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. You are not autoconfirmed, meaning you cannot currently edit this page. Instead, use /Non-autoconfirmed posts. 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

User:Wiki Greek Basketball

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wiki Greek Basketball to reduce space/clutter here and to centralize discussion. Please do not add a timestamp until this section reaches the top of the noticeboard page. –MuZemike

User Bowei Huang/A1DF67 (ongoing)

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

---

Resolved

 – Bowei Huang now blocked for either impersonation or sock-puppetry. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User:MBisanz posted about this at WP:AN but it has fallen through the cracks there[1] and, since the guidelines at WP:AN indicated this was the more appropriate venue, I'm raising it again here. In short, User:Bowei Huang requested that his username be changed to User:A1DF67 because he wanted a more obscure name[2] but, after the name change was implemented, he re-registered User:Bowei Huang and has continued editing under that name. His edit and, more importantly, his warning history has been transferred to User:A1DF67 so he has received a fresh start, with no obvious indication of his previous history. He failed to respond to a request to comment at the WP:AN discussion and that's where everything has stalled.

The result of this is that User:Bowei Huang, who has been identified as a pest, has successfully gamed the system. Surely User:A1DF67's history should be merged back to User:Bowei Huang and appropriate measures, perhaps as suggested by some of the admins in the original discusssion, be implemented, especially since he's still being disruptive. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It may not be him who registered the new account. I would suggest indefinitely blocking the account Bowei Huang for suspected user impersonation. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That account is blocked either way. I would suggest gathering some diffs of disruption from both accts. and initiating a sockpuppetry investigation. User:Bowei Huang must be blocked indef. either because of sockpuppetry or impersonation. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 08:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be... which account was blocked? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:05, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently neither so far...but at least User:Bowei Huang should... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 09:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

That sounds like a reasonable way forward to me. I would suggest using suspected impersonation as the reason, because that would more closely follow WP:AGF. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

A case for sockpuppetry could be made per this edit though... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 09:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

If it's impersonation, it's by his clone. The edits being made by the "new" Bowei Huang are the same as being made by the "old" Bowei Huang. As I indicated in the AN discussion, A1DF67 hasn't edited since the name change. All edits since then, with the exception A1DF67 posting a thankyou for the name change, have been made by Bowei Huang. Edit comparisons can be made at Australia, where he has changed a manual figure to an automated one, implementing it poorly. I've warned him just now about certain changes he's made that have been rejected by other editors:[3]

• "Old" Bowei Huang[4][5]
• "New" Bowei Huang[6][7][8]

This is really WP:DUCK in action. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, seems fine to start a sockpuppet investigation... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 09:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Investigation open

Investigation open at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A1DF67. No checkuser request, per WP:AGF and that it is not really necessary. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 09:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. Just block the guy and be done with it! Too much wikidrama. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I would if I could but I won't because I can't. I know we are not a bureaucracy but sometimes bureaucracy helps. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 10:29, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

How? You know that the account was used by an old editor, you also know that if someone else has taken over it then this is a clear case of impersonation. If it is not impersonation then the old user is now using two accounts, which is not allowed. Either way, that original account name should be blocked indefinitely. However, if you use the reason as suspected account impersonation, then you are in essence saying that you have assumed good faith. Everyone is a winner here, and nobody goes away disadvantaged. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:52, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know the man is in for an indef. If I was an admin he would already have it. But I am not, so, proper channels should be used. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 11:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, more evidence can show up at an investigation, and that is how bureaucracy can help. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 11:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It's either impersonation or sockpuppetry. Either way I've blocked them. The investigation can go on to find out which it it. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 13:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Should a request for CheckUser be placed? > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 13:53, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see why... what would be gained? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Not much really. Lets wait for further evidence of sockpuppetry to request it. > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 06:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Invitation to Community Discussion

As per instructions, I request that my topic ban be lifted on the grounds that 1) I have acknowledged my behaviour 2) my contributions to Wikipedia since the ban (see my talkpage for example) and 3) that the ban can quickly be reinstated if needed. Please come to my talkpage to discuss. Kevin McCready (talk) 09:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

No, community discussions happen here, not on your talk page. Please link to these "instructions" you refer to, and to the decision imposing your topic ban.  Sandstein  09:33, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Sandstein, give the guy a break - this is getting positively Kafkaesque. He was told on this board to take his request for review to ArbCom. He did so, and ArbCom told him to take it back to the community. He needs somewhere where he can ask for his topic ban to be reviewed. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:59, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Well the community would sure review it, but he has failed to provide a link or a diff to the original ban imposition and some evidence that he has amended his ways... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 13:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Link to Arbcom request and instruction to take to the community [9]. I have no idea whether at the start of this process Kevin McCready was a reformed character, but given what's happened since, I wouldn't exactly blame him for going postal. He has asked two admins to review his case, both of whom, for reasons unconnected to the request, initially accepted and then declined to review the case (note that neither actually carried out a review). He then came to ANI and was told to take his request to ArbCom. Arbcom then told him to take the request to the community, so he has come here again and been told he's doing it the wrong way. Again. What is needed is a clear instruction for him to follow. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

So where exactly is the ban review noticeboard? I would be very confused and upset too... > RUL3R^>trolling_>vandalism 13:26, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• The noticeboards should be a good enough venue, maybe AN not ANI but whatever. All it needs is for folks to review the request as presented, this is probably not a hard call. Guy (Help!) 13:46, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Ban imposed here [10] and here [11]. McCready was asserting at the point where he first asked for a review that he had edited without incident since the imposition of the ban at the end of April 2008. Should this be transferred to WP:AN? Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:30, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Decline lifting the ban, due to the inadequacy of the request: it does not tell us who imposed which ban and for which reason, or why it should be lifted now.  Sandstein  18:11, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
• I cannot see any mention of User:Mccready (aka Kevin McCready) at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions. Whatever the restrictions are, or why they were imposed by whoever, they should be evident to other editors without recourse to a major forensic exercise. When restrictions were recently imposed on User:Levineps, a description of the restrictions was created at User:Levineps/terms. If there are restrictions in force on User:Mccready, they should be displayed in the same way, and listed at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions .. otherwise they are de facto listed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I take it you meant "de facto lifted". I take no view on whether or not McCready should be unbanned, but in terms of "administrative justice" (I really ought to write an article on this concept) this whole thing is a bit of a disaster. This [12] is the formal notice to McCready of his topic ban. This ban was later extended to indefinite I believe, but I can't find the formals on that. McCready first asked for a review of his topic ban on 8 Nov [13] while in dialogue with Virtual Steve and Kevin. Kevin suggested ArbCom [14]. He also suggested that McCready contact the admin who imposed the ban [15]. This admin not being active, both Kevin [16] and Virtual Steve [17] agreed that Kevin would review McCready's history since the ban, and Steve would offer assistance. Kevin then declined to overturn the ban, and advised McReady to request a review at ARbcom [18]. When McReady did, Arbcom said that was out of process (see diff supplied earlier). Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The relevant discussion should be at [19] and the extension of the topic ban to indefinitely at [20]. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 20:37, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember it. I can't help feeling that the major reason Mccready's not been in much trouble lately is precisely because of the editing restriction, but I would not oppose a probationary lifting of the restriction on the strict understanding that it will be rapidly reimposed if he resumes the behaviour that caused the problem in the first place. Tireless WP:FRINGE advocates are probably the single biggest cause of wasted effort on Wikipedia right now. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone for commenting. Guy, actually it was the other way round. The fringe advocates worked hard to paint me in the worst possible light. I was the one inserting well sourced science based material. Yes it's a major forensic exercise to dig all this up and demonstrate it. But the links are all on my page. I have edited in many areas since the ban and my talkpage shows the positive feedback from the community. I propose that I return to normal editing and any sanctions can then be quickly applied if needed. I must say it's refreshing not to face a vindictive and vicious attitude. Thank you. Kevin McCready (talk) 10:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Decline, but with a path forward This is mostly a repeat of my comments at the failed Arbcom case. Although I'm officially retired from WP, I've followed this case long enough to be able to offer some perspective. I understand that it must be terribly frustrating for any user to be told at ANI to go to Arbcom, and have Arbcom say come back to ANI (or a similar venue). But this is only happening because User:Mccready wants the ban lifted, isn't getting what he wants, and keeps asking without (a) letting a decent amount of time elapse between requests, and (b) showing the ability to "engage properly with those of an opposing point of view" (as Guy pointed out when the ban was originally imposed). And the ban was very much deserved (see diffs below, and general contentiousness on his talk page; permalink).

This topic ban, imo, is an excellent example of the "preventative not punitive" model working. Prior to the topic ban, this editor engaged in protracted edit-warring in the banned topic areas (see summary here). Since then, he's been a low-key, wikignome-type editor, averaging one or two edits per day in diverse topics. However, he's also violated the topic ban since then[21], including with an IP[22][23] (see checkuser results).

I note that he has generally avoided other topic areas where he was previously under restricted editing, namely all pseudoscience and alternative medicine topics[24]. I think the appropriate course would be to retain the topic ban on acu and chiro, and encourage him to try editing other alt-med a/o pseudoscience articles, possibly with a mentor -- and then wait at least six months before coming back for a community review. His recent edit history shows that he can wikignome, which is nice, but doesn't get to the core issue of being able to stay within accepted bounds of dispute resolution while engaging with editors with whom he is in substantial disagreement. As his block log shows, it is quite possible that he simply lacks the competence to do so. At any rate, he needs to demonstrate it, and not expect to be taken at his word: he's said he's learned his lessons in the past (Feb. '08), and gone on to massively edit war (April '08) anyway.

sincerely, Middle 8 (talk) 21:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that Middle 8 has retired (1. how sweet that he comes out of retirement to harass me 2. how sweet it is that he ignores my history since the ban with an insulting put down 3. if appropriate I'm happy to provide evidence off wiki to any admin who requests it about who this person is, his previous wiki actions and various incarnations on wiki 3. to provide this evidence on wiki would "out" him as he has requested anonymity), may I take it that there is an assumption of good faith from other editors that I will resume full editing and be sanctioned if needed and that at this stage it ill serves the community to dig up a very disputed and convoluted history and prolong the drama? Thanks. Kevin McCready (talk) 12:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If Middle 8 is being disruptive/dishonest with new accounts (RTV does not allow disruptive socking), then on-wiki evidence can be provided. You're right, off-wiki is off-wiki. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(e/c; response to intervening comments below this one) Addendum: Mainstream editors have criticized Mccready's conduct. Mccready says above: "Guy, actually it was the other way round. The fringe advocates worked hard to paint me in the worst possible light."[25] Even if that statement were true, it would not be the whole truth. The fact is that the following non-fringe editors have all been critical of Mccready's conduct:

• FloNight [26] [27]
• MastCell [28]
• David Ruben [29]
• FeloniousMonk [30]
• 2over0 (see edit summary: [31])
• Jim62sch [32]
• Orangemarlin (see edit summary: [33])
• Friday [34]
• Jefffire [35]
• Arthur Rubin [36]

None of the above editors are fringe-promoters and indeed many are actively devoted to removing fringecruft. (So much for "major forensic exercises". The editors who urge leniency are frequently those who know Mccready's history the least.)

As the diffs above show (along with Mccready's edit history, block log, and archived talk pages), Mccready had been an uncollaborative edit warrior since 2006, and apart from a couple of longish breaks, kept lapsing into that behavior pattern until this latest indef topic ban. I agree with Guy's expressed suspicion above that "the major reason Mccready's not been in much trouble lately is precisely because of the editing restriction"[37], but I don't agree it should be lifted until certain conditions (suggested above) are met. --Middle 8 (talk) 12:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

@Mccready above: 1) My comments here are not harassment, and editors are free to come out of retirement when they choose. I never left WP under sanction of any kind; I left because I was tired of editing a wiki without any expert review. 2) I acknowledge your history since the ban, note that it is virtually all wikignoming, and argue that it is not sufficient to address the reason for the topic ban. 3) I also invite admins to email me and I'll be happy to disclose my previous on-wiki-identities, none of which were socks. I used to edit under my real name, and changed because of on-wiki harassment from two particular editors whom I won't name here. (First I changed usernames, and then out of frustration created a brand new account, i.e. this one. I can provide diffs off-wiki to explain why.)

Mccready appears too concerned with my identity (yes, we have clashed in the past, but unlike him I've never done the angry mastodon thing, never got blocked or banned or RfC/U'd, etc.) and not concerned enough with the evidence and arguments I raise above.--Middle 8 (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Quick Summary

I thought I recognized McCready's name, so I did a bit of digging. The original topic ban was put in place here. He asked for a review here. He asked for a review on his talk page, but the admin was unable to complete it due to personal reasons. He then went to ANI to complain about that discussion, which resulted in a block. Another ANI discussion about the topic ban arose when McCready posted on a ban-related page. I think that brings us up to date. Note that I am not taking sides in this dispute, just trying to gather some discussions so people can see the history of this debate. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Useful summary, thanks. FYI, Scientizzle compiled something similar on his (archived) talk page. --Middle 8 (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Quack

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

---

Resolved

Durova³⁹¹ 22:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

TokosMakos (talk · contribs) is almost certainly another sock of Multiplyperfect (talk · contribs). The user's single edit to Wikipedia is enough to convince me. Recommend orbital bombardment. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:20, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Punted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 17:35, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Quack, quack, quack, quack, quack. A quackingly bad title for this section.--219.89.10.170 (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Not resolved, resolution opens a new can of worms

This has been handled in a very bad way.

Jimbo Wales wrote an editorial in a national newspaper saying how rude people are on the internet. What better place to reverse this trend than Jimbo Wales' own website, Wikipedia.

A reformatted request could have read:
TokosMakos (talk · contribs) edit at single edit is unconstructive and disruptive. Due to the nature of the article, this is forbidden. Request blocking user. I think he is a sock of Multiplyuser but the proof of unconstructiveness and disruptiveness is in the edit itself. ---Scjessey

Blocked (or punted) ---LessHeard van U

(the IP quack is ok because that was the title).

When we go on jargon and just guessing on behavior, non-Wikipedians don't understand this and question the clanishness and the lack of precision of the accusations. We need to re-earn the trust of non-Wikipedians so that Wikipedia will be respected as an encyclopedia. We need to act like we are all on an editorial board of an encyclopedia, not a myspace bulletin board. Lastly, we must listen to Jimbo Wales and stop being rude and start acting like a professional website that people rely on for information. What better time to start than a new decade.....oh wait, I have to add a user box, award a barnstar, and fix that porn star article. :p JB50000 (talk) 04:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I take on board your suggestion that we need to "not be rude", but my action in this case was based on the fact that Talk:Barack Obama has recently suffered a series of socks who have all turned out to be Multiplyperfect (or someone else indistinguishable from same) in quick succession. The style of post is very distinct, and I only opened this thread because I was 99% certain. If I'd had any doubt, I would've waited for a couple more confirmation posts before pulling the trigger. You must understand that this one puppeteer has wasted thousands of Wikipedian hours. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I agree wholeheartedly with Scjessey. That single edit is a sort of distilled essence of the editing style that caused Multiplyperfect to no longer be welcome to edit here. If it is not them, it is someone deliberately continuing their exact style of disruption - but it actually extending more good faith to assume that is simply the same person doing the same unwelcome things, rather than two people doing unwelcome things separately. — Gavia immer (talk) 04:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As this sounds like it's resolved now, I'm adding archive tags. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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

User:LegatoXxXxXxXx and their apparent WP:DE behavior in Celine Dion article.

• This user, who is new and still unregistered, has, for quite some time, been adding, deleting, and reverting massive amounts of material on the article Celine Dion. This user created the section, "Voice" a few weeks ago and has been adding unverifiable information, and unreliable references in it. The frequent use of inline citations and unreliable sources, like Youtube have been quite tiring to revert. Please see here: [38] The user gives no reasoning towards why he/she gives edits. Other users, including myself have given their input on the user's talk page, and so far, I have not received any feedback from him/her. I feel that the user is utilizing malicious behavior by not giving any of their personal input, ignoring other user's requests, and giving unreliable information in the article and the section. As you may know, the article, Celine Dion is featured, and I do not want this user's uncivil editing and behavior to jeopardize that status. Thank you. BalticPat22Patrick 21:07, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor might not be reading or understanding the edit summaries. There have been a couple of attempts to hold a dialog with this person at user talk, but not at article talk. Suggest initiating new dialogs there. If the person continues to alter large chunks of text and use unreliable sources without discussion, then admin intervention might be needed. Durova³⁹¹ 23:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you, I will try that. I am just concerned for the article's status. I am trying to stay patient with the user and I'll see if I can engage in some positive discussions with him/her.BalticPat22Patrick 02:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • If they respond and want to take the article in a different direction, try a content request for comment. If they ignore attempts at dialog and attempt to edit war, then it would be time for admin intervention. Durova³⁹¹ 02:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Well, I tried to make an attempt at some sort of conversation to why they are editing this way. You can see on the user's talk page what I said. Aftwerwards, the user wrote on my talk page, here, at the very bottom [39]. I honestly don't know where to go from here. They stated that they do not care of my contributions, and are acting extremely uncivil in nature. I am concerned that they do not care for the well being of the article itself, only their own personal contributions. BalticPat22Patrick 16:56, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, the user just deleted every bit of info in their talk page. I don't know if this is an attempt to conceal anything written, but it surely emits extremely distruptive behavior, at least in my eyes. BalticPat22Patrick 17:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
    • It would be best to discuss matters on the article talk page. If the editor refuses to discuss their edits, then we can review. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Unhealthy Interest In Me

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

---

Resolved

No sysop intervention needed.

---

User:Tbsdy lives enjoys participating in my Talk page with great regularity. So much so that I have had to request he stop, so that I can keep track of the logical flow of information. I have had to make this request five six times in the last 24 hours to no avail. He edits my Talk page with such regularity that he often is making edits so fast that he makes Good Faith errors, and then has to go back and make even more edits to explain the AGF, as is the case here, currently - User_talk:Nothughthomas. He is trying to work as a volunteer mod and I appreciate his spirit of volunteerism. I'm not asking for any sanction on him, just a gentle request from a mod to this user. At this point I think it would be best if he stopped editing my Talk page completely since he doesn't seem to be able to self-police. Again, user's intentions are innocent but it is cause a bit of a headache for me as I'm currently on a 56K connection. Thanks. Nothughthomas (talk) 10:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate that Nothughthomas's assumption of good faith, and I can assure them it was innocent. I didn't realise their block had expired so I added back on the unblock notices. I have formally apologised for my error on their talk page now. I won't be adding much more, unless it is relevant and pertinent. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Regrettably it was not simply this one instance and user's definition of "relevant" seems to not be analogous with general sensibility. I know your efforts are well-intentioned but, perhaps you could find a different user to befriend for a bit? Just AGF that I am competent to handle organization of my own affairs without your almost constant assistance (which I do appreciate, but I also like to think and act for myself, too). Thanks for your kind consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nothughthomas (talk • contribs) 10:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Not really, you have been quite disruptive in your editing practices so far, which was why you were blocked from editing. Now that your block has passed, I'm sure you will modify your behaviour and edit in a manner more conducive to Wikipedia norms. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

My 24-hour block was because another user and I were in a heated discussion on a hot-button topic (climate change) that was under probation and I got carried away and said something I shouldn't have. This has nothing to do with this noticeboard request, nor you. It is between me, the user who was rightly offended by what I said and the sanctioning mod. Please stop this. I want to continue to AGF but this is really going way overboard. Nothughthomas (talk) 10:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Incivility is definitely disruptive, and I appreciate that you understand that now. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

>SIGH< ... a big and advance thank you to whatever admin ends up having to read all this. Nothughthomas (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Comment Just for the record, Nothughthomas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) now claims on his user page [40][41],

I am a 78 year-old divorcee grandmother and Tourette survivor who came out of the closet last year as a lesbian and am PROUD to be a gay woman. I am a former meteorology instructor at the community college level and support the theory of man-made climate change, however, am opposed to the manipulation of climate change articles on Wikipedia by my fellow supporters to push POV and how some mods let them get away with it. I am well known in Wikipedia for my sense of civility and fair-play and my tireless promotion of etiquette and tolerance among all contributors.

There is also a userbox "Ph.D. in meteorology". Some of these statements do not seem to be correct. Mathsci (talk) 13:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing by User:IZAK

User:IZAK has embarked on what I call a "crusade" and another editor has called a "jihad" against editors affiliated with the Chabad Jewish movement.

1. He posted long diatribes on Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot_Oliver in which used statements like "There are probably even discussions and guidlelines from the top echelons of Chabad about how to deal, co-opt and negate the power of Wikipedia as a rival to Chabad's desire to take ovet the Jewish segments of the Internet." and "He and many other pro-Chabad editors have clearly, publicly and repeatedly gone to war against all Wikipedia policies." Many editors have disagreed with him, stating that the only problem they see is individual POV edits, but User:IZAK does not concede a milimeter.
2. Now he is stalking my edits, as can be seen from this belligerent edit.
3. And from this revert of my edit.
4. He uses misplaced sarcastic arguments when making a valid point in the course of his anti-Chabad campaign, like in this edit.
5. He used an insulting header when referring to an Afd discussion where users disagreed with him. The heading was actually forcibly changed later on to a neutral one, after long discussion in which User:IZAK did not concede a milimeter.
6. Now he has made the accusation in this edit "Will Chabad now send even 12 year olds to the Wikipedia "front lines" because many of them are online so much?". Because a 12 (previously 11) year old kid decided to make a userpage, is that justification for accusing a respectable world-wide religious organisation of "sending kids to the front lines"?! He also said about this kid that "he is a product of something far bigger and more complicated", and actually recommends to "call up his father and yank the kid off Wikipedia". Note that in the ensuing discussion User:IZAK as usual does not concede a milimeter.
7. He is trying to overstress the importance of an institution in Jewish seminary, falsifying the facts, and ignoring the original discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Judaism#Jewish_seminary, possibly because he is conected with that institution, or simply because it is not a Chabad institution.
8. He continues to edit the first posts of Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot_Oliver in a way that misleads the reader as to how discussion eveloped. That post now reads more like a "J'accuse". When I posted a warning about that, he changed the text of that warning.
9. He kindly welcomes all editors who agree with him to the WP:COI/N thread, but if anybody disagrees with him or even his style, he either adds him to his list of editors under scrutiny, or advises them to remove themselves from the discussion in a self-justifying edit like this one.

In short, IZAK (talk · contribs) has become a tendentious editor, engages in disruptive editing, stalking and personal attacks. Debresser (talk) 11:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have informed User:IZAK of this thread in this edit. I just happened to see he is always that curteous, see the edit summary and the names-calling in this edit. Debresser (talk) 11:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In view of the heated and elaborated discussion on WP:COI/N, I urge all editors to keep a cool head, and address the subject in short posts, as much as possible. Thank you. Debresser (talk) 12:19, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to add that in that WP:COI/N discussion I have not always been civil to User:IZAK, but ever since I asked for advice in another WP:ANI thread I stopped that, and am willing to apologise if necessary. This present post is based upon the general recommendation I received in that thread. I'd also like to draw attention to my first post (timewise) to the discussion, from which anyone can see my rationale and open approach to the issue. Debresser (talk) 12:28, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Response from IZAK

1. There are no "diatribes" and there is no "tendentious" editing, just a serious in-depth review of the edit history of Dbresser and 3 other editors, that Dbresser does not like, so he comes crying here. Admins are taking the COI case very seriously at the discussions at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot Oliver that are still ongoing with a number of admins checking and guiding the proceedings as more information is added.
2. User Dbresser has already been reprimanded by an admin and he fought her, at the main discussion, so now he opens a new front here with the hope of escaping the scrutiny he and his 3 pro-Chabad POV editors are getting at the main COI complaint. At least 10 outside editors have already added their additionl comments there. They are not giving "diatribes" either.
3. User:Debresser admits about himself: "I definitely have a POV towards Chabad, since I am a Chabad rabbi and he is cited as one of four pro-Chabad POV editors who have been violating WP:OWN of all Chabad-related articles, see his own at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Debresser’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs for the full citation of User:Dbressor's WP:COI violation with many diffs -- collection of diffs is NOT considered "stalking" -- it's required.
4. User:Debresser has already been rejected by WP:ANI. His request here is another frivolous attempt at distraction. There is no merit to the issues in the few articles he cites. He's desperate and it shows. Anyone can see for themselves by taking a look at the articles. He is playing mind games and making false accusations about nothing, hoping admins will forget about the main case of his and his 3 pro-Chabad POV editors violations at the main case that is far from over.
5. Rather than deal with the COI citation rationally and calmy, he resorted to the most vile and disgusting personal attacks against me, violating WP:NPA multiple times: calls nominator "mentally ill" sees his error (no apology, though), returns to "mentally instable" (sic), introduces lies about the "FBI", is warned, but again cites "mental problems", adds need for "psychiatrists" to insults,imagines he's against "crusaders and fanatics", calls this post "insane ranting"; calling this COI discussion "ranting" & "fanatically obsessed". Now he gets upset and cries about the additional diffs I have provided to verify the serious complaint against him and his 3 pro-Chabad POV editors. He has some nerve.
6. The articles he cites here, recent small edits of no real value or meaning, are recent edit issues and have nothing to do with any organization or group, unlike Dbresser who when it comes to Chabad-related topics on Wikipedia always edits according to that organization's party line and violates WP:OWN, WP:NPA, WP:LAWYER and WP:NOTBATTLEGROUND.
7. His claims about the new material are patently silly because there have been constant requests for diffs that has required the addition that editors, including Dbresser and his 3 pro-Chabad POV editor allies, as well as admins have requested. Adding diffs is not a luxury or a negative of any sort, it's a required part of a serious complaint and it takes time, in this case it involves four editors being cited for COI violations, and looking up and producing those diffs has required more space as well as time.

To sum up, the rest of Debresser's points are just frivolous minor distractions and a delaying action that he is trying to create from the focus remaining on him and his three allies. He is not doing anyone here a favor by trying to split up the discussions between two points and making admins jump back and forth. This new thread should be combined with the main discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot Oliver. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 13:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

2. I have not "fought" anyone, I have disagreed in a so far open-ended discussion. The accusation of "opening a new front" is incorrect and just serves to distract from the point.

4. I have no idea what is meant by "User:Debresser has already been rejected by WP:ANI", nor do I appreciate "His request here is another frivolous attempt at distraction".

6. Calling his own edits "small edits of no real value or meaning" is a clear attempt to avoid the issue.

7. He continues talking about an "organization's party line", thereby stresing my point that his distorted perception of reality is leading him to disruptive and tendentious editing.

Debresser (talk) 14:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry that IZAK's editing is bothering you, Debresser. From a quick reading of your evidence, I'm unable to form an opinion as to whether any policies have been violated or not; I'm sorry I don't have time now to look in more detail. I suggest the following course of action as more likely to achieve positive results: first, apologize to IZAK for each of your own incivilities; the reason is that people find it hard to really listen to messages from people who have been uncivil to them. You can't force IZAK to change, but you can have the greatest chance of influencing IZAK in a positive direction if you start with your own behaviour first. Second, try very hard to make all your comments to IZAK as diplomatic and friendly as possible, to help IZAK forget the incivilities and be able to really listen to you. Third, when IZAK behaves in a way you consider inappropriate, discuss it in a friendly way on IZAK's user talk page, trying to express your messages in a way most likely to actually result in IZAK understanding your reasons and complying with your requests; stating things in a gentle and friendly way tends to help here. It's often best to discuss one issue at a time. Fourth, if you and IZAK are unable to resolve things through discussion with each other, then escalate slowly through the stages of WP:DR (which might or might not eventually bring you back to this noticeboard, but I suggest you try my suggestions first). Good luck, and feel free to ask me for help, though I'm editing less often these days. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Coppertwig for your kind words. This is a very complicated situation and User:Debresser only opened this frivolous "complaint" here to escape the hard realities HE and his three pro-Chabad POV co-editors must come to terms with, deal with and answer for at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot Oliver with the specific complaints of violating WP:COI and the many diffs about that for User:Debresser at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Debresser’s pro-Chabad POV editing and diffs. I have also requested below and at the COI discussion Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Attempt at splitting this discussion that User:Debresser has done us all an injustice by splitting the debate, trying to open a "second front" as it were here and even a smokescreen to avoid facing the music at the COI complaint. I have asked for admin help in not splitting the discussions into two, and to consolidate them together there where they began and where they belong at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#User:Yehoishophot Oliver where all the facts and background are presented and would explain why Debresser is trying to run for cover here. Thanks again for your patience. Sincerely, IZAK (talk) 16:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I resent the insinuation that I "ran here for cover". I have stated in my very first post in the WP:COI/N discussion that I have no problem with any uninvolved party examening my editing, and that I am confident they will find my edits to reveal no noteworthy POV editing. I shall wait with patience for another editor who has the patience to see whether User:IZAK is indeed being a tendentious and disruptive editor, as I am sure he is. Debresser (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There have been no "disruptions" of any sort by me. You only feel hurt because I have cited you and 3 other editors for your VERY real tendentious pro-Chabad POV editing, and I have cited elaborate diffs for that at the COI complaint. In fact I have not been involved in any editing disputes with you or the 3 other pro-Chabd POV editors, so you are really making up fairy tales. It is not "disruptive" to file a WP:COI complaint either (my first one in seven years against anyone, so I don't take such measures lightly). From your edit history it is evident that whenever you don't get your way with another editor you run to various admin boards, as you have now done yet again here, to get intervention to help you with you own problems, in this case the COI complaint against you and the 3 others of very real pro-Chabad POV tendentious and disruptive editing, but it will be to no avail to create this frivolous red herring side show and smokescreen, in the hope of distracting from the main discussions and complaints against you at the very serious COI debate. IZAK (talk) 05:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not feel hurt, thank you. I feel very confident in my standards of editing, and have invited others to scrutinize them at will. It is you I am worried about, which is why I posted here. Debresser (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(for transparency, IZAK notified me of this discussion on my talk page)I find it odd to see this escalated to here from COIN by someone who has also been behaving in a tendentious manner themselves. It's a bit ironic seeing Debresser complain about IZAK's personal attacks and sarcastic comments when I have had to warn Debresser for doing those things himself with frequent provocative personal comments and references to IZAK's mental health and responding to others with sarcastic comments. He and others have adopted a battleground approach to editing here and it is causing these types of disputes to escalate, rather than collaborating and working together with others who may not share their beliefs. There would be a tremendous step in the right direction if editors would stop basing entire articles on primary sources and instead stick carefully to verifiable sources that comply with WP:RS. Several uninvolved admins have responded at various points of the COIN report and all have expressed varying degrees of concern with different aspects of the issue so I really don't see how Debresser can make out that it's just some lunatic meritless conspiracy theory that IZAK has come up with and he would do better to spend his time focusing on making sure the content complies with our policies, rather than focusing on personalities. As I said at the COIN discussion on Saturday, I had a very good look at the dispute when it went to COIN and I honestly don't think IZAK's concerns about this subject area are without merit. I'm very concerned about articles in this subject area which violate a range of policies and guidelines, including NPOV, V, and RS and editors who seem to violating CIVIL, NPA, OWN, and NOT. I'm also concerned that this ANI report is a strategic move, an attempt at removing the person speaking out and trying to alert us and draw attention to the problems. Of course, IZAK is not without fault and could be much more diplomatic and careful with his communication, but there's a lot of bad behaviour going on on both sides of the fence. This is really something that is outside the practical assistance of ANI and COIN and it's either going to be ignored because it's way too extensive and involved to be looked at properly without setting aside half a day (as I found out on the weekend) or it's going to be looked at superficially, so I really think this should be archived and referred to dispute resolution. I can see this heading to arbitration very quickly if people continue down this path and a better option would be for everyone to stop arguing and agree to work together and ensure articles are compliant with policy. If anyone is not willing to collaborate and accept input from people with different viewpoints, then they have no business editing here, period. (I also agree with Coppertwig's suggestions re interpersonal behaviour). Sarah 06:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You may notice that so far this so-called "behaving in a tendentious manner" has been no more than unproven accusations by User:IZAK, as far as my person is concerned. General worries have been raised, but no more than that. So please... no accusations. Debresser (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No, not just according to IZAK, but according to me as well. I have seen your tendentious behaviour myself. Secondly, it's not just "general worries" but specific concerns about the glut of spam-like external linking to a non-neutral site on articles that aren't warranted, the reliance on primary sources to the extent that entirely articles and biographies are based only on primary sources and many repeatedly noted concerns about the behaviour of the parties involved. The admins who have commented have pointed out specific concerns. Look, what are you hoping to achieve with this ANI? Do you want IZAK banned? Topic banned? Blocked? I can actually see merit in topic banning the lot of you so if you'd like us to pursue that, I'm happy to propose a motion in that regard. But we're not going to remove the whistleblower and give you (collectively) free reign with the articles to continue ownership and misusing them for non-encyclopedic purposes. So you might like to think about what you're wanting to achieve on ANI and then either get to the point or withdraw because I see no reason to allow the absolute mess of arguing that's been going on at COIN to spread over here as well. Sarah 11:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Where have I added external links to Chabad.org (etc.)? Where have I added the words of the Lubavitcher Rebbe as a source? These things have nothing to do with me. And as far as tendentious editing goes, I willing to answer any claims to that. And in the process could show you a few edits which are quite contrary to my POV. Because we all make POV edits, however hard we try not to. But we must look at the overall picture. And tendentious editing I can disprove.

What worries me more is you usage of the phrase "give you (collectively) free reign with the articles to continue ownership and misusing them for non-encyclopedic purposes". If you are seeing conspiracies as well, perhaps you should read WP:SLANDER (or create it if it doesn't exist). Any accusation like that shows only that you do not know what you are talking about regarding Chabad as an organisation. In addition you offend me personally. Do not say what you can not prove. Just like I do not say that you must be a real-life friend of User:IZAK. Even though he posted on your talk page, and you are the only editor who seems to agree with his "conspiracy theories" is no reason for me to say things that I can not prove. Debresser (talk) 15:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Although I do not want to weigh in on this particular dispute, I think it behooves me to add that I have had problems with Debresser acting in a disruptive manner and misusing the ANI process. In that case, as in this, he made no effort to communicate with me on my talk page, although I believe I showed myself willing (however belatedly) to answer his malice with grace. His perpetual involvement in ANI disputes evidences a quite glaring interpersonal deficit, which I hope he will become conscious of and work to improve, because he is so lovely and intelligent a fellow whose edits improve Wikipedia when he stays on the tracks (not trying to OWN articles with hair-trigger reverts, not saying nasty things about his fellow editors, not feuding ad infitum). Happy New Year all, DBaba (talk) 18:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your praise, and indeed we have worked together at times. But I do not (intentionally) misuse WP:ANI. I posted about you then, and about User:IZAK now, because I saw then and see now a real problem. I would like to see somebody address those problems. Debresser (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say that you had done all or even any of those things. I said in response to your statement about reviewing admins having only general concerns about the subject area, that admins who have reviewed the COI report have actually expressed varying but specific concerns and then outlined the concerns that have been raised by admins who have reviewed that COI report. That is not a statement about you or an accusation about your editing. Please stop trying to escalate disputes and disagreements you have with people. Sarah 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Response from Zsero

According to Izak, I'm apparently another member of Debresser's vast conspiracy to take over Wikipedia, so I feel the need to chime in here to say that Debresser is not being snarky or sarcastic but very serious, and I back up every word he wrote. Izak's behaviour over the past two weeks can only be described as paranoid. That first sentence just above is not sarcasm either; Izak has literally accused us (and several other editors) of exactly that. He's also spoken of our activities being coordinated by the "high echelons" of Chabad, which he seems to imagine as some sort of Bavarian Illuminati, with "vast resources", "sending" even 12-year-olds to the "front lines" in an effort to "turn Wikipedia into a mirror of chabad.org".

More to the point, Izak has deliberately filed a frivolous COI complaint against four editors, including Debresser and me, and for that I call for sanctions. COI is fairly well-defined: merely having political opinions, even strong ones, does not create a COI. In all my time editing articles related to politics, I've seen many arguments accusing people of POV-pushing; I've seen people reminded of the need to maintain NPOV in articles, and I've seen people blocked for failing to do so. But never have I seen anyone accused of a COI merely for having strong opinions on the subject of the article. Whether it's Sarah Palin or Barack Obama, editors who strongly support or oppose them are welcome to edit, provided they try to maintain NPOV in the articles. Only someone who actually worked for them or their opponents would have a COI. Izak does not allege that any of the four he accuses work for any Chabad-related organisation, so the COI complaint is frivolous from its inception and he should be sanctioned for that. I should also point out that Izak, despite making no secret of his own fierce adherence to Orthodox Judaism, has felt no compunction at editing Jewish-related articles, which under his own theory would appear to be a COI!

I also call for him to be sanctioned for harassment, NPA, CIVIL, etc. He started out with the COI filed against one editor; every time someone came to that editor's defense, he was added to the complaint, which is how it grew to four. After that people stopped coming; I guess nobody wants to be the fifth. He also accuses all of us of being uncivil, attacking him, etc., merely for defending ourselves against his ever-more-hysterical accusations. And once again I must stress that when I call them hysterical I am not exaggerating or attacking him, but merely describing them as soberly as I can. They are what any neutral observer would describe as hysterical and showing signs of paranoia, and they've been getting worse.

This is getting long, and I apologise for that. But I have to say this: One of Izak's lines of attack has been to distort the meaning of WP:FORK, and claim that any article that could conceivably have been included in a larger article is a FORK of that other article, and what's more a POV FORK, because it was created for the purpose of proliferating articles. Now I've read WP:FORK many times and I just don't see what he is seeing there. A fork is when two articles contain the same information; a POV fork is when they are created deliberately, in order to present that information with different spins. But nobody claims that, e.g., an article on a school is a fork because it could have been included in a larger article on schools in that area. Such articles can be challenged on whether their subjects have independent notability, but not for being forks. Now some of the articles Izak has been involved in challenging recently are notable, though they are stubs that need to be expanded; some have not established notability, and were properly deleted. But none of them were forks of any kind, and certainly not POV forks, and in accusing their creators of that (as he has explicitly done) he violated at least AGF, if not NPA.

Just one more thing, I promise. Sarah, above, accuses Debresser of "frequent provocative personal comments and references to IZAK's mental health and responding to others with sarcastic comments", and seems reluctant to believe that "it's just some lunatic meritless conspiracy theory that IZAK has come up with". But it really is that. Debresser has described it accurately and soberly. Sarah then complains of a "glut of spam-like external linking to a non-neutral site on articles that aren't warranted". That is a specific complaint that I confidently assert is without any merit. Chabad.org is not a "non-neutral site"; it is an invaluable resource on almost all Jewish topics. It was the first Jewish site on the WWW, and it is one of the most important such resources, so it's not surprising that links to it can be found on many Jewish topics. Every single one of those articles would be poorer without these links. On most of these topics there is no particular "Chabad POV", just the same Orthodox POV that any Orthodox site will have, including any site to which Izak would link instead, such as aish.com. Sarah also mentions an excessive reliance on primary sources; that can be a problem, though often what she thinks is a primary source is actually a single secondary source, which can also be a problem. But that is hardly a COI or POV issue; it's more a matter of lack of research, or of there not being any other readily accessible sources on the topic. One may legitimately put a refimprove or singlesource tag on such articles, and hope for someone to come along and improve them, but from there to accusing their creators of acting in bad faith is a long long way.

Sorry for the length. I tried to keep it as short as I possibly could; obviously I failed. I hope at least it was readable. -- Zsero (talk) 16:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Look, this is not a place to continue your dispute with people. It's a dedicated and specialised noticeboard for requesting assistance from admins. Either show something in the form of diffs which is sanctionable (and without the long and bad faith rants) which requires admin intervention or find something more constructive to do, but keep in mind that any potential sanctions will be applied without favour and having read through a whole lot of material myself I think any blocks for personal attacks and what-not require blocks to both sides because both sides are at fault. Admins are perfectly capable of reviewing diffs and working things out for themselves and we don't require these long ranting "opinions by" from you all telling us what is really going on here. As for your references to what I said, I was outlining issues that have been raised by other admins who have commented on the COIN report, they're other peoples concerns, so stop trying to make out like they're things I've just pulled out of thin air. You lot have basically bickered so extensively that you're rendered the whole COIN discussion useless because most admins simply do not have the time to read through pages and pages of bickering and look through pages and pages of discussions and spreading your bickering to this workspace is unacceptable. Nothing is realistically going to be achieved here except you lot continuing your back-and-forth arguing so I request another admin close and archive this discussion. Sarah 00:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Izak's entire attack is the subject of this complaint. Just look at every single thing he's written about us in the past fortnight; it's all personal attacks, uncivil, accusations of bad faith, and the terms keep getting more hysterical every day. Enough. We will not stand by and let him do this to us. We are here seeking justice. As far as I can recall I have not once attacked him or written anything that I should be ashamed of. All I have done is defend myself and his other targets. But AGF has limits, and Izak has long passed those. I do not AGF of him any more, and no rule requires me to. There is no conspiracy, there is no evidence that any of us work for an organisation we edit about, or get our marching orders from anyone, or were "sent" here to take over Wikipedia. Izak's false accusations must be dealt with once and for all. -- Zsero (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Here you show a complete failure to understand the conflict of interest guideline. You don't have to be employed by an organisation or be "sent here to take over" to have a conflict of interest. Under the WP:COI guideline, which is what IZAK is referring to when he talks about "conflict of interest", if you are trying to advance the interests of an outside organisation over advancing the goals and mission of Wikipedia, you have a conflict of interest. It is my view, from my own review of the subject area and not because of what IZAK said (though he obviously drew attention to it), that that is exactly what some are doing. I believe that you (collectively) are here trying to use Wikipedia to promote and advance the interests of your religious group, but if I'm wrong and you are actually here because you want to help Wikipedia build a neutral, verifiable encyclopedia, then please put aside your differences with people outside your group, extend some good faith and collaborate with them to clean up this subject area to ensure content is neutral and encyclopedic and complies with our policies and guidelines. Sarah 01:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

And also, re "Sarah also mentions an excessive reliance on primary sources; that can be a problem, though often what she thinks is a primary source is actually a single secondary source, which can also be a problem", I've never told you what I think is or is not a primary source so how you could possibly know that "often what [I] think is a primary source is actually a single secondary source" is completely beyond me. I really do not appreciate you misrepresenting me and trying to mislead other admins and I think this is really at the root of the disputes you people are having. It's all political and strategic maneuvering, twisting people's words, trying to discredit and remove people who don't agree with you. Sarah 00:11, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

If you complain about excessive reliance on primary sources, I need to respond to that, don't I? And I absolutely reject and protest at your false characterisation of my responses. I and the other three are the victims here. -- Zsero (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

You can respond to my comments without trying to mislead other admins by making outrageously false accusations. I'm really appalled at this behaviour. To so blatantly try to discredit a completely uninvolved admin whose only involvement in this subject area has been to review a COI complaint by misrepresenting them, their views and their statements is really disgraceful behaviour and it only convinces me of the political game-playing going on here. You presented an accusation that I do not know what primary sources are without a shred of evidence whatsoever and as though it was a simple statement of fact. Either put up some diffs to support your accusation or retract it. As for my characterisation of your post, I will leave it for other admins to decide if they feel your long commentary with no diffs or evidence whatsoever to substantiate your accusations is consistent with the purpose of this board and the directions at the top ("unsubstantiated requests for administrator intervention do not belong here. Please do not clutter this page with accusations..."). Sarah 01:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oh wow, a crusade and a jihad at the same time with the Bavarian illuminati as well. Since this seems to be tangential to the COIN discussion, why should any admin here pre-empt that and permit forum shopping as apparently is being done here? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

  Because this is a complaint against the person who filed the frivolous COI complaint. I and the other three targets of that complaint have been attacked in ever-more-hysterical terms for two weeks now, and we've had enough; or at least I have. It's time to sanction Izak. -- Zsero (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

  You (collectively) have likewise engaged in hysterical accusations and repeated personal attacks. There's no point-scoring here, we deal with disruption and blocks and other sanctions are issued without favour on the basis of disruption. As the COIN shows, you've all had a role to play in the disruption. If you hadn't responded to IZAK's report with personal attacks, personal comments, long ranting commentaries and such, you might actually have a valid complaint, but as it stands all of you have behaved badly. Admins review the behaviour of all parties involved, so if you want to talk about sanctioning IZAK, we'll also be talking about sanctioning all the other involved parties. Personally, I'd support topic banning the whole group of you. Sarah 01:47, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Jim Bell and James dalton bell (talk · contribs)

An editor claiming to be the subject of this article [42], has tried to repeatedly post allegations of judicial misconduct and his own theory on global warming [43][44][45][46][47] which I removed as being unsourced, clear cut violations of WP:BLP and WP:OR. I and other editors have told him multiple times [48][49][50] what the issues are regarding the edits, but he continues to be argumentative about it and claims that I am part of some inept conspiracy to silence him and that I am editing on somebody's behalf.[51][52] He also opened a MedCab case and called for my banning [53] and that I am harassing people [54]. He has now added allegations of sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry [55]. Can some involved uninvolved admin or editor please intervene? Thank you. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As probably the only "involved admin or editor" having written the bulk of the article, I would encourage anyone inclined to pitch in to read very carefully the history of the subject, and proceed with any dispute resolution with the greatest consideration for the positions and dispositions of those involved.  Skomorokh  17:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, bad typo... "uninvolved". -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 17:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• I have written what I hope is a comprehensive overview of the issues, and the means to address them, on their talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is 'the subject of the article Jim Bell', James Dalton Bell. The point of dispute, at the moment, is NOT the state (the contents) of the 'Jim Bell' article prior to December 18, 2009. Rather, the dispute has (so far) been strongly the product of the abrupt, rude, and malicious process by which Gogo Dodo engaged in a 'drive-by-deletion' of material I added to article 'Jim Bell'. Misleadingly, Dodo pretends that the real problem is the material I added. Instead, I have REPEATEDLY pointed out that Dodo's actions were and remain HIGHLY improper, EVEN IF it is assumed that SOMETHING is wrong with the material I added. Facts: I am a NEW user, having not had access to the Internet for 9 years. (Anybody who actually READS the article 'Jim Bell' would have known this. They would also have noticed that I would be released from prison December 20,2009, so Dodo can't pretend that he 'didn't believe' me to be the 'genuine' Jim Bell.) Thus, Dodo (if he had read the article) was fully aware that I was unfamiliar with not merely the as-written policies, but in fact the as-applied procedures, in WP. (Please note: Written polices and actual procedures can very well be DIFFERENT, and I assert they are different.) I fully understand that if SOMEBODY had sabotaged the article (or any article), there would be no problem in reverting such tampering. But, I hasten to add, the contents of what I added could not possibly be described in that fashion. So, that option/excuse is UNAVAILABLE to Dodo. The next excuse he might claim to use is the lack of 'citations'. Well, having read well over 100 WP articles in the last few days, it is quite obvious that some articles can last FOR YEARS with few or any citations, even those whose subject is living, etc. I know this because I see DATED notations on some articles, bemoaning the lack of citations, and the dates are over one year in the past! Obviously, nobody believed (in those other cases) that somebody had to INSTANTLY remove uncited material! Double-standards are often a symptom of hypocrisy, or even downright malice. So, Dodo can't claim he had to act instantly. The next problem is that, while WP is 'advertised' (in policy) as a place in which _consensus_ is important, you should note that Dodo didn't wait for any such consensus to develop! In fact, his precipitate action (erasing ALL my additions, and not merely a fraction or a portion of them) could have no other goal that to PREVENT any such 'consensus' from happening: It was as if Dodo was trying his upmost to CONCEAL the contents of my edits, not merely from the public, but also from all other editors/administrators. Moreover, he repeated his actions FOUR times. Nor did he bother to even put my edits into the 'talk:jim bell' article (instead, I did that): If he had GENUINELY believed that there was sufficient justification to 'immediately' remove my edits, EVEN BEFORE some sort of consensus had developed, and since it was clear that 'vandalism' wasn't involved (at least, not from me), the only logical action (for him) would have been to place my edits into talk:jim Bell, to let that consensus develop. But not only did he not do that the first time he acted, he went on to do the same thing three more times, and yet he STILL didn't do that! Moreover, he did not merely delete a portion of my edits: In every case (so far?) Dodo has CAREFULLY deleted EVERYTHING I edited. Not merely some portion that, ostensibly, is unacceptable or improper! Yet further, despite my repeated complaints and objections, Dodo has so far been virtually silent for days on the substance of my complaint. Somebody suggested, 'because he is busy'. Really? If he's really THAT busy, how did he manage to even FIND my edits, FOUR TIMES IN A ROW, in a few hours each, and why did he take the time to charge in and delete them?!? Which is it? Is he BUSY, or is he NOT busy?!? Dodo's actions simply don't 'added up'. His actions are NOT consistent with a reasonable, non-malicious person who is genuinely attempting to follow a consistently-applied policy. Rather, his actions are those of a thoroughly malicious person who has tried (in an extremely effective manner!) to engage in sabotage, yet attempting (in an extremely ineffective manner) to conceal his true motivations. It's really quite simple, given these extensive facts: Dodo is rude, malicious, and abrupt. Dodo may, indeed, have a longstanding practice of engaging in 'drive-by-deletion' of other people's edits. (I've seen messages which indicate exactly that: And, such a person would not be changing his 'MO' ('modus operandi') much to intentionally direct his actions against some additional specific person, such as myself.) But, I think it's obvious that this specific incident (with article 'jim bell') transcends even such general harrassment and sabotage. His silence in the face of my numerous reasonable objections constitutes an admission of guilt: He knows that even if he can justify, in principle, erasing SOME edits, SOMETIMES, he can't explain his improper method of doing so in this situation. It's most likely Dodo was put up to this: He is merely acting on somebody else's behalf. It's the only thing that would accurately explain what's been going on. Note that I would welcome (as I have clearly requested, for a week!) an intelligent discussion of this matter, but Dodo (to mix a metaphor) 'plays ostrich', sticking his head in the sand. Dodo's actions amount to "Don't let Jim Bell edit ANY article, especially 'Jim Bell'". If Dodo disagrees, he should explain how his actions CAN'T be interpreted in exactly this fashion, and why he didn't respond before.James dalton bell (talk) 04:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Chummer, do yourself and everyone else a favor, calm down, and, in as succinct a manner as possible, please summarize the Mighty Wall O' Text above - Nobody's gonna bother even reading the above as it comes across as a rant. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 05:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Basically, he's annoyed that Gogo Dodo reverted his unsourced addition to his biography a few times and says Gogo Dodo didn't communicate with him (despite the evidence on his talk page). He also seems to be unaware how easy it is to review and revert changes via article history and wants to be given a break because he's a new user and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS with no sources. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I managed to get about half way down, but it appears that the crux of his argument is that he believes he should be able to add in unsourced material and then source it at a much later date because this has occured on other articles. However, just because other articles are in a state of flux or are not sourced does not mean that the article that he is editing should be a reason to add unsourced material to other articles. Doing so could be seen to be disrupting to make a point and is certainly contrary to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. James dalton bell also believes that as other articles had citations added quite some time after the article was written that he should be able to add it later as well, and he is questioning why Gogo Dodo needed to remove the material instantly, not understanding that Wiki means "quick" and this is perfectly acceptable to do this. Then there is a very long rant about how he is being harassed and there is a conspiracy against him by some unknown group or individual, which to be frank I gave up reading because I've read this sort of drivel on hundreds, if not thousands, of long winded posts from people who don't understand how Wikipedia works. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Having read the post here, it seems to me that he is indeed acting as Tbsdy lives states. As a totally uninvolved editor (I'd never heard of him before this thread), I would say 2 things: firstly, Gogo Dodo did leave messages on the talk page explaining their actions (using the standard templates for that purpose); secondly Bell has been inserting unsourced, unverified information. Although I understand Bell's anger on this issue, the fact remains that Gogo Dodo was acting completely in line with the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. "Other Stuff Exists" is never counted as a suitable argument for keeping specific articles or specific versions. Using that logic, I could pop round Jim Bell's house, break in and assault him "because other people assault people" - or would Jim Bell think that would be OK as an argument for doing it - I'm guessing not. I fail to see where Gogo Dodo has breached any policies here (including WP:CIVILITY). I appreciate that Bell is a new user here, and so cannot be expected to understand the policies here from the off - but he was notified of what was wrong with his edits, and proceeded to add further unsourced, unverified OR to the article. The first time, ignorance could be used as an excuse. The second time (and beyond) it cannot. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 18:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Appeal by GoRight

Unarchived by Viridae: collapsetop|GoRight has been blocked by Viridae so this becomes moot at this stage

Appealing user

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

Sanction being appealed

GoRight (talk · contribs) warned "not to file any further frivolous or vexatious enforcement requests, or else " he "may be blocked without further warnings". (by Jehochman, transcribed to User talk:GoRight by me). ++Lar: t/c 17:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I wish to appeal the warning imposed at [56] and specifically [57], logged at [58] and specifically [59] – GoRight (talk) 19:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Editor who imposed or found consensus to impose the sanction

Jehochman (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Notification of that editor

[60]

Statement by GoRight

We have here a brand new process related to the probation of the Climate Change articles. There is a pending arbitration request regarding this process at [61]. However, should these probationary sanctions be upheld as valid, either explicitly or by a failure of Arbcom to hear the case, then some amount of "kicking the tires" of the process to establish the acceptable boundaries thereof will be inevitable. Someone has to be the first one to work things through the system, and since I was indirectly and informally "nominated" to do so in the first such case I see no reason not to accept that dubious role. So here we are.

I was surprised to actually be sanctioned as a result of filing this case. As I explained in the case itself I was choosing the make use of the new process rather than engage in the edit waring that I was reporting. These sanctions list edit waring as a primary example of what they are intended to cover. My report clearly drew the attention of the admins who monitor the request for enforcement page to an article that is clearly covered by the probationary sanctions where active edit waring was currently taking place. The edit waring in question was obvious and was being done by multiple editors. I chose NOT to single out any editors for action but merely requested that editors from either side of the dispute be blocked for a violations of these new probationary sanctions.

If this use of the request for enforcement page is not appropriate, simply stating as much would have been sufficient. However, since I was sanctioned merely for trying to make use of this new process let us follow this all the way through and thus I am filing this appeal.

In this instance I have been warned "not to file any further frivolous or vexatious enforcement requests". The use of the word "further" in this case clearly implies that this filing was either (a) frivolous, or (b) vexatious.

I claim that it was actually neither:

(a) A Frivolous Filing

My report was clearly drawing attention to violations of the probationary sanctions on an applicable articled. Though my report may have been insufficiently specified, it clearly was NOT frivolous. There WAS edit waring occurring at the time and place I indicated. Is it not the purpose of this request for enforcement page to have such instances pointed out? If not then this should be made clear.

(b) A Vexatious Filing

To be vexatious I have to have been trying to harass someone. Who was I harassing with this report? I singled out no particular editor, nor did I call for blocks to be applied to only one side of the dispute. So I fail to see how this can be considered a vexatious filing.

Given this I seek to have this sanction reversed and to have it stricken from the log. --GoRight (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Responses

@Jehochman: Please WP:AGF. What is the harm in taking a new process through its paces? I have already uncovered a bug in the appeal template. If for no other reason this exercise was useful. --GoRight (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wasting people's time with frivolous process is not a good thing to do. You ought to be blocked until you agree to desist. Wikipedia is a volunteer project to create a high quality encyclopedia. It's not the Senate where filibustering is often used. Jehochman ^Brrr 20:51, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@SBHB: I was specifically directed here from [62]. --GoRight (talk) 20:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@ChrisO: This sanction is duly logged as such on the probationary sanctions log page. I believe that should qualify it as fit for appeal. There is, of course, a real sanction even in this warning as it asserts that I may now be summarily blocked without further warning. So there is an impact on me. --GoRight (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"To date these have included an enforcement request against Lar (talk · contribs) for carrying out an enforcement action [122] which resulted in a warning not to engage in frivolous requests" - This is incorrect. That filing was closed as not being at the appropriate venue. No sanction against me came out of that report nor have I pursued the matter further. --GoRight (talk) 20:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"This should be seen in the context of GoRight's adamant opposition to the existence of the article probation, which he considers to be merely "purportedly enacted" [124], and which he has requested the Arbitration Committee to step in and halt [125]." - This is incorrect. I am not adament in opposition to anything. I merely want to ensure that if these sanctions are imposed that they truly and unambiguously have the full force of community deliberations. My use of the term "puported" is accurate in this instance since the legitimacy thereof is still being challenged. Only after such challenges have been put to rest can the sanctions truly be considered enacted. If anything my actions in that respect only serve the strengthen the legitimacy of the sanction should they survive those appeals. --GoRight (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

"It seems apparent that he is doing everything he can to disrupt and oppose the article probation, first by making frivolous enforcement requests, now by making frivolous enforcement appeals." - I dispute that my request or that this appeal are frivolous. The request was properly drawing attention to violations of the conditions of the probationary sanctions and should, therefore, not be considered frivolous. I have been tangibly harmed by this warning and so its appeal should not be considered frivolous either. Please WP:AGF. --GoRight (talk) 20:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@Sandstein: I disagree. The issuance of this warning allows (or so it indicates) admins to block me without having to warn me further. That is a tangible loss on my part. And since my report was neither frivolous nor vexatious as Jehochman asserts I should not be subjected to such a loss, hence I am appealing the decision. I admit that it is not a major loss on my part but it is sufficient to run this case through the process, at least IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

@JzG (aka Guy): Strictly speaking, an appeal is not a forum shop. Also, this is the first place I have taken the appeal. Neither are you uninvolved with respect to myself so your comments should be weighted accordingly. --GoRight (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Process Notes

• The appeal template seems to have a bug as I don't know why the "Appealing user" comes out as "Example" above. --GoRight (talk) 20:10, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• I've fixed that bug in {{Sanction appeal}}, thanks.  Sandstein  20:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by Jehochman

Please block GoRight for vexatious abuse of process. It is foolish of them to appeal a mere warning. (I should have just blocked them, instead of hoping for a good faith response to the warning.) Jehochman ^Brrr 19:43, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement by ZuluPapa5*

A probation article period "warning" is a admin sanction that maybe apealed like any other issue. The final venue for dispute resolution is ArbCom. This appeal must be taken seriously here at ANI. I an disheartened to see so many vexatious calls for blocks at GoRight, without acknowledging the basis for his appeal, or council for better dispute resolution. An abuse of process claim clearly requires many separate instances and not a single issue with appeal, else it may become an abusive process claim itself. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 03:06, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So ... GoRight get's blocked for Wasting Time. For what purpose did admins chose to invest their time in this, when they could chose to ignore it. I am concerned about vexatious admins in this case. Zulu Papa 5 ☆ (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Comments by others about the appeal by GoRight

Sometimes it takes multiple attempts to make an end run around consensus decisions for an editor to see that he cannot get his way by creative use of process. I urge that we permit GoRight the leeway he needs to see that Wikipedia is against his behavior. He has been banned from vexatious behavior a venue where he has pursued particularly vexatious claims, but I think he has a right to see that ban reviewed. --TS 19:48, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well I'm not sure that I follow what Tony means but personally this is enough. GoRight needs a block now to prevent further disruption of the project. Enough is surely enough now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  I don't see any actions worthy of a block, what specifically is the block to be for? Off2riorob (talk) 20:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

  Multiply vexatious wasting of the communities time and patience. Its a classic preventative block for disruption, because while GoRight is blocked they cannot lodge any more bogus and pointy requests. Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see that at all, this is a good faith appeal of a restriction. Are you from the opposing side of the content dispute? Off2riorob (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Well I never edited a climate article in my life so I'm not sure what side you think I am on, but it is obvious to everyone that I would be unable to fairly undertake any admin action involving GoRight as I think he is a disruptive editor who should be banished from the project. I am entitled to state my opinions like anyone else and the value or otherwise of my arguments can be judged in the final analysis. I can see that I am not alone in considering this appeal to be vexatious & disruption so I'm not really sure what your point is. And what side are you on by the way? Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I thought you were personally involved, I assumed climate but it seems to be just a general involvement, I dislike the shouting for the heads of editors except when really needed.. and then I find that there is no need for the shouting, the editor is simply blocked and that is that. I am on the side of the underdog. Off2riorob (talk) 20:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• As far as I know GoRight hasn't been banned from anything. He's merely been warned not to make frivolous and disruptive enforcement requests concerning the recently enacted Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. To date these have included an enforcement request against Lar (talk · contribs) for carrying out an enforcement action [63] which resulted in a warning not to engage in frivolous requests; an enforcement request against unnamed "Multiple Editors" [64] which resulted in a second warning; and now this appeal of the second warning. This should be seen in the context of GoRight's adamant opposition to the existence of the article probation, which he considers to be merely "purportedly enacted" [65], and which he has requested the Arbitration Committee to step in and halt [66]. It seems apparent that he is doing everything he can to disrupt and oppose the article probation, first by making frivolous enforcement requests, now by making frivolous enforcement appeals. This sort of behaviour shouldn't be tolerated. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It just looks like a good faith request to appeal what he sees as a unwarranted warning. These single admin restrictions are controversial, Jimbo said he was against them on his userpage recently. Are you involved in the content dispute CrisO? I would like to see if some uninvolved editors feel a block is needed for reguesting this appeal. Off2riorob (talk) 20:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you think this is about a content dispute. No content is involved. GoRight's complaints have all concerned the process of the article probation, not the content of any specific article. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

There's no restriction (yet) to appeal. This request is pure grandstanding or pot stirring. Jehochman ^Brrr 20:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I have suffered a tangible loss by the issuance of this warning under false pretenses. I merely seek to have that reversed. Rather than commenting on me, perhaps you can address my arguments above to support your contention that my filing was either (a) frivolous or (b) vexatious. Please take these proceedings seriously. --GoRight (talk) 21:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC) If Jehochman is allowed to post in this section then I am allowed to respond here as well.

• My threshold for vexatious litigation is a bit higher than GoRight has met at present (not including this, as the request for review is perfectly legitimate), but strongly encourage them to be more considerate in the future and take heed of the warning. I did not participate in that discussion, but agree with the result. I stress that specific requests regarding specific behavior of specific editors who may have edited in violation of the probation continue to be welcome at WP:GSCC. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
• I don't think one can usefully appeal a mere warning, as such, any more that one can "appeal" a warning on one's user talk page: it is not an actual sanction. I agree with many of the above that this is a borderline vexatious request.  Sandstein  20:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Venue

Without commenting one way or the other whether the appeal has merit, it is not clear to me whether WP:ANI is the appropriate venue. Perhaps those administering sanctions should create a subpage of Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation where appeals can be heard. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:07, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The probation page does say that sanctions under this remedy can be appealed to AN/I. A warning is not a sanction per se but the same principle surely applies. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see it now (linked under "appropriate administrators noticeboard"). But I still think it would be better for appeals be centralized under the sanctions page. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but I suggest that should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement rather than here. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Completely agree. It needs a CENT under sanctions, or that location just above mentioned by ChrisO seems like it's exactly what we're looking for. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the idea to referring appeals here is to get review from fresh perspectives. - 2/0 (cont.) 20:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, and I think this makes sense, as the dedicated enforcement page (WP:GS/CC/RE) is likely to be watched mostly by people involved in the subject-related disputes. It would be good if more uninvolved admins were to watchlist it.  Sandstein  20:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Location aside, with WP:CANVASS, WP:ADMINSHOP and the like, this guideline is pointless and I don't know why it was ever permitted. It's just plain common sense with weaseled working included. It's like saying "users cannot create new socks if currently a participant in an SPI investigation." Not sure how this is "fresh eyes", since I'd venture 90% of persons reading here are either already involved somewhere in the process, accidentally involved via others, or just sick to death of it. Oh, and there will never be any kind of consensus, about anything here. Ever. Especially if actual end opinions are for non-involved administrators, for which there seem to be very few left. Between some being active topic participants and so many others involved in enforcements on general Wikipedia standards in general, I don't know what good pumping a dry well like this is going to do. If not this time, it'll come up next time, or the next, and so on. There is actually a finite number of admins generally active most days, and especially a limit to number who will read ANI daily... this being why I'd say a centralized discussion will be needed at some point, regardless. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 21:02, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Amen, brother. The old saw about there being a thousand admins has always sounded hollow to me, since easily 900+ will not touch this kind of festering sore with a ten foot pole. I'm pretty sure they are the smart ones. Guy (Help!) 22:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The forum shop is now closed

GoRight has just about run out of venues to take this, I'd say. Time to close the discussion. He's been warned, he doesn't like it, bad luck. Until some action is taken as a result of that warning there is nothing to do, nothing to see and nothing to discuss. Guy (Help!) 21:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

the wrong way to do things

I share to a considerable extent GoRight's opinion about the way these sanctions were implemented. But I think he is choosing about the most unproductive way of calling attention to it there can possibly be; I ask him to heed Jehochman's warning, before he forfeits all possibly sympathy and harms his position. DGG ( talk ) 23:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that this has still been a useful exercise of the probationary sanction process as it helped to clarify a few points and fixed at least one problem with the appeals template. I still believe that Jehochman has failed to make any case that my original filing was either frivolous or vexatious and his failure to take this appeal seriously does not reflect well upon him. That all having been said, I do not object if some truly neutral admin wishes to close this appeal. --GoRight (talk) 00:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, you have to admit that you have now moved very far away from actually editing an article. You are engaged in a dispute about procedures that have to do about you starting procedures that address the legality of procedures implemented to deal with a recent dispute about some editors (including you) who use procedural tactics like adding a POV tag when editing an article and starting disputes about that. Count Iblis (talk) 00:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Stack-heap collision. Core dumped. --TS 00:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Your stack analogy is really quite apt. At each point the process was interrupted, and not always by me, by intervening procedural moves from both sides. So while CI's assertion that we are knee deep in procedural assessments is technically correct, it is not just me that has been introducing the procedural roadblocks to progress.

On the other hand this appeal is really quite straightforward. Ryan implemented probationary sanctions based on a contested community consensus, I was sanctioned (via a warning) as part of that probation, and I am simply following the process provided within the probation process that was setup to appeal the sanction against me. We are really only 3 levels deep (4 if you want to count Tedders Arbcom request). Either way I am following the rules as they have been established. I should not be punished for following the rules. --GoRight (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Warning seems appropriate. I'm unsure GoRight gets it yet that the goal is to reduce disruption, not control content. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 02:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Entirely in agreement with DGG... ANI listings are not part of the dispute resolution process and I'm amazed this was ever suggested. I'm not saying "punish" this (bad faith, uncivil, awful word to use at Wikipedia in general), but this is a mile away from "following the rules" on both ends... Partially because of no set policy on a situation like this and partially because of the loose instructions, but mostly becasue ANI is policy-related troubles and for violations/incidents that do not have a separate incident board. The process basics at WP:DR are the way forward. ANI also isn't an RFC or place for a centralized discussion. The sanctions are, to my conclusions, completely moot and not worth discussion because the policy is a synthesized and non-vetted way to work together existing policies. As I stated in my last post within-topic, WP:ADMINSHOP is already one way of demonstrating this, and I'm sure there are many other ways to describe. You have to combine a few dots together while thinking about it if confused, but such thinking is needed if working to discuss policy regardless, hmm? If someone is shopping by making multiple incident posts at once or is creating reports on extremely similar issues more than once, that should be dealt with regardless of the topic, and is not at all unique. That can come to ANI. The spirit behind this glorified essay is proper, but shouldn't be considered its own guideline. Get up one centralized discussion on the appropriateness of this "policy" and go about your own business while ArbCom starts to piece this together. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

May I point out one aspect to this whole thread? GoRight wants to appeal a warning telling him "not to file any further frivolous or vexatious enforcement requests, or else". Appealing a warning strikes me as an undeniable example of a "frivolous or vexatious enforcement request". If GoRight believes the warning is inappropriate, he should talk to the Admin who warned him -- simple as that. If GoRight thinks he is the victim of harassment by an Admin, he can bring that up here -- but none of the evidence produced indicates that. -- llywrch (talk) 04:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Result of the appeal by GoRight

This section is to be edited only by uninvolved administrators. Comments by others will be moved to the section above.

Please keep unproductive bickering out of this section

Since when do sections of this page get limited to "uninvolved admins"? This is an open forum. Woogee (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Ask GoRight, he put this here. Spartaz Humbug! 20:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC) I thought so. Woogee (talk) 20:34, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Actually it's from Template:Sanction appeal. GoRight can't take the blame for that. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC) (ec) Actually it's boilerplate from {{Sanction appeal}}, whose format is derived from {{Sanction enforcement request}}, which is the template used at WP:AE. This is the section dedicated for a summary of the discussion by the closing administrator, as is customary. The text can probably be removed from the template if it bothers people.  Sandstein  20:39, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Then I will withdraw my bad faith assumtpion above. Woogee (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC) It should be noted that Jehochman has a history of supporting editors with certain perspectives and going after those with alternative perspectives. We have also seen very biased enforcement actions from Sandstein who has made clear his political views in his article editing. I think we need to be VERY careful about blocking and banning editors of certain viewpoints in order to censor those perspectives. The netural point of view police is a core policy and makes clear that notable perspectives even those not held by the majority warrant inclusion. The aggressive scrubbing of global warming skepticism and notable controversies with regard to leftist politicians while conservatives and republicans are disparaged is inappropriate and does a disservice to our readers. We're here to write an inclusive encyclopedia, not to propagandize our personal beliefs and opinions. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:18, 3 January 2010 (UTC) Have you learned nothing from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/ChildofMidnight? Wikipedia is not a political battlefield. If the conservative editors would stop being the nails that stick up the highest, they wouldn't keep getting hit with the hammer. It is hard to tell the political affiliations of a really good editor, because they write for the enemy. Jehochman Brrr 21:24, 3 January 2010 (UTC) I am not Conservative, but as you suggest, it can be confusing to figure out the political affiliations of good editors. It's also none of your business what political parties or ideals I support. The main issue is that no admin should abuse their tools to go after editors they disagree with ideologically. We are supposed to be writing an encyclopedia with a neutral point of view, not one to advocate our pet causes. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest the following resolution: that the warning should stand, after all "frivolous or vexatious enforcement requests" are never a good thing, and the present case seems close to that sort of behavior, but that any further action against GoRight based on the warning be carried out only by an admin who has not previously been involved in this matter.--agr (talk) 06:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there everyone. As some of you might be aware I have blocked GoRight. The reasoning for this, as given on his talk page, is this: This isn't supposed to be an infinite/permanent block, just indefinite because the length depends on GoRight shaping up and treating this place like a collaborative project. When he indicates he would like to edit again in a collaborative manner, I will quite happily unblock or someone else can do so for me. Until then though, he is not worth the time being wasted on him by countless volunteers with better to do. I understand there might be objections to this block, but I suggest that time spent arguing over it might better be spent helping GoRight see the problems with his behaviour, thereby bringing this incident too a speedy resolution. Viridae^Talk 08:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You forgot to add the insults. From your initial statement to GoRight telling him he was blocked: You are blocked. Basically for being a complete waste of time, but your block log gives more specifics. Come back when you have something constructive to add. [67] Your statement in the block log: account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (Wikilawyering, wasting the community's time, forum shopping, inability to edit collaberatively, general waste of time ) [68] If you're going to use the tools, do it without insulting the person you're blocking. It makes the block look suspicious, which tends to waste the time of others who then beginsifting through the background. I agree that GoRight was wasting people's time. That doesn't give you an excuse to call him or anyone else someone who is "a complete waste of time" or a "general waste of time". Your statements make your action look like a back-alley fight, which just postpones the calming down, therefore ... wasting everybody's time. I emailed GoRight over the weekend in an attempt to steer him in a constructive direction, but that didn't seem to result in any, ah, time-saving, and I can't find a good reason to object to the block. Although your time-wasting rudeness makes me want to. Speaking of time-wasting: I originally wanted to contribute at the Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, but rudeness and POV-pushing behavior made me decide I was wasting my time. Then the situation was taken to RFAR. Further waste of time. Then this was taken to AN and to its own AN subpage. More time spent. And then GoRight takes it back to RFAR, and back to here, and I take time out to send him an email, and now, on top of all this you, Viridae, are wasting my time and now I'm complaining about it, potentially wasting more time. If Wikipedia had a better way of dealing with articles on contentious subjects that have a large number of editors contending over them, we'd certainly waste a lot less time. I know, I know -- complaining about it is just a ... -- JohnWBarber (talk) 12:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Statement of fact - he was being a huge time sink to no gain =/= insults. Viridae^Talk 19:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's not the way we measure incivility. You know that. -- JohnWBarber (talk) 22:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In fact, he has said "I haven't put up an unblock request because it is probably actually a good thing for me to be blocked for a while." Dougweller (talk) 12:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Lincolnshire and Talk:Lincoln.

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

---

Resolved

 – This is a content dispute, and this is the wrong forum for this. I'm not sure what admins can do to resolve this. Suggest following Wikipedia:Dispute resolution guidelines before bring this to ANI. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Jeni and others are operating a WP:CABAL involving the Lincoln page, trying to promote Lincoln, Lincolnshire over other pages in the disambiguation. They tagged the disambiguation page as part of WP:Lincolnshire, despite the fact that disambiaguation pages rarely are linked to projects other than WP:DAB and it was a POV violation (It's completely unfair to tag it as a project only associated only with a single link, when there are other links involved). When I boldly untagged it, they screamed bloody murder. In addition, they continue to push POV and disrupt, while accusing others like me who have not violated policy, pushed POV, or disrupted as doing so. These users should stop their cabal to promote Lincoln, Lincolnshire on other pages. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It should be pointed out that you failed to remove the Biography WikiProject, which is in line with your personal POV. More proof that you are out to disrupt and prove a point Jeni ^(talk) 23:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a blatent lie: If you look at my edit, you'll see that I also deleted WPBiography. Also, biography applies to several people on the page, Lincolnshire only applies to Lincoln, Lincolnshire. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:04, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

My apologies, I didn't look close enough. But still, you have purposefully stirred up trouble despite others telling you not to. Jeni ^(talk) 23:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Exactly how many members of WP:Lincolnshire have commented on the latest proposed move? Please check your facts before posting defamatory comments about whole groups. I strongly suggest you redact mention of WP:Lincolnshire from the title of this section. Nev1 (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm certainly not a member of WP:Lincolnshire, are you Nev? Jeni ^(talk) 23:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed not, and since I am one of the one's who "screamed bloody murder" (read: asked what the policy is on the matter) I resent a whole project being grouped with my actions. Nev1 (talk) 23:11, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The fact is that you still POV pushed and disrupted while accussing me and a mop of being disruptive, when we weren't POV pushing and being disruptive Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

In a content dispute, it doesn't matter if a user is a mop, bucket, spade, badger, ferret, rock, paper, scissors, lizard or Spock. I fail to see its relevence --Narson ~ Talk • 23:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Purplebackpack89

The above user has started stirring up trouble again over at Talk:Lincoln removing project banners whenever it takes his fancy. Several users have cottoned on to this and attempted to let him know (via his talk page and mine), yet he still continues in his quest to eradicate anything that isn't in line with his POV. It needs an administrator to have a word with him, since he blatantly won't listen to anyone else, then failing that, further action. Jeni ^(talk) 22:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

User notified here Jeni ^(talk) 22:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Having banners that represent only one line of a disambiguation page involving many lines is completely wrong, it violates POV and is a cabal. Jeni has been pushing much more POV than I have--another editor and I cite numbers, and she accuses us of POV. I violated no policy (I edited with bold), those banners clearly did and that's why they must be removed. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

It was two acctually, there was a biography one there too which you removed (Though never complained about). You edited with bold, but were then reverted and failed to discuss. In fact you had already discussed this on the page, so being bold after discussion has started can be seen as plain disruptive. It was certainly ill thought out as it was only likely to ramp up tension further. You also spouted some rather offensive nonsense about people from Lincolnshire here. While the rather nasty mood on the page is by no means Purplebackpack's fault, he seems to be (I'm assuming through inconsideration here rather than some design) ramping up tensions by constantly poking at things like the disambig's start and the banners. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:09, 3 January 2010 (UTC) (ECx3 or 4 or argh. So many)

Apologies for the duplicated threads, it appears that Purplebackpack89 beat me to it by a few seconds. Jeni ^(talk) 23:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, the project tags on the dab are probably not appropriate, considering I doubt the Lincolnshire Wikiproject has much to do with a dab that consists primarily of links to place outside Lincolnshire. That said, it's hardly an "incident", so you should probably take your concerns to the relevant talk pages or to WT:WikiProject Lincolnshire. Oh, and enough with the accusations of "stirring up trouble again" and a "cabal"). HJMitchell You rang? 23:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikiprojects specifically have an article class for disambiguation pages. If it is "probably not appropriate", why are they there, and used? Jeni ^(talk) 23:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Not for what they're being used for on the Lincoln page. Agree with Mitch Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

As an aside (this is still the wrong forum) I suggest you remove all project banners except the DAB project or add the banners for each and every project whose area is covered by the links at Lincoln. In response to your point, btw, I would imagine it would be appropriate to tag a dab whose links all consist of pages within the scope of that project, but in this case, the vast majority do not. HJMitchell You rang? 23:08, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

What exactly are they being used for on the Lincoln page, in your honest unbiased opinion? Jeni ^(talk) 23:12, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Frankly? Taking up space and fuelling tension. HJMitchell You rang? 23:13, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry that was aimed at Purpleback, indecently the only person that has a problem with it. The other appropriate wikiprojects should be added. Jeni ^(talk) 23:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Both sides could truly use a cup of tea here. I agree with HJM above, I don't understand the purpose of a disambig page being tagged as part of a project, when the page deals with every other mention of the word on Wikipedia. Dayewalker (talk) 23:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Its only a problem because we have a paranoid editor screaming cabal, when no members of the wikiproject have actually made a comment on the subject at hand. Last I checked, there was no policy against Wikiprojects tagging disambiguation pages, and just because one editor has an issue with it (who can't back up his problems with any sort of policy) doesn't mean it should be removed. Jeni ^(talk) 23:17, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Does that not make one wonder if the Lincolnshire wikiproject actually gives rat's arse about whether the page is tagged as within their project or not? As Dayewalker said, the page deals with just about every mention of Lincoln anywhere on WP. HJMitchell You rang? 23:20, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Given that (as its name infers) Lincoln is the county town of Lincolnshire, then Lincoln is very important to the Lincolnshire WikiProject (and is tagged with such importance), hence it is tagged in the first place. Its also perfectly feasible that there isn't anybody online from said WikiProject to comment at this time. Jeni ^(talk) 23:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I imagine that their editors will, like most of us, not give a rat's ass. However, what pages are tagged should be mostly a project's choice IMO, not to be decided by third parties telling them what is good for them. --Narson ~ Talk • 23:25, 3 January 2010 (UTC) (ECx2)

(ec x2) Seeing as no one from the project has commented in the discussion (yet), the answer is perhaps not. I don't see the need for project tags on talk:Lincoln (the point of tagging something for a project is that it draws the project's attention to it for improvement, but this seems outside WP:Lincolnshire's remit), but I was concerned by 1) the timing and 2) Purpleback's action despite the fact that he'd started a discussion about it on the talk page and didn't wait for consensus. There's nothing wrong with being bold, but reverting Jeni was wrong, and it should have been pretty obvious that it would cause confrontation. Nev1 (talk) 23:26, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)How many cities worldwide have been named after British cities? Do you propose that every single dab on the project relating to them be tagged as part of that Wikiproject? I was going to use Boston (disambiguation) as an example but it's already tagged as part of WP:Lincolnshire (the town in Lincs is tiny! Why isn't it tagged as part of the Massachusetts project?!?!). Either tag Lincoln with the Arkansas, Alabama, California, Delaware, Illinois, New Zealand, New Brunswick etc etc etc project banners or just leave the dab project banner on. HJMitchell You rang? 23:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Then we add all the appropriate wikiprojects, there is no maximum number afterall. Jeni ^(talk) 23:33, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

To Jeni: I honestly think, POV or no POV, that the purpose of the tag was to get as many Lincolnshire editors involved as possible, including those discussions involving articles outside the scope of WP:Lincolnshire (and that's where my concerns of POV come in). When JHunterJ started a discussion of redirect, you yourself alerted the Lincolnshire project, but did not alert the disambiguation project (I had to myself). Also, if we tagged every concerned project, there'd be 50-100 projects tagged--some articles in that section already, and there are dozens of articles. And there you go again with the accusations--I am not a paranoid schizo! Purplebackpackonthetrail (talk) 23:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC) (the alternate account of Purplebackpack89)

I hate to appear to be taking sides here, but to tag it with every project banner is just ridiculous. I just counted- you will need 47 different WikiProject tags. HJMitchell You rang? 23:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

That few? Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Get your facts straight please, the page had the Lincolnshire banner way before you or I even edited it. It was added here. I'm sure if other wikiprojects felt they needed to monitor this page, then they would add themselves, as it stands others haven't, so we can presume they aren't interested. Jeni ^(talk) 23:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really get the point of this, if the project is there to improve articles about the subject, what possibly could they do to improve a disambig page? It's just a list. Dayewalker (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) They can't. This isn't about interest, this is about equity. Either we have the impractical world of a bazillion projects, all of which would have to be notified from time to time, or just 1. Make it just 1. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we please just let the wikiprojects make up their own mind? They are all adults, they don't need us telling them yes or no. Lets try to stop playing Nanny State: The Board Game. --Narson ~ Talk • 00:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, progress is being made on discussions on the talk page regarding the project banners. Something still needs to be done about disruption though. Jeni ^(talk) 23:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean your disruption, POV pushing and threatening? Definetely. Mitch and Walker, would you be so good as to comment on the thread at the Lincoln talk page? Purplebackpackonthetrail (talk) 00:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I remain concerned about your use of terms like: It looks like the narrow-minded people of Lincolnshire have come out to defeat your proposal. I've asked you to refactor that but you have instead chosen to let it stand. (And for the record, Purplebackpack, I am not from Lincolnshire, I have no love for lincolnshire and have no links with Lincolnshire) --Narson ~ Talk • 01:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Belugaboy535136 WikiProject Problems

After exhausting all other options to try and curb this user it has come to my attention we now require administrator intervention. Below is a Copy of a Posting on User:Belugaboy535136s talk page that is a direct result of his continued actions to disrupt WikiProjects concerning animals.

---

WikiProject Intervention

Belugaboy535136, It has come to my attention that you are infact deceiving not only me but a large number of other users.Below is a list of my concerns.

1. You wrote User_talk:ZooPro#WikiProject_Primatesthis on my talk page then claimed you did not want the coordinators job yet [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Primates/Participants&diff=prev&oldid=335465448 th

is] comes up.

1. In your first instance of speaking with me you told me you were voted in as coordinator, i knew this to be false, once again an attempt to decieve myself and others.
2. Your lack of experience on wikipedia is in itself not a problem, however your "obsession" with power/position is a very big problem.
3. If you had been a part of the projects for some time and had contributed to them greatly i would have had no problem with you seeking a position as a coordinator. This is not the case though. You have in fact not contributed to any of the projects you have signed up for instead hindering some.
4. If you were infact trully dedicated to a project like Cetaceans you would not have jumped ship and moved to Primates this again just reinforces my view you want a title instead of a job.

I have personally left this off the Admin Notice Board as i dont want to see you punished for some silly mistakes as with some work you may come to be a good editor (if you lose the power complex), however i have no control over other editors so it may very well end up there.

In regards to your editing of articles such as Red-faced Spider Monkey it is called a Red-faced Spider Monkey that is the IUCN name, i am somewhat annoyed by this though. You have claimed your uncle works for IUCN i find this extremely hard to believe and is another attempt to deceive editors. When an experienced editor is telling you something you should listen.

In light of all this i am requesting that you cease and desist. This matter has been let go for far too long, i allowed you to continue unwarned as i assumed good faith now i am not so sure if i did take the correct action in that respect.

Consider this an official warning.

ZooPro 23:06, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems more and more of your actions are coming under scrutiny such as this. I may reconsider my decision not to bring this to the admin board. ZooPro 23:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

and another ZooPro 23:18, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Now whilst i dont always see eye to eye with Michael both on and off wikipedia i have never yelled at him,another issue. ZooPro 23:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

And this. ZooPro 23:25, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Does your whole family work at IUCN?? i only ask because of this. ZooPro 23:28, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Those are a lot of dubious claims of your family being part of the IUCN. Perhaps you should read WP:ORIGINAL; everything on Wikipedia needs sources, not someone's imagination. --ZooFari 23:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Belugaboy535136, the following message was written after your immature reactions to criticism of your co-ordination aspirations. At the time I wasn't sure if it was too harsh, but since other Wikipedians are becoming frustrated with your lack of progress, I've decided to chime in to show the general impression you seem to making on the community.

Belugaboy535136, we need a chat. I think you mean really well, but it seems you started off on the wrong foot. I don't know what caused your manic opening stint here at Wikipedia, but it's clear that you've stubbed your toes and need to reconsider the pace at which you barge through the doorways. You've started an article out of the project scope, mangled an article, mislead the community and no you seem to have tried to cover your tracks.

These represent, however, only one side of your mostly fine edits. You do seem to be sincerely interested in benefiting the project which is why the community has been understanding of your actions, correcting issues that arise and pointing you in the right direction. That won't change as long as you are open with people about what you're doing, discuss issues that arise and learn from your mistakes.

No-one is interested in your past (thus there is no need to erase it), only your potential as a beneficial contributor. A few suggestions: Make sure you don't consider articles you've contributed to "yours". They're not. Leave your personal ambitions at the door, right next to your ego. Don't take things personally, but assume responsibility. Be straight, clean up your mess and read up on project policies and guidelines to learn about best common practices.

I hope you draw some meaningful, positive lessons from your first week as a Wikipedian and look forward to working with you on Cetacean-related articles. Happy editing, --Swift (talk)

Let me just add that I hope you take these last few comments from your fellow Wikipedians to heart for their good intentions. But you'll have to make a sharp turn on this: You're losing friends quickly. --Swift (talk) 00:01, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

To add to what Swift is saying, there are editors here, myself included that would be happy to take u under our wing and show you the ropes but you also need to take our advice. ZooPro 01:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

---

After further issues of this user then removing all of this from his userpage without responding to our questions/requests i had to bring it here at the request of a number of other users.

There is muliple issues surrounding this user and a quick look through his contribution page shows the extent of the problem. He is removing valid and correct information regarding the IUCN on alot of animal pages, this inturn is misleading anyone who reads those articles.

I will leave it in your capable hands. Cheers ZooPro 23:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I ran into Belugaboy535136 on Talk:Killer Whale recently, as shown in one of ZooPro's links, and I've now looked at some of the others - and I agree, this is a problem. He is claiming multiple relatives who work for IUCN as a "source" for changes to well-referenced data, over a large range of species articles. In my interaction with him, he didn't seem to know about the page history, didn't grasp the concept of "references" at all (!), and implied that IUCN would be interested in finding out who reverted his changes. I have no comment on anything that touches on the internal politics of any WikiProject, but it's reasonable for those sort of unacceptable changes to raise a red flag in combination with a desire to give oneself bureaucratic titles. I'd suggest asking him to voluntarily stay away from directly editing species articles for now - that's where the problem is, and if restricts himself to talk pages the bad changes shouldn't pass muster with other editors. — Gavia immer (talk) 23:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Has an RFC been filed about this editor's behaviour? What other dispute resolution measures have been undertaken before taking this to ANI? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have understood those steps are only taken if edits or behavior concern a specific article or behavior, however this is a cross-wikiprojects problem, one that many editors have already raised with the editor concerned however each and everytime he has failed to answer us or change and has deleted the comments without response as it is an unusual set of circumstances it was brought here. ZooPro 07:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so we have a potential impostor, who is seen as having a bad Wikipedian attitude. Is this a consensus displayed elsewhere, or is it only happening here on AN/I? Xavexgoem (talk) 08:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Im confused as to who you are refering to, are you refering to Belugaboy535136 as a potential impostor?? If so then yes consenus is displayed on multiple projects and multiple user talk pages.ZooPro 11:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he is the referent. At least he's on notice. Any more problems that pop up post this, link to this header and bring it back up at AN/I. Again, he's on notice. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User:SkagitRiverQueen and rollback

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

---

Resolved

 – SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs) has promised to be more careful in the future when performing Rollbacks. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 06:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

[69] [70]. This editor is clearly abusing rollback. --Rschen7754 23:35, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree. Full disclosure: I'm one of the editors whose comments were removed. I've posted to SkagitRiverQueen asking for an explanation, but pending a good one, I can't see how these rollbacks are what the tool is intended for. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I removed rollback from SkagitRiverQueen. Garion96 (talk) 23:41, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I originally posted this as a separate section below, I am including it here for the warning diffs.

SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs) apparently received rollback on the first of the month, since then she's been involved with a dispute at Talk:Ted Bundy with user Wildhartlivie. She used rollback to remove WHL's comments on another user's page here [71], I commented on her page here [72], specifically warning her about using rollback in a dispute or to remove non-vandalism here [73]. She ignored me, and roled back another editor's comments on the page here [74]. I am requesting her rollback rights be removed until she can understand what the tool is to be used for. Dayewalker (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I didn't ignore you. Here's what happened: I haven't even been home at my computer since before 2pm PST. While I was gone, I did try to view some stuff on my watchlist from my cellphone because of the events of today surrounding a Wikiette report I filed. My phone is a touchscreen, and at times it is difficult to get it to respond on the right spot - when I thought I was hitting "diff", my finger must have hit "rollback" both times. I'm sorry for the error, but it really was beyond my control. Look, it you need to, check the IP address for the rollbacks and you will see that it was through a different IP address than I usually use and coming from Verizon Wireless. If you have any questions, feel free to ask. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Everybody makes a mistake now and again, but just to be on the safe side it might be a good idea to register an alternative account, without rollback, for use from your phone. --TS 00:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you kidding? After this, I will never even go to Wikipedia again with my phone! ;-) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 00:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's probably an even better idea :-) The question now is: do admins accept this very plausible explanation, and will someone re-grant the rollback rights? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If you browse as an IP from your phone, there's no danger of accidentally hitting rollback, because it won't be there. I sometimes only log in when I realize I need to use an admin tool, or else talk to someone. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I never log on with my phone. Mostly out of fear that I might get accidently accused of being a sock puppet, since I have no idea who else has used a particular ip address and for what. I can see how this can happen though. I would advise that the user gets rollback again. Its a valuable tool and as long as this is an isolated incident, the reasons she gave makes perfect sense.--Jojhutton (talk) 00:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to make sense to me. Dayewalker (talk) 00:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Since SkagitRiverQueen was granted rollback rights three days ago because she's thought to be trustworthy, it would seem rather mean not to accept her reasonable and plausible explanation and promise that she won't make the same mistake again. If she misuses rollback again the previous problematic behavior will be in her user rights log and it's unlikely that any explanation will be adequate for her to retain the right. --TS 00:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no objection to re-granting rollback. I think this editor is very unlikely to repeat the mistake. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If I was an admin, I'd do it right now :-P (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 00:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

For anyone who's editing with a cramped (or slightly dodgy) touch device, I recommend trying User:Zvn/confirmwatchlistrollback.js, a script meant to avoid this exact problem. All it does is require you to confirm rollback on a popup dialog box, when you invoke it from the crowded watchlist screen. Take it from me, it does prevent fat-finger rollbacks. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Rollback access restored, per above discussion. --John (talk) 01:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This actually raises a good question and potential change request... who actually uses rollback from their watchlist anyway? I know I don't. I usually go to the page and take a full look at history first, or moreover, am using Huggle anyway.   Thorncrag  01:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I do, frequently, after looking at the change using WP:POPUPS. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Same here, also after using popups. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 05:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've done it, every so often, when a massive amount of content was removed and the edit summary says something like "Replaced content with (obscenities)" No need to even use a popup and look at that those, just hit rollback. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 06:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I don't use popups, but when Herman Melville is suddenly, like, 6 bytes long, it's pretty clear what happened. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I'm an enemy of Wikipedia!

About time I was declared evil. I've just blocked 67.58.191.207 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) for one week due to the user's revival of a rather silly debate from two years ago at Goosebumps. Background from 2007 can be found on the talk page; then, it was Jonamatt (talk · contribs) whose name was quite close to the "expert" who wrote the nonexistent-to-Google "analysis" that is referenced in the 'scholarly review' section that has, since then, occasionally been inserted by IPs; in this case, the IP has demanded that I telephone them (not bloody likely) and reinserted the section several times despite instructions to provide real references or discuss on the talk page. I'd appreciate reviews of this from outside admins; I suspect an unblock attempt will appear shortly. Tony Fox (arf!) 01:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but I found a link which might help. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 01:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems pretty reasonable to me.... however, a week may be a little long. I would suggest reducing this to no more than 48 hours - other anonymous editors might be editing from that IP addresses and may be affected from a long-running block. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So... if an IP address was posting extensive, vile threats, grotesque personal attacks, and highly personal information about other users... you wouldn't give them a long-running block because "other anonymous editors might be affected by it"? The user(s) should be told to create accounts. Of course, this seems weird coming from me, but... I'm sure that, if the editors are being blamed for someone else's actions, they will most likely create an account for themselves. I don't create an account for myself because I'm just weird. Don't ask.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 16:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

No. This user is a reincarnation of an indefinitely-blocked sock puppeteer. This person has been trying to add his "Scholarly review" to that article for years, now. –MuZemike 17:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I was talking about the "innocent editors" who just "happen to use the same IP address".--66.177.73.86 (talk) 18:01, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I went with the two weeks because a whois on the IP came back oddly and suggests that it's probably static to my untrained eye; I could certainly back it down to 48 hours; there's been no response since the block and notification of this thread. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

This shows the level of scholarly demeanor the editor brings to the table. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see anything unreasonable with the week block; there's little indication this IP is shared.. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Issues of disrupting an article

There seem to be a serious problem here all starting with unjustified edits along with racially charged insults by Noopinonada (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He/She also continue to leave me insulting messages after I told him/her to stop personally attackging me please take a look and handle the situation.

• Ancient_Egyptian_race_controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Holdone (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So we don't have to delve through this editor's history, can you provide us with a few examples of what you considered to be the racially changed insults? Also, you state that they are being disruptive - please explain precisely what they are doing. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Holdone has been blocked because he is a notorious sockpupeteer and edit warrior. In my defense, he engaged in unabashed lying to this board and the one that decided to permanently block him for sockpuppeting. As you can see in my discourse with him, no "racially charged insults" occurred, unless accusing someone of sockpuppeting is now a "racially charged insult." The word amoung the Ancient Egpytian race controversy page editors appears to be that he has been a sockpupeteer and shameless POV troll for years. He also seems to revert to accusing others who reverse his POV of "vandalism" or "vandl" as he calls it. I think this case is closed for now, as a plethora of legitimate editors are back at work on this oftentimes contentious page.--Noopinonada (talk) 01:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect Linkage on Front Page Version of Today's Featured Article

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

---

Resolved

 – Camw did the honors. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

On the front page version of Today's Featured Article, there is a link to American Broadcasting Corporation or ABC. The problem is ABC stands for American Broadcasting Company. American Broadcasting Corporation just redirects to American Broadcasting Company. I have changed this on the 2000 Sugar Bowl page, but obviously can't change this on the front page. Could an admin take care of this, please. Many thanks...NeutralHomer • Talk • 05:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, done per the request. Camw (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you :) - NeutralHomer • Talk • 06:03, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have also taken American Broadcasting Corporation to RFD, as it sounds like it should never be used. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Eternal edit war

Please note that I have moved this from AN to ANI. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

What to do here? I locked a page for a few days because of an edit war over one contentious little paragraph being reverted back and forth over and over. However, despite my plea that discussion continue on the article talk page rather than continued reversion, none did (both editors went to other talk pages, including mine, instead, to complain about each other). A few days after the protection lapsed, we have yet another revert, and yet another revert.

Please keep in mind that this is occuring during an RFC on one of the editors in question, focusing on just this sort of behavior. BOZ (talk) 15:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I just re-protected the page, although protection can only stop the reversion and it doesn't tackle the root of the problem, if this continues we may have to topic ban both editors or block them from editing altogether for short periods of time. Best, Mifter (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure how much good that will do ultimately, but we'll see. I like both of these guys so I am hesitant to apply a block personally, but the edit warring is irritating to say the least. A page ban went into affect after similar disputes on Rhino (comics) and Abomination (comics) for a time, so we may have to look into instituting a similar process again here. Although, honestly, those page bans didn't really address the root of the problem either. I was hoping the RFC would help, but thus far we don't have much of anything in the way of outside community input. BOZ (talk) 18:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Just cross posting from WT:CMC#Dormammu

Two thoughts:

1. Double check the edit histories for those two. I mentioned last time this popped up that this really feels like feud between them across multiple articles. If it is, the next step may be a flat warning to both and then a pair of blocks if it persists - RFC or no RFC.
2. On a slightly different tact: Either lock the article(s) or, preferably, topic ban the pair from them. Set up a pair of sandboxes at each article - ie Dormammu/X's draft and Dormammu/Y's draft - and let them go to town on those with a caveat that they have to incorporate edits made by other editors to the live version. Incorporating from the drafts to the live version is left up to other editors and redirects, templates (like navboxes), and other articles cannot point to the drafts.

- J Greb (talk) 18:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This same sort of thing has also been going on at Juggernaut (comics) as well, which is another page I have locked in the past. I think you may be right, that a page ban for the two editors in question from these two pages (and possibly more; we'll see how it goes) may be in order. I'll also suggest J Greb's idea to both, and have the caveat be that if they can work it out between themselves then I will lift the ban. I'll mull that over for a bit. BOZ (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the prior discussion regarding the page ban I mentioned above. I'm going to use that for reference purposes. BOZ (talk) 04:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Note: David A

I have to insert this to ensure some neutrality as this issue is already slightly off. The real issue here is the conduct of David A, and I am now seeking outside opinions on this matter.

1.

As I have already indicated to J Greb, this user has admitted to having a medical condition - [75]. I have linked to JGreb's Talk Page and the examples I provided him, including the now stock-standard comment that Dave makes on any occasion that I express concern regarding his editing practices [76].

2.

Both JGreb -[77] - and BOZ - [78] - have needed to speak with Dave regarding his conduct. Another editor also recently attempted to discuss his editing practices on his Talk page: [79] although it would seem to have had little impact.

I have even tried a Wikiquette alert :[80], although it did little good, with the main response being:

“ Yes, can someone PLEASE PLEASE get Asgardian permanently banned. His lies, censorship, manipulation and so forth is completely systematic and never ever stops. He's using this as yet another excuse to state that telling the truth is unacceptable and systematical disinformation and deceit is completely ok. Again, I have no other way of handling him, and multiple users are consistently making pleas to have him removed. I'm so very tired of him. And no I'm not "abusive". I'm telling the truth- Asgardian methodically abuses my nerves far more than I abuse his, and I can't remotely "assume good faith" with hundreds of experiences with him personally that contradict this. In fact Asgardian is the by far least trustworthy Wikipedian that I have ever encountered. Dave (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC) ”

3.

I have tried repeatedly to explain to Dave that many of his edits, while well meant, are inappropriate. I have been very patient and accommodating, as can be evidenced at Mjolnir (Edit History: [81]) the Talk Page for Dormammu : [82] and in return receive blind reverts and inflammatory comments such as these [83]. There is also the Edit History of the article, in which I constantly attempt to explain but make little headway: [84]. Note on an aside that there are also two other editors, who would appear to be somewhat inexperienced, that also erroneously back the use of an invalid text (the Official Handbook of the Marvel Universe. My latest comment on said Talk page addresses while this is still an unfortunately invalid source.

In conclusion, I have tried. Repeatedly. In my efforts to improve many of the articles, I have had to deal with a number of other editors that while well-meaning are often inexperienced, and this is reflected in their edits, particularly when they don't "get their way." Most are unwilling to discuss, just opting for blind reverts - a recent example is here [85], which I post as there was a comment made regarding an during an RFC. I would encourage outside parties to note the outside view presented by Scott Free.

Please also note that while not an administrator, I am posting this added comment as I feel there has not always been neutrality displayed by those administrators involved, which is disappointing. After truly trying to outline changes and explain them, being "I don't want to hear it" is unfortunate : [86].

I am happy to discuss side issues, but would like a discussion and hopefully ruling on Dave's conduct, given the special circumstances that his medical condition presents.

I will also post this at the ANI.

Many thanks Asgardian (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"have to insert this to ensure some neutrality as this issue is already slightly off. The real issue here is the conduct of David A" - at no point was there any express bias towards one or the other party. This is an admin asking other admins what to do. He can take it from here. Xavexgoem (talk) 08:16, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Asgardian, he has admitted himself that he is cheerfully provoking me to get easily quoted extremely weary honest responses, and contrary to his claims othervise I have mentioned that he has finally started to reciprocate my attempts to find adjusted compromise solutions by incorporating rather than censoring any new information (rather than do the same revert over and over) in the Mjolnir (comics) case, but given a long line of attempts for Talk discussion on various pages, that we had a prior agreement after the last feud that I should give benefit of doubt and assume consistent good faith no matter literally hundreds of past experiences, and he should reciprocate by not doing sweeping reference-deletions, and stop reinserting inaccurate details, (which I did for at least a few weeks) and he regardless quickly diverted from it to do virtually the same reference-deleting edit over and over, even though it was adjusted according to the input from uninvolved users that he himself sought at the general comics Talk board (due to consensus being against him, and practices disfavouring reference-deletions to be partially replaced with opinion), and in previous instances, such as Thanos he has likevise returned a few months after compromise has been reached, and in addition there are the (drop in the pond) examples of proving himself untrustworthy below, so at this point it would take an awful lot of consistent proof (of doing the same thing as myself by incorporating any new information and make matter-of-fact error-adjustments) to not make me think that he's simply doing a turnaround from his usual 2-year long streak due to the complaint page being put up, but I've regardless mentioned the areas he has lately improved in. However, as seen in the link above, I was proven right when he returned and deleted references once again at Dormammu, even after the (very unnecessarily long) problems to finally get Mjolnir (comics) error-checked.

In addition just for a local example, he knows full well that I find it annoying when he repeatedly tries to use my handicaps as an in themselves "validation" for that I somehow cannot be trusted and should be discriminated against, rather than strictly focus on what's actually happened. You don't see me thinking or saying something like "He's a possible homosexual, so he cannot possibly be trusted", which would be exactly the same thing (or actually less so, given that it usually isn't nearly as big a problem for whoever is born with that personal leaning). What this in practical terms means is that I have a major problem with filtering myself, i.e. I'm clinically honest, but I have made an effort to tone this down to be matter of fact concerning individual edits, and went to extremes in this regard for a while. I do however believe in the necessity to be able to point out exactly what he's doing, while he's doing it, without being threatened for it.

Other examples of untrustworthiness that I have repeatedly noticed myself, as relayed by others: User:Tcaudilllg states that Asgardian's tactics correspond to those of a troll, and in the same case User:Duae Quartunciae calls] his manipulative use of regulations (to create either fear, or annoyance, such as later putting a complaint against User:Tenebrae for what the admins considered ridiculous reasons) "self-serving" even after a brief interaction, and warns him that he might get banned. The former would fit in with the old comment that Asgardian finds annoyance with manipulation funny and when User:J_Greb mentions that he has also noticed the misleading edit-summaries, referring to this case: [87], along with Asgardian stating that he will continue to do so as long as he gets away with it in the following edit; as well as the ongoing "incivility defense" for pointing out what he is doing, here in connection to an edit-war on Red Hulk; along with that he appeared entirely willing to vandalise multiple pages just to make an exaggerated satirical point, and following talk about that he just keep sticking to (more sophisticated versions of) the same behaviour no matter how many chances he is given (likely a few specific examples in the J.Greb talk, if I remember correctly): [88] [89] [90]. User:Tenebrae also agreed with my assessment of his behaviour and attitude.

Another problem is that he thinks that sticking a smarmy "Regards", "Best Wishes", "All the best", "Many thanks", "Yours forever", or similar comments at the end of his sentences somehow make his consistent neverending actions okay. Politeness is good, but not to an overtly manipulative extent.

Or for that matter, that he can somehow divert attention from his long history of instances with far more users than myself, by, as he stated himself, making me a convenient target due to being clinically outspoken when consistently provoked (in this case literally hundreds of times over the past two years).

Also, regarding the handbook, it is an official statement from Marvel the company's editorial department, based on the then published issues the characters have appeared in, along with editorial evaluation, but is recurrently devated from as writers feel the need. What the advisement really says is that it is okay to use in contrast to individual issue references, which it is here, and the admin he contected himself stated that it is fine to use it with an initial disclaimer, which I inserted. Asgardian however has repeatedly stated that it is all entirely untrustworthy simply due to the deliberately severely toned down symbolic "strength comparison scale", and inserts his own opinions instead. Dave (talk) 09:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

• Asgardian blocked for 3 weeks. Past that, escalate. Please review diffs above for reasoning why, which does not require a lot of context (particularly if you're an AN/I patroller). Xavexgoem (talk) 09:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC) David, yer on notice. Your diffs aren't always the prettiest things in a dump heap, either.

Yeah, the edits probably could do with more structure to them. I have a problem with that, which is why I tried to defend Asgardian from troll accusations for a while. He's actually good with structure, which I find useful, but at least I'm honest and usually reasonable. I am making an effort to control down my annoyance though. Dave (talk) 10:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Would it be a good idea to postpone/reset the length of the page bans in that case, or even proceed with it? BOZ (talk) 16:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If it'll work; you seem to know this area better than I. I handled a bit of it, you get the rest ;-) Xavexgoem (talk) 18:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good; I'll reset for three weeks, or sooner, whenever Asgardian's block ends. BOZ (talk) 18:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Email spamming

User:Whadu has been abusing the "Special:EmailUser" messaging service and sending emails promoting his website, www.whadu.com. I am unsure if any other users have had similar issues. -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Header details:

Email header details

From Whadu Mon Jan 4 08:49:25 2010 X-Apparently-To: benlisquare_888@yahoo.com.au via 206.190.38.174; Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:49:26 -0800 Return-Path: <wiki@wikimedia.org> X-YMailISG: 0X25s6IWLDsxXEIUBy5iOGLZ1a8jcUJ6XDn9VKSYbtKlyQj2Y.bPp1FyenptOxxXBC_wltS5svYzvJ4j59jiDgbjN7y8J2iGkraNVvQg8hDZ0JbxMLYCJltUvZiJ5Lwd.KbNGdYvPZ5BA5Yh8qPs6qgUr2ONHxSGYhsG.ySiJHIkEawubUnw4YnXR85XndolHIX7K6hTP4AZjdQMKDni4UCVx.rmh5rHZJn33SY5zJeyo8LT7Er53xgtxHJebHR.kkTGvuLbEmEHgjKt9WqhePv81zZuZdS8Y0I6gT3_OZRlbrailsUkjAOTzUterXOFpf8j_kfGg0BDz9dH6BVYnkTMbtZeMFcYUcxRpswFk133rpe8bcE63s6pIMgnQXQt8fMcg1qtGzGRmTvhJfGSS3mipA5AvdCjWchrw8hf9baTDA-- X-Originating-IP: [208.80.152.133] Authentication-Results: mta147.mail.ac4.yahoo.com from=brokencontrollers.com; domainkeys=neutral (no sig); from=brokencontrollers.com; dkim=neutral (no sig) Received: from 127.0.0.1 (EHLO wiki-mail.wikimedia.org) (208.80.152.133) by mta147.mail.ac4.yahoo.com with SMTP; Mon, 04 Jan 2010 00:49:26 -0800 Received: from srv158.pmtpa.wmnet ([10.0.2.158]:49855) by mchenry.wikimedia.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from <whadu@brokencontrollers.com>) id 1NRicv-000174-3q for benlisquare_888@yahoo.com.au; Mon, 04 Jan 2010 08:49:26 +0000 Received: by srv158.pmtpa.wmnet (sSMTP sendmail emulation); Mon, 04 Jan 2010 08:49:25 +0000 Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 08:49:25 +0000 To: Benlisquare <benlisquare_888@yahoo.com.au> Subject: Contributing to a new search engine. MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Mailer: MediaWiki mailer From: Whadu <whadu@brokencontrollers.com> Message-Id: <E1NRicv-000174-3q@mchenry.wikimedia.org> Content-Length: 1045

Regards, -- 李博杰  | —Talk contribs email 12:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You are required to notify the editor, see the top of this page. I've done that and asked him to stop. He's using talk pages also, but this is inappropriate as well as it is promotional. Dougweller (talk) 12:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Request that has been ignored

Resolved

 – undeletion request declined, requester pointed to WP:DRV if he wants to pursue it. JohnCD (talk) 21:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple of days ago I placed a request for restoring a page. The request has so far been ignored. Did I do anything wrong? However whatever (talk) 13:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It can take more than a couple days to review these things. That said, given that BLP is involved, you might be better off filing at Deletion Review. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I though deletion reviews are only for closed AfD. I was under the impression that since this article did not go through an AfD, the appropriate action is a request for undeletion. I currently do not know what was in that article. I can only guess what the concerns were, which I've addressed in my undeletion request (that even though she is best known as the mistress for the mayor of Los Angeles, she should be notable in her own right as a news anchor woman for a local television station. However whatever (talk) 14:32, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If a long paragraph about the scandal, and a shorter one about her other "romantic relationships" with "other (named) well-known Los Angeles based California politicians" were removed, what would be left would be a three-liner saying where she was born, educated, and worked. I don't think just being a news anchor is notable - see WP:ENTERTAINER. This article was more suitable for a gossip-sheet than an encyclopedia. I have declined the request at WP:REFUND and suggested WP:DRV if the requester wants to pursue it. JohnCD (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Image violations

Tamariki is adding fair use images to a series of biographical actor articles (perhaps out of ignorance) but has not stopped despite my warning, and actually restored one image here immediately after I removed it. I think a quick block may get his/her attention. Thanks.— TAnthony^Talk 15:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please help, this editor has added images to dozens of articles and is not stopping, I can hardly keep up.— TAnthony^Talk 15:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User: Hm2k won't stop editing/hiding comments in an AFD

Note: I was never asked to stop before this "incident" was raised. --Hm2k (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Final warning given. Tan | 39 17:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

first User:Hm2k commented out my part of afd message [[91]], which was reverted. then he commented out a thread, which effectively hides the conversation, and is disruptive and confusing to those unaware of the hidden messages. comments out/hides half of my afd message again and then he comments out my edit again. could an uninvolved user please take a look at this and let us know if modifying users' comments is appropriate on an AFD. an edit war would be lame, which is why i've brought this here because i think an outside opinion would solve the problem, at least for my end of it. thanks. Theserialcomma (talk) 16:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course it isn't appropriate. The only time a user's comment can be edited or removed by a different user is when that particular comment is abusive. Your comments obviously weren't abusive, so he had no write to hide them.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 16:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've unhidden the comments, and left a clear message on the AfD discussion that refactoring is unacceptable. Further occurrences should be reported back here for administrative action. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjroots (talk • contribs) 16:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

A discussion on Hm2k's talk page first would have been a better idea than bringing this grievance straight here. Tan | 39 16:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

From the looks of it, "Hm2k" has some kind of grudge against Theserialcomma (or is just a troll), and is not willing to reason with him.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 16:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I'm glad this matter can now be put to and end. --Hm2k (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) No ... I think we'd like to ask why you were refactoring others comments? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

...What? Nothing has been put to an end. The matter has not even begin to settle.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for fanning the flames of drama, Mr. Random IP. I gave a final warning on Hm2k's user page. I don't think we need to know why anything was happening; if it happens again, he will be blocked. End of issue. Tan | 39 17:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

"Mr. Random IP"? I'm a regular here. And I wasn't intending to "fan the flames of the drama" or anything of the sort. I apologize if that is how I was perceived, but that was certainly not my intent.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, great, so we're just getting started then... Firstly, as per Mjroots's comment, "Personal attacks are excepted"[92]. Further more, I see nothing wrong with hiding drama[93]. Since when is bad faith assumed? --Hm2k (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

When you started refactoring other's comments. They are clearly not personal attacks. Take a break, this issue is over if you drop it. If you don't you will likely land yourself in a block. Let it drop. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:11, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone listing an article that you created for deletion is not a personal attack. Please remember that no editor owns an article. Mjroots (talk) 17:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Read WP:PA, which states "Comment on content, not on the contributor". In the FIRST LINE of the AfD he's talking about me, not the actual content. Go figure. --Hm2k (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I take that and raise you a WP:POVFORK. Actually, I turn it into a mirror backwards, since deliberate baiting won't help resolve the situation. As the article creator, it is your responsibility to assure it meets general article guidelines and standards, and the method of which an article is created-- as a forked info split you did with zero support from the talk page or reason given to do so. In fact, the only other opinion is stating an opposition to such an action. By ignoring the closest thing to consensus available and zero rationale for actions taken, that in and of itself turns the 'comment on content' into the need to discussion actions of the contributor. The ANI is about you and these disruptions and not the article and its contends. The AfD remains and runs independently from this. Edits in the AfD were absolutely unacceptable and an experienced user should know better. Tan was pretty clear above; happens again, he's given a warning on a block. I'd say mark as resolved, but I don't want any incivility spilling out onto user talk pages for now and just spawning another ANI later. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

povfork has no relevance here, tl;dr. --Hm2k (talk) 17:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

How else would you justify your actions on creating a forked article with a subjective POV and unprovable title? Fork + pushed POV = POVFORK, to be really blunt. Even if accidental, it still is. Call it a day, please. Everyone seems content to offer just a warning and I'm not sure what else you're looking for. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this is about me hiding personal attack comments. So, this "POVFORK" issue still not relevant here. --Hm2k (talk) 17:57, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As an uninvolved user, I would observe that whilst Hm2k has done himself no favours with his attitude, he does appear to have reasons for being grumpy since stub articles he has created recently do seem to get nominated rather quickly for deletion. Justin talk 17:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

...which has absolutely nothing to do with this current discussion. "Being grumpy", whether reasonable or not, isn't an excuse for anything. Tan | 39 17:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

With respect before you jump all over my comment I was not excusing it, merely pointing out there is more to this than meets the eye. Justin talk 17:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The solution is to create well sourced, non-stub articles of at least C class. The more sources there are the easier it is to assert notability and the harder it is to nominate for deletion. Mjroots (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yet, you can't expect that to happen over night. --Hm2k (talk) 17:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) ...and that's why you build articles in your WP:SANDBOX. They should never be live until they're ready to survive an AfD. Nevertheless, this ANI is about you refactoring other people's comments, which as you now know is a big no-no. Of course, this didn't need to be said in the first place, but it's solidified now. You may also want to take a closer read at WP:NPA, as you seem to be missing great chunks of understanding there. I think this thread can close, based on the warning issued. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have some concerns about this user. He is proudly disrupting Wikipedia and considers it a win [[94]], I suggest a appropriate length block to deal with this attitude. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The only personal attacks I've seen are from the user HM2K [[95]]. Kinda funny that it started out that he thought he was being attacked and now it's ok to attack others in a clear comment on the contribute. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Put down the stick, HiaB. You're only antagonizing the user now. Don't go on a crusade to bait him to being blocked. Tan | 39 18:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

of course, what is sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander. Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Before being accused of a Crusade, I removed a personal attack on myself. It has since been reinserted [[96]] will someone else go deal with it and re-remove it. I've stepped back as it could appear to be a COI. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

imo, just WP:DENY at this point, and Tan is spot-on. Might not have been in the cleanest of ways, but the ANI topic was addressed both here and the user's talk page, no sanctions were given as a good faith sign of worrysome edits ending. If your antagonist would like to shoot themselves in the foot and move to hounding you and get themselves blocked, that's their problem. Take a power nap, have a snack, check your talk page's edit history when you get back. Pretty sure it's not going to happen again. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 19:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:DENY it is. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 21:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Socks

Resolved

It appears that User talk:Nooch1213 and User talk:Robertkdenman are socks have a look at their edits here might not need attention as warnings a building up on User talk:Robertkdenman. BigDunc 16:47, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Puppetry implies there's a master or ringleader account of some sort, so without that information available and nothing to even guess on, this will almost certainly be handled as disruptive editing. There are several IP users that have posted recently to these areas and it's at least possible they decided to create accounts. Though that can be proven, it's actually the recommended course of action on their parts if true. Don't worry about the possible sock or meatpuppet tagteam editing, as incivility and disruptive edits will speak for themselves quickly if this continues. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Have they behaved abusively? Socks are frowned upon, but a user cannot be blocked for sockpuppeting unless the user is using their sockpuppet(s) for abusive purposes. If a user acknowledges the fact that their sock is the same person, they can't be blocked for it. But, if they pretend the sock is a different person (for voting, backing up their opinions, ect.), then it is a blockable offense.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Both accounts have vandalised the same articles Beaver and Minnesota. BigDunc 17:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Then they both should be blocked.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 17:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The majority admins prefer to use good faith and ask the users to just stick to editing logged in or with a sole account with the 'accidental socks' which thing is the right way to do it-- this being in line with the open admissions of socks since it means the situation can be fixed. AGF or ABF, sock or not, denials or affirmations... disruptive edits usually stand out a lot more easily and can be acted upon in short order versus often lengthy SPI case research to "settle" things. Unfortunately, good faith here seems to have been for naught, with diffs from those page histories kind of speak for themselves and since the disruption is ongoing a SPI might be necessary. Without a parent account known we'd have to hope some IPs and usernames lump together . imo, This[97] is seemingly the last edit that was 100% constructive before the massive disruption string at Beaver started about 3 weeks ago, if needed for reference in any report. As a non-admin I can't openly suggest blocks, but something short-term might be necessary so that SPI research could get the bigger picture. Last disruptive edits were about an hour ago and seem to come at random so it wouldn't really be punitive. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:09, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the second account. The first account remains unblocked, for now, but it is being watched. Jonathunder (talk) 18:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

continued vandalism on Beaver, I have reported to AIV. BigDunc 20:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Mary Rose DYK and press release

I have a last minute request for an upcoming DYK related to a recent image donation and WMUK press release. It would require some pretty quick admin intervention, so that's why I'm posting here. The details of the request can be found here.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Would you like us to respond here, or there?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Worrying post to Ref Desk

Resolved

 – It appears that consensus does not exist to maintain this block - user unblocked and advised that questions of a subjective nature are best suited for sites such as Yahoo Answers. –xeno^talk 21:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel that I should draw the admin community's attention to WP:RD/Miscellaneous#Moral boundary. Although the poster isn't threatening _violence_, she's threatening to engage in potentially illegal harrassment/stalking, and is very probably in need of professional psychiatric help. Per WP:VIOLENCE, I have _not_ informed the user in question of this posting, and will not mention her username in this post. My apologies if this is an over-reaction on my part - however, the general trend seems to be that this sort of issue needs to be reported. Tevildo (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

So... are you suggesting that she be blocked?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

indef'd. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, wow. Why did you delete my question? All I did was ask whether the OP wanted her to be blocked. And isn't it a little too soon to be indefinitely blocking this user?--66.177.73.86 (talk) 19:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't delete anyone's question; I only blocked the user and deleted the user's userpage. We have someone who is seeking advice, albeit in a sideways manner, about stalking another person in real-life. This is cut and dry. It's an easy block to make. SPA's are pretty ugly in the first place, but when their only purpose is this...? Xavexgoem (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I had posted a question here, but you deleted my question and replaced it with "indef'd". I've inserted my question back. In this case, it's not really an "easy block"; the user's intent is not entirely clear, and she never really mentioned anything illegal.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 19:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Be that as it may, what are the benefits of having him/her unblocked? The OP said nothing about whether he himself wanted a block; he was asking what to do in this situation. And to be sure: I don't know the intent or the degree to which illegality is express or implied, either. That's exactly the problem. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Sorry about accidentally deleting your question... there was an edit conflict ^^;

I admit our [lack of] "policies" regarding mental health lapses are at very least in need of an overhaul. Wikipedia is not therapy. We don't however, just block people who say something "creepy" and seem to want an actual moral and ethical discussion. I saw no legal issues at face value... *shrugs*. Not seeing any doesn't mean the assumption should be there are, in any way. "Absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence" being questionable logic so if that's the only means I want more talk on an indef. It implies someone can prove a negative to defend oneself. I'm not suggesting it be changed, btw, so I'm sorry this might look grumpy/frustrated, since it's honestly a troublesome area. Far weirder/worse/more dangerous things come up around here, you must admit, without these ends. Not at all justifying that user's odd discussion topic, either. Also also not saying it shouldn't have been reported originally, since I'm of the opinion that such matters are worth watching and getting a pair of admin eyes on for awhile.

Maybe change the template on the userpage to one with an unblock request area included? ♪ daTheisen(talk) 20:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, agreed. I'm always worried about using uw-block3 over indef, since the former seems a bit... off, given the circumstances. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the user should have just been told to keep discussions of her mental health off of Wikipedia? The indef block seems quite harsh, given that the user never mentioned anything illegal.--66.177.73.86 (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I really don't see the merits of this block. What harm or disruption is caused to the project by this user? Tell em that this isn't really the venue for these sorts of questions, and move on. Hell, direct em to Yahoo Answers, this would fit right in there. Tarc (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The block seems a little unneeded, I didn't think we made it a policy to block anyone who has broken the law. Tevildo stating that the blocked user was "threatening to engage in potentially illegal harrassment/stalking" is inaccurate to the extreme, the user was just relating something that they had previously done (which may or may not have been against the law), in fact, they even stated that they were sorry for having done it and that they didn't intend to do it again. Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:59, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I've changed the blocknote. User wants to try an unblock, then they're interested in improving the project. So far, hasn't been that way. I'll defer to another admin who's watching this. Xavexgoem (talk) 21:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

In their position, I wouldn't request to be unblocked, imagine: you've heard about wikipedia, this apparently brilliant project, you want a little bit of an opinion on a moral subject, so you go to an online reference desk on wikipedia and ask your question in a polite and well-mannered way, immediately someone comes and tells you that your question is inappropriate for the ref desk, a little later the same person makes some comments about your mental health, you nonetheless maintain a polite demeanor, and when you later try and update the thread, you get a message telling you that you've been blocked for your comments in the thread. Personally, I'd leave the project, and tell all my friends about what a pigsty it is.

This isn't the kind of image that we want to encourage, nor are we encouraged to promote it by policy. That the user does not request to be unblocked is not a good enough reason to leave them as such.

Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:13, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the block or any other admin response to this situation, but I feel I should defend my action. The user was asking for advice on whether or not it would be "moral" to befriend a work colleague of her victim (and I use the word deliberately) in order to, and I quote, "let me into their life". This is a clear statement of intent, IMO, and carrying out the action would constitute a criminal offence in England under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. She was threatening to engage in activity which would be illegal in England, and possibly in other jurisdictions. I therefore feel my wording was justified. Tevildo (talk) 21:24, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Threewords,eightletters... (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) This is a single-purpose account. His ID likely refers to "I LOVE YOU". Either a stalker or someone pretending to be. No apparent value to wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a marked distinction between a single-purpose account and an account that has yet to be used for more than one purpose. –xeno^talk 21:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. Firstly, the hamfisted way this has been handled makes me sick. Secondly, nothing that user did deserves a block. "Stalking" is entirely subjective, and the user at no point threatened violence. Simply keeping track of someone and trying to be part of their life isn't illegal anywhere as far as I'm aware. If this block is allowed to stand as it is, regardless of whether the user requests unblock themselves or not, I've entirely lost faith in wikipedias administration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.145 (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As I said the other place you posted this, the user shows all the early signs of someone who could eventually try to murder someone. The now-zapped user page talked about "obsessive love". No intent to contribute to wikipedia, just using it as a personal web page. In fact, someone should figure out who the user is and notify the police. Think John Hinkley and Jodie Foster, as one example. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

That's a bullshit argument. The user did NOTHING to deserve a block. Being weird is not a crime. Anyone can turn violent at any point, should we block you because there's an off chance you might turn violent? No, of course not. Innocent until proven guilty. And regardless, blocking them does nothing to prevent violence in the real world, and in fact may very well lead to them becoming violent as they've been denied an outlet when they attempted to reach for help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.54.145 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

From a thorough reading of the foregoing there appears to be no consensus to maintain the block, so I have already unblocked and left them a note directing them to a more suitable site to discuss relativistic issues such as the ones they raised at the RD. –xeno^talk 21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The unblock is a good decision, should the user page be restored? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:31, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I don't see why not. –xeno^talk 21:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please do. Everyone needs to see why he was blocked in the first place. I see his other so-called contribution is in process of being deleted. Since when does wikipedia give sanctuary to stalkers? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:44, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh for christ's sake Bugs, why are you so insistent on ramping up the drama over this? A persons asks an inappropriate question, is told this isn't the place for it, and life goes on. Tarc (talk) 22:30, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Is appropriate to allow an editor like "Baseball Bugs" to answer questions on the reference and help desks? It's widely known that he is both uncivil and sarcastic. It's very likely that these kind of comments will run people away from the project. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Unlike edit warriors? Woogee (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Review request psb777

Please review this decision: Wikipedia:General_sanctions/Climate_change_probation/Requests_for_enforcement#Psb777

My issues:

• Undue haste: 13 minutes from time of registering the complaint to time of adjudication.
• I was writing my statement while the allegation was adjudicated. My statement therefore was not taken into account.
• The evidence presented (and unpresented) does not support the allegation.
• Incorrect result (well I would say that, wouldn't I) - read the statements.

Thanks, Paul Beardsell (talk) 19:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Discussion appears to be continuing, so if you have an additional statement to post (I note you have posted a series of them at that page), now would be the time. Agree that the decision may have been swift, but the only thing for it is to calmly present your position, and convince other editors and admins through discussion. UltraExactZZ ^Said ~ Did 21:56, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Mainman873

Mainman873 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly created inappropriate pages (see User talk:Mainman873 for a history of the warnings he has received). Template warnings and personal warnings do not seem to deter him in his desire to create articles on albums that are non-notable, or that do not yet exist. User received a level-4 warning in December, but has continued to create inappropriate pages. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 19:34, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I am pretty dismayed to see him back after all his articles got deleted following his last editing spree. He is clearly here to hype a small clique of artists and is prepared to introduce unverifiable, speculative and outright fictional content to do so. He has no interest in discussion, makes no serious attempt to reference anything and ignores all advice and warnings. None of the albums he writes about checks out on Allmusic or is available to buy on Amazon. He claims that they feature guest appearances by major rap artists, which would pretty much guarantee coverage if it was true, yet Google News has nothing. I don't see why we should have to continue to waste our time checking this stuff and shepherding it to deletion. He has had quite enough warnings. --DanielRigal (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hear, hear. I tried to help them by pointing out how to verify notability, but they never responded, and continued the same sort of editing. Woogee (talk) 02:25, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he needs to be blocked for disruptive editing; I'm just conflicted as to the proper length of the block. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

AvengerX

• AvengerX (talk · contribs) - Some hours ago i've notified him for vandalisms specialized for his personal POV and nippocentrism, tagged many times by another editor.
• see his career here
• ja:User:AvengerX (indefinitely blocked for vandalisms and sockpuppetry)
• it:User:AvengerX (indefinitely blocked for write-only vandalisms)
• After my first notify he answered threating me. Please provide immediately --79.44.23.67 (talk) 21:14, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Personally, I think both of you need to spend another year or so studying English before editing en.wiki anymore. Tan | 39 21:15, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Hardly a helpful comment Tan, and WP:CIVIL states not to belittle other users. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Spitfire, it doesn't matter. PS (Tan): I edit here rarely. --79.44.23.67 (talk) 21:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's a very helpful comment from Tan. The user above does not have sufficient grasp of English to contribute to an English-language encyclopedia. That's a fact. Civility does not call for ignoring the blindingly obvious truth, or for setting aside the need for basic competence. To the IP -- try to edit here less often until your English improves dramatically.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Bali, i have not to try to improve my english for an encyclopedia because I don't edit here. My rare edits are too little to be considered as a work on en.wp. My actual knowledge of english language is not for an encyclopedia. I know it perfectly, it is not necessary to repeat it. I've asked for an incident about personal attacks. I'm not interested to do a training course for encyclopedical english. --79.44.23.67 (talk) 21:33, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Its not an appropriate or civil thing to say to a user who has just come to AN/I complaining of a threat from another user. Not really interested in debating the point, just to make my opinion clear. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:38, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I have to disagree with Bali on two accounts. First, many non-native English speakers contribute much valuable information to the English Wikipedia. If their contributions are in less-than-perfect English, we can address that through simple copy-editing. To tell anyone that their contributions of useful information are unwelcome violates the spirit of the project. Second, the point of this board is to address problems that require administrator intervention. The IP came here because of a perceived threat made against him. Tan's response was not at all helpful toward resolving that issue, and was uncivil to boot. We users expect better of our admins. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You've drunk the koolaid to such an extent that you no longer understand what the word "civil" means.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: I wrote here only to notify a [personal attack who sounds like a threat. A threat showing my host and some of mine personal datas. It could be simple trolling but, anyway, it is againist the policies of Wikipedia. I don't thing that this i know who you are is "funny". --79.44.23.67 (talk) 21:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not here to be offended by anybody, ok ? My English is not for academy but my politeness in what i wrote is out of disputation. I'm here only to notify personal attacks. I don't want to read some of my personal datas used as a threat by AvengerX. This is the only reason. --79.44.23.67 (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The folks thinking I was somehow being insulting are the same knee-jerk civility police editors that are currently plaguing this project. Would you please try to analyze the situation before you start leaving self-important, tsk-tsk messages here and on my talk page? These editors' grasp of English is very poor. This is the crux of the problem. I didn't belittle anyone, or make light of any actual problem, or even remotely insult anyone. I stated a fact that was extremely germane to the problem at hand. I notice that neither of the police here commented on the actual problem or bothered to look into this issue; that shows their priorities here. The patently obvious solution is for either or both editors to improve their English skills - that will a) improve communication and b) improve comprehension to a point where the numerous communication and comprehension errors that make up this issue will be solved. Tan | 39 00:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite frankly, a little pragmatism, such as that from Tan, would be rather useful at times. Anyways, on the original topic, it's kind of hard to tell what exactly to make of that comment, but it's obviously nothing good. Something has to be done, but this isn't my specialty here. Mønster av Arktisk Vinter Kvelden (talk) 01:26, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Polylepsis

I'd like to bring attention to user:Polylepsis who is most likely a sock of user:Zhonghuo. Both are likely the same person judging by their near identical edit histories and that user:Polylepsis was created just after user:Zhonghuo stop editing. Both have histories of much more vandalism than good. Editors such as user:Nirvana888 wouldn't have to waste their time anymore undoing all the vandalism if user:Zhonghuo, user:Zhonghuo's sock user:Polylepsis and any other socks or future socks were removed. 88.104.207.88 (talk) 22:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please file an investigation here. Fences&Windows 02:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

low-grade edit warring and extensive personal attacks by Pyrrhon8

sorry to send this here, but I no longer know what to do with this person. Pyrrhon8 (talk · contribs) has just gone off the deep end.

background: the article Dignity was at one point in time a personal essay here before I began working on it. ultimately the article went through and AfD discussion which resulted in a merge (with Human Dignity) and rewrite result. I carried that out. Pyrrhon periodically tried to revive certain portions of the old essay-like construction, which I mostly reverted as against the AfD consensus; he was combative, but not excessive about it. recently, however, I did some cleanup on one section of the article, with the following result:

• my cleanup edit, here
• Pyrrhon reverts, no summary
• my first revert to the cleaned up version
• my talk page request for information
• Pyrrhon's insulting talk page response
• revert by pyrrhon with insults
• my request for 30
• the 30 response
• several edits by Pyrron reinstating his old version and ignoring 30
• my revert using twinkle
• my incorporation of the 30 results
• another talk page request from me for discussion
• Pyrrhon's revert, with insulting summary
• my revert back to 30 version
• pyrrhon's next revert
• my next revert back to 30
• pyrrhon's most recent revert.
• the final straw: Pyrrhon's protracted and totally unwarranted attack which has almost no bearing on the article at all; he draws in random comments from material that's months old from multiple pages.

In short, he's editing against consensus, engaging in extreme personal attacks, and refusing to engage in discussion about any of it. If it were up to me, I would ask for a short block and a six month article ban from editing dignity, but that might just be because he's starting to irritate me. I would appreciate any action that gets him somewhere back in the vicinity on normal, civil editing practices. --Ludwigs2 22:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It is my goal to make Wikipedia the best encyclopedia in the solar system. It is the goal of Ludwigs2 to make mischief on Wikipedia. The conflicting goals make it difficult for constructive editors to work with Ludwigs2. I have presented a list of examples at the bottom of Talk:Dignity to help anyone who wants to understand why constructive editors find Ludwigs2 disruptive. I am unaware of any attack upon Ludwigs2, but I am aware that he has no use for facts. His recounting of how the article about Dignity came into being is pure fantasy. He has not contributed anything worthwhile to the article beyond some curly quotation marks. I suspect he is going for some sort of record in being blocked. (He has been blocked 5 times.) As far as I am concerned, he has exhausted all the wikilove he deserves. PYRRHON  talk   23:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig isn't in the wrong. You were going against consensus. The blocks of Ludwig don't have anything to do with this. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:19, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Ludwig2's edits have improved the article. The original essay read like a Grade 10 school project; it's biased, poorly organized, and awkwardly worded with many weasel words ("some have noted" - who?). Pyrrhon's edits have not improved the article, and his actions give the appearance of article ownership - he's ignoring consensus to preserve a version which is both unsupported by consensus and unencyclopedic. --NellieBly (talk) 01:03, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Off the deep end indeed. There was no malicious intent in the edit, it was a simple, regular cleanup. Pyrrhon8 reverted it without any sort of explanation: when Ludwigs2 politely and respectfully asked for one, he replied, "I am not going to play games with you. Go play on Conservapedia!" (emboldening mine.) Pyrrhon8's behavior strikes me as just unacceptable and to an extend ridiculous: In his response above, he says, "It is the goal of Ludwigs2 to make mischief on Wikipedia... ...I am unaware of any attack upon Ludwigs2, but I am aware that he has no use for facts. His recounting of how the article about Dignity came into being is pure fantasy. He has not contributed anything worthwhile to the article beyond some curly quotation marks."

If you want it in policy terms, Pyrrhon8 has demonstrated complete disregard for WP:AGF ([98]), WP:NPA ([99]), and honestly, an unwillingness to cooperate with other editors. The talk page discussion pretty much sums it up.

Pyrrhon, you need to be open to the idea that Ludwigs is not an evil adversary whose sole purpose is to destroy Wikipedia. Try and cooperate with them on this. You can start by talking about what content is objectionable to you, and then try and work towards a mutual solution. Does that help? ALI ^{nom nom} 02:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Chipmunk (rapper)

Lots of trying to claim that this person is dead. Has been reported to WP:RFPP, but not been looked at yet. Would a kindly admin please do the necessary. Thanks. Quantpole (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Give it time. Most requests aren't handled in real-time. ArcAngel (talk) (review) 23:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

He is likely still alive. A quick Google News search is not turning up anything. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:42, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

I realise that, and for most vandalism it's not usually that urgent, but in this case it is serious BLP vandalism that had been happening every couple of minutes from numerous IP addresses. It appears to have stopped since my last revert though, so maybe they've stopped trying now. Quantpole (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Badagnani

Hi, all. I'm really not sure where to start here. I've been running into trouble with Badagnani pretty much every time I run into him. Edit warring, incivility, AGF problems -- pretty much everything except outright vandalism. A lot of my edits are geared toward removing spam and listcruft, and to that end, I've been working a lot on pages of professional sports teams, and musicians and their instruments.

Currently, I'm finding myself trying to figure out how to avoid an edit war with a user who seems bent on provoking one. At goblet drum, I deleted an a set of spam links, a list of allegedly notable players (some so notable they were redlinked), and a list of translations of "goblet drum" into other languages. On the last point, I was removing the material because it was unsourced and because it violated WP:WWIN, specifically WP:NOTDIC, which specifies that lists of translations are appropriate for Wiktionary and not Wikipedia.

I was quickly reverted by Badagnani, who claimed the information was "absolutely essential." He said he wanted to discuss the change at the talk page, but he never posted. In turn, another user reverted him. All was fine for a month, until Badagnani again decided that the edit was "ridiculous" and reverted it, again without discussion.

Although his edit summaries frequently implore other editors to discuss their changes, Badagnani consistently declines to participate himself. Just the same, I attempted to get a conversation going at the talk page, but was met with dismissive comments, mild insults and no effort to address my concerns. I reiterated my concerns, but after nearly a week, they were still left unaddressed. I therefore left a message at Badagnani's talk page, which he answered only to accuse me of attacking him and being ignorant of Persian translations. I made a final effort to get my questions answered, but to no avail.

Because he made it clear he was not interested in providing sources or explaining why WP:NOTDIC should be disregarded, I went ahead and removed the material again. Inside of 10 minutes, I was reverted again, this time with a less-than-civil edit summary.

Badagnani then went on an editing tear, adding references (some germane, so less so) and the like. In hopes of finding a middle ground, I tried to begin tagging different types of goblet drums with the "Goblet-shaped drum" category in hopes that it could serve as a sufficient collection of the different subtypes that Badagnani was trying to assemble. In doing so, I happened upon Badagnani engaging in an edit war with User:Ronz at Glong yao, where he was fighting [100] [101] [102] to pass off a coatracked advertisement as a reliable source. At that talk page, I discovered a discussion nearly identical to the one at Talk:goblet drum: another editor raises concerns, Badagnani (1) dismisses them; (2) makes accusations of bad faith editing; and (3) reverts.

Additionally, a review of his edits shows that he is removing "unreferenced BLP" tags from articles he's written but failed to source [103] [104]. Of course, restoring them only invites him to revert without discussion [105].

The most annoying thing about this is that Badagnani really could be a very useful editor. The bulk of his work consists of good-faith, high-quality edits, especially in areas that are typically neglected by most editors or where most editors lack the expertise to work confidently. But like Terrell Owens, he is creating a distraction that prevents other editors from moving forward and that is sure to be a turn-off to newbies.

I'm hoping someone here has the charm or heft to effect a change. — Bdb484 (talk) 01:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

On the issue of the unsourced BLP, he may be counting the ELs as sources; did you try explaining that inline cites are better for verification and that we need significant coverage in reliable sources? He should know better than to be obstinate in his editing, so have you thought of filing a WP:RFC/U? I can't see any behaviour that requires admin intervention. Fences&Windows 01:48, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there does seem to be a pattern of low-level incivility and edit-warring, if this block log is anything to go by:[106] Fences&Windows 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

This behavior is identical to that which lead up to some of his previous blocks. See his RFCU for more details. --Ronz (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Single purpose account and obscure politician

It appears that an obscure politician once appeared as possible a key extra in a movie, is being repeatedly shoveled into the movie's article. She seems to not be notable enough to earn an article, but her rabid supporter keeps inserting a line about her, and refuses to discuss the issue other than repeating the mantra that "Some people don't want you to know about her."[107]

I personally think that wikipedia conspiracies should be dealt with at AN/I because they are the one area where humor crops up regularly from admins. Could an admin also warn the user to stop putting the line in, make supported arguments on the talk page of the article, and wear aluminum foil? --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 02:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)