Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive523

User Jersay for the 3rd time

Resolved

 – Indeffed by LessHeard vanU //roux   18:44, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Jersay has once again reverted cited information from List of terrorist incidents, 2009. diff. He has been warned over 9 times and blocked twice for identical vandalism. He has been reported here 4 times I think. The code for list articles make it extremely difficult to revert "cannot be undone" edits, forcing editors like me to copy and paste each and every line instead of one big copy edit. I'm anticipating a definite block/ban, if this isn't the place can someone direct me to a higher authority? Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do we waste our time mollycoddling people who pull this crap? Months of warnings and two blocks have had zero effect. It's WP:RBI time. //roux   05:12, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned he might carry a bias towards Somalia. A significant majority of his reverts have been on Somalia-related incidents. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Would reporting to WP:AIV be appropriate? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

After two blocks, he still undoes these list entries and never leaves a Talk message. It seems that his mission in life is to delete things that (in his personal opinion) do not qualify as terrorist incidents. Due to the difficulty of reverting his changes to these lists, I'd support an indef block. EdJohnston (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

How can this be done? I don't plan on spending hours on noticeboards demanding a ban, so could we pool some volunteers? You're an admin, right Ed? Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It's broader than just Somalia, or just terrorism. Jersay is an extremely prolific editor of articles about wars, terrorism and conflicts generally. He's stepped hard on people's toes over the recent crimes in Northern Ireland, he's got views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and he pushes his POV that civil unrest constitutes a revolution. He's made responsible editing of the various list-of-wars articles very difficult. AlexTiefling (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Jersay is a tendentious editor of the highest order. Regarding his involvement with Northern Ireland related articles, firstly he created Second Northern Ireland Revolt. During the deletion discussion for that article, he moved it to Republican Violence in Northern Ireland. After the deletion of the article, it was reposted at Republican Violence in Northern Ireland, Paramilitary violence in Northern Ireland and Northern Ireland 2009 Paramilitary Conflict. While this was happening he was constantly adding details and a link to the article to List of wars 2003–current and List of ongoing conflicts (example diff 1, example diff 2), claiming it was a war or conflict that started on 11 February 2009, which ignores that both the Real IRA and Continuity IRA (two of the participants in the "war") have been active for over a decade. In more general terms, he seems to have his own definition of what incidents are terrorism and which are not. Constrast this addition with all his removals of incidents he says are not terrorism. The source makes no mention of terrorism, and while a grenade attack on a commercial establishment may be terrorism it may also be a dispute between criminal gangs especially when police have yet to determine a motive. O Fenian (talk) 11:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I have indefinitely blocked Jersay (talk · contribs), with a message that they should re-evaluate their editing with regard to considering the opinions of others if they are to appeal the block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"New" editor Canadian87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems very familiar.. O Fenian (talk) 00:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Quack. //roux   01:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've filed a sock report. AlexTiefling (talk) 11:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

IPs behavior

Recently I have witnessed constant nonconsecutive edits by few Ips, namely 203.56.87.254, 124.190.113.128. My observations, let me presume that those IPs controlled by the same person.

Connection between IPs

• Stared to edit in similar time:
  • 2008-04-01T23:26:19 (203.56.87.254)
  • 2008-04-02T06:31:24 (124.190.113.128)
• Similar affected articles:
  • Charles Bronson [1], [2]
  • Ignacy Domeyko [3], [4]
  • Darjuš Lavrinovič [5], [6]
  • Baranowski [7][8]
  • Tiškevičiai Palace, Palanga [9]; [10];
  • Palanga Amber Museum [11]; [12].
• Same pattern of edits:
  • Inserting Polish names [13], [14],[15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] etc. etc.
  • Removing any mentioning of Lithuania/n/names etc. [21], [22],[23], [24][25], [26].

However, those IPs crossed the line then started to mocking from Lithuanians:

• how is it vandalism when i all i did was revert the article back to what it was before known-nationalist M.K. got to it?
• Would you read how these Lithuanian dogs treat our fellow countrymen on the occupied Vilnius Region (especially the names) and then tell me whether the Lithuanian version of the Bronson's name is so interesting ... (translation from Polish)
• i think the lithuanians are just doing this to spite poles, damn garsva-ites (mocking Kazimieras Garšva vio of BLP)
• you're a hypocrite lokyz (changing polish to polonised and lithuanised to lithuanian
• Tyszkiewicz is more known than Tiskeviciweirweriwerhiw (as both Tiškevičius and Tyszkiewicz still has living descendants such name mocking is vio of WP:BLP as well)

Therefore I ask, that appropriate measures be taken in order to prevent further violations of basic WP policies. Thanks, M.K. (talk) 13:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Warned both; most diffs are rather old. If uncivil behavior continues, I'd support a block.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 21:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Going by the IPs and the times (April last year?) I wonder if these two are the same person. One IP is a company in Melbourne, the other an Australian ISP. The edit from the company is at about 23:30 UTC, 09:30 local, the other is 06:30-ish UTC or 16:30 local. Edits from work and home, perhaps? Tonywalton ^Talk 22:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Possibly. But now, then I looked it in more detail other possibility emerged, that it may be proxies or somebodies sock's IPs. For instance after reverting routine "improvements" of IP [27], Ip was not present for the several days, but somehow he managed to revert me back in mater of minutes. Can anybody run the check over this? M.K. (talk) 12:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Static IP 74.78.20.70

Resolved

 – Blocked 72 hours by Yannismaroufor vandalism. Tonywalton ^Talk 11:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

74.78.20.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) - All edits seem to be vandalism, incl. page/section-blankings, wrong dates etc. Most of the edits are related to Guns N' Roses and earlier bands of the members. But also other music related articles like Iron Maiden were vandalized. WP:AIV does not want to deal with it since there's no recent activity. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 09:50, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Why do you think this is a static IP? Tonywalton ^Talk 10:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism since March 11 on very similiar topics? --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 10:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm on a dynamic IP but have had the same one for a couple of weeks or more - it could stay unchanged for months if i don't restart my router (and there isn't a power failure). Tonywalton ^Talk 11:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have to reconnect every 24hrs and therefore will have a new IP every day - without restarting my router.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 12:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 72 hours. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 10:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Which is the main thing. Marking as resolved. Tonywalton ^Talk 11:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Neon white's unhelpful commentary at WQA

Resolved

 – SheffieldShield fulfilled my request. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Neon white (talk · contribs) has periodically made a series of unhelpful commentary at Wikiquette alert. During 2008, I found problems with his commentary and would make a note of that in the threads themselves. By November/December when a frivolous claim was filed against me by a now-blocked user, but there was no change in his commentary. As a result, I responded with this - relatively short to read for yourself, so I need not recap. Now I find a pattern, despite some useful contributions, so I've made a note at his talk page again. What I've defined as unhelpful is contained in both links, and particularly on the first occasion, another uninvolved editor, Eusebeus, has agreed with me. This doesn't require administrator "action" as such, but I'd like this reviewed by other eyes - I think it's possible that an administrator will get through to him. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I would, but he believes that by stating some users are here to simply stir up drama, that it is considered a personal attack. Whatever. seicer | talk | contribs 15:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Pffft. That wasn't a personal attack, and I was the one it was aimed at. (I don't agree with it, clearly, but you'd have to have a pretty thin skin to consider it a personal attack). Black Kite 15:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I considered it a personal attack, it was unhelpful. Civility applies in WQAs too. --neon white talk 22:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, let's not push people who are generally helpful and genuinely trying to help away from the so-called "cesspool" that is WQA. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree there's nothing to discuss here. Neon white recently participated in WQA that i filed. And i thought his comments weren't particularly helpful. However, it was clear he was trying to help, was civil, and given that forum is to seek input from uninvolved editors (who will have a range of opinions and responses) who cares if I or anyone else feels he gets it "wrong." Someone else can chime in on the relevant threads and say so. The mere fact that he's present and giving input, reading the background to disputes and so forth, is a service he's trying to provide.Bali ultimate (talk) 15:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Generally, after a few nudges in the WQA, there are no issues with WQA regulars, because they are generally helpful, BMW included - but I have difficulty adding Neon white into this subcategory. He's of the belief that he thinks he's always correct and helpful - but that's the entire problem; I responded to these two incidents on his talk page, but these are not the only episodes where he's demonstrated a lack of clue. When a pattern emerges (like above), or this becomes a more regular problem, then it destroys the entire purpose of having Wikiquette alert if it goes unspotted. This would be quite easily resolved if someone got through to him: that a problem needs to be addressed.

Bali ultimate, your comment doesn't stick - the lot of us are here voluntarily helping out whether it's at WQA, ANI or wherever else on the project - this isn't about intentions. Tendentious editors are often in the mindset that they are helping this project - the fact is that their input is seriously not helping. I'm not saying, nor do I think, that neon white is a tendentious editor, but it's just an example of a problem that doesn't just go away by leaving it as what it is: a problem. A lack of clue at this stage in dispute resolution can not only escalate problems, but can end up adversely affecting the rest of the project, particularly in terms of time spent.Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• I believe Ncmvocalist is the one making the unnecessary drama as assuming bad faith against Neon White. I also agree with the idea that Seicer's such comment, "spastic" is totally unacceptable not only as an editor, but also an admin. (Remember some user was blocked yesterday for saying "retarded") This thread is a waste of time.--Caspian blue 15:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

"He's of the belief [...] he's always correct and helpful" isn't an assumption of bad faith; if anything, it's the opposite. I think Ncmvocalist makes an important point that seems to elude many here: an editor can be unhelpful, unproductive, even disruptive, while acting in good faith. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 16:05, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It might not be bad faith but it is pretty presumptuous to think you know what someone else believes. I have never suggested i am always correct and helpful. WQA is limited in what it can resolve. So often you are merely stating your view and hoping editors take note. --neon white talk 23:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I must disagree with your stance. This matter brought up here is nothing necessary for administrators' eye. If Ncmvocalist concerns so much on Neon white's general conduct on WQA, then file a RFC/U. No need to make a drama here. I rather am disturbed by his diversion from the main issue on Seicer's incivility.--Caspian blue 16:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I see you are still upset that I've ruled against your continuing battles with various Asian-related articles. seicer | talk | contribs 16:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You're again diverting your incivility issue to unrelated matters or blame others. But you're completely wrong. I've always been disturbed by your incivility before you even became an admin (eg. your RFA). I expect you behave like an admin. --Caspian blue 17:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would've been wiser to disclose that in the past, you've engaged in conflict with not just myself on multiple occasions, but apparently with Seicer as well, and therefore lack the neutral eyes of an administrator that was requested. Indeed, you seem to reinforce the precise point of this thread, much like Hans Adler below, of users genuinely severely lacking a vital sense of clue in their commentary. What I've learnt from this thread is that factional problem editing, that pervades Wikipedia, is at its peak. Still, it is of heightened importance that I acknowledge that SheffieldShild is the only other administrator that has provided necessary input in line with my request - *bows down* thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 20:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, no, but since you're very "maturely" resorting and diverting to the unrelated matter, I must say your "wonderful" past regarding your "substantial complaints" many times and your acting as a "unauthorized admin clerk" both of which caused many controversies. Regardless, I wonder why you did not make this spin-off file to WQA where the original pertinent complaint was filed. A user pointed out the term, spastic used by the admin is inappropriate and offensive to some people, so striking it would be better for everyone to remain civil. That should be really no big deal but your support for Seicer and urge to others to "understand" the background why Seicer said so is odd enough. Then why can't you see the possibility of people taking offense to the term (actually the target is just one editor)? As for requested objective eyes, can you say objectivity in regard to Seicer given your past? I only can your contradiction. I understand why SheffieldShild's comment is only valuable to you is because he is the only person not to criticize this filing. Good to know. Just for clarification, I have only a couple of direct encounters with Seicer for his rude comment at the article of Korean cuisine way back and his RFA. However, his incivility is nothing new, but I've not care because his activities are not my matters. The only encounter with you is some user's unblocking thing. I almost forgot about the case until you and Seicer mentioned the "past".--Caspian blue 22:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And you frivolously accuse me of bad faith? The only person trying to divert the focus of this thread is you, and you're practically begging to go to arbitration over your unacceptable conduct in these threads because you're being plainly disruptive on so many levels. My past has no connection to this thread; yours has plenty, as it directly does not comply with the request I made in this thread - you are neither uninvolved as you've engaged in clear conflict with both myself and Seicer, nor are you an admin With that aside, you've not only misstated/misinterpreted my position to the extreme, but have clearly not read my comments in full at the Wikiquette alert - please refrain from misstating my position - it's not appreciated, and it won't be tolerated. This is in two respects - my comments at the WQA, as well as with regards to SheffieldShield's input where I've clearly stated the reason I appreciate his input. Trying to assert otherwise is, once again, disruptive - I suggest you stop. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:18, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's just getting hilarious, who're praising your filing here? None. Almost everybody say that nothing administrative action is needed and this is wasteful based on bad faith. Thus, you're just digging up your hole deeply with the personal attacks. That way makes your failed attempt to bash Neon white turning successful? As for the comment regarding going to arbitration, do not lie based on your "dream". If my recall was correct, didn't you "the one who was summoned to RFAR for your disruptive behaviors"? In fact your past has many connections to this thread because this is an evidence of your pattern of disruption as somebody already counts the number of your "frivolous filings" recently. Besides, you have some issue with Neon white in past so this filing on petty nip-ticking things is really from bad-faith. I recommend you stop all disruption and start logically if you want some respect from others.--Caspian blue 03:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm pleased to see that you've stopped fomenting drama on this page. 0:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I see you already broke your own pledge. bug :P --Caspian blue 14:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I see no reason to stop him; he's making a case against himself. ;) Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

lol. I've enjoyed seeing your show as always. :)--Caspian blue 14:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Great, For those who are blind or who have difficulties reading and comprehending text, it clearly states that I am tired, not retired. What a good comment on the top of an admin's talk page.--Caspian blue 17:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This complaint about Neon white is a complete waste of time unless Ncmvocalist learns something from this thread. Both of Ncmvocalist's complaints on Neon white are unfounded and border on the frivolous. I am prepared to assume good faith, but then the fact remains that Ncmvocalist is rather thin-skinned and not assuming good faith:

• Ncmvocalist's first complaint against Neon white was for trying to get a WQA thread back on track. If the first reaction to a WQA complaint is "Yet another frivolous report by a manipulative tendentious problem editor - within a few days, he's managed to file 3 complaints which should say something on its own." from the accused, that's not going to change the behaviour of the problematic editor (in this case apparently Kris, who complained about Ncmvocalist; but I didn't look closer into this).
• Ncmvocalist's second complaint was because Neon white responded "Please do not attack WQA contributors. That is unacceptable." to Seicer's "Now you are creating drama to simply create drama. [...] Stop taking words out of context, and stop being perpetuating drama."

It seems to me that in both cases Ncmvocalist attacked Neon white for constructive feedback to unconstructive WQA contributions. --Hans Adler (talk) 16:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment As far as i am concerned this is purely based on personal reasons and has nothing to do with my comments. I comment on his hostile attitude towards another editor [28] and Ncmvocalist didn't like it. I've been successfully involved in dispute resolution for as long as i can remember and never had any problems and successfully mediated many disputes. Accusing an editor who is trying to resolve a situation of "creating drama to simply create drama" is simply not acceptable. WQA volunteer are not there to create drama, they are there to help. Editors are required to assume good faith on that matter. This is all in Wikipedia:ETIQUETTE which i would think WQA contributors should be familiar with. --neon white talk 22:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
  • You've "never had any problems" isn't an accurate statement; an editor has posted on my talk page suggesting to the contrary; both myself and Eusebeus has posted to your talk page suggesting to the contrary; SheffieldShield - the only uninvolved administrator here - has also posted to the contrary; I have no doubt there are others who also think to the contrary. This isn't about some old problem; the fact remains that intentions is one thing and overlooking pretty clear concerns is another. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment - could we maybe wrap this up? A couple of people who don't like each other got their knickers in a twist over each other. Take a deep breath, have a cup of tea, walk away. This thread has already attracted more than enough of utterly uninvolved people coming in to sling mud, as is their wont. Ncmvocalist: grow a thicker skin. Neon white: you mean well, maybe some people don't always see it. Both of you: stay away from each other until you can play nice. Everyone: have a cookie and some ice cream. //roux   23:25, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• ...don't forget "BMW, you rock, keep up the good work..." (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Comment I believe that care should be taken when handling heated situations such as those that come to WQA and that those who find themselves not receiving a "suitable" ending in their POV can walk away with a bad taste. Carrying over that poor loserhood to ANI is probably improper and begs the question: "What admin action is required here?" Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 13:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• • The editor Neon white commented in favour of last year ended up blocked for 3 months, while Neon white's comments at the most recent Wikiquette alert clearly failed to produce a consensus in his favour. So I fail to see how this is a bout a loserhood of some sort, or about thicker skin. It really should be rather simple; he is under the mistaken belief that there is some sort of personal bias against him - so he will use that as an excuse to avoid listening to rather clear concerns. Any editor who engages in similar commentary would be called out in the same way. As such, the uninvolved administrator work that was required was already provided by SheffieldShield, so the purpose of this thread has been achieved. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Legal threats at Lifehouse (band)

Resolved

 – sock blocked Toddst1 (talk) 05:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Lawyer33 (and, IIR, several others/socks) was blocked for legal threats at Lifehouse (band). These typically involved vague reference to a "cease order" ([29], [30], etc.) "in effect to any fans who are tampering with this page. Ben Carey is not an official member." Now, we have User:Lawyer12 again removing reference to Ben Carey being a member of the band saying, "The Official Member lineup is available. Cease & Desist EXCESS editing."[31] (I have added Carey as a member, sourced to a Manila Times article.) - SummerPhD (talk) 19:56, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

One sock was User:Lawyeruniversal2. - SummerPhD (talk) 19:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be a well-intentioned user who is resorting to sockpuppetry, threats, etc because they don't know how else to correct the content in the article. (The band's website lists three members. Ben Carey is not listed.) SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how "sockpuppetry, threats, etc." squares with "well-intentioned", to be honest. If I think a story in my local paper is inaccurate I don't start out by assuming the way to get them to retract it is by chucking a brick through their window and screaming bogus legal threats through the hole. It's also possible that the Manila Times (which describes Carey as "the newest member of the group" in July 2008) is more of a reliable source, or at least a source with less potential for COI, than is the band's own website. Perhaps the lineup has changed since the article was written - slinging bricks isn't the way to put that point across. Tonywalton ^Talk 23:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No - a Cease & Desist notice is a legal threat in the US, sent just before filing an actual suit. Semi-protected the page for 1 week and blocked Lawyer12 (talk · contribs) for NLT and block evasion. Feel free to correct the errors in the article. Toddst1 (talk) 05:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify. By "well-intentioned" I mean acting in good faith, by which I mean, acting with the motivation of improving Wikipedia's accuracy. I think my post made it quite clear that, while I sympathise with the user's motives, I do not condone their means. Unfortunately, it is quite common for editors near to an article's subject to resort to disruptive tactics if their first attempts to correct an article are reverted. This isn't the first legal threat we've seen from someone who claims one of our articles is wrong. On a side note, I presume the remark about the conflict of interest was a joke. I'd be the first to agree that a band's website isn't a reliable source for whether or not they are the best thing since sliced bread, but I really think it'd be unlikely to be involved in any campaign to pretend that the band has one less member than it really does. Of course, that would explain why all the so-called official photos of the band only show three members (they have been photoshopped!) and no doubt all of this will soon be documented in the new Lifehouse (band) conspiracy theories) article (or not). SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 13:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There's an effort underway to deal with the conflicting sources underway on Talk:Lifehouse (band) and whether or not to note the mentions of Casey in the article. Barring any more appearances by the Ministry of Truth, we should be fine now. (We'll deal with SheffieldSteel#Lifehouse_coverup_controversy later.) Thanks all. - SummerPhD (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Shipvalid/User:Testsgreat

Resolved

 – Wikipedia is safe once again. --64.85.222.144 (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

User has been blocked for page move vandalism; I had noticed a similar pattern of edits with a few accounts and was already thinking of mentioning it here. The other accounts are User:Testsgreat (who is also blocked now), User:Eukaryotic, User:Grantmister555 and possibly User:Onlyboat. —Snigbrook 01:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Everybody's blocked now [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. --64.85.222.144 (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

How to use photo from Corbis?

is it possiable to use photo from corbis or not?Wiikkiiwriter (talk) 15:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This is not a matter for ANI. You want WP:Media copyright questions. Algebraist 15:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Coolsprings

Resolved

 – blocked

I need other admins to look at this user. S/he has been basically trolling for a while, making bizarre page moves like moving Dallas to Dallston, and some other non-consensus moves like Atlantic City, New Jersey to Atlantic City generating disruption on the talk page. S/he also moved his/her user talk page into mainspace, where it was deleted by me and now s/he's just trying to provoke me at my talk page. His/her user page seems to indicate that the account is a group account which is usually per se blockable, especially given the drama fomented by this user, but I leave it to an "uninvolved" admin to determine what to do. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Coolsprings also blanked this thread after you posted it. I blocked Coolsprings for 24 hours. I suspect a longer block is in order, but I'll give them a chance to show more responsible behavior. Hiberniantears (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:15, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

User creating MANY one line pages

I have come across this user [38] who has been creating a ton of pages like Ancorichnus. The entire content of the page is "Ancorichnus is an ichnogenus." I then tagged one such article for CSD here [39] and the author removed the tag without providing an explanation here [40]. I don't see how that 4 word article meets the qualifications for the wiki, but other editors and administrators are encouraged to comment on the situation. Do we normally accept such articles for the site? DougsTech (talk) 05:56, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

These articles — stubs — are acceptable. I've reverted your invalid use of rollback in which you removed content that was added by the author of the article. Cunard (talk) 06:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I notified the user of this thread. We need all of the taxonomy articles we can get (IMO). These articles are marked as stubs and the creator has a history of working in that area, so it is reasonable to believe the articles would be expanded. Granted, the stubs are cryptic and I would suggest the creator should provide a tad more content before moving forward, but otherwise they are not detrimental. Seems like there is an essay or something about giving a stub time to expand before tagging for CSD. --64.85.220.189 (talk) 16:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Users who feel those stubs are too short may assist in expanding them. The edit tab is your friend. =D Thanks to IP Address Man for the warning about this thread. I do love it ever so much when users who have a problem with my editing run off to tattle to the admins instead of discussing it sensibly. As for now I have to go. I've run out of time I meant to use editing because I had to come over here. Abyssal (talk) 17:00, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Abyssal's idol during his youth was the actor, Stubby Kaye. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:04, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your attempts to lighten things up, but the non-sequiturs do not always help as much as one would have hoped. --64.85.220.189 (talk) 17:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, how about this approach then: "LEAVE THEM BE. There's no rule that says an article has to be fully developed upon creation." Do you like that better? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes. But, ideally, the best way in this particular case would be to develop a better "template" for the stubs based on other genus articles. That would have probably avoided any type of CSD tags in the first place. Also, the OP could have AGF a bit more and tried to discuss on the creator's talk page instead of templating a regular. But that may just be a deletionist/inclusionist difference of opinion. --64.85.220.189 (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, yes, a four word taxo stub with one wikilink and no references is not CSDable, and can easily be fleshed out later. However, the onus really should be on the page creator to give it at least the bare details that give it actual information value; if nothing else its lazy editing. Abyssal is a good and prolific stub creator, and he does return to flesh out his stubs, so I am not really concerned, but I still think we should take pains not to dilute our standards for stubs too far. It really, really doesn't take much to make even a brand new stub not look like crap, and {{sofixit}} is not an excuse for creating and then abandoning a barely tolerable article (regardless of the size). Bullzeye ^contribs 23:24, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

And, once again, an article creator removed a CSD tag with no one blinking an eye. This is getting ridiculous. Under no circumstances should the creator of an article remove a CSD tag from that article. Ever. —Kww(talk) 04:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

False! Abyssal removed the speedy, then was templated with {{uw-speedy1}}, and then a different user (User talk:Cunard) removed the speedy. That is absolutely the right thing that happened. Therefore, Abyssal did not get away with the error "with no one blinking an eye". He broke the rules, DougsTech called him on it (by templating him), and then a third party removed the speedy. That is how it should be. First, Abyssal should not have removed the speedy, but second, it should have been declined anyway. I'll drop Abyssal a note requesting a) better stubs, and b) no more de-tagging. And to DougsTech, please slow down a bit and check things out more carefully before tagging, but otherwise keep up the hard work! --64.85.216.254 (talk) 16:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Creating the articles is not a problem. Than none of them are sourced, despite his being warning that unsourced articles are a bad idea is the crux of the problem. Why are no sources being added. The articles are little more than "XXX used to be." Without any sources, we cannot evaluate whether these are legitimate or just made up. We can assume good faith for now that they are legit, but why should we put up with mass quantities of sourceless stubs. If they were sourced, I'd commend this user, but as it is now, we cannot tell the difference between good stubs and out-and-out hoaxes. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And, once again an article creator removed a CSD tag with no one blinking an eye...Under no circumstances should the creator of an article remove a CSD tag from that article. Rules are descriptive. If no one is bothered when a rule is broken, that would suggests that it's not a problem. See WP:IAR and WP:POLICY. Guettarda (talk) 18:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Redsred

Resolved

 – tpage access has been disabled. //roux   21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Resolved

Redsred has retired. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 15:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC) I'm striking this because of the message below.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The timezone header was not intended as vandalism. Just as a joke. Apologies for any confusion. --Redsred (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

So THAT's where that came from. I just assumed everyone on the system was in the UTC time zone anyway. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:24, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether this user was constructive or not, but this message has me worried.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I turned him in to WP:AIV. We'll see what they decide to do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

He was actually indef'd yesterday, by Carlos just before he posted the "resolved". Watch for IP socks? Recommend leaving user page as is for now, but if he makes further trouble (as opposed to making a valid unblock request), he should be disabled from editing the page. [41] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 09:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Per the recent history, could someone pls reblock and disallow tpage editing? //roux   10:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• I was just about to ask for that as well.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:55, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Jon and Kate

Are you happy now? You've gotten your way after butting in where you weren't wanted or needed, after trying your hand at editing after only a few weeks. I joined Wikipedia and wait a full year before trying my hand at editing.

All that time and effort I put in has gone to waste, no thanks to you. Tell me, where you bored or trying to cause trouble for me and my show? I watch the Gosselins faithfully every week, I look up episodes on TLC, I e-mailed Discovery to find out when the current season ends and the new season starts. Then you come in and decide it's not to your liking and think because it needs fine tuning when it does not.

I am not givng up, I will find a way to put the show's information back the way it was, long before you came along, especially since you're only one who had a problem with the episodes. Other users have come in and tried to delete/add/move episodes and I always went behind them and fixed it. If I could I'd report you but since I can't all I can say is you "vandalized" a great show that I took care of!!!!!

Happy now? 70.24.233.37 (talk) 20:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The above was posted to my talk page. This user has a rotating IP address, so it changes every day or couple of days. It appears he or she "owns" this set of articles page. I would say that the likelyhood of an edit war on the show article and show episode list is high when s/he "returns" to editting the articles. 76.66.201.179 (talk) 06:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Jon & Kate Plus 8 and List of Jon & Kate Plus 8 episodes has been semi-protected to deal with this. Saying that they emailed Discovery and so they believe they know the truth aren't productive. Apologies since that also prevents you from editing, but we're limited technologically. Are there any other articles we should be watching? I do wonder what would make somebody so obsessed with how an online encyclopedia lists the order of episodes for a television show. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this thread to my attention Ricky81682. I'm the admin who semi-protected the pages yesterday, since the 70.24.233.37 IP editor does not seem to be using a registered account. 76.66.201.179, bear in mind that you can edit the article if you log in. In the mean time, I have tried to explain to the troublesome IP how to deal with a content dispute in this thread on my talk page and as you can see, they appear to be more interested in causing problems, rather than finding consensus. Twice I've explained the dispute resolution avenue, and twice I have explained that email is not a viable source... to no avail thus far. Is the 70.24.233.37 IP operating in a range that we could block? Hiberniantears (talk) 12:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Since Wikipedians seem to love linking to policies, I believe WP:TRUTH and WP:OWN touch on the subject. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 12:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well as I've said either e-mail Discover OR show me proof, which no one has, that Season 4 has ended. As for "owning" it I don't, I've just been doing all the edits for the episodes for the past year and User:76.66.201.179 swooped in from nowhere and expected me not to notice they changes they've been making? After only being on this site for a month and trying to change stuff on Jon & Kate Plus 8, for a month. 70.24.233.37 (talk) 19:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Emailing Discover is pointless, as emails are not reliable sources, nor are they verifiable. //roux   22:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

He also tried to annoy me too, while i don't really care, i'd like to mention that this becoming a real problem. And also i you look at his contribs then you'll notice that he's the one who only been editing for less than a month. I smell socks. A new user wouldn't know how to edit so well or be so obsessed with a page, maybe he is a sock, maybe we're missing something. The Cool Kat (talk) 19:52, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I say blocks of 24 or 48 hour periods if they continue. Soft-block, of course. Perhaps a week if it's really disruptive but at some point, either they'll create a log-in or just keep on playing with rotating IP addresses. If it's rotating fun, it may become disruptive enough to make a request to the ISP. The IP annoying is more of a concern because it's possible for that to rotate and some innocent user shouldn't be subject to that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Compromised account

Resolved

 – Well handled all around, user is unblocked again. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

My username is User:Landon1980 and I received an e-mail from another e-mail account I had never heard of and they said they had hijacked my account and that I could no longer log in. I tried to log in and my password has apparently been changed. Could an admin please block my account so whoever this person is can no longer access my account. The only user rights my account has is rollback, so I suppose no major damage could be done, but still. 67.48.127.231 (talk) 06:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Checkuser confirms the IP is Landon, blocking account, feel free to email unblock-en-llists.wikimedia.org for more assistance. MBisanz ^talk 07:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed, I ran this at MB's request. ++Lar: t/c 07:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

So, what the hell am I supposed to do now that my account is compromised? I don't get this, they hijack my account and don't even make any edits? I had an eight digit password all numbers. Do I make another, or can something be done to un-compromise my account? 67.48.127.231 (talk) 07:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I just logged out and reset your password, but this will only work if you had an email address registered to the account and the person who hijacked it did not change the email registered to it. MBisanz ^talk 07:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have a registered e-mail. I'll check it out, thanks. 67.48.127.231 (talk) 07:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It worked. Is it safe to unblock my account now? I'm thinking if they compromised it once they can do it again. Would it be safer if I created a new one and started fresh? 67.48.127.231 (talk) 08:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Change your password, then log in to your account, request a checkuser to confirm it is this IP that owns it, and then you can be unblocked. Pick a harder to guess password. MBisanz ^talk 08:07, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Might want to change your password to something super tough....with numbers and letters. - NeutralHomer • Talk • March 20, 2009 @ 08:08

I don't suppose you know any technically gifted pranksters? The easiest way to hack an account is actually with physical access to your computer. That's not to say that one can't do it by brute force attack on the password, but that isn't easy. Dragons flight (talk) 09:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course, with today's computing power, your basic Dell could crack an 8 digit, numbers-only password in mere minutes. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 09:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And eight numbers sounds to me suspiciously close to "date of birth", which, coupled with your username, would mean that only some 732 (366 * 2) possible passwords had to be tried, even for someone who doesn't know you at all. Fram (talk) 09:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Does the login page allow multiple, repeated attempts? (I don't know, I always manage to get my password right on at least the second or third attempt...!) Because limiting further attempts would limit the effectiveness of a brute-force attack - something like "allow three attempts, then prevent further attempts for five minutes, then allow a further three attempts, etc". (I suppose this is really a question for WP:VPT, but I'm just curious). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 09:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikimedia throws up a captcha after repeated failed login attempts, which makes submitting candidate passwords a substantially harder problem. Dragons flight (talk) 09:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. It would be trivial for an attacker to make their program use open proxies to get around the captcha. --Chris 10:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I just received an email sent from Landon1980 (gee, I hope 1980 isn't their birth year ) which asked for confirmation that "it is indeed me so I can be unblocked". I ran a CU and I find that the IP that has been posting here reporting the issue (and which it was confirmed by me last nite is the same IP that this account has been using for some time (one of a small set)) is still being used by Landon1980.

Further I confirm as well that the mail Landon1980 sent me was sent via that IP. This sort of thing is always open to misinterpretation, and can waste arbitrary amounts of time, but in my considered opinion either there never was a compromise at all, or the person that was using the account for some time is successfully back in control of it again. In either case I think it probably is safe to unblock the account. I would admonish the user to choose a strong password (the login screen gives handy links to information on strong passwords, please read them) and to make sure they are not vulnerable to social engineering... one should not believe every mail one gets purporting to claim they have compromised one, for instance. I hope that helps. If there are specific further questions please advise. ++Lar: t/c 14:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Your findings are good enough for me. Landon has been unblocked at his request. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 20:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing and harassment

User:Skipsievert has, for months engaged in disruptive editing at the Sustainability article where a number of editors are working, since November, on upgrading the article to FA status.

In response to a complaint to User:Jehochman in December, I documented some instances of Skipsievert’s disruptive editing here. Jehochmans proposed findings were accepted by Skipsievert and relative peace descended on the article with only occasional disruptions, such as this, or this. We made considerable progress with editing until early March.

Accusations of bias

March 4 - Skipsievert begins to argue that we were relying overly on the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA), a major compendium of research carried out under the auspices of the UN. He raises this on the article talk page and User:Granitethighs (a subject matter expert in the field), attempts to explain the value of the report.

Skipsievert then begins removing references from the article: [42], [43], [44], etc. (removing a total of 12 references). He then continued for the next week to tendentiously argue his point against the consensus of five other editors.

March 11-13 - User:Travelplanner refers the matter to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard [45]

Granitethighs posts the verdict of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (MA is a reliable source) [46]

Skipsievert continues to argue the point with one of the editors from the Reliable Source Noticeboard ad infinitum [47]

Attempted outing and harassment

March 16-18 - An attempted outing of an editor [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53]

Accusations of bias towards the UN on the part of article editors Nick Carson and Sunray [54]

Harassment continues [55], [56]

March 20: In response to complaint by Skipsievert on Conflict of Interest Noticeboard, User:EdJohnston responds: “not clearly a COI problem” [57]

Continued harassment by Skipsievert [58] has all but stopped forward progress on editing the article. Clearly we are in need of assistance. Sunray (talk) 10:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've made a suggestion on the talk page William M. Connolley (talk) 12:31, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The first link is to someone asking if there is a conflict of interest. The third one is that person removing a reference, saying you can not link to something you've written yourself. Those are the rules, the editor clearly explaining it. Didn't bother looking through the rest. Dream Focus 12:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

His suggestion was actually a declaration of a temporary 1RR, which sounds like a good idea. Meanwhile, can you tell us which specific links you're referring to as the "first" and the "third", because there are links all over the place here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:48, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've struckthrough the background info, above. 1RR will help with the disruption on the article page. Would you be able to provide direction on the harassment and outing on talk page(s)? Sunray (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on anything else, the target of the "outing" actually outed himself almost a year ago [59] Someguy1221 (talk) 18:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I hate to enter into this but no one informed me it was going on, and I just noticed it. Without being superficially polite may I say that I am being unfairly presented here by Sunray? I am interested in one thing and one thing only in the article, neutral presentation. Here is a link that I hope does not cause more confusion... and I hope I handled this the way I should have according to guidelines http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sustainable_gardens,_landscapes_and_sites#Original_research_and_unverified_claims

That was my intent, and also to open up more of a discussion about neutrality on the Sustainability article and also here Sustainable gardens, landscapes and sites I never outed anyone and would not harass a fellow editor, at least not knowingly. I do not think my behavior was boorish either. I tried to bring up what I considered to be real issues. Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 19:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Some hounding and other uncivil behavior

Resolved

 – Ks6 is on a short break Bali ultimate (talk) 22:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi; I wanted to reference [[60]] this discussion for review by an administrator, on behavior toward me by two users that may amount to WP:Hounding, and other behavior contrary to Wikipedian standards. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Kage (ks6) who somehow just got away with using two socks, one of them to edit war [61], is fresh off a short edit warring block [62] and is being looked at for edit warring again [63] against five other editors (3 of them admins, not that that should mean anything, but he's consistently casting around for an admin who will "back" him), is complaining about hounding? No. His edits are being watched because he does not value consensus and he refuses to acknowledge that unsigned, anonymous blog posts (with which he may have a COI) are not reliable sources. A number of editors are watching him now for this reason. If his editing behavior improves, this scrutiny will eventually diminish (and at the moment is only making the encyclopedia better). (and he has once again has forum shopped without notifying me).Bali ultimate (talk) 15:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) It isn't necessarily hounding for editors to follow up on the contributions of an editor who's been disruptive, which seems to be the case judging by other threads on this page and on your Talk page. It is difficult to give a more specific answer without seeing specific diffs here, but it might be best for you to let this drop and get back to productive editing. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 15:06, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Lets' make a small timeline: Ks64q2 posts at the sockpuppet page (which I created) at 14:04 that "He and another user are under a WP:ANI for that behavior right now, I believe"[64], then posts this actual section at 14:29[65], and then goes on only two minutes later to change his earlier statement to "He and another user are under a WP:ANI for that behavior right now- both have shown up in the thread below".[66]. No mention of the fact that in a discussion of his sockpuppetry, he is not only trying to poison the well by pointing fingers at a few other editors, but that the accusations made elsewhere against these editors are just posted by himself. As I said on his user talk page,[67] he may consider himself very lucky that the editor who closed the sockpuppetry investigation was accepting his explanations and promises at face value, without taking the previous and current behaviour into account. Fram (talk) 15:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Tiramisoo redux

We've blocked the socks of Tiramisoo (talk · contribs) but he is now removing CsD templates with the edit summary "ad hominem deletion request" and doing at least one redirect on an article up for AfD which of course removed the template [68] - I see someone's also complained on this editor's talk page for removing a category. His category work seems a bit all over the place as well, with some questionable additions. dougweller (talk) 15:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I've had enough of him and his "whatever I think I can do" style. Indefinite block. Frankly, I think I should have blocked him after the craziness of adding celebrities into Category:People with OCD without discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:49, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Although I will give him credit to telling User:Arthur Rubin here. First user talk page edited other than his own. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I imposed the first block of the user. I'd agree with the indefinite block at this point. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Skookum1, and intentionally inserting POV

This edit, along with other recent edits by User:Skookum1, demonstrate a willing and admitted insertion of POV into an article to effectively "prove a point". This is unacceptable on Wikipedia, and doubly so in a biographical article like Gordon Campbell (Canadian politician).

I'm not here to bicker or bitch, I'm here to research, clean up, and edit. So I reverted this edit. This user seems to have a heavy involvement with this article and I fear for its factuality at this point. However, as already noted, I'm not here to bicker. If someone desperately wants to discuss Wikipedia policy, this seems like a good opportunity. 70.91.178.185 (talk) 23:04, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

How very nice someone with a Minnesota IP address has taken an interest in a Canadian political bio and is concerned about the "factuality" of it so much so that rather than deal with the POV issues in that article, he chooses to "go after" an editor who posted an edit he didn't like. Yes, it had a POV tone - actually somewhat sarcastic - but the rationale was to point up how POV the sentence and section it was appended to really are. BC politics is a veritable cornucopia of half-told truths, no small amount of shutting out dissenting opinion, and not just in BC but everywhere in Wikipedia political leader articles are regularly monitored and edited by professional media consultants. I'm not saying Minnesota-IP is one of these, I'm saying that the article is heavily "doped" by pro-Campbell mediafiers and that most of its sections read like promotional material (not surprising since there is an election campaign this spring, and the Premier is up to his neck in alligators, or lawyers rather, and just at the moment also trying to pitch a controversial policy in an allegedly pro-native claims settlement, and it just happens that the section I made that edit to concerns that very issue. The section, however, only presents the Premier's presskit, not any of the criticisms of that agenda by the opposition party/ies, by the First Nations groups themselves, not even by those the section/sentence claims negotiations have resumed with. What I'm getting at is that the article is POV and needs major attention; I've held back from major edits to it expressly because I don't like Campbell one bit and think his government has been a disaster and deserves every alligator snapping at its corrupt heels; so I don't edit the article. What I do do is take out the superfluous bunk that Campbell's media people have scattered through Wikipedia on unrelated articles, about him handing over so much dough here and snipping such-and-so a ribbon here, and a whole section on how we had a big party on the Legislature lawn for all the happy taxpayers etc etc. The page in question is "owned", but not by me....if taking a bite at the flatulent rhetoric that it reeks of is something to be admonished by the adminship for; I suggest you read my responses on the talkpage in question; the issue is not going after my rejoinder which Minnesota-IP saw fir to "correct", but why Minnesota-IP hasn't taken issue with the heavy p.r.-brochure tone of the whole article. For teh record, a number of us regular BC editors stay away from political articles expressly because of the noxiousness of the province's politics and the insidiousness of the propagandists working for any side in its complex political equations. it's not me that the adminship should be concerned about, but rather the concerted efforts to use Wikipedia as a political p.r. tool. Perhaps if Minnesota-IP were a BCer and familiar with more of the province's politics and political history he'd be able to make more "corrections" of the article's dominant POV/p.r. tone. My adding to "negotiations have resume" with "but have gotten nowhere" is scarcely a reason for a complaint of my POV-ness, or suggesting that the article's "factuality" will suffer by my participation in it. Exactly how much of BC's "factuality" can Minnesota-IP even be aware of; I see little evidence in their user contribution of any other political article, or any other article to do with BC. Researching what, exactly? If it's land claims policy, he's welcome to rewrite and augment the section on it; instead he complains about me, apparently because I'm critical of the article's subject and his politics. I, for one, can guarantee you I'm not part of any political machine; I'm interested in making sure all facts are presented, not just the ones favourable to the politician whose bio it is.....Skookum1 (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Getting an experienced editor blocked, apparently the intent of Minnesota-IP's complaint here, because of my interest in political neutrality and genuine factuality - "completeness of information" - is a nice manoeuvre, seen it before, and clearly someone familiar with how Wikipedia works or "can be worked", as one p.r.-training advisory/course puts it. Shoot the messenger, it's an old game. WP:AGF should apply to me in this case, and indeed until I was personally attacked for this one little post, I did have it )AGF) with Minnesota-IP originally; but given the extremity of his complaints, including this, for a not-untrue counter-view to the existing POV tone of the section is.....a tad on the "cut his throat to shut him up" side; I've also been quite POV on the talkpages for articles like 2008 Canadian parliamentary crisis and Stephen Harper; and have recused myself from them simply because of the ongoing "washing" campaign from supporters, official or otherwise, of politicians of all stripes. Booting me off or blocking me will only serve teh POV interests of those who don't like people who don't let them get away with their intended cooptation of Wikipedia as a way to control information and as a p.r. tool. The Campbell article, for the most part, is political spam, other than some information that's cited and remains as fact which no doubt his handlers don't like, nor Liberal campaign strategists. That's what's important, not my few words that touched off this oh-so-dire complaint about my writing a rejoinder to what was clearly half-information. As I told Minnesota-IP, if he were half as interested in "researching and cleaning up" the article, including adding much-needed new copy on the Aboriginal Reconciliation policy just fielded this last few days, or the increasingly complex scandal "under the Premier's watch" to do with the BC Legislature Raids, fine and dandy. But no, his priority is having me shut down. You figure it out, it's not hard who's the POV-meister here.....WP:Duck. I'm trying to prevent Wikipedia from being a WP:Soapbox and WP:Spam for political machines, if that's punishable by admin censure then so be it; but I don't think I"m as important as the larger issue here - the cooptation of political articles by political machines.....what Minnesota-IP could better spend his time doing is researching more about Campbell's policies and the criticisms of it currently largely missing from the article, and that section in particular. For the record, while some bands and tribal councils have resumed negotiations, most have not, and many never entered into them, and outside band councils there remains wide mistrust of the provincial govenrment's motives and alos of their own band government's motives. All that's missing from the section in question; perhaps Minneota-IP could spend some time researching that and adding to the article if he's so interested; instead of bitching about me....Skookum1 (talk) 00:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Not so much a present AN/I issue as not knowing who to ask

I've noticed what could end up being an issue, and when I looked further into it, noticed some possible abnormalities in the process that resulted in a change to the MOS. I've been trying to discuss it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography, but I feel like my larger questions are being evaded and finally, the editor suggested I should talk about it at the Village Pump, where he had posted a notice about a template change, although the post has now been archived, or at MOSNUM, except that is where a consensus (of four persons) decided on something that was ultimately, and possibly deceptively, slipped into the MOS. I don't know that this is currently an AN/I issue, but I feel like others need to know about what has gone on, and comment on it. One of the responses the editor did make was essentially, "So what if the MOS is changed? You can choose not to follow it", which seems to be a bit naive regarding process around here. The editor responding has only been registered here since November, and doesn't seem to have worked much on articles outside of his template change editing, so I am certainly willing to assume good faith regarding his knowledge of proper process, but when I really dug deeper into what has occurred, what to me is a major change has had no community approval although the change would effect just a little less than 25% of all Wikipedia articles. I'd appreciate some feedback about where to raise these issues, either here or on my talk page, if these events seem as major to others as it does to me, and how to proceed. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 03:36, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Can you give us a hint of what this is about specifically? Like what the change is? TIA Tom 03:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is a good starting point: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography#Template swap for Neuroscientist biography articles .28no visual change.29. –xeno (talk) 03:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Tom 04:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

That's where I've been trying to get the answers, although I'm not getting them. It was a change to the MOS birth and death date template that is in the MOS to be used. It's basically been slipped in without discussion by anyone but four persons and is slowly being inserted into articles. I can't find where consensus was obtained definitely for this change and I honestly feel that the way it is being presented is a bit deceptive. The posting regarding it has been called a proposal, but I don't see how something is a proposal when the MOS has already been changed and the proposal states that the MOS recommends it. It's basically a decision that (maybe) was made by four persons. This is a tremendous change to what we use in all those article. I think what's happened is an issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Just to add more commentary, when I started looking for actual consensus to change the template, I don't find any consensus. I find discussion, mostly taking the form of proposing a change to a "family of templates", discussion taking the form of instruction to those that questioned it, and no clear consensus in any way. The discussion I found was here, which doesn't to me seem to any clear definitive consensus, or even a conclusion for discussion. The next discussion was here, requesting the MOS change, based on "concensus opinion from the prior discussion almost universally supported the less complicated syntax of the new templates" (referencing the discussion on the previous link. It was posted at 3:55 pm, 11 March 2009 my time, and his conclusion that it be done was posted at 12:41 am, 12 March 2009. This is less than 9 hours, citing a consensus that I can't clearly determine. Is this how things are done here? I sincerely feel like this has been surreptiously done and yes, I have a major issue with it. The other issue is that he has created a marriage template [69] with no outside discussion, which itself may not be an issue, and has to now inserted it into over 100 articles [70]. I'm not sure about this template, and fundamentally don't oppose it, but this isn't how I expect that things occur here. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) These changes from {{birth date}} to {{birth-date}}, etc., didn't receive community input and will massively delink dates in infoboxes in a non-reversible way. It is in direct violation of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Temporary_injunction prohibiting any such date linking or delinking until the case is resolved. 62.147.38.252 (talk) 09:02, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that comment or its validity and can't comment on it. However I can add that the editor has also gone ahead and made changes to many infobox person templates doc pages inserting this new template into those infoboxes [71] (see edits of March 14) citing This change has concensus, please refer to Manual of Style birth and death date template guidance and talk page discussions. I will note that the consensus he refers to is basically the discussion between 5 persons on the MOSNUM talk page and to me, it is not clear it was a consensus to institute WP-wide changes. Even the "consensus" was described as four individuals who thought the templates had merit. Maybe this is an issue for here, but in any case, if it is not, please direct me to where this issue should be brought up. These changes effect over 600,000 articles - over 22% of all Wikipedia articles and the wider community has not had one iota of input into this change. Wildhartlivie (talk) 12:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the wider issue, these new templates still seem to link dates. –xeno (talk) 14:10, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it requires a specific parameter with a linked date to be inserted in order for the dates to be linked in the infobox. Used as they exist, there is no date linking from the templates. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:26, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, but as long as it doesn't replaced a date-linked template with a non-date-linked template it wouldn't fall under the arbcom injunction. To answer your original query, perhaps initiating an RFC would be the best way to get wider attention to this issue. –xeno (talk) 14:41, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Where would you suggest one be started that would get the widest notice? Obviously doing it at MOSNUM wouldn't get a lot off attention since it all started with a "consensus" there that wasn't a very clear consensus determination? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

{{birth date}} and {{death date}} etc (the "old style" templates) don't create linked dates anyway. – ukexpat (talk) 17:34, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably the WP Bio talk page. –xeno (talk) 18:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) It is suggested that there was some subversion of the MOSNUM process. Then why not bring this up at MOSNUM? We went through an extensive discussion last month regarding the merits of plain text dates (5 May 1955) versus numeric (1955|5|5) syntax templates, and there was only one voice of opposition, and the opposition was to deprecating the old template. No one asserted that the arcane syntax of the old templates was more desirable. All others favored the templates upon which this family of date templates is based. Users are free to use the old templates, and the old templates were not deprecated, so all we are talking about here is where contributors are pointed to for the best choice on birth and death date template use.

That's it. So what is all this hooplah about? Let's get some perspective here. If there are some global issues larger than MOSNUM, then why not comment on the Village pump thread concerning these templates? None of the folks posting here have posted either at MOSNUM or Village pump. I am not really sure what is expected from administrators.

Finally, to 62.147.38.252, this has nothing to do with linking/delinking. As you can see in this edit[72], there is no change to the old article. If the link is there, folks can leave the link just as it was. If there was no link, folks can leave it without a date link. It's the editor's decision. The old template does not allow this flexibility. As for my edits, I leave the articles as they were. If they had a link, I leave it. If they didn't I don't add one. I am completely neutral about it. I can see both POVs and really don't care which way that issue goes. -J JMesserly (talk) 19:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I brought this here to find out where the real discussion needs to be broached. But actually, after having given this much thought, I do believe this change violates the arbcom injunction. As you have said, if date delinking is overturned, then all that needs occur to the first birth/death templates is a change to the template itself. No one has to go back through and check to see if a user opted to add the parameter that links dates on your template. De facto, if a user does not add the linking parameter to the template when adding it, delinking is automatic and there is no way to quickly and efficiently correct this should the arbcom case overturn delinking. That you've added the templates to 2500+ articles and changed the MOS in turn extends that to what should be occurring according to MOS and the infobox per project, which is indeed widespread. Effectively, it violates the injunction and I am beginning to think that the arbcom case may be where this needs to be discussed. I've seen you say that no one objected or questioned this, but that's not true, the more I look, the more I find questions by editors. Instead of really answering those questions, we keep getting thrown a lot of technical jargon that at first read, even to those of us who have extensive education, seems far too complicated to know how to address.

You keep wanting to take this issue to the Village Pump, but that is not the place for a long and extended discussion or to work out extensive issues and as you note, your post didn't get much response. There is a reason for that - it isn't something that people who read and post to that page are accustomed to debating. Also, your posting has been archived for a few days now, so it is no longer there. MOSNUM is not the place to discuss it, as you can see, nobody was aware this change was occurring except for what basically was 5 people. That's not community. The discussion was actually about the merits of the start and end date templates. At no time that I can find was there ever a discussion about implementing this on a wide basis or to extend the discussion specifically to birth and death date templates. And there was never specific consensus to request a change to the MOS that I can find.

I believe the MOS change was done surreptiously, citing a consensus that is not clear to anyone of whom I have asked opinion and there certainly was never a consensus to go ahead and request a change to the MOS or by extension, the infoboxes for individual projects. Projects have never been approached about this aspect of your template. Nobody knows. You have already gone through and changed far too many infobox template doc pages which changes the recommended infobox formatting for a myriad of individual projects. The change essentially mandates delinking because it can't be undone if the parameter is missing. Meanwhile, this is a birth and death date issue. There has never been a need for time zone distinctions, the adding of hours or seconds anywhere I have ever seen in regard to the date of birth or death in a biography article. It is meaningless and unnecessary in that sense. All in all, it really does appear that this effectively violates the arbcom injunction since it has already been put into effect, although that was done on maybe the agreement of 4 out the 5 individual editors in the MOSNUM discussion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:29, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

So if you don't want to respond to my notes at MOSNUM or Village pump, what is wrong with the suggestion of doing an RFC? I'd be happy to participate in that with you. Really, I do not have any nefarious intent. I am trying to see that wikitext is as simple as possible for everyone to use.

Comparison of syntax between old and new

	wikitext	article
Old	{{Death date and age|2008|1|11|1934|5|2|df=y}}	11 January 2008(2008-01-11) (aged 73)
New	{{Death-date and age | 11 January 2008 | 2 May 1934 }}	11 January 2008 (2008-01-12) (aged 73)

One of these two has needlessly complex syntax. I am confident the community will make a good decision. -J JMesserly (talk) 05:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Because you simply do not answer direct questions, concerns or complaints. In the "extensive discussion", which was later presented as a consensus, which was never called that, you were asked directly "REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION: Is this a discussion/proposal to replace our currently 'layman' dates with "computer nerd" dates throughout WP?" [73] you never answered the question. You talked around it. I would please like you to show me, as I have asked you repeatedly, where the final consensus is. It isn't there, anywhere. So four people didn't complain about your template, they also did not endorse changing the MOS and instituting changes to the infoboxes. My perspective is that simply an RfC will also be talked around and have jargon thrown in. And you completely ignored my concern above that this is effectively a de facto delinking issue that has been put into the MOS. As I said, you yourself said that if the arbcom decision is for linking, it's a simple matter to fix the older templates. Without going through each use of the new one individually to ensure the linking parameter is used, re-linking is effectively not possible. That's why I have approached an arbcom member about this. I don't think this is simply an issue of taking it to an RfC after thinking about the ramifications of what has gone on. I hate to be a person who throws around the name, but maybe I should ask Jimbo how this should be handled. It is clearly beyond here, and I'm not convinced you haven't done an end-run around proper process. Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:01, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Come now. On a daily basis contributors read about dozens of issues and don't comment if people have already commented as they would have. Simply because only 6 people commented doesn't mean that the substantial number of people monitoring MOSNUM due to the link / delink issue did not agree to what was being said. You feel that the discussion was too complicated. Well, it doesn't get any more complicated than the side by side comparison above. In fact, it is you that is arguing in favor of a needlessly complex template. So you decline to discuss in MOSNUM, Village Pump or an RFC. Note that your argument is generic- everyone thinks their issue is earth shattering- so important that they can claim that WP process is inherently broken, can be gamed by nefarious individuals such as myself and folks need to escalate all their disputes to Arbcom. Get some perspective. This issue is not earth shattering. It is only about which date template is recommended in the MOS guidelines. That is all. You can use your old template all you want. It is you that in practice are making an end run around open discussion and a consensus based process. Ok fine. Whatever. I want to assure you I do not have nefarious intent, and I am sure this will all come to a mutually agreeable resolution. -J JMesserly (talk) 17:16, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop prefacing your comments with a patronizing "Come now" and "Get some perspective". You cannot assume someone not commenting is endorsement for anything or that dozens of readers followed your discussion which did not have clear consensus, much less endorsement for what has been changed. Your stating that something, which scores have people have used with no problem, is too complex does not make it so. I also note you have opened a discussion at MOSNUM again, which you have failed to mention here, only saying "take it there." Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

(undent) I invited you to take it up at MOSNUM, you declined. Since you made some serious allegations that I had misrepresented consensus opinion, in fairness to your POV, I wanted make sure there was no misunderstanding at MOSNUM about the guidance. -J JMesserly (talk) 05:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

non-consensus move of Julian the Apostate

User:Bloodofox recently moved Julian the Apostate to Julian (Roman Emperor), and I've just moved it back. There have been many, many WP:RM requests to move this page, and none has ever achieved success in moving the page. Bloodofox's move clearly lacks consensus, so I've reversed it. I wonder if an uninvolved administrator might consider move-protecting the page, and if an uninvolved user might advise User:Bloodofox that such moves are a bad idea. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:34, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I notified him of the discussion. However the talk page seems to be leaning towards Julian of some type so I don't see how Julian (Roman Emperor) is unreasonable. If he had moved it to Flavius Claudius Julianus in spite of the lack of consensus, then that would be a different concern. Akhilleus, perhaps an RM on Julian versus the current name (or all three, I don't care)? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:10, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the talk page isn't really leaning towards that. A request to move to Julian was made last July, and many of the same people who participated in the July discussion participated in the most recent one. Bloodofox's move was already proposed and got no consensus, and it's not winning consensus right now, either. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'd argue that there is a pretty solid argument for going with something like Julian (Roman emperor) rather than the very controversial current name. I've never formally proposed the merge; I actually just mentioned it in a recent post, to which there was no response. Per WP:BOLD, I figured I'd just go ahead. Why this is on the noticeboard here I have no idea. This is all pretty routine. However, it can't be all bad if it's drawing more attention to the ongoing discussion at the article in question. :bloodofox: (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Viktor van Niekerk

Resolved

 – User has been blocked indefinitely after continuing personal attacks. Check his recent talk page history for details.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

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

I'm involved in a long-running dispute with User:Viktor van Niekerk regarding his ownership of the ten-string guitar article.

This was previously a soapbox of Viktor's, which he defended by personal attacks on anyone who tried to fix it. This went on for more than a year in fact, during which time a number of other editors just gave up. If newbies, typically they just left.

I have managed to make some progress, largely owing to a block another admin put on Viktor for incivility. However he is now back and has commenced a program of harassment in order to get his soapbox back. He is particularly aware of its high Google rating when compared to his own personal websites on the subject.

See my talk page, particularly User talk:Andrewa#General reply and User talk:Andrewa#Personal attacks, and some recent diffs from Viktor: [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] .

I fear that this will just escallate until Viktor is eventually banned. Any help greatly appreciated. Andrewa (talk) 18:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you haven't even used your admin powers since February, let alone "abused" them. (This information you dug up should be useful in solving the content dispute.) I see no personal attacks, personal vendettas, or whatever else Viktor alleges, as in this thread title: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Classical_music#Objective_Expert_musician_needed_to_resolve:_Editor_abusing_his_admin_status_in_personal_vendetta.2C_supporting_misinformation. Viktor, if you are reading this, and I presume you are: please back off on the accusations, assume good faith, have a look at our conflict of interest and no original research policies. Thank you, Antandrus (talk) 20:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Just seconding what Antandrus says. Eusebeus (talk) 21:31, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't abused them, and Viktor knows I haven't. See Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests/Archive 43#Administrator has been misusing his status to launch a personal vendetta for his first attempt, and note that it was resolved to this effect on 4 March 2009. The other diffs I give above include several subsequent repeats of the same allegations, and surely this counts as both harassment and disruption. He has also posted similar material elsewhere on the web, naming both me and Wikipedia, see for example this post to the 10 String Guitar Yahoo! group.

Viktor has been active on Wikipedia since 31 January 2007. He is intelligent and determined, and able to quote policy when it suits him, but shows no willingness to acknowledge it at any other time.

I think we need to resolve the behaviour issue before it will be possible to properly address the content issues. Viktor is bold now in his harassment because sadly, similar tactics have always worked for him in the past.

The diff you quote of my research into Viktor's credentials actually worries me a little. Viktor has now posted a 3rd level NPA warning on my user talk page, possibly in retaliation for my posting one on his, and referring to the talk page in question. I posted this material there because Viktor was quoting himself as an authority, and there seems doubt as to his actual credentials. I think it's legitimate rather than attack as he himself raised the topic of his credentials, but it's the only even borderline thing there as far as I can see.

And it is borderline, in that it's really no solution. The solution is for Viktor to stop quoting himself as an authority. But how? Andrewa (talk) 02:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment - From what's visible at Talk:Ten-string extended-range classical guitar Viktor is consistent in using "status as admin" and is not claiming Andrewa used or abused his "admin powers." A few colorful firefights notwithstanding, the admins tend to support one another and it's hard for the lay editor to tell if an admin is "abusing" his or her status when a couple of unrelated admins drop in supporting the admin's POV on an issue. --Marc Kupper|talk 10:02, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please be very careful about giving any credence to Viktor's accusations. Viktor has been active on Wikipedia for over two years, and has in that time happily quoted policy when it suited him.

The charge that I have abused my status as an admin is simply false, I have done no such thing and there is no evidence offered that I have. Yes, it's a harder one to decide either way than the more specific charge of abusing my sysop powers, and yes, that is probably the very reason that this phrasing has been used.

Similarly, the charge that I have a vendetta is simply false. My motives are twofold: To improve the articles concerned (see Viktor's version if you haven't already done so), and more important, to make Wikipedia a safer place for other editors to do so too (difs available on request for the many, many stale personal attacks that went unchallenged and often the victims just left Wikipedia, apparently unnoticed). Yes, these both do involve standing up to Viktor, and no, he does not like it. That is not my fault.

Be aware that my contact with Viktor has been purely as a result of Wikipedia, but that Viktor's consequent attacks on me have also been made in several other forums, and may continue there, see [81] [82] [83] and many more postings to that group. Another place he has been particularly venomous is Myspace, but at least some of those pages have thankfully been deleted. More recently he has linked to diffs and previous versions from Wikipedia page histories, and may be expected to do so again.

IMO Wikipedia is not the place to address what he has said in these other forums, I must decide whether to do so myself or whether to just hope that others will form the opinion that Viktor's credibility is not sufficient to undermine my own. But I do ask you to be very careful about making statements that he may be able to quote, possibly out of context. I realise this is not always possible! Andrewa (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

My dispute is about contents. If you want to take this further, please at least take note of the contents problems.Andrewa is making this personal. My disagreement with his edits are purely based on factual information. I seek to maintain academic standards (such as not linking to or including proven misinformation) while Andrewa (be it in his capacity as admin or editor?) has repeatedly included misinformation as well as defending it by making very dishonest claims (such as that "four" equals "eight" and that there is no difference between saying one or the other) [84]. I need hardly point out that this conduct is unscholarly and unethical. Here is the evidence and there is more, if you ask me for it:

According to WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2: "Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research" cannot be included in wikipedia. Andrewa has purposefully breached this policy in his continuing personal vendetta against me. Here is the proof:

After repeatedly being warned by myself against the misleading and factually inaccurate material presented on an external webpage Janet Marlow's site admin/editor Andrewa still intentionally linked to this misinformative page in the following edit:

• [85]

Andrewa has since made the statement: "there is no misinformation on the particular page to which I linked. Both sides are describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings. Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue." [86]

Not only is Andrewa mistaken in claiming that there is no misinformation on the page, or that the two sides in the argument are describing the same thing, he has clearly been abusing his status as an administrator/editor, deliberately posting false information (after being warned it is false). Let us first consider the contents of this argument:

The page to which Andrewa linked makes the following claims:

"Therefore, there are four missing sympathetic resonances on the six string guitar. If you play a C, Bb, Ab, and Gb on the first string E, there will be less sustain from these notes than the others because there are no sympathetic resonant strings. This was Maestro Yepes’ primary reason for conceiving the ten-string guitar. By adding these pitches in four extra bass strings, now provides each half step with the sympathetic resonance making a more physically completed instrument." (Janet Marlow Janet Marlow's site)

Now, in western classical music there are 12 notes in the octave: C, C#, D, D#, E, F, F#, G, G#, A, A#, B. If it is claimed (as above) that four of these 12 notes lack resonances, then logically/mathematically, this means that the other eight out of the twelve do not lack resonances. Marlow lists the four missing resonances as C, Bb (=A#), Ab (=G#), and Gb (=F#) and states that "there will be less sustain from these notes than the others". Any person who is a competent speaker of the English language will understand this as meaning that these four listed notes have more sustain (more resonance) than the other notes, the "other notes" being C#, D, D#, E, F, G, A, B. In other words, Marlow is claiming four notes don't have resonance and eight do.

However, Narciso Yepes (who invented the modern 10-string guitar) always, ubiquitously and verifiably talked about eight missing sympathetic resonances on the guitar, not four as claimed by Marlow. Yepes lists the eight missing resonances as C, C# (=Db), D# (=Eb), F, F# (=Gb), G, G# (=Ab), A# (=Bb). He lists the other four notes that do have resonance as D, A, E, and B. Yepes's quotes from numerous articles/interviews can be read here [87] with references to follow them up. There is also further information on my site www.tenstringguitar.INFO about the acoustics, the science behind Yepes's statements.

Janet Marlow (and Andrewa) are clearly, in fact, not saying the same thing as Narciso Yepes (and Viktor van Niekerk). Both sides are certainly not "describing the same eight notes being provided by the same four resonant strings". So why is Andrewa falsely claiming that they are saying the same thing and linking to misinformation after repeated detailed explanations to him (off wikipedia) about this content? If they were describing the same thing, Marlow would have to speak of eight missing resonances (C, Db, Eb, F, Gb, G, Ab, Bb) not only four (C, Bb, Ab, Gb).

Andrewa only goes on to claim that "Whether that is four "resonances" or eight is a non-issue" because to admit the truth - that it is very much an issue and a source of misinformation - would reveal his involvement in not only deliberately promoting misinformation on wikipedia (going against WP:LINKSTOAVOID article 2), but also misusing his powers as admin/editor to abuse me in his ongoing personal vendetta over an edit disagreement. This defamatory conduct includes, but is hardly limited to his claim (here under "Sources" [88] and elsewhere) that Janet Marlow "is a more authoritative figure than Viktor", despite the fact that Marlow has been proven to publish misinformation while my website www.tenstringguitar.INFO is presently the only online resource that faithfully represents Narciso Yepes's statements about his invention as well as a scholarly explanation of the science informing those statements. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 03:50, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

NO, Viktor. I see bullying and abuse here, but it's not Andrewa who is doing it. Please read the behavioral guidelines I linked above. Read them. Don't wait; don't post another WP:TLDR; don't deflect from the actual issue, the issue that brought you to this board, which is the way you are behaving: you need to assume good faith of other editors, be calm and polite and engage with them civilly: go read the guidelines I linked, and then, even more important, abide by them.

Regarding your claim, "Marlow has been proven to publish misinformation while my website www.tenstringguitar.INFO is presently the only online resource that faithfully represents Narciso Yepes's statements" -- you need to read WP:COI. You may not publish your own research here. Your website, as it is self-published, is not a reliable source; it is not independent, and it is not peer-reviewed. Please go read our policies and guidelines. Antandrus (talk) 05:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it time for a topic ban? Frankly the idea that the biggest paragraph (the historical dispute) has three things cited with one simply saying "a lot comes from here" is the biggest problem. I'm going to watch the article and if nobody can find sources for all the flowery language ("luthier noted for his innovations", "inspired by", "As was his practice, he sought advice", "concerned with the problem"), I'm dumping it. The tone is wholly appropriate and the entire Repertoire section feels like original research. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And yes I took a hatchet to the article when a scalpel was probably needed. Most of it was unsourced and the language was a mess. Find some source, even one that's not reliable as a starting point, and discuss things on the talk page before putting it in. Games of "I know the truth" from anyone isn't productive, but feel free to revert and just ignore me if you guys wish. Sometimes, getting everybody mad at an outsider works wonders for corroborative effort. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:30, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Your edits are certainly food for thought! They raise real issues and I think they're progress. Discussion on the talk page is also appreciated. Thanks! Andrewa (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

A topic ban on Viktor, if it applied to Narciso Yepes and the ten-string guitar and related articles, would effectively ban him completely. He has indicated no interest in any other topics. Andrewa (talk) 00:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've warned Viktor and have also brought up the big worries about OR and sourcing. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Please supply proof of whatever I am being accused of in relation to Andrewa. I have not seen any. On the contrary, I have ample proof of my discussions with Andrewa off wikipedia. We have been through the contents issues I've raised. Andrewa has persisted in linking to unreliable sources and defending his actions by claiming there is nothing inaccurate in his sources. I cannot assume good faith any longer. How can one assume good faith when an editor has been pointed to reliable resources (published texts by Narciso Yepes in musical journals) yet still supports online sources that are not scholarly or peer-reviewed? How can I honestly assume good faith when an editor says there is no difference between saying "four" and saying" eight"? How can I assume good faith after I've explained to this editor in quite some detail, repeatedly both on and off wikipedia, the difference between Marlow's claims of "four" resonances and Yepes's statements of "eight" resonances? How can I assume good faith when this editor on 8 March (knowing better) still claimed that there is no difference between saying four and saying eight resonances and that the sources he supports contain no misinformation? This is a very simple matter: saying four resonances (C, Bb, Ab, Gb) is most certainly not the same as saying eight resonances (C, C#, D#, F, F#, G, G#, A#). Seriously, how can anyone assume good faith when an editor claims 4=8? And that after I've gone out of my way to explain the contents to him. We have even met in person and he had the opportunity to ask me about the contents of this matter. But still Andrewa has persisted in defending factually inaccurate information and making accusations against me that are unfounded. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 04:21, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

For the last time

Viktor, this is not about content, this is about your behavior as an editor. It's about you personally attacking others, and not following our no original research policy. The issue isn't about whether you're right or wrong, but whether you are following policy, or not, and you are clearly not. Stop posting your content dispute here, it is pointless and drags away from the issue at hand.

There so far seems to be a rough consensus by uninvolved parties to topic ban you. Does anyone else support or oppose this?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 04:51, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Please supply proof of your allegations that I am attacking/harrassing Andrewa. This is not the first time Andrewa has made false allegations against me:

Here here, under Sources, Andrewa makes a false accusation against me that: "Viktors' site fails criteria 4 and 11" of the WP:LINKSTOAVOID policy. Note, site (singular) and with reference to my site www.tenstringguitar.info. In other words, Andrewa has falsely accused me of breach of article 4 "Links mainly intended to promote a website" and 11 "Links to blogs, personal web pages and most fansites".

Firstly, my website is a non-commercial scholarly resource about the instrument invented in 1963 by Narciso Yepes. Everything there can be verified from published interviews/articles in music journals, textbooks on acoustics, and published sheet music. Calling this website a promotion of itself rather than of factual information about Yepes's invention is unfounded.

Secondly, the site (singular) is not a blog, personal webpage, or fansite, nor is it a discussion group. So there also Andrewa has made a false accusation.

So have I "harrassed" him? Or is this another cry of wolf by an editor who has been failing a contents dispute and resorts to getting me banned from wikipedia so he can express his POV?

Please supply proof of harrassment. I can also supply proof of Andrewa's attacks against me.

Please also supply proof of breach of policy. I too can supply proof of Andrewa's breach of policy, for example WP:LINKSTOAVOID, by linking to to pages with known misinformation, myspace, and yahoo groups.

Please supply proof of the alleged "original research". Everything I have posted in the ten-string guitar articles on wikipedia (prior to Andrewa's considerable rewrites) could be verified by referring to Narciso Yepes's published articles and interviews in musicological journals, by referring to proven facts of physics in acoustics textbooks, and by referrign to published sheet music for the 10-string guitar.

It takes more than empty allegations (from however many editors) to ethically ban someone who is simply trying to uphold standards of scholarship and factually correct information on wikipedia. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 05:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Viktor, you can either listen to what people are telling you or keep on repeating your claims until you find yourself topic banned from the subjects. Those are your options at this point and it seems that you would rather win a few points today by repeating your same arguments than be allowed to edit on those articles. Nobody cares about the content dispute since it seems quite clear that neither side can clearly produce reliable sources justifying their beliefs; you conduct on the other hand is maddening. I would heavily support a topicban and we'll see if Viktor really cares more about neutrality and getting a good article or just getting to say what he wants. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:40, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support topicban, extremely broadly construed. Wikipedia has absolutely no place for people pushing a POV or using themselves as sources, and the sooner we come down on it, the better. //roux   05:44, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• Weak support temporary topic ban. While I want to believe this editor can calm down and make an honest attempt to present his case in a rational and concise manner, his behavior in his multiple postings to various noticeboards of the same or similar TL;DR complaints makes it extremely difficult to believe that he isn't pushing OR or a POV and isn't otherwise engaged in tendentious editing. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:28, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
• oppose of a user ban, support edit protection on the articles which amounts to a topic ban for all of the involved parties, and suggest WP:MENTOR, involuntary if needed. From what he has written on the talk pages Viktor seems cogent enough. His technical explanations of resonance, and other reasoning on the subject clear and easily understood by this layperson. The goal is channeling that talent and energy into useful WP article content. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:42, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  Revision, I looked over the recent edits to Ten-string extended-range classical guitar. They seem fine to me and so I've struck out the edit protection part of this note. I'm concerned about the tone of recent messages such as on 11:28, 18 March 2009 and 11:34, 18 March 2009 and still suggest mentoring. --Marc Kupper|talk 23:14, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

False claims of "bullying" Andrewa: New Proof

Plase note that the allegations made by Andrewa are false and it is not the first time he has made false allegations against me. (See this false allegation made against www.tenstringguitar.info here [89]. (The link is relevant, does not simply promote a site, and does not link to a discussion group, myspace or facebook - even though that is what it is accused of.)

The fact is, I repeatedly made Andrewa aware of misinformation he was linking to (for example, here on a yahoo forum on 25 February [90] and here we have Andrewa responding [91]). Proof that he was aware of the misinformation. So there is no reason to justify good faith or entertain the notion that he is simply unaware of the factually inaccurate link he posted here [92] (in the References, at the bottom), then never removed, and then defended as containing no inaccuracies on 2 March, here [93].

Since we have proven that there was no reason for good faith, no reason to assume the defence of misinformation was unintentional, there is also no justification in calling it an "attack", "harrassment" or "bullying" that I have called for other editors to oversee his conduct and note the multiple breaches of policy. (I'm not au fait enough with wikipedia to be able to list them like Andrewa does, but I'm sure the claims of harrassment and breach of policy can be equally reversed in the other direction.)

Now I intend to edit the articles with references to reliable, verifiable sources. I will NOT waste any further time in this pointless argument as I am innocent of harrassment against Andrewa, who merely wants me gone so he can have his POV. Viktor van Niekerk (talk) 11:49, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The latest round

Please see this dif and this dif for Viktor's current stand. I think we are making progress, but there's a way to go. Andrewa (talk) 11:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Note also the timestamps on my post and Viktor's post above. I've spoken to him about sequencing of threads, as he has often posted new ones to the tops of talk pages. Perhaps someone else would like to support me on this? It's a minor point perhaps, but annoying, and IMO indicative of exactly the attitude that needs to change. Andrewa (talk) 18:34, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Block of Viktor

Seriously, does anyone think the discussion at the article talk page is getting better? More walls of text from Viktor including more assumptions of bad faith. I've had enough of these games. I've blocked him for a week. Between the COI, the harassment, the sarcastic insults, the sockpuppetry, he's had more than enough time to play here. Years of this is more than enough. Asking for review because honestly if he comes back and doesn't change, I want to make it permanent and move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

You know what, I was wrong on the sockpuppetry. That was an misreading of the facts. I've notified him of that. However the rest is there still. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:09, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment I'm sure y'all have viewed this archived WQA regarding similar issues. As much as I would hate to think we needed to topic ban Viktor, the incessant belief that its "my way or the highway I'm going to insult you until the ends of the Earth" are not productive, not does it fit the collaborative model. I believe Viktor has much to add ... but cooperation, and a few doses of common sense seem not be part of his arsenal. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 13:18, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I support the block. After many warnings and even bits of begging, he began again with the PAs. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Why is this block not indef and/or coupled with a permanent topicban? //roux   18:52, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Partially because I have been involved with the article and don't think it would be prudent for an involved admin to do it. I've been chewed out enough for heavy banning on the Macedonian articles already. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think indefinite would've been quite accepted, but given that he was recently blocked for 1 week, blocking for 1 week again is awfully unusual. I would support extending the block to either a fortnight, or a month - after this extension, I can support a community measure specifying that future instances will be handled via an indefinite block. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Viktor's past behavior

In hindsight, it actually should have been indef, as, if anyone bothered to read the WQE BMW provided, we'd see that he was previously blocked for 1 week for the same thing. The -exact- same thing. As far as I've learned, when users are blocked for things they've been blocked before for, the blocks are usually lengthened.

After reading this WQE, and looking at this user's behavior now, I do not see that he has changed in the least, and I do not think he will change his behavior at the end of this block, as he has already proven that he only thinks his blocks as a minor setback, and will return to what he has been doing when he was blocked in the first place.

If this does indeed happen at the end of this block, I would support an indefinite block, however, I don't see why we should let him continue to do what he was originally blocked for, after he's shown so clearly he doesn't intend to change.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal A (no chance)

Those in favor of an indefinite block now, as this user has shown they can't change, and they have no desire to change their behavior they were blocked for.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

COmment The editor is consistently uncivil and has made no effort to work collaboratively or by consensus. the ownership issues he demonstrates are among the most extreme I have encountered, and there is no basis for believing that he will relinquish his soapbox nor change his style in favour of a more reasonable or accommodating approach. A permanent ban is appropriate. Eusebeus (talk) 21:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

As I note here, one of Viktor's acts was to eliminate all mentions of Ramirez's view (his book versus Yepes' speeches), which makes more sense when you consider the language on his talk page that "the heirs of Narciso Yepes have invited Van Niekerk to continue his research interests". I think the COI interests are much more serious than it looked like before. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Having looked into this even more, I agree with Ricky. I think the articles may have been targeted for "clean up" before some kind of commercial project is launched. It's worth noting that the source Viktor has disputed is someone whose name is used in the marketing of an "entry-level" 10-string guitar and his edits have been strongly written to discredit this person (mostly on a single published observation about the resonance brought on by sympathetic vibration of strings, which is one of the piths of a 10-string guitar). Aside from these worries, I think both sources have been cited to support more assertions than either reliably can do. Gwen Gale (talk) 01:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no commercial project involving me, and prior to this ANI, I was the only one trying to clean up the articles. No, what brought this to a head was simply that someone finally persisted.

I suppose the use of a photo of the Michael McBroom Janet Marlow entry-level ten-string guitar may look suspicious. It would be far better to have a picture of a Ramirez or a Bernabe instead, Viktor's personal instrument would be ideal. (A photo I took of my main personal instrument currently leads the twelve-string guitar article, and by coincidence my Maton is even about the same age as Viktor's Ramirez.) I have emailed several owners, including Viktor, asking for release of suitable photos. McBroom's is simply the only suitable photo yet offered. Andrewa (talk) 08:42, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Andrewa I didn't say you had a conflict of interest. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:00, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think you could mean that, but you did say that the articles may have been targetted, and you didn't say why you think this, or by whom, and I seem to be the only possible candidate. Among Viktor's many false charges against me is COI, and specifically that I am in some way connected to Janet Marlow. So I thought I should clarify. Perhaps I am being oversensitive, and if so I apologise. Andrewa (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal B (chance)

Those in favor of an indefinite block should he continue said behavior after his most recent block expires.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:42, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support Well, this was my thought, but I wouldn't mind if someone else wants to, considering his refactoring of his talk page to eliminate all other views and just post his screeds. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
• I'm happy to give a final chance here. TO be honest, the topic is one that makes me go "huhwha?" - if he's an expert and willing to work within our guidelnies to help with it, that's great. If not, then he can take a walk. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:39, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

• Me too, but I wonder if the walls of text were just smokescreens so he can keep everyone else out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

• Support a long term to indefinite block. I approached Victor off lines about ways to work within Wikipedia. To sum up the reply, he's upset and has left the house. While that makes the block redundant it lines up with what I was trying to achieve which were ways to demonstrate willingness to work with fellow editors. That can be done as part of a petition for readmittance. --Marc Kupper|talk 07:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support; re-blocks are cheap, and while his behavior is disruptive it's not dangerously disruptive. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 17:43, 20 March 2009 (UTC)
• Support, because he does know what he is talking about (as a string player, former college theory and orchestration teacher, I believe this to be the case -- of course on the internet everyone's a dog, so if you like, "woof") -- but Viktor, if you are reading this, you really need to change your behavior, and start interacting with our other volunteers politely, civilly, and with understanding. I would rather we 1) did not lose your expertise, and 2) you work with other people, not against them. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 00:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

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

NotAnotherAliGFan

Going against a lengthy discussion and consensus on the talk page of Pandemic (South Park), user reinserted trivia twice (diff 1, diff 2).

WP:SYNTHESIS was discussed at length on the Jabba the Hutt talk page in reference to this user's edits (diff). User has started doing the same to The Coon article (diff 1, diff 2). This is apparently done under the guise of NOTOR.

The same has been done to Fantastic Easter Special, (diff 1, diff 2, diff 3). Uncited information is also knowingly added to the same article (diff).

I'm not sure if it should go here or at the Wikiquette page, but this user has also started messing with my sandbox in my own userspace (diff 1, diff 2, diff 3). Alastairward (talk) 11:24, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear... the stalker is now complaining about me. Please watch his edit history in comparison to mine and ask yourselves why he reverses my edits on pages, in which he otherwise had no involvement beforehand (or afterwards). As for his sandbox - hey, if he's a "no original research" advocate, why does he allow it on his sandbox?

As for "uncited information," that is a blatant lie - you are welcome to check for yourselves. And yes, NOTOR is as legitimate as the rest of WP rules. The fact that Alastairward doesn't like it has nothing to do with Wikipedia, unless he has ultimate ownership over it... NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

His sandbox is his sandbox. You need to WP:AGF and stay out of it. If it doesn't go against WP:BLP, and any WP:OR does not make it into the articles, then leave his sandbox the heck alone...you're playing in his sandbox and accusing him of WP:HOUND?? That's pretty rich ... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 11:51, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

You seem to ignore the chronology in this whole affair. Yeah, I played in his sandbox to make a point and my apologies if this violated anything. The fact that he's been following me around for a while doesn't seem to particularly bother you, aye? As for WP:AGF - "Uncited information is also knowingly added to the same article"; I merely reinstated someone else's edit and added the {{fact}} tag. I reckon it's better to leave it there and ask for positive contribution rather than engage in sheer deletionism for spite. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 11:58, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

you violated WP:POINT and WP:UP#SUB as someone is alowed to have an article in progress in thier user space.  rdunnPLIB  13:09, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll refrain from any further replies unless my points are addressed: my behavior has been caused by repeated taunting by that person, and I could care less about the borderline "civil" crap. An attack is an attack, no matter how nicely you dress or how eloquently you formulate your sentences. Had he ever assumed good faith in me, he would leave me alone and that's that. Otherwise, I seriously consider this to be personal harassment. NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 16:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Ok, then we'll refrain from further discussion until you actually show us some diffs that show how they have been taunting and attacking you, please. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 16:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And again with The Coon article, (diff) discussion was offered and quite roundly refused by this editor. Alastairward (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

And in the same article, again ([diff]). The problem seems to be that consensus is gained on this matters in the past with other editors and admins. The user in question takes a little break, then returns and with some pretty disingenous edit summaries overturns the advice and previous consensus. Alastairward (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As directed by AliGFan on my talkpage, I went a strolling around. Found some interesting things:

• A long history between the users
• this one already got a warning
• this reference to the user as a "twat"
• This one with reference to "Alistairworm"

While at the same time, I'm finding dozens of attempts by Alistairward to engage this editor in useful dialogue. Maybe I'm looking for l'oeuf in all the wrong places? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:02, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a rather one sided outlook... did you even bother to actually read my comments (not just convenient highlights)? NotAnotherAliGFan (talk) 09:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

IP socks of banned users editwarring

See:

• 86.162.66.116 (talk · contribs · logs), 86.162.67.18 (talk · contribs · logs), which look like sock of User:Nangparbat
• 70.112.4.25 (talk · contribs · logs), which looks like sock of User:Hkelkar.
• Mess at the AFD of Islamic Extremism among British Pakistanis, (see discussion above) including on/off-wiki canvassing and accusations of socking: Wikireader41 (talk · contribs) has been called sock of Hkelkar, while UnknownForEver (talk · contribs · logs) has been called sock of Nangparbat.

Can some admins/checkusers more familiar with the banned users' records look into this ? Abecedare (talk) 20:13, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. They are trying to get me blocked because they see me as a threat. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 20:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That entire AfD has been a disaster of personal attacks and nonsense rambling on both sides of the discussion. Should just run a CU on every user that has edited it. Nableezy (talk) 21:03, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of whether Wikireader41 (talk · contribs) or UnknownForEver (talk · contribs · logs) (same as "--→ Ãlways Ãhëad") have edited under other usernames in the past, but I don't get a sense that either has done anything socky during the debate in question. On the other hand, User:Nangparbat, still manages to knit several socks a day...every day... with which to embrass herself and frustrate attempts to raise the debate out of the mud. --Boston (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't/never have accuse anyone of being a sock puppet because I lack the practice on how to discover/find one. But I agree with Nableezy that you just might as well do a UC on everyone. And yes, Nangparbat is getting annoying. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 21:37, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm gonna do my first accusation now. I think User:Molecularsphere is Hkelkar's sock. --→ Ãlways Ãhëad (talk) 22:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I do have previous experience with Nangparbat, as you can see at User:Hersfold/Vandal watch. I've stopped doing much with him, as his ISP appears to be even more dynamic than most and you'd have to softblock at least half a dozen or more /16 IP ranges to stop him coming, which I am not prepared to do. My best advice at this point would be to try and work with him as best you can rather than just screaming "banned editor! block them!" at every manifestation. Manifestations, which, as you noted, occur frequently.

Should that fail, it may, and I say this is the very loosest sense, may be possible to build an abuse filter to help stop things. However I don't see that as being particularly accurate nor useful for this purpose. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:33, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

since I have been informally accused of being Hkelkar I should just go on record & say one thing 'I am not his sock' a simple check of my IP address and his should settle the issue. And no I dont have an evil twin brother. Though our mutual disrespect for Vandal Nangparbat is definitely a common trait and also probably the reason for this confusion. But then who could be not mad at Nangparbat ?? Only someone who has deep rooted bias of the same kind. I would seriously ask more experienced wikipedians to suggest a solution to Nangparbat problem. I have been doing my part to identify and report him. Cheers. ;-)--Wikireader41 (talk) 04:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Pages protected, accounts/IPs blocked, Hkelkar range swept for sleepers. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 07:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Distruptive editing, POV pushing and sockpuppetry

Mortician103 (talk · contribs) appears to be here only to push this agenda during his/her brief tenure editing as this user. This user started editing using talk pages as a forum for this agenda. [94], [95], and has shown evidence of sockpuppetry [96] first identified by NJGW (talk · contribs) (I concur), and two instances where ipsocking was used to give the appearance of consensus [97] and [98] where I believe the editor logged out to comment on own discussion (on Talk:Jesse Washington this parenthetical comment added by Toddst1 (talk) 03:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC) for clarity). Going further, removal of relevant facts from an article because they differed from this editor's POV, although they were sourced (but not footnoted) [99] and civility issues. I believe this editor has gone far enough. I need a non-involved admin here. Toddst1 (talk) 00:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It would be a bit WP:IAR to block this early, but I don't see any indication that this editor has any chance of being a net plus to the project. We should also be blocking left-wing and conspiracy fringers early, too. THF (talk) 00:29, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't support censorship at all. However, sockpuppetry and disruption shoud be dealt with. Toddst1 (talk) 00:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I created an account after editing without one, there is no sock puppeting... And any civility issues come from unfounded accusations like this one with obvious personal agendas against other users.

If any other administrator can look at my edits and tell me they go against standard procedure and policy, then please do so. toddst1 has been actively trying to get me banned since I answered a question on David Duke's talk page. I think that's when he chose to continually harass me and revert justified edits.

My edits have usually come after debate and discussion on talk pages. toddst1 only links to WP:consensus and reverts my edits without actually taking a stance on the consensus. His actions on Jesse_Washington_lynching show that he didn't come to any conclusion on the consensus reached in Talk:Rob_Knox. His basis for penalizing me came from me supposedly going against a consensus he doesn't even understand. His only defense is that he's a "passive" administrator, which is obviously untrue with his continued harassment against me. Mortician103 (talk) 00:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, that user on Jesse Washington's talk page is not me. I am very frustrated at these unfounded accusations. Look at my ip address if you can, and you will see that I have a different one. Mortician103 (talk) 00:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The editor is right that I have not taken any active role in the consensus discussion - that was deliberate. No consensus exists when the editor is agreeing with their own IPsock. That is one of the reasons I brought this here. This occurred on Talk:Rob_Knox and Talk: Jesse_Washington_lynching. Toddst1 (talk) 00:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

toddst1, how is it possible for me to log out of my account to sock puppet when this account was created a week after that discussion on Talk:Rob_Knox started? Please don't leave out important information like this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mortician103 (talk • contribs) 00:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

"No consensus exists when the editor is agreeing with their own IPsock." Consensus comes from continual discussion and debate, not democratic vote. I made no effort to hide the fact that I was the same user when I added to the discussion on Talk:Rob_Knox. In fact, I made this account to avoid the issue. Also, IPsoc did not occur on Talk: Jesse_Washington_lynching, please don't state your assumptions as facts. Mortician103 (talk) 01:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal Agenda from Administrator

I believe Toddst1 is on a personal campaign against me that consists of petty accusations, intimidation and other forms of harassment. I first answered a question on Talk:David Duke that hinted of sympathy towards white nationalists. He deleted and penalized me the first time. I then reworded my answer so as to be less "preachy" and simply answered the question in the most succinct way possible. Toddst1 then penalized me again and deleted the question. I found this behavior to be a bit petty, and informed him of my objection. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:David_Duke&oldid=277089336#Kenya

He also reverted my edits to Rob Knox based on a consensus from a short discussion on Talk:Rob_Knox. I continued this discussion from my days of editing as an unregistered editor. Toddst1 appeared in the discussion suddenly after my edits to Talk: David Duke, insisting that my edits conflicted with the consensus. He also made a remark that led me to believe he thinks I am a U.S. Southerner and insulted me based on a stereotypical phrase associated with racism. The main reason I'm making an appeal to other administrators is the following sockpuppet accusation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mortician103

It is a simple case that I created a new account after editing unregistered from my house and a public place. If Toddst1 had looked at my account creation date, he would see that the case for IPsocking is uncalled for. I believe he willingly ignored this fact for the sake of his campaign to get me banned. My IP address is now available to the public, a situation I tried to avoid by creating this account. My family is now potentially open to retribution from extremist groups because of an administrator's personal dislike for me. He is now hastily bringing his case before you after I told him that I would be taking my complaints to other administrators.

I request that Toddst1 cease his personal campaign against me and immediately delete his sock puppet allegations. Mortician103 (talk) 02:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

When you edit Talk:Rob_Knox as 3 different editors, then claim consensus (with yourself)[100] [101], the claims of sockpuppetry are very valid. Editing like that will put you on any admin's radar if it doesn't get you blocked for that alone.Toddst1 (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not edit as three different editors. I never quoted myself or agreed with myself. I simply continued the dialog with other users. Surely Wikipedia's sockpuppet policies are not blind to the case of someone graduating from IP to account? Mortician103 (talk) 02:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

1, 2, 3 which you confirm each was you here. Add misrepresenting your own actions to the list. Toddst1 (talk) 02:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I confirmed they were all me to clear up this confusion. One of your accusations was that I logged out of this account in order to give the illusion of consensus. This is an impossible case as I created this account after making those contributions, except for one small and irrelevant change. I really don't see the issue here. From WP:SOCK

This page in a nutshell: The general rule is: one editor, one account. Do not use multiple accounts to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, to artificially stir up controversy, to aid in disruption, or to circumvent a block.

I did not violate any of those clauses. I was not deliberately misleading in Talk: Rob Knox. Also: Clean start under a new name is a valid cause for creating a new account. Surely this can be reduced to someone wanting to make their first account? Mortician103 (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Clean slate doesn't apply when you continue your old arguments. That's sockpuppetry. Then claiming consensus is highly disruptive and an attempt to manipulate Wikipedia processes. Toddst1 (talk) 02:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

So now you're arguing for deception of which there is no probable cause. If you read that section out loud, I think it's pretty clear the same person was continuing the argument. I didn't create multiple accounts to vote Nay/Yay on some deletion or merge vote, I continued a dialog with no deception. Also for my argument, the "accounts" did not concurrently continue the discussion. The dialog occurred in a linear fashion that reflected my daily life and eventually the creation of this account. Just admit that you are blowing an innocent situation way out of proportion. I feel it is only to my disadvantage to actually defend myself for creating a new, unique account. Mortician103 (talk) 03:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

<-Let's just be clear about what is happening here. Mortician, who believes in a white homeland according to his user page, is pushing for the person who killed Rob Knox to be described as "black", even though there is no evidence that race is relevant to the crime; and arguably using misleading tactics to create an impression of consensus for this change. Looie496 (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Prove that it is less relevant than his name or hometown... Anyway, please take that debate to where it belongs Talk:Rob Knox. I've already illustrated my points. And the White Christian Homeland is a parody of the mission of Zionists. Funny how it's offensive when Christians hold this belief. Funny was my intent, but the satire is lost on the overly sensitive maybe. Mortician103 (talk) 03:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No - the discussion is about Distruptive editing, POV pushing and sockpuppetry and about misrepresenting your own edits. This belongs right here. Toddst1 (talk) 03:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No, the debate on whether Rob Knox's murderer's full details (what I was referring to) should be censored belongs on Talk: Rob Knox. I see though that you're intent on banning me for perceived POV as evidenced by your refusal to drop the simple IPsocks case. You were intent on banning me since Talk:David Duke, which is why I believe your power abuse should be kept in check. Especially when it endangers my safety. Mortician103 (talk) 03:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked

The IP/account overlap isn't overly concerning, and I'm not sure I'd call it sockpuppetry. That said, a scan through Special:Contributions/Mortician103 yields a pretty clear picture. I've indefinitely blocked the account. This sort of editing and agenda is absolutely bad for this project. Since I'm not logging on much anymore, I'll proactively acquiesce if any other admin wishes to overturn the block and let this account follow the standard, drawn-out trajectory to the same endpoint. MastCell ^Talk 03:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

For a ten-second summary of his approach to editing, just compare [102] and [103]. There's obviously no chance of this editor working in a neutral, collaborative manner. In other words, this has my complete (admin-bit-free) endorsement. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Looking through his contribs, it seems that race only matters when there was a person of colour as a victim or a defendant. Nobody else's 'race' (a concept I abhor) matters. Good riddance to bad white-supremacist rubbish. //roux   05:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 17:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Biblbroks

User:Biblbroks has been behaving in a disruptive way on the article International recognition of Kosovo, mostly on the talk page. He seems to have an issue with the page title and has posted numerous times on the talk page (consensus has previously been reached that the current title is NPOV and acceptable). Normally this would not be a problem, but his posts are extremely long and impenetrable, and he does not react well to counter-argument. (I cannot explain this particularly well, you need to read the thread to understand what I mean - see here.) In one of his most recent posts he pasted similar sentences countless times, filling the screen. At the end of this post he stated, "I'm sorry and that I am ready to face the consequences of my actions, however severe they may be," which seems to be inviting a ban (he has a history of them). He also redirected the article to a new title (the page is protected against moves), which was quickly reverted. Although I believe he is acting in good faith, this is not the way to behave. Can anything be done? Thanks. Bazonka (talk) 07:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I would like to second Bazonka. I have also warned Biblbroks, but he refuses to listen and continues to be disruptive. Thanks Ijanderson (talk) 16:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Alyster

User:Alyster has made a serious very insulting statement-attacks, which according to the Wikipedia:No personal attacks are not allowed. The user made such statements:

"Türa down lõpeta mu kalli armee laimamine sellega et ta osales Teises maailmasõjas...Ja ära topi Viru õlle lehte mu kalli Viru pati lingiks. Krdi pidur."

Which in translation from Estonia to English means:

"You cunt, retard, stop harassing my bellowed army with it's participation in World War II. And don't put any Viru beer link as a link to my bellowed Viru Battalion link. Stupid "brake" (which might have been as meant "pidar" which is a slang word for gay in Russian)"

I believe that the user Alyster thinks or feels that some pages belong to him in wikipedia which by my knowledge is a violation of the WP:NOT of the point "...personal essays that state your particular feelings about a topic" and the WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND of the "wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear". I have never myself used such vulgar language against others in all the time I have been editing pages in Wikipedia. Neither have I ever received before such insults in Wikipedia. I'm concerned about the user use of language and attitude. I have not answered to his insulting statement yet as I believe it would only encourage him to use more of that vulgar language.

Can anything be done in order to cool this user down and to make him to respect the Wikipedia general rules of being and getting along with everybody? Thanks. Karabinier (talk) 12:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have issued a generic WP:NPA warning on their talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

If that translation is accurate then I would say a block would be better than a warning. When people become abusive in content disputes it is our neutrality that is damaged, and we really like our neutrality. If this user keeps this stuff up, feel free to post a message on my talk page. Chillum 16:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been unable to verify the translation, and while I assume good faith of the complainant I see that no-one appears to have interacted with the "miscreant" in mentioning that such comments are unacceptable. In the absence of definitive proof of the content, I think a warning is sufficient. LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

While I certainly agree that we should assume good faith until the translation is confirmed, I don't think people need to be told not to call each other "cunts". I think we can safely assume people know that type of human interaction is not appropriate. Chillum 16:32, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The only part I can make out for certain is "defamation of my army." I have a friend that speaks Estonian fluently; I will IM her and ask her to translate it for me. Should only take a few minutes. Landon1980 (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Cmp7 (talk · contribs) and WP:FAKE

I've been having trouble with the user Cmp7 for a while now. For starters, he created the Guerrilla phase of the Second Chechen War (2009) article, that for all intents and purposes, should not exist in the first place. None of his sources, or any that I could find on google, say anything about a "second phase" of a war that ended years ago, or mention anything about guerilla warfare at all. In fact, none of the listed events in the article have even occurred in Chechnya. Nonetheless, my proposal to delete the article ended in no consensus because there were only about three other replies, one of whom was the article creator, and another of whom is a notorious conspiracy theorist who supports any article which portrays Russia or its government in a bad light (and who on numerous occasions has accused people of being Russian agents). But that nonsense aside, anyone can objectively look at the page and see that its sources do not at all match the theme of a "new phase" of a "guerrilla war" in Chechnya.

Anyhow, I decided that if the article were to stay, the information may as well be accurate. I fixed a bunch of errors and added information, all of which is exactly according to his own sources. Then a couple days later, he makes this series of edits and basically removes and reverts my changes under the guise of "making corrections". Well, clearly most of those aren't corrections at all if you read the sources. So I asked him about it on his talk page. He replied to me on my user page saying he was sorry and that I was right, then asked me how to reply to someone's talk page, something I find rather suspicious considering the fact that he managed to create an article, reply to the proposed deletion page, and use the talk page of a different article. At this point I started to think maybe he was just a troll or sock playing dumb (but I didn't say anything, I was trying to assume good faith).

So after I made the same corrections for a second time, and after he flatly admitted I was right and said sorry, he did the exact same thing again. I also noticed that he deleted my comment on his talk page, with the edit summary "corrected mistakes". You can interpret that any way you like, but it's a little hard to be assuming good faith at this point.

Even all the reverting aside, there's the fact that he keeps adding fictional information to the article (and did the same thing in the Second Chechen War article (he even manipulated numbers) that had to be reverted by another user). IF you check his edit history, it's full of number manipulation related to the topic of the Chechen wars. His latest dubious addition is an edit claiming that a helicopter was shot down. If you read the sources, all it says is that a helicopter had to land because gunman was wounded, and specifically that the helicopter sustained no damage.

Anyways, I don't know what this guys deal is, but I think something definitely needs to be done. Creating fictional conflicts is bad enough, much less manipulating and spreading misinformation about actual events. I've already twice tried to explain to him about reliable sources, and twice directed him to the appropriate policies, but obviously that's not getting through to him.

One more thing to point out that's perhaps related. When I originally marked the page for uncontested deletion, only a few days after its creation and when only one user had ever edited it, the other user I mentioned above who voted against deletion, Biophys, removed the template a mere 15 minutes after I had added it. So this tiny article that virtually no one yet knew existed was apparently on his watched list for some reason, and he's the only other person to defend it. Is that grounds enough for a sock check? LokiiT (talk) 16:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Issued uw-4 to the editor for original research/synthesis. Editor may be blocked on next unexplained change of numbers or addition of synthesized material. Toddst1 (talk) 17:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Cena Jr's continued trolling

Resolved

Cena Jr. continues to troll the talk page of List of World Wrestling Entertainment alumni. He does not agree with the new format that User:Moe Epsilon has implemented based on a prior consensus, and the user continues to troll the talk page and leave rude/uncivil comments. His account is an obvious SPA, which leads me to believe he is a sockpuppet of somebody. A few examples of his comments: [104] [105] [106] [107] trolling AN (again) removal of content against consensus (again, and again, once again) [108] [109] [110]

If I listed all of the trollish edits here, I'd be posting nearly every one of their edits (but if you need more diffs, I can give them). This person does not have even 100 edits, and the majority of them are trolling about this article. The user is clearly not here to help build the encyclopedia and I believe a block would be in order. iMatthew // talk // 20:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I blocked him for 3RR at one point in this mess. Looking at it now, that seems to have gotten mixed up with a sockpuppet block and unblock. Previous discussions here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive185#Problems with WWE Alumni Page, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive187#More Problems with the WWE Alumni Page. As best I see, he has not tried any attempt at dispute resolution. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 12:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. The talk page is as relevant to discuss the disagreements as anywhere else. And I was unjustly accused of being someone's sockpuppet despite the fact I've never even heard of that person's name. But that's not relevant. I haven't done any reverting lately.Cena Jr (talk) 17:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Looking through his contribs, i'm struggling to find any good edits. An indef block may be in order if he doesn't improve fast. Wizardman 18:33, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I haven't edited any article, so I am not doing anything wrong.Cena Jr (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why are you even here? iMatthew // talk // 20:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You tell me, you're the one who started this thread.Cena Jr (talk) 20:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I was rather referring to Wikipedia. Why do you bother coming to Wikipedia to edit if you aren't going to edit an article. Your last comment sums up to "I'm not here to edit articles" - the only purpose of this website, the articles. If you have no intentions of editing articles ever, and trolling over talk pages instead, you will find yourself blocked. iMatthew // talk // 20:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, when the aggravation an editor causes is greater than the contribution that editor makes, then an indefinite block is appropriate. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And his userpage isn't helpful either. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 20:30, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked. PeterSymonds (talk) 22:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD refactoring, removal of sourcing discussion

Can some neutral editors consider whether this is appropriate at an AfD [111]? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

No. AFD discussions are supposed to be threaded to provide a proper flow of said discussion. Organizing them by head count is not only nonconducive to WP:NOTAVOTE but also serves to polarize the discussion into yes/no camps. It is against basic AFD decorum and should be reverted back. MuZemike 23:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh psh, that 'not a vote' thing is yet another elephant in the room we need to banish. It absolutely is a vote, we just weight some votes (e.g., those citing policy etc) more than others. Honestly, organising XFD pages that way provides a much, much clearer way to establish consensus and close. That being said, this instance of it should be reverted; as it is such a major change to how XFD is presented, a change like this should be discussed at WT:XFD. //roux   23:21, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

There are lots of instances where WP:BOLD is a good thing, but not here. These discussions sometimes go to and fro as people add relevant or previously overlooked points regarding policy, or the article gets updated or whatever, so a timeline of discussion could be very helpful to the closer. Thus not a good idea to reformat this or any other AfD discussion in this way. Regarding AfD as (not) a vote, while technically it is not, other than those unsalvageable articles (total copyvios etc) that have to be deleted and cannot be saved, off the top of my head I don't recall ever seeing a closer contradicting consensus. Though I'd be happy to be proved wrong on that. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 23:59, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Response from Scjessey

It's my fault. I did not know this was inappropriate, and when asked about it I explained my reasoning and apologized. Filing a report about it here seems extraordinarily unnecessary. Feel free to clap me in irons. -- Scjessey (talk) 00:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think this is resolved. Time to move on. Fetters will not be required.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to accept it was done in good faith and was a mistake. But not only were the votes and discussion reordered, but discussion of sources (as is noted in the edit summary) was also removed. I'm not really sure about putting it back how it was or if that's even possible, but as several votes have been added in the meantime, it's rather troubling. It's a controversial AfD on a controversial subject (currently the subject of an Arbcom proceeding) and removing the discussion and listing of sources is very prejudicial as that's the key to the argument for keeping the article. At the very least, perhaps Scjessey could try to put that discussion back? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As indicated, the sources are listed on the talk page (as well as being woven into the article itself). Having said that, the sources do not have much of a bearing (if any) on the whether or not the article should be deleted. It is not a "controversial" AFD, as you describe it, as evidenced by the results (thus far) of the nomination. A well-sourced POV fork is still a POV fork. I am not sure how it could be described as "prejudicial" - people "voting" in the AfD should be reviewing the article before making up their mind, not the text of the nomination. -- Scjessey (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I think all we can do now is ask that the closing admin takes the circumstances into account when determining consensus. Let's leave it there. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree Malcolm. Scjessey's refusing to restore discussion from the AfD he removed is unacceptable and prejudicial. Since when is it okay to remove the discussion of reliable sources from an AfD? ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Scjessey didn't realised it was inappropriate to refactor an Afd. I had a look at the AfD, I agree it may have been prejudicial, that it may have swayed the later !votes but I don't think it can be disentangled now. We have to make the best of a bad job here, I think, and ask the closing admin to do the best he can in the circumstances. If it is kept, another AfD can be listed; if it is deleted, it can be reviewed at DRV. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

As I noted on the page, I disagree it's prejudicial. Keep !votes are predicated on the idea that good sources justify an article; delete on the idea that they don't, and rather encyclopedic value of some form has to be demonstrated. Ergo delete !votes aren't influenced by the removal of the sources. Bad idea to be avoided in future? Yes. Any effect on outcome of what is clearly not a controversial AFD (keeps clearly misinterpret policy by ignoring the "presumed" clause of WP:N, and the thing could even be closed now per WP:SNOWBALL) - no. Rd232 ^talk 13:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I understand all that, but there is also the issue of REMOVING comments addressing the sourcing for the article. That Scjessey continues to argue he/she was right in doing so is a problem. When I posted this notice I hadn't realized that Scjessey was the nominator for the deletion, which makes it all the more inappropriate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I did not remove any comments. All I removed was a duplicate list of sources, since they are not appropriate for the AfD and already exist on the talk page of the article. Also, I find it highly unlikely that any "votes" were swayed when "keep" and "merge" votes appear before "delete" on the page. Please note that ChildofMidnight is already noted for being highly disruptive and editing Obama-related articles in an agenda-based manner, which explains why this ANI report was opened despite my earlier apology of following this misunderstanding. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I hope someone will remind Scjessey that it's inappropriate to reorganize an AfD discussion to his liking and even more inappropriate to remove discussion of sources that indicate notability. It's also wrong to make personal attacks, as he's been reminded previously. ChildofMidnight (talk) 15:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I am aware of my mistake. I apologized for it. Twice. Once before and once after your report here. I won't make the same mistake again. There is no need for you to pursue me around Wikipedia repeating the same thing, adding your usual layers of mock outrage and misrepresentations. I am sorry that your agenda-driven editing is getting push-back, but there is no need for you to vent your frustrations by attacking me. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Scjessey. He probably didn't realize that we don't do that in AFDs. No harm has been done. Let it go, and drop the stick. MuZemike 18:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem is that Scjessey is obviously not aware that it is inappropriate to remove comments. In this discussion he states "I did not remove any comments. All I removed was a duplicate list of sources, since they are not appropriate for the AfD and already exist on the talk page of the article." Sources and discussion of sources is of course very appropriate for an AfD discussion and should not be removed. The idea that no harm has been done is an interesting opinion. What is clear is that Scjessey's actions disrupted the AfD and ended discussion, turning it into a vote and removing important comments regarding the very basis of notability. This editor still has not acknowledged that removing comments that list sources establishing notability is totally inappropriate. He's also now started to make personal attacks against me which is slso inappropriate and is something this editor has been asked to refrain from in the past. Far from attempting to beat this user with a stick, I'd just like to see this user refrain from disruptive and inappropriate actions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Removal of AfD comments

Whoever closes this discussion should be aware that both Scjessey and ChildofMidnight have removed comments by others from the AfD at this point. Please see the page history for confirmation of this. I would ask that whichever brave soul closes this AfD attempt to take such removed comments into account. Although I have expressed an opinion in the AfD, I am not attempting to favor one side in this; both editors have engaged in bad behavior. I am hoping there can be an appropriate close in spite of this. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Which comment did I remove? If I did so it was absolutely not intentional and I will have a look and restore anything I accidentally removed now if I can find something. Removing comments from AfDs is unaccaptable and if I ever do so it is by accident and I would ask that you please correct my mistake. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I can't find anywhere that I removed a comment. Please refactor your statement that I have engaged in bad behavior or back it up with a diff. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I attempted to remove part of a comment that I restored after is was removed by Scjessey (a duplicate keep vote), but apparently I was working on an old version of the page because when I did so a few recent comments were removed. Please remember to assume good faith and refrain from personal attacks. As I stated, I dont' remove people's comments unless they are a clear policy violations, so if you find that I have made a mistake, feel free to correct it. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for not responding sooner. Both you and Scjessey are guilty of what I will assume in good faith is sloppy editing; to the best of my ability to follow the additions and removals, there are not now any missing comments, though I still believe any closer should be aware of the heavy editing that discussion has undergone. As to the reason I didn't attempt to fix it myself: the whole problem is that both of you have felt free to make problematic alterations. If I made more alterations to the AfD, it would risk making things worse, not better, so I did not do that. It would be nice if both of you would concede that you've stated you point and stayed away from further editing of the discussion at all; however, I don't intend to formally request that you do so - please just consider it a well-intended suggestion. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Could use a pair of eyes

This is an experiment in trying to head off trouble before it arises. After a case of overlinking at consciousness, I wrote this to the editor who did it, and he responded with this, also cross-posted to my talk page and to talk:consciousness. Based on this rather bizarre response, I foresee that there is likely to be drama when I undo the overlinking, and I wonder if I can trouble some helpful admin to direct a pair of eyes toward the page, to be ready to head off any problems that may come. Looie496 (talk) 03:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Please note that Maurice Carbonaro (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves) is not an administrator on the English Wikipedia, but may be on other languages. Toddst1 (talk) 03:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You couldn't wait 24 hours like I kindly asked? Merely 8... duh?

This is a "giving up, right now, in trying to head off trouble before it arises".

Please note that:

Maurice trying to simulate a face time effect with a picture of himself taken from one of his wikipedia user pages.

• The experience on which you based your experiment should be in need of attention of an expert on the subject. Not much of an ordinary wikipedia administrator but someone specifically recruited by the Philosophy Portal or Philosophy Wikiproject. At least this is what has been shown on the template of the experience wikipedia article template for the last two years at least;
• I have a well visibile "pair of eyes" as it is clearly shown in real pictures about myself on my wikipedia user pages. This in order to simulate a face time effect. You don't. You could also be a jabberwacky as far as I am concerned;
  
• the term "overlinking" has never been used before by you (User Looie496) nor me;
  

• It seems to me like you are not assuming good faith towards me with these insinuations;
  
• I just kinldy asked you if you could wait 24 hours of time before answering you properly but it seems like you couldn't wait even 8 hours for posting directly on this Administrators noticeboard. (For the news I found two tracing cookies on my comp. And this needs indeed some attention priority I guess. But ok, it doesn't matter: here I am.)
  
• I personally find your statement that I gave "bizarre responses" subtly offensive. I certainly didn't use this kind of language with you;
  
• I don't see any "drama" honestly in your over-undoing the alleged over-linking: I just made the numbers 4 and over 7 in bold which I tried to give a percentage idea of your undoing over the total last 7 (seven) edits. 57.142% to be precise: something that I find a bit "excessive", yes.
  
• Responding to Toddst1. Yes: I am an administrator on the sicilian language wikipedia for example and I never wrote I was an administrator on the english wikipedia;
  
• You allready troubled an administrator: me. I am personally going to undo all the "drama" that I created.
  

Someone should keep an eye on Looie496 (talk · contribs · count · logs · target logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · checkuser · socks · rights · blocks · protects · deletions · moves): I will for sure.
Please try to keep yourself "blue": because it seems like you got a bit "red" lately.
Have a nice sunday and let's try to be friends like before.
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 05:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Maurice Carbonaro, this is an extremely strange way to react to a polite attempt at discussion. Be advised that if you continue communicating in this vein, your presence here may be judged to be disruptive.  Sandstein  12:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Maurice ... first, when there's a potential for disruption, you know that no version of Wikipedia can wait 24hrs for resolution. Second, you admit above that you created "drama" that you will now undo ... um, Wikipedia is not a place to experiment in the creation of drama (I personally recommend local theatre for that, although I am more of a fan of comedy in place of drama). Third, if you had responded politely in the first case (and had assumed good faith from the start), we would not be here at all to discuss this. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 12:43, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it a bit disingenuous to claim to be an administrator without disclosing that you are not an administrator of the English Wikipedia? -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 15:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Maurice Carbonaro is an administrator on the Sicilian Wikipedia (http://scn.wikipedia.org) per this result from sulutil. I share the above concern that Maurice's response may have been over the top, calling Looie496 an 'undoing revisionist' and critiquing some of his recent contributions, rather than just giving his own opinion on Looie's proposed changes. EdJohnston (talk) 18:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Since Maurice has voluntarily reversed the edit that started this, I'd be happy to let the matter drop. Looie496 (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

What shall we do about this editor?

Fortynateyate (talk · contribs) has some interesting contributions...and the saga around Rod Dreher continues. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It's very likely he's a sock of the blocked User:Rod Dreher, and he absolutely a sock of User:Wilerch, as they shared an IP in a dialup pool in the same timeframe. I'm not home right now, but I have more info on this on my home PC. Casliber, look for my post to the Functionaries-en-l list on this subject from ~two days ago. --Versageek 04:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

So can we R_I the AFD? (You guys get to do the B bit, no shiny button for me). //roux   04:48, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

All accounts blocked. AFD kept. seicer | talk | contribs 04:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This needs a checkuser, someone's playing silly buggers. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I am a checkuser, and I have checked them starting shortly after User:Rod Dreher was disclosed to be an impersonator. Oddly enough, this fellow, the impersonator and Wilerch are all on the same dialup ISP as was the IP which inserted nasty vandalism in Dreher's article before the whole affair started. There are some other things that I was hoping another CU would take a look at before we started blocking accounts. However, after he started this fourth AfD it seemed prudent to close the sock drawer and put an end to the nonsense. --Versageek 06:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot that we had new CUs... Tony Fox (arf!) 06:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward the opinion that we should fully protect this article for a week or two. The subject has already had to tolerate "someone playing silly buggers" with his biography and out of fairness we ought to take all available steps to prevent recurrence in the immediate future. However, I do not intend to implement this without some degree of consensus, given the kerfuffle such things tend to generate. CIreland (talk) 06:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The BLP-violating revisions got restored after the article was accidentally deleted and restored. Someone should redelete them. 67.187.92.105 (talk) 13:59, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Done.--Slp1 (talk) 19:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

User:TreadingWater and Generation Jones

I have a possible sock puppet to be considered, but it doesn't quite meet any of the investigation reasons....

TreadingWater (talk · contribs) has two recent reverts on Generation Jones and Baby Boomer. 170.170.59.139 (talk · contribs) just did a third, with an insulting edit comment. I don't think it quite ripe for a 3RR investigation, but it's still edit-warring. In both cases Knulclunk (talk · contribs) and I are on ther other side, proposing a more-or-less compromise position for Baby Boomer, and I'm proposing deleting succession boxes rather than tagging almost all entries in the box as disputed. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 18:52, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

User:EugeneKaspersky

Resolved

 – Blocked. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 19:01, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

New user who is impersonating an administrator ([112], [113], [114]), faking barnstars by other users on his talk page, faking talk page comments by other users [115], perpetrating a hoax [116] and impersonating a prominent real life person by his user name (violating WP:REALNAME) and self-description.

For context, see the vandalism and hoax edits that have been going on in the article Kaspersky Lab since January by numerous IPs and one-purpose-accounts, e.g. KasperskyHimself, Kasperski69 (blocked), DmitriMedvedev (likewise impersonating Dmitri Medvedev), Hwahwahwah (blocked), TheHelperBot (likewise impersonating a bot), 66.104.111.66, 173.15.141.106 and others. I would also appreciate it if someone would have a look at the request for protection for that article.

Regards, HaeB (talk) 06:37, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it possible that it could be a misspelling of Karpersky Antivirus (I cannot find the link), which is a commercial antivirus software? MuZemike 06:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Kaspersky Anti-Virus is a product of Kaspersky Lab (the vandalized article). Eugene Kaspersky is the person impersonated by this user. Regards, HaeB (talk) 07:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that the user is still claiming to be an admin, is still making changes to other people's comments on his Talk page, and is still claiming to be Eugene Kaspersky. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 17:41, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

I've reverted the claim to be an administrator. Mostly so that when I claim to be one no one will see through my evil scheme. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:46, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

User blocked by seicer for username, maybe the userpage should be blanked/deleted/redirected. --64.85.220.189 (talk) 18:45, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Is there any possibility that Mykleis21 (talk · contribs) is the same person? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

• See also 67.128.73.38 (talk · contribs). Arakunem^Talk 20:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
  • Only one way to find out. Call Shari Lewis! MuZemike 22:07, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Unfortunately, Shari went to the Great Puppet Show in the Sky, some years back. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:58, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

... and everyone has been very worried about Lambchop, as she hasn't said a single word since Shari passed away. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 15:07, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I saw that movie: The Silence of the Lambchop. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:29, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

The sequel--Silence II: Return of the Mint--was awful, though. //roux   23:27, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It gave me a Charlie Horse. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, made me switch from regular shoes to Hush Puppies. MuZemike 23:45, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this person is gathering sockpuppets or others to deface the page on EugeneKaspersky's behalf via craigslist. WP:BANPOL Is a massive, coordinated attack in store? JordanDouglsas (talk) 16:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked user's ISP contacted by an admin with claims of "libel"

Resolved

 – The issue has received sufficient coverage and the parties have reflected on the utility of the actions taken. –xeno (talk) 13:20, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I am quite concerned that an admin has contacted RMHED's ISP, telling them that User:RMHED has committed "libel" on Wikipedia. When asked about the libel claim, the response was, to say the least, not very reassuring - "Don't know, I can't remember. In my email I said that there was libel, but I don't remember exactly what (or if) it was". Contacting ISPs may be a good idea, but surely this should only be done in extreme cases (this isn't even a banned user), and only by official Wikipedia representatives (i.e. "the office"). Comments? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Note: User:RMHED is now banned, but was not when their ISP was contacted. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I found it disturbing that, when I asked above where said libelous comment was at, that they pointed to a diff that contained no libelous content. Rude? Yes. Libelous? Far from that. To contact an ISP and harass a user over that is a bit over the top. seicer | talk | contribs 14:33, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I am sorry if I have cause a problem here. I certainly did not intend to. A few months ago, I wrote an American ISP about a serial vandal who was taking advantage of a /8 to daily vandalize TFA. At the time, I did not think contacting ISPs would be a problem, and I apologise if I have overstepped my bounds here. I will avoid doing this in the future. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's a long term serial vandal it's worth a go, but not for someone who was an ok contributor for a while and only went a bit wrong for a few weeks. Unless you mean that RHMED was the serial vandal. Such abuse would have to be long term or very serious in order to contact an ISP in my opinion, and false claims of libel shouldn't be made to try and cause trouble for someone- that would be almost "libelous" :) Sticky Parkin 17:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, per Sam Korn's comments above in the ban discussion, it seems like RMHED has been socking and disrupting for quite some time. //roux   18:57, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps true, but this was not known (as far as I know) when the ISP was contacted. RMHED was not banned and was not labelled a long-term abuser. This has the appearance of being related to RMHED's attacks on user:Jimbo Wales. Outside of that, it was simple vandalism and a bit of trolling. The response seems, to me, to be inappropriate for the level of annoyance that was being caused. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I dunno, I think it would be good for Wikipedia to start coming down like a ton of bricks on people who are deliberately and knowingly flouting all policies. It would make the prospect far less attractive to those who do--RMHED, MS, G*, HR, etc--and make our lives easier, not to mention increasing the public opinion of Wikipedia as a useful and semi-reliable resource. //roux   04:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree. My concern is who does it, how they do it, and what specific information is given to the ISP. That's why I started the thread, but I now see that this isn't a concern that others share. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Jdelanoy, I'm not trying to single you out here. While I find it very concerning that you told an editor's ISP that they had committed libel, seemingly with no evidence of any libel having been committed, I am actually more interested in the general case. Should admins be contacting ISPs, and under what circumstances? I think that most ISPs will automatically and naturally assume that an admin is acting at the behest of, or at least with the knowledge of, some official body within Wikipedia. My opinion, therefore, is that admins should only be doing this if they are instructed to as part of an "office" action. Better yet, the office (or WP's legal counsel) should be the ones speaking to the ISPs.

Suspicions of abuse don't always turn out to be true. Rather than saying User:SuspectedSockpuppeteeringVandal did such-and-such, the only information given to ISPs should be IP addresses and times. The ISPs have the logs and ability to determine which of their users were involved. Telling an ISP that a specific user is an online vandal or libelled someone is possibly harming the reputation (and business relationship) of a possibly innocent person. And opening the reporter up to charges of libel themselves. I think there should be a little more (perhaps a lot more) thought put into this type of action. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Possibly harming? No. The ISP investigates. If they see a problem, they terminate. If not, they don't. This is a standard every day thing. I worked as a chat monitor at AOL (a long long time ago and not for that long of a time) and reported many people for abuse who lost their accounts. I know of many people who had to deal with such complaints. These are every day occurances and don't "harm reputations". Ottava Rima (talk) 04:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ottava, if you think I'm just drama-mongering here, why are you stirring the pot...? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Because I'm hoping this stays up long enough for you to be blocked for your blatant disruption. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:27, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm hoping that people stop responding to a thread that has been marked resolved, but that doesn't seem to be happening either. Have a nice day! 14:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't in the business of controlling user's actions off Wiki like this. This isn't really a matter for ANI. Was jdelanoy disrupting? No. Was he involved in stalking? No. Was he making legal threats? No (it was a complaint, which anyone can file about anyone, ISPs get them all the time). Why is ANI linking to other ANI? Drama begetting drama. Ottava Rima (talk) 17:21, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

An admin contacting another editor's ISP is likely to be seen as a representative of Wikipedia, especially if they identify themselves as such. I don't know if that was the case here, but it seems naive or disingenuous to pretend that admin actions off-wiki are unrelated if they spawn from incidents on-wiki. I made this a separate thread so as not to derail the discussion of banning RMHED which was proceeding to its obvious conclusion. I believe there are a couple of serious issues here, and your accusation of drama-mongering isn't helping address them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Jdelanoy never stated that he represented himself as an admin, nor would it really matter. Anyone has a right to complain to an ISP about any problematic behavior. The ISP then sees if the complaint has merit or not. 04:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Don't really see an issue here. J.Delanoy's action occurred offsite and through proper channels. If his allegation wasn't adequately backed up that's the ISP's concern, and probably harmed no one. Threats and harassment are concerns at ANI, not actual action of this type. Durova^Charge! 04:36, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I'm the only one who views this as a problem - feel free to mark it as resolved. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 13:14, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesnt say anything on WP to stop someone contacting an ISP. people who do are encoraged if they think they need to bt the ISP's. there is nothing illeagl about doing so if thats what your's worried about.  rdunnPLIB  13:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the thread at all? It details my concerns and that's not one of them. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I certainly view this as a problem. It is not the business of an admin to pursue users outside of Wikipedia. Jtrainor (talk) 05:11, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

And why not? I'm not talking about real-life harassment or anything, but notifying an ISP that their service is being used abusively? Why on earth shouldn't admins do that? We either want to deal with the chronic vandalism and socking issue or we do not. I suspect the truth is the latter, but presuming for a moment that we actually do, then notifying ISPs of massive abuse coming from their subscribers can only be a good thing. //roux   05:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Since this thread won't seem to die, and yet seems to have drawn very little admin comment, I'll try to make my point again. Contacting ISPs may be a valid way to address vandalism issues, but that contact needs to come from (or at least be directed by) the WMF, not individual admins, and it needs to present the information fairly and without risking the reputation of the editor involved. Look carefully at the case that prompted this if you don't understand my concern. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps initiating a non-specific discussion at WP:VPP might be the best way to proceed, if you think this should be codified. –xeno (talk) 14:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That is basically my view, Delicious. Jtrainor (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Banned user with a clean block log

Resolved

 – Unimportant—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Wanli (talk · contribs · deleted · count · AfD · logs · block log · lu · rfar · spi). He got sitebanned by the early developers circa 2003, but his block log is clean. Could an admin please look into this? →Dyl@n620 22:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The logs began appearing after 2004 or so. No users blocked before then will be in the conventional logs. Best, PeterSymonds (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused. Mike Rosoft (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked User:Isis, User:Khranus, User:BuddhaInside, User:Reithy, User:Weezer, User:EntmootsOfTrolls, and User:DW (who should be tagged as banned) indefinitely over a period from 2006 to 2009 per their Jimbo-enforced bans enacted from 2003-2004. I was wondering if the same could be done for Wanli. →Dyl@n620 01:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Why are you wasting time on a user who made 30 edits back in 2003? Looie496 (talk) 02:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible block evasion?

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

94.192 was recently blocked for edit-warring. 76.241 has popped up shortly after the block and is edit-warring on Antun Saadeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a page that 94.192 previously edit-warred on, with identical edits and rationales. 94.192 has previously threatened to evade blocks. Perhaps a coincidence. THF (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The WHOIS indicates different countries (UK/USA), but I am not familiar enough with proxying to assume that these are different people. I suppose it comes down to whether enough people consider WP:DUCK should be invoked. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Upon further review, I would hazard that they are not - they may for whatever reason object to SSNP figures or party being compared to the Nazi party. Further, I don't see that particular subject recently being edited by 94.192. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree it may be a coincidence, esp. given the geographic disparity, but I first ran into 94.192 with the identical page-blanking issue. Of course, it's perfectly within the realm of possibility that two different editors have the same agenda with respect to SSNP figures. THF (talk) 00:14, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

88.108.128.0/17

I've just pulled FT/2s rather long hard block on this ISP range which belongs to Tiscali UK. If anyone dissagrees with this please say so.Geni 00:26, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This rings a bell to me for some insidious vandals; links would help. --Rodhullandemu 01:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Contributions log, Block log. Add the CIDR Gadget in your preferences to see the range contributions, though I can't see any at the moment... NuclearWarfare _(Talk) 02:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

That's the range being used by RMHED for his ..whatever it is he thinks he's doing.. --Versageek 02:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I endorse this block. Block has been reinstated by me. This range is the source of long term disruption significant enough to warrant the collateral damage that will occur as a trade off. This was explained by the initial blocking CU, but apparently Geni knows better than FT2 or I do what the circumstances of this matter are? ++Lar: t/c 18:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a checkuser making a block based on checkuser results. Why are we on WP:ANI? A checkuser, who can actually see the collateral damage such a block would cause, it more capable of determining if the block is needed than those who can't. We can give IPBE to those who need it. (Oh, and I disagree with unblocking.) Prodego ^talk 19:23, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

In this case we know that range blocked so anyone can make a reasonably educated guess at the level of the damage likely to be caused. The question is is that level accept in return for the benifits of blocking given how long the block is for. Giveing IPBE to those who get hit by it rather assumes people are prepared to go through those extra hoops in order to edit wikipedia.Geni 19:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Correct... Or to complain to their ISP, who would then be encouraged to act against the user(s) causing the disruption. A good thing.

So yes, anyone knowing the range can make a reasonable guess at the damage. CUs, however, can see the traffic coming in, adjudge how much of it is disruptive, and make an informed decision as to the likely damage. Not a reasonable guess, but an actual evaluation of actual recent traffic so far. One CU did that and, after consulting with other CUs, decided the benefits of a block outweighed the benefits of an unblock. After you questioned it, and then, outside of process unblocked it, further consultation with other CUs happened. Another CU took a look and reaffirmed the evaluation of benefit and reblocked. ++Lar: t/c 20:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that when a CU makes a block, a CU must be contacted before an unblock. Also, you said "no reason given on wikipedia for blocking", when in the very block log it states This IP range is blocked to prevent vandalism. Bona fide users should please request unblocking and checking for "IP block exemption" -- apologies for the disruption, and thank you for understanding." //roux   20:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

FT2 forgot to put {{checkuserblock}} in as the reason. Geni was just impatient after he asked, he didn't wait for the answer long enough. And then waszn't satisfied when it was given. ++Lar: t/c 20:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

So pulling a poorly explained /17 block after confirming the blocker is not online and informing AN/I of what you are doing is now an example of impatience rather than part of the normal checks and balances in wikipedia process? As for satisfied I simply told you to take your justifcation to AN/I which is not unreasonable for a indef hard block (you've brought it down to 3 months) on a significant chunk of a major IP.Geni 22:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to get the block to be exactly as FT2's first one was, and it took me 3 tries, I never intended it to be indef. As for your tendency to shoot early? Yes, I do think you were impatient. So, then, are we done now? ++Lar: t/c 03:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

AFD clarification

Automated Tissue Image Systems just survived AfD a few days ago and has been renominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Automated Tissue Image Systems. Isn't this discouraged or am I missing something? -- Banjeboi 02:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The previous AfD discussion was about SureClick. This doesn't appear to be the same article, unless I'm missing something. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:31, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The previous AfD was a bundled nomination that included both articles. But for some reason the discussion only focused on SureClick and didn't address ATIS at all. I see no harm in renominating it. Reyk _YO! 02:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

No harm except not following policy. I agree the article is a mess but the policy is that any article that just went through AfD, can't be re-AfD'ed so soon. At least that's what I've always been told. They shouldn't have been bundled together, but they were, as part of an AfD that was closed as No Consensus. This makes the article safe for now. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 03:21, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

This is clearly an occasion where WP:IAR can and should apply. Reyk _YO! 03:27, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, discussion is a good thing and Automated Tissue Image Systems has not had it chance to be discussed in the previous debate. -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 04:09, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I found WP:Deletion policy#Deletion discussion and WP:Guide to deletion#If you disagree with the consensus. While they recommend against immediate renomination, neither says that simply surviving AfD immunizes an article for a certain duration. Flatscan (talk) 05:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There is at least some copyright violations in Automated Tissue Image Systems. See the AfD for details. Chillum 05:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification that my actions are being discussed here... oh wait, I wasn't notified...

I've looked, and I haven't been able to find any policy page that says an AFD ending in "No consensus" cannot be sent through AFD again shortly thereafter. If that's policy, fine, but it should be written down somewhere. Me, I just thought of the new AFD as equivalent to re-listing, which is what I thought was going to occur when it was closed, instead.

OTOH, when Articles for deletion/SureClick was closed, MBisanz (the AFD's closer) didn't take the AFD message off of Automated Tissue Image Systems. My guess is that that was because he didn't realize that it was part of the AFD. I'm not blaming him for that in any way, just myself—I realized later that I'd written it up in such a way that it wasn't obvious that two articles were covered. Consequently, I figured it was a good idea to run it through AFD as an individual article.

Yes, there's some copyvio in that article. And some nonsense. And some copy & paste from at least one other WP article. And some unrelated babbling. And some... well, I'll just quote T L Miles, writing about SureClick during its AFD:

I've removed all the things that have only tangential references to the subject. These include 90% of the text, as there were entire FDA regulation texts and manuals on product testing and complaint processes. I can only hope that these were copyvio, cause otherwise the writer has real issues.

IMO, Automated Tissue Image Systems has more issues than SureClick did, and needs at least 90% of its text cut to be worth keeping. Unfortunately, it's written so randomly that I can't tell which parts (if any) are worth keeping. And with copyvio issues, I'd rather we got rid of it entirely than keep it around in the hopes that someday, someone might take action to clean it up. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:24, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notify anyone because I wasn't sure if it was an incident or not. Regardless the article is being worked on, the AfD is underway, etc etc. Hopefully consensus will help guide what to do here. -- Banjeboi 03:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I removed 90% of the text, most of which was extremely fine technical detail about hardware, some software, components of ATI systems that made absolutely no mention of how the component was related to ATIS, and redirected the article to its proper title since it claims to be various and assorted such systems rather than an acronym for a proprietory version of one such system. Once properly gutted, only the first section of the article and the references are much worth keeping. The AfD will take care of this issue, one way or the other, so not much more to do here. --KP Botany (talk) 04:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Controversial edits by Duffbeerforme

Resolved

 – Edits may not be popular with a small group of editors but are well within policy after investigation by 3 admins. Toddst1 (talk) 03:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Duffbeerforme (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This is basically a follow-up to [117] / [118]

Several people seem to be visibly annoyed by this editor's behavior of borderline edit warring and page-blanking/redirecting without consensus. User has been warned several times [119] [120] [121] [122] for his highly controversial edits, incl. [123] [124] [125] [126] [127] [128] [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] but it looks like the editor is not willing to change anything. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 21:18, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

It also should be noted that all given examples seem to proof a case of WP:HOUND, since all the articles were edited by Duffbeerforme only after I mentioned or edited them. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 21:54, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Haven't read all the diffs - the AfD tag edit-warring looked wrong, but he's completely correct about A Beginning - should be redirected; I have done so. Black Kite 22:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, there's an ongoing discussion with not only me opposing a merge.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 23:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

HexaChord points to four warnings for vandalism for edits that were not vandalism. HexaChord points to edits made which respect WP:MUSIC. HexaChord points to nothing done wrong. HexaChord is bitter because I dared to suggest that articles based around Buckethead are subject to the same standards that apply to everthing else. HexaChord needs another look at WP:V, WP:RS and WP:N. I'm not scared off by bullying or by baseless warnings. Complaint does not show I've done anything wrong, just that I am willing to stand up to support the truth. Duffbeerforme (talk) 22:19, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

The funny thing is that several other editors such as User:Zclone and User:EOA3928 are annoyed, too. It was not me who reported you to WP:AIV today: [140]. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 22:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

HexaChord's claim of WP:HOUND, is based of false claims. See [141] Duffbeerforme (talk) 22:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Right, this one article is the only exception from the list. Sorry for that. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 22:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

HexaChord, your complaints are from February. User:Zclone's AIV listing were removed here. Are you saying that Duffbeer has been on a one month personal campaign against you? I see a number of prods on articles, mostly focusing on Buckethead (or somewhat related) but nothing that seems particularly out there. He prods a bunch of articles, you deprod them, and both actions seem fine. The redirects are within policy as well. He redirects (as a bold move), you revert, fine. If he lists at AFD, then fine. It doesn't look too out there for me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and User:EOA3928's complaint here seems to be based on a desire to use primary sources and forums against policy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 23:03, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Per Ricky's comment above, I removed the report from AIV because the recent actions weren't obvious WP:Vandalism and the discussion was turning AIV into a drama board. AIV is not the place to sort things out and frankly I didn't see any wrongdoing in my brief look into the situation. It looked more like a content dispute to me so I left a note for Zclone to that effect. Toddst1 (talk) 23:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

About the hound: After Duffy nominated all Buckethead song articles for deletion, he continued with some Beatles related articles I had mentioned before, and today he began a raid on all Hurt related articles shortly after I contributed to the AfD on the band's main article. Am I paranoid? I posted the AIV link only as evidence that it is not only me who's annoyed. And if you follow the links above, it's going back half a year at least. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 23:16, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, the first AFD I looked at, Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/The_Ballad_of_Buckethead seems to have been validated by many of your peers. Where's the beef? Toddst1 (talk) 23:38, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Since there's been no response, I looked further on my own. Here's what I found in terms of recent AFDs from Duffbeerforme:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/December EP: open, no discussion yet
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Liam Bedford: open, all votes are for delete
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beaucoups of Blues (song): closed, no consensus
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Binge and Grab: closed, delete, HexaChord was the only editor commenting keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Big Sur Moon: closed, no consensus delete, HexaChord was the only editor commenting keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/We Are One (Buckethead song): closed, result redirect, HexaChord was the only editor commenting keep
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Ballad of Buckethead: closed, result redirect

It appears to me that there is not a problem with Duffbeerforme's pattern of nominating articles for deletion at all. If anyone has an outlying position, it's HexaChord. Toddst1 (talk) 00:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, of course you left out Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jordan (song), which followed this edit, as well as the other AfDs where I was not the only one to !vote keep. But that's not the point at all, is it?. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 00:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Omission was not deliberate. The point is there is not a problem with Duffbeerforme's pattern of nominating articles for deletion at all. Toddst1 (talk) 01:07, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The pattern of nominating articles for deletion never was the point of this case. Remember, we're not talking about some AfDs (which would be a whole different case), but about some controversial page blanks/redirects, followed by some borderline edit warring. Since this did not only occur with me but also with several other editors in the past, it probably is not my problem in the first place. --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 02:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, I (and two other admins) haven't found anything worth administrative action against Duff and I've spent a fair amount of time investigating this. I have found several folks who don't know what WP:Vandalism is including a rollbacker (which is the most troubling thing I've found). I think we're done here and I'll mark this resolved - again - in a few minutes unless someone can show something more than a difference of opinion. Toddst1 (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're already committed and should not close this.--Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 02:59, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If you have a problem with Toddst1's close, I can close it with the same verbiage, and I haven't been involved in any of the deletion discussions or the attendant drama. In case you're counting, this makes four admins that agree that there is no problem here. Horologium (talk) 03:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahad's Constant

Resolved

 – I've closed delete early; consensus from the established editor was basically unanimous that this is OR and there is no indication that letting run any longer will do anything but increase the amount of "visitors". — Coren ^(talk) 14:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I am not sure what if anything should be done, but a quick glance of this article's AfD shows an unusually high number of single-purpose accounts and IPs which in many instances just voted with no argument. As such, I am not sure how real of a consensus we are getting from that discussion. And while everyone knows me as an inclusionist, I think in this particular case the suspicious IPs and accounts are mostly on the keep side. The subject does get some Google Hits (although no news, book, or scholar ones), so it may not be a hoax, but I don't know, something just doesn't seem right in the discussion... I apologize if this posting here is out of place, but as a member of the Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron, I was going through the rescue templated articles to see how I could help and after fixing the reference format within the article under discussion checked out the AfD and noticed all the accounts and IPs that seemed suspcious. Anyway, it may be worth further looking at to see if there is some kind of sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry going on. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:46, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Just add the {{spa}} tag to the SPA !votes. Up to the closing admin to sort through the nonsense, since an AFD is not supposed to be a nose-counting procedure. May want to leave a note at the Fringe Theory Noticeboard, in case they're more familiar with what's behind this. THF (talk) 23:58, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, definite off-wiki canvassing behind the multiple SPA votes. THF (talk) 00:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• • Wow. Good find! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 00:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Mm, that's going to be a charlie foxtrot, there. The off-Wiki canvassing makes me think an early close and reboot with semiprotection might be necessary if it gets too out of hand. Tony Fox (arf!) 00:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• I tried requesting semi-protection on the discussion at WP:RFPP a day or two ago (it was already bad IMO back then), but was shot down. MuZemike 01:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I should also add (after reading the obvious Wikicanvassing attempt) this: what part of this is not a majority vote do they not understand? There is a big huge box clearly explaining this on top of the page, right when they click on the link! This is stuff I would expect from teenage fanboys canvassing on an AFD about a video game someone made in their mother's basement, not from a bunch of intellectuals about a topic in Physics! MuZemike 01:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, did you ever happen to see the lists of participants at most of the smaller WikiProjects? They clearly state "Please add your name BELOW in ALPHABETICAL order" - but, ehm - you know... --Avant-garde a clue-hexaChord² 01:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(only semi-related but probably good to bring up now) For future reference, I've set up an abuse filter to try and detect socking at AfD discussions. Special:AbuseFilter/67 should trigger (i.e., log a hit) if there are two separate instances of editors on the same IP range adding a !vote to an AfD discussion within a two-and-a-half day period. There's more detail on the filter about how it should work, but if you suspect socking at an AfD, give the filter logs a glance. This will be far from reliable, but should help. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 01:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"Ahad's constant" was kicked out of Scientific_phenomena_named_after_people last month. All the references to it are in blogs. --John Nagle (talk) 05:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Complaint about User:Luis Napoles

Resolved

The editor Luis Napoles keeps removing my additions to the article "censorship in Cuba." I have also had issues with him regarding his sources on the article "racism in Cuba." I have tried to talk to him about these problems but he ignores me, and I have given him reasons for my edits on these pages as can be seen on his talk page and edit summaries, but he continues to revert to edit warring. I've requested help before, and talked to admins, but no one has helped me. It is really frustrating. Zd12 (talk) 12:10, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Earlier this week, Zd12 received a 48 hours block. Right after expiry he came back to continue replacing research by the Reporters Without Borders and the Committee to Protect Journalists with his "ZSpace" post by some unknown author (two latest: [142][143]). It looks like another 48 hours or more is needed.Luis Napoles (talk) 12:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Zd12 blocked for 2 weeks for continuing edit war. User:Luis Napoles warned about potentially violating 3RR. Toddst1 (talk) 12:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Arcayne

There is an on-going debate relating to the infobox within fictional characters. This debating is raging in the disucssion page of the James Kirk biography. For the past few days, the page has been fully protected while the debate continued. Today, moments after the protection expired (but clearly far from a resolution) user:Arcayne changed the infobox to fit the format that he's been promoting. Several admins have voiced their opposition to this format. WP:Film & WP:Television have both come to the consensus that this is an invalid position and yet Arcayne (an admin) moved forward without a consensus and did it anyway. The wiki remains semi-protected. Erikeltic (talk) 20:44, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

• Just to point out that User:Arcayne is not an admin, not that this makes any difference on a content issue. Black Kite 20:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
• Notified Arcayne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). –xeno (talk) 20:52, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Erikeltic has been confusing me with an admin since he was blocked for edit-warring in the article 3 days ago, and apparently began socking shortly thereafter. Since pointing this out at least twice seems to have had no effect, I've simply tuned him out. Additionally, the point of seeking consensus is to affect change in an article without excessive edit-warring. The article was reinstated to its pre-editwar state. As I understand it (and maybe I am wrong here) but consensus needs to be found before the change is made, as per BRD. Lastly, I am not sure where the "several admins have voiced their opposition" bit is coming from, since I am only aware of one admin who has been actively contributing to the article (not as an admin capacity but as an editor). The Film and TV wikiproject consensus' do not say what Erikeltic seem to think they do. I think I am on pretty solid ground as far as inclusion goes, and have repeatedly suggested that mediation might be a route to pursue, as Erikeltic seems rather unfamiliar with policies and guidelines, having only made about 200 edits thus far. He's been counseled about his often attack-y and uncivil behavior by at least two other editors. This is forum-shopping, and having to duck-duck-goose where Erikeltic is going to ask yet another parent is somewhat tedious. This belongs in mediation, not ANI. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Rather than even dispute or "reason" these statements and accusations, I would simply implore you admins to take a look at the discussion, take a look at the behavior, take a look at the history, etc. and you will see what's going on for yourselves. Thanks. Erikeltic (talk) 22:05, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Erikeltic and Marfoir

As a neutral party to this debate, I believe there may be some merit to Arcayne's sockpuppet allegations concerning Erikeltic. Marfoir was created only one day after Erikeltic returned to his account, and Marfoir's first edits were to a related AfD, and to date, have only been about this issue. Also, yesterday Marfoir deleted comments I made to Erikeltic's talk page, whereupon both editors, within minutes of each other, blanked large sections of warnings and discussions related to this issue from their talk pages [144] [145] . I think Checkuser might be prudent to clear this up. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, doing a little searching through the edit history of the James Cawley AFD on my own, I may have a possible smoking gun. Based on their own corrections to edits made while not logged in, Marfoir edited from 24.115.224.131, while Erikeltic edited from 24.229.98.148. Both IPs come from PenTeleData Cable in Palmerton, PA. [146] [147] Coincidental? I'm doubting it. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 16:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Marfoir and I know one another and it was I who involved him in this debate. Our IPs are similar (not identical) because we live in the same area, so there aren't any surprises there. Why exactly have you made it your mission to come after me, FennShysa? You have left several warnings for me and correct a couple of my posts and yet you don't do the same thing to Arcayne when it's necessary. Why is that? Erikeltic (talk) 16:56, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

QUACK QUACK! please... --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Lol. So, let me see if I understand this, Erikeltic/anon24 (et al)/Marfoir/whatever - you are stating that even though you were socking before, you are instead guilty of meat-puppetry and canvassing? Sorry, that is almost as bad. Especially when both of you voted in an AfD related to this subject. Pursuant to a checkuser or SPP (I can never remember the difference), I'd like this user, in all of his/her many, many (at least 5 now) colorful disguises by blockety-block-blocked indefinitely. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:10, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

By your own admission, then Erikeltic, you've violated Wikipedia policies. Please read this section about Meatpuppets and Sockpuppets - the relevant line is Do not recruit meatpuppets. It is considered highly inappropriate to advertise Wikipedia articles to your friends, family members, or communities of people who agree with you, so that they come to Wikipedia and support your side of a debate. So to answer your question (and poor attempt to deflect blame/attention from yourself), Arcayne has followed procedure - you, sir, have not. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

So the bottom line is: rather than lose the debate about the infobox, you'll just come after me personally to silence the opposition? And I didn't recruit anyone. I don't know when Marfoir got an account and I don't really care. The only thing I did was mention the wiki to him. What he did with that is on him, not me. What, you want our real names and phone numbers? I'll share that offline with THF or any neutral admin if that's what it takes to prove there is no puppetry here. Go for it. This is just an end-run to get around losing the debate. How sad. Erikeltic (talk) 17:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not involved in any userbox debate. I saw you behaving inappropriately, and called you on it. I saw another editor behaving inappropriately, covering you, and noticed a pattern, and followed up on it. Simple as that. And you can't have it both ways - you can't claim "I didn't recruit anyone" immediately after posting "Marfoir and I know one another and it was I who involved him in this debate." You just admitted to recruiting him. Case closed, IMHO. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

You're making it sound much more sinister than it actually was. You want to punish me for telling somebody I know about the edit war, then by all means: go for it. It is not fair, however, to dismiss my arguments or punish someone else because I'm a wiki-noob that is operating in good faith. Nor does anything I have done relieve Arcayne of his own actions. Erikeltic (talk) 17:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This is a normal content dispute and doesn't belong at ANI. Erikeltic has been more even-tempered of late, but this harkens back to his earlier forum shopping. --EEMIV (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

If someone suspects a sockpuppetry, report it. Meanwhile, the underlying content dispute is being proposed for mediation. --EEMIV (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has a problem with doing that, EEMIV (outside of the work involved in filing). That said, the Erikeltic has already admitted to abusive meatpuppetry, and has attempted to influence both consensus in article discussion and the results of an AfD. Hasn't ArbCom determined that "Wikipedia does not distinguish between meatpuppets and sockpuppets."^{SPI guide}? Again, I don't mind filing the report myself, but I am also thinking of the collateral damage to articles and their attendant discussions as well as those pages wherein they are voting in concert. In my experience, Checkuser can be somewhat glacial in its progress. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:17, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet investigation reopened, FWIW. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 19:21, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of notifying both Erikeltic and Marfoir or the renewed SPI. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:44, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I will voluntarily remove myself from the mediation process entirely and leave it between you, EEMIV, Marfoir, THF, Cool Hand Luke, Bignole, GlobalCluster, and everyone else involved with the content issues if it makes you feel better. Let the investigation against me proceed, but don't use me as your excuse against resoloving the dispute. Erikeltic (talk) 22:55, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed. What a mess one simple discussion has turned into. Oy. Welcome to Wikipedia. Marfoir (talk) 23:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree; a content dispute turns into a discovery of possible meat (or sock)-puppetry. Quick, someone get the movie rights to this. :) - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:53, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

It seems as though every person who posts about 'Admin Abuse', 'Bullying' etc. doesn't realise that they will be subjected to a thorough examination as well. It's funny watching them try to redirect everyone to their original complaint, once people have got wind of their meat or sockpuppeting, violation of the policies they link to etc. Great way to kill an evening. Sarcastic ShockwaveLover (talk) 14:22, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

And now, Erikeltic (not Marfoir,which has been oddly silent while E remains somewhat active), has updated his user page three different times. Initially with a non-free image and the caption "victory is mine" (this after a consensus was reached in an article that he was a part of). When he was advised he could use such in his user page, he replaced it with an anatomical drawing of an anus with the caption: "Indeed, they are everywhere". Lastly, he updated it with a childish ditty about his interests: a pun on articles to tell his detractors to 'bend over and kiss my ass, you people'. Now, I get that folk are allowed to clever up their page, but I am fairly sure that this user - who is still awaiting the outcome of an SPI - uses the wiki as a battleground; the comments about winning and calling the folk on the losing side of an argument assholes.

This user has spent a majority of their time either making uncivil comment in article discussion, creating pointy subarticles, wikihounding others, meat-puppeting (or socking) and turning their userpage into an insult. I am wondering why this person is still here. I am quite certain that they see the inaction here and at SPI as apathetic of their behavior; indeed, I think he sees it as approval for their behavior. I don't see it as improving until someone steps in.- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:38, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. Is this thing on? Test, test test... - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I hear you...just passing through...not an admin and I avoid the fiction and pop-culture demesnes like the plague, but I will agree from what I've seen here that this guy does not grok wiki, and I don't see that realization of what we are about imminent. Were I sysopped, I'd indef until I saw some sign of a epiphany. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I am usually loathe to dismiss users, and don't urge a ban, but a block is clearly necessary; we do not allow meat- or sock-puppetry, and to complement the behavior by creating an attackpage and making personal attacks is corrosive to how the wikiis supposed to work. Intense and spirited discussion is okay; calling other users assholes is not. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:17, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

TO BE CLEAR: I never once called you an asshole. Show me where I wrote the words "Arcayne is an asshole" or "you are an asshole." Looking back through your user page, I can see that a number of other people have written this about you. It seems to be common theme, but I have never called you an asshole. I'd like to see you produce that in writing. Or is your only evidence my interests and pictures of a donkey and a black hole? There was no mention of you at all, so I really think you're giving yourself too much credit. Maybe you're reading into things too much or under the impression that I think you're worth the effort of insulting? I don't know and I really don't care. I'd just like you to quit hounding me. Oh, and just so you know, my user page has been taken down because CHL suggested it, so continue on with your crusade. Erikeltic (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate you redacting the comments on your user page that called folks asshole, but its back-pedaling, Were that the only problem, it might be enough to simply close out the matter as a basic incivility matter. However, you continue to treat Wikipedia like a knife fight, wikihound others, toss personal attacks around like they were beads at Mardi Gras and are utterly unwilling to learn our policies and guidelines before trying to use them. Add to that the whole meat-puppetry thing (which is equivalent to sock-puppetry) with Marfoir and the previous anon IP socking and edit-warring, and we are left with an image that isn't at all encouraging. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Nukes4Tots is back from his second block in a week

User:Nukes4Tots is just hours back from his second block in a week[[148]], and he has proceeded to call me a stalker 4(!!) times since returning[[149]], [[150]], [[151]],[[152]], because I filed a second CheckUser on him. The most recent CheckUser I filed is currently hidden from regular users and has been deferred to ArbCom, so any further details are currently unavailable unless you contact ArbCom. I will just say that calling someone a stalker over 4 times, across multiple pages, and after returning from a block, isn't really conducive to civil editing to a collaborative environment. I realize that people don't like to be accused of or busted for sockpuppeting, but 'stalker' is definitely a disparaging and uncivil term. Theserialcomma (talk) 03:36, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, can an administrator please chime in on this? Clearly a case of wikihounding. I'm not going to bother with all of the diffs on this one defending myself. I'm using the term "stalker" as that's what it is. He won and lost arguments with me and has now reported me about a dozen times for various real and imagined issues. He's also spreading his stalking around to other users such as Sus scrofa because he, like me, edits firearms articles. Theserialcomma has a professed vendetta against people who edit firearms articles. I'm tired of this. Drop the stick already. A reasonable person test would demonstrate that my use of the term "stalker" is appropriate and a bit understated. Check his edit history. Check this series of edits where this user went back years in my and other users edit history digging up "evidence" to try and bury me. Really, I don't need this. It's time to back away from the carcass. I am clearly being harassed here as are other unrelated users like user:DanMP5, user:Koalorka, and user:Sus scrofa. I'd like some action to prevent this. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 05:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Stop being paranoid and stop making frivolous accusations. You've abused our sockpuppetry policies in the past – Theserialcomma is revisiting these issues by bringing up prima facie legitimate SPI cases. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 07:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

people should know that 1. Nishkid64 is the actual checkuser who gathered the evidence of the first SPI and then deferred the situation to ArbCom. If Nishkid64 says this guy has abused sockpuppetry policies and is making frivolous accusations, then that means something. I, out of respect for Nishkid and ArbCom, cannot comment further on the first checkuser evidence. but what i will say is that Nukes4Tots has a lot of nerve to be so disingenuous as to make any nonsense claims as to the "evidence" i gathered. he has so much nerve that it's unbelievable. how dare he leverage and manipulate the silence that was awarded to him by ArbCom so that he can make false claims against me that I'm not allowed to defend. I know the truth, he knows the truth, Nishkid64(the checkuser) knows the truth, and ArbCom knows the truth. Nukes4Tots is manipulating all of our kindness. however, i stand by my evidence 100%. as for the second checkuser that i filed tonight regarding new sockpuppets, the whole thing has been hidden and deferred to ArbCom. only the first checkuser is currently visible, but the results are hidden. and as for Nukes4Tots calling me all sorts of variations of stalker and everything else, i believe that if he cannot provide clear and unambiguous diffs for his claims, then he is making a direct personal attack. and that shouldn't be tolerated. especially from someone whose alleged sockpuppet accounts have been blocked like 10 times. Theserialcomma (talk) 07:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

• In the interests of transparency, can ArbCom (or Nishkid on their behalf) explain why a) this information is being withheld from the community, and therefore b) why an abusive sockpuppeteer is allowed to remain? //roux   07:49, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

One question here, the old case is over, why is there a new case? Please perform a checkuser and get it over with. This is not a legitemate SPI case. The only evidence submitted was that somebody edited firearms articles while I was banned. It's fine to attack me but to go after people JUST because they edit firearms articles is rotten. And why is it I cannot complain about harassment (which I've been doing since about the fifth or sixth report) yet Theserialcomma is free to complain about anything? Not sure why the double standard. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Uh, you've been complaining about harassment, stalking, wikihounding for over a year now. Just drop it, already. I'm sick of "mediating" this spat between you two. Roux, I've contacted the Arbitration Committee for an update, but I received no reply. I sent the case over to them because it involved some real-life harassment, and I felt ArbCom had better resources to deal with it. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 18:34, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Would it make sense to file a request for clarification? It's really unacceptable to have disputes here that admins can't touch because supposedly Arbcom is handling them, even though Arbcom has not given any sign of it as far as I can tell. Looie496 (talk) 18:56, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

just for clarification, the 'stalker'/'harasser'/etc. from a year ago was someone else. i'm a different 'stalker.' also, calling someone a stalker without diffs should be considered a personal attack, and i hope that someone will ask him to choose his words more carefully, or show real evidence. Theserialcomma (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I will apologize for using the word stalker if that offends you, however you have been harassing me. If you take offense to the word harasser (your word), then I don't know where to go from there because I take offense to the word sockpuppet. By your professed standard, I cannot accuse you of ANYTHING because the mere accusation becomes a personal attack. I find that standard to be absurd and hypocritical. I thought that you'd backed off and dropped the stick, I don't know why you brought it up again nor why you felt the need to take it here as you were already appealing to an admin. You won your battles and now you want to try to refight them and then re-refight them and then re-re-refight them. Please, drop the stick. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

You can't really take offence to the word 'sockpuppet' when it's been proven you've used them, FYI. //roux   20:10, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

By that logic, his dozen reports of me for various items, half of which he himself baited me into, so long as they are proven to be harassment by Wikipedia's definition, would give me immunity to call him a wikihound? Am I seeing something here that's not there? Am I seeing a double standard where the accuser, so long as he continues to accuse, gets a by on his pushing the envelope yet I am held to a higher standard because of my real and imagined violations? I can't call him out on his wikihounding because the mere mention of my accusation is somehow now a hate crime... a personal attack; THAT is what this report is about right? My acusation of "wikihounding" is a personal attack... that's the heart of this report. I can't accuse him of wikihounding until it's actually proven that he's a wikihound? Can I get a do-over too? I want to know how I can report him for wikihounding without actually using the word... Shhhhh, I'm just doing this for demonstrative purposes... stalker? So, why is it that WP:STALK directs you to the harassment article? If the use of the word stalker is a personal attack, then Wikipedia is complicit in this wrongdoing by letting the word be used. Cheese and crackers. Is there a reasonable level of sensitivity that I can presume or can I say NOTHING anymore for fear that Theserialcomma will call it a personal attack? (disclaimer: the use of the word cracker is not intended as a personal insult. I apologize in advanced for any and all offended parties or hurt feelings that might result from my use of this controversial word. I did it out of the spirit of debate and discussion) (redisclaimer: the use of the word "spirit" is not intended to imply the existance or absence of a God. I apologize in advance to all God-fearing and athiests alike for any mental trauma caused by my use of this word) (re-redisclaimer: the use of the word "mental" is intended in the scientific term. I in no way, shape or form intended for this word to offend those suffering from psychiatric conditions) --Nukes4Tots (talk) 04:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

How about you stop with the random nonsense and address the fact that you have--proven!--used sockpuppets abusively? Unless and until you do that, there's not a whole lot of point in listening to anything you say, given that this "I'll throw out a bunch of attacks" thing is your usual MO. //roux   07:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

← Until the ArbCom responds to this, there's not much point in arguing this further here. Let's chill for the moment. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 16:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Cloudbuster

After the AfD[153] for Cloudbuster closed User:Verbal unilaterally merged it to orgone[154], making a false claim that this was per the AfD (the closing statement actually reads "The result was keep. Any merge/redirect discussions should take place at the relevant talk pages" - I make count of votes 6 delete,including the nominator and verbal), 2 redirect, 3 merge, 9 keep.)

This was rolled back twice and a merge discussion started, with user:Verbal reverting to the merged version both times[155][156]. User:Sloane then picked up the torch[157][158], making the somewhat bizarre argument that the redirect should be kept until the discussion is complete (note that the discusson as it stands is overwhelmingly against the merger).

I request that these users be dissuaded from this course of action, and the merge discussion be allowed to run it's course before any user attempts merging the pages. Artw (talk) 06:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: ArbCom has imposed broad sanctions on the editing of Pseudoscience-related articles such as orgone, which is explicitly flagged as "on probation". Perhaps cloud-buster should be similarly flagged. -- Shunpiker (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Looking back at the afd, I see 9 merges/redirects, 1 delete and 8 keeps. User:Verbal was not at fault for being bold and redirecting the article. Also, the Cloudbuster article isn't classified under Pseudoscience but under Alternative Medicine, and had no Arbcom tag applied to it, until after this incident report was filed.--Sloane (talk) 12:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I count 9 boldface "keeps" in a discussion with 18 participants including the nominator. I do not understand how an experienced editor could construe that and (more importantly) a "keep" close as a consensus for merge or redirect. Overriding process and then reverting challengers is not WP:BOLD. FWIW, the Cloudbuster article was classified under Category:Orgone energy, which in turn is classified under Category:Pseudoscience. --Shunpiker (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me tell you how I read that !vote: there are not enough to keep the article in and of itself, but an overwhelming majority to keep the content. As such, since merge will keep the article content... (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 19:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

There are appropriate ways to discuss merging, AfD is not one one them. Outcomes of AfD discussions are not decided by headcount but by policy. The closing admin makes the decision regarding policy consensus, in this case it was keep with a recommendation to discuss merging. The merger did indeed not preserve the integrity of the information and even if it did it would be inappropriate to do so without prior discussion. The instruction to start an 'unmerge' discussion is also not particularly diplomatic. Unomi (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Note that Artw contacted both User:Verbal and User:Sloane to comment on this ANI. Ikip (talk) 13:08, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Looking back on the afd closing comments it clearly states that further discussion is to take place prior to merger. Also, insinuating that merging Cloudbuster into Orgone doesn't constitute editing of Orgone is 'novel'. Further, the initial unilateral merger constituted of cutting the contents of Cloudbuster down to a paragraph. The people agitating for a merger should at the very least have made a userspace version of how they envisioned the resultant article should look, and then merge once/if consensus was reached. Unomi (talk) 17:05, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Maybe I'm crazy, but I see only 3 sources at cloudbuster. One of them is a Kate Bush music video, and the other two are explicitly about orgone. That's not exactly screaming "I deserve a standalone article!" Instead of edit-warring over the merge and demanding that the other guy needs to jump through the following 6 hoops, find some decent sources. If the article is redirected for 3 days, it's not the end of the world. Spend the time digging up a few decent sources and working them into a text, instead of edit-warring, and then it will be obvious that cloudbuster needs its own article. Right now, it's a hard sell: the sources cited in the article directly support the argument that it should be merged, and all I see from both sides is unproductive edit-warring and wikilawyering. MastCell ^Talk 22:40, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

MastCell, MastCell. Stop trying to inject logic at AN. Silly admin. Your spoiling the view from the balcony. Keeper | 76 22:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I have repeatedly given examples of reliable independent sources that are written primarily about cloudbusters and only tangentially mention Orgone. You can find these in both the AFD Discussion and the merge discussion, if you take the time to search for my comments. I have not worked to incorporate these sources into the page because the discussions were still going on and I didn't want to have my diligent work hastily thrown away if there was a consensus to delete or merge. I would appreciate it if we would consider what sources are out there, not only the ones listed in the article--which I might add is in a pretty sorry state. Thanks. I think it's sad that the discussion has spilled over onto this administrative page.  :-( We all need to be more civil here, myself included. Cazort (talk) 14:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Cosmos Raver

Based on a series of abusive edits (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here) to Tadakuni's user page, as well as similarly abusive edits (here, here, here, here, and here) to Tadakuni's awards page and to his talk page (here, here, here, here, here, and here), I blocked Cosmos River as a sockpuppet of Darin Fidika. This user is now complaining about this, so I bring it here for review. To me, it's fairly obvious this is Darin Fidika, based on the articles edited and what the edits were. Please comment here (or on the talk page there. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think his status as a sock is irrelevant. Rklawton (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but I'm bringing it here for review, anyway, as he seems to think I'm evil or something (I do have a userbox on my page that says I am, so maybe he's right?). Oddly enough, I just stumbled on it while reviewing another edit. While looking through a series of edits made by this user, I noticed the ones listed above and things clicked. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If this UID had merely been dicking around with somebody else's user page, he might merit a strong warning, and, if this were ineffectual, a short block. However, Fidika is blocked indefinitely. "Cosmos Raver":

1. is intent on readding samurai-related factoids sourced to Fidika's favorite wiki (e.g. here or here);
2. exhibits Fidika's inimitable prose style: "pretending as if his actions had been virtually substantial to Wikipedia's quality standards"; "If you don't believe that Tadakuni is deserving of any fault then you shouldn't be an administrator, because it's very apparent I intend on helping Wikipedia and am not speaking words that are disapprovable"; etc etc.

"Cosmos Raver" is a sock of an indefinitely blocked user, and should be treated as such. Putting myself in maximum-solemnity mode (as befits this august page), my only difference with Nihonjoe is where he writes it's fairly obvious this is Darin Fidika: it's not fairly obvious, it's blazingly obvious. -- Hoary (talk) 02:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I think it's probably Fidika, but he seems much meaner than the old socks / the original Fidika. I remember him making arguments trying to justify his plagiarism, but I don't remember him vandalizing user pages or mass-reverting admins. Regardless, I think this user ought to remain blocked. The owners of the original material that formed SamuraiWiki had been talking about lawsuits, and this guy's agenda seems to be to push the re-inclusion of suspect content. Mangojuice^talk 04:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, Kuuzo had his own problems. Sure, he could have filed a suit, but it wouldn't have gone anywhere as the issue was addressed as soon as we were made aware of it. That's all that's required because anyone can edit Wikipedia. As long as we address the issue in a reasonable amount of time, he can't ask for anything more. And I agree he (Fidika) seems to be meaner now. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. But it's important for us not to violate copyrights. If someone is taking the time to review individual contributions of his and determines that certain ones aren't copyright violations, fine, I wouldn't argue. But a fast-moving revert of all those reverts across multiple articles is too reckless. Mangojuice^talk 18:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure so this is why im asking

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 16:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2009/02#Whitehat.servehttp.com

I understand why this domain is not whitelisted, but I just want to make sure Guy is talking about *.servehttp.com and not whitehat.servehttp.com. It just confused me when he said it was blacklisted for abuse. --Deo Favente (talk) 01:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This should be discussed over there. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 16:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"Related information" sections

This discussion should not be cited to reflect any consensus (one way or the other) on the issue being discussed because the discussion was terminated before consensus could be achieved. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 18:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

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

This discussion does not belong here. Please take it to the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) board. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 17:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Butwhatdoiknow, based on reasoning outlined here, has been adding the heading "Related information" before templates in articles. See for instance here, here, here. Now, before this spins out of control, can we agree that the perceived "benefits" of adding this header are very thin indeed, that it needlessly clutters up articles, that no one asked for this change, and that certainly no broad consensus has been reached for it? - Biruitorul ^Talk 03:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

First, I am happy that you agree the proposal has benefits, albeit thin in your opinion. Second, if there is a benefit then the cluttering is not "needless." Instead the issue is whether the benefit outweighs the cost. Third, I am not familiar with a "someone must ask for a change for it to be valid" rule. Can you point it out to me? Fourth, saying that no consensus has been reached is a Catch-22 objection that is contrary to wp:CCC. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

"Very thin indeed" is a polite way of saying "zero". The idea has zero benefits that I can see. Also, see WP:CREEP - we can't have rules for everything, but in general it's a bad idea trying to impose a change on thousands of articles without broad consensus. - Biruitorul ^Talk 14:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This seems like something which would be better posted to the WP:PUMP (specifically the Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) board). ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe}

it's pointless cluttering of articles, and most of his 'reasons' aren't really reasoned responses to objections, but 'ilikeit' responses about how useful he thinks it will be. I'm reverting in the three examples above. Also, editor needs to be notified. I'll do that after reverts. ThuranX (talk) 04:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The clutter is pointless if there is no benefit. I've outlined several benefits here . Are you saying that none of these are actual benefits or that the cost of the clutter outweighs those benefits? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Editors was notified, and I note that his talk page already has a great deal of objection to the edits, but he seems intent on continuing it. ThuranX (talk) 04:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My talk page has objections from two editors. As soon as I received the first objection I stopped adding the "Related information" heading pending wp:consensus regarding that editor's concerns. That editor, however, refused to discuss the substance of his objection. Then a friend of the first editor objected and suggested I put the idea out for comment, which I did. So much for "a great deal of objection" and "intent on continuing it." Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any benefit from this heading. If someone is familiar with the structure of Wikipedia articles, they will know to expect these templates to appear at the end of the article. And if they are not familiar with the structure of Wikipedia articles, they won't know to expect these templates to exist at all, although they may be pleasantly surprised to find them once they get to the end of the article and see them. Just putting in the phrase "Related information" isn't going to be of much help. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Here is what I percieve to be one clear benefit: Some articles have navboxes and some don't. At present, the only way to find out whether an article has a navbox is to click on the heading for the last appendix and then scroll down. A "Related information" heading alerts the reader in the table of contents that there is helpful information after the last appendix section and allows the reader to click to that information if the reader is interested. Are you saying that this is not a benefit or are you saying that the cost of the "clutter" outweighs the benefit? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

You're clearly the only one finding a benefit. I'll go one further. Unlike 'See Also' and 'External links', which are fairly obvious in their purposes to new wiki-users, 'related information' sounds like 'here's a section about stuff we couldn't fit into the article in other ways'. Those readers looking for what you call 'related info', will probably look at 'see also' for such things, and find the templates and such that way. Yours instead tryign to gourp all that end of article stuff under one either redundant or confusing header. ThuranX (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

ThuranX, did you actually look into this at all? If you had, you would "clearly" see that Bwdik is not the only one finding a benefit. You would also see that this noticeboard is not for content disputes. No administrator action is required here. You are free to comment in appropriate locations. Bwdik is very politely working to gain consensus and I haven't noticed too many people who actually edit the articles objecting to their changes so far. Franamax (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

And yet, it's not a matter for just those few pages, as he's attempting to institute a project wide change. So those articles' pages aren't the best places for this, as conflicting consensii may emerge. he hasn't proposed it anywhere else, so this is as good a place as any to show that it's not an idea that's going to take root. ThuranX (talk) 15:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, so I see two people finding a benefit and at least four objecting loudly. That hardly constitutes consensus. - Biruitorul ^Talk 15:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

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

Username question

I think this falls under Wikipedia:CHILD which should be brought here. See Iminpuberty (talk · contribs). I'll defer action to others. Toddst1 (talk) 06:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No objectionable (or indeed any) edits and no obviously disruptive username, so any discussion should take place at WP:RFCN.  Sandstein  06:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Once they start editing (there are no contribs as of a minute ago), someone could suggest they change their name, to avoid the drama associated with self-identified children. If they start posting identifiable information, that's much more serious. But at this point, the user hasn't edited, so I don't think this is actionable. -kotra (talk) 07:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)x2 Tough call. I look at it this way; either it's true, a joke, trolling or a (pedo) trap. The first case, a recommendation to change username would be in order. The joke case, probably OK to ignore, but a change username should be recommended to prevent further drama. The last two probably merit immediate blocking as they are potentially detrimental to the project. The safest route is to probably recommend a change username. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Per Mendaliv, though I might go so far as suggesting that we should insist that a name change occurs if the user wishes to edit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, let's use the brains God (or your local variant) gave us: there is no way this is the username of a child. Act accordingly. //roux   07:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussing with user. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 16:41, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked, socking editor continuing to flout WP:UP#NOT

Resolved

 – Page protected due to abuse of page after indef block. Chillum 15:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Despite being blocked, SPA Cbffproduction (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is (or rather, are: this appears to be a shared account: "Our name are Sam Won and Aya Vargas") continuing to elaborate her soapy user page. The user(s) had attempted to evade the block by socking. Perhaps the page should just be deleted or else blanked and protected. --Rrburke^(talk) 14:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I blanked their page and warned them against soap boxing. If they continue to use their talk page for promotion of their group then I will end up protecting the talk page as that of an indef blocked user using their page for promotion. Chillum 14:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

And they kept using their page for promotion so now they cannot edit that either. Chillum 15:11, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing: Gwinndeith

Gwinndeith (talk · contribs) engaged in disruptive editing at Center Against Expulsions, a planned museum of both the German government and the German Federation of Expellees.

Disruption in mainspace:

• Gwinndeith (talk · contribs) introduced him/herself with this edit, calling the head of the federation "a daughter born to Nazi Germany stationed in occupied Poland who claims expellee status", altering the museum's objective as outlined in the respective German law and the charta as "claims" and altering the text in a WP:POINTy manner.
• This edit was rolled back by another user, restored by an IP most certainly Gwinndeith [159] and reverted by me [160].
• Gwinndeith then introduced a bunch of unsourced "claims" the museum allegedly made in respect to the history of Gdansk [sic!] [161] which I reverted [162]
• Gwinndeith then again introduced the information that the head of the foundation is a "a daughter born to Nazi Germany " among other stuff [163] which I reverted.
• Gwinndeith tagged the article with a POV-tag, re-introduced the "claims" about Gdansk and added paragraphs to the criticism section detailing the views (most certainly in line with Gwinndeith's views) of a writer and a Holocaust survivor devoting an own paragraph to each. [164][165] These paragraphs were then combined to a section "Jewish criticism" because both critics were of Jewish descent [166] When I tried to integrate [167] the views of these two in the views already stated in the criticism section per WP:UNDUE, this was reverted, again the museum's objectives declared as "claims", and the head of the federation tagged with a POV- and a weasel-tag because the information about her "Nazi father" was removed
• This was restored, along with the removal of information another user has added in the meantime, i.e. that one of the critics said something positive about the head of the federation (the"Nazi daughter").[168]

Talk: According to WP:DE and WP:DONTBITE Jezhotwells (talk · contribs) and I outlined the relevant policies at Gwinndeith' talk page. Also I forwarded a discussion at the article's talk page outlining the respective policies WP:WTA WP:NPOV WP:UNDUE WP:BLP WP:POINT which s/he did not adhere to, also the respective arbitration cases.

I think I have exhausted the steps outlined at WP:DE and that the behaviour shown by Gwinndeith matches the behaviour described there as typically disruptive, and thus I turn here. A glance at the edit history of Gwinndeith shows that before turning to the article in question, s/he was devoted to "cleaning" articles from German names. I also doubt from his/her behaviour that s/he is really that new to wiki (account is of early Feb 2009). Skäpperöd (talk) 11:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Comments by non-admins collapsed for readability

I ask admins to look into what Skapperod writes-not all links show what he claims is happening. The main controversy is that Erika Steinbach is born to Nazi Germany soldier in occupied Poland and claims status as expelle. The fragments Skapperod cut do not show what I wrote-the precise wording was that she is a daughter of Nazi Geramny soldier in occupied Poland not "daughter of Nazi Germany". This fact has been brought up by Polish government in discussions with Germany. Skapperod removed information that people have retreated from support of the Centre and the POV template on his own, while the dispute was ongoing[169]. I asked Skapperod to remove the template after the dispute will be over and seek third party solution as he the side of the dispute[170](before Skapperod created thread here) As to Jewish criticism I am opened to discussion-criticism by Holocaust Survivors would be ok. But arguments of those people should be represented not removed. I oppose Skapperod's removal of criticism by various people and removal of referenced information, as well as removal of arguments for the criticism which are removed.--Gwinndeith (talk) 12:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC) You want to make this look like it was a content dispute, but it is not. It is mud slinging agenda pushing. "A daughter born to Nazi Germany" are your words, added repeatedly, don't accuse me of misquoting. These words and your subsequent tagging are directed against a member of the German parliament. Previously you accused wiki editors of writing an article that reads like a neo-Nazi campaign. Some of what you edited to be "claims" is a project of the German federal government ruled out in federal German law. Of course criticism should be stated, and there is a section on criticism already. But to full quote someone whose notability for this project is questionable at least who calls the German government "nationalistic", "arrogant" and self-serving is not constructive, neither a "content dispute", it is making a point in a disruptive manner. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC) Behind Gwinndeith is no other than User:Molobo again, who is still on a 1R parole.[171] I'm not even sure this is helping since by simply using a different provider he has always easily managed to get around CheckUser. If you think about it, even blocks wouldn't help with someone who can just create a new account. Sciurinæ (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2009 (UTC) I wanted to cooperate on the article and as of now I am not editing it. I asked Skapperod to consider involving a third party that would see what should be included and what not(before this thread here started). I expect cooperation and discussion on the article-but impression is some users want to turn this into other direction. Skapperod does not present my whole sentences: I wrote reference for the fact that daughter of a Nazi Germany soldier occupying Poland was the chief supporter not "daughter of Nazi Germany"-two different sentences. The reason for this is that it is the source of conflict between Poland and Germany over the museum centre: [172] Criticism of Erika Steinbach united Foreign Minister Radosław Sikorski, the President, the Prime Minister and the PiS leader yesterday.Asked about Ms Steinbach by journalists in Berlin Monday, Mr Sikorski appealed to the head of the Federation of Expellees to follow the example of President Horst Köhler, who was born in Poland in a family of wartime settlers and never considered himself an expellee.'Do people whose families had lived there for generations want to be identified with a person like Ms Steinbach who came here with Hitler and had to leave with Hitler?' asked Mr Sikorski. 'Who was no expellee, but whose family, who father, it was Feldfebel Hermann, I believe, had to flee before the victoriously attacking Red Army and Polish Army,' said Mr Sikorski.Poland opposes Ms Steinbach's participation in the board of the 'visible sign' museum that is to commemorate German expellees. Prime Minister Donald Tusk repeated yesterday her presence on the board was unacceptable for Poland. He called Mr Sikorski's statement tough, but noted that in Pomerania (Sikorski comes from Bydgoszcz) even those have only basic historical sensitivity know what the Nazi Germans did with the local population. As to BLP-you prefer we use words of Polish minister if that wording is to you BLP-or you say she was not born as daughter of Nazi Germany soldier who occupied Poland ? I didn't ever see denial of that-even from Steinbach. previously you accused wiki editors of writing an article that reads like a [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Flight_and_expulsion_of_Germans_from_Poland_during_and_after_World_War_II&diff=prev&oldid=278776987 neo-Nazi campaign The link you show demonstrates that I did not. NPD is a far-right, German nationalist political party. Perhaps the editors did not intent, but it reads to me that way in certain parts. One book used as reference in the series of those articles is titled "Terror attacks against Germany by Allies"-that was my reaction. Some of what you edited to be "claims" is a project of the German federal government ruled out in federal German law' And ? There are discussions about German government intentions. Like other governments not all people trust its words. But to full quote someone whose notability for this project is questionable at least who calls the German government "nationalistic", "arrogant" and self-serving is not constructive, neither a "content dispute", it is making a point in a disruptive manner The making point in disruptive manner was made by the last living leader of Warsaw Ghetto Uprising. It's also notable because German Foreign Minister Fischer responded to Marek Edelmans criticism[173]. Crticism should be included and arguments presented. Writing "some are crtitical"-is not enough, show why they are criticial. My view and your view are different, I believe again that third party should judge what to include and what not, a discussion should be resolved not fought against other side. --Gwinndeith (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee

Resolved

 – — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 19:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee has made incivil racist comments on Talk:Newcastle Central railway station#Requested move:

Newcastle Central railway station is a fictional name made up by Wikipedia. The station is correctly called Newcastle Central Station by all national sources when they are not being as lazy as a tabloid, and it is known as Central Station to the entire North East of England, even the scum down the road when they are escorted in and out of it. It is abbreviated by the Welsh and other provincial peoples simply as Newcastle, lazy as they are, because they don't have the intelligence or the culture to know any different.

User has been blocked 13 times before, 7 times for incivility and harrassment[174]. Note that I posted this on Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts but was directed here given the editor's history. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Looks to me like a longer block would be in order. He obviously hasn't learnt his lesson, and comments like that are inexcusable. Ironholds (talk) 17:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
  • I agree. He seems to get like this when any editor simply disagrees with him. Welshleprechaun (talk) 17:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• This is a reoccurring pattern with this user. Someone disagrees and he gets abusive. Attacking the whole group of "Welsh and other provincial people" is really out of line. Wikipedia is not the place to espouse baseless prejudice. Considering the long history this user has with abusive behavior I have issued a block. Chillum 17:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Not entirely resolved. He is asking for the block to be reviewed. He is claiming I have some sort of bias. I really can't remember, but if I have had dealings with him it was more than a month ago(that is as far back as I checked my contribs). Chillum 18:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Struck. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 18:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

He will probably accuse any admin who blocks him of being biased. Welshleprechaun (talk) 18:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Now it is resolved. Chillum 18:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
• Strange, now he is saying I am impartial(I think) and something about Giano and Jimbo? Does that make sense to anyone else? Chillum 18:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Jimbo blocked Giano over that article about the Times writer, that's about all I remember. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 19:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

User:DegenFarang's continued edit warring at John G. Roberts

DegenFarang (talk · contribs) has been blocked once for a 3RR violation on John G. Roberts. He has also been blocked two other times for incivility and disruption. And once again, he's edit warring at John G. Roberts. Note that I am not involved in editing that article, I'm merely coming by as an uninvolved observer. DegenFarang regularly deletes warnings on his Talk page, which is his right, but it leaves new people placing warnings there to think that he has not been warned before about his activities. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, DF edit warred to include the information about the foulup with the Presidential oath into the lede. After that blew over, he seems to come back periodically to try and add something else to the lede, but never anything else substantial to the rest of the article. It seems like he's just driven to place something in the lede, regardless of the quality. I concur with the block. Dayewalker (talk) 19:54, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Rollback abuse

Resolved

There was an edit war going on back and forth at Family Court With Judge Penny. The end result was the block of both EdBever and OhioRuthie for 24 hours. In the process, as seen in the history here, EdBever abused his rollback privileges significantly during the edit war. Should the privileges be removed? Jd027 (talk) 21:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Concur with OP, rollback should be removed due to abuse. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep, looks like I missed that when I blocked them. Either way I have revoked his rollback privileges. Thank you, Tiptoety ^talk 21:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Seem its not the first time this EdBever has been involved in edit wars see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rockall&action=history I shall his other "edits" also. Moggiethemeow (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Francis Schonken stalking

Note: Thread archiving by Francis Schonken undone, and his comment ("forum shopping") added below. Thread title changed from WP:SP to Francis Schonken stalking

I made some changes to Wikipedia:Subpage, which Francis Schonken (talk · contribs) reverted. I restored them here. Frank characterizes my changes as "tendentious, inaccurate". What do you think? -Stevertigo 08:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Forum shopping - take to Wikipedia talk:Subpages. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Obama articles/Workshop#Temporary injunction: non-interference with relevant policy and other related guidance for the duration of this case --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)}}

• • Forum shopping or otherwise, this should probably not be archived by an involved party. –xeno (talk) 15:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
    • Not to mention it violates NPA, CIVIL, and WP:CON. -Stevertigo 20:48, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've changed this thread to reflect a number of reverts by Francis of my changes to a number of articles, indicating harrassment. Diffs forthcoming. -Stevertigo 20:39, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Please close this report as a process fork an arbitration committee action Stevertigo filed here, on which Francis Schonken and Stevertigo have both commented. Stevertigo's revert warring against Francis Schonken and other editors on policy/guideline/essay pages, and his now-frequent appeals to AN/I over the subject, are at issue in the arbitration. Thus at this point any issue raised here is entirely subsumed by the Arbcom case. At some point Arbcomm may issue an interim injunction against continued policy manipulation by the parties, and we may need administrative help if Stevertigo continues to edit war, but that seems premature for now. As for stalking, Stevertigo's frequent accusation that other editors are stalking him is both moot and an assumption of bad faith. Francis Schonken has stated in the arbitration action that he has no bone to pick but that he is active on and watch-lists a number of policy pages that Stevertigo has recently started editing on, so Stevertigo's accusation of "stalking" is basically an accusation that Francis Schonken is not telling the truth. Even if that were so, given that Stevertigo is the subject of an Arbcom case, and of reports of Obama article probation violations, it is legitimate even if true that an editor would be watching his edits for signs of further trouble and reverting where appropriate.Wikidemon (talk) 01:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Incivil personal attacks from Malleus Fatuorum

Resolved

 – Actively being discussed at WQA, this is forum shopping. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I made a proposal at Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship#A proposal in regards to RFA comments about tightinging WP:NPA enforcement at RFAs. Malleus made the following comment:

“ My thoughts Ipatrol are to wonder whether you've discussed this idea with your parents, and whether they allowed you to stay up late and post this rubbish ” — Malleus Fatuorum

By suggesting that I am a child, he is suggesting that I am immature and that attacks me as a person. In the course of the proposal, a WQA alert, and a posting on his talk page, I recieved other personal attacks and incivil comments from users such as Ironholds, Ottava Rima, and Iridescent, but Malleus' comment really takes the cake. Malleus has been repeatedly blocked for incivility and personal attacks before, the latest block was for three days just 15 days ago. Though I must avoid calling the kettle black, the history of blocks that I see leaves mee with no assumption of good faith about this user's ability to remain civil. What wonders me is from the block log and the talk page posting, this user has an incredible ability to draw supporters. Because of this, any block leveled should be non-negotiable and firm.--Ipatrol (talk) 21:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Please don't forum shop. This is the same thing you brought up at WP:WQA; them telling you to stop taking it so seriously is not an invitation for you to run to the other parent. Ironholds (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmm.. the matter is still actively being discussed at WQA? (though I think the comment is way beyond ranges of acceptable tolerance on incivility).--Caspian blue 21:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Seriously Ipatrol, you are forum shopping and I strongly suggest you stop. Jenuk1985 | Talk 21:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Note I have asked Ipatrol to stop asking at the user talk pages of all and sundry regarding this. Pedro :  Chat  21:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The response Ipatrol got at WQA included "Since this is far from the first time he has belittled others whose stance he doesn't agree with, I'm not sure what WQA can do." So I think its a little harsh to describe his moving the topic here as forum shopping. ϢereSpielChequers 21:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Even so, it is still ongoing. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 21:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• Proposal - Ban any mention at WP:DRAMA of DRAMA 2 and vice versa. That would settle the drama loop. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Family Court with Judge Penny

Somebody is trying to use their IP, 69.119.246.108, to restart the edit war at Family Court with Judge Penny. And, should their edit be reverted? Jd027 (talk) 22:15, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Only one edit so far, maybe wait. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 22:18, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have protected for a week. Some discussion about the material vis a vis BLP needs to be take place. --Slp1 (talk) 01:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Abuse Filter Request

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. WP:RAF — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 23:06, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I hearby request that the following text, which is the MO of the Wallflowers98 socks to place in music articles, be disallowed, as it seems the sock master is operating out of a range that cannot be blocked.

<content removed>

Thankyou for your time, please disallow this addition from the article space.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

It's probably better to ask for this at Wikipedia:Abuse filter/Requested, which is set up to manage requests like these. It's new, of course, which is why you've never heard of it, but it's meant to be a central log of such requests. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:00, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I've taken out the stuff he was inserting per WP:BEANS. Hope you don't mind, Daedalus.  GARDEN  23:19, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with it, as long as I can have some beans. I've got the nibbles, you see. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 23:24, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussing sources at AfD

Resolved

 – There's really nothing more to say about this, here or anywhere else, so let's move on.

--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Is this user correct that removing comments on sourcing from an AfD is appropriate [175]? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

• AfD is a discussion, not a vote. As such bringing sources in as an example of why you have made your decision (for example to indicate notability) is perfectly appropriate. These sources should be put into the article in question, but that is no reason to remove them right off the bat. Ironholds (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Not only is it appropriate to introduce sources at AFD... but isn't that one of the points of AFD? If reasons can be found to keep an article (reliable sources, for instance), then shouldn't that be brought up at AFD? -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 20:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

This matter has already been brought up by the same editor in a previous incident report. ChildofMidnight is needlessly prolonging this resolved argument. Just to be clear, no comments were removed. A list of news organs (not actual sources) was removed because the same list had been posted in several places (article talk, user talk, etc.). I believed it to be poor form and was informed later that this was not the case, after which I immediately apologized. -- Scjessey (talk) 02:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The other discussion was old and dealt mainly with your refactoring (reorganizing) of the AfD discussion. In the days since you've continued to argue that it's okay to remove lists of sources from an AfD discussion so it's been hard to move on. Now that numerous editors have clarified the matter and you seem finally to accept that it's not okay, I hope you will refrain from doing so in the future. I suggest you strike your most recent comment on the discussion page where you say that it is okay to remove a list of sources from an AfD discussion, it's not. Sourcing is a critical aspect of AfD discussion. The process is not just a vote and meant to be an ongoing discussion that reaches a consensus through ongoing discussion. Also, respecting the comments and advice of good faith editors is an important part of contributing constructively. But when we mess up, it's important to recognize the mistake and to agree not to do it again. This allows everyone to move on and is more helpful than continuing to argue an improper action was somehow okay. Good luck, take care. I hope this is resolved now. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if this seems like stoking a dying fire since you say this is resolved, but why not bring this up at WT:AFD where you would meet a more focused and concerned audience. This is not really ANI issue anyway. Anyways, just a suggestion. ^LeaveSleaves 04:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. A good suggestion, thanks. I didn't think of posting there, but will try to do so in future for this type of thing. I think this is resolved, although I just noticed this [176] edit summary from Scjessey. I'm not easily offended, but the civility guidelines and prohibitions on personal attacks require that we act collaboratively and respectfully of other editors, even when there are disagreements and we're frustrated. ChildofMidnight (talk) 04:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

USSoccerCulture

Two editors have disputed an edit User:USSoccerCulture continues to attempt to add to Seattle Sounders FC. The edit does not seem to meet Wikipedia:Reliable sources#News organizations and Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Undue weight. Section has been added to the article's discussion page and s/he has been asked to join but has only continued to revert edits. A sock puppet investigation is pending due to IP edits. Would appreciate any assistance asking user to use talk page.Cptnono (talk) 00:59, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, the page has been protected so let's see. If the user doesn't respond and decides to just continue warring once protection is lifted, go with a template:bv and then report at WP:AIV if they continue. If there's an issue, I'd be more willing to stop them, so message me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Images by Todd Marshall

Resolved

 – All deleted since its clear that they are not correctly licensed, the author has not released them on a compatible license and wikipedia is not a host for copyright violations. Good catch. Spartaz ^Humbug! 16:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure where else to post this, but several dinosaur images by illustrator Todd Marshall have been uploaded with no appropriate source or permission and should be deleted, they can be found here: [177] [178] FunkMonk (talk) 13:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hang on a minute "The copyright holder allows anyone to use it for any purpose, provided that the original image author and image description are credited" Whats wrong with that? Theresa Knott | token threats 13:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no proof and no source. FunkMonk (talk) 14:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

See User_talk:Benosaurus#Rajasaurus and User_talk:Benosaurus#Todd Marshall Images, along with the talk-page section immediately below the latter. Is there any evidence that an OTRS ticket was ever filed, establishing the permission that Benosaurus claims was given by the artist? Deor (talk) 14:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

See also this Commons deletion debate, where someone else has been trying and failing to get GFDL permission from the artist. Bencherlite^Talk 14:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yep it looks like we don't have permission for these images. I'm happy for them to be deleted. (but I'll wait a little while before doing it myself) Theresa Knott | token threats 16:10, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

The images by him on Commons need to be deleted too.[179] FunkMonk (talk) 16:28, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

you need to go tell commons... en doesnt have the same rules and commons is, well, different. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Shubal Stearns

user:Til Eulenspiegel persistently reverts citation and tone tags in the article Shubal Stearns. Instead of addressing the concerns clearly expressed by tags, they resort to personal attacks in the article talk page. The tags are related to the most fundamental and long established wikipedia rules: WP:V and WP:NPOV. I suggest some respectable admin explain this to Til Eulenspiegel. - 7-bubёn >t 17:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Be sure to read Talk:Shubal Stearns. This slow back-and forth has been going on since Jan 2008, but apparently nobody but SemBubenny thinks the article has an indecent tone, and I have shown the utmost patience in awaiting his explanation of why he thinks there is one. Til Eulenspiegel (talk) 17:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Apparently nobody cares about the article (it says itself: "though his name is little remembered or taught today"). Please don't put your words ihn my mouth: I didn't write "indecent tone". And your patience amounted in patiently deletion of tags that require following the most basic wikipedia policy: WP:CITE. I am stopping this useless bickering, and if nobody else cares about maintaining wikipedia standards, I am not going to waste any more of my time with aggressive defender of the glory of Shubal Stearns. - 7-bubёn >t 18:03, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have added a few {{fact}} tags for statements that require a direct reference in support. – ukexpat (talk) 18:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Motorheadfan7707

Bear with me, because behavioral issues are my weakest area; you guys would be better at deciding what to do. I just left this note on the editor's talk page: "In your talk page history, I see a long list of admins who have patiently explained CSD criteria and image uploading criteria, and every time, you blank the page and keep on doing things the same way. I think it's time for a trip to WP:ANI to discuss whether taking a few days off from editing might be helpful." He's been asked multiple times to slow down and be more careful, and it doesn't seem to be working. What next? It's a problem because CSD work goes much slower when the taggers have no idea what they're doing. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 19:49, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like you got a reply from him/her while I was taking a look at the situation.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 20:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

[moved from below] Ok, what do you mean, the speedy deletes issue or my copyrighting problems? Yes i am sometimes thinking that some pages are litteraly so low on content and so something nobody cares about should be deleted. But i am trying to fix this issue, thanks for your reminder. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Motorheadfan7707 (talk • contribs) 21:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Motorhead. There are problems with uploading copyrighted images and there are a lot of speedy deletions that you proposed that got turned down. I'd be happy if you would at least not tag the wrong pages for speedy deletions; there have been 4 comments on your talk page about speedy deletions so far: [180] [181] [182] [183]. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:27, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay I see you're getting help from Chzz on your talk page; I don't have anything else to bring up here. - Dan Dank55 (push to talk) 21:55, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Continued disruption by twice-blocked editor

Resolved

Knowledge is free for all (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has just returned from a 24 hour followed by a week-long block, and is back to disruptive POV pushing and edit-warring at Rigveda (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). See previous ANI complaint and discussion of edits on article talk page. Time for indef yet ? Abecedare (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have enacted that particular open ended tariff. Making exactly the same edit as incurred the previous block does not indicate any willingness to re-evaluate their editing stance. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Lets see if he is willing to relent and accept a conditional unblock (to which I won't object). Abecedare (talk) 22:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Range block needed

Resolved

 – semi-protected for a week, but they seem to have stopped --Rodhullandemu 20:17, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Rwandan Genocide (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is being vandalized by a dynamic IP so a report to WP:AIV would do no good. Would someone be willing and/or able to do a range block?

Thanks! Big Bird (talk • contribs) 20:06, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)  Done on 198.248.65.80/28, which targets the IPs used today. If they hop farther, please re-request. Regards SoWhy 20:20, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Belt and braces! Shouldn't cause any problems, however. --Rodhullandemu 00:06, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

MovieMan123

Resolved

 – Indef blocked until they agree to abide by our copyright policy... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I've just tagged three more copyright violations from MovieMan123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), and was taken aback when I looked at his talk page. Apparent serial copyright violator.—Kww(talk) 01:04, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

MovieMan123 is indefinitely blocked until they understand and agree to abide by our copyright policies... They had been warned previously and didn't respond to the warnings. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:50, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Complaint about User:Psb777

Hi, I just wanted to report this harassing and derogatory response I received from User:Psb777 after I sent him this friendly, civil reminder. I don't expect to be harassed and lambasted for giving friendly reminders, therefore, I reported it here. I expect that the administrators will handle this in a timely, effective manner. Thank you. -Axmann8 (Talk) 11:51, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, what nonsense! "Harassed and lambasted" is a mischaracterisation. And the "friendly reminder" seemed calculated to patronise and annoy. No wonder Axmann8 has to have the bold warning at the top of his Talk page showing his readiness to take offense. As demonstrated here. Clicking on the "contributions" link of such a speedy deletionist seems oxymoronic. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Houston, looks like we have a problem here: WP:AGF and WP:Civil. PSB has been warned. Toddst1 (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Rotary_Air_Force_RAF_2000 for more context. I think expressions of frustration can occasionally be understandable, I don't see that there is any need for admin intervention here: it is basically a miscommunication between two users helping the project in very different (and sometimes conflicting) ways. henrik•talk 13:03, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

No question that it was a hasty CSD tag. However that isn't a license for namecalling. Toddst1 (talk) 13:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd now appreciate additional eyes on this as PSB has accused me of inappropriate behavior after I left a polite message. I think further action is in order but I'll leave that for someone else. Toddst1 (talk) 13:49, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I reiterate my accusation of inappropriate behaviour. It is inappropriate for an admin (or anyone) to over-react. It is inappropriate for an admin (or anyone) to falsely accuse anyone of personal attack. Now, possibly, and out of frustration, *I* overreacted when an article was overzealously tagged for speedy delete. I suggest the same remedy for Toddst1 as for me, whatever that is. Perhaps we should monitor his behaviour to make sure he doesn't over-react again? Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I think nothing would be served by dragging this incident on longer. I suggest everyone drop the matter and go back to editing. God knows there is plenty of other stuff that could use the time and effort here other than prolonging a minor disagreement. henrik•talk 14:05, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Now I really do owe you an apology Hendrik. But I need to point out this: User_talk:Toddst1#Rotary_Air_Force Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have restored it to your userspace User:Psb777/Rotary_Air_Force where it can be worked upon. Once it is more complete, it can be moved back to article space. henrik•talk 14:16, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I know Henrik wanted to drop this, but I would like a chance to respond to the situation, as it has obviously been blown out of proportion by PSB. To clarify my opinion on this matter, you are a hypocrite, PSB. You completely overreacted to a friendly reminder (which you somehow took as a conspiracy against you, like i planned it out to patronize you, as if I wanted to waste my time on something so petty). I suggest you stop acting so paranoid and learn to take advice when it is given. I've been in your shoes. Trust me, I have. Ask most of the people on here, and they will tell you I used to get VERY defensive and upset over things, but I learned to control it and deal with it like an adult, not like a child who got their candy taken away. All I am saying is that you need to create articles in your user namespace before you put dictionary definitions into places where entire articles belong. Personally, I don't think articles should be published into the article namespace until the first draft is completely finished, but that is just me. Anyhow, learn to take advice and don't jump to conclusions and assume people are out to get you. If anyone has had inappropriate behavior, it is you, PSB, no one else. -Axmann8 (Talk) 14:53, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* I wish you hadn't posted that Axmann. Calling fellow editor hypocrites, [a] "child who got their candy taken away" and accusing them of unilaterally inappropriate behavior is simply not ok, even if you think they could have behaved differently. Every editor should be treated with respect, at all times. I hope I don't have to see any more comments like that. henrik•talk 15:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the repeated [184] [185] [186] [187], disruptive, ad hominem responses from PSB have been addressed or should be excused as "a miscommunication between two users" ... "go back to editing." Toddst1 (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Some of PSB's edits are definitely not just miscommunication and are unacceptable. I hope this discussion has made it clear to him that he needs to control his behaviour. dougweller (talk) 21:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My postings are mischaracterised. The first of the four cited by Toddst1 [188] is not a personal attack. It may be rude but is no more rude than the heading on Axmann8's talk page, where I placed the comment complaining forthrightly about a delete tag for which Toddst1 himself later admonished Axmann8. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The last three cited postings [189] [190] [191] I stand by word for word. Intemperate behaviour by an admin, an admin breaking the rules, an admin misusing his powers at WP are unacceptable and deserve censure. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposal

I realize this is getting difficult to follow so here is a summary of the relevant events involved:

Well, it is a summary but it is not an impartial one. Key events are left out (e.g. interventiosn by another Henrik) and the chronology seems to assume I would have seen 11:34 event before my 11:43 edit. Impartiality is lacking in that contributions are characterised inaccurately. E.g. "Polite warning" is how Toddst1 describes his own actions but I am "rude". I note that an hour after I squealed that the CSD was too quick, that Toddst1 agreed with me. He could have done so an hour earlier. Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Summary of Relevant chronology collapsed for readability - please review

(Non-material edits of others not included) 11:25, 22 March: Psb777 creates Rotary Air Force 11:27, 22 March: Psb777 creates Rotary Air Force RAF 2000 11:28, 22 March: Axmann8 requestsg speedy deletion (CSD A1) of Rotary Air Force RAF 2000 (too speedy) 11:34, 22 March: Axmann8 leaves polite note on User talk:Psb777 11:43, 22 March: Psb777 makes rude edit on User talk:Axmann8 11:51, 22 March: Axmann8 brings issue to ANI 12:56, 22 March: Toddst1 leaves polite warning about AGF and CIVIL on User talk:Psb777 [192] 12:57, 22 March: Toddst1 updates ANI, confirming problem, noting warning issued to Psb777 13:02, 22 March: Toddst1 after looking further, amends warning on User talk:Psb777 to final, noting that Psb777 has been previously blocked for personal attacks [193] 13:06, 22 March: Toddst1 deleted Rotary Air Force (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: recreate if you intend to finish the article and demonstrate any reason this should be included in Wikipedia) 13:22, 22 March: Psb777 makes accusation of inappropriate behavior against Toddst1 on User talk:Psb777 [194] 13:32, 22 March: Toddst1 leaves note about CSD too speedy on User talk:Axmann8 13:49, 22 March: Toddst1 asks for additional eyes on situation after finding accusation on ANI from Pss777 13:58, 22 March: Psb777 reiterates accusation on ANI and suggests that Toddst1's outcome be equal to Psb777's [195] 14:10, 22 March: Psb777 makes makes third accusation of inappropriate behavior against Toddst1 on User talk:Toddst1 [196] ...

It's clear that Psb777 isn't internalizing any feedback he is receiving and has shown no indication of ceasing this behavior. He's been blocked 3 times for personal attacks and once for disruptive editing, although not recently.

"Not recently" is so long ago that the statute of limitations in most countries would have it stricken from my record. "Not recently" is so long ago most WP editors were not here then. I suggest that citing this is a prime example of Toddst1's lack of balance in this matter. Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

To halt this behavior, I propose a two-week block of Psb777 for disruption/gross incivility. Please comment on this proposal below. Toddst1 (talk) 01:00, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I counterpropose that Toddst1 be admonished to internalise his behaviour. I deny "disruption" and I deny "gross incivility". Toddst1 is overzealously persuing me despite being advised by another admin to back off. At worst I am guilty of an initial instance of rudeness, which I have acknowledged, provoked by the prospect of losing an article within one minute of its creation. On the other hand Toddst1's response has been repeatedly over the top dramatic and identified as such by another admin. Additionally he is both taking part in this dispute over a premature CSD as some supposed impartial admin and then, given the timing, in some seeming fit of pique deliberately deleting the other of my newly created and closely related articles despite a 3rd party request not to do so! This is just an abuse of power and is at least inappropriate. See User:Psb777#Wikipedia_and_society. Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, you've made your point. Assume a bit on good faith of Toddst's part too, he's only here to help, same as everybody else. Could you please try to avoid provoking the situation further? henrik•talk 10:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm prepared to leave things as they are, if they're left as they are, now. Declare the matter closed. Mark it resolved. Thanks for all your very constructive input. Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:09, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I would have to disagree with Psb777's proposal here. It seems as if the only way this user is willing to cease his disruptive behavior is when a 2-week block is proposed. I am prepared to support Todd's good-faith 2-week block proposal as an effective solution to Psb777's (Paul's) obvious lack of willingness to assume good faith. It is quite interesting that this user is only willing to drop this whole situation is when a situation that would be unfavorable to him is proposed. As said before, I'd concur with Todd's 2-week block proposal. -Axmann8 (Talk) 15:48, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely not. My, perhaps already predictable, view as the other admin involved in this little kerfuffle is that a two week block of anybody would be a gross overreaction. I think it would be wise to have a clear consensus from many more before enacting anything of the sort, more views from others would be useful here. henrik•talk 06:58, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Henrik, your inolvement apparently has a history. As someone who has apparently intervened on behalf of this user in the past[197], perhaps you should step aside from this and let the discussion unfold. Your continued one-sided protection of this user against complaints from both Axmann and now me escapes my comprehension. dougweller has already weighed in on this labeling Psb777's actions as "unacceptable" Toddst1 (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh? Nope, this is my first interaction with User:Psb777, as far as I can remember. The four years ago is in reference to the previous blocks, I think. henrik•talk 16:46, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

retract the 4 years ago part as I was reading his comment. Toddst1 (talk) 17:43, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Henrik. A two week block at this point would be punitive rather than preventing anything and would maybe only add bad feeling that would make a repeat more likely. It would seem that apologies and promises to avoid a repeat would be more appropriate given the amount of attention this has already received and the time that has passed (both between the users last blocks and 2009, and between the comment that started this and this point in this discussion). I would think that the prospect of a future block if this situation repeats itself would be more than enough given that the original comment sounds like more of a frustrated comment than a direct personal attack. Speedy deletions can often cause frustrated reactions in contributing editors and whilst that is no excuse, it is something to take into account, and the editor has admitted that their reply was rude. Mfield (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

This isn't about the CSD. My point is Psb has made fabricated and repeated accusations about misconduct and abuse of power on my part - which is far more serious than a rude response to a CSD. Toddst1 (talk) 17:40, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

With great power comes great responsibility great opportunities to be accused of abuse of power. Comes with job, doesn't it? (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 17:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

and without consequences for repeated false accusations it's now open season on admins. He's still making these claims. Toddst1 (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I was prompted to let this go, and I offered to do so if you would, and this you would have seen clearly stated above. But since I made that offer you have written more than once that I am fabricating false allegations against you. This is not the case, and I cannot be expected to stand by while you say so repeatedly. You have succeeded in forcing me to say again, strongly, I stand by the accusations of impropriety I have made against you, and each of which I am prepared to have examined in detail, the evidence is out there for anyone to see. To be accused of making false allegations, especially by an admin, is not something that I ought to be expected to tolerate. I suggest you take a step back, take another look at all the posts, and reconsider your position. Once again, if you will leave it here, right here, then I will too. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec x3) Actually, your allegations made above have not been corroborated by evidence, nor have they accepted and acted upon by the plethora of admins reading this page. You therefore need to accept that it's valid criticism. There's a cardinal rule 'round Wikipedia: file your beef, or shut up about it. Well, you brought it out ... and it has not been supported. That means, it's time to give it up, and/or file something at WP:RFC. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 22:31, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

I think everyone's actions stand in plain relief if you're prepared to do the necessary dusting. I think you're wrong that the lack of admin involvement means that I am wrong: The "plethora of admins" have chosen not yet to get involved on either side. It seems your comment could be addressed to either party. Furthermore I do not think that most WPns follow what you say is a cardinal rule. Most sort it out amongst themselves - if they did not do so this page would be a lot busier than it is. I did not bring us here and most WPns would never have brought us here for the reason stated. The original reason we are here is long gone now, as Toddst1 acknowledges. The only admin intervention so far has been a repeated one asking the parties to let it go. I have done my best to follow that advice but I don't want me doing so to be thought of as a sign of weakness or that I am admitting to be in the wrong. I regret you may think my seeming reluctance to file an RfC is either of those. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Administrative conduct should be open for review and criticism. Merely criticizing the conduct of an administrator should in no way be grounds for blocking, as long as it is done within the bounds of civil discourse. Administratorship is primarily a janitorial service, in which handling criticism and upset users are an expected part of the job, and nothing to get worked up about. Not that I particularly enjoy getting my errors pointed out to me, but it is an essential part of the legitimacy of positions of trust.

In the majority of cases, criticism leveled by users against administrators who have sanctioned them is not justified on objective grounds. But in those instances where that is not clearly the case, the administrator should try to explain his reasoning further, or dispassionately seek wider review of the actions taken. But in no way should the act of civilly criticizing itself be an actionable offense. In this particular instance i feel that Toddst1, which otherwise seems like a good chap, is mistaken in his handling of the matter. henrik•talk 09:43, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I think you're hitting what was really my point: Todd needs to be open to constructive criticism. So does Psb777. No administrative action was ever required here, and the ongoing tit-for-tat "but he should get X" and "no, he should get Y" is...well to be polite...what my children do. (talk→ Bwilkins / BMW ←track) 10:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that this user is obviously in need of punitive action (like the kind I received. it has obviously done me good and shaped me up). If I may, mfield, I am respectfully stating that you may have a conflict of interest in this incident, seeing as how in my not-so-good days, you often were on the side of being against me. I am not making accusations, but this is a possibility and I am not going to pretend like the possibility does not exist. As for PSB, some sort of a block is obviously in order because he is falsely accusing an administrator of inappropriate behavior (which is, in itself, inappropriate seeing as how it is all laid out here and we can all see that Todd, contrary to PSB's false accusations, did not engage in inappropriate behavior. Also, Todd, I would disagree with your statement that Henrik not have an opinion here. He has been very fair from what I can see, and he gave me second chances when no one else was willing to. Again, however, I will re-affirm: I, personally support a two-week block on PSB. However, perhaps a compromise could be reached and we could settle on a week-long ban? -Axmann8 (Talk) 01:19, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Lessthan8%oftheearth'spopulationiswhite

Resolved

 – Indeffed. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 08:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Lessthan8%oftheearth'spopulationiswhite is very new, but already problematic. User:Prodego has deleted her user page, but I think that it's worth thinking about a block considering the user's response to that and her other contributions. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

With a username like that, I think it's safe to say he/she will most likely not make any constructive edits, so I fully support an indef block. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 02:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef by Mufka (talk · contribs) –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 02:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I also think the user's talk page should be protected for good measure. This edit proves my point. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 02:08, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. Recreated with {{indefblocked}} tag and full protected. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

An editor's behaviour at AfD

Unresolved

 – This isnt something for ANI. If this user is being disruptive an RFC might be a better guage of what the community considers disruption but this doesn't yet merit a block. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please read this dialogue and review an editor's behaviour (User: A Nobody) at this AfD. My opinion is that this behaviour is disruptive and shows horrendous assumptions of bad faith. Seraphim♥ 17:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I second this opinion, being present at the AfD and leaving him a polite notice about his comments. He willfully ignored my request and continued his previous behaviour, which I found very disruptive. ThemFromSpace 17:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

We have two editors who regularly delete other editors contributions complaining about A Nobody, who regularly attempts to save editors contributions. Is this really news?

A Nobody had the adacity to respond four times in an AFD![198] My God! This is normal and permitted, there is no rule that prevents this. There are specific rules about WP:NPA and WP:AGF which Seraphim has violated.

WP:KETTLE Seraphim, isn't by accusing another editor of not have good faith, a "horrendous assumptions of bad faith" yourself?

I guess comments like this by Seraphim are models of WP:AGF, this comment set the tone for the entire section which Serphim quotes:

"Continually repeating your points looks disruptive and looks like an attempt to ram your opinion down people's throats " In addition, accusing A Nobody of "badgering" and "disruption" more models of good faith.

I would ask all of these editors, in the own words of Seraphim, too "Try to respect the views of others who have a differing opinion," because it is only "badgering" and "disruption".

Ikip (talk) 17:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Erm yeah, when someone continually, and repetitively repeats their opinion throughout a discussion, it certainly does look like an attempt to force-feed an opinion. You should also correct your first statement. "Two editors who regularly delete other editors contributions complaining about A Nobody" - I haven't commented in an AfD debate with A Nobody probably since last year, and probably long before that too. Seraphim♥ 17:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd point out that deleting contributions is not, last time I checked, a crime that invalidates a users opinion. Ikip is hardly the most neutral user to be commenting in such a situation. Ironholds (talk) 17:55, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I wasnt talking about A Nobody's AfDs. I was not claiming that deleting contributions was a crime. Never claimed to be a non-partisan.

A Nobody inserted four sentences in an AfD, and is personally attacked as a result. Is adding four sentences to an AfD a blockable offence? Is there a limit to how much someone can comment in an AfD? What does Seraphim suggest be done? Ikip (talk) 17:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Four sentences? I count forty-seven contributions signed "A Nobody" in that AfD, most simply gainsaying the views of contributors advocating deletion. I'd suggest that there is, in fact, "a limit to how much someone can comment in an AfD" when the activity of commenting rises to the level of disruption. Deor (talk) 18:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Someone is engaging in discussion in an AFD. What's wrong with that? I find it healthy and view User: A Nobody's comments as constructive. SunCreator (talk) 18:12, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

After posting a similar request to tone down participation at the AfD to the only editor who has more edits to that page than A Nobody (the nominator, Locke-something, with 40 to Nobody's 36), A Nobody seemed to respond favorably to the request. Perhaps this particular frustration with AfD badgering has passed. However, as I mentioned in an earlier note on A Nobody's talk page, this respond-to-every-dissent approach to AfD harkens back to his habits under a previous user name under which he was repeatedly warned against/requested to refrain from such "overwhelming participation" at AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 18:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC) AGF folks... AGF. We have all seen AfD's where a spirited nominator made sure to answer every keep over and over and over, refuting every keep comment ad nauseum... yet these nominators are not called to task. And we have all see AfD's closed as keep because, and even though it is not a vote, the closer saw 10 votes to delete and 1 or 2 to keep... with the 2 making a sound policy case for keep and the 10 making "I Don't Like It" cases for delete. Not a vote surely, but we all seen closers often act by weight of numbers as opposed to clarity of argument. Else we'd never have any article go to Deletion Review. With respects, and assuming the best of good faith, I see A Nobody making an appeal to reason and guideline and common sense in his rebuttals, and though he must realize that his arguments won't disuade the editors whose comments he is answering, it can be seen that he is hoping that other editors reading the discussion will note that the arguments being countered have indeed been countered. Such enthusiasm in the defense of Wikipedia is to be admired. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:26, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

The problem with AGF is that we've been here before. In general, multiple comments at an AfD aren't unusual, but this is over the top. Quite apart from his previous incidents involving AfDs, it's simply ridiculous to claim that a topic is notable because you can type it into a Google Books search and get hits ([199] - of course, all the hits are irrelevant). People tend to ignore multiple repeated comments - keeping them to a few, relevant, statements is always the best course of action.Black Kite 18:32, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

What are you going to do? The basic problem is myspacers versus people who believe there should be standards of inclusion and discrimination. The myspacers have probably already won (sic all the Power Rangers articles.) While i find the vociferous repetitions of the same 10 word statements at an AFD annoying, can't see how it can/should be prevented. Would require a complete overhaul of the whole culture.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

My view would be that whilst making multiple comments at AfD isn't disruptive (indeed, it can often be beneficial), flooding the AfD with comments that don't actually address the issues that people are trying to discuss can be. I understand that AN feels strongly about the issues, but he doesn't need to do this to get his point across. Black Kite 18:40, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I share your view. However, it's problematic in this regard. I feel all my comments to that afd have been helpful, advancing an argument in a meaningful way, etc.... but others may feel differently. And Mr. Nobody asserts that his contributions are likewise (though you and I would disagree). Short of having a quota on commenting to an AfD (a bad idea) it's juts the type of minor disruption that has to be lived with (unless it escalates into personal attacks and so on, and there are mechanisms for dealing with all of that.)Bali ultimate (talk) 21:23, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Didn't A Nobody swear up and down to be good (particularly regarding disrupting AfD) after being allowed to switch over from his previous account? It was a few months ago and all, but this seems particularly out of sync with his comments at the time. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 20:52, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Enthusiasm and love of wikipedia should be guided, not decried, as he loves it as much as those editors whose arguments he countered. Any one of us, when seeing the same arguments repeated, even though we feel it was adequately answered earlier in the discussion, might get a sense of "didn't they read before commenting?" Please know that I am not condoning nor defaming such comments, only offering that we have all seen some quite lenghty AfDs.... some far longer than the article being discussed... and each of us wish the review of the article to be as fully informed as possible. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 22:36, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Enthusiasm isn't what's being discussed here. Commenting 50 times in a single discussion is disruptive by any remotely reasonable definition. And more to the point, this is exactly what he promised the community he wouldn't do. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea who Editor:A Nobody was in a past wiki life or what his offense was. Just looking in as an observer, I realize that a common discussion style is to rework/reword a basic thought in varied new ways, hoping (against hope in some occasions) that THIS time it will be understood. What is being discussed is a mis-interpretation of Editor:AN's enthsiasm. He is enthsiastic: Editor:Seraphim sees it as disruptive...Editor:AN has a point and he is searching for a way in which to be heard. What's wrong with that?...--Buster7 (talk) 04:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably that he was repeatedly warned for it for months prior to vanishing, coming back as a sockpuppet to carry on exactly the same behaviour (his second sock account, in fact), being permanently blocked and only eventually allowed back on after vowing to change his behaviour (specifically his behaviour on AfDs). Every time general opinion of him reaches a certain threshold of negativity, he spams out another two or three hundred WikiLove templates on people's user pages, collects together another group of fans / confidantes / unwitting bystanders to defend him and tones it down for a few weeks. His enthusiasm is not in question here - his cynical exploitation of the good faith of others to continue to behave in a way that the community at large finds unacceptable is. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:45, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

• This is a common disagreement on AFD. Making WP:INFO less cloudy would be a lot of help. Both sides tend to be rusted into their own argument and rarely see the other side. Both sides are guilty here. - Mgm|^(talk) 00:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

@Editor:Chris...I would hazard a guess that it is more than likely a small percentage of 'the community at large that had expressed any opinion about Editor:A Nobody...then or now.--Buster7 (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm marking this as unresolved because I've heard of this previous identity, and I share the same sentiment as Chris Cunningham: wasn't he on course for a block under his old identity? Sceptre ^(talk) 10:13, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

What is the said old account?  rdunnPLIB  10:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

• User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and
• User:Elisabeth Rogan
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles
• WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive169#Right to vanish and not vanished

Cheers, Jack Merridew 10:55, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

O RLY? Show him the door. Enough chances have been given, enough faux-RTV has been used to evade scrutiny, enough of this mess entirely. //roux   11:57, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

It looks to me that all of this is made up of circles.  rdunnPLIB  12:00, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Officeworks123

Pure vandalism from Officeworks123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), but I just wanted to check whether people felt this was anything to worry about? Should someone notify Sydney Grammar School? --RobertG ♬ talk 11:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Probably if the user does more edits like it.  rdunnPLIB  11:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd say email their IT department with a link to the diff. Let them decide if they want to pursue it further. If we need to, a checkuser can get the IP address for the police. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:53, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

After the "Langston Hughes death threat", a local reporter received an email from Jay Walsh, communications director for WikimediaFoundation.org, which says the local authorities are usually notified promptly. I don't think this should be left alone just in case the worst happens -- then that would be on your shoulders for the rest of your life. The local authorities need to be notified as well as the Foundation staff. --64.85.214.78 (talk) 12:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I have emailed a courtesy alert to webmail at sydgram dot nsw dot edu dot au, cc'ed to info at wikimedia dot org, in which I have tried not to be alarmist. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Possible block evasion by User:Eeeeeewtw

I believe that the said user may be a sockpuppet of User:Nationalist, who was the subject of an ArbCom case that resulted in an indefinite block and an ArbCom ban (which has since expired).

Both of the accounts display an obsession with either replacing "Taiwan" with "Republic of China" or "ROC" (or some variation thereof). User:Eeeeeewtw has also made at least one edit where the expression "Republic of China" is intentionally bolded, which is consistent with the agenda of User:Nationalist.

Furthermore, the name of the account User:Eeeeeewtw is obviously objectionable. When you split it into two parts, namely "Eeeeeew" and "tw", it becomes clear that this user seems to have something against Taiwan ("tw" seems to stand for Taiwan in the user name).

I believe that this user needs to be checked to see that he or she is not the same person behind User:Nationalist (checkuser is probably not suitable due to the amount of time that has passed since the banning of User:Nationalist). If User:Eeeeeewtw turns out not to be a sockpuppet account, then I believe that the user should be forced to change their username as it is offensive.

However, if the user is found to be a sockpuppet of User:Nationalist, I would recommend that the Arbcom ban be renewed and extended (possibly for an indefinite period). Alpha77a (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Note:Consider WP:SPI and maybe even WP:RFCU. Cheers. I'^mperator 14:14, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Continued Disruption by User Dahn in Template:Eastern Bloc defection‎, perhaps 3RR

In, Template:Eastern Bloc defection‎, user Dahn has repeatedly deleted 43% of the article -- every parenthetical description of the profession of various defectors (must be 50+ of them) in the Template, here, here and here.

Worse still, this appears to be from frustration during an attempted deletion of the Template earlier today here. In that discussion, when it was pointed out that the parentheticals in the Template aided users navigating in the Template, one user switched his vote here.

After this was when Dahn began his triple deletion of the parenethicals. He simply deleted every one without so much as a word on the talk page.

I need help because I'm afraid if I restore them again, I would be in violation of WP:3RR.

Please help.Mosedschurte (talk) 21:57, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Wow, I just noted this ANI Section on Stalking, Harassment and personal attacks from User:Dahn. I can't particularly say I'm surprised at this point.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh man, I just saw this:

Stalking, Harassment and personal attacks from User:Dahn (new try)

and this:

The oppinion of other editors about User:Dahn

Looks like this is a continuing problem. I ran across the wrong guy this time.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, man. First of all, I have proposed and will support any move to delete the whole template, but I am not as obtuse as not to want it cleaned up if kept. After a series of hidden comments in which I pointed out the serious issues of subjectivity the template sections had, I tried to fix and standardize the template by alphabetizing the items and removing the utterly pointless remarks accompanying the entries - these were and are not present in the article titles (they were just added because Mosedschurte thinks they add something), they are completely whimsical, and they break with the standard for just about any navigational template. I won't answer the personal attacks and allegations Mosedschurte makes above - I'll just point out he has already been advised to refrain from such comments on the TfD page he mentions. As for the "continuing problem" (wikistalking anyone?): Mosedschurte would do best to look closer and notice that those frivolous threads he quotes were initiated by editors either blocked for long periods and kept under admin supervision for severe disruption or simply the sockpuppet of a banned user. Is there any serious question about the constructive nature of my contributions? Dahn (talk) 22:14, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

As for that 3RR allegation: bogus. Dahn (talk) 22:24, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: the utterly pointless remarks accompanying the entries

You've got to be kidding. These were the professions and or workplace of the people that had defected. Such as "NKVD", "author" and "KGB". They can quite clearly be seen here.

Honestly, Dahn, I don't want to be yet another of these editors that apparently earn your attention as those in the many ANI links above, but your excuse doesn't even rise to the level of being laughable. Another user actually switched his vote in your attempted article delete after I specifically pointed out the the parentheticals usefulness.

It was only then that you started a mass delete of every single parenethical description in the entire template. An utterly bizarre exercise.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Mosedschurte, as I have already explained, I removed all superfluous info within the brackets to comply with a standard confirmed by time, as opposed to a standard confirmed by Mosedschurte. Add to this that there is a logical limit to how much of an article a template can summarize. In short: did I delete such mentions from the articles? do you and the reader know that clicking the links will clarify these and many more details? If the answer to both of these is "yes", you're wasting everybody's time with baseless accusations.

The post hoc ergo propter hoc you present me with is what is bizarre, and I have explained my rationale by now. Replying to it any further would only feed into a paralogism. One final time: the discussion you say I didn't engage in is carried out there, and I don't reject the possibility of people changing their minds, even if i believe they're wrong. Incidentally, the user who changed his vote has also warned you about launching into personal attacks, something you may want to give more consideration to.

And again: citing calumnies launched against me be users who were blocked or banned partly for engaging in such attacks (though not because of those complaints, as you seem to insinuate) does no service to your argument. If you think reanimating archived trolling validates it somehow as a critique of those "who earn my attention" (what is that supposed to mean?), you're terribly wrong. Dahn (talk) 22:41, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: I removed all superfluous info within the brackets to comply with a standard confirmed by time, as opposed to a standard confirmed by Mosedschurte.

Again, just incredibly bizarre. What "Standard confirmed by time" compels the deletion of every single parenthetical description in a Template, including the most straight forward possible such as, for a defector under the spy group, simply "(KGB}"?

Dahn, you didn't even try to make it appear in good faith, but instead you DELETED EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THEM, without exception, and did so only AFTER it was pointed out in the Template Deletion page that you started that such parentheticals were actually helpful, and another editor switched his vote against yours because of it.

At this point, after reading through the various ANI links above, I almost hestitate to bring this up, and I would like to be able to simply place some parenethical descriptions in a Template without engaging in some world class bizarre WP:Edit War.Mosedschurte (talk) 22:56, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course I deleted every one of them without exception - it's because they're all pointless. Such info is picked up from the article, not from random brackets in the templates. And removing just "some of them" would have pushed the template even deeper into the relativism that you still don't seem to notice. Which ones was I supposed to keep? The ones you like best? The ones I like best? Let me also note that even in your version there was an entire section without such mentions, which, like the fact that you separated "chess" from "sports", only added to the clownish aspect of the template.

You would "like to be able to simply place some parenthetical descriptions in a Template"? Well, if you would like it, then I guess it makes all the difference. And then I would like to add something on their marital status, their birth date, photos etc. Why? It's important. Sure, it can be picked up from the article, but it's too important to be read just there. Before you ask: yes, I'm using reductio ad absurdum; no, I'm not being mean. Of course, the entire template could be restructured in accordance with citizenship (the country they defected from, which I would picture is of much more contextual relevancy) as opposed to profession (of secondary importance except in White Nights). Dahn (talk) 23:11, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Of course I deleted every one of them without exception - it's because they're all pointless.

These assertions have gone from troublesome to simply hilarious. As if it was "pointless" that the person who defected was in the KGB. Seriously, that's one of the many parentheticals you deleted. Now that's the reason you're now falling back on in retrospect for a clearly non-good faith deletion of every parenthetical?

Re: Well, if you would like it, then I guess it makes all the difference.

And if you don't, then it should be deleted however relevant?Mosedschurte (talk) 23:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Let me make it simpler: I'm consistently applying a standard and making no exceptions for the sake of making exceptions. Removing trolling and trying to discern what is civil in your post, let me answer whatever is answerable in your questions. "[Is consistency] the reason [...] for a [...] deletion of every parenthetical?" Yes, for the fifth time, yes. "And if you don't, then it should be deleted however relevant [Mosedschurte thinks some of them are]?" Again: Yes. The templates are for the simplest common denominators, not for "you might also think this is relevant", and certainly not for "when reading the article Mosedschurte found this relevant". Do you have any other questions? Dahn (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: "I'm consistently applying a standard and making no exceptions for the sake of making exceptions."

This makes absolutely no sense, especially in this context.

Like much of the attempted linguistic rope-a-dope from the issue, it also does not cover up that you deleted every single parenthetical for non-good faith reasons only after it was pointed out in the Deletion request page that they helped. Nor does it help with your continued deletion of all attempts to add any such parentheticals.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:02, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I see that you later added on my Talk page at least something of an argument, that the parentheticals "add[ed] a layer of subjectivity?" What possible "layer of subjectivity" do you think parentheticals like "author" and "journalist" and, in the spies section, "NKVD" or "KGB" actually add? And how could it possibly rise to the significance of deleting them all? These came from the Wikipedia pages of the articles! Again, the entire thing appears to be pretty blantant non-good faith deletions after the comments on the deletion page, with nothing remotely like an even passable excuse after the fact.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:10, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

That's it. I'm officially done with this discussion, as I see I'm only being confronted with caricatures and travesties. It's hard to believe that, having read my posts, someone would still not get my comments to the point of producing such opaque replies, so I have to assume Mosedschurte is merely trying to irritate me by repeating the same absurdities and insinuations over and over again. Dahn (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding with that fake melodrama. Your after-the-fact excuses for the deletions of 43% of the Template have thus far been:

• "I'm consistently applying a standard" without describing even one word of the standard,
• "it's because they're all pointless" without providing a single example of a pointless parenethetical (much less all), and
• that they "added a layer of subjectivity" without again giving a single example.

None of these even approached passable after-the-fact excuses. Cold hard reality: You simply deleted all of them after the comments in a separate Deletion discussion template about how they were helpful, in fact I think within an hour or two. The bobbing and weaving afterwards has done nothing more than highlight that.Mosedschurte (talk) 00:30, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Comment: cutting out half a template with thorough justification is well within the bounds of WP:BOLD, even if another user doesn't like that and, yes, even if the excised half caused another user to switch his vote in a deletion discussion initiated by the first user on a template created by the second one. And dredging up three ANI threads fully two years old (an eternity on Wikipedia), even regardless of the fact that they were initiated by a sockpuppet and a troll, raises questions of motivation. Comment on content, not on the contributor. - Biruitorul ^Talk 02:37, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Time out

Mosedschurte and Dahn - stop responding to each other. Whatever the original incident, you're just arguing back and forth here and being disruptive. Stop responding and let some uninvolved administrators review and get back to you with more feedback.

If you continue pushing each others' buttons, a short block to prevent further disruption and rude behavior may be required. Please don't do that - let us review, ask you some questions on your talk pages, let things calm down now.

Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:36, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

I had some experience of communication with Mosedschurte and I can add my humble 2 cents that, hopefully, may be useful. To my opinion, it wouldn't be an exaggeration to say that Mosedschurte is a unique phenomenon that cannot be characterised purely negatively or purely positively. His strengths are

• He uses only reliable, mostly academic, sources; the articles edited or written by him are always well sourced;
• He writes fast and well; after his intervention the articles look much better than before.
• He is bold;

However, he:

• Frequently cites the sources incorrectly, or directly misinterprets them;
• Makes numerous factual errors (and sometimes performs WP:SYNTH);
• He is too bold.
  I don't think these Mosedschurte's peculiarities to have significant detrimental effect on WP, provided that one can fix all errors or misinterpretations Mosedschurte is doing. However, Mosedschurte is absolutely indisposed to accept arguments of others. Discussion with him may last almost infinitely, similar to what we see above. To my opinion, that resembles a refusal to get a point, a characteristic of a problem editor. In addition, during and after his work on some article Mosedschurte vehemently opposes to any changes made by others; any attempt of the others to achieve a consensus leads to endless discussions (aimed, probably to exhaust the opponent). As Dahn correctly pointed out, that may fit WP:OWN criteria.
  Summarising all said above, I think we have here not a 3RR, but the normal content dispute + WP:IDHT + WP:OWN (both from the Mosedschurte's side), so Mosedschurte had no reasons to complain.--Paul Siebert (talk) 17:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)