Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Badagnani

Unresolved

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

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

Resolved

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

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
No! Please don’t mark the case as resolved. I still haven’t finished discussing with you yet. A1DF67 (talk) 23:31, 13 January 2010 (UTC) The above user has requested unblocking at User talk:Bowei Huang#Blocked promising to use on the Bowei Huang (talk · contribs) account. The problem is not that the user has two accounts (or three User talk:Bowei Huang#User:Brickfield Brickfield (talk · contribs)) but that the editing history is at A1DF67 (talk · contribs). Of the two accounts only the Bowei Huang is blocked meaning they can still edit with A1DF67. I have no objections to the Bowei Huang account being unblocked but only if a clear connection is made between the two or, if possible, the editing history is restored. I thought that it would be a good idea to bring this here for further review and will inform Bowei Huang that they can comment here as A1DF67. If it's felt to be OK to unblock Bowei Huang then go ahead and don't wait for me to notice as I will be in and out during the day. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A1DF67. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 16:03, 8 January 2010 (UTC) You should leave the Bowei account blocked and tell him to use the A1DF67 account; or else revert A1DF67 to Bowei and block A1DF67. It appears that he wanted the account renamed just to hide his past problems. He doesn't need two accounts. Given his contentiousness, one is more than enough. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:08, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Based on the most recent information at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/A1DF67, it appears that Bowei Huang's intent was always to hide his edit history.[1] His unblock request is disingenuous at best. He didn't change his mind, he never intended using A1DF67. He just wanted to use it to dump his edit and warning history. When his name was change went through he used the new name only to post a thankyou for the name change and then immediately went straight back to editing as Bowei Huang. I don't think that his deception should be rewarded by allowing him to edit as Bowei Huang, which is what he always wanted to do. And now we have another editor, who is obviously well aware of what's going on, suggesting he has another, undeclared identity.[2] That needs to be cleaned up before any consideration is given to an unblock. --AussieLegend (talk) We give people the ability to start again as a productive editor after having a shady past, see WP:CLEANSTART, but it explicitly states (in bold text, bold!) that "no active deception is involved". If there is active deception this shouldn't be allowed. -- Atama頭 18:48, 8 January 2010 (UTC) Block all the accounts for disruption with only one talkpage free for an unblock request and let's move on. The editor can either use one account or he gets none. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I agree, Good faith has been given to the editor but they have only given us bad faith in return. Changing username's to hide there history is one and another is editing another users comments! Really User:A1DF67 shouldn't be editing (other then the talkpage) after what they have done, and I've seen user who have socked get both accounts (meat and sock accounts) blocked but it has no been so in this case. Bidgee (talk) 01:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC) I have moved all the messages that have been posted to me by other users onto the user talk page of the account with the new username before the username change back into the account with the old username. A1DF67 (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I would keep that account indefinitely blocked, this seems like they did want to hide their previous edits before. That's bad behaviour and not something we want to encourage. That this has backfired on him is really his own fault - the phrase that comes to mind is "hoist on his own petard". - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Also, I note that example edits such as this one will still look like it comes from User:A1DF67 and not User:Bowei Huang. Unless another user rename occurs, I don't think that User:Bowei Huang should be unblocked, they should continue editing from User:A1DF67. Has anyone asked why they wanted their username changed? - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Returns to edit AussieLegend's comment above...Not good. Auntie E. (talk) 21:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I think you actually meant above. :) --AussieLegend (talk) 22:07, 9 January 2010 (UTC) @ Tbsdy lives - According to the name change request it was because he wanted a more obscure name,[3] but immediately after the name change he re-registered Bowei Huang and used only that account. 23:09, 15 December 2009 GMT Name change requested 23:26, 15 December 2009 GMT MBisanz moves Bowei Huang to A1FD7 23:26, 15 December 2009 GMT MBisanz reports name change completed 23:58, 15 December 2009 GMT Bowei Huang re-registered Note that all of this happened in a 49 minute period and, for some added insight, he had previously been asking about hiding edit histories the month prior to the change.[4] [5] [6] --AussieLegend (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Aussie, my hunch is that he misunderstood Mysdaao in this discussion specifically "(2) requesting to change your username to something that is unconnected with you (possibly a random collection of letters and numbers)" regarding RTV, yet missing this: "The "right to vanish" does not mean anyone has the right to a fresh start under a new identity." I'm thinking he was trying to erase his old contibutions by RTV, use the old screenname, and then pretend he's never been here before. Wow. Auntie E. (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Why do you often refer to me as they, rather than he? Sorry. I am very sorry about editing comments. I promise I will never ever do it again. Sorry. I am very sorry for this whole thing here and everything I did that was got to do with it. Will you let me edit from User:Bowei Huang again if I be completely honest and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? I swear and promise that from now on, I will only tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. The account User:Brickfield is indeed mine. It is mine. I created that account. As a sign of good faith, I confess, admit, and disclose that it is mine. My intention to change username was NOT to remove the records of edits from my account from the history pages of all the articles I have edited from my account. That was not my intention! My intention to change username was indeed to remove the records of edits from the Special:Contributions of User:Bowei Huang. Although I did intend to remove the records of edits from the Special:Contributions of my account, I didn't intend to remove them from the history pages of all the articles I have edited from my account. I only really intended to remove them from my Special:Contributions. I only wanted to remove the records of edits from the Special:Contributions of my account, not from the history pages of all the articles I have edited from my account. I removed the records of edits from the Special:Contributions of my account not because I didn't want others to look at them but because I didn't want to look at them myself. My first question before my username change was Removing Records From Special:Contributions. If it were possible and easy, I would have only done that and not removed any records of my edits from the history pages of all the articles I have edited from my account. If it were possible and easy, I would have only done that, only asked that, not asked any more questions, and not changed my username. I have no problem if User:A1DF67 is now redirected to User:Bowei Huang or if User talk:A1DF67 is now redirected to User talk:Bowei Huang. I have no problem letting others find and contact me through them. I am sorry, very sorry, that by doing this, I have also removed the records of edits from my account from the history pages of all the articles I have edited from my account and others can't also see the records of my edits through my Special:Contributions any more. I didn't change username to escape from the messages posted onto my user talk page by others. As I have said before, I have already moved all the messages that have been posted to me by other users onto my user talk page before the username change back there. This is also a sign of good faith. Although I created User:Brickfield, my purpose and intention to change username from User:A1DF67 to User:Bowei Huang was not to sock puppet. After I changed my username, I didn't use User:A1DF67 and only used User:Bowei Huang so I wasn't using multiple accounts at the same time, or trying or intending to use multiple accounts at the same time, after I changed my username, by changing username. I wasn't trying or intending to use multiple accounts by changing username. I wasn't a sock puppet, being a sock puppet, or trying or intending to be a sock puppet by changing username. You yourselves said that, of the two accounts, I only used and tried and intended to use one account, User:Bowei Huang. So I didn't sock puppet and I didn't try or intend to sock puppet by changing username. I did indeed misunderstand "(2) requesting to change your username to something that is unconnected with you (possibly a random collection of letters and numbers)". I thought that it meant that I could get rid of an account by changing username and continuing editing in my account with the old username at least if I don't use or edit from the new account at all. I thought that it meant that I could continue editing in my account with the old username after the username change at least if I don't use or edit from the new account at all. I read about the right to vanish. I was asking two separate different questions then, not one single question. One was about changing usernames and the other was about getting rid of accounts. The right to vanish was about getting rid of accounts. I thought it meant that to get rid of an account, there were two possible ways. One was right to vanish and the other was requesting to change your username to something that is unconnected with you (possibly a random collection of letters and numbers) and then not use the account with the new username at all. I didn't think that it would be sock puppeting if I changed my username but did not and did not intend to use the account with the new username at all and only used the account with the old username. Would you unblock the account with the old username if I do the following things or agree that and let the following things be done? Can you please tell me if there are more things that I need to do? If there are, then can you please tell me what are they? 1. Redirect or agree and let you redirect the page User:A1DF67 so that it goes to User:Bowei Huang everytime someone clicks on it? Redirect the page User talk:A1DF67 so that it goes to User talk:Bowei Huang everytime someone clicks on it? 2. If it were possible, move or agree and let you move all the records of edits in the Special:Contributions of User:A1DF67 before the username change back into the Special:Contributions of User:Bowei Huang. 3. Put the Template:Retired on the page User:A1DF67 so that nobody, including me myself, could ever edit from it ever again. A1DF67 (talk) 00:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC) A quick check of the edit history of United States shows that you were editing that article in December 2009 as both Bowei Huang and Brickfield.[7] Between December 10-12 there was very active sockpuppetry. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:28, 11 January 2010 (UTC) I'm wondering (1) Why isn't the Brickfield account blocked also? and (2) Is it technically possible to merge the A1D account back into the new stuff from Bowei, as if the A1D never existed? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:05, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Because there's never an admin around when you need one? Auntie E. (talk) 03:49, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Regarding the namechange, so he'd want the old Bowei and the new Bowei patched together? Is that correct? Auntie E. (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Yes. That is correct. I want to fix this whole thing that I've done. A1DF67 (talk) 04:07, 11 January 2010 (UTC) I know. But I was NOT talking about User:Brickfield in that paragraph. I was just talking about User:Bowei Huang, User:A1DF67, and the change of username from User:Bowei Huang to User:A1DF67. I was saying that the username change wasn't sock puppeting or done because I tried or intended to sock puppet. I didn't sock puppet or try or intend to sock puppet by editing as both Bowei Huang and A1DF67. A1DF67 (talk) 03:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC) But you did sockpuppet anyway. That's a bit too important to gloss over. Auntie E. (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC) I have redirected User:Brickfield to User:Bowei Huang. I have also redirected User talk:Brickfield to User talk:Bowei Huang. I have also moved all the messages that have been posted to me by other users onto User talk:Brickfield into User talk:Bowei Huang. [8] [9] This is also a sign of good faith. A1DF67 (talk) 05:02, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Pretty disruptive. You should really have considered what you were asking for first. I say keep all accounts except A1DF67 blocked until someone can sort out this mess. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 06:45, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Isn't this all a bit too much fuss? I've blocked User:A1DF67 and User:Brickfield indefinitely, and unblocked User:Bowei Huang. I suggest we just leave it there for the moment. DrKiernan (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Well, no. Now it looks like User:A1DF67 made all the edits to all those articles, and User:Bowei Huang has no history that shows disruptive editing. Could you please undo this? Your action here has caused problems I'm afraid. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 11:52, 11 January 2010 (UTC) I don't really see what you mean, since User:Bowei Huang has a block log and is linked from the various noticeboards, etc., where conduct is discussed. However, I'm not invested in my solution. If any admin/crat wishes to undo it, they should feel free to do so, and need not discuss undoing the action with me first. DrKiernan (talk) 12:03, 11 January 2010 (UTC) If someone looks through the history of an article, they won't see that it's Bowei Huang, they will see that A1DF67 has been editing. This is now confusing enough. And this, in my opinion, is what the editor wanted in the first place - to hide their edit history. That's why I said indefinitely block Bowei Huang and keep the other account unblocked. An admin did this, you have just undone something that was already settled. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) talk 12:09, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Kiernan, you are the only admin watching this dicussion. Can you re-block Huang and unblock A1Df67 please? Auntie E. (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC) Is there an administrator that might have this page watchlisted that can help us? Can't find a goddamn cop in a fricken police station I swear...where is the admin equivalent of a donut shop around here? Auntie E. (talk) 00:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC) No!!!! Please, don't reblock. Can you please let me explain first and give me time to explain first before you consider reblocking? I have redirected User talk:A1DF67 to User talk:Bowei Huang. Didn't I explain to you? My intention to change username was NOT to remove the records of edits from my account from the history pages of all the articles I have edited from my account. You shouldn't be editing A1DF67's pages at all.[10][11] Please accept my apologies if the IP is not yours, but even then, that still leaves you with one edit. I'm with Tbsdy lives and Auntie E. on this. If Bowei Huang is to remain unblocked, A1DF67's edit history needs to be merged back to Bowei Huang. However, I think that Bowei Huang should be reblocked as he still hasn't learned.[12][13] --AussieLegend (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2010 (UTC) I have learned. Let me explain. I thought that its messages weren't important any more now that I am not allowed to edit from it and that it was time to redirect now. I was trying to make a clear connection between User talk:Bowei Huang and User talk:A1DF67. That was what I was trying to do. I was intending to fix things. It was because of what User:Tbsdy lives said after I was unblocked that I tried to fix it. I hope I am not trying to fix things only to make them even worse. Is there a reason why you want me reblocked because of the edit history thing? Is it because I have made some or many specific edits in the past before the username change that were bad, wrong, or unacceptable that you don't want and don't like me removing records of edits? Is that why you want my edit history remain exactly the same as before? Is that why you want me to be reblocked so that my edit history remains exactly the same as before? Is that why you think I changed username to remove records of edits? That was NOT the reason why I changed username to remove records of edits. That was not my reason! If you think it is so, then what are those edits? Are they the edits on the articles Australia and the United States? That was not my reason for the username change. I was trying and intending to help or improve Wikipedia then and I was not intending to deliberately make bad edits then, if not all of the time then at least most of the time. I caused trouble with automation because I didn't know or forgot about sandboxes. I now understand that I should now try formulas in sandboxes. I have begun to decide about improving my edits on those articles. If they are not the edits on those articles, then what are they? Bowei Huang (talk) 02:10, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Is there an admin here that can help? Please help us here. Auntie E. (talk) 16:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC) A1DF67 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) unblocked and Bowei Huang (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). Toddst1 (talk) 16:53, 12 January 2010 (UTC) If I might make a suggestion... If Bowei/A1DF67 wants to sign their edits as Bowei Huang, let them. There's no problem with that, and in fact it helps with transparency. But I agree that shoving a bad editing history over to an alternate account to hide one's past misdeeds shouldn't be allowed. I would have done exactly as Toddst1 had done, but I didn't catch all this in time. -- Atama頭 20:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks, Todd. I have no problem with the editor making his signature what he wants to be, although he does need to link to his temporary BH account on his user page. Otherwise, I think we're done here. Let's hope the editor will stay out of trouble from now on. Auntie E. (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2010 (UTC) I agree with this. --AussieLegend (talk) 02:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC) No! Please don’t mark the case as resolved. I still haven’t finished discussing with you yet. Let me discuss and explain further. What about all the stuff I’ve written in the case? I hope it is not a waste of effort. Hello! Didn’t you read my comments on 00:59 11 January 2010 and 02:10 12 January? Haven’t you read them? Why haven’t you answered, replied to, or responded to those two comments? Why haven’t you answered my questions in them? I think you should read them again. Can you please do that? This time, can you please answer, reply to, and respond to my comment? I did not say that the reason I did that was to hide my past misdeeds. I did not say that! I did not even say that I had a lot of past misdeeds. I did not even say that! I was just asking if that was the reason for all that or not. Please do not misunderstand me! The reason I changed username was NOT because I wanted to remove records of edits because I have made many edits in the recent past before the username change that were bad, wrong, or unacceptable. That was not my reason! Why didn’t you even answer my questions in that second comment? Why haven’t you even answered my question about what those edits were? If you think that I have made many edits in the recent past that were bad AND that that was the reason why I changed username to remove records of edits, then can you please show those bad edits to me and everybody else? Show them! If you think that that is the reason why I changed username to remove records of edits, then can you please prove it? If you accuse me that that was the reason why I changed username to remove records of edits, then can you please prove it? Prove it! Please do not accuse me that that was the reason why I changed username to remove records of edits unless you have got proof of it! I should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. If I didn’t make many edits before the username change that were bad, then would you still continue blocking me? If I changed username because I wanted to remove records of edits, BUT the reason why I wanted to remove them was NOT because I made many bad edits in the recent past, then would you still continue blocking me? Is it possible to restore my edit history? Is it possible or not? Why haven’t you even told me that yet? A1DF67 (talk) 23:26, 13 January 2010 (UTC) No one is blocking you. I don't know why you wished to erase the page that shows the history of your contributions. All I know is that you tried, and it didn't work. Now at this point, I suggest you make a link to your blocked Bowei Huang account on your user page to avoid confusion. If you wish to change your signature to your old name, go to "My Preferences" on your menu bar and it will let you do so. If you wish to merge the two accounts, I suggest you make an appeal to WP:CHU and see if they can do anything there for you. Otherwise, I don't see why you are continuing this. I suggest you take my advice above, just continue working on the Wikipedia and just let this go. Auntie E. (talk) 04:00, 14 January 2010 (UTC) I can tell anyone interested right off the bat that requests for merging edit histories from two usernames are usually rejected at WP:CHU as technically impossible, so Auntie's suggestion will not work. —Jeremy (v^_^v Boribori!) 15:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Mikhailov Kusserow and WikiProject dabbling

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

This editor has been going about, arbitrarily archiving the talk pages for WikiProjects, and spinning off membership lists on to separate subpages. In looking at his contributions page, he is going about this in alphabetical order by project name. In the case of WP:CRIME, his talk page edit removed the Mizsabot auto-archiving code and set up his own definitions of archive pages, removing even very recent talk posts. He is not a member of the projects, nor has he proposed his edits for project consensus. I objected to his actions for WP:ACTOR here. Tonight he popped up to make these edits on WP:CRIME, again without approaching the project and defining things as he wants them. When I posted my objection to his talk page [14], I noticed that people from other projects have also objected to his edits [15]. I'm certain as he goes on, more largely populated projects will object to this also. This editor does not seem inclined to stop and help would be appreciated. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:22, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Someone block this disruptive editor?

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

Since we now realize:

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

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

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

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

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

Actually, this is the very essence of a preventative rather than punitive block. The editors needs to show they have read and understood the content of the requests and warnings on their talk page. --Andy Walsh (talk) 14:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Tendentious editing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Not a bot. I had another look at the contributions. They are changing any references of Lithuania SSR to Lithuania. Of course, he's being promptly reverted... he's not edit warring though. Still, seems to be pushing a POV. Not sure which way to turn on this one... - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 10:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's wierd. I got an edit conflict, but couldn't see what, so I submitted... now I notice that Altenmann added a comment! But it wasn't there before, and I didn't overwrite him. Very, very strange. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

External link spammer

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

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

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

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

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

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

That was published in 1936, so that's now out of copyright. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 11:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Copyright on The Coming American Fascism was renewed in 1963 ([16]), which means copyright will expire in 2031. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Some of the documents linked are clearly PD, but I've now removed two others which had copyright renewals and are still in copyright. I've left the contributor a note of explanation, and am still looking. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've removed several others that I have confirmed were renewed and a couple that may have been (see Wikipedia:Public domain for more info, and the very useful Wikisource:Help:Public domain). --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I recall removing some links to this site, can't we get it blacklisted? Dougweller (talk) 17:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Given an evident disregard for copyright, that may be appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

The problem is that you (1) accused me of vandalism for something that was very obviously no such thing but a genuine POV dispute, and then you justified it instead of retracting. This makes it appear likely that you want to continue behaving like that. I was waiting for a clear statement that you now understand you shouldn't have used Twinkle to revert me, and instead I got (2) an additional accusation of "harassment" that I consider to be similarly problematic (but I came here to ask for feedback on this). Now you have added (3) an accusation of (even ongoing) "wiki-stalking", both here and on your talk page [18]. Needless to say, there is no evidence for this whatsoever. While I have in fact noticed that some of the Filbinger related articles that you have edited recently have severe POV issues, I have not started work on them yet, and so far our interactions have been very limited in time (4 days) and space (Hans Filbinger, Talk:Hans Filbinger, User talk:Urban XII and here).

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

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

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

Just a quick note here in support of User:Hans Adler. It seems that Urban XII's style of interaction is a bit of a problem. He is extremely quick to accuse other users of vandalism; this has been already noted repeatedly by other people in the Wikipedia alert pages [19], [20], [21], [22]. He also deletes warnings left by others on his talk page (and labels them as vandalism [23]), so evidently that is of no use. Note that I am not involved in any of the links I've just given, except in so far as he kindly mentions me in one of them. Feketekave (talk) 10:12, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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

• Urban XII edit wars with Verbal on Frédéric Mitterrand to introduce a borderline BLP violation. One of his edit summaries reads "Rv vandalism." [24]
• In a bizarre edit on Talk:Frédéric Mitterrand, Urban XII duplicates part of Verbal's signature and a comment by Off2riorob, while adding his own comment. [25]
• Verbal reverts with edit summary Don't vandalise the comments of others, and in the following minute restores Urban XII's latest comment. [26]
• In the same minute, Urban XII uses edit summary "rv vandal" when removing 3RR warning and pointers to WP:NOTVAND and WP:BLP from Verbal.
• Verbal tries again to educate Urban XII about what is not vandalism [27] and is again called a vandal [28]. Urban XII increases "vandalism counter". [29]
• Urban XII leaves bogus warning on Verbal's talk page. [30]
• WQA about Urban XII, opened by Verbal [31]

The "vandalism" counter on Urban XII's talk page is also worth further inspection. Urban XII first introduced it after he reverted a warning from Wilhelm meis concerning a BLP issue on Roman Polanski. [32] He increased it to 2 after Verbal's warning. He increased it to 3 after a silly personal attack warning from DD2K. [33] He increased it to 4 after a justified 3RR warning concerning Angels and Demons (film), where he had edit warred to include unsourced trivia. [34] [35]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree with Hans Adler and others that the accusations of vandalism should not be thrown lightly as Urban_XII seems to be doing.  Dr. Loosmark  15:43, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I should add that Hans's assessment of Urban XII's agenda seems extremely sensible to me; I had reached similar conclusions independently. It does seem to be the case that extremists who do not fit in de.wikipedia sometimes come in here and go a long way before tying themselves into knots: if you don't speak German, it can take a little while longer to figure out someone's stripes than if you do. At any rate, I should point out that Urban XII seems to be very good at projection; other than the little things (it is he, for example, who has clearly been following others around, as pointed out in [36]), there is the fact that he is very ready to accuse others of being similar to Nazis [37]. Loosmark's (very measured) response [38] to that is the only time I have seen Loosmark comment on Urban XII's actions, by the way; so much for Urban XII's being "followed" by him.

It is also noteworthy that, while Urban XII seems to be a relatively recent editor, he is always very ready to speak as if for wikipedia, rather than on his own; see [39] again, for instance. Feketekave (talk) 10:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal threat about a jacket

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, being nice to people making mistakes would set a seriously bad precedent on Wikipedia. They might get used to it. --Conti|✉ 18:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Constant harassment

This complaint goes to:

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

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

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

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

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

Response by Bongomatic

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

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

Given that other information has been released than just a familial link, including the city where the editor goes to school, and the name and profession of User:Drsjpdc I would say that it is a clear case of outing. But then, I take a hard line against the release of any personal information. DigitalC (talk) 00:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree that outing must be strictly prohibited, but who posted the other information? It seems as if Drsjpdc himself provided most of the personally identifiable information. Throwaway85 (talk) 05:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

The information has been provided by Press and "Wayne" themselves. Note that yet another SPI is underway, and in the process of such proceedings it is allowed and necessary to go very close to the identity of a person, including their location if it has been revealed by their IP edits, or in this case the comments of Press himself. The only thing they have not told is the actual name of "Wayne", well, that's not even true, since Press originally named him in his autobiography! Note that edit histories are fair game for information here unless a ban against using such information has been given for safety reasons. In that case, courtesy is extended by other editors to protect the editor from endangerment, and violations of the ban are met with banning for outing. Such requests for privacy (like at the top of my talk page) are respected and enforced very strictly. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Response by BullRangifer

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Comment] Ktr never lifted a finger to "help" me. He moved an article which really didn;t didn;t need moving and called that one act "help". Then quit. 68.239.180.104 (talk) 22:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I never completed helping you because I have a life on here other than helping you. I'm not going to be sucked into the articles that I have no clue about since I could then be at risk of being a meatpuppet. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

[Comment] Like anyone staring out, one make errors. When properly explained I try to fix them. MOST of the "cleaning up" is me cleaning up totally biased articles against any form of alternative medicine, and pedantic stuff like always leaving spaces between words and the next This is ridiculous. How is anyone to learn to edit articles if they spend MOST of their time defending such accusations? This leaves the established anti-chiro clique in charge. The fix is running the henhouse.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.239.180.104 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem is, you have already had run-ins with most of us in this discussion. You have written articles about friends and colleagues. If you look at your current SPI, it is brought up that you aremoving articles from your Wiki project to this one. It is getting out of hand, and you are even using sockpuppets to further your cause. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 23:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Comment from a third party

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

Response by Ktr101

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

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

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

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

The cabal of bullies here is absolutely unprecedented. Even those who seemingly are uninvolved in the Chiropractic v antiQuackery people are being swayed by this organized group. One apparently works for a notorious antiQuackery figure who has been discredited in Courts all over the country and the other two follow his lead everywhere in a really clever conspiracy to avoid charges of meat-puppetry themselves. It's appalling that dedicated experts in fields like Chiropractic cannot produce objective articles in their fields without them being vandalized by this group. This is the reason for the organization of alternative wiki's which they are not also attacking under yet another heading. And the one I started is not the only one. Another has the backing of big names in MEDICINE in NY and higher ups in Wikimedia. People who oppose this conspiracy are set up to be blocked or banned wholesale to further THEIR biased agenda. I understand that this is one step from the federal courts, where the banning of a vociferous voice against this tribe is concerned. They are just adding fuel to that fist adding fuel to that fire by this outrageous attack. I apparently have threatened their mission enough that they are coming after me on every front. Do as you please. I am nearly finished with what I came to Wikipedia to accomplish. Unlike some of these pedantic children I have a life outside of wikipedia, and plan to follow it. Some of you made promises to me, a failed to keep them. So who's word is questionable here?

One final word about waynethewhatever. I do have a son in Chiropractic college, who is also a Computer scientist. Even assuming in arguendum that this is my son,(you want ME to out this editor? - NO!) this is certainly NOT sockpuppetry, or even meat puppetry. Are any of you old enough to have children of your own? My son is 25 and living in the midwest on his own. How many of YOU are puppets of YOUR father's ? The whole premise is absurd. If this were my son, he is a separate individual and has a right to his own opinions and his own voice. If he supports mine then that too is his Constitutional right. And I am very proud of him. I have NOT at any time EVER even had his login and PW, much less ever used them on Wikipeda. You are free to CU to prove THAT. And THEN I demand an official apology. There are many many Chiropractic students and faculty out there whom I would love to educate as to how to start editing on Wikipedia. Perhaps that should be my next avenue for International lectures (and I could). Hmmm...Hundreds of drsjpdc's (I love it) But then certain people will call ALL of them my meat puppets???

(CAVEAT) I am a scrupulously honest person, and have made sure to never give certain vultures the ammo to say otherwise, as my reputation has financial implications, which I have and will zealously guard in whatever venue and by whatever means it requires. If I have been careful with my wording, it is because anything I say on Wiki is routinely twisted beyond recognition. There are efforts underway in other venues, to put a stop to this. I laud and support them. 68.239.180.104 (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

If this was your son, truly he would have other interests than that of his father. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Is this a legal threat, "(CAVEAT) I am a scrupulously honest person, and have made sure to never give certain vultures the ammo to say otherwise, as my reputation has financial implications, which I have and will zealously guard in whatever venue and by whatever means it requires." Like the constant shouts of slander?

Every time he says something he makes himself look worse. No anti-chiropractor cabal could ever do the amount of damage his participating in wikipedia is doing to the reputations of chiropractors whose articles he writes and posts. They seem like non-notable, poorly written, promotional autobiographies by dc's desperate for publicity and attention. Most American chiropractors, on the other hand, are community members and dedicated health care professionals. Two different worlds: the desperate and poorly written about, and the guy next door. --IP69.226.103.13 | Talk about me. 01:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It does sound like a legal threat since he also refers to legal threats made against Wikipedia by an editor who has been indef banned by the Arbitration Committee itself. He also makes libelous claims about editors here, well-knowing that they could sue him for saying such nonsense, IF they so wished, but I'll refrain. Needless to say it would be easy to disprove his claims. His source also uses very cloaked language because he has even admitted under sworn deposition his false claims are just "euphemisms", not fact. The problem is that gullible people like Stephen J. Press believe these lies to be true! The rant above constitutes a serious and libelous violation of WP:Battle and WP:BLP. He has just made a similar rant elsewhere.

As to his claims to be a "scrupulously honest person", his actions here at Wikipedia and his proven sockmaster status say otherwise. Even his website boasts a "Top chiropractor" award that is from a dubious organization which even gives such awards to animals. They are basically a company which sells plaques for self-promotion, which seems to be the big theme in his life. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For the curious, the dubious organization is Consumers' Research Council of America [40][41] It has been exposed by Forbes and others: [42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51] There is plenty of material for a good article about this business that fools people who are interested in self-promotion. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion can be marked as resolved as there seems to be sufficient evidence that the editors in question have done no wrong. We're just getting off topic now. Most of this is better left at the investigation page as well. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Kevin, did you add this to the wrong section, since there is plenty of evidence they've (Press and Wayne) done plenty wrong, or are you referring to those whom he has complained about. In that case you're right, but Press still needs to be dealt with, so the thread needed be closed until he is dealt with. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Unsourced title change

The user User:Radiojon moved the Frankenhole (TV series) page to Mary Shelley's Frankenhole without providing any source to support the name change [52]. A subsequent edit has been made so my attempt to undo that edit didn't work so if any admins can revert this it will be appreciated. ChelydraMAT ^{This cursed Ograbme!} 17:08, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

User:Enax99

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Technically you're right [except for one thing - the "final warning" was issued BEFORE the final vandalism], but this brings up a sore subject. Certain admins are really reluctant to block even vandalism-only editors. They compel someone else to watch that editor's every move (if any) and then report them again, and they also spend time here arguing about it - as opposed to punching one button on their screen. It's a very ineffecient approach. To my mind, admins who take that approach are not doing their jobs properly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

What does it matter? One edit out of line and they're gone. If the edit never comes, everything is good. If the edit does come, it shouldn't be that big of a deal. If they edit productively (like their first edit) then that justifies the restraint. Also, I don't see that there was vandalism after the warning. This was the final warning made at 15:31 of January 12, and their last edit that could be seen as vandalism (a hoax) was made at 13:10 that day (more than 2 hours before); it was at a now-deleted article. Only two edits total were made after the final warning, one which was an article creation deleted as a test page (which I wouldn't call vandalism) and this edit which is questionable but not vandalism. I'm not willing to make a punitive block on this, or any account, sorry. -- Atama頭 21:13, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you going to continually watch that editor's so-called contributions for further useless edits? Or are you expecting others to do your work for you? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not my "job" to do anything, Bugs. I've volunteered to mop up nasty stains on the encyclopedia, not be someone's hitman. I'm not afraid to block people if it's warranted in my judgment, and I've blocked a handful of people even though I've only been an admin for a bit over a month now. Your objection to my decision not to block this person yet is noted. And no, I don't promise to babysit this person, but as I've said, if I happen to catch word here or anywhere else that they've made what looks like a hoax edit or clear vandalism, I'll block them. -- Atama頭 02:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

If you're not willing to block, and not willing to watch, then someone else has to, and it's a waste of their time. It's the OP's "reward" for bringing it here instead of taking it straight to AIV where it should have gone and been done with. If you're a new admin, you'll learn over time not to fool around with these characters. If they come here and vandalize, that's all they're going to be good for. I had a similar discussion awhile back with another admin, and I've observed that he's come around to my viewpoint. I predict you will too. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You might be right. I'm new and I'm cautious. Maybe overly so, but I'd rather screw up by being too careful with the tools than screw up by being too careless. We'll see if I start shooting from the hip in the next few months or so. -- Atama頭 17:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with caution. I use rollback cautiously. Maybe that guy won't come back, and then everything will be peachy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

All right, fine, in other words, this user can vandalize all they want and then quit without anything being done about it. Thanks for letting me know, I won't bother to report people about vandalism any more if they aren't currently vandalizing, if nobody is willing to do anything about it. Woogee (talk) 22:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Is someone blocked if they stop being disruptive? The answer is no. Blocks aren't meant to punish people for what they've done wrong, they are meant to prevent future problems (see WP:BLOCK#Purpose and goal). Absent any particularly awful conduct that would result in an immediate block, the general practice is to give escalating warning messages, and if the editor persists after the final warning they are blocked. -- Atama頭 02:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

1991 Punjabi landslide

Please could an admin fix this mess [53]? I was unable to move the page back to the original location. Not sure if's just vandalism or a very pointy way of claiming the article's a hoax? Cassandra 73 (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

The references in the article are all fake (i.e., irrelevant), and cut-and-pasted from a previous version of wikipedia's Landslide article. I too could find no confirmation that such a landslide occurred. Abecedare (talk) 18:43, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to tag it with the speedy deletion template right now as this is obviously a hoax. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:31, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel S. Razón

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Indeed, and there was no need to repeat it on my talk page. You had your say in the AfD (although note some of the comments above about civility and badgering other participants), and your views were very seriously considered in my closure. It would help if you could assume that other editors are just as concerned as you are about the neutrality and quality of our encyclopedia. The article isn't exactly a puff-piece, so there's no reason to assume bad faith. As for a possible merger, that should be discussed on the article talk-page (and WP:DR pursued if necessary); ANI isn't the place to settle content issues. EyeSerene^talk 18:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but is it also a place to request that the closure be speedily done during a time that pro-delete editors aren't usually around to have their say? I barely caught-up with the discussion and I doubt that you truly took note of my final comments as they were written 17 or so seconds after you tagged the discussion as being closed. Why did you give in to Howard's request for a speedy closure, which he requested immediately after he dumped his non-RS "epic fail" links. How can someone be notable with only one RS in his support and a limp one at that? One that took an experienced editor an entire week to find. Your sweeping action in favor of this request: "I'd actually prefer the discussion end now in lieu of what else could happen if the discussion is extended." hasn't been explained and is highly-questionable. Why didn't you let the extension afforded the discussion run its full course? It would allow more editors to vote and have their say. – Shannon Rose ^Talk 19:11, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Shannon, this isn't the place for this discussion. Ask on the closing admin's talk page, the article's talk page, or WP:DRV. Also, you may want to look into toning down your signature. It's a bit... obnoxious. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As Jauerback says, I'll be happy to explain myself further if my closing rationale doesn't seem adequate, either at DRV or on my talkpage. I can assure you though that I read your last comments carefully; they edit-conflicted me so I could hardly miss them, and if you look at the timings you'll see I spent the best part of 45 minutes evaluating the discussion. Both you and Howard the Duck made an impassioned (at times, too much so) defence of your respective positions, but unfortunately you couldn't both be accommodated. EyeSerene^talk 20:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I'd want to add is... Is it too much to ask for Shannon not to have a 10-foot-tall signature, per WP:SIG#Appearance and color? It's a bit distracting. :) -- Atama頭 21:19, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User: LoveMonkey

I have been engaged in intermittent discussions at Talk:Militant atheism for almost three years - though I must confess that I (and others) have not made much progress with the article itself. It's a tricky article, on a potentially divisive subject - basically a phrase that has various meanings according to who is using it, in what context. There have been previous attempts to slant the article very strongly towards one particular usage, in one particular context, and I (and others) have pointed out from time to time over a long period that there is a danger of turning the article into a coatrack for anti-Soviet and anti-atheist propaganda. Excessive cataloguing of the evil deeds of the Soviets has in the past been deleted (by consensus, as far as I can tell) as irrelevant and POV-pushy. Faced with a recent spate of such POV-stuffing, I made the mistake of just exceeding three reverts to the article - though of different kinds of material - within a 24-hour period: [54], [55], [56], [57], [58]. Around the same time, and in the couple of days since, I have been posting various comments on the talk page expressing my concerns (e.g. [59], [60], [61], [62]). But in response to these attempts to discuss the content of the article, I and others have been subjected to a torrent of long-winded and inaccurate accusations by LoveMonkey - on my user page ([63]); on the edit-warring noticeboard (e.g. [64], [65], [66]); on the article talk page (e.g. [67], [68], [69]. [70], [71]). My latest attempt to communicate with LoveMonkey simply gets deleted from his talk page and reposted in an inappropriate place, accompanied by further groundless accusations. And note that these are just examples of many similar postings by this editor. In addition to the accusation of breaching 3RR (which I now realise was – just – technically correct), I have been accused of edit-warring, being disruptive, not assuming good faith, making inflammatory comments, whitewashing, tag-teaming, etc, etc. I can see no basis for any of this. I have tried to argue my point, and at all times I have been civil. I have commented on the issue, not the contributors. I am finding the constant attacks extremely trying, and tedious. Could someone look at this, and comment on User:LoveMonkey's behaviour? Thanks. SNALWIBMA ( talk - contribs ) 14:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Snalwibma violated the WP:3rr with another editor. User talk:Snalwibma continued to engaging in revert warring even after I posted the vio. This lead to the article being protected. User talk:Snalwibma refused to discuss their repeated policy violations with concerned editors on the militant atheism talkpage. User talk:Snalwibma has associates whom protect various articles within the subject of atheism and engaging in tag team edit warring. User talk:Snalwibma has a history of edit warring and edit abuse within the militant atheism article history before I ever engaged the article.[72],[73],

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

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

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

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

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

I have publicly apologized to Saddhiyama under the WP:3RR I opened on User:Snalwibma [75] Even when I apologize to the tag team they ignore it and the concerns about edit warring and my posting diffs of those edits that are violations and continue to either ignore my posted concerns or label them attacks or extreme some other term inappropriate and then continue to justify policy violations and edit war. They have done this type of thing as a group to other articles on wikipedia. If you look at the history I have with this collection of editors (you will notice them in the militant atheism edit history for example). I have a short and truncated history as their tag team tactics force a 3RR. I refused to edit war with this group on the article anti-theism as you can see from the talkpage there. This group of editors is wholesale deleting content and justifying their edit warring. This behavior is very destructive to the spirit of co-operation that is essential to having a functional and working wikipedia community. LoveMonkey (talk) 15:16, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

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

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

I've been on a wikibreak for a month so and came back and checked my watchlist. I haven't actually edited the Militant atheist recently (my last edit was in september '09 [76] removing minor vandalism, but LoveMonkey has explicitly singled me out in their comments where they said, "Snalwibma and crew here know that the other atheism based articles and their page edit warring buddies (note the presents of Ttiotsw for example) will delete content wholesale and deny that the content they delete is appropriate from their understanding of the subject" (my bold) When someone else (NBeale) removed [77] these LoveMonkey comments LoveMonkey reverted this [78]. Anyone knowing NBeale and my edit histories knows that we both agree to differ and the basis for our compromise are the Wikipedia policies. I'm indifferent to what LoveMonkey says but I do agree with NBeale that the comments by LoveMonkey are uncivil and not in good faith, though I can't actually care directly what LoveMonkey says about me. Personally the LoveMonkey editing style shows poor thought in that they repeatedly correct what they say in the talk e.g. [79]. It makes it rather difficult to get a word in. I don't expect a block of LoveMonkey but I would like it if in their edits they did not refer to any user. Ttiotsw (talk) 05:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

User:75.69.240.186

User 75.69.240.186 has made persistent uncited additions to Benelli M4 Super 90. Specifically, the users list in that article. The section he is editing has an edit banner stating that all additions need citations and warning that any additions without citations will be removed. He has also been warned by myself in [edit summarys] and on [his talk page] not to make additions without citations from a reliable source. He did add a citation once for this claim (Italy as a user) in one of his edits but it cited another Wikipedia article. After being informed in my revert edit summary that Wikipedia cannot use itself as a source, he again added the same claim without any citation. He has not made any attempt to explain his reasoning either in edit summarys or at his talk page. Looking at [his talk page], this user also has recent messages from other editors about his uncited additions to various articles. ROG5728 (talk) 20:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I can hardly believe that it's controversial to say that Italy perhaps might have used a weapon that was designed/manufactured in Italy. I added a {{citation needed}} tag to the flagicon, so try and find a source! (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not controversial to say that Italy 'perhaps may use the weapon'. It is, however, speculation and not necessarily true. There are numerous weapons designed in the United States (for example) that have never been used in the United States military. We also know that this editor is taking his claim from Wikipedia. Without a citation from a reliable source the claim doesn't contribute anything to a section that is not speculative in nature. The section also already has an edit header stating that citations are needed for entries, so I don't see anything accomplished in adding another tag. ROG5728 (talk) 21:54, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

gadfium

He has been rude to me on my talk page and the Whanganui talk page. He is an administrator. I have continued to be polite but this has failed. Could somone please overlook this and verify my issue? Cheers. Wipkipkedia (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

His warnings look entirely appropriate to me. Stop doing things without consensus and you won't have people giving you warnings. Please read WP:PLAXICO. Woogee (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In addition, when you bring a discussion here about another user, it is your responsibility to notify the other user that this discussion is occurring. Woogee (talk) 23:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on that end. You're going to have to show us some diffs of his rudeness; he's dealt with you politely from everything I could see there. No admin powers have been abused and there's not much that admins can do at this point, so this isn't really the best place for this discussion. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

From this exchange, you have initiated discussion on gadfium's talk pages, and then rudely demanded that he not reply to you there. I cannot find anywhere where gadfium behaved rudely to you. You however, are clearly rude to gadfium. Perhaps you could apologise and stop trying to draw attention to yourself. --Epipelagic (talk) 01:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Gadfium has taken no admin action and has treated Wipkipkedia with nothing but respect. Wipkipkedia, on the other hand, has not treated his fellow New Zealander with the same respect. Please, if you have a problem with the addition of an "h", confine your arguments to the article talk page. Also, please don't jump to conclusions about other editors' motives. Thank you. —DoRD (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Can an admin please move and merge Talk:Phil Popham to User talk:CRICKETLtd?

Incidentally CRICKETLtd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) may benefit from new editor mentoring. They're having a lot of trouble with making edits that follow our guidelines and are completely uncommunicative. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 00:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed it, I believe. The history of Talk:Phil Popham is now part of the history of User talk:CRICKETLtd, and I've reverted the page back to how it was before the move. Please let me know if anything is screwed up because this is my first page history merge. :) -- Atama頭 18:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hot Chanie

Resolved

 – Speedy G10 was declined. --Taelus (talk) 10:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd like another admin set of eyes on this. It strikes me as negative and lacking RS, a borderline G10 candidate. I don't want to tag the article or unilaterally speedy it in the middle of an AfD, so I'm asking for another set of eyes or two: Is it so egregious we should G10 it, or should the AfD run its course? Jclemens (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd speedy it under G10 if it was up to me. So, lacking that bit, I tagged it. —DoRD (talk) 02:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC) ...and had it declined. Back to AfD. —DoRD (talk) 02:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Rollback abuse?

Resolved

 – WildHartLivie has agreed to be more careful with using edit-summary-less reverts in the future. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:41, 15 Jan 2010 (UTC)

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

---

I am concerned that User:Wildhartlivie is abusing her rollback privileges. Since I have been granted rollback rights, I have become more aware of when editors use rollback and frequently check to see why rollback was used with articles on my watchlist. User:Wildhartlivie has had her abuse of rollback addressed by an administrator here [80]. She responded to the admin's concerns here [81], the admin then responded here [82]. Wildhartlivie then responded by stating she understood what he was saying here [83]. This editor has, however, continued to use rollback when there was no evidence of vandalism. While there have been many more incidences of her use of rollback being questionable that I have noticed, I am providing examples from just the last 24 hours below: [84], [85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93], [94], [95]

In the above examples, not one of the rollback reverts (that I can see) were obvious vandalism. The editor in question has been notified of my complaint here. Thank you for looking into this - if you have any more questions of me regarding this report, feel free to ask. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk)

I didn't look at them all, but this one[96] looks like either vandalism or someone making up a story. Most of those reverts seem to be of unsourced trivia and the like. It's not appropriate to use rollback for that, or even "undo". It's necessary to say something in the edit summary that explains the reason for the reversion. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:06, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

My edits were also inappropriately rolled back by Wildhartlivie: [97] and [98].—Chowbok ☠ 01:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

First of all, Chowbok, those are not rollbacks, so your complaint is moot. Because you were reverted doesn't make those edits rollbacks. Secondly, I am sick and tired of SkagitRiverQueen stalking my edits and trying to get me into trouble. She contacted GTBacchus by email to make her complaint just after her rollback was removed for what she blamed on her cell phone. She has stalked me from page to page and has instigated battles over everything. For the record, I did not report her rollback abuse nor did I instigate her rollback being removed. I am fed up with her self-appointed role of "get Wildhartlivie" busted mentality. This is the last straw as far as I'm concerned and a request for comments on user behavior will be forthcoming regarding her conduct toward me. In looking at what was done on edits, I considered this, this that added random names to the victims list, this (Dex Dogtective?, this, this edit that changed her date of divorce to 9/11/2001 (Trade Towers), this which changed author names with inappropriate spacing, this edit which rambles on about a disabled child and states "This is wrong" in the middle, this which is basically rambling, and this which was in a line of 3RR violations that ended up with the editor blocked, vandalism. If the others two were not, I apologize. Please ask SkagitRiverQueen to stop stalking me around Wikipedia and filing harassing reports here and on WP:WQA about me. This is clearly a complaint geared toward getting me in trouble and it is time for it to stop. Do something about this before it ends up at ArbCom. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a complaint geared toward someone who has been entrusted with rollback privileges and has been abusing them for quite some time. Below are more examples of blatant rollback abuse when no vandalism was involved. The list is very short. [99], [100], [101], [102], [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109]

Regardless of my history with Wildhartlivie, the fact is that she has abused her rollback privileges *even after being advised to stop by an administrator* - whatever is between her and I does not have any bearing on her choosing to continue to use rollback inappropriately. If one wishes to do the research, it's easy to see Wildhartlivie has been abusing rollback for way too long. Further, if she now files a complaint about me based on her anger at me for filing *this* complaint, wouldn't that be blatant retaliation? (I'm seriously asking) --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 01:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Whether it's rollback or undo, an explanatory edit summary is needed. The reverted edits looked like they were revert-worthy. They just needed an explanation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It isn't retaliation when it can be clearly shown the RfC/U has been under formation since the last time you tried to rag on me and you've accused me before of posting something out of retaliation (at WP:WQA). This has openly been discussed on GTBacchus's talk page. The majority of those posts are in response to illicit editing by a known sockpuppet account or IP related to that sock puppet, per WP:Rollback#Mass rollbacks, and the Alex Baldwin one was reverting vandalism from when a chunk of article content was cut. Despite what she contends, these mostly came from December 22, long before the admin approached me after her email complaint to him, which she does not deny. I was not aware that "undo" required an explanation. She is determined to make me pay for continued disputes with her, even when I was not involved in her rollback fiasco. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• User:Wildhartlivie, a few of those edits shouldn't have been reverted without edit summaries, so if you're going to use rollback, please carefully review WP:ROLLBACK and in the future, be more careful about using rollback only to revert straightforward vandalism and other blatantly unhelpful edits.

• User:SkagitRiverQueen, if you meant to help the project, I'm wondering why you didn't bring this up on Wildhartlivie's talk page first. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't bring it up with her because (a) she has already been warned by an admin about this behavior previously and returned to the same behavior, and (b) she has been repeatedly abusive and uncivil with me in the past (as recent as today, in fact) and I didn't feel trying to bring this to her attention would be seen by her as anything other than harassment, possibly causing her to retaliate by filing a complaint against me for harassment (which, as you see above by her own statements, she is going to do because I brought *this* to AN/I). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds to me like this isn't about rollback at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

All due respect, Gwen, but you are incorrect. -SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• • Rollback should only be used for blatantly-obvious-to-everyone vandalism, like clobbering a page, random deletions, and stupid "Hi Mom" kinds of stuff. Most everything else, even if it's reverting a known sock, should carry an explanation, to help other see what's going on and to avoid having to account for it later. I use rollback sparingly, and sometimes have even reverted myself and re-reverted "manually", with an explanation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't retaliation for this. It's an effort to make you stop wikistalking and harassing me. The RfC/U has been under development for sometime now and widely discussed. Thanks, Gwen. I will. And it's acceptable for removing massive sock puppet posts, Bugs. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

And I don't consider challenging your statements that called other editors "people [who] are drawing childish lines in the sand or are polarized and rigid and declaring your "life is too full" to bother to answer questions from a mediator or stating that Wikipedia "equals little - if anything - of real, meaningful importance" to be "abusive and uncivil" [110], but then, you know, that's you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I have to question whether the motivation for this thread was truly concern for the encyclopedia or more like an opportunity to retaliate for Wild's WQA posting regarding SkagitRiverQueen. Nevertheless, Wilhartlivie should provide edit summaries for these kinds of edits in the future, since they aren't blatant vandalism. I'm sure Wild can appreciate that and agree to be more careful in the future? The drama doesn't need to escalate any further than this. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:36, 15 Jan 2010 (UTC)

I told Gwen I would. Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, if this is all it will take for WHL to stop using rollback improperly, I will certainly be satisfied and happy that it ends here. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 02:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

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

Harassment by IP

Resolved

 – 74.59.88.57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked for a week. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 05:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A deranged IP editor [111], presumably the indef blocked Lceliku (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) keeps re-posting the same threats he got banned for on Talk:Albania, as well as trolling my talkpage [112]. Can someone semi Talk:Albania or better yet block the IP? Thanks. Athenean (talk) 01:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

He is now going around serially undoing all my contribs. Can someone indef this psychopath already? --Athenean (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

IP is hardblocked for one week, since this is clearly evading the original block, which seems at first glance to have been sound. I'll happily abide by consensus if anyone feels convinced unblocking the account and/or IP is a good idea, in the meantime. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

User:DeKoning and Governors Island

Briefly: DeKoning (talk · contribs) continues to add material to the Governors Island page after repeated requests on the article's talkpage not to do so. The material pertains to what he calls the legacy of the island as a birthplace of American freedom - it smacks of POV and of puffery. It's been removed, on and off, for a couple of years now; looking back on article history, I see that I myself actually removed it back in 2007. Each time, DeKoning comes back after a few days and replaces it. Efforts to remove it have been stepped up over the past couple of months, but each time the same thing happens: nothing changes for a while, and then DeKoning comes back and edits it all back in. The last time this happened, I stated on the article's talk page that I would take the whole case to ANI. That was on December 29. Today, the material was re-added, and here I am. User:Dudemanfellabra suggested blocking DeKoning and his IP address (from which he has also edited the article on occasion), and at this stage I'm inclined to agree. I had considered suggesting protecting the article, but I'm not sure if that's necessary at this point. What do you think? --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 03:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Amantio; protecting the page would in effect penalize users that have done nothing. Why do that when there is only one user causing the trouble? If the edit history of that article is not sufficient grounds to block the user, I point you to the user's contributions. He also did a lot to the New Netherland article, one closely tied to Governors Island. He clearly has an agenda/bias that he's pushing forward. If not an all out block, then I would at least suggest a topic ban or at the very least a page ban. Despite any warning and reasoning, the user continues to add the same information, verbatim. --Dudemanfellabra (talk) 04:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec)It's a single-purpose account, editing sporadically for nearly 4 years, and looking at the reference he cites, it seems like he's trying to promote his own book. Even forgetting that, he's putting way too much detail in the article - probably lifted straight from his book. He's a one-note editor, but he's been around so long that either (1) the article would have to be fully protected; or (2) he and his IP should be given a lengthy block to encourage him to find another hobby. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, it appears he promptly readded the removed material again since this notice was put up here. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 05:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've issued a uw-generic4 and told DeKoning that any further insertion must be discussed on the talk page first for consensus to be gained. Mjroots (talk) 06:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much - I'll keep an eye on things and see what happens. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

And he just returned. Literally just now - I've reverted again. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 14:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reported him to AIV. We'll see which gets the job done first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for one month--with an additional warning that if he starts up again after his return, the next block will be indefinite, and I'll also be moving for a community ban. Blueboy96 16:01, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much - should anything else crop up, I'll make a note. I've got the article on my watchlist at the moment. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 16:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Something was said about an IP address occasionally doing the same stuff, so the article will remain on my watch list. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:In the news/candidates#Solar eclipse of January 15, 2010

Resolved

 – ITN admin handled the issue. --Taelus (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Could an admin please post this ITN canditate? This is literally millennium-class and time is of the essence but everybody on ITN/C fell asleep before I added something to the article, the final hurdle to consensus. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 04:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Not needed anymore. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that any admin action is needed here. This is a WP:ITN/C matter. If it gets at least two supports then it will be considered. Mjroots (talk) 06:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, only admins are allowed to post ITNs to avoid vandalism appearing on the Main Page. But the usual ITN admin came by anyway. (after like 5 hours) Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 10:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, misunderstood the purpose of the post there. When I looked at ITN/C I wasn't sure that consensus had been gained to include it. Mjroots (talk) 11:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Darthchess

Resolved

Darthchess (talk · contribs) appears to be a vandal. From his contribution history, it can be seen that he changes dates on articles to false values. He recently created two hoax articles, now both on AfD.

76.66.197.17 (talk) 06:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You should try reporting this to WP:Administrator intervention against vandalism (WP:AIV). That is the usual first stop for vandalism reports. — SpikeToronto 07:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That process says something about recentcy. I didn't think it qualified, since it's hours old for the hoaxes, and the false dates are days old. 76.66.197.17 (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Indefblocked as a vandal-only account; I can't find any constructive edits. Thanks for your report. EyeSerene^talk 09:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(55636) 2010 TO300 & Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arch, Prifysognol II closed.

However, new editor Darthcheckered (talk · contribs) seems familiar... — Scientizzle 16:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• Now Darthcheckered (talk · contribs) is blocked. — Scientizzle 16:10, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Why did this guy get blocked when he wasn't actively vandalizing, but nobody will block Enax99? 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Outside view from a quick glancing of things, but creating hoax articles in short order and already deleted is not pleasant, but running to the user page of the editor that gave vandalism warnings from legitimate vandalism before you took a break away from Wikipedia over the holidays... and in (literally) less than 20 minutes of logging in are vandalizing that user's page? That's not so good. RPP, AIV and 3RR violations are what tend to be most time sensitive, you are correct. Anything that extremely vindictive is hard to ignore. OH, then there's the whole sock thing Scientizzle brought up. That's pretty important, too.

Enax99 was not in violation of 3RR or disruption after a final warning since no one actually gave any warnings. This is a fair defense on an alleged first offense since we have to assume they just don't know our policies. It's quite true that blocks aren't issued after the fact for vandalism. What good would that do? Block are preventative, and the admin here looked at the whole edit history of Darthchess in the past several days and considered a pattern ever after large numbers of warnings. Enax99 stopped but has a really pointed final warning withstanding that at least potentially means that any disruption whatsoever in the future could result in a block... since there would then be an established pattern. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 16:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Charles Manson and SkagitRiverQueen

Earlier today, SkagitRiverQueen posted a put down of the efforts of all the other editors on this page, characterizing them as "drawing childish lines in the sand or are polarized and rigid" and said her life was too full to mess with the Manson article. Wildhartlivie posted a reply, with only a small comment that could be considered "rude and incivil" (a comment about her having a photo of Jimbo Wales popping up on her talk page) as she claimed at WP:AN/I. JohnBonaccorsi posted a short and terse reply as well. This was her response. There is nothing in that post but vicious personal attacks, rudeness and incivility. There has been little in her posts about various editors that can't be characterized as hostile and aggressive in content and completely unacceptable, over a wide variety of articles. I reverted it as a "overt and hostile personal attack", which she reverted, saying "No, leave it there - if everyone else's personal attacks stay, then my comment should also stay", and reverted the NPA warning with "Please - *do* get over yourself and stop being such a hypocrite.", whereupon I left her another NPA warning and removed the attack, stating that if it is returned again, it will go to WP:AN/I. Soon thereafter, she removed the post by JohnBonaccorsi, calling a personal attack, although in fact, his words, "They balance the effects of the editors like you, who don't try at all." were terse and short, but merely echoed her own statement that she "Like Eaglizard, I have now come to the same conclusion and am just as disinterested as he/she is. I'm not in the least interested in "slow and painful" right now - as my life is currently quite full." After reconsidering the tone of these posts and edits, I decided it should come here anyway. No one should be subjected to this sort of treatment. Granted, there has been considerable contention on that page, and with her against various editors, but this crosses the line from being short and snippy into out right personal attacks with no hedging or excuses. This editor needs to be stopped. She stalks the edits of editors against whom she is battling and does so in a retaliatory and vindictive manner. LaVidaLoca (talk) 08:48, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I had just issued a blanket warning on the page [113] to everyone involved before seeing this thread, I know there's been some problems with this editor before, and her comments were a personal attack. However, the page (and that section) appears to also contain an incendiary comment about her, as well. (Both of those have been removed, which is probably best.) LaVidaLoca, you've removed Skagit's attack multiple times while leaving the personal comment that angered her, then left multiple templated messages on her talk page [114] [115]. None of that is going to help smooth things over. At this point, admin eyes are probably needed to cool things down. Dayewalker (talk) 09:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, I didn't see his response as a personal attack, and with her, it is very difficult to know what sparks her flames. I read his comments as a direct response to her statements that put everyone down and said she was disinterested in the article because her life is so full. Yes, I left a template after that attack upon JohnBonaccorsi, and I removed the attack twice notating that I would come here if she did it again, and I left one when she told me to get over myself and stop being a hypocrite. The level of personal attack, especially with John, who has basically bent over backwards to work with her and did not deserve the scathing put downs included in her post. I felt she needed to be reminded. Then I decided to bring this here. Her behavior is becoming a frequent problem. And I realize that bringing this here will probably invite her wrath to be turned upon me. LaVidaLoca (talk) 09:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

JB's response was a personal comment, although perhaps not an attack (I've corrected myself above). It was the kind of comment that will provoke an angry response, especially from an editor known for doing that in the first place. From there, it just seemed like editors getting upset their warnings were deleted, and throwing up more templated messages where all that will do is make the recipient angrier. There's no need to put up two templated messages in a half an hour to a user who's been blocked before, she's aware. (For that matter, her warning here [116] was likewise unnecessary.) It seems emotions are running hot on that page, and everybody could use a cup of tea. Dayewalker (talk) 09:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't upset that she removed my warning, I expected that. I did not expect to be told to "get over myself" and be called a hypocrite. If anything upset me, it was in the disparaging words she used to John. There was nothing retaliatory in putting up a warning to someone who said what she did. LaVidaLoca (talk) 09:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for weeding through and recognizing this mess for what it is. If you add the fact that I have been receiving very disturbing and harassing emails for three days from someone who is either involved in or watching this whole scenario from a lurking standpoint (and is also vandalising my talk page again), you could say that I am just a little "on-edge" and hypersensitive. LaVidaLoca seems to think they should not be subjected to the "kind of treatment" they have been getting? I guess LaVidaLoca doesn't realize that no one should be subjected to the kind of treatment I am getting at that talk page including the further insult of having them condone JohnBonaccorsi's blatant incivility in this example [117] and him replying to WHL's "thanks for the laugh" here [118]. From the response to what JohnBonaccorsi wrote, it's not only acceptible to be intentionally uncivil, it's funny. What amazes me is that they all act appalled and have a "who me?" attitude when I react in anger after what they have been "subjecting" me to. I'm glad to see everyone invovled being addressed this time, Dayewalker, rather than just the "accused". --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 16:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hum. Seems this topic is toxic to a lot of outside replies, so hey I like some abuse. This isn't directly related to this today, or the mess a week ago, or anything scattered about talk pages between any random combination of about 5 users and 2 admins I went to read, and nothing to do with the WQA, but I'm actually going to point to the suggestion given to SkagitRiverQueen while protesting a 48hr block last week... which was to voluntarily give a verbal agreement to an uninvolved admin to a limit of 1RR for any article where mutually flustered editors happen to be working. Extend that to 1 talk page posting to any flustered editor per day, also. Just that at least 2 need to give verbal agreement to that, though. Start there and it's like musical chairs of watching editors fall one by one as they decide to stay disruptive or hounding. Any volunteers can sit around with the aforementioned tea to sip and watch people imploding on their own incident reports.

Of course, I'm a ridiculously passive on warring of any kind since it's not worth time volunteering to do, but advice from the WQA of "leave each other alone and go away for a few days" is actually pretty good, as well. I self-enforce a 1RR limit on myself for any article where the person I might be reverting was already a content contributor there. Any more than 1 and re-reverted and obvious it needs article talk page work. It all sounds like shooting yourself in the foot by "weakening" your editing privileges. Not true. Choosing to agree to good faith restraint versus forced restrictions feels reeeeealy good when someone else slips up and shoots themselves in the foot instead. It's a scientific fact that 90% of editors who file the last incident report in a string of disputes is the first or only user blocked for any reason. Just don't ask for a citation, please. Really though... if even 2 of the 4-5 primary discussion editors that have been involved in posts in the past week, it starts the ball rolling to grind others into shaping up. I'd suggest 1RR on co-edited pages, 1 article talk pages reply, 1 user talk post per day. Set the bar high.

Then again, just backing away from all such articles disputed would be even better, but that's a bit much given since others' edits are out of your power. I really wish you all the best. If you truly feel you've done nothing wrong in this all and deserve no preventative sanctions, lead by example. (And agreeing to me wouldn't count, which is good since it gives me a head start on escaping) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:28, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

***** Overload

Air Guinée has alot of asterisks in the article, "blanking out" words and such. I can't make sense of what exactly is going on here. I did leave a note at DYK, but I think this needs urgent attention from more experienced editors..--293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For some reason, someone has censored all the usages of the term Soviet, Soviet Union and Moscow, which I have now undone. However, all the plane types have also been censored, and I lack knowledge on the topic to work out what should be filling in those spaces. --Taelus (talk) 10:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Diff which added the info here. [119]. I have contacted the contributor to ask them if they could help us out by uncensoring these terms. --Taelus (talk) 10:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not so much that they've censored it. Russavia (talk · contribs) has added a pile of info, particularly about the aircraft, but has only included placeholder wikilinks instead of proper ones. I could understand it for the aircraft if these are waiting to be looked up, but I'm not sure why they have also written Soviet Unionhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Russavia as S***** U**** --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:18, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I've fixed the censorship, all names spelled out in full. Mjroots (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I had talked to Russavia about this earlier, and encouraged him to simply spell it out normally. However, he was afraid of violating his topic ban (a broadly construed Soviet/Russia discretionary topic ban under WP:DIGWUREN), and did not wish to get blocked for writing Soviet Union. While I told him it was rather silly and that they should just write it out in these cases (which probably do not violate his topic ban). Can we get a quick consensus to just say that writing "Soviet Union" is not a violation of such a topic ban? NW (Talk) 12:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Russavia does a lot of work on Aviation related articles. Therefore it is natural that in doing so the Soviet Union, its successor countries and its aircraft manufacturers are going to crop up from time to time. Mentioning these when legitimately occurring in an article does not need censorship. That is far too tight an interpretation of the topic ban. Per WP:NOTCENSORED, Russavia should be allowed to use the correct names in these cases, without fear of breaching the topic ban. Mjroots (talk) 12:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I would also have no problem with him editing Hockey and Soccer articles where the Soviet Union is mentioned - except where they link politically. The words "Soviet Union" exist outside of the WP:DIGWUREN-banned areas. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree, Russavia can edit this stuff. The ban was to prevent disruption to "History of Russia" and related material, and this is a clear example of an area that would only be covered by the topic ban if we made a overly legalistic interpretation of it. It would be at odds with the spirit of the restriction. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

What kind of ban would prevent saying Soviet Union but not S***** U****? That would make absolutely no sense...unless it was the words and not the topic that was the problem. Apparently due to wikilawyering, the topic ban had been extended to include anything that involves Russians or Russia. I have no opinion on whether the ban was meant to extend this far, and don't really know the background...but if they were worried about the ban, they should ask for clarification, not write articles full of ****. That seems almost a bit pointy. --Onorem♠Dil 13:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. If an editor has a ban on a general topic and uses **** to clearly refer to it and "avoid" it, it would violate his ban as well as WP:POINT. Crum375 (talk) 13:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

There is an open appeal regarding this issue at WP:AE#Appeal by Russavia right now - whether his topic ban should be lifted in part or altogether. You might want to comment there rather than here. Skäpperöd (talk) 13:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible Block Evasion by User:Kashifpisces

Resolved

 – Indef blocked as a sock by MuZemike. -- Atama頭 17:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Kashifpisces was blocked for article ownership issues on Dawood Group. He created another account, User:Kashi786 to evade the block. The editting pattern and note left on my talk page [120] indicates this is the same person is now trying to evade the block and continuing to attempt to edit the article. There is also a COI issue put up at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Dawood Group. -- Whpq (talk) 14:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• SPI report is here; I have semi-protected the article for a month. JohnCD (talk) 17:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Asim Butt (artist)

Several different IPs have added material that the subject has committed suicide, but there have been no references for this and nothing comes up on google searches. I've semi-protected the article in the short term, but feel free to lift this if there are more eyes on the page. Ty 14:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there could be some confusion. A cricket player named Asim Butt died, but that was last month. But people could be confused. Semi prot should be sufficient. Sephiroth storm (talk) 14:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a case of mistaken identity, people are confusing the cricket player with the artist, I agree with sephiroth storm semiprotect is sufficient, I have also added a note on the article talk page. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually it seems like he may actually be dead, there are no reliable sources as of yet, but this does not, as I previously thought, look like mistaken identity, some more eyes on the article for the next day or two would be greatly appreciated. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 15:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it may actually be true, but I haven't found a reliable source that says it, yet. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 16:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Administrator:Jehochman

Resolved

 – Re-closing and archiving. The proper venue to pursue this further is either RFM (recommended) or to file a RFC. Persistence in other venues will be treated as Disruptive editing. MLauba (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Jehochman has not offered any explanation for his deletions, which this ANI asks for, close without that is simply premature, and a double standard --Tombaker321 (talk) 16:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Resolved|No admin abuse. And Peter Sellers's best role was Duchess Gloriana XII}} Jehochman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Jehochman is an administrator who is abusing his administrative privileges. I raised an ANI topic found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive591#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing Jehochman quickly directed the topic into a series of side jokes and proposing a solution for the editor to communicate on talk pages using haikus or limericks vs the Sonnets they have been using. When I challenged the result on its merits, Jehochman quickly turned the ANI to become a referendum on my contributions to Wikipedia. Jehochman said "Any thorough investigator looks at the person filing a complaint to assess their credibility before checking the substance of the complaint." Yet Jehochman proposed final result first, then afterwards began a sub thread called "Let's look at the OP too". Using Jehochman's logic, this means he proposed a solution before he looked at the substance of the complaint. By proposing a solution, Jehochman gave other administrators the perception he had done a review of the substance. The problem was Jehochman was more interested in slap stick, that the functioning of ANI as a process. As he writes in the ANI: Are you saying that I'm like Peter Sellers as Merkin Muffley, or as Inspector Clouseau? Jehochman Brrr 04:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC) Jehochman, then saw fit to go about deleting comments away from review to other Admins involved in this ANI. But not just anyone's. Jehochman deleted the problematic communications style of Proofreader77 in the ANI topic. The topic was about Proofreader77 disruptive communications, and Jehochman removed them, while still calling for his proposed result to become the concensous. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=337667316 When repeatedly asked why he snipped out communications by the subject of the ANI, before other Admins could review it....Jehochman was silent. He was asked multiple times. What is clear is he only wanted Proofreader77 comments removed, as this was his only action in the vein. Lastly Jehochman made this loaded remark at me. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&diff=prev&oldid=337995020 Jehochman, is abusing his admin privileges, by not conducting ANIs with respect, but deleting content to deliberately skew the outcome of an ANI, and then by using his Admin pulpit to bully and characterize editors. I ask for more eyes on this. Thanks --Tombaker321 (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2010 (UTC) I've let Jehochman know about this thread. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Everything that needs to be said here can be summed up by WP:NOPONY and WP:PLAXICO. Since arriving at the project, User:Tombaker321 has done nothing but attempt to defame Roman Polanski by repeatedly inserting dubiously sourced material (sources such as opinion pieces [121]), and then edit warring and battling with the editors who seek to remove his WP:BLP violations. This is a classic, disruptive, single-agenda account. For diffs and evidence, see these contributions. Prior threads of interest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=337754164#Proofreader77_Established_record_of_continuous_unrelenting_Disruptive_Editing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales&oldid=338004152#New_ANI_topic_created. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive586#User:Tombaker321_single_purpose_account_at_Polanski http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tombaker321&oldid=338001565#Polanski http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tombaker321&oldid=338001565#Roman_Polanski http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tombaker321&oldid=338001565#Polanski_2 How much more disruption should we tolerate? Despite repeated warnings, Tombaker321 continues to whip the horse carcass. Jehochman Brrr 16:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Is this "admin abuse"? I don't see the use of any admin tools. Admins don't have "pulpits"(our union has been trying for them for years), just buttons. Peter Sellers was best as James Bond in my opinion. Chillum (Need help? Ask me) 16:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC) I think there has been abuses to JeHochman/s admin power, although I don't see any in this case. Thst being said the poster is try to fight fire with fire. Right now running to Ani after a big thread is shootimng your own foot. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC) I see no abuse here. Speedy close anyone? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 16:27, 15 January 2010 (UTC) I believe its Admin abuse to make threats of sitebans to a person raising an issue to ANI, and to snip out selective remarks during that ANI. He is accusing me of defaming Polanski, which is false on every level. The issues I raised in the ANI were not content issues, and to that regard Jehochman is biased. The previous ANI is closed. I am raising what I earnestly feel is an Admin abusing their position, and disregarding their duties as an Admin. If Jehochman wants to be a content warrior, he should do such as an editor, rather than manipulating as Administrator. He manipulated when he went about deleting content from the ANI. What Jehochman is calling a dubious Op-Ed, is a well sourced record by the first hand party to the event surrounding Polanski. The edits and content that I have done on Polanski are proper content contributions. --Tombaker321 (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Neutralhomer Can you tell me why Jehochman deleted remarks away from other Admins? If not, please leave this open. --Tombaker321 (talk) 16:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict) The only diff you provided of Jehochman removing any comments showed that he deleted some irrelevant drivel, which is mandated by our policy on discussion-pages. Do you have anything else in mind? ╟─TreasuryTag►hemicycle─╢ 16:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

MisterWiki. Again.

User:MisterWiki has not learned. He was indeffed for acting inappropriately, and then unblocked on the provision that he would get his game together and stop treating WP like a place to have fun (among other things, such as, y'know, not socking). this and, to a lesser extent, this FPC shows that he's not taking it seriously. Comments? Ironholds (talk) 17:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hehe, is this a joke or what? --MW talk contribs 17:33, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

You, be quiet before you get yourself into more trouble!! </mom rant>

Ironholds, isn't Wikipedia supposed to be fun? OK, the kitteh piccy isn't of the greatest, but two articles are using it. Why shouldn't he nom it? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Elen: and redirecting piss-on-elmo? Ironholds (talk) 17:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Because he knew perfectly well it didn't meet the criteria and that it would fail. And that's plain disruption. ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 17:41, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested to hear MisterWiki's explanation of how this is non-disruptive activity, and the same for this – ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 17:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

FYI I have fulfilled a db-g7 request for Piss-on-elmo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) which consisted of #REDIRECT[[Pichilemu]] and had only one author (User:MisterWiki). –xeno^talk 17:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested to hear how a poorly thought out featured article nomination is a WP:POINT violation, or more specifically, what point he was attempting to prove in a disruptive fashion. Shereth 17:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) OK, I'll tell you. It is very, very, very obvious, to even the meanest of intellects, and definitely to someone of MisterWiki's considerable intelligence, that the picture in question did not meet the criteria, particularly #1, probably #3, definitely #5 and #7. And nominating an image which so blatantly doesn't satisfy the required standard is, in my opinion, disruptive – particularly given this editor's standing in the community at the moment. ╟─TreasuryTag►voice vote─╢ 17:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:POINT is a specific kind of disruption. If you want to claim his nomination was disruptive because he knew it would fail anyway, then call it disruptive, but it is not a WP:POINT violation. Shereth 17:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'm sorry. I apologise unreservedly for any offence caused by my labelling MisterWiki (talk · contribs) as a WP:POINT violator over the FPC nomination, when he is, in fact, a WP:Disruptive editing violator. I shall strive never to make a similar mistake again. ╟─TreasuryTag►draftsman─╢ 17:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Eh, you're taking it the wrong way, but I'm not going to press the point further. Shereth 18:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd give MisterWiki a pass on the featured picture nomination, he was even encouraged by a couple of established editors there. But the Piss-on-elmo... although he requested its deletion himself afterward, I don't think creating joke articles in the mainspace is ever a good idea. I don't think this is enough to reconsider a block, but it's not a good sign either. -- Atama頭 17:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Not that they count for much, but in an IRC discussion in which an admin repeatedly tried to impress on MisterWiki the silliness of FP noms like that, he repeatedly laughed and tried to justify himself with an argumentum ad lolcat, as it were. Ironholds (talk) 17:49, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

More lulz would've been had if the cat had a "I Can Has FPC?" caption. Tarc (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

MisterWiki, in spite of his apparent technical intelligence, displays a continual lack of fundamental understanding of what this project is for. Whether his apparent inability to stop treating Wikipedia like a fun joke is willful or not, is not a question for me to answer. Whether his toying around and his games are severe enough to warrant further action, I am not sure. He does contribute positively, and I'm not fully convinced that his disruptions are so egregious as to warrant a reinstatement of his block, but it is a fact that he's had his "second chance" and is running dangerously close to exhausting the patience of the community; the fact that he removed the notification of this report on his talk page, dismissing this ANI thread as a "joke" is worrisome at best. Shereth 18:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, removing the {{ANI-notice}} isn't wrong at all, its only purpose is to notify, and once that's been done, there's no real reason to keep it. This is one of the more legitimate things that MisterWiki seems to have done! (Also, I'm not sure that "inability" can be "willful"...) ╟─TreasuryTag►senator─╢ 18:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't his removal of the notice but the associated edit summary ( rm; that ani thread is a joke ) that worries me with regards to how seriously he approaches things at Wikipedia - more as a joke and a game. I don't want to be all "I R SRS ADMIN" and I enjoy a bit of lighthearted humor from time to time but if this thread is not something he can take seriously ... Shereth 18:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Ah, hadn't noticed the edit-summary, fair enough, point taken! ╟─TreasuryTag►ballotbox─╢ 18:13, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I for one am growing rather tired of these games, and wouldn't object to reinstating the block. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:05, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Piss-on-elmo was obviously a fail, I didn't had a dictionary near me and I didn't knew what does it meant (I will not give the name of the person that gave me the idea). Obviously, there are more bizarre redirections than this one. Also, I hadn't read the FI criteria before nominating the kitty image. All of this is not the motive of an Ani thread, this should had been resolved by posting it on the talk page, but a user just wants me blocked (again, I will not name him). --MW talk contribs 18:07, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I mentioned it as a joke on IRC (we were discussing pichelmu (sp), which I can never spell, and I jokingly called it piss-on-elmo); the idea that a joke invites you to create a redirect is ludicrous. And you need a dictionary to understand what the word "piss" means? Ironholds (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought that "piss" meant to step. In Spanish means "pisar", I thought it was a cognate word. --MW talk contribs 18:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit. Tan | 39 18:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

For once, I have to agree with the previous speaker, if MisterWiki is competent to use English phrases such as "cognate word" then he knows what piss means. ╟─TreasuryTag►consulate─╢ 18:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Besides, "stepping on Elmo" is so much less problematic than "urinating on Elmo" (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I also call bullshit. MisterWiki is clearly fluent in the English language; if he knows that "pisar" means "to step", well, he knows that "to step" means "to step" ... come on ... Shereth 18:20, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) ...only if one rides the AGF toboggan into the trees (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 18:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

See, I thought that "piss" meant "to step", not to urinate. Someone explained me what "piss" means in English. I thought it was a cognate word of "pisar", that means "to step". I didn't knew what "piss" meant, but "pisar" yep. And, Elmo isn't the character from Sesame Square (or something else) ? --MW talk contribs 18:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

But again, how is "step on elmo" an appropriate redirect? Ironholds (talk) 18:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Legal threats

Resolved

 – Blockified. Ironholds (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC))

Special:Contributions/74.4.126.141. –MuZemike 17:52, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

fairly clear myspacey, vapid legal threats. Blockify! Ironholds (talk) 17:57, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Blockified. Tan | 39 18:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thankify. Ironholds (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)