Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

Shopping for an appropriate forum

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Just checking in on the status. Xenophrenic (talk) 08:56, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

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

User:English Bobby & Personal Attacks

• I'm archiving this drama thread. Everyone disengage and pay proper attention to WP:CIVIL. Fences&Windows 16:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not sure if this is the appropriate forum, WP:NPA was not much help. The language used on AN/I means it is blocked on my computer by the family filter. So apologies if I'm in the wrong place.

There has been long term low level incivility against a number of editors on Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar, the editor seems to have a bit of an issue with the confusion between British and English. The personal attacks crossed a line today referring to another editor as senile [1]. I've already removed the attack once but the editor has reverted.

Not sure what to do, its seems it will simply escalate if I take further action. Justin talk 16:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Calling me a kid when i'm 24 is insulting so i think i'll take the time to complain about personal attacks while here. Also repeatedly poking at my spelling and calling me a troll are pretty uncivil. I would also like to point out justins bias when dealing with these issues, "failing" to notice any abuse against me whilst constantly harrassing me. As for the apparent insult, i said old people can go senile, i did not say gibnews was senile since i've no idea how old he is! Gibnews and Justin have being trying to gang up on me (and others) since i got here.--English Bobby (talk) 17:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Pls do not change the heading again. Justin talk 17:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh come on, bobby. Word-lawyering is not going to get you out for this; you were just making a general comment about old people, were you? Editing on the disputed status of Gibraltar, a completely unrelated topic, and it what, slipped out? I call bullshit on that. Ironholds (talk) 17:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe he restarted that conversation not me, and also that you are ignoring their uncivil attitude! What relevence does my spelling have on a talk page hmm, not enough to constantly have it ridiculed.--English Bobby (talk) 17:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

As for the assuming, i could say gibnew's comment about kids and spelling was probably not a woefull look at our countries education system but more an attack against me. Either way i'm in the wrong as much as he is.--English Bobby (talk) 18:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

My only interaction with User:English Bobby has been to revert changes that remove cited material to replace with uncited material and to provide links to relevant policy such as WP:CITE, WP:NPA, WP:RS and WP:V. I presume the troll reference is related to these exchanges [2] & [3]. They refer to User:English Bobbys edit warring on 11-12 October 2009 diff [4] for which I issued a 3RR warning here [5], though I never followed through with a 3RR report as I generally don't like to do that with new users if I can avoid it. I did genuinely try to help a new user but when it simply resulted in personal attacks directed towards myself I concluded he was simply out for a wind up. I probably shouldn't have called him a troll but in my defence his behavious was trollish and on one occasion I explained policy to him no less than 4 times before I made the troll remark. This user does seem to have some serious problems with civility for example see [6],[7]. Justin talk 18:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The help i asked for was not that which you repeated 4 times as i pointed out. You wouldn't listen to what i was saying and continued to be aggressive. I don't know whether you were genuinely trying to help or not but i can assure you (from my side) it didn't work. Back to the whole issue that started this, the British/English thing, i reckon you know Britain didn't exist in 1704 and are only supporting Gibnews through comradeship.

As for the issue i had with the Turkish Gent, firstly thats not really anything to do with you and secondly i didn't take kindly to being called a joker by him. (Don't believe i insulted him). Anyway i didn't come strait here to try and block him, because i didn't care.--English Bobby (talk) 18:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I did draw this editors attention to wp:npa after being called 'a unionist' which I am not, and his assertion that 'I am not English' because I disagree with his very narrow POV that there were no British people before the Act of Union, which is not what the references say. I think its desirable for anyone writing in the English wikipedia to have a decent grasp of the language, so that others do not have to rewrite their contributions and its courtesy to take the trouble to express oneself properly on talk pages and not to indulge in 'txt speak' and badly capitalised words. Particularly if one is on a crusade for England. --Gibnews (talk) 18:51, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

When i make contributions i make sure i spell correctly. When i'm talking on the talk pages i'm not so fussed. Also whereas i said your not English (i thought your Gibraltarian) i never said your not British. I think this shows how you cannot tell British from English. And i'm not a "crusader for England" just because edit words or statements that are wrong. Unlike you i'm perfectly happy to work the other way (English to British where it should be).

Finally, i'm getting tired of this little lynch mob your trying to muster against me. You won't work with me or anyone else since your both embroiled in an edit war with someone else so please leave me alone.--English Bobby (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

There is no 'lynch mob' one editor has complained about your attitude and referred it here as an appropriate place for action. For the record, English describes an ethnic origin, British is a nationality, and Gibraltarian is a status - look them up here - so its quite easy to be all three. Its also immaterial to editing wikipedia, however, I most certainly know the difference. You suffer from an attitude. Wikipedia relies on references, not your opinion, and if reliable references say British - as they do - that is what stands. There may not have been a UK before the Act of Union but there were most certainly British people who did things and all the Act did was formalise the status quo. But I have already explained this. --Gibnews (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Try reading these. Act of Security 1704 passed by the SCOTTISH Government. Alien Act passed by the ENGLISH Government, (Which among other things declared Scots to be alien nationals in England). Hardly the actions of a status quo situation. The Alien Act by my country proves that there was no British nationality or communion of any sort before 1707. Then again user Pfainuk tried to explain this to you but because of your own narrow opions you didn't listen.--English Bobby (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's all take a step back here. Insinuating that another editor is "a kid", especially in a demeaning manner, is a personal attack. Insinuating that another editor is old and senile is also a personal attack. Speculating on other editors' motives or backgrounds is uncivil, as it is a discussion of the editor rather than the issue. I'd invite everyone here to take a step back, breathe a bit, and then: 1) Drop it. 2) Discuss the issue rather than one another, preferably utilizing reliable sources. 3) Seek dispute resolution rather than sniping if you can't come to an agreement. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to discuss the issue, though i'm not hopeful for a quick solution.--English Bobby (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I see lots of biting the newcomer by Justin A Kuntz, in addition to blatant and repeated abuse of the rollback tool during a content dispute. 2 lines of K₃₀₃ 15:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Where did I bite anyone? Come on, since when was trying to help a new user find policy biting? Check his talk page history as well. Justin talk 14:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I warned you about biting and you said you were not. Others seem to disagree.--English Bobby (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

There's another report above about another Gibralter article, this time in a dispute with the Spanish. That dispute clarifies this dispute I feel - Justin and Gibnews are determined to establish beyond all doubt that Gibralter is British - hence repelling the Spanishes. Because of this, they are reading English Bobby's perfectly correct pointing out that certain meanings of the term "Britain" and "British" are not applicable prior to certain constitutional events occurring in these islands (such as the Act of Union, as a threat to the status of Gibralter. It perhaps needs to be pointed out that Spain cannot take Gibralter back because of what it says in a Wikipedia article, and Gibnews's status as a Gibraltarian and a British citizen are not threatened by the article either. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but really, you're way out of line with that comment, for information I'm half Scottish and half Spanish. English Bobby did not "correctly" point anything he changed cited information for uncited information, with the comment he'd tell the author he was wrong. When someone tried to point him in the right direction he responded with hostility. Funnily enough the other dispute you're referring to started with a Spanish editor changing the date of the start of WW2. What the hell did that have to do with my ethnic origins?

Now personally I find it hilarious that I'm being attacked as anti-Scottish and anti-Spanish being both but just because I have a sense of humour doesn't mean that it is acceptable to make snap judgements about people. Justin talk 14:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Point me in the right direction? Sorry justin thats not how you do things. More like start biting me after i made a minor comment. The way you've jumped to assume Elen was talking about your ethnic origins and lied about having a sense of humour! As for me telling the author he's wrong i actually learnt that from gibnews who said the comment about the sources i found. Your bias is unbelievable.--English Bobby (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem with this dispute is that most of the reliable sources that have been brought up use "British" and "Britain". Presumably, the authors of such sources have either not considered that 1704 is before 1707 or have decided to simplify the issue. The only other wording I think I've seen is "Anglo-Dutch", which I don't consider definitive since the "Anglo-" prefix is frequently used for the UK. I don't think any of the sources we have say that it was an English (and Dutch) force, as English Bobby wants us to say, as opposed to a Scottish (and Dutch) force or a joint English-Scottish (and Dutch) force. We can make a strong argument that it probably was an English (and Dutch) force, but not without original synthesis.

This discussion started due to an incident on Talk:Disputed status of Gibraltar. Ironically enough, that that article doesn't actually claim that Britain captured Gibraltar in 1704 and hasn't done since late August - the only wording it uses to describer the nationality of the captors is the aforementioned "Anglo-Dutch force". There are plenty of things wrong with that article, but this isn't one of them. Pfainuk talk 18:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The (modern) English have a habit of referring to themselves as British, even when referring to their ancestors at a time when there quite clearly was no Britain (eg referring to Queen Elizabeth I's British navy). The Scots don't do this - I'm not sure even now that many Scots think of themselves as British. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 18:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia policy is verifiability not truth, you're also incorrect as the use of British predates the formal act of union and was used to refer to people not a state. Furthermore, the outbreak of incivility followed some time long after I'd changed the text (diff) to avoid any contentious terms. So how you can accuse me of wanting everything to be British is beyond me. Justin talk 14:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

But as you said yourself Pfainuk, if a source is clearly wrong then that should be taken in to account. Looking back i think the points you made were correct and still apply. As for what Elen of the Roads said, i think your completly right about gibnews and justins motives (and well put).--English Bobby (talk) 18:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

But it's already taken into account on that article (Disputed status of Gibraltar) - as I say, the article doesn't use any of those sources, and does not claim that it was "Britain" or "British" forces that captured Gibraltar. Talk pages are intended to be used to discuss potential improvements to an article, and the discussion that prompted this ANI was not such a discussion. Rather, it focussed on the removal of a claim that had already been removed two weeks before the discussion began. Pfainuk talk 20:10, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

This is quite a different matter to the eternal wrangling with the Spanish over Gibraltar. In 1713 it was ceded to the Crown of Great Britain under article X of the Treaty of Utrecht. I don't need to do anything apart from cite that to show that Gibraltar is British, Ellen. However, Wikipedia relies on sources and the sources generally say British forces occupied Gibraltar in 1704. Although this was prior to the Act of Union which created the UK, the Wikipedia article British People is clear in asserting that as such they existed BEFORE that date. The Official Royal Navy Website says British, and that is in common use on inscriptions on monuments All these have been dismissed by English Bobby because of his opinion. Now I have not complained, or solicited a complaint, but POV warriors who do not read references given and engage in abuse, are tedious.

However, as noted the language was altered to overcome the uncertainty, which I approve of. --Gibnews (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

The British People article doesn't actually say it was used much at all before the act of union and in fact that a feeling of Britishness only came around during the Napoleonic wars (allmost 100 years later). As you have aknowlaged that it was the Kingdom of England and not the uk at the time, i can only assume your prefered term is "the British from England" which is remarkably ignorant for an encyclopedia to use. As for your last remark i agree and your POV is getting tedious!--English Bobby (talk) 05:04, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

unindent

Why are we discussing an edit that was altered to remove any contentious terms long ago? If the editor wants to change something thing, then constructive dialogue on the talk page is the way to go. The issue here is persistent incivility by English Bobby. Whilst I would normally simply ignore low level civility calling another edit senile is crossing a line. Justin talk 14:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Well i was dicussing the gibraltar article and the military history of gibraltar article. As for your attempted to block me, i think its backfired. The admin above believe gibnews insulted me aswell (which you ignored, showing your motives for this) and since your clearly biased and equally uncivil this to me is starting to smack of harrassment.--English Bobby (talk) 14:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If I wanted you blocked I would have reported you at the 3RR noticeboard weeks ago for the blatant 3RR violation and you would have been blocked. If I wanted you blocked here I would have proposed it, notice I didn't. Low level incivility I just ignore, calling someone senile is crossing a line, its that simple. Justin talk 19:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yet the admin above also said gibnews calling me a kid counted as an personal attack yet you ignored that. Just a simple mistake?, not really. Biased yes! Also if your not trying to get me blocked then what are you trying to do. I "insulted" Gibnews and he "insulted" me, other than that i ignore your incivility and that of your gibnews so there's nothing else to say here.--English Bobby (talk) 20:23, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel insulted by my criticism of your bad English usage, punctuation and capitalisation but its obviously not improving. Accusations of bias are unfounded, I'm not on a mission to 'exterminate the English' as I don't fancy seppuku, but find your attitude unproductive. --Gibnews (talk) 15:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

And i find your attitude rather uncivil and smug.--English Bobby (talk) 17:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Justin. Just so you know, I have removed your comment on my talk page. This is because I prefer to keep the discussion in one place, so do feel free to repost here. Basically, you said my comments were unhelpful, and you repeated the information about your ethnicity. Duly noted, but I think you'll lfind if you read again that I made no comment whatsoever about your ethnicity, as I was unaware of it until you told me. You will need to check the timestamps above, but I made the comment about the Scots and the term "British" before you posted any information here on your ancestry - I had been watching Neil Oliver's excellent series on the history of Scotland, which was what prompted the remark. The person whose nationality I did refer to was Gibnews, but I hope not in an insulting way. It is a legitimate concern of all holders of British citizenship who are not usually or permanently resident in the UK, that their status is dependent on the prevailing view of the UK government, and there are precedents for rights being withdrawn. The insistence on Gibralter's Britishness is therefore completely understandable as a political viewpoint. I was only emphasizing that a Wikipedia article cannot change that status, only reflect whatever is in the sources. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In which case I suggest you re-read your remarks above because that isn't what they say " Justin and Gibnews are determined to establish beyond all doubt that Gibralter is British". Nothing could be further from the truth and it is inappropriate to speculate about an editors motives; it does demonstrate a certain lack of good faith. Also the diff I showed above does demonstrate that the premise of your remarks was incorrect. Further it had nothing to do with the issue raised, which was a lack of civility and crossing a line drawn by policy as to what is unacceptable. It seems I was wrong and its acceptable to refer to another editor as senile. Justin talk 00:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not the place to discuss it, and Elen of the Roads has my email if she would like clarification, however I have 'no anxiety about nationality; I have always had absolute right of residence in the UK and do not see any prospect of that changing. Concepts of nationality, residence, issue of passports and domicile are overlapping and something I do understand. --Gibnews (talk) 02:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Justin, I know nothing of your motivation. Your behaviour is that you seem determined to establish beyond all doubt that Gibralter is British. This seems fairly self evident to me, just based on your editing habits, and the number of times you keep turning up on this noticeboard arguing with people who you see as in some way querying that Britishness. In previous trips to the noticeboard, some emphasis has been laid on mutterings within Spanish politics concerning the status of Gibralter, and hence the need to maintain the "Britishness" of the article. The important thing for the article is that the current status of Gibralter is verified by sources, as you say. It would be an issue for Wikipedia if edits were made purporting that the sources were not reliable, or the status in doubt. What is problematic is when you act as if any mention of the Spanish (or, it would appear the English) somehow threatens the current status of the rock itself, and so must at all times be challenged.Elen of the Roads (talk) 03:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've already explained myself over the other edit, the talk page record is very different if you bother to look and your comments do not reflect the earlier discussion. Clearly you've a closed mind on this and are not amenabale to discussion. You're plain wrong, you're plain wrong in pursuing and justifying a bad faith presumption and ignoring incivility. So its acceptable to refer to another edit as senile is it? Emphasis added. Justin talk 11:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I have made no reference to incivility - it seems to me that there has been incivility on all sides in this, as in other disputes. I am not taking sides with the other editor in this dispute. What I am concerned with is why disputes about Gibralter keep coming back to this noticeboard, and why your name is constantly mentioned in them. The answer to the second is that you seem to have taken up a role as the guardian of such articles. The answer to the first, I am interested to see if there is an understandable (if not defensible by Wikipedia standards) reason for. For example, the area that was formerly Yugoslavia has seen conflict so recently that it is likely that some editors here were caught up in it. That being the case, it may be impossible to deal with disputes involving those editors on that subject by appealing to everyone to be "collegiate" - it may be 50 years and a new generation before those scars heal - and different approaches may have to be tried. To the outside world, Gibralter appears at first sight an unlikely flashpoint and your approach seems unreasonable - witness the responses you got on the last thread. I am interested in why you so often see the articles as 'under attack' and other editors as duplicious or having other agendas. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Is it acceptable to refer to another editor as senile? Could I have an answer to that please. Justin talk 11:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You really are determined, aren't you. OK, here goes. Calling another user a kid, with the clear meaning that they are not knowledgeable, is not civil. Making fun of another user for their spelling is not civil. Calling a user you are engaged in a discussion with a troll is not civil. I see all of these being aimed at English Bobby. Or are those acceptable to you? I strongly suggest dropping the pot vs kettle stance - as I said, there has been incivility in several places, and I am not on anyone's side in this dispute. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The only thing you could accuse me of is calling him a troll and I suggest you look at the talk page, that occurred after repeated examples of incivility. Some of which Gibnews has listed below. Thats not to say I was right, or responding to incivility with incivility is appropriate. However, personally I'd cut someone some slack in that situation. Also there is a difference between low level incivility, not to say its acceptable, and some comments which are never acceptable. So again, since I notice you didn't actually answer, is it acceptable to refer to another editor as senile? Just to make a final point, its difficult for me to see how you haven't taken sides given that you've avoided answering a question and always bring in to question only the one side. Justin talk 22:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Anyway I've got better things to do so I won't be commenting here again. Justin talk 22:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Look back at that thread, my responses were not considered unreasonable. Gibnews may express his nationalism in a forthright manner, I don't happen to share it. Look at the talk page, after discussion I agreed to certain things being mentioned. Look at the block log of the editors involved, who has been blocked for edit warring and who hasn't. It seems to me you're tarring everyone with the same brush. Thats just plain wrong. More later. Justin talk 11:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you answer if its acceptable to call another user a kid in a demeaning manner!--English Bobby (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This really has nothing to do with the ongoing dispute between Gibraltar and Spain but is about a POV warrior who wants to replace occurrences of 'British' with 'English' despite what references say, and who interacts badly with others, myself, Pfainuk, Justin, RedCoat10 basically everyone - see This talk page wherein I am told:

• I am not a proper Englishman

  I'm trying to airbrush Englands history out of existance

  I'm a Unionist

  part of labours PC selfloathing unionist brigade

  told get lost then! My understanding of British history is alot better than yours.

  I'm not English.

  I attack spelling. (yes its consistently appalling)

  And that being older I am senile.

Although individually these things are trivial insults, after a while it becomes tiresome. And none of it changes what the sources say. --Gibnews (talk) 12:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Once again you've attacked my speeling and insulted me (i'm no more a POV warrior than you). You have a serious attitude problem. But then alomost everyone you interact with tells you that! As for what i said to you, I said your not an Ethnic Englishman but i didn't say your not British. The fact that you have not said you are ENGLSIH means i within my rights to suggest that. Also calling you a unionist, why else would you put "Rule Brittania" in a talk history (History of Gibraltar) as a reply to another British National. A spontaneous out burst of patriotism or rather an attack against my personal beliefs. As for the senile thing, you (and Justin) seem to think its ok to call someone a "kid" in an demeaning manner showing your general bias. Your becoming very annoying now!--English Bobby (talk) 13:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Also i can't see what Justin is try to get here. He was trying to block me, but now thats failed i can't see what else he's doing other than make everything alot more bitter than it was before this nonsense.--English Bobby (talk) 14:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I am deeply insulted by having my ethnic origin denied by an editor can't be bothered to spell the word correctly. Its a double whammy as it lets the side down too. --Gibnews (talk) 16:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Your ignorance of history is also a let down whilst everything you say to me is snide and insulting, yet you don't care so why should i?!--English Bobby (talk) 18:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This is getting nowhere. English Bobby, any more language here along the lines of accusing other editors of having an attitude problem, being ignorant or snide will result in a 24 hour block for personal attacks. Please apologise for calling Gibnews senile and go and edit some articles. Please avoid changes to national descriptors unless you have clear sources for the change, and please avoid any repeat of such nationalistic abuse as displayed here. Fences&Windows 20:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Right so i apologise for being insulting and yet they get away with it, no thanks. Gibnews called me a kid yet you think thats ok , he accused me of being nationalistic yet you seem to think thats ok, he also said i have an attitude problem and thats ok and he's poked fun at my spelling but i guess this is all ok. I think i'll stick with Elens peace making efforts because atleast she can see both sides for their faults and not just side with one.--English Bobby (talk) 21:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads is not an administrator, whereas Fences and Windows is. Again I'm not looking to get you blocked but Elen has not helped you here. Justin talk 01:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

User Seraphimblade (who is an administrator) said calling someone kid in an demeaning manner is a personal attack, yet you failed to notice that. This and the fact you keep trying to repeat the comment i made to Gibnews here looks to me like you were trying to get me blocked. Though it seemed to have backfired when several other user's (not defending me as you said) pointed out your own incivility and Gibnews personal attack agaist me. Then again you believe they were being biased and i think Fences and Windows was being unfair so this has achieved nothing at all other than make everything more bitter than it was before.

Though if you were not trying to get me blocked then what were you trying to do?--English Bobby (talk) 14:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually I was simply hoping that someone neutral would explain WP:NPA to you, there are certain lines you just don't cross and you went way over one and have done so previously. Low level incivility like sniping about spelling is in a different category. You're new and you weren't listening when I tried to give you good advice. Not to excuse calling you a troll but that was after I'd repeatedly explained something to you and you came back with the same nonsense every time. However, you keep on digging like you are and you will end up blocked for incivility. Fences and Windows wasn't being unfair, certain editors not explicitly coming out and explaining wikipedia rules about incivility seems to be emboldening you to go further and that will end in tears. His was probably the best and most direct advice you've gotten here. However, again you don't seem to want to listen to advice that contradicts your own strongly held opinions. Justin talk 16:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

First rule of avoiding getting in a hole is to stop digging. Suggest you get Firefox with the free spelling checker and the quality of your postings will improve, if you listen to it, and read wp.npa. --Gibnews (talk) 08:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:LAME — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links hit list?

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

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

And here is a quotation from the cited webpage.

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

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

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

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

jewsforjudaism.org can be replaced with Jews for Judaism

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

pantheism.net can be replaced with World Pantheist Movement

naturalism.org can be replaced with Naturalism (philosophy)

yu.edu can be replaced with Yeshiva University

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

rrc.edu can be replaced with Reconstructionist Rabbinical College

huc.edu can be replaced with Hebrew Union College

infidels.org can be replaced with Internet Infidels

atheists.org can be replaced with American Atheists

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

umc.org can be replaced with United Methodist Church

Some of dordt.edu can be replaced with Dordt College

Some of calvin.edu can be replaced with Calvin College

And in a less religious vein:

warplane.com can be replaced with Canadian Warplane Heritage Museum

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

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

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

family.org can be replaced with Focus on the Family

heritage.org can be replaced with The Heritage Foundation

www.nationalreview.com can be replaced with National Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Response

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

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

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

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

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

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

Role account used for COI editing

Kils (talk · contribs) was reported to me as a role account by User:OhNoitsJamie. See this and this as evidence. Policy is no sharing. Therefore I blocked the account and ask the user to confirm that they would stop sharing the account and change their password. In the unblock requests the user's secretary insists that she must be allowed to continue sharing the account with him. [8][9]

Anetode (talk · contribs) proceeded to unblock the user without any discussion or understanding that the user would begin to follow policy. Could we please reblock and keep this account blocked until such time as the user stops sharing it. The user should also confirm that they review and observe our COI guideline. The account has been used extensively for editing articles about the account owner [10], his projects[11], and related deletion discussions such as Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Uhse_elite_university.[12]more. Wikipedia is not for promotion. Jehochman ^Talk 15:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the account should be reblocked indef. This is a violation of site policy. Cirt (talk) 15:16, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If what the account says is true, that's not a "role account". Is there any evidence that more than one person is controlling the contents of what is edited? If I ever break my hands and dictate my edits to somebody else, would you block me for "sharing"? This is ridiculous as a block reason. — Kusma ^talk 15:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

This goes directly against Wikipedia:Username policy. From the policy: Sharing an account – or the password to an account – with others is not permitted, and doing so will result in the account being blocked. Cirt (talk) 15:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, more than one person is in control. The secretary is controlling the contents of the edits. She typing that she's the secretary and he's away. If you hired a typist while your hands were broken, the typist would take your dictation verbatim and not insert their own POV. The WP:COI issue is an aggravating factor. The situation appears to be that the account is used for promotion, and it is important to always have the account manned so that they can "defend" their use of Wikipedia as an advertising and promotion vehicle. The secretary can create her own account and disclose that she's posting on behalf of another user. So long as the other user does not join the same conversation, and she is being open about it, that would seem to be a much more straightforward arrangement. Jehochman ^Talk 15:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

It is still a silly legalistic pretext. If you want the account banned, block it for self-promotion, not for violating the letter of our rules. — Kusma ^talk 15:34, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

hallo from uwe - you can erase "uhse elite university" fully, we have all on our for pay infranet servers. the most interesting embryology part has been totally erased. i meant it only good and gave some of my virtual lectures, the virtual microscope on antarctic krill, photographs, films and books into the public domain. http://www.uhse-elite-university.com/fotokilsfoundation.html. good luck Uwe Kils 14:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Moot. The user promised to stop sharing, and I left them advice in the unblock message. I also cleared their autoblock, which Anetode seems to have missed, as did the administrators who reviewed the user's two prior unblock requests. All in all, a lot more grief for the user than if people had told them firmly that they needed to follow policy, and then fully unblocked them when they agreed to do so. Jehochman ^Talk 15:39, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I know this has been closed and all, but being that I am the "people" admonished above by Jehochman, I think it's only fair to point to the discussion of the unblock on his talkpage to contextualize this thread. See User_talk:Jehochman#Account_sharing. Jehochman was solicited to block a six-year-old account by an editor currently in dispute with the holder of that account. It took him all of three minutes to decide on an indefinite block. This thread should have been here yesterday before the block ever went into place. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• To set the record straight, I previously explained to Anetode[13] that I was familiar with the dispute because of an WP:ANI thread the prior day. He knows very well that I took much more time than three minutes to consider the matter, so I'm not sure why Anetode would knowingly post a false statement here. An additional misleading statement from Anetode is that the "editor currently in dispute" is none other than senior admin User:OhNoitsJamie. OhNoitsJamie's involvement with the "six-year-old account" has been to investigate COI editing by the account. Per WP:UNINVOLVED and administrator does not become involved in a dispute merely by investigating purported improper editing by a user. Hopefully Anetode will refactor their statement to set the record straight. Anetode, please refactor your statement for accuracy. Thank you.Jehochman ^Talk 01:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've opened a sockpuppetry investigation: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Kils. Fences&Windows 16:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Sockpuppetry shown by checkuser, 7 active and 2 inactive accounts blocked. Fences&Windows 02:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Briefly: should these restrictions be noted?

I believe these restrictions are completely acceptable given the whole situation, however should they be noted at WP:RESTRICT to ensure visibility and enforcement? NJA (t/c) 14:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Letter vandalism

Resolved

 – Has become counterproductive.--Tikiwont (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've just blocked three accounts, Ofcoresethorse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), BadBadBadSanta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and User:Stepscurse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), as vandalism accounts because they used innocuous edits to the articles for letters of the alphabet such as E for inflammatory phrases that can be seen (only) in their respective contribution histories. Which I would like to avoid, but I don't see the revision delete tabs mentioned in Wikipedia:Revision deletion. I'm reluctant to do the poor mans version as there are more than a dozen pages involved. Can someone help? Or would you disagree with removal of what imo can only be abused as a link? Moreover, did we have that before? --Tikiwont (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC) I've also sent an e-mail to oversight. Would it be worth to have a filter for this?--Tikiwont (talk) 16:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC) This is just very, very light vandalism (if you can even call it that; I'm still not sure what the problem is), and is in no way a candidate for being oversighted. EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:09, 5 December 2009 (UTC) EVula, when somebody posts "DEATH TO J***" and "KILL N******" (bowdlerized by me, the user spelled them out) using multiple sock puppet accounts, what makes it "light vandalism"? Did you see that? I've emailed en-functionaries with a list of countermeasures I'd like them to employ. Jehochman Talk 17:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Yes, the editor was targeting ethnicity and religion in the crudest terms. We take that seriously even when they're oblique about it. Durova371 17:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Wow, yeah, I totally missed that (and you're correct, Jehochman, ethnic slurs are not light vandalism). Fantastic eye you've got. That said, however, I still don't see any need for suppression; its visibility is incredibly low, and I'm not sure we need a knee-jerk reaction to this. EVula // talk // ☯ // 19:01, 5 December 2009 (UTC) I agree that Oversight would be overkill. As suggested by Jayron32 below, WP:REVDELETE seems best. My email to en-functionaries was about tracking down and stopping the culprit(s). Jehochman Talk 03:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Wow indeed! I missed the message too, and just assumed that it had already been oversighted. Half serious suggestion: any admin can delete one-two of the users' edits and spoil the nefarious scheme. Abecedare (talk) 19:07, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Admins can't delete edits - thus the oversight idea. However, like people say below, it's probably not that visible to the world at large. Tan | 39 19:12, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Technically we can, by deleting the page, and then restoring it minus the specific edits, but its very messy and not the best thing to do--Jac16888Talk 19:20, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Admins CAN delete individual revisions now. That's the idea behind the new WP:REVDELETE extension. See Criteria for Redaction #2. This would qualify. --Jayron32 01:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Per my original query, revision delete is actually what I wanted to do, but if it works for me I would not know how. The page is strange as it describes an actual policy, but talks of a "a new software feature in the process of being enabled". --Tikiwont (talk) 10:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC) I'd read the RevDelete page, and it sounds like its already possible, but how? I can't see any of the things it says should be there--Jac16888Talk 10:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC) Woah, how on earth did you spot that? Oh, tag for new user making numerous small edits in a short amount of time filter. Still, damned impressive. I think it was proper to report to oversight and they can look it over, not sure if that all would be so great for archival purposes. That looks like the sort of thing that'd be extremely hard to make a filter for, and even with one, theoretically at least, certain normal contributions might accidentally trigger it and cause thousands of alarms to go off. Not saying it's a bad idea, though. Is there any precedent for vandalism quite like that? CU the users I'd assume, since it'd take at least a somewhat experienced Wikipedia user to craft that together one would have to think, and might get lucky on it. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Perhaps a filter to spot new users making numerous edits to members of Category:Latin letters? or I suppose Category:Letters by alphabet if you wanted to be really careful--Jac16888Talk 18:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Actually make that just Category:Phonetic transcription symbols and Category:Latin letters--Jac16888Talk 18:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC) This is not an effective way to transmit ethnic slurs, as the vandalism is only visible when you click on the users' Contributions link. Our readers would have to click a page's history tab and check user contributions in order to see it. So I'd say no special measures are necessary, at most one or two people who watch the letters of the alphabet via their ordinary watchlists. — Kusma talk 18:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC) Well if I had not thought it to be rather visible, I'd been more explicit. While not many inside Wikipedia are likely to stumble upon it if not reading this thread or seeing my reverts on the letters, my concern is simply that they can be linked to effectively from outside Wikipedia via web link and which case they would stand out rather more than the same phrases inside an edit summary. Not intended as knee jerk reaction, noting that I don't have much experience with oversight trigger levels as this was actually my first such request. --Tikiwont (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC) In that sense this discussion might help to understand how to gauge this revision deletion feature, assuming that i understand the state of its implementation in the first place.--Tikiwont (talk) 20:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC) WP:BEANS means nothing to people now? I'm waiting patiently for the new vandals to start their editing fun and see how many threads they get of people trying to stop them before they complete their games. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC) That's a fair point and actually what crossed my mind when posing above, but I started this as not very explicit because I wanted someone to help me with the revised delete. You can also archive this.--Tikiwont (talk) 17:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Help? Fix it again Tony

{{resolved|Civil discussion is welcome at the RfD}}

This thread was marked resolved by ChildofMidnight [14], without leaving a signature. I disagree with this action. Some things have gone seriously wrong here, and this thread needs input from one or two uninvolved experienced admins. Hans Adler 20:43, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

An RFD was initiated for Fix it again Tony, which points to Fiat Automobiles. I came across this because I keep an eye on RFDs, and I was interested because I was involved in the previous RFD for this content. Both with the previous discussion and with this discussion, there has been just a few users really pushing for the redirect to be deleted. I've made my position clear on the RFD page. The reason I'm bringing this to ANI is because the users involved who want it deleted don't seem to understand what consensus is, or they blame it on everyone else being American. G87 (talk · contribs) even removed the content in an effort to circumvent the RFD process, which he admitted. I undid his removal on the article, and he reverted me claiming it is not appropriate. It's a bit frustrating, and I would definitively like it if somebody could help me out here. I didn't want to edit war, or get too upset, so I brought it here. Killiondude (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm also finding the sitiation frustrating and insulting. Don't really know what your intention is by bringing this rediculous topic here, but, if it helps to get that JOKE-redirect removed, im happy. G87 21:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that Fix it again Tony gets 15,000 Google hits and Fix Or Repair Daily (deleted under "CSD:A6. CSD:A1." in May 2006) gets 40,000, the idea of a national bias component appears quite plausible to me. Hans Adler 21:21, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

For what its worth, I hadn't heard of Fix Or Repair Daily before the Fix it again Tony stuff (but I had heard the latter used before all of this). But that's sort of a tangential case. If reliable sources can be found that explain the history of the term, I personally wouldn't care about that redirect either. In any case, comments like this from G87 aren't appropriate. Just because somebody has a disagreeing viewpoint, doesn't mean they are "desperate" or "pathetic". Killiondude (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't forget Found Dead on Road , Biggest Metal Waste , Loads Of Trouble Usually Serious , Plenty Of Receipts Cant Have Everything ??? All can be referenced. It's rediculous and can been seen as a vicious attack G87 21:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

We have too many redirects with no legitimate purpose anyway. Most of them are relatively harmless and only lead to maintenance overhead. But edit warring against a db-attack template on such an obvious attack redirect is really beyond the pale.

Regarding the joke Ford acronym: It has about half as many news hits as the joke FIAT acronym. [15] [16] [17] [18] Hans Adler 21:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I can see nothing will be done regarding G87's behavior and their tendency to edit war. Killiondude (talk) 23:53, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

And how about your tendency to edit war? There was an edit war about the db-attack template on 19 September and another on 2 December. The only editors involved in both edit wars were you and Tnxman307. And, incidentally, the two of you were on the anti-policy side of both edit wars, while G87 had WP:Attack page on their side. Hans Adler 00:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

An admin declining a speedy deletion notice, where the user keeps reposting it counts as edit warring? I wasn't involved in anything that could be considered edit warring on December 2nd. Maybe you could check your facts. I still don't feel it meets the speedy deletion criteria, but if the rfd closes that way, so be it. Killiondude (talk) 00:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

What exactly are you trying to achieve here? your not going to get me banned if thats your plan because I haven't been edit-warring. If anything, it's you who initiated this by unnecessarily reverting my edits. Please stop trying to make me appear like the "trouble maker" because it's you. It won't get you anywhere so grow up. G87 00:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it is apparent what I'm trying to achieve here. Your incessant name calling on-wiki, among other actions and behavior traits, is not acceptable in my view. Calling people "desperate", "biased Americans", "pathetic" and calling people who don't agree with you "[in]sensible folk" and telling them that they need to "grow up" shouldn't be welcomed. You don't violate the 3RR, but you do like to push things. Please note that banning is not the same as blocking. Killiondude (talk) 00:40, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I can say what I like as long as it is appropriate, relevant, factual and doesnt push the rules. As noted above, your behaviour has shown a disregard for Wiki rules. If there is any justice here YOU should be blocked for fueling the fire. G87 00:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• I suggest trying to do other things and just letting the RfD run its course. Saying keep voters are doing so because they're American isn't the most helpful way to express a concern that there may be a derogatory aspect to the phrase being redirected. The argument has also been made that the phrase is well established and well sourced. So it seems to be a content dispute with reasonable arguments on both sides. I'm sorry there are frustrations. Try not to personalize the discussion and outcomes, remember to focus on the content under discussion, and avoid edit warring. :) Numerous editors are weighing in at the discussion, so assuming it's already been listed on the appropriate project pages, I don't see that there's much to do but wait out the discussion, see what the consensus decides, and take it from there. Everyone involved seems to be contributing in good faith, just with different opinions on what the outcome should be. Maybe try to disengage from the discussion and let it go for a while? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec with CoM) Killiondude, sorry for the mistake. You very clearly didn't even touch the redirect itself in December. On the other hand, I am quite surprised that you are an admin, and even a recent one [19], because in this case you are not behaving like one at all. Neither was I familiar with Tnxman307, the admin who declined the first, incorrect speedy, proposed the redirect for RfD, and then declined the first correct speedy with the absurd comment "how is this an attack page?".

19 September

• [20] Typ932 clumsily proposes the redirect for deletion, rationale: "inproper humor".
• [21] Tnxman307 declines the speedy, rationale: "not eligible for speedy deletion".
• [22] Tnxman307 lists the redirect on RfD.
• [23] Evosoho notices that the redirect is eligible under G10 and correctly adds a db-attack template.
• [24] Tnxman307 removes the speedy with rationale: "how is this an attack page?" It's not clear if this is supposed to be an admin action.
• [25] Evosoho restores the db-attack template.
• [26] B.Wind removes it again with irrelevant rationale: "reference is cited in target article".
• [27] Typ932 restores the original, inappropriate speedy.
• [28] Evosoho restores the db-attack template.
• [29] Killiondude removes the template with rationale: "let's let the rfd go on, and come to a conclusion there, after reading what B.Wind has posted, I don't see this as a blatant attack page, but we'll see what everyone else thinks".
• [30] Evosoho restores the db-attack template.
• [31] B.Wind removes it again, with rationale: "three times in one hour? Please stop abusing the speedy delete tag, folks!"
• [32] Evosoho restores it, with edit summary: "the page attacks fiat. stop reverting because there have been 5 violations of wp:3rr". (The second sentence seems to make no sense at all.)
• [33] Killiondude removes it, with edit summary: "rv, don't add the speedy again, or you'll be blocked".

2 December

• [34] G87 tries to remove the redirect, but apparently has no idea how this can be done.
• [35] Tnxman307 reverts this as "vandalism". (This is a clear abuse of the word "vandalism" and Twinkle, see second table row under WP:VAND#NOT.)
• [36] G87 replaces the redirect with a db-attack template, edit summary: "attack page - please do not revert - delete page".
• [37] Bridgeplayer reverts, with edit summary: "If you wish this deleted then go to WP:RFD".
• [38] G87 replaces redirect with RfD notice.
• [39] Tnxman307 restores actual redirect, with edit summary: "redirect remains during discussion".

My analysis: It all started with Typ932 using the wrong speedy rationale and Tnxman307 declining it, apparently not noticing that the redirect was instead eligible under G10. Tnxman307 declined the speedy and started RfD. The problems started when Evosoho found the correct speedy rationale and Tnxman307 stuck to their earlier decision without communicating clearly. [40]

The applicable db-attack template was added and removed 5 times on 19 September and twice on 2 December. In each case there was only one user adding the correct template (Evosoho in September, G87 in December), although in September also Typ932 twice added an incorrect speedy template. In September the template was removed by two admins (Tnxman307 and Killiondude) and one non-admin (B.Wind), in October by one admin (Tnxman307) and one non-admin (Bridgeplayer). Each time the correct speedy template was removed, it was not marked clearly as an admin action in the edit summary. (To be fair, Killiondude used an RfD comment for this purpose.)

Clearly mistakes were made on both sides, especially irrational escalation, failure to communicate clearly and a lot of bad faith assumptions. And MZMcBride closing the first RfD as "keep" with not even so much as an explanation (after 4 delete and 4 5 keep !votes with reasonable arguments on both sides) wasn't exactly a brilliant move. But the most silly move so far was starting this ANI against G87. I see nothing in G87's contributions that would explain this action, so I must assume that it's due to a bad faith assumption related to G87's being mostly a Fiat-related SPA. Hans Adler 08:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll repeat it here once again: simply because people leave unnecessarily lengthy keep (or delete) comments and try to ratchet up the level of "importance" for a discussion does not mean the discussion is actually important or worthy of any more time than any other discussion. Hans, I don't know where you get off trying to tell people how to be administrators and I really wish you'd stop, it's embarrassing. --MZMcBride (talk) 14:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Two responses:

• WP:KETTLE. [41]
• Given that you are the third inexperienced admin in this story [42] (I wasn't aware of it. You have been around for all the time I can remember, and I assumed you had been an admin all that time.) it's astonishing that you categorically reject feedback. Here you can see how experienced admins deal with such matters. I wish one or two would start commenting here. Hans Adler 15:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"Inexperienced," lawl. You've lost it. --MZMcBride (talk) 15:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

After looking a bit closer I would have withdrawn the second response as obviously wrong if you hadn't been too fast with your response. I am sorry I wasn't aware of the unusual circumstances. I am sure I heard about it at the time, but I simply forgot it was you. I wouldn't have mentioned it. Hans Adler 16:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that would be what is in the edit history for the redirect. Please clarify one thing, I'm not "behaving like an admin" because I don't want edit warring going on? Because I don't want G87 to call other users names during discussions? Because I would like an RFD discussion to take place rather than opting for a speedy deletion? In fact, two admins (myself and Tnxman, neither of us had contacted each other off-wiki or anything) were involved in the incident in September, as you state, and neither of us thought it was speedy deletion material. Killiondude (talk) 09:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"An attack page is a Wikipedia article, page, template, category, redirect or image that exists primarily to disparage its subject." This disparaging backronym joke is an attack on the Fiat brand which, among many other things, serves to hurt the sales of the company. It's barely noteworthy, so it makes sense to mention it in the Fiat article and under backronym, but if there is any legitimate use of the redirect at all it's clearly outweighed by the attack.

Car brand images cannot be separated cleanly from national stereotypes, and G87 only pointed out the obvious. The first RfD was flawed: It was started by Tnxman, who didn't even see the obvious problem and based the RfD on a faulty rationale. The correct rationale was pointed out immediately, but the keep !votes concentrated on the original, faulty rationale. The resulting lack of consensus was then interpreted as "keep" by the closing admin. It's not disruptive to point out under these circumstances that there appears to be a systemic bias.

Your initial statement here makes it clear that you have no insight into the situation whatsoever ("there has been just a few users really pushing", "the users involved who want it deleted don't seem to understand what consensus is") and believe that it's mostly G87's fault – while the truth is that you and Tnxman each individually contributed as much to the problem as G87 did. Even if this were not the case, nobody's behaviour has reached the level that could justify an ANI report. You could instead have asked at WT:WikiProject Automobiles for wider input. Of course by posting here you got it as well, but I think you have noticed by now that the result wasn't exactly as you expected. Hans Adler 10:33, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

For full transparency: I saw a bluelink for Found on road dead in SarekOfVulcan's comment at the current RfD and tagged it with db-attack. It had been previously deleted by Acroterion per CSD R3. Now PhilKnight has deleted and salted it per CSD R3 and G10. Hans Adler 11:05, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In September, I disagree this an attack page and declined the speedy. Once the speedy has been declined, it shouldn't be re-added. I did, however, give the original speedy tagger, Evosoho, a chance to argue for deletion by opening the RfD. The consensus was that the redirect should be kept.

In December, I saw someone blank the page, which I reverted as vandalism. When G87 added the G10 template, I did not revert, but left it for other editors to review. Bridgeplayer also declined the speedy deletion, suggesting it go to RfD, which is where the redirect is now. When three different editors decline a speedy deletion, that means it doesn't qualify under that category. When the community has already decided once the redirect isn't an attack page, it means that it's not an attack page. Whether it should be kept or not is currently decided, but it's clear the consensus is that's it not an attack page. TNXMan 14:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There are so many problems in your comment that I will just most sentences separately:

• "I disagree this an attack page and declined the speedy." – No. You declined a freestyle speedy by Typ932 that had as its rationale "inproper humor" (not a G10 speedy). So far so good, as that's not a speedy reason. You also proposed the redirect for deletion at RfD, which was very constructive in this siutation but led to problems further on as you didn't identify the real problem. Evosoho did identify the real problem and tagged the redirect as G10 during the RfD, as seems to be permitted by the second sentence of WP:Attack page.
• "Once the speedy has been declined, it shouldn't be re-added." – You removed the G10 template with edit summary "how is this an attack page?" and left. You did not make it clear that this was supposed to be an admin action declining a speedy. (Perhaps Evosoho did not even know you are an admin?) It looked like the beginning of a dialogue through edit summaries. (Usually not a good idea, but it does happen.)
• "The consensus was that the redirect should be kept." – That wasn't the consensus at all. That was the official outcome, due to MZMcBride misreading the discussion. There were 5 keep and 4 delete !votes, and the keep arguments generally addressed only the weaker original deletion rationale, not the much stronger G10 rationale that Evosoho gave in the first comment, and which you undermined with no real rationale when you removed the speedy.
• "In December, I saw someone blank the page, which I reverted as vandalism." – True. As I said before this was a clear case of not vandalism at all, so your revert was a personal attack and an abuse of Twinkle.
• "Bridgeplayer also declined the speedy deletion, suggesting it go to RfD, which is where the redirect is now." – Since Bridgeplayer is not an admin they cannot "decline" a speedy. (Normally the assumption is that admins are more familiar with such technicalities than average editors.)
• "When three different editors decline a speedy deletion, that means it doesn't qualify under that category." – When two inexperienced admins and one other inexperienced editor remove a G10 from an obvious attack redirect then it only means that they are wrong.
• "When the community has already decided once the redirect isn't an attack page, it means that it's not an attack page." – The community did not decide whether it is an attack page. 4 "keep" !voters did not address this at all but only addressed your rationale. ("Redirect with no support in the article to which it points. No reliable sources indicate that this is anything beyond a neologism.") TPH addressed the offensiveness of the redirect but only argued "it should be mentioned in the article", as if that had been the question rather than the redirect. A correct closing of this discussion could have been "delete", "relist" or possibly "no consensus". "Keep" was simply the wrong result, since RfD is not a vote.
• "Whether it should be kept or not is currently decided, but it's clear the consensus is that's it not an attack page." – As of this writing there are 7 "keep" and 8 "delete" !votes. Many of the "keep" !votes have extremely poor rationales such as exclusively relying on the precedent of the previous RfD, saying "redirects are not bound by NPOV" as if that trumped WP:Attack page, and the great standard argument: "redirects are cheap". IMO we currently have a "delete" consensus. Hans Adler 15:14, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Great job wikilawyering. To respond to all your points would take hours that I don't wish to invest. Somebody can mark this thread as closed, if you ask me. Killiondude (talk) 17:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This thread should not have been initiated by you in the first place. Although, user Hans has brought some very good points here... G87 17:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Can we just wait for the RFD to close? I don't think the history of who did what requires admin intervention urgently, and so debate here is pointless. — Kusma ^talk 17:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Killiondude, on ANI the actions of all involved parties are under scrutiny. That you want this thread closed now is an encouraging sign, as it shows you are realising that you are getting mostly negative feedback here. But we generally don't close boomerang ANI threads just because the filing party doesn't like them any more.

Kusma has a valid point. Instead of closing this thread, I suggest we move it to WP:AN. That seems to be a good place for discussing admin conduct issues that are not blockworthy, and it's more relaxed and less crowded. I am still hoping for input from an experienced admin or two, since I am apparently not being taken very seriously by the involved admins. (And who knows, perhaps I am even wrong.) Does anyone object to moving this thread? Hans Adler 20:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hans, I haven't had any admin misconduct. 3 different admins declined a speedy tag, and you're upset about that. How many admins does it take? Enough that you would get the result that you wanted? If I choose not to comment any further, don't take that as a sign that I think I believe I had any misconduct, rather, that I've gotten tired of discussing it with you. Killiondude (talk) 21:36, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It was two unexperienced admins and one eccentric admin (how many have two successful RfAs?) who agreed with each other. I doubt that Protego [43] or PhilKnight [44] would agree with you, for example. The reason I am not inviting them to this discussion is that it might be seen as canvassing.

There is a lot of space between proper conduct and misconduct. It seems you are looking for reasons to discard the negative feedback you are getting from me. It's OK to make mistakes. It only becomes a problem if you refuse to learn from them. That's why I am still interested in this thread.

A constant theme in this affair has been that three admins claimed vigorously that Fix it again Tony does not fall under WP:Attack page but never once engaged in rational argument about the question. That's not how Wikipedia works. If you are unwilling or unable to defend your position in a rational discussion, then you automatically lose, whether you are right or not. Unless someone else does the communicating for you. But careful! Three uncommunicative admins merely agreeing with each other against half the wiki (look at the !vote counts and quality in both RfDs) and insisting on their authority is not a substitute for proper discussion. Hans Adler 22:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hans, I understand that you are unhappy that the redirect wasn't speedily deleted. Other editors and admins are unhappy that you keep trying to have it speedy deleted even after the request has been disputed repeatedly. You reverted the marking of this thread as resolved, so I wonder what admin intervention you are requesting? Why doesn't it make sense to cease bickering and await the outcome of the RfD where the arguments are being presented and considered? ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Powergate92 patroling my edits

Resolved

 – Filing party is demanding some type of intervention against accused, beyond the scope of ANI. WQA for such requests, please ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Today I received this message from Powergate92 (talk · contribs). This is most certainly not the first time that Powergate92 has commented in such a way. Beginning way back here when Mythdon was not banned, began Powergate92's unnecessary attention to my use of rollback (whether or not it was part of administrator's tools or javascript enabled). He has reported me to this board in the past He has also reported me for 3RR merely because he found out that I had performed more than three reverts in a 24 hour period (ignoring the fact that the dispute had ended and he did not bother to report the other user in the dispute or reporting me while we were in a dispute over said reverted content and he had gotten an administrator to revert me for him).

I am tired of this. I do not need anyone policing my edits, looking and waiting for reverts that they think are bad and seeking to get me punished for not following every single rule. Powergate92 has most definitely shown a propensity to just seek to get my editing privileges removed or restricted in some fashion. He is effectively treating me just as Mythdon had, but Powergate92 is not under any restrictions from this case. So I am bringing this to the community for assistance.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I was not "looking and waiting for reverts" like I said on your talk page "I was looking at my watchlist and I see an IP moved the hidden message in the episodes section of the Power Rangers: RPM article, so as today would be the day that the title for episodes 29 and 30 would be on TV Guide.com, I go to the TV Guide link and I see someone linked it to the episode list when they should have it to the TV listings (as the episode list only list episodes that have aired not episodes that will air, the TV listings list episodes that will air). So I go back to the Power Rangers: RPM article to fix the link and then I see that you reverted the IP good faith non-vandalism edit as vandalism." How is saying "I think Ryulong should use Twinkle's rollback (AGF) button for reverting good faith edits." at this discussion "unnecessary attention to your use of rollback"? Powergate92Talk 22:06, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like someone other than Powergate92 to say something about his behavior past and present.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Hitting revert for vandalism instead of AGF'd? It happens. I've done it. You apologize, or the user accidentally warned says something and they talk it out, or it's never noticed. I have no idea how a third party would be brought into that specifically, so a diff would be appreciated if it were request.

• Ryulong; You did seem to take advice on the second ANI. I'm also going to assume you've known what 3RR is for quite some time and comprehend your past minor infractions. You've been here long enough to know the AGF vs Vandal Twinkle revert thing is pretty serious if at all frequent, but twice doesn't really count as that. I'm not the most qualified to state this, but checking those incident reports and seeing that Powergate92 offers zero diffs of actual premeditated harm or incivility? No action to take.
• Powergate92; is there a particular reason that you're the cause of all administrator reports filed against this user remotely relating to sought blocks? Can you offer any diffs that show continued abuses and would warrant continuous observation for several months? If so, they should be reported much sooner. That 3RR report listed 12 hours after the edit war is a bit saddening, as it means you must have been digging into contribution history to spot it. As someone calling for Twinkle to be taken away from an experienced editor, surely you know the primary use of blocks is to prevent future disruptions and not punish pasts. 12 hours after the fact being a pretty clear indicator of no further edit warring, especially from someone with zero past history of it. Last, no one but an administrator has any right whatsoever to threaten someone about their Twinkle rights, or threaten anyone like that whatsoever, for that matter. This threat was particularly discouraging, especially after a lengthy history of it being shown that Ryulong has never shown anything but good faith in edits with only a few questionable marks in those ancient ANIs.
  

Walk away, please. An apology with some honesty offered would be even better. Whatever your odd fascination is with Ryulong, make a point of leaving them be. Same goes the opposite direction. Anything. Voluntary lack of contact all places and at all times, basically. Shared project already? Try different articles. No one wants to waste time on higher dispute resolution. This matter may not be suited for ANI anymore if it for whatever reason it comes up again, though it shouldn't. Walk away, please, and save the whole community later time spent in dispute resolution when it's completely unnecessary with just a tiny bit of good faith from both parties. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 08:32, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I cannot see Powergate92 even remotely acknowledging your opinion in this case. In this regard, he is similar to Mythdon in that he will not change topic areas in the slightest.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll work from talk pages, if that's okay. Best to let this archive, though it is noted that Powergate92 hasn't reacted in any way, though the user has made edits since additional postings. Thanks for letting me know. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 06:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Having one person say "Move on" is not "resolved" in my book.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I marked as resolved since it was the extent that ANI can take dispute resolution, and the hope is that the other party will heed the advice and realize that the possibility of a block on next offense would cause it to stop. Usually, the easiest reminder before that step to either side is "you don't actually want to get blocked over this, do you?" ...If someone knows they've done no wrong, they can see if it continues knowing that'll be the end of it regardless. WP:WQA would be the step listed next up the scale for dispute resolution, but I cannot make any guess at actions there if there was not a specific final warning given in the past and a third party overview with suggestions given proved fruitless. Marking again as resolved as this angle of discussion is completely exhausted. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Uhm, by the way, WQA is an "informal non-binding noticeboard" whereas AN/I is a notice board for when one "requires the intervention of administrators", at WQA we can't take any actual action, we can offer support and advice, but if you want intervention, then WQA isn't really the place. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:47, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Edit war at Doctor disambiguation page

A slow and steady edit war has been occurring at the Doctor disambiguation page, with an SPA IP vandal (who apparently doesn't like pharmacists and should have been blocked by now) and a newbie who makes unhelpful, but no doubt sincere, changes. We need more eyes on this and a few third opinions. I'm not saying the previous format was perfect, but at least it had potential. Semi-protection has been tried, but for far too short a time, and that wouldn't have stopped the newbie. It's a shame that the 3RR noticeboard is only set up for reporting 3RR violations, rather than this type of thing. -- Brangifer (talk)

If you don't warn him, you cannot list it at WP:AIV and he won't be blocked. You don't need to use the 3RR noticeboard, we aren't that nutty to rules. Oddly enough, his last edit (while I think wrong) was more of a simple content dispute rather than vandalism. If he picks it up again, message me and I'll block and protect the thing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A guest is attacking me

A guest attack me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Thenovabus&diff=329924496&oldid=329833504

I did NOT do anything to him, I think that user should be blocked for attacking me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenovabus (talk • contribs) 23:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this supposed to be some kind of joke? --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

NO, he attack me for real and I didn't even do anything to him , but I think it's another user like that is trying to do something to me which cloud be [[45]] but I'm not sure, But I'm 50% sure its him, he says to me go to jail but yet I didn't do anything to the user. ---thenovabus (talk} —Preceding undated comment added 23:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC).

I don't know if there's an age limit on wikipedia, but maybe there should be. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair point or no, that was not a constructive comment. ╟─TreasuryTag►stannator─╢ 19:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know how it's possible, but some kids think this place is fun. Are there mini-games installed somewhere that I don't know about? I don't get it. I can only assume their parents have blocked them from any place really "fun." Auntie E. 18:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I think guests should not edit on any posts, but then again we see the IP Address and just report them, that's all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenovabus (talk • contribs) 23:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

While your here, the note from Sine Bot wasn't more vandalism, it was reminding you to sign your name by clicking on the sig button at the top of the edit box, or the 4 tildas symbol at the bottom ~~~~ If you look above, you'll see that Sine Bot has had to sign your posts for you. Don't wear it out, sign your posts yourself. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There's always edit summaries. Diffs such as this.

Especially this in edit summary. Oh wait. Wrong person. Confused users around...

Okay, hazy eyes.... ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

In response to William S. Saturn's comment, age limits would mean chaos. We'd need to file a bugzilla report to add the year of birth, which is another major pain because we'd need to make it an update so that all WMF wikis have it. Maybe all the other WMF wikis agree but the German Wikipedia. Maybe all of the other WMF wikis don't agree but us. I agree Auntie E., Wikipedia seems to be the only "fun place" because all the others, I can guarantee you that the other fun places are blocked. Kids are probably the cause of vandalism from school anons. And even another flaw to that is that anyone can edit. Having an age limit will basically break the motto introduced on the main page. And we'd need IPs required to sign up if you want that in full force. I'm just saying, age limits ruin wikis. ConCompS (Talk to me) 19:34, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't know just how serious William S. Saturn was in making that comment, but there have been times where I wished users had to pass some kind of maturity or intelligence test before allowing to save an edit. Whether or not it would be practical is another matter. -- llywrch (talk) 07:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Please ban two users from article Gilad Atzmon

Unresolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Discussion archived prematurely

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

23prootie and ban evasion

Can anyone block this IP please? 119.95.9.201 (talk · contribs). This is a clear sock of 23prootie per this edit. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 02:41, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 55 hours. TNXMan 02:45, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tnxman. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 02:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Wait, when did this start being the AVI board?Abce2|If you would like to make a call.. 03:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

AVI? When I typed this in I got redirected to AIV. So I hope that's what you mean. The IP isn't vandalizing, so reporting them to AIV will probably lead to edits are not vandalism or will give suggestions where to report. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 03:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone else block this IP 124.104.34.236 (talk · contribs) or at least semiprotect the talk page for Talk:Asian American? 23prootie keeps editing here using multiple socks. This last IP is acting quacking per this and thisand furthermore geolocates to the same region. Basically voting for the same people and adding the same topics. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 22:58, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

This accusation has no basis. Paranoia seems to be taking an effect on some users.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 23:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Elockid is against this 23prootie because they have voted the former's candidates which implies political and personal bias. The edit seems to be uncontroversial and dealing with them is a waste of time. I believe that this may be an issue of WP:OWN on Elockid's case.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 23:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You quack like 23prootie. You edit the same articles as 23prootie. You voted for the same people as 23prootie. Per the duck test, you must be 23prootie. The edits I have posted is enough basis to show that you are either 23prootie or acting upon his behalf. Meatpuppetry is frowned upon especially doing for a banned user. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 23:25, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You're just angry that I voted against the people you voted for and that my votes appear to be similar to this 23prootie's votes. I pity you, you seem to flatter yourself with such trivial pursuits.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 23:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Not at all. Not similar votes, exactly the same. You also reintroduced the same topics as 23prootie and went to the same user as the blocked IP yesterday requesting for help. Furthermore, you seem like you've been editing before by your knowledge of wiki policies and linking and such which leads me to believe you have edited here before and as it seems quite a long time. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 23:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

New users are directed to the guidelines and I did my homework. I look at the page's history and I noticed that it was odd that reasonable topics appear to be excluded due to some strange phenomenon. Unaware that there should be controversy regarding this 23prootie's case I re-added them.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 23:51, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

On an unrelated topic, may I ask why this 23prootie was blocked in the first place. Their contributions appear to be balanced, neutral, and well-thought of, so I wonder why the ban is logical?--124.104.42.21 (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You must be kidding right. The fact that multiple editors reverted him/her is e

Would you care to explain then why with the first IP I mentioned 124.104.34.236, that you went and edited the same articles as 23prootie? It's highly unlikely that this is all coincidence and experiencing the same exact behavior. Coincidence is not a good enough reason to refute they evidence I have presented above. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 00:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for persistent edit warring and move warring against consensus as well as sockpuppetry. De facto banned due to multiple unsuccessful unblock requests and the fact that no admin would lessen the block. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 00:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Jog my memory, but was this regarding the Commonwealth of the Philippines article? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, this is one of the articles he/she was blocked for. Others included Allies in World War II of which the IP edited at today. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 00:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that it should be investigated if the blocks/bans were reasonable. Based on what I see on the talk pages and histories of the articles, it seems that logic and reason seem to favor 23prootie, unfortunately, they seem to be rather immature and react irrationally.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 00:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The depth of discussion should be investigated regarding the article: Allies in World War II. The outcome of successive discussions after 23prootie's blocking favors their view, therefore, I believe that the block/ban is irrational.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 00:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's quite odd how you're asking an investigation to have their blocks and bans reviewed. This gives me more reason to believe that you are 23prootie or editing on their behalf especially since they were blocked for block evasion with multiple declined unblocked requests from multiple admins. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 01:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

So to put things in short yo why the IPs I believe are 23prootie:
-Per their contributions, they edit the same exact articles as 23prootie and the same articles as the IP sock yesterday,119.95.9.201
-These diff 1 and diff 2, shows the same votes and reintroduction of topics by the IP sock yesterday which was a clear sock of 23prootie
-The IP geolocates around the Manila vicinity. From Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/23prootie/Archive, it was established that 23prootie was around the Manila vicinity
-Behavior is roughly the same as the IP's and 23prootie. See sockpuppet investigation.

Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 01:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the discussion at User_talk:RightCowLeftCoast#Help ([46]) be first considered before any decision be taken.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 01:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

23prootie was blocked on 9 separate occasions for edit-warring or disruption, with the last time as indefinite for persistent IP evasion. MuZemike 01:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I request that the sockpuppetry accusation in this discussion be rejected since the nominator, Elockid, is motivated by a vendetta (as seen with their history with 23prootie) and has begun attacking uninvolved newbies.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 01:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not motivated by personal vendetta at all. What I am motivated in is trying to prevent further disruptions from IP socks of which I have shown that you pass the duck test. What history are you speaking off? You seem to have knowledge that we have had previous history. For a "newbie" to know this is quite suspicious especially since the SPIs I reported is what a person would have done if they know how 23prootie acted like regardless if they were involved with 23prootie or not and it doesn't really imply that we had a "history" together. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 02:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I understand that you are motivated by a vendetta and by the rules but what I fail to understand is why, no matter how legitimate, logical, or rational an edit is, you seem to never fail to revert it, as long as it is about 23prootie. Do you love them? Why do you seem intent on following that user. Is it affection? There were nothing controversial with some of the edits and they were not vandalism so this leads me to think that your crusade is rather irrational. I lament what Wikipedia has become and what it is becoming. I believe that it has become a haven for zealots who follow blindly the rules, whatever that means.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 02:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

There is a reason that users are banned. FYI, 23prootie isn't first banned user who creates socks and comes up with the same reasoning. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 02:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

← WP:DNFTT. Let an admin impose the block, but responding isn't helping. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 12:30, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Deleted AIV report

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

A couple of days I made an WP:AIV report about user Dorismann, who has been blocked two times already for the same kind of vandalism (diff here). Well, for some reason, non-admin user Icairns deleted the report a mere four hours after it was made, claiming it was a stale report (diff here). I don't know the specific rules on the subject, but four hours feels far too short a time to make a report stale, and in any case I don't think a non-administrator user should go about deleting AIV reports. --uKER (talk) 15:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

You're right, so go ahead and restore it. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I will restore it, but wouldn't it actually be stale now after three days? Also, shouldn't any notice be made to the user who deleted it? --uKER (talk) 08:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is stale and has been tagged as such. WP:AIV is for reporting editors who are vandalising now. Best, Nancy ^talk 08:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The editor has been online since summer, focused largely on Transformers. If all its edits are junk, then it should be blocked. It has only been a couple of days. Wait till it turns up again, as it most likely will, then take it to AIV again. And it was out of line for a non-admin to remove the AIV posting originally. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:53, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Icairns is an admin. Fences&Windows 14:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Icairns (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Aha. It's buried in one of his many user boxes. No icon at the top, and not in the admins category. He needs to advertise that a little better. Anyway, he was not out of line to remove it, although he should have blocked the user, IF the user was engaged in vandalism. "Stale" is most often used in reference to IP's, which can be connected with many users. But if he's truly a vandalistic editor, he'll likely turn up again. And if he doesn't turn up again, no harm. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I am grateful to Ricky81682 for alerting me to the above discussion. I had understood that being an admin was "no big thing", and I have missed or not been alerted to the minimum levels of self-advertising required of admins. As far as I was aware, AIV was for reactive prevention of current vandalism, and ANI was for less reactive consideration of possible vandalism. As a result, it is usual to tidy down AIV from time to time - particularly if a report has been posted for a reasonably lengthy time period. In this case, after 4 hours, it was likely that any admin action on AIV had been enacted. AIV reports are usually dealt with in under an hour, and it is rare for any AIV report to go more than an hour without some admin consideration. That the above report went 4 hours may indicate that admins probably didn't wish to deal with the report under AIV. Anyhow, that is why I decided to tidy down older reports, without prejudice to any future ANI action against the reported user. Ian Cairns (talk) 20:02, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It's always a judgment call. And if he strikes again, he can be dealt with. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

SmackBot changing referencing style, again (dearchived)

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

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

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

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

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

I reverted this every time.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Romanian presidential election has two self-declared winners

Both runoff candidates, Mircea Geoană and Traian Băsescu, declared themselves winners after tight results in exit polls (not yet listed in Romanian presidential election, 2009) although Geoană was slightly ahead in most. I'm not sure what the rule for updating infoboxes is, but IPs are already fighting over changing infoboxes etc. Final results won't be in for at least a day, possibly more. I'm sure I'd easily exceed 3RR if I try to keep the IP hordes at bay by myself, so more eyes are needed, possibly semi-protection too. Thanks. Pcap ping 20:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protect the article. All those squabbles at the infobox will become irrelevant, once a President is elected. GoodDay (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. Pcap ping 20:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I meant to say request semi-protection. GoodDay (talk) 20:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't semi protect it unless an edit war develops or there is vandalism beyond the capacity of regular editors to remove. Protonk (talk) 20:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI: The vandalism/changes in the en.wiki were noticed in the mainstream Romanian press Template:Ro icon, but they pointed out it was reverted in minutes. Pcap ping 11:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've protected Mircea Geoană for a week, as the vandalism was worse there (in fact, an IP blanked the article at the same time). The other article did not look like it had as many problems (and had IP's adding good info in some cases), so I left it alone. Feel free to adjust as necessary. TNXMan 12:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Fynire violating copyright again

Fynire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has previously been blocked twice for adding copyright violations to articles. They were both before he created an account, using 81.158.172.237 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 86.164.137.11 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The latter block resulted in him being banned from editing anonymously due to the amount of disruption he causes, see User talk:86.164.137.11 for more details.

Despite being warned and reverted many times for adding unsourced material, he made this edit which even includes unsourced quotes attributed to a living person which is a big no-no. Then after having that edit reverted, he adds it back with a source and it turns out to be a copy and paste copyright violation from the source he added. Can anything be done about this permanently disruptive editor please? Despite two previous blocks for violating copyright he brazenly adds copyrighted text to an article, this should not be allowed. Thank you. O Fenian (talk) 22:13, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

An indef ban seems necessary, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

There are something like sixty words there, just under half of which purport to be quoted direct speech. Maybe I'm being silly, but it seems to me it would have rather easier to have paraphrased and attributed the stuff from the Independent than it would have been to come here and complain. Perhaps I'm missing something? Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

An editor with a history of copyright violations performing a direct copy and paste from a source is not a problem? O Fenian (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Don't waste your time O Fenian nothing will happen, different side of the tracks so to speak just look at User talk:Boneyarddog makes 2 edits and gets indef ban for disruption and possible sock with no evidence whatsoever. BigDunc 23:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Repeated violation of copyright means one of two things: a contributor doesn't respect or can't understand the copyright policy. In either case, we can't trust them to contribute. If he's been blocked multiple times before for copyright issues and is still violating this core policy, an indef block is appropriate pending some plausible indication that he's not going to create a huge mess for somebody to clean up down the road. How do you know he's the same as the IP contributors? Has he been openly connected to those IPs? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

But hay we do have evidence of Fynire being a sock abusing IP seems like the cheer leader for the "different side of the tracks so to speak" has a soft spot for this editor or the POV. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:19, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Since there would be no problem other than a stylistic one to complain of were the item enclosed in quotes and prefaced by "According to The Independent...", I'd call it a combination of excessive quotation and insufficiently clear attribution. Just a molehill, not even a hillock. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC) P.S. And there are no blocks for copyright problems in the log. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

As of today, I am working on a copyright infringer who has been active on Wikipedia unchecked since 2006, the latest listing at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations. Any one of the articles this individual worked on might have been a molehill. Some of them might have been hillocks or sub-hillocks. Now there are over 1,360 articles that need to be checked. When we know a contributor is violating WP:C, it is irresponsible to allow them to continue to edit...unless we get some good evidence that they're going to stop. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Angusmclellan, tThe blocks were as IPs before he created an account as I said right at the start. Did you not read what I said before rushing to defend a copyright abuser? O Fenian (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I read it. Fynire wasn't definitely linked with the IPs so far as I could tell. Those IPs could be almost anyone on the big island, including me, or even someone on one of the smaller ones. But I was, and still am, blasé about the potential copyright problem. I had every confidence in the collective ability of interested editors to spot a copyvio if one is introduced because I know that Fynire's contributions were very thoroughly checked indeed. And how do we get from "{{sofixit}}" to "defend[ing] a copyright abuser"? Angus McLellan (Talk) 00:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The Fynire account was created just over a week after the editor was banned from editing anonymously. If you look at the histories of the articles edited by the two IPs you will see that on some of them Fynire has carried on editing them in the same way. There's also the common element of them both signing using four tildes even in an edit summary. If that is not enough for you, please look at the list of IPs linked to and you will see many more instances of Fynire carrying on editing the same articles in the same way the IPs did. Given there is no sockpuppetry involved in signing up for an account after editing anonymously, I can hardly be expected to go to the sockpuppet investigations page to prove they are the same before coming here can I? I cannot believe your last point. You are seriously suggesting that an editor should be allowed to continue violating copyright because other editors will fix the copyright problems? O Fenian (talk) 00:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this text dump from RTÉ a "hillock"? O Fenian (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Moonriddengirl, if you check Fynire's editing history against the IPs and edits listed at User:O Fenian/Abuse and here you will see they are one and the same. The Fynire account was created when the editor concerned was banned from editing anonymously. O Fenian (talk) 23:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

They were told flat out not to do it. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:29, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not much experienced in the sock department, so I've asked an admin who is to help assess this. I suspect he can evaluate the matter far more quickly than I. Personally, I don't much care on what topic an editor writes. To me, the important thing is that the material he or she contributes be legal. Copyright problems that are not swiftly handled can cause a lot of collateral damage. When we wind up having to roll back the history of an article several years because it has become an unusable derivative work of an unfree source, nobody benefits. Again, if this contributor has been blocked before under any other identity, I support a block pending some reasonable indication that he will not continue. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 23:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

We have enough disruptive editors and their IP's on articles covered by the Troubles ArbCom. This list is just the ones since User talk:Boneyarddog made 2 valid edits and gets indef ban for disruption and possible sock with no evidence whatsoever, while the apologists buddy who made the block on Boneyarddog, ignored the disruption created by Fynire's editing history saying there was nothing could be done. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• I have blocked the user indefinitely per the discussion above. NW (Talk) 23:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sound! Watch out now for the IP's. --Domer48_'fenian' 13:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Unprofessional behaviour from an experienced user at AfD

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.

Resolved

 – complainant was a sock. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bravedog. Plaxico strikes again. --Jayron32 04:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

---

User:Ktr101, an experienced user, has recently (and falsely, but that's besides the point) accused me of being a sockpuppet (here) because during the 2 weeks in which I have been editing as I've voted the same way as a user who's been here for 4 years in 3 music-related AfDs. He has since appeared to have attempted to start a game of one-upmanship by using WP:ITSNOTABLE and the fact that there is a sockpuppet discussion occuring as reasons to keep and article I have nominated (diff). Correct me if I'm wrong, but shouldn't this user know better and assume good faith despite (as yet unfounded) accusations outside of the AFD environment? Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty? GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 22:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, Ktr101 is not an admin. JamieS93 22:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was very much mistaken. I'll amend the comment accordingly. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I've re-ignited the discussion; I'd appreciate more than one opinion. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 22:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I closed this discussion, and the complainant re-added it. I suggest someone else close it; there is no reason for this complaint to be here when a sockpuppet investigation is already well underway. Tan | 39 22:57, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Join the club. I've been accused twice. As long as your innocent, I don't see a problem.--Jojhutton (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, while I stop far short of apologizing for jumping the proverbial gun, there appears that GaGaOohLaLa might have a point that this sort of thing - a !keep vote submitted by Ktr101 that simply states, "notable and nominated by a suspected sockpuppet", is probably not very appropriate. The implied use of ITSNOTABLE is not actionable here; it's simply a pretty sorry argument to present in an AfD. However, the other part - stating that the article should be kept based on an unproven allegation - should be retracted, in my opinion. No real admin action necessary or even appropriate here, but a statement from Ktr101 would be appreciated, along with an understanding that until one is proven a sock (unless it falls under WP:DUCK, which this clearly doesn't), one shouldn't throw around accusations outside of the official investigation page. Tan | 39 23:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

"Probably not very appropriate"? Giving an unsubstantiated personal accusation as a rationale to !vote one way or another in an XfD is blatant argumentum ad hominem — even leaving aside the specific nature of this accusation and the existence of a separate page/process to handle it. (Or should I argue "Keep, the nominator is a suspected heretic!" on the next XfD?) — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tan. I've notified the user that the debate has been re-opened and that you've requested a comment from him. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I would like to state that Daniel Case also inserted this sockpuppetry investigation into an AFD here. I admit that I was wrong in that discussion, but at the time I would like it known that tried to note that the user might be in the wrong. I'll remove it, but I would like it known that I never used WP:ITSNOTABLE. I find that accusation false, partly because I have never used that on an AFD and up until today I had no idea that that existed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's really not worth arguing about, but WP:ITSNOTABLE is a sub-section of arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. One of the examples in the sub-section is using the argument "It's notable." In the example cited above, you clearly used this argument. Like I said, it's not actionable - it's just an extremely weak argument. We can drop that now, I assume. As for Daniel Case doing this, it doesn't matter - Daniel Case shouldn't have done that. Until the user is a proven sockpuppeteer, please refrain from accusing them outside of the official investigation page. Tan | 39 00:06, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll take that suggestion to heart. I actually didn't copy Daniel, as he did it after me, but you're right on that. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 00:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS

It appears that User:Ktr101 and User:Daniel Case have admitted to breaking WP:CANVAS here. GaGaOohLaLa (talk) 00:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The WP:CANVAS rule doesn't apply to their topic at that moment, WP:SPI, which calls for submitting evidence rather than consensus (!votes). — Sizzle Flambé (☎/✍) 00:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry shown, accounts blocked. Fences&Windows 02:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

AfD concern

Can an uninvolved administrator take a look over Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joey Fisher? We have new users and IPs involved in a dispute because they know the subject of the article, with connections between lovers, and ex-lovers, and it's really all irrelevant. While the nomination may have been made in bad faith, there are several good faith votes for deletion and I feel this is a WP:SNOW delete. I'd appreciate input from someone more knowledgable on the issue, and an early close may be best here. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 23:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

To my knowlege, IPs don't get a say in AfDs. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:AFD, "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted, especially if they seem to be made in bad faith (for example, if they misrepresent their reasons)." Tan | 39 23:28, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Ahh, that's what it was. GoodDay (talk) 23:30, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it should probably be speedily deleted, but was on the fence about actually acting on it - so I simply !voted as such. Tan | 39 23:35, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It may be snow, but I don't see the speedy. The article is sourced to an AP article. Hans Adler 23:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Unbanning User:23prootie

Duck blocked MBisanz talk 02:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I have been accused of being a sockpuppet of 23prootie and I request that the ban be lifted. I feel that it was done to them unreasonably since it was based on false assumptions.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 01:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC) See User_talk:RightCowLeftCoast#Help, portion taken below: I am rather curious what was that point of view that 23prootie was pushing that was not backed by reference or consensus? As you know, I am unfamiliar wit these cases.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC) The nature of the Commonwealth of the Philippines. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2009 (UTC) That's interesting and rather controversial.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 00:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC) The Philippines during that period of time, was part of the United States, in the same way that Puerto Rico is presently part of the United States. There are different points of view, including revisionist historians, who do not support said fact, and thus the possible controversy. Either way, the discussion of the nature of the Commonwealth of the Philippines shouldn't be here on my talk page. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 00:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC) On a rather independent comment, the Philippines may have received diplomatic acceptance at that time, as a recognized founding member of the United Nations, an organization Puerto Rico never belonged to. I didn't thought it was about that as I do not see that as controversial, my mistake.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 00:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC) On a technical note, unincorporated insular areas are not parts of the United States as they are not bound to the U.S. constitution.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC) If you are not 23prootie, 23prootie can request their own unblockan. If you are, then it would seem that you are not accused of being a sockpuppet, but that you are a sockpuppet. Either way, I don't see how this thread is going to help you or the project. But that is just me.- Sinneed 01:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC) 23prootie has deliberately tried to evade his block using multiple sockpuppets, including 122.53.101.148, 194.213.52.82 & 8frÜitz (this is confirmed by checkuser as well, and is no mere accusation as the IP says. This is what earned him the indef block; he was only under a temporary block before that. He has been given enough "second chances", as you can see from his block log. Frankly, I don't see anything positive coming out of unblocking him. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 01:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC) I do not understand where the "second chances" there are located. I do not believe that a blocked expiring be a "second chance" nor does a lengthening of a subsequent block. In my opinion, this user has yet to be given a "true" second chance. Rather than an implied "second chance which is more of a justification.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 02:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC) See also thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#23prootie and block evasion for reasons of sockpuppetry on top of them asking for an unban of 23prootie. This seems to be a deliberate attempt to circumvent his ban. On top of what Chamal was saying, 23prootie was also using open proxies after his block from the SPIs to try an circumvent policies. I don't see any reason to unblock or unbanning them any time soon. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 01:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC) The reasoning for the block/ban is irrational or misguided and therefore all the subsequent violations should be ignored since they are illegitimate.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 01:58, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Quick note that I have boldly added 23prootie to the list of banned users - see WP:LOBU#23prootie. Please revert if inappropriate. --Dylan620 (contribs, logs, review) 02:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC) It is rather interesting to note that the nominator of the ban against 23prootie is none other than Elockid. So bad blood does run deep.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 02:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Excellent, you have further proven yourself to be 23prootie for using WP:Ignore as their rationale for editing. Per this (an open proxy 23prootie was editing from) and the unblcok request reason from 23prootie's talk page shows further that you are a sock of 23prootie. Banned requested for persistent sockpuppetry, there is "bad blood" in this. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 02:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC) It is just me, or has the the quacking trully gotten deafening? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC) It really is. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 02:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC) As I have said I a previous thread that newbies are usually directed towards the guidelines, and I did my homework.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 02:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC) There are hundreds of policies out there and WP:Ignore is one of the less known ones. It is suspicious that you bring that up. There is no way a newbie as you have stated yourself be so well informed about Wikipedia in just a matter of hours. Elockid (Talk·Contribs) 02:21, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Also, I just looked at your contribs[47] which seem to be solely the unblock of 23prootie and editing the same subjects as him. Has anyone else filled a checkuser or SPI against this IP yet? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Why is that strange? I believe constantly following and obsessing with one user is stranger, an act that you have done.--124.104.42.21 (talk) 02:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

::::The fact of the matter is that, no editor agrees with you and suspect that you are a sock of 23prootie. You haven't convinced a single person. It's strange because out of any policy you chose, you chose WP:Ignore which is lesser known, a policy 23prootie uses to justify their edits and your knowledge is not what a newbie does even doing their homework. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 02:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Crossing out since it's been resolved. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 02:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have three concerns concerning this discussion:

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

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

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

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

User:Pickbothmanlol

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Threat of Suicide

Please see [48]. I'm unsure as to whether any further action needs to be taken here. It's seriously concerning but this might just be simple vandalism. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 02:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

In theory it should be taken seriously, i.e. find out where that IP is and inform local authorities. raseaC^{talk to me} 02:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If anyone is local to Auburn, Alabama the 24hr police non-emergency number is 501-3100. raseaC^{talk to me} 02:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified and am currently waiting on a response from the Administrator who recently blocked the IP for standard vandalism. Notified of both the diff and this thread. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 02:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I did not know anything about that threat. I saw that the last edit inserted a bunch of "Blah Blah Blah"s all over the place, that they were after a recent final warning, and then blocked the IP. I was totally unaware of the suicide threat. Jesse Viviano (talk) 04:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Do we really report every since "suicide threat" to the police? That diff looks very much like a joke. At least in some countries, making unnecessary reports is also a crime, so this reporting policy of ours seems a bit concerning. Offliner (talk) 02:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Better to assume that they're all real rather than they're all fake. Or should we let someone sue Wikipedia because we all ignored their child's suicide warning? --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 02:59, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on that one Offliner, it looks more like a "joke" (a very sick joke) than an actual threat. In regards to policy Wikipedia:Responding to threats of harm is the only documented Wikipedia guideline on the subject that I am aware of and it states: "Law enforcement and emergency services have consistently stated that such reports are not a waste of their time, even in cases where the suicidal statements are determined to be a hoax or non-immediate threat." Though RTTOS is an essay and not an approved Wikipedia guideline or policy. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 03:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It might be a PR nightmare, but there is no liability to worry about. Wikipedia is not a mandated reporter. We have no duty here. -208.97.245.131 (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

(ecx2):::There is a vast difference between a prank report ("do you have Prince Albert in a can?") and a sincere editor reporting an event which might or might not be a suicide threat. We are not paid to decide whether a suicide threat is real or not. The police and 911 responders are. Let them make that judgment. People should not be avoiding reporting these things because they think the police will be angry or annoyed at them - it is the responders' job to take reports and make the judgment calls required, not ours. If our report is sincere, we are not contravening any laws in North America. In my opinion, all suicide threats should be reported if humanly possible. --NellieBly (talk) 03:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I highly doubt any law enforcement agency would take offense to a report of a suicide threat, even if it did seem dubious. Where possible, report. Throwaway85 (talk) 09:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is going on? I heard the name Auburn mentioned in this thread. -Pickbothmanlol- 13:09, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware most experts would recommend treating any such threat as serious and you'd have to be very unlucky to find yourself on the wrong side of the law if you did report it. raseaC^{talk to me} 15:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

All suicide threats need to be reported.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I wouldn't be overly concerned. Usually, suicidals don't tell others about their intentions, until after they've committed suicide (via a letter, of course). GoodDay (talk) 20:02, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Concerns regarding comment removal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blocked user blanking his Talk Page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DisneyRah's blanking clearly falls under the definition of abuse, not only in light of her bad faith blanking, but these abusive edits as well: [49][50]. Nightscream (talk) 22:35, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editor with flagrant disregard for allowable posting protocol

I've been editing Wikipedia for over 6 years and I've never come across a disruptive editor that's as tendentious as Moogwrench. Many of the things he does are annoying, but he's really problematical with his latest disruptive talk page posting.

He inserts his posts inside the middle of mine.[51][52]

He inserts his posts in between a post and its reply. In this one, he inserts a reply in between a four-colon post an a five-colon reply.

When his post is moved to it's proper location, he moves it right back.[53]

He's tendentious that way with everything, and will fight to the death over the littlest thing.

I tried discussing it with Moogwrench on his talk page, but he just tried to muddy the waters -- and then put it back in its impermissible place again.[54]

In my view, it's a black-and-white issue. Either you can insert a reply in between a four-colon post and a five-colon reply -- what he's insisting on -- or you can't.

If you can't, Moogwrench must be stopped from insisting on moving it back, after I've put it into its proper place.

Moogwrench has spent almost his whole time on Wikipedia edit warring, fighting, and battling to win.

I don't want to go through everything Moogwrench has ever done, but I would like some administrator intervention with this one particular area. -- Rico 05:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

If you write page-long rants (how is the history of the article, including attacks on the intentions of other editors, remotely relevant to what two sources say), don't be surprised if people don't want to write page long responses back and forth. Practice writing shorter comments actually on point and I don't really care for your personal attacks. Put another comment like this again and I will block you. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:33, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I too do not wish to plumb the depths of Rico's actions, but I can say that he appears to have a major bone to pick with me, as can be seen in this RfC, which ostensibly I set up to get comment on an content and sources.

Instead, Rico has chosen to engage in personal attacks, including calling me a liar. This is not the first time he has done this. While we are reviewing my supposed transgressions, I'd like to ask: Is this a legitimate use for a content RfC, or did he violate policy by essentially unilaterally turning a Wikipedia:RfC#Request_comment_through_talk_pages into a Wikipedia:RfC#Request_comment_on_users? Rico seems unwilling to limit the RfC to the content topic at hand and insists on disparaging editors or bringing up unrelated and irrelevant history. I would invite anyone to read through the RfC and you can see who is being "disruptive" (in the words of this ANI post heading) and who is attempting to move the discussion along (and away from personal attacks).

In relation to the posting controversy, he mistakenly (in my opinion) moved a comment that had been a reply to a comment that he had changed but not updated the time stamp. The following is a quick review of the time stamps on those diffs:

• 3:03 I respond to Rico's 2:59 comment [55]
  
• 3:05 Rico changed his 2:59 comment (but did not update time stamp) [56]
  
• 3:17 I reply to his changed 3:05 comment [57]
  

He then proceeded to move my 3:17 comment, accusing me of violating the rules when I moved it back into the original position (even though it had been a specific response to a specific post of his).

If I have violated some policy of which I am unaware, I am sorry, but Rico has continuously engaged in a personal vendetta over the past 2 months against me, at one point threatening to leave Wikipedia or (or at least the Honduran coup articles, it was kind of hard to tell) if other editors continued to support me. Does this sound right to you? Does this sound like someone who is capable of presenting a neutral argument against me on anything?

Since I have never been placed on ANI before, please excuse me if this post is either too long, not in the right format, or not the correct way to respond. I am happy to discuss this issue (and provide accompanying diffs) with any administrator who is willing to listen. I will refrain from further comment, and I await word or action from an administrator. I appreciate your attention. Thank you. Moogwrench (talk) 06:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You both need to stop with the multi-paragraph comments, and really learn to make your point in fewer words. Discussions are impossible to comment on without interspersing my comments in between. Generally, I'm in a good mood because most admins will not read a section more than a paragraph long. As to your further issue with Rico, I don't care anymore and it seems he's done too. This section is the most indiscernible thing I've ever seen and I've deal with articles where English seems to be everybody's third language. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:11, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

My apologies for the long post, I didn't really know how to respond. Moogwrench (talk) 08:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

No problem. It's easy to get carried away. It's hard at times to stay exactly on point (I still ramble here). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

User:HDEANBERRYDOTCOM - new antisemite in town

Resolved

 – Blocked for spamming. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:36, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

The username showed up on WP:UAA; hdeanberry dot com is his personal page, full of antisemitism and Obama-bashing. He spammed Mein Kampf with a link to deanberryministries dot us, another hatesite. Oh, joy. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd rather block him for spamming than his personal beliefs. He hasn't done anything since the one edit and he's at UAA so can we just wait it out? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Can't you just WP:IAR, block his ass and save us the grief? Crafty (talk) 05:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

HamburgerRadio's fanclub

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

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

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

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

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

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

Post disco

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Neutralhomer

Resolved

 – User reblocked

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Legal threats and personal attack

Two new legal threats from User:Alastair Haines:

"Since I was recently published in the US as a religious expert, though, there are also options I'd like to avoid like formal processes regarding whether Wiki can be classed as a service provider, if it has and exercises powers to restrict protected speech, like widely recognised religious points of view... I trust ArbCom to finally defend me. However, if they don't, and these repeated unsupportable challenges against my professionalism as a writer are permitted to be published, I have no choice but to defend myself."[58]

"I have plenty of time, I've recently been published in the US, and I have legal advice for here and there. I don't want this to blow up in the face of our wonderful project."[59]

He's also personally attacking me on other user's talk pages for seeking enforcement of previous ArbCom restrictions against him. Kaldari (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the user. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 16:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

[Edit-conflict] I left him a request to clarify or reword those comments you mentioned, and also alerted him to the presence of this thread. Prodego ^talk 16:19, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

For the record, that diff above ("personal attack") is not. Tan | 39 16:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Did you read the attack page linked to in the diff (especially the bottom of it)? That most certainly meets the definition of personal attack. Accusing me of "unwillingness to compromise, edit warring, biased treatment of a reliable source" and violating 3RR simply because I reverted a paragraph 3 times over the course of several days (a year ago!), and then advertising this as evidence of my "behavior" problems, sure feels like a personal attack to me. He's definitely not discussing content here. Kaldari (talk) 16:46, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I disagree that the accusations aren't content related. I dunno, nominate it at MfD if you are so inclined. I don't see any admin action required here. Tan | 39 16:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Are personal attacks on Wikipedia ever not "content related"? To quote from Wikipedia:No personal attacks: "disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done". Clearly he is disparaging me personally, not making a content argument. Kaldari (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And I agree with Tan that that's pretty far from a personal attack. Toddst1 (talk) 17:05, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I also wouldn't call it a personal attack. Prodego ^talk 17:40, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Marked resolved, there's nothing to do here. Black Kite 18:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Unmarked resolved due to the other half of the complaint, regarding legal threats. Make sure you read the whole thread before marking it resolved Black Kite. That said, there is nothing to do now but wait for Alastair Haines to clarify his remarks, which I'm sure will resolve the problem. Prodego ^talk 22:16, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Njirlu again

Resolved

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk:Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident is very hard for editors to follow. It is made far harder by individuals who want to use the talk page to talk about the event, rather than proposing/discussing edits to the article. User:Isonomia is by far the worst offender in this instance. [60], [61], [62], and [63], are all examples of him starting new sections that are either mostly polemics against the editors editing the article or him attempting to discuss the topic, rather than the article. This user was warned for this behavior - by me here. His response [64] to my narrowly tailored warning was to discuss the name of the article.

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

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

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

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

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

WP:TALK allows one to revert talk page additions that don't discuss ways to improve the article at hand. We regularly have to do some of that on Talk:P = NP problem where editors (socks?) keep adding unintelligible proofs, e.g. [65]. Pcap ping 18:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh please put me out of my misery. The very first article I read has this quote: "Climategate has become part of our vocabulary after the unauthorised release of emails, documents and code from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia. Suddenly it has become one of the most searched terms on Google [Climategate results from Google] , with over 30 million results since first being coined just over a week ago. You would have to be Tiger Woods to pull more interest than that." [66] I simply cannot reconcile the unequivacable use in the media of the use of Climategate with the POV title that has been given to this article (and there are hundreds of other POVs in climate). To be honest I don't care tuppence for the feelings of the many editors that have allowed this pathetic POV push tocome epidemic in the climate articles. I would prefer to be banned for trying to get Wikipedia to tell the truth than to lend my credibility to articles that attempt to distort the simplest facts, like the name Climategate, or the fact that temperatures are currently cooling, or ... Isonomia (talk) 18:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

User:Tirronan

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

I went to lengths and found out who the user was who originally added the so called POV work. It was user:Musse-kloge who added it on the 3rd April 2009 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Napoleonic_Wars&diff=prev&oldid=281563054 {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help). I reinstated user:Musse-kloge's long standing work because it is correct and not POV and no other user has ever taken issue with it before and so I've now added reference to it as well. I suggest it is user:Tirronan who should check facts in future and hold back on the POV instead of I. Bambuway (talk) 18:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Continued Incivility by Dapi89

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

Hello,

I had earlier filed an incivility report for user Dapi89 [[67]]. No action was taken but a few messages left on his talk page by different administrators.

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

1) Accused me of lying [[68]]. I take this accusation seriously. An examination of the posts will reveal that the accusation of lying is without basis.

2) Called a post by me "drivel" [[69]]

3) Wrt post by user Hohum "silly thing to say" and "total nonsense". [[70]]

4) Wrt post by user Hohum "issuing simpleton statements" [[71]]

5) Again called a post by me "Drivel" and "your nonsense responses". [[72]]

I am trying to conduct the discussion with Dapi89 with civility, which is one of the 5 pillars of Wiki. Dapi89 has been banned 3 times before [[73]]. I would appreciate if an admin looked into this.

Thanks,

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

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

One more thing: Steel2009 has been engaged in his own incvility - "absurd" and "silly" are certainly used to describe other peoples contributions. Double standards. [74] as noted previously [75]. Dapi89 (talk) 14:08, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Instead of saying that everything I do is "baiting", why don't you address the specific issues, such as your accusation that I was lying [[76]]. Can you back up this accusation with specific facts? Steel2009 (talk) 17:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

86.136.34.228 at System of a Down and other artists

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

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

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

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

Quick request...

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

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

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

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

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

Abusive editing by User:Jadams2484

Jadams2484 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been a disputant in the ongoing dispute surrounding Crucifixion in art, and has been vandalizing my talk page: [77]. User has now made this edit: [78] to my talk page, which I think is beyond the pale. User notified: [79]. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:45, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

Repeated misuse of rollback function by User:Legolas2186

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

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

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

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

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

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