Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Badagnani

Unresolved

Entire section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Badagnani to save space here and to centralize relevant discussion. Note that Arbitration has been requested (see WP:RFAR). Please wait about a day or two before timestamping and allowing the bot to archive. –MuZemike

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive589#User Bowei Huang/A1DF67 (ongoing)

Resolved

 – maybe? A1DF67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) unblocked and Bowei Huang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Toddst1 (talk) 16:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The above user has requested unblocking at User talk:Bowei Huang#Blocked promising to use on the Bowei Huang (talk · contribs) account. The problem is not that the user has two accounts (or three User talk:Bowei Huang#User:Brickfield Brickfield (talk · contribs)) but that the editing history is at A1DF67 (talk · contribs). Of the two accounts only the Bowei Huang is blocked meaning they can still edit with A1DF67. I have no objections to the Bowei Huang account being unblocked but only if a clear connection is made between the two or, if possible, the editing history is restored. I thought that it would be a good idea to bring this here for further review and will inform Bowei Huang that they can comment here as A1DF67. If it's felt to be OK to unblock Bowei Huang then go ahead and don't wait for me to notice as I will be in and out during the day. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A1DF67. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You should leave the Bowei account blocked and tell him to use the A1DF67 account; or else revert A1DF67 to Bowei and block A1DF67. It appears that he wanted the account renamed just to hide his past problems. He doesn't need two accounts. Given his contentiousness, one is more than enough. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on the most recent information at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A1DF67, it appears that Bowei Huang's intent was always to hide his edit history.[1] His unblock request is disingenuous at best. He didn't change his mind, he never intended using A1DF67. He just wanted to use it to dump his edit and warning history. When his name was change went through he used the new name only to post a thankyou for the name change and then immediately went straight back to editing as Bowei Huang. I don't think that his deception should be rewarded by allowing him to edit as Bowei Huang, which is what he always wanted to do. And now we have another editor, who is obviously well aware of what's going on, suggesting he has another, undeclared identity.[2] That needs to be cleaned up before any consideration is given to an unblock. --AussieLegend (talk)

We give people the ability to start again as a productive editor after having a shady past, see WP:CLEANSTART, but it explicitly states (in bold text, bold!) that "no active deception is involved". If there is active deception this shouldn't be allowed. -- Atama頭 18:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

• Block all the accounts for disruption with only one talkpage free for an unblock request and let's move on. The editor can either use one account or he gets none. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I agree, Good faith has been given to the editor but they have only given us bad faith in return. Changing username's to hide there history is one and another is editing another users comments! Really User:A1DF67 shouldn't be editing (other then the talkpage) after what they have done, and I've seen user who have socked get both accounts (meat and sock accounts) blocked but it has no been so in this case. Bidgee (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have moved all the messages that have been posted to me by other users onto the user talk page of the account with the new username before the username change back into the account with the old username.

A1DF67 (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I would keep that account indefinitely blocked, this seems like they did want to hide their previous edits before. That's bad behaviour and not something we want to encourage. That this has backfired on him is really his own fault - the phrase that comes to mind is "hoist on his own petard". - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, I note that example edits such as this one will still look like it comes from User:A1DF67 and not User:Bowei Huang. Unless another user rename occurs, I don't think that User:Bowei Huang should be unblocked, they should continue editing from User:A1DF67. Has anyone asked why they wanted their username changed? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Returns to edit AussieLegend's comment above...Not good. Auntie E. (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you actually meant above. :) --AussieLegend (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

@ Tbsdy lives - According to the name change request it was because he wanted a more obscure name,[3] but immediately after the name change he re-registered Bowei Huang and used only that account.

• 23:09, 15 December 2009 GMT Name change requested
• 23:26, 15 December 2009 GMT MBisanz moves Bowei Huang to A1FD7
• 23:26, 15 December 2009 GMT MBisanz reports name change completed
• 23:58, 15 December 2009 GMT Bowei Huang re-registered

Note that all of this happened in a 49 minute period and, for some added insight, he had previously been asking about hiding edit histories the month prior to the change.[4] [5] [6] --AussieLegend (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Aussie, my hunch is that he misunderstood Mysdaao in this discussion specifically "(2) requesting to change your username to something that is unconnected with you (possibly a random collection of letters and numbers)" regarding RTV, yet missing this: "The "right to vanish" does not mean anyone has the right to a fresh start under a new identity." I'm thinking he was trying to erase his old contibutions by RTV, use the old screenname, and then pretend he's never been here before. Wow. Auntie E. (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Why do you often refer to me as they, rather than he?

Sorry. I am very sorry about editing comments. I promise I will never ever do it again.

Sorry. I am very sorry for this whole thing here and everything I did that was got to do with it. Will you let me edit from User:Bowei Huang again if I be completely honest and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I swear and promise that from now on, I will only tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The account User:Brickfield is indeed mine. It is mine. I created that account. As a sign of good faith, I confess, admit, and disclose that it is mine.

My intention to change username was NOT to remove the records of edits from my account from the history pages of all the articles I have edited from my account. That was not my intention! My intention to change username was indeed to remove the records of edits from the Special:Contributions of User:Bowei Huang. Although I did intend to remove the records of edits from the Special:Contributions of my account, I didn't intend to remove them from the history pages of all the articles I have edited from my account. I only really intended to remove them from my Special:Contributions. I only wanted to remove the records of edits from the Special:Contributions of my account, not from the history pages of all the articles I have edited from my account. I removed the records of edits from the Special:Contributions of my account not because I didn't want others to look at them but because I didn't want to look at them myself. My first question before my username change was Removing Records From Special:Contributions. If it were possible and easy, I would have only done that and not removed any records of my edits from the history pages of all the articles I have edited from my account. If it were possible and easy, I would have only done that, only asked that, not asked any more questions, and not changed my username. I have no problem if User:A1DF67 is now redirected to User:Bowei Huang or if User talk:A1DF67 is now redirected to User talk:Bowei Huang. I have no problem letting others find and contact me through them. I am sorry, very sorry, that by doing this, I have also removed the records of edits from my account from the history pages of all the articles I have edited from my account and others can't also see the records of my edits through my Special:Contributions any more.

I didn't change username to escape from the messages posted onto my user talk page by others. As I have said before, I have already moved all the messages that have been posted to me by other users onto my user talk page before the username change back there. This is also a sign of good faith.

Although I created User:Brickfield, my purpose and intention to change username from User:A1DF67 to User:Bowei Huang was not to sock puppet. After I changed my username, I didn't use User:A1DF67 and only used User:Bowei Huang so I wasn't using multiple accounts at the same time, or trying or intending to use multiple accounts at the same time, after I changed my username, by changing username. I wasn't trying or intending to use multiple accounts by changing username. I wasn't a sock puppet, being a sock puppet, or trying or intending to be a sock puppet by changing username. You yourselves said that, of the two accounts, I only used and tried and intended to use one account, User:Bowei Huang. So I didn't sock puppet and I didn't try or intend to sock puppet by changing username.

I did indeed misunderstand "(2) requesting to change your username to something that is unconnected with you (possibly a random collection of letters and numbers)". I thought that it meant that I could get rid of an account by changing username and continuing editing in my account with the old username at least if I don't use or edit from the new account at all. I thought that it meant that I could continue editing in my account with the old username after the username change at least if I don't use or edit from the new account at all. I read about the right to vanish. I was asking two separate different questions then, not one single question. One was about changing usernames and the other was about getting rid of accounts. The right to vanish was about getting rid of accounts. I thought it meant that to get rid of an account, there were two possible ways. One was right to vanish and the other was requesting to change your username to something that is unconnected with you (possibly a random collection of letters and numbers) and then not use the account with the new username at all.

I didn't think that it would be sock puppeting if I changed my username but did not and did not intend to use the account with the new username at all and only used the account with the old username.

Would you unblock the account with the old username if I do the following things or agree that and let the following things be done? Can you please tell me if there are more things that I need to do? If there are, then can you please tell me what are they?

1. Redirect or agree and let you redirect the page User:A1DF67 so that it goes to User:Bowei Huang everytime someone clicks on it? Redirect the page User talk:A1DF67 so that it goes to User talk:Bowei Huang everytime someone clicks on it?

2. If it were possible, move or agree and let you move all the records of edits in the Special:Contributions of User:A1DF67 before the username change back into the Special:Contributions of User:Bowei Huang.

3. Put the Template:Retired on the page User:A1DF67 so that nobody, including me myself, could ever edit from it ever again.

A1DF67 (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

A quick check of the edit history of United States shows that you were editing that article in December 2009 as both Bowei Huang and Brickfield.[7] Between December 10-12 there was very active sockpuppetry. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering (1) Why isn't the Brickfield account blocked also? and (2) Is it technically possible to merge the A1D account back into the new stuff from Bowei, as if the A1D never existed? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Because there's never an admin around when you need one? Auntie E. (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the namechange, so he'd want the old Bowei and the new Bowei patched together? Is that correct? Auntie E. (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes. That is correct. I want to fix this whole thing that I've done. A1DF67 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I know. But I was NOT talking about User:Brickfield in that paragraph. I was just talking about User:Bowei Huang, User:A1DF67, and the change of username from User:Bowei Huang to User:A1DF67. I was saying that the username change wasn't sock puppeting or done because I tried or intended to sock puppet. I didn't sock puppet or try or intend to sock puppet by editing as both Bowei Huang and A1DF67.

A1DF67 (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

But you did sockpuppet anyway. That's a bit too important to gloss over. Auntie E. (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have redirected User:Brickfield to User:Bowei Huang. I have also redirected User talk:Brickfield to User talk:Bowei Huang. I have also moved all the messages that have been posted to me by other users onto User talk:Brickfield into User talk:Bowei Huang. [8] [9] This is also a sign of good faith.

A1DF67 (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Pretty disruptive. You should really have considered what you were asking for first. I say keep all accounts except A1DF67 blocked until someone can sort out this mess. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this all a bit too much fuss? I've blocked User:A1DF67 and User:Brickfield indefinitely, and unblocked User:Bowei Huang. I suggest we just leave it there for the moment. DrKiernan (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. Now it looks like User:A1DF67 made all the edits to all those articles, and User:Bowei Huang has no history that shows disruptive editing. Could you please undo this? Your action here has caused problems I'm afraid. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't really see what you mean, since User:Bowei Huang has a block log and is linked from the various noticeboards, etc., where conduct is discussed. However, I'm not invested in my solution. If any admin/crat wishes to undo it, they should feel free to do so, and need not discuss undoing the action with me first. DrKiernan (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If someone looks through the history of an article, they won't see that it's Bowei Huang, they will see that A1DF67 has been editing. This is now confusing enough. And this, in my opinion, is what the editor wanted in the first place - to hide their edit history. That's why I said indefinitely block Bowei Huang and keep the other account unblocked. An admin did this, you have just undone something that was already settled. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Kiernan, you are the only admin watching this dicussion. Can you re-block Huang and unblock A1Df67 please? Auntie E. (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there an administrator that might have this page watchlisted that can help us? Can't find a goddamn cop in a fricken police station I swear...where is the admin equivalent of a donut shop around here? Auntie E. (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No!!!! Please, don't reblock. Can you please let me explain first and give me time to explain first before you consider reblocking?

I have redirected User talk:A1DF67 to User talk:Bowei Huang.

Didn't I explain to you? My intention to change username was NOT to remove the records of edits from my account from the history pages of all the articles I have edited from my account.

You shouldn't be editing A1DF67's pages at all.[10][11] Please accept my apologies if the IP is not yours, but even then, that still leaves you with one edit.

I'm with Tbsdy lives and Auntie E. on this. If Bowei Huang is to remain unblocked, A1DF67's edit history needs to be merged back to Bowei Huang. However, I think that Bowei Huang should be reblocked as he still hasn't learned.[12][13] --AussieLegend (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have learned. Let me explain. I thought that its messages weren't important any more now that I am not allowed to edit from it and that it was time to redirect now. I was trying to make a clear connection between User talk:Bowei Huang and User talk:A1DF67. That was what I was trying to do. I was intending to fix things. It was because of what User:Tbsdy lives said after I was unblocked that I tried to fix it. I hope I am not trying to fix things only to make them even worse.

Is there a reason why you want me reblocked because of the edit history thing? Is it because I have made some or many specific edits in the past before the username change that were bad, wrong, or unacceptable that you don't want and don't like me removing records of edits? Is that why you want my edit history remain exactly the same as before? Is that why you want me to be reblocked so that my edit history remains exactly the same as before? Is that why you think I changed username to remove records of edits? If so, then what are those edits?

Are they the edits on the articles Australia and the United States? That was not my reason for the username change. I caused trouble with automation because I didn't know or forgot about sandboxes. I now understand that I should now try formulas in sandboxes. I have begun to decide about improving my edits on those articles. If they are not the edits on those articles, then what are they?

Bowei Huang (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there an admin here that can help?

Please help us here. Auntie E. (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A1DF67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) unblocked and Bowei Huang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Toddst1 (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring to include a WP:BLPSPS violation.

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

---

Resolved

 – No administrative action required. AniMate 02:10, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that there is an ensuing edit war at Christopher_Monckton,_3rd_Viscount_Monckton_of_Brenchley to include a clear WP:BLPSPS violation in order to include a disparaging and denigrating photograph on this man's BLP. See [14] and [15]. Many editors besides myself have tried to have the image removed on other grounds, but this seems to be a square on violation of WP:BLPSPS. I seek to have the edit war put to an end and to have those seeking to include the offending image reminded that this article falls under the new Climate Change Probation and that violations of WP:BLPSPS will not be tolerated.

Note that another discussion was started here. --GoRight (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't get it. If this is a biographies of living persons matter, shouldn't you be discussing it at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard? --TS 00:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a policy violation. Either board is sufficient, but since you insist I'll go post a notice of this report there as well. --GoRight (talk) 00:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. See[16]. I asked that the conversation be conducted here. --GoRight (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I provided a suitable warning here of my intent to report repeated violations. --GoRight (talk) 00:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't it the case that you've reverted two separate editors on this matter? I sympathize with your view that this is a BLP issue, and grant you leeway on that, but how about chatting about it a bit more? It's been in the article for some time now and it's obviously a picture of Monckton. --TS 00:36, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect to my good friend Tony, the provisions of WP:BLP and WP:BLPSPS are not something that can be negotiated so chatting would seem to serve little purpose. This is a very clear violation and it must be removed per the policies referenced. If I am wrong on that point I am sure that the neutral admins here will inform me of such. --GoRight (talk) 00:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

The picture is very poor and represents him badly, it seems that he was caught unawares by a group of young climate change protesters, I also think it negatively represents him and should not be used to represent a living person. Off2riorob (talk) 00:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There are some much nicer ones by the same photographer on flickr but apparently they are not acceptable either. It's the Principle, Dammit! Though I must confess I don't see precisely what principle is being pursued here. --TS 01:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to say I'm a bit confused. How is this a violation of self-published sources? AniMate 01:01, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

How can Flickr be considered anything BUT self-published? People upload their own material with no oversight. --GoRight (talk) 01:09, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you suggesting we get rid of all of our photographs of living people, because all of them are either self published on Flickr or self published here. AniMate 01:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

No, that would be silly. Also it is an exaggeration. Images for which we have received explicit permission would obviously be usable. Also images published in WP:RS that grant suitable copyright permission would also be usable. But images published in WP:SPS such as Flickr by someone other than the subject are NOT acceptable according to the policies as they are currently written. --GoRight (talk) 01:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about this. I think Monckton has some kind of medical history meaning that his eyes appear bulbous. I'm not sure that the photo is particularly unflattering or whatever, it is just what he looks like. Bearing that in mind, this just looks like a picture of him engaging with either journalists or the public and does not reflect badly on him. --FormerIP (talk) 01:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I shall quote from WP:BLPSPS to save everyone the time:

"Never use self-published books, zines, websites, forums, blogs or tweets as sources for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)."

The restriction I have highlighted is all encompassing (i.e. "material" includes images) and unambiguous (i.e. unless it was put there by Monckton himself it is not suitable for inclusion in a BLP). Note that it makes no distinction about whether the material is positive, neutral, or negative. It is ALL unacceptable. --GoRight (talk) 01:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

We have literally thousands of images of living people uploaded by Wikipedia contributors and Flickr photographers. Wikipedia has had a policy from the start of encouraging user-generated photographs. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:23, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I am citing a policy. I am not sure what you are citing, please clarify. But unless it is also a policy then mine trumps yours. If you are citing a policy then they are in conflict and need to be reconciled. --GoRight (talk) 01:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I was just looking on flickr and there are pictures far better but not at commons, has he really got bulbous eye syndrome? There is nothing on his article that suggests that.I couldn't also find the picture still on flikr? He is being confronted as I said in the picture by climate change protesters as the description at commons clearly says, the picture was uploaded by User talk:ChrisO . Off2riorob (talk) 01:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I had previously tried to edit that information into the caption for the picture. It was edit warred as well. Regardless, any pictures from Flickr are deemed inappropriate for use per WP:BLPSPS which is unabmiguous with respect to SPS. --GoRight (talk) 01:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he has Exophthalmos. --FormerIP (talk) 01:17, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Specifically Graves disease (Barbara Bush suffered from the same thing). The claim of a BLP violation is insane, considering that Wikipedia has had a policy from the start of encouraging user-generated pictures. The following is GoRight's "rationale" (I use the term advisedly) on the article talk page: "How can we be assured that this image actually IS a photo of Monckton? How do we know that this is not some imposter made up to look like Lord Monckton in a disparaging likeness?" I find it hard to believe that even GoRight believes this. It looks like (yet more) wikilawyering to me from an editor who has gained an unenviable reputation in that department. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I would ask my good friend ChrisO to review WP:NPA before referring to my posts as insane. My rationale, as stated above, does NOT, let me repeat does NOT, depend on the text you have highlighted above, although that text DOES establish why even a photograph is subject to WP:BLPSPS. Either way, the use of SPS material in a BLP is clearly and unambiguously excluded as being usable. This is regardless of whether that material is positive, neutral, or negative. --GoRight (talk) 01:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

GoRight, that has never been the situation in practice. We have thousands of such images on Wikipedia, donated by Wikipedians, Flickr photographers and other contributors. You are reading something into BLP that has never been applied in practice and which is completely contradicted by Wikipedia's long-standing policy on encouraging user-generated images. Your approach would require thousands of images across Wikipedia to be deleted. It's a complete non-starter. I think you know it's a non-starter. I've never seen anyone make the claim before that you have here. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a lot of noise in this thread, so let me see if I can distill your argument into a sentence or so: You say that WP policy prohibits all self-published material in BLPs, so pictures taken by Wikipedians or other non-mainstream-media sources are not usable in BLPs. Is this it? Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:34, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

"You say that WP policy prohibits all self-published material in BLPs" - With the exception of SPS published by the subject themselves, yes.

"so pictures taken by Wikipedians or other non-mainstream-media sources are not usable in BLPs" - Not strictly true. If these individuals have their pictures published in an otherwise WP:RS then they would be eligible for inclusion so long as they granted a suitable free-use license. But yes, this is an implication of WP:BLPSPS as it is currently written. --GoRight (talk) 01:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Fortunately it has now been changed to close this supposed loophole, which you appear to be the first person to spot or try to exploit (neither of which do you much credit, I have to say). -- ChrisO (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I would again ask my good friend ChrisO to review WP:NPA for a second time. --GoRight (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Aren't there any other pictures of him that we can use on Wikipedia? If not then perhaps we should think of asking e.g. the BBC if they are willing to let us use one of their pics for this and other articles. The BBC frequently refers to Wikipedia for further reading in some cases, so they should be willing to help us out. Count Iblis (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

We'd need a free picture (that is, not just one for us to use, but one for anybody to use under our free license). Historically we have relied on Wikipedians and the like with cameras going to an event and pressing the shutter button then uploading. Self-published? Yes, of course. --TS 01:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-admin comment. I think this picture is fine. I think it actually reflects well on him - his public role involves engaging with people and that is what he is doing in the photo. I think it would be ethically wrong to search out a photo of him that makes his Graves Disease (or whatever it is) seem less evident. --FormerIP (talk) 01:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everyone above that it makes no sense to prohibit non-reliably-published photos, even (or especially!) in BLP cases since published photos are almost never available under an acceptable copyright. The appropriate policy to go by is WP:MUG: is this image taken out of context and does it present the subject in an unflattering light? Maybe, but it's not clear-cut. If that's actually representative of what he looks like, then it's ok to use and even more it's probably a WP:BLP violation to call the image "disparaging and denigrating" as GoRight has been doing, since it implies a negative judgement about the man's looks. On the other hand, the "confronted by activists" part of the Flickr description hints that he was taken in a state of surprise which might have exaggerated his features. So I'm not sure whether it can stay or go, but I think it should be a matter of editorial judgement rather than administrative action. Which is to say, take it to the talk page. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:39, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This really seems to be him, compare to [17] and [18]. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

One important point which I think it's worth making is that Graves' disease is apparently a progressive degenerative condition. A picture of Monckton taken several years ago like this one is not going to represent Monckton's current appearance. People have said "but he doesn't look like that in other pictures", but an up-to-date picture is of course going to differ from an old one, given the Graves' disease factor. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It is not up to us to make this determination. That's why WP:BLP and WP:RS were created. We rely on other independent sources to make such determinations. --GoRight (talk) 02:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I shall enjoy watching your newfound zeal re: BLP-compliant photos as it is expressed towards subjects encompassing the complete spectrum of political and cultural views. GJC 04:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by that?Jarhed (talk) 06:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I mean that if the photographers were climate-change skeptics, and Monckton was on the other side of the debate, I question whether this conversation would ever have occurred. GJC 01:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Who really cares what you think would be people's responses if roles were reversed? Are you trying to be deliberately confrontational? If the roles were reversed, the photo would still be objectionable. Jlschlesinger (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm getting a little tired of a number of editors (here and on the Monckton site) questioning other editors motives. Please stop the sarcasm and personal aspersions. This is not a crusade by GoRight - almost half the editors posting there agree with him. Next you'll be accusing us of being "meatpuppets" (again).

Back on point - All of this is a tempest in a teacup, since it has already been established at the article's discussion page that a consensus exists for a better photo to be used. The photo in question not only holds a bias in the view of nearly half the editors involved, but as I've mentioned it's a crappy photo on it's own, and therefore in violation of various other image guidelines: 1) It's cluttered (an out of focus camera is in the frame nearly blocking his face). 2) there are other people in the shot. 3) it's off center (someone had to do a crop to correct.) and of course 4) it's content's bias is contended, 5) it's usability vis a vis self-publication is under question (regardless of how many other violations exist, GoRight has been correct on the policy, and 6) nearly everyone involved in the discussion has agreed (amazing!) that a better picture is preferred. I have located a better photo, which carries an open license directly on the page is appears on. It's use has been challenged and I think, a little unduly. This photo is here. ChrisO claims that another editor has claimed the photo has been found elsewhere on the web (here) and therefore the open license statment that appears under the photo at cfact.tv is suspect. My argument is that we are not in the business of second guessing the clearly stated licensing of the website in question, and that this photo is being subject to an unusually high standard...if we go much further, we may very well have a rationale for pulling down thousands of other photos. My specific question to this community is, can we not use a photo from a site that has clearly been posted with a CC 3.0 open license? Jlschlesinger (talk) 05:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Wiki Greek Basketball

Resolved

 – Blocked indef. — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 22:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• Please note that this entire thread is at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wiki Greek Basketball (updated to include a couple of entries here not reflected there); I have also added an e-mail I received through Wikipedia from WGB at that page. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat by IP editor

What looks like a legal threat appeared in one of the talk pages I have watchlisted. [19] Specifically: "The unbalanced reporting going on here is in need of serious examination. It supports the allegation this site is administered in accordance to protecting Wiki founder Jimmy Wales commercial financial interests. Violating the law that grants Wiki's non-profit status.

The evidence of this is overwhelming. All one needs to do is examine the arbitrary dismissal of factual evidence and lending credence to sources that's allegations were shown through court proceedings to be baseless. Using unreliable sources such as those who commit Libel and Slander violates Wiki policy and rules. Namely, The Los Angeles Times, Stolen Valor, and SOF magazine, etc. " "Presenting unreliable sources while removing any mention of those shown to be reliable demonstrates malfeasance and actual malice. In the past, this actual malice includes archiving this discussion page by which to control the information and status qou.". Niteshift36 (talk) 21:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This is probably banned user User:Avianraptor spewing his legal threat nonsense again. Also see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive496#Legal threats in the Frank Dux article and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive552#sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry/COI/physical threats. –MuZemike 21:43, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

• That would be my guess. Niteshift36 (talk) 21:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked the IP 1m for legal threats. Adjust if necessary. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 21:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Er... isn't that a ComCast IP address? Are we certain we aren't blocking innocent users? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Comcast cable IPs are effectively static. They only change if there's a long-term service outage or other failure, or if you actively change your address. --Carnildo (talk) 23:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Carnildo is correct; I myself use Comcast and, barring a router reset, service outage, or the like, my IP doesn't change. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 04:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Silverlife's userboxes

Silverlife's has userboxes that attack two groups of people. The two userboxes say "This user hates Librans so much. Because they are the worst, the most terrible, the most horrible and the most disgusting kind of people on Earth (almost, and including Zac Efron)." and "This user hates Geminians. Because they are the weirdest, the stupidest, the "suckest", the most "priceless" kind of people on Earth (almost)." Joe Chill (talk) 00:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Probably the best course of action is to CSD them. ConCompS talk review 00:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Yeah, very informative dialogs. And I can't believe: Who can nominate this thing? Only loser does, It can be the only one, Mr. Joey. Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• I did not attack 2 groups of people. I attacked nearly 2/12 (1/6) people living in this world. Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• You, ConCompS can't help anything, Just delete. It makes me sick and bored - please don't say any word else. Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I only know how to get the images deleted, not the userboxes themselves. The images can't be speedy speedy deleted, so either admins will have to take care of this or there will have to be a deletion debate for the images. Joe Chill (talk) 00:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• These images actually were just made for fun, I wasn't serious yet - because I didn't have time. My original idea was: Libra and Gemini signs upper the water closet. That will be really fun! and also humorous Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• A zodiac racist? Aren't we getting a little bit over the top in getting offended? Obviously, these userboxes aren't meant to be taken seriously. Come on, folks!--Ramdrake (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Yes, I do. I'm "zodiac racist" like you said. It was my experiences about people born under these zodiac signs. Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Not taken seriously? Silverlife gave me this comment a few days ago, "What a most clueless, nut speech I've ever heard in my life. You can't find, doesn't mean It will be deleted. Sucks!". I don't assume good faith towards Silverlife. Joe Chill (talk) 00:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• It's because you nominated the OptiPNG article for deletion very stupidly, I didn't want to repeat twice: "...I can't find significant coverage...". And then I hate, sorry! Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• That Silverlife was rude to the point of personal attack is a valid point and he should be warned about it. However, I still fail to see the connection with userboxes which I take as being mostly humorous (although they could use some toning down and shouldn't name names, ever).--Ramdrake (talk) 00:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• I used userboxes for attacking, use them as weapons. Nothing homourous here.

• They are all personal attacks. You don't know that they are meant as humorous. If they are meant to be humorous, I guess I just don't get a joke about how calling people names are meant to be funny. Joe Chill (talk) 00:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Personal attack... and then what? You can't change my mind, my thoughts about anything. And I keep writing and uploading until somebody blocks me. And the film ends. You're the person who likes to join pointless things and waste of time Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• They're attacks on zodiac signs. While the incivility should not stand, the userboxes themselves are harmless. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• It's not an attack on Libra and Gemini, so it isn't an attack on zodiac signs hence the ns. Joe Chill (talk) 00:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well, there is an attack on Zac Efron. Woogee (talk) 04:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• The userboxes are clearly not attacking zodiac signs. They are clearly attacking people who fall under particular signs. Further, there is no way they could be taken as humorous for several reasons: 1. The user has a history of personally attacking others. What evidence can you provide they meant the userboxes to be humorous and not an attack? 2. They could possibly be taken as humorous, if the user was making fun of themselves. However, given that a person cannot be born in two separate months, I fail to see how such would be possible. Speedy delete them.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• "...The user has a history of personally attacking others...": You don't know. Only Joe, was the first one, I ever "personalled" attack! :). Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Joe had a history of receiving personal attack. He deserved it, he gets it - until now. Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• Zac Efron actually added for fun. Only because he was born in Libra Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• I personally find it hilarious that this editor hates people born in certain months and Zac Efron. He's clearly a discerning individual! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, that cracked me up too. GJC 18:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• He's also moved usernames from User:RegularBreaker without WP:UNC or attribution - I haven't had the chance to check out the previous edits ... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:13, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
• What a kind of dirty person, who spied on other people's past. Silverlife (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for showing us that we might need to dig a little more into your contributions, Silverlife. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

H3ere's a interesting diff....[[20]] Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The user replaced the userboxes; I removed them again. If they replace them again, I will issue a short block. As far as I see it, there is absolutely no reason for these boxes to be there - and they are obviously offensive, non-collaborative, and could have a chilling effect on the collegiate nature of the project. Tan | 39 17:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone else noticed this? Please note that both accounts are still live, though he hasn't USED User:RegularBreaker since July. Should we let that stand? # 02:09, 19 July 2009 (hist | diff) N User:Silverlife ‎ (←Created page with 'Silverlife is a new name for RegularBreaker, introduced for newer, fresher experience.') GJC 18:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What did I use, What will I choose ARE NOT YOUR JOB. Whatever someone notices or not. Silverlife (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree force removing the userboxes. If he continually re-add them block him. This is a racist userbox and according to the WP:NPA personal attacks is disallowed. --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 04:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Racist? What? That's a strong accusation to make against another editor. I thought we were talking about zodiac signs. And I thought they were funny (as a Gemini myself), though names should not be mentioned of course. Auntie E. (talk) 16:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Aftermath, User:Saturday

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

IMO, the user just doesn't get why they were blocked, and, in my opinion, continue the same behavior that got them blocked in the first place. I therefore request someone with sysop status, explain to them why they are wrong, as I don't think I can handle it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hrm, seems that's not a link... if someone knows what it's called, please fix it, I can't for the life of me remember.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 00:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you want WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT ? -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:40, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I could do it, either. This guy seems to just want a pound of edits from Tan at this point. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 00:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I told Daedalus on my talk page just to ignore him, but apparently we all want to rattle the cage a bit. I imagine if it continues some other admin will end up protecting the talk page, but I don't much care. Tan | 39 00:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I still hold out hope that this guy drops his crusade, but if he keeps asking for your head I don't see anything less than a talkblock in his future. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 00:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I suppose it's resolved. I revoked the user's access to their talk page, and then Ryan P (somewhat strangely) protected the page. At any rate, it's all over. Tan | 39 01:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Why somewhat strangely? I didn't see you'd revoked his talk page access - I thought I'd protected his talk page and then left him a note, but it didn't go through so I protected it after I'd left him a note, in which time you'd already removed it directly in the block settings. No offence Tan, but describing my action as "somewhat strange" isn't too fair when clearly we were trying to achieve the same end result. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Because the standardpolicy-prescribed method for doing that is to do what I did - revoke their access, not everyone's. Plus, I had already done it two minutes before you did. Combined, I find it somewhat strange, but not enough to really care. If you take offense that I describe your actions as strange, I guess I don't care about that, either. Tan | 39 01:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You have one bad attitude Tan. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 01:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Good chat. Tan | 39 01:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, hey fellas! Whoa there a minute - we're all friends here! :-) - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Moot as user is blocked. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Saturday&oldid=337106067 --Tyw7  (Talk • Contributions)   Changing the world one edit at a time! 04:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Threeblur0

Threeblur0 (talk · contribs) is a confirmed sockpuppet of Sleepydre, but was unblocked in March 2009 by Versageek with a promise to not use multiple accounts and to discuss things on talk pages and work with other editors. Here is the diff of their agreement.

Threeblur0 has, as far as I know, not used multiple accounts. However, Threeblur0's behavior in editing has been fairly disruptive. S/he edits mostly the Akron, Ohio article and related articles - see here. Threeblur0 does not seem to have learned much from nearly a year of editing here. S/he keeps adding material which is trivial / crufty, keeps adding material from sources which are of doubtful reliability, and engages in WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. Recently Threeblur0 has made edit summaries which approach personal attacks - diff. Please see the Talk:Akron, Ohio page for more details.

Several users, including JonRidinger and Beirne have repeatedly tried to point out where Threeblur0's edits are wrong or could be improved. Threeblur0's behavior was cited by Stepshep as the reason he left Wikipedia - diff.

Threeblur0 is not a vandal, but his or her editing seems to be getting more and more disruptive. What should be done? Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:39, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

I've asked Threeblur0 to take a break from editing the Akron page and he's agreed to do so. --Versageek 22:29, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

But it should be noted that Threeblur agreed to only take "the rest of the week off" according to his talk page. Not much of a break for someone who's made over 800 edits (just with that specific username) in less than a year to one article nor does it indicate that there will be any difference once he returns. I'd say suggest a longer break and hold him to the original agreement. Along with that, despite numerous and lengthy explanations from myself and other editors citing Wikipedia policy, guidelines, and examples about a number of topics to help him improve the article and just be a better editor, he has continued to add or restore unsourced, poorly sourced, and/or trivial information. Being a new editor is one thing, but he isn't a new editor anymore. This is in addition to the personal nature of many of his comments and edit summaries. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, let's see how they go after a week. They sound like they had resolved not to edit the page so much. The comment of a personal nature was a bit uncivil, but really not that bad I think. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:12, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have restored this discussion from the archive. Threeblur is back from his four day break and has reverted a lot of trivial and dubious content that I had deleted. In doing so, he said that he was restoring material that was deleted without discussion. As I deleted the cruft I created new sections on the discussion page explaining my deletions, so the only reason there was no discussion is because no one replied to me. This is his typical behavior, reverting and misrepresenting. And I'll add a reply to User:Tbsdy lives, "The comment" should be plural. We have been putting up with his insults and assumptions of bad faith for a long time and it really makes editing difficult. --Beirne (talk) 05:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Already back from a four-day break and has restored significant amounts of trivial info and poorly-worded edits. He basically demands that we have to explain every removal of info, but is unable to justify its inclusion (see WP:BOP), nor does he try beyond comments like "just like NYC's" (which most times it isn't at all like the NYC article). And no, the personal comment was one example; it was hardly simply one uncivil moment. Editors that have not had to work on articles with Threeblur for more than a few edits have no concept of how difficult he has made the process of improving the article. Not only do we have to constantly have to make revisions, but then we have to explain our every action and get in a drawn out discussion about it. This is not a case of simple disagreements here and there; this is a case of blatant disregard for policies and guidelines by one editor despite an enormous amount of help. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Might be worthwhile blocking then. Clearly is not showing consensus-based editing, Wikibreaks should be used to destress and reconsider ways of editing that don't step all over other editors. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:42, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me, but after being back i have put data with references and used talk pages on both articles i edited. The little amount that i restored was encyclopedic information with references that was taken out and is reformed to fit properly in the article. I havent come to a consensus on edits yet cause the only edit i made i felt needed as soons as possible cause the tag at the top of the page which is still there. Im willing to keep discussing edits in a more civilized way regaurdless of other editors actions.--Threeblur0 (talk) 07:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll comment on the parts that I had removed that Threeblur0 reverted (See diff here: [21]). One was most of the film and section. A large portion of it was a list of characters that were born in Akron. I removed these following WP:IPC guidelines as these say nothing about Akron itself. I also removed the movies filmed in Akron that only had IMDB, a tertiary source, as a reference. Threeblur0's revert did not add any significant references, if any at all. Another effect of the reversion was to change "Simon Perkins Mansion" back to "Simon Perkin's Mansion". Perkins was the man's last name, and I had corrected the typo. The fact that the apostrophe reappeared showed the wholesale nature of the reversion. Another reversion was to bring back the claim that the Menches brothers invented the waffle cone, caramel corn, and possibly the hamburger. While popular in Akron, these are unsubstantiated claims. It's fine if they come back in as long as they are documented. No references were added in the reversion, though. Threeblur0 also restored a statement saying that northern migration has introduced Southern and African-American English to Akron, using the original source that talks about migration but not language. Threeblur0 added a reference for the obscure term Akroness, but the source is a 27-page non-searchable article, so I can't tell if the word is in there or not. Also, he did these reverts without replying to the topics I created on the Discussion page. --Beirne (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, i did put a reference for the Menches brothers claim, it's still there if you didnt remove it. The source given supports the arival of dialects. I thought it would be proof enough since from all signs the page existed at one point and contained Akroness, plus the statment is known to be true and can be typed into google and get over a thousand hits. The edits on the revision page were one right after another and edit summaries didnt include the words "see talk" or similar, plus after figurng out you did, alot of the edits you made didnt have a discussion and some discussions you didnt really give enough time for replies. Beside all that, im really tryng to focus on the rest of the vast knowledge Wikipedia has this year and not have debates leading to nowhere with you two.--Threeblur0 (talk) 07:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I see the Menches reference. Unfortunately it is to Jay Fox's No-More-Mr.-Nice-Guy Dining Guide, which appears to be an some sort of blog, not a reliable source. Making inferences about language from an article about migration is original research. The page existed for the reference to Akroness, but I wasn't going to read through 27 pages to see if the word showed up there. The reference should include a page number. Google hits don't mean much. I had discussion areas for Menches and the film & TV edits and they still don't have replies as I write this. --Beirne (talk) 08:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Was pointed here...never understood why the sock was unblocked. §hep^Talk 07:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As the comments above demonstrate, despite countless explanations of what constitutes a reliable source and countless referrals to the policy, Threeblur continues to add information with unreliable, synthesized, or just plain incorrect information. The term Akroness is a great example. The only "sources" if you Google it, come from blogs, personal websites, promotional websites, and other unreliable things like the Urban Dictionary. The source cited in the article links to a study from Ohio University on dialects in Southern Ohio. The only mentions of Akron I could find are maps in the appendix (pp. 198-200 of the study, p. 24-26 of the PDF file) that show Akron as being in the North Midland dialect or possibly Northern dialect and a brief mention where Akron is "excluded" from the southern Ohio dialect reach (p. 193 in study, p. 18 in PDF), yet somehow this source appears to support the use of the term Akroness in the article when, in fact, it doesn't. Then, as usual, it becomes our responsibility to explain why it needs to be removed in a long, drawn-out process rather than how it should be as explained in WP:BOP. And yes, Threeblur tends to do a wholescale revert first, so restores not only the info in question but also any grammatical, spelling, and punctuation errors that may have been corrected. Sometimes he catches them, but usually he does not. Taking a "break" from an article, particularly one like this where the user has made an enormous amount of edits to, needs to be longer than 4 days. --JonRidinger (talk) 14:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

<-Shep, as I explained last year, Threeblur0 means well - Allowing him to edit and hoping with some guidance he'd learn how to edit in a collaborative environment was better than range blocking the entire public library system in his area to prevent him from editing. He has added worthwhile content to the article, and some decent photos - once we helped him understand the whole 'image copyright' issue. I suppose at this point it does come down to competence is required. Threeblur0, an encyclopedia isn't intended to be a collection of every single thing that may be related to a subject. It's suppose to be something that one can read for a quick overview of important facts about a subject, a starting point for research.. at this point the Akron article is almost TL;DR. --Versageek 17:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Threeblur0 may mean well in terms of wanting to add content, but he does not Assume Good Faith with us other editors and makes personal attacks. I could deal with the Wikipedia process for handling incorrect information, bad sources, and trivia with a reasonable editor, but Threeblur0 often makes things personal and pretty much just wears us down with attacks and doesn't stop with the bad content in spite of our repeated advice on what is expected in Wikipedia. --Beirne (talk) 18:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The odd thing is that Threeblur0 has learned about photos and copyrighted images, but shows little sign of progress in article writing. His edits to the Akron article tend to be inclusion of whatever odds and ends related to or mentioning Akron that can be found on the internet, with little use of books or print resources, and almost no attempt to put things into context or see the big picture. There is also a tendency to boosterism. The mention of Menches Brothers Restaurant, which claims to have made the first hamburger and ice cream cone, has only a tentative Akron connection. The original Menches brothers were from Canton, Ohio, their first hamburger was made in New York state, their ice cream cone was made in St. Louis, then they made waffle cones in Akron. Their business died out, great-grandchildren revived the hamburger restaurant in Uniontown, Ohio in 1994 and eventually opened two more burger joints, one in Akron. The refs for this are the burger chain's own website and a news article from 1995 about the Uniontown restaurant that mentions Akron one time.[22] For another example of Threeblur0's work, try Crime history of Akron, Ohio - moved by Threeblur0 to a name which has no parallels in other articles (despite the objections of others), full of unrelated bits, some of which run afoul of WP:RECENT and WP:WEIGHT and lacking any sort of crime statistics. There is also a user who has edited it only 3 times with a compund name followed by a number, Vegasbaby33 (talk · contribs), who might be a sock. Almost any attempt to clean things up is reverted and editors get bogged down in lengthy talk page discussions that never seem to go anywhere. Not vandalism, buit certainly not productive. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Good point with the photos, though I think there it was a case of being pretty cut-and-dry (only upload pictures you took yourself) and having quite a few photos deleted here and on the Commons (and getting his Commons account blocked indefinitely...all his recent photo additions were uploaded to Wikipedia). On top of that it takes a lot more effort to "undo" a file deletion than it does a text edit. For me, working with Threeblur has been very difficult because in addition to making edits, I end up having to explain everything in great detail like I'm asking for permission, not to mention repeatedly. If we have a major disagreement, he will occasionally go over to the Kent, Ohio article (one I edit fairly regularly, have put a lot of effort in, and have a close connection to) and will make some kind of disruptive edit like: [23],[24], [25], [26] (which contains info in the edit summary that isn't true about the section being "one sentence"). None of them are vandalism by definition, but none served a direct purpose other than to divert attention from the Akron article. These are along with some interesting justifications for actions such as the move of Crime in Akron, Ohio to Crime history of Akron, Ohio without any discussion as seen at Talk:Crime history of Akron, Ohio, which came during a drawn-out debate about the former and related "Meth Capital of Ohio" section in the Akron article Crime section. In reading WP:CIR from Versageek, it sums a lot of this up really well. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct would help ? --Versageek 00:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What would restarting in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct do? --Beirne (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I had the same basic question. I've never done this or even an AN/I before, so what are the benefits for all involved by going this route? --JonRidinger (talk) 02:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the last time im replyng to this only because the accusations are serious, but regardless of what is said after this - im moving on.

Administrative Wiki Probo Versageek, you are clear.

Editor Bernie, As thought by Adiminstrator Tbsdy lives, my comments of personal nature are not that bad, also i can point out some of yours but it is not the purpose of Wikipedia.

Editor Ruhrfisch, what you're experiencing actually is, me re-forming data and being retarted from the sand boxes progress, which are indeed encyclopedic. The mention of the menches brothers came from thembeing a well known resident of Akron, the mention of the food on the page's cusine sections comes from identifying what the person/thing is most noted/notable for. The explanation for crime can be found on it's talkpage. I am not Editor Veagsbaby33 neither, and any one with the power may check.

Editor JohnRidinger, i was only blocked there because the same administrator who blocked me from here had something to do with it. I feel the same, as i repeatidly state, when im in disscussions with you. I do to Kent exactly what i do to Akron, base it upon other articles that have been corrected and also state why in the summary.(i confused and really meant to say one topic, which is Kent University. I also really dont have Akron in my mind as much you think when im editng the Kent page. I show competence, with my revision page and explained and forgiven "sockpuppets" as proof, most pictures and sections on the page came from me such as, roughly two thirds of the history, roughly half the topography, environment, almost all the cityscape, notable residents, culture, economy, part of the demographics, half the government and politics, crime, alot of education, sgnificant amount of transportation, and some of sister cities. The benifits of my route is a direction to peace and increased productivity.--Threeblur0 (talk) 14:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Threeblur0, are you moving on in the sense of not working on the Akron article anymore, or will you just be ignoring the rest of this discussion? --Beirne (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User 116.71.2.18 's ongoing reverts of Messiah Foundation International and related

It appears that a single editor, from various accounts/IPs, is consistently adding/restoring {{NPOV}} to articles about the Messiah Foundation International and its members. While I agree that the articles are NPOV, this user (in his various guises) consistently fails to explain his actions despite polite inquiries from the major editor. I fear that his refusal to communicate is causing grief for an earnest (if CoI) editor. Further, he has recently started adding insults to his edit summaries, like Younas is kutte ka Bachaa, nothing is wrong in it!! Suggestions for how to deal with this ongoing disruption and failure to justify edit warring? MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

File a request for semi-protection at WP:RPP. How is the edit summary quoted insulting? Could you translate it please? Mjroots (talk) 07:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, this edit summary is far from appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm dealing with the IP now. Mjroots (talk) 07:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

One IP blocked for a week for edit warring, the other has been warned re their editing. Mjroots (talk) 07:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wouldn't semi-protection be a better option here? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Please note that this was discussed above. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As it's only 2 IPs, I'd rather avoid semi-protection if it is possible, but it will be implemented if necessary. Mjroots (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

But as the IPs won't stop, I've semi-protected the articles for a while. Mjroots (talk) 15:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User:DegenFarang attempted WP:OUTING and WP:HOUND and other abuse

User:DegenFarang has been attempting to out me using various personal names in different places, most recently here. His previous behavoir has lead to him being blocked multiple times for extremely abusive behavoir, for example repeatedly in the John Roberts article, Russ Hamilton article and also lying about consensus when the opposite was true like in John Roberts again. He has created a hate/attack article against Constant Rijkenberg, which includes a link to the unreliable source the playr.com, to which site most of his content edits link. He often puts contentious and inaccurate material in BLP articles, in addition to stalking me, assigning identities to me, and attributing the work of other editors to me to be contentious. His user name and IP address should be permanently blocked per WP:OUTING and WP:HOUND in addition to his overall abusive editing especially BLPs. 2005 (talk) 07:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Using diffs from a year ago tends to weaken your argument. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

He did not edit for nearly eight months, except for creating an attack page here against an individual. So from April 11 2009 until two weeks ago he did not edit at all, except to create that attack page. The majority of his edits are abusive to BLP or on talk pages, and he has attempted to out me several times. Additionally last year he threatened to vandalize any edits I did if I did not leave his link placements to theplayr.com alone. 2005 (talk) 08:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, this is the discussion, recently blanked, that 2005 is referring to. Throwaway85 (talk) 08:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, thanks for fixing the link. I've listed the article for deletion, removed the larger outing problem, and reported it to Wikipedia:Oversight if they think it's appropriate. Edit warring to include unsourced personal facts seem to be a habit of his though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I did not add in the information about Jack Johnson's family - it has been there a long time. What I did was revert repeated vandalism to the article - people were changing the name of his wife and saying they were married in 2008 and giving juvenile other false data and facts - from an unregistered account - obviously some high school kids playing around or something. DegenFarang (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

For some unknown reason User:Happy-melon restored the blatant outing text. Please delete it. An attempted outing can't be anymore blatant than calling someone by a first name! 2005 (talk) 11:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been editing consistently since April, I just haven't been logged in. You can check this IP address and you'll see consistent edits since July (when I moved to this location). I've been editing less seriously than I was, but I have still been editing consistently.

I believe this little campaign 2005 is starting against me is an attempt to smear my name and head off what I told 2005 I was about to do - which is to bring into question all of the dubious poker-babes.com links 2005 has been adding to Wikipedia for years. I will do this once somebody directs me to the proper place to bring this issue up. I have asked now at least 5 times and nobody has answered my question.

Regarding WP:OUT you keep saying I am the owner of <redacted>. First, I am not. Second, doesn't that violate WP:OUT as the owner of <redacted> is well known in the online poker community? Interesting that you would complain for me violating that policy while you violate it yourself in the very same posting. I ask that all references 2005 has made to me having anything to do with <redacted> be removed from Wikipedia DegenFarang (talk) 17:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I've redacted the above references. Here is me doing so.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 11:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Mikhailov Kusserow and WikiProject dabbling

This editor has been going about, arbitrarily archiving the talk pages for WikiProjects, and spinning off membership lists on to separate subpages. In looking at his contributions page, he is going about this in alphabetical order by project name. In the case of WP:CRIME, his talk page edit removed the Mizsabot auto-archiving code and set up his own definitions of archive pages, removing even very recent talk posts. He is not a member of the projects, nor has he proposed his edits for project consensus. I objected to his actions for WP:ACTOR here. Tonight he popped up to make these edits on WP:CRIME, again without approaching the project and defining things as he wants them. When I posted my objection to his talk page [27], I noticed that people from other projects have also objected to his edits [28]. I'm certain as he goes on, more largely populated projects will object to this also. This editor does not seem inclined to stop and help would be appreciated. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you let them know that they should stop doing what they are doing? Perhaps they are not aware that they are doing any damage. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Like I said, I informed him of this here, which was at 02:43, 7 January 2010, another editor told him similarly here, about 7 hours later. He did not respond to either talk page post or let it deter him from continuing his WikiProject dabbling. He saw those posts because he deleted them from his talk page. Something needs to be done to stop him from all of "help". Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Just an extra bit of input, I also questioned Mikhailov regarding his edits to WikiProject Airsoft, asking why he split off the members list to a new page and badly archived the talk page, and got the reply "What I have done based on meta.wiki." Link. He didn't offer me a link as evidence, and i've been unable to come up with anything that corroborates this. RWJP (talk) 14:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh man - check out Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography/Members. He split off a wikiproject page, but nobody wants him to. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:17, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that on his talk page. I'm not totally sure, but I believe that other people apart from me and Wildhartlivie have questionned him about his actions. Perhaps contacting the "leader" of the Wikiprojects he has edited would be a good idea, i'm sure some exta comments from them would add a little more weight to this issue. Sadly i appear to be the only active editor in WikiProject: Airsoft, so i'm all you've got in that respect.

I also noticed your particularly amusing edit on my talk page Tbsdy. Slight case of mistaken identity there?

RWJP (talk) 14:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that... - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

He's been advised to stop. Hopefully he'll stop on his own. --Andy Walsh (talk) 16:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

? QUERY:  In the meantime, have all of his disruptive, destructive edits been reverted? Have these pages been properly restored? If someone could generate a list, I could get to work on some of them. When I check his contribs I see that many of his edits are still the “top” (i.e., last) edit. Or, should correcting Kusserow’s edits be left to the members of the various WikiProjects? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 19:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Not sure about other WikiProjects, but i've not reverted the member page edit for WikiProject Airsoft as i'm not aware of the procedure I need to go through to do so. I presume i'd need to submit an article for deletion request on the member list page? RWJP (talk) 19:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I would think a project co-ordinator or even well-respected project-member could simply tag as {{db-g6}}. –xeno^talk 20:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

What about the bad archiving and, in some cases as outlined above by Wildhartlivie, the scuttling of properly set up automated archiving? Won’t all of those have to be undone? Should something be coordinated with the project coordinators? (Don’t laugh at coordinated/coordinator. I couldn’t think of another word!) — SpikeToronto 20:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Misza settings should definitely go back on there. If the talk page hasn't changed since they visited perhaps just a revert and g6'ing of the improperly created pages, but yes, you may want to ping project co-ordinators to see how best to proceed. –xeno^talk 20:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)P.S. I propose using Popups to revert the talk pages back to their state before his last edit. But, this would have to be done soon before new threads are added to these pages. Also, the archives he created could be deleted and the ones to which he added to reverted to their state before his additions, with the material being placed back into the main talk page for the bots to archive when the time comes.

Are there any tools that administrators have at their disposal that can deal with a talk page that has been added to since the archiving? Some tool that can revert to the pre-archive state plus add in the new material since?

Finally, someone needs to point out to our well-intentioned, but misguided, editor the following statement at WP:ARCHIVE: “Decisions about when to archive, and what may be the optimal length for a talk page, are made according to consensus for each case,.” [Emphasis added.] — SpikeToronto 21:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I fixed WP:ACTOR and WP:CRIME but I'm not bold enough to go in and fix other projects, to which I don't belong. Thanks for dealing with this. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Just anote to say that this editor saw the notices because he archived them and then moved on to start archiving article talk pages. While that might not be a problem in and of itself, some of the archiving has involved recent discussions. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Astrology - he's split off the member list and archived the talk pages, at least two unanswered threads have been taken off, I think. I watched it but never actually joined and I'm not familiar with proper archiving so I wouldn't know how to fix this. Could somebody help? MorganaFiolett (talk) 09:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

He has now started archiving article talk pages, sometimes making them appear completely empty (e.g. Talk:Braille). I have asked him to stop archiving activities on pages he doesn't otherwise edit. I guess he wants to be helpful, but I don't think he is helping at all, rather the opposite. —Кузьма^討論 09:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yea, he's creating way too many archives for too little content. As little as one thread on some of the archive pages he created. I merged them and deleted the excess pages he created and strongly cautioned him to stop. –xeno^talk 13:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Perceived legal threat

TerryE has made an implicit legal threat on my talk page regarding an article I created yesterday, Harvey Whittemore. Although the article cited 27 reliable sources, including articles in The New York Times and The Los Angeles Times, I have been accused of defamation, libel and (elsewhere) of promoting an unspecified point of view. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see this as a legal threat. Noting a potential problem is not the same as threatening to take action; he seems to be cautioning you against raising the ire of the subject. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) I see no implied legal threat. The comment "I also think that the article crosses into defamation or liable in places (which is unwise thing to do against a lawyer :LoL:)" is a description of the article - not an accusation that you did it. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC)Admins might have a different take on this one, but from what I read it doesn't seem like a legal threat. TerryE said you ventured into those areas (whether you did or not, I don't know, I haven't read the article), not that he or someone else would sue you for that. Admins might have a different take, but that is mine. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 13:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely not a legal threat. He's saying that the editor should be careful, and humorously pointed out that the subject is a lawyer! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologise, but I fail to see any humour here. I wrote the article, which is why TerryE made the statement. Whether this is a legal threat or not, I feel threatened, as the subject is in fact a lawyer with close ties to powerful politicians. TerryE's statement was meant to intimidate. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 13:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't feel threatened. Him suing anybody over a Wikipedia article would be the worst possible move. See Streisand effect. If nothing else, the man seems to be savvy enough not to do something so stupid. Jehochman ^Brrr 13:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I forgot to add that you didn't notify them about this noticeboard posting. I have now done so. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with an extra notice, but it is linked in the section just above yours. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah crap. Sorry about that. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 14:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Sigh. I have been working with Keepcalmandcarryon on the Whittemore Peterson Institute article, where a number of the editors have expressed concerns at Keepcalmandcarryon's POV stance in his content. One of the benefactors is a Nevada multi-millionaire, Harvey Whittlemore. It seemed to me that K has created this article on Whittlemore in response. (I defer further comment on the article itself as this is outside this specific complaint.) We have crossed "editorial swords" in the past and we know each others posting habits, so my note was intended to be a friendly and informal 1-1 asking to reflect of the balance of this article. I am not going to sue anyone. I am not threatening anyone. However I do feel that I've failed in my reaching out to Keepcalmandcarryon, in that he has escalated this to the administrators in the first instance before even clarifying my position with me. I apologise for the impact on your workload. TerryE (talk) 15:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Nagarjunsagar-Srisailam Tiger Reserves

Not quite sure the best way to go about this:

I stumbled across Nagarjunsagar-Srisailam Tiger Reserves through an IP making un-constructive edits on my watchlist. As I read through, it sounds like it's been taken straight from a holiday brochure or something aimed at advertising it.

Also at the bottom of the page there's blatant advertising: "Indian Holiday can help you with information about the Nagarjunsagar Tiger Reserve in Andhra Pradesh. Just get in touch with us for more information about Nagarjunsagar Tiger Reserve, Andhra Pradesh".

Thirdly, the English is very poor throughout the article. Is the article beyond hope and a candidate for deletion? Or do you think it can be salvaged? _Will^dow (Talk) 17:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's now been stubbed out, which is what it was until this last summer, when the spam push began. IMHO, it makes for a decent stub, and is quite likely notable, and thus the restored stub-state is likely the proper state for the article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Poker-Babes.com Spam

• poker-babes.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I have asked multiple times where to put this but have not gotten an answer so I will try it here. If this is not the proper place please somebody tell me where is:

[29] As you can see there an administrator removed an external link to poker-babes.com as 'possible spam'. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of identical external links to poker-babes.com across Wikipedia. I would like permission to remove them all. The source is dubious, at best, and most of the links have been added by one editor, User:2005, who vigorously defends the links any time the issue is brought up. I've been very active in the poker industry and community since 2004 and the only time I have ever heard of this website is on Wikipedia: it is not a well known or respected poker website. DegenFarang (talk) 17:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is another example of an administrator removing poker-babes.com spam [30]. It looks like this administrator has done a fine job of removing a lot of spam recently from the poker articles, but a lot remains. According to Google [31] there are at least 131 links to Poker-Babes.com on en.wikipedia.org and at least 244 on wikipedia.org as a whole [32] DegenFarang (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, remove them. If you can identify one user who is adding them, please let me/us know and we can do a mass rollback. Toddst1 (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

These links were added by many editors, including several administrators, with tens of thousands of edits between them, over a period of six years. Many were added by User:CryptoDerk as he used them as his primary source for creating the bulk of initial poker section of the Wikipedia six years ago. In contrast User:DegenFarang is a known BLP vandal who has been blocked several times for extreme abusive activities, again as linked below. DegenFarang should be permanently blocked, not encouraged to remove contributions from many productive editors over the years to an authority website. 2005 (talk)

If so many people added the links then why are you taking it so personally? And why are none of them putting up such a huge fight over the matter like you are? The fact is that more than 90% of the total links have been added by you. Whether or not editors used the website as a source to create articles may be relevant when discussing whether it is a reliable source or not - but here we are simply discussing their use as external links. If every reliable source that contained accurate information about a certain poker player were allowed it's own external link, we would have 20-50+ external links per poker player. The line should be drawn at official sites only, or something very close to that. Poker-Babes.com profiles certainly don't make the cut.DegenFarang (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

In the future, you can report concerns about external links to the External links noticeboard, or if you are confident that the site is nothing but spam, you can request that it be blacklisted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed additions. --RL0919 (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you toddst1. There is not only one user adding them, but they have primarily been added by one user. I would estimate more than 90% have been added by User:2005, whether as references or as external links. I will begin removing them 1 by 1, if you think a mass rollback is warranted, that would certainly save me a lot of effort. DegenFarang (talk) 18:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As noted below, these links have been added by many editors. 2005 (talk) 23:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As also noted, 90%+ of the total links have been added by just one editor, you DegenFarang (talk) 23:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The section User:DegenFarang attempted WP:OUTING and WP:HOUND and other abuse above discusses this. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

It's being used a lot as a source, I raised it at RSN before I saw this. Dougweller (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Hardly. Anyone can see who added the links, this is not revealing anything that could not be looked at on wiki. I'm not a poker expert, so I cannot comment on the significance of the link, however. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User:DegenFarang has engaged in extreme wikihounding regarding me including making up blatant lies like the above. The Poker Babes links have been added by numerous users, with tens of thousands edits between them, including those who added a single one like Absolon and Awinkler, along with a bunch added when when first creating articles like Sirex98 and more often by the two editors most responsible for building out the poker section of the Wikipedia Essexmutant and again and again and again and [33], as well as CryptoDerk and again and again and again and again and again for starters. These editors alone have over 40,000 edits between them, and needless to say all these editors are not me. In addition to The New York Times and Times of London the owner and writer of most of the content of the site has been quoted as knowledgable source by the Associated Press and Cardplayer Magazine. Additionally she has won major poker tournaments, been interviewed by poker websites like Pokernews.com and appeared in the Poker for Dummies DVD with Chris Moneymaker and Barry Shulman. So once again User:DegenFarang in stalking me has deliberately lied to Wikipedia adminstrators. His account and IP should be permanently blocked. His previous behavoir has lead to him being blocked multiple times for extremely abusive behavoir, for example repeatedly in the John Roberts article, Russ Hamilton article and also lying about consensus when the opposite was true like in John Roberts again. 2005 (talk) 22:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

None of this ad hominem stuff or you trumpeting up how great Shirley Rosario is has any relevancy. What matters is whether or not a poker-babes.com profile is a suitable external link for basically every professional poker player on Wikipedia, in all languages. Clearly it is not. The external links should be for official sites and little else. If we allow poker-babes.com to have them we have to allow 20-30 sites of equal or better quality to also have them, and then we'll just have a bunch of clutter and spam. DegenFarang (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Your ad hominem attacks can't be excused as they "don't matter", and the site is not linked as you have described. It's an extensive expert website that merits linking sometimes. It doesn't get linked from "basically every" poker player article, not even close. It should primarily be linked from gameplay and industry articles as that is how reliable sources have referenced her as an authority. Multiple editors have also added links to bio articles, where they can be valuable for lesser known players but much less valuable with very well-known players. The fact remains though that many respected administrator editors have added the links, including when creating articles, and in no way was there some vast, multi-editor "spam" conspiracy underway for the past six years. 2005 (talk) 00:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the fact that 2005 is upset that he feels you are hounding him (I disagree that this is the case, by the way), he does bring up some interesting facts about the notability of the website. I would suggest taking this to the external links noticeboard. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• 2005 and DegenFarang Wikipedia is not a game nor is it a battleground. You are both making posts to various forums to further your end of a content dispute. You are now being asked to disengage from that dispute and each other per WP:DR. Currently this is the 4th noticeboard post (second here at ANI) that you've both brought your personal dispute to today[34][35][36]. Please desist from treating wikipedia like a battleground. If it continues you will be sanctioned for inappropriate behaviour. Please consider rereading WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL and attempting to treat each in accordance with these polices. Also please read WP:PARENT. The issue of the source has been raised at WP:RSN by Doug - please restrict your discussion there to the source rather than each other--Cailil ^talk 02:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I am only raising these issues in response to User:DegenFarang's excessive hounding and attempted outing of me. This drama is all so silly. I merely want him to stop, and have posted the appropriate information in the appropriate places. I AGF'ed with him previously but his behavior is far beyond what anyone on the Wikipedia should tolerate. This is not a content dispute, although he drags content in to try and "hurt" me somehow. DegenFarang has repeatedly vandalized BLP articles, abused multiple editors in talk discussions, made flatly deceptive statements about his actions, and on and one and on. He should be permanetly banned from editing for longstanding disruption, including here, violating all those policies you linked and multiple offenses for which he was only temporarily blocked. I appreciate this seems like a lot of nuisance to other wiki users, and it is, but that is only because he has not been permanently blocked for his actions previously. 2005 (talk) 04:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    • So you respond to directions to disengage from this personal dispute by attacking me further? I hope the administrators can understand how difficult it is to refrain from responding to allegations like 2005 has just made - however I'm going to try my best to do so. I ask that 2005 be reprimanded for immediately disobeying the instructions given above DegenFarang (talk) 12:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
      • Well, no. While you raise a reasonable point, it would be best to take this to WP:ELN. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 12:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Something's busted with Wikipedia.

Resolved

 – Wrong venue. Take it to WP:VPT Tan | 39 18:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Any time I make an edit, it tells me it's waiting for something called 'bits.wikimedia.com' then it apparently disconnects and reacquires and then finishes. It's taking me almost a minute to edit anything. Anyone know what's going on? HalfShadow

Is it still doing this? I was having a lot of trouble this morning (even reading pages), but it seems to have cleared up now for me. Syrthiss (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Still doing it up to the point I posted this. HalfShadow 17:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Was running very slow for me about 30 minutes ago but has since stopped. If you are on a poor internet connection that probably isn't helping things, I know mine isn't the greatest. DegenFarang (talk) 17:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Goes 'Waiting for en.wikipedia.org, Waiting for upload.wikipedia.org, waiting for bits.wikipedia.org,' then hangs for a half a minute and the edit click is on the opposite side of the title when it comes back. until I do something that refreshes the page. And I'm on a cable modem. HalfShadow 17:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Mine broke earlier this morning, so I went off to do something else for an hour or two. Working fine now. I'd guess it's maintenance work or something. --Thejadefalcon^{Sing your song}_{The bird's seeds} 17:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

bits is the new delivery platform for Wikimedia files that are the same for all wikis (sitenotices, icons, global CSS and JS files, etc.). I'm guessing there are some bugs (not enough capacity?) associated with the initial deployment. Dragons flight (talk) 17:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The system is running really, really, really slowly this morning, particularly when trying to save an edit. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe some servers are down. Anyway, there's no administrators can intervene. The place to ask technical questions is Wikipedia:Village pump (technical). Dougweller (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Administrator Conduct/Abuse

How does a mere editor take an administrator up on misconduct charges? For decorum sake I will carefully avoid using his name though a search through my recent contributions will make it obvious.

This administrator improperly deleted one of my articles about an hour after I created it. There was no nomination for deletion, no discussion--it just disappeared. I went to his Talk page and sent him a pointed message about how this was against procedure and demanded his resignation. His first response was to ban ME, though he later changed his mind and reinstated my article.

While reviewing his talk page, I can see a litany of other editors asking the same kind of question: Why was my article deleted? As I inspect further, these are all very recent. My negative comments, only a few hours old, have since been deleted from his talk page. He is obviously hiding his tracks. I have got to ask, how many other people is this administrator bullying, deleting articles without following the deletion procedure? How many other NEW articles has he crushed before they can develop? How many new editors has he completely discouraged from contributing? How much damage has he already done to the knowledge base? This is a person, whose WP administrative history needs to be reviewed and potentially disciplined. In my mind, he clearly is the kind of self-important administrator who does not deserve the power here on WP. Trackinfo (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I work new page patrol rather often. I do not know what content you had posted but if it falls under a csd criteria no discussion is needed. Demanding that the admin resign is ridiculous. Ask him or another admin to explain why it was deleted and if nec. to userfy it. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Or Wikipedia:Deletion review. SGGH ^ping! 18:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Per the above, a large part of your problem is the way in which you approached the issue. Coming to an administrator's page demanding their resignation and making unecessary threats and intimations that you are going to pursue action against them is most certainly not the best way to go about what is otherwise a minor dispute. There is such a thing as a mistake, even we administrators make them; had you even considered a civil, calm approach, asking the administrator in question why they did what they did, rather than going for the throat? It's not the kind of approach that is likely to engender much sympathy for your position. Shereth 18:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:DELETE is the important thing to read, however, the notability requirements even moreso. Schools tend not be notable in and of themselves. There is a great deal of work going on to redirect school articles to a central school board article instead. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that the administrator in question blocked you, but am pleased to see that they later reconsidered this. You should also thank them for restoring the page. Yes, sometimes administrators make mistakes, everyone does, what marks the good from the bad is the ability to own up to and amend these mistakes, which I am confident that the administrator in question has done. As for your own conduct, telling users to "get out" and demanding "notification of [their] resignation" is not appropriate, what you should have done is politely and civilly discussed your concerns with them. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 18:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll let the merits of this article stand on its own (about a small Private High School)--as I understand WP policy, all High Schools are considered notable. That is not what is important.

His conduct IS the issue. No administrator should be directly deleting pages on their own volition. A page that looks like an insignificant stub as it is just created is certainly not at its full potential or maturity. If the subject is obviously not vandalism, ONE PERSON'S OPINION of its significance should not be the ultimate decider. This administrator has an obvious history of this kind of unilateral decision-making. THAT is the problem. THAT is why I think this needs to go beyond a simple dispute resolution.Trackinfo (talk) 18:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

His conduct is just fine. It's YOUR behavior that needs modification. Cornerstone Christian School has been prodded by another editor, I would have put a db-org tag on it, myself. You've been here long enough to know what notability means. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 18:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

And you might want to read Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. Admins are fully within their rights and responsibilities to delete articles which fail to meet notability standards. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I was even going to suggest that I would bet that another user had CSD'd the article first, and the admin read the suggestion and agreed: that makes 2. Contested prod's can go to WP:AFD, but I can guarantee that only a small percentage ever go there. We "hire" volunteer admins partly due to their understanding of policy. This one seems clearly and properly understood. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:25, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

...and I contested the prod. High schools are uniformly kept at AfD as long as they are verifiable. BTW, it certainly is not speediable, as schools are explicitly excluded from A7. Timotheus Canens (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Actually, there doesn't appear to have been a CSD tag. This kind of thing is why I always tag instead of just deleting myself - gives a second opinion on the article. Having said that, Trackinfo's approach to requesting the undeletion was ... rather unnecessarily aggressive. Demanding immediate resignation over one speedy deletion isn't the best way to go about things. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, if we want to talk about conduct, Trackinfo's failure to notify the admin involved of this discussion is a big no no. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 18:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the IP. Being an admin reminds me of Twain's comment about being run out of town on a rail: if it wasn't for the honor, he would have preferred to walk. Now and then, we get reactions exactly like Tony cited: You're a disgrace, please turn in your tools, why are you on Wikipedia at all? At least I sometimes wonder the last one myself. It is why I think we are very cautious about the perennial proposals to have desysoping, that it won't be used to evaluate performance, but as reflective reaction to one unpopular action.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

If I or any other administrator had to had to go through some sort of committee each and every time a deletion needed performing, nothing would ever get done here. Trackinfo, listen up: I do a lot of new page patrolling and I do delete a lot of articles. It is only natural that I will be asked why a page is deleted and I in turn will give my rationale. If a mistake has been made, I will reverse the deletion which is exactly what I did with your stub article. I would respectfully suggest that you put at least half the effort into improving the article as you've put into crying foul. I replaced the article, I rescinded your block and the article now has to stand on its own. The ball is in your court. As for me, I won't delete or tag any of your future contributions, so kindly let this drop. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:33, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I would say that I do not believe that administrators should be intimidated (not that PMDrive has been) into not pursuing policy in deleting things. Articles that meed the criteria for CSD will be deleted, and we must ensure that the quality of Wikipedia does not fall because admins are intimidated away from CSD because of fears that creators will launch into semi-abusive "discussion" like this. I hope that when PMdrive says "As for me, I won't delete or tag any of your future contributions" he means "As for me, I won't delete or tag any of your future contributions [so long as they do not meed CSD criteria]"... I'm sure he does. :) SGGH ^ping! 19:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Works for me.  :)) Seriously though, all this over a three-sentence stub. Sheesh. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I rather like Administrator Tony Fox’s approach outlined above. It avoids any appearance or apprehension of conflict of interest or bias in the deletion.

That is, if I understood Tony correctly, if he CSD tags an article, he lets another administrator decide whether or not it should be deleted. While not necessary under the letter of the law vis-à-vis an administrator’s remit, it certainly avoids any appearance of impropriety. And, it definitely would have obviated the need for this thread! :) Trackinfo would have been told that two different administrators effected the speedy deletion of his article: The decision of one administrator to tag it had been vetted by the separate, and distinct, deleting administrator. — SpikeToronto 20:10, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree in principle, and, were I an admin, I would probably do the same thing. I wonder, though, give Trackinfo's response to this matter, if it would have made a difference. Trackinfo, tone it down. Never call for someone's gun and badge because of one incident you disagree with. You would likely have never been blocked, and had your article restored, if you had simply gone to his talk page and asked nicely. More flies with honey than vinegar, yadda yadda. Throwaway85 (talk) 20:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree. You'll get more sympathy both from the admin and here at AN/I.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Trackinfo, I create new articles fairly often, and have had some speedily deleted. It is a PITA when this happens, but even a deleted article can be undeleted. There are many admins who, just like many editors, seem determined to work as fast as possible and rack up "points" or something. I rather enjoy asking such admins to undo something they did in haste. It slows them down briefly and may encourage them to stop and think about how they spend their time here.

I agree with you that admins should be using established processes, just like other editors. I know many admins agree with you. Your complaint concerns an admin who seems to think it is an admin's perogative to dispense with established processes. That attitude is hard to defend when its subject behaves well. Your complaint would have been vastly stronger had you kept your cool. --Una Smith (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I have been told to stop. I have stopped. Privately I'll be glad to articulate my position, which has little to do with this little article. You can reach me at trackinfoorg @ yahoo PMDrive1061 you are welcome to contact me there too.Trackinfo (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

...and Una, if you read and checked it out, you'll know that the admin did, indeed follow established processes. Please ensure that you verify your information before making vastly derogatory comments like you did above. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 23:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of over 100 Alberta place articles

Resolved

Taken to WT:AFD

A total of 110 articles on settlements in Alberta, Canada have been nominated for deletion - see Category:AfD_debates_(Places_and_transportation). It is generally held that settlements are sufficiently notable enough to sustain an article. What's the best way to deal with these? Mjroots (talk) 18:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Say so at AfD and asked that they be speedy closed. If there is a continuing dispute after that, other than DRV, then I guess you may need to come back here. It does seem excessive, but it is best addressed at AfD.--Wehwalt (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

IMO these should at least have been bundled, but then it would be hard to close them as I know of no script that can close a bundled AfD and do the necessary work on each article. It would have been prudent to nom a couple as test cases before flooding the AfD log like this. Timotheus Canens (talk) 18:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

NAC'd a few as speedy keep where the nom has withdrawn the deletion request. Timotheus Canens (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, there's over a hundred of them. This is creating a ton of unnecessary busywork for both editors and administrators who will have to sort through all of them and close them when we could be spending our efforts editing and improving articles. We're all volunteers. Can't speak for all editors, but responding to over a hundred settlement AfDs is not how I want to spend my free time in a week. It all looks like a good-faith case of WP:POINT. --Oakshade (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless there were more severe circumstances, or repetitions, not going to block anyone. Blocking is not punishment, it is preventative. If there have been withdrawals, obviously someone has figured out that he's goofed. If he moves on to Saskatchewan, let us know. I don't condone it, but there's no administrative action that is going to make things better.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think blocking is necessary either. However, I propose that we procedurally close all of the AfDs that only contain the boilerplate nom and two equally boilerplate !votes. The remaining few can serve as the test cases, and after those are closed at the end of the 7-day period the nom can renominate the procedurally closed ones if the consensus is in their favor. Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps decide that at WT:AFD or something?--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Copied the entire discussion there. Timotheus Canens (talk) 19:20, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a case for ANI, 100% good faith noms, just unfortunate approach; maybe the nominator can be asked to do the grunt work and close the afd's?--Qyd (talk) 19:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks guys, I didn't think that this was a case of WP:DE, otherwise I would have said so. Marking as resolved here. Mjroots (talk) 19:35, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

User: SuaveArt

It's difficult to know where to begin with this user. I guess I'll just rattle stuff off as it comes to me. (Note: many examples cited below involve me due to SuaveArt targeting me.)

Issue #1: SuaveArt has taken it upon himself to target Christian-themed articles almost exclusively, which indicates a POV agenda. SuaveArt's explanation, such as it is, is that he is "patroling articles on Christian films, music, and organizations because they are frequent spam targets."[37] If SuaveArt were truly concerned about spam, he wouldn't be "patroling" Christian articles alone as articles of all types are frequent spam targets. SuaveArt's explanation gives the impression that he believes that Christian articles alone have an issue with spam, which is simply not supported at all.

Issue #2: SuaveArt's usual solution to this alleged spam issue is to immediately nominate targeted articles for deletion. The majority of these nominations have been defeated or are well on their way to being defeated. Some of the most ridiculous nominations include Sarah's Choice, International House of Prayer, a user box, a template that has been nominated twice before, Relevant Magazine, the Christian Post, and Christian singer Carman.

Issue #3: SuaveArt has made several extremely POV edits and reverted removals of POV material that had to be reverted. Examples: [38], [39], [40], [41]

Issue #4: SuaveArt has only been a member since May 2009 and has made fewer than 1000 edits, but he makes comments on talk pages as if he owns Wikipedia.

Issue #5: SuaveArt harasses editors with whom he has disputes and acts in an uncivil manner towards them and makes baseless accusations (e.g. of vandalism and POV pushing): [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]

Issue #6: Engaging in edit warring: [49], [50]

Issue #7: Engaging in bad faith revenge edits with false and inflammatory edit summaries: [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60] and many, many more.

These edits indicate a serious problem with SuaveArt's presence here. I took some time off to back off the issue, but he only started targeting other users.

Constructive comments from non-involved editors are welcome. I would particularly like to know if the edits cited in "Issue #7" were at all justified. Seregain (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

#4: Everybody owns Wikipedia. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 18:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Note: This user was just discussed recently here. GJC 19:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

This is the third time in almost as many weeks as this issue has been raised about this user (disclosure: I started the second thread). ANI may not be the place to discuss this. The best option here may be to start a Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct, which is essentially what the above is formatted like anyways. I notice that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/SuaveArt is currently redlinked. Maybe someone should fix that. I have little doubt that the RFC would be certified if opened. --Jayron32 19:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Should I just open that page and copy my edit there? Or do I have to start it from the RFC page? Seregain (talk) 19:38, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd hold off for a bit given Jclemens offer of mentorship below. If that sticks, a full fledged RFC wouldn't be necessary. Also, RFC/U's tend to have a templated format; your comments fit in one of the standard sections, I forget the formal name, but it would be rather obvious from the name of the title. Just hold on to those diffs; or pay attention to where this gets archived, and if the formal RFC becomes necessary, it can be brought back. --Jayron32 22:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I will do that. I really appreciate your help and advice. Seregain (talk) 22:11, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I've offered to mentor this user. Agreed that if he doesn't change his style of interactions he won't be long for Wikipedia, but there may be some positive contributions he can make. Jclemens (talk) 19:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment on Issue #6 above (edit warring: [61], [62]) — The edit war has been over two links (one to my personal weblog and one to an internet quiz). SuaveArt has been the only user to take issue with these links since I placed them there (June 16, 2008), and even though the user admitted that they are "harmless" ([63]), the user insists on constantly reverting back to his deletions (going so far as to leave vandalism warnings for a user who reverted his edits - [64] ). I'd like comments on this from some other users; several other users have either disagreed with SuaveArt's deletions, or reverted them, yet the user insists that I'm breaking WP:NOT and using my page as a soapbox, which I don't feel that I'm doing. WP:UP is very clear on what is allowed and what is not. I've reverted SuaveArt's deletions and have asked the user to leave the links alone until I can get further comment on them. I can elaborate on why my links are inside the guidelines of WP:NOT, WP:SOAP, and WP:UP if anyone would like me to. Comments, anyone? God bless, Filmcom (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I see no basis for deleting such a weblink. I can envision proselytization so blatant that it would merit removal ("All y'all are going to hell. Want to avoid that? Ask me how.") but this isn't anywhere near that bad. Further, there's clearly no basis for editwarring on another user's page to prevent its reinsertion, nor is the reversion of such a removal vandalism. Jclemens (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

1. I admitted that the link was "harmless" (the proselytiziation site (NeedgodDOTcom - a link to a humorously simpilistic Ray Comfort "Good Person" essay which doesn't even have a Biblical basis, but enough about that) had no viruses or harmful content, though it was little known and would have been removed as spam from any article). Filmcom however took several of my comments out of context. I told him my reason was that WP:SOAP prohibits using userspace to promote a political/religious POV, and it does.

2 The other site (his personal website) contains an online store, which I believe violates our policies on using userspace to promote your business/sell products/etc. That's more appropriate for Myspace than Wikipedia.

3. The user I warned for vandalism for commenting on Filcom's talk page told Filmcom directly to violate Wikipedia policy because "I (Suaveart) am probably a troublemaker" (which is also a violation of our personal attacks policy). The user then went on to rant about me somehow being a "MoveOn.org" supporter just because I removed a violating link from a userpage according to policy.

So in reality, Filmcom and the above users are "quote mining" and not being very honest at all.--SuaveArt (talk) 00:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest that this user end his baseless and rather bad-faith nominations of UBX's such as this one and this one. The editor also seems to think that Me voteing keep to these MFD's are "Insulting" and seems to think that it's a race to delet articles and other MFD related stuff.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If you want to be taken seriously, you'll need to avoid lying. When I nominated the userboxes for deletion I clearly explained my rationale (you don't have to agree with it, but you have no call to accuse me of "bad faith" since you never explained your rationale for disagreeing with me").

In the nomination for the 2nd userbox, I explained my reasoning, and your only response (or lack thereof) was "Yet another bad faith AFD by Suaveart" (very intelligent). I asked you to explain your justification for that personal attack and why any of my AFDs have been "bad faith" (I also mentioned that several of my AFDs were successful, so you were indirectly attacking the administrators who agreed with me).

But rather than respond to my sincere question, you choose to lie and claim that I'm "attacking you for not siding with me in my AFDs". Very immature.--SuaveArt (talk) 00:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Seregain's disruption/censorship

I encountered this user about a month ago, and he seemed like a blatant POV pusher, so after checking some of his edits, I found some interesting diffs:

1. His 1st edit was an AFD for Secular Student Alliance, which was immediately suspicious.

2. In Ken Ham, he removed a sourced entry referring to the Secular Student Alliance visiting Ham's "Creation Museum" with Dr. PZ Meyers shortly after his AFD of the SSA article, claiming that it was "irrelevant to the article".

3. In Human papillomavirus (newer edit than original), Seregain inserts a claim (which is also not in the proper place in the article) that "HPV vaccines will do little to reduce rates of cervical cancer" using Dr. Diane Harper (who apparently speaks for an anti-vaccination group) and the Catholic Exchange as sources. In the diff I linked, he also inappropriately reverted nearly 20 newer edits just to reinsert this dubious claim into the article.

4.In Cervarix (newer edit than original , Seregain inserts the same claim he made in the HPV article, using Diane Harper (anti-vaccination spokesperson) as a source, claiming a "lead researcher comes out against Cervarix". Like in the HPV article, in the above diff he also inappropriately reverted multiple editors just to re-insert his questionable content.

5. In Gardasil, Seregain removes text from the article which identifies Dr. Diane Harper with the anti-vaccination group National Vaccine Information Center.

6. In Carman (singer), he reverted a consensus-supported revision which was decided upon consensus during a very recent AFD to an earlier version which contained promotional spam, unsourced an inaccurate content, and inappropriate tone (without even bothering to follow the AFD discussion).

There are many others as well, but these I consider the most disruptive.

I hadn't had any contact with him until a day ago, when he logged out of his account and made this personal attack using an IP as a sockpuppet("Reverting censorship by disruptive troll). He admitted that his was him in these edits 1, 2 "This was my edit. Neglected to log in.

After starting this AN/I thread, he immediately visited User:SarekOfVulcan's talk page and asked him to intervene here on his behalf (which I also consider disruptive).--SuaveArt (talk) 23:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• Comment on Issue #6 above (edit warring: [65], [66]) — The edit war has been over two links (one to my personal weblog and one to an internet quiz). SuaveArt has been the only user to take issue with these links since I placed them there (June 16, 2008), and even though the user admitted that they are "harmless" ([67]), the user insists on constantly reverting back to his deletions (going so far as to leave vandalism warnings for a user who reverted his edits - [68] ). I'd like comments on this from some other users; several other users have either disagreed with SuaveArt's deletions, or reverted them, yet the user insists that I'm breaking WP:NOT and using my page as a soapbox, which I don't feel that I'm doing. WP:UP is very clear on what is allowed and what is not. I've reverted SuaveArt's deletions and have asked the user to leave the links alone until I can get further comment on them. I can elaborate on why my links are inside the guidelines of WP:NOT, WP:SOAP, and WP:UP if anyone would like me to. Comments, anyone? God bless, Filmcom (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I see no basis for deleting such a weblink. I can envision proselytization so blatant that it would merit removal ("All y'all are going to hell. Want to avoid that? Ask me how.") but this isn't anywhere near that bad. Further, there's clearly no basis for editwarring on another user's page to prevent its reinsertion, nor is the reversion of such a removal vandalism. Jclemens (talk) 23:50, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

• re: asking to intervene -- he did no such thing. Can we try for a little accuracy here? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That was an accurate statement (and the link you provided just further proves that). This thread did not directly concern me and you, so he posted a notice of it on your page because he knew that we had an earlier conflict over AFDs and assumed you would be biased toward him (while at the same time, he lied in this very AN/I thread when he said that he wanted "constructive criticism from "non-involved editors", while linking you to the thread immediately after). That's not really appropriate, because WP:AN/I is supposed to reach an objective consensus (attempting to bring others into it just to back yourself up is somewhat disruptive IMO). I did no such thing, though I'm sure if I wanted to, I could bring some of the deleting admins of my AFDs into this, but I'm not immature enough to take that route.--SuaveArt (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• • There is little accuracy in anything he posted. I will elaborate in a response when I have time in a couple hours. Seregain (talk) 00:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Everything I posted came from direct quotes, so it is perfectly accurate (anyone can read them for themselves). The fact that you aren't going to respond to them now (if you truly believe that they are inaccurate) also just makes you seem that much more guilty. I responded to your inaccurate accusations the minute you notified me about this thread. Why can't you do the same?--SuaveArt (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Very immature? Have you even looked at the links that I gave you. You called everyone else insane by saying that you were the only "Sane person here". If you have a problem with my "Immaturity" then take it up at the WP:WQA.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think you meant to post this in the above section. ;) That comment I made was just humorous sarcasm. In the above section you lied about the nature of the comment I made on your page about your (earlier) lie that my userbox nom was in "bad faith" (I explained my reasoning perfectly, you don't have to agree with that, but that was a far more immature comment than my "sane person" joke). Now you're still avoiding the issue (and using tu quoque at that) which I believe further proves my point.

And no, I'd rather not waste admin time discussing your "maturity" on WP:WQA. I'd rather discuss it in this thread (just as you seem to be doing here with your opinion of my own maturity).--SuaveArt (talk) 01:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

you obviouly don't know a thing about WP:WQA I suggest you go and read up on it. Now as for my "lie". I never lied, just stated that you started the WP:MFD in bad-faith. Now did you? Based off of your further comments there, I would have to assume yes. And how can my comments be "immature" when your comments about the sanity of users be a "joke"? You need to take all of these comments about your behavior and overall editing style as advice, not bashing.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You're free to read my rationale for nom'ing the "Wikipedian" UB again, because I clearly explained why I nom'd it, so your claim about "bad faith" was (and still is) a baseless lie. Close, but no cigar. And more tu quoque? Please. I have no serious problems with my editing style, and I've addressed and debunked the allegations made about me in this thread (along with quite a few of my own which show that Seregain is the real disruptor here), so what's there left to discuss anyway? It doesn't look like you can refute any of my points or even add to this discussion.--SuaveArt (talk) 01:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

look, Im done dealing with the WP:DRAMA. If you'r going to ignore all of this advice then go ahead. I don't care. Your the one who will eventually get WP:BLOCKED if this continues. THe nom was in bad faith becasue there was no reason to delete (as shown by the numerous "keep" !votes) you can keep on thinking the opposite all you want. There is a idffrence between a lie, and a false acusation. (I have done neither). Good luck in any future issues SuaveArt.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 01:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

First off, the whole idea that my first edit was "immediately suspicious" is without merit or sense. Exactly how does one determine within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia - particularly that of "assume good faith" - that someone's first edit is "immediately suspicious?" If I, like you, had first edited a handful of other non-controversial topics before jumping in head first into AfDs, would that have made my first edit more palatable? The SSA article had been tagged for months with no one attempting to address the issues with it. At the time of the nomination, the article had ZERO references and, using your preferred vernacular, was filled with spam and trivia. It's better now, though I still see improvements that can be made.

Second, the material about the SSA's visit to the Creation Museum did not fit into the article about Ken Ham, particularly in the section about his "Claims and beliefs."

Then move it to another section instead of censoring it. That coupled with your nom for SSA makes your pro-religion censorship intent slightly obvious.

Third, the information about Dr. Diane Harper, the LEAD RESEARCHER for the development HPV vaccine (hardly someone who fringe and non-notable!) and not someone who is an "anti-vaccination spokesperson," and her comments made in a speech are neither vandalism nor POV pushing. These comments were widely reported by all sorts of sources.

She spoke on behalf of an anti-vaccination group, and you tried to censor that in another article. It's slightly obvious that you were trying to push an "abstinence-only" POV into those articles, which is as laughably unscientific as it is juvenile.--SuaveArt (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Fourth, your issue regarding the Carman article is laughably false. You cite an edit I made not even 6 hours after you first started attacking the article with your ridiculous AfD. Exactly how in that 6 hours, when only you, I and one other editor had edited, could there have been a consensus reached? The only consensus that existed at that time was the one consisting of you and you.

AFD was closed, consensus was decided upon, the article was a promo before I AFD it (and had been that way for 2 years, with no sources and a huge body of inappropriate, laughably written text) and you purposely reinserted the ridiculous spam. Case closed.--SuaveArt (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Fifth, the issue of "IP sockpuppetry" is a gross and inflammatory misrepresentation of the facts. After being unable to convince you to work with me on the Left Behind: Eternal Forces article, I took a weeks-long break from Wikipedia as I did not with to deal with the headache over the Christmas holiday. When I decided to come back, I didn't even think about if I was logged in or not. It's a mistake that can happen and has happened to many editors and it is highly inappropriate to immediately jump in with the "sockpuppet" accusation, particularly when I freely admitted to the error.

You called me a "disruptive troll" as your IP. Whether it was an error or not, the statement was true. I did my best to work with you on LB (but you had a specific agenda and were unwilling to compromise just because you wanted it to read like a promo for the game).--SuaveArt (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Finally, your representation of my comment to SarekOfVulcan is yet another gross and inflammatory misrepresentation of the facts. I saw that he was questioning your disruption to my user page and I directed him to view the ANI which contained even more egregious examples of your disruptive edits. I in no way, shape or form "asked him to intervene on [my] behalf." No one else is seeing it that way. Why are you?

Anyone with common sense does see it that way. You said in this thread you wanted comments from "un-involved users", and now your admitting you directed him here because "he'd been involved with me". My point proven.--SuaveArt (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have tried to reason and work with you to no avail. I have been met only with hostility. On December 13th, you spend at least an hour or two sifting through my past edits and reverting them for no good reason other than to be disruptive specifically towards me.

False. Nearly all of the edits I reverted were subtle (or not so subtle) attempts at censorship and POV pushing. If I reverted any that were legit, I apologize.--SuaveArt (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I well and truly hope that you will take the mentorship seriously and cease your hostile and disruptive editing. I have seen you make positive

contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that will become the norm instead. Good luck you you. Seregain (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You too.--SuaveArt (talk) 04:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I cannot even bring myself to read your responses to my points. It's incredibly beyond the bounds of reason to insert your responses inside my text. It makes the section confusing and unreadable. Wikipedia is not a place for fisking. And what is going on with your changing the subsection title seemingly every time you post something new? Now you've gone and added "censorship" to it. (Something I find ironic considering your own censorship of properly sourced material I added to a few articles.) Seregain (talk) 14:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Seregain's assertions about SuaveArt addressed point by point

It's difficult to know where to begin with this user. I guess I'll just rattle stuff off as it comes to me. (Note: many examples cited below involve me due to SuaveArt targeting me.)

Actually only a handful of the below edits involve you, so that's a lie. The rest are examples of you "targeting" me by going over my edits (the same thing you said was "targeting" when I did it after seeing some of your spam) and using out of context links and misleading link summaries to push a false agenda, so your credibility is already going down the drain.--SuaveArt (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Issue #1: SuaveArt has taken it upon himself to target Christian-themed articles almost exclusively, which indicates a POV agenda. SuaveArt's explanation, such as it is, is that he is "patroling articles on Christian films, music, and organizations because they are frequent spam targets."[69] If SuaveArt were truly concerned about spam, he wouldn't be "patroling" Christian articles alone as articles of all types are frequent spam targets. SuaveArt's explanation gives the impression that he believes that Christian articles alone have an issue with spam, which is simply not supported at all.

That's a very childish assertion not based on facts and isn't even worth addressing, but I'll try. I simply said that I patrol Christian music and film-related articles because they are prone to spam (much of which has been introduced by yourself and several other users you've mentioned, whether in bad faith or not).

If you're argument is that "If you remove Christian spam, then you have to remove spam from non-Christian articles too or it's not fair" then that's just a good summary of how childish and inaccurate your entire diatribe and persecution complex is, but I think that goes without saying. ;)--SuaveArt (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Issue #2: SuaveArt's usual solution to this alleged spam issue is to immediately nominate targeted articles for deletion. The majority of these nominations have been defeated or are well on their way to being defeated. Some of the most ridiculous nominations include Sarah's Choice, International House of Prayer, a user box, a template that has been nominated twice before, Relevant Magazine, the Christian Post, and Christian singer Carman.

All of these nominations have been completely legitimate and well-discussed (so your claims are lies as usual). The only clearly inappropriate AFD I know of here is your AFD for Secular Student Alliance (your [i]first edit[/i]), which essentially gave no reason whatsoever and was abruptly defeated. There is no rule that "you can't AFD an article", but if the community disagrees with the nominator, it will stay. Everyone of the articles was prone to spam and in my opinion unproperly sourced, several of them have been deleted along with many deletion supporters.

Also (as I documented), in the Carman article, you went against the closing AFD consensus and reinserted all of the spam which was removed after the AFD.--SuaveArt (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Issue #3: SuaveArt has made several extremely POV edits and reverted removals of POV material that had to be reverted. Examples: [70], [71], [72], [73]

It didn't "have to be reverted" because it was appropriate in itself (e.g. Stalin Society is identified as far-left), but consensus disagreed with it on WorldNetDaily and Constitution party, and I left it at that. On the other hand, you using Catholic Exchange and an anti-vaccination organization in articles such as Cervatrix goes well beyond that (this has been documented above). Not only did that actually "have to be reverted" for pure disruption, but you've edit warred and used personal attacks (as well as overridden dozens of editors) to try to reinsert it.--SuaveArt (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Issue #4: SuaveArt has only been a member since May 2009 and has made fewer than 1000 edits, but he makes comments on talk pages as if he owns Wikipedia.

That's a meaningless assertion and I could say the same as you and have just as little credibility for it. But what you're referring to is you violating official policies which the community (not me) has decided on, and me reverting your changes. Just a translation.--SuaveArt (talk) 00:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Issue #5: SuaveArt harasses editors with whom he has disputes and acts in an uncivil manner towards them and makes baseless accusations (e.g. of vandalism and POV pushing): [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80]

Yawn... Seregain harrasses editors with whom he has disputes and acts in an uncivil manner toward them and makes baseless accusations (e.g. of "censorship" and "being a disruptive troll") via his IP sockpuppet (which he admitted himself).

See the section above where I documented this. All of the above claims have already been fully addressed in separate discussions and are lies, by the way. I will pull up these discussions later if requested.--SuaveArt (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Issue #6: Engaging in edit warring: [81], [82]

It's not "edit warring" if the edits are clearly policy violations (which they were) - and you edited the same page, which means you engaged in "edit waring" as well (by your standard). On the other hand, when you reverted over 20 editors in at least 2 articles multiple times (which I documented) just to reinsert your inappropriate content, that went beyond edit warring and bordered on outright disruption.

Issue #7: Engaging in bad faith revenge edits with false and inflammatory edit summaries: [83], [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92] and many, many more.

All of those edits were in good faith, and were not "revenge edits" (as I explained in my discussion of your own disruptive behavior). Your edits were inappropriate and I outlined the reasons clearly in the above section. On the other hand, the personal attack which you made against me as a sockpuppet (which I also linked in the above section) was most certainly a revenge edit.--SuaveArt (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

These edits indicate a serious problem with SuaveArt's presence here. I took some time off to back off the issue, but he only started targeting other users.

Actually they simply indicate a serious problem you have with my presence here (as well as Wikipedia policy and basic editing standards), which

I haven't "targeted" any users personally, just specific inappropriate edits by users that I've interacted with (there is nothing personal in this other than that their, and your edits were clearly inappropriate). That's an untrue and trollish claim which has no factual basis (while on the other hand, the attack you made on my with an IP sockpuppet does prove that you actually "targeted" me specifically - it's in the link in the above section).--SuaveArt (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Constructive comments from non-involved editors are welcome. I would particularly like to know if the edits cited in "Issue #7" were at all justified. Seregain (talk) 18:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

You wouldn't have specifically notified SarekOfVulcan (a user who I interacted with) of this thread if you wanted "constructive comments from non-involved users". Clearly you're lying again, just as you did in all of your above comments.

• Note: This user was just discussed recently here. GJC 19:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I was and no one agreed that I should receive any discipline, since my actions were not inappropriate - The user basically complained, just like Seregain, that I was AFD'ing articles "without reason" even though he never bothered to read my reasons. Even my unsuccessful AFDs were useful because they helped to raise awareness about spam in the articles, and several of mine were indeed successful. So much ado about nothing, I say.

I believe this should cover it. I can explain each individual AFD, discussion, etc in detail if requested as well, but his is basicaly a summary of Seregain's lies and disruptive, targeting behavior.

--SuaveArt (talk) 00:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

After checking Seregain (talk · contribs)'s Issue #7... SuaveArt (talk · contribs) blanked Seregain's user page, marked it as a MINOR EDIT and cited WP:SOAP(wtf?), and called this a "good faith" edit?... AFAIS, This is entirely disruptive editing and abusive usage of minor edit, thus pure vandalism. Other instances, such as using an edit summary like "rmved linkspam by POV pusher", can also be found, Yet he completely avoided explaining these, instead claimed they are "good faith" edits. Other editors please notice this - I think this is a serious issue. Blodance (talk) 02:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've explained this (and every one of those edits) at least a dozen times in multiple threads. If you didn't follow the discussions, that's your fault, not mine and doesn't give you a right to continue to repeat this lie in spite of the facts I've presented which debunk it. See my talk page thread if you want the quickest explanation for Seregain's page. It wasn't vandalism, because Seregain's page (and the edits I cited) had a theme of Christian proselytization (which I believe violates WP:SOAP - using userspace to promote a specific religion/policial view).

Be sure to check out Seregain's diffs while you're at it (I linked them above). Okay? ;)--SuaveArt (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

By no means are you entitled to BLANK others' user page based solely on your OWN interpretation, and mark it as MINOR. And calling others' comments "lie" doesn't make them so. I'm not making further comments - I believe by now this user's behavior is obvious, no need to say more. Blodance (talk) 04:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

1. The page had 1 line of text. That's not a "major edit". And I'd love to see policy on that.

2. I explained in detail why the comments were a lie (using direct quotes via links). If you choose to ignore the facts, that's your decision.

3. Yes it's obvious that I'm the only one here engaging in intelligent debate, I hope with both agree on that. ;)--SuaveArt (talk) 06:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:MINOR. Blodance (talk) 08:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposed Block/Topic Ban of User:SuaveArt

Based on the diffs provided, as well as the statments of others, I am proposeing a block or a topic ban of User:SuaveArt. either he needs to be blocked for Vandalism or needs to be topic baned from Religion-Realted articles for a peroid of one month due to his disruption and POV assertion there. (If diffs are required, ill be willing to provide them) Any other ideas?--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, try reading more. Based on the comments of others in multiple threads (which you conveniently neglected to read), the diffs provided, and my detailed explanations above and in other specific discussions, you're way off.

1. Every diff provided along with the above claims was debunked in detail (in this thread and separate discussions). Once again, you're refusing to read them because I believe you're taking this as personal for some reason.

2. A topic ban is completely ridiculous since I haven't even been blocked once for any of my edits (and several admins have agreed with my AFDs and deleted the articles). Your claim about POV-pushing is also untrue, as AFDing articles and explaining my reasons isn't "POV-pushing". That's a foolish statment.

Also, if a ban were to be applied, it should apply to articles on Christianity, not "religion-based articles", since I've only been active in Christian articles. ;)

3. I believe the length of a ban should be decided on an admin once said ban is decided upon.

4. Your above comment is so poorly written that I doubt it's sincerity. Since an admin has already commented here (and found no reason to issue a ban) and has asked to mentor me on this issue, I believe this "poll" is just trolling and should be removed for disruption.--SuaveArt (talk) 03:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Support block/ban.Neutral(non-admin opinion) Vandalising others' user page and marking the edit as minor is a gross breach of several policies, let alone other issues. As an admin offered a mentorship, I'll change my course to neutral. But if this editing pattern continues, then bring the axe, IMHO. Blodance (talk) 02:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment I have notified SuaveArt of this thread again.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 02:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose as premature. All of these problems predate the current mentorship offer by Jclemens, which SuaveArt seems to be actively pursueing. It seems rather rediculous to enact any further restrictions before mentorship takes its course. Should the problems persist despite the mentorship, this may be worthwhile to revisit, but right now a ban/block seems unneccessary until all other avenues of dispute resolution have played out. Since one just started less than a day ago (mentorship), lets not jump to this end just yet. --Jayron32 03:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• (non-admin opinion) A topic ban at this point is premature. This should be taken to RFC, IMHO. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 04:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• To give another non-admin opinion, I must concur with DC, but let's see what happens for at least a day or two- filing reports and RfCs is pointless if the problem is in the process of being resolved. Obviously, if there's further disruption, then there's this noticeboard or even AIV. HJMitchell You rang? 04:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• (non-admin opinion) Any ban is indeed at this point premature. Varsovian (talk) 06:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment since all of these diffs are prior to SuaveArt's mentoring, im willing to let this go for now. He needs to learn that vandaliseing userpages is not allowed though. I'm withdrawing my support for a block/topic ban on the basis of WP:AGF. Good luck in your mentoring Suave.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 11:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - I'm willing to let this issue go permitting SA drops the hostility and gross misuse of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, takes his mentorship seriously and strives to work in harmony with the Wikipedia community, including those with whom he may have ideological differences. Seregain (talk) 17:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I also hope he will refrain from asking for help here (ironic, considering his reaction to my post on SarekOfVulcan's talk) on other websites:[93] The internet is forever (and damned inconvenient sometimes, eh?). Seregain (talk) 18:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose topic ban, though I would recommend SuaveArt to put at least minimal effort into checking notability before nominating for deletion. Also stay off Seregain's user page. On the other hand, Seregain's editing of medical articles looks problematic. --Apoc2400 (talk) 18:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible Vandal

Resolved

Withdrawn with apologies

I am not sure what User:Cmguy777 is upto on Ulysses_S._Grant

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ulysses_S._Grant&limit=500&action=history —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supreme Unmanifest (talk • contribs) 20:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this just me or is this alarming? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Cmguy777 Supreme Unmanifest (talk) 20:47, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there something problematic in particular? I looking through a handful of edits, and I don't really seen anything to be concerned about, other than the editor not using edit summaries (which I already mention on his/her talk page). -- Bfigura ^(talk) 20:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I see what you are saying. It is just that his edit style raised alarm bells in my head. The article in question was getting reduced in size for over 10 minutes. But when I went back enough, I relaized he had added most of the material. I have apologized to him, lets close the matter. Sorry for your trouble. Supreme Unmanifest (talk) 20:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless there's WP:OWN issues, there's no problem there. No harm in keeping alert though. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation bot

Resolved

User:Citation bot performs a valuable service cleaning up citation templates on articles in response to requests by other editors, but recently its maintainer has been unavailable and repeated complaints about buggy behavior are piling up on User talk:Citation bot. I'd like to propose that the bot be blocked until its maintainer returns and responds to the complaints. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:44, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I blocked it, pending a response from the bot operator. — Carl (CBM · talk) 21:57, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Xavier bowl games

I hesitate to bring this matter here, but I'm not quite sure where to turn and would appreciate some guidance. I participated in the TfD for Template:Xavier bowl games. This template was nominated because, at the time, it was orphaned a contained one redlink and was therefore quite useless. During the TfD I wrote the home article for the template so that it was no longer an orphan, and opined that the template ought to be kept. One other editor participated in the debate, and he believed that the template was "not even minimally useful." Ruslik0 (talk · contribs), the closing administrator, agreed, stating in his closing rationale that "The result of the discussion was Delete. Navbox with just one link is not very useful."

Now, I have searched in vain for a policy which supports this outcome. Whether a navigational template is "useful" or not is an editorial decision, and these templates are quite common on college-football related articles. I queried Ruslik0 about this, and referred me to WP:NAVBOX, which isn't even a policy, let alone part of the deletion policy. I therefore took the matter to deletion review (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 December 30), where I again stated the case (and I must say I grow weary of reiterating the facts). Consensus there seemed to be that while no guidelines were violated, TfD often deletes templates like these (!), so the close was valid. Shereth (talk · contribs) endorsed the close on these grounds. I visited his talk page, where he kindly elaborated on his rationale but was again unable to point me to any kind of policy.

Getting to the point, I have two articles which I want to link with a navbox. I believe that this is the purpose of a navbox. I contend that no policy prevents me from creating such a navbox, except that the our deletion machinery has produced a contrary outcome which I cannot fathom. If I re-create the navbox, am I acting reasonably or am I going to find myself accused of wheel-warring? I'm not particularly interested in policy outcomes at this point, I'd just like to finish up what I'm doing with Xavier Musketeers football and 1950 Salad Bowl without putting myself in the wrong. Again, I would appreciate any guidance on this matter. Best, Mackensen (talk) 23:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it would be wheel-warring unless the template was protected to prevent re-creation. We don't have a specific policy for every conceivable situation, but I would say that two articles are better than one and I don't think it could be speedy deleted as a recreation since you have rectified the matter that caused the first deletion. On the other hand it appears that they only participated in the one bowl game, so it probably would be deleted again if it went back to TFD. What about skipping the template and just making sure the article contain appropriate internal links? (As a side note I'd just like to say thanks for bringing this here, my sister went to Xavier, and I didn't even know they had ever had a football team, so if nothing else I learned something today.) Beeblebrox (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, my issue with that outcome is that most bowl articles contain navboxes for both teams--it's a curious trick of history that Xavier participated in a bowl game at all--so it's notable by its absence. I think in this case completeness and standardization are fairly compelling arguments in their own right. Mackensen (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have nothing to contribute here beyond "Go Muskies!". TNXMan 00:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to disagree. There's little use in creating a navbox for the sake of "completeness" when there's nothing to navigate to. The whole point of navboxes is to have a place to collect a large number of very similar articles. Navboxes with only one or two links aren't really worth it. --Jayron32 00:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but the navbox by itself conveys the fact that Xavier had only one bowl game. The absence of the box implies incomplete information; as I said, it's notable by it's absence. You may not think it's worth it, but it's a long way to "not worth, and you're not allowed to do it." Mackensen (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a collection of rules by which you are "allowed" to create certain things and "not allowed" to create others. Where a need is seen, WP:BOLD applies. Where people disagree with that need WP:CONSENSUS applies. No one has once said you are "allowed" or "not allowed" to do anything. Regardless, this doesn't involve admins to solve. If you need a review of the deletion, and you think it was closed with the wrong result, WP:DRV is the correct place to go; not here. --Jayron32 03:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm familiar with how this place functions. Had you read my initial post, you would know that I already went through DRV, and I'm coming here to ask about what I see as two contrary-to-policy outcomes, and the improper use of a deletion venue to make an editorial decision. As the action I'm contemplating involves (in theory) the undoing of one administrator's actions by another administrator, it is most certainly of concern here. Consensus is most definitely at issue, and I'd love to hear how there was consensus, rooted in policy or not, to close the TfD that way. I'll wait. Thanks, Mackensen (talk) 11:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Dako1

Post originally at WP:AIV.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:34, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Dako1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - . After placing a CSD#A7 tag on a non-notable new BLP article, I was attacked by the article creator. This user attacked me personally on my talk page and a few hours later moved/renamed both my talk page and my user page to a most vulgar name. The editor was then blocked for 1 (one) day by an administrator. Initially the same admin intended to block him for 1 week, but just 1 day later, less than 24 hours later, the admin unblocked the user, stating that "the block is no longer needed". I stronlgy protest against such flimsy sanctionary action taken against a vulgar vandal, who boldy went ahead to violate against Wikpipedia's Rules, and moved another editor's user page into the vulgar name "THE FUCKER". This editor appears to be a disturbed person. A look at his numerous attempts in creating an article about himself gives insight into his mind, which is rather disturbing. A person with such negative energy, who is so bold to go ahead and rename/move another editor's user page into a most obscene word in capital letters, should be banned / blocked for a much longer period of time than just a mere 1 day or even 1 week. Please sanction this user more properly, lest your lenient attitude towards such blatant and vulgar vandalism inspires others to do likewise. Thank you. Amsaim (talk) 23:23, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

While I agree Dako1 seems a poor fit for Wikipedia, has he done anything since figuring out that his userpage can be found at User:Dako1, not simply Dako1? It seems a simple explanation may have gone a long way. That's not to suggest that his behaviour is in any way tolerable, simply that it might have been mitigated. I think a stern warning and a short leash may be in order. If he settles down and contributes productively, let him do so. If the behaviour continues, give him the axe. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit) Also, please remember to notify the subject of an AN/I thread when you create one. I've gone ahead and done so. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Amsaim, I can see what you're trying to say- I am totally against the statement that you wrote above- "This editor appears to be a disturbed person"- I am not an insane person. The reason of my behaviour is that I was extremely irritated about the numerous speedy deletions that you did. A simple explanation could've done the same action. And I was not on purpose, making an article about myself. I did not know you had to put "User:" in front of the name. I hope this has cleared any misunderstandings about me. Dako1 (talk) 1:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Dako, do you apologize for, and pledge not to repeat, the unacceptable actions you took in regards to Amsaim's userpage, as well as others? Also, how could you not know your userpage begins with User: if you moved his? Throwaway85 (talk) 01:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure I should have been notified about this, but no matter. I was the one who originally reverted the page move Dako made, and blocked him for it immediately, However through a series of email's with dako, i realised what the issue was. Dako was simply unaware of the distinction between user space and article space with regards to the User: prefix, and was no doubt frustrated by repeated speedy taggings, with little attempt made by Asaim or anybody else to explain. The page was clearly meant to be a userpage, it should have been obvious what the issue was, as I noticed as soon as i looked into the situation. After I explained this, and Dako responded I was satisfied that his block was no longer necessary and unblocked him, making it known that any similar behaviour would result in a block. I do not feel any further action against Dako is necessary. I also agree with Dako that Asaims comments above are out of order regardless of the situation.--Jac16888^Talk 12:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

can't unblock

Resolved

 – Autoblock lifted by Tan, editing priviledges restored. Throwaway85 (talk)

User:Therequiembellishere. Also posted at Wikipedia talk:Special:BlockList, where he's not listed. Another admin failed as well. Attempts to unblock get the message that he's not blocked. Help! Thanks. kwami (talk) 00:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Is there an autoblock still in effect? Throwaway85 (talk) 00:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no way of knowing until Therequiembellishere responds again. But he said it still was after two of us "confirmed" that it wasn't. kwami (talk) 00:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I cleared the autoblock. Tan | 39 00:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I had a similar issue a while back, which is why I suggested it. BTW Tan, first time I've ever read your full username. Dragonlance Sooper Seekrit Buk? If so, +1 internets to you, good sir.Throwaway85 (talk) 00:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Shh. Tan | 39 00:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I took care of it. No one will know... Back to the matter at hand, is the issue resolved now? Throwaway85 (talk) 00:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like it is. Thanks, Tan. kwami (talk) 02:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as the autoblock, did I screw up somehow, either in blocking or unblocking? I'd rather this didn't happen again. kwami (talk) 00:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The autoblock is always for 24 hours if the original block length is longer, so even when you shorten it to 1 minute (or second) afterwards the autoblock remains there and must be lifted manually. This tool, also linked on Special:BlockList, can find active autoblocks (or you can just do a Ctrl-F on the page and look for the username). Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Pro-tip: preview the {{unblocked}} template at the user's talk page and click the handy link. –xeno^talk 13:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Purposal to remove G5 from Speedy Criteria.

Resolved

 – New York Giants, Wide Reciever, #17 in your programs, but #1 in your hearts...

I suggest this be removed. Who cares who created the article, if it's a good article, we're better off all round. Having this Criteria is ridiculously petty and like punishment for daring to edit. Kitten of Annoyance (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

So you're a banned user, eh? Toddst1 (talk) 00:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:AGF Im guessing so.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 00:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

@OP: We delete articles from banned users for the same reason we revert their edits: To enforce the ban. If you've done screwed up enough to get yourself community banned, you've proven to the community that your contributions are not worth the hassle, and so we'd rather not have them. Throwaway85 (talk) 00:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

What if the banned user isn't the only one who's edited the article since it was created? In that case I'd definitely be for the article remaining, since it would be destroying other legitimate editor's hard work just for the sake of enforcing a ban on a single user.--SuaveArt (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

G5 reads "Pages created by banned users in violation of their ban having no substantial edits by others." Pages with substantial edits by others are already excepted. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing?

I wanted to ask what, if anything, would be appropriate to say or do about Bot-iww (talk · contribs) edits today (January 11, 2010 ~08:00 GMT until ~10:30 GMT). The user made a string of edits with an edit summary of: "-born. in "Soviet Union" - absurdum...". On the user's talk page is what appears to be a nationalist rationale (unless I'm misunderstanding something, which is entirely possible). Thanks!
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 00:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not unless the edits are vandalism. If the edit summaries are bothering you, you can leave a message on Bot-iww's talk page; otherwise, there really isn't any administrative action necessary. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 08:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Admin involvement and advice needed

I am having extreme problems with POV editors in several articles that fall under Wikiproject:Freemasonry - specifically those relating to poor the relationship between the Catholic Church and the fraternity, and the creation and recreation of an WP:Attack page, filled with POV, selective qouting and OR. See Anticlericalism and Freemasonry... see also the article history for Catholicism and Freemasonry (now merged) and Papal ban of Freemasonry.

I have finally reached ropes end on this... If this were written about a single living individual, there is no question it would violate all sorts of BLP issues... but because it is focused on a large body, and has a history that spans close to 300 years, I don't think that category fits. And because I do the right thing and disclose the fact that I am a Freemason, I can be accused of counter bias whenever I try to remove the worst of the POV and OR.

I would like an univolved admin to look into this situation, to guide me in dealing with this. Thanks Blueboar (talk) 02:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you primarily concerned about the conduct of the editors involved, or about the content of the article? If conduct, then this is the right place for you. If content, you may wish to open a Request for Comment. The two options are not mutually exclusive, so you may wish to pursue both. Throwaway85 (talk) 02:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Both. Blueboar (talk) 14:03, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright. Which editors does this concern, and can you provide some diffs showing what you believe to be inappropriate behaviour or editing? Also, can you notify the editors in question of this discussion? Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Having looked over Anticlericalism and Freemasonry, I can definitely see where your content concerns are coming from, namely that in no way does the article say how freemasonry is anticlerical, it simply repeats allegations from various locals that it is anticlerical. I'm having more difficulty in finding the inappropriate behaviour that you are concerned about. While there may be problematic edits in terms of POV, there does not appear to be any incivility, edit warring, or anything else that looks actionable. I suspect this is primarily a content issue. Did you follow Jclemens' advice and nominate the article for AfD? That might be your best bet here. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, note that the editor who created the content fork vandalized the Obama article several times in May 2008, replacing his picture with an Oompa-Loompa. Not sure how they managed to avoid a block at that point... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The inappropriate behavior is in knowingly creating an article explicitly to restore material that was cut from the previous incarnation of the old Catholicism and Freemasonry, and the Papal ban on Freemasonry articles (for the exact reasons you outline above). We have already had long drawn out discussions about exactly that material and what was problematic about it. This is nothing but a POV attempt to circumvent consensus, and to restore negative coatracking synthesis with the intent to disparage Freemasonry and Freemasons. I would think that knowing writing a WP:Attack page deserves some sort of admin intervention (a warning at least). But what I really need is a mentor. Someone to look over my sholder and guide me in dealing with this article... I have already had to clean it out once... I will now have to clean it out again... and I don't want have to clean it out a third time. I fully expect that if I send this to AfD and it is deleted, the material will simply be returned under another title. Blueboar (talk) 18:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Deja vu

Hello. The issue on the Croatia national basketball team's page is back... Since the suspension of the IP , the user has now registered and is continuing to place himself (i presume...) in the roster... Would you please be kind enough to take a look? Thanks in advance. It's Ronniecory's edits. Much respect. Malez

Elonka on a fishing expedition?

I am currently the subject of a Sockpuppetry "investigation" here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Irvine22

A Checkuser has been requested and I am confident that it will confirm that I am none of the six or so IPs and usernames that have been suggested. However, I am concerned that this Checkuser request does not appear to meet the evidentiary standards required. The initial report by Snowded was scanty and supplied no diffs etc. More worrying, Elonka seems to be adding new users to be checked on her own initiative, on the basis of the most slender of suspicions - sometimes just a single edit - and I am concerned this has become something of a fishing expedition. I'd appreciate some fresh eyes on the situation and comment. Thanks. Irvine22 (talk) 03:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't this really a matter for the Checkusers and clerks to handle? AniMate 03:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I feel it constitutes admin misconduct. Irvine22 (talk) 04:00, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Have you tried talking to Elonka? Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 03:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. Furthermore, this isn't a "fishing expedition". It appears that the complainants (and Elonka is but one, and not even the initial filer) have, in their minds reason to believe that sockpuppetry is afoot. If you are innocent, the checkuser will find you so. A fishing expedition would be if, apropos of nothing, and with no evidence at all, someone said "I think Irvine22 has some unnamed socks, and I want a Checkuser to dig those out, as well as any IP address he may have." That would be a clear fishing expedition, but that's not what we have here. The filing editors, in apparent good faith, have reason to believe there are shenanigans are afoot. If there are not, then you will be exonerated, and all will be fine. --Jayron32 04:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that's pretty much what is going on. Snowded's initial report - which doesn't seem to come even close to meeting the evidentiary standards outlined in the guidelines for filing, ie no diffs - focused on one possible sockpuppet. There seems to have been a free-for-all thereafter, with Elonka adding four other possibles on the basis of no proferred evidence whatsover.Irvine22 (talk) 04:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If one of those addresses is you, come clean now, it'll be better for you. If they're not, you'll be cleared. Hipocrite (talk) 04:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

None of them are me. Since Sept I have edited only as Irvine22, with the occasional inadvertent IP edit when I wasn't signed in, by an IP I have "claimed" - and not one of those featured in the report. I have no concerns about the outcome of the Checkuser on my own account. However, there are as many as five other people involved here who are having their privacy violated because someone has taken the notion - and little more than a notion - that they might be me. My concern is that this seems to be (another) area in which Wikipedia practise fails to live up to stated policy. Irvine22 (talk) 04:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Those who have nothing to hide, have nothing to fear. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like something Dick Cheney would say. Irvine22 (talk) 04:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If you don't like the terms of service, don't edit here. Pcap ping 04:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"Love it or leave it"? Irvine22 (talk) 05:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of course. ╟─TreasuryTag►Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster─╢ 09:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Irvine, that several editors believed there was circumstantial evidence of you socking is perfectly acceptable grounds for an SPI. This isn't court, no one needs a warrant. I've had an SPI run on me for far, far less. If you're innocent, then everyone goes about their business. If not, then we procceed from there. There's no Miranda rights, Habeus Corpus, Fourth Amendment, Sixth Amendment, or any of that on Wikipedia. If you have actual evidence of wrongdoing, then by all means present it. Simply accusing someone of sockery is not an offense. And yeah, love it or leave it. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No, no warrants, Miranda rights etc - just Wikipedia's own guidelines -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations#Evidence_and_SPI_case_guidelines - which you will notice call for "verifiable evidence in the form of diffs". No such evidence has been offered for any single one of the half-dozen or so usernames or IPs that are supposedly me. The "beliefs" or other editors are not sufficient - or shouldn't be according the the guidelines. Irvine22 (talk) 05:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You are entirely correct. In the interests of openness and due process, I'll ask them to provide diffs to back up their allegations. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems the results of the Checkuser are in and are as I predicted: none of the supposed sockpuppets are me. I remain concerned about the apparently reckless disregard of guidelines in this matter. Irvine22 (talk) 05:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Reckless disregard? A bit dramatic I think. It was just a check, and the check was inconclusive, no harm done. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 05:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

"There must be credible evidence supporting the suspicion of sockpuppetry, and good cause why CheckUser is required. Requests for checkuser without evidence will be declined, because CheckUser is not for fishing." Is this guideline no longer operative? If not, should it perhaps be archived? Irvine22 (talk) 06:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Erm actually the right venue for complaints about the possible misuse of checkuser privileges would be the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee or am I wrong ... ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 06:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think anyone comparing the edits of Irvine22 and the socks would see that there were grounds for suspicion. My note to Irvine telling him about the report says "please see this (hot link to report) Its obviously a sock puppet and the editing style is sufficiently like you to make you a suspect. If not you have my apologies but best to get it sorted out quickly".

It is worth noting this abusive response by Irvine22 to Elonka. What we have here is an editor with a series of blocks for disruptive behaviour attempting to muddy the waters around an admin who has shown considerable patience in dealing with him. I see this ANI report as another in that sequence. --Snowded ^TALK 07:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Then you should have supplied diffs to allow us to make that comparison, as required by the SPI guidelines. Can you do so even now? Irvine22 (talk) 07:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Beware of "Plaxico". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Speaking for myself only, I have just stocked up on rooster tails and power bait for an early Sunday morning fishing expedition. Who's with me??? JBsupreme (talk) 07:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

ANI is de place for de bait. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I hear the trout are biting this time of year. Irvine, the case is closed. What more do you want? The circumstantial evidence was strong enoguh to warrant an SPI. Snowded, perhaps in the future you could prepare some specific diffs. Happy Irvine? Throwaway85 (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, there remains the matter of the four other IPs/usernames Elonka bundled into the Checkuser on the basis of no proferred evidence whatsoever. That's where the abuse of checkuser is in this, in my view. Irvine22 (talk) 07:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

She's not a CU, and the entire SPI came about as a result of behavioural evidence. What redress are you seeking here? Throwaway85 (talk) 08:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The "behavioural evidence" clearly doesn't meet the standards in the guidelines for an SPI, let alone a Checkuser. I'd just like to know how anybody thought this Checkuser met the guidelines, and whether - by extension - Wikipedia takes privacy issues as seriously as it claims. Irvine22 (talk) 08:08, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Throaway here, the report seems fine. Besides, the proper venue is Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Audit Subcommittee as mentioned above. ~DC _{Talk To Me} 08:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That venue should be a last resort, surely. I'll wait to see if anyone involved can make a credible case that this SPI and Checkuser met the guidelines. Irvine22 (talk) 08:24, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You, perhaps, could have just asked me, or pointed me here. :-) I performed the check mostly because of the confusion as to Dick Stauner, especially in light of the supposed confession of sockpuppetry. Several editors seemed convinced that its behavior pointed to you, and offered some persuasive evidence that it could be, while you yourself claimed to have been framed. In cases like these, where uncertainty may tarnish an innocent user's reputation, it is often in the interest of all parties to try to put the matter to rest by checking IPs. As for the other four, each blocked for misbehavior, I judged them to have convincingly not newcomers based on their actions, including the continuation of ongoing conflicts or patterns of abuse, to merit a check as well. That a check comes up negative is not proof that it was wrong to check in the first place. Dominic·t 09:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

So you ran the check based on the beliefs of editors, but lacking verifiable evidence in the form of diffs. Is that consistent with the guidelines? Irvine22 (talk) 14:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Let it go, Irvine. It's just an SPI. It happens. You aren't doing yourself any favours by railing against anyone and everyone involved. Throwaway85 (talk) 14:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• Concur that the editing patterns seem to meet a behavioural pattern that called for a SPI due to potential for disruption. Glad to see that it came up negative, and that Wikipedia is safe again. Concur that it's best to let it drop. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous IPs

There have been several vandalizing edits made from anonymous IP adresses: User talk:190.209.46.146, User talk:190.46.53.131, User talk:76.83.2.131. These have all been linked to my talk page and certain articles. Particularly Spanish people and its talk page. The anonymous user has used ethnic name calling of sorts (on my talk page) and the like. Can this user/users be blocked? Two are from Chile (probably the same) and have a box on their talk pages; one stating: "Attention: This IP address, 190.46.53.131, is registered to VTR BANDA ANCHA S.A. Chile. In the event of persistent vandalism from this address, efforts may be made to contact VTR BANDA ANCHA S.A. Chile to report abuse..."

Can someone help with this matter? I was going to use "User-reported", but am not quite sure how it works. Thank you very much. C.Kent87 (talk) 03:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have notified all of the anonymous users specified here of this thread. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

As a somewhat clerical note, it should be pointed out that this is not the first time User talk:190.209.46.146 has been reported here. The earlier report is in ANI Archive 589 --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have given the anonymous User talk:190.46.53.131 another Warning for continuing his vandalizing and comments on ethnicity. C.Kent87 (talk) 06:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I had to reverse editions biased and tendentious issues, besides the sources manipulation by C.Kent87 like this, this, this and this. In his zeal to eliminate the sources that give less percentage for the White population in Mexico like this or this.Ccrazymann (talk) 10:30, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked 190.46.53.131 for a little while. -- Hoary (talk) 15:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

External link spammer

I believe editor Nt351 (talk · contribs) exists only to introduce external links to "documents" on his personal website into articles. All of his contributions (except an occassional talk page entry to complain about removal of his links) reflect this. I've made no judgement as to the authenticity of the documents stored at that personal website, or whether they are reproduced with permission - but I definitely doubt that website qualifies as a "reliable source". I've considered reverting his entire list of contributions, but I'm not sure that would be appropriate. He insists the documents on his website are reliable sources because "he scanned them himself". Could someone take a closer look? Thanks in advance, Xenophrenic (talk) 05:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment: User has been notified of this thread. -- œ^™ 07:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Review of administrative action by Malik Shabazz requested

At an AfD, a topic banned user and a friend of the article's subject both commented. I left a short comment regarding the COI, providing a link for proof, and struck out the comment of the topic banned user, leaving a short note including the link to the topic ban [94].

• User:Malik Shabazz reverted with the edit summary "don't add comments" [95]
• I asked MS to provide a rationale for his rv at his talk page and asked him to self-rv or take respective administrative actions under his own name [96]
• MS answered on my talk that only the blocking admin should strike out the topic banned editor's vote, that my edit was creating a "hostile environment" and that I'd treat the AfD as a battleground [97].

I strongly disagree with Malik Shabazz' handling of this:

• I have not in any way contributed to a hostile environment or battleground by pointing out the COI and striking out the topic banned user's vote, providing the respective links.
• Malik Shabazz is now aware of the COI vote and the vote in violation of a topic ban, but not only refuses to take action himself, which he should do as an admin, but actively surpressed these informations.
• Malik Shabazz may have a COI of his own at this AfD, since he had commented and voted there already.

I request that impartial admins review the situation, clear me of the battleground allegations made, restore my edit or take likewise action at the AfD, and advise Malik Shabazz to not act that way in the future. Skäpperöd (talk) 07:50, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

At the same AfD, Shabazz also made this inapproriate comment. The only way to interpret it is that he is accusing me of lying. He is denying this, but refuses to modify his comments although I have asked him to do so.[98]. Note that other than this inapproarite comment, I don't have anything personal against Shabazz and do not wish to have a conflict with him. I just wished to provide this diff to review, as it may be relevant to what Skäpperöd is saying above. Offliner (talk) 09:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Offliner and Skäpperöd doth protest too much. Offliner started things on the wrong foot by announcing "there is strong suspicion" that canvassing had tainted the past AfDs for Richard Tylman, but this time would result in the much-desired Delete. Now Skäpperöd is trying to poison the atmosphere further by adding editorial comments to other editors' !votes.

If Offliner has evidence that canvassing took place, I'm sure she/he would have presented it to ArbCom at the time. Since no such evidence exists, Offliner's "strong suspicion" is a groundless accusation.

If Skäpperöd wants to offer an opinion about another editor's !votes, she/he can do so the same way everybody else at AfD does: by posting an opinion underneath. Skäpperöd is not in charge of deciding who has and who hasn't a COI in the matter. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 09:33, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

By the way, what is the administrative action of mine that is under discussion here? Last time I checked, any editor could revert any other editor—what makes my reversion an administrative action? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 09:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

While I don't particularly like the style and tone of Skäpperöd's note with respect to Biophys, it's formally a normal part of threaded comment, and your intervention of removing it (in your role of an editor involved in the content dispute just as much as he is) is at least as much against normal protocol as his striking out of the other user's comment. I would recommend leaving such decisions to uninvolved administrators. (Not saying that I am one here, as I voted myself). As for striking the vote by Pawel, I would recommend leaving it to the admin who imposed the topic ban to determine whether it should be stricken (Moreschi), noting that in a parallel case (Tymek/Sandstein) an admin did in fact judge such edits to be in breach of a similar ban. Note that I blocked Pawel, but not for this particular edit, so I'm not taking a stance here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I left Moreschi a note, though I still consider it to be in every users right to strike out or even remove edits violating topic bans, there is no primacy of imposing admins in this regard. Regarding the style of my comment to Biophys, I wrote

COI: Biophys is a friend of Tylman/Poeticbents, see WP:EEML for details.

I think that is as concise as can be, where do you see problems with style and tone? I pointed out the problem and provided the link in as few words as possible, and neither attacked Biophys nor Tylman/Poeticbent. Just a pointer to the connection inappropriate for mutual support in an AfD. What kind of wording would you have chosen instead? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The WP:EEML canvassed several AfDs, as was confirmed by ArbCom. Therefore there is strong suspicion that they would canvass this one too—especially as the article is about one of the EEML members. I'm not saying that canvassing took place. All I'm saying that there is suspicion; as has been presented by several editors. How is this a lie? Your comments and hostile attitude are inapproriate from an admin. Offliner (talk) 10:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, describing the issue of canvassing as a "strong suspicion" is certainly legitimate and by no means "groundless", given the multiple findings in the Arbcom case. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I would hope that past agreement among certain editors is not going to become an endless litany of implications of meatpuppetry accompanied by express denials of such implication. If someone is not saying something, the implication is then also better left unsaid and the topic, whatever it is, be dealt with on the merits of editorial positions.  PЄTЄRS VЄСRUМВА ►talk  17:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Any uninvolved admin? Is every user entitled to strike out comments of topic banned users in an AfD, or is this only to be done by the imposing admin? Has Malik Shabazz handled the case as expected from an admin? Skäpperöd (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The anti-Polish lobby (Skapperod, Future Perfect, Offliner etc.) at work again. The reason of this complaint is clear, to punish every admin who dares to oppose their continued attacks on Polish editors.  Dr. Loosmark  17:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

GFDL....wait, Fair use....wait, whut?

File:Bill_Coursey.jpg from the article List of pigs has both a GDFL/Public Domain claim in the summary portion of the page, yet a Fair-use boilerplate. Um, helpies to get the proper clarification?--Cantthinkofausername (talk) 09:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

You may want to try asking at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. -- œ^™ 09:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It claims to be frequently used under the GFDL, but (I assume) due to the absence of evidence of this, there's a FUR "just in case" – sounds plausible to me, anyway! ╟─TreasuryTag►constablewick─╢ 09:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait, whut? We have a List of pigs article? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at this before I reached the conclusion that this is one of those "it's on the web so it must be public domain or freely licensed"-type claims. Having disputed this a fair-use rationale was added. Not a convincing one for a list of pigs, IMO, but it explains the confusion over the upload rationale. You'll see it in the page history and in other pig pics like File:Hogzilla.jpg. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

A case of strange behaviour?

An Anonymous has made several ([99], [100], [101]) requests to know more about a "Freddie Mercury prize" on a completely unrelated (for what i know) talk page, and is now getting insistent ([102], [103]) in his, how shall i put it, bizarre attitude. How do we tell him? --RCS (talk) 09:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I would just direct them to the WP:Reference desk. -- œ^™ 10:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The article that talk page is for does say that the subject won a Red Cross Freddie Mercury prize, it doesn't seem to be a completely unconnected question to me. MorganaFiolett (talk) 12:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait... you are right! Oh, i'm sorry then. I really thought this was some kind of joke. I didn't check the article properly . I apologize.--RCS (talk) 12:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Webley455 sockpuppetry

Following this request, I performed a CheckUser on Webley455, and stumbled upon an odd case of sockpuppetry. It involves at least one ongoing AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Keller (televangelist) (second nomination)) and one of the accounts was also blocked for threatening behavior earlier today. These are the accounts that are very likely to be the same person as Webley455:

• Chimro
• RucasHost
• SMRyaacresitaenr
• SnakeStomper
• WinslowML
• AttackVector

Administrator attention here would be appreciated. :-) Dominic·t 10:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

NAC'd the AfD as speedy keep. Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No other ongoing AfDs that I can find. Also, User talk:RucasHost#Vandalism of Live Prayer is...concerning. Timotheus Canens (talk) 12:15, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Urban XII, Hans Filbinger and Hans Adler – Request for feedback

Did I harass User:Urban XII? Perhaps it is OK to run to WQA or ANI when a user doesn't retract an unfounded attack, but not OK to postpone this until the user repeats the same behaviour against someone more vulnerable, and to advise the user about the intention? Then I need to rethink my approach to this kind of situation.

• [104] (note the Twinkle abuse)
• Talk:Hans Filbinger#The party parameter
• "rv harassment"

Hans Adler 12:44, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have answered this user at my talk page. I urge him to cease his wiki-stalking of me, and find something more productive to do than going on and on about a dispute that has been solved as far as the article is concerned. I reserve the right to remove threatening comments from my talk page. Urban XII (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that you (1) accused me of vandalism for something that was very obviously no such thing but a genuine POV dispute, and then you justified it instead of retracting. This makes it appear likely that you want to continue behaving like that. I was waiting for a clear statement that you now understand you shouldn't have used Twinkle to revert me, and instead I got (2) an additional accusation of "harassment" that I consider to be similarly problematic (but I came here to ask for feedback on this). Now you have added (3) an accusation of (even ongoing) "wiki-stalking", both here and on your talk page [105]. Needless to say, there is no evidence for this whatsoever. While I have in fact noticed that some of the Filbinger related articles that you have edited recently have severe POV issues, I have not started work on them yet, and so far our interactions have been very limited in time (4 days) and space (Hans Filbinger, Talk:Hans Filbinger, User talk:Urban XII and here).

I am afraid you have maneuvered yourself into a situation where the best way out is to openly acknowledge the fact that you are not supposed to dish out obviously unfounded accusations in this way. Hans Adler 15:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Adilette

Resolved

 – User counseled to select a name that does not appear to promote a product. COI may be an issue but that remains to be seen. Content issue should be dealt with via the appropriate channels. –xeno^talk 15:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This page is being constructed by Adilette1972. Just wondering what the best course of action is;
After looking at the page it seems more like it belongs on Adidas as a mention, rather than a whole article being dedicated to a type of Adidas flip flops...! Also, it would appear that the user's first language may not be English as the article is full of grammatical errors and mistakes. I've added a template but could anything else be done on this? _Will^dow (Talk) 13:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. It does not require administrative action. You should first talk to User:Adilette1972 about your concerns. You can also suggest merging the the new article at Talk:Adilette and Talk:Adidas. If you want other opinions, you can ask for comments at WP:RFC.

For future reference, suspected username violations are reported to WP:UAA. (Using a product for a username can be considered a violation of username policy, so I will block and leave a message for Adilette1972 suggesting a name change. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:37, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Why not counsel them rather than block first? –xeno^talk 14:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

That is a better idea given the borderline nature of the violation. — CactusWriter | ^needles 14:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could unblock and leave them a welcome message that suggests a username change. Editors adding content in good faith should not be greeted with block notices. –xeno^talk 14:58, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

And done. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Cheers, –xeno^talk 15:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Bryan.fryer - spam

Noticed that this user has been posting spam links on Bible prophecy repeatedly. Only after myself and another editor warned him did I notice that "Bryan.fryer" is purely an account for spam. Every contribution made has been a spam link to the same address. Can this user be blocked as a spam account?

p.s. Where can I report this in the future if this is not the correct place? _Will^dow (Talk) 14:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Provided you've properly warned the user (see WP:WARN), reports like this can be easily handled at WP:AIV. In this case, the editor hasn't edited after his/her final warning, so we generally don't take action. Toddst1 (talk) 14:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay just wanted to check as I only noticed the account was purely adding spam after I added the final warning. I shall keep an eye out on my watchlist for any more spam and direct it to WP:AIV accordingly. Thanks!! _Will^dow (Talk) 14:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Really dull personal attacks

Resolved

 – User cautioned. –xeno^talk 15:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Over here I've been accused of being a "jackass" and a "piece of trash" – and I think I've remained civil throughout. Would someone mind issuing a reprimand, please? Thanks! ╟─TreasuryTag►assemblyman─╢ 15:05, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

No need to open an AN/I thread for the occasional random insult from the occasional editor. WP:WQA is probably a better avenue. --Cyclopia^talk 15:20, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he should receive a warning for making personal attacks, not be reported somewhere ineffectual where nothing will happen. ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 15:22, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, just seen the warning. Thanks. ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 15:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Help regarding IP

Hello, I have been monitoring Rodney Mullen and noticed that this IP made a minor adjustment to the lead section as follows:

John Rodney Mullen (born August 17, 1966 in Gainesville, Florida), known simply as Rodney Mullen, is a professional skateboarder considered by many to be the most influential skater in the history of the sport.

His edit changed the lead section to this:

John Rodney Mullen (born August 17, 1966 in Gainesville, Florida), known simply as Rodney Mullen. Rodney Mullen is a professional skateboarder considered by many to be the most influential skater in the history of the sport.

I assumed good faith, reverted the edit (which introduced an obvious grammar error in the first sentence) and dropped a note (not a template) on the IP's talk page. Just over half an hour later, the edit was made again. I reverted, and this time, knowing that the IP had already been told that what they were doing was introducing a grammar error, used the 'introducing deliberate factual errors' template, making minor adjustments to the wording to suit the purpose (i.e. 'facts' to 'grammar'). I know vandalism reverting isn't in violation of the three-revert rule, but I wasn't sure what to do in this situation. What can I do if this happens again? JulieSpaulding (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd really hesitate to call it vandalism so quickly. If this is just someone who misread the first sentence, you're likely to get their back up. I note their second edit was different than their first, so they seems to be accepting your input, and this just doesn't seem like a vandal. I suggest letting it go and not reverting anymore. I'll take a stab at talking to them. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Still created a sentence fragment, but agree that dialog is preferred over characterizing it as VAN. –xeno^talk 15:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I wouldn't have called it vandalism myself, but if they were introducing the error deliberately, it's certainly 'naughty', by all accounts. I thought that it was possible they had just misread the sentence, but with the second edit I got a little more suspicious. I know I said 'vandalism' on the IP's talk, but that was what the template said so I thought I'd run with it. JulieSpaulding (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Spiritualism socking for blocked IP editor?

Younus AlGohar and Messiah Foundation International got semi-protected because an IP hopper continued to make claims of terrorist activities by the person and the organization and continually slapped an NPOV tag on the article (which is still there since I, as an IP editor, can't revert). Spiritualism (talk · contribs) has repeated those edits, repeating the BLP attacks on the person and the organization and re-added the NPOV tag without explaining on the articles' Talk pages what makes the articles POV. Is Spiritualism socking for the blocked IP editor, or is he/she the IP editor who has finally created an account? In addition Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi should be protected, and Spiritualism needs to be blocked and the NPOV tags removed from the articles. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Advised Spiritualism (talk · contribs) about unexplained {{NPOV}} tags. Editor has been around for quite a while, not a new account.Toddst1 (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Strange peerage edits

125.166.172.253, 222.124.122.32, 125.163.21.201, 125.163.23.125, 110.136.151.69, 110.136.137.241 and User:Towsuw have been making very strange edits to peerage articles, linking redlinked articles and using strange html coding within the article. This is similar to the actions of now-banned User:Max Mux, as seen here and here. The behavioural links seem clear; I thought I'd bring this to the attention of AN/I and the wider community. All the IPs resolve to a set of core locations in Indonesia, so it seems to be the same chap. I did get the impression (I may be wrong) that Max Mux was German, however, but the behavioural links are odd. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 17:28, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Slagathor - Provocative Talk Page Postings

Sad to bring this here as it seems so childish. User:Slagathor has been persistently adding gratuitously provocative postings to Talk:ARA General Belgrano for a while now. Diffs 1, 2, 3. The Falklands War is still quite sensitive between the UK and Argentina but its good that in general the British and Argentine editors do work well together on this topic. I'd like to see that continue so I'd be grateful if someone could explain to him this sort of thing simply isn't acceptable and certainly does not help with a collaborative project. Thus far the comments on his edits, seem to be ignored history. Justin talk 17:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)