mainly asking for stuff supporting policy and Mootros being distinctly evasive. Does anyone else read it that way? Guy (Help!) 20:33, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

As not being an admin, I can say this....I personally don't care who is at fault on this one. You are both guilty as sin. You both need to find seperate corners of Wikipedia (it is a big site, you can find them far apart) and stay there. Don't come around each other, don't talk to each other, don't talk about each other. Disengage both of you. No good can come from this but both of you being blocked for violating a slew of rules, the most important one WP:PATIENCEOFCOMMUNITY (damn, that should be a rule). Seperate, disengage and move on. If you have to, turn of the computer and take a WP:WIKIBREAK. Just stop. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:35, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

After speaking with Mootros, I think he is willing to disengage. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 20:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

After speaking with Kushsinghmd (who mistakened me for an admin, I'm not), he has said he will disengage for a week as I asked to "test the waters" and if anything happens between him and Mootros in that time period (which I don't think it will) he will take it to MedCab as he is wanting intervention.

With both of these agreeing to disengage, I think admins can watch the users and mark this resolved for now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a small clarification, I would still like to have others intervene into the article, other editors to review the content, and a moderator or admin to regulate - if needed - the talk between Mootros and I, since the actions has been repetitiive, and it is time to intervene.

also would like the matter to be investigated, and pin points any mistakes to each of us, so not to repeat them.

Thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, this thread will not go away just with everyone disengaging, but I feel it is best that things wait for the week we agreed on and then just let things go. Just let be what is there and not worry about it. If we continue investigating, then we are back where we were to begin with and I don't think either of you want that. I really believe this should be marked resolved, after the week and no problems as we discussed, then just move on and don't look back on the problems. No harm, no foul. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agreed to disengage from speech with Mootros, However I didnt't say I am going to disengage from RF topic. And I am not requesting much.

Since it is not clear for me, so I would like to ask what exactly have been resolved ?! if you mean the harrasing report from both side, then yes, it is OK, I will withdraw my reports too. However still the cause not solved, we really need a neutral part in the middle. as I said that regentparks started and I hope he would have continued, so if any other one willing to take over , please join. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Research_fellow#Protected

I said yes I am willing to disengage from Mootros, but I don't have enough patience to wait for 1 week, after all this effort been done, i dont feel it will be fair, since I believ it is soo simple, all arguments are almot over, just needs examination and taking actions.

thanks, Kushsinghmd (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, an admin would have to find a way to resolve it cause I think that is the best idea I have. I do appreciate that you will continue to disengage though. That is good :) The resolving part...well? Anyone have any ideas? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 22:58, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you again for you positive intervention calming down the situation, I hope that this we be completely resolved soon. :) Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I hope so too. I will keep an eye on everything. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 23:20, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thats reasurring, thanks Kushsinghmd (talk) 23:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• I think NeutralHomer has some point here. Unlike Guy, I don't (on a quick review) see Kushsinghmd as faultless here, and his insistence on a "reliable translation" in Talk:Research fellow#Non-English sources seems distinctly tendentious. Edits like this one are not helpful either. Ucucha 20:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• Note: The article is currently protected (by me) and I believe that both editors would benefit by taking a couple of weeks off from editing it. Neither editor is blameless. --RegentsPark (talk) 02:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Hey RegentsPark, we have been longing for you. I don't believe that time heals unresolved issues, it rather complicates things. I think we need to see more actions, and more interventions from the side of the Admins. This issue has been already brought here twice, and I don't think it will be nice next time. Things seems to get worse with time. The topic is not that complex to resolve. All arguments and evidence have been presented from both parties. The questions and responses are on the discussion page to review. And You already promised that you will wait till you listen to the other party regarding this issue, and he already had enough time to respond within the last 4 days, SO I think it is time NOW, to at least show us that you will take things a step forward, and show us some interaction at least that we can feel appreciated regarding the time, and input that already been put in. And I am thinking that If I No actions in the next coming days, since I already said I dont think I will be waiting for a week, I will take the case to megcap as per the advice of NeutralHomer, they might be able to do anything regarding the issue. Even if you think that we both committed mistakes, I think you can just pinpoint the mistake so that not to be repeated specially that both parties has withdrawn their reports, But more importantly is to focus on the content regarding the disputed issue. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsinghmd (talk • contribs)
    • Just a note, I asked in my discussions with both users that they abandon the article and find something new to edit. With the more than 3 million articles, it shouldn't be hard to find one. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
      • And I clearly stated that I am not going to engage with the other party, however, I will work to improve the RF topic, lest any admin will hear us, hopefully soon cause I am afraid it might be too late. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kushsinghmd (talk • contribs)

Religiously 'Inflammatory' Edit

Occasional editor Elodoth (talk · contribs) (102 edits since Dec 2006) added a potentially inflammatory section to Fisher-Price at 07:22, 3 May 2010, see DIFF, claiming:

“ Fisher-Price currently sells a baby doll called "little mommy". The "little mommy" doll, after two successive coos, says, "Islam is the light" ”

They give a YouTube video as a reference. This was only removed about 5 hours ago @ 19:04, 29 May 2010 by another anon IP. Seems wp:NPOV, wp:OR and wp:DICK. There is apparently something to it, dating from October 2008. Fox News At best they are propagating an urban legend. I still think this is possibly worthy of a block till they explain themselves. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Definitely seems like a POV editor, especially from their edits, but anyone can hack these toys if they have enough skills (notice the electronic road sign stories). I have seen stories like this in DC, Cleveland and others. So, the idea that this is notable in the slightest is silly. Elodoth should be trouted and warned about POV statements and non-notable stories and the page watched by admins for readdition. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I concur with you, but I think this is just a content dispute; in my opinion, this is the wrong venue to discuss this. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(ecx2)Trouted with a frozen solid trout, IMHO. 3 March was their last edit, so not a lot we can do, which is why a block seems to me a good idea. Get their attention as a soon as they log back on. Just a thought. Thanks NeutralHomer. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 00:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I think a block would be more punishment at this point than anything with the length of time having elapsed. I think trout and a warning is about all we can do, but the warning, I feel and others may disagree, should come from an admin. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't know: I'd rather assume good faith: if he decides to try and reinsert the controversial info, then a warning might be in order. Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 01:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone with half a brain should realise it was crap. A little more digging and I see Snopes has it covered HERE. As I suspected, it is untrue. An Urban Myth at best. At Snopes you can even listen to what the doll says. Definately whack them if the try to re-insert this cruft. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 01:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Nice catch on the Snopes article. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Quintby

Resolved

 – user warned to knock it off. --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

My first encounter with Quintby (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was on 22:43, 29 April 2010 at the Ebay article, when I reverted his edit. At around the same time I also reverted another, similar type of edit at Paypal: 22:18, 29 April 2010, most probably a sock of Quintby. After my revert at Ebay, Quinty writes an insulting message at my talk page: User talk:Dr.K. where he accuses me of being paid by the ebay president Meg and he objects to my username. Characteristically in this message Quintby does not mention my revert of him at the ebay article but my revert of the IP edit at the Paypal article. After I revert Quintby they come back and vandalise my talk page once, twice, I left them messages on their talkpage about their vandalism and user Kansas Bear also issued a similar warning. Amost a month later Quintby pays a return visit to my talkpage where thay leave two confused messages, the first sounds like vague legal and WP:OUTING threats and the second pleads with me not to take any action because they have been sick and they think someone has been impersonating them. Characteristically they sign the recent message as Dr. (Bruce) K. which is in line with the previous month's message in which they called themselves as Dr.K. and then turned around to dispute my use of the title, although in their recent message they claim someone has impersonated them in their past edits. The situation once again does not look very stable or promising so I would like someone to inform this editor that I wish no further communication from them. Thank you. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I've looked into this. Quintby is clearly pulling our leg. I will leave them a note to knock it off if they wish to continue here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much Floquenbeam for your quick action. I really appreciate your assistance. It was very nice meeting you. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. I imagine his ire will be directed at me now, but if he does continue to bug you, let me know (or any admin, and point them to this thread). --Floquenbeam (talk) 02:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The message that you left on their talkpage touched on all the right issues. Thank you for your attention in this matter and for your kind offer of help in the future. All the best. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 02:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bankruptcy attorneys, PLLC

Resolved

• Deleted article whose AfD page is still open. Erpert (let's talk about it) 06:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Looks like the article was deleted G11. I will non-admin close the AfD. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
    • Which I did and Deor corrected cause I did it wrong. :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

How or where to address this without "outing" concern?

Resolved

 – Will take to COIN as suggested.Ohiostandard (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, all. I'd like to see action taken on a problem that appears to include COI issues, sock-puppet issues, spam and notability issues, and even trademark issues, and I'm unsure how to proceed. I'm involved in this only in a very peripheral way, btw, at least so far. I'd prefer to keep it that way, actually, but I do feel a responsibility to speak up about the problem, at least.

Please note that out of sensitivity to possible concerns about outing, I've created and employed fictitious stand-in data in the following post: Both the user-ID "Albini" and surname "Albinitelli" used in this present context, as well as the word "SnowGlow" to identify a software product, are fictitious stand-ins I came up with to shield the real data from disclosure for the purposes of this query. My hope is that doing so will give admins here enough familiarity with the nature of the problem that they can help me figure out how to proceed without undue concern for "outing" anyone. So here goes:

Late last year a new Wikipedia account was created with a particular user-ID that we'll call "Albini" here.

• The user immediately started disseminating information about software he calls "SnowGlow" ( as we'll refer to it here ).
• His first action was to make 8 distinct and non-trivial edits (saves) in 16 seconds about "SnowGlow" to an existing article.
• Within his first 24 hours he created an article entitled "SnowGlow" and brought it to high degree of sophistication.

At this point in the sequence the "SnowGlow" article already included a description of ( we'll say ) "Albinitelli" as one of the software's two creators. Note the similarity between the user-ID and the surname.

• User "Albini" then created a main user-page describing himself as an academic in computer science, and gave other details.
• He next submitted "SnowGlow" to a request-for-feedback. No one ever responded, perhaps because of the very technical subject matter.

His user account was two days old at this point.

• He proceeded for two weeks, until mid-December 2009, to insert "SnowGlow" info and links into 15 - 20 articles.
• He assigned "SnowGlow" a "mid" level of importance in two categories that he also appears to have added it to.
• He continued to expand the "SnowGlow" article and create links to it from other articles.

Then, in mid-December, 2009, he submitted the article a second time to a request-for-feedback.

• Some experienced users responded, one noticed the apparent COI - and a notability problem - and warned him about it.
• User "Albini" continued the same single-purpose editing, disseminating info and links about/to "SnowGlow".

Early this year an academic named ( as we're calling him, here ) "Albinitelli" contributed a paper about "SnowGlow" to what I infer was a mini-conference, albeit one sponsored by a very prestigious professional organization in computer science.

• User "Albini", as we're calling him here, incorporated references to that paper into the Wikipedia "SnowGlow" article.
• He recently submitted "SnowGlow" to requests-for-feedback for a third time.

I could go on, but I'll only add that the ( real-world equivalent for the stand-in ) name "SnowGlow" is, according to the U.S. Government's Patent and Trademark Office's web interface, a registered word mark for an unrelated computer science process in chip design, with a first-use date occurring in 2001. It's on the principal register. Any promotion using the ( real-world equivalent for the stand-in ) name "SnowGlow", for a different organization's technology in computer science would appear to constitute a trademark infringement.

I do have the specific details in this matter, of course, but I'm concerned that disclosing them anywhere on Wikipedia might allow many users to make the evident connection between Wikipedia (stand-in) user-ID "Albini" and ( the real-world surname of ) the computer scientist "Albinitelli". I've placed a COI tag on the equivalent of the "SnowGlow" article here, but in light of Wikipedia's policies against so-called outing I've not done much else. I'm not sure how this can be remedied. My impression is that all the user's edits that directly promote "SnowGlow" may have to be reverted, and since that's almost all of them but for maybe two or three, it's likely to be both difficult and time-consuming to accomplish, and to be vigorously opposed by the user, of course.

There appear to be COI issues here, sock-puppet issues, spam and notability issues, and trademark issues. I'm somewhat beyond my depth here, and would greatly appreciate some help. Many thanks, Ohiostandard (talk) 11:24, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your concerns over outing, but in this case it does seem that the editor has made no attempt to conceal their real-life identity. I'd also note that Ukexpat posted a COI advisory message on their talk page (which I'll refrain from linking to) back in December; since then "Albini" avoided the "SnowGlow" article (with two exceptions in December and January) until 17 May.

I'd suggest WP:COIN, and that we don't need to worry about outing in this case.

Cheers, TFOWR^propaganda 11:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Most helpful, and thank you very much for your time in examining this carefully. I appreciate that. Ohiostandard (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Another User:Alexcas11 sock

Resolved

 – Hjfhksdjf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked indefinitely as a sock of Alexcas11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

We've got at least one IP 71.97.187.69 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and nammed sock of this guy running around, and the named sock, Hjfhksdjf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been very busy, uploading a ton of images and recreating some of his favorite targets. He even got one of his favorites Scratte (fictional character) recreated using the IP sock and AfC, then sending it to AfD himself! Starting yet another SPI as I spotted what looked like two or three more sleepers, but could use some more immediate help in cleaning up behind Hjfhksdjf's mess to remove the over dozen images and pages he made. Would rather not have to go tag them all with CSD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:34, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: SPI is here. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 21:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

He is now making threats of a sort[350], and the exact same denial his last sock puppet made...and has pretty much done his usual explosion upon detection-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:08, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Hjfhksdjf (and seriously, when has a name like that ever been on the level?) is pretty much already dead. That steaming lump he added to my talk page was, as we call it, the icing on the cake. HalfShadow 22:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked as an obvious sock. All creations by the user or the IP have been deleted. –MuZemike 23:28, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Beware the counter-block! SGGH ^ping! 00:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Undiscussed move of an article

Resolved

 – Reporter given advice to resolve the issue, not that it is serious. SGGH ^ping! 16:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Guinea pig warrior moved LittleBigPlanet (PSP) to LittleBigPlanet (2009 video game). The move was not discussed recently (the previous discussion was for a different title and had no outcome), so I'm inclined to believe this was a bad faith edit. Thanks. -- GSK (talk ● evidence) 16:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Have you attempted to make a good faith post on their talk page first? SGGH ^ping! 16:25, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Engage with the editor. He may have felt that he was improving the situation and that no one else would care. Suggest you talk to him. Thanks for your thoughts.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I've made plenty of moves without discussing them. That in itself is not an indication of bad faith and there was no reason to bring it up here. Why not just simply undo the move? If he then moves it again without discussion then we can talk about edit warring or bad faith. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Agree with Wehwalt and Ron Ritzman. We do encourage our editors to be bold, so I would assume good faith and talk with the editor. In my opinion, none of the titles are descriptive enough—I would move the page to LittleBigPlanet (PSP game); however, that is another issue that should be discussed on the article's talk page. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Let's remember the old times

Resolved

 – Easily forgettable ex-editor is easily forgotten. Edits deleted, editor blocked, SPI raised. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 18:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Let's remember the old times (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Something told me that a username like that would be trouble and I was right; just check the edit history. Would someone with the privilege of purging the edit history please do so? This doesn't deserve to be left on the history for this idiot and his idiot friends to gloat over. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Kind of agree. I saw their first edit and hit "rollback" without bothering to even look at the diff. When I saw the (post-rollback) diff I nearly self-reverted. All the edits are pretty dull - the edit summary is about as exciting as it gets. Obvious troll is obvious, but ineffectual troll is ineffectual ;-) TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 17:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping that it's just a copycat who wandered over to ED and thought he'd try his hand over here at disruption. The username gave me pause since it implies he'd been here before. That's why I reported it in the first place. I've opened up a sockpuppet investigation as well. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Their edits are now gone. Leaving us just to forget the old times ;-) TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 18:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

LOL! You know, some things are just worth forgetting. Thanks for the help! --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Debra Medina (politician)

Resolved

 – see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/P51 Mustang fighter/Archive 76.102.27.141 (talk) 20:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There is some pretty consistent vandalism occurring on this page for a candidate for governor of Texas. Looking at the history, there appears to be a string of SPA accounts and probable sock puppets. Would somebody with more experience review this with an eye towards filing a sockpuppet investigation and (hopefully) getting the underlying IP address blocked? 76.102.27.141 (talk) 15:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Also relevant is F 86 Sabre Jet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who seems intent on creating attack pages regarding the candidate. 76.102.27.141 (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

F 86 Sabre Jet (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is blocked indefinitely as a sock, per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/P51 Mustang fighter. Some of the other vandals were also blocked as a result of that SPI. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone get this guy to back off

Resolved

 – TreasuryTag (groom of the second floor front) was there first.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Seriously - I don't need this. User:TreasuryTag is following me around the site trying to get every image I upload to Dr Who related articles deleted. Bad WP:OWN issues and I'm losing my temper. I haven't bothered notifying him as he just reverts messages. Exxolon (talk) 18:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Oh, for Heaven's sake. I've been active in Doctor Who image copyright issues for years. Check my logs. It's not harassment. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 18:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

For example, Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2009_December_5#File:SilenceLibrary1.png and Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_May_11#File:The_Time_of_Angels_illustrative_image.jpg and Talk:Partners_in_Crime_(Doctor_Who)#Adipose_-_pics_available and User_talk:TreasuryTag/Archives/2007/Aug#Image_for_42. ╟─TreasuryTag►co-prince─╢ 18:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Exxolon, you need to provide specific examples if you wish to make a claim. However, following someone usually occurs when someone follows another editor to unrelated articles. If you are unable to resolve a dispute with another editor, the first step is content dispute resolution. Get other editors involved into whether these images should be included. TFD (talk) 18:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If the image isn't all status quo, then it can rightly be tagged. TT's prolific work in this area often results it massive chunks of image checks. To follow one user is only logical, it doesn't mean you invent issues where they don't exist. SGGH ^ping! 18:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you, SGGH, though on this occasion, I wasn't even following one user. My watchlist notified me that the three images in question had been added to Flesh and Stone, The Vampires of Venice and Amy's Choice (Doctor Who) respectively, and I simply dealt with them like that. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 18:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is TreasuryTag's userpage September 2008: I mainly deal with vandalism and edit Doctor Who articles. I'm not convinced that TT's interest in Doctor Who is all that recent...! TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 18:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Seems all above board to me. Though I must ask TT how his sig changes so much all the time, one day. SGGH ^ping! 19:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

User:TreasuryTag/sig, substituted. :) Tim Song (talk) 20:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Confirm editors who are Dr Who fans are constantly adding copyright material to articles - usually just because they are new, and not familiar with our policies. Unfortunately, in most cases screenshots, publicity stills, images from the BBC website etc cannot be used as no non-free content rationale can be formed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Andycjp

Resolved

 – User apologized for his actions, and explained why he made those edits. Let's move on, everyone. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This one was really a shocker, and I was tempted to let it pass as a severe error in judgment until my talkpage was flamed. Andycjp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been POV-pushing on smoking articles such as Smoking in Japan. I had hoped this was a one-off momentary lapse of reason by a sometimes productive six-year user. Recent edits are complete violations of NPOV, on a topic that is admittedly sensitive. Our job is to document only the facts, not to preach or to be a Public Service Announcement. The article text is not the greatest, however it is properly cite-tagged, and all Wikipedia articles are works in progress.

Examples of Andycjp's edits which can be considered vandalism include:[351]

• Tobacco Institute of Japan was hyperlinked to shinigami, the Japanese angel of death.
• removal of {{Citation needed}} tags supplanted by biased edits in the cited text.
• spamming Lung cancer onto two articles-there are already ample links at the main smoking article
• edit summaries reading "equal opportunity to die slowly and painfully?" and "Be dead"

I warned the user that he really needs to stop the POV pushing, at which point he flamed my talkpage. Everyone goes off the deep end occasionally; this user needs to understand this is unacceptable. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 12:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Further I would ask that the edit summaries and purely disruptive material are stricken from the edit history. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 12:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I very much doubt that your second point will take place. For the first points, the two edit summaries: The "be dead" one doesn't seem to actually relate to the edit, and the other one about equality was the removal of an unsourced comment. I'll take a look at some of the others now. This is bit of a bad faith assumption. But at the moment you might have to provide some specific diffs, because I can't see many edits that aren't just a bit of a liberal use of the removal clause of WP:CITE which in it self would need discussion on the article talk without warranting an ANI report. Also, what is with all these revert wars on your talk page? And the "fuck you" edit summary? SGGH ^ping! 12:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, the revert wars on my talk page were a dynamic IP that thought it would be great fun to repeatedly accuse me of vandalism Friday. Not a huge fan of trolls. --Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 13:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Andycjp complained on my talk page about something I didn't do and directed me to read the WP:NPOV page. I think this user could benefit from more effective communication with other editors, particularly when making changes to controversial or high-traffic pages. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 14:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

None of this seems vandalism to me. I'd feel more sympathetic if there were more attempts on Andycjm's talk page to address any issues with him. My thought is that these editors need to work this out someplace else. De minimus non curat AN/I .--Wehwalt (talk) 15:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

His talkpage is dripping with editors trying to address issues with him. The issue I'm trying to address, here, is whether these edits violate NPOV, and whether this user, not a newbie, should know better. Since addressing things there leads to snipes and jabs, here is indeed the place to address such things.--Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 16:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No indeed. The question of POV is what is laughingly called a "content dispute". We are administrators. Having the mop gives us no more insight into or authority over content disputes (so long as other rules, like 3RR are not broken, and the matters are not actually vandalism) then the next guys. And you say his talk page is dripping with people trying to address issues with him, that is good, that is why we have talk pages. Have you used it for the purpose I mentioned?--Wehwalt (talk) 16:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Even if we have a POV dispute, some of his edits can still be considered vandalism. Diff of all of Andycjp's edits on "Smoking in Japan". Removing {{Citation needed}} notices, linking to shinigami, and removing large amounts of text are considered vandalism, but I won't template him. I would take this to dispute resolution, however, because of the POV conflict. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I would discuss it with him first, and then consider dispute resolution. I agree, the fact that a six year editor is doing this suggests there is a reason for the edits. I doubt it is straight vandalism.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That may be true, but the edits are still questionable. I'll discuss it with the user. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. I try to encourage people to use AN/I as the last resort, rather than early in the process. After all, we will still be here if you come back!--Wehwalt (talk) 17:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry to cause concern. I live in Japan and in my experience there is no set pattern to how Japanese people smoke at mealtimes, but if a source can be found I am not going to argue. Likewise children are clearly harmed by secondhand smoke- surely any citations needed are on the passive smoking page. As for shinigami, that probably was a misjudgement on my part- there clearly is a link between death and cigarette retailing, but in hindsight I probably should not have done that. My apologies.

I was not flaming anyone I was merely allowing Kintetsubuffalo`s reverts to stand. I do feel the page was pro-smoking though. andycjp (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

that's not a problem, just remember that sometimes it is better to discuss proposed changes on the article talk page before making alterations that might be seen as significant. Regards, SGGH ^ping! 22:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Fake RfA PAge

Resolved

 – Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Whsazdfhnbfxgnh 2 is deleted, the other accounts are blocked indefinitely. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Some newly registered accounts have created a 'Request for Adminship' page at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Whsazdfhnbfxgnh 2 --220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Already gone. One as a vandal only account, the other for block evasion. SGGH ^ping! 18:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 18:20, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks (forwarded from Wikiquette Alerts)

Resolved

 – editor Speered.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor forwarding this here.

A Wikiquette alert was filed a short time ago about this egregious personal attack on an editor, despite this warning a week ago. Requesting an admin to address the behavior. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours, his comment is not acceptable and he knows full well what is acceptable or not, because he has been told, and in fact warned for the final time. He can think it over during his block. SGGH ^ping! 18:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That'll be quite enough of that silliness.

Geez, how could he nazi that one coming? HalfShadow 18:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Well, it wasn't that obvious that he was Goering to be blocked... [you started it!] ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 19:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC) You know how it is with this sort of humor; it's hitler miss. HalfShadow 19:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Beat me to it: I was going to make a joke along very himmler lines! ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 19:42, 30 May 2010 (UTC) I guess I just Hess-itated too long! ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 19:43, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Whats that 'law', Godwin's law? Whosoever invokes comparisons to Nazi's automatically loses? I invoke that to end this tirade of bad puns! --220.101.28.25 (talk) 20:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Bah. You sour kraut... HalfShadow 20:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC) 'Sepp-t, maybe he's not German. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:52, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Quiet, you. HalfShadow 20:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Wow, that takes me wayBuch. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Sour Kraut! NPA! Definately not Deutsch I mean German. --220.101.28.25 (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC) Whatever you do, don't mention the war! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it. –MuZemike 22:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Spoilsport! ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 22:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Part 2 - personal attacks

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

---

• Blow it off, they do that now and then. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Again requesting admin assistance. Another user was warned by Dougweller about personal attacks [352] and was again warned by me after I noticed him editing another user's comments. I tried to explain the problem so that he would hopefully address the issue, but he responded by continuing to make personal attacks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Bear with me, I'm trying to understand how this asylum works. Is it your contention that "just dont be such a prick in general" is a "personal attack"? Malleus Fatuorum 23:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to the "you are concocted form a particularly unattractive broil of arrogance and naievity" bit - are you contending that is not a personal attack? If you are, would you be comfortable if I said that sort of thing about/to you? I wouldn't consider it appropriate at all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 23:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)7

Since you ask, it wouldn't bother me in the slightest. I think you need to grow up. Is that also a "personal attack" in your world? Malleus Fatuorum 00:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As usual, this is more about your world versus Wikipedia, Malleus, and you will find the overwhelming majority of editors would not appreciate being called a concocted form or an unattractive broil of arrogance and naiivity, which is why it is not endorsed as the preferred norm of interaction here. That you openly dislike WP:CIVIL does not mean it is not applicable to Wikipedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that I'm very from being the only one who who is able to see the corrupting infuence of the absurd civility policy; I'm just your poster child. Malleus Fatuorum 00:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

And I, a few times asked to let burning embers die, but you cant. I've said this a few times today, and I'll say it again. Block me already, fine, I can live with that, or else stop stirring and leave me the fuck alone. One or the other, please, cause this is getting boring, frankly - warnings, retractions, new warnings, new retractions with new offences - "insufficiently clear edit summaries" for eg, new warnings - and on and on and on....Jesus. Ceoil (talk) 23:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

you are concocted form a particularly unattractive broil of arrogance and naievity was wrote because I was sick of you, and you openions and advice whoes value had long expired. You attack on me was discredited and yet you supposed to advise me as to how I should act. I believe it was Malleus Fatuorum that most recently suggested you grow up, and not run to a mammy like this. If you treathen established editor with rational that later proves to be false - live with it, do NOT use the coccon of civility to bail you out. You seem here to be a bit of a baby. That is because you injected into a conversation before reading, and I spotted you clueless wagging tail from a mile. Ceoil (talk) 00:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It is not acceptable, period. The only attack made was those made by you, and you were politely asked to stop by Dougweller (and later myself when I tried to tell you not to edit others comments) but apparently you thought it was an invitation to go further. Good grief; how many people is it going to take to sink into your head? Ncmvocalist (talk) 00:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

'which is why it is not endorsed as the preferred norm of interaction here'. Bla bla bla. Nobody talks like that, except exceptionally thick failed law students. Nice attempt to drag Malleus in, he is commenting, not involved. The ask to stop by Dougweller was a long time ago, he is asleep, remember, this pot is now yours to stir alone. Satisfying is it? Go you. Ceoil (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• This is jus the opinion of an uninvolved user...but I think Ceoil should be blocked for 24 for blatantly violating WP:NPA with the last three posts to this very thread. It is obvious that they don't understand or don't care about the NPA rule, so block 'em. Let them sit for 24 hours and think about what they have done. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 00:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
  • Are you aware that blocks aren't meant to be punitive, or do you just not care? Malleus Fatuorum 00:32, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
    • 'Yes' and 'No'. HalfShadow 00:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Some semblance of civility would be appreciated by the rest of us.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm failing to see what personal attacks were made here. Ceoil was brusque, for sure, but only because he was driven to it. We can't be blocking or threatening to block productive editors because they said a few not-nice things, presumably in anger or irritation. Let's move on and remember the old saying "sticks and stones...". And, perhaps, the NPA could be actually read once in a while before people come running here accusing people of violating it. Aiken ♫ 00:58, 31 May 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.

Incivility in dispute over Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome

A disagreement arose between myself and User:SandyGeorgia over the Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome article. I tried at first to speak with Sandy on her Talk Page before moving it to the article Talk Page. It began when I removed unsourced or poorly sourced POV material from the article. She responded by reverting it, expressing bewilderment in her edit summaries as to why I did this ([353][354]), even though I detailed my rationale in my edit summary. In the course my attempt to talk with her, she has engaged in the following behaviors:

• Violated WP:Civility with name calling ("obnoxious") and rudeness ("Do you not read edit summaries?"). She has also accused me of "personalizing" our discussion, even though I have not engaged in similar behavior, but have merely tried to politely advise her that this is not appropriate.
• Repeatedly accusing me of adding false material or making false, uncited claims in the article (I added no new material in the article).
• Challenging me on the basis of my personal knowledge of the subject (which is not a valid basis for editing on Wikipedia, and is a behavior to be avoided).
• Criticizing me for adding a dead link to a url that was in the article.
• Claiming that only BLPs and contentious material requires sourcing.

And so forth. I would appreciate that someone speak with this user regarding her violation of WP:Civility, and other related policies. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 07:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

At first glance (no comment on underlying content) I don't see anything wrong with SandyGeorgia's responses. It's miles away from an attack and hardly incivil. This is fundamentally a content dispute, and I'm not convinced your massive posting to SG's talk page the conversation that took place here was particularly explanatory; certainly SG's response was reasonable. Shadowjams (talk) 08:21, 29 May 2010 (UTC) (updated; i was incorrect about the page posting)

Calling someone "obnoxious" is not incivil? Falsely accusing someone ad infinitum of wrong doing in bad faith is not incivil? Ignoring one's edit summaries while simultaneously accusing them of the same by saying, "Do you not read edit summaries?" is not incivil? How do you figure this?

And what "massive posting" on her talk page? One paragraph is "massive"? Really? As for it not being explanatory, this is the "massive" paragraph in question:

I haven't made any uncited claims. Rather, it is the material I removed from the article that was not properly cited. As I stated on the article's talk page, sites whose content is user-generated, such as imdb and TV.com, are not considered reliable by Wikipedia under WP:RS, and neither of those two webpages make any mention of the episode in question being "seminal", being the first episode to depict Tourettes, or of people with the condition seeking diagnosis of it after seeing it. The TV.com page in particular never even mentions Tourettes. That's not a "claim", uncited or not. It's a fact. As I have given some detailed examples like these on the Talk Page, I'm not sure why you're continuing to claim ignorance of my rationale, as you did when you wrote the edit summary "restore yet another strange deletion of cited material", but if you want to refute the fact that the relevant policies are violated by this material, you can do so on the article's Talk Page. Otherwise, please stop reverting the article, and claiming the uncited or poorly cited material is actually cited. Thanks.

In what way is this not explanatory? Nightscream (talk) 08:27, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

No, calling someone obnoxious is not incivil to the point we should ban them from contributing. Shadowjams (talk) 08:37, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Calling someone obnoxious and asking if they read edit summaries is the shallow end of WP:NPA, perhaps it warrants some words of advice, but no one would ever get banned for that. SGGH ^ping! 09:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Banning someone from contributing is not the same as talking to them about concerns about parts of their behavior. --83.135.75.108 (talk) 11:17, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Is it just me or is there a certain irony in this? Guy (Help!) 10:44, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking exactly the same thing. The section heading is a timeless classic. Sean.hoyland - talk 10:48, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Has SandyGeorgia been notified of this thread? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:36, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I've told her. SGGH ^ping! 15:41, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

• Whatever the merit of your complaint, Nightscream, it is not okay for you to use the rollback tool in a content dispute. Ucucha 15:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
• SandyGeorgia reverted your edits. Eleven weeks later you revert her before discussing. She explains she is traveling so can't access her sources and asks you to wait, but you carry on. What would you call it? Anthony (talk) 17:02, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

This is going nowhere. Suggest Nightscream withdraw gracefully, if possible, with kudos for the notice he left on SG's talk page.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Shadowjams: "calling someone obnoxious is not incivil to the point we should ban them from contributing." And since I never said anything about "banning", this point is moot. I said that someone should speak to her about her policy violations, which they should. Saying that her behavior has not clearly violated WP:Civility is inane.

Ucucha: "Nightscream, it is not okay for you to use the rollback tool in a content dispute."

Anthonyhcole: Eleven weeks later you revert her before discussing. She explains she is traveling so can't access her sources and asks you to wait, but you carry on. What would you call it?" When edits are clear and unambiguous violations of policy, reverting is entirely reasonable, and does not require discussion, much less putting one editor's travel plans above all other editors' activities, since Wikipedia does not revolve upon any one editor's personal convenience. Discussion is only required when there is some interpretation of policy or element of subjectivity/aesthetics involved. Since I was fairly clear in the edit summary that accompanied my first edit of that material, what was discussion needed for? SandyGeorgia herself did not see fit to discuss reverting my edits with me, even if only to refute my application of the relevant policies that I cited, but somehow I'm supposed to discuss it with her, even though policy was clearly on my side in that matter? How do you figure this? Generally, when I notice someone unambiguously violating policy, I assume that they're a newbie, unless they begin reverting, at which point, I do discuss with them, as I did on her talk page here. By contrast, she feigned ignorance of my rationale with comments like "restore yet another strange deletion of cited material", as if I had not been clear in my edit summary and on her talk page.

I apologize if I misunderstood the scope of the rollback feature; I was under the impression that it was simply a tool to undo edits more quickly. Looking over WP:Rollback, I see otherwise, so I'm sorry about that. All in all though, I'm not sure what the substantial difference is between clicking on that tool, and merely undoing edits by other means, but if policy indicates that rollback not be used in circumstances like this, then I will no longer do so. Sorry for the misunderstanding on that point. Nightscream (talk) 06:15, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

So you were granted admin privilleges despite clearly having a most fundamentally flawed understanding on how rollback should be used? What is going on at RFA? Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with any RfA that turned on whether a candidate should have rollback. If there is serious debate about that in an RfA, the candidacy is almost certainly lost.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I might be mistaken then; I thought there were cases where admins lost the bit for inappropriately using rollback - if that was happening, then RFA would surely be a means of forcing candidates to familiarise themselves with how to use rollback appropriately. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:04, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The various guidelines and policies one must learn at Wikipedia are vast, and in my observation, learning them, even for an admin, is an ongoing process. There is no centralized, top-down process (that I am aware of) by which admins can learn every single nuance of every single rule, tool, resource, policy page, etc. The best we can do is try to be constantly open to improving, accepting constructive criticism, and taking responsibility for errors. Nightscream (talk) 04:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Harassment by User:Walter Görlitz

Please see my talk page history [355]. Yworo (talk) 02:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not engaged in Harassment. The user has chosen to lie and when I proved it the personal attacks began. I then began to place notices on editor's talk page and defend my actions. Please fee free to see the invention of wikipedia policy and discussion related to a time-limit for providing citations for an article that has little traffic and fewer WP:V sources. The discussion around the editor's actions and my request for clarification are here. The editor has been posting on my talk page as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz, I know nothing about what started this or who (if anyone) is "right" about whatever it is. However, if an editor should choose to remove your comments from their own talk page, a templated warning not to engage in personal attacks will never, ever be the correct response . You did this twice. Please don't. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely! Couldn't agree more. I did revert a deletion of the discussion, but that was done with a personal attack. I should not have reverted the editor's attempt at hiding their culpability since it was in the history. After that, I place two distinct warning templates for personal attacks for the editor made two separate personal attacks. The first warning was a level one, the second was a level two. I did not revert the removal of notices. The other edits I made were to respond to comments made about me on the editor's talk page. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe that User talk:Yworo should start to learn Wikipedia policy. Perhaps some admins can help. First, the editor claimed that there was a policy about how long a citation needed request should be on an article (feel free to look at the edit history on the Pente article) and then claims that I was breaking WP:3RR by adding information to their talk page. The editor is obviously not aware of wikipedia policy and is grasping at straws to cover-up their earlier action of misrepresentation of Wikipedia policy. Please note, I have not been back to the Pente article to restore the material that was removed under false pretence. While I understand that articles need WP:V material, there is no time-limit to provide material and the citation needed template is designed to gain WP:V from editors and to signal that the material may be dubious. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Walter, according to WP:V and WP:BURDEN, once an editor challenges unattributed material, the only way to restore it is with reliable sources supporting it. The citation templates are a courtesy that some editors use to alert others that they are challenging the unsourced material, but there is no specific "time limit". Anyone can come at any time, regardless of templates, challenge and immediately remove any unsourced material. It is considered a courtesy to give others a chance to supply sources, but it is not a must. The bottom line is that all Wikipedia material must be attributable to a reliable source, and if challenged, likely to be challenged or quoted, it must be attributed. The burden of supplying the sources is on the editor restoring or adding the material. Crum375 (talk) 03:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A couple of things. If someone removed unverified information from an article, I wouldn't reinsert without a source to back it up. WP:Verifiability states in a nutshell: Any material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The material has been challenge, find a citation for it. Also, if someone asked me to stay off his page, I wouldn't keep posting there. You have been. If you post there again, you will be blocked. AniMate 03:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Understood. The material was already tagged with Citation needed. However the question is not about the material but about the editor's implication that there was a policy about how long the citation needed tag should be on the material. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:30, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I think you misunderstood what he was saying, but it doesn't really matter. Calling a fellow editor "liar" is never helpful, and if you try to focus on improving the article, being nice, and assuming good faith, you'd be fine. Crum375 (talk) 03:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't try to reduce the quality of the article, however if you look at the proof, the editor fabricated a Wikipedia policy. Should we let editors do that? --Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

If you restore unsourced material which has been challenged, you are violating WP:BURDEN. If you accuse a fellow editor of "fabricating" things, you are violating WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. If you keep adding warning templates to a regular editor's talk page, you are being disruptive and probably violating WP:HARASS. Bottom line: focus on your own actions, try your best to add well sourced material to articles, and assume that everyone else is trying their best too. Crum375 (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Please look at the history of the article. The editor is inventing policy. So what you're saying is mind your own business and let people do what they feel like making-up policy as they go. Got it. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I read the history. I think you misunderstood what he was saying. But the key points are: assume good faith, be nice to others, and try to work on improving the article. Crum375 (talk) 04:10, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I did assume good faith but questioned this idea that there is a time-limit to provide citations. I was nice to the editor. I stated that I wasn't aware of the policy. The editor then lied stating that there was a policy (although the editor may not have liked being challenged and added a throw-away statement in the edit). I then asked the editor to show the policy after pointing to the edit in question. After the editor was unable to give the policy, because of course there is none. I don't really mind that the material was removed although since there are few WP:V sources on the topic, it would have been better to have allowed an knowledgeable editor to find something. There are more prominent articles that have been cited for longer. With that said, the editor started becoming abusive. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm finding it difficult to understand why you are continuing with this. Best if you take on board the comments here and move on. Lifes too short. Jack forbes (talk) 04:27, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with it, but Yworo wants me sanctioned for Harassment. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:33, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Funny, you're the one that's tried to open an arbitration case over a simple misunderstanding. You did that because you wanted me what, congratulated? Oh I say, what are you doing? Come down from there at once! Really, you're making a frightful exhibition of yourself. Yworo (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict × 2)In my view the best way to not be sanctioned is to move on, assume good faith, and not try to retaliate at the editor you are engaged in a conflict with. NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 04:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I can vouch for that. Take my case, I was truly harassed hundreds of times for half a year and it was a virtual one way flow. That evidence is irrefutable and no one has challenged that fact. This was reported multiple times to everyone including arbitrators. Nothing was ever done. I insisted that it stop and in the end they turned it around on me and I got sanctioned and the offending party received no sanction. They will accomplish "peace" by any means possible even if such actions lead to biased articles left in the control of editors pushing fringe viewpoints.--scuro (talk) 05:23, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Promotional, copyvio edits from an account with a conflict of interest

ESWI (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is likely the owner/employee/etc of Education Solutions Worldwide Inc.[356], his edits are only to 3 or 4 articles directly related to that subject and his most recent edits were to restore a promotional copyvio to the Silent Way article [357]. Also possibly related is 206.223.177.115 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) the only other account to edit the Words in Color, which could probably be deleted as purely promotional. Most of their edits seem to be here to promote the concepts associated with their business and put links to various product pages in the articles. The other related article was on the academic himself Caleb Gattegno. I just removed the biography as a copyvio of another website. The rest of it is written to promote and explain the teaching method. Not the individual.--Crossmr (talk) 01:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

What are you requesting of admins, and (since I can guess) would this not be better noted at WP:COIN? LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I guess what he's asking for is fairly obvious, but COIN may be a better venue. Guy (Help!) 15:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just placed a G11 speedy tag on the Silent Way article as primarily promotional and incapable of improvement by normal editing. The first half of it, as discussed on its talk p., is also a copyvio. DGG ( talk ) 22:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

If this was an otherwise established editor with a track record who was editing one article inappropriately maybe COIN would be better. But this is a SPA whose sole intent seems to be promotional in nature and who is willing to violate copyright policies to push that promotional intent. In this case I think the COIN is secondary to the SPA/promotional/copyright issues.--Crossmr (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• As an aside, I have seen one or two cases where a new user is genuinely confused by the subsequent deletion of text as an advert after it has been deleted and then released for copyright. If any admins are discussing copyright release with a user, it is probably better to check whether the text is so blatantly promotional as to be unusable, with or without release, beforehand. Guy (Help!) 09:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

  Even if copyright was released, we don't copy and paste about pages or press releases into articles. They aren't usually remotely neutral. In this case there were several promotional links littered through the articles (to product pages) and the sole purpose of this account seemed to promote this academic and his work.--Crossmr (talk) 11:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for adding a Barnstar to User talk:Wiooiw

Let's try again: WP:DENY Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 17:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Resolved  – WP:ANI semi-protected for a little bit to prevent the excessive socking. –MuZemike 08:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Hey you can add me to for a checkuser, I will admit it already, I am evading a block. But could someone at least tell me why this edit needs to be reverted. It is just a barnstar. He earned it for reporting me. I seriously think you guys turned this into an edit war. Now his userpage is protected for what... adding a barnstar. This is pretty pathetic. You can block me, but dont remove this. You will just be avoiding the real issue. GSmith555x (talk) 07:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Also note, if you remove this, i will keep adding it to his talk page (so indef his talk) unless someone is open for a discussion. Not that hard. GSmith555x (talk) 07:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Nice. Something really to get blocked over. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 07:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC) If they are admittedly evading a block, yeah, that will get you blocked in a heartbeat, barnstar or not. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 07:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Well, now I am Banned for it. Could someone nicely put it back on, or tell him about this section and the Sock investigation so he can do it himself. also block me too. 45garry4 (talk) 07:53, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Silly sock is silly. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC) This is not resolved yet because nobody told me why the barnstar cant be put back. I also made a new oneGgg564sss (talk) 16:40, 31 May 2010 (UTC) sigh. Barnstars are for positive recognition, not to ridicule, harass or intimidate other users. Just because you removed profanity from it doesn't change the fact that you gave it to someone for the wrong reason. Please stop creating socks too. I'd suggest going back to your original account and using {{unblock}} and make a really good case for being unblocked. Thanks —Tommy2010 16:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC) I suspect even the original account was a sock of someone, and that he'll never get unblocked. Also, Spartaz (talk · contribs) has just blocked this latest sock, we can archive this thread if no one wants it. —Soap— 16:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Tommy2010, you have been the most helpfull person. I would give you a barnstar but somebody would have it removed. Now, look at the barnstar [358]. I am giving it to him because he Repored me. Thats why i gave it to him. GGGSSSGS (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Another block coming right up, I hope... Salvio ( Let's talk 'bout it!) 17:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC) Yep. Blocked them as another sock. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 17:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Posting of alleged personal information

Resolved

 – Chloe81375 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely blocked, and his revisions are deleted. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 16:09, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

User:Chloe81375 has posted alleged personal information in a discussion on Talk:Bill Phillips (author)‎ with threats to post additional information on other users. See [359]. This is obviously a violation of Wikipedia's privacy policy (even if untrue). --Yankees76 (talk) 12:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That's a clear case of WP:OUTING. I see the editor has already been warned, though; should he redo this, I think he ought to be blocked.

In the meantime, an admin might consider using his magical REVDEL tool... Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 13:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone has already REVDEV'd it, and I've indef'd the user. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:15, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys. Even though the user wasn't even close - it was more harassment than outing - thanks for taking care of the issue. Cheers. --Yankees76 (talk) 16:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ocean Mystic Researcher

Resolved

 – WP:BOOMERANGed back on OMR, now blocked. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 19:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ocean Mystic Researcher (talk · contribs) is a new account that appears to be doing nothing but nominating articles for deletion that were created by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs). Since RAN has been in conflict with another editor for nominating his images for deletion (discussion on his talk page), this seems like a very pointy editor. Admin attention would be appreciated. Dayewalker (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Editor notified on his talk page. He also just dumped 13, count 'em, 13 deletion notices onto RAN's page [360] Dayewalker (talk) 04:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Well all the deletions are probably in order as the subjects aren't that notable. The fact that the user came here and nominated thirteen articles without making any other edits outside of that article makes me think that this is either Dalejenkins or a sock of a user. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Each of the articles that were nominated for deletion was nominated because the article legitimately fell short of the guidelines for notable topics. Richard Arthur has written some great and interesting articles, I read a good number of them, far more than I nominated. Those that I did nominate had no assertion of notability. I invite you all to take a look at the the nominations I made and I'm sure you will agree. Ocean Mystic Researcher (talk) 04:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I know that I agree with you on the nominations, but I have a question: Have you ever edited before on Wikipedia? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) OMR, what other account(s) have you recently used to edit the encyclopedia, and why the current interest in Richard Arthur Noroton's articles and their notability? If you cannot come up with a plausible explanation I would suggest that your account be indefinitely blocked, and all of the nominations procedurally reverted or closed irrespective of their merits (which, looking at them, are questionable) per WP:DENY - Wikidemon (talk) 04:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I have not edited Wikipedia in years. My last account was User:Purplefeltangel back when I was 14. I still read Wikipedia pages sometimes, on and off. I noticed Richard Arthur Norton when I was reading the recent ANI reports about his files being deleted or something. I decided to read up on his articles, and found a few that fell, as I felt, short of notability guidelines. I didn't nominate all the articles that I read. Some of them were obviously significant, like supreme court judges and elected officials and such. I do stand by my nominations and certainly do not mean any disruption or harm. If you do block me, I am sure that someone here will second my nominations, or re-nominate the articles, since they are obviously non-notable. Just have a look at them please. Ocean Mystic Researcher (talk) 04:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Looking over these, none of these are either clearly non-notable or WP:SNOW cases of notability. One or two of these nominations in isolation from a legitimate account under normal circumstances would be entitled to an assumption of good faith and should proceed. However, (1) simultaneously nominating thirteen articles created by the same user (2) who is currently blocked (3) for behavior relating to his claim that a wikistalker is nominating his files for deletion (4) from a brand new WP:SPA account created two hours after the block, does seem WP:DUCK-ish (after ec - but please do note the plausible explanation for the SPA given above). The suggestion that others will engage in WP:POINT-y renominations does not seem too helpful. We'd end up with a drama-fest, with people voting to keep or oppose the articles for reasons other than a straightforward review of their notability. It is unlikely that a slug of deletion nominations can be handled in a fair and reasonable way, particularly with the article creator's account blocked. Even if it were not blocked, it would appear to be unduly punitive to force a longtime established editor to deal simultaneously with thirteen nominations of his articles. As an intermediate measure to avoid confusion and wasted effort, it seems best to put a template message on the deletion discussions that points to this report, urging people to hold off on commenting or closing until there is some clear decision how to proceed. My recommendation would be a speedy procedural close without prejudice to a legitimate nomination at a controlled rate of any of these articles that a legitimate editor believes in good faith to lack notability after the article creator is unblocked (and a suggestion to apply WP:BEFORE as well). - Wikidemon (talk) 04:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I am a legitimate editor, I am acting in good faith, and the articles are nominated for valid reasons. Some of them have even gotten "delete" comments already. Besides, the focus should be on the article, not the author, and not the nominator. If the article lacks a place in Wikipedia, it should be nominated for deletion, regardless who wrote it, or what collateral issues we may be having. Thank you. Ocean Mystic Researcher (talk) 05:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Some of them have even gotten "delete" comments already. Yes, from the same editor, User:Mono, whose purpose in WikiLife, judging from their contributions, is to delete things. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

As I said, in isolation the individual nominations would be in good faith. I don't happen to agree with some of them but that's beside the point. Things have to proceed in an orderly way. Even giving Ocean Mystic Researcher every benefit of the doubt with respect to good faith and sincere intentions, nominating a bunch of articles for deletion at the same time, all created by a blocked editor, because you see that the editor is involved in an AN/I report over claims of stalking/harassment and deletion nominations, is not a good way to go. We could let the nominations run their course, a few may be deleted, others may be kept - but if so, at a minimum we should unblock the article creator so they can comment here and on the deletion nominations. I still don't think it's fair to subject an already-beleaguered editor to that kind of pressure. How far does he have to go to get some relief from being beleaguered? - Wikidemon (talk) 05:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This does have a pretty unpleasant feel to it: dropping 13 deletion notices in the lap of a blocked inclusionist is not a good situation, somewhat akin to poking a stick at a caged animal. That said, I have a hard time justifying procedural closings: the articles should have been created in a state that would allow them to survive AFD, so there shouldn't be any particular strain in defending 13 at once. If RAN was on a long block, there wouldn't be a good case for refusing to nominate articles he had created, and in that case he couldn't defend them at all.

However, people may want to look at WP:ILLEGIT: "Editing project space: Undisclosed alternative accounts should not edit policies, guidelines, or their talk pages; comment in Arbitration proceedings; or vote in requests for adminship, deletion debates, or elections". If people decide this is a sock (and a speedy checkuser might be in order), then the account and the sockpuppeteer should be blocked, and I would endorse closing the AFDs in that case.—Kww(talk) 05:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This is my only current account. I disclosed that I was Purplefeltangel, and I last used that account five years ago. Ocean Mystic Researcher (talk) 05:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest going down that route without a checkuser to verify your statement.—Kww(talk) 05:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(ec - addressing Kww) Agreed, except the comment about creating articles that can withstand AfD without one's further involvement. Most or all of these articles contain unambiguous assertions of notability, sourced to major mentions in reliable sources. Principled arguments for why they are or are not notable will turn on the finer points of the various notability guidelines, e.g. does a local farm that's had a bunch of articles written about its activities and operations fail because it's of local interest only? Is a source that a woman was one of the richest people in her state not really helpful because it's more or less an obituary? 3 days is a mid-range block. For a productive editor who has created scores of articles to be unavailable to comment or improve an article for the first 3 days of a deletion nomination is already a bit sketchy - and would at a minimum weigh in favor of an unblock. But if the nominations are determined to be in bad faith, we can't reward that. Plus, even assuming the best of faith, combing over an editors entire article creation history to systematically nominate a bunch of them for deletion may be an activity we want to prohibit. If that's the punishment for getting into an AN/I fight, it creates a chilling effect. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I just can't bring myself to support trying to prohibit articles from being nominated while their creator is blocked, which is the basic result of what you are saying. I think a checkuser is in order, and hopefully quickly. Can someone with access to IM get a checkuser to look at this situation pronto?—Kww(talk) 06:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Please factor in as well that it is a holiday weekend here in the States: editing is likely to be below normal levels until Tuesday. (Somehow this situation feels something like a "data dump", where huge amounts of data are dumped on news organizations on Friday, knowing that they will probably not go after it full-bore until Monday, thus buying some time while, simultaneously, being able to claim "full disclosure".) The timing seems suspect. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:14, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Jdelanoy is gone from the SPI channel on IRC and the two other ones are idle. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 06:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

This does seem rather pointy and conveniently timed. There's no policy against going through a particular user's contributions and vetting them, but it doesn't seem like the wisest course at this particular point in time. It could be in good faith, but it looks pretty suspicious. That said, it looks as if all of the discussions already have several comments aside from the nominator's, so I'm not entirely comfortable with closing as a procedural keep. I also agree with Kww; I don't think it's a good idea to establish the idea that an article can't be AfDed while its creator is blocked, even if that might have been the better way to go in this particular case. Shimeru (talk) 09:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• I can't imagine that the nominations were in good faith, certainly not as a new user's first activity. I think a Checkuser would be in order. (I've recused myself from the AfDs in question for hopefully obvious reasons of propriety.) ╟─TreasuryTag►inspectorate─╢ 09:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It seems very unlikely, yes. Strains belief. But I don't suppose it's entirely impossible. Given this user's admitted method of seeking out these articles in particular, it seems like looking for trouble, at best. Shimeru (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting an inflexible rule that an AfD can't occur while the article creator is blocked. But 13 AfDs culled from a single blocked editor's list of contributions based on an AN/I thread related to his block isn't right. You can decide for yourself where we should draw that line, but wherever we draw it this is probably on the other side. - Wikidemon (talk) 10:07, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Everything about those AfDs... stinks. Gwen Gale (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Taken altogether and given the timing, these don't look at all like good faith noms. The topics are on the edge of, or barely peeking over, the horizon of GNG, clearly harvested for a pointy spree. Hopefully a CU will have a look at this. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• A "brand new user" whose first and only action is to nominate a batch of articles by a user who has an ongoing dispute with one or more other editors over deletions. This is so obvious that, regardless of whose sock it is, I am blocking it as a transparent violation of WP:SOCK. The assertions of good faith by the user are simply implausible. Guy (Help!) 09:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

  Good move on the block. I've got a horrible feeling about where the subtext of, "regardless of whose sock it is" is going, and would just like to say that it is not me and I object to no scrutiny and/or Checkuser to confirm this. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 09:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I do find it very hard to believe that someone without an active account would create an account and flawlessly put together over a dozen AfDs on topics at the bleeding edge of the inclusionist/exclusionist kerfluffles minutes after their creator has been blocked. Moreover, all of the AfDed articles are cleanly written and built, with no worries other than perhaps a need for some talk page discussion as to whether further sourcing might help to show notability more straightforwardly. So even without the timing, templating anyone with a batch of AfDs on articles like this would make me wonder. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• What Bullshit: Those AfDs should be deleted as harassment. Whether any of them are legitimate, a renom for another editor is always available. But if these stand, it just makes harrassing users even easier than it already is.--Milowent (talk) 11:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Would anyone mind if I speedy close them all as disruption posted by a likely sock? Gwen Gale (talk) 11:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Concur. Any article with legit issues can be resubmitted, and hopefully by an account with recent editing history and a good rationale. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing stuff at the computer all this afternoon so I'm here. I'll check back in about two hours and if I don't hear otherwise, I'm going to delete the AfDs altogether as disruption by a likely sock, so as not to muddy up the AfD logs and history. It's ok if some editors think they shouldn't be deleted, rather than speedied, please chime in here. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No objection here, Gwen. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I deleted all the AfDs that did not have useful or non-sockpuppet delete votes. The rest should stay, but I am going to strike the votes of Ocean Mystic Researcher. NW (Talk) 12:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Editors should keep in mind that the likely sock may not be a banned user, although you noted it that way through the handy drop down deletion log menu. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The difference between block evading sockpuppet and banned user is pretty slight, in my opinion. If I were closing an AFD, I would give both the same amount of weight. NW (Talk) 12:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I think the drop-down log summary can be taken as fitting closely enough. I was only reminding, we don't know who did the (very likely) socking, we don't even know if they were evading a block (looks to me like something else is behind this, by the way). Gwen Gale (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser is looking into this situation. Ocean Mystic Researcher and Treasury Tag are  Unrelated. (Of course, the block of Ocean Mystic Researcher is nonetheless correct.) I will report back if we discover any further information. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:26, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That's helpful to know, though for what it's worth, I wasn't thinking of TT. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:33, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you both! I'd be interested to find out who Ocean is a sock of, though, if/when the time comes. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 13:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict, to Gwen Gale) It's not the only possibility being looked at. Newyorkbrad (talk) 13:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I understood that from your last post, thanks for having a look. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Owing to NW's input, rather than deleting the AfDs that were left, I have done a procedural close on all the undeleted AfDs, so that the good faith comments made by editors can be seen later by anyone thinking of starting another AfD. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

May I compliment the involved admins and other users for their handling of this? I was a bit worried about how it was going to be dealt with, but I believe that you all have done the right thing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Ah, in his unblock request he claims that I put him up to it, which is, of course, untrue. See my statement on his talkpage. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 19:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Who's the person that goes around attempting to get other editors in trouble by copying their editing styles using obvious socks? Could be another instance here. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:30, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Pickbothmanlol??Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Light current is another one, the sockmaster for Anne Maxight is another, Pioneercourthouse may be another. I like to think of them as all just one guy, because they're really (1) indistinguishable and (2) of no value whatsoever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:00, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Oversight required

Resolved

 – Request withdrawn. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 12:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I not from my watchlist that some reent good faith and necessary edits by User:Amalthea actually need oversighting, as their content is still very visible.  Giacomo  12:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh I don't understand these things, they are not showing as her contribs, but as "(Deletion log); 10:53 . . Amalthea (talk | contribs) deleted..." - anyway there is a quite a few of them. all showing as red links. also edits of "(Protection log); 10:49 . . MER-C."  Giacomo  12:04, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Amalthea has the tools to take care of that himself if he so chooses. —DoRD (talk) 12:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

OK leave these vile statements or whatever they are where they are then for all to see.  Giacomo  12:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I revdeleted some myself, and had notified Oversight (although I'm sure they knew already) who went through revisions and logs. I'd leave the rest of the log entries visible since they appear to be "merely" vandalism, including the one you refer to. Amalthea 13:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh for Heaven's sake, do I have to spell it out - a clear real life Arb's Christian name and full name of an ex-arb are mentioned "???? is an old hag who loves censorship and hates freedom of speech. She is also ???? ??????'s whore. It and the others like it need oversighting. There are also numerous mentions of the same arb its username leaving peope in no doubt of the Arb's name. an earlier now removed summary was a "complete outing". They need to go.  Giacomo  13:22, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe the one being referred to was oversighted, as I recall revdeleting the action myself. Many others have been appropriately revdeleted. Giacomo it's taken a few hours to clean up this mess. If there's any left, feel free to contact oversight or an admin. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I emailed them hours ago and nothing happened. The one mentioning a Christian name has just a moment ago dissapeared, but various others remain.  Giacomo  13:34, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Oversight apparently have been around. But tell me whose contributions and I'll get on to it. There have been many hundreds of edits involved in this cleanup. It won't be surprising if one or two are missed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The worst seems to have no gone, some 2feline refeences remain, but i am sure we have all read worse. However, this remains as a red link [361] perhaps that needs oversighting too. It is not flattering or true.  Giacomo  13:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if unflattering and untrue fit the criteria for log redaction. However thank you for bringing the others to attention. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:56, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a holiday weekend in both the US and the UK, so many of the oversighters (along with everyone else) are away. Additionally, the vandal may be thinking he or she is taking advantage of the results of the Oversight/Checkuser election, which were announced yesterday. The Arbitration Committee is discussing how to proceed in light of those results, and input on the issue is welcome (see WP:AC/N for announcement). Newyorkbrad (talk) 14:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I see. Perhaps it would be a good idea if I have oversight tool myself. Then I could efficiently deal with the various taxing matter which I encounter myself.  Giacomo  18:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Remember, admins don't have full oversight powers, we merely revdelete so only admins can see. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:46, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I realise that, and a very god job they do too. I just think, as I'm very astute, if I have oversight, it would negate so many litle problems that I could deal with myself amd make the site so much more relaxing for us all.  Giacomo  20:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

POV pushing on Tenet Healthcare

{{resolved|1=[[Tenet Healthcare]] is temporarily semi-protected. <span class="plainlinks">—'''[[User:MC10|<span style="color:#9370DB;">MC10</span>]] <small><span style="color:#4169E1;">([[User talk:MC10|<span style="color:#4169E1;">T</span>]]•[[Special:Contributions/MC10|<span style="color:#4169E1;">C</span>]]•[[User:MC10/Guestbook|<span style="color:#4169E1;">GB</span>]]•[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&user=MC10 <span style="color:#4169E1;">L</span>])</span></small>'''</span> 16:06, 31 May 2010 (UTC)}}

Unresolved

See the recent history.-Regancy42 (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Locked for three days, user given words of advice. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 14:13, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:PP states "Isolated incidents of edit warring, and persistent edit warring by particular users, may be better addressed by blocking, so as not to prevent normal editing of the page by others." This was an isolated case, so the article should have been left unprotected while the editor should have been blocked. Basket of Puppies 17:20, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree in this case, believing that the user in question is editing in good faith, and while competency is required we also should not bite </bluelink horror>. According to user talk page, he seems unfamiliar with Wiki-editing. Protection = less edit warring until user educated, blocking = bye bye potential contributor :( S.G.^(GH) _ping! 18:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Page move vandalism

In light of the page move vandalism that's been going on in the past hour or so, are there any scripts or other tools to help automate revision deletion? It's a bit tedious cleaning up the mess one-by-one. Thanks in advance. --Ckatz^chat_spy 11:01, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

As it's still quite new, I would suggest probably not. I haven't rev deleted anything yet, so what exactly were you finding troublesome? Ale_Jrb^talk 12:14, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The page moves (back and forth) and subsequent deletions create quite a few log entries, which can be tedious to fix, but I think most of the stuff actually did not require log redaction. Of course, some of it did. decltype (talk) 12:21, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reverting moves is the issue I usually have with these situations - you need to manually move, rollback doesn't work. Typically I find myself - not necessarily correctly - thinking that speed is the most important thing. Earlier I stuck a db-attack tag on a page, then realised it was only the page title that was an attack. All very avoidable, but less than convenient in a "crisis" (not that these incidents are crises, but it feels like that when you see another editor being attacked). It would be good if rollback was a one-stop-shop for incidents like this, i.e. if it worked on page moves and new pages. TFOWR^{idle vapourings of a mind diseased} 12:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, the history of at least one user page was accidentally broken by an admin who were cleaning up, and I'm not sure if fixing it is worth creating a lot of new move summaries / log entries that would have to be redacted. decltype (talk) 12:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

• User:Mr.Z-man/moverevert2.js – Anti-page move vandalism script. Use with care. Unfortunately, it does not also revdelete logs. NW (Talk) 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Please do not use if there are oversighted logs in the way; I don't believe the script can handle that. NW (Talk) 13:35, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a note, I have proposed restricting userspace moves here. The Thing That Should Not Be (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Block review request of User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

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.

block overturned. Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Hello there.

I have just blocked Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk · contribs · logs) for repeated violations of WP:BATTLE and baiting. Earlier violations, [362] have resulted in strong words of advice that a block would be issued if it continued by Gwen Gale and myself. He was then blocked by another user, wrong in my opinion, however this was quickly undone and shouldn't reflect on the current block.

The issue, as we are aware, revolves around TresureyTag's tagging of several articles for deletion. As I have said, I don't view the marking of material which meets deletion criteria as harassment, even if it does result in floods of messages, however given that RAN has been told repeatedly and has continued this most recent time I have hence given a 24 hour block.

I feel, after he returns from his block if it is upheld, RAN (who, disappointingly, appears to be an otherwise strong contributor) he needs to be told to drop the issue. Likewise, TT - if he is following RAN looking for instances of non-stick-dropping - also needs to be advised to step back and let it all pass.

I am happy to have my decision reviewed and overturned if consensus suggests. Though I have seen some incivility in past discussions of RAN, so please keep your critique civil :). Thanks, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 23:45, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I am going offline now, so if an unblock is the order of the day, please can another admin take care of it and pass on my apologies. Cheers, S.G.^(GH) _ping! 23:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have not been privy to much of this dispute but that seemed like a pretty mild statement to me, and all based on content except the attirbution at the bottom. And even longer stretch if actually true. On first glance I'd say the block was unwarranted. I will look over at commons later. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are you issuing a block for a remark made on Commons? Surely behavior there is the baliwick of the Commons admins and not those of en.Wikipedia? Given the situation, I'd say a bad block all around, should be undone. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Bad block, for a number of reasons.

1. The comment was on commons, this is the English Wikipedia
2. The post was mostly about content, with only a short bit at the end about another editor.
3. If the allegations about the other editor are true (that is, they nominated every single photo of his for deletion), then the comment is entirely appropriate.

Buddy431 (talk) 00:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

My input as an uninvolved administrator (no other capacity) is that the block should be overturned. Newyorkbrad (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have had disagreements with this editor regarding other issues over the years, however, I fail to see how anyone can justify a block on this site based on interpretation of edits on commons. This is entirely inappropriate in my view, and considering that what I see is that nearly every upload by this editor has been nominated for deletion, I can certainly see why he would feel picked on. Since when is simply stating that he feels deletion nominations are inappropriate considered rationale for a block? He didn't rant and rave, he said something. I'm clearly perplexed why anything said on another site would be valid rationale for blocking here. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I've unblocked. Although I'm another of the admins who'd warned this user about his comments, I don't believe we have any authority to enact blocks based on edits made on other wikis. Had he made the same edit to a discussion on en, it might be appropriate. I will also spell out the issue for him. Shimeru (talk) 02:01, 1 June 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.

Someone maliciously impersonating me off-wiki

Resolved

 – User to post a disclaimer on their user page

Someone impersonating me has registered a blog here: [363], where they attempt to impugn my character, including making it seem as though I oppose freedom of speech and making comments about various edits I've made to Wikipedia. The "fake blog" also not-so-subtly links to the website of the North American Man/Boy Love Association (in an apparent attempt to tag me as a pedophile and/or sympathizer). The person creating this blog is not me; I have no idea who it actually is, but it's quite scary. The website hosting this blog (Blogspot) says it is only able to investigate real-name impersonation, not screen-name impersonation. Cases like this make me glad I don't use my real name for editing on Wikipedia; there are a lot of really scary people out there. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, since this attack page directly concerns my activities on Wikipedia, I thought it would be worth mentioning here, in case there's anything the Administrators can do to help me out. Again, I'm not sure who is responsible for this attack page, although I have a few hunches as to who it might be, which I would be willing to share with anyone who asks. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Man, that's a pretty nasty thing to do. I'm at a loss for ideas as to how to figure out who it is. I've actually seen a very similar thing done to another (non-Wikipedia-related) person, including the attempted NAMBLA association, but the likelihood that it's the same person seems extremely low (however, I'd be happy to fill you in via email, just in case). Have you considered changing your Wikipedia user name? (I know that's extreme, but...) Yworo (talk) 00:16, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty crude; any non-moron will quickly see that it's a hatchet job. I think I'd put a simple disclaimer on my user page ("The blog under my name at Blogger is not mine, in case you couldn't tell; my real blog is at..."). I suspect the attacker will quickly get bored with the game. Yes, this is why we don't use our real names- I shudder to think what some of the nutcases who've stalked me on-wiki would do with my real-world identity. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 00:29, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, as far as the guy who I think might be responsible, his initials are C. C., he is a white supremacist, and he has a website whose name contains the word "pod" in it. Is this the same guy who you think might have been behind the other sliming attempt? The reason why I think it might be him is because I got into a dispute with him on-wiki a while back which led to his being indefinitely blocked. Also, there appears to be someone on "his" website who is impersonating me with the name Stonemason89, just like the person who created the fake website is doing. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:35, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I'll add the disclaimer to my user-page. Thanks for your advice! Stonemason89 (talk) 00:37, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Nope, not the initials of the person in the case I am aware of. Info about changing your Wikipedia user name can be found at WP:UNC. It can be confusing, though, as it will change the name on all your edits (in edit history), but not on the signature on existing comments. FisherQueen's suggestion might be better... Yworo (talk) 00:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, that's what I did; I posted a disclaimer emphasizing that this person is not me. Stonemason89 (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Stntn

Resolved

 – User blocked and page deleted by User:Tim Song. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Adamstanton (talk · contribs) created the above page for Stntn (talk · contribs), an indefinitely blocked user. Adamstanton has made zero contributions outside of that edit, and his talk page is already a redirect to the talk page of Stntn (here). Can someone block Adamstanton for block evasion/sockpuppeting and delete the Requests for adminship page? On further review, it appears that Stntn was originally Adamstanton before changing usernames, and has now re-created the Adamstanton account after his Stntn account was indeffed. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

 Done Tim Song (talk) 00:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Gaza flotilla clash protected and removed from In The News

Resolved

 – Article unprotected and placed under 1RR. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm concerned by the decision of User:HJ Mitchell to delete Gaza flotilla clash from In The News [364] and fully protect the article for a week. This seems very unwise, given that the story is the biggest news story in the world at the moment [365] - a genuine international crisis. It simply isn't credible for Wikipedia to lack coverage of it in ITN, and the editing on the article itself, while brisk, does not seem to merit full protection - certainly not for such a long time. I don't for a moment doubt HJ's good faith, but this seems to be a very inadvisable decision. He has indicated that he will not object if admins decide that his decision needs to be overturned [366]. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think locking it down is a fantastic idea. A week seems too much but a couple days of people chilling out, collecting sources, and discussing might be useful. There is always the editprotect template if people can get along enough to use it.Cptnono (talk) 00:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Chris. Semiprotection yes, full protection no. While of course the editing was fast and furious, progress was being made, and disagreements didn't rise to the level of meriting full protection.John Z (talk) 00:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

As someone that has been involved in the editing there, I totally agree with HJ Mitchell protection and removal from the In the news list. There are multiple issues there and there was edit warring and reverting beginning to occur and the content has also multiple issues that we should not publicize it as if it is a good thing, POV citations and POV commentary, clearly it is heated issue, what we have now will benefit from full protection for the time being and any tweaks can be made through the editprotected template. In the future we can reconsider but HJ has made a good decision at this time. Off2riorob (talk) 00:46, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not protecting it was a good idea, I can see no good reason whatsoever for removing it from In The News. It's the biggest news story in the world right now. Omitting it from ITN just makes us look silly. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict with above) I agree that removing it from "in the news" is silly; it's absence is terribly conspicuous when compared to what is up there, especially Ebola. Full protection is probably a good idea, though. Does full protection disqualify it from ITN? Buddy431 (talk) 00:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Actually, I'm not remotely bothered if someone wants to unprotect the article, but I'm vehemently opposed to putting it back on ITN. ITN items don't go up solely because it's an important story, the article has to be of sufficient quality and that article is a mess. Putting an unstable article with possible POV problems right on our front page makes us look a whole lot sillier than omitting it altogether. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

How do you expect it to be improved if it's protected for a week? -- ChrisO (talk) 00:57, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Its not protected for a week, it is simply protected right now...when issues change we can and of course will re-evaluate. Off2riorob (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)FWIW - earlier today I noticed the article on Google news, and it's still listed there, so it's getting exposure outside of Wikipedia. Might be a good idea to get editors to help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec x3) Just noting that Terrorismattackwatch (talk · contribs) added this incident to List of terrorist incidents, 2010 twice [367][368] despite it having not been labelled "terrorism" (not even by Al Jazeera, the news organization quoted in the additions). I removed this incident from that list. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 01:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to unprotect, and aggressively watch the article for developing problems, perhaps with an edit-notice that edit warring, whether or not 3RR is violated, will lead to blocks. This is the biggest news story in the world right now, and should be on ITN, and the article allowed to develop as harmoniously as possible... and of course semi-protection is fully justified here. (ec x5, as well. Yikes.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 01:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree. This is a massive news story; it's developing all the time; it's hugely controversial; of course you are going to get disputes on it. That's normal. If editors violate 3RR or get incivil, then counsel them and block them if you have to. But in my experience these issues get worked out over time. The disputes are over relatively small areas of the article. Most of it is fairly stable already. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(e/c x5) Wikinews is that way; Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not only the opposite of silly to exclude an unstable article from ITN, it is practically required. If it's balanced and stable, that's another story; if not, there are dozens of topics that can better represent what Wikipedia is all about. We are, above all else, an encyclopedia.  Frank  |  talk  01:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

And we also happen to be the place that everyone comes to document news events. Wikinews, for all its value, is not. Do you see Wikinews links next to Google News' story summaries? Like it or not, whatever we might like to be in theory, that is not how people use Wikipedia in practice. Think of it as the invisible hand in action... -- ChrisO (talk) 01:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

We are responsible for making sure we are what we say we are. It's far less relevant what other people think we are.  Frank  |  talk  01:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Not really. If people want to document ongoing news events of historic importance, that actually adds value to Wikipedia and doesn't undermine its core mission. Our coverage of current events has been commended more than once by the media. The process is messy but the end results are more than worth it. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:17, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The article will (and maybe already does) add value to Wikipedia; the question is whether or not the article is suitable for inclusion in ITN. This project doesn't exist in order to be "commended more than once by the media"; that isn't one of its pillars, policies, or goals, despite how some people view it (from within or without).  Frank  |  talk  01:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Removal from In The News is more than silly, IMHO. There are edit conflicts on the article, but such things are very common for for stories covering current events. The viewing statistics for 2010-05-31UTC are only 61k: when Michael Jackson died, we got 4 million hits on the article in a single day. I don't wish to accuse HJ Mitchell (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) of any ulterior motives – we have often worked well together at WP:ITN – but this is a crazy decision to pull the blurb. It should be immediately reversed. Physchim62 (talk) 01:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I'll help it it were unprotected (which in my view it should be). Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

There've been protected articles on ITN before now, these are two different issues. Physchim62 (talk) 01:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I meant I'd help with the article. The lead needs a quick copyedit. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Your suggestions will be most useful at Talk:Gaza flotilla clash.  Frank  |  talk  01:28, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Well we tried to semi-protect, but the melee didnt cease, maybe the talk facility can be more actively used.Lihaas (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• FWIW, I've reverted my removal and NuclearWarfare (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) has reduced the protection with the aim of enforcing a 1RR restriction. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, HJ. I've marked this as resolved. Let's get on with improving the article! -- ChrisO (talk) 01:41, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

User Jayjg

Resolved

 – Good faith discussion on a talk page is not disruptive.

I would like an administrator to block User:Jayjg from editing the article Criticism of Judaism for a month or two, until we can get the article into a decent condition. He has been engaging in disruptive behavior, in violation of WP:Disruptive editing. Details of his behavior can be found at the Talk page at Talk:Criticism of Judaism. A brief summary of events is:

• May 6: The Criticism of Judaism article was proposed for deletion, here: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Criticism_of_Judaism_(2nd_nomination)
• May 12: The article was locked to force editors to build consensus
• May 13: AfD is closed, with consensus for "Keep"
• May 14: Two alternative proposals, called A and B, were proposed for the article's scope. See Talk:Criticism of Judaism#(3) What is the scope of the article?.
• May 15: Several editors discuss proposed scopes. Proposal A received four (4) endorsements (in addition to the proposer); proposal B received zero (0) endorsements.
• May 18: Consensus was achieved that the article will be WP:Summary Style
• May 26: Discussion on sources such as Uriel da Costa and Hegel at Talk:Criticism of Judaism#Another section for sources
• May 27: Discussion begins on best organization/outline for the article, at Talk:Criticism of Judaism#Possible outlines for this article
• May 28: Two weeks after proposals A and B were made, no further proposals for scope have been made. Clearly "A" has consensus, and that conclusion is documented at Talk:Criticism of Judaism#Progress on consensus-building

During the critical time period following the lock, from May 12 to May 27, Jayjg did not participate in the article or Talk page. Most importantly, he did not collaborate to build consensus in the key period after the article was locked (from may 12 to May 20). Then, on May 28, Jayjg disrupted the consensus-building process by, out of the blue, proposing an incomprehensible a disruptive proposal here [369]. That edit was made without any acknowledgement or reference to the work other editors had been engaging in for the prior two weeks, and was very disruptive.

Then, Jayjg made this edit: [370] in which he brags about how many edits he has made, and how his role as an admin makes his opinion more worthy.

Then came [371] which is even more provocative.

On the face of it, his edits don't look too bad. But look at the context: we are trying to work on a very contentious article, and he is basically throwing grenades into a crowded room.

If it was his first offense, that would be one thing, but there was the behavior exactly 12 months ago in the Judaea/Samaria episode: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/West_Bank_-_Judea_and_Samaria#Jayjg_stripped_of_status_and_privileges.

And two years ago was the "Will you watch my back" episode: [372], where he improperly communicated with some of the same editors that are currently disrupting Criticism of Judaism.

To repeat the request: could some admin topic-ban Jayjg for a month or two from Criticism of Judaism, so the rest of the editors can continue working in a collaborative fashion, without having to address all the distractions he is bringing? Thanks. --Noleander (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This appears to me to be a very odd request. Jayjg hasn't even edited the article recently, only the talk page. And noting editor experience with Wikipedia policy isn't inherently bragging, even if you view it was such. Looks to me like you just want to suppress opinions you find inconvenient. Yworo (talk) 23:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with engaging with editors of diverse opinions. My point was that he is engaging in disruptive behavior, in violation of WP:Disruptive editing, in particular Wikipedia:Disruptive_editing#Refusal_to_.22get_the_point.22. Clearly, disruptive behavior can take place on a Talk page as well as the article itself, particularly when it is a contentious article. --Noleander (talk) 23:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, I have to note that I find the proposal that you characterize as "incomprehensible" to be perfectly clear. And also in line with Wikipedia policy at least as I understand it. Regardless of any consensus achieved, policy still has to be followed. Yworo (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In the context of the on-going discussion in the Talk page, the proposal is incomprehensible. Perhaps a better word for those not familiar with the article would be "disruptive". --Noleander (talk) 23:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'd call it bragging, but it was a petty attempt at an argument. This happens often though. One editor citing his or her experience is a sign that the discussion has utterly deteriorated. In this case the user also cites his position as an admin, and that others on his side are admins while his opponents aren't, which is even more petty.

On the other points, I haven't actually checked to see if Jayjg abstained from discussion during the protection period only to make edits after it passed, but if that's the case then I'd say Jay should be topic-banned from the article, or something. There's nothing more counter-productive than someone who remains conspicuously absent from the discussion that should be resolving tensions while the article is locked, only to come back when it's not and turn the consensus established in that time on its rear. Protection is to force discussion, not for a party to wait until it passes so they can continue editing how ever they see fit. Equazcion ^(talk) 23:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

That is precisely what happened: the article was locked on 12 May, and some very excellent discussion ensued: lots of collaboration and cooperation. Jayjg did not participate at all. Then, after 15 days had elapsed, when consensus had been finally achieved, he made several very disruptive edits in the Talk page. --Noleander (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Uh, reading through the talk page, it appears to me that the responses to Jayjg are much more disruptive than what he posted. It also looks like he is a simple minority. So ignore him. (P.S. I'm not an admin, I'm aspiring to get more involved in admin activities). Don't make a mountain out a a molehill. :-) Yworo (talk) 23:55, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I hear what you are saying, but the article is a very contentious article, and it is important that editors engage in civil and respectful behavior. Jayjg has a history of disruptive editing, and I'm suggesting that he should be admonished so that progress can be made on the article. --Noleander (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(ec) that thing about "coming back to edit" would be a point -- but Jayjg hasn't touched the article (I went back through all the contribs since March!) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 23:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Correct: the disruptive behavior is on the Talk page, not the article itself. --Noleander (talk) 00:02, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but to abstain from the discussion following the lock for that length of time and only start arguing again once it was unlocked and consensus had been reached, is, if not disruptive, then also not exactly helpful. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:02, 1 Jun 2010 (UTC)

Really, Equazcion and Noleander, there is no requirement that an editor stay continually engaged. An editor can be absent for many reasons, including real world events, and there is nothing wrong with staying out of a discussion to see which way the wind ends up blowing before commenting on the outcome. That kind of attitude verges on article ownership. Yworo (talk) 00:04, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Correct, there is no requirement. That's why I said I agree that this isn't exactly disruptive. It's still unhelpful, though, to argue with a consensus that already formed when you hadn't participated in it. The point of article protection is so that parties in disagreement can discuss things collegially. There's nothing technically wrong with abstaining from that discussion even if you are one of the parties in disagreement, but again, it doesn't help, since the protection was put in place for you, as an involved party, to come to some consensus with your opponents. And I don't edit that article so I'd appreciate not being accused of ownership. I'm a proponent in this case of participating in discussion during the protection period, not of any one person's opinion on the issue being argued over. Equazcion ^(talk) 00:10, 1 Jun 2010 (UTC)

I don't see wehat the problem is with this edit's points are. It seems like a very basic step to avoid synthesis. i.e. an eminently sensible compromise really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:22, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. This whole article (and this entire class of articles) is synthesis; I fail to understand how it's not obvious that "A; however, B" is synthesis unless we have a source saying "A, however B". It's argumentation, and in this article, it's unsourced argumentation. Judaism has been intensely debated for centuries; it's easy to find published criticisms with counter-arguments -- and if we can't source such pairings, we shouldn't be including such pairings. As far as banning Jayjg from an article he hasn't edited in two months -- that's simply absurd. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 04:27, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Today's featured article on Front Page

Resolved

The Today's featured article section on the front page is ripe with redirects, same with the lead (only looked there) of the actual article, Baltimore City College. These should have been fixed prior to this making the front page and should be fixed now. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Do not "fix" links to redirects that are not broken. 86.41.74.14 (talk) 02:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirects are frowned upon in GAs, why would FAs be any different? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:42, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Read the guideline and all will be revealed. 86.41.74.14 (talk) 02:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This is not an "incident". WP:ERRORS is the correct forum for this, but i might have a look to see if they are all necessary. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 02:44, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, just went where the admins were. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Probable sockpuppet attempting to impersonate me

Resolved

 – Impersonator hardblocked. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 06:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Sable2322 (talk · contribs)

I was alerted to this user who had made a series of edits removing content from Pickup truck in a similar pattern to User:70.52.202.169, who also has an account, User:Spun883. Interestingly enough, this new account's first edit was blanking the AN/I thread regarding the IP and Spun883 account. It's obvious that this is a sockpuppet and that the intent of this account is to harass me.

Since this falls under both UAA and SPI I decided to start here first so there was a central report on it. If it's better to make two separate reports at those pages please let me know. --Sable232 (talk) 06:07, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Dead. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 06:14, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Would it be worthwhile to request a checkuser to determine for certain that this is a sock of Spun883? --Sable232 (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

If you have enough evidence, file the SPI, but regardless the complained's username is blocked. A CU isn't going to run a check on an already-blocked user unless there's a reasonable risk of sockpuppetry. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 06:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Backlog at AIV

AIV backlog of 8, many of which are pretty obvious. Shadowjams (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Resolved

Removed link

Resolved

User has posted their e-mail address on their user page, reporting as suggested by: Wikipedia:Personal information. I have redacted it as far as I am able to. --Wintonian (talk) 08:05, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I have seen a couple other editors do this as well. I wouldn't say it is smart, but I don't know if it falls under the personal information guideline. An admin might disagree though. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 08:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Having just seen the big red text at the top and looking at: Wikipedia:Requests for oversight I'll just speedy it, but god knows under whar criteria.

User with a grudge

Resolved

I am writing this here since I don't really know where else to go. Earlier today, I was surprised to find that two of my user subpages were vandalized from an editor I had no prior experience with, User:村上ミチル. As far as I can tell, they edited under the IP 98.215.211.220 earlier this month and the user's first edit was to that IP's talk page where I had previously left a note about vandalism. Going to the user's userpage, I find they have a grudge against me, whether because of this single isolated incident or some other previous experience, I don't know. I even added a note about attacking other editors, but the user left another antagonistic message. I'm concerned that the user will come back soon to vandalize my user pages or pages I work on, and would like to know what I should do in this case.--十八 09:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Attack page deleted, vandalism rolled back, user indeffed. ⇦REDVƎRS⇨ 09:18, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Ebionites

I have indicated that material dear to another editor, which in fact led to that party being banned from the content for a year, has been once again reinserted without any indication that it does not violate WP:FRINGE, and more than a little serious question that it does. I have removed the material determined to be fringe per the Fringe Theories Noticeboard once again, and request the review of any interested administrator for their input regarding the correctness of doing so, and have indicated as much on the talk page of the article in question. John Carter (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Can you provide us a Fringe Theories noticeboard discussion archives link?

On first impression, the material is not what I think mainstream beliefs say, but it's sourced to sources from mainstream academic publishers, so there's nothing obvious to an "outsider" to the issue about what's truly fringe and what is not.

Also, you need to notify the other user ( {{subst:ANI-notice}} on their talk page ).

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

There is discussion in the archives, prior to the ArbCom, which indicated that the Eisenman theory qualified as fringe. The discussion of the Tabor source can be found at Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#The Jesus Dynasty. I have also included material from the three reviews I was able to find regarding the Tabor book toward the beginning of the Talk:Ebionites#Possibility of bringing the article back up to FA, which also at least indicates the material from the various encyclopediae I consulted which have all, so far as I can tell, pretty much ignored both Eisenman and Tabor. John Carter (talk) 17:16, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Which arbcom case? Neither you nor he is listed in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Index/Involved parties ... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ebionites, when searched for correctly.

According to that, there were no findings of fringe information on either side. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The only finding related to edit-warring, there were no content conclusions. This is a typical example of John Carter's misrepresentations. John Carter is pushing his Catholic-POV into the article. The article is already overly biased towards the Catholic conservative position (see article talk page.) --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:48, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

The above editor seems to believe that Encyclopedia Britannica and various books by Brill Publishers, etc., all of which ignore Eisenman and Tabor, can also be ascribed to his allegations of "Catholic bias" as well. Also, please note the repeated requests made by me for any sort of other sources supporting Eisenman and Tabor, and that all such requests have been ignored. Regarding allegations of leaning toward Catholic sources, I don't think I have never actually heard such an allegation before, and certainly not without a clear representation of what other, non-biased, mainstream sources are available, and without an indication of what is contained in them, as is the case hereJohn Carter (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Another editor has just expressed his view (which I agree with) that "you only seem capable of providing reviews written by religious dogmatists". Oh, and he provided an alternative review. --Michael C. Price ^talk 00:38, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

The material on the fringiness of Eisenman can be found basically at Talk:Ebionites/Archive 7 beginning around September 2007. That discussion seems to indicate that there are real WP:SYNTH and other concerns. John Carter (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

(restoring apparently accidentally deleted section I posted)

Reading some outside reviews of the Tabor book, http://benwitherington.blogspot.com/2006/04/jesus-dynasty-part-two.html and http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2006/mayweb-only/120-32.0.html for example, the criticism I am finding is from a Christian perspective, not a historical one. I am concerned by the confirmation bias issue User:Michael C Price brought up.

You may be right, but I'm not seeing any obvious disruption or lack of valid content dispute here; what is there for administrators to do here? What are you asking for? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 17:42, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

It should be noted that there have been repeated requests made of both parties to provide any indpendent sources which indicate the material in question has received mainstream support in any verifiable form, and that such requests have received no clear response. The question of historical criticism basically relates to the sourcing. The Encyclopedia of Religion, amond others, indicates that there is no evidence to link the various Ebionite attestations, and other sources indicate that there is insufficient material to say that the Ebionites, Nazoreans, et al. can be differentiated with any degree of certainty. Regarding the accusation of bias, J. Gordon Melton described the SLU library as being one of the best religious libraries on the planet, and didn't say anything about it having a Catholic bias, although, as a Jesuit school, I do note that it has more Catholic materials than otherwise. And, I guess, my request is to review my action, to see if it was appropriate, in part because another party on the article talk page seemed to threaten to bring my actions here anyway. John Carter (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

AN/I should not be used as a forum to force a decision over content. That is supposed to be achieved by consensus among the editors or through mediation. I have already requested that Jayjg provide informal mediation to smooth out some of these process difficulties, see User_talk:Jayjg#Request for informal mediation. The issue of WP:SYNTH is a separate matter of conflation of sourced content. That has been addressed by temporarily removing the content in question to the talk page where it can be be sorted out later. This trip to AN/I seems to be an end-run to avoid mediation and request a summary judgment. Ovadyah (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I cannot control the opinions of others. I came here to receive a judgement on my actions, nothing more, and have placed my reasons for my taking the actions I have. If I am found to have behaved incorrectly by individuals not previously involved in the discussion, then, obviously, I would welcome the reversal. That is all. John Carter (talk) 20:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I should also correct a factual misstatement. The paragraph in question by John Carter was not recently added into the article. It was content supported by multiple sources that John Carter deleted from the article without discussion. That deletion was reverted. The material in question was not contributed by Michael C. Price. It was mostly contributed by Str1377 who was editing collaboratively with me at the time in an effort to improve the content during FAR. Ovadyah (talk) 20:24, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Admit the editor above may be correct. However, I note once again that for all the "commentary", no independent sources indicating the material is not regarded as qualifying as fringe have been produced, despite repeated requests for same and evidence to the contrary produced. John Carter (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Your request is very unusual. I don't recall many literature reviews where the reviewers pronounce articles to be "mainstream". Anyway, even critical reviewers that question Tabor's conclusions claim that he is speculating too far beyond his primary sources. They don't claim they are due to a lack of scholarship. He is making a conjecture about what may have happened, not proving a theory based on experimental data. Ovadyah (talk) 20:49, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comments are not particularly usual either. And WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE remain policy and guideline anyway. Regardless of certain parties apparent failure to assume good faith about my stated reasons for my actions, which, as I have indicated, were prompted by a comment about possibly having them bring this matter to this page, what is the reason for continued conversation which doesn't directly relate to the base subject? John Carter (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to my comment on the article talk page about AN/I, I made it clear that was a step to be considered only if mediation fails or is rejected by the parties. I don't want to waste anymore admin time, so unless we are still missing some important facts that relate to this incident, I am done here. Ovadyah (talk) 21:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to figure out just what the bone of contention is here. I would assume that the disputed material is collected in this diff, but if this is the case, then the dispute is over whether to include 2 books (FWIW, although Eisenman's book has been reviewed as a serious work,, I found it almost unreadable & somewhat bizarre) & the relationship between the Christian community at Jerusalem led by James the Just, Judaic-Christianity, & the Ebionites cult. However, the two sides seem inexplicably entrenched over such a minor disagreement, & maybe the three individuals here -- John Carter, Ovadyah, & Michael C Price -- should all walk away from this article (remember -- to repeat the old saying -- there are 3.3 million other articles) & let some new editors work on this article. Otherwise, everyone involved is going to either get themselves banned or burned out over this matter. -- llywrch (talk) 05:57, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree. As I noted previously on my talk page, this article seems to attract editors that either have a POV to push or an axe to grind diff. Unfortunately (for me), I know a lot about this subject, having actually read the books and publications, and I keep getting dragged back into it. I only became involved because John Carter contacted me about bringing the article back up to FA quality. My involvement, however, does not include any schemes to provoke Michael C Price into an edit war to get him banned from Wikipedia. I am out of it once proper oversight can be established to return the article to FA quality. Cheers. Ovadyah (talk) 16:55, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree, to an extent. And my involvement only extends to getting individuals who may be either SPA or have only a limited interest in the topic, such, as for instance, being involved only to the extent of promoting a single book or two, to perhaps recognize that those books seem to be out of the mainstream and not deserving of the amount of space they have in the article, and, if they continue to refuse to address the issue of weight given those fringe theories, to perhaps act in accord to the guidelines at WP:COI. Ovadyah has requested the input of a former arbitrator, and I would welcome his input. John Carter (talk) 19:06, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

In case readers are puzzled by Ovadyah's reference to

"schemes to provoke Michael C Price into an edit war to get him banned from Wikipedia."

Ovadyah refers to John Carter's email attempts to include Ovadyah in John Carter's tag team. This, and John Carter's attempt to supress this leak does not reflect well on John Carter's integrity. I believe these actions seriously call into question John Carter's ability to edit the Ebionite article in a NPOV fashion, to put it mildly, and perhaps his role as a Wikipedia editor in general.--Michael C. Price ^talk 21:24, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

I can and will produce the original document to anyone who is interested. What I said was along the lines that it seemed likely to me, given his refusal to ever address matters of policy and/or guidelines, and his previous one year sanction regarding this topic, a permanent sanction would almost always be what follows.

I agree. I was confused at first about why John Carter was slamming my qualifications for working on the article - citing SPA and COI - when he approached me about resuming work on the article in the first place. But the reason is now clear to me. He couldn't have me perma-banned from an article I hadn't touched in over two and a half years. He had to convince me to resume editing on the article first. The content dispute is just a smokescreen. That's why no one can make any sense of it. The admins should understand that these plans will simply be put on hold again until a new crop of admins comes along, unless a more permanent solution is found. Ovadyah (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The above statement by Ovadyah is extremely amusing. Ovadyah has long maintained on his talk page a link to current Ebionite groups. It is also fairly obvious from his own response to the comment I made on his talk page that, at the time, he knew it was because of his statement that those who call themselves Ebionites today and Messianic Jews do not get along. Considering that Ebionites are almost his sole interest here (at least so far as I have seen), that he clearly indicated by that comment a degree of knowledge of the otherwise apparently non-notable current Ebionites which is itself remarkable, it seemed logical at the time, and still does, to question whether he is in fact an adherent of some sort of this neo-Ebionitism and whether that would constitue a COI problem as per WP:COI. The fact that the FA version of the article also apparently failed to address any issues which might indicate that the Ebionites were hard to distinguish from other Jewish-Christian groups at the time, thus weakening any claims to neo-Ebionites as opposed to more notable neo-Essenes, possible neo-Nazoreans, etc. and seems to have all but ignored the "evyonim" of the Dead Sea Scrolls, makes the question of possible bias even more obvious. Regarding the alleged attempt to get Price blocked, I am willing to forward the email sent to any uninvolved parties asking for it. However, what was basically said and implied was that, given the long-term history Price has had of making comments which do nothing to address the matter of sourcing, which are clearly visible from the talk page, refusing to provide sourcing, and otherwise generally non-constructive behavior, it seemed and honestly still seems likely to me that, should such behavior continue, he in time would face additional sanctions. John Carter (talk) 21:23, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that there was a religious test being applied to editors that determines what articles they can work on. Maybe Orthodox Jews should be informed they can't work on articles related to Judaism or Israel because, after all, they are Jews. If there is such a policy in place I would like to hear about it. The conversation John Carter keeps coming back to, where I found out that modern Ebionites don't get along with Messianic Jews, took place almost four years ago when Loremaster and I were doing some research on the Modern Ebionites section of the article. Keep talking John Carter. Ovadyah (talk) 22:51, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone who actually looks over the comments will find that my basic comments were regarding fringe theories, which all involved except Ovadyah and Michael seem to agree that they are, that despite that Ovadyah has insisted that this almost completely panned fringe theory be included, and that it was he who had the hissy fit when I pointed out his logic and statements were less than rational. John Carter (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Note John Carter's logic: Ovadyah has a strong interest in the article, therefore he has a (presumed) religious POV, therefore a COI and should be barred. By contrast John Carter's Catholic POV does not disqualify himself from editting the article. Why is that?

I note that John Carter has admitted the tag-teaming charge.

As for constructive comments, I long ago suggested that, in view of the radically opposing POVs present about Ebionites, the article present the different POVs in different sections. John Carter rejected this suggestion, prefering to impose his POV (The Truth, as far as he is concerned) on the entire article. This he does by maintaining that any view he doesn't like is a minority/fringe view, and then deletes it; the truth is that all POVs about Ebionites are minority views; there is no mainstream consensus. --Michael C. Price ^talk 04:57, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Your comment is inaccurate. It is policy and guidelines which do not like giving fringe theories undue weight. Trying to apply policy and guidelines could be seen as being something individuals other than myself object to, however. John Carter (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

The real purpose of this incident report is to cleanse the Ebionites article of the corrupting influences of atheists and heretics. That is to be accomplished by perma-banning anyone who is suspected of holding beliefs different from the right-belief of John Carter. Now is the time to witness to your faith John Carter. Confess or Deny. Isn't that the reason we are here? Ovadyah (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Um, actually, this again is a total misrepresentation of what I said. Somehow, however, given the blatantly emotional conduct Ovadyah has displayed when I noted his favorite fringe theory doesn't by policy and guideline deserve the attention it has received, that doesn't really surprise me. John Carter (talk) 16:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

In other words, Q. "Did you order the Code Red?" A. "Y___ ____ _____ _ __d." I was not being emotional. I was simply trying to communicate with you in words that you can understand. Ovadyah (talk) 16:54, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Comments like this do not help your argument that you're being emotionally detached. Might be best to take a break from ANI for a while. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite

Agreed. Best regards. Ovadyah (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, what about partitioning the article into POV sections, as has been done with some other controversial religious topics, such as Moses and Jesus, for example? This is the only way for the article to achieve stability and NPOV. --Michael C. Price ^talk 17:48, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There isn't that much material to justify POV sections on this subject -- at least based on what has been written here. And discussing that proposal should be done on the talk page. Proposing here a revision to the article only confuses the issue more -- & beyond Ovadyah & you being upset with John Carter, I still don't understand what the actual issue is. Anyway, Ovadyah has made it clear she/he is walking away from the matter; it might be good idea for you & John Carter to do likewise. -- llywrch (talk) 05:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The problems with the article are longer lasting and deeper than just the diff indicates, and stems from more than the current presence of three editors. The article attracts editors with a strong POV, each one whom attempts a disruptive synthesis; partitioning the article is the obvious solution, and one adopted elsewhere for controversial subjects (e.g. Moses and Jesus). --Michael C. Price ^talk 13:50, 1 June 2010 (UTC)