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

Not properly attributing contributions in merge edit summaries

Resolved

 – Please see this diff for more information.

l'aquatique || talk 05:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this, please note that he is still unilaterally "merging" without discussion and without indicating where the information is being merged from. See this and this. I had started a discussion earlier regarding a similar incident. I am not sure if I should remind him of Ryan's comment or what, but he's still not properly attributing the merges in the edit summaries. See [1] and [2] for the latest. So, we have all of the following merges and redirects without proper attribution in edit summaries:

• [3], [4], and [5] merged to [6]
• [7] merged to [8]
• [9] merged to [10], which was challenged and then the challenge reverted with [11]
• [12] merged to [13]
• [14] merged to [15]

Please note that when I tried to discuss one of the above with the user, I was rebuffed, which is why I am posting here. Thank you for your time and help. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Pot. Kettle. Black. You've got some chuztpah coming here with complaints about misleading edit summaries LGR. seresin ( ¡? )  01:13, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

An apparently bad faith effort has been made to disrupt the thread I started. As I have indicated here, I have changed usernames due to real world harassment concerns and have requested that I not be referred to by my old username. I therefore cannot imagine any good faith or constructive reason why anyone would refer to me by my old username given that request. If the real world issues were not a concern, I would have just continued going by my old username. So, to stay on target... Regarding this, please note that he is still unilaterally "merging" without discussion and without indicating where the information is being merged from. See this and this. I had started a discussion earlier regarding a similar incident. I am not sure if I should remind him of Ryan's comment or what, but he's still not properly attributing the merges in the edit summaries. See [16] and [17] for the latest. So, we have all of the following merges and redirects without proper attribution in edit summaries:

• [18], [19], and [20] merged to [21]
• [22] merged to [23]
• [24] merged to [25], which was challenged and then the challenge reverted with [26]
• [27] merged to [28]
• [29] merged to [30]

Please note that when I tried to discuss one of the above with the user, I was rebuffed, which is why I am posting here. Thank you for your time and help. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 03:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The poster above, 1, 2, 3, actually has kind of a point when it comes to complaining about edit summaries you have made in the past week that are, um, not entirely descriptive of the edits they were summarising. Motes and beams and such. // roux   04:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Which has nothing to do with regards to what specifically I am discussing in this thread. Yeah, I adjusted the format, fixed spacing, and adjusted the format of the articles. I just disregarded the unilateral intermediate edit to redirect an article that was kept in an AfD, but none of these has anything to do with merging and not adequately attributing to those who worked on the articles in question. These are apples and oranges and in any event, whether the pot calls the kettle black or not does not change the kettle’s being black. So, to stay on target... Regarding this, please note that he is still unilaterally "merging" without discussion and without indicating where the information is being merged from. See this and this. I had started a discussion earlier regarding a similar incident. I am not sure if I should remind him of Ryan's comment or what, but he's still not properly attributing the merges in the edit summaries. See [31] and [32] for the latest. So, we have all of the following merges and redirects without proper attribution in edit summaries:

• [33], [34], and [35] merged to [36]
• [37] merged to [38]
• [39] merged to [40], which was challenged and then the challenge reverted with [41]
• [42] merged to [43]
• [44] merged to [45]

Please note that when I tried to discuss one of the above with the user, I was rebuffed, which is why I am posting here. Thank you for your time and help. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Nevertheless, those edit summaries are misleading and very recent, so it's a bit odd for you to be complaining about someone else doing the same. Also, I'm fairly certain that posting the exact same 3500 characters three times doesn't do a lot to help you out, here. Your choice, obviously. // roux   04:29, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

When looked at in the context I indicate above, they make sense as they only disregard the unilateral redirects made in after AfDs that closed as keep. People can naturally mischaracteriz them all that want, but this thread is not about me and trying to make it about someone else without addressing what this thread started with is baffling and unproductive, especially when I am "complaining" about someone doing something totally different, i.e. not properly attributing contributions per the GFDL. I am NOT railing on him for misleading edit summaries, but for not acknowledging the contributions of other editors. Apples and oranges, again. That is what we are discussing here, and "shooting the messenger" just derails the discussion and ignores the actual validity of what I am commenting on. Moreover, in the first instance, I see no reason to humor someone who changed his name for whatever reason and whom I would never refer to by his old name who nevertheless sees fit to refer to a user by his old name when I changed names due to real world harassment concerns. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Help talk:Merging and moving pages#Merge edit summaries. Flatscan (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. Then, I guess this thread can be archived. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:43, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

As for the issue you want to talk about, I can see both points. For some reason, people are reluctant to protect redirects. I don't think there's any valid reason that a redirect that is produced as a result of a merge should be left unprotected, because, as TTN points out, anyone can log out, undo the redirect anonymously, and have his cake and eat it, too. Still, that seems like a policy issue, not something that one can expect an admin to take direct action on, so this might not be the best place for it.

As for your other issue, if there was any actual outside issue that was causing you any kind of actual peril, you would have really left when you were supposed to. You abused the right to vanish, cost multiple people time and effort, and then returned when you knew full well going in that the right to vanish was not a way to come back under a different name. Please don't bring that up again, no matter what people choose to call you ... it undermines the credibility of any complaint you may have. Lying in edit summaries is a problem you have had in the past, and apparently still have in the present: on Nov. 30th, 2008, you were User:A Nobody, and User:A Nobody did this. It never ceases to amaze me that you are allowed to edit here anymore. Actively deceitful edit summaries like that are things that admins could be expected to take immediate action about.—Kww(talk) 04:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this, please note that he is still unilaterally "merging" without discussion and without indicating where the information is being merged from. See this and this. I had started a discussion earlier regarding a similar incident. I am not sure if I should remind him of Ryan's comment or what, but he's still not properly attributing the merges in the edit summaries. See [46] and [47] for the latest. So, we have all of the following merges and redirects without proper attribution in edit summaries:

• [48], [49], and [50] merged to [51]
• [52] merged to [53]
• [54] merged to [55], which was challenged and then the challenge reverted with [56]
• [57] merged to [58]
• [59] merged to [60]

Please note that when I tried to discuss one of the above with the user, I was rebuffed, which is why I am posting here. Thank you for your time and help, but I'll see what has been added to Help talk:Merging and moving pages#Merge edit summaries and will continue the discussion there and encourage TTN to do so as well. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

OKay dude, seriously? Reposting the same thing over and over and over isn't going to change the fact that when you post to ANI, you're going to come under the microscope too, as I have good reason to know. // roux   04:51, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I am going to try discussing with the editor instead at the link Flatscan provided and am thus withdrawing my request for administrator assistance for now and archiving this discussion. Thanks Flatscan for the help! Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 04:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I, however, echo Kww above and would like to see some consideration about A Nobody's deceptive edit summaries. They are clearly disruptive and inappropriate behavior. seresin ( ¡? )  05:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean disruptive edit summaries like this? Or wait, there is no edit summary. So, unless if you are willing to look at the inappropriate behavior of yourself and others whom you side with, please do not engage in further hypocrisy. This thread is resolved and I, and no good faith editors, have any wish to entertain any further bad faith micharacterizations. Good bye. --A Nobody^{My talk} 05:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Except you don't have to leave an edit summary when contributing to the noticeboard. Leaving no edit summary is not misleading. Seraphim♥ 23:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This is extremely disapointing from TTN - I brought this issue up within a few weeks back, yet he continues to use edit summaries that don't give proper attribution to satisfy the GFDL. I'm going to give him a final warning now, should he do this again he'll be blocked. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

and warned[61]. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

*Are you going to block A Nobody, then, if she does the same thing again with undoing redirects? Or does her shit not stink? MuZemike (talk) 19:14, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

• • A Nodody isn't infringing on the GFDL by undoing the redirects. I don't care whether or not the content is merged - that's an editorial content dispute and should be solved through dispute resolution channels, but I do care that content isn't being properly attributed to the users that create the content. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:00, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Merges and GFDL attribution

According to Help:Merging and moving pages#Performing the merger, the source article must be recorded in the edit summary to comply with the GFDL. This requirement is frequently ignored in practice. Does it really carry any weight or is it more of a recommendation?

I have started a discussion at Help talk:Merging and moving pages#Merge edit summaries. Flatscan (talk) 04:07, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Please direct any comments on the general topic (not re: TTN, A Nobody, or blocking) to the linked discussion. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It must be done, it's a requirement not a recommendation. People release their edits under the GFDL, and we must comply with it. What TTN is doing is a copyright infringement - he's not attributing the work of others correctly. He's been warned twice now, and if he doesn't comply he'll be blocked. You say that this is ignored, well if you see it please do come to my talk page and let me know where it's happening. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 09:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely happy with this. I agree that you can block TTN for violating the GFDL and that making contribution history obscured is prima facia disruption. But I think you are understating flatscan's concern that what TTN does is indeed common practice. When flatscan says it is common I think he means it is common--as in, lots of folks do it. I have to say that I've done it the way TTN does it almost every time. And if the AfD closing script doesn't edit the target article when closing a debate as "redirect" I have probably done it very recently. Should I be blocked for copyright infringement? Should we consider apparent motive? Should we consider actual practice? I agree that TTN shouldn't do it anymore. I won't do it anymore. But I'll be damned if we are going to have a conversation about blocking someone for this when we brush aside the possibility of blocking someone for making deliberately deceitful edit summaries. Protonk (talk) 19:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I second Protonk's above comment. I'm another frequent merge-and-redirecter who doesn't mention the source in the merged-to article. Well, I'll avoid doing that from now on. But anyhow. Whomever minds Template:Oldafd might consider appending to the end of the template, "Content merged to another article" --because a lot of these are left in the hands of the article's frequent editors to merge "soon", rather than the closing admin. immediately-- "needs to be attributed back to this article." But that doesn't address merge-and-redirects done specifically to circumvent AfD. --EEMIV (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A redirect isn't the issue, it's the merge where content transfers from one article to another. In the AfD closing script that I use, when I close as redirect it simply redirects the article over, if I close it as merge, it tags the page to be merged (not redirect it) and editors should manually merge the content over. I said it up above somewhere, if people see a merge taking place where edits aren't attributed properly then they are more than happy to come to my talk and tell me and I'll gladly deal with it. The project is licensed under the GFDL, when editors release their content they do so on the understanding that if it appears somewhere else they will still get the appropriate credit for it. When you don't give proper attribution, you break the GFDL and therefore infringe on copyright making the type of merges that TTN was doing extremely serious and problematic - certainly block worthy if they continue past a warning. If you have concerns about A nobody using deceitful edit summaries, then by all means start a new thread about that, giving evidence and I'll happily take a look at that. The concern with this thread is TTN's merges that go against the GFDL. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have the same discussion in three places now. As I said elswehere, the GFDL is not violated here. Editors are not authors. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 23:15, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I meant this subsection to be a discussion notice. I'll link it once it's archived. Flatscan (talk) 04:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Editors are authors. See WP:C. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The policy says nothing of the kind, see elsewhere. Guido den Broeder (talk, visit) 16:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Such as Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Merge edit summaries and GFDL attribution? I believe you may be misunderstanding GFDL in this regard. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I understand. I hope TTN does as well. The likely result of this thread is that TTN will take a few more steps in the merging of content and everyone will be happy. I don't mean to make this about A Nobody. I just want to make sure we aren't grabbing Al Capone for tax evasion here. We should make sure that the gravity of this specific offense matches up with the severity of the warning and the threat. We should further assume good faith from TTN that when he says "merged" in the edit summary it actually isn't a "deceptive edit summary" but a good faith attempt to note that he merged content. I don't think the right step from a warning from A Nobody (which TTN is likely not to take seriously, but that is neither here nor there) is a threat stating that he will be blocked for disruption. Protonk (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

It's different. TTN was warned by an admin specifically about merging without attributing the source article before, yet they continued. That means to me TTN is not ignorant of these GFDL issues, they are deliberately ignoring it. As such, a block is reasonable should there be further copyright violations from this user. --PeaceNT (talk) 10:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Markdav

Markdav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be Kevin Bishop, or perhaps Kevin Bishop's agent, or mum. He has no edit history outside of pages about Kevin Bishop, the Kevin Bishop Show, and Kevin Bishop's antics at the 2008 British Comedy Awards, and all of his edits have been to remove or mollify less flattering facts about Bishop.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.29.156 (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I think this removal is what precipitated the comment here. Considering WP:BLP I think it was appropriate. The IP has provided little convincing evidence of a COI, and I'm not sure there's a particular need for admin intervention at this point. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:04, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that this will not be the end of the matter. The latest version includes an account of the incident in question -- Bishop's behavior at a 2008 awards ceremony -- that is more neutral than the version Markdav reverted. However, Markdav's latest version also contains an account of that incident, but in less detail. The best solution would be for the people involved to avoid an edit war & hash out the differences on the talk page, & if that is not successful then take it either to conflict resolution or the appropriate BLP forum. -- llywrch (talk) 19:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

NoCal100

Following complaint posted unsigned by Ashley kennedy3 (talk · contribs). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

NoCal100 is obviously a sock puppet of an established or banned account. NoCal100’s use of the complaints procedures has been phenomenally fast for a ‘new account’. The method of attacks on Calton at Sellick666 in tandem with MegaMom (one wonders how many sockpuppets she's bred) to gain status is suspect and typical sockpuppet behaviour.

NoCal100, often, promotes POV by insisting that there is consensus in his/her attempts to flout the rules for dealing with POV. NoCal100 stalls improvements to articles through false claims of consensus, these are rightly ignored as disruption of the encyclopedia, alternatively, NoCal100 might insist that there is "no consensus" for changes that bring an article's text more closely in line with the rules for dealing with POV.

Acting in tandem as a tagteam Nocal100 and Jayjg accounts should therefore be considered one.

This is not a dispute of content. NoCal100 uses the technique of edit by deletion and then claims that consensus must be gained for anyone to be able to have information inserted thereby initiating edit wars. NoCal100's actions are incorrect, the wiki policy is that consensus should be gained before editing. NoCal100 turns up on an article that he has no previous experience of editing therefore he should seek consensus prior to making an edit, he does not do that. When NoCal100 needs to be adopted and his edits vetted until he learns to use the references in an NPOV manner and not be allowed to remove any material until he has learned to edit sensibly and not an "I don't like it" manner and to control his wikistalking. NoCal100 edits (both deletion and insertions) show that NoCal100 is editing for a POV and not NPOV.

It is a dispute over the inability of NoCal100 to edit constructively. NoCal100's edits have generally been to reduce the information available, to remove links that he/she finds not to his/her Ideological liking using a myriad of nonsensical spurious arguments. In the pursuit of an ideological goal he/she has become the antithesis of the founding principal of the ethos of wiki the "access to information". That is Edit by deletion without consensus in a manner that places inaccurate and misleading information in wikipedia [62]

a) Banias

With no other editor involved. NoCal100 with no previous edits on that subject deleted with no attempt at consensus. Wiki Policy clearly states that consensus should be reached before editing with interested parties. (deletion is an edit) NoCal100 made not such attempt. examples below.

i) NoCal100 repeated removal of sourced material here

His/her argument being "Not directly related to Banias".

John Francis Wilson, the academic and author of Caesarea Philippi: Banias, the Lost City of Pan I.B.Tauris, (2004) ISBN 1850434409 thought that the incident was of such note to Banias that he included it in his book on page 178. (the Wilson (2004) book has been repeatedly used throughout the Banias article and as the book is available electronically one must assume that NoCal100 must have read it before editing on the wiki article that he/she recently wiki stalked his way to)

ii)NoCal100 repeated bad faith edits here

repeated reversion to "by mutual agreement"...it is a facetious statement; in that all agreements, if made, are by the fact, of an agreement being made, obviously by mutual consent. In this instance, no agreement was made therefore there was no mutual consent. His edit is only to try to repeatedly expound his/her ideological POV of the myth of Israel as the peace maker whereas the reference given pointedly show that it was a Syrian offer that it was rejected by Israel, as shown in the references supplied.

b) Shaufat

again NoCal100 bad faith edits here

NoCal100:-

No one was yet living in them.

quote from reference supplied by NoCal100: At least two of the houses destroyed Monday were occupied by families; the others were empty. The Abu Kweiks moved into their one-story, four-bedroom house four months ago, the family said, after saving and scraping for five years to build it. Members of the family have lived in the Shuafat camp since fleeing their original home–in what is today central Israel–during the Jewish state’s 1948 War of Independence.

NoCal100 makes a blatant false statement. Nocal100 either doesn't read or is only cherry picking to suit his own extremist ideology.

c) NoCal100 Bad faith edits in Sbarro restaurant suicide bombing here where he/she removes work that is supported by the reference that he supplied.

From Lucy Dean (2003), The Middle East and North Africa, 2004 Taylor & Francis Group, Routledge, ISBN 1857431847 p 915

Nevertheless appeared to have reined in its suicide bombers, giving its tacit support to its fragile cease-fire and stating that it would not unleash more suicide bombers on Israel as long as Israeli troops did not kill Palestinian civilians. However in early July both Islamic Jahad and Hamas formally declared an end to the truce.

NoCal100 uses the reference to remove all sentences (which had citations) to the previous behaviour of Israeli troops a removal of which is 180° at variance with his own reference.

The bombing came 10 days after Israel's assassination of two leading Hamas commanders in Nablus, Jamal Mansour and Omar Mansour, as well as 6 bystanders, including two children.

d) NoCal100 bad faith edits In the Category:Suicide bombing in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict Removal of category nationalism by substitution of category here I can only assume because it mentions Palestine and nationalism which would fall under the category of an "I don't like it" edit to an Ideological extremist.

e) NoCal100 bad faith edits [63] category removal..while on Palestinian subjects category additions [64] [65] blatant POV

f) NoCal100 bad faith edits placing POV [66]

g) NoCal100 bad faith edits puts 1965 rather than 1930s because the initial cause was increased Jewish immigration into Palestine [67]

The allocation of the Jordan's headwaters began to be taken seriously in the 1930s when increased Jewish immigration into Palestine created a need for sustained water management for agricultural development and drinking.[68]

h) NoCal100 bad faith edits here calling University papers in the public domain "original research"...

i) NoCal100 bad faith edits [69] the group was known as the Stern Gang, historical fact. (in the English speaking world it was only known as Stern gang).

j) NoCal100 bad faith edits here removal of pertinent material.

k) NoCal100 bad faith edits here again edit by deletion without gaining consensus for edit.

l) NoCal100 bad faith edits here the article is about the Semitic use of ADN from ancient to modern not just the Hebrew variant.

m) NoCal100 bad faith edits using I don't like it delete technique here

n) NoCal100 and Jayjg acting in tandem and still break 3RR here on 19 Nov 2008 (no penalty from admin)

o) NoCal100 and Jayjg acting in tandem again claiming consensus where there obviously is none. here on 19 Nov 2008

p) NoCal100 I don't like it edits POV edit here King of Jordan is not relevant to the Arab league (where the King of Jordan speaks of his hands being tied by the Arab league) yet NoCal100 finds that the mufti in Germany prior to the conception of the Arab league is relevant, strange edit basis.

q) NoCal100 bad faith edits

Is 10 a "large number"? I personally think not. In which case this should be renamed to "incident" or "attack" or similar. Otherwise any terrorist attacks that kill 10 or more people should likewise be listed as a "massacre". Wikipedia will quickly fill up with "massacres" diluting those that really are massacre of large numbers of people.

Oboler (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Renaming, per the discussion here

NoCal100 (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

original here

And then on 1 December 2008 NoCal100 changes his mind on definition of massacre here

Scorpion pass is referred to as an ambush by the majority.

• Lipman ambush
• Israel Misard Ha-huts ambush
• Nissim bar-Yaccov Incident
• Eedson Louis Millard Burns Incident
• Liliental attack
• Morris massacre
• Oren massacre
• Middle East Institute ambush
• Ovendale ambush
• Hutcheson ambush
• Higgins incident
• Love massacre/ambush
• Neff ambush

or killing: The Palestinian Refugees in Jordan 1948-1957: 1948-1957 By Avi Plascov Published by Routledge, 1981 ISBN 0714631205 p 101

r) NoCal100 bad faith edits here. Use of the word terrorist..complete POV. The perpetrators were never caught, the main conclusion from Jordanian and UN investigations was that it was robbery, Israel's evidence was found to be incorrect and the Jordanian and UN version confirmed when ID from the robbery was found in Gaza several years later. How can you tell the motivating force without confirmation from either a group claiming responsibility or evidence, apparently NoCal100 is able to.

s)NoCal100 and Jayjg acting in collusion again here making controversial edits. The fact that the West Bank article has sections about alternative names one wonder why Nocal100 and Jayjg want to place a controversial name in the lead?

t) T stands for tag team NoCal100 and Jayjg here

The term "Judea and Samaria" is also highly controversial in Israeli society itself, and is often employed specifically as a collective reference to the Israeli settlements in that area, historically and presently, especially by Jewish settlers and their supporters. Left-wing Israelis prefer "HaGada HaMa'aravit" (הגדה המערבית "The West Bank" in Hebrew) or "Hashetahim Hakvushim" (השטחים הכבושים, The Occupied Territories). Many Arab Palestinians object to this term as a rejection of their claim to the land. Nevertheless, the term al-Yahudiyya was-Samarah is used by Arab Christians in reference to the Bible.

NoCal100's Previous history of bad faith disruptive and vandalism in his/her editing and stalking pattern:-

[70] [71] [72] [73] and identified as a wikistalker tracking both Nishidani and CasualObserver'48 here

• 15:17, 29 October 2008 CasualObserver'48 (Talk | contribs) m (7,597 bytes) (misc grammar, technical)
• 19:30, 1 November 2008 Nishidani (Talk | contribs) (28,427 bytes) (chur) (undo)
• 15:06, 2 November 2008 NoCal100 (Talk | contribs) (29,743 bytes) (→British Mandate to contemporary: not directly relevant to banias) (undo)

Gilo [74]

• (cur) (last) 17:34, 16 October 2008 Nishidani (Talk | contribs) (11,840 bytes) (→Shooting incidents: fixing phrasing) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 21:57, 16 October 2008 Ashley kennedy3 (Talk | contribs) m (11,842 bytes) (→References: condense refs) (undo)
• 01:55, 17 October 2008 NoCal100 (Talk | contribs) (11,673 bytes) (→Land dispute: ref does not mention Gilo) (undo) (again after no previous record of editing gilo)

Palestine Liberation Organization [75]

17:27, 30 October 2008 Nishidani

17:53, 30 October 2008 NoCal100 with no previous record of having edited PLO

previously exhibited stalking behaviour on non-ME articles and strong sockpuppet behavioural pattern.here

[76] Oh, and something struck me that I should have realised earlier. 100 = "ton" (to quote from Ton - "In Britain, ton is colloquially used to refer to 100 of a given unit"). Given "NoCal100" = "NoCalton" and your stalking behaviour, I'm inclined to think I've got enough evidence to the contrary not to assume good faith. _GB^T/C 17:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

From...Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:24, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

SSP is down the hall, first door on the right ... ►BMW◄ 17:45, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

But with 73 open cases dating back over a month, who the hell considers WP:SSP to still be even remotely worthwhile? Except in the most blatantly obvious cases (two users named User:JohnQPretty and User:JaneQPretty editing the same article), nothing gets done...yes, I'm off topic. - auburnpilot talk 18:16, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, I could mention WP:RFC/USER, however that process isn't exactly without it's faults either. PhilKnight (talk) 18:17, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

RFCU seems like the proper place for this sock allegation.

p.s. I added a note at the top to register Ashley kennedy3 who forgot to sign their complaint.

Cheers, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:27, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

As I have no idea who NoCal100 is a sockpuppet for RfCU is inappropriate as it would then require a fishing expedition to find the account of the operator. I did sign it at the bottom 3 minutes prior to your post jaakobou but at the head is a better position due to the length, thanks..Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 20:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Not even remotely the right place for this -- a bitter content dispute masquerading as a sock report (which, even if true, isn't against the rules). IronDuke 15:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

As IronDuke notes, this is actually a content dispute. What Ashley K somehow forgot to mention is that he is just off a 5 week block- one week for egregious personal attacks against me, and an additional 4 weeks for block-evading sockpuppetry. During that 5 week block, he continuously monitored my every edit to Wikipedia, compiling on his Talk page a list of "bad faith edits" - i.e - every edit he didn't like, and as soon as his block expired, put that list here on AN/I, under the guise of a "sock puppettry" report - for which he of course produces no evidence. This is a thinly disguised attempt at some sort of retribution. I might add that since the block expired, he has followed me around to at least 3 articles, including a new one I created and successfully nominated for DYK, to undo my edits there; canvassed editors to pile on at this AN/I report; and continued his personal attacks against me, on my user page and Talk page. NoCal100 (talk) 15:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

It's about blatant POV from an obvious sockpuppet deletionist. If he knew anything about a topic he would add to wiki...If you care to read the incidents it is about bad faith edits by NoCal100. It is not about his sockpuppetry of which his behavioural pattern is indicative...His/her bad faith edits are about NoCal's inconsistencies...pure and simply put he/she is using double standards....Ashley kennedy3 (talk) 16:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

User Here Cometh the Milkman

This new user, with all the editing skills of a seasoned campaigner, has begun a program of tendentious editing (huge deletions from long-stable articles and edit warring). Please have a look at his contributions thus far. He seems to be stalking me in particular by targeting articles I've worked on extensively. I am not completely sure, but I suspect he is a sockpuppet for another tendentious editor, Andyvphil, based on his behaviour and the articles he is warring over, specifically Bill Moyers. I would appreciate some action please. ► RATEL ◄ 20:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, I started with a plain question to them as to why a new user would choose this path. We'll go on from there. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 20:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Based on lets call it a gut feeling, the fact that the IPs that the milkman is edit-warring in tandem with are geolocated in chicago, behavior, tone, etc followed by this edit to Acorn [[77]] (basically seeking to revert to something that veered ever so slightly towards an edit war a few days ago, before his accounts first edit)... I feel the following past discussions may be useful.

[[78]] [[79]]

I can guarantee you all that I am no one's sockpuppet. I am sure there are ways to verify this. Secondly, as I explained Ratel reverted an edit of mine. I found it rude that he did not offer a reason, and after a quick glance of his contributions he seems to be an agenda driven editor and I took the liberty to roll back some of his more egregious edits, namely material relating to Matt Drudges sexuality, which appear to be completely in violation of the rules here. 21:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Here Cometh the Milkman (talk • contribs)

Anyone interested, lets start with Bill Moyers. Milkman's first edit on wikipedia [[80]] sought to revert to precisely the same language favored by this IP [[81]] geolocated in Chicago the day before his account was created. He provides no edit summary nor does he go to talk. Ratel reverts, and contrary to Milkman's claim above that "he did not offer a reason" Ratel did in fact offer a reason [[82]] and tries to clue him to how things work on Milkman's talkpage [[83]]

Then Milkman reverts [[84]] again, Ratel re-reverts (visible in that last dif), Milkman re-re-reverts [[85]] Then another user reverts Milkman and he reverts this, though he does address one of his earlier spelling errors [[86]]. I see this thread, hear quacking, and i revert. [[87]].

Tune in soon for another episode in this unfolding drama, same Milkchannel, same Milktime, different wikipedia article.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:34, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Ratel's "reason" (if one can call it that) was that the material was unforced. That’s a lot of manure because the source was the exact same as the one already used in the article.

My text from the article:

In 2005 former deputy Attorney General and fuederal judge Laurence Silberman stated that Moyers denied writing the memo in a 1975 phone call claiming it was a CIA plant, however Moyers responded that Silberman's account of the conversation was at odds with his.

Text from the source

Only a few weeks before the 1964 election, a powerful presidential assistant, Walter Jenkins, was arrested in a men's room in Washington. Evidently, the president was concerned that Barry Goldwater would use that against him in the election. Another assistant, Bill Moyers, was tasked to direct Hoover to do an investigation of Goldwater's staff to find similar evidence of homosexual activity. Mr. Moyers' memo to the FBI was in one of the files.

When the press reported this, I received a call in my office from Mr. Moyers. Several of my assistants were with me. He was outraged; he claimed that this was another example of the Bureau salting its files with phony CIA memos. I was taken aback. I offered to conduct an investigation, which if his contention was correct, would lead me to publicly exonerate him. There was a pause on the line and then he said, "I was very young. How will I explain this to my children?" And then he rang off. I thought to myself that a number of the Watergate figures, some of whom the department was prosecuting, were very young, too.

So tell me how Ratel can claim that this was unsourced?

As far as his "clueing me in" I don’t see how a standard boilerplate warning constitutes an explanation. Here Cometh the Milkman (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

You know for someone who assures us they are nobody's sock you certainly are quick at picking up the lingo. Theresa Knott | token threats 21:59, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

This conversation will have to resume in 24 hours or so - unless someone wants to unblock in the meanwhile. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:57, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It's an obvious sock of somebody, a 2-day account here solely to edit war on American politics articles. What good can come of this? Wikidemon (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

He's raising, almost word-for-word, the same arguments used by Andyvphil on the Bill Moyers talk page a few months ago. The disruption and tendentious editing there earned Andyvphil a long block. I suspect he's back — the editing style, fearless reverts and cavalier attitude is identical. ► RATEL ◄ 22:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

What strikes me is the marked familiarity with Wikipedia policies and procedures. He is obviously someone's sock. Because of the areas of interest and the particular POV being pushed, I was thinking BryanFromPalatine, but the edits do look more like Andyvphil, on closer inspection of that user's edit history. Is a checkuser in order here? --GoodDamon 22:54, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

It might not be BfP -- the spelling and syntax are even worse, for one. Just chiming in to let anyone who cares that andyvphil does not appear to be blocked. Had a 1 month block long ago, which expired and that user didn't resume editing. Unless i misread something.Bali ultimate (talk) 23:08, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I occasionally visit Chicago. I hardly think that someone editing from such a large urban center is reasonable cause for a check user request.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I just noticed this response, and I must say, it's kind of weird, Die4Dixie. Who said anything about Chicago? --GoodDamon 01:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It rules out 95% of all American editors, so a brand new account joining an edit war initiated by IPs from the same town is a strong indication they are the same. The editing history itself (new abusive SPA created to edit war on politics articles) is strongly indicative of sockpuppetry. The combination of factors is persuasive but not conclusive. The need to keep Wikipedia stable in this case should outweigh any interest the new account holder has in anonymity / privacy. Wikidemon (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

(snip long comment by me, have moved to Acorn neutrality dispute heading lower down). Will note that the milkman seems to be tied into some of the goins on at the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now article.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:14, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• See also WP:ANI#NEutrality dispute at ACORN below. Given the evidence provided by Bali ultimate above, it appears that there may be some use of sock puppets to avoid 3RR. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, there does appear to be, or at least a coordinated effort by thosse who don't want the neutrality tag to keep it removed with out addressing the issues to have the tag removed legitimately.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

D4D. Are you "wiki-legalizing" sock-puppetry to "solve" an NPOV dispute at an article or did I misinterpret your comment? You know it is not about content here, it is about puppetry and edit-warring.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

What? I'm not sure I understand what your not understanding of what I said means you think I said. I mean that Bali Ultimate and others remove the templates in a coordinated way ,and then Lulu started in. I should have said meat puppet to make it clearer. Sorry for the confusion. What I was saying is that Will's deductions are correct in substance; however, the identifaction of who the problem is is mistaken.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I would have called you a meat puppet since you by yourself didn't provide a reason for the template on talk but I assumed you're conform regarding the edits of that editor who placed the template after being "mad" because his edit(s) where reversed. This editor didn't had a GF reason or at least no RS (for his edit) to do so but still, you reinstated the template without providing a reason by yourself. This is what struck me as non-proper. Now this "editor" (which we both agree is involved in some kind of puppetry) gave some explanation at talk but without any sourcing at all, making it just a personal allegation which doesn't have any merit on WP. Guess we can agree on this? So if I'm not mistaken you based your revert(s) first on his unexplained and much later unsourced explanation at the talk page. Mostly just watching this page (since it's soooo exiting  :) ) I was honestly stunned that you reinstated the template without stating your own reason and then (I guess) with uncited allegations of "that" editor. Just agreeing in general with such is not enough to do so. An article is not out of balance when leaving out negative information that is not RS and therefore doesn't deserve any template disputing balance if there is no source to back negatives up in reliable fashion. Well, enough of that. After having a power outage and also to do other things on the side (and not being a linguistic ace) I won't reread this and just send it. Hopefully it makes sense. Ouh, and I reversed that template once too. So much for "meat puppetry ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Are we looking at the same talk page which I made reference to the tag, gave a reason, and encouraged Sinaticus to give his own so that we could all work together (even Bali) to resolving the issue? That page ? Acorn talk page .Of course, I didnt put my reasons on the article page. This has a surreal quality to it, are you pulling my chain?Die4Dixie (talk) 04:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Editors "coordinating" to defend an article against abusive sockpuppets is just fine - it's article patrol. If the same editors decide that you are a problem too and gang up on you, which they seem to have done, that is a mistake. Although it's not right, surely you can understand why they might have gotten that impression. If you put your arm the middle of a dogfight it could get bitten.Wikidemon (talk) 01:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Dog-fights mean several things but don't talk about putting a dog down while I'm present because you won't have a change  ;) --The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but Bali Ultimate has had a long history in his short time here of making accustations and bad faith assumptions. All I have said is the tag should stay , my arcticle edits have been good faith attempts to improve the article. If he views this as a dog fight, then he should do something else. Rabid dogs that bite are put down, to use your analogy, and he is out of control.Die4Dixie (talk) 01:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Difs please on my "long history." As to you, your contentious, rude and disruptive behavior here [[88]] (in support of syntacticus' effort to force in false and potentially libelous material into the article) makes it hard to assume you're a good faith editor. You chose to play those games and communicate that way. If others find it exasperating and take you less seriously for playing the fool, don't blame them.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

My oh my how we forget. the conversation was an academic one. I never advocated including it, but rather gave a better source for it. He obviously wasn't interested in using it, mott point. I even said i wasn't advocating its inclusion. It was incredible that you put so much effort to object to it when you seemed happier than a pig in shit that the Huffington post piece, an opinion piece, was a the linch pin of a section. Thanks to your brilliant expounding on why the WSJ wasn't reliable, I was able to remove the offending Huff post piece using your wise reasoning. I look forward to your supporting my in its removal as vigorously as you objected to the WSJ. Any hoo. You several times accused me of being some Brian of Palatine sock untill I allowed you my IP address to finally silence your abusive rants. If I need to collect the diffs, I will, so tell me if you want them brought to this forum or not. They are stale now, because I couldn't be bothered then and you were new so I gave you a lot of leeway. You are no longer new, you look for trouble, and are contentious. Your edits tend to show you to be extremely rigid EG your reverting my neutrality tag with out addressing my vocalized concerns on the talkpage. I am not Synticaticus or what ever his name is ,and my complaints have individual merits, independent of your feeling about that editor. I'd be willing to let this all go now and work out the rest of the neutrality problems via talk , if you are. The edits that I made to the article space were attempts to improve the article (which they did) I ridded it of instanaces peacock prose, removed the "wrong" aspect of the firings ( which you rigidily couldn't understand, and even people who agree with you politics had to graudgingly admit I was right.

Difs please on my defense of the huffpo piece. As i recall it ended up there in response to other opinion pieces critical of the organization, balancing them out (and not added by me). I'm happy to see it go -- and have advocated for it going in the past. I'll get the diff when i proposed the use of conyers from a news article instead. So, I'm done here with you. If you make accusations against me, provide some diffs. Otherwise, work honestly and stop playing games. Oh and by the way while "huffpo piece says acorn is being smeared" is weak "right wing piece that makes false accusations of trading cocaine for votes" is far, far worse.Bali ultimate (talk) 02:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

jsut so we are clear here, I never advocated the use of the piece in question. i suggested he use the WSJ , of which you said you had a stack by your computer. This is my last post here, you can use your talk page if you want to discuss this futher, or mine, or the talk page at the article. If you need the last word, you van now have it, if not, I'll just ake it now.Die4Dixie (talk) 05:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

New sock of User:Yorkshirian

A couple of weeks ago Yorkshirian (talk · contribs) revisted us as Immense sense (talk · contribs), a clone of his previous Gennarous (talk · contribs) (both accounts editing Sicily and related articles from a right-wing, anti-Muslim POV (related AN/I discussion here). Now Beatrixers (talk · contribs) is making identical edits to the Sicily article: these two edits [89] and [90] replicate this one from the earlier sock [91], right down to the identical inclusion of a {{clarifyme}} tag. Can someone please take a look? Thanks, Kafka Liz (talk) 11:59, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

This edit by Immense sense is identical to some of the changes by Beatrixers. User has been blocked. Nev1 (talk) 14:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The following as  Confirmed socks of Yorkshirian:

1. Beatrixers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. Immense sense (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Swinging 70es (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
4. Stipulater (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
5. Faces en la Crowd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
6. Kilfeno (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
7. Sketchy Berd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
8. Bourbonia (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
9. A Flying Heart (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
10. Guardian of Plato (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
11. Victory's Spear (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
12. Sumside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
13. Ten Dolla, Ten Dolla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
14. T Weatley (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
15. Learned Sprited (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
16. Revealed Hand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
17. Thousand headed dragon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
18. Brown breaad (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
19. Milkmang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
20. Traseiro de Porco (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
21. Zap 05 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Yorkshirian operates from a pretty big IP range, so a rangeblock is out of the question. I'll see if I can narrow this to /17-/21 rangeblocks. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Them's a lotta socks. Thanks for checking this out, Nishkid64. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

See also this apparently retaliatory request: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Aragmar which has been Rejected ++Lar: t/c 14:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Back again, this time as User:Zap 05. Indefblocked. --Angelo (talk) 11:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think it's safe to say that User:Pork and Wine, User:Turkish Bacon, and User:Ventelator (now all indefblocked) were also this person... Lithoderm 12:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

...And also Zap 06 (talk · contribs), who is not yet blocked. Kafka Liz (talk) 13:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

He is now. Nev1 (talk) 13:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Finderskey, User:Fecklesse, User:Franckoise & User:Featheresse

These four users are already the subject of an SSP filing here, filed I think a couple of days ago by another editor (User:NoCal100). However that's stuck in the backlog and in the meantime they are continuing to edit-war some borderline vandalism relating to the assassinated Lebanese politician Elie Hobeika both into the main article about him, and also into Lebanon bombings and assassinations (2004-present). In the last three days, an extensive and totally unencyclopedic eulogy to Hobeika as well as a slew of scrappily written material sourced to blogs has been reverted into his page by one or other of these editors seven times as per the following diffs - 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7.

This is continuing despite the SSP case, despite numerous warnings (going back months) on the main account's talk page and despite two other editors reverting the material, citing WP:MEMORIAL and the sockpuppet warnings in edit summaries. Neither the main Finderskey account or the alleged socks have ever used edit summaries or posted on the article talk pages to even attempt to explain what they are doing, or responded to the warnings on their own talk pages. I would add that any editor(s) who can get myself and NoCal100 to agree on something must be doing something pretty out there. I'd suggest it's time for a simple block on all four accounts, for vandalism, disruptive editing, edit warring, sockpuppetry and effective 3RR violations - surely at least one of those sticks, if not some combination of most of them? It's not as if there haven't been warnings. --Nickhh (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Still at it this morning, without response to this ANI thread (I did notify them) or to requests for engagement on talk. Help, please? --Nickhh (talk) 11:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If filed a RFCU, since the sock puppetry has been used to get around 3RR today, but really, I think this is so obvious that a CU is a waste of time. NoCal100 (talk) 15:26, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering I've seen admins swoop from nowhere to dole out no-warning blocks to users for one mildly sarcastic talk page comment, I'm a little confused as to why nothing is done when two separate users - who you'd be hard pushed to get to agree on much else - take the trouble to raise (with full supporting evidence) on this noticeboard a pretty transparent issue of serious and repeated mainspace disruption involving virtually every sin in the WP rulebook, which has been going on intermittently for over a year and where multiple warnings have already been given. If someone has passed over this and thought "content dispute", could they please look again? It's still going on. Thanks. --Nickhh (talk) 08:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Apologies, it seems to be sorted, my faith in the process is restored (eventually). Because nothing was noted here, and because the articles in question were still in a state, I assumed otherwise. Although I guess a new account will appear shortly ... --Nickhh (talk) 08:59, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Ungtss at baraminology

Summary: Repeated removal/alteration/qualification of heavily cited lead text; persistent re-introduction of content written from POV. Both disputes have been taken to the talk page. Informed many times that this should not be done, and why. Still a problem.

Background: Ungtss has contributed to a variety of articles, usually in 'bulk' form (writing several paragraphs from scratch). Knows about baraminology, and has made bulk contributions in the past, usually describing its the processes and terms in detail (or, with verbosity). Every once in a while a new user or ip removes what they consider to be "pro-science, anti-ID" content from the article. User_talk:Gracie_Allan recently did this, was reverted, and I left a message on her talk informing her and asking for her input. She's now commenting at talk. Ungtss seems to have joined her, it appears seeing this as an opportunity:

a) to remove, alter, and comment out heavily cited statements that characterize baraminology as pseudoscience. There are either removed, or needless qualification ("seen by the scientific community as") is inserted. See [92] [93][and others]. This dispute been taken to the talk page where there is ongoing discussion. The user has been asked to stop these changes at their user talk, in edit summaries, and in the article talk. (At talk, the user refuses to reply to comments in a "non-threaded" manner; injects comments into those of another, when this was brought up on his talk he recopied the whole exchange into a new section.)

b) to add large new sections to the article. This isn't itself bad, however, the new sections describe baraminology "in the context of baraminology", which is to say they're written entirely in that POV. When adding new sections, moves large ref blocks from other passages into them (though leaving a refname=x/) making it difficult to edit the new sections; user has been asked to stop. The moved ref frequently does not support the newly-written sentence. Tried moving sections to talk; user rewrote/reverted section (including unrelated additions of citations, and other changes). Currently inline comments and {fact}s are being used to inform user of how to change their paragraphs to comply with policy/style. User has responded by commenting out sourced statements that are 'anti' baraminology.

If cited statements in the lead are changed, and the change is reverted and a discussion started in talk, further "rewordings" of the statements should be prohibited. Keeping large newly-added POV sections in the article itself (with comments and {fact}s) is a courtesy, and if these sections are moved to the talk with justification the user should not rewrite and re-add the same sections, but rather discuss changes, and potentially ask for arbitration. Please prohibit the user from changing cited statements themselves, and from re-inserting large bulk sections. –M^T 21:55, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

How is this a matter for admins? Have you tried, and exhausted, the methods listed in WP:DR to bring in outside editors to help with this dispute? Is there any evidence that multiple, outside editors have weighed in on the issues and that civil attempts have been made to argue your case? Has there been any attempt to work this out besides running to ANI to ask for a block? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I was informed by an administrator that if one makes a significant change to an article and has that change reverted, then they are to take the issue to talk, and not attempt to reintroduce the material in question until consensus is met. The discussion is moving along fine, the issue is that the user continues reverting[94][95] against long term consensus[96][97][98][99][100] regarding a controversial issue, and reverting to text that is under discussion in talk. He doesn't need to be blocked, but a warning or clarification of rules would be nice. Posting here is, I hope, a better idea than reverting his edits until he explains himself at talk. –M^T 04:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

M's argument appears to be premised on the belief that the other users making those changes are socks. That premise is incorrect. Those repeated edits are being made by other users. The talk page shows that I have made efforts to discuss things with M, and that he had declined to participate. As a side note, his evidence for "consensus" on the topic consists in a number of different users dissenting with the "consensus" and being summarily reverted. Odd evidence for the existence of a "consensus," to say the least.Ungtss (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Users whose only edit is to blank out/change cited text do not count against the consensus. Two replies have for a few days awaited Ungtss at talk. An admin needs to clarify policy here. If new text is reverted, and taken to talk, is it permissible to repeatedly revert back to the text? –M^T 03:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

1. So in your opinion, an editor does not count against consensus about the wording of a particular sentence if he or she alters the sentence in question? What must one do to count against consensus? Not change the sentence?

2. Three times I have asked you where those replies are. You have merely responded, "it's above." I addressed each of your points in turn, and either you have not responded or I am not smart enough to find your responses on the page. Please tell me where your responses are, because I do not see them on the talk page.

3. I have not reverted any text, ever. Multiple editors have noticed the POV sentence in question, and attributed the opinion to its source -- consistent with NPOV. The editors reverting those edits, unfortunately, have confused fact and POV when it comes to sources whose POVs they find particularly credible. Ungtss (talk) 04:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

All this belongs on my talk. 2) They're directly under my initial that you copy-pasted down, 3) removing/changing the same text repeatedly, even if you don't hit the revert button, is still reversion. –M^T 06:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Self-proclaimed sock

Resolved

 – troll moved back under bridge, billy goats gruff safe to cross over

Can an admin take a look at Ian9x (talk · contribs · logs)? Either a banned editor or someone masquerading as such for lulz or to make a point. Skomorokh 21:58, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Pedro. Skomorokh 22:04, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Welcome. And various bits deleted per WP:DENY. Pedro :  Chat  22:05, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Might be nice for people to keep an eye on FisherQueen's talk page, as she is apparently under sockpuppeting troll attack.—Kww(talk) 22:16, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Meh. It's just a schoolboy who's discovered vandalism but hasn't yet realized how dull it is. I'm taking a RBI approach. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

All socks of Ianxp. I've now placed a rangeblock, so that should keep him off WP for the time being. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

He's adapting tactics. Today he came in on a mobile IP 89.19.79.234 (talk · contribs), and tried to spoof a message to me from PhillKnight (talk · contribs) (note the two Ls, not to be confused with admin PhilKnight (talk · contribs)). One other tactic that made me laugh, was on one of his new socks, IanUnix (talk · contribs), he pre-added the "indef blocked" template to his talkpage, before he contacted me.[101]  ;) All of the latest accounts are now blocked (for real), but I did want to let other admins know to keep an eye out. The main common elements (see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ianxp) are:

• He tends to create accounts that start with the name Ian, where the suffix is some other name, often an Operating System or an animal.
• He's logging in from Ireland
• He tends to gravitate to the following two school articles:
  • Patrician Secondary School
  • Newbridge College
• He also tends to refer to me, PhilKnight, and uncyclopedia. Lately he's also been haunting the talkpages of FisherQueen (talk · contribs) and Irmela (talk · contribs).

FYI, --Elonka 22:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Jacky cole

Resolved

 – Jacky cole's talk page protected to prevent abuse. WP:RFPP would be a better venue for this sort of issue in the future. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 20:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This bizarre (and blocked) user, whom I suspect to be a sock of another user, is insisting on disrupting this site via his talk page a day after his block. I've redirected the talk page to the user page, but I'd like to request the talk page be locked down. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Have protected the talk page. bibliomaniac15 04:47, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

For future reference, please use Wikipedia:Requests for page protection (WP:RFPP) for requests like this. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Stalking by User:Orpheus

User:Orpheus has elected to resume an editing dispute that I had hoped to end with a monthlong absence from the encyclopedia. In late October, Orpheus joined an editing dispute at Geoff Simpson over the inclusion of an arrest record that I believed was a BLP violation and I strongly opposed ahead of election day in the United States (which at that point was only about 5 days away). His contribs show that immediately prior, he had posted to the talk page of User:TastyPoutine, where User:HoboJones had just posted a comment trying to recruit TastyPoutine's involvement in the matter and in this way I believe he was initially biased in his edits. As that dispute grew into an increasingly bitter edit war, Orpheus reported it here, which was largely ignored, then began to leave snide remarks at my own talk page. Orpheus then reported me to 3RR and I was blocked for edit warring. Because HoboJones and Orpheus were both assisting each other in that edit war, neither breached 3RR and so neither was blocked.

After going through my contribs, Orpheus expanded the conflict to a dispute over the hatnote and dab page at The Rite of Spring where I had just removed a note, and where Orpheus had never previously edited before. Orpheus then monitored my contributions very carefully and, after I had made three consecutive edits to Dino Rossi, he immediately posted a notice (after which I made 0 reverts to the disputed article) and then immediately reported me again to 3RR and secured a second block. Though I don't believe I had technically violated 3RR, and though I had made 0 edits after his warning, and though the other party in that dispute wasn't blocked, mine was upheld after an appeal.

Aware that my edits were being closely monitored by Orpheus, I took a monthlong hiatus from the encyclopedia, since I don't believe I would have been productive with that user so eager to engage in editing disputes and to abusively use process to have me blocked in retaliation. When I returned yesterday, Orpheus resumed this conflict at the DAB page for Rites of Spring, but not before rifling through my contributions and taking another stab at me at a page he had previously made 0 edits to: CouchSurfing. I would ask that an administrator request of Orpheus that he restrain himself from continuing to stalk me across numerous pages and through numerous disputes and that he desist from attempting to intervene in any of my edits from this point forward. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 05:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• After reviewing the dispute at Geoff Simpson, I came across this, which is discouraging for two reasons: 1. I was wrong and the ongoing dispute at Geoff Simpson goes beyond just Orpheus. 2. There is an even greater depth to the abuse of process that I had not expected from those people. It is becoming increasingly apparent that if I ever want to resume editing Wikipedia again, I will have to waste hours and days going through all of this anytime I want to make a simple edit to anything.
• If there is any administrator that can advise me on what to do so that I can finally be free of all this baggage and resume editing again, I'm all ears. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:36, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that at some point, when everyone disagrees with you, it might not be a conspiracy against you so much as plain consensus is again you, right? I'm not saying that's what's going on but it's a possibility. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what exactly are you referring to? Are you saying that a three person consensus annuls my involvement in this project? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Nobody said anything about annuling anything. However, we work on consensus and it appears the consensus is different than your opinion on that issue. All that to say maybe you were wrong. Toddst1 (talk) 16:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• Wrong about what exactly? What does consensus not support me in? Cumulus Clouds (talk) 20:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

He appears to mean that maybe you were wrong about the Geoff Simpson issue, since consensus on the talk page has gone against you. I would add to that that maybe you are wrong about removing the hatnote on The Rite of Spring, since you have been reverted on that 4 times. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is not the forum to debate that issue. You should confine yourself to the AFD. I haven't edited Geoff Simpson since late October, so that dispute is hardly relevant in this context. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• So struck. Nevertheless, I believe the Geoff Simpson issue is what Ricky81682 is referring to when he speaks of consensus going against you. --IllaZilla (talk) 01:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• I'm going to try discussing this with Orpheus first, so I'll suspend this notice for about 12 hours pending the outcome of that discussion. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 08:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

• This is awaiting the outcome of a discussion on Orpheus's talk page. It may not need administrator intervention. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 01:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Mccready in violation (and weird denial) of indefinite topic ban

Help is needed in enforcing a topic ban "from all acupuncture and chiropractic related topics, broadly construed"[102]:

• Vassyana, at Mccready's user talk page: "the topic ban is now indefinite"
• Scientizzle, at AN/I: "Topic ban is extended to an indefinite ban."

Mccready recently posted as an IP to acupuncture, which resulted in my requesting a checkuser that was positive (and to which he even admitted). Still, he remains rather obtusely in denial about the existence of the topic ban, no matter what anyone says to him. He has again posted at Talk:acupuncture. Can we make that post his last on that particular topic? He was topic-banned for really good reasons (massive disruption and abiding ignorance of basic Wikiquette, cf. his talk page and block log). Someone please bring a stop to this disruption and disrespect for WP sanctions. Echoing others who have dealt with this editor, I suggest blocks of increasing length escalating to a site ban if the behavior continues. thanks, Jim Butler (t) 16:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

When I closed that discussion seven months ago, it was clear that editors of all stripes in the science-alternative medicine dispute were frustrated with Mccready's actions on various pages. There was a clear consensus that he needed an extended break from those pages, thus I expanded his then-established temporary topic ban to an indefinite topic ban. Ignoring this is a fatuous attempt to get around his restrictions and I find it unreasonable.

That said, the recent edits attributed to this user in violation of this ban seem, to me, to be generally okay (this and this look like reasonable removal of fluff and unnecessary equivocation, and asking why those edits were reverted isn't far out of line).

Since Mccready has stated that he wishes to appeal this topic ban on AN/I, I propose this:

• I will personally block Mccready for greater than one month (the length of the last block) if he edits in the area of the topic ban again—article or talk pages, even in response to the thread he just started at Talk:Acupuncture—but will not block right now pending his appeal on ANI of said topic ban. That discussion can determine if his recent edits were appropriate or not, no doubt affecting the liklihood of a reduced topic ban.

I'll inform Mccready (talk · contribs) of this on his talk page... — Scientizzle 18:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC) Informed — Scientizzle 23:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Scientizzle's comments. I am additionally very wary of reducing the topic ban considering the continuation of his tendency towards WP:IDHT and his failure (so far) to accept responsibility for the long-running problems that lead to the topic ban in the first place. Mccready should explicitly acknowledge the past problems in his approach and clearly indicate that he will be responsive to community concerns. He should also abandon the pattern of acting like notifications, comments, and other circumstances did not occur or were the result of his opponents' fabrications. Otherwise, I must strongly oppose any softening of the restrictions, as their preventative purpose is still required. Vassyana (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Scientizzle's giving Mccready to chance to appeal is entirely reasonable, and I share Vassyana's skepticism about reducing the topic ban. There's no evidence that Mccready learns anything from bans or probations. Rather than work toward better editing, he just goes away, makes a few minor edits, and eventually comes roaring back with the same tendentious disruption. That was the pattern both recently and in 2006-2007.

So, yes, he is capable of disengaging, but he hasn't shown the ability to be engaged while not making a mess of things. Before reducing the topic bans, I would look for a proactive, sustained pattern of engaged, collaborative editing, perhaps in some other pseudoscience or alt-med area. If he can behave himself there, maybe he can come back to his two pet peeve areas (chiro and acu) in a civilized manner. Not until then, please. --Jim Butler (t) 04:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That is sound reasoning, I'd say. The facts right now point too his being unable to work productively in the are of the topic ban, so that should stand; it's not about whether he's right or wrong or his proposed content is good or bad (though of course that will inform things to an extent), it's about long-term and repeatable inability to engage properly with those of an opposing point of view. Guy (Help!) 17:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Charles Dickens

Resolved

 – Page semi-protected until 16:59, 14 December 2008 (UTC); future issues should be reported to WP:RFPP. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Recommend protecting the page, having a rash of similar vandalism from multiple IPs. Ndenison ^talk 16:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 3 days, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. Please file future reports at WP:RFPP. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 16:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Went Unnoticed

It seams that almost 4 months ago the page created for the Dividead visual novel was vandalized and transformed into a page about the death metal band Dividead. Not that i don't think the band doesn't deserve a page but stealing another articles page should be considered vandalism, i will not post the person who changed it here since it's just an IP address and don't consider it appropriate. To verify my claim it is only necessary to view the oldest page(s) in History, or at least the ones under 2008-08-07T13:10:06. I hope something can be done to satisfy both parts and an edit war doesn't start.--AlucardNoir 17:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlucardNoir (talk • contribs)

It's unclear to me whether either the book game(?) or the band should have an encyclopedia article. But, this is an issue for the page- I don't see that administrative action is needed. Friday (talk) 17:58, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

To quote WP:Vandalism: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" (emph original). I have serious doubts that whomever replaced the content at Dividead had the intention of compromising the integrity of Wikipedia, and genuinely believed he/she was correcting the entry. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 18:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Let's see ... someone involved with the articles creates 2 pages ... Dividead (band) and Dividead (book) and turn the current Dividead into a disambig page. Problem solved. ►BMW◄ 18:43, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

There's no need for a disambiguation page; it seems the name of the visual novel is in fact Divi-dead. Revert the other back to the band, add some hatnotes and everyone goes away happy. Steve ^{T • C} 20:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. I've restored the band article at Dividead and added hatnotes. Looks like Divi-dead was already created so I've added hatnotes to that and fixed the naming problems. I wonder if we need to do a histmerge? —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:07, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you have any reaosn to copy any substantive text from one article to the other (ie, other than Wikipedia housekeeping like templates and categories)? If not, a history merge isn't needed. If you've copied something more substantive, a quick and dirty way would be to revert yourself and then restore with an edit summary that links directly to the Last Known Good diff of the article you copied from. Problem solved, I believe. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ takes life at five times the average speed 22:20, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Thegreatestmoever (and sockpuppets)

User:Thegreatestmoever was a rather idiotic vandal who pretty quickly got blocked, and loved leaving offensive messages on the user pages of admins and others who reverted his changes or blocked him. It seems he's back with some sockpuppet accounts now, leaving nasty messages on the talk page of one of the admins previously involved. Here is a diff of the guy leaving offensive messages as User:Thegreatestmoever8, here as User:Thegreatestmoever2, and here as User:Thegreatestmoever10. All these messages appear to include moronic rape threats, and general unpleasantness. Other than that there has been more generic vandalism from these accounts, such as here (from Thegreatestmoever2), here (from Thegreatestmoever3), and here (from Thegreatestmoever7). He also claims often that "his friend" is doing the vandalism, even though he's been told that's not an excuse, and I'd bet he's created some non-Thegreatestmoever accounts so someone with the power to do so may wish to check IP addresses used by those accounts, and what other activity has come from them. Just thought someone should be made aware of all this, anyway. Xmoogle (talk) 18:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

See also: [103] Arakunem^Talk 18:44, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Arakunem, that list of usernames is handy. Most of those seem unused, however, as I'd checked using the User Contributions page through all of those names, and only edits by 2, 3, 7, 8 and 10 existed. Xmoogle (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Categorized all into Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Thegreatestmoever. — Satori Son 19:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Oren.tal

I was advised by a user that he had removed a discussion from his talkpage, so I started checking diffs when I came across these: [104] [105][106] [107] [108][109] [110] [111]. After looking at the talk page and reading the edit summaries, I realized two things: a) the IP and Oren.tal are clearly the same person and b) this was a blatant WP:POINT edit. It is important to note that I have never made an edit on the page and actually had never heard of the subject until yesterday. Therefore, I left a note on Oren.tal's talk page. He then leaves me this message on my talk page about how other users are "breaking Wikipedia law". I inform him again that adding 19 sources to an infobox is disruptive - and that it messes up the formatting of the infobox. He then accuses me of lying and saying he didn't add 19 sources to one line in the infobox. Therefore, I provide him the diff and add a template to his talk page to let him know that falsely accusing editors of lying is a personal attack (I went to level 3 - he clearly wasn't new and it was clearly a bad faith accusation - he knew I was not lying). He responds by again saying I was "falsely accusing" him. He then tells me again on my talkpage that I have "falsely accused" him and then decides to claim that he only added 9 (which would still be disruptive, but it's also not true) and again accuses me of lying. So, I give him a final warning (I realize I actually 4im'd him, but the template means the same thing at that point). I also ask him if it is possible that someone took over his account, as I was really not sure what he was going for. Again, he calls me a liar and says we need to have "other administrators decide the number". Again, the number isn't important. I let him know we are going to ANI because he's being disruptive (and I don't want to be the one to block him at this point). At the same time, he tells me again on his talkpage that he did not add sources and again accuses me of lying and then demands an apology. Gwen steps in on my talk page and lets him know that she actually counted 20. Again he makes the claim that he only added 9.

So I recognize that's kind of long and a little confusing since it's taking place in two separate forums. But there you are - plenty of Wikidrama for everyone. --Smashville^talk 19:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry ... this is Thursday: drama is for Fridays. ►BMW◄ 19:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Haaretz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has a bit of a content issue as well as a small clique rejecting mainstream input backed up by reliable sources (I've yet to understand why). Oren.tal noted his erroneous counting so I believe this post is pure drama and counter-productive (see also: WP:NAM). Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the article and everything to do with the conduct of the user. His edit history and interaction with everyone shows consistent bad faith accusations and incivility. Also, as I have mentioned, I have never edited on that article. --Smashville^talk 20:24, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Jaakobou, but the only mastodon is Oren. Read Talk:Haaretz#Political allegiance. He's the WP:POINTy editor who's added 16 references to Gush Shalom and won't abide by the Talk page consensus that "left wing" doesn't belong in the first sentence. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 20:27, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Having bad faith in this instance, where reliable references are being rejected on the discussion for non-contentious material, is not a far fetched response. There seems to be a bit of a battleground issue with several of the involved editors and I've yet to understand where these "per policy" statements are coming from. I would suggest bringing everyone involved under notice for the Wikipedia:ARBPIA and it's declared principals. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:39, 11 December 2008 (UTC) fix Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 20:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: Gwen Gale seems to have acted already blocking Oren.tal (talk · contribs) for 48hrs. Despite some point to this block, I'm not sure if it were the correct choice of handling this incident. Clearly, fellow editors were edit-warring on more than one article as well. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, here is evidence of a history of further personal attacks, incivility and bad faith accusations since he came on Wikipedia:

• Calls a user an idiot
• Tells admin who blocked him to leave him alone and grow up
• Starts a thread entitled "Idiot I am former religious Jew"
• Threatens to report a user if they remove a link, while making it clear that their religion is why he will report them
• A less than friendly 3RR notice
• Accuses an editor of lying and says he will tell on him
• Calls another editor racist...for no reason
• Asks a user if he knows how to read
• Accuses an editor of making personal attacks when they have not done so
• Accuses an editor of having an agenda
• Accuses an editor of having an agenda for trying to explain BLP to him
• "maybe you need a lesson in English"
• Refers to Malcolm Schosha as "Malik" (in response to being reminded of WP:NPA
• Makes a sockpuppet allegation
• Accuses Malcolm Schosha and Malik Shabazz of being sockpuppets of each other
• Continues sockpuppetry allegation
• Addresses Malcolm Schosha as "Malik"

The edit history of this user shows that previous blocks have not served as any deterrent to the behavior he continues to engage in. And again to Jaakabou, this is a user conduct issue, not a content issue. --Smashville^talk 22:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Don't know why you removed your "snarky" comment ... you have a right to be snarky after that brutal non-call on the Burrows hit intent to injure/charge ►BMW◄ 22:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

If only he had referred to JP as sloppy seconds...he would be so gone... --Smashville^talk 22:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment: adding his comments from June 2007 (i.e. Calls a user an idiot) to support an 48hr block in December 2008 is down right ridiculous.... but I'm open community input if you think I'm wrong here. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you ignore the "evidence...since he came on Wikipedia" part? What we have here is a user with a history of personal attacks, and incivility who has continued despite multiple blocks. The fact that he continued to attack me today should have been enough for a block. This is a user who has continued to POV push and edit war since he came onto Wikipedia...I'm wondering if we need to do a little more than a 48 hour. --Smashville^talk 23:18, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

We don't mean to hang the scarlet letter over people for year and a half old comments. If there's a recent pattern -- and I'm not talking about borderline replies to incivil comments towards him -- please present this. Your calling him the t-word when he was adding more than proper content to Haaretz (which was on the page with a consensus for many months) makes me wonder if we need to re-assess your "uninvolved" status in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian articles.

p.s. I'm aware that he re-added 19 references, but that was after a smaller number of references was deemed "unreliable". Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:55, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I said I had a hard time believing he is not a troll. I said it in response to you saying it was a bad idea to open this ANI. I opened the ANI in response to his comments. He was already blocked when I said that. He can hardly be excused for making repeated personal attacks on me because of a comment I made after he attacked me repeatedly. Contrary to your descriptor, the response was to you. The reason I opened this ANI is because his actions seem trollish. And for the last time, this has nothing to do with content on an article I have never edited or a subject on which I know nothing about. The fact of the matter is - again - he added 19 sources to a one-word descriptor on an Infobox. I asked him not to do it. He called me a liar, said he didn't do it, demanded an apology, etc. I don't know how I can be more clear with this - personal attacks are not acceptable. And a user who has a long history of them is a problem. Accusing me of having an agenda is a) absurd, considering I have never edited any article related to any of these subjects as I have no knowledge of them, b) bad faith and c) completely irrelevant because for the last time, the content of the article is not an issue as I have never edited the article. A disruptive edit is a disruptive edit regardless of the subject of the article. --Smashville^talk 00:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Asking him to stop (he seemed to agree) or getting peeved that he said you were wrong for counting 19 when he counted 9 is hardly a concern of mine. I am concerned that a small clique just "messed up an article" (I'm exaggerating a bit) with some unclear concerns (as well as a false claim to a past consensus), and an editor who's trying to fix the issue is being aggressively singled out and "handled" for some "pattern" of minor incivility which was mostly towards people who were mocking both his earlier civil approach as well as reliable sources and the relevant policy. I noted you already on your first approach to the issue that Haaretz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has an ongoing problem and yet it seems the focus is on a very minor incivility and personalization approach by everyone involved. I can't figure out why you'd be posting a complaint even after he realized his miscount (18:53, 11 December 2008 -> complaint posted at 19:22) and when coupled with the t-word and links that go back to 2007, it just feels like a "campaign" to justify "climbing up that mountain" in the first place (mind my "personalized" phrasing). Last sanction on Oren.tal seems to go back to 10 months ago, so the alleged pattern doesn't seem like a real issue for the project, certainly not when coupled with other editors who play games with him on the Israeli-Palestinian articles.

Closing note: I think there's some point in the block but this action is counterproductive if not coupled with bringing everyone involved (in edit warring and personalization of the dispute) under notice for the Wikipedia:ARBPIA. A couple articles I've noticed as mentioned and relevant are:

• Haaretz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - edit warring and removal of sourced (and mainstream acceptable) content by a couple of editors.
• Gush Shalom (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - same issue.
• There was mention of others but I don't know which.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 12:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC) reviewed and it seems to be a very closely related issue. 12:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday I left a message on Jaakobou's talk page [112]. Instead of replying, he has made more accusations here. What I did was remove the description of Ha'aretz as

political = liberal left-wing

My general view is that info boxes should contain only information that are outside issues of balance. Since there is certainly more than one view of the character of Ha'aretz political leanings that should be discussed in a balanced way in the article (not in the info box). If the newspaper had been, for instance, L'Unita which was owned by the Italian Communist Party, including "Political allegiance" in the info box would be justified because there is no doubt about their location on the political spectrum.. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that your general view is supported by any policy and/or reliable sources and while it is not necessary to support the "Liberal left-leaning" with 19 sources, there's no clear reason to remove the (wholly mainstream) content itself^removal and simply cut down on the number of references (see also: WP:IDONTLIKEIT). It would also seem, based on the lack of response to my note of this removal,[113] that edit-warring and making claims of "other perspectives exist" (when they do not exist) has become the norm and I would again reiterate the involved parties need to be advised to the arbcom ruling. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 14:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC) +diff 14:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You seem to be venting over something, but I do not understand what. The content you say was removed is in the article: Haaretz#Editorial policy and viewpoints. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to reply to your statement: It would also seem, based on the lack of response to my note of this removal,[114]... I did not reply because (if I understand correctly) that discusses an edit I did not make, and was a question not even addressed to me. I do want to compliment you on your wiki-lawyering. Very impressive sounding. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 14:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hold on a minute. Oren's edits at Gush Shalom have been pointy and contrary to the Talk page consensus. Other editors feel that "left wing" doesn't belong in the first sentence of the lede. Oren refused to abide by that consensus; he kept putting the phrase back in the first sentence and piling on sources — until he got to 16. Please note that nobody disputed the fact that Gush Shalom is leftist.

I'm not going trying to minimize my role in the edit war at Gush Shalom, but there is a difference between reverting to a consensus version of an article and disrupting the process to prove a point. Oren doesn't seem able to recognize consensus, nor does he understand WP:POINT. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 17:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

A couple editors suggested Gush Shalom might not really be left-wing so now the intro looks something like "X, Y, Z, T, K and J [all mainstream sources] describe it as left-wing" instead of just "is a left-wing group". I've not seen fellow editors not named Oren.tal promote this perspective with any sources (see also WP:IDONTLIKEIT).

I've also noticed a few improper comments, similar to the one above us (Sagi Nahor "compliment"), by more than a single editor.

I've repeated my perspective enough times for this post but Wikipedia:ARBPIA had a clear ruling and editors who engage in activity that is in contrast with the purpose of the encyclopedia should be noted to comply.

With respect, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 18:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality dispute at ACORN

There are editors who are removing the neutrality dispute tag at ACORN with out discussing it on the talk page. I would ask for some guidance from non involved editors. Involved editors may of course comment, but I have placed the tag twice, and another editor has a three times. Can anyone just remove tags that they don't like without addressing the perceived neutrality issues? What good is there to have a tag if a group of editors blocks its usage?Die4Dixie (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

They have all been templated. Bstone (talk) 21:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Why would you template experienced editors when you have this header on your own talk page?Die4Dixie (talk) 22:56, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Why is this discussion about me now? Bstone (talk) 00:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not, just noting the irony. ;) Most experienced ediitors prefer personalized messages.00:39, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There is... or was... discussion underway at Talk:Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. It looks to have ceased about 16 hours ago with little discussion. As there hasn't been a 3RR violation, I'm not sure if there's a need for admin intervention yet. The regular DR process might be appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 21:21, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Bstone missed templating a user who's been central in this dispute, Syntacticus (talk · contribs · count · api · block log). Based on editing patterns, it appears he also edits without logging in as 67.155.175.34 (talk · contribs · count · api · block log). That's a concern because the IP belongs to Capital Research Center, a conservative think tank whose reports Syntacticus has been linking to in this and many other articles. One of their senior editors appeared on Jon Stewart's Daily Show and asserted that ACORN paid volunteers with crack cocaine.[115] The addition of the CRC report is the focus of this dispute. I've asked Syntacticus to comply with WP:COI, and will bring it to WP:COIN if there isn't a resolution. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's how we got here and how we appear to be veering towards full disruption on this page again. A few days ago Syntacticus made a series of 3 edits without summaries (last of them here [[116]] )that reinserted information that had been hashed to death ad nauseum on the talk page (among the issues was the desire to cite an inflamatory and disproven allegation to a blog at something called the Capital Research Center. It was reverted (with an explanation as shown in that last dif), syntacticus re-reverted [[117]]. On talk it was explained to him in great detail why what he was doing was absent consensus, without a reliable source, and factually false [[118]]. In response he throws up a neutrality tag, at almost the same time adding in the debunked information (to whit, that acorn used crack cocaine to convince people to register to vote) cited to the right wing blog [[119]]. I remove the cocaine falsehood, but leave the neutrality tag [[120]] and go to talk, conclusively demonstrating the cocaine error [[121]]. This having been done, and the issue over which Syntacticus had disputed the neutrality of the article (he had called it a "blowjob" and a "puff piece" much earlier in this charming rant during the last time we debunked the cocaine allegation and rid ourselves of the sock army [[122]] apparently being resolved, another user removed the tag [[123]] which syntacticus immediately reverted, which took him to 4rr and of which he was reminded on his talk page (I warned him at 3rr, he went to 4, someone else pointed that out [[124]]. This was all on December 7. On December 8 Syntacticus again reinserted the neutrality tag (still not having really taken any of this up at talk yet) was reverted [[125]] and Syntacticus reverts again [[126]]. Then an IP address registered to the Capital Research Center (the group for which Syntacticus habitually adds links to articles, and whose opinion pieces he tries to use as reliable sources for matters of fact, a habit for which he has been warned multiple times) reinserts the tag [[127]]. Now in comes the milkman, who makes the same edits syntacticus was trying to make in his first edit on Wikipedia [[128]]. The Milkman's exploits have been well covered already. After he edit wars up to a 24 hour block, new user Bigus Dickus reinserts half of the material Syntacticus had been seeking [[129]] . Apparently the name bigus dickus violated a policy, he is perm-blocked shortly thereafter. The next day, December 11, Syntacticus restores tag and seeks to use the Capital Research Center as a reliable source (something he has been told is a violation of policy multiple times). [[130]]. Our friend Die4Dixie then reinserts the neutrality tag [[131]] originally sought by Syntacticus over a cocaine allegation proven to be false. And in my opinion there has been no good faith effort by Syntacticus, his confederate from the Capital Research Center, the Milkman, Bigus Dickus or Die4Dixie to reach some sort of consensus on that talk page. This is disruptive, degrading to article quality, and smacks of game playing (if anyone thinks this may be a bog standard content dispute, please read this dialogue between dixie and i in which he accuses me of "original research" and failing to understand the intent of the project while i try to explain to him while editorials aren't to be used as reliable sources [[132]]. Given the past painful experience with game playing over this article, i hope steps are taken to nip disruption in the bud.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Take out the Huffington post editorial ,which you seem to think better than the WSJ , and enough of my neutrality concerns will be resolved that the template can come off. I am not your friend, make no mistake about it, and your snide use of friend ass a pejoritive is unhelpful and gratuitiously snide.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:35, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

See also the above thread: WP:ANI#User Here Cometh the Milkman, a related case. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Die4Dixie has been a long term "problem editor" on the ACORN article, trying to stick in various stuff against WP standards and article consensus. Having mostly not managed to get that stuff in, his/her latest attempt is to stick a "disputed" template at the top of the article, without bothering to state or explain any particular issue other than "the article isn't nasty enough towards ACORN" in some vague way.

All of the specific content issues have been or are being discussed perfectly well on the talk page nowadays. It had previously been very disrupted by an army of sock accounts arguing for roughly the same content that Die4Dixie does (but I'm confident that s/he is a different individual from him/them). In any case, none of the discussed issues are more than minor tweaks to a paragraph or two, or maybe discussions of whether one or two citations meet WP:RS. None of this comes anywhere close to being an issue of an "unbalanced" overall article... so the tag is places solely out of WP:POINT or to cause outright disruption of process. LotLE×talk 22:13, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The past history of disruption by POV warriors etc... can be found here [[133]]

Someone please address these ad hominem attacks. I have made few article edits there, and the majortity have be kept. Please supply links to this contentious material that I have added. I have had one block for incivility , many months ago. I believe your editing history to be much more problematic. You are atributting motives here. my motive is that it be accuarate. I have inserted nothing about crack to the article, but used the talk page to discuss the issues. The article has nuetrality problems. Now what are the proticaols for dispute tags, or can people remove them and avoid discussion like LULU seems intent to do? Someone adress these attacjks too, please.Die4Dixie (talk) 22:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, it would be helpful if you could provide diffs to substantiate your comments regarding user:Die4Dixie. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:25, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Syntacticus' contributions to the article about acorn workers and crack were disruptive and suspicious, and his neutrality tag was inappropriate - a case of sour grapes after having clearly inappropriate content rejected by consensus. Syntacticus was the only one promoting that content and the editors were right to remove that tag - at the very least removing the tag was a legitimate consensus to reach, and it would be inappropriate for another editor to edit war on behalf of Syntacticus. I don't think that's what Die4Dixie is doing - he seems to have his own, independent, complaint about the neutrality of the article, which he has articulated. In other words, a tag added for the wrong reason can be removed. But if someone re-adds it for the right reason this time, fine. Die4Dixie is a legitimate, capable, good faith editor with strong political beliefs that he sometimes expresses. Please do not label him disruptive just because his position is different - it is a content position the same way everyone else has content positions. Both sides were edit warring over the neutrality tag, which seems pretty pointless. It's best to take them off and talk instead, but it is such a small matter it is a shame to have to waste time on it here. I suggest smoked WP:TROUT for all, and a return to polite discussion on the talk page. Wikidemon (talk) 01:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Die4Dixie is a longstanding editor who knows and follows the rules, so far as I'm aware. The problem user that I'm concerned about is Syntacticus. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree at the fullest. If Syntacticus wouldn't be around D4D could be a valuable assert to the article in question. S/he should detach him/herself from any influence from this "editor" to (again) get some balance where needed without being (emotionally?) pulled by such editor.--The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. If you will look at the talk page , I encouraged him to itemize his problems so that we could work towards getting it removed. I understand how it is an ugly banner. Rather that remove it, discussion ( which was on going on my part before the last revert by Lulu) should happen to improve the article. I'm done here. I removed the trigger for me ( from the Huffington Post opinion piece). I used the same guidelines that Bali suggests to exclude the WSJ opinion piece. I have never added blog/op ed sourced material to an article. I did agrue on the talk page if someone else wanted to use the WSJ piece, it was better than the right wing stuff they had. I never said I would put it in , an I viewed the convesation as an academic one.Die4Dixie (talk) 02:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Ban proposal of Ianxp

Resolved

 – Being handled at AN. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think that it's high time for Ian to go. It hasn't even been a month since he joined, and yet he already has a large sock farm, has made crude personal attacks, gamed the system, and has made a vicious and potentially dangerous threat. He also says that he will continue to disrupt Wikipedia. Anyone agree on banning Ian from editing Wikipedia? --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 00:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Oops, didn't see this. --Dylan620 _Contribs ^Sign! 00:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please continue this discussion over at WP:AN#Ban proposals to avoid duplication. EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Too many alert parts

Resolved

 – seems to be fixed now

Its too many alert parts in the Reporting of vandalism page. The Rolling Camel (talk) 00:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a bot problem...--Smashville^talk 00:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone broke the header. Fixed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like some Huggle reports are breaking the header. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the last one did. --Smashville^talk 00:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I did say some. Example -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems there may have been some section-editing changes in MediaWiki.[134] -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Undo function acting strange?

Is it just my computer, or is the undo function not working properly? Several times today I tried to undo a word or two, but the change shown before I save is several sections long. Ward3001 (talk) 00:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I just saw that. The preview was crazy but it saved just fine. Grsz¹¹ 00:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Per the link on the above thread, there seems to have been a MediaWiki update. --Smashville^talk 01:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Related thread at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#"Undo" button acting weird. DuncanHill (talk) 01:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Latest attempt to censor “Phi Kappa Psi”

There have been a long-running series of attempts to censor the “University of Virginia” section of “Phi Kappa Psi”, which section concerns a rape or rapes.

In the latest of these, Led by truth made a series of nine edits to the article as a whole, most of which appear to be improving or at least innocuous, but the last of which

1. obscured that it was an edit of the section in question;
2. removed a citation of an article in which, amongst other things, a Deputy Commonwealth Attorney is quoted supporting a contention by the victim that there were multiple rapists, and further asserting that the rapists were members of the fraternity; and
3. applied a {{fact}} tag to a report that the State had asserted that the victim was gang-raped by a William Beebe and by members of the fraternity.

Even if the other characteristics of this edit weren't enough to discredit an initial assumption of good faith, the removal of the citation surely is. This willfully unconstructive editing was reverted, and the editor was warned.

In response, he is wikilawyering on my talk page. I feel that, since I am not an administrator, I shouldn't be left to mop-up here. I would appreciate it if an adminsitrator would tell the editor in question to refrain from such edits, and to refrain from drowning the pages of other editors in such pettifogging. —SlamDiego_←T 00:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not wikilawyering; it's scrupulous verifiability checking with respect to a BLP concern. Kudos to Led by truth, says I. Hesperian 01:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not at all scrupulous. For example, he begins the wikilawyering by insinuating that the article claims that Beebe was a fraternity member, yet it does no such thing (though the DCA implied that Beebe was). —SlamDiego_←T 01:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The way the article was written before his edits certainly ties Beebe to the fraternity, by implication if not overt association. The edits are solid. Go find a citation that Beebe was a member, please. That will solve this entire situation. ThuranX (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Beebe is tied to the fraternity. As the cited sources note, the national office admits that Beebe lived in the frat house. (The article notes this point later in the section.) Led by truth isn't trying to dispute that Beebe is tied to the fraternity, but is objecting to a finer-point claim that Beebe was a member as if the article makes such a claim, which it doesn't. —SlamDiego_←T 01:48, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Then either find a citation for the information being questioned, or revised the entire section to make clear the distinction. ThuranX (talk) 02:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The distinction has already been made clear. On top of never claiming that Beebe was member, the section goes on to state explicitly that the national office denies that he was ever a member. You're lost in the fog that Led by truth has thrown up. —SlamDiego_←T 04:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

(EC)The edit looks solid. He cleaned up the text, added a fact tag to a point of contention, and supported his contention that it requires citation in a carefully written essay. I do, however, note that he does make the usual vague hand-waving legal mumbo jumbo pseudo-threat about how bad libel is. The editor should be warned about doing that. I will leave him a link to the appropriate essay and notify him of this thread next, but I don't see anything wrong here. ThuranX (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The quote is full is:

"The allegation in this statement affect the lives of living people—the men who were brothers of that fraternity chapter at that time—and it affects the organization as well. / You are probably aware that if you insist on publishing unsubstantiated, harmful, allegations you risk subjecting yourself and Wikipedia to possible legal action with potentially severe consequences. / I believe that the wisest course of action is to find citations that verify the statement as written, which evidently is unlikely, or to correct the statement."

I'm curious as to what makes this a legal threat, as opposed to a succinct summary of the legal context in which we edit. If it is a legal threat, then will you also warn whoever added the sentence

"Wikipedia editors who deal with these articles have a responsibility to consider the legal and ethical implications of their actions when doing so."

to WP:BLP? :-) Hesperian 01:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Not my job. I simply gave him a polite warning about it, and notified him about this thread, and asked him to self-redact to avoid drama. You think it's out of line, feel free to delete my entire comment. Otherwise, so what? We all agree the guy din't do what the complainant alleges, so move on, unless the accused flips his shit. ThuranX (talk) 01:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The point in contention was supported by a footnote later in the paragraph, which footnote he removed from the article. If he hadn't deleted the footnote and hadn't buried the edit, then an assumption of good would surely prevail. At that stage, there might have been a discussion of whether individual sentences might need separate footnotes, but little more. However, what he did was to remove support for the claim that he challenged as unsupported. —SlamDiego_←T 01:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I was and remain unconcerned over whether it were a legal threat (veiled or otherwise). The problem is that, having deleted a citation to enable a claim that an assertion were insufficiently supported, the editor was trying to game the system with wikilawyering. —SlamDiego_←T 01:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't believe that at all. I certainly think he presented his counterargument as if it were a legal brief, but that's more a stylistic choice than any 'wikilawyering'. I saw no particular bandying about of WikiPolicy, nor gross intimidation tactics in his reference to libel, as I've already stated. I asked him to redact that libel bit as a matter of simplicity and ending this, but it seems you are insistent on getting your 'truthful version reinstated. Sorry, but there seems to be support for his edits. Go get citation, and learn what 'wikilawyering' means. it's different than real lawyering. ThuranX (talk) 01:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please note the very definition of “wikilawyering”, especially item 4: “Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions”, and the references to pettifogging. —SlamDiego_←T 01:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, there is no evidence, nor reason to believe, that Led by truth has "misinterpreted policy". Secondly, "relying on technicalities" means technicalities in Wikipedia policy, not technicalities in what a source actually says. Thirdly, "to justify inappropriate actions" is rather begging the question, since no-one here but you thinks these actions were inappropriate. Fourthly, am I the only person here who can see the irony in quoting "the very definition of 'wikilawyering'" at us. :-) Hesperian 02:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I underscore what I did, rather that the part about misrepresenting policy because I'd rather not be drawn into a debate on what is meant by “policy”; however, the concept and term of “wikilawayering” predates Wikipedia having much in the way of explicit policy statements; any claim that only the technicalities of such statements bear upon the definition is historically false. It's pretty much evident that it is inappropriate to {{fact}}-tag a section after deleting a supporting citation, and to misrepresent an assertion in order to demand that it substantiate a very different claim from that which it makes; I won't here speculate as to why you won't acknowledge such points. I wonder if you can see the irony in your introducing argument over the technicality of whether Led by truth was wikilawyering, only to sneer when the definition was quoted to you. —SlamDiego_←T 04:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"irony in your introducing argument over the technicality of whether Led by truth was wikilawyering"—I'll have a diff for that please. Hesperian 05:07, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

[135] Plural “your” — quite appropriate given your (thy) appeal to majoritarian sentiment. —SlamDiego_←T 05:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh, jolly good; ThuranX says something, you accuse me of saying it, but that's okay because you were actually accusing us both of saying it. Guess what? I still didn't fucking say it. Did I? Hesperian 05:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

And now you have to disambiguate your yours. This is hilarious; thanks Slam. :-D Hesperian 05:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

On occasion I wish that English had given-up the formal, rather than informal, second-person singular pronoun. *shrug* —SlamDiego_←T 05:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

my two cents; i thinkt aht youre are overacting and triyn got use a minor point of policy that might have been exercised bytter by your complainant to try and get sanctions against a user that you have a edit distupe with. WHy dont you try to use other disputre resolution methos as per WP:DR first and come back if tyour editor is still being unreasonable or "wikilawyering" Smith Jones (talk) 02:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As a point of note, this controversy has been to mediation and a consensus has been reached for the section. I have been follwing this article for awhile along with SlamDiego. Samwisep86 (talk) 03:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for that point. —SlamDiego_←T 04:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As Samwisep86 notes, this section has been through dispute resolution. That hasn't (and, really, cannot) stopped attacks by a stream of further anonymous vandals, sockpuppets, meat puppets, and pettifoggers. What I want here is, in effect, a statement from administrators that the defense of the section does not require dealing with pettifogging. —SlamDiego_←T 04:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There are no technicalities that he's relying upon. He's pointing out gaps in the citation evidence, and asking for the gaps to be filled. The phrase you quote refers specifically to Wikipedia policies, not to 'technicalities' as regards gaps in the sources, which are absolutely open to re-examination and scrutiny. Stop nagging here, go find the source, and move on. Let me speak even more bluntly: The only reason for you to continue pursuing this here is because you can't find and provide the requested citation, but are emotionally tied to the subject matter, either in the real-world or as a result of your on-wiki efforts to improve the article, and feel the challenge emotionally, and thus are unwilling to concede the point. ThuranX (talk) 02:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There aren't gaps in the evidence cited. There would be gaps if the article claimed what he insinuates that it claims, but it simply doesn't. Let me speak bluntly: You're the person psychologically over-committed here. You need to acknowledge having been tricked by a straw-man argument into insisting that the article substantiate a claim that it didn't make in the first place. —SlamDiego_←T 04:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Holy crap. No, I'm not 'psychologically over-committed'. However, you're knee deep in ad hom territory now. You've got no citations that explicitly place him as a member, and the only denial comes from a party who benefit from denial. He's asking for a clear citation that he was a member, or that there simply was never any connection demonstrated. It's simple, but you refuse to change the article. You're making a scene, by the way. Go handle the problem, sort out the objects to the article, and move on. There's a clear consensus here that he's done nothing wrong. ThuranX (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's really absurd for you to object to me as engaged in ad hominem after you presented your theory about my motives. It has been repeatedly noted that Led by truth misrepresents the claim actually made by the article, in order to demand that it defend a different, presumably undefendable claim, if its actual claim is to stand. You refuse to grapple with that fact, but accuse me being blinded by emotion. As to “making a scene”, those arguing on either side can stop making this scene. Personally, I'd prefer that the argument stop by your grappling with the aforementioned distinction between what the article actually says and what Led by truth insists that it must substantiate. —SlamDiego_←T 06:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed image ban for User:Bnguyen

I propose a ban on working with images for this fellow. I estimate that the vast majority of his images, if not all, are just randomly pulled from some place on the internet and randomly tagged with some form of PD, usually claiming [dubiously] that they were by someo sort of division of the US government. He has received tons of warnings and complaints and only blanks them, or rants on people's talk pages. Durova has done the analytical details for me. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 01:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If there are any issues, please allow me to correct them and I will continue to be a positive member of the wikipedia community. Bnguyen (talk) 01:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

YellowMonkey, after looking through the history and seeing the user's behavior after seeing this thread, I absolutely Endorse an image ban and if you need a semi-uninvolved admin for the block within the next few hours, give me a poke. -MBK₀₀₄ 02:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, Bnguyen, your image uploads are not a positive thing. If you want to be a "positive" member of the community the best thing to do would to stop uploading images. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you've exhausted the community's patience. Not only have you been uploading numerous images with incorrect sources, you have claiming several are from the National Infantry Museum, when in reality it came from a personal web-site. You also claimed an image of Le Van Ty dated to 2008, when the individual died in 1964. You have also refused to discuss your prior actions, replacing content with "Archive 1-27 on history," whatever that means. Any further abuse of the image upload process, or any further copyright violations will result in a week block. In the future, reference our image use policy. seicer | talk | contribs 03:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Following up with a bit more material. YellowMonkey asked me to have a look at this editor's uploads last night and the vast majority of material surveyed was exceedingly dubious if not falsified. For instance, several of the most recent uploads had public domain claims and asserted attributions to U.S. Government websites and a museum, when they actually all originated from the same Tripod website.

1. Image:General Lê Văn Ty.jpg[136]
2. Image:Major_General_Bui_Dinh_Dam.jpg[137]
3. Image:Brigadier_General_Tran_Quang_Khoi.jpg[138]
4. Image:Major General Ðỗ Mậu.jpg[139]

This would be a matter of concern for a new editor, but Bnguyen is not a new editor. He has been uploading images since 2004 and consistently exhibiting problems, blanking notices when people attempt to communicate the problem at user talk. The majority of his early uploads have been deleted and many of those that haven't been should be. For instance:

1. Image:King_Kigeli_V_of_Rwanda_meets_with_King_Hussein.jpg Claimed PD release; no OTRS filing. No copy of image or PD release available at source website.
2. Image:King Kigeli awarded The International Strategic Studies Association..jpg Same as above.
3. Image:Stefanos Mengesha Seyoum.jpg Claimed PD release; no OTRS filing. 404 error on claimed source.

Strongly endorse an image uploading ban and taking a firehose to this editor's uploads. Although my survey has reviewed representative samples rather than the complete history, not a single claimed source has checked out as legitimate yet and most are obvious misrepresentations. Other than a few non-free image use rationales, the rest really look like they need to go. It's disturbing to discover that a problem this prolific and blatant has gone unremedied so long. Durova^Charge! 03:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You know, I've been noticing that some of the images have been removed previously. This account dates to as far back as 2004, and the log for this particular image features the same issues that we are facing now. I'm leaning towards an indefinite block; if he can't upload images without violating copyright for four years, what makes us believe that he will suddenly reform? seicer | talk | contribs 03:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

...and if anyone has any free time, I could use help removing his image contributions that violate copyright :) There are a lot to go through... seicer | talk | contribs 03:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, well fortunately for me this stuff hasn't been transwikied to Commons. This really could use more local admins, though. The fellow has been prolific. Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 03:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, one did make it to Commons, and I nominated it for deletion and specified this entry. I really chuckled after reading the rationale for this image, that stated, "US Department of Defense TWA flight 800 disaster recovery site." It was a photograph of someone, but it was in front of a garage door. seicer | talk | contribs 03:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Please bear in mind that I can't access Special:Undelete pages at this project. Durova^Charge! 04:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh damn, I thought you were an administrator at en? You are around a lot! seicer | talk | contribs 04:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hung the mop on a nail and turned the bucket into a flowerpot. :) Durova^Charge! 04:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I had to read this thread three times before I realized that the Yellow Monkey was not proposing a ban for himself. Damn. How much difference a little 'l' makes... and three bourbon-and-cokes... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:28, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I did a double-take the first time as well, and I'm sober. -MBK₀₀₄ 04:33, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

To BNGUYEN: The issue is very clear, despite your bland "what is the problem <shrug>" type response. It’s that you upload images from some people’s website and false claim them to be PD as US-govt or US-army. Despite regular warnings. You have also uploaded tons of other fair use images before this and simply wrote "permission received" without any proof so now you are tagging things as PD-US-govt because they don’t need any permission? Why should you not be banned from uploading pictures? What exactly are your positive contributions to Wikipedia? Apart from adding linkfarms everywhere and starting a lot of articles on non-notable Vietnamese Americans. First VA to pass law school/killed in Iraq, go to West Point etc and then complain that I am being racist. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

NB: He has also uploaded a pile of pictures of South Vietnamese officers and labelled them as 2008, even though those guys were born in the 1920s mostly, and are now mostly dead, or 80, and not a young dashing 40-year-old as shown in those photos. One image was even of a guy who died in 1890. I probably should have made a bigger fuss before, perhaps I was too worried about the perception of stalking him, since I also have quite a dim view of most of his general article edits - adding quotefarms and linkfarms everywhere instead of adding content, and all the Vietnamese American bios. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, all kidding aside, the l-less Bnguyen is clue-less when it comes to image policy at Wikipedia, and he shows no indication that he wishes to learn the policy or abide by it. A ban against uploading images, to be enforced by blocks should he continue to violate it, seems most appropriate. I endorse this ban... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Log of my recent deletions of his stuff which shows a pile of pictures claimed to be from 2008, of people who died during the Vietnam War, or would be 80+ years old now but have all their hair, black and not white hair, no wrinkles and commanding non-existent army units at the age of 90. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That's good enough for me to indef block. Any objections? -MBK₀₀₄ 04:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Not from me. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Not from me either. I just looked over this case because it was above one I started, and as an otherwise uninvolved party I say go for it. He clearly has been given plenty of time, way too much time in fact, and still doesn't get it. He's outright misinforming in every way. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Nor from me. Deferring to YellowMonkey's greater expertise regarding the value of the contributor's other work. Clearly, persistent and prolific copyright violation is not a matter we can take lightly. Durova^Charge! 05:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Indef'ed the account. There are only a handful of images left, but I've gotta clean more cat poop. seicer | talk | contribs 05:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

You beat me to the block. I was composing a block message to use instead of a template. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:32, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I endorse the image ban due to his inveterate uploading of images under dubious licenses, but not an outright edit ban. His edits hadn't been disruptive, and some are even helpful (the recent categorizing edits). DHN (talk) 05:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Good block. Misrepresenting image sources is not a matter to be taken lightly. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Endorse per this and his general silliness when claiming YellowMonkey should be blocked for his username as well as racism a while back. Daniel (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DHN, I don't see disruptive editing from the user other than the image issue. That could be settled with a image ban, and if he violates that then a indef block would be in order. I'm willing to give one last chance. Secret ^account 14:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

With dozens of warnings that date to 2004, you are willing to give "one last chance"? Petty silliness and racism is one thing; persistent copyright violations over four years that went unnoticed is another. You can only receive so many warnings before you finally buckle down and block the user to prevent further violations from occuring. We can't have these go undetected and we can't be soft on copyright violations. seicer | talk | contribs 14:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, I completely agree with you, Seicer; the willingness to apply deceptive licensing to images suggests at the very best an utter misapprehension of the image policy; at worst...well, that's pretty much clear. We have lots of users who keep screwing up, and this user's real issues might be mitigated or resolved through mentoring. Some contributors aren't really conscientious while working here, and their - sloppiness should not be construed as intentional deception.

On the other hand, an image ban seems like the right thing to do until the user can wrap their head around our image policy. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 17:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne, are you volunteering to monitor this person? Bear in mind that this editor's manner of adapting to the image policy has been to falsify public domain and source claims. It takes some knowledge of our policies to pull those shenanigans for four years. We don't have a technical tool to prevent uploads, so if this person is to continue editing at all (much less resume uploading) it's going to take an admin's supervision. Durova^Charge! 19:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

User:DinoKingFan11 again

There was an ANI discussion about this user a couple weeks ago but it went stale without anyone really saying anything of note, so here goes again. This user is constantly adding original research to lists of TV episodes, primarily Chowder. It is clear that they are simply guessing what each episode will be about; see this diff as a particular example. ("Chowder's Catering Company", which I just watched, didn't involve anyone getting locked out of the kitchen at all.) This user has absolutely no constructive edits to their credit, just constant addition of almost-always-wrong guesswork. Any attempt to get through to the user has been met with total silence, and their talk page is nothing but warnings. Clearly something needs to be done about this user right away to keep them from adding any more misinformation. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked him indefinitely. While it's a little harsh for a first block, nothing but nonsense from him and all I'm asking is that he actually respond. If he chooses to, anyone is free to unblock. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:22, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Works for me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I think DKF11 might be a sockpuppet of our old friend Komodo lover, might be worth a small check. treelo _radda 10:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Extreme personal attacks

How in the world is 86.40.99.86 (talk · contribs) still editing here after this and this? I realize he got a warning, but my God. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 03:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Those edits were over 12 hours ago and his edits since then were less incivil. Unless he continues again there really is no grounds for blocking. - Rjd0060 (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'd support a block nonetheless. The user's comments since the warning (at 1338 UTC on 11 Dec) have been rather incivil in my view, such as: "Your understanding of art is fundamentally scewed", and calling editors "nihilistic partisans who see no problem in blatant child abuse". The first comment also suggests the IP doesn't understand WP:BATTLEGROUND. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 06:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Except a block may be worse than pointless, since there is no evidence that this is a static IP, meaning that the person who committed the attacks would be free to edit via some new IP, and innocent users may be blocked instead. The reason we don't block stale IP vandalism is precisely for those 2 reasons. Blocking a stale IP address is not considered merely for the content of their vandalism, only on the effectiveness of stopping that vandalism... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily call this stale; the IP's last edit occurred less than 10 minutes before this thread was created- less than 4 hours ago. Also, I didn't mean to suggest an indef block; I think a 12 or 24h block would be appropriate. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Although the issue is likely stale now, I do not believe it was so when submitted, and a short block would have been appropriate. Further uncivil behavior should result in an immediate block: we simply cannot tolerate this level of discourse. — Satori Son 16:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite ban requested

Would you please impose an indefinite ban on the IP address 99.156.92.12 whose user is carrying out a series of personal attacks. A warning has already been issued to User talk:99.156.92.12 but, following another personal attack, the talk page has been blanked to try and eliminate the warning.

The relevant diffs are:

• 8 December personal attack on my talk page, as a result of which I placed a "stop" warning on the IP talk page.

• 12 December personal attack and unwarranted intervention in a private dispute between two editors over GA procedure.

• 12 December in which the user blanked the talk page including the warning.

Obviously, these attacks are related to a dispute between myself and another editor about GA procedures. Whatever the rights, wrongs and eventual outcome of that dispute, it is strictly between the two editors and this sort of intervention by an IP address user is absolutely out of order and must be stopped. Thank you. ---Jack | ^{talk page} 07:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I presume you intend to request an indef block... which isn't generally done on IPs (see here). The IP is free to remove warnings from its own talk page... see WP:WARN. If the IP starts making incivil comments again, then maybe a block would be warranted. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Blocking has been done several times before via this noticeboard. I notice that the previous topic was handled in a similar fashion and that was actually more serious. Why are we suddenly giving extra chances to repeat vandals? He has been warned once and he has come back three days later and done it again. That is enough, so can you please follow precedent and impose an indefinite ban. This is, incidentally, a static IP address by the look of it. ---Jack | ^{talk page} 07:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The IP was warned exactly once... ever. It hasn't ever been blocked. It has made exactly 50 edits, and not all have been vandalism or incivil. At worst, this IP merits a short block. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, there's no way this is a static IP address; it's registered to AT&T- a common ISP in the United States. ISPs in the US almost all use dynamic addressing for their non-business clients. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 07:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll take your word for it about the address but I still think that some firm action beyond a short block is required. The person doing this is completely out of order. What is more, looking at the history, I think there is a very likely suspect among our registered users. ---Jack | ^{talk page} 07:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be odd, but I've left a message just in case. — Satori Son 17:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any serious incivility in the diffs above. It seems that the IP (who may well be Eustress) perceived Blackjack to be trying to game the GA process by recruiting a brand-new editor, and was complaining about it. Looie496 (talk) 18:06, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If you don't perceive any serious incivility in this edit, then my standards for acceptable behavior are more rigorous than your own. I do not believe that kind of discourse is at all appropriate for this project. — Satori Son 18:44, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Pixelface

User:Pixelface legitimately is concerned with issues with fiction on WP, however, the user's behavior is known to be a problem in terms of his/hers attitude and tendentious editing. The user often challenges the core pages for fiction (WP:NOT, WP:FICT) by directly changing them and challenges the assertions that long-standing text has/had consensus. Generally this resolves to talk page discussion. However, just recently, Pixelface has boldly altered both WP:WAF (a "stable" guideline considered under WP:UPDATE) and WP:NOT and WP:N, stripping mentions of sites housed on Wikia under the pretense that we should not be even mentioning Wikia due to a "conflict of interest" (which I will note there are other discussions around that refute this claim) among other aspects. Those changes have been reverted, but instead of following WP:BRD, the user continues to revert back to their version. This is more than just a one time 3RR - Pixelface has approached this point many times in the past, and generally after some fiction-related incident comes up that raises high concerns for the user. (In this case, it appears to rise from his/hers strong opposition to User:Sgeureka's admin candidacy as you can see by the rant posted here).

I have in the past put a WQA for Pixel's tendentious editing which was resolved, but this recent rash of behavior (including the consistent claims of COI for Wikia without any evidence) is becoming disruptive to the currently active and positive discussion at WP:FICT among other places, and more than just etiquette but appropriate editing behavior. Yes, the user may not like how policies and guidelines result in the change of how we cover fiction, but there's a point where attacking the policies at the nitty-gritty details (eg, the current complaint on WAF is that it was only proposed for 18 days, and then made a guideline, despite not being challenged for 2+ years, and that the editor that created it is no longer present); Pixelface uses a similar approach to try to strip WP:NOT#PLOT despite strong consensus every time it comes up to keep it.

Despite the fact that Pixelface has appeared to stop right before the 3RR violation in the present situations for WP:NOT and WP:WAF, I think there needs to be some type of admin action here, because this is a repeatable pattern, and the continual challenges to things shown to have consensus are disruptive. --MASEM 07:16, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Masem's summary. For months now, Pixelface has continued to be disruptive and pointy in his/her continued campaign to removal limits on fictional content and against the mention of Wikia within Wikipedia. From his own talk page, he seems to feel Wikipedia is in some kind of competition with Wikia and that almost implies that there is a grand conspiracy to drive traffic to Wikia to up people's bottom lines. He even notes that "Right now I would just really like to remove any mention of Wikia from any Wikipedia policies and guidelines." As Masem notes, he usually seems to stop right before 3RR, but usually only by waiting days or even weeks, then reverting again there by "avoiding" 3RR. Such as his recent edits at WP:N: bold change on November 9 which was reverted, November 24th] Pixelface reverts despite having no consensus at all in the talk page discussion, again on November 26th despite still having absolutely no consensus at all, and finally on December 12th after discussion had already stopped. At WP:NOT, he continously removed the WP:PLOT section, which eventually resulted in an AN/I. He first removed on October 21st, was reverted, reverted on same day. Change was reverted again, and Pixelface re-reverted for two, then stopped until November 3rd where he returned and again removed the section despite no consensus for this removal. His nearly systematic attacks on anything he feels is limiting fictional content on Wikipedia is disruptive (not to mention downright aggravating). There is a difference between legitimately questioning existing guidelines and just continuing to attack them and edit them despite the continued lack of consensus for his many changes.

He's also displayed various bouts of incivility during his discussions, in his edit summaries, and while defending/promoting his views. In a recent AfD, he responded keep then questioned whether the nominator was operating multiple accounts and if they were trying to "plug" another site[140] His remarks during the recent Jack Merridew discussion really speak for themselves[141]. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:05, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've had trouble with Pixelface's obsessive behaviour before now, too. The Wikia thing is really a Wikipedia Review meme - Wikia is a legitimate way of removing cruft form Wikipedia without being excessively WP:BITEy. Fanboys are not going to go away, so best to divert the excesses of fandom to somewhere more appropriate. I don't see this as a problem, as the Wikipedia community (which writes the guidelines) has no financial relationship with Wikia. Guy (Help!) 09:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Has there been a user conduct RfC on this before? I'm not sure that immediate adminstrative action is required, though it's certainly worth having a discussion about potential solutions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

He is not exactly alone in the shall-we-say-colourful-exchange department WRT the whole notability/fan/tv/etc. issue...oh heck, I am doing a million other things at the moment and now I have to go and read more...(sigh)Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so, but not from lack of certification. He's always seemed to be a bit obtrusive and annoying to me. Sceptre ^(talk) 13:54, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I check in on the Fiction wars every once in a while, and it seems to me that Pixelface is engaged in long-term edit warring and is unwilling to accept any consensus that is contrary to his own opinions. He (and many others) have been cautioned by Arbcom before (though not by name) to stop edit-warring and incivility, and it seems to have had little long-term impact on his behavior. An RfC would at least allow the community to better determine the extent of the disruption, and if the poor behavior does not stop the evidence may be used later to determine appropriate remedies. Karanacs (talk) 16:41, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

IP 70.79.65.227 : suspected block evasion by Ramu50, continued WP:CIVIL vio

It seems to me that IP 70.79.65.227 (talk, block log) is being used for further block evasion by indefinitely-banned user Ramu50. I submitted a checkuser case previously, showing that use of this IP is closely and only associated with Ramu50. In response admin Ricky81682 (talk) put a short block on the IP.

The checkuser request has all of the previous links to contribs, diffs, etc.

The closing comment for the checkuser case was "I will say that there's no apparent risk of collateral damage, if the block on 70.79.65.227 needs to be extended".

The block has expired and the IP is again violating WP:CIVIL, for example here (see the last line) and most vociferously here on the checkuser case page, of all places.

Aside from the WP:CIVIL violations I feel the damage this IP is doing to the encyclopedia must be considered. When this user does engage in discussion on a talk page (which is not often) rather than simply edit-warring, he or she vigorously defends his or her disputed edits not only with WP:CIVIL violations, but also with astonishing flights of illogic. I have dissected the most recent case of which I'm aware here. That sort of "argument" was very typical of Ramu50; combined with tendentious editing, edit warring, WP:CIVIL vios, etc., it resulted in numerous recent ANI incidents ([142], [143], [144], [145], [146], culminating in the current indefinite block) and other proceedings ([147], [148], [149]).

It is a waste of our time as editors to have to try to logically defend one point after another against someone who sometimes refuses to engage in discussion at all, and other times either will not or cannot follow or construct a logical argument. This editor's usual answer to a response such as mine is simply more illogic. Why should any of us have to make time to respond yet again?

It is true that a few of Ramu50's, and a few of the IP's, edits have resulted in no disagreement. But I feel strongly that the damage here far outweighs the benefit of letting him - or them - continue to edit.

The IP is literally asking to be blocked - whether or not this is Ramu50, I suggest we acede to the IP's request. Jeh (talk) 07:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If it weren't so obnoxious, I'd put a big old "THIS" in response. Agree with Jeh, so blocked for two weeks. Since User:Luna Santin noted the lack of risk of collateral damage, two weeks is a start. I don't know if it rotates or what, so I'll leave it for others to continue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:03, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I am aware of the editing behaviour of this idea - absolutely no doubt it's Ramu50 - endorse block. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:18, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

As per the evidence, endorse. Oh, and someone please contact his ISP. Blueboy96 12:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

He ought to be banned from the English wikipedia simply on the grounds that he can't write proper English. Beyond that, the question becomes, how many times do you want to deal with this guy? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

He's already de facto banned in that nobody is going to lift his indef block. Just block the IP and move on. No real need to dwell on this too much. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:15, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

User:JGXenite

Resolved

 – User has explained what happened - a simple mistake, no need to discuss this further — Possum (talk) 13:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Apparently this user is helping cleanup vandalism, but I wondering why they warned themselves for making an unsuitable article when that page happens to be a left over from a vandal move. - Mgm|^(talk) 12:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Most probably a mistake on/trying to test Twinkle — Possum (talk) 12:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's actually a twinkle feature: By default you tag and notify the owner in one step. After undoing the page move vandalism, they became the creator of the redirect and forgot to tell Twinkle to not notify themselves on tagging it for deletion.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

User:SYSADMN

Resolved

 – Already blocked by loeth

--Tikiwont (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

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

Is this for real, or is it a hoax? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Just got beat for the block, obvious troll. Secret ^account 14:08, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the user page. Pedro :  Chat  15:23, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of user's own talk pages?

Are currently active editors allowed to have their own user talk page deleted via WP:CSD#U1 (a la {{db-user}})? I was under the impression that they did not qualify because these sorts of talk pages were "useful for the project." --Kralizec! (talk) 14:10, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so..only in a case of right to vanish..--Crossmr (talk) 15:14, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly my understanding. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:20, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

So far as I know, deleting the whole history of a talk page is only done through WP:RTV and never with a CSD tag. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Correct. User talk pages should only be deleted in conjunction with one's exercising of their Right to Vanish. — Satori Son 16:35, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Deleting user talk pages means that only admins can review the history of warnings received by a user, and then only at some inconvenience. Deletion is not something that should be done lightly. Of course, users who aren't intending to come back are an exception. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 18:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation page needed for Zdravko Zdravkov

One is an old goolkeeper in football, and one is the bulgarian national ski jumping trainer. Disambiguation page is needed but i dont know how to do, so can someone else fix it? The Rolling Camel (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Zdravko Zdravkov. The first step is to see if a decent article can, or should, be created regarding Zdravko Zdravkov, ski jump instructor. If that is appropriate, then a note at the top of the page directing attention to Zdravko Zdravkov (ski jump instructor) might be appropriate together with a change of name of Zdravko Zdravkov to Zdravko Zdravkov (goalkeeper). Fred Talk 16:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Otherpersons, {{otherpersons}} seems to be the template to use. Fred Talk 16:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Death threat

This needs taken care of. Thanks, Grsz¹¹ 16:25, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Also each of the IPs contributions are the same. Grsz¹¹ 16:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Account blocked. Will leave to others to request oversight if deemed warranted. — Satori Son 16:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Reported at https://tips.fbi.gov/ Please don't oversight as the edits may be evidence in a criminal investigation. Fred Talk 16:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Pretty scary - the number seems genuine, though unsubscribed. This reminds us of just how many net-folk are very unhappy clowns. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 16:49, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't the phone number make it obvious that this is just badgering and not a serious death threat? Looie496 (talk) 17:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

In what way? It appears to be a Verizon number based out of Mount Pleasant, Michigan.[150] What am I missing? — Satori Son 17:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed Geolocate suggests the IP may be from Michigin too which makes one wonder. Be that as it may, I remind editors not to presume the number is really the person posting, it could easily be someone hoping the person who's number it is is harassed, which is why if not oversighted I suggest the comment is at least deleted. (I once came across a case when someone posted a long rambling racist commentary with name and phone number which I strongly suspect what not his/hers) Nil Einne (talk) 18:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC) Edit: Actually I suspect what Looie is saying is that no one would be stupid enough to post their phone number on a public website for others to call them to discuss killing someone. This is probably true but of course we should always tread such matters with care Nil Einne (talk) 18:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Considering RedPen's interaction on that talk page, I'm gonna bet this is a signed out user. Grsz¹¹ 17:51, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

68.79.101.242 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) another IP. Grsz¹¹ 18:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked by Yamamoto Ichiro. — Satori Son 18:50, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a range block from 68.79.101.242 to 68.79.102.96 affects up to 1,024 addresses,[151] so not a good option at this point. — Satori Son 18:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Requesting Topic ban for User:Fru23

Fru23 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The above user has been on a bad faith campaign to disrupt Wikipedia since he started posting. In the last 24 hours he has started a bad faith AfD. [152] He also then went on a bad faith WP:POINT tour on the Franken and Olbermann talk pages when it became apparent his AfD was going to fail under WP:SNOW. User is a disruptive SPA who has already logged two blocks in his month of editing. - Ramsquire 17:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - user has been disruptive since day 1. Has refused to accept that sources are valid, has disrupted both here and off-wiki, and as an interesting data point claimed off-wiki that he works for Mr O'Reilly. Yes, off-wiki belongs off-wiki for the most part, but admitting to that level of COI is worth noting. // roux   17:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - Ignoring his politics, his behavior to this point has been unacceptable. He should be banned from editing all articles related to American politics or political or editorial figures, broadly contrued. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse - Our patience with single-issue crusaders who refuse to accept consensus should eventually run out. We should welcome their participation if they will join in reasonable discussion, but I think he has used that up that chance already. EdJohnston (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
• An alternative suggestion How about encouraging Fru23 to actually edit the articles in question, adding appropriate criticism based on reliable sources? So far all his activities seems to be on the talk pages. This low level of activity would not seem to be enough to justify a topic ban on all American politics. Fred Talk 18:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
  • Maybe you didn't look far enough. His two blocks were due to his form of "editing", which was to delete stuff he didn't agree with, against consensus. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)