Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive595

The Eyeopener: Vandalistic vandals vandalize

Some folks from "The Eyeopener" decided to vandalize the wiki:

http://www.theeyeopener.com/articles/4437-In-Soviet-Russia-lies-Wikipedia-you

Since they freely admit in their piece that they already know wikipedia policy, and are flaunting it anyway, I guess that's a near no-brainer sanction.

If we're feeling particularly nice we could tell them the have 24 hours to fix their own mistakes? :-)

--Kim Bruning (talk) 11:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That edit has been reverted, and was the only one carried out by that IP. If anybody feels the need to comment on the article, feel free to do so. Interestingly, all of the comments on their page are vetted by their editors. Hmmmm... Throwaway85 (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh That article irked me. I wrote the following to their editor-in-chief in response:

As an editor of Wikipedia, let me begin by expressing my disappointment in you. There is nothing clever or noble about vandalizing something that countless thousands of people put countless thousands of hours into making. You are in no way providing a service to your readers. You are behaving like bored teenagers, plain and simple. You changed a single digit in an article about your institution. Congratulations. For three days visitors might have thought your library to be slightly taller than it is. Are you fulfilled now? Is there some aching pit within you that has been filled by your miscreancy?

Your actions are not only rude, but unethical. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, built entirely by volunteers, and offered free to the world. We don't ask anything in return for this bevy of information, save a modicum of respect. Many of your readers refer to us daily, and are quickly able to find free, reliable information on any topic under the sun. Does Wikipedia get vandalized? Of course it does. We have hundreds of editors patrolling recent changes 24/7 just to repair the damage vandals do. Misguided and thoughtless actions such as yours do not help. Are there problems with allowing anyone to edit? Undoubtedly. Without that credo, however, the project would not exist. Take a look at Citizendium to see what a closed model produces.

Wikipedia is at the forefront of ushering in a new age of information, instantly accessible and free to all. You wrote a hack piece on a tired subject to fill whitespace in a college newspaper, and damaged the project to do so. Is this the "award-winning journalism" of which you boast? Are these the investigative journalists who will be breaking the Watergates of tomorrow? Shall you hold a mass rally before all of Ryerson's students and proudly proclaim, "Look! Look at what we have done in your name! Aren't we clever? Aren't we pithy? Are we not deserving of your praise?"

Grow up.

Sincerely,

(redacted)

Proud Wikipedian.

Think I went too far? Throwaway85 (talk) 13:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No, you probably didn't go far enough. Should have included that hypocrisy bit... Tan | 39 14:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Not the first time the media has done this:

Stay in Touch (January 16, 2007), "Scandals, but it's true, surely". Sydney Morning Herald.

Hypocrisy, indeed. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Holy war (sort of)

An anonymous editor is visiting various articles and changing "Roman Catholic" to "Catholic" (example). While it is generally true that the term preferred by the Vatican is simply "Catholic" (presumably a matter of primacy for their brand of Catholicism), in most instances these changes have been made despite sourcing explicitly stating "Roman Catholic". Various editors have tried to explain this problem to the anonymous editor (who was blocked for this behavior at one point), but the editor continues this "crusade". To complicate matters, 3 separate IP addresses have thus far been involved:

• 71.145.143.99 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.145.166.252 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.145.166.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I am not sure what action can be taken (if any), but I would appreciate some advice about how to approach this problem. Up until now, I have been reverting the anonymous edits in instances where the sourcing specifically says "Roman Catholic" and leaving the others. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have also been involved, reverting more than User:Scjessey. I am in agreement with his concerns. Note that the edit histories of this user include wildly incorrect statements. It may seem persuasive to say "just call them what they call themselves", but he makes up falsehoods about what they call themselves. See a long list at User talk:71.145.166.252 of cases that I tracked down. Tb (talk) 16:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Also note that many of the anon user's edits are entirely careless search-and-replace edits which break wikilinks, categories, and other such things. Tb (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Note as well that User:71.145.143.99 was blocked a few days ago in connection with this. Tb (talk) 18:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm a little disappointed by the lack of administrator interest here, even if it's just to tell me it's no big deal and I shouldn't worry about it. -- Scjessey (talk) 23:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have enough knowledge about rangeblocks to do one without risking collateral damage. I'd suggest semiprotecting the articles but the scope is too wide. Hopefully an admin with skills I lack will come along. I don't think that it's not a big deal. -- Atama頭 00:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a range of 71.145.128.0/18, which would block up to 16,384 IPs. I don't think we'd block that many potential users for long, but perhaps an anon softblock for 3 days might concentrate the mind. Rodhullandemu 01:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You missed:

• 71.145.140.146 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.145.141.223 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.145.143.238 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.145.144.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.145.146.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.145.147.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.145.150.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.145.154.178 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.145.162.148 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.145.167.248 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.145.168.134 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 71.145.168.215 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

and I'm sure many others. Unfortunately, this range is shared by many editors. I've blocked the most recently used one for 31 hours. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, that was wretchedly tedious, but I've gone through all those. How can I find others? Tb (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

RfD closer needed

Resolved

 – RfD closed. Jafeluv (talk) 09:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Please could an uninvolved administrator close the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2010 January 20#Wikipedia Watch. It's been open about a fortnight and hasn't attracted any new comments since the 31st and that last contribution by someone who hadn't previously expressed an opinion was at midnight on the 28th, so it seems likely that the debate has run its course.

Full disclosure: I am one of the people who has been strongly advocating an opinion regarding this redirect. Thryduulf (talk) 08:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked User Evading block

User: 190fordhouse was blocked for 2 weeks concerning sockpuppeting and making controversial edits, but I believe that the user is using this IP address to make edits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.85.175.159. I thought that editing while blocked isn't legal.Carmaker1 (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I propose that this investgatied before the IP adress is blocked. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 19:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

At a glance I don't see it. If you're really convinced, go to WP:SPI and ask for a WP:CHECKUSER. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:30, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I would pray that Beeblebrox is correct. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, at first glance I see nothing either. They haven't even edited any of the same articles, and the IP seems to be enditing English music articles, whereas fordhouse seemed to be editing Spanish ones at the time of their block. In addition, the IP was editing at the same time as fordhouse, while the latter was unblocked. Carmaker, is there any specific edits you feel are particularly ducky? Throwaway85 (talk) 02:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Drama over then? Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

The drama might not be over. I left this comment on the blocking admin's talk page, User talk:MuZemike with no response and just noticed this thread:

"I think we might have a new sockpuppet on our hands, Hammond1993. This user just started editing on the 29th, just days after the sockpuppets were blocked and editing some of the same articles that 190fordhouse, Statmo1921, SonnywithaChancefan, and 67.85.172.6 also edited with some of the same date changing on albums and singles, such as Shedrack Anderson "III", Brandi Williams, Blaque, Blaque Out, Waiting for Tonight, Natina Reed, Where My Girls At?, Get Along with You, Caught out There, Blaque (album), I'm Good (Blaque song) and Jackson family."

And since that message Runaway (Janet Jackson song), (You Drive Me) Crazy, Ghetto Love (Da Brat song) and Sittin' on Top of the World (Da Brat song) could be added to that list. Aspects (talk) 14:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Launch a investigation. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It is the same person. I'm 100% sure. I.P.'s starting with 67.85.17 should be monitored closely, as most of the I.P.'s starting with that made such edits. User: Hammond1993 is a creation of User: 190fordhouse. They need to be reported for that reason. I am very thankful that User: Throwaway85 and User: Aspects have noticed this new profile and I won't need to do this alone. However, I would appreciate it if some users would not approach this matter in such a sarcastic manner, as if we feel that there is a problem we should be able to contact administrators without feeling like a bother. That is better, than us personally going against guidelines to blast a troublesome user. Other than that, thank you all who have been helpful.Carmaker1 (talk) 03:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User Carmaker1 I could not have said it better myself. I agree 100%. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 15:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have realized the problem is bigger and also older unfortunately--Carmaker1 (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have discovered something today that proves this is a bit bigger than I thought. User: 190fordhouse(and their skpts) and User: Hammond1993 come from a long line of sock puppets first originated by User: 995Star. This user was blocked for holding over 10 sock puppets: here's proof. This needs to be handled.Carmaker1 (talk) 17:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User Carmaker1 you are the best man for the job and therefore should handle the case from this point on. Jack Quinn UK (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Tko96 and sock

Resolved

 – Blocks and warnings handed out. GedUK  15:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

May an admin please look at

• Tko96 (talk · contribs)
• 66truekillerobituaries99 (talk · contribs) (sock)

The userpage is inappropriate and linked to various articles. I have patiently warned the kid and undone the linking, but since they have now created a sock, and did not redact their page and instead copied it to their sock account and to mainspace (Musculion) and continued linking, it seems like time for administrative action. Skäpperöd (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen the contributions of both accounts and they have both participated in the TKO article at least; So if you think the other account is disruptive, should we block both of them? I'm not an admin so I can't block users yet I'm afraid. Minimac94 (talk) 12:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Musculion looks like another sock. --Chuunen Baka (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocks and deletion requested

The editor has not yielded or responded to my friendly words [1], and is still active generating and expanding WP:FAKEARTICLEs on all of his accounts:

• Tko96 (master)
• 66truekillerobituaries99 (sock 1)
• Musculion (sock 2)
• The identical piece in mainspace, Musculion, has meanwhile been speedied.

Can an admin please delete the userpages per WP:FAKEARTICLE, indef the socks, and block/issue a final warning to the puppeteer. Skäpperöd (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

—sure looks like a sock to me...maybe the person should just have one account and they can make a link to their myspace or something. not sure about what the message they are communicating, obviously advertising personal affiliation with illegal gangs or numbers of dead is a contraindication to Wikipedia's way...without getting into what they (can or cannot) have on their personal page, the puppets have to go. --Avé 09:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 66truekillerobituaries99 (talk · contribs) and Musculion (talk · contribs), and warned Tko96 (talk · contribs). GedUK  15:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

How many Y's in Bobby?

Resolved

 – The two recent VOAs were blocked by User:Syrthiss. –xeno^talk 14:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Could somebody look into

• Bobyyyy (talk · contribs),
• Bobbyyyy (talk · contribs), good faith inactive user
• Bobby (talk · contribs), only one edit ever, a G2 that has been deleted
• Bobbyyyyy (talk · contribs), and
• Bobyyy (talk · contribs)...? inactive for years

Some of them are old, some recent, some blocked, some aren't -- but something's weird... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 14:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if any action is required here. Nothing to say these are related... –xeno^talk 14:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I would suspect that people called Bobby wanted to create an account, so kept adding Ys till they found an available one, then moved on. GedUK  15:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The two I blocked were related, imo, since 5ys was making userpages for 4ys and then replied on my talkpage when I warned 4ys for vandalism. Syrthiss (talk) 15:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. –xeno^talk 15:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

But did they ask you Y they were blocked? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:03, 5 February 2010

Vandalism to Care Bears: Adventures in Care-a-Lot article

Resolved

 – User warned. --Taelus (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, yesterday I reverted Two edits by 99.243.109.23, however, I had to revert them manually, by going into the article and removing the vandalism, I couldn't undo the edits, since the user made two edits, and since the Second one was made, I couldn't revert the First One. I can't use Twinkle or anything like that, since I am using Internet Explorer, and it is only available for Firefox. Now today, sometime earlier, the user went on and vandalized it again. This time only one edit was made, and I reverted it, telling them to stop it. The edit is vandalism since the user keeps changing the title to "Adventurez in Care-a-lot",and putting in false characters, like someone from X-Men. Also, the user had made edits calling characters drunk (such as Bedtime Bear), and did other things, like putting in fake episodes. I would report it to the Vandalism board, but since the edit was made a few hours before I came on, I don't think that would be appropriate,since I didn't get the edit right away. Could someone please do something about this, maybe block the user or something? I would appreciate it if something was to be done. Abby 92 (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI you can view an old revision of the page (before the vandalism), edit it, and hit save to effectively roll back to that version. –xeno^talk 14:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User has been warned, no more action really required here. --Taelus (talk) 14:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I warned them, but if they do it again, can someone please do something when I report it? I doubt any vandal listens to warnings. Abby 92 (talk) 14:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If they continue to vandalise, then you may continue to warn them, increasing the level of warning each time. If they continue past their final warning, report them to WP:AIV for quick attention from an admin. For more in-depth information about the warning system, check out WP:WARN. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 14:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Charlycrs

Resolved

User talk:Charlycrs--->lots to fix --and talk page deleted--> Not sure what to do here..he/she has been asked many time to stop the odd capitalizing. No response to talk pages by this user. I am here to find out how we can stop this..without loosing the editor. ANY help would be appreciated...this user is causing lots of work for other editors! ...............Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User(s) blocked.. Seven attempts were made to discuss the situation, a block will either stop them or force them to at least discuss matters. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You are right ...it is upto that user to talk to us at this point!!...Buzzzsherman (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Ducks?

Resolved

 – Checkuser confirms the ip and Srwm are the same user, named account indef blocked, WP:RTV denied. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Shortly after 76.24.147.114 (talk · contribs) is blocked, Srwm4 (talk · contribs), who hasn't edited in like 3 years, turns up defending the IP. They also have a common interest in Massachusetts subjects, and the IP geolocates to Mass. I'll be posting this on Srwm4's page shortly in case he wants to defend himself. But it looks like "quacks" to me. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There are some 6,593,587 people living in Massachusetts. How many page views come from the Commonwealth each day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srwm4 (talk • contribs) 07:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Of those, you're the only one that turned up 4 minutes after the IP was blocked, to pick up where he left off. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

By that logic, it is safe, then, to assume that you are in fact User:Mike Searson? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srwm4 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you've got concerns with the way Searson addressed that IP (and you might have a point), then you could take it to WP:WQA. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind pointing out the "common interest in Massachusetts subjects" that you alluded to in your initial complain, please? I do not seem to see any such history.

If you care to look, I live in Ohio, actually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Srwm4 (talk • contribs) 07:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What user ID have you been editing under during most of the last 3 years? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have edited an article about Xavier University (Cincinnati) numerous times if you care to look, including substantial expansions of the article. Has Cincinnati been annexed to Massachusetts without my knowledge?

And as a point of fact, I do not frequent Wikipedia. I simply was on the Glock page because I had a question relation to .45GAP.Srwm4 (talk) 07:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, you can see that I made edits as recently as last year. I don't bother to edit much, because when I do it is often deleted. See my user page, and compare what I had worked hard to contribute to the Sloshball and US Energy Independence articles, and how I have wasted my time with each major revision. It's amazing how experiences like that (AND THIS!!!) will drive a user away, don't you think?Srwm4 (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, 4 edits, a year ago; the previous being June of 2007 (to the Mass Mutual article). There's only one way I can tell if you're from Ohio, though: You could log out and make an entry here. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I must be from Massachusetts because I corrected a typo on the page of a Fortune 100 financial company that happens to have that state in it's name! HA!Srwm4 (talk) 07:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The main point is that you showed up 4 minutes after an IP was blocked and picked up where he left off. Maybe it's an unhappy coincidence. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm obviously not going to be able to convince you of anything. And the fact is that it's 3am in Ohio/Massachusetts and I have class tomorrow at 8:30 am at Xavier University (Cincinnati), so I'm going to bed. Do what you will. I could honestly care less about a community that feels the need to attack others, and then attack their defenders!Srwm4 (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The stuff Searson said to the IP was uncivil. If you want to defend the IP, take Searson to WP:WQA. I'm beginning to think your taking up where he left off, 4 minutes later, might be just a coincidence. But it's also unusual to see someone get upset about someone else being abused if they don't "know" each other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I was uncivil, I'll admit it.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP has been BANNED. That means (I think) that he can't make edits to pages like this to defend himself. And I'm not even defending him anymore! I'm defending myself!

That IP is only blocked, stop making stuff up.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I AM DONE WITH WIKIPEDIA. IF SOMEONE COULD COME TO MY TALK PAGE AND EXPLAIN WHAT I NEED TO DO TO EXERCISE THE RIGHT TO VANISH, I THINK WE'D BE ABLE TO MOVE ON HERE. I HOPE YOU ALL LEARN A LESSON FROM THIS AND STOP ATTACKING USERS WHO SIMPLY ARE TRYING TO DEFEND OTHERS. Srwm4 (talk) 08:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think we have a match. Unless there is a direct copy-paste involved, it's pretty obvious that Srwm4 and the IP 76.24.147.114 are one in the same.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• So, um, does this mean that Cincinnati has moved to Massachussetts? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • He had mentioned something about editing the Xavier article, but that was 2 1/2 years ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
    • He has put me an Searson on an attack list on his page. Maybe an SPI is needed, to figure out who needs to apologize to who. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

So I get put on a hit list:[2] and can now expect retribution[3], unless I withdraw the Sock complaint.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 20:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's as good a place as any I suppose

Duplicate discussion Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Mike_Searson Gerardw (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Mike Searson was attacking the above IP user 76.24.147.114 (talk · contribs) for an extended period of time, after the IP user updated some figures on Glock. Mike repeatedly resorted to name calling (verified by the Glock article's own history page, as well as the history pages of both users) and insults. There were repeated attempts to revert a legitimate edit by Mike, who apparently took umbrage to the IP user making what appears to be a light-hearted joke after reversing an Undo by Mike.

Insults directed by User:Mike Searson at the IP user include name calling on at least 3 occasions ("Fuckchop", "Douchebag", and "Barney Frank" - an openly homosexual member of the US Congress).

I believe User:Mike Searson should be disciplined for his actions. Srwm4 (talk) 07:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I reverted an edit by the IP over a week ago, [4] which appeared to be vandalism and found a thinly veiled personal attack by it on my talk page this morning[5]. I am a US Marine and have worked in the firearms industry/law enforcement/US Military all of my adult life. I took umbrage with this individual's insults as they were libelous, could impact my career and reverted her [6], realized the reversion was incorrect by 2 model numbers and gave back to it [7]. Was it the best course of action, maybe not. My self and this IP address went back and forth over this nonsense all day[8]. I had reliable third party sources to back my claim, this individual did not. I warned this individual to stop deleting sourced material.[9] It refused, it was blocked for vandalism. Four minutes later, this other user shows up after an almost 3 year hiatus, and edits with the same pattern of behavior this other user was editing. Forgetting to sign his/her name, undoing my edit, etc. He/she had me feeling remorse for a second, but this was short-lived. I don't believe Wiki's policy is to delete sourced material based on another editor's "feelings":[10] I did not revert back to the correct version, because I did not want this to escalate. The whole thing is ridiculous and now it appears this blocked IP Address is making a mockery of things by resuming his/her sockpuppet account. I probably should have ignored his/her personal attacks, but I wasn't raised to run from a bully. The only thing I did wrong was outright call this IP address a few four-letter words as opposed to making thinly-veiled childlike snarky attacks.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 08:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This section is duplicated at Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:Mike_Searson WQA Gerardw (talk) 10:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm confused...what was libelous and could impact your career? None of the diffs I looked at showed anything like that. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I was speaking of this one[11], saying I get my info from movies and such nonsense. I've been involved in this since before he was an itch in his daddy's pants, like I said somewhere else, I initially overreacted. but I took it as a personal attack, whether he was being a child or berating my knowledge, I have no idea. I said I reacted badly and should have just ignored it. So now I get attacked and delete his crap from my talk page repeatedly and am now on a "hit list" on his page.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 19:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Agreed, this notion is absurd. Someone reverting your edit on Wikipedia directly leading to damage to your career? Your comments to this IP are FAR beyond the line. He was belligerent- you sprinted right past him into WP:NPA. --King Öomie 17:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Sorry Mike, that isn't even close to libelous. Not even remotely close. And I'd have a very difficult time accepting that your career could be impacted by the comment of an anonymous person on here. Truthfully, if I were your employer, your reactions to him would be more of an issue than that very innocuous comment and that still wouldn't be an issue. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• If I understand the situation correctly, we've got one user who fully admits and has owned up to being uncivil to another user. So, no issue there because we don't "discipline" users, we only act to prevent further harm and Mike has made it clear he doesn't intend to make the same mistake again. We've got another user who is still apparently mad about it, but is also invoking the right to vanish, which means that they, the person, under any identity, will never edit Wikipedia ever again, so we're done there. And this whole post is a copy of a thread at WQA for some obscure reason. Are we done here? I don't see any need for admin action if one user acknowledges there mistake and the other is going away forever. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You're correct. I read too much into something the anon IP said to me and overreacted, I admit it. I have a fairly long history on wikipedia and have never been involved in something like this before. I had a bad day, I'm human and lost my temper. I was nothing but congenial to SWRM4, he was the one who bombarded me with personal attacks, threats, etc. I think that speaks volumes about his identity.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• We all have those kind of days from time to time. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The SPI needs to be carried out, so that we can see if we had that guy pegged correctly, or if we've done him an injustice. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Has an SPI even been filed? I don't see it. In any event, I think the main issue here is resolved, and a checkuser can figure the rest out if someone files a report. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought I did it here, as I normally don't mess with these things I suppose I could have done something wrong: [12] srwm4 wants me to delete it and he'll remove me from his "hit list". That tells me there's more to it than he's letting on.-Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 21:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/srwm4. I don't know if it's "correctly" set up or not. Maybe Beeblebrox could review that for you? One thing I know is that you need a letter-code or they won't do anything with it. In general, the user might be innocent, but unfortunately his behavior fits the pattern of socks. I do think it was not appropriate to mention his name, however he owned up to it being his name - so I don't know if he's really a sock or just doesn't understand. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The case has been endorsed. We'll see. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP resumed editing after his block was done, and Srwm4 is now silent; which doesn't prove anything as such. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser confirmed they are socks of each other. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Srwm4 indef blocked since they stated they don't want to use it again anyway, I can only assume that means the ip is now autoblocked. No RTV will be granted in that the account is "under a cloud" but they may get their wish on the talk page being eventually deleted as it is now in Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks ThinkEnemies

ThinkEnemies has continued with personal attacks after being warned on his user page. Would appreciate some attention to this matter.

• first: first
• warning on user page: warning
• second: second Scribner (talk) 06:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I am here to answer all complaints. ThinkEnemies (talk) 06:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC) It's true. I've convinced myself that your nonsensical arguments are due to... Something I cannot pinpoint. ThinkEnemies (talk) 06:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Scribner has been engaging in edit warring on Sarah Palin. And he has also engaged in uncivil behavior on Sarah Palin talk page [13]. He is now edit warring by placing the tag on the Sarah Palin article.[14] Scribner has been blocked before for this exact type of behavior on Sarah Palin.[15] ThinkEnemies was simply attempting to remove Scribner's POV pushing. Earlier, Scribner removed an edit there, without using the talk page, regarding Palin's book sales which was sourced. [16] He then came back sometime later and put in the comment of the PAC buying copies of the book.[17] It appears to be WP:SYN to imply that Palin's book sales were a product of her PAC buying the book. ThinkEnemies moved the section to the separate article [18] and rendered the sentence left on the Palin article within WP:NPOV. Scribner does not come here with clean hands.Malke2010 06:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Clean hands or no, ThinkEnemies is making things quite personal. Warned again. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 13:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Another warning? What's the purpose of warning him the first time? At what point do you start enforcing policy? Scribner (talk) 16:32, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning, Johnny. I hope Scribner has also been warned, to keep it evenhanded. ThinkEnemies (talk) 18:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Warnings are policy. Basically, when an editor misbehaves they are given a proportionate response; some forms of disruption merit an immediate block, others will bring a warning, which if ignored brings a stronger warning, and if that is ignored then we block. An initial warning lets the editor know that what they're doing is wrong which is often enough to stop the behavior, further warnings let the editor know that they can actually be blocked which itself can stop the behavior. Only after those warnings fail do we block, to prevent the behavior from continuing. -- Atama頭 18:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The user was already warned. Why are we warning him again? Scribner (talk) 19:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't engage in WP:IDHT. I've already explained why we give multiple warnings.

To ThinkEnemies, I'll agree that this edit by Scribner was uncalled for. Calling another editor an ass is wrong no matter how poorly they are treating you. Consider that a mild warning to Scribner that responding in kind to personal attacks is still a personal attack. -- Atama頭 19:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Just an addendum, for Scribner's sake, to avoid giving the wrong impression. These aren't toothless warnings, further incivility can and will result in a block. The hope is that ThinkEnemies will take these warnings seriously and moderate their tone. If that doesn't happen then the only way to prevent further problems is a block. -- Atama頭 19:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I do take the warnings seriously, and have engaged Scribner in a more civil tone on the Sarah Palin talk page. I admit to becoming frustrated with POV editors, especially after they attack my motives. That's a problem I will work on. Thanks for your time. ThinkEnemies (talk) 19:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

No warning should be a "toothless warning". You've wasted a lot of time here establishing moral hazard for a user that's violated policy. Scribner (talk) 19:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is a matter of established, written Wikipedia policy and longstanding precedent that we issue escalating warnings culminating in short and then increasingly long blocks, rather than jump straight to blocking or banning people. This is short circuited for certain particularly bad behavior, but this does not seem to rise to that level based on presented evidence. If ThinkEnemies behaves in the future as he has in the past there will be a block, without too many further warnings, but we also do not dwell on prior bad behavior if someone acknowledges the issue and reforms. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the constant Obama brouhahas, it's ironic that right-winger Palin's article also stands accused of being "scrubbed clean". Maybe that's POV-speak for "neutral and encyclopedic". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible Legal Threat

Resolved

 – Blocked by an admin (for 72 hours, subject to renewal if he tries it again)

67.172.160.57 (talk · contribs) left a note at the content noticeboard with what may be interpreted as a legal threat.[19] Warning left but figured admin attention would also be good. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• A definate legal threat. For a band that could use the publicity, you'd think they'd appreciate the article. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. The best I can figure from the IP's post is that he's claiming the band, The Drums is committing some kind of "trademark and domain name infringement" and he's not quite, well, bright enough to realize that that has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Maybe he thinks someone else owns the right to use "The Drums" as the name of their band? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that's the way I read it too. Apparently not meant as a legal threat against us. Though his demand of deletion is confused enough that keeping him confined to his own talkpage for the moment might still be wise. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• You're right, he's saying they're doing it. Still a legal threat though. When you start talking about lawyers and demanding immediate removal, you're in the threat territory. Niteshift36 (talk) 07:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Let him explain himself on his talk page if he has anything to say that's worth listening to. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Groucho Marx said it best. If they happen to look here Letter to Warner Brothers: A Night in Casablanca, obviously they are probably not the same caliber artisticly, Groucho shows how to do it... Avé 10:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• He had his law firm to fall back on, Hungadunga, Hungadunga, Hungadunga, and McCormick. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oops, I left out a Hungadunga. The most important one, too. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Editor evading something - page needs semi

Resolved

 – Protected

Please save the well meaning people who were finally working together on a climate change article some headache and protect the talk page Talk:Climatic Research Unit hacking incident‎ asap - the IP I am constantly reverting is evading a block/ban. This is at RFPP, but I consider it more urgent. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 19:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, someone do something to help Hipocrite. See [20]. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Semi-protected for 24h. ~ mazca ^talk 19:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Hipocrite (talk) 19:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually protected for a week, 2over0 protected at pretty much the same time for the longer duration. I've got no problem with that (24h was just an arbitrary length of time) so we'll leave it there. No worries. ~ mazca ^talk 19:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Request for Admin Assistance: WP:WikiProject Medicine/Toxicology task force article assessment table not working

Hi -- I've been working on setting up the Wikiproject Medicine Toxicology task force, and I'm just about done, but am having a problem with the article assessment statistics table. Please see the project home page, in the section "Tagging/Assessment" ... for some reason, the table of statistics will not show up. What am I doing wrong?

Thanks, Jrtayloriv (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed (your table was missing the pipe to start the cell in which the template was residing), though it's pointing to a page which doesn't exist. Is that what you needed? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:43, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Nihonjoe -- it should be showing a table with article assessment statistics in it. See for example, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment#Task force statistics -- it should look like the tables for all of those other task forces. I've totally bungled my attempts at getting the table working. The table displays now, but it isn't working properly. Please see my notes on the project home page about what I did wrong for the table (the notes are in the "Tasks/Todo" section)

Thanks for fixing the other problem though. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 05:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks to be fixed except for redlinks, but I assume those redlinks are just categories and pages that haven't been created yet. -- Atama頭 17:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The table shows up, but the numbers are not correct. Please see my notes on this at the project home page. There have only been a handful of articles (less than 10) assessed, yet the table is showing thousands of them. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Simple 3RR case offered for possible action by Some Other Admin

User:DuKu has broken the WP:3RR rule at Global warming. His four reverts were at 08:02, 10:24, 10:30 and 16:55 UTC on 4 February. His claim to be reverting vandalism does not appear valid. (This case does not require any review of the article probation, it's a plain 3RR violation). A request to have him undo his last change at User talk:DuKu led nowhere. Since I had previously blocked DuKu on 31 January per this archived 3RR report I'd prefer that a different admin look at the case this time. That admin might also want to look at the actions of DuKu's opponent, User:AbbaIkea2010, who has only reverted three times. I will notify DuKu of this report. I filed here instead of at WP:AN3 so we could get quick action, before the glaciers melt. EdJohnston (talk) 17:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I asked EdJohnston here [21] about his claim that i broke the 3RR rule, but he did not provide any info or would listen to my arguments - beside writing about the 3RR violation. If he had looked add the reverts, talk page and the reported user he could have spared many wikipedia contributors some time. But i guess this is not in everybodys intention. Though the user User:AbbaIkea2010 got reported for vandalism, after i reverted his first edits in a very short time - one of those has lead to an edit conflict. I stopped than and after warning him, filled a report on vandalism. The admin materialscientist took action and cleaned up a long line on edits of this user. Later i reverted the wiki back to the state before the vandalism took place - AFTER the user Snowman asked me why i reverted the wiki. Than in consensus with the talk page here [22] i reverted to the version before the vandalism of user User:AbbaIkea2010. Beside this you will find a few more user who seem apparently concerned about especialy these reverts, if you visit my talk page.

About EdJohnston When i started on wiki a few days ago i was not aware of the 3RR rule, when the user Finell reported me (after we reached consensus!) and filled a report, which you can read here [23], EdJohnston banned me for 31h - beside the accusation of Finell where not correct. I have to belive that EdJohnston is not acting in good faith because he just focus on the 3RR rule and reporting me. --DuKu (talk) 18:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked for 48 hours, since this comes not long after a previous 31 hour block for violating 3RR. This is a very straight-forward case; clearly the edits you reverted weren't vandalism (the editor in question even explained their actions to you), there was a refusal to acknowledge that the reverts were wrong, and a refusal to self-revert. I'm an uninvolved admin, I wouldn't touch global warming articles with a 10 foot pole and have no previous interactions with DuKu. -- Atama頭 18:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the follow-up. Just so the record is complete, DuKu did file a vandalism complaint at WP:AIV about User:AbbaIkea2010. This complaint was closed by User:LessHeard vanU per this edit, saying that the matter was being dealt with at a different venue. I assume that the different venue was RFPP. A protection request filed by a third party about Global warming was declined here. I do observe that Materialscientist reverted three edits elsewhere by Abbalkea2010, but he did not communicate with Abbalkea or DuKu about that, That must explain DuKu's claim that "The admin materialscientist took action and cleaned up a long line on edits of this user." Unclear why that would give DuKu the right to undo Abbalkea's actions at Global warming as 'vandalism'. EdJohnston (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

DuKu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a very new editor who is not fluent in English, would benefit from some guidance (I don't mean blocks) by administrators. This editor's entire talk page shows that, in a very short time here, DuKu has been engaged in multiple edit wars (already blocked twice for 3RR), edits and reverts in disregard of consensus, repeatedly accuses other editors of vandalism when they revert DuKu's edits and reverts, is uncivil to other editors, repeatedly threatens to "report" other editors who express their concerns (DuKu also accused me of "spamming" DuKu's talk page when I used it to discuss DuKu's behavior), does not assume good faith, and overall takes a combative stance. Aside from DuKu's talk page, here are some other examples of this behavior: User talk:Finell#EUCLID 3, User talk:Finell#Civility,Talk:Euclid#Consensus and Opinion on adding link to Perseus and beyond, User talk:Novangelis#Euclid Vandalism, User talk:Clovis Sangrail#Civility. Isolated blocks for 3RR are not going to educate this editor (if education is possible). Thank you.—Finell 19:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

DuKu is is now posting false accusations of vandalism at User talk:DuKu#VANDALISM which needs ACTION.—Finell 19:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I am not sure that this editor is a good fit for this project. Exhibit A: the link at the bottom of their talkpage describing this edit as vandalism. They give every indication of intending to return to exactly the same behaviours in two days. Several users have already reached out to DuKu, and been rebuffed. Is there any reason we should not take this block to indefinite? - 2/0 (cont.) 19:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, DuKu's serial unblock requests and continuing accusations of vandalism show that the user either can't or won't understand policy. My hope that guidance from administrators might help was overly optimistic: DuKu insists that he or she understands the policies better than the administrator, and even accused on admin of vandalizing DuKu's talk page (!). Escalating to indef may be the only solution for this editor's disruption.—Finell 22:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It may be a moot point, as the editor has claimed that they intend to leave Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 00:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Abusive editor User talk:Allyoueverwanted

User talk:Allyoueverwanted has used abusive language ... here and has broken the WP:3RR rule. Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Crude language, to be sure, but not aimed at you or any other editor, unless you are referring to the nickname comment. They have also not broken 3RR with their 2 reverts, but you are close with your 3 reverts. I also see that you have not notified the other editor about this report as required, so I will do so now. —DoRD (?) (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

the pprsonal attack is in a edit description (can be seen at [[24]] "14:37, February 4, 2010 Allyoueverwanted (talk | contribs) (8,485 bytes) (→Chart performance: you should change your nickname to Lil ANNOYING)". Though mild, I did warn the user on their talk page about personal attacks Alan - talk 22:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, saw that. I also note that both editors are up to 3 reverts. In either case, there's nothing for an admin to do at this point. —DoRD (?) (talk) 22:38, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

the reverting is minor, the reported user is new to all this , comes from a fan-forum, and thinks wikipedia is simular (like so many others), it's the language and attacks (whether minor or major) that need an eye kept on. I don't think any of it's that big of a deal, i've dealt with a lot worse on wikipedia Alan - talk 23:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Collectonian ‎

Resolved

 – No admin action needed. --Smashville^talk 22:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No action taken

The user:Collectonian has made some uncivil and rude comments towards me just for the simple fact that I have created some templates and articles that he disagrees with. The first example: [25] I really dont understand why he had to talk with that tone. "Chill with all the damn templates" is not how you try to get someone to stop doing something. The second example: [26] There doesn't apear to be a good reasoning for the reversion. The third example:[27] ‎Instead of responding he continued with rude comments and no explanation.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 21:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Have you tried dispute resolution? Or the Wikiquette alert noticeboard? While Collectonian probably should have been more calm and civil doing those edits, there is no need for administrative intervention in this case, is there? Regards SoWhy 22:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Said editor has created dozens of templates for unnotable and barely notable director, then created single line articles for all of their films, most of which are completely unnotable. I can remove conversations from my talk page at will per WP:TALK and my own talk page header. Also, it should be noted that TheMovieBuff appears to be canvassing for the current AfDs on many of his one line film articles[28][29] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC) None of those are reasons to be rude and uncivil.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Agreed, Collectonian. Was the edit summary " remove - tired of dealing with people who think creating a one line article is somehow "helpful" and has already been asked by other people to slow down and actually create content instead of pointless crap for others to clean up" really necessary?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Perhaps not, but it was not particularly uncivil either, considering the number of one line articles he has made of late. His continued canvassing after an admin warning isn't really necessary either[30] (he was just given a short five minute block). -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Collectonian is not a he. --Smashvilletalk 22:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)And TheMovieBuff just got a 5-minute "didn't I just tell you to read WP:CANVASS" block. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC) I had so many posts on my talk page, I didnt see the one with the canvassing. Just because I have made a lot of one line articles gives you no right to be uncivil.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 22:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC) You know, that would be a more convincing argument if you hadn't come over to my talkpage to respond to it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC) DUHN-DUHN-DUHNNNNN...HalfShadow 22:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC) So what's the actual admin action requested here? Collectonian wanted him to get lost off of her talkpage. There really isn't a nice way to say that, but she wasn't really uncivil about it. (That would be along the lines of, "Get the fuck off my talkpage, troll!" or something of that nature.) --Smashvilletalk 22:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC) I am not complaining about her reverting my post on her talk page, its the uncivil comments she has made.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 22:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC) She's allowed to revert posts on her talkpage. So again, what admin action are you requesting here? What are you hoping to accomplish that you couldn't accomplish through dispute resolution? --Smashvilletalk 22:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Again, that is not what I am complaining about. Look at the links at the top of this post to see why I brought this here.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 22:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC) And again, what sort of admin action are you requesting here that could not be accomplished through WP:DR? --Smashvilletalk 22:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC) I just didnt want the user to get away with being uncivil and I wanted to make admins aware of it.--TheMovieBuff (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Mission accomplished, then. We are aware of it. Polite discussion would probably yield more positive results, but if you're happy with admin awareness, I'm happy to give it to you. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC) Comment Can I call your attention to recent bad faith edits by User:Collectonian on the following page Bandido_(2004_film). He's reverting information like the film's writer and claiming it is vandalism and deleting sources (like IMDB) claiming they don't meet WP:RS while there's an active AFD. I took the time to at least expand the article into a stub and he's systematically trying to delete more or less everything that makes the article obviously meet WP:N and WP:RS to support his nomination. Nefariousski (talk) 00:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC) The same editor had just vandalized the article four times in a row. Anyone would have auto reverted again. And no, IMDB is NOT a reliable source per overwhelming community consensus, and MPAA ratings do not go in film articles, again per overwhelming community consensus. Take five minutes to read the links you were pointed to or learn something about editing film articles before claiming anyone is acting incorrectly. Being in an AfD does NOT mean you can just throw anything you want in the article. Nothing that was removed does anything to establish notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC) In my opinion, while it is not against policy, it is very bad form for the nominator of an article for deletion to be actively engaged in reverting the efforts of other editors to improve the article while the AfD is underway; this is especially so when a number of editors have raised question about the quality of the nominations. If the adds are as bad as you seem to think they are, someone will certainly take care of deleting them in due time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Request KolibriOS to be restored to User:The Last Exlixe/KolibriOS

Resolved

 – WP:AGF userification first completed, then reversed when user was blocked for cross-wiki vandalism. MLauba (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you userfy this deleted article and move it into my userspace? The Last Exlixe (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done This should normally be requested at WP:REFUND. Once the article overcomes the objections of the previous AfDs, I would suggest that you submit it to Deletion Review. Also mind that you will need to move the article once the deletion review allows recreation instead of copy / pasting the text, as the attribution to previous contributors must be preserved. MLauba (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't anyone find it weird that this entirely new user sends an article to AFD 7 minutes after registering and then about ten minutes later requests the userfication by using "userfy" considering the article he has requested was deleted AFD 3 years ago?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I found it rather odd...particularly when that seems to be a competitor's article that was nominated...-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I do not know the rules and regulations for userfying, but I do know that this is definitely a single purpose account and probably a sockpuppet. I don't know if it violates any sockpuppet policies though.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any rule preventing userification based on account age, unless other violations can be demonstrated. Userified per WP:AGF, but the article name has been salted to ensure this goes through DRV so that we have no premature recreation. Any objections? MLauba (talk) 00:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Pickbothmanlol sock? Has a thing for AfD's. Jarkeld (talk) 00:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If this is confirmed, I have of course no objections that the userification be reverted. It can be plenty of other things, though, among others the kind of newbie who reads part of our policies but misses the fact that a deletion of topic A doesn't mean topic B has to be deleted (if the latter is referenced). MLauba (talk) 01:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

As you can see, the AFD was deleted with the claim that this was a "crosswiki vandal", which seems plausible, however I see no evidence of this yet and for now no direct action has been taken against the editor. -- Atama頭 01:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The editor has been blocked, and the userification reverted. I guess we're done here. MLauba (talk) 01:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

UnitAnode and BLP content deletions

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

---

Compromise and cooperation has saved the day, no need for admin action.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 05:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Unitanode (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who was recently asked here, and agreed, to stop adding WP:PROD tags to BLP articles for lack of citations, continues to delete verifiable uncontentious content from BLP articles simply for lack of sourcing.[31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44] UnitAnode is stubbifying articles at a rate exceeds any single editor's ability to clean up after. No doubt that some of the information deleted is indeed contentious, or inaccurate, ur unverifiable, but plenty of it is good content. Just reviewing these deletions is a major time sink, much less improving the articles as fast as this one editor can mess them up. When the content is restored UnitAnode simply edit wars it back out. When asked to stop and wait for consensus UnitAnode announces that no consensus is necessary because BLP policy is on their side. As a content policy matter that is simply untrue - this specific issue has been considered and rejected at BLP. As a behavioral matter this is yet another case of edit warring mass deletions in support of either a misreading of, or a proposed change in, BLP policy. I've offered a truce, that we keep the status quo and file a content-focused RfC to decide this once and for all, but the editor has rejected the notion and tried to imply that I'm the one who is in trouble for adding unsourced content (see here). My only recourse, other than edit warring or allowing our content to suffer, is to ask for help convincing UnitAnode to stop until the community has spoken on the matter. Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 20:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• This is more pointless drama-stirring by Wikidemon, simply because he doesn't seem to understand that removing unsourced information from BLPs is good, while readding such information is bad. I'm in the process of examining the efficacy of my PRODs, and at first blush, it appears they were very effective. Wikidemon needs to stop with the drama-stirring. UnitAnode 20:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Was the personal attack really necessary? How about taking it on face value when I say why I am concerned about this? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Unsourced content should be removed from WP:BLP articles. Was this not just recently settled by ArbCom? JBsupreme (talk) 20:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree here with JBsupreme (talk · contribs). Quite simply, unsourced content should be removed from WP:BLP articles. Cirt (talk) 20:39, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• All unsourced content is open to deletion under current policy, especially in BLPS. That's policy. If you'd like to expand/restore content an editor must, at minimum, source it (a source of some kind is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of course). There is no such thing as good unsourced and unverified content. Good on ya unit.Bali ultimate (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't egg on an editor for edit warring. That's a respectable opinion, but in my opinion it is a mistaken one that would cause untold damage. More to the point it's not what policy says. BLP policy addresses "unsourced or poorly sourced contentius material" (emphasis added). The idea that it applies to uncontentious material was recently considered and rejected - see here. We can and should talk about this further at an RfC if people want to change policy, but meanwhile, the way to enact a policy change after the community rejects it is not by engaging in mass deletion campaigns, or resorting to edit warring and incivility when people object. I'm not asking to settle the issue here, just asking that we encourage UnitAnode to hold off until the community is clear. Reverting a bad deletion is not the same as endorsing content. There's nothing that requires bringing all restored content to featured status. Wikidemon (talk) 21:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

All of the above is just, like, your opinion, man. The policy is clear in the other direction.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

What part of "unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material" clearly applies to uncontentious material? Is it your opinion that it is okay for one party to edit war to enforce a minority opinion about content policy? - Wikidemon (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Not only is it policy, but any such content removed can easily be retrieved from the edit history provided that it is useful. I'm not sure why we are still going around in circles on this subject. JBsupreme (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• All unsourced content is open to deletion under current policy, especially in WP:BLPS. That's policy. Arbcom did in fact recently reaffirm that. Wikidemon needs to internalize that and stop stirring things up. Or, better, work with Unitanode and others on how to effectively and efficiently improve articles instead of posting not very collegial stuff like User_talk:Unitanode#BLP_stubbification. This report is baseless and should be closed with no action. ++Lar: t/c 20:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  Why isn't that reflected in the policy? –xeno^talk 21:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  He's made it clear that his goal is -- having failed to get me acquiesce to his demands at my talkpage -- to have an administrator force me to do so. UnitAnode 20:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Unsourced material has no place in BLP's Unitode is quite right to remove it. Viridae^Talk 20:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Closed, with no action taken. Cirt (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

After all of 25 minutes, by a party who sided with the named party? –xeno^talk 20:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

unclosed. Ecx4! Rd232 ^talk 20:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No objections to it being unclosed. :) Cirt (talk) 21:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people (currently paused; cf Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Phase II) Jclemens' view that "most BLPs, even those that are unreferenced are innocuous, provide useful material, and do no harm." was passed by a large majority. On this evidence the view of the community is that uncontentious content should not be deleted. More broadly a clear view emerging from the RFC is that deleting content faster than it can reasonably be reviewed is not acceptable, unless an argument specific to that content is made as to why it should be removed - and "unsourced" is not sufficient argument. It may be that the extreme deletionists who started the recent hooha jump in more quickly here; but they are not representative of the wider community. Rd232 ^talk 20:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• It's not even "deleting" content, it's simply removing unsourced content. It's not a violation of any policy, and is done specifically in support of our WP:BLP policy. I'm not going to stop removing this unsourced content, so I don't see the point of continuing this thread. I've done nothing blockable, and further discussion is little more than navel-gazing. UnitAnode 21:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Unilateral declarations to ignore well-established community views in favour of personal interpretation of policy were quite clearly rejected by Arbcom, after initially seeming to endorse that. I won't do so (signing off now) but if you continue whilst this discussion is unresolved, someone should block you. Rd232 ^talk 21:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It would not go well for you if you were to press the block button on me right now. I'm just imagining the block summary now, Blocked for removing unsourced information from BLPs ... UnitAnode 21:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

UnitAnode has made similar veiled threats against other administrators before. That's all I'm asking for, really, that UnitAnode stop until the community decides. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

e/c - There are many different opinions at that RFC page, it is not policy and it is not supported by the community to encourage having wholly unsourced material in BLPs. Cirt (talk) 21:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Does it really need to be explained that A not deleting unsourced content without specific reason and B "encourage having wholly unsourced material" are very different things? Rd232 ^talk 21:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)You're conflating a few issues. Nobody is proposing that we drop our WP:RS guideline. The question, specifically, is whether it's okay to engage in mass editing campaigns and edit war against those who object. Even if the original deletion is allowable it's also allowable to revert it and then the consensus process applies. I very carefully and selectively reversed a couple of the deletions after checking to make sure there was no content that appeared unverifiable or contentious. This editor is deleting a lot of content without first making any attempt to improve it. It's pretty indiscriminate, because most BLP content is not adequately sourced, and I don't think the community wants to drop most of the encyclopedia's BLP content right now. In a few minutes one can carelessly destroy hours worth of work, which could have been brought up to standards in a few more minutes. Multiply that by the prospect of a dozen editors doing it ten times a day if it's allowed and you've got a major trashing of the encyclopedia. If the material stays deleted for long there will be intervening edits and it becomes harder and harder to restore, with or without sourcing. - Wikidemon (talk) 21:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Also worth noting (in view of JBsupreme's remark about Arbcom) is Sandstein's overwhelmingly approved view: "The arbcom motion is not to be understood as changing or superseding general deletion policy and process as applied to the biographies of living persons, and it should be considered void if and insofar as it might have been intended to have that effect. Instead, any policy change should be decided by community consensus, starting with this RfC." Rd232 ^talk 21:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• I second Wikidemon's comments. Its unfortunate that Unitanode is denuding articles instead of working to source them (and I've sourced a view of his prods recently so I have seen this, and I can't recall any iota of contentious untrue material being found). As rd232 notes, a majority of editors agree that "most BLPs, even those that are unreferenced are innocuous, provide useful material, and do no harm." I've gotten cross-wise with Unitanode recently so I should hold my tongue beyond that, but from my limited dealings with Unitanode and seeing some of the comments on his talk page, he has drawn ire from a number of editors recently.--Milowent (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The deletions are continuing during this discussion. I believe I checked every single fact in this one,[45] which is one of the easiest to figure out. This[46] took me about 20 minutes. It would have taken me another hour to tidy up the article but I was edit conflicted with XenoUnitanode edit conflicted me with an edit war[47] when I tried to edit the article itself. I consider his/her tone and manner very rude here - it does not make for collaborative editing. I can't tell the exact rate of these edits but I think it's safe to say we would require several full-time mop carriers to clean up the trail of these deletions. I don't know what point we're trying to prove here by slashing content from the encyclopedia. Cutting out career higlights of a major academic, and the two prominent books she's written, creates far more of a misrepresentation of who she is for the reader than leaving them in. If BLP is to avoid harm to living people, we're harming them a lot more by creating partial biographies. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Ask Xeno how "difficult" it is to work with me, when you approach me and say, "Could you wait a second, I'm going to add some sources there shortly" instead of just wholesale reverting unsourced information into a BLP, and leaving orders on my talkpage. UnitAnode 20:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

UnitAnode, I have asked this of you before and suggested that we avoid AN/I on it by gathering a consensus beore acting, but will you kindly stop or greatly slow down your removal uncontentious information from articles unless you take the time to check for sources to see whether it's verifiable, pending the outcome of the current RfC on the topic? Many editors including myself think it is a bad idea unsupported by policy, and the collaborative nature of working together to edit an encyclopedia suggests that you wait until you have consensus before engaging in large scale edits like this. - Wikidemon (talk) 20:55, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Comment: Among the material Unitanode‎ has removed unilaterally and without notice from articles are movies and films which actors have been in. In at least one article, while not specifically referenced the information is fairly well known to people who go to the cinema or watch U.S. television, had been in the article for about 5 years, and was easily verifiable by looking at imdb or a couple minutes of googling. I've suggested to Unitanode‎ that adding {{cn}} or something similar first might be more appropriate. I also wish to draw attention to the word contentious in Wikipedia:BLP#Remove_unsourced_or_poorly_sourced_contentious_material. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• the information is fairly well known to people who go to the cinema or watch U.S. television is not a reliable source. Neither is had been in the article for about 5 years. And neither is imdb. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 18:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• The statement that "X acted in Y movie" is sourced and verifiable. It is sourced to Y movie. –xeno^talk 18:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• But that's Original Research. We're relying on the editor's word that the film actually says that. Unless they can provide a link to an article which says that, or a direct link to the film, it's not a reliable source. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 19:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• No, it's not. See Wikipedia:V#Access_to_sources. The fact that you actually have to do some legwork to verify it does not change the fact that it's verifiable. –xeno^talk 19:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• What? So "go watch the movie" is acceptable sourcing? Woogee (talk) 23:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes. Just as is "go read the dead-tree newspaper from the library", "go on JSTOR and get the journal article" and "access the NYT article from behind the paywall". Verifiability does not always mean you get an easy to click hyperlink. –xeno^talk 23:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposed restriction

Proposal: UnitAnode be restricted temporarily from removing unsourced content from BLPs, unless that content can reasonably be construed as contentious. "reasonably construed as contentious" to be determined case-by-case on a consensus basis. This restriction shall run until the conclusion of the BLP RFC. Rd232 ^talk 21:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Per the comment by Lar (talk · contribs), above. Cirt (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If by that you're alluding to Arbcom, I refer you to the community-endorsed Sandstein view noted above. Rd232 ^talk 21:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This. Cirt (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Other than showing that lar doesn't actualy know what our BLP policy is ( unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material) I fail to see the significance of said link.©Geni 21:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Since he was clearly referring to the opening lines of the Verifiability policy, you may wish to consider what is by shown by your own statement. CIreland (talk) 23:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The lead of WP:V does not support the indiscriminate high-volume removal of unsourced uncontentious material. Rd232 ^talk 23:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Lar did not suggest that it did. "Indiscriminate" is your characterization. CIreland (talk) 23:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Per the comment by Lar (talk · contribs), above, more specifically "work with Unitanode and others on how to effectively and efficiently improve articles instead of posting not very collegial stuff." The limited time period of the proposal makes sense to give Unitanode time to do this, because the BLP RFC is working on developing a global solution.--Milowent (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support, if only to get him to slow down, stop edit warring, and wait for the community to catch up and come to a decision. –xeno^talk 21:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • • Comment, not supporting this will create a position, supported at ANI that anyone can delete any content that is uncited from any BLP, also any comment that is about a living person in any article that is not a BLP. Off2riorob (talk)
• Oppose Websters explains that contentious means to be marked by contention or provoking or likely to provoke controversy. If an editor removes it, it means that it is provoking controversy. This is simple english and its policy. This end around on a huge ethical matter (we're up to 141 unsourced BLPs for Febraruary 2010 so far -- forgetting badly sourced/misleadingly sourced/vandalized blps. Those, who knows?) does not reflect well on people (who have no solutions of their own to offer except to sit on our hands and let the problem to continue to grow and not start setting some minimum standards so it doesn't keep happening again. And again. And again.)Bali ultimate (talk) 21:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  Oh come on. Ridiculous semantics. –xeno^talk 22:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  • No, simple English. Simple English.

• What you describe would generaly fail the good faith test and would count as gameing the system which is per policy vandalism and blockable.©Geni 22:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Just you try it Geni. You won't get very far.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree. Even if a person is acting in good faith in the sense of sincerely believing they are right and improving the encyclopedia, there has to be a good faith belief that there is something wrong with material other than lack of sourcing, before removing it for lack of sourcing. But I wouldn't call it vandalism or blockable, just circular reasoning. We've dealt with this issue many times in different contexts over the years. - Wikidemon (talk) 22:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• No, that makes the actions contentious, not the content. Geni is right. Using this reasoning to defend these actions would be nothing more than attempting to game the system and disruptive. Resolute 17:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support It's not the removal that's the problem so much as the indiscriminate, mass reverting of content whether or not anyone knows that the content is negative or in some way contentious. Unless something is clearly harmful, the intent of policy has never been to remove content indiscriminately. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 21:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I have no doubt in my mind that the Arbitration Committee as a whole and Jimbo Wales himself would endorse the actions being taken by UnitAnode. JBsupreme (talk) 21:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Neither of those make policy.©Geni 22:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom interprets policy. And has. ++Lar: t/c 22:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Current consensus says otherwise.©Geni 22:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think WP:BLP policy already supports the removal of unsourced material. We are now just arguing the semantics of "contentious", are we not? JBsupreme (talk) 22:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you wish to propose "Chan has a bachelor's degree in the social sciences from the University of Hong Kong and a master's degree in the social sciences from the Chinese University of Hong Kong." is contentious?©Geni 22:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Without knowing the full context of what you're referring to, absolutely YES. There are people adding fake credentials to WP:BLP articles without sources all the time. We've had some problems in the past with that specifically in fact. Unsourced credentials are just as contentious as any other unsourced claim to fame or infamy. JBsupreme (talk) 22:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Any unsourced fact might be contentious. We just don't know, absent the circumstances. In the example case, it might be something that is being used to falsely obtain some benefit or claim some expertise. ++Lar: t/c 22:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

You've just implied that the credentials in question might be fake. Thats defamation and thus your responce is in breach of BLP. If you are going to rule lawyer have the decenecy to do it well.©Geni 22:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Are your arguments always this silly, Geni? I did in fact "imply that the credentials in question might be fake". That's true of every single unsourced statement in the entire project, it might not be backed up by sources... we just don't know one way or the other. Pointing that out is in no way a BLP violation. Your grasp of BLP needs work. Or this is some pathetic straw dog. Or both. ++Lar: t/c 00:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

You might wish to read the post above yours. In any case you are the one arguing for an insanely broad and bady rule lawyered version of BLP. under those conditions claiming any given action doesnn't violate BLP is kinda questionable.©Geni 01:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I never would have believed that people would find removing unsourced info from BLPs disruptive. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia isn't it? Kevin (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, if we try hard, it won't be one soon. I haven't been an active editor for that long (about six months), but I remember as a reader that wikipedia had few cited sources not that long ago. I agree that sourcing is to be much preferred and our goal, but random removing of unsourced non-contentious information at an alarming clip degrades the project.--Milowent (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• It's more the manner he's going about it. Earlier he was edit warring to remove a section outlining selected works of an author. Those very books can adequately serve as the source that she wrote them. (He eventually self-reverted after I pointed this out) –xeno^talk 22:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support per Xeno and JohnWBarber, and please let's stop the circular wikilawyering around the word "contentious". --Cyclopia^talk 22:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - per my previous comments. Also, if there was a proposal asking for a rate restriction, instead of a blanket prohibition, maybe. Or, better, if Wikidemon and other concerned editors approached Unitanode, you know, cooperatively and collegially, asking to work with him to make sure he's not working faster than they can handle, I bet he'd work with them. I'd lean on him if he doesn't. But the argumentative approach isn't going to work. ++Lar: t/c 22:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Anyone who likes can see what I'm actually doing, which is how I'm assuming that Wikidemon has found which unsourced material to attempt to insert back into the BLPs. UnitAnode 22:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. And block anybody who reinserts an unsourced statement to a BLP without providing a reliable source. nableezy - 22:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this. Cirt (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There are sections of almost every BLP in Wikipedia which do not have a RS, or at least what I could cast some doubt on being an RS. Some of them are indeed contentious, and must be removed; some are unsourced opinion, and should be removed; some are routine bio facts, which are overwhelming likely to be true. It makes a certain amount of sense to concentrate on the actually problematic ones. DGG ( talk ) 23:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Enough of this serial shitting on the thousands of people who bought into "anyone can edit" and contributed their labour here in the past. Removing "he murdered his wife three times", yeah absolutely, removing "he coached a boy's soccer team", nope. Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit, then a few people will take vast pleasure in destroying your work. Franamax (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The edits pointed out, while occasionally adding some value, are overwhelmingly destructive rather than helpful. Unitanode seems sufficiently unaware of the purpose and spirit of WP:BLP and other policies that restricting this mass deletion behavior is the best approach. LotLE×talk 22:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Sanctioning people for doing exactly what policy tells them to seems like a bad idea, see WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion" and "Remove any unsourced material to which an editor objects in good faith". If there are concerns about Unitanode making a point or gaming the system in some way, I don't see it in any diffs. He seems to be working in good faith to apply the letter and spirit of WP:BLP. --Jayron32 22:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any "contentious" material rightfully removed that I can recall, having deprodded a number of Unitanode's prods. And in fact, he is frankly saying that he simply removes any unsourced material, that's his method.--Milowent (talk) 22:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - The fact that it is unsourced is what makes it contentious, that's the point here. There is no valid reason being given to prohibit this user from performing these edits, just a bunch of niggling IDon'tLikeIt inclusionist-at-all-costs types. Stop acting like the fucking sky is going to fall just because some reader is going to come across Beth (musician) and be deprived of an unsourced "I'd rather die than enter Eurovision" quote. Tarc (talk) 22:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Uphold. The ban is needful in view of the disrespectful manner in which the unsupported deletions are being undertaken. The deletion of patently uncontentious material is against policy. Deleting it at alarming and unsustainable rates is clearly counterproductive and unacceptable. — James F Kalmar 22:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• "Uphold" what? Your comment makes no sense at all. UnitAnode 23:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

  From what is said, I think it clearly means support sanctions. DGG ( talk ) 23:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. We're a couple months shy of April. TheGoodLocust (talk) 23:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Fighting to keep unsourced content in articles is far more damaging to the project than removing it. Mr.Z-man 23:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oooh thats completely false. The number of newbie editors we've pissed off by summeraly removing their content is one of the reasons why we are picking up fewer new editors and we have a lot of people who don't like us very much floating around the web.©Geni 23:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I would much rather have quality content than be more popular or have a bunch of editors who don't care about basic things like citing sources. If keeping a new user means putting up with a bunch of crappy articles that no one but them cares about, then that's too high a price. Mr.Z-man 23:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Keeping the new user means someone continues to care and can learn to write better articles.©Geni 23:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Again, I think the cost outweighs the benefit. If they're willing to leave in anger because we ask them to respect basic standards like sourcing, it may not be worth our time to educate. Mr.Z-man 23:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a difference between asking and indeed showing compared to just ripping out content.©Geni 23:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

• suggested solution Let him be restricted to removing content that is not present an immediate threat of harm, only after he has made a good faith demonstrated reasonable try to source it. That way everything he does will be beneficial to the encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 23:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
  • The proposal already includes that idea: "unless that content can reasonably be construed as contentious." Showing that a reasonable effort to source the content failed would be enough to make it contentious. There is a world of difference between "unverified" and "unverifiable", and making some effort that content falls into the latter category is enough to make it contentious. Rd232 ^talk 09:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Completely oppose unreferenced material can and should be removed from BLPs by everyone. Viridae^Talk 23:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support ignoring all of this/us. What we have here (with a few exceptions) is the same x-number of people saying entirely predictable things they've said 25 times already, dug firmly into their BLP foxholes and determined not to come out, but at times quite happy to lob rhetorical grenades at the other side. It's frankly pathetic—really pathetic. The problem of unsourced BLPs (a subset of a larger problem) is not going to be solved on ANI, nor it is going to be solved by individual editors who think they're on a mission from god and therefore sod the rest of you dummies. We'll deal with unsourced BLPs best if we work on it together, and people not interested in doing that, or more interested in scoring points against foes, threatening them directly or implicitly, or making over the top pronouncements (like this ridiculous thing I'm writing!) should seriously just stop talking. If these kind of discussions make you lash out at others, then don't participate in them. These support/oppose pissing matches could not be more disheartening, and it's precisely these kind of conversations that have in significant part led to BLPs being a problem for so long. It's the fault of all of us for often being more interested in fighting and/or sticking to our self-righteous guns than actually trying to work together to solve the problem. I'm not sure why this thread pushes me over the top to write a goddamn it! comment like this, but I'm pretty disgusted by the lot of us, which includes me for even sticking this stupid goddamn comment here. In the time we spend arguing about this and coming to no conclusion we could have probably dealt with about 100 of these articles (or at least collegially discussed a way to better expedite the cleanup process). But I guess that would also take away the fun of yelling about it. We have a very real "BLP problem" that affects real people, but we also have a "BLP problem" in that the very topic leads to huge e-fights that a lot of Wikipedians clearly get off on. If you think that's not you it might be good to think about it some more. That's what I'm a gonna do. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 00:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• The problem is that UnitAnode's actions make coperation effectively imposible.©Geni 01:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Well at least you've left some room for negotiation and further discussion! Oh wait. And don't get me wrong, I'm not endorsing how Unitanode has approached this, I'm just saying that when both sides say "we can't work with them, they don't get it" that pretty much becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. At least 60-70% of this discussion is based on personal and quasi-philosophical animus, and that's why it isn't going anywhere and hasn't in years. A lot of people who have perfectly good intentions are to blame for that because they started seeing other editors as very-bad-guys quite some time ago and now that's just about all they see when a BLP issue comes up (I plead guilty to doing that too). Somewhere between the polls of "Unitanode can do whatever they want and so can anyone else" and "Unitanode is totally banned from doing this one thing" is a perfectly acceptable solution that probably everyone could agree to if they could drop the sniping and the deep, deep assumptions of bad faith. The first step into changing the dynamic here is realizing that the current one is unacceptable, that it's not solving the problems we need to solve, and that to an extent we are responsible for the failure to work together to fix what needs fixing, which is at the core of how we (supposedly) do things on this project. Laying blame on Mr. X, or Ms. Z, or Category-of-Editor Y just perpetuates this depressing (and frankly selfish, on the part of all us collectively) bullshit. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 01:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Geni: Bull. I have found that UnitAnode is easy to work with, if you actually try. Have you tried to cooperate with him? Asked him to slow down a bit while you worked on items he marked as needing attention? No. Here are your recent user talk page contributions: [48] ... the only time you were on Unitanode's page, was to start a rather belligerent thread entitled Okey_what_is_your_justification. Get a grip, Geni. If you want cooperation, you have to actually be cooperative. Not belligerent. Bigtimepeace is right. More cooperation might be a good place to start. Anyone who turns up at my talk page asking for help gets it. Anyone who turns up at my talk page asking for a fight gets that too. ++Lar: t/c 01:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Or, "Anyone who turns up at my talk page asking for a fight won't find one, because it would be a waste of time for both of us, and I'm only interested in constructive collaborative efforts." I guess that's more what I had in mind. I've already commented here three times more than I should have so I'm done now. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• The key point is that there is a difference between politely seeking cooperation (and then perhaps not getting it) and turning up at a talk page spoiling for a fight and then complaining about not getting cooperation. Those who seek cooperation are far more likely to get cooperation. Geni wasn't, any claims made to the contrary. Geni was spoiling for a fight. That sort of behavior needs to stop. ++Lar: t/c 14:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose. Anyone who seriously thinks that a well-known, good faith editor who is removing unsourced BLP information should be constrained for doing what is in the best interest of Wikipedia is themself not looking out for the best interest of Wikipedia. Woogee (talk) 01:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse the user's actions. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 02:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose prevention of anyone from removing unsourced material from BLPs. If you think the material is correct, find a source and add it back. If you are not sure, or can't find the source, it should stay out. Anyone cleaning up the unsourced BLP mess should be commended. Crum375 (talk) 04:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I would support more strongly a topic ban on Unitanode from BLPs. He/she has not only shown no interest in improving articles by sourcing them, he/she has shown a clear antipathy to doing so and persists in purely destructive behavior against the consensus of other editors. This is not the sort of editing behavior that can be trusted in sensitive areas such as BLPs. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is quite clear that there is nowhere near a consensus for this "proposed restriction", so I am proposing something different: collapse this section and point people to the RFC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people/Content. JBsupreme (talk) 06:20, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it appears unlikely that a topic ban will gain consensus, although I note that there are strong opinions voiced on both sides. I would leave it open for perhaps a full day to make sure anyone who wants has a chance to weigh in. I haven't endorsed that myself, I would just hope for a more collaborative approach as Lar suggests. A clarification of policy based on an RfC is probably a more productive way to go about things, and anything else is just a stopgap. - Wikidemon (talk) 06:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikidemon, "unlikely that a topic ban will gain consensus" is an disingenuous way to characterize the debate. Might I suggest, alternatively, that a better summary might be "an editing restriction was resoundingly rejected"? Or perhaps, "Consensus was that Unitanode's edits were not problematic but rather were beneficial"? CIreland (talk) 13:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Et tu? 10 to 14 is not "resoundingly rejected". "No consensus" is more appropriate. –xeno^talk 15:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, the response to this proposal illustrates the disconnect between ANI and the wider community, which is more accurately represented in the longer-running and higher-participation BLP RFC. Editors should have a responsibility to respect that clearly expressed view. Rd232 ^talk 16:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Disingenuous? Gee, thanks for the assumption of good faith. No, I was being charitable. The fact that an editor's mass edits gain so much opposition that a sizeable minority of people watching AN/I would topic ban them means they are problematic and do not have consensus. Mass edits of any sort really ought to have consensus, and can be undone per BRD. Further, a considerable number of those opposing the restriction are arguing against current policy or clearly misinterpreting it. If this were a deletion debate those would be discounted or ignored. But this is AN/I, where discussion often grinds down to a stalemate. I'm simply observing that the way things work around here, it does not seem likely that an administrator would step in to enact this proposal. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I am amazed to hear people here say that it is better to remove material than source it, and that contentious means "any material that someone would like removed". I could claim that the sources for almost any material at all was not quite adequate, and remove it , saying it was contentious because I contested it. Contentious means reasonably seen as questionable, not what some person may take it in their head to want to remove. In general, routine biographical facts are not contentious. Somewhere above someone said all unsourced claims of degrees should be removed. In three years here, out of tens of thousands of these, I've seen one proven false, and a few where the nature of the institution or the degree was perhaps not fairly stated. These all occurred in articles where essentially the entire career seemed inconsistent, or the overall assertions of notability wildly exaggerated. in all such cases, the article was deleted or truncated, as appropriate for material that could not be documented. (& in some of these I did a good deal of work personally in making sure it was removed.) The difference is between presently un documented and can not be documented. Almost always , routine biographical detail, even if formally published, is associated ultimately with an official or formal statement by the subject, which has always been accepted in RSN as a sufficient source unless there is a reasonable challenge. for example, an author tells a publisher when he was born, and the publisher prints it in the book; the Library of Congress copies it from there--or if not stated, writes to the author and asks him, and accepts his word for it, and we accept their record as authoritative. Certainly people sometimes deceive in such matters, but not frequently enough that we insist on birth certificates. (If there is a reported dispute, of course we source and report it.)
  

In particular, the editor we are discussing has typically deleted material consisting of one paragraph of general puffery or unsourced opinion, and one of almost certainly true biographical details. Half of that is right to remove, without bothering too hard to source it. (I note that then people seeing only the facts of a persons professional career, complain irrelevantly that the article should be deleted because it does not contain enough personal information). What I look for in any article I see is puffery and promotionalism, and I remove it. That's the real threat to Wikipedia, that we be seen as a publicity medium. Some of the statements here are like people worrying about avoiding extremely rare diseases while continuing to smoke. Let's first look for material that is really questionable, and remove it. There's no problem finding it. DGG ( talk ) 14:06, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. The key policy is called Verifiability. Fundamentally it means content must be verifiable with reference to external reliable sources, and cannot be defended purely on the basis of "I know it's true". It does not mean that everything not verified (to what standard?) should be removed immediately, purely because it is unverified. Content should be removed if reasonable attempts to verify it have failed; or if attempts cannot be made at present but the material is contentious enough (other than being unsourced) to justify pre-empting attempts to verify. Aside: besides confusing unverified and unverifiable, people are confusing verified with sourced. Just because it has a footnote doesn't mean it's verified to a reasonable standard. The most serious BLP violations which actually matter for the subject ("X is dead" is just embarrassing for Wikipedia) are those which appear to be verified by sources, so that readers give much greater credence to the false/misleading claims. Rd232 ^talk 16:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support proposed restriction. Regardless of one's opinion on BLP policy, Unitanode's approach is problematically belligerent. For example, he says, "Your uncivil condescension aside...I'm disengaging, s conversing with you is pointless," only two continue the discussion two minutes later, followed up by calling the editor a liar. So, regardless of where any of us stand on the policy issues, this particular user's approach is incredibly antagonistic. His dispute with particular editors are occuring in multiple venues and for anyone it is probably best to walk away on Wikipedia when things are escalating so intensely. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• What bullshit. No, per Lar, Bali ultimate and others. I especially like BigtimePeace's comments. These mobbings at ANI are a problem that needs sorting. Any littlun can show up and start a shite-storm.
  Here's a Bold Idea™ —Any ANI thread that's not a run-of-the-mill call for a mop in aisle 6 gets bumped to a protected subpage where only admins comment. This would, presumably, keep things focused and produce results rather than noise. Oh, the mob would be free to swarm the subpage's talk page and be largely ignored (kind of like AC/workshop pages;). Sincerely, Jack Merridew 16:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support per above. WP:BLP says that contentious material that is unsourced is to be removed, not all unsourced material. UnitAnode does not have the right to unilaterally change policy, take ownership of the project himself, or put himself above the community the way he has. The number of supports to this restriction should be enough to tell him that his actions are not supported in the eyes of the community. Resolute 17:04, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Follow policy. The policy is about Contentious material.

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[2] As of January 2010, a push to source all material about living persons is under way. A discussion of how to accomplish this is taking place at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people."

I find it odd it mentions that there is a push to source all materials. Why is that on a policy page? Anyway, it hasn't been pushed through yet. If the material is not contentious, then you don't have the right to simply remove it instantly. Form a consensus on the talk page. Dream Focus 18:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose unequivocally. BLPs are the worst of the festering sores besetting Wikipedia's decomposing corpse, and anything that wipes up the pus is a good thing. Endorse this user's actions in their entirety. → ROUX ₪ 18:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support The does appear to be a unilateral and destructive reinterpretation of policy intended for contentious content.Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose restriction. A referenced stub is more useful to the hapless soul who comes to Wikipedia looking for information than a bloated mass of speculation, puffery and, potentially, libel.   pablo_hablo. 20:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support As reasonable pending outcome of the RfC. Noting, particularly, that the incidence of "libel" appears an order of magnitude greater in "referenced" material than in short BLPs. Collect (talk) 20:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support: The policy specifies contentious. Quoting Jclemens, "Most BLPs, even those that are unreferenced are innocuous, provide useful material, and do no harm." While violations certainly do exist, mass deletion or stubbification probably affects far more good faith pages than bad ones: creating unwarranted collateral damage. Sifaka ^talk 21:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• What "collateral damage"? I fail to see any "collateral damage" in not having unsourced information in a BLP. UnitAnode 21:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Unitanode is just being plain lazy. Any other editor could manage a Google search, but Unitanode thinks he's special. He's not. Quit the crusade, there is no rush to remove uncontentious material. Unitanode should join all the other editors who are working through the backlog in a discriminate manner. Fences&Windows 22:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm being lazy? Have you even seen my work page?!? I may be a lot of things on-wiki, but lazy isn't one of them. That's just bullshit. I've been working hard on these articles. I can (and do) take a lot of criticism for my work, but that is the single most ill-informed and ignorant bit of criticism I've yet seen. You do understand that -- in addition to the awful removal of unsourced material from BLPs that you guys are bitching about -- I've also cleaned up references, formatted things so it reads better, and even caught a couple of blatant copyvios. But by all means, call me fucking lazy. UnitAnode 01:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm sure that those who review matters he will agree you are working hard at an important task. But other people are working hard too.... the backlog is going down, and that's a good thing. Together we can address this. But calling people lazy doesn't help. Fences&Windows was out of line with that characterization. I'm sure in a less heated moment he/she will apologize. And so should you, I think. We need to not let our tempers fray. Easy advice to give, hard advice to take. ++Lar: t/c 02:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support: As said before – The policy specifies contentious. --Kleinzach 03:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Support Per Xeno, JohnWBarber, Resolute and DreamFocus. This is a collaborative project, and Unitanode's dismissal of the clearly defined concerns of his fellow collaborators as "bitching" is obnoxious. Warrah (talk) 03:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. Editors routinely remove whole sections of unsourced material. This recently happened at List of people from Leeds. Was it particularly "contentious" that those people were from Leeds or not? Not really. Did I go around bitching about it? No, I sourced the entries instead. Now we have a better article. Looking through unitanode's contributions I do not see these edits happening at such a vast rate. In any case, as we are constantly reminded, there is no time limit. The info is still in the article history. If someone wants to make a list of the articles unitanode has removed unsourced stuff from they are quite welcome to. They could then go through and source it at their own leisure. Hey presto - we have a better encylopedia! Quantpole (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• I've already made such a list, Quantpole. It's right near the top of my userpage, for anyone to click on, if they'd like to see. UnitAnode 15:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:BLP, WP:RS and WP:V. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

RfC

I've opened up an RfC on the policy question here:Wikipedia:RFC/BLPContent. I'm not too familiar with RfCs so I could use some help regarding any notifications, templates, certification, etc. I hope we can minimize discussion here regarding what the policy is and shoud be. We can't set policy here. It should be pretty obvious that people disagree on what the policy is. The question I posed and hope to answer is whether we can allow UnitAnode to continue doing mass edits despite objections, while the discussion continues. I would think the answer is obvious but some people oboviously believe that the normal rules don't apply where BLP is concerned. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That seems a rather non neutral statement of matters. ++Lar: t/c 14:54, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It's also rather redundant to the larger discussion already ongoing. A discussion that I wish people like Unitanode would take the time to respect rather than impose their own personal policy on everyone. Resolute 17:08, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Which part isn't neutral: (1) I am not familiar with RfCs and could use help, (2) I hope we can minimize policy discussion at AN/I, (3) People disagree on the policy, (4) I posed a question, (5) UnitAnode is doing mass edits while the discussion continues, (6) there are objections to the mass edits, (7) I think the answer is obvious, or (7) Some people believe that BLP trumps normal BRD / CONSENSUS rules? I've carefully limited the subject to the question of editing, and edit warring, over objections based on a disputed interpretation of policy, and my request to simply pause that until the community decides what policy is. Responses like "we can't have unsourced information in BLPs" are policy arguments better made in that discussion, not this one. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'll give you 1 and 2 as neutral but the rest, not so much. Your rewords the second time might be a bit better. But whenever you say "it seems obvious that most", you might instead say "23 out of 27 opinions expressed were in favor of" and the like. ++Lar: t/c 21:49, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That's rather extreme. I guess your views must be polarized here. Each of those statements is very straightforward, unbiased, and demonstrable - the one place where I state my opinion I do so because it is relevant to explaining the basis for what I'm doing, and I qualify it with "I think". Frankly, I've bent over backwards to try to be fair and hold my tongue on any complaints both here and in the RfC - I'm getting attacked and accused of all kinds of things per the norm around here but I just don't want to play that game. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

YOU start a second ANI thread on ME, and create a proposal that I be banned from removing unsourced material from BLPs, and then have the gall to claim that YOU are being attacked?!? That seems like more than a bit of hubris. UnitAnode 23:15, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It is an observation. You accuse me of things for occasionally reverting deletions that I considered unwarranted,[49] you accuse me for notifying you that I will file an AN/I report if you continue edit warring to undo my R in the BRD cycle, you accuse me of things for actually filing a report when you do continue,[50] and now you accuse me of bad faith for filing the RfC I told you yesterday I would file.[51] It is hard to view this statement[52] (which is untrue) as anything but an accusation of bad faith. I asked you there to remove it. Will you remove it? It is not a proper comment for an RfC. Please try to tone down the accusatory rhetoric. I have avoided the wider behavioral issues here, but you may do well to explore the reasons why you have had conflicts with so many editors in different topic areas. This one fits into a common pattern. - Wikidemon (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

• Would someone please close this mess? I'm tired as hell of Wikidemon hounding me, and then accusing me of hounding him. At some point, he needs to stop pummeling the carcas of a non-living equine. UnitAnode 23:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Will you hold off on any more deletions until we have a chance to assess community consensus at the RfC? You can surely see from the above that there is a lot of opposition and desire that you do so. If so the matter is done and we can discuss what the policy should be. - Wikidemon (talk) 00:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

No, I will not. Unsourced material has no place in a BLP. UnitAnode 01:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And if I restore deleted content to an article because after review I believe the content to be both verifiable and uncontentious, will you let the content stand and seek consensus if you disagree per WP:BRD? - Wikidemon (talk) 02:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Only if you source it properly. Unsourced material has no place in BLPs and putting it back does nothing to solve the problem. Work with UnitAnode instead of being at loggerheads. ++Lar: t/c 02:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Per Lar, if you source it properly, or come to my talkpage (or the talkpage of the article) to inform me that you're in the process of sourcing it in the next few minutes, I'll let it stand. But no, if you simply readd unsourced material into BLPs, I will not let that content stand. UnitAnode 02:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

UnitAnode and Wikidemon - you both are at or past the point that your actions are becoming disruptive on this point. On opposite ends of the spectrum, you're disrupting the community policy process and pushing buttons attempting to combatively establish precedent.

The time for swinging hammers around to try and score points on this issue is over. You are both violating WP:DISRUPT and WP:AGF, regarding each other and regarding others, reviewing upthread further.

Further disruption would be extremely unadvisable. This has to end. Right here and now would be preferable. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If you have something to say, say it Herbert. If you mean that I shouldn't post to this discussion anymore, fine. I won't. If you mean I should stop working on BLPs as I've been doing, I'll have to respectfully decline. UnitAnode 02:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There is a slight majority consensus upthread for a topic ban on that behavior. At the very least there is significant objection and indication that you're pushing past commmunity consensus supported activity here.

I would rather let everyone continue to stay involved in the policy discussions and get to a position of agreement overall. But continuing controversial actions after over half of respondents say "stop", in the face of ongoing active policymaking efforts to determine what community consensus really is, is textbook disruption.

The community loses if we keep having people fight this issue out in this manner, outside the policymaking process and without regard to civil consensus building and the community as a whole. If you will not respect that, then you are placing yourself outside the Wikipedia community.

Any of the policy proposals which are floating around now are acceptable end results. Continued fighting over the topic area is not. I strongly urge you to step away from active measures which remain highly controversial and work to help stabilize a consensus for a workable policy. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)As long as UnitAnode is working at this in a calm reasoned manner, and people aren't provoking him, and he's not provoking others, and the rest of the community can keep up, there is no need for extreme measures. I again assert that if people ask for cooperation, they will get it. Can we try to start again, and put all this fighting aside for a while and work on the problem of fixing the BLPs? That goes for everyone. ++Lar: t/c 02:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The proposed topic ban and its discussion are significant evidence that the extremes of both sides are currently outside the current community consensus. Wikidemon is assuming policy decisons will end up one estreme way, UA assuming the other extreme way, and both are acting on those presumptions and in a confrontational manner.

These two specifically are butting heads significantly. In general; I believe that the extreme reactions this is engendering (still) indicate that the time for boldly pushing on this is past, until the community hashes some more out.

The middle has to hold here. Fixing articles is great. Fighting over bold actions, in this area, is not great anymore. If people are not going to pay regard to avoiding disruption and respecting the policy process and community writ large, we need to stop that.

As I said - any of the policy proposals are ok. What is not OK is presuming that your preferred one has passed, and attacking others on that basis. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't been "confrontational" at all, unless attacked at my talkpage. I've just been working on the 242 articles that I initially worked on last week. UnitAnode 03:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I urge you to re-read your comments above in the proposed topic ban section, and reconsider whether you are being confrontational or not.

Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I was pretty clear that I'm not confrontational unless people attack me unjustly. This is the second time someone has started a pointless ANI about me. When someone's trying to get me topic-banned for simply removing unsourced material from BLPs, then yes, I get a bit frustrated. UnitAnode 03:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There's currently a 19:17:1 consensus for topic banning you from that activity. You are acting on the presumption that you are obviously gloriously in the right here, and that there are unfair people attacking you for it.

I as an uninvolved administrator would like to insist that your presumption is a presumption, not settled policy, and insist that you respect what the community feels on this topic as well. If the proposal got a 19:17:1 majority to topic ban you, it was not pointless. It was at the very least representing a strong minority of vocal opinion, and apparently a plurality thereof.

Wikidemon is presuming that the opposite policy stance will prevail. In that sense, he's not being any more fair or reasonable than you are. Neither of you are being helpful on that regard.

Please stop pushing so hard. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:27, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Not sure what you even mean by a "slight majority consensus" Herbert. There's no such thing as a "slight majority consensus." And I'm going to keep working on my little corner of this problem. I worked with 242 articles last week. I'm still working on various aspects of those 242 articles. UnitAnode 02:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Compromise?

I suggest that if UnitAnode sticks to those 242 articles, there really is no problem here for others to get so concerned about. The community as a whole can easily deal with whatever PRODs result. There's no need for Wikidemon to reinsert unsourced material, which really isn't helpful and maybe everyone can draw a line and resolve to be less belligerent going forward. Cooperation, not confrontation. ++Lar: t/c 03:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to clarify here - I am not edit warring, I am asking for a community discussion. I have selectively restored information to four or five articles, all after careful review, and have not reverted a second time. In most cases I reviewed the deletions and let them stand; in others I added some sources. Undoing controversial mass edits is permissible per BRD, and past deletion campaigns in this area and others have been undone en masse, generally not by me, when found not to have consensus. I am being a lot more measured and by-the-book here. AN/I reports for behavior, and RfCs for unsolved content and process questions, are how you're supposed to handle disagreements that cannot be resolved through discussion. It's best to take what I say at face value here and not assume motivations or beliefs here. Any assumption that I hold an "extreme" position is wrong. I am not a proponent of unsourced information of any sort in any article. Rather, I am concerned about mass-edits that are made without coordination or agreement among editors. My rhetorical questions here are to illustrate the problem with letting things stand without resolution. If you think that is disruptive, then allowing for my particular position regarding mass edits, what else should I have done? I'm not going to edit war, and discussion has run out, so what other possible recourse did I have? I believe the provisional resolution here to maintain the status quo while we discuss what to do is exactly what I asked for here - I appreciate your asking for a solution, Georgewilliamherbert, and I will abide by that. Meanwhile there is an RfC and whatever the outcome, I respect that process.- Wikidemon (talk) 03:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we find a compromise that works? How about this: UnitAnode, you stay on your list of 242 until and unless every single one is properly sourced or deleted (in which case let someone else make up a list for you), or a process is decided on by community consensus, and Wikidemon, if you choose to reinsert material that was removed, instead of sourcing it, make a note of that on UnitAnode's worklist so others can easily find it and try to source it. UnitAnode won't reinsert stuff. If no one does source it after a reasonable time, it may get prodded (again?) or AfDed. This is "roughly" the process that the RfC seemed to favor most and it's a reasonable compromise. Would you 2 agree to that, and to dialing down the invective? ++Lar: t/c 03:49, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I will not re-insert anything from that list of 242 without adding a reliable source to it. - Wikidemon (talk) 04:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you, Wikidemon!!! By the way I meant "UnitAnode won't redelete stuff", not reinsert, that was a typo. Apologies for any confusion. UnitAnode, will you confine yourself to that list for now, then, and dial down the invective? Even if you feel you were provoked? ++Lar: t/c 04:33, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The only time I've even sworn is when I was called lazy. As for "confining" myself to those 242 for now, I've already been doing so. So, yeah, I guess I agree to that. I'm just tired of being attacked again and again and again. UnitAnode 04:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The underlying problem here is the confrontational actions regarding BLP articles and confrontational treatment of editors who complain about it. I agree that a cooperative attitude would go far. Unitanode has been asked to stop deleting, and the proper response in a collegial environment would be to cooperate with such requests rather than brush them off. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

May I request closure? Discussion has died down, the parties have compromised, there's an active RfC, and no administrative attention is needed at this time. Thanks for all who stopped by. I hope some good can come of the attention to unsourced BLP info, particularly at the RfC. - Wikidemon (talk) 18:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Would also reccomend closure. Everything that can be said has been said... –xeno^talk 19:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

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

BotfieldCatflap

Resolved

 – Indeffed.

BotfieldCatflap is a single purpose account whose only edits have been to the tiktaalik article. Late last month the editor was warned for edit warring. Without discussing the edits or responding to feedback, the editor resumed pushing the same POV at the article.[53] Durova⁴⁰⁸ 23:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Bishonen issued a pretty stern warning. I've commented, as well... when somebody's completely unresponsive, it might be worth considering the possibility that they don't know how to respond. Now we wait? – Luna Santin (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable way to go. Durova⁴⁰⁸ 00:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could just indef an account that's not here to contribute constructively but merely to editwar over creationist claptrap. Oh look, I did. Resolved. Black Kite 02:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Amerique

I would say vandalizing, dont know if thats the appropriate term but he deleted half of the information on the San Bernardino Valley article. I reverted him once and gave him a warning on the edit summary. He/she then reverted me again, I did not revert him a second time as I have an agreement with Wikiproject California, not to revert more than once. He knew about this and he "rubbed it on my face". The seound time he reverted me he wrote 1st revert on the edit summary. The article has a talk page and it does not say anything about removing the content. The article had a lot of information about the cities in the valley, the economy in the valley like does other valley articles of Southern California like the San Fernando Valley, the San Gabriel Valley, ect. I hope some admin can revert him and them block it for a while so amerique, me and an admin can discuss this. Thanks House1090 (talk) 02:16, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

He's been reverted, and I'll give him one more chance. If he insists, I'll take it to AIV- I'm far from an admin, but this is pretty blatant. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much! House1090 (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm notifying him of this thread. I too have reverted him. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

On further investigation, they have both edited the article for over two years. The fact that Amerique was expanding it during that time, and suddenly reverts it makes me suspicious that he might be hijacked. It seems weird that he would just halve an article without discussion as well. House, please don't revert any more edits, or you will violate the WP:3RR rule. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I wont. And no Amerique was against the expanding of the article because he wanted to keep it based on geography, while I wanted to have both geography and economy (tourism, cities, transportation, ect). House1090 (talk) 02:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it doesn't seem that he needs a blocking, so this is pretty much resolved. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

For what it is worth, you guys have been brought into a content conflict. The information I removed was pasted there by House over my objections months ago. There wasn't sufficient interest in the article for me to make an issue of it at the time, but after local editors TorriTorri and MissionInn.Jim voiced their concerns I decided to take action to reduce the boosterism and other cruft House had littered the article with. My concerns over House1090 have been most recently brought up here, the account's most recent examples of edit warring are located here:Los Angeles metropolitan area. Do what you want. Amerique^dialectics 03:05, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I see little that would qualify as either "boosterism" or "cruft" in the article -- certainly nothing like the amount of material you removed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I removed material that was imported from Inland Empire (California) and San Bernardino, California. Whether or not it was boosterism, it was cruft, and nothing was lost to human knowledge. Amerique^dialectics 03:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Amerique that does not give you the right to do what you want, your not the owner. I did it to benefit the article, not to hurt it. House1090 (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This does go back a couple years, with Amerique and House1090 having had conflicts across numerous Southern California/Inland Empire pages, and involving various other editors and noticeboards at one point or another. The discussion at WikiProject California is here. Looking at the current talk discussion I'm seeing a general consensus from Amerique, MissionInn.Jim, and TorriTorri that San Bernardino Valley does not necessarily equal Greater San Bernardino, with House1090 being the lone dissenting opinion. As for the remainder of Amerique's edit, while there is no talk page discussion yet on the larger removal of material, the next logical step is to start one, which I think might have been more productive in the long run than bringing this here. In the past there has been a general concern expressed by multiple editors that while House1090 means well, his enthusiatic support of the area can lead to issues with neutrality, regional boosterism, advocacy, etc., so I don't feel like Amerique's edit are coming out of nowhere here. I agree that this is still a content dispute at this point, and the next logical step would be to discuss whether or not to remove the other material in Amerique's edit at the article talk page. I'm not seeing any reason for a block for anyone at this point, but protection might be useful here to force the talk page discussion. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Everytime I do something I get reverted by Amerique, I provide what 4 references and he still wants to remove the also known as Greater San Bernardino Area? I worked hard to add details to the SB Valley article, and it really hurts to see some one just wants it off for no reason. Amerique says tht he wants it to be about geography but none of the other SoCal valley articles are about just geography. The reader might want to know the highways in the SB Valley, or the airports. Thats all basics. Why can San Fernando Valley and San Gabriel Valley have this information but San Bernardino Valley can't. House1090 (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

← I've been asked to give some input in this matter. I honestly don't have the time to gather tons of diffs and whatnot, so I hope that everyone can trust what I have to say (difficult, I know). To be quite blunt, I am not sure that House can edit content related to Southern California without getting himself into trouble. The long dispute history he has had was recently brought up to WT:CAL and it was sort of agreed that House should probably limit himself to a 1 revert rule with regards to SoCal topics. In his own eyes he may have followed that, but I'm not so sure. In any case, his boosterism of SoCal related topics was discussed there. I don't know if House understands what is wrong with that, or perhaps he doesn't think his actions are trying to boost SoCal's and the Inland Empire related articles' "status" on Wikipedia. He might mean well (I tend to believe he actually does mean well) but regardless of intentions at this point it is just disruptive and hard for other people to work around him. I've never been in a spat or worked with him on content, so this is coming from a third party to this situation. Killiondude (talk) 06:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay before I was attacked because I did not add a source, I now go on and I add four source and I am getting my contributions removed. I have not passed over my 1 revert limit, but I do know that Amerique has taken advantage of this. He took off the info from the SB Valley, then I revert him since he had no explanation, the he reverts me telling me to remember my 1 revert agreement. This has not just happened once. I have been working stuff out at the talk pages this whole time, if I dont agree with you, I will let you know. I dont understand why Amerique just now went and reverted me again, saying it had to be removed, what about his 1 revert agreement? I feel every one attacks me and they dont see what my attackers are doing. Why is it that if I dont follow my agreement its wrong and I could get block or banned. But if amerique does not keep his word he gets away with it? He removed stuff that was unnessessary, now he goes reverting me with my 4 sources? House1090 (talk) 06:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It's only gone on as long as it has because until recently few other editors have shown any sustained interest in these articles. I have been the only one constantly reverting House1090 because, apart from User:Alanraywiki, I have been the only one steadily monitoring those pages for POV, vandalism, etc. To me, maintaining the quality of WP's content in this area would mean reverting most every edit House1090 makes. Obviously, I can't do that, so I've had to let the quality of the articles become degraded until enough people have shown up to more effectively counteract his POV. Amerique^dialectics 06:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, I did break my 1r restriction with House. I'll take a block over it;-) Amerique^dialectics 06:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

House, while you feel you are being attacked, the majority of what myself and others have said here and other places is that we understand you mean well, and a lot of what we are saying is meant as constructive criticism aimed at both at you and the material we're looking at. While there are some instances where some hostile words are exchanged I don't feel it's been entirely one sided. In the long run it is in everyone's best interest to have more skilled editors developing quality edits articles. Now looking at this most recent incident, I see Amerique and two other editors who work on a lot of California related content forming a consensus that runs contrary to your opinion. Amerique was the one who made the edit, but there was still a consensus behind it coming from the article talk page.

Amerique, I understand your frustration. A lot of what I've been hoping for and working toward was to diffuse this issue among several editors so this doesn't stay as the House & Amerique show, which is why I was hoping WP:CAL would be a useful resource on this.

Since it's past midnight in California I don't think blocking at this hour would be useful, but if edit warring on San Bernardino Valley, Los Angeles metropolitan area, or any other page flares up again tomorrow afternoon or later on this week it might help. Some other solutions we could look at is to start using {{editsemiprotected}} on pages where a talk page consensus has formed so that neither of you directly make the edit/revert. Another possible solution is to maybe find someone interested in mentoring House on content work. I can still keep an eye on all of this, but I'd prefer to stay out of the content end of this things to stay a neutral arbiter. We could also add the 1RR restrictions as laid out previously to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions which would remove the whole voluntarily part of it and to begin enforcing them more strictly. Do any of these sound interesting to either of you? What do you hope to get out of this AN/I thread? Do you feel any of the current restrictions have worked up till this point and why? What hasn't? -Optigan13 (talk) 08:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Can't answer all your questions, but I'd be cool with adding the agreement to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions, so long as it were noted that this is voluntary on my part. House is the only person in my wiki-career that I have gotten into sustained edit-conflicts with. Also, I would encourage him to seek out a mentor. Amerique^dialectics 18:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No the 1 RR has not worked for me because I feel I have taken advantage of, Amerique did not follow his 1RR he has reverted me more than twice, and when he reverts me his edit summary reads "1RR agreement House" or something similar. My thoughts are not even taken in consideration as in Talk:Los Angeles Metropolitan Area. Want I think would be better is if Amerique does not revert me for ever single thing and he can treat me with a little more respect, unlike how he did here[54]. I dont think there is a need for Wikipedia:Editing restrictions as long as Amerique can keep his word, I have kept it and will continue to do so. House1090 (talk) 04:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

As a frequent WP:CAL contributor who has had, I am troubled by two things about House: 1) the number of strikes he has gotten since he agreed to a "one-strike" rule, and 2) the almost ownership he asserts over anything Inland Empire Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 04:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What strikes? I do not take ownership for IE articles, but I get mad when users revert and dont use the talk page because I work hard on the IE articles with almost no help. Especialy when they have unappropriate edit summarys as with Amerique in the link above. House1090 (talk) 04:52, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I know, but I'm the bad guy for reverting him. Anyway, I don't revert House for every single thing, only the more POV edits. Sometimes he makes more than 1 a day so when that happens the 1r restriction hasn't been working out for me. Amerique^dialectics 05:01, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

The deal wasn't 1 revert per day. It was one revert only. Besides you are not obeying your civil agreement either amerique. So a voluntary er wont work for me, unless you actually mean it. House1090 (talk) 05:11, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that the edit summary provided by Amerique isn't helpful, I'm only seeing him making a single revert on that page. As both of you are interested in editing the same topic area there's going to be a significant overlap in the articles you two edit. Amerique acknowledged going over a single revert on San Bernardino Valley which is the initial article that brought us here, but as both of you had gone over a single revert at the same time on separate articles I don't feel blocking would have been useful. I'm also hearing from several users other than Amerique that you have issues with ownership and edit warring. In fact the latest incident (diffs below) where you went beyond a single revert didn't involve him at all. With that San Bernardino Valley revert, I see a consensus between TorriTorri, MissionInnJim, and Amerique. It's clear from both of you that the voluntary portion of the 1RR isn't working. House, of the suggestions I put forward are there any that seem interesting to you (adding to Editing restrictions, Mentors)? Once we see what everyone's interested in I can suggest some formalized wording again and have you two and the broader AN/I group chime in with supports/opposes. -Optigan13 (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

LA metro reverting diffs

[55] User:SoCal L.A. increases size of panorama and greater LA map [56] User:House1090 moves Long Beach image to left [57] User:SoCal L.A. reverts(1st) User:House1090's image change back to right align [58] User:House1090 reverts(1st) User:SoCal L.A. back to left align [59] User:House1090 reduces image size of panorama and greater LA map (1st of this revert) [60] User:House1090 removes IE locations from Urban areas of the region, citing User talk:Alanraywiki#LA metropolitan area article [61] User:SoCal L.A. reverts (2nd) the Long Beach image alignment back to right [62] User:House1090 removes Hemet from Urban area list [63] User:SoCal L.A. reverts (1st) image size of panorama/greater la map [64], [65] User:SoCal L.A. reverts Hemet, other IE removal from Urban areas [66] User:House1090 reverts (2nd) to smaller panorama/greater la map [67] User:SoCal L.A. reverts (2nd) to larger panorama/greater la map

|}

(ec)::::Maybe it's just me, but the way I read your unblock, you could be blocked for a long period at the first sign of trouble. We've seen many signs of trouble. Honestly, House should be blocked for a long time Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 05:42, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't going to go there, but House hasn't been reblocked simply because Wikipedians on the whole were willing to let him edit unobstructed if he kept to one account, but only a few were willing to fix his POV and bad edits. He never had much of a clue as to what the encyclopedia was about, what good faith meant, much less good research or the basics of English grammar and constantly misinterpreted what he read to mean whatever he wanted it to say, or thought it said. As these diffs attest:

• Here: [68] where he represents User:MissionInn.Jim as supporting a page move he spent several days arguing against here: Talk:Inland_Empire_(California)#Name_Change.

• Here: [69] where he accuses User:SoCal_L.A. of vandalism for editing his preferred version of that portal.

• Here:User:Emerson7/archiv#What.3F.21 where House's misunderstanding of the concept of extension causes him to take offense and accuse User:Emerson7 of vandalism and edit warring over this: Talk:San_Bernardino_County,_California#Named_for...

• Here: [70] where he accuses User:Binksternet of vandalism for editing out his POV here: Crafton, California.

Unfortunately for Wikipedia, you can easily be blocked for violating sockpuppetry policy, but not for being an obstinate, even horrific editor with strong POV, bad faith and poor English skills, if you also seem to be earnest about "improving the encyclopedia."

But, it is also clear from the history of over a year ago that he also knows (probably from much experience) how to reset his router to evade blocks. Blocking or banning him indefinitely would probably require us to play whack a mole for however long his obsession with promoting SB and the IE lasts. So as an alternative I would enjoin anyone who is seeking a challenge to offer House mentorship, as he has shown some signs of improvement since a year ago, despite all the bad stuff. I do not have much patience for dealing with him, but will try to keep my further interactions within the spirit of WP:1RR and civility policy. (Apologies if my earlier comment offended House. But he had just earnestly proposed using the website of an auto dealership as a reference. Without a sense of humor I probably couldn't deal with this at all.) Amerique^dialectics 18:46, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I was hoping someone else would be interested, but as I'm already involved in a limited role, have a large number of the articles, user talk pages, and other pages already on my watchlist it might be best if I try to mentor (WP:ADOPT) House with content issues, technical difficulties, policy interpretation and conflict management. At the same time I don't think the voluntary 1RR is effective and I think a more formal set of editing restrictions where the possibility of blocking would give it some teeth. When I say 1 revert rule, I mean over a single revert, per page, over the same material, with no limit on length between reverts. But as Amerique pointed in the diffs above, there have been conflicts with multiple other editors, so I'm not seeing a need to add that same formal restriction on Amerique. House, with respect to the mentoring, would it be agreeable to you if we start a more formal mentoring relationship? You could come to me if you have issues on pages with respect to conflicts, reliability of sources, policy interpretaion etc., and also sometimes just letting me know what you're up to? -Optigan13 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I would only agree if there is no formal 1RR. House1090 (talk) 00:52, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well the only other way I see this working is if we go through the more standard channels of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring, WP:AIV and WP:RFPP. Because right now the voluntary 1RR isn't working, and I'm not comfortable with just adding mentoring to the mix hoping to fix it. If I'm going to be working with you, and you begin edit warring I might end up having to report you to any combination of the those pages, and advocating for blocks and other measures. I might advocate for blocks on other individuals in that situation including possibly Amerique, but if he or you goes over 1RR alone I wouldn't necessarily report over it. Now given that either you agree to me as a mentor and either formal 1RR or me possibly being reported to the various noticeboards if you edit war. Or we could try to find another possible mentor who would be comfortable with voluntary 1RR. Which of those solutions sound preferable to you? -Optigan13 (talk) 06:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay could I know what do you mean by formal 1RR. House1090 (talk) 06:29, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

By formal one revert rule, I mean adding to the WP:Editing restrictions that "House1090 is limited to one revert per page per week (excepting obvious vandalism), and is required to discuss any content reversions on the page's talk page. If he exceeds this limit or fail to discuss a content reversion may be blocked" for a period of six months. This wouldn't be applied to Amerique unless the broader community here at AN/I feels it is necessary. Now is those are the options does any one of those sound interesting to you? -Optigan13 (talk) 08:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately for Wikipedia, you can easily be blocked for violating sockpuppetry policy, but not for being an obstinate, even horrific editor with strong POV, bad faith and poor English skills, if you also seem to be earnest about "improving the encyclopedia." - I just wanted to point out that people can be, and sometimes are blocked for lacking the technical skill to be able to improve the encyclopedia and for causing more harm than good, even if their efforts are all made in good faith. WP:COMPETENCE is often referenced in such blocks, and although it's an essay it's one that is taken seriously by a number of people. -- Atama頭 17:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank for pointing out that essay, Atama. I totally agree with it. To be perfectly honest, while I would support House receiving an enforceable involuntary 1r restriction for the time being, I don't see it resolving the long term issues with this account. So I also wouldn't oppose a lengthy block or a ban if broader consensus immediately goes in that direction, despite the (I would say) definite possibility of the user resuming sockpuppet activities.

Due to off-site issues, I will be curtailing my active participation in WP for the time being. However, I can still be reached through my talk page or email if anyone needs to contact me. Regards to all. Amerique^dialectics 18:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Amerique that a block, perhaps even a lengthy one, should be imposed, not only for his lack of clue, but also for the near ownership isses and relentless promotion of IE articles. Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 19:30, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

While I'm not completely writing off a block at this point, if House still wants to write and proceeds to sock we're stuck playing whack-a-mole across a host of pages, possibly scaring off new contributors to California articles we mistake for him. Both that and mentoring take a lot of time, energy, and watching several pages, so I'd prefer to go for mentoring with escalating blocks if needed. While House may have exhausted other editors patience, I'm still willing to try mentoring for the time being. I think in the long term it might be better for California related pages. But, we'll see how he feels about the options I laid out above. -Optigan13 (talk) 23:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

How lond will the 1R be? How long will the mentoring be? And also I dont want to be taken advantage of esspecialy by Amerique, as I was just acouple of days ago. House1090 (talk) 00:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The 1RR and mentoring would last for at least six months (August 2010), at which point we could review and see where to go from there. If you encounter issues with an editor (Amerique or anyone) you could contact me on my talk page and we can engage in a dialogue with you, me, and any other parties and go from there. In the same respect you would leave {{Adoptee|Optigan13}} on your userpage and I would leave {{Adopter|House1090}} on mine. People would know to be able to contact me if they have issues with you, and we could work together on it. -Optigan13 (talk) 00:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay then sounds good. I agree. House1090 (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad we could get this resolved. I can understand both House's and Amerique's point of view on this situation. Hopefully each of them can spend less time arguing and more time doing things they enjoy doing on Wikipedia. Can we mark this thread as resolved? Killiondude (talk) 07:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think so, I've added the restriction to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions#Placed by the Wikipedia community; House and I have the userboxes so if further issues arise I'll try to help resolve them in whatever way I can. I'll go do some further cleanup, notification, and start talking with House on how to move forward. -Optigan13 (talk) 08:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Some advice please

I came across Bloodygrave613 (talk · contribs) when they posted some personal information on their user page, identifying themselves as a minor (later oversighted). BG613 hadn't been active since their registration, but in the past few days, has been conversing with the newly registered Stahly1996 (talk · contribs) (who drew my attention by posting on my talk page). The two users appear to know each other in real life.

After another message on my talk today, I decided to look in on the two of them, and found they appear to be conducting some kind of online-offline relationship more appropriate to an AOL chatroom in the mid-1990s. I've been fairly ruthless in removing that, and have left them each what I consider a strongly-worded message. It seems like they might have stopped now, but their editing pattern, such as it is, suggests a break at around 1600GMT anyway.Spoke too soon. Given the lack of useful contributions and their apparent ages, I wonder if there are any other measures which might be useful here? --Kateshortforbob _talk 16:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I weep for the future generation of America if this is what passes for romantic discourse. Delete both talk pages, block em both, they probably cannot even spell encyclopedia, much less contribute to one. Tarc (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Well they don't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia no... Perhaps they should both be gently blocked and nudged into realising this is the wrong place for chatting? --Taelus (talk) 16:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done Softblocked both accounts and "rolled my own" block notice to indicate why. With so many free IM sites and email services, it's puzzling that someone would choose to use WP this way. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(e/c) Sorry for not replying here promptly - I've been on my way home from work. In the meantime, they've both been blocked (thanks Beeblebrox!), which is probably for the best. From prior experience, I think they chat on WP because most social networking sites are blocked in school (although I wish my lessons had involved hours, apparently unsupervised, in front of a computer). And Tarc, I'm afraid you gave me a bit of a guilty "lol" as the kids might say. --Kateshortforbob _talk 18:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Presumably they could use the sandbox if they want to use wikipedia to pass notes. In my school days, we had computers, but that was so long ago that they were made of stone. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I once got busted because we used the school guidance office's DECwriter, an early network computer that printed everything and had no screen, to print out dirty jokes from a BBS. Seems almost quaint now considering how easy it is to get free hardcore porn... Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Our student computer at college had a printer, and someone had a program that would print out a primitive rendering of a centerfold. Very primitive, no overlapping characters or anything. That was hot stuff. And naturally it was produced by feeding a boxfull of cards into the computer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Punchcards?! Ok you win. You are a bigger geezer than me. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Some of those cards were so old they were personally autographed by Herman Hollerith. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:11, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

lol Originals, eh? But re that DECwriter, I remember using one of those to print APL code to hand in! —DoRD (?) (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

At this point maybe User:APL needs to put in his two bits worth. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You think that's quaint? Why, back in my day, we used dial-up to access any kind of porn you wanted, free of charge. Wait, did I accidentally the whole thread? Throwaway85 (talk) 10:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

User:The Catholic Knight making lots of unexplained deletions

I don't know if he's making good edits or bad edits, but I've repeatedly asked him on his talk page to use the edit summary, and he has not responded.[71] At War in Afghanistan (2001-present), he is repeatedly deleting an image without explanation.[72][73][74] Looking at his edit history, he never uses the edit summary, and makes a lot of deletions that do not appear to be necessary. I'm not sure if a block is in order, but I'm a little frustrated that he expects other editors to read his mind regarding his reasoning for his edits. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 05:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

He's also changed the list of races on the United States several times to a version that makes no sense. His edits, and his lack of response to valid criticisms, are bordering on vandalism. --Golbez (talk) 05:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of content without explanation, consensus or any apparent reason can be considered vandalism. If it continues, and he continues to fail to respond to queries on his talk page or provide explanations, I'd take it to AIV. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:51, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Unexplained edits that aren't obvious improvements can usually be reverted on sight. You have no obligation to read the mind of the contributor, while they do have an obligation to explain their intent with the edit. Collaborative editing requires explanation in an edit summary, and often further discussion if an edit might be controversial. It should actually be policy that edits without an edit summary can be deleted on sight. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I've been doing. My only issue is that he's been making edits like this for months with no sign of changing his habits. And now he's starting to repeat edits that are being reverted. I'm worried about all the edits that editors aren't catching. It seems like we need many people in many different articles to check and clean up his edits. And he ignores the explanations as to why they are bad. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 06:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

His "lone ranger" style of editing and non-responsiveness is troublesome. Not addressing the deletions, a lot of his edits are small and self-explanatory (e.g., correcting wikilinks and categories); edit summaries would be superfluous for these. On the other hand, he has changed infobox data without any explanation or source, but the ones I saw were reverted.—Finell 06:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

English Wikipedia briefly redirected to Google?

For a few minutes, I was getting DNS results which redirected "en.wikipedia.org" to Google.

tracert en.wikipedia.org
Tracing route to groups.l.google.com [74.125.53.139]
over a maximum of 30 hops:
1 <10 ms <10 ms <10 ms local.gateway [10.0.0.2]
2 20 ms <10 ms 10 ms 76-191-218-1.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [76.191.218.1]
3 <10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 122.at-5-1-0.gw3.200p-sf.sonic.net [208.106.96.73]
4 20 ms 10 ms 10 ms 200.ge-0-1-0.gw.equinix-sj.sonic.net [64.142.0.210]
5 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 0.as0.gw2.equinix-sj.sonic.net [64.142.0.150]
6 20 ms 10 ms 10 ms eqixsj-google-gige.google.com [206.223.116.21]
7 10 ms 10 ms 10 ms 216.239.49.170
8 30 ms 30 ms 30 ms 216.239.49.198
9 30 ms 30 ms 40 ms 216.239.43.220
10 30 ms 30 ms 40 ms 64.233.174.131
11 40 ms 40 ms 30 ms 72.14.232.2
12 30 ms 40 ms 30 ms pw-in-f139.1e100.net [74.125.53.139]
Trace complete.

"1e100.net" is in fact Google, not some hostile site. I'm using Sonic.net's in-house DNS, which is an honest DNS (no funny redirection on no-find). Sonic.net is a Northern California DSL provider. Unclear what happened, but it's worth reporting because someone might be testing a DNS cache poisoning attack against Wikipedia. After this, DNS went down for about five minutes, then came back up normally. Sonic doesn't see anything broken at their end. Anybody else seeing anything weird? --John Nagle (talk) 06:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I had a similar problem a few times last week. Restarting my system seemed to fix it so I never gave it much more thought even though it only happened with Wikipedia. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 07:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have a Windows desktop and a Linux notebook on the same router, and they both had DNS problems at the same time. It's not a client-side issue. If you see this, start doing traceroutes and nslookups, and save the results. This isn't something that should happen by accident. --John Nagle (talk) 07:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Some days ago I got persistent "en.wikipedia.org cannot be found" messages, but they went away after I pinged the server from Terminal.app, I just assumed that it was a browser issue. Your problem suggests it may not be. Wikipedia's been working fine for me ever since. I'm in Australia, so if this issue does indeed exist, it isn't localised to Californian ISPs. —what a crazy random happenstance 07:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your packets go through California anyway. Not sure who your DNS provider is, but I don't think I've had this problem (then again, my connection has been shaped for the last six days so I can't really tell). MER-C 09:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I also have seen the "en.wikipedia.org cannot be found" messages. While I think there may in fact be a bug here, it's nothing that AN/I can deal with. Try bugzilla.mediawiki.org. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

found my name on the whitelist accused of vandalism that the accuser has since apologized for and retracted it

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

---

Resolved

 – Issue is now resolved. No further admin input necessary in this discussion. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

an administrator (i think they are one) wrongly accused me of vandalism. the case is resolved and all that stands is a minor warning (the point was being discussed on a talk page whether or not someone who's act some people consider is promoting anti semitism, can take away their observant status I said that without any sources, the comment was deleted because it was deemed discussion material, i altered it a bit and reverted the delete the next thing I know I was guilty of vandalism, and threatened with a ban if I did anything to receive another warning). the whole thing is resolved would just like to know if I'm on any lists that slander my username, and warn people not to take my edits seriously. how do I completely detatch the vandalism title from my user name ?Grmike (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

the other user has issued another warning in place of the vandalism of unsourced libel which I didn't understand at first because what she called satire i considered dangerous language and as such didn't understand the need for sources, since it was understood that hate groups find any kind of anti semitism funny.Grmike (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

Firstly, you should have informed Thirteen squared (talk · contribs) of this discussion. That editor gave you a {{uw-vandalism4}} but later admitted it should have been a {{uw-biog4}}. That warning states that defamatory or controversial material relating to living people must be referenced - even on a talk page. Thirteen squared is not an admin. Mjroots (talk) 09:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) You aren't on any lists and since the vandalism warning was amended you have nothing to worry about in regards to the accusations of vandalism. However, please refrain from inserting negative and/or controversial claims about living persons unless supported by a reliable source. Please see WP:BLP, as we take this very seriously. I'm sure you are a reasonable person and everything will be fine from here on out though. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy, I'll point out that Thirteen squared is a rollbacker, not an admin. —DoRD (?) (talk) 09:41, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

isn't one part of being accused of vandalism that the edits of the accused person are not taken seriously ? my 40-50 edits since the accusation do not count on [75]. the last time any of my edits counted were the day of the incident. is there a connection ?Grmike (talk) 10:05, 4 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

No connection. Your edits are showing up in your contribution history ([76]) and on other edit counters ([77]). Wikirage is an external site unaffiliated with Wikipedia, and their database may not always be accurate or up to date. EyeSerene^talk 10:34, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

does deleting the vandalism part of the template change anything more ? right now it is just crossed out.Grmike (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

First, I did not issue you a second warning, nor did I retract it. What I did was amend the warning so it was more fitting. Second, having a warning on your talk page does not change your status in any way whatsoever. A warning is to get your attention in order to show you that something you're doing is not ok within the Wikipedia community and continued behavior may result in a block. Removing it or leaving it will not change anything. You are still allowed to edit and all of your edits are logged here. --13² 02:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: For context, the previous WP:ANI discussion is here. I don't plan to get involved in this discussion since I stand by my amended warning (see last discussion for why) and this appears to simply be a case of confusion on Grmike's part anyway. Thanks Mjroots for letting me know about this discussion. --13² 13:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

i still consider the warning unjustifiable but if I have more to say I will say it there as long as it being archived doesn't take away from the attention it gets from administrators.Grmike (talk) 00:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

No, please don't edit the archived discussion. If you have more to say, please post it here, rather than there. — Huntster (t @ c) 01:43, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It has been shown through the previous discussion that you were violating WP:BLP with your messages, which is what I (amended) warned you for. I left it after you tried to insert a second round of messages after previously being reverted and, due to that, I stand by that warning. Why do you think it was unjustifiable? Keep in mind, continued attacks on Baron Cohen won't help your case. Also, like Huntster said, keep all new comments here. I've pointed out the previous discussion and that's more than enough to provide various members the background of this discussion. --13² 02:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Grmike has since gone ahead and edited the archived discussion, including adding more BLP violations. --13² 02:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't realize the talk pages were so strictly moderated, i don't think i've ever contributed anything to an living persons article before Cohen so i wasn't aware of the blp stuff. for example if someone asked me about the Jewish population in the world on that page i'd contribute an opinion mixed in with facts. one thing that I see as wrong with this encyclopedia is the treatment of sources. fox news, cnn get the 5 star treatment while sources from the globeandmail.com (highly regarded in one country) some people wouldn't accept. it's setting a dangerous precedent whereby information can be totally controlled by whoever is able to buy companies like cnn, fox news.Grmike (talk) 06:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

I've responded at the archive in spite of its being archived (here). But, Grmike, that conversation is closed; it will not get further attention from administrators. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 02:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Gmike: You do not seem to acknowledge the fundamental issue: the edit in question (here and repeated here) is not acceptable on Wikipedia. The fact that a warning incorrectly mentioned "vandalism" (now struck out) is trivial: the critical point is that editors must not post unverified opinions (whether true or false) about living people – not in articles, not in talk pages, not anywhere on Wikipedia. Johnuniq (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

nevermind what i said (i deleted something in which i misunderstood what the huggle/whitelist is). please don't judge me by these mistakes, i've been with wikipedia for a while but need to learn more about the rules. is it bad to be on the huggle/whitelist ?Grmike (talk) 06:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)grmike

I say yes. I remember my rollback rights were removed because of bad use of Huggle. Minimac94 (talk) 09:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"This is a list of users whose contributions may be ignored while searching for vandalism." I was under the impression that if you've made that list it means you aren't a vandal. How is that a bad thing? --13² 11:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There still seems to be some confusion here. Grmike, everyone makes mistakes. Wikipedia is a huge place, and even in three and a half years of editing (including two as an admin) there are whole areas I've never visited. Mistakes are just part of the learning process and as long as they aren't repeated too often, no-one will judge you by them (or we'd all be in trouble). You just happened to make a mistake that could have consequences outside Wikipedia in the real world. People's reputations are on the line in biographical articles, and any comments made about them must be neutral, factual, and impeccably sourced. There's no place for opinion, hearsay or rumour. It's something we take very seriously both because we want to be a high-quality, credible resource and because there could be legal repurcussions. The best thing is to remember not to do it again, put it behind you and move on; no-one will think any the worse of you and this will quickly be forgotten.

Regarding Huggle, it's just a small program that editors can download (once they're approved for its use) that helps them to quickly and easily remove inappropriate edits to Wikipedia. It combines that with a system for automatically warning the editor who made those edits; this was the bit that 13² messed up when they sent you the wrong templated warning. Unfortunately it's easily done with just a mouse click in the wrong place, but they fixed their mistake. All the warning on your talk page does is warn you... that's it. It doesn't add you to any lists or categories and once you archive your page it won't even be visible any more (though it will still be recorded in the page history).

The Huggle whitelist is an automatically-generated list of editors with more than (I think) 500 edits. Huggle looks for possible vandalism among all the recent changes to Wikipedia, and being on the list means Huggle doesn't bother to check your edits (in other words, it doesn't consider you to be a vandal).

I hope this helps. I think you're worrying about nothing, and as long as you're careful in the comments you make about people you'll do fine. You're right that it takes time to learn Wikipedia's rules, but if you ever need help or advice you can ask any experienced editor and they'll be happy to help out. Another good place is our Help Desk; the editors there are friendly and experienced, and can point you in the right direction. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 11:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Help with uncontroversial move request needed

A poll at Talk:Karkonosze#Poll_II has closed in support of moving the article to Krkonoše. I cannot execute the move (I get the red "a page of that name already exists, or the name you have chosen is not valid" error), so administrative assistance would be much appreciated. —what a crazy random happenstance 06:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Tbsdy lives! —what a crazy random happenstance 10:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

No probs. That's a remarkable set of poll procedures you guys put together, I must say. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sysop help needed

Hi,

I dont know exactly where to post that (sorry if its the wron gplace). I need a sysop help. When Magnus bot upload File:Smp kalmyk.gif on Commons, the name of the uplaoder was lost (probably a problem of UTF-8 / Unicode). Can someone get the original name and put it on the Commons file ? Cdlt, VIGNERON * ^discut. 13:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Done. Is it known if commons:User:File Upload Bot (Magnus Manske) still has this annoying problem? Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

r.fm

Hi folks. I've just had a glance at the user creation log, and we're getting something strange: one account every three minutes is registering, then adding an external link on a random music article pointing to r.fm with identical link text. Sometimes the page addressed exists, sometimes not. I'm not sure if this is a bot, or meatpuppets from some thread; I'm also not sure how useful a site to link to r.fm is.

Example diffs: [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85]

Can I have some opinions on this? ⇦REDVERS⇨ 14:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The links to r.fm looks like spam to me. Maybe we should put it on the blacklist or something like that. Minimac94 (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

See MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#r.fm. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:14, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ta, Tbsdy. I'm now pretty sure this was a bot or a single person - IIRC, there's a ratchet on the number of new accounts that can be created at any one time and they stopped when they hit this. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 15:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Need help fixing an SPI

I must have broken something (which doesn't suprise me). This [86] doesn't show up on the main SPI page. Can someone help me fix it so I can notify the accounts involved? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There's a note at the top of the WP:SPI page saying the bot is down. I've added the report to the appropriate list manually. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Doh, I didn't think to look at the top of the page, that would have been a good idea. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks against me on and off site by User:92.3.214.51

Editor Antmarkhemingway and a series of anon ips have trying to add a site that has been blacklisted as spam by Hu12. The user uses a variety of IP addresses from the same internet company in the UK. The user, who has admitted he is the owner of the site, has continuously used abusive language against people who have kept his websites off wikipeida per policy.

Now, an anon IP editor is now attacking me as well as editor Momusufan on the message boards on the banned site -- and asking me to check out these attacks on my talk page (which I will not take off for now). I am not sure this is the proper place for this discussion, but, I believe this crosses the line. Thank you. XinJeisan (talk) 21:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the objection to the link? It appears to be the official web site of the band in question; such links are standard, are they not? If the band's official web site is on the blacklist, it's easy to understand why fans are irritated. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Because the owner of the site had previously put obviously incorrect information about another former Bananarama member,Jacquie O'Sullivan, (see Talk:Jacquie O'Sullivan, on the site that the owner claims to be official as well. There is no evidence to suggest the site is official besides the owner calling itself official. You can see the discussion before it was blacklisted as well. XinJeisan (talk) 21:48, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

On the forum, they're saying that the official web site address is published on the band's album. I don't have any copies of the band's album; does anyone else? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Just for full disclosure: I've registered at the forum and had a short discussion with the webmaster there. I'm hoping to find a scan of the album that has the web address on it, which would resolve the question pretty neatly. And if it isn't on the album... that would resolve it pretty neatly, too. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

And now I'm going rollerskating for the evening, so that's all I'll be doing on it. Whee! -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

If it can be proven that it is official, that's fine. That isn't my concern, per se. (I believe there is a lot of circumstantial evidence that says that it is not actually an official page, although using unreliable/biases sources for BLP pages -- which is what the "fan page" was being used for especially those that aren't being followed closely is very problematic) but, the user has time and again personally attacked people as opposed to acting civil. Because of major errors made on websites administered by the same person, as well as his unprofessional conduct here on Wikipedia in answering legitimate questions about the nature of the site, its difficult to believe that this website is an "official" website, and not just a fan site.

Also, just to be clear, I have no real issue with this band, etc. I came aware of this through the false information about that was listed on the Jacquie O'Sullivan (that she was working for a "Lee Dennison" which a different problematic editor added to Wikipeida (see the Ron Livingston talk page for more information about that), that was then most likely subsequently added to the Jacquie O'Sullivan website. So, it seems that the webmaster was using Wikipedia as a source for information on his websites. The owner claims both the websites are official, and claims to be the webmaster of both. The owner also wishes to not only list the website, but to use the website as reliable source, which, because of the errors that have previously been shown to occur on these websites, is problematic.

Also, with things for sale on his website (although, curiously enough for an official website, not the new album which is released under the artists self-owned label), the webmaster also as a personal, financial stake in using Wikipedia for advertising to get the word out about his website.

However, his constant rebuttal to the suggestion that these are not in fact official sites has constantly been "because I say so," becoming uncivil when people do not take his word for it. That incivility actually is the larger issue. This continuous incivility is why I brought this here. XinJeisan (talk) 23:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Official Shakespears Sister And Siobhan Fahey Web Site

Thank you FisherQueen for visiting our forum. I have uploaded the evidence here:: www. shakespears sister.co.uk/SFTRR.jpg (please remove the space between shakespears and sister ) I would like to complain here myself for the unfair treatment from XinJeisan, who in my opinion has totally acted in an unprofessional manner. Firstly; Songs From The Red Room, is not sold via the website, as it is a new release and availble via retailers during its Charting period. Websites very rarely sell new releases through their own web site, they usually provie and external link to another retailer, as we have done. Secondly, I totally think that XinJeisan is talking of another L Dennison, as I have no idea what that discussion is about on Ron Livingstons talk page. I can confirm I am the webmaster of both Jacquie O'Sullivan and Siobhan Fahey, both former members of Bananarama. Jacquie O'sullivan did work for L Dennison Associates where she casted dancers for music videos productions. My "attacks" on XinJesian were not exactly attacks, they were simply my opinion, and at first i was polite when I asked to why these sites were being removed. But my frustration, built as clearly Xinjesian and Momusfan clearly were not researching the matter properly. Finally, as for advertising, it has always been a well known fact to fans that the MGA Sessions was strictly a web site release! Sold exclusively on Fahey's old web site siobhanfahey.com, and now sold on her new site shakespears sister. co. uk. This wasnt an advertisment, it was helpful information to fans. Thank you for taking time to review this matter. And for the record, shakespears sister.co.uk should eb applied to both Siobhan Fahey and Shakespears Sister wiki pages, as Shakespears Sister is Siobhan Fahey.

May i also ad that Xinjesian claims that i have used multiple IPS is totally untrue and with propper research you can see this. I have the one IP address, and my service provider is not Carphone warehouse and never has been. I think Xinjesian saw that our forum members were trying to add the site in support of Siobhan, and he/she has assumed/accused me of chaging my IP address. I really do not appreciate being accused of that. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that the image in question seems to show that this is indeed the official web site, I think that it should be removed from the blacklist. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Accounts

• Antmarkhemingway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 92.13.53.79 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.6.238.202 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.10.15.171 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.12.126.195 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.3.104.60 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.8.226.103 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.9.69.179 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.0.153.204 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.3.214.51 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Registrant(Owner) of these sites is Anthony Hemingway (AKA Antmarkhemingway (talk · contribs))^[87][88]. Long term spamming and abuse including Moving ones own link "UP", which is never a sign of good faith, and off site harassment and personal attacks origionating on the site in question. I Would find it difficult to believe this is anything more than a fan-spammed-site. I see no need for the continued disruption, harassment and abuse that has occured by this individual.--Hu12 (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Hu12. I suspect that Antmarkhemingway is running sanctioned fansites with permission from Jacquie O'Sullivan and Siobhan Fahey (so "official" in a manner of speaking). However, even if these were official sites registered to the band/record company/individuals involved, there's nothing to say that we have to include them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost and not here to drive web traffic to external sites or provide a fan service. Unfortunately we can only go by the behaviour we observe and Antmarkhemingway has done his sites no favours by behaving like a spammer. Looking at the history of spamming and disruption, I see no compelling reason why these sites should be unblacklisted. EyeSerene^talk 10:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hu12 is being very petty now i think! And this is not meant in a rude way, but if you knew anything about the internet, a persons IP changes regular, so that is something that is not my problem. Why would i go through the trouble to change my IP address for the sake of editing here? I am a webmaster and know full well that IP addresses are traceable even when changed.

Shakespearssister.co.uk is Siobhan Fahey's web site and port of call. All news is posted their, and it is the place for media and fans alike. Those interviews you refer to on the wikipage were actually arranged via ss.co.uk!!! It is not a "fan site", and i really wish you would stop using that term, as you are really getting quite annoying now. Wikipedia has used information from ss.co.uk, but when teh contributors try and reference ss.co.uk they haven't been able to! Antmarkhemingway (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If the band itself publishes the address as the go-to site on its albums, I'm not sure why it would not be an 'official' site. I don't really understand why this site is blacklisted, and I'm not convinced it's 'spamming' to have it in the article; most musician articles include the musician's main site with no problems. The band doesn't appear to be obscure or non-notable, after all. I have been horrified by some of the uncivil behavior I've seen from some of the people trying to add it, but we don't usually blacklist sites for that reason. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There are such things as "official" fansites, where the quality and expertise of the host created pages serve as useful publicity tools - and whose addresses are reproduced on some of the artists products. I know, because I belong to one. This doesn't mean that what is reproduced there is necessarily representative of the subject, since it is the editorial decision of the site owner, but the relationship is sufficiently beneficial to be given "official" recognition. While not an unreliable source, such sites should be treated with caution when it is the only available reference. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense; I'm willing to let this be decided by people more learned in the subject than me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

May i ad for one final time that this is certainly not a "fan site" it fully represents the band. But how can i prove this? Just becasue the site isnt registered to Shakespears Sister??? I purchased the domain and hosting in my name as i pay for the hosting on behalf of Siobhan fahey. All i ask is people just take a look at the site and look at its content, its clearly represenative of the band and all the information on the site is 100% correct and accurate. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think what generally separates a "fan site" from an "official site" is that the former is amateur (as in "labour of love") and the latter is professional. Are you paid by Siobhan Fahey or her management, or do you do this as a fan? Your comment about paying for hosting "on behalf of" Fahey is a bit confusing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Is it possible to link to a statement from the artiste(s) (management) saying the website is the sole legal online representative of said artiste(s). This might be linked from the artistes record label or management website. It should also note where editorial control is exercised, and by whom. Another avenue, likely preferred by WP, would be if an independent source noted that the site was the official online representation of the subject(s). That said, I would draw your attention to thebansheesandothercreatures, whose address has recently appeared on releases by Siouxsie & the Banshees, The Creatures, and Siouxsie Sioux and is linked from their official sites and record label websites, and that of Steven Severin. Despite this "recognition" (and the accuracy of its content) it remains a fan site since the editor - who owns the site - is independent of the artists; it is one of the acknowledged "official" fansites. Under the circumstances, clarification of the status of "your" website is required before WP can describe it as being that of the subjects. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes the site is linked on the bands record label web site http://www.cargorecords.co.uk/artist/5136 Thanks, Antmarkhemingway (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. What about statements to the effect that the site is legally the official website from Fahey, her management or record label, or an independent third party to that effect, and whether you are acting on behalf of or are an employee of the artist or their record label? I would draw your attention to the earlier comments also from HU12 and EyeSerene regarding your interaction with other editors and inappropriate "promoting" of the website. Even if the website is removed from the blacklist, there would need to be an improvement in your behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that Cargo Records is a 'distributor of independant records labels" [89], and not the artist's label. XinJeisan (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. but that just came with the fustration. it isnt hugely important that the site is listed here, but i just think it looks better, as most other artists have their sites linked. I will refrain from editing the Siobhan Fahey page and Shakespears sister page, and will let whoever ad it Antmarkhemingway (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC).

I think that might be helpful. It's edits like this that sparked my concern; it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for and casts doubt on your motives for editing the article. Per WP:ELNO criterion 1, we only need include external links that add content beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. That's deliberately a very high bar; if the external site's content is already covered by the article (perhaps as a source for the content), we don't need to include it as a separate external link as it adds no extra value. Exceptions are offsite content that we can't host for whatever reason (for example, the original text of a document that's discussed in an article but that can't be quoted in full without breaching someone's copyright). Like LHvU I have some reservations about using the site as a source, but that's another discussion. EyeSerene^talk 11:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

But couldn't we at least have the site listed on the URL of Siobhan Fahey's profile. Its only fair i think. Bananarama's website doesnt offer any further information thats on their wikipedia and their site is on here, even their youtube and myspace are listed! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bananarama I was told that youtubes and myspaces were not allowed, so thats is why i took all this a persoanl dig at the band, because it seemed Siobhan's former band was allowed their site, youtube, myspace etc. but not her, This wa my issue all along. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• If Antmarkhemingway withdraws from editing the article I think there should be no reason to have the site unblacklisted and placed in the appropriate place in the article. As long as it is not being used or promoted as a reliable source then I feel it may well be included. Does anybody know how to do the unblacklist thingy? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I will certainly withdraw from editing the article. I would just be very happy to see the site in the URL section of Siobhan Fahey and Shakespears Sister's profile pages if possible as they are very reliable sources. All information on SS.co.uk is accurate and approved by Siobhan (afterall, she did write the bio), I just thought it would be fair, since, as stated above, Wikipedia actually has MORE information on Bananarama than their official site does itself, in my honest opinion, and their site and youtube channels are listed. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And I also would like to appologuise for past behaviour, and i feel like i have learnt a lot about Wikipedia from the experience, and appreciate it much more. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Have we been able to reach a decission on this matter? Please let me know Antmarkhemingway (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

Wikipedia email abuse

Years ago User:Sarenne was banned and blocked, partly due to the sock puppet reports I helped to create. Now the account is sending me abusive Wikipedia emails using the "email this user" link on my talk page. Would it be possible to completely ban the account so that the user cannot send any Wikipedia emails? I can forward the abusive emails with headers to any administrator if needed. Fnagaton 12:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the block to "e-mail disabled". Of course there's not much we can do to stop him from creating new throwaway accounts for e-mailing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. If the user creates new accounts to email from do you know where I can report them? Fnagaton 13:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

There's no dedicated board for that purpose, AFAIK. Try here again, or my talkpage. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not contact their email provider and report them for abuse? 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the email provider in this case. Viridae^Talk 21:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Zaps93's edits of a featured article

Resolved

 – Accord reached between disputing editors, nothing to see here. Jclemens (talk) 22:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Zaps93 (talk · contribs) has over the last 2 months, made major changes to a featured article Biman Bangladesh Airlines. Without discussing major structural changes, he has remove content, blanked the entire history section, made changes to content that are not compliant with Featured article criteria. His edits are messy enough that the article was nominated for FAR today.

I had missed Zaps's edits, but only discovered them when I went to fix the issues raised in the FAR. To start fixing the page according to the issues raised in the FAR, I reverted the article to a version pre-Zaps93 (in Dec 09), and then fixed a number of other issues. This involves restoring the history section, fixing the references, fixing broken links, fixing dab links etc.

However, rather than accepting the responsibility of blanking almost half the content of the article, Zaps93 has unilaterally reverted to his version. He has continuously reverted to his 38KB version (the FA was originally 72KB), and now claims that he "improved" the article. (One of the main reasons of the FAR is actually that the article's length is too short to be an FA, something which is a direct result of Zaps93's content removal).

Diffs:

• Version of the article Pre-Zaps93
• After 2 months of unchecked edits from Zaps93
• Points raised in FAR
• My edits fixing most of the comments
• Version that Zap93 continues to revert to

Since Zap93 continues to revert to his blanked-version of the featured article, I am posting this here, and inviting other uninvolved admins to take a look at the page. Not willing to do any edit wars with Zap, I request admins to take a look at the above diffs, and consider whether Zap93's destruction of the featured article over a month is justified or not. Thank you. --Ragib (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've given both editors a warning re edit warring. I've also fully protected the article (at the wrong version) for 24hrs in order to give everybody chance to cool down and discuss the issues on the talk page, in the hope that it will not be necessary to block either editor for edit warring. I urge both parties to concentrate on the issue, and not who hold the opposing opinion. WP:CIVIL should also be adhered to at all times during the discussion. Mjroots (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Mjroots. I have pledged (both in my talk page and here) that I am going to refrain from editing the page for some time. However, your protection does not really resolve the problem -- I raised the problem here where an editor blanks/removes large chunks of content from an FA, causing it to go into FAR, and aggressively fights the return of the article to a stable state (which resolves most issues raised in FAR). Since I'm not going to edit the page at least for today, I invite other un-involved admins to take a look at the diffs provided above and decide what to do. It's not a content dispute, rather a dispute over edits and about making the article comply with FAC. --Ragib (talk) 18:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

My protection wasn't intended to solve the problem, but it does force discussion while the article can't be edited. I've asked for fresh input from members of the relevant WikiProject via WT:AVIATION. Mjroots (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, since posting the note, Zaps93 and I have reached an amicable solution to the issue, and have decided to collaborate in fixing the article. I think that should make this issue resolved. Regards. --Ragib (talk) 18:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Persistent POV editing by User:91.148.147.147

Resolved

 – anon blocked IP for a while. Jclemens (talk) 20:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

91.148.147.147 (talk · contribs) has been going around the articles on Byzantine emperors and changing their ethnicity to Greek, often removing sourced material in the process. I have warned him several times, but he continues in the same fashion. These edits also represent the total sum of his contributions to Wikipedia. A block should be in order. Constantine ✍ 18:59, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Madz67

Resolved

 – Indef'ed user. Will unblock when and if they coherently agree to abide by copyright. Jclemens (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm having some trouble with the named user, since she constantly has been uploading copy vio images. The user fails to reply to any messages, nor does she take heed to any advice. I've chosen to ignore it since the user does produce a lot of good edits, though it is starting to get annoying now due to the last few uploads. + ThermoNuclear ☢ 21:04, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sterile revert warring

Resolved

 – Content dispute - no admin intervention necessary at this time. —DoRD (?) (talk) 00:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Wiki.Tango.Foxtrot (talk · contribs) is engaging in sterile revert warring in violation of WP:STATUSQUO. The account has made a number of edits at List of Internet phenomena, one of those edits was to blank a section that has existed there for years. I reinserted the section and expected the account to then refrain from reverting and instead discuss and/or seek dispute resolution. Instead, he has engaged in a sterile revert war and referred to the section as "wrong" and promised to keep reverting me [90]. Per STATUSQUO, the status quo is to be retained and consensus is to be sought to CHANGE the status quo. This editor seems to refuse to accept this and states that the STATUSQUO policy does not apply because I am "wrong". Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, I see other issues with his editing, including marking nearly all of his edits (including huge ones) as minor and using some rather questionable edit summaries. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:21, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This is irrelevant to this discussion. I almost always include an edit summary in every edit, and I don't see how any of them are "questionable". If I am being accused of vandalizing, that is a false accusation. WTF? (talk) 00:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't believe this is a violation of WP:STATUSQUO in this case because the reverts made by Burpelson AFB were done without any understanding to previous edits of the page. As I explained here, the email section was removed because those items simply do not fall under the category of "internet phenomena", and are really email hoaxes or false virus warnings. There's already a separate listing of Virus hoaxes as it is. I tried to explain myself reasonably, but that was reverted, hence why I reverted again. WTF? (talk) 00:24, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

You're trying to turn it into a content dispute. It's not, this is a complaint about your behavior, which is in violation of STATUSQUO. That guideline is clear. Two of the three listings wouldn't go in the virus hoaxes category anyway since they're not virus hoaxes. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) This is a clear-cut content dispute. Take it back to the article talkpage, WP:CNB or WP:ANEW. If none of that works, try over there -->. —DoRD (?) (talk) 00:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• Just a little post "resolved" comment - the account name is using a variant of phonetic spelling, substituting "Wiki" for the correct "Whiskey"; the meaning of their name being "W.T.F". I am sure that this will come as a complete shock to the editor, that their username might be misconstrued... LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Didn't happen to look at their signature up above, huh? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Not necessarily a complete shock. The username was intentional. ;-) WTF? (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)q

... obviously not! LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, issue still remains here

Burpelson AFB added a 'possibly unfree image' tag to an image that I had uploaded (File:Drew curtis 2007 photo.jpg). The image came from Flickr, and the Flickr page itself clearly stated that the file may be copied as long as the image was credited to the original copyright holder. The image on Flickr is under the Creative Commons license, which is the same license I put it on when uploading it to Wikipedia. I am personally highly disappointed in this type of personal attack and I don't appreciate what this user is doing. WTF? (talk) 05:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to claim copyright from Flickr, don't you need to specifically point to the Flickr page where the image came from, and where the CC copyright claim is located? Just claiming the image comes from Flickr isn't very helpful. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is correctly credited (for once, we're collectively not very good at this on across Wikimedia sites), but, yes, the Flickr link would be more useful in the Source: box rather than at the end of the Permission: box. But that's solved quite easily. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 16:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

My bad: it's correctly attributed; but the picture is not free in our sense of the word. It's non-commercial (Wikipedia material is used commercially) and it's no derivatives (files uploaded here are resized automatically by the software, creating instant derivatives). I'll restore the PUI notice. ⇦REDVERS⇨ 16:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

WTF, this is the third place in which you've accused me of personally attacking you and this is pure nonsense. As I've said several times now, I'm sorry we had a content dispute, however we were able to quickly work it out on the article talk page. I have no grudge against you. The license on Flickr is incompatible with Wikipedia because it is "Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Generic", which is not compliant with Wikipedia. The image has to be commercially reusable and modifiable. I didn't write the policy... if you think it should be changed you could suggest so and I would probably even back you up on it. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:29, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive IP editor

Can something be done about this IP editor who is using these IPs 201.73.141.50 (talk · contribs) and 189.76.226.161 (talk · contribs)? The IPs are both from Brazil and are editing the same and only one article. First off, they are deliberately changing sourced data even though the sources do not agree, to make their edit "seem" legitimate and push their own POV. Secondly to make it seem like they're edits are legitimate, they are deleting references to what it seems like conceal information and lie. Furthermore, they have been disruptively editing on the only article they have been editing even despite warnings I gave for edit warring, they persist on reinstating the same edits (deleting references and changing sourced information). They also have been reverted by two other editors: Revert 1, Revert 2. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 03:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Reverted by another editor: Revert 3. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 23:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Can anyone please block those IPs? They're continuing to cause disruption. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 00:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Clearly you don't like the changes they're making, but I don't see how it's a blocking offense. I've semi-protected the page for a week to encourage discussion and prevent edit warring. As far as I can tell, it shouldn't be treated as vandalism. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 01:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to say thank you for protecting the page. I wasn't treating their edits as vandalism though, I would have given vandalism warnings otherwise or reported them to AIV. Also, it's not just me who has found their edits to be troublesome. Their edit has been reverted by 3 other editors as well multiple times, with one marking it as unconstructive (rollback used). Isn't their a problem with persistently changing cited information without explanation or adding new sources? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 01:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Keithmc2 on Kent School

Yesterday I reported 81.144.203.173 here for adding unsourced BLP information, edit warring over it and incivility (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive594#81.144.203.173 at Kent School). A few hours after the IP got blocked, Keithmc2 comes along after half a year of inactivity to revert my Kent School edits, along some edits I made on other articles, regardless of their merit (such as reverting the removal of a deleted image). Granted, Keithmc2 does add a source to the WP:BLP edit (he simply copy/pasted from the Seth Mcfarlane article), but this reeks of block evasion.

Both edit warring IP's, 81.144.203.173 and 86.180.20.87, are from the London area and judging by the edits of Keithmc2 he is British as well. I have no doubt Keithmc2 is linked to the IP's, but this quacks sufficiently in my view, not to take this to WP:SPI.--Atlan (talk) 11:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone going to deal with this? This thread's been sitting here for almost 24 hours. I don't feel like edit warring with unresponsive, name-calling, block evading ip's indefinitely.--Atlan (talk) 11:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Not clear enough for me, sorry. An editor has looked back over the edit history, found a source for an unsourced edit, and reintroduced it. I'm not quite sure why you want to take it out, but that's a content dispute. I'd remind you of 3RR as well. I've notified Keithmc2 (talk · contribs). GedUK  11:35, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I'm sure ANI notices mathematically add up in usefulness the more you place them on one's talk page. I'm well aware of both the ANI requirement of notifying the other party and 3RR. I'm now at 1 revert (cue you saying 3RR is not an entitlement for 3 reverts) and the only discussing party. This report is about block evasion, I don't understand why you focus on the merit of the edit. Since you don't know why I took it out, you must not have looked into this very well, but now I digress as well.

Anyway, WP:DUCK has been invoked with a lot flimsier evidence than this, but I guess you are the WP:AGF to a fault type. That's alright, I just wish you or anyone else had come along yesterday so the block evasion side of things wouldn't have gone stale.(Addendum: Don't mind the sarcasm, I get like that when I don't get my way. Your input is appreciated)--Atlan (talk) 13:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked the account indefinitely. The recent edits were wholesale reverting of a targeted editor - disregarding adding back spelling mistakes as well as the subsequently rectified deleted image. The erratic nature of the editing history suggests to me that this is an unidentified alternative account (or "Sock") and it is not being used for an appropriate purpose. So I have blocked it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:50, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. At least now I can focus on the productive discussion on the article's talk page without having to deal with unresponsive edit warriors. I had filed an RFCU after Ged UK dismissed the evidence as unconvincing. Do you feel it's worth it to check up on the IP's anyway now that you've blocked the account?--Atlan (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

New account created

Per steps taken here: [91]

Just wanted to inform admins that I created a new account, after I was unable to retrieve my password via e-mail (e-mail verification possibly lagged out). This is a dupe account of User:Ikip. I am contacting bureaucrats via email also. - Okip (formerly Ikip) 15:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Okip, send me an email via media wiki so I can confirm you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah... I see you've done this already. I can confirm that Ikip lost his password and had to create a new account. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 15:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If this happens again, do not create the alternative account Ukip; I will be unable to take you seriously... LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Need help from admin for moving an article

Resolved

 –  Done --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I am new to all this, I need help from an admin to move an article. I tried it myself and saw that it would require Sysop Privileges. I need someone to move the current page for "Ab initio" to "Ab initio (Disambiguation)", the problem is that the main article serves as the current disambiguation page and the disambig page redirects to the main article, it should be the other way around. I need to add some information to the main article and correct about a 100 links to that disambiguation, but I can not proceed without some help from an admin. Can anyone please look into the matter, its a small task. Any help would be much appreciated. Thanks--Theo10011 (talk) 22:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the main page that you are talking about? Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:06, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ab initio please move it to Ab initio (disambiguation). --Theo10011 (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I think what Kevin is asking is, what do you plan to put at Ab initio once the move is done? It's quite possible the status quo is the best situation here. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Currently, Its the same thing at both pages barely 5 lines in total, there is a lot of information to be added. ab initio has 6-7 uses, the page barely lists 3 (I added 2 more today). the problem is that there are 100 links directed to that disambiguation page, most of them are not descriptive enough for that one page comprising of 5 lines total. I plan to make it like the Habeas Corpus(another similar latin term used legally) article with a complete main page and relevant info for the latin and legal term and a link to a disambiguation page for Habeas corpus (disambiguation). both terms are similar, even obscure Latin terms have their own pages, this one is not so obscure since its linked by over 100 other pages. I will add to the main page with relevant info and sources once I have a place to.--Theo10011 (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

In other words, it sounds like you plan to write ab initio (law), but you believe it is the WP:primary topic, and thus plan to put it at ab initio, and fix all links that currently go to this page that refer to one of the other uses? The fact that you can't do this yourself is an artifact of a bot edit several years ago, and normally you'd be able to boldly do this yourself, and even though this should probably be at WP:RM, I'm inclined to help here just to cut out the bureaucracy. I just hesitate to help you do something that will ultimately be reverted by someone who disagrees that this is the primary topic. Many links to this page are intended to reach ab initio quantum chemistry methods. Are you sure it wouldn't make more sense to keep ab initio as it is, and create what you're talking about at ab initio (law)? --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, you understood my intention partially, so please allow me to clarify. I dont intend to make an article solely for Law- the term itself is a very commonly used latin term in literature, science, aviation and other fields but the most primary use for it is based on its latin meaning, so the main page would first talk about its latin meaning , roots, etymology and would have further sub-headings. the page would also have a link above to a separate disambig page with a link of all its not so common uses like the quantum chemistry method etc.. For reference, I suggested the Habeas Corpus article above which is exactly what I want to do with this article, they are similar Latin terms used in law also. If you have any further concerns maybe I can create a page like Ab initio 2 so you can see what I want to create which you can later move.....but I might need help from other editors since its a collaborative process. Again, I understand that this is a complicated situation and I thank you for bearing with me. I am basically asking you to move a disambiguation page to an already existing disambiguation page and not redirect to it.--Theo10011 (talk) 22:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure about this, but as long as you're open to WP:BRD if people disagree, I'll go ahead and do the move for you, since 99% of the time you wouldn't need an admin to do this; it's only because a bot edited ab initio (disambiguation) twice back in 2008 that you can't do it yourself. At worst, we may, in future, need to move the page you're going to create to some new place, and move the dab page back. Give me a couple of minutes. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you.--Theo10011 (talk) 23:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Theo, if it helps, you could put something together at User:Theo10011/ab initio to see what it would look like and how it might fit with the other two pagesElen of the Roads (talk) 23:20, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I added some of the information to the page now, if anyone wants to check it out Ab initio, any suggestions or objections are welcomed. please let me know if it makes more sense now than before, I will fix the wrong disambiguation links as well. Thank you for your help.--Theo10011 (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please check this User:Jasepl

I noticed this User:Jasepl has some personal problem with me. He is reverting my edits and asking me to put references when the references are already mentioned (How can i put the reference again when its already mentioned?). Recently he created my user page without my knowledge and put sock puppet tags on it. I have asked him to do a Check User but it seems like he is not interested in it. Its very annoying. I saw his history and he accuses most of the new users who edit aviation related articles as Sock Puppet of this User:Rhp 26. Please do something about it. (Abraxas Wardark (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

It seems that he has constant edit wars and problems with so many users, few are mentioned below:-

• User talk:Abhishek191288
• User talk:Chocolateswizo
• User talk:Druid.raul (blocked and accused of being a sockpuppet of User:Rhp 26 which was true)
• User talk:Dimitree
• User talk:Rhp 26 (blocked)
• User talk:Marcosino Pedros Sancheza (blocked and also accused of being a sock puppet of User:Rhp 26)
• User talk:Editor800 (blocked)
• User talk:Airtran371 (blocked)
• User talk:MEA707
• User talk:Muthu9

Please do something about this User:Jasepl, his history shows that he seems to always disrespect other users contributions. (Abraxas Wardark (talk) 17:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

I'm curious if a SPI is going to be run on this- the level of response by Wardark here makes me think WP:PLAXICO is likely to take effect. Hopefully Jasepl will take it to SPI with some evidence. tedder (talk) 20:12, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I will take it up. And it will surely pass the quacks-like-a-duck test with flying colours (just like before). Thanks for the heads up, Jasepl (talk) 20:23, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Rhp26 was the first blocked user (for gross incivility, and that block had nothing to do with me). That was followed by Druid.raul (also blocked for the same reasons, partly my doing). That was followed by Marcosino Pedros Sancheza (also blocked for the same reasons, my doing). All proven socks, by the way. The rest of the list is immaterial. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 20:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok u can do nething u want. But ur making a fool of ur self, i can say that. (Abraxas Wardark (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC))

If you are concerned about incivility and random accusations of sockpuppets renaming your account to something similar to the sockpuppetmaster is a rather odd thing to do today. If this is some kind of protest renaming i would suggest you change back/again. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 23:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Explanation / Background

Should this renaming even be allowed? Let alone the users’ continued editing privileges (under any name)? User Abraxas Wardak first denied the sock by filing an ANI. Then, shortly thereafter, admitted it by requesting a name change.

As explained, Rhp_26 = Druid.raul = Marcosino Pedros Sancheza = Abraxas Wardak. This is all proven now. Besides, the first three accounts were indefinitely blocked for a host of reasons, including gross incivility, racism, verbal abuse and so forth.

The block logs are here:

• Rhp_26
• Druid.raul
• Marcosino Pedros Sancheza

And the Sock Investigation (complete with checkuser results) is here. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 04:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I just got this delightful comment - yet another admission. Jasepl (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Therequiembellishere

Resolved

 – Dunn dunn dunn, another one bites the dust...

Therequiembellishere (talk · contribs), a 16 year old, is vandalising Hamid Karzai page by removing correct and updated information and replacing it with false outdated information. He/she is also tampering with Hamid Karzai's quoted statement.[92], [93] He was advised on his talk page about his errors [94] but still refuses to listen. He changes: Karzai warned that "Iran and Pakistan and others are not fooling anyone." to Karzai warned that, "Iran, Pakistan, and others are not fooling anyone."--119.73.4.155 (talk) 18:11, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This is looking like a content dispute from where I'm viewing. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Reporting editor blocked for 31 hours for this. Looks like he might be on a dynamic IP; if so, I'll semiprotect the article for the duration of the block. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, that edit summary is right out, so good call on the block, I'd say. The rest does just look like a content dispute - they are basically conveying the same information with slightly different phrases each time. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It's fantastic not being notified of this. The quote was overlooked by me in the reverts. I usually try to find any credible edits among my reverts and put them back in but my eye glanced over that. I'm usually unable to respond easily to queries on my talk page because there are several other things going on the real world that take precedence. Add increasingly rude commentary and it makes the response fall ever further down the list. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandal returns

User:71.234.20.11 returned from a week long block for vandalism and immediately vandalized one of the same articles he was blocked for vandalizing. [95]. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked him, for two weeks this time. Suggest doubling if he continues. Crum375 (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Misuse of "minor" edit tag by User:Twinsday

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

This user marks all their edits as "minor". Although many of them truly are, many are not. They have repeatedly been advised and warned about misuse of the "minor" tag but still do it. (Search their talk page for the word "minor".) Will an admin please deal with this user? I have warned them and notified them of this report. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's the version at the time I made the notification, since an IP vandal or an IP sock has deleted my warning. Twinsday has also deleted one of the other warnings. Whatever the case, we're dealing with a disruptive and uncollaborative user. (Uncollaborative = an editor who doesn't seek to solve a problem, but to hide or deny it.) -- Brangifer (talk) 05:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that this is much more an issue for WQA than ANI. Also, the user is perfectly allowed to remove warnings from his own talk page -- that's not indicative of disruption. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 05:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware of that wording, and with editors who aren't engaged in anything suspicious, we are to AGF. When they are engaged in suspicious behavior after being repeatedly warned, we should no longer AGF. It's quite naive to ignore patterns that indicate an unwillingness to listen to and abide by the warnings. AGF is not a suicide pagt. This is a common problem and the removal of warnings, while a "right", isn't automatically a sign that the editor is acting in good faith with an intention to collaborate with other editors by listening to their concerns. Such editors do not deserve naive AGF. Of course if their behavior changes, then we should begin to AGF.

When an editor removes a warning, it is considered an acknowledgement that they have physically "seen" the warning. (That idea is basically a meaningless "duh" statement, but nevertheless it's thrown around as policy all the time. That's weird!) It does not follow that they understood the warning, agreed with it, intend to follow it, or that they intend to discuss it. They can say "I hear you" without a serious intention of really hearing. Anything less than a willingness to at the least discuss the matter in a civil manner is uncollaborative behavior. We don't need such editors. They're expendable, just like admins who side with such editors. They are aiding and abetting such behavior.

I will say one thing that's interesting. The last three edits Twinsday has made are the first ones without a minor tag. Maybe this report has solved the problem? This might turn out to be a rare (disruptive editors don't usually change that quickly) occasion where their later behavior showed that they really did heed the warning. Let's wait and see what their edit history reveals. This might be a hint that we can begin to AGF of this editor. I sincerely hope so. They might be getting tired of deleting all the warnings for their many types of infringements. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:39, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've never understood why Wikipedia offered a "Mark all edits minor by default" option in preferences. Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Now that's a good point. Maybe it should be raised somewhere? One of the Village Pumps? Dougweller (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Brangifer, your post seems as if you are trying to project a small-scale issue onto a larger problem with the project as a whole, and this is not the proper venue for such an argument. While I agree the "mark as minor by default" tag is ill-advised, this hardly seems the place to start debating wikipedia policy. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Twinsday's behavior may arise "not from malice but from ignorance". I recently had some contact with this editor, and my impression is they are making a lot of contributions without having any real grasp of Wikipedia policies. - LuckyLouie (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

They were just some comments with no intention of starting a long discussion of policy here. I just get tired of people throwing in comments like the one to which I responded, without consideration of the circumstances. It does make a difference what type of editor one is dealing with. If I wished to really discuss this, where would be the best place? -- Brangifer (talk) 15:29, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, I considered the circumstances when I made my post, and I suggested you take this to WQA. The argument can be made that WQA ain't the right place, either, I suppose, but I am not sure why you had such a huge problem with my stating the obvious, that a user is perfectly allowed to do whatever they want to their talk page in terms of removing content. AGF doesn't cover that -- there's no "faith" to "assume" in such situations. I think you misread my post. I was NOT suggesting that you AGF with the editor at issue. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Under the circumstances I took it for a defence of the editor, and thus that we should AGF whenever an editor, regardless of the context, removes a warning. It's comforting that you do see more nuanced on the situation. Do you have a suggestion for where would be an appropriate place to discuss possible rewording, or clarification, of the existing policy? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Help with a move

Resolved

Sikander Warsi (talk · contribs) moved their talk page into the live article space yesterday. I can't move it back because of the subsequent redirect at their talk page. Could someone please undo it and leave them a message? [96]. As far as I can see, they haven't really done anything else except create an article that was speedied and then work on their userpage. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 09:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've done the move part for you. Not sure where exactly to put the message. Minimac94 (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I left a note on the editor's (now relocated) talk page. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk page vandal

Would someone mind blocking User:Beyond My Hen, who is vandalizing my talk page? Thanks. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by Materialscientist, thank you. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This one too [97]. WTF? Bearian (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Who is User:SENIOR WlKlPEDlA ADMlN? Bearian (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Good question, I've indeffed him, username block. Dougweller (talk) 07:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit hacking incident

Would somebody correct the bad renaming of this and the redirect article? The history is not reflective of the reality. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Marked for speedy deletion G12 (copy-pasted today to circumvent moveprotection, history/attribution broken or missing) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, issued a level 3 vandalism-warning for this. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:24, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

User doesn't get it. (Notified) Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 08:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Since there is an probation regime in force on that article, I have raised this as an enforcement matter at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement‎#Macai. I suggest that further discussion should be directed there. -- ChrisO (talk) 10:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Possible block-evader

Resolved

 – IP anon-blocked for a while. Jclemens (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I suspect that User:70.171.236.188 may be the blocked Catterick (earlier account being Lord Loxely) account. The IPs blogging at Template talk: English, Scottish and British monarchs appears familiar & his recent evasivness (in the last few minutes) seems curious. Could somebody run an SPI on it? GoodDay (talk) 19:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP account seems to have demanded that nobody contact him at his talkpage, asking that nobody spam it. Either my suspicions are correct or we've a paranoid newbie. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't see any edits from Catterick (talk · contribs) recent enough to be useful for checkuser; anything more recent, possibly from other related accounts? Whatever the case, the IP's behavior is definitely odd but that's not conclusive in and of itself, just yet. Is there anything specific that makes you think they might be related? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Its behaviour at talk:Danelaw & more importantly talk:Angevin Empire is becoming obnoxious. GoodDay (talk) 19:56, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Noticed some similarity to C's edits at Talk:List of English monarchs. Still looking. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope my suspicions are wrong, but the behaviour (rambling posts & rants) has a famililiar pattern. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

While GoodDay is gallivanting about to destroy another person, like this is WarCraft, he fails to look into the mirror to see how he pushes other people around all about wherever he goes, sticking his nose in business where it doesn't concern him, vociferously arguing with people despite them not inviting him to share his commentary, as he has done at User:TharkunColl and elsewhere in which he finds himself. It's okay to bring down that gavel hard on other people with know-it-all crusades about the Scottish succession, right? Whose political correctness is NPOV? Come, on GoodDay...your "do-gooder" Dudley Do Right crap and convictions about politics and religion are just as suspect as those of other people you have hounded here. Take it to your own conscience and cease to perturb others with this inner melodrama. 70.171.236.188 (talk) 20:24, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've asked you a simple (yes or no) question at your talkpage & since then, you've avoided answering it. GoodDay (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Hop to it GoodDay. Do what I command you instead. How about leave me alone? 70.171.236.188 (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Were you Lord Loxley/Catterick? GoodDay (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Will you leave me alone? 70.171.236.188 (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The question is, who's you? GoodDay (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

And the answer is, check back in a week when he's unblocked. Although it might be a good idea for the admins to disable its talk page access and put a muzzle on its bizarre edit summaries. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP continues to rant/delete/rant/delete at his talkpage. Perhaps his talkpage should be blocked 'or' the block on his account extended. GoodDay (talk) 16:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's Kenneth Alan

WP:DENY notwithstanding (it's never worked for this chap in the past) 70.171.236.188 is ultra-long-term disruptive editor Kenneth Alan, who has been with us since at least 2003, under a range of accounts including: Kenneth Alan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Kenneth Alansson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) WikiRetiree (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Fitzpaine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Lord Loxley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Borderer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He also edits anonymously from a range of Cox Communications (Atlanta) addresses (in the past including 68.0.151.124 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 68.110.9.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)). He's not very hard to spot - he's interested in Yorkshire and the Danelaw, ancient kings of England, and lengthy rants. He's blocked per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Kenneth Alan with innumerable block evasions, and given the laundry list of subsequent blocks he's thoroughly community-banned. More than six years ago Kenneth told us "I want nothing to do with wikipedia anymore"; would that he lived up to his word. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 23:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, I'm glad he's fond of me. PS: Strange though, if he'd told me he wasn't Catterick? I likely wouldn't have reported him. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Did anyone notice that the original account isn't even blocked currently? Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:39, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It is now. -- Atama頭 19:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Prod edit warring

Resolved

 – moved to User_talk:Reconsider_the_static#ANI where the discussion belongs before coming here. Toddst1 (talk) 14:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Reconsider the static is edit warring and reinserting prod notices. There is no requirement that he has to like my reasons. I demand he be reverted and warned. He can use AFD if he wants to play games —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.168.57.210 (talk) 09:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Reconsider the static is not alone. Many editors are now reinserting prods again and again against policy. This is not fair. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.168.57.210 (talk) 09:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

IP has raised this at AIV and Jimbo's talk page as well. And wants Scibaby back. :) Dougweller (talk) 10:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have listed several articles which had prod tags replaced at AfD, as per instructions... Might as well get it deleted there to ensure consensus, as a prod can still be contested even after deletion at DRV. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Two AfDs for one article within 5 days

Resolved

 – With the original delete closer repudiating the applicability of his close to the now-sourced version, there's no deletion argument. Jclemens (talk) 22:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it correct form to nominate a single article for second AfD within five days of the first AfD's closing? Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/DJ_Quicksilver_(2nd_nomination) was the subject of an AfD that closed on 1 February, and the closing admin on the first AfD made it clear that the article should not be deleted if it is sourced correctly. This doesn't seem right. Thank you. Warrah (talk) 14:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

In most circumstances this would be inappropriate. However, given the unusual nature of the original close (consensus to delete held up by the closer's discretion) mean that it's a question for the closing admin of the first debate whether or not the second discussion ought to be allowed proceed. I'll drop them a note.  Skomorokh  14:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

(Ec)Normally, I would find this disruptive. However, the previous Afd was closed as delete, not as keep. Then the article was subsequently restored with the promise of sources being added. Unitanode now contends that the sources added after restoration are inadequate, so I feel this Afd should run its course.--Atlan (talk) 14:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

AGF and stuff. One can re-nominate for AfD if a different enough reason for deletion appears. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I remember a 2nd AfD, I might have started it myself, starting shortly after an AfD with a keep result when it was discovered that the sources were fraudulent (not saying this is the case here, just that there can be good reasons for it). Dougweller (talk) 14:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The first AFD was closed as delete despite what looked like clear consensus to keep. The article was restored and sourced, but much of the article was found to be a copyright violation, so it was trimmed quite a lot. The article is now sourced and clearly passes WP:MUSIC in my view. The strange closure of the first AFD, and subsequent reversal led, I believe, to the second, but I can see the second AFD closing fairly quickly as either a snow keep or (hopefully) withdrawal by the nom if they are agreeable, so no real harm done overall. If we get a clear consensus this time and a closure that reflects that consensus we can all move on.--Michig (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The first AFD seems to have been closed based on the closing admin's personal opinions rather than consensus of the debate but since we now have a second AFD on our hands, I'd say let it run to make it absolutely clear what consensus is. I recommend a trout slap for Scott for his close of the first AFD. I know he is passionate about unsourced BLPs but closing an AFD is assessing the consensus of the discussion as it has happened and the consensus was not in favor of deletion nor did those arguing for deletion make solid policy-based arguments to justify it. The original AFD even had links to reliable sources in it after all and WP:DEL says "If it can be fixed, it should not be deleted". Regards SoWhy 15:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It does seem strange to AFD the article as it is now, it occurred after unitanode added two templates expert required and please expand and as I was involved in finding sources and working on it after the first AFD I felt that the details about this quicksilver are pretty much covered and that to expand the article you would have to waffle on so the templates are not going to help the article as imo the issues they cover do not apply, so I removed the two templates, unitanode then replaced them and immediately started the AFD, in what I thought was a reactionary way, it is clear if you look at the article that it is above the standard of quality and notability where it would require or get support for deletion. Off2riorob (talk) 15:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This ought to be crystal clear. The first AfD reached a consensus that the article was notable. That would have meant keeping it, but the BLP article remained unsourced. I deleted it on that basis, until the sourcing problem was sorted. (People objecting to speedy deleting unsourced BLPs keep saying "take it to afd". Fine, but that doesn't work if the article gets kept and the sourcing issues ignored). Once the sourcing issues was adressed, then the article gets kept because consensus is that it is notable.

As for a second afd in five days, that looks poor form to me. We have a consensus that the article is notable, so unless there's new evidence, then an attempt to overturn it 5 days later isn't great. But my closure has nothing to do with that. The article was retained because it was notable - once sourcing was adressed, the initial closure can be read as a keep result.--Scott Mac (Doc) 15:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring and blanking talk page comments

On being warned about taking an edit war approach on an article, User:Wolfkeeper has been blanking other people's comments on his talk page ([98], [99]). It looks as if he has been doing this in the past, also ([100]). I don't know how to deal with this so I'm bringing it to the attention of experienced administrators. I don't know how to get him to play nice; as one of the stronger voices in this tedious deadlock it would be nice to see him playing nice so it could be resolved rather than being dragged out forever. Snied (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Users may delete others' comments from their own talk page, per Wikipedia:User page which says "Policy does not prohibit users, including both registered and anonymous users, from removing comments from their own talk pages". -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 15:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Do yourself a favor, back slowly away from Centrifugal force related articles and forget you ever saw them. It's one of the worst quagmires on Wikipedia, the regular cast of editors of those articles love to argue every tiny piece of minutiae to death, and will accuse you of being to dumb to participate in the discussion if you try to introduce some sort of sanity to their conversations. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Sock with disruptive sig

Synergy44 (talk · contribs) – who anyway appears to be an obvious sock – has been making a very strange series of edits, and his signature doesn't include a link to his userspace, as is required. Would someone mind peeping? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►without portfolio─╢ 18:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The editor has admitted having multiple accounts, they even listed them at the top of their talk page. They also seem to be trying to use a proper signature, but are signing with some odd backwards tilde instead of the regular ones so the signature isn't appearing. The editor has apologized for having some problems "figuring out" Wikipedia. Either we assume good faith, and this is really a person with good intentions who needs help, or they are playing a prank on the community. I don't see evidence, yet, of the latter so I suggest just helping the person out, unless they just can't "get it" in which case we should consider WP:COMPETENCE. -- Atama頭 19:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

And the sig? ╟─TreasuryTag►Counsellor of State─╢ 19:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like a weird sort of tilde, could it possibly be a font problem? Dougweller (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey, in his other account he never had any problem to sign properly. He made one good signature just four days before starting the new account.... [101]

And why does he say that he is making his first visit to the village pump[102] if his other account has already visited it twice[103][104].

Either it's a different person or he is pretending to be new. I mean, dude, in his third edit he welcomed himself using the "Friendly" script[105] --Enric Naval (talk) 22:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Gadeshina33

Resolved

 – F9'd by Explicit.

I've gone through the process of locating the source image and tagging the copyright violations for speedy deletion on most of the images uploaded by Gadeshina33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). There's a handful taken from sources too obscure for me to find in a reasonable time, so if someone can delete them on the basis that since everything else was a copyright violation, these probably are too, I'd appreciate it:

• File:Joe Jonas.jpeg
• File:Doug Brochu.jpeg
• File:Brandon Mychal Smith.jpeg
• File:Nathan Kress.jpeg

—Kww(talk) 20:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Weird situation here.

Current IP:74.12.121.29 (talk · contribs) / Previous IP: 74.12.122.235 (talk · contribs)

For the last couple of months, this guy's been essentially trying to 'steal' Thomas (talk · contribs)'s user page. The user in question hasn't edited in some time, but it's still their page. The page has been semi-protected to keep him, off it, but now he's trying to tell people he's Thomas (which is clearly impossible; Thomas's edits were far beyond the IPs; this guy edits like puberty hasn't hit yet). Now he's even going so far as to fake the users sig. Any options here? HalfShadow 18:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I saw the contributions of both IPs. I now know that 74.12.122.235 hasn't edited since early January. The only IP that we have to be concerned about is 74.12.121.29 as he/she has been editing since today. Minimac94 (talk) 18:34, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought I should mention both anyway. Never hurts to be thorough. HalfShadow 18:38, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Adding 174.88.54.86 to the list per [106]. Block 74.12.121.29, they're obviously only here for disruption. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Birth name policy

Wikipedia articles usually give a subjects birth name, either as listed or with a caveat to the name the subject now uses stating "born as ***** ***** ****". I recently was checking the recent changes listing and came across these edits- 1 2, to the Kelly Carrington article. The edit summary for both edits states

"that information should not be public due to privacy and safety issues. thank you!"

I searched for any issues regarding Carrington and found none, but did not want to reinsert the sourced material without knowing if there are some Wikipedia policies involving this issue I do not know about. I made a comment asking the IP user the reasons for the removal, but wanted to also ask if I was missing something here. To be honest, I never heard of the subject before and her biography is very short and borders on being not notable enough for an article. Though I do want to know for future reference the policies for these issues. Thanks for any help. Here is the source that was removed and which leaves an error on the page. DD2K (talk) 19:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This appears to be public information. My guess is that the IP is trolling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

With the arguable exceptions of children and the victims of crime, WP:RS prevails. So, is tcpalm.com a reliable source? It seems to be a newspaper? Googling for the person's alleged birth name finds similar stories in the Palm Beach Post and the Orlando Sentinel. So this does appear to be public information. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 20:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks to both of you, those were my initial reactions also, but I wanted confirmation. Also, I do think TCPalm.com is a WP:RS, as it's a website that prints stories from a collection of SE Florida news outlets under the parent company of Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers. Thanks again, and I think this can be marked resolved. DD2K (talk) 20:52, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it can't be marked resolved. I think you guys are wrong. The BLP policy states there is a presumption in favor of privacy. Is this woman's name well known? I know the general consensus for pornographic actors has been to not include the birth name unless it is widely known and published in several reliable sources. A very long, though somewhat dated conversation about that can be found here. I would assume the same holds true for print models. AniMate 22:17, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, one of those news stories is from a blog where the writer says Kelly Carrington is her real name, and her birth name is the alias suggested by Playboy. AniMate 22:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

While I appreciate Animate's desire follow the spirit of WP:BLP, in this particular case the use of the birth name does not seem to be an issue since it has been already used by reliable sources. Not only does this imply that the person gave their at least tacit approval with their participation, but anyone who can type a search string into Google can already find the information. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with DC here. The policy says that Wikipedia shouldn't be the "primary vehicle" for claims about people's lives. To my mind, the fact it was used in a mainstream newspaper is the end of the ballgame. Blueboy96 22:58, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Anyone know who might be the puppet master?

HamSquidLllamaHam (talk · contribs) (see his user page) and Hopsticks (talk · contribs) look very much like socks. One created and the other edited the now deleted nonsense article Sauswich. Dougweller (talk) 17:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know, but the first one claims to be "smarter then" ClueBot. :D —DoRD (?) (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

...(OT) don't mess with Cluebot! Skäpperöd (talk) 18:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this was a good idea, but I really didn't like the content on their userpages. Some of the content they put have a negative effect on Wikipedia. I replaced them with those "Blocked indefinitely" templates. At least the blocked users can't change it unless their unblock has been granted. Minimac94 (talk) 18:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

That was a fine idea, although I appreciate the irony of a user who apparently does not understand that the Colbert Report is satire. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Satire??? Next thing you'll be telling us is that there's no Santa Claus, or that The O'Reilly Factor is legit. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Consider taking this to WP:SPI yet? Perhaps if they make another account, but I'm not sure if waiting is a good option. [[♠]] 02:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)

Dear Sir, I would greatly appreciate if independent editors-administrators would examine the following case. Draganparis Sockpuppetry case Articles Refering to: Talk: Alexande the Great and Talk:Saints Cyril and Methodius as well as Talk: macedonia (ancent kingdom).

The problem is not sockpuppetry case. The problem is more then this. This is a case of a confrontation of one (or two – if at all) newcomer on Wiki where one tries to pursue a simple argument AND, on the other side, partially organised group of – how I underestimated them! – not 3-5 but about 10 or even more, basically Greek political fanatics.

The problem was always one word: whether Alexander the Grate was “Greek king” (certainly not, as I say, the Queen of England would be then German queen!!!); whether Cyril and Methodius were “Greek brothers” (they were of course Byzantine brothers – we can say Greek brothers but it is just slightly better to say Byzantine.). Trivialities. Yet, as the answers I received pages of unreferenced text rich in nationalistic and racist accusations. Who are these people? There is one who I can understand his/her condition and would not advance any explanation here. But the others who supported the front liner! The argument was absolutely trivial. But their excitation was bewildering!

As I said, the two small changes in the articles that I proposed were unimportant and a normal answer would have satisfied me. I started with a dose of humour, and this was a mistake, I admit - since the answer was a triple dose of hate. I was watching for about 1-2 years the bitter dispute of ths Greeks and their northern neighbours “Macedonians” and laughed. Not really shearing much of the feelings with both of them. But now I can see how hard this may be to the involved. My small interventions since about 2 years has been a kind of game of history, because the real history is wonderful game – if politics is kept away. I see now that you all have much, much more in that “game”, apart from history. This is where from comes that immense hate. However, I am against propaganda in science and what have happened here is appalling (accepting by the administrator the references that were copied-pasted from nationalistic pages and which are STILL there on the Talk page!), the uncivilised tone, the insults and the indolence of the "group" which thereby took part in this revolting event. This being not a sign of a conspiracy theory, but of THE conspiracy practice.

Of course it looked like that “Greek brothers”, for example, is accepted in popular literature (encyclopaedias) while Byzantine studies scholars prefer “Byzantine brothers”. I was ready to accept "Greek" - Wiki is popular, but not accusations and hate. I am even not Macedonian or Greek or involved politically in any of their blind disputes. I will give you, Wikipedia, my full name, telephone number, address, Wikipedia has my e-mail, I can give to the Wikipedia officials my University e-mail EVERITHING!! – if Wikipedia would request. You can then find on the internet my full biography, publications, all, absolutely all, all is public. But this must be requested by the highest level of Wikipedia and not by the front-liner who is obvious gang member. Let us verify all of these! If you dare to take a risk and uncover the gang of political pamphlets and falsifiers of history. But if you are a part of them, then… then I wish you all the best. Sincerely,Draganparis (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You are wrong to say that the problem is not the sockpuppetry; you are only allowed one account, in general, and using more than one account to try to win a conflict is a serious problem. If you are right, and there are factual inaccuracies in this page, it is inevitable that other users will correct them. In general, you'll find that users who are pushing the Truth regarding national conflicts, no matter what they think the Truth is, are disruptive to our more mundane job of publishing the verifiable facts. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:06, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've reviewed this user's contributions and those of the accused sockpuppet. The two accounts are editing the same articles using the same writing style, pushing a point of view in a disruptive way, so I've blocked the newer one indefinitely and the older one for a week. If anyone disagrees, or feels a different response is more appropriate, please feel free to adjust this. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Wasn't there an ArbCom case about the whole Greek/Macedonian mess, or is that one of our ongoing squabbles? As far as the socking goes, seems pretty clear cut. Indef/1 week is a pretty standard block. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There were two, and it's never going to be solved. WP:ARBMAC2 is the more recent of the two, and has some relevant discussion. Horologium (talk) 02:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

DragonFable

Resolved

 – Deleted by a steward.

Seems there is a bug or something while trying to delete this article after I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DragonFable (6th nomination). I think it might be a MediaWiki issue. Can someone fix the problem? Thanks! JForget 02:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles with huge histories cannot be deleted by admins. It's to prevent the whole "rogue admin deleting the Main Page" thing we used to get. You'll need to find a steward. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Request made. --JForget 03:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In the future, these quickie requests can be made on the #Wikimedia-Stewards IRC Channel on Rizon.net. I brought this to their attention and got the page deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Instant attack

User:Hot Button Topic created an account and in 10 minutes made one edit, to my user page. [107]. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Compromised rollbacker account

Resolved

 – User back in control of account. Unblocked & rollback restored. –xeno^talk 12:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look at User:DC. Account with rollback rights, most probably compromised: Rapidly reverting respected users (Darwinek, UncleDick...) to IP versions (eg [108], check contribs), blankened user pages, very unusual change in editing pattern since tonite. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Rollback removed, clearly the tool has been misused. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for containing that problem: the same thing happened to me. The DC account looks like it had a good track record, but suddenly the behavior was rapid and reckless. CosineKitty (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I took a peek and undid a few of those reverts. Looks like [109] and [110] remain (both valid vandalism rollbacks); not sure about [111]. Might have been a compromised account, definitely worth keeping an eye on. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like they just used it in an indiscriminate manner. –xeno^talk 20:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The mix of edits reverted is bizarre, to be sure. Top edits from the watchlist, maybe? I'm mainly confused by the sudden nature of the outburst; looks like DC's been editing more or less without incident since July 2009 and got rollback in November, and I'm not seeing any obvious spark to set this off. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:EWI or compromised account; DC's been too sane for too long for this to just be a reaction to something on WP. The mass rollbacks are easily explained by a "rollback all" tool used on a page somewhere; the blanking of the user, user talk, and edit notice pages are less explicable as an accident. Let's wait to see if a sheepish apology is forthcoming tomorrow, vs. continued odd behavior. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I too first thought maybe this was a misfire of a mass rollback but it doesn't appear to be in his monobook. Could be wikicide. –xeno^talk 21:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Luna, have you performed a Checkuser to see if there is clear evidence of a compromised account? -MBK₀₀₄ 21:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I have; results aren't especially conclusive, but might lend or detract credence from whatever explanation we hopefully get from DC. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Would emailing DC be a good idea? —  Cargoking  talk  21:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've also done so. This is certainly out of character for DC, whom I've always respected since I first came across him several months ago. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 22:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I just got a response stating, "I left Wikipedia up on my computer in a common room in my dorms. Someone must've gone onto my watchlist and hit rollback a lot. Also I tried logging on to wikipedia, and it looks like my password was changed because I can't get back onto my account." He's now at work, so he won't respond to any e-mails for a while. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I expected as much. I've interacted with DC in the past, as recently as last month, and he seems like a respectable editor. I hope he won't make that mistake again, a person who lives in a communal place like a dorm needs to be particularly careful about computer security. -- Atama頭 22:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Since we know the account is compromised, can someone please block it? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Once he confirms he's back in control of his account, feel free to unblock. Fran Rogers (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You should tell him to request a password reset before the dorm-mate prankster changes the email address attached to the account... –xeno^talk 18:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• He's now claiming to have regained control. I've never dealt with this before, what do we do to confirm that? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

  Ideally if he's emailed someone in the past (when we knew he was in control of his account), he could email them again. This kind of thing is why it's important to set a {{User committed identity}}. He had an email address listed since Jan 15 on his edit notice, so I've emailed them for verification. –xeno^talk 19:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Once he is unblocked, certainly rollback rights should be restored. It's an unfortunate event, but I think he won't let it happen again.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - I'm sure he won't repeat the mistake. –xeno^talk 12:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

IP-hopper

An anonymous user is repeatedly removing other's comments from Talk:Open Watcom Assembler. However, they are operating from different IP addresses (or are 4 different people), including:

• 99.89.97.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 99.35.228.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 76.254.61.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 99.41.77.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 99.23.189.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Is there anything that can be done? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 16:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Prodrego has semi-protected it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 17:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

These all belong to the same ISP: SBC Internet Services in California, SF area, and they've vandalized my user page as well. Pcap ping 14:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Userfy request

Resolved

 – Userfied by Skomorokh.

Hi, could someone please userfy a copy of the deleted page Alec Powers? Viridae (talk · contribs) somewhat arbitrarily rejected my request to userfy after they speedy deleted the article (see User_talk:Viridae#Alec_Powers) and promised to email me a copy but now I've been left waiting 3 days, I suspect they have no intention of doing so. The article is under DRV Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_February_5 where, so far, nobody has agreed with Viridae's decision to speedy delete. Ash (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that the article contains no controversial material and is under review at DRV, I see no reason to restrict its content to administrators. Full article and talkpage history at User:Ash/Alec Powers (talk).  Skomorokh  12:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Alohahell repeatedly uploading copyvio, is a block in order?

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely, images deleted. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Alohahell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has updated numerous copyvio photos of locations in South Korea. For example:

• I deleted File:Shinsegae Centum City department store in Busan, South Korea.jpg, which he admitted to having stolen. He later replaced it with File:World's largest department store in Busan, South Korea.jpg, which is also questionable (Seb az86556 believes it's copyvio, see comment here).
• File:Daegu Tower.jpg, was obvious copyvio
• File:Ryugyong Hotel under construction on 26 August 2009.jpg, at FfD
• Since I posted this, Caspian blue has located the sources of several more of Alohahell's uploads. See the redlinks in A's upload log.

Overall, most of his images are 1) very low resolution, which suggests he doesn't have the original photos but simply copied them from news websites, etc.; 2) of a higher quality than he is probably able to do himself. Unfortunately, for most of the images I haven't yet been able to find exact copies (through http://www.tineye.com) yet, which is why I haven't taken much action. But based on his history, I'm beginning to think it's safe to assume that all his uploads are copyvio. There are two things that I think ought to be done:

1. Delete all of Alohahell's uploads both here and on Commons (see his upload log for en-wiki)
2. Block Alohahell for an extended length

Thoughts? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. This is getting tedious, esp. since he renames the files so they cannot easily be tracked, erases the meta-data so they cannot be compared, and then blatantly goes "me? no, why?" -- now we need to manually go around looking at thousands of pics online to spot similarities and arm ourselves with magnifying glasses. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If we can come to an agreement that he's untrustworthy, I don't think we'll need to investigate every image. Specifically...if he did take these images, he should have the high-resolution versions on his computer or camera somewhere. We can simply ask him to upload those to prove that they're his; any image that he can't provide a high-resolution version for we can assume he stole, and we can delete it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't need a WP:CCI. Just delete his uploads presumptively per WP:COPYVIO. MER-C 08:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If he has continued doing this after being warned, and if, as Seb az says, he is actively trying to deceive and evade scrutiny, then the answer must be: speedy delete everything, block indef, throw away the key, and ask the commons admins to do the same over there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Good call. I was about to indef him myself, but it looks like FutPerf beat me to it. I've already had to spike a bunch of bad uploads already this morning ... my clicker finger's getting tired. Blueboy96 13:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Copyright violations supports presumptive deletion in cases like this: "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." If there are too many in his history to easily run through them, a WP:CCI can help organize them. Otherwise, it seems mass deletion would be appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
• Per Moonriddengirl. None of the uploads I checked had camera metadata and a review of this editor's user talk page is worrisome: evasion in response to questions, lack of acknowledgement of a problem, plus a total inability to explain how he had supposedly gotten into North Korea to take a picture there. The AGF policy was modified last year to accommodate this type of situation. "When dealing with possible copyright violations, good faith means assuming that editors intend to comply with site policy and the law. That is different from assuming they have actually complied with either. Editors have a proactive obligation to document image uploads, etc. and material may be deleted if the documentation is incorrect or inadequate." Mass deletion is the best solution here. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 16:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick question...if I delete all his uploads, will ImageRemovalBot take care of removing links to them, or should I do that by hand? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Think so; not absolutely sure. One of his uploads had been transferred to Commons. I've deleted there. If any other cross-wiki deletions are needed please post the filenames here. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

These are the things he uploaded to commons with his own account: [112][113][114]. There are also some that other people transferred, so I'll keep an eye out for them. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are more of his images that have been transferred to Commons: [115], [116], rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the rest of his images on en-wiki. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. No responses at the Commons admin board yet; will follow the links to the transfers. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 21:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeffed on Commons. Deleted selectively there; a couple of edits were legitimate derivative works, etc. Looks like we can mark this resolved. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 01:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Wikireader41

I want to bring to the attention of the administrators a series of personal attacks by User:Wikireader41 directed at User:Mughalnz. Wikireader41 repeatedly accuses Mughalnz of being an "Islamofascist", being "sponsored" by the I.S.I. (a Pakistani intelligence agency) to "spread propoganda" and being a wahhabi (an extremist sect of Islam). I first reported the following diffs here at the Wikiquette alerts page on 25 January 2010:

• Diffs from Talk:Al-Qaeda page:
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAl-Qaeda&action=historysubmit&diff=339664168&oldid=339663742
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAl-Qaeda&action=historysubmit&diff=339642045&oldid=339639555
• Diffs from Talk:Balawaristan National Front page:
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABalawaristan_National_Front&action=historysubmit&diff=339661896&oldid=339658919
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABalawaristan_National_Front&action=historysubmit&diff=339475058&oldid=339458122
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABalawaristan_National_Front&action=historysubmit&diff=269397344&oldid=269333867

I also posted the following warning on Wikireader41's talk page:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWikireader41&action=historysubmit&diff=340011772&oldid=339453139

On 28 January, Wikireader41 responded at the Wikiquette alerts page by continuing to accuse Mughalnz of "pushing a stridently wahhabi POV", being a "paid editor", etc. He comments on Mughalnz's poor english and states he has reported Mughalnz to admin. He also responded to my warning by posting the following message at my talk page:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHj108&action=historysubmit&diff=340461756&oldid=326990429

On 29 January, Wikireader41 posted the following at Mughalnz's talk page, again containing accusations of Mughalnz being a "wahhabi POV pusher":

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMughalnz&action=historysubmit&diff=340643820&oldid=340621071
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMughalnz&action=historysubmit&diff=340657546&oldid=340652293

I do not believe Mughalnz's edits justify Wikireader41's abusive posts and there appears to be no change in Wikireader41's behaviour, despite a warning from User:Looie496 at the Wikiquette alerts page.

--Hj108 (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You are supposed to notify the other party that they are being discussed here. I have done so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

user mughalnz has been indulging in aggressive POV pushing and going around removing well sourced info about Al-qaeda activities in Kashmir. I would again state that he has been pushing a wahhabi POV. in spite of my repeatedly telling him to stop he was not backing off. moreover he is a self confessed dyslexic & was making very poor quality edits and not doing a basic spell check before posting in spite of several editors asking him to do so. I have reported him to 2 admins familiar with the issues involved in the articles covered [117] and here [118]. It is hard to be neutral towards people who seem to be siding with people who are actively seeking to kill anybody who doesnt agree with them but I have tried my best. Wikireader41 (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, it was my intent to have you write the above and then block you for making personal attacks and editing to your perceptions of a contributors prejudices. As it is, I think too much time has passed so I will be giving you an only warning instead. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

User wikireader41 has indulged in Saffronization many times now he continues to user saffron vedic abuse language directed at pakistanis only he has a one purpose account and has been blocked before for his Hindu Taliban style editing please check his block log for proof he needs a long block or a ban as he continue to spew his vedic garbage on wikipedia several users have warned him to stay away from pakistan related pages due to his inherent and inbred hatred for pakistan please ban him 86.158.236.180 (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate Skepticism

Would editors interested in keeping Wikipedia 'neutral' please help ensure this Climate Skepticism page is not summarily deleted by those responsible for the one-sided coverage of this issue elsewhere!

Gemtpm (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been tagged as a content fork of Global warming controversy, which seems like an unimpeachable justification to me. If the latter article falls short of our neutral point of view policy in your opinion, raise the probems on the article's talk page and work with your fellow editors to resolve them. --TS 23:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the title indicate that this is an article about people who are skeptical that climate exists? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully this will end it: Redirect as per Global warming skeptic, stable for over two years. --TS 23:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

My, there do seem to be quite a few redirects to that page already... Not the last one by a long shot, either: note that Climate change denial is the latest proposed for merge. MuffledThud (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me or does this translate as "I am here on a mission and will make as much noise as I can, please ban me now"? Guy (Help!) 23:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's just you.  Dr. Loosmark  00:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. I also think CU results on this account could prove interesting. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

2000 users have been banned alrady for trying to make WP cover this issue in a balanced way. No - my page has been ludicrously deleted already - I requested its protection here. That request stands.Gemtpm (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

2000 users? Hardly -- please either provide your evidence for this or retract your claim. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Just someone mistaking the Solomon article for reality. Solomon counted WMC's total blocks (mostly from his time managing AN3) and claimed they were blocks of so-called climate "skeptics". Guettarda (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Aw, you spoiled it. Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Little Bill Credits

Resolved

 – Directed to what (I think) would be better venues... ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 13:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I was the original Art director of Little Bill at Nick Jr. I worked with Varnette Honeywood and Robert Skull to develop the look of the show. I worked for almost 1 year before airing. The art work on the main article was made by me. I received art director credit on only one or two original episodes. After that I was given the credit of lead designer. The artwork that appears in the info box was made by me. This can be verified by Bill Cosby and Varnette Honeywood. I would like to only add the credit of designed by Adam Osterfeld and Kirk Etienne. You can email me at hoganost@yahoo.com. The page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osterfeld (talk • contribs) 13:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your query: if you wish to claim copyright for content hosted on Wikipedia, you'll need to email details and proof to info-en-c@wikimedia.org – or if you simply want to be credited in the article as having been on the crew of the show, you'll need to find and cite a reliable source confirming your involvement. Hope this helps! ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 13:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I made this edit based on your testimony that you were the original art director. Hopefully, this will encourage someone to verify and find a citation. The problem with your edit is that "lead designer" is not a recognized field of the template which creates the infobox content. Hopefully my change will get the ball rolling in your direction. WTucker (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As a citation, you may look to the credits for episodes 1-6. I am not claiming copyright. Creative is a perfectly acceptable credit. Like the directors, I was a salaried position. My job was to establish the design and art production of the show. I was assisted by Kirk Etienne, an illustrator that made the drawings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osterfeld (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC) On second thought, the credit of creative director is generally reserved for advertising. Art director or simply Designer would be more accurate. See Episode credits 1-6.Osterfeld (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Copy/Paste move from Daniela to Daniela Alves Lima

Resolved

 – No administrator action required currently Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A new editor has copy/pasted the article at Daniela over a redirect to Daniela Alves Lima and replaced the Daniela content with a copy of Danielle. Can an administrator please look at sorting out the moves and edit histories of these articles please. The move seems to be worthwhile just not done properly. noq (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There's evidently objection to the move. I've added some notes at the user's talk page about how to get consensus and how to properly do it once consensus is obtained. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeated POV tag removal at Hugo Chávez

Hugo Chávez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see this POV tag removal, as well as this, this, and this, relative to this discussion. The most recent tag removal by User:The Four Deuces was after I posted specific POV concerns to the talk page. A related discussion is at the RSN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have left The Four Deuces a warning to cease edit warring, and shall watchlist the article. I don't think anything more is necessary for now, but feel free to make your own assessment. NW (Talk) 20:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks NW and Ludwigs2 (I'm most encouraged to see an ANI thread that doesn't fall victim to the peanut gallery :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

well, I have to say I really dislike it when people remove dispute tags before the dispute is resolved. I haven't fully grokked the page yet, so I don't yet know whether it actually has a POV problem, but there's no reason to remove tags peremptorily and a lot of good reasons to leave them on. give me a day or so to review the material fully and we'll see. --Ludwigs2 21:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like for me to add more sources to the talk page (the work I started when I added the unbalanced tags), it will have to wait until after I promote WP:FAC. The lionshare of my time in the last two weeks has gone to trying to clean up Venezuelan BLPs, one of which had a most egregious BLP violation so I've been checking others, and I'm apparently the only editor on Wiki willing and able to engage the content on the Venezuelan articles. I can't get to any more for today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

the situation concerning Venezuelan pages is really unbearable. Some editors delete systematically everything that is against the Chavez government and wikilawyer on everything for this purpose. Their resources are incredible!Voui (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Rockwick spammer tries again, probably.

Resolved

 – Blocked. TNXMan 19:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The "Rockwick spammer" seems to be back. (See [119] for history of this long-running sockfarm attack). Two edits to Proof of funds by new randomly-named single purpose accounts:

• Injnubuik (talk · contribs) [120]
• Ifg;lidmfm (talk · contribs) [121]

The edits deleted references from the Wall Street Journal and FBI describing the scam, and inserted promotional material.

Other editors already caught and reverted these edits. Please watch for similar edits. The general pattern is to make "standby letters of credit" and "proof of funds" look legit, and to promote "Rockwick Capital" (we have a filter blocking that), "Cohen and Stein", and "Kai Lassen". Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Bagged and tagged. TNXMan 19:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Fallen through the cracks...

Resolved

 – User blocked. TNXMan 19:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Everythingman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Can an admin indef this account? Completely non-productive, but too sporadic for AIV. Auntie E. (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have done. It looks like a VoA to me. Stuff like this and this are not remotely useful, and briefer blocks are not likely to get his attention because of his sporadic use of the account. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the edit that caught my attention. I certainly did not expect a two-year old account with a talk page full of warnings. Auntie E. (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Rock It! (Prime Jive)

Hello!

I want to report the user Rock It! (Prime Jive). He is a sockpuppet (he admitted it himself) of user Ole Førsten whom I indefinetly blocked recently in Russian Wikipedia. The issue is: I recently published quotes of his offensive messages with permission of local Arbcom in Russian Wikipedia, and now that user harasses me crosswikily (both on ru: and on en:) saying that I must block myself for publishing those quotes. vvv^t 19:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate block

This anonymous IP User talk:70.183.20.242 (apparently various libraries?) has been blocked with the text "bad faith prick" for six months, which would appear to be inappropriate on both counts. The block would appear to be in response to this [122] post on the page of an indef-blocked user, who appears to have experienced much wikistress at the hands of that user. Sumbuddi (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't say how the block is inappropriate. Could you elaborate on that? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The offending talk page message had already been reviewed and removed by another admin, and the blocked IP had been silent for several days. Blocking the (shared) IP serves no useful purpose. Also it is totally inappropriate for administrators to be exercising power on behalf of their friends (see e.g. [123]).

It is not appropriate to refer to people as a 'prick', and the extended length of the block (six months) also suggests a pissed off admin, not the dispassionate state of mind appropriate for blocking people. Also given that the blocked IP says that he has already got an account at home, blocking the IP is not just rage but impotent rage, having no effect other than to block the random users of the public library, and little to none on the user making the comments

Also, per WP:NPA, "Extreme personal attacks, or personal attacks based on race, religion, nationality or sexual identity of an editor are often grounds for an immediate, indefinite block until the remarks are retracted.

Lesser personal attacks often result in a warning, and a request to refactor. If a pattern of lesser personal attacks continues despite the warning, escalating blocks may follow, typically starting with 24 hours". No warning was given, and the block was clearly excessive per policy. Sumbuddi (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Judging from that tirade, I'd say the block is pretty appropriate. I'm just not sure if calling people "pricks" should ever be making its way into the block log though, no matter what someone did to deserve it. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:02, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Enigmaman was merely implying he was sticking pins in the IP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe he was making fun of the fact that the IP is registered to "cox.net". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

IPs should generally only be blocked for short periods of time, especially if they are shared. Right now, we are preventing any non-logged in user from that location from editing. Not appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That IP has a lengthy history of committing vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Any IP address can potentially be used by someone else at any time, especially with a lengthy block. Calling good-faith or potentially new editors 'pricks' through an IP block log is never appropriate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that IP (like any) could be shared or change hands, 'bad faith prick' is completely unacceptable. Block removed, he can be reblocked with a more descriptive reason if he starts vandalising again. Prodego ^talk 15:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Which it will, given the history... and will again... and again. I think there needs to be a policy change that "last warning" not be used with IP's, as it's basically a joke. They can always come back, be it in a day, a week, a month or a year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And speaking of "Basically a Joke", the previous link was provided for your administrative enjoyment. Captain. Brainstorm (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And the above user is a troll, probably the same one that tried to get Caden and me into further dispute yesterday. It backfired, as Caden and I have now settled our differences. Someone can zap this character here, or at AIV, whichever comes first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And now gone, as the AIV Death Angel's vorpal blade went snicker-snack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't very nice. Anyway, if there was one thing I learned from my first RFA, it was that the community takes a very dim view of insulting edit summaries directed at ips, no matter how justified they may be at the time. The point, which I had to admit had not occurred to me at the time, is that a different, innocent user could easily see them in the future and, right or wrong, feel it was directed at them. Painful as it is, I have to admit this is a valid point. So, the block was probably a good one and will probably be re-instated soon enough, but the "prick" part, not so good. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP represents random people moving through various libraries. The only duration of block that makes sense in that context is a few hours, and then only if there were ongoing vandalism in progress, as the person sitting at the PC now is unlikely to be there tomorrow. Sumbuddi (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Derailing dispute resolution

I would ask that an uninvolved admin ask User:SandyGeorgia to desist from derailing dispute resolution. If it were the first time this had happened, I wouldn't bring it to ANI, but it is clearly a pattern.

This discussion relates to WP:RSN#Venezuelanalysis, which had grown to a very large size (6 subsection breaks), not least due to Sandy and another editor constantly bringing up accusations of bad faith, as well as unsourced and irrelevant claims. In an attempt to extricate the discussion from the mire it had got into (driving away external input there had initially been, and clearly not reaching a conclusion) I created a new section, WP:RSN#Venezuelanalysis Reboot, summarising and introducing some new information, and notified all editors involved with the old thread. I created a new section rather than a new subsection to make it more likely that new editors might comment.

Sandy's response was to effectively accuse me of forum shopping (on the same forum - and despite clearly explained rationale for starting a new section) ("This looks like "ask the other parent" to an issue that was already well debated...") and to claim that "most people are probably tired of this discussion and considered it settled."[124] Nothing was settled - not least because Sandy had ignored the previous conclusion offered in the old thread apart from misrepresenting my views (another example of derailing).

Sandy has consistently accused me of bad faith, and it appears that her attempt to reject Venezuelanalysis as a reliable source - including derailing the RSN dispute resolution mechanism - is both politically and personally motivated. Her comments here suggest that she thinks Wikipedia should counter the alleged press freedom issues in Venezuela by excluding a source widely considered reliable - as some sort of political counter-balance. (This has the merit at least of being the closest Sandy has come to expressing her motivation on this issue.) Her comments here suggest a personal motivation as well: "We need to put enough restrictions on the use of this partisan website, with ties to Chavez, to stop Rd232 from writing entire articles sourced to it." I have argued consistently that VA should be just one of the mix of sources used, and indeed I have used a wide variety of sources. That I've used VA more than if I were being paid to be sole author of an encyclopedia article is evidence of precisely nothing; nor is the solution to any overuse of it to ban it, it is to add other sources. Rd232 ^talk 17:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't think this is really worth doing anything about here or there for now. Of course the solution to possible overuse is to use other sources rather than ban a useful one. Clearly those threads became bloated with irrelevancies. But especially before it was reopened, consensus clearly tended toward reliability, which I agree with. If the source is systematically excluded, there is a problem, but I haven't seen complaints about that. Though I had more to say, to reply to what I believe are misinterpretations of policy, I think you and Sandy should disengage for a while, and reintroduce the issue only when a specific dispute in a specific article arises.John Z (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not just about the RSN threads. A conversation with Sandy on her talk page just now conveniently forced me to clarify (part of) the prior pattern: Sequence: after I raised an issue at BLPN,[125] 1 (one) person commented at Talk:Mark Weisbrot,[126] and she almost immediately sought to derail the chances of any further BLPN input with an off-topic post claiming general misbehaviour by me and another editor (this would prove a habit - how much of the RSN threads are taken up with accusations of this sort?). After I attempted to greatly clarify the issue at Talk:Mark Weisbrot and to restart the BLPN discussion (subsection "Synthesis"), she again sought to derail the dispute resolution. Since there was disagreement specifically on that, and the initial comment from another editor failed completely to address the synthesis issue, and since Sandy'd already derailed the BLPN thread enough, I went (WP:SYNTH being part of WP:OR) to WP:NORN for input specifically on that issue. Of course she promptly jumped in and sought to derail that too! [127] Adding similar material to a different article produced a slightly different policy issue (WP:UNDUE); I thought it was borderline OK, and posted at the appropriate noticeboard for clarification [128] Of course she derailed this too, jumping in again with general complaints about alleged misbehaviour. (We needn't go into the misrepresentations involved.) Rd232 ^talk 01:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

user:MickMacNee/EeNcaMkciM2

Take a look at this post: [129] supposedly by MickMacNee. However, what is strange is that the post is actually by EeNcaMkciM2 who appears to be imitating MickMacNee. I don't think MickMacNee would be stupid enough to create a sock to attack me which takes his name backwards and further, signs off with his name. Unless it is a case of him double bluffing to create an effective sock. Either away, I think the post itself is highly innapropriate and may require some sort of action. 95.149.78.143 (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Just some troll, I have blocked the account. Clearly not Mick. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe coincidentally, there have been several of these lately just that I've noticed, and I only cover a small area. There was a "MickNacMee" or some such, a few days ago. Then there was a Caden impostor yesterday, and someone impostoring me today. Probably the banned user Pioneercourthouse, as that's his style, but I don't care enough about that beanbrain to open another SPI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There is also EeNcaMkciM (talk · contribs), created on 6 January and blocked the same day. Again, not MickMacNee. Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Probably another PBMLOL sock. Isn't that his MO? <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 08:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nope; PBML wouldn't resort to a name that's obviously a spoof (as these names are), and I don't think MickMacNee's the focus of a thread on WQA or AN/I at present... —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 10:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

EeNcaMciM (talk · contribs), seems to be a theme with the reversal of name. Strange. 95.149.78.143 (talk) 17:21, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

NFLDraftDepot.com spam

WalterPearl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) alias WRanger12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) alias RocketBoi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) alias HawkeyeHowie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) alias Huski3sF4n1983 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continuously adds links to www.nfldraftdepot.com, a site that he is probably affiliated with, but that is completely irrelevant (see Alexa) compared to CBS Sports or WalterFootball.com. Therefore, these links qualify as spam. I think those sock puppet accounts should all be blocked. And isn't there some sort of feature to block the addition of links to that site permanently? --bender235 (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the blacklist. You can propose its addition at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. (I make no argument either way to whether or not it should be added.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Investigating... MER-C 08:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Clear abuse of multiple accounts and citation spamming over a year in order to promote nfldraftdepot.com and nbadraftdepot.com. If you want the gory details, See WikiProject Spam report. Blacklist request and SPI filed.

Unfortunately, spam blacklist activity is rather moribund at the moment. If any admin unfamiliar to the spam blacklist wants to take this up, I can walk you through the blacklisting process. Let me know on my talk page. MER-C 09:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

IP 216.66.131.127 additions

This IP is continuously adding factual inaccurate information in some song related articles and this reverting other user's explanations. Claiming that he is from Canada, he is adding a chart to the song articles, which is not accepted as per WP:GOODCHARTS. Please help the ongoing addition of erroneous content and WP:BADCHARTS. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

He is from Canada that Ip is most likely Whitby Ontario...i will also leave a message to him about deleting refs..So he sees your not alone on this..I will be very nice because he is talk back to you now!! Buzzzsherman (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

1. the IP is trying to make good faiths edits.
2. editor was not aware of goodchart and bad charts
3. I have now informed the IP editor on the talk page
4. you have called this IP's edits vandalism. I see no sign of this.
5. calling someone a vandal is not likely to help the situation. SunCreator (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to chime in on one point, here: this is a content dispute. The IP is adding information from a real book, albeit citing it poorly (no page numbers, etc). WP:GOODCHARTS is not intended to be an exhaustive list of every possible legitimate chart. It is intended to be a guide for finding information about charts from various countries as an aid to article writing and validation of most articles. If an editor adds a chart that is neither on WP:GOODCHARTS nor WP:BADCHARTS, the chart and the reference need to be evaluated. In this case, I agree that replacing the RPM chart with another Canadian chart is a poor move, but it isn't vandalism, and admin action seems inappropriate.—Kww(talk) 05:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I would qualify denial to discuss this at WP:CHARTS and reverting against consensus as vandalising act only. WP:GOODCHARTS is supposed to be guideline and any other or unknown chart added is supposed to pass through the quideline. Failing so, question comes on the legitimacy of the source added, which is where the IP is going on mass-additions. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 07:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

He has started discussing now. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 08:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban requested

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

Enough of the he-said/he-said bullshit. This is growing wearisome, and I see no positive outcome here. Next time, bring some diffs to the party, cuz this thread is in no way helpful to admins trying to mediate the problem. Better yet, request mediation at WP:MEDCAB or WP:MEDCOM. There is no positive outcome from this thread at all.--Jayron32 16:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

---

I would like Malleus Fatuorum to be permanently and unequivocally banned from commenting to, on, or about me anywhere on Wikipedia. I will voluntarily subject myself to the inverse, naturally, but I am sick and tired of his attacks on me. → ROUX ₪ 18:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

...and I'd like a toilet made of solid gold, but it's just not in the cards now is it? Seriously I don't think you can ban someone from talking about you or to you, only from certain topics or namespaces, etc. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:50, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I am on a permanent no-contact ban with a particular user, so, yes, it can be done.[130] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been done many, many times. So... yeah, I think it's justified. You could check out his latest little gem. → ROUX ₪ 18:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, there is such a thing as an interaction ban. In fact SuaveArt ended up indeffed because he couldn't stop violating his. Auntie E. (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Is that any worse than you calling him a dick? No use calling a Kettle, when you're distinctly Pot-coloured. Parrot of Doom 19:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Try noting the chronology here. It may prove illuminating to you. → ROUX ₪ 19:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Miss! Miss! He started it!! How very mature. Ironic that you propose the above measure, and then proceed directly to Malleus's talk page to vent your spleen. Parrot of Doom 19:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

After he continued to attack me--and, indeed, now proceeding to lie about me--yes. I suggest you also look up the meaning of 'irony', as you don't seem to know it. → ROUX ₪ 19:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) As much as the "he started it" defense gets made fun of, it actually has a lot of relevance. I've never heard of an interaction ban before, but the question of harassment can indeed fall on who started it, and often does, even though we don't expressly use those words. If you call someone a dick as a result of them having repeatedly been a dick to you, for example, there isn't necessarily an equal amount of blame to go around. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:15, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I would put a good sum of money on the result that if I looked far back enough in time, I'd see that Malleus's comments against Roux are entirely justified. I've worked with him here on quite a few articles and I've seen him make apologies where they were due. It seems to me that the minority here who don't like Malleus hold that view not because they think he's wrong, but because they don't like the fact that he's prepared to tell them they're wrong, and in no uncertain terms. Parrot of Doom 19:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is a bet you would lose. Here is something you should find eye-opening, also this. But, y'know, facts. Not exactly held in high regard here. → ROUX ₪ 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Then let's start posting some diffs rather than making idle generalizations (PoD, Roux, and Malleus). For the record I have almost no experience with either user so I don't "like" or "dislike" anyone here. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:29, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Some advice: "The more we get together, the happier we'll be" (remember that little tune). GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I found neither eye-opening, in fact I struggled to stem the massive yawn issued forth from my mouth. If such comments are the root cause of your problem with Malleus, you clearly have issues. Parrot of Doom 20:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If you do not respond to Malleus then you will have no concern of any action against you, Malleus can get himself into trouble if he wants to do one sided battle. It takes two to interact. Simply deny any direct response to him and if his actions cause concern then you can ask an admin you trust and respect to look at it or make a request here for further scrutiny. As long as you avoid responding negatively then you will be fine and Malleus will either stop find himself blocked. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Not good enough, I'm afraid. Ignoring him does not, in fact, make him go away. And his behaviour is such that somehow he avoids getting blocked. One can only speculate as to why. I will happily restrict myself from commenting to or about him anywhere on this site--if and only if he is required to do the same. He has lied about me enough today--you should also see his commentary on Fuchs' talkpage immediately after his block expired. Because apparently it's okay for him to say shit like that. That is, at least, the only conclusion I can draw as he was not reblocked for those attacks. → ROUX ₪ 19:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The real problem here is that we have two people and neither seem to have the maturity to rise above it. His behavior is not getting a pass but neither is yours. If we were to look at comments from just after the block and consider further blocking then your comments would put you in the same light, perhaps it is better to stop with administrative enforcement and at least one of the two of you just ignore the other. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I note without surprise (Chillum) that you have implicitly accepted that Roux is the victim in this affair. Well, for starters I'd suggest that this "victim" gets the Hell off my talk page if he expects anyone to take his proposal seriously. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could be the more mature one and rise above it? Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Retract your lies and your personal attacks and I will be happy to. → ROUX ₪ 19:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What part of 'he showed up out of nowhere to attack me' is completely unclear to you, Chillum? Grow a pair and impose the ban. → ROUX ₪ 19:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am an admin, not a relationship counselor. I can block editors for engaging in personal attacks, but I am not going to take sides. To be frank, if either of you keep this then escalating blocks may be the only way. Wikipedia is not a battleground and a person fighting with someone who is not fighting back will look a fool so just don't respond. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I just want him barred from harassing me further. What part of that do you not understand? → ROUX ₪ 19:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you don't see that you are also going to his talk page with and spitting nasty words at him. I have already offered you a solution, I don't accept your suggestion of an interaction ban. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

After--and only after--he started lying about me. I'd also like you to show me what exactly is 'nasty' in comparison to his comments about 'bile' and such. I want his bullshit to stop, and clearly you have absolutely no interest in doing so. → ROUX ₪ 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I think everyone understands you perfectly. It just hasn't been shown yet that such a ban is warranted. You can't just request a ban and get it without adequately proving one is needed. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:59, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he showed up in a thread above solely to harass me? Yes, naturally that isn't any evidence whatsoever. None at all. The fact that he is lying about me? Nope, no evidence there. Oh well, facts, who needs 'em? → ROUX ₪ 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"The fact that he showed up in a thread above solely to harass me?" - That is an outright lie, which anyone bored enough to check will plainly discover for themselves. Parrot of Doom 21:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, could you please show me exactly where in his attack on me he said anything about you? Anything about the actual contents of the thread? Go on, I can wait. → ROUX ₪ 01:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Typical gutless response from somebody who knows they're in the wrong. Answer my question, because it appears to me (and anyone else reading) that you're lying. Parrot of Doom 11:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's gutless to ask you to back up your assertions. [removed] I do not lie; honesty is the sole commodity editors have. [removed]. → ROUX ₪ 16:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Refactored; stop it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Roux for 24 hours for extreme incivility and disruption in this post, which stood out to me in the edit summary of this page (I had not previously read the thread). I'll leave it to others to determine whether anyone else is at fault here too, but nothing could excuse that comment. postdlf (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec x a billion) I think Chillum is basically summing up WP:JDI. Though if you could show diffs illustrating that that didn't work, ie. that you actually didn't respond to Malleus and he continued harassing you, that might be grounds for a block. To Malleus: I think Chillum has actually stated that both parties are to blame in this case. I don't see that he's painted either of you as the victim. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:46, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

That is not a view that I share. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not had a positive response to my whole "don't take the bait, ignore the other person" advice. So perhaps other people can weigh in. I am not interested in participating in any interaction bans as I think they ignore the root of the problem, those who are interacting. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Because I am sick and fucking tired of that 'advice'. Don't take the bait? Suuuuuuuuuuure. How about you get attacked by an abusive editor repeatedly and just 'ignore' it. Oh wait, you don't have to--you can just block them. The rest of us don't have that luxury, and we would like to be able to comment in peace without being harassed. That is, clearly, too much to ask. More to the point, Wikipedians generally don't bother actually looking into the background--they see Malleus making outlandish accusations and lying, and will assume he's correct. I will defend myself. What I am asking for is to have the need to defend myself removed. I really am at a loss for why you are unable to understand this simple concept. So let me try again: I will not stand idly by while I am attacked and harassed. But I get punished for reacting. So how about we just get rid of his ability to attack and harass me? → ROUX ₪ 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you should check my log of blocking people, you will see I do not block people I am in a dispute with. I get someone uninvolved to handle it. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If it'll make anybody happy, have Malleus say vicious lies about me, instead. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me alot of the ANI thread about User:IMatthew that I started. Look, Roux. Prior to you leaving, you and I had a feew fights but look, If Malleus is bugging you then just tell him that you'll take his "advice". He'll probably leave after that. However, if he does'nt, then that may count as hounding. Even so, many admims seem to be trigger happy with the block tool. Malleus only deserved a warning if that. Now Malleus, you and I have really gotten into fights in the past. While I belive that the animosity is gone, you may want to think "will this edit help Roux or just cause trouble" when your posting to him. You have every right to speek your opinion but sometimes things are better left unsaid. Well thats my crappy two-cents. Take it or leave it.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The facts of the case are pretty simple. I generally try to avoid ANI like the plague I believe it to be, and I'm pretty sure I've never initiated an ANI thread on anything or anyone, and very likely never will. Roux's repeated claim that I turned up at Parrot of Doom's ANI thread above completely out of the blue and simply to harass him is a direct personal attack far worse than anything he accuses me of, yet it goes unremarked by these "trigger happy admins" you have so rightly identified. I spent some time working with Parrot of Doom on the Nick Griffin article that's at the heart of that row, and we've worked together on many other articles as well, so quite naturally I have his talk page on my watchlist. That's how I found out about the ANI report that Roux pounced on out of the blue to offer his usual words of wisdom. I don't follow other editors around looking for excuses to start rows, unlike some others. I prefer to spend my time building an encyclopedia, and I was supporting Parrot of Doom, an editor for whom I have the greatest of respect, against an absurd charge of incivility. Roux's track record, on the other hand, speaks for itself. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It would behoove you to get your facts correct before you start shooting your mouth off. My sole comment in that thread, until you decided to show up and harass me, was "Not constructive. Please refactor or someone else will do so for you." in response to Fred the Oyster. I made no comment on Off2riorob (the initiator of that thread) nor Parrot of Doom (its subject). As I have said repeatedly, it is customary to have opinions preceded by knowledge. You may wish to try this. → ROUX ₪ 22:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

How ironic. "The fact that he showed up in a thread above solely to harass me" is what you said earlier. Do you stand by this comment? Parrot of Doom 00:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course I do. He made no comment about you or the thread, just came to attack me. → ROUX ₪ 01:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Really, so what is this - "What you (GoodDay) call "foul language" may not be what Parrot of Doom would call "foul language, or indeed what I would call "foul language". It was certainly robust language, but that's not quite the same thing where I come from. The only incivility here is too many editors attempting to impose their prissy notions of civility on others, with threats and bullying if necessary. Time it stopped. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)" - if not a comment about me and the thread? Where does that comment, made first, say anything about you? Red-mist, eh? Parrot of Doom 11:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What he did do is make an ironic comment. That is not the same as an attack. Neither is it an attack if it's a true statement and so far I see you haven't denied what he said as not being true. Incidentally your behaviour today has somewhat strengthened the veracity of MF's original comment. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

He did no such thing; I suggest you look up the definition of irony. Nor indeed was it a true statement. And it would behoove you to note I have merely responded in kind to the bullshit MF has thrown at me. Oh well--facts, really, why would you bother familiarizing yourself with them? → ROUX ₪ 01:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel you're on the wrong side of the pond to be giving lectures on irony. "Responding in kind" is still a behaviour. If you respond in kind then you are doing exactly what you accuse him of. As I said, you aren't doing yourself any favours here. And yes, that is a fact that I'm now familiar with. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm bored and just browsing around, and I just happened across this. I jsut wanted to briefly comment that it may be a good idea to open an RFC/user about one or both of the central editors here. I personally think that they both have something to add to Wikipedia, but there are some rather serious concerns with behavioral issues (at least, on a "presentation" level) which could possibly be helped by using the RFC procedure. For full disclosure I should note that I've had (a somewhat limited amount of) negative iterations with both editors here, and I should probably admit that one of them does bring up a compelling point in my opinion, but I think that I'm presenting this in a fairly neutral manner.
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 22:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Look. I've had my own run-ins with Roux in the past as well. Just take a look at all of the MFD's from September and you see just how many. I also agree that Roux needs to calm down. In other words, take a chill pill man. This is just an all volunteer project. If you get sooo worked up over a stupid comment that some random user tels you then you need to take a break and think to your self "why should I even care?" Trust me. I have gotten worked up all of the time over Malleus's comments. (Take a look at my TP archives). You are makeing a fool of yourself Roux. Just calm down, back away from the computer and do sometihng else if you ned to. Remeber, this is for fun. It's no job of yours. And Malleus, I know. It just seems like the nice thing to do is to back away from the situation.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. He started the situation. The nice thing to do would be to apologise. It won't happen. → ROUX ₪ 22:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right Roux. Just remember that.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• That sounds like a good idea. In fact, why don't you start up a company specialising in turning molehills into mountains? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

  LOL! I couldn't have planned such a response, it's so perfectly illustrative. Thank you!
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 22:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• No, you probably couldn't. No shame in that though. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Stop. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

All the people in this thread who thought it would be amusing to add their own little 'funny' comments could stand to be whacked with a block. You arn't helping by prodding Roux and you certainly arn't funny. Jtrainor (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This thread, as much as any, shows the fallacy of the reflexive "two sights fighting" response. It's tempting, and it's easy, but it is no substitute for a serious attempt to figure out what is really going on. - Wikidemon (talk) 07:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Tomgreenstein

Indef blocked as a VOA. Keeps blanking their Talk Page, removing all past warnings plus the blocked notification. I put this up on AIV last week but think it keeps getting removed because they are already blocked. Could someone block talk page editing for this user? Thanks, _Will^dow (Talk) 10:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

They are allowed to blank their page of warnings, as it doesn't erase any history. The only thing they would not be permitted to remove would be unblock templates, but they haven't used any of these. As they are indef blocked I wouldn't worry about the warnings being immediately visible etc, any reviewing admin would view the block log and talk page history first. Hope this helps, --Taelus (talk) 10:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) It doesn't really matter that they keep blanking their page. The notices are in the page history anyway, and for registered accounts only declined unblock requests during an active block or sock notices must be visible. In this case I've locked the page anyway to encourage them to move on, but ignoring their blankings would have worked just as well :) EyeSerene^talk 10:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Nickgriffin bnp

Vandalism by Nickgriffin bnp to Scarborough Sixth Form College edit dif, but more importantly, check the user name. Looks dodgy, Esowteric+Talk 15:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've applied a username block. See my comments on the block notice. -- The Anome (talk) 15:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

That was quick: many thanks. Esowteric+Talk 15:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Return of banned editor

Resolved

 – Blocked by User:Tnxman307. GlassCobra 17:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Xiutwel-0002, based on user name, posting style, and their own admission, is the same person as User:Xiutwel. That account was indefinitely blocked as a sock of Kaaskop6666. Could an administrator please block this person's new account as well? This individual is a "9/11 Truth" conspiracy theorist and has been making waves on the fringe theory noticeboard. *** Crotalus *** 16:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are the userlinks:

• Xiutwel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Xiutwel-0002 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Kaaskop6666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

It appears that Xiutwel should be considered the master account. His WP:AE restrictions can be found via Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive26. In my opinion, Xiutwel-0002 should be indef blocked for evasion, since his main account is still blocked. He could be told to ask for {{unblock}} as Xiutwel. I am not sure whether unblock would be granted; I can see arguments on both sides. I've notified Xiutwel-0002 of this discussion. EdJohnston (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked indef by User:Tnxman307. GlassCobra 17:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Little Bill Credits

Resolved

 – Directed to what (I think) would be better venues... ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 13:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I was the original Art director of Little Bill at Nick Jr. I worked with Varnette Honeywood and Robert Skull to develop the look of the show. I worked for almost 1 year before airing. The art work on the main article was made by me. I received art director credit on only one or two original episodes. After that I was given the credit of lead designer. The artwork that appears in the info box was made by me. This can be verified by Bill Cosby and Varnette Honeywood. I would like to only add the credit of designed by Adam Osterfeld and Kirk Etienne. You can email me at hoganost@yahoo.com. The page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osterfeld (talk • contribs) 13:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your query: if you wish to claim copyright for content hosted on Wikipedia, you'll need to email details and proof to info-en-c@wikimedia.org – or if you simply want to be credited in the article as having been on the crew of the show, you'll need to find and cite a reliable source confirming your involvement. Hope this helps! ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 13:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I made this edit based on your testimony that you were the original art director. Hopefully, this will encourage someone to verify and find a citation. The problem with your edit is that "lead designer" is not a recognized field of the template which creates the infobox content. Hopefully my change will get the ball rolling in your direction. WTucker (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As a citation, you may look to the credits for episodes 1-6. I am not claiming copyright. Creative is a perfectly acceptable credit. Like the directors, I was a salaried position. My job was to establish the design and art production of the show. I was assisted by Kirk Etienne, an illustrator that made the drawings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osterfeld (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC) On second thought, the credit of creative director is generally reserved for advertising. Art director or simply Designer would be more accurate. See Episode credits 1-6.Osterfeld (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

IMDB has you listed as a "Designer" (among others). While it's not a hugely reliable source for Wikipedia purposes, I think that's enough corroboration that you can be listed in the article. I'll add it back in, though the template doesn't support Designer so it's less than ideal. EyeSerene^talk 19:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

It's too bad the template doesn't support artists that design the art which is displayed. If you happen to be looking for the original developers of the show, you should look to the 1st show credits and not the EMMY award made long after many creators departed. I'll take any credit these days. Just "creative" was adequate. Osterfeld (talk) 19:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Danieldis47

I feel that Danieldis47 is a biased-POV-pusher and needs to cool down a little with his negative view about the Afghan situation. He is adding only negative stuff into Afghanistan article and reverts anyone who tries to nuetralize his edits. For example, he keeps mentioning how bad and inaffective the Afghan police, taking bribes, using drugs, and etc., but he refuses to write anything about the large number of them getting killed for the small salary that they earn and etc.--Jrkso (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I would welcome third-party or editor assistance in working with Jrkso. As I have noted on the Afganistan talk page, in my edits I stick as closely as possible to facts as detailed in appropriate sources, which I always provide. Nevertheless, my editing seems to leave Jrkso extremely frustrated. He has accused me of bias, but he declines to point to any specific "biased" edits of mine to allow me to respond. I am at a loss as to how to proceed. This could be an ongoing issue (for example, Jrkso has just added yet another un-sourced claim to the "Police" section.) I will likely seek Wikipedia formal intervention, as appropriate.

Thanks, Danieldis47 (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: I just wandered onto this page. Was I supposed to have been notified of this posting? Thanks. Danieldis47 (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I may have jumped the gun on this - editor was removing 52K of material from this page, repeatedly. The diffs weren't immediately clear on what was going on. I blocked per previous block and current "disruption"; eyes by another couple editors would be appreciated. Tan | 39 19:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I haven't looked at his previous behaviour but the way in the diffs he both adds and deletes posts, could it have been some botched edits using an old page version.--Cube lurker (talk) 19:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:JelrGREEN

I observed the following pattern of behavior from a new editor (User:JelrGREEN) who has solely edited one article Brendan Burke. He is aggressive, threatening and belligerent, determined to insert his own WP:OR. He needs to be warned by an administrator about the risk of being blocked. He has already violated WP:3RR. See the most recent transactions:

(cur) (prev) 22:39, 7 February 2010 JelrGREEN (talk | contribs) (7,345 bytes) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 22:31, 7 February 2010 JelrGREEN (talk | contribs) m (7,095 bytes) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 22:26, 7 February 2010 216.26.223.50 (talk) (6,556 bytes) (→References) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 22:24, 7 February 2010 24.78.131.232 (talk) (6,550 bytes) (→Death) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 22:20, 7 February 2010 JelrGREEN (talk | contribs) (6,992 bytes) (I re-entered info about Mark Reedy. PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE, unless you want an ANGRY town coming back and editing it again.) (undo)

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Their Talk page is a red link. Not only have you not discussed this with them before coming here, you haven't notified them of this discussion. Woogee (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Your characterization of his edits isn't really fair, either. He's a friend of someone who died in the same accident as Brendan Burke, and he thinks that person should be mentioned in the article. He's also a brand-new user who is not familiar with the nuances of Wikipedia's rules. He isn't trying to vandalize or do any harm; he is editing in good faith. Let's try talking to him nicely, shall we? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

He/she has been notified. I very rarely (anymore) find another editor's actions so objectionable that I resort to the Noticeboard, so I was rushing and neglected the protocol. MY apologies. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous IP vandal (User:216.26.223.50) blanked the AFD notice from the Brendan Burke page. Is it possible to run an IP check to see if the IP number matches User:JelrGREEN? How did I know this article would become a hornet's nest?? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The AFD discussion on Brendan Burke has turned pretty vicious since a lot of single purpose accounts showed up. Woogee (talk) 20:09, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Emergency unlocking of article please

Super Bowl XLIV, please unlock it now. I have important useful information to add. Hurry, I need to add some stuff and watch the game, too. I am not a troublemaker. Colts are the greatest (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOCK]].--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit senses...tingling... HalfShadow 23:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Not gonna happen Colts.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure! I've fully unprotected the article. Go ahead and add what you need to; I'll check in after the game. Actually, I didn't really unprotect it. Don't tell him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please be nice ok (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Could someone tie these socks up, please? HalfShadow 00:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• • OK, What's his name above is a sock of a blocked user. I wonder though, is the question really "bullshit"? We do we have the article locked? There are obviously hudreds, if not thousands, of people looking at it. If any vandalism is reverted in seconds, why does the page need protection?
    — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Do you want to spend the next 2-3 hours watching the game, or watching the article? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

      Same difference to me, since I'm already doing both... (apparently along with a few 10's of thousands of others...
      — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• You would think they could use that particular template (which I will not mention; BEANS) that requests an edit. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, maybe we should just relock it. It's been unlocked for about five minutes and it's already getting cluster-fucked. HalfShadow 00:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Because of 2-3 vandalous edits? a bit oversensitive, aren't we?
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering the page needs to be edited on a moment-by moment basis, it would be helpful it could be done without having to worry about reverting vandalism too. HalfShadow 00:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are (or, at least, should be) editing it moment to moment already, then how does vandalism really affect you anyway? That info is something that you're already at least looking at, if not changing, so why should vandalism particularly bother you?
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• I knew I was a big geek, I'm not even watching the game because I don't follow the NFL. But you guys are even bigger geeks, editing in the middle of the game! Shouldn't you be too drunk to be editing by now? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  hehe... I almost am, hence my posts here!
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  Not exactly, per my age...almost too caffeinated though! Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does this article need moment-by-moment editing during the game? Up-to-the-minute reporting goes on Wikinews, not in an encyclopedia. There aren't exactly any high-quality, reliable, secondary sources being added to the article which relate to the ongoing event. Just wait a couple of hours. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Man was that burst of vandalism tough. Good thing Explicit jumped in otherwise I (and others) would be rapidly reverting like crazy. Just saying. ConCompS talk 00:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Well, looks like I was invited into this discussion after I protected. Honestly, this article wouldn't survive if it wasn't protected. This reminds me when Michael Jackson was fully protected the day of his death because—as a highly visible page—vandalism was high and removing it was nearly impossible due to all the edit conflicts (let's not forget the server crash, either). Although the Super Bowl isn't receiving the same amount of traffic, semi-protection seems to apply here quite nicely. — ξ^xplicit 00:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  Heya Explicit. I invited you here because I wanted to see your reaction to what I said above, mostly. I find the "this article wouldn't survive" attitude curious here, I guess, and I wouldn't mind discussing that further with anyone willing to do so. I mean, with literally 10's of thousands of people viewing the article, what makes you guys think that the article wouldn't be able to survive? Do you admins really have such a low opinion of us content editors that this is a standard viewpoint here, now? Has Wikipedia fallen to such lows?

  Directly in reply to bringing up the MJ article, I'd point out that the main issue there was the rapidity of the edits, as far as I'm aware of. The Foundation seems to have taken care of that issue, which was at least partially technical and partially physical (server configs), in response, so why is that relevant?
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  What I meant by "it wouldn't survive" was that the article will be bombarded by IPs and non-auto-confirmed that make less than constructive edits to the article. I think that was shown pretty well before the article was protected, as most by of the IP edits were either reverted by Huggle, ClueBot or rollback. No where did I put down constructive editors. As far as Jackson's article goes, yes, it was due to rapidity. It was this rapidity that left vandalism in the article for too long. In fact, I remember that the infobox was broken when a vandal made its way into the article and remained that way for several minutes; reverting was no easy task with all the edit conflicts. My point is, if the article was left unprotected, unconstructive edits would (and a few did) remain visible to those hundreds, if not thousands, of readers who would stop by. Semi-protection won't get rid of all vandals, but the article will receive significantly less unconstructive hits. — ξ^xplicit 01:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  OK, taking everything above a face value for the moment (which is fairly generous, but that's for later), say a few "unconstructive" edits remain for a while. Just for the sake of argument here, do you feel that such edits reflect badly on you or something? I'm really trying hard to understand this point of view, but I'm struggling (admittedly, I think that those of you who are currently "admins" are completely out of touch and off your rockers, so I'm willing to admit to be subject to my own criticism which I offered above, but I'm really honestly trying ot understand here...)
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 01:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  I hate football. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  See what I mean about "completely out of touch and off your rockers"
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 02:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  No one's gonna answer huh? What, are y'all too chicken-shit to step up to the plate? Ah well, I've got better things to do then waste time here on AN/I anyway. Thanks for empirically proving the point about how useless it is to have "admins" here, at least.
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 03:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  Reflect badly on me? No. It'll reflect badly on the encyclopedia. If someone uses Wikipedia for research or to read something that interests them, I'd hate for them to see "SHIT"—or better yet, using this article as an example, seeing "COLTS SUCK COCK"—randomly thrown into an article. I think this discussion boils down to views; you don't feel protection is justified while I do, and that's completely understandable.</all written before edit conflict> Well, some of us don't live on Wikipedia, surely it would be polite to wait a few hours before calling admins chicken-shits and useless. — ξ^xplicit 03:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Eyes Needed

Super Bowl just ended. Eyes will probably been needed on Indianapolis Colts and New Orleans Saints. In case you are wondering, Saints won. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you had to read it here, then you likely don't care... Which has always irked me on sports channels, when they run a news service just after the big game, and they include a report on it; if you cared you would have seen it, if you hadn't seen it you are unlikely to care! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Daniel_Tammet article

User 85.210.180.155 is in breach of Wikipedia's rules regarding original research and the posting of unsourced or poorly sourced information for biographies of living persons.

I have removed his edits that breach these rules and each time he has reinstated the edit, sometimes within a matter of minutes.

I have explained to him that he is in breach of Wikipedia's rules on several occasions on the article's discussion page, but he ignores this.

I have also repeatedly asked him to provide published sources to support his edits but he has not done so. He claims, incorrectly, that the burden of proof is on the person who removes unsourced claims. In fact Wikipedia's rules on biographies of living persons state clearly that the burden of proof lies with those who add or restore material. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.193.84.62 (talk) 14:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Daniel_Tammet_article. Cirt (talk) 19:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Plzppl

In June last year, the Latin Australian article was moved to Latin American Australian, after a move discussion on the talk page. The only one who (strongly) opposed the move was LatinoAussie (talk · contribs), who has since been blocked as a sockpuppet of User:Cazique (link to investigation). Thirty minutes after LatinoAussie's last edit, Plzppl (talk · contribs) started editing, and on 20 January that account came to the Latin American Australian page and unilaterally moved it back to Latin Australian. Another user, Kransky (talk · contribs), opened a sockpuppet investigation, but it was declined as "stale". I'd like an uninvolved admin to look into this and see if there's enough evidence to block the account as a sockpuppet of LatinoAussie. What I found particularly interesting were Plzppl's first edits, where they created their userpage and talk page by signing them: [131], [132]. Another Cazique sock, TruthTold (talk · contribs), did exactly the same thing as its first edits: [133], [134]. Jafeluv (talk) 15:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Plzppl has an edit history going back several months, but it could be a dormant sock. The simplest solution would be to request move protection at WP:RPP if this persists. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 20:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Materialscientist blocked

Resolved

Materialscientist has been blocked for a month is this a joke ,mistake or being done by a compromised account summary he is blocked for a month as his 3rd block when the admin has never been blocked.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Jamie has been engaged (two messages) on his/her talk page.  Frank  |  talk  18:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And unblocked. Case closed.  Frank  |  talk  19:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thegoodlocust

Resolved

 – moved to an appropriate enforcement board

Moved to Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. But more engagement there by uninvolved admins would be welcome. --TS 19:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal Threats and Aggressive Warring by User

Hello, on my talk page [Talkpage] I have been aggressively threatened and attacked by a repeat edit warrior: Atmapuri [Talkpage].

His direct and open personal threats on my page relating to edits are offensive, negative, and completely out of line with Wikipedia policy:

EXCERPT:

"Anybodies edits on the page of Kundalini Yoga, which are not in line with the will of God, lead directly to hell. ... [this is] THE LAST WARNING!"

Please comment or warn (again) about this behavior. It has been ongoing and his warring in editorial disputes is irrational and relentless.--Fatehji (talk) 09:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you really believe that this person has the power to send you to hell or editing a certain Wikipedia article in a certain manner will send you to hell, then you need to consult a doctor, seriously. This user is trying to scare you, it has obviously worked since you are here. Editing an article in a certain manner isn't going to send you to hell (not in anything I have read, but I am Christian, so your religion might be different). Just delete it the comments and move on. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm totally uninvolved here, but I wanted to point out that the proper enforcement of WP:NPA isn't to say to the victim, "Grow up, get a spine."  Glenfarclas  (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I admit it isn't the best way to address the situation, but if the user honestly thinks another user (who isn't God) has the power to send them to hell by editing a certain article, a spine might be in order. I am sorry, but I see this as a silly thread and just reverting the post left should have been done, not rushing off to ANI. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Fatehji never said he was worried about actually going to hell. He said the comments were "aggressively threaten[ing]," "offensive," "negative," "completely out of line with Wikipedia policy," "irrational," and "relentless." I've seen worse personal attacks, sure, but that doesn't mean we need to tell Fatehji to "consult a doctor."  Glenfarclas  (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the comments were "irrational" (VERY!), but the other stuff barely. What they were, were just plain silly. This should have never made it to ANI. We need to learn to revert the really silly "attacks" and move on until something big shows up and then report it. If Fatehji thinks the comments are that bad, he can take Atmapuri to WP:WQA, which I recommend he does and this thread closed. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• I have notified the user in question of this thread. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 09:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I think wikipedia should adopt some variation on that warning as a standard template. There might be two or three trolls it would scare away . ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Oh, cool--I was looking for a way to avoid all that pesky Heaven stuff. I mean, you got all your abstinence-practitioners, your relentlessly-sober folks and the just-say-no contingent, your [martyrs], your cherubim and seraphim, and a mess of long-faced winged dudes playing the harp? Hey, if that's what you're looking for, more power to ya, but an eternity of that does NOT paint my wagon. (Disclaimer: this user recommends that you keep a safe distance of at least 50 yards (45.72 meters) so as to avoid becoming collateral damage to the inevitable lightning-bolt of divine retribution.) GJC 10:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks you Glenfarclas for your truly neutral positioning. My level of involvement is irrelevant and 'NeutralHomer' is not aiding the situation by assuming my standing on the matter. It's not about literal meaning of the threat, but that it is a personal threat and represents the spirit of the user Atmapuri. It shows how he is at odds with Wikipedia policy, and he has done a systematic approach of ignoring policy on a consistent basis on this and other edits. Additionally, he has not changed his behavior based on warnings in the past, and I recommend this user be Blocked.--Fatehji (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Atmapuri was warned when you raised this earlier at ANI. Their comments to you date from 29 January and they haven't edited in two days. We need evidence that they've ignored a warning before admin action is taken; you can't really keep reporting them for the same offence. EyeSerene^talk 10:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(moving from "4:30 AM snarkmeistress" mode into Serious Admin) In a similar vein, if you are alleging a "a systematic approach of ignoring policy on a consistent basis on this and other edits" then it would be highly instructive to give diffs of more than just one edit--particularly since it's one for which, as EyeSerene mentions, the user has already been warned. Other diffs showing this behavior, as well as diffs subsequent to the Jan 29 example, will be needed before a block even enters the realm of possibility. GJC 10:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think, perhaps, this is the warning that EyeSerene was talking about. This is the Jan 29 post as well. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 10:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, thanks Neutralhomer. Should have provided diffs myself really :P EyeSerene^talk 12:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That usertalk page is not exactly a meadow full of rainbows, is it. And we appear to have another user who claims that the mere act of warning a user or of criticizing the content of their edits equals a "personal attack". I've seen this assertion more and more often lately, and IMHO that's the sort of thinking that needs to be discouraged emphatically whenever it crops up. The act of warning can be DONE in an uncivil manner, but the act ITSELF is not uncivil. I'm starting to think that repeated "misunderstanding" of this distinction should itself be a warnable offense, a variation of assumption of bad faith. GJC 00:34, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

user:HalfShadow

No need for this to hang around. GlassCobra 23:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I have concerns that HalfShadow is inapropriately taunting User:Roux at User_talk:Roux. So far, HalfShadow has told Roux that he (HalfShadow) is "smarter than you,"([135]) and responed to Roux asking HalfShadow to get off of his (Roux's) talk page with "There you go, lad," - on Roux's talk page([136]). This kind of taunting, and ignoring a blocked users request to back off, is inapropriate. I warned HalfShadow about his conduct - he removed my warning with a dismissive edit summary ([137]). I think it's time for HalfShadow to leave Roux alone - and if he can't do it by choice, it should be done by force. Hipocrite (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC) It's called 'making a point'. If Roux had simply stayed away from Malleus, he wouldn't be in the hole he is now. I've made that point; unlike you, I am now going on with my day. HalfShadow Halfshadow, cut it out. Tan | 39 18:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Gosh, are you behind the times. That was fifty minutes ago. Care for a coffee? I have a french press... HalfShadow 18:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC) I don't give a fuck if it was three days ago; quit stirring up drama for the hell of it. Tan | 39 18:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

OTRS help

There are some images that are unfree and apparently have a bad OTRS ticket or something, here are the links to the discussion on my talk page and commons OTRS, hope it can make more sense to you then it did me, all I know is that this needs admin attention.--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well that's concerning... are these only for use in Wikipedia and nowhere else? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Removal of domain of animal taxa

p removing the domainThere are several IP addresses (78.151.23.110, 78.144.191.16, 89.240.239.157, etc.) who keep removing the domain (Eukarya) from different animal taxoboxes, including Mammal, Lizard, and, most, recently, Red Panda, without leaving an edit summary or an explanation on the talk page. It is probably the same guy doing it all, using different computers. --The High Fin Sperm Whale 20:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have been trying to keep up with this blanking but am getting tired of doing so. The edits summaries were at first profane and then switched to claiming that it is tidying the infobox. There has still been no explanation of why the items are being removed and this has gone on way past the last warning. This has been reported at AIV and Cirt has blocked the the 78115123110 address so this may be resolved. MarnetteD | Talk 20:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I have cleaned up the edits by the other two IP's. All three trace to Manchester so they may be back under another IP tomorrow. I hope that editors from the Science and/or biology wikiprojects will help to keep an eye on this. MarnetteD | Talk 21:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP that was doing this asked a question about it on the help desk. I had a look and put a note on his talk page, and I began a discussion on the talk pages of a couple of the pages he had altered: Talk:Gecko and Talk:Reptile. He has replied on the latter, as have some other people. I am becoming convinced of something I suspected from the start, which is that this editor doesn't accept the newish classification which includes 'domain' as a taxon, but won't come out and say so. --ColinFine (talk) 21:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the info Colin. It helps to understand what is going on. Looks like vigilance will be need for the foreseeable future. MarnetteD | Talk 23:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Weird edits on Murder

Just come across this: Special:Contributions/140.198.57.156. Although it's probably some kid goofing about, the 17:08 UTC edit seems to be more specific. It's a school IP, which I've blocked for a week, but if anyone is in Arizona and wants to give LEA a call just in case... Rodhullandemu 23:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah; 140.198.57.158's edit (same person?) turns it into a threat against a specific person identified by first name, by a specific time. I did try calling the Tempe AZ police department, and they referred me to the FBI's Internet Crime Center, which says (through its website) it's not for threats or time-sensitive matters (mostly fraud it seems). So, I'm stuck. Anyone with a bit more determination than me, care to take this up? (Perhaps calling them again and saying the first approach didn't go anywhere?) -- Why Not A Duck 23:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

D'oh! And they're the ones who advise us that we should report these things and let them decide the severity and any action to be taken. Too many donuts, methinks. Rodhullandemu 00:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock possibly needed

Per another users request on my talk page, I am raising this here to discuss a rangeblock of a group of IP addresses being used by a indef blocked sockpuppeteer. Any time an IP in their range gets blocked, they hop onto a new dynamic IP address within 24 hours and continue the same pattern of vandalism/personal attacks on users. I tried to dissuade them by protecting their targets userpages for a week, but they find other users and target them instead. The list that I have personally seen so far are:

• User:RegularLife (Block evasion account of User:Silverlife and User:RegularBreaker
• 123.27.27.224
• 123.27.24.27
• 123.27.24.174
• 123.27.25.120
• 123.27.26.132
• 123.27.26.189

The main targets have been User:Atama and their user subpages, and User:Joe Chill, however since their pages were protected the IPs have been targetting the users who warned their previous IPs. Any thoughts on performing a rangeblock? They have continued for over 5 days now, not letting swift blocks and page protects deter them. Thanks in advance, --Taelus (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

See also: Previous ANI thread on the RegularLife sockpuppet. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive594#Sockpuppet. --Taelus (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the contributions to see if an edit filter could be applicable. While there are a few vectors that could be pursued, I'm not really sure it's warranted: any filter would be extremely rough as the contributions are a bit wild. The ISP range is 123.27.0.0/19 (8190 possible IPs) but the ISP might restrict the user further than that based on their infrastructure. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

123.27.24.0/22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) blocked for two weeks. If it spreads (and I don't think it has yet), opening it up to 123.27.0.0/19 might be a good idea. NW (Talk) 21:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems they have alot of patience, and a wider pool of IP addresses. Same pattern sprung up on User:123.27.29.229, I will re-protect target pages and block the IP for a short time. --Taelus (talk) 14:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As a note, 127.27.29.229 is inside 123.27.0.0/19. Not saying the block is justified, just a note for clarification. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

More disruptive editing by User:Eye.earth

Resolved

 – Indefinitely blocked by Beeblebrox for "violating WP:BATTLE, WP:NPA and other disruptive editing". - 2/0 (cont.) 04:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

After two threads on their disruptive behavior, Eye.earth (talk · contribs) is causing problems once again. After Eye.earth cut down the already insufficient lead to the List of centenarians article (which was the original problem), I reverted it, and since Eye.earth has taken to engaging in personal attacks not only on this issue, but on many of the problems that users have brought up on his talk page. It is obviously inappropriate for me to take any action, but I feel that his actions should be brought to the attention of the community, as this has been a long-term problem. As for the claims that I own the lead, I actually don't like the lead in its current form at all and would welcome someone coming along and changing it to a proper lead... but simply removing information and making it shorter is not going to accomplish that at this stage. Cheers, CP 20:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to second the request for administrator attention. This user has a long history of tendentious editing, including at Zidovudine and Greg Louganis, and responds to constructive criticism with comments like "poor oaf" (referring to CP). In the same block of comments, Eye.earth laments my apparently "patent dishonesty and lack of integrity", observing that I and MastCell are "shills" and "pharmaceutical hacks". When Smokefoot graciously attempts to explain why a minor bill from California might not deserve extensive coverage in an encyclopaedia ([138]), Eye.earth accuses this, editor, too, of having "a professional interest to defend, exactly like the shills KeepCalm and MastCell". Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

From a brief review of Eye.earth's talk page, it does indeed seem like some action should be taken here. Eye.earth has had numerous threads here at ANI about him, and has been blocked previously. He appears to have learned nothing from his blocks, nor the multitude of warnings from various parties, both involved and uninvolved; furthermore, he appears to believe that everyone who expresses a contrary opinion to his own is a "shill" and undoubtedly in the employ of some pharmaceutical company. GlassCobra 23:44, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I came across this editor during his campaign to push AIDS denialism into various articles, including zidovudine and Paul Gann. I've found him uncollaborative and abrasive in the extreme, and it appears that others who have interacted with him on unrelated topics have had universally similar experiences. I would add that he employed sockpuppetry to evade his most recent block. Overall, I'm not seeing a huge amount to be gained by continued contributions from this editor - but then, I am involved, as a "pharmaceutical shill" who accepts the "HIV = AIDS orthodoxy." MastCell ^Talk 00:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Indef blocked, the POV pushing, assumptions of bad faith, and unfounded accusations that severly cross the line of WP:NPA, and the general battleground mentality make this user a definite net negative. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Restore Twikle and remove 1RR sanction.

I'm asking to have my ability to use Twinkle restored, and to have the six month 1RR sanction, which was imposed on 29 October 2009, rescinded. Radiopathy •talk• 23:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking at your talk page, you've had some significant problems adhering to your 1RR restriction, including at least one block that I can see. I was unable to find the original discussion that led to your sanctions, can you please provide a link? Also, you should probably write a detailed explanation about why exactly you feel these sanctions should be lifted, as well as concrete examples of constructive work that you intend to do. GlassCobra 23:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but following the block there was an edit war on the talk page about removing declined unblock request templates, in violation of WP:BLANKING. That led to a revoke of talk page editing restrictions temporarily. That would certainly discourage the lifting of a 1RR sanction. -- Atama頭 23:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I'd appreciate if you'd look at my edits since the block of 10 December 2009 expired.

BTW, the discussion that led to the 1RR sanction is here. Even though I'm not as active on Wikipedia now, I have been engaging in discussions and contacting admins when other editors get out of hand rather than getting caught up in the spirit and "having to be right". Also, for Twinkle, it's a great tool, it makes life easier, and because of the reactions of other editors, I understand what constitutes abuse, and won't use Twinkle that way again if I should get it back. Radiopathy •talk• 00:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the link to the original discussion. My concern is this... You were placed on 1RR restriction in October. As recently as December, you broke that, and then edit-warred while blocked on your own user page after being warned that it was wrong to remove templates, and told why. Now, less than 2 months after that, you've asked for your 1RR restriction to be removed even though your contributions have been sparse. I will agree that your conduct since you returned has been much better, but I think it's far too soon to remove it. This is just my opinion, not a "final judgment" or anything. Others may disagree with me. -- Atama頭 01:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I personally would need to see a substantially longer time period of constructive and positive contributions before agreeing to lift the sanctions. This user needs to demonstrate their commitment to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. GlassCobra 03:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What if we just let the 1RR run its course, but restore Twinkle? Radiopathy •talk• 04:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Note: Twinkle blacklist discussion here. Haven't had time to review diffs, so no opinion to offer. —DoRD (?) (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

As I said, I personally would need to see a lot more empirical evidence that you can keep your cool and uphold the rules before you are allowed to have Twinkle back. Also, the 1RR sanction should not just run its course -- you were unable to follow it, so it should be reset to begin at the cessation of your most recent block. GlassCobra 05:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Atama and GlassCobra here. You will need to show appropriate behavior for a longer period of time before Twinkle can be restored, and I see no reason to remove the 1RR sanction. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

CommonsDelinker

Bot's acting up again and needs to be blocked. It replaced an appropriate image with a similarly named but irrelevant image at CSS Shenandoah DavidOaks (talk) 02:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

commons:File:Shenandoah.jpg and w:File:Shenandoah.jpg are different images, which the bot doesn't appear to able to detect. I don't believe it's so much the bot (CommonsDelinker) malfunctioning as a problem with two different images sharing a name. --auburnpilot talk 03:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The image for Shenandoah (musical) has been moved to File:Shenandoah (musical).jpg, and the commons file File:Shenandoah.jpg can now correctly display in CSS Shenandoah if you so choose. Best, --auburnpilot talk 03:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

It's already been done. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I let the owner of CommonsDelinker know about the issue, so hopefully it won't be an issue in the future. Fran Rogers (talk) 05:53, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Crysjocy

Would somebody review the page moves of Crysjocy (talk · contribs)? Something doesn't look right and multiple moves always confuses me. 76.102.12.35 (talk) 05:06, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks to me like harmless, if annoying, experimentation. He's been asked not to continue with it. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 05:33, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Please semi-protect Waterboarding

 Done

RPP is very slow. I don't know/care what "consensus" might be, is, or will become, but the thing is on probation and gets bombarded by IPs. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Semiprotected due to edit war in progress. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 06:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Need help with a situation

119.160.18.209 (talk · contribs) has been, for the past few weeks, sparring with Omirocksthisworld (talk · contribs), and they've been edit-warring on multiple articles. After a recent block, Omirocksthisworld has been toning down his aggression, but there's a lot of bad blood here, and 119. doesn't seem to understand the term "agree to disagree".

Tonight's incident seems to be spread across two articles, at WP:AN3 and WP:RPP respectively. However, while Omi has at least been civil this time, 119. seems to be feeling cheated out of an arms race and is starting to cross over into harassment, issuing ultimatums, copy-and-pasting a 3RR report Omi filed against him, and berating him for "issuing an ultimatum" (actually the bog-standard {{uw-3rr}}). Since I need to head off to bed, could a chummer take over for me? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 10:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

As I was notifying the IP, it was blocked 24h. Depending on his behavior, this thread may have been rendered moot. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 10:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And as I was writing this, ... IP Blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR, but as this IP has only been editing today, I expect we will have this Karchi based editor, using Mobilink-Infinity, back again soon. I'll have a word with Omirocksthisworld. Dougweller (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Though personally I have nothing against this editor, the fact that he was not willing to discuss issues or even attempt to reach an agreement really irritated me. At first I just kept reverting his edits hoping that the strange edits would stop or that he would start to attempt to work things out, but I think I made him angrier and he seemed to felt that it was personal. That's when the edit warring issues started and I ended up getting blocked for forgetting Wiki procedure. This time around I reported him, which I think made him feel even more like I was personally against him or something (at least thats what it looks like from his comments on my talk page). I think the main issue with the other editor is that he doesn't know English too well so when I try discussing things with him he doesn't quite understand, and it looks like he is from Pakistan because he was using derogatory words in Urdu on Talk: Younus AlGohar. Since this issue has been ongoing I think I will have to put an RFC tag on the articles that the IP has been having problems with so that this doesn't keep happening. Hopefully things will get better once different neutral editors start discussion on the talk pages. I'm very sorry for my part in all these disruptive editing wars and my mistakes with Wiki procedure. --Omi(☺) 11:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This user (who may be Falconkhe?) is today engaged in related behaviour at Sufism. See edit diff, and also earlier article history and talk page comments. Esowteric+Talk 12:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Has just returned as 119.160.36.86 and made the same change to Sufism, possibly to avoid 3RR edit war. Esowteric+Talk 15:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Falconkhe is also engaged in an edit war with Omirocksthisworld today at Younus AlGohar: see the article history. RAGS International shows a similar history of conflict. Esowteric+Talk 16:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Don't blaim me for 119 acts, what you are getting is readers response might be but I should not hold responsible for that.Its true that I have some differences with Omirocksthisworld but it doesn't mean that I was blaming for doing nothing. I always try my best to abide the rules & regulation of wikipedia--Falconkhe (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm well I don't know if it was an edit war, but he was removing the references I was adding (hopefully by mistake). His edit summaries on the article history have been confusing though. Anyway, we've been discussing it in Talk:Younus AlGohar and hopefully we can come to an understanding soon. Though I personally don't have anything against Falconkhe myself, his recent edits to Younus AlGohar, RAGS International, Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi, and pretty much all the articles/pages related to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi haven't exactly been constructive. Omi(☺) 21:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Omi you are getting confused since you are a lier but you don't know one thing that a lie has to be reveal one day. MFI and Younas are the terrorist, this is the reason you have to flee from Pakistan and this is the only reason that you people are facing legal problem in all other countries whereever, you are taking shelters, the people of MFI have misused the law of UK and used it for taking legal shelters under the umbrella of asylyme, you have misguided British Government and provide false proof (like you are doing on wikipedia) to them. We are planning to use interpole to bring younas back to Pakistan and hopefully it will not take long time.--Falconkhe (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making inappropriate/abusive comments. Esowteric+Talk 20:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Falconkhe, I don't even live in the UK, nor have I ever been to Pakistan. I understand that you aren't particularly fond of the organization and you want to have your voice heard about them. But if you want to actually contribute you need to provide reliable sources for your claims (so that it can be included in the article) Omi(☺) 21:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Greetings, I'm an editor with no ties to the religious quarrels in question, who stumbled into this issue. Falconkhe, and a number of similar-number IPs with very similar writing styles and phrasings have been engaged in constant and ongoing harassment in articles related to the religious figure Gohar Shahi. Despite all encouragements to remain objective and provide sources, Falconkhe and similar-opinion (?) IPs have continued the exact same behavior, making POV accusations both on Talk and the article, reversions, etc. Some admin attention to these patterns of misbehavior would be greatly appreciated. MatthewVanitas (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Omi, thats what I am asking you to provide with reliable sources and contribute positively, each time you come up with references of self-made websites like you are preaching self-made teaching and linked that up with HH Gohar Shahi. Please provide reliable sources for your articles.--Falconkhe (talk) 10:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not borne-out by some of your edits: "Edit diff showing removal of Falconkhe's "extremely POV comments" by an uninvolved editor Esowteric+Talk 10:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There's also a lot of jiggery-pokery going on sporadically to redirect and unredirect pages to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi, eg edit diff and edit diff involving Falconkhe and Nasiryounus Esowteric+Talk 10:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Whatever I have done, I have provide with genuine reasons and reliable sources.--Falconkhe (talk) 10:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's not correct. You've not provided any references regarding RAGS International, to which Omi did provide references which are reliable as well. And you accuse Omi of providing references that are not reliable; you might want to provide references from that.-- NY7 ☆ 06:39, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, we can just discuss the sources on the respective talk pages, and decide how reliable they are for what they are being used for there. Falconkhe, I think you could actually make the articles relating to Gohar Shahi more neutral by offering references for your claims. Otherwise, you can continue to say "So-and-so are conspiring against Gohar Shahi" but it can't be added in the articles without sources. Just, please be a little more respective towards the other editors on Wikipedia, and maybe use more descriptive edit summaries- and I'm sure things can work out. Omi(☺) 07:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The broader context for all this is that for some time several editors have been involved in a battle over any articles to do with Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi: articles about him; about his organizations; mentioning him; or redirecting to him. Editors are split into three main camps: Gohar supporters; Gohar critics and neutral editors who understand Wikipedia's requirements. Esowteric+Talk 10:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

There is also the issue of 119. editors and Falconkhe repeatedly sneaking in gratuitous Gohar Shahi references and images into articles where neutral editors see no justification for doing so. One example is the Sufism article, which Esowteric+Talk has already referred to in his 12:22, 6 February 2010 and 15:50, 6 February 2010 comments.

Also, IP user 116.71.6.86 has recently made similar reverts on a couple of Gohar Shahi related articles. They look very similar to the edits of 119.nnn.nnn.nnn. but they haven't provided any edit summaries. Omirocksthisworld(☺) 23:47, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

MFI is a self-made cult, which was establish by younas (A former disciple of gohar shahi) who was kicked-out by GS in his life. He (Younas) formed this MFI to take revenge with Gohar Shahi of his exile from ASI and started preaching self-made teachings and linked them to Gohar Shahi. The truth is younas and MFI has nothing to do with Gohar Shahi and they are preaching selfmade teachings using the name and pictures of Gohar Shahi. I would suggest following to end this edit war pertaining to younas and MFI:

1. The name & Pictures of Gohar Shahi is not used in their articles.
2. The name of Younas should be written as Muhammad Younas and not Younas Algohar, which he wrotes just to linked with Gohar Shahi. He also has hijacked the website i.e. www.goharshahi.com, which is banned by government of Pakistan due to its blasphyous contents.
3. The reference should be provide for each statement/claim.

Above three are the suggestions, hopefully you will comply with them.This is the only option in my view.--Stragewarior (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • I am not behind this, however, it was very teasing to know that Omi is talking and it seems that, he thinks I am behind this edit war but actually I am not. This edit war is really sad.--Falconkhe (talk) 14:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually these articles are not Gohar Shahi related articles, these are against Gohar Shahi. Please try to analyze the reality.

IP vandalism

Requesting aid with the latest wave of banned IP disruption on Balkans articles. More specifically the newest reincarnation of "User:ANTE RAKELA", IP 193.206.126.34 [139]. Repeated section blanking, reference removal, and classic vandalism on several articles. Is an IP block a possibility? --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 14:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

read user talk:Jimbo Wales#Ex Yugoslavia case —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.206.126.34 (talk) 15:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Detroit techno

Resolved

 – reverted -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The most recent IP address edit vandalized the Detroit techno article. Can it be saved? B-Machine (talk) 15:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted to the earlier version. See Help:reverting for more information. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Abuse by User:SunnieBG

Hello there, per WP:NPA I wouldn't have reacted to some minor personal attacks, but I think SunnieBG (talk · contribs)'s language involves a physical threat and is particularly offensive. The evidence is on my talk and in this edit summary for everybody to see.

Please not that *this is not a first offense*. The user has physically threatened me in the past as well. I don't believe this has been provoked by me in any way, my actions have always been justified and I have not responded to the personal attacks of the user. Thus, there is basically no conflict between me and the user to resolve: the behaviour is entirely one-sided.

Thanks, Todor→Bozhinov 16:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not happy with your recent repeated blanking of material that included a reference for some of it (in Bulgarian, but Google Translate was able to handle it well enough), but those diffs are far over the top. Blocked for one week. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Strangeness at Talk:Kripalu Center and Kripalu Center

After a couple of trips to wp:Wikiquette, wp:COIN, wp:POVN, I find calamitybrook (talk · contribs)'s personal attacks (1 2) and damaging edits (1) to have only slightly improved. Guidance from admins and other fellow editors on the editor's talk page, at COIN, on the article talk page are generally ignored... or the response is so impenetrable (1 2) that it seems so. I see the current state of the article as improved, but still slanted oddly. I hope that a stern warning will make it easier to work through the rest of the sources. (and yes I know that a better approach from myself would have helped) I have not notified the editor of this thread at the editor's firm request.- Sinneed 17:49, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Caesarjbsquitti soapboxing - community input requested

Resolved

 – User is blocked

As I am semi-involved I feel it necessary ask for community input in relation to restricting User:Caesarjbsquitti. There is a long term issue with his use of talkspace, his attitude toward other editors and editing in breach of WP:OR, WP:SOAP. To my mind this user has demonstrated a disregard for site standards and policies that is fundamentally incompatible with the core principles of this site fo a number of years. I suggest it is time to restrict Caesar's talk page postings, or to consider an other community sanction.--Cailil ^talk 05:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Report

Caesarjbsquitti (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
User:Caesarjbsquitti is continuing to use this site, its article pages, its talk space and its user space to push his ideas. Caesarjbsquitti has published a book which he uses his user page to advertise in breach of WP:USER and WP:AD [140]. He uses talkspace to lecture us all on how 'The truth can lie' and has been doing so for years.[141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148]
He has accused this site, its sysops, and other volunteers of intimidation and censorship [149][150][151][152][153]
But the issue is that User:Caesarjbsquitti is soapboxing and forum posting on this site in relation to multiple topics. He repeated this behaviour today. Rather than block him I warned him again, and again (explaining why), and again. He hasn't listened[154][155][156]. (please note also he posted the same stuff to two pages [157][158]) Therefore I'm bringing this to the community in order to request broader input on the situation.

History

He was topic banned from 9/11 articles for soapboxing[159], he was blocked twice for it[160], he has been repeatedly warned over the course of years[161][162][163][164][165][166][167] but he is not listening.

I'm restricting evidence to edits since his topic ban in June 2008. For anyone interested in his behaviour before that please see this for an indicative situation and conversation related to the topic Devil.

Soapboxing since the 2008 topic ban

• Relevant policies & guidelines: WP:TPG, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTFORUM & WP:BATTLE

On Talk:English language[168] [169][170][171].
On Talk:Thallium [172]
On Medicine_in_China[173]
On Talk:Crohn's disease[174]
About feminism and bias against men[175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183][184][185][186][187][188]
On Talk:Pornography[189][190][191]
On 'abuse' topics (watch out for repeated phrases like censorship, hidden agenda etc) [192][193][194][195][196]
On Talk:Political correctness[197][198]

Multiposting

• Relevant policies WP:POVPUSH, WP:MULTI, WP:TPG,

On Vitamin talk pages[199][200][201][202][203][204][205]

On domestic violence topic articles (June 2008)[206][207][208] - please note the coatrack issue in this case.

Thanks for taking the time to review this--Cailil ^talk 05:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Caesar's response

The issue of this complaint deals with the listing for Violence against LGBT People

The problem with the entry is that it polarizes the issue, as do many of the past entries on abuse, most notable againt men, and against the heterosexual community. Here is the reference provided.

A most notable case involved a bisexual women who killed her boyfriend, by becoming involved with a lesbian woman,Bisexual Girlfriend found guilty of axe murder

I will try to find another link. The fact as you say that the CBC does not make mention of the sexual orientation, (while other sites do) shows how censorship of this situation is quite prominent in North America, or at least Canada...Guilty verdict in lesbian axe murder

This article in the Toronto Sun makes mention of a lesbian, (the CBC report states same sex. Another article title refers to a bi-sexual woman. (good case study for political correctness ?)Toronto woman in court in bisexual love-triangle murder case

This article must remove gender or orientation biases because it is discriminatory. While it is true this group can be victimized by others, they also can be victimized by themselves and they can also be abusers.

The issue is addressed by someone else as well...Violence by LGBT

As a researcher of deceptive truths, ie half-truths it is important to overcome this deceptive and flawed type of reasoning. --Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all Caesar this issue is not about the content of your posts but rather the form. What you are demanding is that article about violence against women and violence against LGBT people remove the gender category from them. These articles are about gender based violence not violence in general. Your posts are criticisms of the subject and that kind of posting is not permitted as per WP:TPG and WP:FORUM. You've had this explained to you multiple times - in fact you were just blocked for this kind of post last winter. The reason I brought this here was to discuss with the wider community what to do about it--Cailil ^talk 18:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out to you that...You say that the artilce is about gender based violence well violence against women can also be perpetruated on women in general by some women. (In lesbian relationships the violence is by women against women.) Enough has been said about the anti-male, anti-heteroseuxal approach of the current models dealing with violence and abuse. 10 years ago much of this matter was being censored by individuals with a conflict of interest.

In so far as violence against LGBT you suggest that it is by non LGBT, and that is incorrect. There are lesbians who abuse homosexuals, there are homosexuals who abuse lesbians, and on and on...To merely paint heterosexuals as THE abusers is a deceptive half-truth.

The example given in the talk page, that of a bi-sexual woman and her lesbian female lover killing the bi-sexuals boyfriend suggests we have to rethink our model of violence against LGBT to include violence by LGBT, or we can include examples of LGBT members abusering other members of the LGBT group, as a matter of fairness. The current models are one sided, unfair, sexist and biased. The evidence is clear, and someone should change the listing to be more inclusive and non-discriminatory.

Many postings are a conflict of interest.--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Caesar because you made quite a serious allegation I am going to directly ask a number of editors to review this situation in the hope that the wider community will weigh in--Cailil ^talk 22:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Further none of the remarks you have attributed to me in the above post reflect anything that I have said. Also please remember this not about the content of your postings but rather the form--Cailil ^talk 22:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I note that the issue is 'neutrality' of the topics involved and an attempt to censor my postings and or comments to suggest an improvement. On the one hand after repeated 'criticisms' that are clearly in keeping with trying to keep the wikipeida neutral, there are some with a hidden agenda who would rather see me not posting. Sadly, many with a conflict of interest. If you do a cross section analysis of them you may find the key.

Let history show that in all the comments on this listing, not once did the analysis of the fact that some within the LGBT community can also abuse was addressed.

While at first my postings were being deleted even after being referenced, it became obvious that even posting to the 'talk' page to improve the wikipedia articles, even with providing legitimate sources was not acceptable to some.

This reminds me of how the radical feminists, and how some radical lesbian feminists were able to corrupt the models of abuse, first the children's aid society with the model, "men who abuse, women and children victims' and then the spousal models with the slogan, "Stop violence against women..." including the incident involved Ms. Simpson whose sister ignored the simple truth that a Mr. Goldberg was also murdered in the incident.

Thanks for your time and consideration....--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 19:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Here is another source to your article that should be dealt with.

• • What about the killing of the great Italian DesignerGianni Versace by Andrew Cunanan.

I am begining to understand how someone can be railroaded based on a conflict of interest, and or hidden agenda.--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 19:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Caesar, first I don't have any "hidden agenda" - please stop assuming bad faith. Second, this is in your hands but you're not listening. Durova has given good advice please read it and consider it. And remember this is about how you use talk-space not about sources or other content matters. Third, by using this page as a soapbox you aren't helping yourself - please reconsider this approach--Cailil ^talk 20:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Your arguments about the posting that necessitated this, (that appeared just after another concern about the LGBT group appear illogical. You use truths non-critically to paint a rather poor picture of my postings. I suggest you address the issue, the posting, that sparked this latest concern, and that is what talk pages are for. Let me repeat this again. The current listing is impartial, unfair, biased, one sided. My suggestion was to improve it and yet you have not given me a reason why it should not be added, merely attack me--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Caesar, this is not the place to discuss content but briefly: you want to add a source (a news item that alleges a women's female lover killed her boyfriend on that woman's request) to Violence against women and violence against LGBT people. But this source is not about violence against women or LGBT people, I told you that there[209], as did User:C.Fred[210]. You use the source to criticize the subject of the articles. This is a) not relevant to the article and b) not acceptable use of an article talkpage.
Please listen Caesar, I don't want you to get banned if you are willing to be a productive editor - but you have threatened me, verbal insulted me and accused me of conflicts of interest without basis. This kind of behaviour is not acceptable on a site founded on principles of civility and assumptions of good faith. If you retract (strike) these remarks immediately I will ignore them if not I must follow site protocol for dealing with harassment. It's your choice. The door is still open - you can convince people that you are willing to work within the rules and standards of this site. The work you did today on Sinusitis is good. You can continue to do good work if you recognize what you've been doing wrong--Cailil ^talk 22:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Outside views

Cailil has asked me to review this thread. The soapboxing is worrisome, especially since it appears to have continued on other subjects unabated since the implementation of a topic ban. The issue is not whether Caesarjbsquitti's opinions are correct but whether he presents them in ways that are compatible with Wikipedia's structure and mission. Article talk pages exist to discuss specific improvements to articles; they are not forums for sharing personal opinions about a subject. Has there been any formal dispute resolution attempted recently? Other than the topic ban this editor's block log is short. It might be that a constructive approach such as a user conduct request for comment could steer things toward a more productive and wiki-compatible direction. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 23:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Durova. The last DR attempted was in relation to English language in September 2009. Caesar had WP:FORUM explained to him again then. And after 4 warnings was brought here. Caesar's response to this was to assume bad faith of the others involved rather than engage with the policy issue [211][212](same text posted twice - and BTW the first diff shows him altering an archived ANI thread). Apart from his talk postings to Talk:Violence against LGBT people, Talk:Violence against women, his replies on his own talk page[213][214], and the posts here Caesar has only made one edit to wikipedia since his last block - so there has been no chance to engage with him through WP:DR--Cailil ^talk 00:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Calil has asked me to review this thread. I have in fact enountered Caeserjbsquitti many times in the past. I have never been involved in a conflict with him. However, I have only seen him use talk pages for soap-boxing, and have never seen him constructively edit an article; any edits I have followed were reverted by someone else. I endorse Durova's point that talk pages are for the purpose of improving articles. Frankly Caeser's statement at this thread, "As a researcher of deceptive truths, ie half-truths it is important to overcome this deceptive and flawed type of reasoning." makes the case against him quite well. For all the time that he has ben at Wikipedia, he still does not understand that (1) Wikipedia is not about truth but about verifiability and (2) not a place for an editor to forward his or her own views. Yet Caeser admits that is all he wishes to do here. Frankly, I think Caser should be banned, out and out. I m calling for a community ban, because Caeser has never shown any indication ofagreeing to or being willing to work within the framework of our core policies and to the contrary simply hijacks talk pages to promote his own views. Can anyone provide one example of a substantive improvement he made to any - any - article?

His allegations against Cailil are for me the last straw. I do not know Cailil well, but I do know that s/he has worked very hard on a number of actual articles, making major contributions to the encyclopedia. Morover I have seen him/her involved in edit conflicts where s/he has always shown patience in working towards a compromise based on core content plicies. In short, one of our best eidtors. Bor Caeser, who is nothing but a POV pusher, to criticise Ailil, who works hard to make this a better encyclopedia, is in my view perverse.

If people think my call for a community ban is too hash I ask people to propose soething less harsh but that will allow us to police his actions for a finite period of time to see whether a ban is justified. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Disagree, the last posting was well referenced, and yet the posting has not been addressed as to its validity.--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying SLR. And just so everyone understands - whenever Caesar has been brought under the spotlight he has always declared that people who do so "have an agenda" not just myself (per [215][216][217][218])--Cailil ^talk 00:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Cailil you have not addressed the referenced material, merely attack me, trying to ban me from wikipedia. A site that I have spent alot of time on.--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 18:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Also it should perhaps be noted that there is a WP:KETTLE element to his use of WP:COI - when if you look at his userpage and many of his posts he attempts to promote his book--Cailil ^talk 00:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are misinterpreting my comments...they are suggestions based on relevant incidents that are not included in the postings. They are obvious truths that are being ignored.

For example, "The Stop violence against women" campaigns, is an obvious error when it relates to spousal abuse. Child abuse has also been corrupted within recent history.

There are many 'feminists' and others who would deliberately ignore these obvious truths to promote their obvious sexist censorship of valid truths; I have sought repeatedly to merely introduce suggestions to the talk pages for someone else to take the initiative to make changes to the official page.

I thank you for your comments, but I do not see anyone refuting the truth that 'gays, lesbians and bisexuals abuse as well, sometimes each other and sometimes those outside their group" Should you not be addressing the validity of my comments to see whether they are merely opinion or verifiable facts that should be included ?

It appears by the comments made in attack of my comments, that the individual who has started this has 'invited' individuals. I might suggest a more objective and unbiased group.--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Please note: When you click Save, your changes will immediately become visible to everyone. If you wish to run a test, please edit the Sandbox insead."

"Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources. Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view."

I might ask that you address the link that I have provided and either accept it into the article or establish another one. This was not mere 'soapboxing' as Cilil states.

He identifies as being male, with intersts in atheism, a feminist. But when I suggest that there is obvious anti-male postings he as a male does not defend them as a male would, suggesting to me a problem of logic. Yes I digress, but I do not appreciate being censored or threatened when I point out how articles are unfair,unbalanced, and anti-heterosexual.

When I have more time I will come back with some more research findings...--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding a posting to the English Language that was brought up. If i recall correctly I heard on the CBC that someone had written a book about the english language, specifically that one of the major contributors was a criminal genius who wrote from prison. To this suggestion I was met with resistence. The idea was totally rejected, and more. I used the talk page to suggest an improvement rather than making the change itself. The source was never entered into nor considered.

In regards to conspiracies about 9-11, again suggestions were gathered from reputable TV programs, and again met with censorship, and resistence.

Getting back to the page that started this attack, would someone check the link and suggest whether this is valid and what improvments will be made to include the truth of that matter.--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What about the killing of the great Italian Designer Gianni Versace by Andrew Cunanan ?--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Caesar no I have not addressed the content (the source you wish to add to Violence against women and Violence against LGBT people) because this is not about that source. This is about how you have been using talkpages for years. How you have ignored policy, warnings, blocks and topic bans - all designed to help you recognize that you are going about using this site improperly. And no I am not "trying to get you banned". I, rather than block you, brought this to the wider community in order to ask them what to do. When you accused me of a conflict of interest I contacted 3 volunteers Durova, Slrubenstein and Jehochman. I also made a point of stating this here on this thread - as did the people replying. This was done so that other, uninvolved people might enter the conversation - now other editors are voicing their opinions on what to do. Slrubenstein suggested a ban, other users agree. You have been advised of policy for a very long time - you have chosen to accuse others of bad faith rather than recognize the problem at your end. You may still be able to change people's minds if you could demonstrate a willingness and ability to accept and abide by site policy and guidelines about talk page postings and the general core principles of the site--Cailil ^talk 18:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

You are using truths out of context to try to get me banned by yourself. The issue that brought up this last attack of myself stems from my posting some suggestion that the entry about violence against LGBT, does not include violence by LGBT against LGBT. I have given you a specific link resource. Now you seem to be coatraking all other concerns over the past years to censor me. You have not addressed the suggestion that was a simple attempt to add balance to the article. I would suggest a full inquiry into you, your background, who you are, (you are hiding under a false name) and why your beliefs are attempting to hide a simple truth about the LGBT group.

There is no mention of the many hundreds of entries I have added; an error of omission over the past 4 years.

When I have more time I will get back to this concern. My involvement in wikipedia has been reduced in part due to the resistence to exposing some simple information that appears to be politically incorrect by some like yourself, and you are doing a fine job in using truths to ban me from this.

I will hope you will do all you can in adding balance to many of the articles including how many of them today, are out of balance, (as one other person mentioned on the site previous to my posting) about violence (and abuses ) by the LGBT group.--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"Caesar no I have not addressed the content (the source you wish to add to Violence against women and Violence against LGBT people) because this is not about that source. This is about how you have been using talkpages for years."

Your last response is questionable. I made a simple suggestion and sourced it to add balance and fairness to the entry. You appear to have a conflict with that, otherwise why would you not enter it, nor defend it ?

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 22:12, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Community ban discussion

It is proposed that User:Caesarjbsquitti be indefinitely banned from editing Wikipeda:

• Support indef ban The talk page comments aren't productive, and I see a total of four article edits since August 2009. AniMate 07:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Just ban him already if that post above is an example of what he's coming out with (seems to be). He's obviously determined to get "The Truth"(TM) into Wikipedia come hell or high water, regardless of any of our policies.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban I have warned him many times over the years. Its about time. -DJSasso (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban - I have run across this editor in the past, and I've often hoped that he would reform after Wikipedia policy was explained to him. This hope was misplaced, since he does not listen. So if he continues to edit, we should expect more of the same. EdJohnston (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban - An editor, accused of soapboxing, uses the situation as an opportunity for more soapboxing (complaining about feminism, etc.). I don't see the editor capable of being neutral enough to edit Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 23:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
• Conditional oppose. ANI discussions are not dispute resolution attempts. Formal dispute resolution at Wikipedia takes six forms: wikiquette alerts, article content request for comment, user conduct request for comment, mediation cabal, mediation committee, and arbitration. Balancing respect for Cailil with good faith here. Caesarjbsquitti, you can see where this is headed. Your actions to this point are not compatible with site mission. If you are interested in receiving feedback and adjusting to our norms, please state so clearly. I am offering to certify a conduct RfC in place of an immediate siteban. It's not meant to humiliate--more about giving feedback and getting things on course. Sometimes we all have to put our personal opinions in our pockets and be editors first. If you're willing to get on board with that please say so. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 02:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I can't see how an RfC would be helpful here. Looking through his talk page history, acceptable Wikipedia editing practices have been explained plenty of times. Everything he can possibly learn from an RfC is either here or no his talk page. The only reason more serious sanctions weren't leveled against him in 2008, was because he was only focused on 9/11 at that time. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive22#User:Caesarjbsquitti_and_unsourced_POV shows his problems have been going on for over two years now, and looking at this, he isn't prolific enough of a content contributor to warrant any sort of leeway for his numerous and years long talk page violations. Sorry, there's assuming good faith and there's being a glutton for punishment. AniMate 04:58, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm also unsure how much of a dispute there is here. This just looks like flat out abuse by one editor in multiple forums. AniMate 05:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
    • This is an opportunity: if he steps up and expresses in a no nonsense way that he's willing to get with the program then let's give real dispute resolution a go. This person has been talking at (not to) the community and the community has been talking at (not to) him. One straightforward offer on the level is appropriate. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 06:02, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Occasionally we've seen it before. Remember last year when swine flew? Durova⁴⁰⁹ 20:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• • • • Such an offer would be the triumph of hope over experience. Pigs will fly and hot places will be covered with ice before this editor will step up and offer to get with the program. Do you see any comprehension of Wikipedia policy in the comments he has made above? EdJohnston (talk) 06:57, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • I get where you're coming from Durova and as I said to Caesar above, if he can work within site regulations and be a productive editor I'd prefer if he wasn't site banned. I understand how distressing this process probably is for Caesar. So if he can demonstrate a willingness to recognize what he's been doing wrong and undertakes to adjust his postings I'd be happy to support something much lesser than a siteban. But his response demanding my identity "be investigated" is not encouraging.
    That said I don't think an RfC/U would help in this case. There isn't a dispute per se to resolve. Some other measure: restricting his talk activities to one talk page thread (with posts conforming to WP:TPG, WP:EQ and WP:FORUM) per day with an uninvolved sysop to monitor him for 12 months. And/or a topic ban from truth, lies, abuse, violence, men's rights and feminism topics for 12 months--Cailil ^talk 10:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
    • If this editor doesn't respond positively then the ban will go through as proposed. At least he's had a fair chance. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 20:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban. I see a long history of abuse of the project, and no sign of willingness to change this behaviour. Also, the problematic behaviour is spread out so far and wide that a mere topic ban will be ineffective to curb it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
• We appear to have a consensus. Does anyone object if I go ahead and enforce the ban? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• I blocked. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:59, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Official Shakespears Sister And Siobhan Fahey Web Site

Arhcive: Thank you FisherQueen for visiting our forum. I have uploaded the evidence here:: www. shakespears sister.co.uk/SFTRR.jpg (please remove the space between shakespears and sister ) I would like to complain here myself for the unfair treatment from XinJeisan, who in my opinion has totally acted in an unprofessional manner. Firstly; Songs From The Red Room, is not sold via the website, as it is a new release and availble via retailers during its Charting period. Websites very rarely sell new releases through their own web site, they usually provie and external link to another retailer, as we have done. Secondly, I totally think that XinJeisan is talking of another L Dennison, as I have no idea what that discussion is about on Ron Livingstons talk page. I can confirm I am the webmaster of both Jacquie O'Sullivan and Siobhan Fahey, both former members of Bananarama. Jacquie O'sullivan did work for L Dennison Associates where she casted dancers for music videos productions. My "attacks" on XinJesian were not exactly attacks, they were simply my opinion, and at first i was polite when I asked to why these sites were being removed. But my frustration, built as clearly Xinjesian and Momusfan clearly were not researching the matter properly. Finally, as for advertising, it has always been a well known fact to fans that the MGA Sessions was strictly a web site release! Sold exclusively on Fahey's old web site siobhanfahey.com, and now sold on her new site shakespears sister. co. uk. This wasnt an advertisment, it was helpful information to fans. Thank you for taking time to review this matter. And for the record, shakespears sister.co.uk should eb applied to both Siobhan Fahey and Shakespears Sister wiki pages, as Shakespears Sister is Siobhan Fahey. May i also ad that Xinjesian claims that i have used multiple IPS is totally untrue and with propper research you can see this. I have the one IP address, and my service provider is not Carphone warehouse and never has been. I think Xinjesian saw that our forum members were trying to add the site in support of Siobhan, and he/she has assumed/accused me of chaging my IP address. I really do not appreciate being accused of that. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that the image in question seems to show that this is indeed the official web site, I think that it should be removed from the blacklist. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Accounts

• Antmarkhemingway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 92.13.53.79 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.6.238.202 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.10.15.171 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.12.126.195 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.3.104.60 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.8.226.103 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.9.69.179 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.0.153.204 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.3.214.51 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Registrant(Owner) of these sites is Anthony Hemingway (AKA Antmarkhemingway (talk · contribs))^[219][220]. Long term spamming and abuse including Moving ones own link "UP", which is never a sign of good faith, and off site harassment and personal attacks origionating on the site in question. I Would find it difficult to believe this is anything more than a fan-spammed-site. I see no need for the continued disruption, harassment and abuse that has occured by this individual.--Hu12 (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Hu12. I suspect that Antmarkhemingway is running sanctioned fansites with permission from Jacquie O'Sullivan and Siobhan Fahey (so "official" in a manner of speaking). However, even if these were official sites registered to the band/record company/individuals involved, there's nothing to say that we have to include them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost and not here to drive web traffic to external sites or provide a fan service. Unfortunately we can only go by the behaviour we observe and Antmarkhemingway has done his sites no favours by behaving like a spammer. Looking at the history of spamming and disruption, I see no compelling reason why these sites should be unblacklisted. EyeSerene^talk 10:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hu12 is being very petty now i think! And this is not meant in a rude way, but if you knew anything about the internet, a persons IP changes regular, so that is something that is not my problem. Why would i go through the trouble to change my IP address for the sake of editing here? I am a webmaster and know full well that IP addresses are traceable even when changed. Shakespearssister.co.uk is Siobhan Fahey's web site and port of call. All news is posted their, and it is the place for media and fans alike. Those interviews you refer to on the wikipage were actually arranged via ss.co.uk!!! It is not a "fan site", and i really wish you would stop using that term, as you are really getting quite annoying now. Wikipedia has used information from ss.co.uk, but when teh contributors try and reference ss.co.uk they haven't been able to! Antmarkhemingway (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If the band itself publishes the address as the go-to site on its albums, I'm not sure why it would not be an 'official' site. I don't really understand why this site is blacklisted, and I'm not convinced it's 'spamming' to have it in the article; most musician articles include the musician's main site with no problems. The band doesn't appear to be obscure or non-notable, after all. I have been horrified by some of the uncivil behavior I've seen from some of the people trying to add it, but we don't usually blacklist sites for that reason. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There are such things as "official" fansites, where the quality and expertise of the host created pages serve as useful publicity tools - and whose addresses are reproduced on some of the artists products. I know, because I belong to one. This doesn't mean that what is reproduced there is necessarily representative of the subject, since it is the editorial decision of the site owner, but the relationship is sufficiently beneficial to be given "official" recognition. While not an unreliable source, such sites should be treated with caution when it is the only available reference. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense; I'm willing to let this be decided by people more learned in the subject than me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

May i ad for one final time that this is certainly not a "fan site" it fully represents the band. But how can i prove this? Just becasue the site isnt registered to Shakespears Sister??? I purchased the domain and hosting in my name as i pay for the hosting on behalf of Siobhan fahey. All i ask is people just take a look at the site and look at its content, its clearly represenative of the band and all the information on the site is 100% correct and accurate. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think what generally separates a "fan site" from an "official site" is that the former is amateur (as in "labour of love") and the latter is professional. Are you paid by Siobhan Fahey or her management, or do you do this as a fan? Your comment about paying for hosting "on behalf of" Fahey is a bit confusing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Is it possible to link to a statement from the artiste(s) (management) saying the website is the sole legal online representative of said artiste(s). This might be linked from the artistes record label or management website. It should also note where editorial control is exercised, and by whom. Another avenue, likely preferred by WP, would be if an independent source noted that the site was the official online representation of the subject(s). That said, I would draw your attention to thebansheesandothercreatures, whose address has recently appeared on releases by Siouxsie & the Banshees, The Creatures, and Siouxsie Sioux and is linked from their official sites and record label websites, and that of Steven Severin. Despite this "recognition" (and the accuracy of its content) it remains a fan site since the editor - who owns the site - is independent of the artists; it is one of the acknowledged "official" fansites. Under the circumstances, clarification of the status of "your" website is required before WP can describe it as being that of the subjects. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes the site is linked on the bands record label web site http://www.cargorecords.co.uk/artist/5136 Thanks, Antmarkhemingway (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. What about statements to the effect that the site is legally the official website from Fahey, her management or record label, or an independent third party to that effect, and whether you are acting on behalf of or are an employee of the artist or their record label? I would draw your attention to the earlier comments also from HU12 and EyeSerene regarding your interaction with other editors and inappropriate "promoting" of the website. Even if the website is removed from the blacklist, there would need to be an improvement in your behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that Cargo Records is a 'distributor of independant records labels" [221], and not the artist's label. XinJeisan (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. but that just came with the fustration. it isnt hugely important that the site is listed here, but i just think it looks better, as most other artists have their sites linked. I will refrain from editing the Siobhan Fahey page and Shakespears sister page, and will let whoever ad it Antmarkhemingway (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC).

I think that might be helpful. It's edits like this that sparked my concern; it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for and casts doubt on your motives for editing the article. Per WP:ELNO criterion 1, we only need include external links that add content beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. That's deliberately a very high bar; if the external site's content is already covered by the article (perhaps as a source for the content), we don't need to include it as a separate external link as it adds no extra value. Exceptions are offsite content that we can't host for whatever reason (for example, the original text of a document that's discussed in an article but that can't be quoted in full without breaching someone's copyright). Like LHvU I have some reservations about using the site as a source, but that's another discussion. EyeSerene^talk 11:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

But couldn't we at least have the site listed on the URL of Siobhan Fahey's profile. Its only fair i think. Bananarama's website doesnt offer any further information thats on their wikipedia and their site is on here, even their youtube and myspace are listed! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bananarama I was told that youtubes and myspaces were not allowed, so thats is why i took all this a persoanl dig at the band, because it seemed Siobhan's former band was allowed their site, youtube, myspace etc. but not her, This wa my issue all along. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• If Antmarkhemingway withdraws from editing the article I think there should be no reason to have the site unblacklisted and placed in the appropriate place in the article. As long as it is not being used or promoted as a reliable source then I feel it may well be included. Does anybody know how to do the unblacklist thingy? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I will certainly withdraw from editing the article. I would just be very happy to see the site in the URL section of Siobhan Fahey and Shakespears Sister's profile pages if possible as they are very reliable sources. All information on SS.co.uk is accurate and approved by Siobhan (afterall, she did write the bio), I just thought it would be fair, since, as stated above, Wikipedia actually has MORE information on Bananarama than their official site does itself, in my honest opinion, and their site and youtube channels are listed. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC) And I also would like to appologuise for past behaviour, and i feel like i have learnt a lot about Wikipedia from the experience, and appreciate it much more. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Have we been able to reach a decission on this matter? Please let me know Antmarkhemingway (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

• • This issue was archived but it has not yet been resolved. Is the site going to unblacklisted? Sorry for puuting this topic back here if i wasnt suppose to Antmarkhemingway (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC). Moved here to preserve chronological order. EyeSerene^talk 12:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

The sites involved (from the blacklist) are:

• jacquieoh.com
• shakespearssister.co.uk
• facebook.com/ShakespearsSisterOfficial
• bananaramafanclub.freehostking.com

We appear to have some weak consensus that the first two can be removed - anyone else care to comment? EyeSerene^talk 12:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I would be happy enough for the first two to be taken off the blacklist - they could prove useful for a reader of the article. The latter two I feel fall under WP:NOTLINK. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, the latter two are not needed. As I have learned, Facebook pages are not allowed, official or not, am I correct? So that one is ok. The Bananaramafanclub can go, im not sure if that even exists anymore, it was a site i uploaded on behalf of a fan who used to run a fan service, and is not official Antmarkhemingway (talk) 14:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

I'd suggest to remove the first two, and add them to their own pages here (and not anywhere else). Antmarkhemingway, you might want to have a look at WP:OTHERLINKS/WP:WAX (that other links are somewhere else, is not a reason to include yours, it might be a reason to remove the other, but it may also be that the others are discussed and deemed appropriate), and consider that we do not have to link, even to thé official site. We link as we assert that it gives more information. Unwillingness to discuss before inclusion, or other attempts to push a link may indeed lead to (re-)blacklisting, especially when the pushy editor has a conflict of interest regarding the subject.

Shall I go on an remove them from the blacklist? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, it seems we agree that the first two should be removed. I don't mind doing it, but since you've offered, Dirk... :) EyeSerene^talk 17:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, you have been most helpful. Both sites do offer further information, such as latest events and extensive biographies. The Shakespears Sister site would be best added to both Siobhan Fahey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siobhan_Fahey and Shakespears sister http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shakespears_Sister pages, as Shakespears Sister is pretty much now Siobhan Fahey, and the site is mainly based on her, but former band member(s) are breifly included. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC).

Apparently Dirk has gone offline, so I've updated the spam blacklist myself. Since you've undertaken not to edit them, I'll also add the sites to the articles. Other editors may have different ideas and there's no guarantee they'll stay in the articles forever - if they do get removed again, by all means point the editors concerned to this thread (which will be in the ANI archives), but please don't add them back in yourself :) All the best, EyeSerene^talk 18:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I am not an administrator, but I didn't realize that any consensus was reached about the .jaquieoh website. I didn't originally bring this to ANI to discuss whether blacklisting the websites was a good idea or not -- which was never directly discussed nor did Antmarkhemingway copy the entire discussion over when he was looking for a decision to be made in his favor. But my complaint towards Antmarkhemingway's behavior changed to a discussion about whether the decision to blacklist was correct.

I stated if the SS site was taken off the blacklist, I would think that would be okay, as long as it was not used as a source for the article. However, if there was any discussion about whitelisting the jaquieoh site, I would have disagreed strongly. I already mentioned why The Jacquie O'Sullivan article itself is unsourced -- it is quite difficult to find reliable sources about her -- I've tried. (You can see the work I have done on Shakespears Sister and Siobhan Fahey, for example here, here, (this last edit was actually removed here by someone trying to put back in the ss website, even though I had properly sourced the material with reliable sources), here, and here. So, I haven't just spent my time removing the one site, I actively worked to improve the articles in the spirit of Wikipedia. However, there is not a reliable source that states Jacquie O'Sullivan was a casting director at all. And, while on Talk:Jacquie O'Sullivan he seemed to admit that this wasn't accurate (see this diff), here he states that not only was O'Sullivan a casting director, but that she has worked for Lee Dennison So, putting an website that in the past has put up incorrect/unverifiable information doesn't seem right to me. Also, also the diffs here and here seem to contradict what he said here about what IP he uses.

I just wanted to put this here in the record so people realize why these websites were blacklisted and why originally I wanted to bring this to the community's attention.XinJeisan (talk) 20:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be talking about two separate issues. The first is including the sites on the articles in question, which seems to have been reasonably settled. With my editor's hat on I see no harm in listing them in the External links section, but would not recommend including them in the infobox; although they are clearly approved of by the artists, I don't believe they are 'official' in the sense most of us might use the word (as in directly paid for by the artists or operated/owned by paid representatives). The second is using them as source material for the article content; again with my editor's hat on I think this is more problematic. They may be mostly accurate, but as Antmarkhemingway indicated above they are not necessarily secondary sources and should be treated with caution. EyeSerene^talk 09:09, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I was indeed offline by that time, thanks EyeSerene for the removal.

The reason to blacklist was the pushing behaviour, abuse of the link, and the surrounding behaviour of the spammers. I agree that this seems more a 'band approved fan-site' than the official band site, and should be treated as such.

I would say that we need to keep an eye on this one and revisit its use after this moment. I think/hope Antmarkhemingway has gotten the message that we include links after consensus and discussion, and I hope that we will see use of the link, and not abuse. De-blacklisting a link has in common with blacklisting that neither have to be permanent. Regarding Jacquie O'Sullivan, I would say, see if it can be sourced, if they is notable enough, etc. If that fails, WP:AFD might be worth to see if something comes up. When the article would be deleted, then there would simply be no use for the link, but as long as there is no abuse, we don't need to re-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are very much my thoughts too. Given Antmarkhemingway's assurances, I believe the underlying reason for keeping the sites blacklisted has been addressed. I'll keep the articles watchlisted though. The lack of sourcing on Jacquie O'Sullivan is a concern, especially with WP:BLP being enforced increasingly strictly. Suitable sources should exist - she was in one of the most successful bands of the time. I assume we're OK with Antmarkhemingway participating constructively on the article talk-pages per WP:TALK? They obviously know the subjects, so might be of help in locating reliable sources. EyeSerene^talk 10:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• I am more than happy to help in anyway in the future, but will leave links to the powers that be! I am not paid for Jacquie O'Sullivan/Slippry Feet's web site, and yes I guess its pretty much an approved fan site if you look at it from that angel, and this is simply due tot the fact jacquie has gone quiet and there is no news to update. If she records music again one day, then the site will be updated appropriately. Jacquie did participate in the site during its first few months, but she got busy and Paul Simper (former band mate, Slippry Feet) finished it off with me. A Siobhan fahey's site is slightly different, it is her represensative website, which I am paid for, BUT, i make the initial payment and then reinbursed later... this is why the i am the registered owner, i know its not ideal, but thats just the way things turned out. Again, thank you for your understanding, and I hope to work with you on this in future, not against you! Also can I just varify that I never changed my IP address. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 10:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

I'm glad we've managed to hammer out a positive solution between us, which was due in large part to your cooperation - so thank you for that. Regarding the IP addresses, I accept that they were not yours. As you suggest, most likely they came from your forum members; it's not unusual that off-Wikipedia groups organise when they believe we're being unfair to their interests. I hope we've demonstrated that such activity is counter productive and the best results come from collegiate collaboration and consensus-building. I also hope XinJeisan's concerns have been addressed as far as we can; sourcing problems are a content issue and beyond the remit of this board (though of course if other difficulties reoccur XinJeisan should bring them back to ANI). Suggestions for resolving content disputes can be found at WP:DR and the reliable sources noticeboard may also be of help. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 18:27, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes im very happy we have resolved this and i hope there is no bad feelings between me and Xinjeisan! they were doing there job. I do understand that some of those IPS belong to me, as im sure if anyone checks with an IP expert of some kind, IPs do changed themselves (the last digits), depending on the browsing session etc. i would never sit and intentionally change my address. IPs can sometimes give themselves new idnetities while browsing certain sites for protection if you have that kind of antiviral software. So maybe this could explain a few IPs on my name? Anyways, I am glad all is resolved and i will be happy to help further in the future Antmarkhemingway (talk) 21:20, 9 February 2010 (UTC).

Racist editor in need of a vacation

Unresolved

 – blocked a week

Neyagawa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been trying to push some pov in a controversial area (classification of the Korean language) and after being reverted for not discussing it, he decided to throw some racist comments down on the pages of a couple of users who reverted him [222], [223], [224]. I can't really see any value in his further participation.--Crossmr (talk) 11:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

and my reversion and note on his page garnered the same [225].--Crossmr (talk) 11:25, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for a week, this is clearly unacceptable. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:30, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering how few his contributions number (only a little over a hundred I think in the last year) and the obvious hatred there, not sure how much effect that is going to have.--Crossmr (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, it's just a first warning block basically. If he continues like this, he'll immediately be indef'ed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

And he's asking to be unblocked [226]...--Crossmr (talk) 11:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Unblock declined, left my rationale in the decline message. --Taelus (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

They listed another unblock request shortly after my decline however. --Taelus (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Also declined. EyeSerene^talk 12:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

After taking a closer look at this editors contribs, I'm not sure this is resolved. It seems the editor is engaged mostly in edits that seem to damage articles in attempts to promote (in some cases falsely) Korea, and remove references to Japan from existing articles. They've frequently been reverted as vandalism. See this series of edits on Taipei 101 [227], and this series of edits on movable type [228] or in this edit where he removes cited content without explanation [229], which may have something to do with his anti-chinese bias, or here [230] here removes a map for no reason, and here again on movable type he removes a reference to china [231]. The more I look, the more I'm convinced there is nothing useful coming from this editor. Also this attempt at name POV pushing on a couple articles [232], [233]--Crossmr (talk) 17:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree, but as Future Perfect notes above this block is in the nature of a shot across the bows. If they resume in the same vein when/if they return, the next block will probably be indef. It doesn't hurt to give people a chance to reform though. EyeSerene^talk 19:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wait, am I missing something here? I was indeffed for far less. I realize my block was overturned, but this seems pretty egregious. Multiple uses of "chink", a slur of the same severity as "faggot" or "nigger" seems thoroughly deserving of an indef the first time. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, not to be all comparative (WP:NOTTHEM) but...well, as you said, YOU were unblocked. I HIGHLY doubt this guy will be--unlike you, he meant HIS stuff to be taken non-satirically. (And incidentally, can I throw in a much-belated :::THWAP::: on the head for that OMG-WTF-were-you-thinking attempt-at-humor diff? Because I obviously missed the Drama Club meeting that led to your indef, and...well, there's a long story attached to why I would have argued on your behalf, but before you were allowed to go free I would have subjected you to proper justice: a skull-thwap with a frozen food item of some substantial mass. Because...seriously, dude. "LOL" and "cringe" only belong together for SPOKEN humor; in print, they go wrong the moment before you start to type them. Words to live by from the terminally inappropriate...) GJC 00:51, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not defending my actions at all. I was wrong, I apologized, and I didn't repeat it. That doesn't change the fact that there were many, many people calling for (and wheel-warring over) my head. I'm simply surprised that such vitriolic hate speech is given so little attention in comparison to my experience. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You had two of the dumbest blocks I've seen in the history of Wikipedia, so it doesn't really compare in my mind. But this editor should probably be indeffed. Grandmasterka 22:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess I mean it seems like this account is almost a vandalism only account. He's made a little over 100 contribs and in that time, it looks like any major edit he's made has been reverted for one of these reasons with only a couple of trivial fixes standing, and in addition to that he's decided to make some rather blatant racist attacks when he didn't get his way, then carry on on his talk page when he wasn't unblocked.--Crossmr (talk) 01:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Anon Ip: 64.128.245.110 is back again editing evading topic ban

Anon Ip: 64.128.245.110 is back again editing on jou/Jaj pages here [234] and here [235] both edits have been tagged (Tag: references removed) The latter edit also includes pejorative phrase "using" with no ref violating [[WP:BLP]

Here is last weeks archived discussion the Ip was blocked for two days for evading topic ban. Reason "48 hour block for evasion of User:BKLisenbee (talk · contribs) topic ban."

[236]

It appears that another anon IP reverted a few of the reference removals.

will notify Ip on talk page now

Catapla (talk) 17:36, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Users informed on talk pages of this discussion. Catapla (talk) 17:47, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Also left message at User talk:97.118.8.109. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

also advised of mediation page User:FayssalF/JK Catapla (talk) 18:03, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused, did the new edits undo/revert those made last week, by another anon. IP? If so then I'm not sure it's BKLisenbee (at least that's how it appears on the surface). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, never mind my last comment. 97.118.8.109 (talk) undid one of last week's edits by 64.128.245.110 (talk) (which was blocked last week as a BKLisenbee). 64.128.245.110 in turn undid the edit by 97.118.8.109. The latter has made a series of edits in Jajouka/Joujouka related articles that seemingly target the edits made by 64.128.245.110 last week. I believe semi-protection may be in order. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Update: Semi-protection is only for vandalism, and I don't think this qualifies as such (disruptive as it may be). Thus, we are faced with full page protection. However, I can see it remaining in place indefinitely, unless and until the content dispute is resolved, and I don't imagine indefinite protection would be accessible. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:54, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked 64.128.245.110 for 1 week. 97.118.8.109 is suspicious as well but I'm not prepared to speculate at this point. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I would welcome User:FayssalF 's input but a semi protect would at least require users to be registered. Catapla (talk) 20:37, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Deleting references and secondary source news media links would pass as vandalism as would BLP concerns. Catapla (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Giano

Continued incivility after a request to stop

User:Parrot of Doom has been generally uncivil today and failed or even mocked requests to improve his behaviour, He started off edit warring over an unfree picture in the nick griffen article with User_talk:J_Milburn after three reverts his actions culminated in this edit with the edit summary in capitals of "CLEAR THE FUCK OFF" , I left him a polite civility note, to which he replied, "thanks but I'm not interested in civility warnings" he then again was uncivil on a public talkpage, saying on the talkpage of Griffin , "What the fuck is it with people today". I informed him again that he was being uncivil and requested him to stop, he replied that "Clearly you didn't bother reading my response to your civility warning. Get it into your head - I will use whatever language I feel is appropriate." and with the edit summary of " civility bollocks" followed up with the edit summary of "indent reply about civility bollocks" , Users should not have to suffer this level of insulting commentary, the editor in question appears to believe that he can speak derogatory to other users, this is upsetting to some editors and should not be ignored. Off2riorob (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, you've managed to create silly wikidrama at 3 pages now. Starved of attention today are we? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Not constructive. Please refactor or someone else will do so for you. → ROUX ₪ 16:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This editor is obviously out for wikidrama and constructive or not it should be pointed out, if for no other reason than to demonstrate that there is an alternate side to his little story above. His idea of incivility is when someone else uses language that he doesn't approve of. Then to go running to ANI to 'report' it is, in my opinion, a perfect example of creating a wikidrama. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Foul language isn't acceptable, particularly if another editor requested it to be stopped. Parrot needs to cool it, less administrators give him an un-voluntary break. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"Foul" language is not against policy, neither is it, in itself, uncivil. A request is, by definition, an invitation for a refusal. PoD, while I agree should chill a bit, has every right to use whatever language he chooses to convey whatever it is he is attempting to convey. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps not, but that's a total misuse of the edit summary. Getting into a revert war that devolves into "fuck off" or even "go away" comments is not acceptable on any level. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What you (GoodDay) call "foul language" may not be what Parrot of Doom would call "foul language, or indeed what I would call "foul language". It was certainly robust language, but that's not quite the same thing where I come from. The only incivility here is too many editors attempting to impose their prissy notions of civility on others, with threats and bullying if necessary. Time it stopped. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The irony of Roux, one of the rudest and most abusive of editors on this site, turning up to criticise another editor for incivility is mind-boggling. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones Malleus. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And yet you're blind to your own incvility and abuse. Irony enough for everyone, it seems. So, how about you try this for a change, Malleus? Stop being a fucking dick. I know, I know, it's pretty much impossible for you. But you sit there and continually browbeat others while screaming at the top of your lungs for people to be nice to you. It would also behoove you to note that I didn't criticise anyone for incivility--I pointed out that his comment was unconstructive. But then, detail was never exactly your strong suit, now was it? Certainly not when piddly little things like 'facts' would get in the way of you getting your digs in. Grow the fuck up and start acting like an adult. Jesus. → ROUX ₪ 17:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is your only warning, Malleus and Roux; disengage from each other. This isn't about you, and every civility thread on ANI is not a reason for you to continue your feud. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Warn away, but you cannot suppress the truth that Roux is just as guilty of what he's complaining about with this edit summary. Why not address that issue instead of throwing your weight around? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

All right, you have now acknowledged the warning, continue with the behaviour and you'll get a block. That goes with Roux as well. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:18, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Beg your pardon? Malleus shows up out of nowhere to attack me, and I'm being warned? Blame the victim, nice. Plus ca change.. → ROUX ₪ 17:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware, and I'm telling you to be the better man here and leave it at that. Don't contribute to the problem. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And let him--again--simply spout whatever crap he wants? Here's the thing that you lot don't seem to understand.. you keep telling him to stop, you keep doing nothing about it, and therefore you keep enabling and encouraging him to be ever-more-abusive to everyone on this site. → ROUX ₪ 17:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like some imbalance here. malleus stops and gets blocked. Roux continues but doesn't get blocked. Looks like that's an unbalanced answer to the problem. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to point out, if PoD had respected the request to cool it, at the public talkpage, he wouldn't have been reported. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) And why exactly should the request have been granted? "Do as I ask or I'll report you"? To me that rather smacks of bullying and threats. How about PoD's right to use whatever language he deems appropriate for getting his point across? This is a rather typical ploy of the 'civility police' mentality around here. Threats and wikidrama. Now that sounds far more uncivil than the release of an F-bomb. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Think about it this way, Fred. Do you think others are more or less likely to take PoD seriously and engage with him in a calm manner if he's throwing around profanity? If PoD cannot express his displeasure or disagreement with an action without resorting to "an F-bomb", it's a lack of vocabulary or imagination on his part, and it only causes discussion to decay. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

An F-bomb is not an example of lack of vocabulary. In fact many times it is the perfect word to get across certain feelings. In my veiw this makes it the perfect use of vocabulary. It is not my decision on what allows PoD to be taken seriously, primarily because I don't believe that the use of epithets devalues what a person is saying. Your mileage obviously varies. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The following article may be of some interest:

• Wales, Jimmy; Andrea Weckerle (December 29, 2009). "Keep a Civil Cybertongue: Rude and abusive online behavior should not be met with silence". The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, Inc.

Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A right to use foul language? there's no such thing as rights here. At Wikipedia, we have privillages. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

By those rules there is no right to the expectation that someone is going to respect one's own view of the world and what languages we expect others to use. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

One's own views on civility becomes irrelevant, when one is blocked for incivility. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem. There is not one person on Wikipedia that can define exactly what incivility actually is, yet strangely lots of people think they know and use their own interpretation to go ahead and block someone based purely on subjective opinion. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would expect to be blocked if I spoke to editors in the same way, especially if I had been politely requested to be more civil, my request was mocked, and the behavior repeated, good faith editors are repelled by this level of incivility and should not have to be addressed in this manner. Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Your expectations have no greater sway than PoD's right to use language he deems appropriate. Also your interpretation of "uncivil" holds no greater sway than his. Who are you to decide what is or isn't uncivil? Good faith editors are also repelled by the immature, run to mummy approach that is frequently used by the final arbiters of what should be civil and what shouldn't be. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has a right on Wikipedia, we've privillages. IMHO, if one's want to spourt off on his/her pesonal page? fine. But, not on public pages, when requested not to. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

David, you should leave block notices on their pages. I know they're aware, but in the interest of the probable unblock requests... Tan | 39 17:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I left them in other tabs and forgot to save. Appended, thanks for the reminder. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Here you go on about lack of rights again. That lack of right also applies to peoples' expectancy of what they can request and their right to have that request complied with. It is after all a request and not an instruction. The bedrock of WP is that it isn't censored. You cannot have a non-censored encyclopaedia whilst simultaneously censoring its editors behind the scenes. But back to the point, the use of off-colour language is not in and of itself uncivil. Off2riorob has no right or "privilege" to decide that it is all on his own. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's all up to the community, in the end (as we're a collaborative project). GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"The bedrock of WP is that it's uncensored"? Strong statement; it's a facet of the project but I'd hardly call it the bedrock. Tan | 39 17:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, do we not -censure- people from making threats? legal, physical etc etc (which hasn't been the case here). GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

in any case, it's the articles that are not censored DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the boilerplate answer, but please re-read exactly what I said. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The implied threat was "swear in front of me and I'll tell teacher". I have no idea what Off2riorob expected to get from this report other than a dose of wikidrama. This he seems to have got in spades. two people blocked (none of them being PoD). This has all the hallmarks of a troll, or at the very least a WP equivalent of dropping a stink bomb before shutting the door. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly higher up the ladder (or deeper in the foundation as it were) that, say for example, errr truth. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My advice to Off2 would've been 'ignore' Parrot 'until' he agreed to muzzle the foul language. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

IMO it is not OK to talk to other editors in this manner at all, if you do lose your cool, OK, we are adults, in that case you calm down and apologize, you do not assert that you will say whatever you feel is appropriate and repeat the comment.As DDG says, it is the articles that are uncensored, not the talk pages and the edit summaries. Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As your internet acronym succinctly puts it, it is your opinion which has no greater precedence than PoDs. Where he and I come from it is perfectly acceptable to talk that way. Who are you to say that it isn't? If you don't like it, then simply ignore it. Running to mummy ANI will merely increase the signal-to-noise ratio and will cause far more disruption than any f-bomb ever could. Personally I think you were in the wrong for over-dramatising it. So far I've heard no complaint that your ears are bleeding or you were in some way harmed or mentally disturbed by anything PoD said to you? As you yourself stated, you are an adult. Adults don't go running to mummy. They just ignore what they don't like, or at least the ones round here do. This isn't a restaurant serving tough, under-done steak. That is the place to complain to the chef. In this instance you aren't going to get you way, or get a replacement steak. he can't unsay it, he isn't likely to come over to your view any time soon. So what is it you think you've achieved today, other than wasting a lot of people's valuable time with this discussion? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps it is ok on wikipedia to speak to editors in this way, if that is so please point that out to me. Off2riorob (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There are several issues here, and in each case PoD, is on the right side. Firstly, take the description in the first paragraph where the disputed image is described as nonfree- this is a mere interpretation of a borderline case- a POV. Secondly, the article is about an individual with a particularly nasty track record, it is politically naive to believe you can sit on the fence- PoD is correct to verify a fact with a reference in this case a visual one. Thirdly, the heinous crime here is to suggest that Off2riorob intervention I left him a polite civility note,,was civil- no, it was gross provocation- delivered with Blairite sanctity. To which PoD politely replied:"thanks but I'm not interested in civility warnings" Fourthly, there is the issue of language register. Most of the time it is vaguely amusing that, words that 'kids on the street of Collyhurst and Ancoats use as punctuation marks, cause offence in other parts of the globe. On the Gamesley Estate, a lad bumped into me and said Ah f--k mate, I dinna see ya.- and that translate into I am sorry friend, I didn't see you. In parts of South London, saying Woof in the wrong context is grossly offensive- (It suggests the recipients mother is a dog). It is sad when editors take this seriously and get precious about others using a register they personally don't subscribe too. Finally, is the issue of timewasting. We have FAs to write- and being diverted from that central task, and dragging editors away from the name space is totally counter productive.--ClemRutter (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Shall we consider this civility report closed? GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No, let it carry on, its fucking hilarious. Parrot of Doom 19:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this illustrates why some react badly. There is no reason that I can see for parrot to say (well write) a word that some find offensive. As it is writen (and not spoken in the heat of argument) it is clarly premeditated (and as such presumably serves a function, I will not presume to assume what that might be).Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Point of view I guess. Some people presume that when the word "fuck" is used, its designed to offend. I find that laughable, they almost have my pity. Parrot of Doom 21:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The report should be closed, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Before it's closed, I would like to add something. Last night, I tried but gave up after numerous edit conflicts. Ok, while I would never support a block against an editor who lets rip with the odd f or c word in a moment of anger or sheer frustration (an admonitory tut-tut is sufficient, IMO), I feel that unrestrained usage of profanity should never become the norm here as it would create an ugly atmosphere of hostility, and talk pages would become battlegrounds for tit-for-tat profanity wars. Not exactly the scholarly image an encyclopedia strives for. The liberal use of profanity would also give free rein to those editors who wish to indimidate others through a contrived hard man, bad-ass Sgt. Bob Barnes stance as well as those who are just having a bad hair day and rebut a polite request with a snarling f..k off. This is not prissiness ot latent puritanism on my part, but rather practical advice to those of us here who do not wish to see Wikipedia turn into a popular hangout joint for bored kids who would use it merely to post their favourite swear words.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 08:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. GoodDay (talk) 18:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Bravo Fred, i've never seen anyone successfully troll AN/I before. As for the rest of you. Lets stay on topic here. Choice of words and what each person considers to be offensive is more or less irrelevant. It's an issue of civility. Nefariousski (talk) 22:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Hijacked account

When a useful editor's edits turn into blatant vandalism, I tend to suspect the account has been hijacked. Such is the case here. However, I don't recall the procedure (or know where to look) for handling this type of problem. To prevent further abuse of our articles - and of the editor's account, I've gone ahead and indef-blocked the account. However, I invite anyone with experience in this type of problem to correct or supplement my actions - and to post a note on my talk page pointing out the correct process. Thanks. Rklawton (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Look farther up the page - there was a similar case recently, for a user named DC or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Bugs - been awhile. Thanks for the heads up. Looks like I've taken all the right steps. I don't think check user is necessary since the edits are significantly out of character and not on any previously edited article. Hopefully we hear back from him via e-mail. 'till then, we're protected. Rklawton (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, this:[237] I guess you figured that out. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There should probably be a help or guideline for admins as to the best way to handle compromised accounts, but I think that the procedure is generally that we indef-block until receiving an email from the address that originally registered the account. That's what happened with the DC incident that Bugs was talking about. I'm not sure who has access to email info for an account; crats? ArbCom? Oversight? And it would have to be the email account used prior to when the account was compromised, because the new "owner" of the account could change the associated email address to their own. -- Atama頭 18:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as I know, no usergroup has access to users' email-addresses. That's what the committed identity system is for. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 18:20, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

DC had conveniently listed their email address on their edit notice when they were still in control. Not sure if we will be so fortunate this time. –xeno^talk 18:22, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I sent them an email through the email user function requesting an explanation. I'll post any response I get here. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Still no response. Hijack seems likely. Will advise. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

User:LivingMuse removing AFD comments.

User:LivingMuse has now twice removed my comments in this AFD [238], [239]. WP:DUCK strongly suggests that this user is a puppet of User:GoldbergEva the accounts both started editing within days of each other and both are single purpose accounts that edit exclusively on topics relating to Katia Tiutiunnik Ridernyc (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Even if it's not a sock of that particular editor, it's a sock of someone and an abusive one at that. Blockify. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:23, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Tarc's ongoing abuse

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

I am going to go ahead and end this discussion now. It's moving around in circles and several admins have already chimed in and decided not to act on it at this time. I suggest that Tarc takes this as a civility warning and modifies his behavior in the future. As for many of the other points brought up, they are personal disputes... We are admins, not babysitters. While I understand that you are having a difficult time overcoming your disputes, keep in mind that we don't have any extra dispute resolution tools that you don't already possess. Trusilver 01:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

---

}}

Resolved

 – Nothing for admins to do. -- Atama頭 21:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just taking his last 50 edits into account (since February 4), User:Tarc has been fouling up talk pages with incivility and personal attacks against all sorts of editors. I know he's done this before, but this is what he's constantly doing right now to degrade the atmosphere of page after page -- it doesn't seem to be a reaction to anything in particular, and only the last two have anything to do with me:

• Violating WP:NPA, WP:CIV: [240] Way to assume good faith there, sport. You're a credit to the project. Edit summary: not
• NPA, CIV: [241] rv - Perhaps you should go write for the National Enquirer then, as that is where this tripe belongs. Has no bearing on the bio of Barney Frank A personal attack on User:ChildofMidnight (as Tarc removed information that a congressman expressed surprise that his lover was growing marijuana in the congressman's home)
• NPA, CIV, WP:TALK: Here's another diff [242] but it's actually better to look at the context: Tarc immediately moves the discussion away from the topic at hand and toward commenting on the other editor in an uncivil way. Here's a recent version of that talk-page section: [243] Tarc does mix in a little discussion of the issue, but it's larded up with so much bile that he can't expect the other party, or anyone else who disagrees with him, to concentrate any more on the issue at hand. His bile just eclipses it.
• NPA, CIV: [244] In removing a polite request on his talk page for Tarc to be polite, the edit summary: the perpetrator does not get to troll the talk pages of others
• NPA, CIV, TALK: [245] Wow. With that bit of bizarre grandstanding, you have pretty much torpedoed any chance of you ever being taken seriously on this page again, or any chance of other's giving your editing suggestions anything more than a polite dismissal. The edit summary: Arivaderchi
• TALK, WP:AGF: [246] Oppose as "I don't like the current name, so we gotta change it to something" is an exercise in pointlessness. Also, any suggestion of "-gate" is a non-starter.

And here's where I come into the picture:

• CIV, TALK: [247] Rejecting your points does not mean I ignored your points. You already waltzed this pedantic dance with Good Ol’factory earlier; we don't need to see Round 2, thanks. Edit summary: pedantry
• CIV: [248] [...] it would do you some good to learn that rather than make personal attacks and call other users trolls. In response to this comment from me [249] in which I said he was trolling. Feel free to look at the context.

Eight examples from the last 50 edits over five days, victimizing various editors. He won't listen to me. Warn him, watch him, and if that doesn't work, block him. And whatever happens, you'll have this as a record if he gets into the same pattern again. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 19:24, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the diffs and concerns noted above are valid. Tarc's contribution history shows that he has been pursuing me and disrupting discussions where I'm involved by attempting to smear, bait, and provoke me into conflict. It's something I've tried to get some attention and assistance with for quite a while because it's the kind of harassing and intimidating behavior that degrades collegial work and disrupts encyclopedia building. I don't mind if someone calls me an ass once in a while (if the shoe fits...), but the persistence of this kind of hostile incivility is damaging to the project. And I've seen him do the same kind of thing with other editors, but I try to avoid engaging with Tarc because I don't want to inflame the problem further. I do think some interventions to correct this pattern of interaction would be useful. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:42, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Tarc

Tarc is not always Mr. Warmth. He's yelled at me a time or two also. But I don't see anything in the list that's any big deal. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:46, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

The current version of Barney Frank won't even mention that his lover was arrested for growing marijuana in the congressman's own home after Tarc attacked the editor who put it there, both in the edit summary and then on the talk page, and reverted the edit. Never mind the content dispute: Why would a third editor want to get involved in that talk page discussion -- so that Tarc could abuse someone else? How is that not harmful to the encyclopedia? How is it no big deal to edit in a way that could goad other editors to respond uncivilly? If you don't mind a filthy editing environment, coddle him. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see anything "filthy" in what Tarc said, no "abuse", just strong opinions. Has Frank been accused of breaking any laws in connection with that alleged incident? If not, then the only reason for posting it is to take the National Inquirer approach to editing the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Bugs. Nothing bad in the list of diffs. Indeed, most of them seem completely justified when taken into context. Seems like the genesis of this complaint was a content dispute, and another dispute over retaining a non-neutral, policy-violating category. Recommend the editors avoid each other. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

You're right, it's primarily a content dispute. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

When it's something like six unrelated content disputes, how is it primarily a content dispute? In my own case, this isn't going to help me "win" the content dispute. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Focus on article content and ignore the sniping of other editors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Scjessey has a long history with me. Our most recent interaction was here [250]. I wonder, which of the four editors Tarc was denegrating should avoid him in the future? And this only goes back 50 edits. How many more editors should we be recommend avoid Tarc? -- JohnWBarber (talk) 20:14, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

I can think of several editors I've had some history with. Rather than trying to control their behavior, generally I control things by staying away from articles they edit. There are a couple of gazillion articles in wikipedia, many of which need much more improvement than the Frank article does, for example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:19, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Referring to editors as "slackjawed retards" seems a bit extreme. Yes, that comment may be from offsite, but it reflects over all attitude and opinion of other editors. How can we have a serious discussion when we know that is what someone thinks of many of us? Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:08, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

What it reflects is frustration with POV-pushers and scandalmongers, a frustration which I share, and which I found I was constantly fighting when defending the Obama and the Palin articles, and which is why I don't edit political articles any more, as it's not good for my blood pressure. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that Wikipedia Review is populated and run by slackjawed retards, it's also kind of funny. HalfShadow 20:11, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Everyone has their calling. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:12, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow. That's nothing compared to the kind of language I use to refer to other editors offsite. Tarc may use any language or say anything he pleases offsite without consequence. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that Tarc has actually been relatively restrained in his comments? If so, it's time for someone to wrap this one up as "no admin action needed". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:16, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

• Lulz, where to start.
  • Barber, formerly Noroton, has a bee in his bonnet over at a current DRV where his rather unique take on WP:USEFUL is not gaining any traction, which is apparently leading to a bit of frustration and lashing out. He has been repeatedly accusing other users of ignoring him, his points, or to quote Good Ol Factory, "You're free to interpret guidelines in your own way, but don't try to tell other users what they mean or how they must interpret the guideline in context.". It appears that this frustration has led him to dig into my editing history and snip out of context some very disparate quotes, from dealing with persistent SPAs at the Obama talk page, to thwarting ChildofMidnight's attempt to do to Barney Frank what he was sanctioned for doing to Barack Obama last year...to a Stone Temple Pilots discussion? Seriously, Barber, you're getting on my case for responding to another users extremely bad-faith assumption about other users who are on one side of a genre discussion? If you seriously have a beef here, wouldn't WP:WQA have bene a better first step than the morass of AN/I? That you came here first smacks more of "look at me!" than anything else.
  • ChildofMidnight has a rich history in AN/I, which can be perused via the archive box above. It is unfortunate that he still feels he is the victim of a massive cabal, ever since the Obama ArbCom. His counter-reports on others who file reports on him at AN/I or elsewhere have been met with universal rejection. The boy who cried "wolf!" to a T.
  • WR. What I may say or so there, or at ED or anywhere else, has no bearing here. For the record, I disagree with WR more than agree with it, from their providing a safe soapbox to the well-known stalker, harasser, and sock-master Joehazelton to their Think of the children whining about nekkidness in wikipedia articles. Tarc (talk) 20:44, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Addendum; the only one I would wish to retract would be the edit summary here, that was a bit too confrontational and hip-shooting. The others I am good with. Tarc (talk) 20:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Looks good to me. To borrow a line from a movie, it's "a bunch of rinky-dink tabloid garbage." Unless Frank has been charged with a crime, that story is irrelevant POV-pushing. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
      • Agree with BB. Time to wrap this one up. Leave the content dispute for the disputants to settle and let's move on.--Wehwalt (talk)
        • Right. Tarc was perhaps ruder than I'd have been, but then I was brought up a very proper Bostonian and am never the least bit rude to anybody. No harm, no foul; de minimis non curat an/i. PhGustaf (talk) 21:40, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
          • Even when Bostonians say "Yankees suck!" they mean it in the best possible way. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Just one note as I see it. I fly pretty loose with civility at times myself, but Tarc is at least as incivil as User:GoRight, who is currently on a one strike then out civility probation. If this had been an WP:RFU and Tarc had been given a week off for the comments above, I would be upholding the block. I don't see any action that really needs to be taken as things stand right now, but I would definitely caution the editor to remember the adage: "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." Trusilver 21:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion's been an an exercise in ignoring crucial points, distracting with irrelevant points and coddling. Tarc talks about content disputes as if all this happened on one or two pages. He's been acting like this at nearly every talk page he's been to for days. I had nothing to do with three quarters of the examples of his bad behavior listed above. Our "content dispute" is irrelevant, so why is it necessary to comment on it here? I looked into his edit history because I (correctly) guessed what I'd find there: more than one out of seven of his previous 50 edits was to disparage other editors. Not one, not two, not three, but five. No matter how many times Tarc responds with further attacks on me, that doesn't excuse it. It's a pattern. When it gets to be a pattern it's worth bringing up for review.

Tarc's response is to say I'm "lashing out", except that nothing I've done compares with his bad behavior. If I dislike being attacked, I guess that means I must have a bad motive in looking into and reporting his bad behavior. He goes on to attack ChildofMidnight, again, right on this page, when CoM did or said nothing to provoke the attack. He says the quotes were taken out of context, but he's blowing smoke: Context sometimes explains snapping at one or two people, but not five different, unconnected situations. And in each one, Tarc acted worse than the editors he was interacting with -- there's your context. And he hasn't shown where any "context" either justifies or minimizes his drumbeat of bad behavior. Should I have brought this elsewhere? I thought the WP:TALK violations would be outside the focus of WP:WQA, but I didn't look into it.

I'll consider Trusilver's comment as the warning I was looking for, and Atama's comment at the top, "Nothing for admins to do." as an example of not getting it. If Tarc continues trolling, I'll be complaining again. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 23:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

And if you continue the bad-faith assumptions, the name-calling, the continued habit of discussing the editors rather than the subject matter, and of course the wiki-stalking, then you can expect a swift return here as well, Mr. Barber. Continued frivolous AN/I filings will not reflect very favorably upon you. I must say that I am beginning to see Wikidemon's predicament a bit better now, after he had to deal with your tenacious harassment of him last year. Tarc (talk) 23:15, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

ahem. *cough, cough* - would you mind not bringing that old dispute up? JohnWBarber is a fine editor. I have had a good working relationship with him at times, rocky at others but we are not in an active dispute now. Can we please not raise old issues? JWB, would you mind holding off before defending yourself to see if we can encourage Tarc not to stir that pot? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 23:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

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