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

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

No! Please don’t mark the case as resolved. I still haven’t finished discussing with you yet.

A1DF67 (talk) 23:31, 13 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? That was NOT the reason why I changed username to remove records of edits. That was not my reason! If you think it is 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 was trying and intending to help or improve Wikipedia then and I was not intending to deliberately make bad edits then, if not all of the time then at least most of the time. 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)

If I might make a suggestion... If Bowei/A1DF67 wants to sign their edits as Bowei Huang, let them. There's no problem with that, and in fact it helps with transparency. But I agree that shoving a bad editing history over to an alternate account to hide one's past misdeeds shouldn't be allowed. I would have done exactly as Toddst1 had done, but I didn't catch all this in time. -- Atama頭 20:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Todd. I have no problem with the editor making his signature what he wants to be, although he does need to link to his temporary BH account on his user page. Otherwise, I think we're done here. Let's hope the editor will stay out of trouble from now on. Auntie E. (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No! Please don’t mark the case as resolved. I still haven’t finished discussing with you yet. Let me discuss and explain further. What about all the stuff I’ve written in the case? I hope it is not a waste of effort. Hello! Didn’t you read my comments on 00:59 11 January 2010 and 02:10 12 January? Haven’t you read them? Why haven’t you answered, replied to, or responded to those two comments? Why haven’t you answered my questions in them? I think you should read them again. Can you please do that? This time, can you please answer, reply to, and respond to my comment?

I did not say that the reason I did that was to hide my past misdeeds. I did not say that! I did not even say that I had a lot of past misdeeds. I did not even say that! I was just asking if that was the reason for all that or not. Please do not misunderstand me!

The reason I changed username was NOT because I wanted to remove records of edits because I have made many edits in the recent past before the username change that were bad, wrong, or unacceptable. That was not my reason!

Why didn’t you even answer my questions in that second comment? Why haven’t you even answered my question about what those edits were?

If you think that I have made many edits in the recent past that were bad AND that that was the reason why I changed username to remove records of edits, then can you please show those bad edits to me and everybody else? Show them! If you think that that is the reason why I changed username to remove records of edits, then can you please prove it? If you accuse me that that was the reason why I changed username to remove records of edits, then can you please prove it? Prove it! Please do not accuse me that that was the reason why I changed username to remove records of edits unless you have got proof of it! I should be presumed innocent until proven guilty.

If I didn’t make many edits before the username change that were bad, then would you still continue blocking me? If I changed username because I wanted to remove records of edits, BUT the reason why I wanted to remove them was NOT because I made many bad edits in the recent past, then would you still continue blocking me?

Is it possible to restore my edit history? Is it possible or not? Why haven’t you even told me that yet?

A1DF67 (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

No one is blocking you. I don't know why you wished to erase the page that shows the history of your contributions. All I know is that you tried, and it didn't work. Now at this point, I suggest you make a link to your blocked Bowei Huang account on your user page to avoid confusion. If you wish to change your signature to your old name, go to "My Preferences" on your menu bar and it will let you do so. If you wish to merge the two accounts, I suggest you make an appeal to WP:CHU and see if they can do anything there for you. Otherwise, I don't see why you are continuing this. I suggest you take my advice above, just continue working on the Wikipedia and just let this go. Auntie E. (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

I can tell anyone interested right off the bat that requests for merging edit histories from two usernames are usually rejected at WP:CHU as technically impossible, so Auntie's suggestion will not work. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 15:12, 14 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....[[14]] 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)

You are mistaken: such issues are very much my job, particularly if you have two live accounts and haven't articulated a good reason for having them. Additionally, your tone could do with a bit of moderation; it's not wise to appear combative on a noticeboard full of admins. Please consider refactoring your comment above, which skates perilously close to rudeness. GJC 09:50, 13 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)

Making fun of someone's zodiac sign is not racism in any way, but it can be a personal attack, which is sufficient to get some action... especially as, see below. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Part Two, The disruption continues.

The user has again reinserted the userboxes.[[15]] I opened az sockpuppet case (Duck Test) And I was greeted with presumably called a ogre and "shit" [[16]]. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 18:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC) [[17]]

Silverlife has already admitted that they used to be RegularBreaker (and still implies this on their current user page). However, the previous account doesn't have any blocks associated with it, or other serious problems.

Currently, I think we're being trolled. Just look at this person's responses throughout this whole noticeboard discussion, every reply seems intended to escalate the problem, there's no defense presented at all. I say, WP:RBI and forget this whole thing. -- Atama頭 20:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm hoping that "B" means "Block"? Because there's trolling, which usually has at least a component of being slightly entertaining (at least, to the oppositionally-inclined like myself)--and then there's just being rude, immature, dismissive, and profane, all while acting in contravention of at least two accepted Wikipedia guidelines (namely WP: UBX and WP:SOCK.) And while I'm being humorless--this article seems to need a friend. I'll stop by the Sociology Wikiproject, or some other suitable place.... GJC 10:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

B most definitely means Block, and I fully support llywrch's indef block. -- Atama頭 19:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, because of the response on HiaB's Talk page, & the general tone of his other responses, I indef'ed Silverlife -- that account alone -- but left him an opening to appeal my decision. (You guys seem to expect the cranky old Admins to do all of the blocking. No one here will ever believe I'm an easy-going softie ever again.) Since I'm intermittently on Wikipedia, I have no problem with another Admin overturning my block for good reason. Or blocking the other accounts associated with this user, if abused. -- llywrch (talk) 18:01, 13 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: [18]). 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.[19] 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: [20],[21], [22], [23] (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)

Not that it really matters, but under this account I do not have any admin rights. My old account does, and I'm currently in the process of trying to retrieve it. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You were blocked on the Commons because of "abusing multiple accounts". You could've easily started over as you did here. Do not blame others for the consequences you brought on yourself by repeatedly uploading unfree images despite warnings and explanations. As far as the edits on the Kent article go, say what you want, but they only came up while you and I were having an edit dispute on the Akron article, and no you did not simply do to the Kent article what you do to Akron, especially considering most of your edits to Kent involved removing info while you rarely removed info from the Akron article. Yes, you did add a lot to the Akron article, but as this discussion has shown, a lot of what you added shouldn't be in the article at all. Despite our best efforts to work with and help you understand what should and shouldn't be in the article and why, you continued to add more and more info that had no place and hampered the efforts of other editors to improve the article. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In case there was any confusion, edits at the Akron article indicate Threeblur "moving on" wasn't in reference to that article as he in once again restoring questionable info and sources along with poorly-written or awkwardly-worded prose ([24] and [25]). Statements such as "major meth problem" and "mainly due to Akron" are not supported by any of the sources and many of the sources are actually referencing statistics from Summit County, Ohio. All of this has been discussed in detail on the Akron talk page beginning here and most recently here. --JonRidinger (talk) 06:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll give him some credit; he is working somewhat with me on the section, but only if he makes the edits himself and I explain the problems with his wordings and what the sources actually say (which I have done multiple times already) in each successive edit on the talk page. If he finally learns, great, but if not it simply causes me to spend time explaining (and less editing), get in an edit war over it, or just walk away and let the article remain with improperly sourced information. I mainly see problems with WP:OWN and WP:OR. --JonRidinger (talk) 13:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I see that overnight Threeblur0 reverted back his version of the meth paragraph.[26] The problem is that when he did it he put "Copy edited" for the description, something I would use for punctuation and spelling. There has been plenty of discussion on the meth paragraph but he did not add anything to it, he just reverted. --Beirne (talk) 16:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, it does seem like he's trying somewhat to follow *some* the suggestions I have put on the talk page, but not completely and only one at a time. Even then he the only things he's removed have been some of the blatant POV words, but the section still has a lot of material more relevant to Summit County and makes assumptions that aren't supported by sources. Just since last night he's already made 12 edits to the same section and has not contributed to the discussion on the talk page about it. And while I give Versageek lots of credit for patience, Threeblur has been referred to the WP:SYN and WP:OR pages multiple times and had the concepts explained to him on the Akron talk page. --JonRidinger (talk) 23:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Mikhailov Kusserow and WikiProject dabbling

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

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)

I’m a little confused: (1) He is not participating in this ANI, despite being alerted to it. (2) He is continuing to archive pages incorrectly, despite being informed that he is doing so, and being asked to cease and desist.  Question: Why, then, has he not been given an indefinite block with access only to his own talk page to permit him to finally deal with this issue? — SpikeToronto 18:16, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

They haven't done anything further after 3 of us piled onto their talk page to ask them to stop. A block would be premature. –xeno^talk 18:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

He was warned with this edit at 03:46EST on the 11th. With this edit at 02:06EST on the 12th (24 hours later), he removed those warnings, without response, and continued apace. A look at his contribs shows that he was still disruptively archiving 24 hours after his initial warnings and request to cease and desist. With these edits, he was given three more warnings, albeit superfluously since he had already been warned, had removed and igonored those earlier warnings, and had then continued in the same fashion. I am not a gambling man, but were I, I would make book that he will continue to perform more disruptive archiving tonight starting sometime around 02:00EST or 03:00EST.

Good faith edits or not, you are being too nice. You are giving him yet another day to remove your warnings, not respond, and start disruptively archiving more WikiProject talk pages at a time when you won’t be around to stop him. This will result in that much more work that will have to be undone. If he were to be blocked until such time as he is willing to discuss this matter, then at least there would be no further upheaval in those areas of Wikipedia. Don’t you think that delay makes us complicit in his disruptive actions? — SpikeToronto 20:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

He moved from archiving WikiProject talk pages to archiving article talk pages - which are typically fair game - except he was still doing it in a strange and inefficient way - which he's now been warned about that as well - and yes, we can leave the ball in his court without blocking him. –xeno^talk 21:19, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Plus, now that he has been given additional warnings, it would not be very fair to block him until we see how he responds/behaves. My earlier comments were motivated by a belief in a basic behavioural modification precept: “Positively reinforce positive behavior, negatively reinforce negative behaviour.” Or is that, “Spare the rod, spoil the child?” :) Thanks Xeno. — SpikeToronto 21:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, negative reinforcement is not punishment per se. And yes, my child is plenty spoiled =) –xeno^talk 21:54, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I thought I’d start undoing some of this mess. So, I started taking a walk through his contribs to figure out where to start, thinking I would begin where he began and work my way through to his edits from just shy of 24 hours ago. Only my little walk turned into quite the hike when after reviewing the last 1,000 of his edits — back to 23:46 November 23, 2009 (he always seems to work in the wee hours of the morning EST) — I still had not got to the beginning of the disruptive archiving!

So, I am open to suggestions. How do we parcel this task into manageable portions? Any ideas? And, as I asked earlier, are there any tools available to Admins that can make this task easier? Is there a bot that can undo the edits? How about AWB for those who are approved for its use? Thanks! — SpikeToronto 05:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Someone block this disruptive editor?

I went looking for my warning (and a lot of others) but it appears that they have been blanked and the behaviour continues. There has been no response to the numerous warnings made to this editors. Someone please block them - perhaps one of the seemingly innumerable editors they voted support for adminship? :-) - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Since we now realize:

1. there have been 1,000 questionable edits since last November, and
2. even this month people have been complaining to him since 7 January, and since
3. he's been removing block warnings and continuing to do his peculiar archiving while this ANI thread was open, I've blocked him for 48 hours. Other admins may lift or modify as they think best. EdJohnston (talk) 06:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

COMMENT:  I just want to clarify that I did not say that all 1,000 edits were questionable. What I said was that even after I had gone back 1,000 edits, I could still not find the beginning of the disruptive archiving. Having said that, though, I would say that an enormous number of those edits are of the nature that we have been discussing here. — SpikeToronto 07:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I fail to understand why blocking the editor was necessary. They had received two warnings from administrators (including from the one who faciliated his return to editing after a sockpuppetry case). They hadn't edited since. These edits were not so disruptive as to see what they did on their return. –xeno^talk 13:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

14:15, January 11, 2010, they were warned to stop or they would be blocked for disruption. 07:06, January 12, 2010, they archive said notices. 07:09, January 12, 2010, they continue their disruptive archiving the very next day. Seems like a block was quite warranted.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 02:17, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

They were warned to stopmucking about with WikiProjects and they did. What you have shown is that he moved on to article talk pages and that is a different matter altogether. –xeno^talk 02:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, this is the very essence of a preventative rather than punitive block. The editors needs to show they have read and understood the content of the requests and warnings on their talk page. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:59, 14 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)

Just a little input from myself. The OP's fundamental issue here appears to be that the original closure (TfD - delete) was not based in written policy, and frustration that the second closure (DRV - endorse) appears to have upheld that discrepancy. Technically that's right, as there is no policy that states "Templates with only a single link may be deleted", and therefore arguments to the effect of "Delete, not useful" do not have any weight in policy. Again, technically correct. The problem is that, unlike article inclusion criteria which are fairly cut and dry (must be sourced, must be verifiable, etc), the "inclusion criteria" for lists are far more vague. In the absense of written policy to guide these kinds of discussions, an administrator is left unable to "weight" arguments and they must all be treated equally, those arguing to delete as well as those arguing to keep (neither argument has a basis in written policy in this case). Discussion was minimal and thus the OP was within their right to contest the closure at DRV, where the argument to delete was shored up with the observation that templates of this nature are typically deleted. On my talk page, the OP makes the observation that "[I] upheld an outcome [I] knew to be procedurally invalid." I believe that my comments were misunderstood. If that were to be rephrased to the effect of "I upheld an outcome I knew to have no grounds in policy" I might agree with that; the problem is that either outcome - deletion or retention - has no grounds in policy because there is no policy to guide us in this instance. Again, in the absense of clear policy guidance upon which to help "judge" a debate, simple consensus rules and the simple consensus in the DRV could only be interpreted as an endorsement of the closure. Shereth 21:38, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but this is a circular argument. We wind up stating that these templates are typically deleted...because they're typically deleted. In the absence of clear policy to the contrary you don't delete. Look, I don't think I'm especially dense and I like to think that after six years I have some shaky grasp on Wikipedia's mechanics, but it seems to me that no one can actually justify the outcome of this debate, except that it took place and that similar debates (similarly unjustified) come out that way. If there were no dissenters that would be one thing, but when a discussion splits evenly down the middle on the central issue surely you need a written policy backing you up to completely ignore one half of the discussion. Mackensen (talk) 11:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I agree with your statement that we don't delete when there is a lack of clear policy. In any event, and because I do not want to belabor the issue, I will grant you that the initial TfD argument was fairly split down the middle, which is why referring it to DRV was a reasonable step to take; the discussion at DRV was less ambiguous in terms of endorsing said closure. Would you have me completely ignore the majority of the participants in that discussion with no written policy to justify said action? Yours was, after all, the only argument in favor of overturning the deletion. I can find no basis in policy that would allow me to close the DRV in any way other than a strict endorsement. Shereth 14:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I would have you do so, and I would have done the same. I would have looked at the original TfD and said that the close was incorrect, that the closing administrator failed to apply the relevant policies. I would have looked at the DRV and realized that it was a re-hash of the TfD, and that no one could actually defend the outcome. I mean, here we are debating, because no one can actually come up with a sound reason why the TfD closed this way. If DRV were about head-counting we'd have a bot do it. Why did DRV endorse the closure? What policies did the participants cite? What is their evidence? If you can't answer that question, and tell me why their arguments are superior to the ones I advanced when I challenged the deletion, then your close was in error and you should reverse yourself. Mackensen (talk) 22:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Simple : the consensus opinion at the DRV was that the "utility factor" of a template is a valid argument for deletion. The fundamental nature of Wikipedia is that consensus drives policy and not vice versa. If the consensus says that "utility" is a valid deletion rationale and the policy does not say otherwise, I would be remiss in my duties as an administrator to ignore said consensus. CHeers, Shereth 14:16, 14 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)

I am concerned about the username. Is this user approved as a bot? I can't see anything on Wikipedia:Bots/Status. If they are not a bot, then the username is inappropriate. We should also ensure that if the editor is not a bot that they aren't using the account as a bot. Can we get some confirmation here? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't the guideline that names cannot end in "bot"? Oren0 (talk) 07:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This is true. However, I'm still concerned about whether they are using their account for bot-work. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, it appears as though Altenmann (talk · contribs) has gone through and reverted the earlier edits by User:Bot-iww. I'm honestly not cognizant of why this content issue matters, but someone probably ought to say something relatively soon. I suspect that User:Bot-iww is a non-native English speaker\writer, which may be a component of the issue here.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 02:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no problem with edit summary, since it seams reasonable once you understand what it is about: the word "absurdum" does not refer to wikipedians, so it is not an attack. It refers to the opinion of Baltic editors that since Baltic States were occupied by Soviet Union, this annexation is not recognized, and the persons from the bio articles should not be described as born in the Soviet Union. I reverted the edits made based on this logic and explained in the user talk page that he cannot do massive changes in hundreds of articles without getting consensus first. Concluding, I don't see this as gross violation, unless the user starts edit war. - Altenmann >t 18:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC) As for being a bot, can it be that he merely used some tool like AWB or Twinkle? - Altenmann >t 18:17, 14 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)

I think this is a COI violation, as well as possibly being spam and original research. I don't see how any of these edits are helping Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 21:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Surely also copyright violation, at least in this case: http://yamaguchy.netfirms.com/hapgood_charles/path_00.html. Revert all edits, ban and blacklist? Fences&Windows 01:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears he has also added his own bold, italicized and colored print in many of the documents, to emphasize certain portions of text over others - a minor form of editorializing. Xenophrenic (talk) 17:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think storing and offering for public distribution of texts like this (ext-linked in "Lawrence Dennis")constitutes copyright violation, unless done with permission. If I am right, all contributions of this editor must be reverted ASAP and the website blacklisted: we cannot link to copyvio webpages. - Altenmann >t 18:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Webley455 sockpuppetry

{{resolved|User indefinitely blocked for sock-puppetry. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 04:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)}}

Unresolving as Webley455 (talk · contribs · block log) remains unblocked. Timotheus Canens (talk) 15:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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.

• [29] (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 [30]. 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)

I'm stating a split opinion here. On one hand, Hans Adler adding that Filbinger was a member of the NSDAP is not vandalism, but a conflict over content. (Adding that membership to someone for whom it is impossible for it to be true -- say, Dick Cheney -- would be vandalism.) On the other, from reading the current content of the article & the Talk page, I agree with Urban XII that Filbinger's affiliation with the NSDAP does not need to be in the infobox. (Adding further information to this article could change my opinion.) But to repeat myself for emphasis, there is no instance of vandalism, & that term is best limited to only explicit examples of destructive edits; misusing that word can lead to a person being blocked for disruption. -- llywrch (talk) 03:50, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Your split opinion might be a bit influenced by the current general state of the Filbinger article (and some related articles also edited by Urban XII). There is serious whitewashing going on here, of a political movement that tries to erode the (West) German anti-nazi consensus and establish a "respectable" far right that would include a large part of the Christian Democrats up to unsavoury characters such as Horst Mahler. Other articles affected by this whitewashing (which does not exist on the German Wikipedia) or severely underdeveloped are Neue Rechte and Studienzentrum Weikersheim. When Filbinger died, another CDU politician claimed that Filbinger had not been a Nazi, which earned him an accusation of pseudohistory by a historian and a rebuke from Angela Merkel. Hans Adler 09:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note here in support of User:Hans Adler. It seems that Urban XII's style of interaction is a bit of a problem. He is extremely quick to accuse other users of vandalism; this has been already noted repeatedly by other people in the Wikipedia alert pages [31], [32], [33], [34]. He also deletes warnings left by others on his talk page (and labels them as vandalism [35]), so evidently that is of no use. Note that I am not involved in any of the links I've just given, except in so far as he kindly mentions me in one of them. Feketekave (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the links. I don't consider them all equally convincing, but the first is certainly worth closer examination:

• Urban XII edit wars with Verbal on Frédéric Mitterrand to introduce a borderline BLP violation. One of his edit summaries reads "Rv vandalism." [36]
• In a bizarre edit on Talk:Frédéric Mitterrand, Urban XII duplicates part of Verbal's signature and a comment by Off2riorob, while adding his own comment. [37]
• Verbal reverts with edit summary Don't vandalise the comments of others, and in the following minute restores Urban XII's latest comment. [38]
• In the same minute, Urban XII uses edit summary "rv vandal" when removing 3RR warning and pointers to WP:NOTVAND and WP:BLP from Verbal.
• Verbal tries again to educate Urban XII about what is not vandalism [39] and is again called a vandal [40]. Urban XII increases "vandalism counter". [41]
• Urban XII leaves bogus warning on Verbal's talk page. [42]
• WQA about Urban XII, opened by Verbal [43]

The "vandalism" counter on Urban XII's talk page is also worth further inspection. Urban XII first introduced it after he reverted a warning from Wilhelm meis concerning a BLP issue on Roman Polanski. [44] He increased it to 2 after Verbal's warning. He increased it to 3 after a silly personal attack warning from DD2K. [45] He increased it to 4 after a justified 3RR warning concerning Angels and Demons (film), where he had edit warred to include unsourced trivia. [46] [47]

This user needs to be learn to be more careful with accusations, and I doubt this can be achieved without (threat of) a block. Hans Adler 14:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To Hans above -- that was my intent.;-) Instead of back-n-forth bickering, the article would be improved, & this dispute resolved, were the parties involved in proving the necessary cites that explain his relationship to the NSDAP. (IIRC, after the war the Allies engaged in an extensive de-Nazification program in Germany, so if Filbinger was a member of the NSDAP more than just in name the reliable & verifiable sources are out there. I would assume that his experience with the Occupation authorities would be relevant to the article.) -- llywrch (talk) 17:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Feketekave, Loosmark are both well-known disruptive Polish POV pushers of the sort who routinely follow me around and who don't contribute to Wikipedia with anything else than edit wars. Hans Adler has just revealed a political agenda, which is of no interest to this page, and I urge him to push his personal point of view somewhere else than the English Wikipedia. I'm used to disruptive users abusing WP:ANI to attack me; however, unlike most of these users (some of whom have since been banned), I'm a user in good standing who has never been blocked for anything. Hans Adler's excessive abuse of this page to attack me, even over unrelated disputes that took place months ago or the fact that something went wrong in the process of saving a page and MediaWiki duplicated some text at a talk page half a year ago, constitutes both stalking and disruption of Wikipedia and warrants a warning or block. Urban XII (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I would also like to add that i considered the case (i.e. the disagreement over the Filbinger article) closed after we found a solution that Adler stated that he was happy with. Instead of moving on and concentrate on doing something productive, this user has spent the last couple of days harassing me like he is doing above. I'm not going to "retract" any past edit summaries. I have explained to Adler that the edit summary in question primarily referred to the edit-warring after it had been pointed out that the content was inappropriate. I consider this to be a dead horse in any case and I am certainly not going to waste any more time on it. Urban XII (talk) 20:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Apparently the user under discussion has found a new technique: when it is not enough to call his opponents disruptive, he calls them Polish. Needless to say, I hope and expect that this strategy will have no effect. Feketekave (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I also consider the original dispute resolved. My main remaining problem was a suspicion that you want to reserve the right to call anyone who doesn't agree with your extremist political views a vandal. That's not at all acceptable, and the suspicion has now been confirmed by other evidence. You can resolve this case by conceding that you had no reason to call me a vandal when we were in a POV conflict, and that you had no reason to call Verbal a vandal for reacting in a not-too-optimal but still acceptable way to your talk page mistake. (Verbal shouldn't have called you a vandal either, of course, but that's not relevant here.)

The point of asking you to retract past unacceptable edit summaries is to make sure you understand that they were unacceptable and will not repeat them. I am not going to insist on any particular protocol so long as you make it clear that you got the message and will stop this kind of disruption.

"I have explained to Adler that the edit summary in question primarily referred to the edit-warring after it had been pointed out that the content was inappropriate." You do realise that you continued our little edit war after I pointed out that the content was necessary, right? Pray tell, what exactly gives your words more authority than mine?

By the way, have you found the time to read WP:NOTVAND? Hans Adler 00:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Hans Adler and others that the accusations of vandalism should not be thrown lightly as Urban_XII seems to be doing.  Dr. Loosmark  15:43, 13 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)

Seems like fair comment. Treasury Tag may not like it but boo hoo, such is life. Garibaldi Baconfat 22:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If you think that calling another editor a "jackass" and a "piece of trash" qualifies as fair comment, you have fundamentally misunderstood WP:CIV and WP:NPA. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 22:45, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Nope, I've fundamentally chosen to ignore them both as utter shite. Garibaldi Baconfat 22:48, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't make comments of a personal nature. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he's commenting on the policies. Which does not bode well for his future here. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:33, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

RMHED, can you confirm that this is true? If so, I would strongly advise you under the strongest possible terms to follow policy. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 07:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey now, in all fairness, just because someone says they ignore a policy, that doesn't mean they don't or won't 'follow' it by not breaking it. The two concepts are exclusive from one another. Ignoring the policy that humans cannot fly doesn't mean anyone is going to fly. Sure, some mighty ruler can lay down the law that human flying is not allowed, but when he looks down around upon his subjects and views them as not flying simply because of his mighty rule against it, he's fooling himself big time. --Neptunerover (talk) 12:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the oddest analogy I've ever heard. Ignoring the policy that man cannot fly is irrelevant because it is physically impossible for man to fly unaided. If the editor ignores our policies, for instance NPOV, then they should not be contributing to Wikipedia because it is quite possible to follow the policy. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What can I say; I like to point out the weirdness of things. However, I really do think it's a good analogy for the point I was trying to make which concerns some confusion over an editor's perceived intent based merely on a simple statement made which itself expresses no distinct ill will toward the purpose of the rules. I personally believe Garibaldi Baconfat was expressing exasperation at being 'forced to follow' a rule which could quite possibly be something that would be foreign to his nature to violate. Assuming somebody is a bad guy just because they said something like that is something I consider kind of vicous, but maybe that's just me. I think the sad (& shitey) thing here is that there is need for such rules as WP:CIV and WP:NPA, because that means ... --Neptunerover (talk) 05:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Incidentally, "boo hoo, such is life" is a very deep and neutral statement about life and the fact of our existence and how it is what we make of it. (for the good sake of clarity) --Neptunerover (talk) 06:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Cartoonbook

Resolved

 – blocked MW talk contribs 19:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Cartoonbook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has uploaded a lot of copyvio images, like:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tiny_Toons_Christmas_Kiss.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mr_Toad_Walt_Disney_World.jpg
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cartoonbook#Possibly_unfree_File:Original_mr._toad_ride.jpg

These are just a few. --MW talk contribs 18:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Cartoonbook (talk · contribs) was blocked last year for repeated copyvios. Since then, he or she has done -- surprise! -- nothing but upload more copyvios, such as File:Tiny_Toons_Christmas_Kiss.jpg, which he is claiming his his own work under GFDL, but a.) it's a screenshot of a copyrighted show, and b.) he ripped it off here. Literally every one of his edits since unblock has been to upload improperly licensed material. He clearly should be indeffed. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 18:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeffed, suggest no unblocking without a total ban on uploading images being imposed. Mjroots (talk) 19:39, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
      • I agree with Mjroots. --MW talk contribs 23:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
        • The only one I'm able to see is the Mr. Toad thing, which is a random snapshot of the exterior of a ride or something. How is that a copyright violation? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Because it appears to be from here. He didn't 'create' that picture, he took it. HalfShadow 01:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"Took" as in "ripped off". Roger. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the user should be unblocked, but with editing restrictions, like to do not upload images ANYMORE. --MW talk contribs 22:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Wiki Greek Basketball unblock proposal

A proposal for unblocking User:Wiki Greek Basketball is available at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wiki Greek Basketball, where previous discussion has taken place.  Frank  |  talk  22:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh please no! - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Echoing Tbsdy... let him stay blocked for some 6-odd months... I've voiced my opposition on the page. The Thing _{Vandalize me} 16:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat about a jacket

A threat to take legal action against Wikipedia has been made by 69.237.227.99 (talk · contribs) on Eisenhower_jacket (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). This is an allegation of plagiarization of a (claimed) yet to be published manuscript. The material has been removed by the same person, see this diff, under their other account SRELY&P (talk · contribs). Previous fashion related conflict of interest and possible SOCK issues were also highlighted during Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Wall_Street's_Iconic_Power_Shirt:_The_Gekko_(2nd_nomination) where (applying the QUACK guidance) Andy stinson (talk · contribs) appears to be the same user making the same claims to be the same author of the unpublished work in question. Other contributors to Eisenhower jacket have held off reverting the article content due to this threat of action.

Can someone independent of the articles in question investigate the claim of plagiarism, the legal threat and potentially deal with the WP:SOCK issues that the user has already been warned about?—Ash (talk) 22:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Not noticing that your account has logged out is not sockpuppeting (for me) unless there's use of other accounts. In this case, an IP editor threatening to get lawyers is kinda funny, ooh 192.168.1.100, my own router is going to sue me, what are you gonna do, get your buddy 255.255.255.255 to come round and beat me up too? Just ask the named user if it is their edit, advise them of WP:NLT and ask for a retraction, and point to WP:OTRS or at least ask for a link to the supposed previous publication (which I didn't see anywhere). Franamax (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

If the claim involved were made in good faith, I think it would fall within the copyright exception to WP:NLT. However, as I look over the article history quickly, it appears that the user involved himself added the now-disputed material to the article, therefore both publishing it and releasing the copyright; that he is now unhappy with the changes others have made would not allow him to reassert ownership, even to my rudimentary understanding of licensing law. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm wondering how his "manuscript" was copied into the article in the first place? Did he add it himself? If so, does that mean he can no longer publish that info in a book? I think he really screwed up if that's the case. -- Atama頭 23:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

It's getting more interesting, new user Andy stinson has just weighed in. If they all between them can agree they are the same person and they made a genuine mistake thinking their original work wouldn't be edited, the nice thing might be to blank it for them. It's been cleaned up but nothing novel added that I saw. Franamax (talk) 23:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Or how about not? Once they post something here, it's not their's anymore, it's everyone's. HalfShadow 23:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't speak gotcha. If they made a genuine mistake, it doesn't hurt us to put it right. If the information is notable, it will get written anyway. Obviously we can't put right the copyright claim, that's toast no matter what, the mirrors have what they have. We can only make the difference on how well the person feels they've been treated. Franamax (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

To quote the edit page: "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here." Not our problem. HalfShadow 00:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. It would set a bad precedent to allow this editor to remove his/her edit and not let anybody else to do the same thing later on. The warnings when editing are clear. Woogee (talk) 00:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(Outdent)Is the stuff he added WP:OR? IF so, we could delete it for that. If not, he published it under the GFDL here, and it says under his submit button just like it does mine "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it." Should be end of story. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That assumes that the license is legitimate; Stinson is claiming the account which posted that content is operated by his assistant, who I doubt has the authority to license that work. Either way, I'm thinking we might be better off reverting to this version from 12 July 2009; even ignoring copyright considerations, it seems to me that it might be more suited to our needs as an encyclopedia. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Point taken. Sounds like the way to go to me. Maybe he should be suing his assistant, LOL. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 02:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm curious we know that it was the original author who submitted the material in question? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In this diff SRELY&P adds the material for the first time and in this diff Andy stinson notes that SRELY&P is his assistant. Generally, User talk:Andy stinson seems to make the position clear. Ash (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

After noting on User_talk:Andy_stinson that legal action has been started against Wikipedia by Stinson/R. Ely & Partners, the account user:Andy_stinson has been blocked. Should the account SRELY&P (talk · contribs) also be blocked as we have been told that Andy Stinson's "assistant" has been using this account on behalf of the same company (and similarly any other account that may emerge as a sock puppet or used by employees of Stinson/R. Ely & Partners) whilst the legal action continues? Ash (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

SRELYP indef blocked by Nihonjoe - usernameblock. Franamax (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Constant harassment

This complaint goes to:

• Constant harassment from a cabal of anti-Chiropractic POV editors who attack everything chiropractic.
• Specific harassment and vandalistic tagging by User:IP69.226.103.13 of a BLP Stephen J. Press(and see edit warring on the talk page thereof);
• And, now User:Bongomatic's Violation of WP:OUTING of another editor on my talk page; and finally
• Slander by User:BullRangifer out and out calling me a liar. I do hope this gets resolved amicably here.

[Explanation] I was accused of sockpuppetry once before; a discussion was held, and I was away while it occurred, and not given an opportunity to even respond. I vehemently deny that I ever intended to violate any Wiki policy in that regard. I admitted that, under the circumstances it must certainly looked like that to those who "investigated". The guy in Arizona whose account was in question was blocked. NOW, there is another individual, who supports my position in various venues, and HE is being outed, they claims that "trivial investigation reveals that" he's my son. Even if that were true, it would be irrelevant, and MUST not be allowed to contitute sockpuppetry. My son is an indivdual with a Master's degree in Computer Science, who is a separate entity, and has a right to his own opinions. If Wanyethegoblin is my son, it's by the way, a surprise to me too. I have never controlled his account in any way, and no one can demonstrate to the contrary. You may certainly CU to prove that we do not have the same IP address EVER. Frankly I would like to just contribute to the volume of information in Wikipedia in my field, but this cabal of harassers has made that nearly impossible, and VERY unpleasant. Please help me!!! ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 04:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In light of the fact that Waynethegoblin acts as a co-sysop at your wiki, I find it hard to believe your denials ("if", "a surprise"). You must have known that he was your son all along. His contribution history at WikiChiro and here tells a very different story. You would never entrust such a project to a stranger. Taking chiropractic articles from Wikipedia without attribution and then "chirofying" (your word) them so they are no longer NPOV is a chiro propaganda project which you now expect to use to promote your wiki here by adding attribution/spamlinking of your wiki here. No wonder your template is nominated for deletion. This all stinks. Presenting chiropractic here in an NPOV manner is fine, but so far all you've done here is to attempt to promote yourself and chiropractic in a non-NPOV manner. Such promotion is improper. You follow in the advertising/brainwashing tradition of B.J. Palmer (who practically invented mass marketing), and Wikipedia isn't designed for such advertising. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah it's relevant if it is your son. It's called meatpuppetry....see WP:MEATPUPPETHell In A Bucket (talk) 04:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A "cabal of anti-Chiropractic POV editors who attack everything chiropractic"? Your use of language seems faintly ridiculous. However, it might be better to be more specific how you are being harassed, and by whom. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Response by Bongomatic

I am not an expert on the WP:OUTING policy and if my edits are inconsistent with them, I am happy to have them oversighted. After I suggested on the talk page of Drsjpdc (talk · contribs) that he and Waynethegoblin (talk · contribs) were potentially involved in meatpuppetry in violation of the sockpuppetry policy, I received this message on my talk page that included significant personal details of the posting editor. That information when combined with widely available (Google searchable) information was sufficient to identify the editor. Without using names or providing any additional detail, I provided the nature of the connection between the two editors on the talk page of Drsjpdc, the possible "meatpuppet master", as part of the ongoing discussion. I have refactored my original comments and (as stated above) would be happy to have the original information oversighted. ^Bongo_matic 04:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

We have an anti-chiropractor cabal now? When did that happen? How do I get on the mailing list? Bongo, just because it's on google doesn't mean it should be on Wikipedia. That being said, nowhere in WP:OUTING does it say that claiming a familial link, with no other identifying information, constitutes outing. I'd say it's something of a grey area, and would advise you to excercise more caution in the future, but it hardly seems actionable. Drsjpdc, coming on AN/I and claiming to be the victim of a vast conspiracy seldom endears the editors here towards you. If there is ongoing disruptive editing by a particular editor, then provide diffs and we'll see if there is a problem that needs addressing. Otherwise, if you simply object to the content of an article, feel free to open an rfc on it, and uninvolved editors will take a look and see if there is in fact a problem. Try and be cool, collected, and polite when doing so, as your claim will get a great deal further. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Response by BullRangifer

I have always wondered why Stephen Press, DC wasn't blocked for his sockpuppetry at the last SPI. At that time no message was sent to him that he should change his behavior, and so it has been. (Well, he was told not to do it again, which is pretty lame. Socking is a blockable offense, and he should have been blocked!) Since then he has continued his constant promotion of himself and chiropractic, and it takes the constant vigilance and work of numerous editors to clean up his work to make it non-promotional and acceptable content. His sources are often unreliable, and his images almost always need to be deleted. Irritating! Yes. During the last SPI and even before there were a number of editors who noted and accused him of using Waynethegoblin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as a sockpuppet. He vehemently denied, and he never acknowledged any connection. (Meatpuppetry from family members and friends is strongly discouraged here.) It appeared that there was votestacking going on at an AfD, and so it appears to be happening again. Note that their editing histories here and at Press' wiki, it appears they are the same person. Look here and compare with the other identities Press uses there as the sysop of that wiki.

If Wayne isn't really a sock, then it's still meatpuppetry and he should have been open about the possibility and warned Wayne to back off to avoid causing problems. If I'm wrong, then I am truly sorry, but the suspicion is very logical, and since Press has been known to be deceptive before about the previous sock, it's hard to believe him now when he denies another sock accusation. Just on behavioral evidence alone, the suspicion is very strong, so a CU should be done to clear the air.

As regards what he terms me calling him a liar (I haven't used those words...), they are in connection with the fact that a CU at that SPI showed that he edited from the same IP as someone whom he claimed was another chiropractor and editor whose article he was creating, and who was now helping him. Well, Press lives in NJ and this other chiropractor lives in Arizona, about 3,000 miles away from each other. I asked him how this could be. How could they share the same IP, live so far from each other, and he just happened to be creating an article about this other chiropractor? Now if that's calling him a liar, obviously some type of deception is involved in the way he has denied the connection. That's not "slander", but a plain statement of deception that was exposed by the CU. Before the SPI, his denials were just as vehement as they are now, but after the SPI he has claimed that he did not "intend" to use a sock, but he admitted that it could appear that way. To use an analogy, I guess a woman could appear to be pregnant, but not really be pregnant, except that a sonogram (a CU check ;-) shows that she is pregnant. Okay, it wasn't her "intent" to be pregnant, nor her "intent" to deny being pregnant even when she knew she was, but unfortunately for her, she was proven to be pregnant, so she explains that she didn't "intend" to be pregant. This is the wacky world of editor Press. Any wonder why we have a hard time believing him? I'd like an honest explanation from his own mouth of how he could share the same IP as another editor, yet not "intend" to violate our policy against improper use of sock accounts. On top of that, he vehemently denied doing so, and didn't give any explanation before the CU, that might explain how it might appear to be a violation of socking. It appears that he only tells the truth in this type of situation after being forced to do so, and even then he doesn't admit wrongdoing, but only that he didn't "intend" to do anything wrong. That stinks. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There is more to this than meets the eye. Drsjpdc actually got Ktr101 to in good faith attempt to help him. Note that Ktr101 was the one who opened the first SPI which proved that Drsjpdc did engage in sockpuppetry. Ktr101 was so gracious that he offered to help Drsjpdc become a better editor if he promised to stop denying he had used a sock. Unfortunately Drsjpdc's "admission" is one of the most twisted examples of devious waffling and weaseling I've ever seen. Read this and judge whether he actually admits wrongdoing, or if he is just making excuses:

• "I have already said, when I tried to reconcile with the "anonymous number guy", who refused my rapprochement, that I can understand why it seemed that way to whomever "caught" that. And, I suppose in retrospect that it is possible that after all the facts were actually known, it may have been so technically, but I will maintain to my death that it was not intentionally so; and INTENT is really the crux of any such law. I have many times apologize for my initial ignorance when I first came online, and the errors I made then. I am not spending my life apologizing for stuff that I never intended to do incorrectly. I will apologize for any such perception of wrongdoing. I hope that you can accept this as sufficient (if you really want all of the facts, you have permission to call me; (my phone number shouldn't be hard to find from the external links), as it is from my heart. ^Д-р_{СДжП,ДС} 21:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC) Source

Here we have his claims about "intention", admission that the sockpuppetry "may have been so technically", and yet he denies any wrongdoing. That is no way to treat Ktr101, who was doing so much for him. HOW can this happen innocently? No, in this case intention means nothing. He has used several accounts here, one of which has been indef blocked for "Abusing multiple accounts or IPs", and another sock which is also indef blocked, yet he's still editing here. Since he has engaged in such deceptive behavior before, he can't be trusted here.

Now yet another sockpuppetry case has been opened. Whether it's actual sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, he has been deceptive in this case also, as borne out in my comments above about the User:Waynethegoblin account. His whole history here is about self-promotion, improper promotion of chiropractic while having a COI, and gross violations of NPOV, all while being deceptive. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I've done some poking around and find that his POV about Wikipedia and its editors is less than savory and is more evidence of his disdain for our NPOV policy. Note that his statements there are filled with conspiracy theory allegations that are libelous and far from accurate, so don't believe them. After all this time he still doesn't understand our sourcing policies and he misrepresents them there. No wonder he constantly needs a cleanup team following him around. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Leave me out of this, please. His writing and deleted contributions say volumes no other words could possibly convey. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 06:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right. The amount of AfDs and other deleted material does say volumes. His work here keeps lots of editors busy just cleaning up after him. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment from a third party

I have had a good deal of experience with drsjpdc, and have tried to help him as much as my time will allow. I have also had some experience with IP69... and find him to be less than civil at times. (Other examples here and here and here.) However, I believe drsjpdc's accusations here are unfounded as he seems to be the more guilty party in this dispute. What he perceives as a "systematic bias" against chiropractic is really just a wider world view than his own. As a chiropractor, he is deeply rooted in his profession and feels that that those issues and people that are notable to him should be notable to a wider audience. The problem is that the Wikipedia community holds chiropractic-related articles to the same standard as notability and verifiability as it does all other articles, so topics have to rise above being notable to the chiropractic community to the level of being notable to the community at large. (The same is true in any field.) I believe drsjpdc to be a very dedicated and passionate man, whose contributions to Wikipedia in the chiropractic area could be very valuable. However, I feel that his POV, which is so deeply entrenched that he is unable to even recognize it, makes his contributions questionable, and keeps too many editors busy policing his work. His insistence on the inclusion of his own autobiography over the advice of several editors, and his dismay at the direction the article took once it was released (even after a similar experience with his earlier Howard Press article) should indicate that he is not ready to approach the Wikipedia project with a neutral point of view. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Response by Ktr101

I have offered to help Drsjpdc with his article. A condition of this was to stop denying his sockpuppetry, which he did. I was alerted of a possible dislike of IP here. I have filed a quick sockpuppet report on his new sock, and I am done with helping him as I have told him that I would only support him when he renounced his sockpuppeting activities, which he has clearly resumed. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Kevin, I have added some comments above about how your good faith attempts to help him were treated so badly. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks a lot for doing that. Hopefully this can help in resolving the issue with him. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have started another sockpuppet investigation of this user here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Proofreader77 Established record of continuous unrelenting Disruptive Editing

Resolved

 – Editor might be annoying according to some, but nothing is immediately actionable by admins. Try WP:RFC/U for full community input, and the WP:HORSE is put away for the night — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bwilkins (talk • contribs) 10:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Standing on the fifth pillar WP:FIVE I remove the premature archiving of this ANI. Given the time I put in, and others and the prior ANIs before it, and the threats and notices being flaunted of future Admin actions, and the true problem being raised I strongly feel a full disposition need to be generated for this ANI. If ANI is going to fail, let it fail, that is at least a result. But archiving it away does nothing, moreover the residual effect is more harmful than allowing the ANI to run its course, and run its course for longer than 24 hours if necessary. My removing of this abortive archiving is proper, the 5th pillar supports --Tombaker321 (talk) 04:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

discussion top|Seriously. There is no hope of a satisfactory resolution to this. This has devolved into pointless sniping. I recommend everyone just chill for a few days and let this blow over. Closing it as nothing useful is going to come from this. --Jayron32 03:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)}}

Proofreader77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Proofreader77 has a long track record of disruptive editing, some of which have been actionable others which have simply frustrated other editors. Proofreader77 fancies himself as a rhetorical master, which most often translates to confusing communications, and wiki-lawyering on every matter. Proofreader77 tends to tag team with others in reverting and lobbying to administrators. Proofreader77 tends to not contribute to articles but instead acts as some sort of vigilante who reverts, removes, and debates content changes made by others.

Proofreader had administrative restriction placed on him as a result of this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive578#Roman_Polanski_interpreter_or_referee_needed

Hans Adler summarized Proofreader77 with a strong warning "I totally agree with your assessment, based on what I have seen so far and my own reactions to this editor's output. This seems to be headed to a siteban, but preceded by a lot of drama due to obvious good faith. In my opinion, if Proofreader77 is unwilling or unable to change their communication style, they will have to be excluded per WP:COMPETENCE. This editor appears to be a personified denial of service attack on Wikipedia's consensus building mechanism. Hans Adler 07:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)"

I raise this ANI because the evidence is clear his is unwilling to change his communications style.

Proofreader77 was told clearly about his problematic editing style by Gwen Gale after he asked, however instead of accepting the feedback he fought to show he was right. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive16#Loan_me_a_besom_:.29

When issues were raised about concerns about Proofreader here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=331489616#Roman_Polanski_article_again._Editor_refuses_to_stop_inserting_information_to_whitewash_case he proceeded to write Sonnets and argue his editing was appropriate.

Another last warning to Proofreader77 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_06#last_warning

Gwen Gales gives up on restrictions http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AProofreader77&action=historysubmit&diff=334252314&oldid=334170535

After his restrictions were lifted because the problems remained, but the restrictions were not curtailing his manners of interaction. Proofreader77 went about promoting himself on Jimbo Wales talk page SEE Oops: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_53#.22Disturbing.22_comments_:-.29

Next he begins to riddles Jimbo Wales TALK, see his flurry in response to Arbcon 2010 appointments http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_53#Arbcom_2010_appointments including a Sonnet.

Proofreader77 then takes WP:OWN of Jimbo Wales Talk page and says that other comments are "Out of Order" and a abuse of public space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_53#A_Two_Tier_Administration_System_and_division_of_responsibility_is_what_is_required

Proofreader again takes over Jimbo Wales page, to conduct some sort of policy polling, which is carried away in some sort of juvenile graffiti which Hans Alder already raises concerns about. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_53#Congrats Further making this abuse is Proofreader77 saying that after he donated to Wikipedia he is now afforded more rights than others.

Proofreader77 is blocked, but immediately defends his actions, showing total unwillingness to change his style of interaction as he has been repeatedly asked to do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_07#Postmortem_.28open_unsent_email_to_all_concerned.29

Proofreader77 is warned by an Administrator, to which he ignore the substance, and immediately "warns" the administrator for making false aspersions, he is then blocked by another Admin, to which Proofreader77 immediately appeals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77#User_talk:Jimbo_Wales

Proofreader77 uses the Administrative noticeboards as a playground, given his disruptions on the ANI boards such as http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=333062600#Proposed_admin_commandment:_Thou_shalt_not_block_..._for_being_mocked is it reasonable to expect that his actions on project pages is not being disrupted. If he does it on the ANI boards, and Jimbo Wales pages, you can imagine the difficulty of standard editors to his style. See how aggressively he attacks Ryulong

Following interactions on ANI, Proofreader wiki-lawyers the admins on their own pages. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Equazcion/Archive_4#Your_closure_of_an_ANI_thread Proofreader77 is even shown as taunting other editors.

I raised my concerns with Gwen Gale when she removed all the restrictions from Proofreader77. Here is some of her comments from this:

"When he asked me the other day that they be lifted, I did so more or less "knowing" he'd either settle down (which was my hope) or stir things up even more. As it happened, I'd say he ran amuck on Jimbo's talk page and elsewhere. I'd say PR knows what he's doing and could stop whenever he pleases, but I can't say I know why he's been so disruptive. I always found his way of putting things slightly unsettling, a bit time wasting, but harmlessly so, hence I more often than not didn't bother to read what he had to say too deeply. It was only in the last few months that I saw his talk page meanderings and sonnets grow out of hand. When I saw warnings from 2 other admins on his talk page last night, followed by a wanton taunt at Jimbo (which PR has already wikilawyered as having been a friendly go at a chat about fund raising), I blocked him. His unblock request was swiftly declined." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Gwen_Gale/archive16#Proofreader77....Again

Proofreader77 readily states he is edit warring.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_06#Self-notice_.28acknowledgement.29_of_2RR_on_Roman_Polanski

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_06#Roman_Polanski_3RR_acknowledgement_.28documentary_edits.29

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_07#Self_acknowledgment_of_3RR_on_Roman_Polanski

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_06#Self-acknowledgment_of_.5B3.5DRR_on_Roman_Polanski

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_06#Self_acknowledgment_of_3RR_on_WP:AN_reverting_improper_actions

When a RFC was opened for the Polanski article, on the topics which Proofreader has been edit warring on, he placed his views on, then Archived the Topic. Preventing outside eyes to review. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Polanski#RFC

---

These continuous and ongoing problems of Proofreader77's interactions persist. Administrative restrictions are bypassed. The problems of Proofreader77 continue, and are problematic for editors he interacts with. His style of communications is grounded in rhetoric, which is anything but productive for collaboration.

Prior administrative actions are incomplete, and the problem is only growing. I am requesting the restoral of the previous restrictions placed upon Proofreader77, because they were so willfully circumvented by Proofreader. I do not believe it is good policy to place restriction on, and remove them solely for their lack of ability to curtail the problems of this editor.

Otherwise, I am requesting a continuation of Admins to solve this problem, as their previous actions have failed. Proofreader77 remains a willful and constant disruption to content and other editors on Wikipedia. Prior actions of Administrators need to be followed up upon.

There needs to be a new admin response to Proofreader77's conduct. --Tombaker321 (talk) 08:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have informed them of this discussion. Please make sure that this happens in future, Tom. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 08:54, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Tombaker321 already did so one minute before you. Did you even look? Mathsci (talk) 09:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

His post is right above yours/ User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:05, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Mathsci, I did. Just a case of unfortunate timing. He must have posted it just after I looked at the talk page. Then when I clicked on new section it was there, but I didn't realise. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 09:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) Many of Proofreader77's contributions just seem to be trolling. He's also using his talk page to collect the reactions of others to his trolling with his own commentary here and here. Quite a lot of what he writes on WP seems quite hard to decipher. Mathsci (talk) 09:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• We all know a person or two like this in real life; someone who thinks they are far smarter/wittier/cooler then they actually are, and after awhile it becomes a sort of running gag or bad punchline. Sooner or later you just stop calling, stop inviting to the parties, etc... Think it's time to do the same here, as this is way to much disruption and intolerable behavior to allow to remain on the Wikipedia. my lone interaction with this person came at the above-mentioned ChildofMidnight RfC, where he tried to post some not-so-witty prose in support of CoM. Birds of a feather.... So if it is coming to it, block for a significant period of time. Tarc (talk) 14:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • No. See the section below about the original poster. We should not condone this sort of head hunting by a disruptive account. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Response by Proofreader77

No response warranted. (Wrong forum: improper use of ANI).

Note: Issues mentioned will be addressed in Arbcom case I am preparing for submission for consideration.
-- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 11:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

What Proofreader77 writes is incorrect. His actions can be discussed here. On the other hand, if he were to table a frivolous RfAr, that would obviously be regarded as disruption on a larger scale than previously seen. If the "documentation" in the links I gave to his talk page is for that purpose, for example, then he could probably expect further blocks. If he thinks there is some kind of dispute, he should probably mention what it is here and explain how he has tried to resolve it so far. Needless escalation to RfAr is usually not a good idea. Mathsci (talk) 11:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Did I read this right, or does this editor write sonnets on talk pages? Just when I thought I'd seen it all on Wikipedia... - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

He might, but that's not the point. The RfAr is probably about his recent blocks [48]. He did write a sonnet instead of a statement in the RfC/CoM. It was removed by various users. Mathsci (talk) 11:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Was it any good? Throwaway85 (talk) 12:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed Proofreader77 wrote a Sonnet with an overflow of more intelligible garble, as some sort of communication on Jimbo Wales talk page, which completely sidetracked and squashed the communication by the author.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_53#Arbcom_2010_appointments This is typical of Proofreader's ongoing communications on Wikipedia --Tombaker321 (talk) 13:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Objections by Mathsci noted. Response: Submission for RfAr is warranted by complex history of issues. No further comments by me (Proofreader77) here, but if there are editors who believe a "historical" pattern of editing is to be discussed in a forum for "Incidents," they may, of course, do as they wish.
  -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 11:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• The need for this to be addressed in this forum, is that we have been here before, and restrictions were placed by this administrative body. The tenants of those restriction were gamed and worked around, which caused the restrictions to be removed for pure frustration with your interactions. The level of disruptive editing went up significantly. All amounts of warnings given to Proofreader77 have been ignored and wiki-lawyered against. There is nothing that even suggests that Proofreader feels he has any issues or needs of improvement, even given the large amount of admin warnings.
• Most recently Proofreader77 manually archived a RFC on a topic, instead of letting feedback come in, which may be counter to your POV.
• You have a Yellow Banner Box, stating you have donated to Wikipedia, and then proceed to disparage two Administrators by name, this is a misuse of the banner and give some sort of false authority to your gripes against Gwen Gale and Prodego http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Proofreader77 see top
• In relationship to your abuse of Jimbo Wales talk page, you are now referencing how you made the LA newspaper for being a side-show character http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77#See_also Whether or not you are intending to create a tantrum to recreate some sort of personal press or notoriety is an Open Question. Using the donation request by Mr. Wales, then Jim Wales' own talk pages, then advertising about being abused by administrators for donating, then taking the entire affair to Arbitration....all seems like gorilla marketing by an "artist" Irregardless the Yellow donation banner has been improperly repurposed into something it was never intended to do.
• This is the correct spot to readdress the prior restrictions placed upon Proofreader77, the incidents are recent, and ongoing. Before this forum is bypassed, this forum would need to fail to resolve....I believe resolution is still available here. --Tombaker321 (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• I just don't get this report, Proofreader is under no restrictions at all, he has just come off a three day block and is back editing a little but he doesn't appear to have done anything worthy of this or any report since then in any way. I also find it very excessive that User Tombaker has now notified twenty one editors about this report? I don't think it is correct to do that, is it ok to mass notify editors like that? Off2riorob (talk) 14:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Indeed, the report and widespread notifications does appear to be a disproportionate response. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A. Off2riorob this report is of a continuous and continuing stream of disruptive editing as outlined above regarding your teammate Proofreader77. You have before spoken to Proofreader77's restrictions and the recent change in them. As far the list of editors notified, it was a set of editors that directly interacted with Proofreader77 in specific regards to the issues I have raised, notification to them was proper and required by etiquette and process. --Tombaker321 (talk) 15:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman's Proposal

• Proofreader77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Proofreader77 is hereby restricted from writing sonnets. They may however write haikus or limericks, but not in article space. Proofreader77 is also advised to avoid pissing off people who dislike P77's idiosyncratic form of humor. Please choose carefully which pages you post to. Certain pages, such as User talk:Jimbo Wales are honeypots for catching disruptive editors. Flippant comments there may cause people to think you are one. Additionally, please focus somewhat more on productive mainspace contributions, lest people draw the conclusion that you are only here for teh lulz. These restrictions and advices are not exhaustive or exclusive. Other administrators are free to modify, add to or change these conditions. Jehochman ^Brrr 14:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually the problems raised here, are greater than, a response to use haikus and limericks vs Sonnets. Here for the "lulz" is no justification in actions or acceptance of them (which is what your response conveys). Advising to "select pages to post", just pushes the known problem down to others. Which is why this is being raise now. The prior administrator actions were abandoned, to this result. --Tombaker321 (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Other than adding unwelcome humor or noise to some pages, did Proofreader77 damage any articles, or seriously hinder any community process? I think we need a measured response here. You can't seriously want to community ban somebody who's had exactly two short blocks on an account that's 18 months old, and has a record of many productive article edits.[49] Jehochman ^Brrr 15:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we should topic restrict him either. Let him know that the WP:OWN issues won't be tolerated. From there let him dig his own hole if he chooses. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Tossing this off with a chuckle and a wink is certainly not what I would expect. I have raised a fairly detailed list of the problematic issues. I honestly don't think you have read them, and you certainly are not wanting to address them beyond advising to use limericks instead of sonnets. I expect that the Admin noticeboard will refer to there prior actions, and restrictions, and the comments of what admins said then, and how the disruptive patterns persist and expand. --Tombaker321 (talk) 15:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I am much more concerned about your repeated WP:BLP violations at Roman Polanski. You appear to be head hunting an editor who was calling out your misdeeds. Jehochman ^Brrr 16:10, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Jehochman, it lovely that you are much more concerned with me...but why? Can you just admit you have no interest in looking at the substance of what is being raised on the ANI. That you are here for the lulz only. Limmerick instead of Sonnets...I get it...you think this is a joke.

I do not have repeated BLP violations you seek to condemn me with. I am sure you are aware that just because something is not flattering to a BLP, that it not reason for its omission from Wikipedia. Yes? I stand behind my edits, despite your knee-jerk assessments of them. If you want to address me, for your misrepresentations, do so. Find that content forum, I will stand behind my edits there. But its not proper to derail this ANI with bemusement. --Tombaker321 (talk) 16:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Addressing the type of problem Proofreader77 represents takes time. I think Jehochman's advice is fine, and forms the basis for further action if Proofreader doesn't quite get the hint. Proofreader77 needs to realise that Wikipedia is a serious project, not a forum. That doesn't mean all humor and idiosyncratic behavior is prohibited, but you build up some latitude by participating in other more useful ways. If Proofreader continues to spend most of his time building operas or Westerns or whatever in his userspace and making witty comments in projectspace, that problem can come back here for a more forceful solution. Nathan ^T 16:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with Proofreader -- or anyone -- writing sonnets on Talk pages; I trust everyone is capable of removing such contributions. Further, I am strongly dubious that anyone could effectively own Jimmy Wales' Talk page: there is strong evidence that he belongs to a powerful cabal at Wikipedia, which can effectively handle any such attempts.

That said, there are a number of points that need to be kept in mind concerning this case:

• As I understand it, Gwen Gale lifted the restrictions on Proofreader not to give him further freedom, or because he was innocent, but because he -- like all of us -- should follow the rules, which clearly forbid him from disruptive behavior. (If I'm wrong, Gwen, please correct me.)
• Proofreader does have a tendency to wikilawyer -- as exemplified above with his "Wrong forum: improper use of ANI" comment above. I should warn everyone that excessive wikilawyering on Wikipedia will result with sanctions for barratry -- er, I mean disruption.
• We all have better things to do than to discuss how to appropriately handle a disruptive editor, no matter how valuable her/his edits. Either the party concerned stops being disruptive (avoiding contentious subjects is one popular solution; another is staying away from the Admin Noticeboards), or ends up receiving an indef block.

I can't see that there is anything constructive that I can say about this matter. -- llywrch (talk) 17:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's look at the OP too

• Tombaker321 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Proofreader77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The Tombaker321 account appears to be a single purpose account for editing Roman Polanski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a highly contentious BLP. Could we have some additional eyes look at this account's activity and see if the above report is perhaps related?

• Proofreader77's activity there seems to be quite useful.[50][51]
• Tombaker321's, not so much. Here Tom edit wars to restore scandalous material to a BLP, sourced to an opinion piece in the LA Times.

I think this matter bears closer scrutiny. Perhaps Tombaker321 needs some sort of restrictions to prevent further egregious BLP violations, and maybe a checkuser to see if they match any of the other single purpose accounts or IPs that have been attacking the article. Jehochman ^Brrr 15:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Looking through this list] of contributions, I am pretty confident this ANI thread is a means of retaliation to eliminate an "opponent" in a content dispute. Additionally, there is a strong possibility that Tombaker321 has been engaging in violations of WP:SYN, WP:OR, and WP:BLP. Can some other uninvolved editors look into this and comment? Jehochman ^Brrr 15:56, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• Are you serious? Instead of looking at the merits of the issues raised, you pass off a joking "result" then when I say its insufficient, you want to turn this to me? Shoot the messenger AND ignore the message at the same time? If you want to raise concerns about me fine, do that independently instead of the retaliatory manner offer out now. The concerns I have raised about Proofreader77 are not content. Your umbrage at me is clearly content focused at best.

• Jehochman if you spent the time to read topic you would see...that I clearly reference Admin content that includes the historical interactions with Proofreader77 and myself. If you want to shoot the messenger do so in an independent topic, and don't conflate and obfuscate...its truly unprofessional, especially as scamper to list off violations you think I am engaging in. If you don't want to address what I raised about Proofreader77 ON ITS MERITS, then don't...but don't get your jollies by going after me, because I raised a problem to the Admin noticeboard. FWIW I stand behind my edits, and the Op-ed you reference is from the first party involved in the incident, not some conjecturing interloper --Tombaker321 (talk) 16:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

[limerick removed]

To be more direct about it, Tom, WP:BLP doesn't make exceptions for WP:IDONTLIKEHIM. Samantha Geier never had her day in court. Nobody remains a BLP forever: at some point it'll become legit to specify exactly what her allegations are, and the circumstances of why she never got her day in court will speak for themselves. Her letter to the editor of The New York Times would be much better to quote, though. It was more detailed. Now let it rest. Durova⁴⁰¹ 16:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

On the validity of the original complaint

Proofreader's antics are spread across many areas though, not just one article in which you point out he reverted some vandalism. The OP could turn out to be hagger for all I care; it does not diminish the validity of the filing. Tarc (talk) 16:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Since this has been brought up, I've watched Roman Polanski for a very long time. I think Tombaker321 has strayed beyond the bounds of BLP many times and I think Proofreader77's ways of trying to handle it have done more harm than help. The mix those two have brought in their back and forth has driven editors away from the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

So the best thing is to restrict the interaction between both of these editors? Proof is far from perfect, he has many issues he has recently paid the price for. Without furthur instances though those matter should be considered over and closed. We don't need to drag up every bit of dirty laundry we can find in hopes that someone will descecrate his userpage. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's resolve this with warnings on both sides. The BLP issue is more serious than Proofreader's quirky style. But a quirky tone doesn't match well with a hot button BLP issue...in this instance, not even one that's more than thirty years old. Durova⁴⁰¹ 16:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've always found Proofreader to be rather irritating. The sonnets were disconcerting even when I agreed with the points he was trying to make. It basically comes down to sarcasm and disrespect for your opponents in an argument. It's inflammatory and on contentious issues it always makes things worse. Singing your retort back at your opponent doesn't help in any situation. You might as well be laughing at them. I think the sonnet issue is more serious than the people responding here are taking it. If you ever have to be on the receiving end of it, or even have to deal with having someone backing up your argument with a sonnet, you'll see just how counter-collaborative it is. Talk pages are not for rhymes and riddles, or an outlet for creativity. Talk pages are for communicating as clearly and directly as possible, and that's all. We already have enough misunderstandings even when people are trying their best to do that. We don't need to make it worse by suddenly condoning the use of poetry in lieu of direct language for public collaborations. Equazcion ^(talk) 17:29, 13 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Better tell Newyorkbrad to stop supporting RFAs with poetry. ;) Seriously, do you really think the sonnet issue overwhelms the delicate BLP matter here? Durova⁴⁰¹ 18:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The complaint was about Proofreader's general demeanor. Maybe there's a BLP issue somewhere too, but I don't see the relevance. I'm commenting on what was originally brought here. If anything, yes, it would make it easier on everyone arguing any "hot-button" issue (or any serious issue), including BLP, if the participants would stick to non-poetic forms of argument. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:07, 13 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Durova, after your sonnet, my take away is that you enjoy as you say Proofreader77's quirky style, and that is the only take away.

Gwen Gale, I am unsure of what BLP issues you have with my actions in Polanski, but I think your remarks about Proofreader77 in the past have been very clear. The fact that you gave up, and removed Proofreader77s restrictions because you felt them to be not effective, remains a problem. The original ANI had an outcome that generated restrictions, those restrictions had goals and consequences. When they were removed Proofreader77 disruptive editing expanded greatly. I don't know if you have issue with the Donation Banner that features a slighting of both you and your administrator role at the top of Proofreader77 page, but I can say I think it weakens the fabric of Wikipedia. Stepping this to be a side vs side argument is a disservice as well, Proofreader77s conduct is over many areas of Wikipedia and not just with me.

Hell In A Bucket, I am aware of your closeness with Proofreader77. Again the problem is what is outlined above. See the remarks by Hans Alder and Gwen Gale that are bolded.

Yes it may be easier to kick this can down the road and hope that someone else will address it, I do not think that is fair. Proofreader77 has a constant and unrelenting disruptive impact. This is beyond a POV content issue. There is ample statements by others showing the problems with Proofreader77....I don't think it should just be passed away, and left to other hands to address. --Tombaker321 (talk) 18:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Durova's poem is a limerick, not a sonnet. You can tell by the AABBA rhyming pattern, the rhythm, which is not iambic pentameter, and that it has five lines, not fourteen. I've permitted limericks and haikus because they are shorter, and thus less disruptive to the flow of a discussion. Jehochman ^Brrr 18:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Only at Wikipedia would an administrator attempt to assert jurisdiction over the relative merits of sonnets and limericks at a discussion of scurrilous content at Roman Polanski's biography. Will the encore to this be an executive declaration whether Sophocles or Shakespeare was the better playwright? Durova⁴⁰¹ 18:53, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've been alerted to Tom Baker's contribs before, and they do seem strange. If you're at all familiar with some of the Polanski article controversy you'll know that this is at least interesting. However, even if there is a problem with the complainant, that doesn't mean his complaint isn't valid. Pretend it's me who brought the ANI originally if you like. Does it really matter? There is a general problem with Proofreader's behavior, of which this BLP issue is just a tangent. Proofreader will cause further inflammation on this and other issues if he continues with this form of communication. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:16, 13 Jan 2010 (UTC)

• • redent ... With respect to link of "unlawful sex with a minor" the legal papers use this as terminology, including the filings of Polanski's own lawyers. The specific law at issue is specific to minors, which if you think about it is the only thing that makes sex unlawful, in the absence of other conditions. I provided links to the specific law and its language when the redirect and language was used by Polanski's lawyers, and am able to reconstruct same. Equazcion, I very much appreciate your consideration of the case at hand, as presented, rather than limiting this to a single content page. --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:POETRYISALWAYSWRONG. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

That essay is 14 minutes old. But let's hope Proofreader gets the message about tailoring one's style to the audience. Durova⁴⁰¹ 18:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Poetry is always wrong in a serious argument where everyone is already on-edge. Responding with poetry in that instance comes off as flippant disregard. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:28, 13 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Apologies in that case. If a warning isn't sufficient we can structure restrictions for bad poetry. Limit him to Petrarchan sonnets with three hour blocks for masculine rhyme, twenty-four hours for trochaic meter, and indef for rhyming "kiss" with "bliss". Durova⁴⁰¹ 00:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

To Tombaker, if that's the only takeaway then you're likely to return to this board and get page banned for WP:BLP and several other serious policy violations. Proofreader's interactional style is relatively minor by comparison. I've recommended a warning principally because s/he took it into a hot button issue where it muddied the waters. If you straighten up the BLP issue then come to my user talk later and we'll discuss the difference between limericks and sonnets. Durova⁴⁰¹ 18:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Durova, "that" is my take away from what your comments were including your Limerick, I responded to others beyond you. If your comments had any significance or relationship to the topic, it is and remains lost on me. Whatever you want to assert regarding BLP is ill-defined and not communicated. I understand that you enjoy Proofreader's quirky style. But suggesting with what has been brought here and detailed out, to this ANI, is a case of "two sides" is wrong. While I notice your chest thumping and bolstering that I will return to this forum and get banned for serious violation and such....again, all of that does not hold water. Durova, if I may can I request that you have some attempt to stay on topic, or give fully thought out remarks. Thanks --Tombaker321 (talk) 01:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Initiation of a noticeboard thread does not entitle an editor to dictate its scope. One dynamic that occurs with regularity at Wikipedian noticeboards is that the primary aggressor in a dispute starts a complaint against the other party in an attempt to gain tactical advantage. That tends to backfire. We even have an essay for the phenomenon: WP:PLAXICO. Jehochman offered evidence that this was such an instance and sought community input; I agreed. If you wish to seek further input on the BLP issue it would be a good idea to consult with other editors at the article talk page. Specific questions that remain unresolved can go to the biographies of living persons noticeboard. Durova⁴⁰¹ 02:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am unclear on how the statements of the very person that Polanski plead guilty to having sex with while she was 13, is somehow not relevant to a topic that relates directly to her and Polanski...and this is the evidence offered? As Proofreader77 and his tag team have gone about bringing me to prior ANI, it kinda messes up the primary aggressor theory. Nonetheless, what is raised here is NOT a content dispute. If something of mine is ever raised to a BLP noticeboard, I will surely address it there, as of now, its never happened. The exposure of sunlight does not trouble me --Tombaker321 (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Jehoch and Durova: I don't think I need to tell you this, but the differences between the poems that technically either make them sonnets or limmericks or whozees or crumpets is really completely irrelevant to the issue. Long or short or whatever, poetry, while great where appropriate), is a way of communicating in a less-than-direct way. That's what makes it bad for serious issues. If this is to be resolved with a warning, I'm not sure what warning would help. Open to suggestions. (Ps. Durova, I've always found it to be insensitive to engage in the thing being complained about in order to show you disagree with the complaint, and no it doesn't matter that yours was a "limmerick" rather than a "sonnet".) Equazcion ^(talk) 18:47, 13 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Limerick has one "m", not two. How do you like my warnings below? Either they will be heeded, or next time the outcomes will be less friendly. Jehochman ^Brrr 18:51, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks good to me. And I like my spelling better. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:56, 13 Jan 2010 (UTC)

To sum up:

• Proofreader77 is warned to be earnest when dealing with serious matters, such as sensitive WP:BLP articles, and not to overdo the merrimaking. (As an example, the humor account User:Bishzilla normally posted in dino-speak, but she somehow switched to plain English when giving warnings to newcomers, thus avoiding the risk of confusion.) Know when clear communication is essential. Jehochman ^Brrr 18:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
• To Tombaker321, please edit something besides Roman Polanksi to learn how Wikipedia works, or else you may wind up with a topic ban or site ban for repeated biography of living persons errors. WP:BLP is a very serious policy which tends to be enforced strenuously with minimal warnings. You're fully on notice now. Jehochman ^Brrr 18:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks fine. Needs one amendment. Jehochman is warned against suggesting limericks in the context of BLP discussions. Now I'll go blank my limerick before he notices the double entendre. Durova⁴⁰¹ 19:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

You're behind, Mae West. I already noticed. Jehochman ^Brrr 20:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

[haiku comment] Would the New York Times / say there are too many words^(5000+) / in this ANI? ^;^ Proofreader77 ^(interact) 20:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(Psst...your second line has nine syllables...) HalfShadow 20:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(Are you counting the superscript parenthetical?!? That doesn't count!) LoL -- Proofreader77 ^(interact) 20:35, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

"Get thee behind me, Satan." Durova⁴⁰¹ 21:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

If Proofreader77 does in due course present his threatened RfAr, hopefully certain administrators will stop using WP:ANI as some kind of cheap slapstick comedy. Mathsci (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I saw that more as Peter Sellers than Mack Sennett. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Was trying for Dorothy Parker. Mabel Normand would be hard to emulate in text. Although there's the intriguing suggestion that certain admins act like Keystone Cops... Durova⁴⁰¹ 23:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC) non-admin ducks and runs

I happen to have a book Mabel once owned, with her margin notes and underlinings in red pencil and all, she was quite the reader after she and Mack broke up :) Gwen Gale (talk) 00:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you saying that I'm like Peter Sellers as Merkin Muffley, or as Inspector Clouseau? Jehochman ^Brrr 04:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Uhh...Are the grown-ups coming soon? --Tombaker321 (talk) 06:51, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Opposition to Proposed Result and treatement of ANI forums as "a Joke"

1. The resolution by Jehochman for Proofreader77 is laced with unrelated garble such as "dino-speak" It does not address any of the points raised, and simple ignores the prior ANI forum results.

2. Jehochman is in no uncertain terms flaunting and abusing his administrative privileges, by threatening the OP with a topic ban or site ban to Tombaker321 for the act of raising an issue to the ANI forum. Whatever BLP errors Jehochman is referring to, remains unstated. His refocusing of this ANI topic to be an assessment of my editorial content is the wrong thing to do. It is also an empty charge used solely to intimidate people who raise up issues for Admin review. Jehochman's initial response to this ANI was some sort of joke about restricting Proofreader77 content to only Limericks. Jehochman is treating this entire ANI as a joke, to which others happily followed down the path. Treating the ANI process as a jokefeast, and using it as means of intimidation is simply an abuse of process and privilege. Jehochman zealously proclaims that I am "fully on notice now", to what am I on full notice of, to what content or edits am I so treated with promises of consequences. How are the items raised treated with any degree of review? Is ANI a serious process?

3. There is a previous ANI which is the cause of this current ANI being created. That ANI resulted in the following restrictions of Proofreader http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_06#restrictions_widened Proofreader as shown in the original post has consistently broken these rules and/or gamed them and worked around them. As Gwen Gale statements readily show.

4. Gwen Gales was gamed and baited and ultimately frustrated enough by Proofreader77 to simply give up the previous ANI actions, even though she clearly states that problems continue with Proofreader77. Gwen Gale's name is hung up as a trophy on Proofreaders User page within the Wiki-Donation stamp. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Proofreader77 I certainly do think this an abuse of the Wiki-stamp, especially considering Proofreader77 is using that donation to suggest he has better access to Wikipedia, pay to play.

5. Gwen Gale has improperly given up on a problem, as opposed to handing it off to others to resolve. The restrictions were to be lifted by a consensus, where as she did it unilaterally. While I appreciate her frustration with Proofreader77, it is little help remove the restrictions out of personal convenience. Gwen should have redeposited the issue to ANI and let it to other Admins.

6. Gwen Gale give Proofreader77 a LAST WARNING http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Proofreader77/Archive_06#last_warning to which Proofreader77 promises and begins documentation for a full ARBCOM request.

7. It is after this LAST WARNING that the restrictions of Proofreader77 are removed, without consensus. Proofreader77 treats this win-fall of removed restriction without any change in conduct....how? Proofreader77 goes about defacing Jimbo Wales page, to which he is blocked for.

This is how we are here, this is why I brought this to ANI. The previous ANI, the restriction, the continued conduct, the removal of restriction, and then the abundant disruptive editing that resulted afterwards. This ANI is not, and should not, be treated as a referendum of content disputes on Polanski, as is the offered resolution.

There needs to be a continuum of Admin actions, to which bureaucratic memory is not erased out of convenience. If the ANI forum has become just a figurehead function, and that issues raised are not considered, and that this is forum is just a seat at a bar, with the regulars joking about new patrons coming in....well just say that. At this point I still expect reasonable consideration and treatment of what has been brought to ANI. The proposed disposition is a failure for all of the above. The entire treatment of this ANI as a joke is shameful (with exceptions to editors treating it with due diligence). Do I have a right to say this, or will selective admins toss out promises of sitebans and blocks. I will see, however I stand by my edits and content contributions. --Tombaker321 (talk) 03:01, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Tombaker, you are rapidly approaching WP:HORSE territory. Your own actions--as I have reviewed them as well as Proofreader's--are very far from blameless indeed, and frankly, seem far more actionable than any of the issues you've cited against Proofreader. We get it. You don't like the answer you've gotten. Raising the question again and again, when you don't like the answer, is NOT a recipe for getting the answer overturned; it is a recipe for having your OWN actions scrutinized by a group of people who, even those who HAD been inclined to help you, are now beginning to find your unwarranted persistence tiresome. Now. Is that free enough of "unrelated garble" that it breaks through this veil of misguided perseveration which you have brought to this discussion? GJC 03:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am trying to get this Admin forum to review the substance of the ANI topic. What I have raised is not a content dispute, which you and others seem to want to recraft it. I find it troubling to have an axe of ramifications held over my head, for content that is not part of this ANI, and to which remains entirely an unsubstantiated charge with no specifics. If this were a content forum I would be happy to address your content concerns, but its not. I stand behind my contributions and edits.

Pushing this ANI to an oversimplification framed as a "content dispute"...serves nothing. And speaking to process, Proofreader77 archived a RFC without justification because he disagreed with it. Closing of RFC by Proofreader77 is an example of what I would like this ANI to address. Asking for this ANI to function as intended without reducing it to be a big joke is something I remain seeking.--Tombaker321 (talk) 04:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

You mistake me, I'm afraid. I am not conflating this into a content dispute. This is what I am saying: 1. Your concerns re: the behavior of Proofreader77 have been noted; however, other admins--not just Jehochman--have found that they require no administrative intervention at this time. 2. Your continued repetition of these concerns, along with your accusations of admin abuse, have led other admins--not just Jehochman--to examine your own conduct, particularly in regards to your interaction with Proofreader77. In examining those interactions, concerns of a more-serious sort have been discovered re: your interpretation of our BLP policy. 3. Simply raising the same concern again and again is not going to change admins' judgement re: Proofreader77; however, the more admins that examine your interactions, the more likely you are to encounter one who is NOT willing to give your BLP violations a pass for the moment.

Again: There is no administrative nor community consensus for action to be taken against Proofreader77 at this time. Absent compelling new information, this outcome will not change; what WILL change will be the degree of patience shown by the admins and the community toward your repeated posting of these concerns. Whether you accept this advice or not is up to you; I urge you to consider it carefully, however. GJC 05:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As frankly as possible, what are these BLP problems of mine??? Can I say put up or shut up, and still live to see another day, is that politically correct enough while in the company of admins? Jehochman deleted content of Proofreader77 on this forum so other admins would not read them....it is what it is..now you see it now you don't. I see no consensus of any action in this ANI, and I see more views than just Jehochman's proposed result. Jehochman's proposal did receive a few chuckles from others, so I guess its in the lead. But that was prior to Jehochman went about deleting. My expectation is that this ANI can close this topic with an actual disposition, as opposed to simply passing the buck and closing it without. I raised this topic because of the restriction being removed by single admin for which the ANI determined were necessary, the conduct problem has only grown since, and Gwen Gale states that. If this ANI can not come up with a resolution on the merits for the well documented disruptive pattern of Proofreader77, it is something that I need to know. And yes, it will be a referendum on the competence of the ANI process as a whole. --Tombaker321 (talk) 06:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Jehochman's deletion (and for the record, it is "deletion" in the singular--he deleted exactly one segment of the discussion)--the material he deleted was a humorous aside between Proofreader77 and HalfShadow. Regardless of your assertion that this is somehow a nefarious plot to undermine the integrity of this report, if you would first assume good faith and second, if you would attend to the edit summary Jehochman provided, you would see that this was an effort to remove irrelevant chatter from the conversation, probably in an effort to reduce the ponderous length of this report.

As for your other questions: Your efforts to include BLP violations on the Roman Polanski article have been documented by several editors and admins. In the interest of thoroughness I'll gladly provide diffs, but not til tomorrow, as it's quite late here in Chicago. And finally, re: the "actual disposition" for this AN/I report--"No administrative attention required" is a perfectly valid disposition, and unless I'm completely blind to consensus here, it seems to be where this AN/I complaint is heading. You can consider this a referendum on the competence of AN/I, I suppose, but it appears it will be a referendum of one. GJC 08:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Heavy handed abuse by Jehochman

a. I am dumbfounded by this. Jehochman is proposing a result for this ANI. The topic is not content, but the interaction and disruptive editing and interactions of Proofreader77.

b. Proofreader77 comments on this ANI topic, in a style which is exactly what is being raised by myself and others as a problematic approach to collaboration on Wikipedia.

c. Seemingly Jehochman does not think Proofreader77's remarks as being supportive of his result that Jehochman is advocating....

d. So Jehochman goes about deleting the contribution of Proofreader77 by himself, on his own accord.

e. Removing from view, sweeping under the rug, manipulating the data of Proofreader77 comments here is highly inappropriate, and removes the content away from all other Admins who may be trying to disposition and draw true consensus result.

f. Jehochman has simply gone about fudging the data, to get the result he wants.

g. Jehochman has made the decisions for other editor and admins of what they should or not see, even when the remarks he deletes are truly germane to the ANI in process.

h. I have restored the information Jehochman deleted, which can also be viewed here.

i. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=337667316

Do I have to shoot myself in the leg to get a fair review of an ANI? --Tombaker321 (talk) 03:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No... but by pursuing this, against the advice of a number of editors, you are most definitely shooting yourself in the foot. It's unfortunate that you feel you've not had a fair treatment, and although I don't agree with you, to some extent I understand why: you brought a genuine concern to ANI and the response has taken a direction other than the one you had hoped for (and in places given the impression that your concern was being treated in a light-hearted manner). However, reading the above thread I think Jechoman has been trying to save both you and Proofreader77 from yourselves. As Durova notes, once an issue is brought to ANI the history of all parties is routinely examined, and yours has apparently thrown up content issues that overshadow Proofreader77's behavioural issues. If we take further action against Proofreader77 then we must also examine the BLP concerns more closely, and this is unlikely to turn out well for you. Arguing that this isn't relevant to the original purpose of your complaint won't hold water - ANI can be a dangerous place to post to if the complainant is also at fault, and admins tend to define their own scope for investigations regardless of the initial issue. By issuing clear warnings to both you and Proofreader77, Jechoman is offering both of you a way out of this dispute without admin action needing to be taken. Proofreader77 should be left in no doubt that flippant talkpage behaviour will attract sanctions, and community patience is not inexhaustible. You need to take notice of Jechoman's BLP warning above, and it would also be helpful if you could assume that commenters have been trying to work in the best interest of both parties here instead of further damaging your cause by jumping to conclusions of corruption and dishonesty. EyeSerene^talk 09:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

User:Nomoteticus

This appears to be a sleeper sockpuppet of a banned or topic banned Romanian user, who is inserting unreferenced BLP material, and recreating articles that fail WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. Started editing in 2005, no edits for 5 years, and now returned. See Special:Contributions/Nomoteticus. Pcap ping 16:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that he uses a static IP address in Romania: 89.36.62.72 (ASSIGNED PA). Pcap ping 16:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Concerns with copyright, admin user

Resolved

 – Admin concerned has resigned. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 11:18, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

If this were not an admin, I'd handle this on my own with a block issued for repeated copyright violations and a WP:CCI, but under the circumstances I felt more eyes would be appropriate. The long story (and it is a long story, with diffs) is at User_talk:Richardshusr#Copyright_concerns. The short story:

• In March, 2009, I responded to a WP:CP listing involving a 2007 copyvio by Richardshusr. See here. I reminded of copyright policy at that time.
• Today, another CP listing leads me to discover that in July, 2009, he made a series of edits pasting content into Catholic sexual abuse scandal in the United States. Some of this is simply too closely paraphrase, but there were multiple paragraphs copied verbatim (or nearly so) from [52]. See [53].
• In response to my note, he acknowledges copyvio.

My concern is that this issue may be much larger and that many of this contributor's text contributions may be pasted from previously published sources, without regard for copyright. CorenSearchBot has picked up several problems, I have documented more at his talk page, including noting sentences and paragraphs copied with minimal or no alterations on January 10th and January 8th. (Specific examples at his talk page.)

I think some action is necessary to prevent the risk of ongoing copyright violations and to facilitate investigation into past edits. My note in March doesn’t seem to have helped the situation; nor do CorenSearchBot’s several notices. As an admin, Richardshusr should have already been well aware of WP:C and should know that he can't copy text from previously published sources that are not public domain or licensed compatibly unless he does so in accordance with WP:NFC. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:58, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Serial copyvios by an admin? I'm shocked, shocked i tell you!Bali ultimate (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Richardshusr is making incremental changes to fix the issue, so I would not be willing to block here. However, I believe that violations of the copyright policy – probably one of the two most important ones on the project (BLP being the other) – is fundamentally incompatible with adminship. Administrators are supposed to uphold policy and retain the trust of the community. These incidents show that Richard has not done either. Richard, I would ask you to resign your admin bit and fix the copyvio issues that Moonriddengirl pointed out. NW (Talk) 17:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I have no good defense here except to admit the copyvios and assert my willingness to fix the past copyvios and do better in the future. If this is not enough, those who wish me to resign my admin bit are welcome to start a section on my Talk Page which I will take under advisement. I don't remember if I put myself under the list of "admins open to recall" but I will consider doing so resigning my admin bit if there are enough requests to do so. ("Enough" being, I guess, a number that I will determine unless someone wants to take this to ARBCOM) --Richard S (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I second the motion that you should resign. You really shouldn't need to be asked. You repeatedly plagiarized, one of the worst things you can do in this environment. I have no confidence or trust in you as a consequence. Arbcom? What a waste of time. "Enough" requests (definition of "enough" to be determined by you later) on your talk page? No. Do the right thing, take responsibility for your actions and recognize they disqualify you from holding a position of higher authority.Bali ultimate (talk) 18:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've suggested at his talk page that resignation is probably best, unless there's a good reason for the copying. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:17, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

A bit harsh... if he has stopped and we monitor over a month, then sounds like the problem is resolved. Also, he will need to find all plagiarised material and excise from the articles. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:24, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not raising this from concerns about plagiarism; I'm concerned with copyright violations. I think at minimum we should be able to expect our administrators to refrain from violating our copyright policy, which is mandated by the Foundation. At the bottom of every edit screen, it says, "All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it." If we can't expect administrators to abide by that, how we can expect anyone to? Particularly when he was reminded of policy a relatively short time before an egregious violation, pasting multiple paragraphs from a copyrighted source. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This is correct. We are tough on editors who do this, we need to be particularly tough on Administrators. I've posted to his talk page asking him to resign. Dougweller (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

He should resign. That is not about some ancient edits but some of the copyvio's only happened three days ago. Garion96 (talk) 22:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Resignation would be appropriate. Durova⁴⁰¹ 22:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with LessHeard vanU's reasoning on Richardshusr's talk page: resignation is possibly best right now. Once everything has been cleaned up and trust restored, the mop might well be in reach again. - Pointillist (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

OK... I think I've heard from "enough" users. Here is my request to have my admin privileges removed. --Richard S (talk) 05:42, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I know this must have been a difficult decision for you, and I sympathize. Perhaps in a few months, after this has blown over and the copyright issues are fixed, you would be willing to run again at RfA? NW (Talk) 10:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That Richard has voluntarily and graciously resigned his adminship speaks volumes to his character. I only hope that we haven't scared off a decent editor. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Unsourced title change

The user User:Radiojon moved the Frankenhole (TV series) page to Mary Shelley's Frankenhole without providing any source to support the name change [54]. A subsequent edit has been made so my attempt to undo that edit didn't work so if any admins can revert this it will be appreciated. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 17:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, he seems to be correct. "Well, first of all, I changed the name from “Frankenhole” to “Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenhole’” which I think took it from crappy title to the best title ever.". This is from November 19th, so... HalfShadow 17:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

In that case I'll put that link into the article. That would be the second time they changed the name of that upcoming series. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 18:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note on this. I read this very quickly (and without any caffeine in my system) and tried to "fix " that by removing the redirect and copying the talk page and the article over. I caught my mistake and reversed it.

My bad!!!! That won't happen again! _{Naluboutes,Nalubotes}^{Aeria Gloris,Aeria Gloris} 14:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User Nicholas-Ball-Wiki making violent theats towards me and vandalizing my talk page

Resolved

 – WP is not Therapy. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Can wikipeida please try to prevent which I feel is a urgent matter involveing User Nicholas-Ball-Wiki as he(I know of him) is making violent theats towards me and vandalizing my talk page[55] can. Can the wikipeida community please try to stop this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephen-Lord-Wiki (talk • contribs) 17:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC) Stephen-Lord-Wiki (talk) 17:28, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Is he sitting beside you, or two rows back and to the right? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an open and shut case; just give him the money. You only have a couple of days left so it may be best to stop trolling and go earn some cash! raseaC^{talk to me} 17:46, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

It's your debt, you sort it out. Or you could ask the government for a bailout, that seems to work a lot these days. Canterbury Tail talk 17:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I would think that two famous actors wouldn't need Wikipedia to resolve their money problems! AnemoneProjectors (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I, for one, am proud that I missed that! raseaC^{talk to me} 18:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Truly bizarre behaviour. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:27, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

SPI case filed. Marked resolved. DNFTT. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

They gawn. –MuZemike 03:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Question about blocking warning on IP page

I apologize if this is not the right place to ask this question, but I am wondering about the warning that recently appeared on the IP userpage from my current IP address, 65.96.161.79. The warning threatens that "In the event of persistent vandalism from this address, efforts may be made to contact Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc NEW-ENGLAND to report abuse... If you are an unregistered user operating from this address, note that it is possible for the owner of the IP, Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc NEW-ENGLAND, to determine who was making contributions from this address at a given time... If you are the owner of this address responding to reports of inappropriate conduct from this address, you may find the contributions history and block log for this address helpful. Please feel free to contact any administrator who has blocked this address with questions (blocking admins will be listed in the block log)."

There are less than two dozen edits from this IP address, over a period of six months. As far as I can tell, the vast majority of edits have been made to talk pages, and while some of the posted arguments are longer than most posts, they have not attacked other users, been off-topic, or vandalized anything. In the few times that I have actually edited an article, I have placed an explanation on the talk page, since I know that anonymous users tend to be reverted these days randomly, unless edits are justified. Again, as far as I know, those contributions have been received positively, and in fact have sometimes responded to an issue already raised on the talk page of the article.

Basically, I was a rather active (registered) contributor to Wikipedia about five years ago, but left because of harassment and dealing with editors who already back then seemed to have staked out a claim on certain topic areas, and new contributions were criticized, debated endlessly, or viewed with suspicion. I have better things to do with my time than to deal with such petty internal squabbles, so I left. I still use Wikipedia sometimes, and when I see a problem, I sometimes put a note on the talk page. When I see that other users have already mentioned it on the talk page, I have made a couple actual edits.

And then this warning shows up for my IP address, which sounds like I'm being accused of vandalism or inappropriate conduct or something... along with a warning that my ISP could be contacted to inform them of my "abuse." Yet there is no explanation for why such a warning appeared. If there is something I've done wrong, I believe the blocking policy generally requires that I be informed. Could I ask what I've done wrong?

If, on the other hand, this is just some generic warning that is triggered when an anonymous IP makes more than 20 edits or something, it strikes me as incredibly draconian-sounding. The mentioning of "persistent vandalism," "abuse," and "reports of inappropriate conduct," implies that at least some such action has already taken place. Yet there is no explanation of what that action was. If nothing has been done wrong, there should at least be an explanation or disclaimer (or a link to one) that explains that this is an automatically-generated message and is just a general warning against abuse. But if there is something wrong with the edits that have been made, there should be a clear message explaining that.

Thank you for your time and attention to this matter. 65.96.161.79 (talk) 19:11, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The shared IP note should not have been placed. They are typically only placed for problem IPs, and your IP does not appear to such. I've deleted the page. Sorry for the inconvenience. –xeno^talk 19:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I've left the user a message instructing them on the proper usage of the {{whois}} template and also nuked all the IP talk pages they created contrary to the same. –xeno^talk 19:21, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much, xeno. I appreciate your prompt response. 65.96.161.79 (talk) 19:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I seem to recall that I was concerned about a block of another IP address the other day. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive590#Legal threat by IP editor, but I was assured that the IP addresses for ComCast don't change... anyone able to tell me if I'm missing something? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 21:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what relevance that has. –xeno^talk 13:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Mattmartinelli8

The above user created a promotional page about the company for which they work for on their user page. When I noticed this, I left a message at their talk page, explaining CoI etc, and asking them to remove the content.

When they continued editing it, I nominated it for Speedy Deletion.

They proceeded to remove the SD tag three times, and got warnings for that from me after I restored the tag. The user page was deleted last night. (They also created a subpage of the same kind of material, which was also deleted).

They have now started to re-create the page. Could an admin look at this, and consider blocking them? -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:20, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

• The user has been notified of this thread on their talk page. -- PhantomSteve/talk|contribs\ 19:23, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The editor was given a final warning about creating inappropriate pages, and hasn't done so yet. If they were to do so after the final warning I would consider a block. -- Atama頭 00:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

IP concerns at ongoing AFD

Three editors have expressed concerns about a suspicious contribution by an IP (Special:Contributions/81.156.64.209) in the first few comments of the ongoing Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hari_Dhillon. Is there anything to be worried about here, and can something be done about it before the AFD closes? Holly25 (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP only made a single comment a week ago. There'd be no benefit to taking action on the IP, even if it's comment had been problematic. As to within the AFD itself, any admin closing it will certainly judge the comment on it's merit. As it's thin in any policy, no doubt the admin will focus on the more substantial debate in the discussion.--Cube lurker (talk) 21:42, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

But if the IP's connected to the first-commenting user (which seems to be the concern), wouldn't that be a problem? The IP only made one comment, but the other user has quite a few. If it's a dynamic IP there might be other problematic comments, so would it not justify checking on the IP to see if it's connected to a user account? Holly25 (talk) 22:01, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually that sort of thing is moderately common for AFDs. Unfortunately for them, IP votes are generally given lesser value because of this. HalfShadow 22:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Diane Leek

I don't know anything about the subject of this article or the history of it, but it appears that Atama deleted an article about a politician named Diane Leek back in November (!) and someone just can't let it go. Earlier this morning I encountered 195.166.131.85 making some point-y and incorrectly formatted deletion nominations on other British politicians. At first I thought an IP was attempting to nominate the article in good faith (again, I don't know anything about the subject), but after looking at the recent history of both Jackie Drayton and Roger Davison, I figured someone was screwing around. After several warnings, I received this lovely legal threat on my talk page which has yet to be retracted. I responded (albeit in not the most civil way) that I'm not an admin, I didn't delete the damn article, and to just stop incorrectly nominating articles. I don't know if they missed my terse message or just have a case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, but I got this as a response. I went to bed shortly after leaving my last message to the IP and woke up to find this from a "new" user, User:Cornilicious, on my talk page. They've stopped for now, but Cornilicious started right back up with the point-y nominations and informed the user that created Diane Leeks that people are vandalizing "their" articles. Ordinarily I'd ignore the legal threat and disruptive behavior as a one-off kind of thing, but considering the legal threat is still out there and another (now blocked) IP started this stuff up yesterday, I'm going to guess this won't let up anytime soon. Pinkadelica^♣ 21:55, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

The IP/Cornilicious should have just talked to me. It was deleted via PROD, which means it was an uncontested and uncontroversial deletion that can be restored by request from anyone who wants it restored, no discussion needed. So much drama over nothing. I'd have no problems restoring it if I was sure this was a good faith request. By the way, although the deletion happened a while ago, I vaguely recall doing a quick search for coverage of Diane Leek and didn't find enough to convince me that the proposed deletion was valid and the subject didn't meet our notability standards. So nothing untoward happened. -- Atama頭 22:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to add, the person who proposed the article for deletion had left this message on the talk page of the Diane Leek article, explaining the proposed deletion:

I examined this article which has remained "unpatrolled" for a month; it seems to me to be a very borderline case of notability and I find the lack of reliable sources quite remarkable. Her tenure as mayor is hardly mentioned at all (which to me is about the only reason she would meet WP:POLITICIAN), either in the article or in the press sources, and my brief search revealed nothing that added any notability. If someone wants to work on this article to improve it, taking out the more self-promotional aspects and adding some solid references, I would welcome that.

My own search confirmed this, which was why I deleted it. -- Atama頭 23:03, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Jgharston (talk · contribs) and Cornilicious (talk · contribs) might be the same person; it's also possible they're friends or otherwise know each other outside Wikipedia. I've left involved users/IPs notes advising them of WP:WMD. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I advised the IP to contact Atama or WP:Deletion review after they claimed it was my responsibility to own up to something or other, but they continued the same behavior today anyway. If they didn't understand the process, they could have politely asked for assistance which I would've gladly helped with. Threatening to sue someone usually doesn't make someone go out of their way to help. Did I mention that legal threat has yet to be retracted? Pinkadelica^♣ 00:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I'm hoping for a calm resolution, but if they keep barking up that tree I'll block away. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:23, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That'll work. Odds are they might get it if more people explain it to them. Thanks for dealing with it. Pinkadelica^♣ 02:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Enax99

This user has created what looks like a pretty obvious hoax at Natha Records. Their other edits are suspect, but the subjects of those edits (primarily Def Jam, Jay Z etc are outside of what I consider my expertise. Those edits don't seem to have attracted any attention so I could be way off. Could someone else check them out? Thx! I42 (talk) 21:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this thread --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:32, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I have speedied Natha Records as a blatant hoax and removed the reference to it from Nathan Kress, but I did not revert the rest of this user's large edit to Kress as I too would prefer someone with more expertise to check it out. JohnCD (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted his edits to Nathan Kress. Clearly vandalism, no sources for the claims of this 17 year old white actor being a famous rapper. Besides, it's not true. Woogee (talk) 23:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Every single edit by this user is vandalism and an attempt to create a hip hop career for Nathan Kress. I've given them a final warning about disruptive editing. Woogee (talk) 23:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

BTW, in the process of checking Enax99's edits, I came across a slow-motion edit war going on at Def Jam South. Somebody with more knowledge of the subject needs to take a look at that article's edit history to see all of the reversions going on there. Woogee (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Enax continues to add offensive BLP violations, after final warning. An IP editor reported him to AIV, and the report got removed with no action. How many hoaxes, BLP violations, vandalisms does this guy get? Woogee (talk) 22:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Daniel Case tells me that vandals don't get blocked unless they're currently in the act of vandalism. Since when is this a rule? This guy has a final warning on his page.Woogee (talk) 22:18, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocks are protective of the encyclopedia, not punitive to editors (as punitive blocks are counter-productive, and "cooling down" blocks disastrous). So if a vandal has stopped (which is what we want, and all that we want), that's enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

There's a distinction to be made between registered user vandals and IP vandals. IP's are often dynamic, so blocks on IP's are typically short-term unless there is a persistent pattern - and admins won't usually block unless they're currently active, again because of the dynamic nature of IP's. Registered users are typically cut less slack, in that it's more like "have they edited recently". But it's always up to the whim of the admin who finds it. Some will just block the guy, others will say keep an eye on him. So keep an eye on him, and if he does it again, go straight to WP:AIV and report him, and there's a good chance they'll bring the hammer down. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Andy and Bugs. To clarify on my position: If a vandal has stopped vandalizing since the report, that's what we want. Remember that the page began as "vandalism in progress". And whatever some people think, it's still about stopping vandalism by whatever means necessary. It is not Wikipedia:Requests to have other users blocked, for a reason. Daniel Case (talk) 03:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If an editor is vandalizing, it's best to post at least one warning on their talk page. If they ignore it, and appear to be running amok, take it to AIV. I've found that the admin's action is usually a function of the type of user and the frequency and type of vandalism. The admins usually want multiple warnings, especially for IP's. But if the vandal is in high gear, the admin will usually put a stop to it regardless. And as you say, if you warn them and they stop, you can assume they got the message and hopefully they've moved on to some other website. But they also bear watching. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

But they got a final warning, continued to make BLP violating edits, and quit. So they get to come back tomorrow and do it again, then quit, then come back the day after that and come back and do it again, ad nauseum, because they aren't currently vandalizing. This is certainly a new way of assuming good faith. Woogee (talk) 05:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's annoying. As I said, it's often at the whim of the admin, or another way to put it is which admin you get. Some of them are more likely to indef than others. If he does it again, at AIV just say that he's been warned repeatedly and won't stop. If all his edits are vandalism, point that out also. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, from what I'm seeing, the final warning was made late on the 12th of January, after his recent problematic edits. So, no, he didn't make any more BLP violating edits after the last warning. Any more such edits, and I'll block the editor. Seeing that they haven't had a single productive edit since their very first one last month, that block would probably be indefinite. But if they've stopped, they've stopped, and a block isn't necessary. -- Atama頭 18:06, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

1991 Punjabi landslide

Please could an admin fix this mess [56]? I was unable to move the page back to the original location. Not sure if's just vandalism or a very pointy way of claiming the article's a hoax? Cassandra 73 (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done The article may well be a hoax, but this is not the way to deal with it. Rodhullandemu 22:44, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) After a quick search in Google I believe it could be indeed a hoax ... I have requested a review on Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics. ~~ Phoe _talk ~~ 22:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Hoax that has escaped attention for a while. Our G3 condition is a bit too easy on hoaxers, if I may add. -SpacemanSpiff 22:59, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've WP:PRODded the article, with reasons. There's just nothing to pin down this event (if it occurred). Rodhullandemu 23:02, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Language

I was suggested by one of Wiki Admins to post one problem here, so I will just copy from his talk page:

" I wanted to ask for your help on fixing this problem. There was recent edit war on question of Montenegrin language. Until now, articles had written "Montenegrin language" on every Montenegrin articles, but now Serbs reverted it and adding Serbian. Their argument is that Montenegrin doesn't have ISO code. Montenegrin is official language of Montenegro, therefor is used in Government, school, TV etc... ISO standard is expected in one or two months. There are a lot of admins who reverted for them without knowing anything about Montenegrin language. Here are e.g. of articles: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulcinj
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podgorica Not to mention that battle was won a lot of times before with Admins agreement, but ever few months appear some clone to remove it."

So can you please answer and help me here? So for 2 years it was ok, but suddenly the ISO is the problem, which by the way will be done in couple months. Can Admins please help us with this?

Best regards! Rave92^(talk) 00:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

ISO? That would be more or less meaningless. This sounds like but another edit war over an eastern European topic. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:30, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I know, but Serbs use it a lot as the argument. Language is offical of the state, government files are written in Montenegrin, All the web sites in Montenegro put in Language selection Montenegrin as language of choose beside Eglish (if there is multiple choice), in school, books and all is written in Montenegrin... only here, there is "Serbian". None one says that those languages are much different but we must respect the most important set of rule in the country, and that is Constitution of Montenegro. It's not the Eastern Europe though :-). Rave92^(talk) 00:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:ARBMAC may be relevent here. --Jayron32 03:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It would be good to discuss this in a central place, more suitable for the issue. I suggest WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. EdJohnston (talk) 05:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to Rave for seeking the high road on this. I think EJ has the winning suggestion. Toddst1 (talk) 06:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thank you all for suggestion. I will post this on WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts, so I hope your post will contribute to stop this vandalism once for all. Thanks you all once again!

@Toddst1, Thanks on that compliment :-).

Rave92^(talk) 11:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Here it is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Geopolitical_ethnic_and_religious_conflicts#Montenegrin_language

Rave92^(talk) 11:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User re-posting an article that was just deleted via AfD, then posting db tags to competitors

I think we have a problem with Akamman567 (talk · contribs), first re-creating material that was recently deleted via an AfD, then when the re-created article was tagged with {{db-g4}}, they made some pointy edits in nominating what I believe are two competitor's articles for deletion [57] and [58], then began edit warring over the nomination on one of them [59], [60]. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Other articles contain much less references, look like advertisements, and contain links directly to press releases. Yet, you won't let me even start a *discussion* on their notability, while you have no problem deleting the SimpleCDN article - even though it contained more links to more references, and NONE were to press releases. Akamman567 (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Not a problem with me - I just want the rules of Wikipedia to be applied fairly. If SimpleCDN can just be deleted, why can't I even question the notability of other companies who do have listings... when those listings *clearly* look like advertising themseleves, and would FAIL under the same standards which you used to judge SimpleCDN? Akamman567 (talk) 05:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Clearly bad faith attack on other compettitors wikipedia articles. Clearly Akamman567 (talk · contribs) also-204.10.169.79 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) is a Spam / advertising-only account for SimpleCDN.--Hu12 (talk) 05:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I will wait for an editor to okay SimpleCDN article before posting - no more action is needed, will not post again until okayed. Akamman567 (talk) 05:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Accounts

• Akamman567 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 204.10.169.79 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Threats of disruption;

• " Will continue to replace SimpleCDN "
• "will continue to refine and add to the SimpleCDN article"

Disruption

• Bad faith deletion nomination of Highwinds Network Group
• Bad faith deletion nomination CacheFly I
• Bad faith deletion nomination CacheFly II
• Bad faith deletion nomination CacheFly III
• Vandalism of noticeboard (blanking)
• Talk page vandalism (blanking)
• Talk page vandalism (blanking again)

--Hu12 (talk) 06:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sock account

• OI87 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• blanking same pages

--Hu12 (talk) 06:33, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It also appears the sock accountOI87 (talk · contribs) is attempting to joe job some company called Aflexi [61][62]. CreatedWikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Akamman567--Hu12 (talk) 06:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Dako1: Unresolved issue

Resolved

 – Yes, it was resolved. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

How come this thread was archived when the issue at hand is still unresolved? Amsaim (talk) 08:50, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Based on these two final posts in that thread:

Yes, he does so above, as he was asked. Dako's behaviour is no longer an issue--Jac16888Talk 04:19, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I missed that. I would suggest that this is a very unfortunate misunderstanding, now that the editor understands a bit more about how Wikipedia functions I think it would be foolish to block them. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 05:06, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

...looked resolved, anything else was WP:HORSE (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

BCCWebTeam

Resolved

 – See comments below, but essentially at this stage WP:RFCN is the best place for name issue and WP:COIN for COI issues. NJA (t/c) 10:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

BCCWebTeam appears to be a user set up by Birmingham City Council. First of all can I just say that their contributions have been excellent; they have tidied up many dead links, linking to the old version of the council website. I'm just a little concerned that firstly, "webteam" would tell me that more than one person is using the account, which to the best of my knowledge is frowned upon - they have had an informal post put on their talk page to that effect with no response. Secondly, I'm just wondering if their could be any conflict of interest here when adding new information rather than tidying up deadlinks? Thirdly, I notice that Birmingham City Council research and post their own statistics for the city on their own website. Would "BCCWebTeam" adding or citing these be use of a primary source; their own original research?
I'm not trying to get anyone blocked or in trouble here! They have done some much needed work, as previously mentioned, on deadlinks. Was just a thought I had when I saw some of their edits deviate from repairing deadlinks to their website (www.birmingham.gov.uk).

Any thoughts? Thanks _Will^dow (Talk) 10:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Conflict of interest, sure, and I think they should be notified of that. Webteam might suggest a shared account, which .. should not be done, if it is shared, also that should be mentioned to the editor and a solution be found. However, having a conflict of interest does not have to be a problem, if the edits are good, and the editor discusses when edits are challenged.

The primary source/original research may be a problem, but that is a case-by-case thing, some figures generated by the organisation are indeed primary/original, but also the only and best one can get (probably). As long as the whole of the article is not solely based on primary/original data. And they may actually be helpful in finding better sources for some of it. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:35, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The best place for community discussion on the name issue would most likely be WP:RFCN, not ANI at this stage. Any COI issues would be best addressed at WP:COIN. Cheers, NJA (t/c) 10:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Note that I've alerted them of a discussion I opened at RFCN and I also alerted them on conflict of interests. Specific COI concerns should be taken to WP:COIN if they can't be addressed otherwise. NJA (t/c) 11:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel S. Razón

I'm informing admins who would be closing this AFD to weigh things carefully -- it seems that the nominator (and another user, it seems) has a "motive" for deleting the article. I suggest to exercise extreme caution when delivering a verdict on the discussion. I'd actually prefer the discussion end now in lieu of what else could happen if the discussion is extended.

Disclosure: I also participated in the AFD and wanted to keep the article. –Howard the Duck 13:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

A motive other than the stated one of thinking the subject fails the notability guidelines? Are you suggesting some kind of conflict here? --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Check out one link I gave out in the AFD (a link to a talk page). I suspect something is fishy is going on here, perhaps Shannon Brown is a member of one of the religious sects that is on a (not-so-doctrinal) dispute. It's like Scientology vs. the psychologists in the States. –Howard the Duck 14:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't see any poor motive for nominating the article. What I do see is a bit too much participation (and borderline incivility with their sarcasm and snap) by someone who needs to tone down their signature. Tan | 39 14:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec2) Who? Shannon or Howard? Both need to back away slowly and let AfD do its magic, and let admins do their job when the time comes. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Funny, I wasn't talking about both editors ;-) Tan | 39 14:09, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What I see, if I counted right, is only 3 participants in the discussion, which might or might not indicate anything about the article's notability. It does appear, though, that the majority of two is bound and determined to get it deleted. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I see seven people. Tan | 39 14:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Guys, have been in many AFDs before, and people do want a certain article to be deleted. But once most people "see the light" they either let it go, withdraw the nomination, or let others think about it. This one is different. –Howard the Duck 14:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Does this link doesn't work for anyone? It doesn't work for Shannon Brown, hence his/her frequent reversion of this at the Daniel S. Razón page. –Howard the Duck 14:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The link works fine for me, but why do you keep referring to User:Shannon Rose as "Shannon Brown" here? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL. I got confused with the LA Lakers player. Sorry. :-O –Howard the Duck 14:20, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It works for me, too. It seems like you both kind of have a lot invested in this AfD. If the two of you are viewing it as "epic", you might need to step back a bit. :) (I refer to edit summaries here and here). I can see why you might be frustrated to have the content removed, though, once you supplied the link. If the link didn't work for Shannon, it would have been better to get somebody else to check it than to accuse you of making it up. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It was my fault why the link won't show up. I screwed up the syntax. Shannon Rose didn't help either when he simply deleted the entire thing without giving it a chance. That article was a pain to look for, since the Manila Bulletin's website doesn't archive their articles only until recently, the web archive didn't archive it, but it did had a link and a date pof publication and tasked an intern to look for it in a dusty place. If I didn't find the link, I would have had photocopied the page where the article appeared. –Howard the Duck 14:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I'll echo Moonriddengirl and suggest that you step out of the discussion. It doesn't appear that the article is in any danger of being deleted due to this AfD. —DoRD (talk) 14:34, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I did step out and had no intention of getting back, but User:ApprenticeFan had a "keep and move" "vote" but s/he left out the diacritic and I am particularly against diacritics in Filipino names post-1900 (I did mass moves some years ago with consent of the original guy who moved them to article names with diacritics) so I had to butt in. Shannon Rose then had a another lengthy reply that accused me of voting twice. Like seriously, I've been in AFDs before I know that I can't "vote twice". –Howard the Duck 14:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)i did

I'm surprised that the discussion has been allowed to actually get this incivil, to the point where it began spilling onto edit summaries. At any rate, I have not seen any concerted effort by Shannon Rose to prove unnotability through notability. He/She seems only hellbent on getting Razon's article deleted. --Sky Harbor ^(talk) 17:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

(od) I'm closing the AfD; I think there's enough there now to form an opinion, and prolonging the discussion further may be counter-productive. EyeSerene^talk 17:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I will gladly submit to the closing admin's decision, whatever it be. But if the article is not deleted, then please do consider merging it with UNTV. 'You have all seen the matchless ordeal Howard went through just to get one questionable RS to support this guy's presumed "notability." Someone who is truly notable wouldn't be that difficult. Howard and other pro-keep editors are from the Philippines and naturally want their people represented in WP. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 18:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Ouch ... was that last sentence really needed? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:26, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User: LoveMonkey

I have been engaged in intermittent discussions at Talk:Militant atheism for almost three years - though I must confess that I (and others) have not made much progress with the article itself. It's a tricky article, on a potentially divisive subject - basically a phrase that has various meanings according to who is using it, in what context. There have been previous attempts to slant the article very strongly towards one particular usage, in one particular context, and I (and others) have pointed out from time to time over a long period that there is a danger of turning the article into a coatrack for anti-Soviet and anti-atheist propaganda. Excessive cataloguing of the evil deeds of the Soviets has in the past been deleted (by consensus, as far as I can tell) as irrelevant and POV-pushy. Faced with a recent spate of such POV-stuffing, I made the mistake of just exceeding three reverts to the article - though of different kinds of material - within a 24-hour period: [63], [64], [65], [66], [67]. Around the same time, and in the couple of days since, I have been posting various comments on the talk page expressing my concerns (e.g. [68], [69], [70], [71]). But in response to these attempts to discuss the content of the article, I and others have been subjected to a torrent of long-winded and inaccurate accusations by LoveMonkey - on my user page ([72]); on the edit-warring noticeboard (e.g. [73], [74], [75]); on the article talk page (e.g. [76], [77], [78]. [79], [80]). My latest attempt to communicate with LoveMonkey simply gets deleted from his talk page and reposted in an inappropriate place, accompanied by further groundless accusations. And note that these are just examples of many similar postings by this editor. In addition to the accusation of breaching 3RR (which I now realise was – just – technically correct), I have been accused of edit-warring, being disruptive, not assuming good faith, making inflammatory comments, whitewashing, tag-teaming, etc, etc. I can see no basis for any of this. I have tried to argue my point, and at all times I have been civil. I have commented on the issue, not the contributors. I am finding the constant attacks extremely trying, and tedious. Could someone look at this, and comment on User:LoveMonkey's behaviour? Thanks. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Snalwibma violated the WP:3rr with another editor. User talk:Snalwibma continued to engaging in revert warring even after I posted the vio. This lead to the article being protected. User talk:Snalwibma refused to discuss their repeated policy violations with concerned editors on the militant atheism talkpage. User talk:Snalwibma has associates whom protect various articles within the subject of atheism and engaging in tag team edit warring. User talk:Snalwibma has a history of edit warring and edit abuse within the militant atheism article history before I ever engaged the article.[81],[82],

[83] LoveMonkey (talk) 14:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to second the experience concerning Lovemonkey that Snalwibma relates above. I ended up on Militant atheism via Atheism which is on my watchlist, I read the article and noticed the many instances of grievances expressed by different users of concern about a proper definition (a quick glance at the talk page will show that this has been a recurrent albeit fruitless concern for as long as the article has existed). I posted my concerns and attempted to get the discussion going about a consensus agreement of a definition.

Out of the blue Lovemonkey appears with accusations and personal attacks. I cautioned him on his tone and tried to direct the discussion back on track, but his personal attacks continued. Unfortunately his accusations succeeded in diverting the discussion. When I later tried to get into the actual discussion of the topic by supporting Snalwibma's post the personal attacks and groundless accusations by Lovemonkey continued.

As I had by now realised that this was likely an attempt to withdraw focus from the discussion of the article subject I made it clear that I would not let myself be dragged into a mudslinging and that I would only reply to posts by Lovemonkey if they were related to the discussion of the improvement of the article (which did not stop his personal attacks). This also led to Lovemonkey posting this on the Edit warring noticeboard for some reason. While I realised that as his complaints had nothing to do with edit warring he was not likely to get the result he was looking for, I still felt the need to correct his obvious falsifications in his post with this reply.

Lovemonkeys behaviour seems extremely disruptive in that he actually managed to turn focus away from discussing article improvement and derailed the debate entirely by mudslinging and personal attacks. As stated I would second some outside comments on the situation and especially Lovemonkeys behaviour on the encyclopdia. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I have publicly apologized to Saddhiyama under the WP:3RR I opened on User:Snalwibma [84] Even when I apologize to the tag team they ignore it and the concerns about edit warring and my posting diffs of those edits that are violations and continue to either ignore my posted concerns or label them attacks or extreme some other term inappropriate and then continue to justify policy violations and edit war. They have done this type of thing as a group to other articles on wikipedia. If you look at the history I have with this collection of editors (you will notice them in the militant atheism edit history for example). I have a short and truncated history as their tag team tactics force a 3RR. I refused to edit war with this group on the article anti-theism as you can see from the talkpage there. This group of editors is wholesale deleting content and justifying their edit warring. This behavior is very destructive to the spirit of co-operation that is essential to having a functional and working wikipedia community. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry, I had not noticed your apology for that comment and will strike out the part in my post above that relates to that. However persisting even here in making false accusations that we are a "tag team" and "edit warring" does not exactly help your case. I state again for the public record that I have never had any communication nor even the slightest knowledge of User:Snalwibmas existence before coming to the talk page of Militant atheism. That we happen to have the same opinion about the article should come as no surprise, as it seems a lot of different users share that opinion judging from the talk page of the article. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:24, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As I have struck out part of my defense from Lovemonkeys persistent and false accusations that I should have been edit warring, I will repeat it here: My purpose from the start of my involvement in this was to establish consensus for the major changes that seems necessary before making any edits. Thus I have only made 1 edit to the article, and noone have contested that edit. --Saddhiyama (talk) 15:31, 14 January 2010 (UTC)