Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Ozguroot canvassing again

Ozguroot (talk · contribs) has for a second time canvassed fifteen partisan users to a very charged discussion (Talk:Passport and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-02-04/Passport). The users contacted all have commented on one of the two pages previously, and all in opposition. None of the editors who had supported the compromise were contacted. It only takes a brief search for the names of editors canvassed on Talk:Passport to see how methodically they were picked for their views. Considering the fact that this discussion was previously only held between three users, this has the potential to completely undermine days' worth of discussion, perhaps even destroy the extremely precarious compromise reached. Ozguroot has previously canvassed two users to the discussion, in a foreign language, and was subsequently repeatedly pointed to WP:CANVASS (read from my "03:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)" edit to Talk:Passport) - there is simply no excuse, and I feel a warning is insufficient in light of the irreparable damage done to 160kb of discussion held on Talk:Passport over the last few weeks.

It has been raised on ANI before Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive593#Passport-related_edit_war) that Ozguroot may be a sock-puppet due to the similarity between his editing patterns and those of another sock-master, as well as his strange out-of-the-blue editing history. The possibility was never properly investigated.

Diffs: 16 Jan 09 canvassing:

1. Kerem Ozcan (translation: Google)
2. Kaygtr (translation: Google)

Today's canvassing:

1. Vmenkov
2. Jake Wartenberg
3. Valenciano
4. Rave92
5. Qwerta369
6. Tomi566
7. El Otro
8. Pryde 01
9. Gaston28
10. Philip200291
11. Tetromino
12. Bonus bon
13. Glenfarclas
14. Sky Harbor

And one in a foreign language, also from today:

1. Ajdamania2 (translation: Google)

One of the users above (Pryde 01) even launched a very scathing personal attack on the talk pages of me and another user and was subsequently given an only-warning by an administrator.

It pains me to report Ozguroot right after he had posted his very possibly first rational reply, and I would like to note that this is not an attempt to kill discussion, there is another very committed editor (Avala) with which my discussion on the subject matter continues, but I feel as though I've been wasting my effort only to be toppled by simple brute-force numeric supremacy. My Mediation Request has not yet been taken up by a mediator, and I am not sure what to do. Considering the fact every oppose has been notified, would it be prudent for me to canvass all the support votes, in an effort to return balance to the façade of discussion being held at Talk:Passport and Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-02-04/Passport? Action against Ozguroot, as well as advice on how to proceed with the discussion, would be much appreciated. —what a crazy random happenstance 04:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

They are the editors of the articles in subject. User:Happenstance could actually do that, instead of me, to notify them and let them know about the change or his "decide", before making over 250 deletions. But he did NOT never tell anyone. They don't know what is happening. Additionally, i am afraid that "Ozguroot has for a second time canvassed fifteen partisan users."' is totally a lie. When was the first time? I don't remember. I just asked for the opinions of two editors. - If you call this "canvassing FIFTEEN partisan users". Also please have a look at United_States_passport, Ukrainian_passport, its not only about a single editor, none of the articles editors accept your own "decide/consensus". But you ignore their opinions, you insist, insist, insist and delete, delete, delete. They were keeping undoing your changes as well. Is this a consensus, is this a solution? Let's be [serious]. As we see, you deleted the sections of over 250 Wikipedia articles, and you did NOT want NOBODY to get notified before doing so. That's not normal, in my humble opinion. Your reason was: (rm visa-free bloc per consensus on Talk:Passport). But there was NOT such a consensus at all. See Talk:Passport, too many OPPOSE editors there. Which consensus? Shortly, I just asked for their opinions on the matter. It pains me to hear "Ozguroot may be a sock-puppet" only because i asked for the editors opinions, so they could help on that matter, - as we were never reaching a consensus- . Why not to discuss all together, instead of an edit war? Regards. --Ozguroot (talk) 07:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

OK here is my view - Happenstance, Ozguroot did what you were supposed to do. This is not canvassing, but notifying regular editors, something that you failed to do and caused all the mess on the Passport talk page. He also did it in neutral manner, something that you also probably wouldn't be able to do.--Avala (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I object to be being called a "partisan user," as Happenstance calls me above. My handful of edits on this issue do not display one iota of partisanship, and I take this remark as uncivil and a failure to assume good faith. My attempt to smooth it over with Happenstance was not successful; his response was, it's not pejorative, I'm just saying that you're devoted or biased toward one side. That's not at all true, in any sense, and I feel it's appropriate to make my objection here.  Glenfarclas  (talk) 20:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

So, rather than notifying me you still had problems with my clarification, you chose to come here without even dropping a line on my talk. And then you say I violated WP:AGF. I have explained my definition of partisan, and I have stated that it was not intended to be pejorative. We clearly have differing definitions of the term. Mine comes straight from the WP:CANVASS policy. —what a crazy random happenstance 06:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The total apathy and lack of administrator response to what is a repeated and rather serious violation of a significant behavioural guideline is quite worrying, and could very easily completely undermine weeks' worth of discussion. —what a crazy random happenstance 05:13, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Abusive IP Addresses

Moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Soft blocking AOL.

Personal attacks and disruption on Talk:Sarah Palin

We need an uninvolved admin at Talk:Sarah Palin, where Scribner (talk · contribs) has descended (again) into personal attacks and tendentious editing. Disregarding his total failure to assume good faith (towards any editor whose views differ from his own), he has made his current target SB_Johnny (talk · contribs) who was identified by the community as an uninvolved admin assigned to deal with disputes on the article. (See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive504#Sarah Palin probation proposal.) Since Johnny is the target of Scribner's abuse, he might be accused of a CoI if he blocks Scribner, so I am asking for another uninvolved editor to take a look and decide if action needs to be taken. FWIW, I have a long history of conflict with Scribner on this specific article (and no others), so take this report with a grain of salt. Horologium (talk) 04:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

He's pushed a lot, but not to the point of blockability quite, in my opinion. I have left a warning on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Horologium, you've got history with this article that's quite embarrassing. (Redacted personal attack.) But, as an administrator and editor you're the worst I've encountered. Scribner (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert, on top of Johnny's failed enforcement of policy regarding personal attacks, there's been retaliation edits on the TN GOP article by Malke. So, in attempting one simple edit on the Palin page, I feel like I've suffer three separate retaliations. Wiki at its worst. Scribner (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Is Palin alleged to have violated the law? Keep in mind she doesn't own those books, the publisher does. If she wanted to distribute them to contributors, she probably had to buy them (possibly at wholesale rate). ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've redacted an absolutely unnecessary personal attack from the preceding comment. jæs (talk) 06:46, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That comment looked like a paraphrasing of what Auntie Em said to Miss Gulch. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:50, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Auntie Em said: "For twenty-three years I've been dying to tell you what I thought of you! And now... Well, being a Christian woman, I can't say it!" If Mrs. Em were an editor, I'd advise her of the same: attacking another editor is not the way to address your concerns. If Mrs. Em took a nastier route, and was also an editor with a history of poisoning the well, as it were, I'd redact her comment. In either case, I'd suggest Mrs. Em avoid directly interacting with Mrs. Gulch if she couldn't keep her opinion of Mrs. Gulch to herself. jæs (talk) 02:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I find it ironic that the Palin article is alleged to have been "scrubbed clean". Where have I heard that before? For the Obama article, that's where. Apparently, wikipedia is infested with both liberals and conservatives. Forsooth! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:21, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, indeed! It's just preferable, in fact obligatory, that said liberals and conservatives focus on editing productively -- as opposed to disruptively -- and not attack each other. It's possible, I tell you! jæs (talk) 05:28, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Psst....Why are you guys talking in small letters? Doc Quintana (talk) 21:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

To conserve space. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're interested, I can provide diffs from another edit war he's conducting over at Tennessee Republican Party. I used the talk page to discuss concerns and put POV and Criticism tags. He removed them. He argued. I got a 3rd Opinion. The 3rd Opinion editor found the article had a racist slant. I put the tags back. He removed them. Another editor put them back just now. He removed them again. If he doesn't get his way he puts tags up. If he doesn't like what you say, he takes them down. Diffs upon request. It is impossible to reason with this fellow.Malke2010 07:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked for disruption for 24 hrs. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I hope that, after this ends, he doesn't do that again.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 07:17, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(OD)He just removed a declined unblock request, and I have just reverted him. I also warned him that such attempts would be met with a loss of the ability to edit the talk page.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 08:13, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

And he just removed it again. I of course reverted him. Can an admin possibly warn him?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've done so. I referred him to WP:BLANKING which states that declined unblock requests cannot be removed for the duration of the block, and warned him that removing it again will cause him to lose the ability to edit his own talk page until he is unblocked. -- Atama頭 17:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sanction time?

Uninvolved admin here ... I just looked at his block log. Good grief, it's genormous. Could it be time for a topic ban of some kind? Looks like it to me. Blueboy96 17:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not condoning this user's recent actions, esp the edit warring to remove the unblock decline, but that block log is not exactly what I'd call enormous. There's only 3 blocks that were not overturned well before the duration was up, and those were about 3 years ago. Tarc (talk) 18:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I guess it's because it looks like this has been an ongoing problem ever since he arrived here--the first block was back in 2006. Tells me this is a problem that should have been nipped in the bud a lot sooner than now. Blueboy96 18:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, Scribner had only 32 edits between April 24, 2007, and February 11, 2009, which explains the big gap in his block log. There is no evidence that he has learned from his previous blocks. He has been unblocked because he promised not to do the same behavior on the article in question (different article in each case), but that hasn't stopped him from repeating the same modus operandi on different articles. Also notice that all his recent activity has focused on three hot-button political issues (Sarah Palin, Tennessee Republican Party, and Tea Party movement, in which he is very clearly displaying a pattern of POV pushing behavior. Horologium (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Just pointing out that it wasn't as lengthy as I expected it to be, put down the pitchforks. It does appear that his talk page will have to be locked soon though, due to the repeated removals of the block decline notice. Tarc (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(OD)Looking through the block log of this user, I see that they have primarily been blocked for edit warring/personal attacks, and as of the block before last, that time had been extended until a week, then lifted on the promise he wouldn't do it again. Seeing as how he has obviously done it again, what is the next step up? 24 hours is too short for a repeat offender.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:22, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm requesting an indefinite ban for Scribner from US politics-related article. I was watching over the Sarah Palin article a couple months back, and Scriber was definitely one of the major problems at the article then. Looks like things have not changed much since then, and it has been even longer of a problem than I have thought. Thoughts? NW (Talk) 20:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I won't !vote below (due to my involvement), but I think that's a good idea. Horologium (talk) 21:07, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Indef topic ban

Per what NW said above, and to centralize discussion and for ease of editing,

• Support - Per what NW has outlined above and this user's block log. Broken promises is all they have to give. Maybe this will prevent further disruption from them.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:04, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Endorse If this user hasn't learned to cool it down in four years on its own, sadly we're gonna have to force him to do so. Blueboy96 21:56, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
• Support - The amount of time an editor uses up in dealing with Scribner on these pages is lost from building the project. Scribner does not respond to working within process. Only one thing he said on the Tenn Republican Party talk page showed any ray of light of understanding when he said he could see my point about an edit. He also said he didn't support my point, but he could understand it. He said all this about ten minutes before he got blocked. The Sarah Palin episode caused so much disruption. He came over to the Tea Party Movement article and slapped tags on it because he disagreed with a comment on the talk page. It feels like a boulder has dropped on an editor's head when he appears on a page. But in the last 24-48 hours he seems to have been especially disruptive. I don't know what is at the root of this. But for now, a topic ban might help him regain some perspective. He's right about the Tenn Republican Party being racists, and it's Tenn, throw a rock you'll hit a klansman. And Sarah Palin isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer, but this is an encyclopedia, and not a forum for disruption, or a soapbox, or a soap opera.Malke2010 06:55, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Sorry, what? That post was full of wrong. Throwaway85 (talk) 10:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Ban from what topic? If you're going to propose a topic ban, you should state what topic the user is banned from. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

NW wrote, "I'm requesting an indefinite ban for Scribner from US politics-related article.". You can see this right above this section. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 16:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

That is as may be, but it should be specifically indicated at the point where you make the proposal. 67.51.38.51 (talk) 16:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

It is. I quite clearly state, "as NW said above..."— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose I haven't visited Tenn Republican Party or Tea Party movement but the core issue at Sarah Palin is a content dispute (gosh!) between Scribner and several other editors with opposing POVs. It's ruthless and nobody plays nice. I can't be arsed to go through the diffs, but observing developments at SP talk leaves a strong impression that pressure is subtly but regularly applied towards sanitizing the article (plus ca change. . .), and one or two in Scribner's opposition appear to have ownership issues, all of which Scribner resists. The proposed catch-all topic ban serves the interests of SP's WP protectors at the expense of the article itself. Scribner seems clued-up on SP and may have much to offer, but is not afraid to speak his/her mind rather bluntly, is outnumbered by opposing editors, and reacts too strongly for his/her own good to the goading and bullying etc. that SP talk offers would-be contributors who are not members of the Palin club. (Although arguably no stranger to personal attacks him/herself, Scribner has also been on the receiving end of abuse and apparent attempts to run him/her off the article. Few if any hands remain spotlessly clean at SP.) Given that Scribner's problems at SP appear to be largely procedural, solutions that are more constructive and less draconian might be worth considering here. E.g. WP:Mentorship. I'd like to hear what Scribner has to say about that. Writegeist (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Involuntary mentorship has a track record of prolonging conflicts and burning out mentors. If this editor has already sought out a mentor proactively that might be another matter? The difference has something to do with "You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink." The people who succeed through mentorship tend to be the ones who recognize the need for it and seek it out without being compelled. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 01:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
• Reluctantly support an indefinite topic ban. He is evidently growing increasingly unable to work within the guidelines set here, at an article on probation no less. The increasing attacks against anyone who disagrees with him combine with a long history of disruptive editing and a nearly complete inability -- within this topic area -- to work towards consensus. (I've seen one instance in which he was part of a process that resulted in consensus, but it was fraught with disruptive tactics on his part, and he's now taken to using that event as a line of attack against an administrator and editor involved in that process. Hardly heartening.) After a period of time (perhaps a few weeks or months), if he is willing to agree to take the personal attacks and disruptive tactics off the table, then I'd support lifting the topic ban. jæs (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Scribner is back at it on the Sarah Palin page. He's not using the talk page. He's adding to the lead and putting up a POV tag. No consensus, no discussion. If you want to know what Scribner has to say on an indef topic ban, I believe he's spoken.Malke2010 23:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I wanted to mention I don't think any editor is trying to run him off articles. Editors just want him to work within the process which means working for consensus. Right now he seems to think he doesn't need to do that.Malke2010 00:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose . Some of the points Scribner made hold merit. A few of the editors on the page have been rather uncivil and I think that coupled with the fact that other editors disagreed with him resulted in frustration and shouting back. I don't think it yet merits admin intervention.Chhe (talk) 01:08, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTE If you feel my edits to the Palin article were an attempt to damage the integrity of Wikiapedia as an encyclopedia, I should be banned from the Palin article. There's been no malice on my part, other than to add two simple facts. Don't blame me for standing my ground and defending policy. Look at the vast amount of effort it took to include the simple fact that Palin did not complete her first term as governor. Horologium fought the edit the hardest, claiming it POV. The wholesale POV in the article speaks for itself. Scribner (talk) 04:03, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

A couple hours ago, I banned Scribner from Sarah Palin-related articles, talk pages, and community discussions[1]. I still think that this discussion should continue to see if the community wishes to expand the scope of the ban. NW (Talk) 04:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Writegeist it's "he" by the way and Chhe, thanks very much for your input. Malke, you appear to have a problem with exaggerating and honestly lying, for lack of a better term, in the case of your claims with the TN GOP article and the Tea Party movement article. I think you suffer from WP:OWN issues with regard to conservative issues. Wikipedia becomes less an encyclopedia by shutting down vigorous debate. One thing I noticed when I returned to Wikipedia is that the best editors I had the pleasure of working with had left. It's obvious why the effort continues to degrade. Scribner (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Need help with a situation

119.160.18.209 (talk · contribs) has been, for the past few weeks, sparring with Omirocksthisworld (talk · contribs), and they've been edit-warring on multiple articles. After a recent block, Omirocksthisworld has been toning down his aggression, but there's a lot of bad blood here, and 119. doesn't seem to understand the term "agree to disagree".

Tonight's incident seems to be spread across two articles, at WP:AN3 and WP:RPP respectively. However, while Omi has at least been civil this time, 119. seems to be feeling cheated out of an arms race and is starting to cross over into harassment, issuing ultimatums, copy-and-pasting a 3RR report Omi filed against him, and berating him for "issuing an ultimatum" (actually the bog-standard {{uw-3rr}}). Since I need to head off to bed, could a chummer take over for me? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 10:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

As I was notifying the IP, it was blocked 24h. Depending on his behavior, this thread may have been rendered moot. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 10:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)And as I was writing this, ... IP Blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR, but as this IP has only been editing today, I expect we will have this Karchi based editor, using Mobilink-Infinity, back again soon. I'll have a word with Omirocksthisworld. Dougweller (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Though personally I have nothing against this editor, the fact that he was not willing to discuss issues or even attempt to reach an agreement really irritated me. At first I just kept reverting his edits hoping that the strange edits would stop or that he would start to attempt to work things out, but I think I made him angrier and he seemed to felt that it was personal. That's when the edit warring issues started and I ended up getting blocked for forgetting Wiki procedure. This time around I reported him, which I think made him feel even more like I was personally against him or something (at least thats what it looks like from his comments on my talk page). I think the main issue with the other editor is that he doesn't know English too well so when I try discussing things with him he doesn't quite understand, and it looks like he is from Pakistan because he was using derogatory words in Urdu on Talk: Younus AlGohar. Since this issue has been ongoing I think I will have to put an RFC tag on the articles that the IP has been having problems with so that this doesn't keep happening. Hopefully things will get better once different neutral editors start discussion on the talk pages. I'm very sorry for my part in all these disruptive editing wars and my mistakes with Wiki procedure. --Omi(☺) 11:38, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

This user (who may be Falconkhe?) is today engaged in related behaviour at Sufism. See edit diff, and also earlier article history and talk page comments. Esowteric+Talk 12:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Has just returned as 119.160.36.86 and made the same change to Sufism, possible to avoid 3RR edit war. Esowteric+Talk 15:50, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Falconkhe is also engaged in an edit war with Omirocksthisworld today at Younus AlGohar: see the article history. RAGS International shows a similar history of conflict. Esowteric+Talk 16:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Don't blaim me for 119 acts, what you are getting is readers response might be but I should not hold responsible for that.Its true that I have some differences with Omirocksthisworld but it doesn't mean that I was blaming for doing nothing. I always try my best to abide the rules & regulation of wikipedia--Falconkhe (talk) 16:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hmm well I don't know if it was an edit war, but he was removing the references I was adding (hopefully by mistake). His edit summaries on the article history have been confusing though. Anyway, we've been discussing it in Talk:Younus AlGohar and hopefully we can come to an understanding soon. Though I personally don't have anything against Falconkhe myself, his recent edits to Younus AlGohar, RAGS International, Imam Mehdi Gohar Shahi, and pretty much all the articles/pages related to Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi haven't exactly been constructive. Omi(☺) 21:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Omi you are getting confused since you are a lier but you don't know one thing that a lie has to be reveal one day. MFI and Younas are the terrorist, this is the reason you have to flee from Pakistan and this is the only reason that you people are facing legal problem in all other countries whereever, you are taking shelters, the people of MFI have misused the law of UK and used it for taking legal shelters under the umbrella of asylyme, you have misguided British Government and provide false proof (like you are doing on wikipedia) to them. We are planning to use interpole to bring younas back to Pakistan and hopefully it will not take long time.--Falconkhe (talk) 07:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please refrain from making inappropriate/abusive comments. Esowteric+Talk 20:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Falconkhe, I don't even live in the UK, nor have I ever been to Pakistan. I understand that you aren't particularly fond of the organization and you want to have your voice heard about them. But if you want to actually contribute you need to provide reliable sources for your claims (so that it can be included in the article) Omi(☺) 21:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Compromised rollbacker account

Resolved

 – User back in control of account. Unblocked & rollback restored. –xeno^talk 12:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look at User:DC. Account with rollback rights, most probably compromised: Rapidly reverting respected users (Darwinek, UncleDick...) to IP versions (eg [2], check contribs), blankened user pages, very unusual change in editing pattern since tonite. Skäpperöd (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Rollback removed, clearly the tool has been misused. -MBK₀₀₄ 20:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for containing that problem: the same thing happened to me. The DC account looks like it had a good track record, but suddenly the behavior was rapid and reckless. CosineKitty (talk) 20:40, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I took a peek and undid a few of those reverts. Looks like [3] and [4] remain (both valid vandalism rollbacks); not sure about [5]. Might have been a compromised account, definitely worth keeping an eye on. – Luna Santin (talk) 20:44, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Looks like they just used it in an indiscriminate manner. –xeno^talk 20:52, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The mix of edits reverted is bizarre, to be sure. Top edits from the watchlist, maybe? I'm mainly confused by the sudden nature of the outburst; looks like DC's been editing more or less without incident since July 2009 and got rollback in November, and I'm not seeing any obvious spark to set this off. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:EWI or compromised account; DC's been too sane for too long for this to just be a reaction to something on WP. The mass rollbacks are easily explained by a "rollback all" tool used on a page somewhere; the blanking of the user, user talk, and edit notice pages are less explicable as an accident. Let's wait to see if a sheepish apology is forthcoming tomorrow, vs. continued odd behavior. --Floquenbeam (talk) 21:07, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I too first thought maybe this was a misfire of a mass rollback but it doesn't appear to be in his monobook. Could be wikicide. –xeno^talk 21:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Luna, have you performed a Checkuser to see if there is clear evidence of a compromised account? -MBK₀₀₄ 21:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed I have; results aren't especially conclusive, but might lend or detract credence from whatever explanation we hopefully get from DC. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Would emailing DC be a good idea? —  Cargoking  talk  21:37, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do it. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I've also done so. This is certainly out of character for DC, whom I've always respected since I first came across him several months ago. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 22:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I just got a response stating, "I left Wikipedia up on my computer in a common room in my dorms. Someone must've gone onto my watchlist and hit rollback a lot. Also I tried logging on to wikipedia, and it looks like my password was changed because I can't get back onto my account." He's now at work, so he won't respond to any e-mails for a while. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 22:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I expected as much. I've interacted with DC in the past, as recently as last month, and he seems like a respectable editor. I hope he won't make that mistake again, a person who lives in a communal place like a dorm needs to be particularly careful about computer security. -- Atama頭 22:46, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Since we know the account is compromised, can someone please block it? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:57, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

 Done. Once he confirms he's back in control of his account, feel free to unblock. Fran Rogers (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

You should tell him to request a password reset before the dorm-mate prankster changes the email address attached to the account... –xeno^talk 18:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• He's now claiming to have regained control. I've never dealt with this before, what do we do to confirm that? Beeblebrox (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

  Ideally if he's emailed someone in the past (when we knew he was in control of his account), he could email them again. This kind of thing is why it's important to set a {{User committed identity}}. He had an email address listed since Jan 15 on his edit notice, so I've emailed them for verification. –xeno^talk 19:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Cool. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Once he is unblocked, certainly rollback rights should be restored. It's an unfortunate event, but I think he won't let it happen again.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed - I'm sure he won't repeat the mistake. –xeno^talk 12:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Caesarjbsquitti soapboxing - community input requested

As I am semi-involved I feel it necessary ask for community input in relation to restricting User:Caesarjbsquitti. There is a long term issue with his use of talkspace, his attitude toward other editors and editing in breach of WP:OR, WP:SOAP. To my mind this user has demonstrated a disregard for site standards and policies that is fundamentally incompatible with the core principles of this site fo a number of years. I suggest it is time to restrict Caesar's talk page postings, or to consider an other community sanction.

Caesarjbsquitti (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)
User:Caesarjbsquitti is continuing to use this site, its article pages, its talk space and its user space to push his ideas. Caesarjbsquitti has published a book which he uses his user page to advertise in breach of WP:USER and WP:AD [6]. He uses talkspace to lecture us all on how 'The truth can lie' and has been doing so for years.[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14]
He has accused this site, its sysops, and other volunteers of intimidation and censorship [15][16][17][18][19]
But the issue is that User:Caesarjbsquitti is soapboxing and forum posting on this site in relation to multiple topics. He repeated this behaviour today. Rather than block him I warned him again, and again (explaining why), and again. He hasn't listened[20][21][22]. (please note also he posted the same stuff to two pages [23][24]) Therefore I'm bringing this to the community in order to request broader input on the situation.

History

He was topic banned from 9/11 articles for soapboxing[25], he was blocked twice for it[26], he has been repeatedly warned over the course of years[27][28][29][30][31][32][33] but he is not listening.

I'm restricting evidence to edits since his topic ban in June 2008. For anyone interested in his behaviour before that please see this for an indicative situation and conversation related to the topic Devil.

Soapboxing since the 2008 topic ban

• Relevant policies & guidelines: WP:TPG, WP:SOAP, WP:NOTFORUM & WP:BATTLE

On Talk:English language[34] [35][36][37].
On Talk:Thallium [38]
On Medicine_in_China[39]
On Talk:Crohn's disease[40]
About feminism and bias against men[41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54]
On Talk:Pornography[55][56][57]
On 'abuse' topics (watch out for repeated phrases like censorship, hidden agenda etc) [58][59][60][61][62]
On Talk:Political correctness[63][64]

Multiposting

• Relevant policies WP:POVPUSH, WP:MULTI, WP:TPG,

On Vitamin talk pages[65][66][67][68][69][70][71]

On domestic violence topic articles (June 2008)[72][73][74] - please note the coatrack issue in this case.

Thanks for taking the time to review this--Cailil ^talk 05:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

The issue of this complaint deals with the listing for Violence against LGBT People

The problem with the entry is that it polarizes the issue, as do many of the past entries on abuse, most notable againt men, and against the heterosexual community. Here is the reference provided.

A most notable case involved a bisexual women who killed her boyfriend, by becoming involved with a lesbian woman,Bisexual Girlfriend found guilty of axe murder

I will try to find another link. The fact as you say that the CBC does not make mention of the sexual orientation, (while other sites do) shows how censorship of this situation is quite prominent in North America, or at least Canada...Guilty verdict in lesbian axe murder

This article in the Toronto Sun makes mention of a lesbian, (the CBC report states same sex. Another article title refers to a bi-sexual woman. (good case study for political correctness ?)Toronto woman in court in bisexual love-triangle murder case

This article must remove gender or orientation biases because it is discriminatory. While it is true this group can be victimized by others, they also can be victimized by themselves and they can also be abusers.

The issue is addressed by someone else as well...Violence by LGBT

As a researcher of deceptive truths, ie half-truths it is important to overcome this deceptive and flawed type of reasoning. --Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

First of all Caesar this issue is not about the content of your posts but rather the form. What you are demanding is that article about violence against women and violence against LGBT people remove the gender category from them. These articles are about gender based violence not violence in general. Your posts are criticisms of the subject and that kind of posting is not permitted as per WP:TPG and WP:FORUM. You've had this explained to you multiple times - in fact you were just blocked for this kind of post last winter. The reason I brought this here was to discuss with the wider community what to do about it--Cailil ^talk 18:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to point out to you that...You say that the artilce is about gender based violence well violence against women can also be perpetruated on women in general by some women. (In lesbian relationships the violence is by women against women.) Enough has been said about the anti-male, anti-heteroseuxal approach of the current models dealing with violence and abuse. 10 years ago much of this matter was being censored by individuals with a conflict of interest.

In so far as violence against LGBT you suggest that it is by non LGBT, and that is incorrect. There are lesbians who abuse homosexuals, there are homosexuals who abuse lesbians, and on and on...To merely paint heterosexuals as THE abusers is a deceptive half-truth.

The example given in the talk page, that of a bi-sexual woman and her lesbian female lover killing the bi-sexuals boyfriend suggests we have to rethink our model of violence against LGBT to include violence by LGBT, or we can include examples of LGBT members abusering other members of the LGBT group, as a matter of fairness. The current models are one sided, unfair, sexist and biased. The evidence is clear, and someone should change the listing to be more inclusive and non-discriminatory.

Many postings are a conflict of interest.--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 21:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Caesar because you made quite a serious allegation I am going to directly ask a number of editors to review this situation in the hope that the wider community will weigh in--Cailil ^talk 22:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Further none of the remarks you have attributed to me in the above post reflect anything that I have said. Also please remember this not about the content of your postings but rather the form--Cailil ^talk 22:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Cailil has asked me to review this thread. The soapboxing is worrisome, especially since it appears to have continued on other subjects unabated since the implementation of a topic ban. The issue is not whether Caesarjbsquitti's opinions are correct but whether he presents them in ways that are compatible with Wikipedia's structure and mission. Article talk pages exist to discuss specific improvements to articles; they are not forums for sharing personal opinions about a subject. Has there been any formal dispute resolution attempted recently? Other than the topic ban this editor's block log is short. It might be that a constructive approach such as a user conduct request for comment could steer things toward a more productive and wiki-compatible direction. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 23:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying Durova. The last DR attempted was in relation to English language in September 2009. Caesar had WP:FORUM explained to him again then. And after 4 warnings was brought here. Caesar's response to this was to assume bad faith of the others involved rather than engage with the policy issue [75][76](same text posted twice - and BTW the first diff shows him altering an archived ANI thread). Apart from his talk postings to Talk:Violence against LGBT people, Talk:Violence against women, his replies on his own talk page[77][78], and the posts here Caesar has only made one edit to wikipedia since his last block - so there has been no chance to engage with him through WP:DR--Cailil ^talk 00:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Calil has asked me to review this thread. I have in fact enountered Caeserjbsquitti many times in the past. I have never been involved in a conflict with him. However, I have only seen him use talk pages for soap-boxing, and have never seen him constructively edit an article; any edits I have followed were reverted by someone else. I endorse Durova's point that talk pages are for the purpose of improving articles. Frankly Caeser's statement at this thread, "As a researcher of deceptive truths, ie half-truths it is important to overcome this deceptive and flawed type of reasoning." makes the case against him quite well. For all the time that he has ben at Wikipedia, he still does not understand that (1) Wikipedia is not about truth but about verifiability and (2) not a place for an editor to forward his or her own views. Yet Caeser admits that is all he wishes to do here. Frankly, I think Caser should be banned, out and out. I m calling for a community ban, because Caeser has never shown any indication ofagreeing to or being willing to work within the framework of our core policies and to the contrary simply hijacks talk pages to promote his own views. Can anyone provide one example of a substantive improvement he made to any - any - article?

His allegations against Cailil are for me the last straw. I do not know Cailil well, but I do know that s/he has worked very hard on a number of actual articles, making major contributions to the encyclopedia. Morover I have seen him/her involved in edit conflicts where s/he has always shown patience in working towards a compromise based on core content plicies. In short, one of our best eidtors. Bor Caeser, who is nothing but a POV pusher, to criticise Ailil, who works hard to make this a better encyclopedia, is in my view perverse.

If people think my call for a community ban is too hash I ask people to propose soething less harsh but that will allow us to police his actions for a finite period of time to see whether a ban is justified. Slrubenstein | Talk 23:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for replying SLR. And just so everyone understands - whenever Caesar has been brought under the spotlight he has always declared that people who do so "have an agenda" not just myself (per my above diffs)--Cailil ^talk 00:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Also it should perhaps be noted that there is a WP:KETTLE element to his use of WP:COI - when if you look at his userpage and many of his posts he attempts to promote his book--Cailil ^talk 00:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you are misinterpreting my comments...they are suggestions based on relevant incidents that are not included in the postings. They are obvious truths that are being ignored.

For example, "The Stop violence against women" campaigns, is an obvious error when it relates to spousal abuse. Child abuse has also been corrupted within recent history.

There are many 'feminists' and others who would deliberately ignore these obvious truths to promote their obvious sexist censorship of valid truths; I have sought repeatedly to merely introduce suggestions to the talk pages for someone else to take the initiative to make changes to the official page.

I thank you for your comments, but I do not see anyone refuting the truth that 'gays, lesbians and bisexuals abuse as well, sometimes each other and sometimes those outside their group" Should you not be addressing the validity of my comments to see whether they are merely opinion or verifiable facts that should be included ?

It appears by the comments made in attack of my comments, that the individual who has started this has 'invited' individuals. I might suggest a more objective and unbiased group.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 03:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Please note: When you click Save, your changes will immediately become visible to everyone. If you wish to run a test, please edit the Sandbox insead.

• • Please post only encyclopedic information that can be verified by external sources. Please maintain a neutral, unbiased point of view.

I might ask that you address the link that I have provided and either accept it into the article or establish another one. This was not mere 'soapboxing' as Cilil states.

He identifies as being male, with intersts in atheism, a feminist. But when I suggest that there is obvious anti-male postings he as a male does not defend them as a male would, suggesting to me a problem of logic. Yes I digress, but I do not appreciate being censored or threatened when I point out how articles are unfair,unbalanced, and anti-heterosexual.

When I have more time I will come back with some more research findings...

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 03:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• • Regarding a posting to the English Language that was brought up. If i recall correctly I heard on the CBC that someone had written a book about the english language, specifically that one of the major contributors was a criminal genius who wrote from prison. To this suggestion I was met with resistence. The idea was totally rejected, and more. I used the talk page to suggest an improvement rather than making the change itself. The source was never entered into nor considered.

• • In regards to conspiracies about 9-11, again suggestions were gathered from reputable TV programs, and again met with censorship, and resistence.

• • Getting back to the page that started this attack, would someone check the link and suggest whether this is valid and what improvments will be made to include the truth of that matter.

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 03:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• • What about the killing of the great Italian Designer Gianni Versace by Andrew Cunanan ?

--Caesar J.B. Squitti: Son of Maryann Rosso and Arthur Natale Squitti (talk) 03:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Alohahell repeatedly uploading copyvio, is a block in order?

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely, images deleted. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 14:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Alohahell (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has updated numerous copyvio photos of locations in South Korea. For example:

• I deleted File:Shinsegae Centum City department store in Busan, South Korea.jpg, which he admitted to having stolen. He later replaced it with File:World's largest department store in Busan, South Korea.jpg, which is also questionable (Seb az86556 believes it's copyvio, see comment here).
• File:Daegu Tower.jpg, was obvious copyvio
• File:Ryugyong Hotel under construction on 26 August 2009.jpg, at FfD
• Since I posted this, Caspian blue has located the sources of several more of Alohahell's uploads. See the redlinks in A's upload log.

Overall, most of his images are 1) very low resolution, which suggests he doesn't have the original photos but simply copied them from news websites, etc.; 2) of a higher quality than he is probably able to do himself. Unfortunately, for most of the images I haven't yet been able to find exact copies (through http://www.tineye.com) yet, which is why I haven't taken much action. But based on his history, I'm beginning to think it's safe to assume that all his uploads are copyvio. There are two things that I think ought to be done:

1. Delete all of Alohahell's uploads both here and on Commons (see his upload log for en-wiki)
2. Block Alohahell for an extended length

Thoughts? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:00, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Support. This is getting tedious, esp. since he renames the files so they cannot easily be tracked, erases the meta-data so they cannot be compared, and then blatantly goes "me? no, why?" -- now we need to manually go around looking at thousands of pics online to spot similarities and arm ourselves with magnifying glasses. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 06:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If we can come to an agreement that he's untrustworthy, I don't think we'll need to investigate every image. Specifically...if he did take these images, he should have the high-resolution versions on his computer or camera somewhere. We can simply ask him to upload those to prove that they're his; any image that he can't provide a high-resolution version for we can assume he stole, and we can delete it. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 06:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't need a WP:CCI. Just delete his uploads presumptively per WP:COPYVIO. MER-C 08:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If he has continued doing this after being warned, and if, as Seb az says, he is actively trying to deceive and evade scrutiny, then the answer must be: speedy delete everything, block indef, throw away the key, and ask the commons admins to do the same over there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Good call. I was about to indef him myself, but it looks like FutPerf beat me to it. I've already had to spike a bunch of bad uploads already this morning ... my clicker finger's getting tired. Blueboy96 13:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Copyright violations supports presumptive deletion in cases like this: "If contributors have been shown to have a history of extensive copyright violation, it may be assumed without further evidence that all of their major contributions are copyright violations, and they may be removed indiscriminately." If there are too many in his history to easily run through them, a WP:CCI can help organize them. Otherwise, it seems mass deletion would be appropriate. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
• Per Moonriddengirl. None of the uploads I checked had camera metadata and a review of this editor's user talk page is worrisome: evasion in response to questions, lack of acknowledgement of a problem, plus a total inability to explain how he had supposedly gotten into North Korea to take a picture there. The AGF policy was modified last year to accommodate this type of situation. "When dealing with possible copyright violations, good faith means assuming that editors intend to comply with site policy and the law. That is different from assuming they have actually complied with either. Editors have a proactive obligation to document image uploads, etc. and material may be deleted if the documentation is incorrect or inadequate." Mass deletion is the best solution here. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 16:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick question...if I delete all his uploads, will ImageRemovalBot take care of removing links to them, or should I do that by hand? rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:18, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Think so; not absolutely sure. One of his uploads had been transferred to Commons. I've deleted there. If any other cross-wiki deletions are needed please post the filenames here. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 17:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

These are the things he uploaded to commons with his own account: [79][80][81]. There are also some that other people transferred, so I'll keep an eye out for them. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 17:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Here are more of his images that have been transferred to Commons: [82], [83], rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:19, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the rest of his images on en-wiki. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 21:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. No responses at the Commons admin board yet; will follow the links to the transfers. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 21:45, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeffed on Commons. Deleted selectively there; a couple of edits were legitimate derivative works, etc. Looks like we can mark this resolved. Durova⁴⁰⁹ 01:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Wikireader41

I want to bring to the attention of the administrators a series of personal attacks by User:Wikireader41 directed at User:Mughalnz. Wikireader41 repeatedly accuses Mughalnz of being an "Islamofascist", being "sponsored" by the I.S.I. (a Pakistani intelligence agency) to "spread propoganda" and being a wahhabi (an extremist sect of Islam). I first reported the following diffs here at the Wikiquette alerts page on 25 January 2010:

• Diffs from Talk:Al-Qaeda page:
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAl-Qaeda&action=historysubmit&diff=339664168&oldid=339663742
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAl-Qaeda&action=historysubmit&diff=339642045&oldid=339639555
• Diffs from Talk:Balawaristan National Front page:
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABalawaristan_National_Front&action=historysubmit&diff=339661896&oldid=339658919
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABalawaristan_National_Front&action=historysubmit&diff=339475058&oldid=339458122
  • http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ABalawaristan_National_Front&action=historysubmit&diff=269397344&oldid=269333867

I also posted the following warning on Wikireader41's talk page:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AWikireader41&action=historysubmit&diff=340011772&oldid=339453139

On 28 January, Wikireader41 responded at the Wikiquette alerts page by continuing to accuse Mughalnz of "pushing a stridently wahhabi POV", being a "paid editor", etc. He comments on Mughalnz's poor english and states he has reported Mughalnz to admin. He also responded to my warning by posting the following message at my talk page:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AHj108&action=historysubmit&diff=340461756&oldid=326990429

On 29 January, Wikireader41 posted the following at Mughalnz's talk page, again containing accusations of Mughalnz being a "wahhabi POV pusher":

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMughalnz&action=historysubmit&diff=340643820&oldid=340621071
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AMughalnz&action=historysubmit&diff=340657546&oldid=340652293

I do not believe Mughalnz's edits justify Wikireader41's abusive posts and there appears to be no change in Wikireader41's behaviour, despite a warning from User:Looie496 at the Wikiquette alerts page.

--Hj108 (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You are supposed to notify the other party that they are being discussed here. I have done so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

user mughalnz has been indulging in aggressive POV pushing and going around removing well sourced info about Al-qaeda activities in Kashmir. I would again state that he has been pushing a wahhabi POV. in spite of my repeatedly telling him to stop he was not backing off. moreover he is a self confessed dyslexic & was making very poor quality edits and not doing a basic spell check before posting in spite of several editors asking him to do so. I have reported him to 2 admins familiar with the issues involved in the articles covered [84] and here [85]. It is hard to be neutral towards people who seem to be siding with people who are actively seeking to kill anybody who doesnt agree with them but I have tried my best. Wikireader41 (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

You know, it was my intent to have you write the above and then block you for making personal attacks and editing to your perceptions of a contributors prejudices. As it is, I think too much time has passed so I will be giving you an only warning instead. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

User wikireader41 has indulged in Saffronization many times now he continues to user saffron vedic abuse language directed at pakistanis only he has a one purpose account and has been blocked before for his Hindu Taliban style editing please check his block log for proof he needs a long block or a ban as he continue to spew his vedic garbage on wikipedia several users have warned him to stay away from pakistan related pages due to his inherent and inbred hatred for pakistan please ban him 86.158.236.180 (talk) 16:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

IP-hopper

An anonymous user is repeatedly removing other's comments from Talk:Open Watcom Assembler. However, they are operating from different IP addresses (or are 4 different people), including:

• 99.89.97.155 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 99.35.228.91 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 76.254.61.95 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 99.41.77.70 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 99.23.189.111 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

Is there anything that can be done? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 16:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Prodrego has semi-protected it. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 17:40, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

These all belong to the same ISP: SBC Internet Services in California, SF area, and they've vandalized my user page as well. Pcap ping 14:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Repeated POV tag removal at Hugo Chávez

Hugo Chávez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please see this POV tag removal, as well as this, this, and this, relative to this discussion. The most recent tag removal by User:The Four Deuces was after I posted specific POV concerns to the talk page. A related discussion is at the RSN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I have left The Four Deuces a warning to cease edit warring, and shall watchlist the article. I don't think anything more is necessary for now, but feel free to make your own assessment. NW (Talk) 20:49, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks NW and Ludwigs2 (I'm most encouraged to see an ANI thread that doesn't fall victim to the peanut gallery :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

well, I have to say I really dislike it when people remove dispute tags before the dispute is resolved. I haven't fully grokked the page yet, so I don't yet know whether it actually has a POV problem, but there's no reason to remove tags peremptorily and a lot of good reasons to leave them on. give me a day or so to review the material fully and we'll see. --Ludwigs2 21:16, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

If you'd like for me to add more sources to the talk page (the work I started when I added the unbalanced tags), it will have to wait until after I promote WP:FAC. The lionshare of my time in the last two weeks has gone to trying to clean up Venezuelan BLPs, one of which had a most egregious BLP violation so I've been checking others, and I'm apparently the only editor on Wiki willing and able to engage the content on the Venezuelan articles. I can't get to any more for today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

the situation concerning Venezuelan pages is really unbearable. Some editors delete systematically everything that is against the Chavez government and wikilawyer on everything for this purpose. Their resources are incredible!Voui (talk) 20:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Climate Skepticism

Would editors interested in keeping Wikipedia 'neutral' please help ensure this Climate Skepticism page is not summarily deleted by those responsible for the one-sided coverage of this issue elsewhere!

Gemtpm (talk) 22:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been tagged as a content fork of Global warming controversy, which seems like an unimpeachable justification to me. If the latter article falls short of our neutral point of view policy in your opinion, raise the probems on the article's talk page and work with your fellow editors to resolve them. --TS 23:02, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't the title indicate that this is an article about people who are skeptical that climate exists? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:04, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully this will end it: Redirect as per Global warming skeptic, stable for over two years. --TS 23:11, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

My, there do seem to be quite a few redirects to that page already... Not the last one by a long shot, either: note that Climate change denial is the latest proposed for merge. MuffledThud (talk) 14:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Is it just me or does this translate as "I am here on a mission and will make as much noise as I can, please ban me now"? Guy (Help!) 23:14, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

It's just you.  Dr. Loosmark  00:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No, it isn't. I also think CU results on this account could prove interesting. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

2000 users have been banned alrady for trying to make WP cover this issue in a balanced way. No - my page has been ludicrously deleted already - I requested its protection here. That request stands.Gemtpm (talk) 14:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

2000 users? Hardly -- please either provide your evidence for this or retract your claim. Dougweller (talk) 15:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Just someone mistaking the Solomon article for reality. Solomon counted WMC's total blocks (mostly from his time managing AN3) and claimed they were blocks of so-called climate "skeptics". Guettarda (talk) 15:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Aw, you spoiled it. Dougweller (talk) 15:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

DragonFable

Resolved

 – Deleted by a steward.

Seems there is a bug or something while trying to delete this article after I closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DragonFable (3rd nomination). I think it might be a MediaWiki issue. Can someone fix the problem? Thanks! JForget 02:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles with huge histories cannot be deleted by admins. It's to prevent the whole "rogue admin deleting the Main Page" thing we used to get. You'll need to find a steward. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Request made. --JForget 03:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

In the future, these quickie requests can be made on the #Wikimedia-Stewards IRC Channel on Rizon.net. I brought this to their attention and got the page deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Instant attack

User:Hot Button Topic created an account and in 10 minutes made one edit, to my user page. [86]. Niteshift36 (talk) 10:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Blocked. Someguy1221 (talk) 10:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate block

This anonymous IP User talk:70.183.20.242 (apparently various libraries?) has been blocked with the text "bad faith prick" for six months, which would appear to be inappropriate on both counts. The block would appear to be in response to this [87] post on the page of an indef-blocked user, who appears to have experienced much wikistress at the hands of that user. Sumbuddi (talk) 11:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't say how the block is inappropriate. Could you elaborate on that? - NeutralHomer • Talk • 11:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The offending talk page message had already been reviewed and removed by another admin, and the blocked IP had been silent for several days. Blocking the (shared) IP serves no useful purpose. Also it is totally inappropriate for administrators to be exercising power on behalf of their friends (see e.g. [88]).

It is not appropriate to refer to people as a 'prick', and the extended length of the block (six months) also suggests a pissed off admin, not the dispassionate state of mind appropriate for blocking people. Also given that the blocked IP says that he has already got an account at home, blocking the IP is not just rage but impotent rage, having no effect other than to block the random users of the public library, and little to none on the user making the comments

Also, per WP:NPA, "Extreme personal attacks, or personal attacks based on race, religion, nationality or sexual identity of an editor are often grounds for an immediate, indefinite block until the remarks are retracted.

Lesser personal attacks often result in a warning, and a request to refactor. If a pattern of lesser personal attacks continues despite the warning, escalating blocks may follow, typically starting with 24 hours". No warning was given, and the block was clearly excessive per policy. Sumbuddi (talk) 12:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Judging from that tirade, I'd say the block is pretty appropriate. I'm just not sure if calling people "pricks" should ever be making its way into the block log though, no matter what someone did to deserve it. Equazcion ^(talk) 12:02, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Enigmaman was merely implying he was sticking pins in the IP. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe he was making fun of the fact that the IP is registered to "cox.net". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

IPs should generally only be blocked for short periods of time, especially if they are shared. Right now, we are preventing any non-logged in user from that location from editing. Not appropriate.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That IP has a lengthy history of committing vandalism. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Any IP address can potentially be used by someone else at any time, especially with a lengthy block. Calling good-faith or potentially new editors 'pricks' through an IP block log is never appropriate. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 15:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that IP (like any) could be shared or change hands, 'bad faith prick' is completely unacceptable. Block removed, he can be reblocked with a more descriptive reason if he starts vandalising again. Prodego ^talk 15:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Which it will, given the history... and will again... and again. I think there needs to be a policy change that "last warning" not be used with IP's, as it's basically a joke. They can always come back, be it in a day, a week, a month or a year. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And speaking of "Basically a Joke", the previous link was provided for your administrative enjoyment. Captain. Brainstorm (talk) 18:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And the above user is a troll, probably the same one that tried to get Caden and me into further dispute yesterday. It backfired, as Caden and I have now settled our differences. Someone can zap this character here, or at AIV, whichever comes first. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And now gone, as the AIV Death Angel's vorpal blade went snicker-snack. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

That wasn't very nice. Anyway, if there was one thing I learned from my first RFA, it was that the community takes a very dim view of insulting edit summaries directed at ips, no matter how justified they may be at the time. The point, which I had to admit had not occurred to me at the time, is that a different, innocent user could easily see them in the future and, right or wrong, feel it was directed at them. Painful as it is, I have to admit this is a valid point. So, the block was probably a good one and will probably be re-instated soon enough, but the "prick" part, not so good. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The IP represents random people moving through various libraries. The only duration of block that makes sense in that context is a few hours, and then only if there were ongoing vandalism in progress, as the person sitting at the PC now is unlikely to be there tomorrow. Sumbuddi (talk) 21:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Userfy request

Resolved

 – Userfied by Skomorokh.

Hi, could someone please userfy a copy of the deleted page Alec Powers? Viridae (talk · contribs) somewhat arbitrarily rejected my request to userfy after they speedy deleted the article (see User_talk:Viridae#Alec_Powers) and promised to email me a copy but now I've been left waiting 3 days, I suspect they have no intention of doing so. The article is under DRV Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_February_5 where, so far, nobody has agreed with Viridae's decision to speedy delete. Ash (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that the article contains no controversial material and is under review at DRV, I see no reason to restrict its content to administrators. Full article and talkpage history at User:Ash/Alec Powers (talk).  Skomorokh  12:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Official Shakespears Sister And Siobhan Fahey Web Site

• • This issue was archived but it has not yet been resolved. Is the site going to unblacklisted? Sorry for puuting this topic back here if i wasnt suppose to Antmarkhemingway (talk) 12:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC).

Arhcive: Thank you FisherQueen for visiting our forum. I have uploaded the evidence here:: www. shakespears sister.co.uk/SFTRR.jpg (please remove the space between shakespears and sister ) I would like to complain here myself for the unfair treatment from XinJeisan, who in my opinion has totally acted in an unprofessional manner. Firstly; Songs From The Red Room, is not sold via the website, as it is a new release and availble via retailers during its Charting period. Websites very rarely sell new releases through their own web site, they usually provie and external link to another retailer, as we have done. Secondly, I totally think that XinJeisan is talking of another L Dennison, as I have no idea what that discussion is about on Ron Livingstons talk page. I can confirm I am the webmaster of both Jacquie O'Sullivan and Siobhan Fahey, both former members of Bananarama. Jacquie O'sullivan did work for L Dennison Associates where she casted dancers for music videos productions. My "attacks" on XinJesian were not exactly attacks, they were simply my opinion, and at first i was polite when I asked to why these sites were being removed. But my frustration, built as clearly Xinjesian and Momusfan clearly were not researching the matter properly. Finally, as for advertising, it has always been a well known fact to fans that the MGA Sessions was strictly a web site release! Sold exclusively on Fahey's old web site siobhanfahey.com, and now sold on her new site shakespears sister. co. uk. This wasnt an advertisment, it was helpful information to fans. Thank you for taking time to review this matter. And for the record, shakespears sister.co.uk should eb applied to both Siobhan Fahey and Shakespears Sister wiki pages, as Shakespears Sister is Siobhan Fahey. May i also ad that Xinjesian claims that i have used multiple IPS is totally untrue and with propper research you can see this. I have the one IP address, and my service provider is not Carphone warehouse and never has been. I think Xinjesian saw that our forum members were trying to add the site in support of Siobhan, and he/she has assumed/accused me of chaging my IP address. I really do not appreciate being accused of that. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 00:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Given that the image in question seems to show that this is indeed the official web site, I think that it should be removed from the blacklist. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 03:40, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Accounts

• Antmarkhemingway (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• 92.13.53.79 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.6.238.202 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.10.15.171 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.12.126.195 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.3.104.60 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.8.226.103 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.9.69.179 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.0.153.204 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 92.3.214.51 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Registrant(Owner) of these sites is Anthony Hemingway (AKA Antmarkhemingway (talk · contribs))^[89][90]. Long term spamming and abuse including Moving ones own link "UP", which is never a sign of good faith, and off site harassment and personal attacks origionating on the site in question. I Would find it difficult to believe this is anything more than a fan-spammed-site. I see no need for the continued disruption, harassment and abuse that has occured by this individual.--Hu12 (talk) 06:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Hu12. I suspect that Antmarkhemingway is running sanctioned fansites with permission from Jacquie O'Sullivan and Siobhan Fahey (so "official" in a manner of speaking). However, even if these were official sites registered to the band/record company/individuals involved, there's nothing to say that we have to include them. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost and not here to drive web traffic to external sites or provide a fan service. Unfortunately we can only go by the behaviour we observe and Antmarkhemingway has done his sites no favours by behaving like a spammer. Looking at the history of spamming and disruption, I see no compelling reason why these sites should be unblacklisted. EyeSerene^talk 10:15, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Hu12 is being very petty now i think! And this is not meant in a rude way, but if you knew anything about the internet, a persons IP changes regular, so that is something that is not my problem. Why would i go through the trouble to change my IP address for the sake of editing here? I am a webmaster and know full well that IP addresses are traceable even when changed. Shakespearssister.co.uk is Siobhan Fahey's web site and port of call. All news is posted their, and it is the place for media and fans alike. Those interviews you refer to on the wikipage were actually arranged via ss.co.uk!!! It is not a "fan site", and i really wish you would stop using that term, as you are really getting quite annoying now. Wikipedia has used information from ss.co.uk, but when teh contributors try and reference ss.co.uk they haven't been able to! Antmarkhemingway (talk) 10:35, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

If the band itself publishes the address as the go-to site on its albums, I'm not sure why it would not be an 'official' site. I don't really understand why this site is blacklisted, and I'm not convinced it's 'spamming' to have it in the article; most musician articles include the musician's main site with no problems. The band doesn't appear to be obscure or non-notable, after all. I have been horrified by some of the uncivil behavior I've seen from some of the people trying to add it, but we don't usually blacklist sites for that reason. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 20:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There are such things as "official" fansites, where the quality and expertise of the host created pages serve as useful publicity tools - and whose addresses are reproduced on some of the artists products. I know, because I belong to one. This doesn't mean that what is reproduced there is necessarily representative of the subject, since it is the editorial decision of the site owner, but the relationship is sufficiently beneficial to be given "official" recognition. While not an unreliable source, such sites should be treated with caution when it is the only available reference. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:08, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense; I'm willing to let this be decided by people more learned in the subject than me. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:10, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

May i ad for one final time that this is certainly not a "fan site" it fully represents the band. But how can i prove this? Just becasue the site isnt registered to Shakespears Sister??? I purchased the domain and hosting in my name as i pay for the hosting on behalf of Siobhan fahey. All i ask is people just take a look at the site and look at its content, its clearly represenative of the band and all the information on the site is 100% correct and accurate. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 21:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I think what generally separates a "fan site" from an "official site" is that the former is amateur (as in "labour of love") and the latter is professional. Are you paid by Siobhan Fahey or her management, or do you do this as a fan? Your comment about paying for hosting "on behalf of" Fahey is a bit confusing. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:42, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Is it possible to link to a statement from the artiste(s) (management) saying the website is the sole legal online representative of said artiste(s). This might be linked from the artistes record label or management website. It should also note where editorial control is exercised, and by whom. Another avenue, likely preferred by WP, would be if an independent source noted that the site was the official online representation of the subject(s). That said, I would draw your attention to thebansheesandothercreatures, whose address has recently appeared on releases by Siouxsie & the Banshees, The Creatures, and Siouxsie Sioux and is linked from their official sites and record label websites, and that of Steven Severin. Despite this "recognition" (and the accuracy of its content) it remains a fan site since the editor - who owns the site - is independent of the artists; it is one of the acknowledged "official" fansites. Under the circumstances, clarification of the status of "your" website is required before WP can describe it as being that of the subjects. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes the site is linked on the bands record label web site http://www.cargorecords.co.uk/artist/5136 Thanks, Antmarkhemingway (talk) 22:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay. What about statements to the effect that the site is legally the official website from Fahey, her management or record label, or an independent third party to that effect, and whether you are acting on behalf of or are an employee of the artist or their record label? I would draw your attention to the earlier comments also from HU12 and EyeSerene regarding your interaction with other editors and inappropriate "promoting" of the website. Even if the website is removed from the blacklist, there would need to be an improvement in your behaviour. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:32, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Note that Cargo Records is a 'distributor of independant records labels" [91], and not the artist's label. XinJeisan (talk) 23:36, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. but that just came with the fustration. it isnt hugely important that the site is listed here, but i just think it looks better, as most other artists have their sites linked. I will refrain from editing the Siobhan Fahey page and Shakespears sister page, and will let whoever ad it Antmarkhemingway (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC).

I think that might be helpful. It's edits like this that sparked my concern; it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what Wikipedia is for and casts doubt on your motives for editing the article. Per WP:ELNO criterion 1, we only need include external links that add content beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article. That's deliberately a very high bar; if the external site's content is already covered by the article (perhaps as a source for the content), we don't need to include it as a separate external link as it adds no extra value. Exceptions are offsite content that we can't host for whatever reason (for example, the original text of a document that's discussed in an article but that can't be quoted in full without breaching someone's copyright). Like LHvU I have some reservations about using the site as a source, but that's another discussion. EyeSerene^talk 11:09, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

But couldn't we at least have the site listed on the URL of Siobhan Fahey's profile. Its only fair i think. Bananarama's website doesnt offer any further information thats on their wikipedia and their site is on here, even their youtube and myspace are listed! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bananarama I was told that youtubes and myspaces were not allowed, so thats is why i took all this a persoanl dig at the band, because it seemed Siobhan's former band was allowed their site, youtube, myspace etc. but not her, This wa my issue all along. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 15:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• If Antmarkhemingway withdraws from editing the article I think there should be no reason to have the site unblacklisted and placed in the appropriate place in the article. As long as it is not being used or promoted as a reliable source then I feel it may well be included. Does anybody know how to do the unblacklist thingy? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:47, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

I will certainly withdraw from editing the article. I would just be very happy to see the site in the URL section of Siobhan Fahey and Shakespears Sister's profile pages if possible as they are very reliable sources. All information on SS.co.uk is accurate and approved by Siobhan (afterall, she did write the bio), I just thought it would be fair, since, as stated above, Wikipedia actually has MORE information on Bananarama than their official site does itself, in my honest opinion, and their site and youtube channels are listed. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 22:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC) And I also would like to appologuise for past behaviour, and i feel like i have learnt a lot about Wikipedia from the experience, and appreciate it much more. Antmarkhemingway (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• Have we been able to reach a decission on this matter? Please let me know Antmarkhemingway (talk) 23:57, 6 February 2010 (UTC).

Little Bill Credits

Resolved

 – Directed to what (I think) would be better venues... ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 13:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I was the original Art director of Little Bill at Nick Jr. I worked with Varnette Honeywood and Robert Skull to develop the look of the show. I worked for almost 1 year before airing. The art work on the main article was made by me. I received art director credit on only one or two original episodes. After that I was given the credit of lead designer. The artwork that appears in the info box was made by me. This can be verified by Bill Cosby and Varnette Honeywood. I would like to only add the credit of designed by Adam Osterfeld and Kirk Etienne. You can email me at hoganost@yahoo.com. The page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Bill —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osterfeld (talk • contribs) 13:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't quite understand your query: if you wish to claim copyright for content hosted on Wikipedia, you'll need to email details and proof to info-en-c@wikimedia.org – or if you simply want to be credited in the article as having been on the crew of the show, you'll need to find and cite a reliable source confirming your involvement. Hope this helps! ╟─TreasuryTag►Lord Speaker─╢ 13:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I made this edit based on your testimony that you were the original art director. Hopefully, this will encourage someone to verify and find a citation. The problem with your edit is that "lead designer" is not a recognized field of the template which creates the infobox content. Hopefully my change will get the ball rolling in your direction. WTucker (talk) 13:49, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As a citation, you may look to the credits for episodes 1-6. I am not claiming copyright. Creative is a perfectly acceptable credit. Like the directors, I was a salaried position. My job was to establish the design and art production of the show. I was assisted by Kirk Etienne, an illustrator that made the drawings. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Osterfeld (talk • contribs) 18:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC) On second thought, the credit of creative director is generally reserved for advertising. Art director or simply Designer would be more accurate. See Episode credits 1-6.Osterfeld (talk) 18:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Copy/Paste move from Daniela to Daniela Alves Lima

Resolved

 – No administrator action required currently Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A new editor has copy/pasted the article at Daniela over a redirect to Daniela Alves Lima and replaced the Daniela content with a copy of Danielle. Can an administrator please look at sorting out the moves and edit histories of these articles please. The move seems to be worthwhile just not done properly. noq (talk) 15:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking into it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There's evidently objection to the move. I've added some notes at the user's talk page about how to get consensus and how to properly do it once consensus is obtained. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Continued incivility after a request to stop

User:Parrot of Doom has been generally uncivil today and failed or even mocked requests to improve his behaviour, He started off edit warring over an unfree picture in the nick griffen article with User_talk:J_Milburn after three reverts his actions culminated in this edit with the edit summary in capitals of "CLEAR THE FUCK OFF" , I left him a polite civility note, to which he replied, "thanks but I'm not interested in civility warnings" he then again was uncivil on a public talkpage, saying on the talkpage of Griffin , "What the fuck is it with people today". I informed him again that he was being uncivil and requested him to stop, he replied that "Clearly you didn't bother reading my response to your civility warning. Get it into your head - I will use whatever language I feel is appropriate." and with the edit summary of " civility bollocks" followed up with the edit summary of "indent reply about civility bollocks" , Users should not have to suffer this level of insulting commentary, the editor in question appears to believe that he can speak derogatory to other users, this is upsetting to some editors and should not be ignored. Off2riorob (talk) 16:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Ooh, you've managed to create silly wikidrama at 3 pages now. Starved of attention today are we? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Not constructive. Please refactor or someone else will do so for you. → ROUX ₪ 16:25, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This editor is obviously out for wikidrama and constructive or not it should be pointed out, if for no other reason than to demonstrate that there is an alternate side to his little story above. His idea of incivility is when someone else uses language that he doesn't approve of. Then to go running to ANI to 'report' it is, in my opinion, a perfect example of creating a wikidrama. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Foul language isn't acceptable, particularly if another editor requested it to be stopped. Parrot needs to cool it, less administrators give him an un-voluntary break. GoodDay (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"Foul" language is not against policy, neither is it, in itself, uncivil. A request is, by definition, an invitation for a refusal. PoD, while I agree should chill a bit, has every right to use whatever language he chooses to convey whatever it is he is attempting to convey. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What you (GoodDay) call "foul language" may not be what Parrot of Doom would call "foul language, or indeed what I would call "foul language". It was certainly robust language, but that's not quite the same thing where I come from. The only incivility here is too many editors attempting to impose their prissy notions of civility on others, with threats and bullying if necessary. Time it stopped. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The irony of Roux, one of the rudest and most abusive of editors on this site, turning up to criticise another editor for incivility is mind-boggling. --Malleus Fatuorum 16:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Those who live in glass houses should not throw stones Malleus. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And yet you're blind to your own incvility and abuse. Irony enough for everyone, it seems. So, how about you try this for a change, Malleus? Stop being a fucking dick. I know, I know, it's pretty much impossible for you. But you sit there and continually browbeat others while screaming at the top of your lungs for people to be nice to you. It would also behoove you to note that I didn't criticise anyone for incivility--I pointed out that his comment was unconstructive. But then, detail was never exactly your strong suit, now was it? Certainly not when piddly little things like 'facts' would get in the way of you getting your digs in. Grow the fuck up and start acting like an adult. Jesus. → ROUX ₪ 17:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is your only warning, Malleus and Roux; disengage from each other. This isn't about you, and every civility thread on ANI is not a reason for you to continue your feud. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Warn away, but you cannot suppress the truth that Roux is just as guilty of what he's complaining about with this edit summary. Why not address that issue instead of throwing your weight around? --Malleus Fatuorum 17:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Beg your pardon? Malleus shows up out of nowhere to attack me, and I'm being warned? Blame the victim, nice. Plus ca change.. → ROUX ₪ 17:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm well aware, and I'm telling you to be the better man here and leave it at that. Don't contribute to the problem. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And let him--again--simply spout whatever crap he wants? Here's the thing that you lot don't seem to understand.. you keep telling him to stop, you keep doing nothing about it, and therefore you keep enabling and encouraging him to be ever-more-abusive to everyone on this site. → ROUX ₪ 17:18, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like some imbalance here. malleus stops and gets blocked. Roux continues but doesn't get blocked. Looks like that's an unbalanced answer to the problem. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm trying to point out, if PoD had respected the request to cool it, at the public talkpage, he wouldn't have been reported. GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) And why exactly should the request have been granted? "Do as I ask or I'll report you"? To me that rather smacks of bullying and threats. How about PoD's right to use whatever language he deems appropriate for getting his point across? This is a rather typical ploy of the 'civility police' mentality around here. Threats and wikidrama. Now that sounds far more uncivil than the release of an F-bomb. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Think about it this way, Fred. Do you think others are more or less likely to take PoD seriously and engage with him in a calm manner if he's throwing around profanity? If PoD cannot express his displeasure or disagreement with an action without resorting to "an F-bomb", it's a lack of vocabulary or imagination on his part, and it only causes discussion to decay. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

An F-bomb is not an example of lack of vocabulary. In fact many times it is the perfect word to get across certain feelings. In my veiw this makes it the perfect use of vocabulary. It is not my decision on what allows PoD to be taken seriously, primarily because I don't believe that the use of epithets devalues what a person is saying. Your mileage obviously varies. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The following article may be of some interest:

• Wales, Jimmy (December 29, 2009). "Keep a Civil Cybertongue: Rude and abusive online behavior should not be met with silence". The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, Inc. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

Cheers, Cirt (talk) 17:09, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

A right to use foul language? there's no such thing as rights here. At Wikipedia, we have privillages. GoodDay (talk) 17:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

By those rules there is no right to the expectation that someone is going to respect one's own view of the world and what languages we expect others to use. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

One's own views on civility becomes irrelevant, when one is blocked for incivility. GoodDay (talk) 17:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And therein lies the problem. There is not one person on Wikipedia that can define exactly what incivility actually is, yet strangely lots of people think they know and use their own interpretation to go ahead and block someone based purely on subjective opinion. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:28, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• I would expect to be blocked if I spoke to editors in the same way, especially if I had been politely requested to be more civil, my request was mocked, and the behavior repeated, good faith editors are repelled by this level of incivility and should not have to be addressed in this manner. Off2riorob (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Your expectations have no greater sway than PoD's right to use language he deems appropriate. Also your interpretation of "uncivil" holds no greater sway than his. Who are you to decide what is or isn't uncivil? Good faith editors are also repelled by the immature, run to mummy approach that is frequently used by the final arbiters of what should be civil and what shouldn't be. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Nobody has a right on Wikipedia, we've privillages. IMHO, if one's want to spourt off on his/her pesonal page? fine. But, not on public pages, when requested not to. GoodDay (talk) 17:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

David, you should leave block notices on their pages. I know they're aware, but in the interest of the probable unblock requests... Tan | 39 17:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I left them in other tabs and forgot to save. Appended, thanks for the reminder. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Here you go on about lack of rights again. That lack of right also applies to peoples' expectancy of what they can request and their right to have that request complied with. It is after all a request and not an instruction. The bedrock of WP is that it isn't censored. You cannot have a non-censored encyclopaedia whilst simultaneously censoring its editors behind the scenes. But back to the point, the use of off-colour language is not in and of itself uncivil. Off2riorob has no right or "privilege" to decide that it is all on his own. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's all up to the community, in the end (as we're a collaborative project). GoodDay (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"The bedrock of WP is that it's uncensored"? Strong statement; it's a facet of the project but I'd hardly call it the bedrock. Tan | 39 17:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, do we not -censure- people from making threats? legal, physical etc etc (which hasn't been the case here). GoodDay (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

in any case, it's the articles that are not censored DGG ( talk ) 17:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the boilerplate answer, but please re-read exactly what I said. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The implied threat was "swear in front of me and I'll tell teacher". I have no idea what Off2riorob expected to get from this report other than a dose of wikidrama. This he seems to have got in spades. two people blocked (none of them being PoD). This has all the hallmarks of a troll, or at the very least a WP equivalent of dropping a stink bomb before shutting the door. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's certainly higher up the ladder (or deeper in the foundation as it were) that, say for example, errr truth. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

My advice to Off2 would've been 'ignore' Parrot 'until' he agreed to muzzle the foul language. GoodDay (talk) 18:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

IMO it is not OK to talk to other editors in this manner at all, if you do lose your cool, OK, we are adults, in that case you calm down and apologize, you do not assert that you will say whatever you feel is appropriate and repeat the comment.As DDG says, it is the articles that are uncensored, not the talk pages and the edit summaries. Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As your internet acronym succinctly puts it, it is your opinion which has no greater precedence than PoDs. Where he and I come from it is perfectly acceptable to talk that way. Who are you to say that it isn't? If you don't like it, then simply ignore it. Running to mummy ANI will merely increase the signal-to-noise ratio and will cause far more disruption than any f-bomb ever could. Personally I think you were in the wrong for over-dramatising it. So far I've heard no complaint that your ears are bleeding or you were in some way harmed or mentally disturbed by anything PoD said to you? As you yourself stated, you are an adult. Adults don't go running to mummy. They just ignore what they don't like, or at least the ones round here do. This isn't a restaurant serving tough, under-done steak. That is the place to complain to the chef. In this instance you aren't going to get you way, or get a replacement steak. he can't unsay it, he isn't likely to come over to your view any time soon. So what is it you think you've achieved today, other than wasting a lot of people's valuable time with this discussion? --Fred the Oyster (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• Perhaps it is ok on wikipedia to speak to editors in this way, if that is so please point that out to me. Off2riorob (talk) 18:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

There are several issues here, and in each case PoD, is on the right side. Firstly, take the description in the first paragraph where the disputed image is described as nonfree- this is a mere interpretation of a borderline case- a POV. Secondly, the article is about an individual with a particularly nasty track record, it is politically naive to believe you can sit on the fence- PoD is correct to verify a fact with a reference in this case a visual one. Thirdly, the heinous crime here is to suggest that Off2riorob intervention I left him a polite civility note,,was civil- no, it was gross provocation- delivered with Blairite sanctity. To which PoD politely replied:"thanks but I'm not interested in civility warnings" Fourthly, there is the issue of language register. Most of the time it is vaguely amusing that, words that 'kids on the street of Collyhurst and Ancoats use as punctuation marks, cause offence in other parts of the globe. On the Gamesley Estate, a lad bumped into me and said Ah f--k mate, I dinna see ya.- and that translate into I am sorry friend, I didn't see you. In parts of South London, saying Woof in the wrong context is grossly offensive- (It suggests the recipients mother is a dog). It is sad when editors take this seriously and get precious about others using a register they personally don't subscribe too. Finally, is the issue of timewasting. We have FAs to write- and being diverted from that central task, and dragging editors away from the name space is totally counter productive.--ClemRutter (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Shall we consider this civility report closed? GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

No, let it carry on, its fucking hilarious. Parrot of Doom 19:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think this illustrates why some react badly. There is no reason that I can see for parrot to say (well write) a word that some find offensive. As it is writen (and not spoken in the heat of argument) it is clarly premeditated (and as such presumably serves a function, I will not presume to assume what that might be).Slatersteven (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Point of view I guess. Some people presume that when the word "fuck" is used, its designed to offend. I find that laughable, they almost have my pity. Parrot of Doom 21:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The report should be closed, IMHO. GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Derailing dispute resolution

I would ask that an uninvolved admin ask User:SandyGeorgia to desist from derailing dispute resolution. If it were the first time this had happened, I wouldn't bring it to ANI, but it is clearly a pattern.

This discussion relates to WP:RSN#Venezuelanalysis, which had grown to a very large size (6 subsection breaks), not least due to Sandy and another editor constantly bringing up accusations of bad faith, as well as unsourced and irrelevant claims. In an attempt to extricate the discussion from the mire it had got into (driving away external input there had initially been, and clearly not reaching a conclusion) I created a new section, WP:RSN#Venezuelanalysis Reboot, summarising and introducing some new information, and notified all editors involved with the old thread. I created a new section rather than a new subsection to make it more likely that new editors might comment.

Sandy's response was to effectively accuse me of forum shopping (on the same forum - and despite clearly explained rationale for starting a new section) ("This looks like "ask the other parent" to an issue that was already well debated...") and to claim that "most people are probably tired of this discussion and considered it settled."[92] Nothing was settled - not least because Sandy had ignored the previous conclusion offered in the old thread apart from misrepresenting my views (another example of derailing).

Sandy has consistently accused me of bad faith, and it appears that her attempt to reject Venezuelanalysis as a reliable source - including derailing the RSN dispute resolution mechanism - is both politically and personally motivated. Her comments here suggest that she thinks Wikipedia should counter the alleged press freedom issues in Venezuela by excluding a source widely considered reliable - as some sort of political counter-balance. (This has the merit at least of being the closest Sandy has come to expressing her motivation on this issue.) Her comments here suggest a personal motivation as well: "We need to put enough restrictions on the use of this partisan website, with ties to Chavez, to stop Rd232 from writing entire articles sourced to it." I have argued consistently that VA should be just one of the mix of sources used, and indeed I have used a wide variety of sources. That I've used VA more than if I were being paid to be sole author of an encyclopedia article is evidence of precisely nothing; nor is the solution to any overuse of it to ban it, it is to add other sources. Rd232 ^talk 17:56, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't think this is really worth doing anything about here or there for now. Of course the solution to possible overuse is to use other sources rather than ban a useful one. Clearly those threads became bloated with irrelevancies. But especially before it was reopened, consensus clearly tended toward reliability, which I agree with. If the source is systematically excluded, there is a problem, but I haven't seen complaints about that. Though I had more to say, to reply to what I believe are misinterpretations of policy, I think you and Sandy should disengage for a while, and reintroduce the issue only when a specific dispute in a specific article arises.John Z (talk) 00:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not just about the RSN threads. A conversation with Sandy on her talk page just now conveniently forced me to clarify (part of) the prior pattern: Sequence: after I raised an issue at BLPN,[93] 1 (one) person commented at Talk:Mark Weisbrot,[94] and she almost immediately sought to derail the chances of any further BLPN input with an off-topic post claiming general misbehaviour by me and another editor (this would prove a habit - how much of the RSN threads are taken up with accusations of this sort?). After I attempted to greatly clarify the issue at Talk:Mark Weisbrot and to restart the BLPN discussion (subsection "Synthesis"), she again sought to derail the dispute resolution. Since there was disagreement specifically on that, and the initial comment from another editor failed completely to address the synthesis issue, and since Sandy'd already derailed the BLPN thread enough, I went (WP:SYNTH being part of WP:OR) to WP:NORN for input specifically on that issue. Of course she promptly jumped in and sought to derail that too! [95] Adding similar material to a different article produced a slightly different policy issue (WP:UNDUE); I thought it was borderline OK, and posted at the appropriate noticeboard for clarification [96] Of course she derailed this too, jumping in again with general complaints about alleged misbehaviour. (We needn't go into the misrepresentations involved.) Rd232 ^talk 01:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Rockwick spammer tries again, probably.

Resolved

 – Blocked. TNXMan 19:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The "Rockwick spammer" seems to be back. (See [97] for history of this long-running sockfarm attack). Two edits to Proof of funds by new randomly-named single purpose accounts:

• Injnubuik (talk · contribs) [98]
• Ifg;lidmfm (talk · contribs) [99]

The edits deleted references from the Wall Street Journal and FBI describing the scam, and inserted promotional material.

Other editors already caught and reverted these edits. Please watch for similar edits. The general pattern is to make "standby letters of credit" and "proof of funds" look legit, and to promote "Rockwick Capital" (we have a filter blocking that), "Cohen and Stein", and "Kai Lassen". Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Bagged and tagged. TNXMan 19:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Interaction ban requested

I would like Malleus Fatuorum to be permanently and unequivocally banned from commenting to, on, or about me anywhere on Wikipedia. I will voluntarily subject myself to the inverse, naturally, but I am sick and tired of his attacks on me. → ROUX ₪ 18:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

...and I'd like a toilet made of solid gold, but it's just not in the cards now is it? Seriously I don't think you can ban someone from talking about you or to you, only from certain topics or namespaces, etc. Equazcion ^(talk) 18:50, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I am on a permanent no-contact ban with a particular user, so, yes, it can be done.[100] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It's been done many, many times. So... yeah, I think it's justified. You could check out his latest little gem. → ROUX ₪ 18:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, there is such a thing as an interaction ban. In fact SuaveArt ended up indeffed because he couldn't stop violating his. Auntie E. (talk) 19:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Is that any worse than you calling him a dick? No use calling a Kettle, when you're distinctly Pot-coloured. Parrot of Doom 19:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Try noting the chronology here. It may prove illuminating to you. → ROUX ₪ 19:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Miss! Miss! He started it!! How very mature. Ironic that you propose the above measure, and then proceed directly to Malleus's talk page to vent your spleen. Parrot of Doom 19:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

After he continued to attack me--and, indeed, now proceeding to lie about me--yes. I suggest you also look up the meaning of 'irony', as you don't seem to know it. → ROUX ₪ 19:13, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec) As much as the "he started it" defense gets made fun of, it actually has a lot of relevance. I've never heard of an interaction ban before, but the question of harassment can indeed fall on who started it, and often does, even though we don't expressly use those words. If you call someone a dick as a result of them having repeatedly been a dick to you, for example, there isn't necessarily an equal amount of blame to go around. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:15, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

I would put a good sum of money on the result that if I looked far back enough in time, I'd see that Malleus's comments against Roux are entirely justified. I've worked with him here on quite a few articles and I've seen him make apologies where they were due. It seems to me that the minority here who don't like Malleus hold that view not because they think he's wrong, but because they don't like the fact that he's prepared to tell them they're wrong, and in no uncertain terms. Parrot of Doom 19:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That is a bet you would lose. Here is something you should find eye-opening, also this. But, y'know, facts. Not exactly held in high regard here. → ROUX ₪ 19:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Then let's start posting some diffs rather than making idle generalizations (PoD, Roux, and Malleus). For the record I have almost no experience with either user so I don't "like" or "dislike" anyone here. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:29, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

Some advice: "The more we get together, the happier we'll be" (remember that little tune). GoodDay (talk) 19:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually I found neither eye-opening, in fact I struggled to stem the massive yawn issued forth from my mouth. If such comments are the root cause of your problem with Malleus, you clearly have issues. Parrot of Doom 20:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If you do not respond to Malleus then you will have no concern of any action against you, Malleus can get himself into trouble if he wants to do one sided battle. It takes two to interact. Simply deny any direct response to him and if his actions cause concern then you can ask an admin you trust and respect to look at it or make a request here for further scrutiny. As long as you avoid responding negatively then you will be fine and Malleus will either stop find himself blocked. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Not good enough, I'm afraid. Ignoring him does not, in fact, make him go away. And his behaviour is such that somehow he avoids getting blocked. One can only speculate as to why. I will happily restrict myself from commenting to or about him anywhere on this site--if and only if he is required to do the same. He has lied about me enough today--you should also see his commentary on Fuchs' talkpage immediately after his block expired. Because apparently it's okay for him to say shit like that. That is, at least, the only conclusion I can draw as he was not reblocked for those attacks. → ROUX ₪ 19:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The real problem here is that we have two people and neither seem to have the maturity to rise above it. His behavior is not getting a pass but neither is yours. If we were to look at comments from just after the block and consider further blocking then your comments would put you in the same light, perhaps it is better to stop with administrative enforcement and at least one of the two of you just ignore the other. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I note without surprise (Chillum) that you have implicitly accepted that Roux is the victim in this affair. Well, for starters I'd suggest that this "victim" gets the Hell off my talk page if he expects anyone to take his proposal seriously. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:43, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you could be the more mature one and rise above it? Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Retract your lies and your personal attacks and I will be happy to. → ROUX ₪ 19:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What part of 'he showed up out of nowhere to attack me' is completely unclear to you, Chillum? Grow a pair and impose the ban. → ROUX ₪ 19:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I am an admin, not a relationship counselor. I can block editors for engaging in personal attacks, but I am not going to take sides. To be frank, if either of you keep this then escalating blocks may be the only way. Wikipedia is not a battleground and a person fighting with someone who is not fighting back will look a fool so just don't respond. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I just want him barred from harassing me further. What part of that do you not understand? → ROUX ₪ 19:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand why you don't see that you are also going to his talk page with and spitting nasty words at him. I have already offered you a solution, I don't accept your suggestion of an interaction ban. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

After--and only after--he started lying about me. I'd also like you to show me what exactly is 'nasty' in comparison to his comments about 'bile' and such. I want his bullshit to stop, and clearly you have absolutely no interest in doing so. → ROUX ₪ 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I think everyone understands you perfectly. It just hasn't been shown yet that such a ban is warranted. You can't just request a ban and get it without adequately proving one is needed. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:59, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

The fact that he showed up in a thread above solely to harass me? Yes, naturally that isn't any evidence whatsoever. None at all. The fact that he is lying about me? Nope, no evidence there. Oh well, facts, who needs 'em? → ROUX ₪ 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

"The fact that he showed up in a thread above solely to harass me?" - That is an outright lie, which anyone bored enough to check will plainly discover for themselves. Parrot of Doom 21:01, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, could you please show me exactly where in his attack on me he said anything about you? Anything about the actual contents of the thread? Go on, I can wait. → ROUX ₪ 01:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

(ec x a billion) I think Chillum is basically summing up WP:JDI. Though if you could show diffs illustrating that that didn't work, ie. that you actually didn't respond to Malleus and he continued harassing you, that might be grounds for a block. To Malleus: I think Chillum has actually stated that both parties are to blame in this case. I don't see that he's painted either of you as the victim. Equazcion ^(talk) 19:46, 7 Feb 2010 (UTC)

That is not a view that I share. --Malleus Fatuorum 19:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have not had a positive response to my whole "don't take the bait, ignore the other person" advice. So perhaps other people can weigh in. I am not interested in participating in any interaction bans as I think they ignore the root of the problem, those who are interacting. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Because I am sick and fucking tired of that 'advice'. Don't take the bait? Suuuuuuuuuuure. How about you get attacked by an abusive editor repeatedly and just 'ignore' it. Oh wait, you don't have to--you can just block them. The rest of us don't have that luxury, and we would like to be able to comment in peace without being harassed. That is, clearly, too much to ask. More to the point, Wikipedians generally don't bother actually looking into the background--they see Malleus making outlandish accusations and lying, and will assume he's correct. I will defend myself. What I am asking for is to have the need to defend myself removed. I really am at a loss for why you are unable to understand this simple concept. So let me try again: I will not stand idly by while I am attacked and harassed. But I get punished for reacting. So how about we just get rid of his ability to attack and harass me? → ROUX ₪ 20:06, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think you should check my log of blocking people, you will see I do not block people I am in a dispute with. I get someone uninvolved to handle it. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 21:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

If it'll make anybody happy, have Malleus say vicious lies about me, instead. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This reminds me alot of the ANI thread about User:IMatthew that I started. Look, Roux. Prior to you leaving, you and I had a feew fights but look, If Malleus is bugging you then just tell him that you'll take his "advice". He'll probably leave after that. However, if he does'nt, then that may count as hounding. Even so, many admims seem to be trigger happy with the block tool. Malleus only deserved a warning if that. Now Malleus, you and I have really gotten into fights in the past. While I belive that the animosity is gone, you may want to think "will this edit help Roux or just cause trouble" when your posting to him. You have every right to speek your opinion but sometimes things are better left unsaid. Well thats my crappy two-cents. Take it or leave it.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 21:31, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The facts of the case are pretty simple. I generally try to avoid ANI like the plague I believe it to be, and I'm pretty sure I've never initiated an ANI thread on anything or anyone, and very likely never will. Roux's repeated claim that I turned up at Parrot of Doom's ANI thread above completely out of the blue and simply to harass him is a direct personal attack far worse than anything he accuses me of, yet it goes unremarked by these "trigger happy admins" you have so rightly identified. I spent some time working with Parrot of Doom on the Nick Griffin article that's at the heart of that row, and we've worked together on many other articles as well, so quite naturally I have his talk page on my watchlist. That's how I found out about the ANI report that Roux pounced on out of the blue to offer his usual words of wisdom. I don't follow other editors around looking for excuses to start rows, unlike some others. I prefer to spend my time building an encyclopedia, and I was supporting Parrot of Doom, an editor for whom I have the greatest of respect, against an absurd charge of incivility. Roux's track record, on the other hand, speaks for itself. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

It would behoove you to get your facts correct before you start shooting your mouth off. My sole comment in that thread, until you decided to show up and harass me, was "Not constructive. Please refactor or someone else will do so for you." in response to Fred the Oyster. I made no comment on Off2riorob (the initiator of that thread) nor Parrot of Doom (its subject). As I have said repeatedly, it is customary to have opinions preceded by knowledge. You may wish to try this. → ROUX ₪ 22:35, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

How ironic. "The fact that he showed up in a thread above solely to harass me" is what you said earlier. Do you stand by this comment? Parrot of Doom 00:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course I do. He made no comment about you or the thread, just came to attack me. → ROUX ₪ 01:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

What he did do is make an ironic comment. That is not the same as an attack. Neither is it an attack if it's a true statement and so far I see you haven't denied what he said as not being true. Incidentally your behaviour today has somewhat strengthened the veracity of MF's original comment. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:06, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

He did no such thing; I suggest you look up the definition of irony. Nor indeed was it a true statement. And it would behoove you to note I have merely responded in kind to the bullshit MF has thrown at me. Oh well--facts, really, why would you bother familiarizing yourself with them? → ROUX ₪ 01:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel you're on the wrong side of the pond to be giving lectures on irony. "Responding in kind" is still a behaviour. If you respond in kind then you are doing exactly what you accuse him of. As I said, you aren't doing yourself any favours here. And yes, that is a fact that I'm now familiar with. --Fred the Oyster (talk) 01:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• I'm bored and just browsing around, and I just happened across this. I jsut wanted to briefly comment that it may be a good idea to open an RFC/user about one or both of the central editors here. I personally think that they both have something to add to Wikipedia, but there are some rather serious concerns with behavioral issues (at least, on a "presentation" level) which could possibly be helped by using the RFC procedure. For full disclosure I should note that I've had (a somewhat limited amount of) negative iterations with both editors here, and I should probably admit that one of them does bring up a compelling point in my opinion, but I think that I'm presenting this in a fairly neutral manner.
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 22:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Look. I've had my own run-ins with Roux in the past as well. Just take a look at all of the MFD's from September and you see just how many. I also agree that Roux needs to calm down. In other words, take a chill pill man. This is just an all volunteer project. If you get sooo worked up over a stupid comment that some random user tels you then you need to take a break and think to your self "why should I even care?" Trust me. I have gotten worked up all of the time over Malleus's comments. (Take a look at my TP archives). You are makeing a fool of yourself Roux. Just calm down, back away from the computer and do sometihng else if you ned to. Remeber, this is for fun. It's no job of yours. And Malleus, I know. It just seems like the nice thing to do is to back away from the situation.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrong. He started the situation. The nice thing to do would be to apologise. It won't happen. → ROUX ₪ 22:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Two wrongs do not make a right Roux. Just remember that.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 22:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• That sounds like a good idea. In fact, why don't you start up a company specialising in turning molehills into mountains? --Malleus Fatuorum 22:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

  LOL! I couldn't have planned such a response, it's so perfectly illustrative. Thank you!
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 22:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

• No, you probably couldn't. No shame in that though. --Malleus Fatuorum 00:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Stop. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

All the people in this thread who thought it would be amusing to add their own little 'funny' comments could stand to be whacked with a block. You arn't helping by prodding Roux and you certainly arn't funny. Jtrainor (talk) 05:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Fallen through the cracks...

Resolved

 – User blocked. TNXMan 19:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Everythingman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Can an admin indef this account? Completely non-productive, but too sporadic for AIV. Auntie E. (talk) 18:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I have done. It looks like a VoA to me. Stuff like this and this are not remotely useful, and briefer blocks are not likely to get his attention because of his sporadic use of the account. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 18:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. That's the edit that caught my attention. I certainly did not expect a two-year old account with a talk page full of warnings. Auntie E. (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Rock It! (Prime Jive)

Hello!

I want to report the user Rock It! (Prime Jive). He is a sockpuppet (he admitted it himself) of user Ole Førsten whom I indefinetly blocked recently in Russian Wikipedia. The issue is: I recently published quotes of his offensive messages with permission of local Arbcom in Russian Wikipedia, and now that user harasses me crosswikily (both on ru: and on en:) saying that I must block myself for publishing those quotes. vvv^t 19:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Rangeblock possibly needed

Per another users request on my talk page, I am raising this here to discuss a rangeblock of a group of IP addresses being used by a indef blocked sockpuppeteer. Any time an IP in their range gets blocked, they hop onto a new dynamic IP address within 24 hours and continue the same pattern of vandalism/personal attacks on users. I tried to dissuade them by protecting their targets userpages for a week, but they find other users and target them instead. The list that I have personally seen so far are:

• User:RegularLife (Block evasion account of User:Silverlife and User:RegularBreaker
• 123.27.27.224
• 123.27.24.27
• 123.27.24.174
• 123.27.25.120
• 123.27.26.132
• 123.27.26.189

The main targets have been User:Atama and their user subpages, and User:Joe Chill, however since their pages were protected the IPs have been targetting the users who warned their previous IPs. Any thoughts on performing a rangeblock? They have continued for over 5 days now, not letting swift blocks and page protects deter them. Thanks in advance, --Taelus (talk) 20:44, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

See also: Previous ANI thread on the RegularLife sockpuppet. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive594#Sockpuppet. --Taelus (talk) 21:00, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at the contributions to see if an edit filter could be applicable. While there are a few vectors that could be pursued, I'm not really sure it's warranted: any filter would be extremely rough as the contributions are a bit wild. The ISP range is 123.27.0.0/19 (8190 possible IPs) but the ISP might restrict the user further than that based on their infrastructure. Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 21:14, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

123.27.24.0/22 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)) blocked for two weeks. If it spreads (and I don't think it has yet), opening it up to 123.27.0.0/19 might be a good idea. NW (Talk) 21:16, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Danieldis47

I feel that Danieldis47 is a biased-POV-pusher and needs to cool down a little with his negative view about the Afghan situation. He is adding only negative stuff into Afghanistan article and reverts anyone who tries to nuetralize his edits. For example, he keeps mentioning how bad and inaffective the Afghan police, taking bribes, using drugs, and etc., but he refuses to write anything about the large number of them getting killed for the small salary that they earn and etc.--Jrkso (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

User:JelrGREEN

I observed the following pattern of behavior from a new editor (User:JelrGREEN) who has solely edited one article Brendan Burke. He is aggressive, threatening and belligerent, determined to insert his own WP:OR. He needs to be warned by an administrator about the risk of being blocked. He has already violated WP:3RR. See the most recent transactions:

(cur) (prev) 22:39, 7 February 2010 JelrGREEN (talk | contribs) (7,345 bytes) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 22:31, 7 February 2010 JelrGREEN (talk | contribs) m (7,095 bytes) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 22:26, 7 February 2010 216.26.223.50 (talk) (6,556 bytes) (→References) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 22:24, 7 February 2010 24.78.131.232 (talk) (6,550 bytes) (→Death) (undo)

(cur) (prev) 22:20, 7 February 2010 JelrGREEN (talk | contribs) (6,992 bytes) (I re-entered info about Mark Reedy. PLEASE DO NOT CHANGE, unless you want an ANGRY town coming back and editing it again.) (undo)

Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 23:03, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Their Talk page is a red link. Not only have you not discussed this with them before coming here, you haven't notified them of this discussion. Woogee (talk) 23:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Your characterization of his edits isn't really fair, either. He's a friend of someone who died in the same accident as Brendan Burke, and he thinks that person should be mentioned in the article. He's also a brand-new user who is not familiar with the nuances of Wikipedia's rules. He isn't trying to vandalize or do any harm; he is editing in good faith. Let's try talking to him nicely, shall we? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:11, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

He/she has been notified. I very rarely (anymore) find another editor's actions so objectionable that I resort to the Noticeboard, so I was rushing and neglected the protocol. MY apologies. Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

An anonymous IP vandal (User:216.26.223.50) blanked the AFD notice from the Brendan Burke page. Is it possible to run an IP check to see if the IP number matches User:JelrGREEN? How did I know this article would become a hornet's nest?? Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk) 00:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Emergency unlocking of article please

Super Bowl XLIV, please unlock it now. I have important useful information to add. Hurry, I need to add some stuff and watch the game, too. I am not a troublemaker. Colts are the greatest (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:SOCK]].--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 23:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Bullshit senses...tingling... HalfShadow 23:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Not gonna happen Colts.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure! I've fully unprotected the article. Go ahead and add what you need to; I'll check in after the game. Actually, I didn't really unprotect it. Don't tell him. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 23:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Please be nice ok (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• Could someone tie these socks up, please? HalfShadow 00:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• • OK, What's his name above is a sock of a blocked user. I wonder though, is the question really "bullshit"? We do we have the article locked? There are obviously hudreds, if not thousands, of people looking at it. If any vandalism is reverted in seconds, why does the page need protection?
    — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
    • Do you want to spend the next 2-3 hours watching the game, or watching the article? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

      Same difference to me, since I'm already doing both... (apparently along with a few 10's of thousands of others...
      — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• You would think they could use that particular template (which I will not mention; BEANS) that requests an edit. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In fact, maybe we should just relock it. It's been unlocked for about five minutes and it's already getting cluster-fucked. HalfShadow 00:08, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Because of 2-3 vandalous edits? a bit oversensitive, aren't we?
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Considering the page needs to be edited on a moment-by moment basis, it would be helpful it could be done without having to worry about reverting vandalism too. HalfShadow 00:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you are (or, at least, should be) editing it moment to moment already, then how does vandalism really affect you anyway? That info is something that you're already at least looking at, if not changing, so why should vandalism particularly bother you?
— V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• I knew I was a big geek, I'm not even watching the game because I don't follow the NFL. But you guys are even bigger geeks, editing in the middle of the game! Shouldn't you be too drunk to be editing by now? Beeblebrox (talk) 00:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  hehe... I almost am, hence my posts here!
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  Not exactly, per my age...almost too caffeinated though! Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 00:40, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Why does this article need moment-by-moment editing during the game? Up-to-the-minute reporting goes on Wikinews, not in an encyclopedia. There aren't exactly any high-quality, reliable, secondary sources being added to the article which relate to the ongoing event. Just wait a couple of hours. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Man was that burst of vandalism tough. Good thing Explicit jumped in otherwise I (and others) would be rapidly reverting like crazy. Just saying. ConCompS talk 00:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Well, looks like I was invited into this discussion after I protected. Honestly, this article wouldn't survive if it wasn't protected. This reminds me when Michael Jackson was fully protected the day of his death because—as a highly visible page—vandalism was high and removing it was nearly impossible due to all the edit conflicts (let's not forget the server crash, either). Although the Super Bowl isn't receiving the same amount of traffic, semi-protection seems to apply here quite nicely. — ξ^xplicit 00:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  Heya Explicit. I invited you here because I wanted to see your reaction to what I said above, mostly. I find the "this article wouldn't survive" attitude curious here, I guess, and I wouldn't mind discussing that further with anyone willing to do so. I mean, with literally 10's of thousands of people viewing the article, what makes you guys think that the article wouldn't be able to survive? Do you admins really have such a low opinion of us content editors that this is a standard viewpoint here, now? Has Wikipedia fallen to such lows?

  Directly in reply to bringing up the MJ article, I'd point out that the main issue there was the rapidity of the edits, as far as I'm aware of. The Foundation seems to have taken care of that issue, which was at least partially technical and partially physical (server configs), in response, so why is that relevant?
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 00:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  What I meant by "it wouldn't survive" was that the article will be bombarded by IPs and non-auto-confirmed that make less than constructive edits to the article. I think that was shown pretty well before the article was protected, as most by of the IP edits were either reverted by Huggle, ClueBot or rollback. No where did I put down constructive editors. As far as Jackson's article goes, yes, it was due to rapidity. It was this rapidity that left vandalism in the article for too long. In fact, I remember that the infobox was broken when a vandal made its way into the article and remained that way for several minutes; reverting was no easy task with all the edit conflicts. My point is, if the article was left unprotected, unconstructive edits would (and a few did) remain visible to those hundreds, if not thousands, of readers who would stop by. Semi-protection won't get rid of all vandals, but the article will receive significantly less unconstructive hits. — ξ^xplicit 01:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  OK, taking everything above a face value for the moment (which is fairly generous, but that's for later), say a few "unconstructive" edits remain for a while. Just for the sake of argument here, do you feel that such edits reflect badly on you or something? I'm really trying hard to understand this point of view, but I'm struggling (admittedly, I think that those of you who are currently "admins" are completely out of touch and off your rockers, so I'm willing to admit to be subject to my own criticism which I offered above, but I'm really honestly trying ot understand here...)
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 01:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  I hate football. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 01:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  See what I mean about "completely out of touch and off your rockers"
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 02:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  No one's gonna answer huh? What, are y'all too chicken-shit to step up to the plate? Ah well, I've got better things to do then waste time here on AN/I anyway. Thanks for empirically proving the point about how useless it is to have "admins" here, at least.
  — V = I * R (Talk • Contribs) 03:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

  Reflect badly on me? No. It'll reflect badly on the encyclopedia. If someone uses Wikipedia for research or to read something that interests them, I'd hate for them to see "SHIT"—or better yet, using this article as an example, seeing "COLTS SUCK COCK"—randomly thrown into an article. I think this discussion boils down to views; you don't feel protection is justified while I do, and that's completely understandable.</all written before edit conflict> Well, some of us don't live on Wikipedia, surely it would be polite to wait a few hours before calling admins chicken-shits and useless. — ξ^xplicit 03:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Eyes Needed

Super Bowl just ended. Eyes will probably been needed on Indianapolis Colts and New Orleans Saints. In case you are wondering, Saints won. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

user:MickMacNee/EeNcaMkciM2

Take a look at this post: [101] supposedly by MickMacNee. However, what is strange is that the post is actually by EeNcaMkciM2 who appears to be imitating MickMacNee. I don't think MickMacNee would be stupid enough to create a sock to attack me which takes his name backwards and further, signs off with his name. Unless it is a case of him double bluffing to create an effective sock. Either away, I think the post itself is highly innapropriate and may require some sort of action. 95.149.78.143 (talk) 02:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Just some troll, I have blocked the account. Clearly not Mick. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe coincidentally, there have been several of these lately just that I've noticed, and I only cover a small area. There was a "MickNacMee" or some such, a few days ago. Then there was a Caden impostor yesterday, and someone impostoring me today. Probably the banned user Pioneercourthouse, as that's his style, but I don't care enough about that beanbrain to open another SPI. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

There is also EeNcaMkciM (talk · contribs), created on 6 January and blocked the same day. Again, not MickMacNee. Mjroots (talk) 06:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

NFLDraftDepot.com spam

WalterPearl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) alias WRanger12 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) alias RocketBoi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) alias HawkeyeHowie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) alias Huski3sF4n1983 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continuously adds links to www.nfldraftdepot.com, a site that he is probably affiliated with, but that is completely irrelevant (see Alexa) compared to CBS Sports or WalterFootball.com. Therefore, these links qualify as spam. I think those sock puppet accounts should all be blocked. And isn't there some sort of feature to block the addition of links to that site permanently? --bender235 (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the blacklist. You can propose its addition at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. (I make no argument either way to whether or not it should be added.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 04:07, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

IP 216.66.131.127 additions

This IP is continuously adding factual inaccurate information in some song related articles and this reverting other user's explanations. Claiming that he is from Canada, he is adding a chart to the song articles, which is not accepted as per WP:GOODCHARTS. Please help the ongoing addition of erroneous content and WP:BADCHARTS. --Legolas ^(talk2me) 05:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

He is from Canada that Ip is most likely Whitby Ontario...i will also leave a message to him about deleting refs..So he sees your not alone on this..I will be very nice because he is talk back to you now!! Buzzzsherman (talk) 05:17, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

1. the IP is trying to make good faiths edits.
2. editor was not aware of goodchart and bad charts
3. I have now informed the IP editor on the talk page
4. you have called this IP's edits vandalism. I see no sign of this.
5. calling someone a vandal is not likely to help the situation. SunCreator (talk) 05:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to chime in on one point, here: this is a content dispute. The IP is adding information from a real book, albeit citing it poorly (no page numbers, etc). WP:GOODCHARTS is not intended to be an exhaustive list of every possible legitimate chart. It is intended to be a guide for finding information about charts from various countries as an aid to article writing and validation of most articles. If an editor adds a chart that is neither on WP:GOODCHARTS nor WP:BADCHARTS, the chart and the reference need to be evaluated. In this case, I agree that replacing the RPM chart with another Canadian chart is a poor move, but it isn't vandalism, and admin action seems inappropriate.—Kww(talk) 05:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hijacked account

When a useful editor's edits turn into blatant vandalism, I tend to suspect the account has been hijacked. Such is the case here. However, I don't recall the procedure (or know where to look) for handling this type of problem. To prevent further abuse of our articles - and of the editor's account, I've gone ahead and indef-blocked the account. However, I invite anyone with experience in this type of problem to correct or supplement my actions - and to post a note on my talk page pointing out the correct process. Thanks. Rklawton (talk) 06:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Look farther up the page - there was a similar case recently, for a user named DC or something. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Hey Bugs - been awhile. Thanks for the heads up. Looks like I've taken all the right steps. I don't think check user is necessary since the edits are significantly out of character and not on any previously edited article. Hopefully we hear back from him via e-mail. 'till then, we're protected. Rklawton (talk) 06:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Specifically, this:[102] I guess you figured that out. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Mass change to formatting style

For the past 24 hours I have been constantly finding myself readding quotation marks to the formatting of ref names on University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) because Racepacket (talk · contribs) appears to have an off-site copy of the article text that he has removed all of these from. He has told me that he prefers to not use them because they are not entirely necessary unless the name parameter uses spaces, punctuation, or non-ASCII characters.

I do not think that this requires removing every single instance as he has done in the following diffs which include misleading edit summaries: [103], [104], [105], [106].

I have brought this up to Racepacket on his talk page as seen here where I also ask him to stop removing the carriage return between the infobox and the lead paragraph ([107], [108], [109], [110]): User talk:Racepacket#Carriage return. He does not seem to care, or he has not been answering me at all because he keeps making these edits long after I began the discussion on his talk page.

Racepacket has begun accusing me of stalling improvements to the page because he has it set in his mind that there is an all important deadline (he assumes there is one because of a pending GA review), and has accused me of doing harm to the page because of a single mistake (where he corrects a + to an = and then says I harmed the page because I undid the edit because it was one where he removed all the quotation marks) and that I am keeping him up by asking him to add two more keystrokes when he adds content.

I know he is improving the page. I know it is good that he wants it to be considered a good article and probably eventually a featured article. I just do not think it is appropriate that he reformats the entire article just because he does not want to add two instances of " whenever he adds a reference.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

In the time that I was writing this, he did it again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As indicated in a prior ANI, User:Ryulong is doing everything possible to see that the article University of Miami fails its GA review. We have a limited period of time to respond to the review while it is on hold. In response to the review, I split off University of Miami School of Business Administration, and three times Ryulong merged it back. After repeated requests, he finally left the article in place and started an AfD, where the vote is going toward keeping the article. Second, the review asked that we expand the Research section, and User:Ryulong has been actively moving or deleting content which I have added to that seciont. Third, the review asked that we find sources independent of UM to meet WP:V They suggest that at least half of the sources be to something not on the UM website. User:Ryuilong has been finding excuses to move the non-UM sources to other articles and where several sources can support a remaining sentence, he insists on using the one from the UM website. What prompted his current complaint is that I do not use unnecessary quote marks around the name parameter value in <ref> tags. He goes backs and adds them. He has also changed the = symbol to the + symbol in cite templates which cause values to not be displayed. Because I don't have time to go through each citation repeatedly to check for such nonsense, I have asked him to stop. He then harrasses me with endless discussion over the quote mark issue which has absolutely nothing to do with how the article will be displayed on the page. He goes so far as to reformat my responses to him on my own talk page.

Here is someone who has not made substantive additions to the article for months, wasting time in our efforts to address the review in a limited time period. An administrator's intervention is needed to stop User:Ryulong from wasting valuable time by doing everything possible to prevent the article from passing its GA review. ~~~~