Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Disruptive Editing by User:Vexorg

This user is engaging in the kind of disruption is virtually impossible to deal with. Reverting without consensus or references, disruption on the talk pages, and even canvassing to get his WP:POINT into the article. For the record, this is not the first time I have brought this editor to this board, but report is in reference to this article only. The defense will be a loud accusatory finger (sorry about the mixed metaphor) pointed at me and any of his other accusers. Please strip off the histrionics and look directly at the diffs. I hope I have not got any of the diffs wrong. I have tried to be careful but mistakes happen and I will correct any asap. Thanks

Disruptive editing at Rothschild family

The following are recent reversions (the last three days)

• [1] 5 March
• [2] 5 March
• [3] 5 March
• [4] 3 April
• [5] 4 April
• [6] 4 April
• [7] 5 April
• [8] 5 April

Disruption on the Talk page

Verorg started a section about another editor he titled 'Complaint about User:Mbz1 and his POV edits

• [9]

Examples of Vexorg's dialogue on the talk page:

• [10] "this isn't the place to discuss your lack of knowledge..."
• [11] acknowledging that he is restoring material on the basis of his own argument without consensus or references
• [12] continues to restore debated material based on his own arguments rather than consensus or references
• [13] asking another editor if he is editing as an IP and threatening to do a checkuser
• [14] again threatening this user with checkuser
• [15] accusing another editor of "untruths" and "smelling a Pov here"
• [16] more personal attacks, expresses his desire to reinsert the same material "after a reasonable time has elapsed"
• [17] Accusing other editors of having a "problem" - again expressing his intention to reinsert his material despite the lack of consensus for such a change
• [18] demanding of another editor once again if he is a particular IP
• [19] "It's not surprising that Stellarkid wants to remove the section, given his/her political stance as shown in several disruptive Arbitration reports over the last few weeks. "

Canvassing

• [20]
• [21]

User:NickCT's comment after being canvassed by Vexorg here [22]

Thanks for your consideration. Stellarkid (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by Stellarkid

I have fixed the edits above to reflect the correct date. I misread 3-4, or 3-5 got it backwards or something like that. My intention was not to indicate 3RR violations since if that were the intention I would have gone to the appropriate board. My intention here is to show that there is disruption and that Vexrog is not using the talk page constructively to make his case. He is not getting RS or listening to the concerns of others and trying to address them. He seems to believe that he has the truth and so the right to put his edit in despite lack of consensus and challenges by others. Stellarkid (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Where's the beef? What are you trying to do here? Surely you don't think that's enough to get Vexorg banned. In fact if this is all you could dig up on him it's a credit to Vexorg. Factomancer (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if someone could straighten out what's going on with these two groups of editors, but if that's not possible to do, then I suggest it might be necessary to block Vexorg, Stellarkid, Factsontheground, Mbz1, Breein1007 and whatever other members I missed of these contentious and disruptive groups. They've all been warned that blocks were going to start coming, I assume other people are as tired of seeing these same names here over and over again, so admins should start wheeling and dealing, I think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This ANI has nothing to do with me. I will strongly request that you refrain from mentioning my name again unless you intend on filing a report against me. Otherwise, keep me the hell out of this because I am not involved. Thank you. Breein1007 (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The people who keep bringing unnecessary drama to the noticeboards should be banned. Those of us merely trying to write articles and improve the encyclopedia should be left alone and not punished for other people's misbehaviour. There's no Wikipedia policy that says that you can be banned just because people mention your name a lot. And who are you to suggest that I am banned? How many articles have you written lately? Factomancer (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment And in fact the accusatory voices are raised against the messenger as expected, with calls to block me for bringing it forward. This venue is where we are supposed to bring such things. You may call it drama, but not one of you have addressed any of the diffs brought forward. If you don't see anything problematic here, fine, say so; but please do not start calling up other names for blocks. Deal with this one, then if you are unhappy with me or others, bring the report and the appropriate diffs. Some people are beginning to make editing Wiki an unpleasant experience, and that goes against the purpose of WP. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I never mentioned your name in the above comment, I merely said "The people who keep bringing unnecessary drama to the noticeboards should be banned". It's interesting that you immediately interpreted that as meaning yourself. Freudian slip? Factomancer (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Those first diffs on the Rothschild article are from early March, not early April. However, I completely agree that Vexorg's discussion on Talk:Rothschild is uncivil. There's a ginormous debate on that page over what looks to me like a relatively minor section heading issue, complete with canvassing and tons of personal attacks about the "political agendas" of other editors involved. I tried earlier today leaving the editor a note about civility 1 because I thought all of the conspiracy accusations against other editors were pretty irritating, unfortunately s/he found it "patronizing" and told me so on my talk page. The editor is certainly willing to engage in discussion, but their incessant conspiracy theorizing about editors who disagree with them on issues related to Israel/Zionism being part of a "Lobby" just seems to me to be really unhelpful in terms of keeping editing in this area calm and civil. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

First and Final Comment by Vexorg - This clearly obsessive and bad faith attempt to get me blocked/banned by Stellarkid doesn't even warrant a millisecond's response. It really speaks for itself as a continuation of the disruptive derailment that has no doubt annoyed all the admin who have had to wade through this nonsense over the last few weeks. This latest piece of partisan melodrama is not something I wish to be associated with and I sympathize with any administrators who have to deal with this incessant and childish guff. And for the record the 'rant' left at my talk page by CordeliaNaismith was extremely patronising and that is why I swiftly removed it. I won't be spoken to like that in real life or on Wikipedia. This whole debacle is getting beyond ridiculous. I'll leave you all to it. Vexorg (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Vrubel's Demons - having been at the receiving end of Vexorgs incivility, I was thinking of reporting him myself, but apparently someone else did that. I do not know and do not care about any prior quarrels this editor had with other editors, but I do care that he derailed a discussion about content by attacking other editors and by canvassing what he perceived as like-minded editors (though let me emphasize that one of those canvassed did not respond, and the editor responded added to the discussion about the content). He also filed a bad faith sockpuppet report about an editor who disagreed with him, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Off2riorob/Archive. When warned at his talk page about his incivility and edit warring, he accused me of hounding him [23]. It this behavior which makes any discussions about content impossible, and drives away those editors who actually want to improve the content of the article. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by NickCT This is another example or "drop-of-the-hat" arbitration. If you read the Rothchild talk page, you'll see that this issue is being taken care of, and the tone of the debate is simmering down. @Stellar - By filing these ANI you only serve to inflame. Verxog may be loud, but he hasn't done anything egregious. When he does, I'll report him myself. NickCT (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

I don't really care who it starts with, but something's got to give or this will go on forever -- so why not start right here and now, since general warnings have been given already. My suggestion is that both of these editors should be blocked for a reasonable short period of time, say a week, and when they return it should be under a topic ban which requires them to deal with their disputes with each other only on the relevant article talk pages or in legitimate dispute resolution. Any posts to AN, AN/I, RSN, COIN, SPI regarding each other would be grounds for another block. The third time, block indef. Then, when some other member of either of the two battling groups cames here with another dispute, start the process over with them.

Until they are forced to deal with each other, there's no real reason for them to come to any accomodation or compromise as long as they think they can come running here (and elsewhere) to continue the fight and run the string out even further. Channel them into dispute resolution, and if they don't want to go there, indef them.

Anyway, I'm feeling bloodthirsty tonight and that's my suggestion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose If Vexorg did something to earn admonishment or a block then Stellarkid was justified in bringing this report. I don't want to get too involved in this since I know the admins are losing their patience but this proposal seems a little far reaching and based on frustration instead of a decent review of the complaint. If it is found that both CordeliaNaismith and Stellar are wrong in their perceptions then there might be reasoning.Cptnono (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this is basically a problem between Stellarkid and Vexorg, Vexorg directed personal attacks at other editors on Talk:Rothschild family also. It also looks like 2 other editors have discussed campaigning or personal attacks with Vexorg on his talk page: 1, 2. Given that, within the last day, Vexorg has started a Wikiquette thread regarding a comment on another editor's talk page and opened a sockpuppet investigation which was rejected as fishing, it looks to me that this editor is making significant contributions to the drama. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I have nothing in principle against your affection for radical solutions. However, we have enough action already and I have good reasons to believe that you solution will only increase the stream in this bloodbath (so blood-thirsty or not-you may not like the outcome). I see it as a complex problem that need the intervention of expert surgeon-maybe involvment of other admins, new in this I-P but experineced with solving complex long lasting conflicts, and with the close supoervison of bureaucrats-could lead to cease fire. Nothing would be less benificial for WP than mass "executions" of user accounts. It will only result with less articles on this topic, with articles that are biased and so forth. This conflict involved, generally, with more than 30 editors-it seem just to suggest special policy in regard to editing in I-P related articles.P.s. I agree with Breein 1007, this random name dropping you did is improper and destructive.--Gilisa (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

Comment: Any reviewing administrator should be advised that User:Vexorg was recently given a strong warning (final warning?) about such behavior. Vexorg has also been previously blocked for a type of behavior that somewhat resembles what's shown in this report. FYI. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment #2 – The edits that Vexorg made to Stellarkid's comments are also concerning, and, I believe, actionable in of themselves. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Reply by Vexorg - I am discussing this at my talk page. So before you jump in and start shouting for action, I did in fact revert myself previously. And after it was pointed out that it was against policy I just came here to revert myself a 2nd time but I see you have done it for me. So thank you for that Ynhockey :) - I think, and in regard to policy, I think it's better to let Stellarkid's misrepresentations of my diffs be exposed for all to see. Vexorg (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I apparently made an error in my dates. Will try to fix that later in the day. The point was not to show that Vexrog had violated 3RR. I don't know if he did or not, probably he didn't as he was conscious of violating it and made a note of giving it a proper amount of time before reinserting the material. My point was just that he was edit -warring and disruptively inserting information against consensus and without references to back up his assertions. Stellarkid (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Reply by Vexorg - "Will try to fix that later in the day." - if there is good faith why not fix it now? It would take 5 seconds? Vexorg (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment to Stellarkid It is very difficult to believe that you accidentally dated edits made on the 5th of March as being from 3rd of April.

I will note that you have made use of misrepresentation when it suits you:

• here where you selectively quote for effect.
• here where you misrepresent the provenance and quality of a source: Based on the link Big Campaign which is a propaganda anti-Israel site, NOT an RS at all. Using this bogus site and its information,.
• Which I asked you to correct here
• Yet you continued on with the misrepresentation here - The root source was of course http://www.soas.ac.uk/lawpeacemideast/, this is apparent when one visits the link that I gave when adding the cats in question, which is why it is troubling that you chose not to reproduce it in full.

I think it is understandable that one wants to offer a strong case but it is troubling when an editor does so by proffering half-truths and fabrications, as I believe to have demonstrated that you have. Unomi (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Reply to Unomi-- The difference was I think between the dates 4-3 and 3-4 -- March 4th or April 3rd. Stellarkid (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Further reply to Unomi.this is not a misrepresentation nor a selective quote. It is what the words say. It was not quoted "for effect" but to clarify why people might find it offensive. The tacked-on disclaimer is a bit meaningless if you know Carlos Latuff's work and the fact that he came in 2nd at the Iran Holocaust Cartoon Contest

• The second link which you call a misrepresentation is based on this link [24] which your edit summary says {"add cat per http://www.bigcampaign.org/index.php?page=report-uk-economic-links-with-israeli-settlements"} and a handful of other edits using the same edit summary, all of which are found on the page you linked to. Will deal with the other accusations of misrepresentation later today. Busy now. Thanks Stellarkid (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Your third and forth diffs are directly related to the second which I answered above, and are not in the slightest misrepresentations of your source which you yourself listed--please see the second point above. Stellarkid (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• If you can't distinguish between: http://www.bigcampaign.org/index.php?page=report-uk-economic-links-with-israeli-settlements" and Based on the link Big Campaign then I would say that your value proposition to wikipedia is questionable.
• You cut off the quote in mid sentence in order to support your preconceived notion of what he really thinks. You cut off the part of his quote where he defines the subset he considers to be racist along with the part where he explicitly rejects anti-semitism.

This is intellectual honesty 101 stuff, please stop trying to defend the indefensible. I am withdrawing from this thread, please do hit me up on my talkpage if you have further concerns. Unomi (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I support some kind of restriction on User Vexorg, recently it is almost impossible to find an edit of his that has not been reverted, all of his edits are to a single issue and on some articles he is repeatedly labeling organisations as Zioninst when his additions are reverted by multiple editors he repeaterdly inserts them, causing disruption at multiple locations. He reported me as a sockpuppet, there was no evidence at all apart from he thought it was me and the report was closed with a looks like bad faith comment, I would have more expected an apology under such circumstances but after the SPI was closed User Vexorg continued to question if I was the IP. He also posted messages in a canvassing manner at two editors talkpages, Umoni, who is here commenting and another editor. I don't see any sign that there will be any change at all in his editing pattern, without restriction the disruptive pattern will simply continue. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur. In fact this recent comment by Vexorg [25] suggests that the Vexorg shows little insight into the inappropriateness of his behavior. A preventive block or ban might be in order, in particular given the extensive block log of this account. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Correction of misrepresentation by Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons above by Vexorg - because I don't want to clutter up this ANI with a battlefield, I made a comment about a misrepresentation of me by user:Off2riorob on my talk page. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons has now misrepresented me by claiming this is 'showing little insight into the inappropriateness of [my]behavior.' There is nothing inappropriate about commenting on misrepresentations made about myself on my talk page however many times you say it is. It is my right of reply to comment on such and as long as people continue to misrepresent me I shall continue to comment on that. And the repetition of your arguments at this ANI are starting to make it seem untenable that you are acting on good faith. 'extensive block log of this account' - hyperbole. Vexorg (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by George

Going through the presented case:

• I don't see a case of disruptive editing, and I view Stellarkid's list of Vexorg's edits as misleading. You've listed eight edits over two months. Of those, three were made in a row, and only two were reverts. If the implication is that Vexorg was edit warring by reverting twice, I would note that Vexorg wasn't the only one who reverted to his version, and it would appear that Off2riorob reverted two editors three times in total (assuming that they are IP address 173.120.203.243, something that might warrant a CheckUser), making them more guilty of edit warring than Vexorg.
• Regarding Vexorg's commentary on Mbz1 on the talk page, I find it odd that you would be reporting this a month after he wrote the comments. Vexorg is clearly commenting on the contributor in addition to the content, which should be avoided, but at the same time I don't view anything particularly outlandish in their statement. Mbz1 has since been topic banned, which adds some weight in Vexorg's defense of his comments.
• Vexorg's comments on the talk page constitute minor incivility, when he says things like "lack of knowledge" and "untruths". Stellarkid's synopsis of those edits, and extensive list, is, however, somewhat exaggerated. Most of those diffs don't show anything other than a content dispute.
• Vexorg's comments to Unomi and NickCT were pretty clearly canvassing.

All-in-all, Vexorg's minor incivility and canvassing should be punished. Maybe a short term (1-3 month?) topic ban would be in order. However, I would also address Stellarkid's own actions:

• Stellarkid's list of infractions is exaggerated and misleading. Many of the diffs listed are not a violation of anything, and strike me as someone throwing a bunch of crap against a wall to see what sticks.
• Stellarkid reported Vexorg and three other editors on these very boards not even a week ago. In that discussion, several administrators slammed both sides for using Wikipedia (and these boards in particular) as a battleground. I view this report, rife with exaggeration, and coming less than a week after Stellarkid's previous on the same user, as little more than a continued attempt to exploit these boards as a weapon. Editors need to stop using these boards as a tool to get editors they're in a content dispute with banned.
• If Vexorg is guilty of canvassing, which I believe he is, then Stellarkid is likely guilty as well: [26][27] Notifying users you discuss on ANI doesn't mean you cram a report full of meaningless diffs so you can then notify those editors who were in disagreement with Vexorg on the article in question. Surgically notifying editors who are diametrically opposed to the editor being reported, while at the same time not notifying other editors who agreed with Vexorg's viewpoint in those same talk page discussions with Vexorg is clearly canvassing.

I would suggest a similar, short (1-3 month?) topic ban a warning for Stellarkid, for canvassing and attempting to use these boards as a battleground tool (in contrast to building consensus via dispute resolution), and per the warnings of Georgewilliamherbert, Sandstein, and Malik Shabazz in Stellarkid's previous AN/I report. ← George ^talk 22:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply to George -- Just to reply to your last paragraph. The two notifications apart from Vexorg were entirely appropriate since I used their diffs in my presentation. That was a courtesy to let them know that I had used them and if they thought I had used them in error or against their wishes they could respond. While other people were involved on the talk page, I did not use diffs related to them (I think) and thus did not "notify" anyone else. I probably should have notified NickCT since I did use a diff of his and apologize for that as it was late and I simply forgot about it until you characterized my notification as "canvassing." As for the battleground accusation, that was what my earlier characterization of Vexrog in the previous ANI with respect to his accusations of a local Zionist lobby--[28][29] and now you are trying to turn it on its head and accuse the accuser. I don't think you will find a similar diff from me, accusing people of an anti-Zionist cabal or some such. I understand this as it has worked in the past, where administrators throw up their arms and ban people indiscriminately. I realize that these accusations are tiresome for administrators, but I still hope that they will find the time to separate the wheat from the chaff here (meaning the issues, not the people), because this is the place where they need to be brought up, and if I am banned as well for bringing what I believe to be disruption forward for examination at the appropriate venue, then so be it. I will at least have been true to my principles. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the whole think stinks to me. When filing AN/I, editors are supposed to notify editors they're discussing - you never discussed either Off2riorob or No More Mr Nice Guy, the two editors you notified. You only linked to diffs in which Vexorg was in a content dispute with them (among others), and the fact that you only notified editors supporting one side of the dispute is highly suspicious.

The issue isn't that you reported Vexorg, the issue is the context of that report. You listed eight diffs as "disruptive editing". The first three occurred over a month ago, and you claimed that the misdating was accidental. Looking at the article's edit history, it seems unlikely to me that one would confuse March (at the very bottom of the page) with April (at the top). Of the remaining five edits, three were made one after another - effectively counting as one edit - and two were reverts. So your disruptive editing accusation leveled at Vexorg equates to one edit, and two reverts - I don't see the disruption. You listed Vexorg's comments on Mbz1, a user since topic banned, as talk page "disruption". I see minor incivility, but nothing that I would consider disruptive editing in that diff. You then list ten diffs of Vexorg's commentary on the talk page (the second and third of which are duplicates, by the way). Of those, I see a couple instances of minor incivility (e.g., "your lack of knowledge", "untruths", commenting on contributors instead of content; attributing motives), but most of the diffs are just filler. In a couple diffs, Vexorg is asking if an editor is the same person as an IP editor (I consider it a valid question, if that editor may have been edit warring or violating 3RR using their IP address), and in another, Vexorg sounds frustrated at being the only one discussing the issue, and says he'll take a break from reverting. Any real problems (the minor incivility, and canvassing) are buried in diffs that are relatively meaningless. What makes you think that this requires administrative intervention? Essentially this looks like two problems you've compounded - incivility, which probably belongs at WP:WQA, and a content dispute involving you, Vexorg, and a few others editors, which should be resolved via WP:DR, not AN/I. ← George ^talk 01:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry George, but you are maximizing my perceived sins and minimizing the extent of the problematic behavior of this editor. I believe that letting the editors know that I am pointing to them in a ANI is appropriate for the reasons I gave above. I did not ask anyone to comment, unlike Vexorg, whom you defend: [30]- [31] Stellarkid (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I've made it clear that I think Vexorg's actions warrant a topic ban as well (and probably a stiffer one that yourself). My concerns with how and where you chose to bring the issue up, however, are irrespective of how noble your cause might be. ← George ^talk 04:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Further Comment on Vexorg. In the articles Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel - Labour Friends of Israel and Northern Ireland Friends of Israel Vexorg has been adding the categories [Category:Zionism in the United Kingdom] and [Category:Zionist organization]. There is already a [Category:Israel friendship associations]. These new additions are not sitting well with other editors who do not agree that these are Zionist organizations but "friendship" organizations.[32][33][34] His rationale on one or two of the edit summaries was that he was reverting a known sockpuppet. Another is that "Israel is the Zionist State." I don't feel it is right to push your POV across articles like this and against consensus. Not sure what the relevant Wikipedia policy on that might be, but it surely seems disruptive on the face of it. Stellarkid (talk) 05:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Vexorg wants to help Stellarkid - Carry on Stellarkid. Any unbiased and uninvolved admin ( and unbiased editors like George) can see your seeming obsession with searching for just anything to denigrate me with. Let's see, I've made 3.944 edits to date. I'm sure there's plenty of non-crimes in there for you to bring up in your personal campaign. Would you like me to help you? There's also real crimes that could help your campaign. How far do you want to go back in time? See, I've got a block history, because in the distant past I stupidly got embroiled in edit wars and didn't stop to think about the consequences of such at the time. Never mind that these events have already been dealt with and I've served my time already for the punishments given out for the crimes, I'm sure they could add weight to your current obsessive and seemingly relentless campaign against me. Anyway, get in touch with me at my talk page and let's see if we can collaborate in developing a real solid case against this demon who goes by the name of Vexorg. I really want to help as you are clearly really struggling in this AN/I and I guess if you are going to be successful in your agenda to get me banned, instead of self-destructively getting yourself banned for wasting admin time, I figured you could use all the help you can get. I've got some real incriminating stuff on myself which I would be happy to divulge if you care to get in touch. This is a genuine offer. Look forward to hearing from you Stellarkid. Vexorg (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I would submit that the above is an egregious violation of WP:BAIT and should, even not taking anything else in this discussion into account, be actionable. Seth Kellerman (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I would submit that the above is failing to see a little bit of WP:HUMOR in what is becoming an increasingly unenjoyable pastime in editing wikipedia. I would WP:RESPECTfully suggest that some editors WP:SMILE and have a nice WP:DAY. :) :) Vexorg (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid, regarding "These new additions are not sitting well with other editors who do not agree that these are Zionist organizations but "friendship" organizations", I think it's more accurate to say that the categorization was reverted because WP:V compliance requirements were not met in their view rather than editors having an opinion about the categorization itself. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that would have been more a better wording. I would just note however that on March 25 with the first diff [35] the category was reverted with the following edit summary: ("Reverted 1 edit by Vexorg; Uncited and unsupported in the text".) Apparently that lesson was not learned by April 5th when he put up this edit or a minute later when he put up this one. All three have been reverted with the note that it is not sourced. For an editor who has made almost 4000 edits to the project as he notes above, he should know by now that you do not push arguably controversial material into an article(s) without providing a reference. Stellarkid (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Vexorg

Leaving the issue of Stellarkid aside or to the section above (with George reasoning convincing imho), the other issue is Vexorg. There seems to be a rough consensus that Vexorg was incivil, filed a bad faith sockpuppet report, edit warred and inappropriately canvassed other editors. There is also a history of edit warring as the block log shows, was given a strong or final warning just a few days ago. The user shows no insight into the inappropriateness of his behavior as is evidenced his replies here at ANI and on his talk page. Given the past history some admin action is needed in order to protect those who actually want to discuss and improve content in collaboration, and not in confrontion. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Just another note: Apparently, in addition to the above, Vexorg has agreed to stop edit-warring. It was several months ago, but might be relevant to this case, because there's no reason for anyone to edit-war, especially someone who has been warned about it. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Dragging up old issues that were done and dusted in the distant past in an ANI that has already run it's course??? Firstly it's worth noting that I am not actually edit warring. I am actually engaged in a civilised discussion at Rothschild family. Secondly that ancient report was made without even bothering to notify me. Fourthly this report wasn't actually filed about edit warring, but disruptive editing. It might be worth reading the comments by George above who instead of just dragging up old issues to pile on me has actually taken the time to analyse this report in a reasonable and unbiased manner and has shown that I have not been disruptively editing. George is someone who would make a good Wikipedia Administrator IMO Vexorg (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Vrubel's Demons

If I can give you some well meant advice, many of us have moved on from this now, I suggest you do too. There has been a lot of civil and good discussion over at the Rothschild family article recently and we are getting somewhere ow we've left the bickering behind. You however, for some reason, insist in keeping this going, and it's worth noting that you are not doing your credibility of commenting in good faith by repeating your comments arguments FOUR TIMES now.

• Vrubel's Demons makes his/her feelings known
• Vrubel's Demons makes his/her feelings known again
• Vrubel's Demons makes his/her feelings known yet again
• Vrubel's Demons makes his/her feelings known yet again and for the 4th time now

From what I've seen over the last few weeks and not just on ANI Disruptive reports against myself, but also against others is that some editors go beyond any reasonable comment on the situation but insist of going on and on and on and on and on to the point of ad nausuem. In your third commentary you've said almost word for word exactly the same thing in your 2nd commentary. [eta] and now for the 4th time. We all heard you the first time.

Look, things got a bit heated at Rothschild family a few days ago, yes I made some comments questioning the motivations of some other editors ( not unfounded IMO, but that's by the by ), my sockpuppet request against Off2riorob was a fair question, as George above has agreed ( note Off2riorob still refuses to answer this reasonable question ), but we're all discussing the article now in a civilised manner. I would also say it's worth noting the civility isn't just restricted to the choice of words one uses. Anyway, I'm off to do something more positive. :) Vexorg (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"got a bit heated at Rothschild family a few days ago", "sockpuppet request against Off2riorob was a fair question" - thanks for proving my point about you showing little insight into the inappropriateness of your behavior. And your recent comments on the talk page such as "Unomi it feels like we are coming against WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Vexorg (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2010" are not showing that you are discussing the content in a civilised manner. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess one needs a thicker skin than I have to survive on Wikipedia. So much for Wikipedia being about collaboration, and one of the pillars being "Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner". Great job Vexorg, the last reply with the section header Vrubels demon was truly your masterpiece. I will leave the field to tendentious editors such as Vexorg (and Stellarkid and others). Eventually, very eventually they might be topic banned or blocked, but in the meantime they have free reign to drive away productive editors. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Reiteration

I dunno, I think my proposal's looking better and better all the time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I once again encourage uninvolved administrators to take stronger action in enforcing the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear

Well, I've just been a total tool and installed twinkle for the first time. Basically, I've messed up big time with it. I firstly started deleting everything in Category:Proposed deletion as of 30 March 2010 with it - that might not be the end of the world, but it's worth a review. The major problem is that I attempted to delete the category here, but Instead I deleted the three articles in the category and unlinked anything that was linking to the category. I'm going to bed shortly, so I won't have time to fix my mistakes now - I'll do it in the morning, but if anyone has time it would be much appreciated. Apologies for causing such a mess. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

well the Circular bidirectional bus routes thing has been fixed but the prods are still an outstanding issue.©Geni 02:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand why. There were more than 400 pages in that category thanks to the new Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (books). I myself deleted a couple hundred of them, but doing those deletions one at a time was taking hours. -- Atama頭 18:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully you've now learned that drinking and twinkling don't mix. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe for you, & for Ryan, but I find that I eventually need to twinkle after drinking. No matter what the fluid is. (Oops, you weren't talking about that kind of twinkle, were you?) -- llywrch (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Future Perfect at Sunrise and a BLP issue on article Conservapedia

Future Perfect at Sunrise has repeatedly removed a particular quote from the LA Times regarding RationalWiki editors "admitting to cyber-vandalism". FPaS argues that the LA Times article isn't strong enough and that the quote violates BLP policies. Other editors argued on the talk page that the LA Times was sufficient.

Links:

• (diff) FPaS latest removal of quote
• (diff) FPaS explains himself on talk page
• Conservapedia edit history
• Talk:Conservapedia#Removal + Threat - lengthy discussion, several editors disagree with FPaS
  • discussion title referring to this edit summary

Can a few impartial admins look into the issue? Thanks. ...comments? ~BFizz 04:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I have attempted to propose an alternative wording that might bypass the BLP issue. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Note to spare people some searching work: Last of the links was archived --Sid 3050 (talk) 20:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Continued attempts at wp:OUTING

Cla68 has been warned multiple times to stop wp:OUTING attempts. Warned by me multiple times and at least four warnings by admins. See the four admin warnings here [36][37][38][39] Yet this person is still continuing. Here are three more attempts that all occurred after the four warnings from admins previously linked [40][41][42]. This person has asked that I inform them before I post here because I warned them I would come here if they didn't stop. However, I have not informed Cla68 of this compaint because my fear is that they know that they will be blocked and they will just use the opportunity to make more edits attempting the wp:OUTING. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Informing another editor of an ANI case isn't optional. I've let Cla68 know here [43]. Dayewalker (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Dayewalker, Here's some more background information. I believe that Cla68's campaign to harass and badger me began with this edit that was really nothing more than a wp:OUTING attempt.[44] Consensus quickly formed that the COI accusation was unwarranted yet Cla68 continued. Cla68 was warned about wp:OUTING but countered that he is allowed to out editors on the COI board. [45] Since that COI didn't work Cla68 files a frivilous SPI investigation.[46] From that point on, 01:28, 7 April 2010, for about the next 24 hours, Cla68 seems to have become consumed with trying to find ways to continue his/her harassment, meaning that almost all of Cla68's edits from that point on seem to have that goal.[47] I would appreciate it if Cla68 could be stopped. Thank you for your consideration. TallMagic (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• TallMagic is operating two accounts concurrently. Atama has asked TallMagic in this thread to give up one of his two accounts. Unfortunately, TallMagic has not responded to that request, instead initiating this ANI complaint. I'll notify Atama and Amorymeltzer, who closed the SPI request, about this thread. I support Atama's request that TallMagic's first account be blocked and/or deleted or otherwise abandoned and that he edit with only the TallMagic account. Cla68 (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Not quite so cut and dry, it looks like TallMagic started a new userID so they could defend their privacy from, ironically enough, you. Besides, SOCKing isn't grounds for OUTing, they are seperate matters. I'm no admin but I'd suggest you stop trying to OUT this person and let them pass/fail SOCKing on their own. Padillah (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully Atama will be along shortly, but in the meantime, what he actually wrote is " I would be a lot more comfortable if you retired the old account. It's skirting along the edges of WP:SOCK as it is, and if you continue to use it, it becomes more difficult to justify it." I'm not sure why both accounts are being used, but the alternative one has only been used this year on one article's talk page and TallMagic has not been posting to the article or the talk page, so I'm not particularly bothered right now although of course I would be if they started posting to the same articles/talk pages etc. I suggest that Cla68 simply leave the issue and the editor alone, others I am sure will take care of any problems if they occur. I'm an Admin, I watch several of these articles, and rest assured I won't overlook any misuse of multiple accounts. I don't see any benefit to continuing this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Padillah, Cla68 did file a wp:SPI. It was closed yet, Cla68 can't accept that fact and still keeps bringing it up and has even been lobbying for getting it reopened.[48]TallMagic (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Dougweller, Cla68 has been told the same thing on multiple occasions yet he/she continues along the same lines. Sincerely, TallMagic (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to also point out that Cla68 is still defiant and unremorseful. Cla68 is still arguing above that I'm the one that must change my behavior not him/her. I consider wp:OUTING one of the worst infractions possible here on Wikipedia. I'm very disappointed that Cla68 is allowed to continue. Please make Cla68 stop. TallMagic (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)TallMagic (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(←) I'll try to provide some background, if it helps. Cla68 brought a concern to the conflict of interest noticeboard about TallMagic and others in regards to what seemed like a crusade against diploma mills. It was a reasonable concern, but in the process of making the request, Cla68 violated WP:OUTING (intentionally or not). TallMagic used to operate under another account that had personal information attached to it. TallMagic has abandoned that account for the most part, but at one point had accidentally made a comment using his old account, unsigned, which Signbot attached an automatic signature to. TallMagic went back in with his new account and signed it. That accidental slip showed that he was the owner of both accounts.

The problem is that Cla68 used the name of the old account to find TallMagic's off-wiki activities and was using them to attempt to prove a conflict of interest. Since TallMagic's disclosure of his identity was an accident, and he had been trying to distance himself from the old account (no longer editing articles with it and for the most part only using it to respond to messages sent to it), I warned Cla68 about outing. I also looked over the info myself and determined that there wasn't a conflict of interest anyway. Cla68 persisted somewhat, stating that outing was allowed in order to prove a COI (which is untrue), and finally brought up a sockpuppet investigation into TallMagic's two accounts. The investigation concluded that while the two were acknowledged as being the same person, they weren't abused and therefore no action was taken, and the case was closed. Since then Cla86 hasn't advertised the information about TallMagic, but has instead confined discussion to user talk pages (especially mine).

While I do feel TallMagic has been a victim in this to an extent, his responses haven't been helpful. He insists that Cla86 is "still outing him", presenting the same old diffs each time. He has been aggressive in his responses, to the extent that he has been been warned about shouting. I've also told him that if he truly wants to distance himself from his old account, for privacy reasons, he needs to abandon it completely. He has used it as recently as a few weeks ago, and operating two accounts without disclosing the connection is at the very least frowned upon.

I apologize for not using diffs, and being a bit vague in my explanation, but I do want to avoid making connections between TallMagic's two accounts, though at this point it only takes a bit of digging for anyone to make that connection. (We may need assistance from an Oversighter for that.) -- Atama頭 17:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree with what Atama says and I appreciate Atama's sensitivity and insight on describing the situation background. I would just like to add that I feel I've had to rachet up my reaction only because Cla68's jihad against me was allowed to continue. I tried to almost ignore it in the beginning hoping that the admins would take care of the wp:OUTING attempt because admins had mentioned it first. I feel that I've been forced to this point, i.e., an ANI, simply because Cla68 has not stopped and every step of the way has given every indication that he/she intends to continue even in Cla68's response to this ANI, I believe. TallMagic (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

you have a choice it seems. 1) agree to ditch the old account, then cla68 will clearly be in the wrong. or 2) keep the old account and put up with people bugging you about it. You seem to have cut back on the problematic edits that brought you to others attention. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What are the problematic edits that you refer to? Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have been dealing with some owners of questionable institutions for a long time, they are extremely determined and will never give up. It is of paramount importance to them to chip away, bit by bit, at any evidence on the Internet that their businesses are fraudulent. In some cases - Gastroturfing of colleges offering ministry degrees to fundamental baptists for example - the world at large does not care; in others, often handing out worthless medical and other professional degrees, it definitely does, but the assiduous use of misdirection, threats, outright falsification and so on will often lead sources to simply remove all references. When that fails, they just rebrand and start all over again. In my view the foundational principle of WP:NPOV is well served by the involvement of people who spend significant time and resource outside of Wikipedia investigating the credentials and claimed credentials of marginal institutions. For every editor who is doing this there are likely to be several with buckets of whitewash. So, TallMagic, keep up the good work but make sure you stick with reliable independent sources and if in doubt post to the talk page first. Any whitewashing of degree mills should lead to a speedy ban, it is almost invariably WP:COI and functionally equivalent to using Wikipedia for fraud. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • It is very true. They are very determined and don't give up to the point that I've gotten threats to me and my family in my home email account. It is because of problems like this that I consider Cla68's wp:OUTING actions to border on evil. It is problems like this that the Wikipedia policy includes wp:OUTING and WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Which people seem to be ignoring. TallMagic (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

His point was a fair one, but I believe he has pushed it to (perhaps past) the point at which it becomes probelmatic. I think any further discussion of real-world identities should be conducted by email with the arbitration committee, and at the same time you should ensure that you are open about any conflicts you may have in this area. For example, is this a spare-time interest of yours, or are you professionally engaged in the business of investigating diploma mills? I suspect the former. As to Derek Smart, there are too many trolls there, leave it alone. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

JzG, you're a very wise man. Obviously wiser than me. I really appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. I don't know if I've told you that before or not but if I haven't then I'm sorry. I've made the transition in my mind and no longer consider myself a Wikipedian. So covering it in email, while an excellent suggestion, really doesn't matter at this point. Cla68 conducted a most brilliant campaign, Outing, COI, SPI, notice boards and even a request to arbCom. Nothing of substance, everything closed in what could reasonably be considered in my favor and against Cla68's request, yet brilliantly successful. (I don't really know about the arbCom thing. I suspect that will just be dropped since I'm no longer around.) Anyway, congrats Cla68, you win I lose. My only consulation is that I can be glad that I'm me and not you. My view is that Cla68 is no longer my problem because I feel that I'm no longer a member of Wikipedia community. He is a good editor but his campaign waged against me has left me scratching my head why? And with the firm conviction that there is something wrong with Cla68. Cheers, TallMagic (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• OK, back to the subject of this thread. TallMagic's primary account has been the subject of an ArbCom finding, apparently because the person behind the account has a personal feud with and is running an attack site on Derek Smart and wants Smart to know that he is messing with his WP bio. I suspect that this is the reason that TallMagic doesn't want to give up that account. So, if TallMagic is really worried about being "outed", why has he made it clear that he is unwilling to have that account deleted? Although the Committee made a finding on TallMagic's other account, it did not suggest a remedy. I'm assuming that TallMagic did not notify ArbCom that he was operating a second account, even though the first one had been the subject of a case finding. So, since TallMagic appears to be unwilling to follow the advice of the admins here and shed the account that supposedly carries his "real" name, perhaps we need to take this to the ArbCom enforcement board? Or, since the Committee apparently neglected to make a recommendation about what to do about this person's on and off wiki campaign against Smart, perhaps a clarification or motion is needed? Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

TallMagic just needs to tag the second account as his legit sock and follow the guidelines and he is not editing the COI article and that is correct as I am understanding the issue, sock puppet investigation was rejected as no overlap or subterfuge ans presently he is only editing the talkpage of the article so there is no issue, is there? As he is not editing under his real name then excessive discussion about his identity is not really correct, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):And the connection of that to the price of fish is.....? Is Tall Magic (or REAL NAME) editing Derek Smart. I thought we were talking about degree mills, not game designers. At the end of that 2007 arbitration, the Arbs issued no sanctions against REAL NAME, and confined themselves to a six month ban for all SPAs editing Derek Smart. That ban expired three years ago, and does not seem to have any link to today that you have so far elucidated. So educate me. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the "real name" account edited as recently as 26 March 2010 and if you check the talk page history I linked to, that account is active in trying to influence the content that others add or delete from Smart's bio. For that reason, I don't personally feel that TallMagic's other account should be editing the Smart article's talk page, because he is obviously using an indirect way of carrying his off-wiki crusade against Smart onto the Wiki, using WP as a battleground. Now, if TallMagic would follow the advice given here and abandon his "real name" account and let it be deleted, there will be no problem, as least as far as issue of two accounts is concerned. Cla68 (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, you already filed a wp:SPI. That investigation is complete. Please try harder to accept that this ANI is not about a wp:SPI. This ANI is instead about your continued harassment and wp:OUTING attempts. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind WP:OUCH. You have no immunity when you bring an issue to ANI or any other board. After all, Cla86 brought a complaint to the COI board and the discussion was more about his outing than the COI complaint. The fact that you brought the complaint to this board about Cla86 doesn't mean that nobody is allowed to discuss any problems with you (or me, or anyone else peripherally involved).

Having said that, I'm not comfortable with anyone having two accounts that are active and not disclosing a connection between the two. I suppose the question is, why do you need both of them? And if this REAL NAME (I might as well say it since it's out in the open now) isn't your real identity, why the privacy concerns? After all this discussion over the past couple of days, I'm just confused. -- Atama頭 00:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to add (Atama, once again, said everything more beautifully than I could have) but I too remain at a loss to comprehend either of your motives here. Socking and Outing are both serious concerns, and neither need have anything to do with a discussion on a conflict of interest. Your use seems to be within the legitimate uses of WP:SOCK, but if your goal is to not be (further) outed, TallMagic, I don't understand why you would start a thread saying "Here's proof I'm being outed." If we assume that to be true, this can only hurt that goal. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the diffs that TallMagic posted, I don't see any attempts at outing. In those diffs, Cla68 is not making any connection between the "real name" account and TallMagic's account. I don't think it is reasonable to claim you are being outted if you are using your real name as an account name. I would highly recommend that if TallMagic is using more than one account, that they stop doing so. DigitalC (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Atama, As I mentioned above, in response to JzG, my family and I have been threatened by apparent owners of diploma mills. Trying to edit Wikipedia articles on unaccredited institutions can make some people very mad when an editor tries to ensure that the article follows Wikipedia policies. Some people only care about their own wallet not about Wikipedia policies. I already responded to you in email about your other question or at least I thought I did. Here's my question to the admins. Is wp:OUTING by Cla68 going to be tolerated and even enabled by allowing him/her to keep leading back to a wp:SPI discussion which was done and is already closed? Why is Cla68 allowed to violate wp:OUTING while showing no remorse and only being defiant that he is allowed to behave in such a way? TallMagic (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

DigitalC thank you for making what I consider to be an on topic comment, in the editing diffs, Cla68 attempts to link me to a real name and to an external website. That is the definition of wp:OUTING, at least as I understand it. My further understanding is that such behavior is against Wikipedia policies and when people do it they are subject to an immediate block. TallMagic (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I didn't see any evidence in those diffs trying to link the account TallMagic to the "real name" account. Furthermore, I believe that if the "real name" user was truly concerned about their privacy, they wouldn't use their real name in the first place, they wouldn't continue to use a real name account, and they wouldn't have their real name attached to a website. DigitalC (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My patience with TallMagic is exhausted. While the SPI concluded that there wasn't enough disruption to warrant action at the time, TallMagic is violating Wikipedia policy by using two unacknowledged accounts. He has refused to either abandon the original account, or to openly link the two. He has no legitimate reason to maintain both accounts, and I believe at this point he insists on doing so to avoid scrutiny on his recent account while his undisclosed old account continues to communicate with other editors and participate on article talk pages, and has used both accounts on the same article (see the history of this article. I have lost faith that he has legitimate privacy concerns at this point, because he insists on drawing attention to the outing concerns in multiple places. Frankly, I can't see why he should be allowed to continue to deceive other editors and defy WP:SOCK policy. -- Atama頭 01:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Atama, please point at one edit where you believe I was trying to deceive other editors. How does your assertion mean that I'm avoiding scrutiny? Why does wp:SOCK#LEGITprivacy not apply? Why is not wanting to be threatened (or worse) by owners of diploma mills not a good reason to try to keep my account from being outed? TallMagic (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

For one thing, you cannot edit the same page with two accounts. Period. Secondly, you have yet to answer why the REAL NAME account is being used, such evasiveness is very troubling. Frankly, I don't believe you anymore. I think that your claims of privacy concerns themselves are a deception. If you really didn't want people to connect that account's name with a real life identity, you'd have retired it and essentially brushed it under the carpet. Using that account to participate in discussion on an article as recently as 3 weeks ago isn't keeping a low profile at all. The only explanation I can think of as to why you want to maintain two completely different, undisclosed, and active accounts is to avoid scrutiny per WP:ILLEGIT. Forgive me for having to speculate about your motives, but you force us to, because you won't explain them yourself. -- Atama頭 02:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

After the events of the last couple of days, I agree with Atama here. This seems quite easy to fix, TallMagic, pick an account and retire the other one. Scramble the password or whatever, but just get rid of it and don't edit with it again. Stick with one account, and that should solve this sock problem. As for the outing, if anything further occurs after you're back down to one account, contact an admin. Until then, let's just fix the big problem of two accounts. Dayewalker (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I rarely used the other account. I was interesting in trying to make the Derek Smart article a better article is the simple reason that I continued editing the talk page for that article. I did not edit it with my new account because there are people associated with the Derek Smart flame war that scrutinize editors of the Derek Smart article and I didn't want to bring attention to my TallMagic account from that bunch. I will retire my TallMagic account after this ANI. It is no longer usable thanks to Cla68 anyway. I will no longer edit Wikipedia except perhaps the rare addition to one talk page. Trying to get back to wp:OUTING. I found this interesting information on Cla68. It would appear that Cla68 failed an RfA because of some past history on wp:OUTING, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cla68. It appears to me that Cla68 has not learned the lesson that wp:OUTING Wikipedia editors is against policy and he/she is likely to do the same thing to others in the future that he's done to me. Please don't allow this kind of behavior to be condoned on Wikipedia. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a very unfortunate outcome and hope you reconsider as we need your expertise. Dougweller (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I do feel some sympathy for the additional load that will be placed on some Wikipedians because of my departure. Most I've probably never communicated with except perhaps through an edit comment or two. But for those that might be reading this please understand that I did appreciate each and every one of your edits. However, I think the overload will be short term. One of the wonderful things about Wikipedia is that there's many great editors that seem to fill a needed void when there is a need. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Atama's assertion that I'm an evil liar by saying it is important to try to avoid the real life wrath of people associated with diploma mills, I think the following forum should demonstrate that the danger is real. [49] TallMagic (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks to Cla68 for driving a knowledgeable and productive contributor away from Wikipedia by outing him. Folks who would follow in the footsteps of James Kirk and Ronald Pellar, and the perpetrators of the University Degree Program fraud will surely be gratified to know that Cla68 is working hard to make Wikipedia into a safe platform for them to promote their fraudulent operations. TallMagic's privacy was pretty thoroughly erased by this posting on the COI noticeboard, and the rest of the campaign against him was merely frosting on the outing cake that was already well baked. --Orlady (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with the spirit of your portions of your post, I don't see how debasing even more individuals can be helpful. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

When I posted that, I thought that the people I named were all convicted felons, but I have redacted the names (which may in any event be aliases) of the people who may not have actually been convicted of felonies. --Orlady (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have redacted every incident of the real name from this thread. I suggest that long-term contributors know better. While I am dissapointed that TM will not just retire the REAL NAME account, as that would solve all problems, I note that his accounts are in good standing and that he should not be outed just because someone dosen't like something he did. Hipocrite (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

TallMagic, we respect your right to privacy but don't take advantage of that by attempting to use accounts duplicitously. Cla68, your anti-COI efforts are noted but don't violate policy by harassing users. If we agree that nobody is perfect, is there any reason why we can't just hang this up with an agreement that the two of you won't keep badgering each other like this? It's getting old real fast. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter needed

An individual in Indonesia has been a problematic user who has been constantly vandalizing articles (primarily ones relating to the Digimon anime 2 3 4) since before July 2009. He has also recently begun vandalizing other television series' articles with similar content. The full list (as given to me by User:Nanami Kamimura in February with the new IPs added; in order of use) is as follows:

The following is his MO:

• The individual has access to multiple ISPs based in Jakarta
• The individual seems to believe that the Digimon anime are connected to the Resident Evil video game series (characters from RE are often put into the Digimon articles)
• The individual believes that various famous American actors were involved in the production of these series (claiming Mary Tyler Moore is the voice of Rita Repulsa or Carol Burnett is the voice of the Digimon Terriermon)
• The individual believes that Paramount, MGM, and CBS own the rights/produced these TV series
• Other companies are involved that have had nothing to do with production are inserted

Due to the insane amount of IP addresses that have been used by this individual and his more or less predictable nature, it would be beneficial to the project to create an edit filter to prevent this individual from putting his false information into these articles, as semiprotecting all of these pages is more harmful (as after a period of time he branched out from the four Digimon pages into other anime pages and into the Power Rangers pages). What myself and other editors in these topic areas need is someone with edit filter coding experience to pick out the patterns of edits and make a filter to prevent them entirely, because a year of this nonsense (and it appears that he was active for longer) is ridiculous.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that's an insane amount of IP's and semi-protection would be more detrimental to the articles then helpful.--SKATER ^Speak. 20:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested--Jac16888^Talk 20:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't really help because I do not know what to ask. That is why I am asking here in a wider audience to get assistance in picking a string or other things.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

And he's shown up today as 114.58.33.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can't identify the characteristics of his editing, I'm not sure how anyone else is supposed to be able to do it. If he's making a lot of different changes, it might be too big a job for a filter. Can you list what he actually does? Is it always the same? eg adding "Mary Tyler Moore" to articles in the category "Digimon" , or replacing "Digitv Corp" with "Paramount" would be detectable, and could be flagged, or blocked, but you need to pull the criteria out of the guy/gal/goon's edits.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of racism and general problematic editing

User:Irvine22 has a long record as a provocative editor and a block log to go with it. His habit is to make small but deliberatively provocative edits and then claim innocence. After a more or less inevitable block he then goes silent for a period and starts all over again. User:Elonka recently placed him under probation with a warning of a permanent block. This silenced him for a period but he has now returned.

His previous record was in Troubles related articles, generally taking a strong Unionist stand and making provocative changes such as listing Bobby Sands as a suicide. He latest fad is to find any Irish or Welsh person with an English birthplace and label them as “English” or equivalent. At one point this included a commander of the Provisional IRA! The shift from Irish to Welsh matters seems to have happened after the final warning from Elonka; moving to pastures new with new admins. A quick check of his edit history will show that hardly any of his edits survive scrutiny, but his enjoyment seems to come from provocative remarks and exchanges on the talk page.

He is fairly skilled at stopping just short of a level of provocation that would result in a report here or elsewhere. I have been on the verge of reporting him for deliberate attempts to provoke me by edits on the article about me (I make no secret of my identity) and by matched remarks on my talk page for which he was warned. Its part of his general habit of hitting BLP pages. While that can be lived with, he has now made direct accusations of racism against editors in good standing and to my mind this needs to be addressed.

The article in question Welsh People

The lede states “The Welsh people (Welsh: Cymry) are an ethnic group and nation associated with Wales and the Welsh language” Irvine22 has made the following attempts to change this

• Unnecessary and irrelevant addition of “There is no separate Welsh Citizenship”, although the article is not about any subject that relates to citizenship. As is normal with Irvine he reverted once but then backed off.
• Insertion in the lede of a statement that there are Welsh People of Pakistani origin. While this is true, there are also Welsh people of Polish, Irish, Argentinian, Chinese and many other origins none of which are listed so he was again reverted twice
• Unnecessary insertion that people who identify as welsh may draw on other cultural heritages, again reverted (this was my first involvement on this thread), on this occasion he gave up after one revert
• Removal of reference to nation and also citation from John Davis dismissed as “just one among many historians”). FYI Davis published probably the most respected academic histories of Wales and is a principle source on nearly all Welsh related articles. Again the normal pattern of a single revert then he backed off and moved on again
• In response to his questions on the talk page a range of editors tried to explain to him why his changes were unnecessary, he then proceeded to insert their explanations into the article here and here in the later case with a misleading edit summary.

The accusation of racism

In the discussion on the talk page a range of editors sought to explain the issue to Irvine22 who gathered no support for his changes. The other editors involved are all established editors with clean block histories and good content track records on welsh related articles. They include User:Ghmyrtle, User:Daicaregos, User:LindsayH and User:Pondle. The discussion was going the normal way it does with Irvine22, a series of arguments with an isolated individual going no where, until yesterday. The whole thread is here but we then get the statement out of the blue from Irvine22 that “the article at present is deeply racist”. An inspection of the thread will show that I made a series of attempts to get him to state that he was not making any accusation against any of the editors involved as that could be implied from the phrase. I also gave him a cooling off period in the hope that he would retract. Instead we got:

• He took a comment from another article talk page from User:Daicaregos out of all context (a rather dubious article on anglophobia), falsely claimed it had been made on the talk page of Welsh People and then made a direct comparison with the leader of the whites only party in the UK, the BNP along with the snide comment”Nick Griffin(a good Welsh name there, no?). This is a direct and unprincipled attack.
• I asked again if he was saying that editors were racist, in response he stated that three editors, myself, Lindsay and Daicaregos were removing his edits the effect of which was to make the article racist. We also had another false claim, with his suggest that the welshness of Shirley Bassy had been questioned; the only reference on this page was my statement that she was Welsh. He later dragged up a six month old exchange on a completely different page in which none of the editors of this page was involved.
• His final statement was to say that he did not judge the intent of the editors but the result which he viewed as “exclusionary and racist”

Given the history of this editor, especially his provocative and disruptive edits I think it is time for the community to do something. When I told him that I would make an ANI report if he did not withdraw the innuendo/insinuation against three named editors he started to make the separation of intent and result. This is a pretty typical bit of Irvine22 wikilawyering, trying to pretend he has not really said something.

I never like permanent bans (which he was warned would be the next step) and he is an editor who could make a valuable contribution. However despite many opportunities he has never done anything other than use the Wikipedia as a play area for the provocations that obviously give him satisfaction but consume huge amounts of time. If the decision were mine then at the minimum I would expect Irvine22 to make an unequivocal statement that he does not consider the editors racist (he declined over three invitations to do so). I do think its time either for an extended ban, or possible a topic ban from all articles to do with the constituent countries of the United Kingdom and BLPs associated with those areas? --Snowded ^TALK 08:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Support community ban I don't know the ins and outs of this but since Snowded's talk page is on my watchlist I've seen User:Irvine22's hounding of Snowded over the past couple of months. He seems like a nasty piece of work. --RA (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked Irvine22 indefinitely based on this and the long history of past behavioural issues. He clearly has no intention of ever reforming. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• support block. User seems to have been given sufficient opportunities to reform and hasn't.--Crossmr (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban. I think we have put up with Irvine's disruptive editing for far too long. He never had any intention of reforming. He has had plenty of opportunities to make constructive edits to the encyclopedia; instead he just wastes everybody's time and patience with his tedious, contentious editing coupled with snide, nasty little comments. Enough is enough!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban, I think Snowded's summary is very accurate. It's very rare that he steps over the line with one particularly obvious blockable edit, but the overall pattern of his behaviour over a really extended period is highly unhelpful and provocative. ~ mazca ^talk 13:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban, the editor-in-question has become a liability to the project. He/she refuses to reform. PS- Irvine's reaction to his block, confirms my observations. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban, this editor was given several chances on the basis that they are 'articulate', 'intelligent', 'misguided' and 'capable of reform' (don't think it ever quite got to 'misunderstood'). Multiple commitments to contribute constructively have evidently been a long term deception. RashersTierney (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban the diffs say it all. The rest per the above users. Outback the koala (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban, as per above. I have been, rather anonymously following Irvine’s disruptive and frankly provocative/racist edits. Games over boyo.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

More move warring at Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010

This time it involves Lotsofmagnets (talk · contribs), who is a reasonably established user. I have lost count of the number of times this user has moved the page today, and that's partly my fault as I made a mistake in trying to restore it to its current name on one of the moves. Nevertheless, there is an open page move discussion going on at present and such unilateral moves should be more than discouraged. If an editor is not willing to joing in the search for a consensus as to the correct titele for the article, and to respect the opinions of other editors, he or she should desist from making such changes or be forced to desist from editing Wikipedia. Physchim62 (talk) 16:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
Lotsofmagnets (talk · contribs) has been informed of this thread here. Physchim62 (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've move-protected it for a week. Hopefully the talk page discussions will reach a consensus during that time. --RL0919 (talk) 16:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Cheers! Physchim62 (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

please be aware also that consensus has been clearly reached and the only person who has been reverting the page is none other than the only person who opposes the change, who also displays a significant bias in the talk page. please read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Icelandic_debt_repayment_referendum,_2010#Name_of_the_article and see that consensus has been reached by an overwhelming majority --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 16:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There are actually more Oppose votes in the discussion than there are Supports - I suggest you read the entire discussion! Black Kite 17:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Titles with "Icesave" in them have singularly failed to gain consensus on the talk page, and their proponents are disrupting the discussion of alternatives. Physchim62 (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not trying to determine consensus or lack thereof right now. There is an open discussion for a requested move that has a few more days to go, assuming the usual seven-day discussion window. Hopefully an uninvolved admin can sort out if there a consensus then. Until then, no one benefits from having the page name bounce around like a ping-pong ball. Hence the protection. --RL0919 (talk) 17:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely. I would've protected it myself but couldn't, being involved in reverting the incorrect move. Incidentally, since the article is protected in the version it was before the RM started, wouldn't that count as protecting in the Right Version^TM? :) Black Kite 17:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

oh, i was under the impression that protecting the page title is no endorsement of the actual title. at least that´s what i read. silly me... --Lotsofmagnets (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Note the smiley face on BK's comment. But just to be clear, I looked and saw that the current page name is the same as what it was before the move dispute began, so I protected it as-is. Otherwise I would have changed it back to the last stable name. I have no opinion on what the "right" name is. --RL0919 (talk) 18:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Doesn't really matter, as the discussion is about changing the title, not about keeping the current title. Until there is consensus on a new title, the current title will stay: that is an incentive for all involved editors to find a consensus. Physchim62 (talk) 18:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not just call it "Iceland Referundum 2010" and be done with it? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Or maybe Iceland Referendum 2010. – ukexpat (talk) 20:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That would be even better. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Question on userpage

bickering, edit-warring IP addresses that need to grow up
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Could we protect User: Abby_94's protection page or something? 142.163.148.8 keeps reverting, and in a past argument when I edited from accounts I had I was claimed to be the stalker and he was basically your king(to some users anyway, when he had the account Blackmagic1234). I bet my request will be turned down, I will be blocked, and his side will be taken, I don't care. I didn't even edit any of his articles when I had that account, yet he found out my username. 142.177.43.154 (talk) 17:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC) Already been done. SGGH ping! 18:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC) 17:38, 8 April 2010 (hist | diff) User:Abby 94 ‎ (Undid revision 354754567 by 142.163.148.8 (talk)Since when do you own this page Sean?) --> Well since that day you decided to vandalize my User page as User:Blackmagic2604 and blame it on someone else. Rebekah you are so predictable 142.163.148.8 (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Harassment of User:Dougweller on Talk:Christopher Columbus

Currently a there is significant amount of harassment of User:Dougweller occurring on Talk:Christopher Columbus; likely sockpupetry and vandalism/disruptive-editing-only accounts. Regards, ClovisPt (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I can't block of course, but I have raised WP:Sockpuppet investigations#Calgo but that was after only two edits by this editor who has adopted a name similar to mine, he's obviously decided it was too much fun to stop. Dougweller (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked User talk:Dougswelts.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, so offending accounts include at least User:82.67.217.237 and User:Dougswelts, and possibly User:Calgo. Any others? ClovisPt (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

When I checked the edit history of the IP, it hadn't edited since Tuesday, so I didn't block it. It has now made 3 personal attacks against doug, so I blocked it. The Calgo account hasn't edited for 2 weeks, so while it may be related, until it is definitively tied to the other two accounts or becomes active again, I'm not going to block it.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 19:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Good 'nuff. Cheers, ClovisPt (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: The IP block was for 24 hours, the Dougwelts was indef blocked. We may have to escalate the block time for the IP, but I didn't want to indef a clean IP even though it looks like it is a set one.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 21:05, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

CU confirms that the IP and Dougwselts are the inactive User:Calgo, should something be done about Calgo? I've tagged Dougswelts and the IP appropriately as they were already blocked. Thanks all. Dougweller (talk) 11:21, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Personally I would indefblock Calgo, at least until he reappears and someone can have a serious talk to him about socking. Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked Calgo indefinitely. Blueboy96 12:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Grundle2600

Resolved

 – IP blocked, not really important who was behind the IP. - TexasAndroid (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

IP 71.182.219.167 is complaining to Jimbo about Gundle2600 being blocked. I am inclined to think it is Grundle2600 per WP:DUCK avoiding his block and placing an Appeal to Jimbo. Please take appropriate action Weaponbb7 (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

In the mean time I've told the IP that its deletion review, not Jimbotalk, that he wants to try. SGGH ^ping! 20:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

? Why Deletion Review for a complaint about a block? Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC) <Emily Latella>Never mind.</Emily Latella> Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Considering that we have one confirmed Joe Job already documented I'm far less certain that this is Grundle2600. If this IP needs to be dealt with, fine, but I'd like a little more then calling this WP:DUCK before we call them the same person.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

His only other edit than the appeal to jimbo is Restoring Grundles user page thats enough for me personally but i see what you mean if there is spoofing going on Weaponbb7 (talk) 20:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I find the fact that's "enough for you personally" troubling.--Cube lurker (talk) 20:11, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I geuss thats why i am not an admin ;) and frankly me jumping the gun is why i probably shouldn't beWeaponbb7 (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• One should keep in mind #Joe job, this could be round 2. –xeno^talk 20:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't fit Grundle's style. It's either a follower, someone trying to make sure he'll never get unblocked or someone trying to smear his name. My bet is on option 1 or 3. But Grundle - nope, not him. Still causing disruption though. Ravensfire (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's one, it could be fellow banned user User:ChildofMidnight, who was well known for being Grundle2600's staunchest defender before he was banned a few months ago... --Jayron32 20:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, I blocked the IP address. Logging out to disguise your Wikipedia identity for this purpose is expressly not allowed per WP:SOCK. Hiding your identity to defend a banned user is not allowed by several of the "Inappropriate uses of alternate accounts" section, both in letter and in spirit. --Jayron32 20:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Is there enough to go by here to open an SPI and connect this IP to either Grundle or (more likely, IMO) CoM? Tarc (talk) 20:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that SPIs are generally rejected for duck blocks. It doesn't particularly matter who is behind the curtain. –xeno^talk 21:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll happily chalk the mystery IP down to "unidentified troll" - I'd personally bet against it being Grundle or CoM, it doesn't strike me as either of their styles. We have more than one recidivist troll that could be stirring this up. It's blocked, job done. ~ mazca ^talk 21:03, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with xeno here. We don't have any hard evidence to connect this to a specific account, the fact that this is obviously someone who has an account or is an otherwise well experienced Wikipedia editor, who is using this specific IP address to hide their identity to comment on matters of policy (in this case, the banning of Grundle2600) is the compelling reason for the block. We don't have to actually know who this is to know that it's someone who should know better which is enough to sustain the block. If they reveal their actual main account, I would happily unblock. Its the attempt to hide their identity for this purpose that's the problem. --Jayron32 21:08, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The IP geolocates to Pennsylvania, which Grundle claims as his home state. But that still doesn't prove anything. It could be the same impostor who tried to get Axmann8 in further trouble last summer... and/or who tried to get Grundle in further trouble earlier this week. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe the "King Punisher" account and a couple others were identified as Pickbothmanlol socks in the previous discussion. This kind of behavior is classic PMBlol. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Divisive userpage?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Ok Xeno, next step?

---

Wrong venue. Please move to WP:MFD - Not really an ANI issue; proper venue would be MFD if concerns linger. –xeno^talk 21:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Is the userbox at the bottom of User:Nableezy, or the page itself, divisive at all? The page isn't there to help other editors at the project, which is really what userpages are for - take mine for example. No soapboxing, just who I work for and a picture of me looking rather attractive. I'm not angry, nor do I find the page insulting, but some users might, and the box is not really necessary. I came across it when responding to the comments left on Talk:1950–1951 Baghdad bombings. Opinions? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:17, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I knew that name looked familiar-- saw that yesterday. I don't think it is "divisive." I wonder how others feel about the soapboxing. It did help me understand this user better. Dlohcierekim 21:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You really think supporting resistance against occupation and aggression (which is a war crime) is objectionable? I would think supporting war crimes would be objectionable. Also, could somebody explain to Chase me ladies what the term "conflict of interest" means? He appears to think that if somebody has an opinion on a topic that they then have a COI and has been slapping tags on articles for this reason. nableezy - 21:23, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's just not the purpose of Wikipedia. Dlohcierekim 21:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I know that. Which is why I have never placed that userbox in an article. I have exactly 1 userbox on my userpage. A huge number of other users have many more that display their personal political beliefs. My one is a problem why? nableezy - 21:27, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Because you are indicating your support for terrorist attacks against innocent civilians (ie: Hizbullah) through the link in the user box, even though you were specifically told that you are not allowed to do so. Your link to that decision is a clever but frankly immature way to get around the rules. And it is clearly offensive to many users who understand the context of the discussion. Note: Nableezy is not the only user with this box on his page. Breein1007 (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Please could you provide a link to this being told. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Who told me not to? And where does it say Hezbollah? And what you think are "terrorist attacks" differs from what I think. But I prefer not to elaborate on that. The userbox says that I recognize that all groups and states have the right to resist occupation and aggression. How is that objectionable? nableezy - 21:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is linked in the user box here. I know it wasn't about your exact userbox. Yours was created in order to refrain from specifically referencing Hizbullah, was it not? Why is it yellow? Pretty colour? Breein1007 (talk) 21:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

A few years ago we discussed banning non-expertise related userboxes, IIRC, as they were not supposed to help making the encyclopaedia - but decided not to. Personally, I prefer to have information about potential biases of contributors, and have always expressed mine on my user page - for the simple reason that I think we will end up with a better, more NPOV, encyclopaedia if these prejudices are public. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Stephen: Actually that is discussed over and over. The most recent I saw was on a user talk page, and quite recent.

Breein, I have to agree with Stephen: if one has an opinion that is strong, it will likely appear in one's writing, however neutral one strives to be. The wikilink is to a discussion which is archived, and that seems quite appropriate. The editor clearly expresses dubiety, makes it knowm the editor has strong opinions on the matter, and accepts but objects to the restrictions.- Sinneed 21:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the user's stated position, how likely is it that he can edit politically-oriented articles with a neutral point of view? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It seems to me that it would be possible, but very difficult.- Sinneed 21:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That's why we have lots of editors, and WP:NPOV and WP:V to adjudicate. No individual is expected to be without bias on all subjects. Stephen B Streater (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Voila. My point. Possible, but very difficult.- Sinneed 21:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Chase: The userbox itself seems appropriate. The purpose of user pages is covered at Wikipedia:User pages, and the user box seems to fit in "...about the work that you are doing on articles in Wikipedia, and also a way of helping other editors to interact with and understand those with whom they are working" there.- Sinneed 21:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Woudln't one saying "I am interested in X/Y side of conflict A/B/C" be slightly better? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It says that all groups have the right to resist against occupation and aggression. Not one side or the other. Israel has the right to resist against aggression, so do Palestine, Lebanon and China. nableezy - 21:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Clearly divisive and violates WP:SOAP. It needs to be removed immediately Dreadstar ☥ 21:47, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

How so and why? nableezy - 21:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

We have editors who work in the Israel–Palestine area who declare themselves to be Zionists or anti-Zionists, state they favor or oppose the "two-state solution", even those who say Jordan is the Palestinian state (denying Palestinian claims to any land illegally occupied by Israel). Why would we assume (in bad faith) an editor with this particular userbox is unable to edit with NPOV in mind, and yet assume all the other combatants who have declared their views—or simply made them clear through their edits—are neutral? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is an ANI issue, since it's not an actual WP:userbox, and doesn't necessarily fall under WP:MFD. It's divisive and should be removed. Dreadstar ☥ 22:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Concur with Dreadstar in that we need to thresh this out here. I have engaged Nableezy in discussion here. Dlohcierekim 22:57, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Clarification? The userbox or the page content? Dlohcierekim 22:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There'e no "userbox", it's just a comment on the user's page. It looks like consensus so far is removal of the divisive comment. Dreadstar ☥ 23:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

<ec>Please excuse my confusion. The removal of the !userbox/divisive comment seems reasonable to me. Dlohcierekim 23:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

As Xeno has said above, MfD is the best venue for this. We aren't going to get a representative consensus on a drama page. Black Kite 23:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What "page" are we MFD'ing, Kite? The entire userpage or just the pesudo-userbox? Dreadstar ☥ 23:21, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Just the userbox. There'll be a comment below when I can stop edit-conflicting. Black Kite 23:25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you're thinking of [this], Kiteboy? Dreadstar ☥ 23:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

"Kiteboy"?? Nice. I have no idea what you are talking about with the link either. Do explain. Black Kite 23:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I thought you were a boy, no offense intended "Black Kite'.. :) Um, yeeah, WP:MFD applies to...what? perhaps I'm mistaken and it just refers to user comments...is that what you think "Black Kite", WP:MFD is for user comments or perhaps other other user comments? Please clarify. Dreadstar ☥ 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I've done that. If there is a consensus that a userpage comment violates WP:USER then it can be deleted. My point was that I don't think this is obvious enough to do that, and hence it should be taken to a venue where it can be discussed. The obvious venue is MFD. Black Kite 23:52, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

You got one of those, Dreddy? Unomi (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I got lots of things "Unomi", how many would you like? Dreadstar ☥ 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

No, the question is not the "userbox". The question is the content within. And I think we'll get more visibility and be better able to fully air the matter here. Dlohcierekim 23:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Unconvinced. There's nothing that I can see in the content that breaks any policy here because it's so general and names no targets or situations. Although clearly such content may cause problems with collegial editing here when editors who the user is in conflict with take such content to mean what they believe it to mean - it's fairly clear what it's referring to. There's nothing wrong with the rest of the userpage at all. Black Kite 23:28, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on the last few edits[50] [51][52][53][54] of Dreadstar it seems clear that he is getting too emotionally invested in all of this. Unomi (talk) 23:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

@Dreadstar: MFD is not just for userbox: it can focus on a portion of a page and is the appropriate venue for this. –xeno^talk 23:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I've tried to engage Dreadstar on his talkpage; I don't think I got very far. It may well be best for someone uninvolved to archive this, to be honest. Black Kite 23:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Gosh, I said Kiteboy was sweet..what more can anyone ask for? The comment that started this whole thread is divisive and shourld be removed, if anyone agrees (and I think they do), that the "userbox" on the user's page should be removed and we should make it happen. Period. And Xeno...we can't make this happen here? We have to MFD or XFD or ARBCOM? What? Dreadstar ☥ 00:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think the userbox is fine per the usual argument for keeping something on your user page that others dont agree with, if your offended, don't bloody go and look at their page. Simple. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 00:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

ANI is not well-suited for this. –xeno^talk 00:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently not, now is it? Guess we'll leave divisive hate-speech to other, "more appropriate" venues. Great idea Xeno. I look forward to how you move this issue forward. Dreadstar ☥ 00:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Renejs and disruptive editting

An editor using the handle Renejs has been aggressively trying to force fringe material into the Nazareth article for literally years. I strongly suspect that Renejs is actually René Salm, a crank author who has been advocating this thesis off-Wiki for a long time. He's recently reverted material on the Nazareth page twice in 24 hours. While not technically a 3RR violation, given Renejs' history of disruptive editting, the fact that his is a WP:SPA, his clear status as a POV warrior, and the fringiness of his edits, could someone please do something about this? Eugene (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(Informed editor) Dlohcierekim 21

25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, Flavius Julius. I would help here, but it's a bit too religious of a subject and I'm not very good at picking out good sources on that topic. That said, Renej does look like he needs a talking to or the like. Has someone mentioned consensus to him? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Really, that's it? No one else is going to say anything? Eugene (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Bringing content disputes onto ANI isn't going to get you much of anywhere, you might as well go fishing in the Bonneville Salt Flats. Your best bet is dispute resolution. He's not spamming, vandalizing, or harassing anyone is he? -- Atama頭 20:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No, he's not doing any of those things; he's a single purpose account engaging in a slow-motion edit war who violates WP:WEASEL and WP:CLAIM in an obviously POV way. Eugene (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There is definitely an edit war brewing on the Nazareth article. So far, there have been several of us that have reverted his edits for POV reasons. So, it seems to me that he is not abiding by a clear consensus. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

May I say a word here in my defense? If anything, I am ALWAYS conscious of the underlying facts, namely, that all of my edits regarding this contentious issue of Nazareth are rigorously referenced. And I hope everyone will hold me to that requirement. I don't understand how Ari89 and now others can remove well-referenced and significant material wholesale with apparent impunity, claiming simply that it is "fringe." At this point, I don't think it's a question of "fringe" or anyone's agenda. Whatever side we're on here, we have to make sure that the facts are correct and properly supportable. I start to wonder when statements by Bultmann, Cullmann and such top scholars of the past are discarded as "fringe." The whole Nazareth issue is now in a state of flux- - there are new digs and new publications. IMO, the first requirement is to get the facts right, and not to edit out statements that we may not agree with or which do not suit our "agenda." Several editors of late have taken to deleting whole sections ("The skeptical position"), abridging paragraphs and moving material about, all in a very imprecise, agressive, and even 'rude' way- - please look at the edit history, with comments such as "Zindler's goof-ball book" (he didn't even write the book), "fringe material," "mainstream response". . . Somehow, *I* get into trouble for reverting, whereas everyone else seems to be able to revert my material with impunity.Renejs (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Langbar International

Langbar International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a highly negative article on a company that is, by all appearances, fraudulent. There is a complaint from one Mariusz Rybak about this article and the edits of Nigelpwsmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is Nigel Smith of the Langbar Action Group, http://www.langbaractiongroup.com - many of the links in the article are to material on this website, I have not reviewed it for copyright. This needs urgent and careful review, please. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I spent about 10 minutes on this, spot checking a few of the references and looking at other press coverage from a news database. This obviously falls short of being a careful review, but it's a start. Langbar Action Group claims to be an investor group trying to recover assets scammed by Langbar International, so Nigel Smith has an obvious COI. The links to his website appear to be Regulatory News Service releases, in many cases from Langmar International itself. The article is negative but press coverage of the company is also negative. There is a series of articles in April 2008 by James Bagnall in the Ottawa Citizen about Langmar's collapse. The parts I read are partly sympathetic to Mariusz Rybak, but paint him as a con artist (my interpretation). There is a ton of press coverage about this company and its general slant is consistent with the article, though I haven't checked every detail. The only thing I can think of to suggest is have a discussion about COI with Nigel Smith. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I see you have blanked most of the article as a copyvio, but it's possible Smith is the original author (obviously it would be up to him to verify that). 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice also, there is a banner on the talk page saying OTRS received copyright clearance, ticket number 2007xxxxx. A lot of the article was written in 2007. I don't know if later material needed clearance, was cleared on the same ticket, or what. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's more that the material was sourced to copies of documents on the action group website with no evidence that the action group was rights owner - so even if it were a reliable source (which it isn't) we could not cite that content from that source anyway. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

AskPaulinaGirls

Resolved

 – spammers blocked. APG protected Dlohcierekim 23:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a group of accounts hanging around APG and a few other places, advertising about this "AskPaulinaGirls" spam. Could an admin look into this? Thanks. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 23:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

IP 91.135.102.195

This IP has went around adding Israeli POV category's to several areas in the occupied territories, not only that, check out this comment: "Jews lived in the Middle East long before Arabs went out of the desert in Arabia and started subjugating and oppressing people all around the world. These Jews were there before Islam, the most heinous and cruel religion the world has ever seen, was invented by a rapist nomad named Mohammad. And these Jews ate the food long before some wikipedian nobody will say that they lack true history and connection to the region." --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I warned them for vandalism. They already stopped. Dlohcierekim 01:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

blocked user abusing talk page

The Pank claw Tyrant (talk · contribs) (indef blocked sock) is abusing his talk page, copying content from other pages (including at least one of the admins who blocked him). Can the talk page be protected, or his ability to abuse it revoked? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Talkpage reverted, talkpage editing privileges revoked. Acroterion _(talk) 04:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Another blocked user abusing talk page

Resolved

Riptor88 (talk · contribs) is another indef blocked sockpuppet (same puppet master as the above notice). Same issue here, abusing talk page, posting harassments directed at other users and copying talk/user page content of other users (and changing/rewording that content).

Can the talk page be protected, or his ability to abuse it revoked? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by User:Acroterion. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 04:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he's blocked ... but he still has access to edit his own talk page, and he's abusing that access. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk page access revoked. Tim Song (talk) 05:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

IP: 71.111.129.147

IP user 71.111.129.147 has made persistent unconstructive edits to AK-74, Makarov PM, and other articles. Specifically, the users lists in those articles. He is adding text along with a citation that does NOT support his text, and removing information that IS supported by the same text. I added the information to the article to begin with, using the same book he is trying to pass as a citation, and the book does not agree with any of his edits. He has been warned by myself in [edit summarys] and on [his talk page]. He has not made any attempt to explain his behavior either in edit summarys or at his talk page. ROG5728 (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

He has now moved on to Type 56 assault rifle, where he is attaching another citation (another book that I own and cited when I first added the section) to his entries. As before, the text quality in his edits is extremely poor, and the additions are not supported by the citation. ROG5728 (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparent non-native English speaker (maybe Russian). He does seem to at least be making an effort to contribute worthwhile stuff. Could he have a different edition of the book? Any Russian speakers around who can try talking to him? 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That is unlikely, and even if he did somehow have different editions of the books (two different gun books were used so far, and both of them contradict him completely in my copies) that would not adequately explain his behavior. Most likely he is editing based on original research and mixing the citations in with his edits (either by mistake, or intentionally to try to give his edits authenticity), and then removing the text that is actually supported by the citations because it does not match his personal beliefs on the subject. Regardless of his intention, his edits on all of the articles are extremely poor quality and he is persistently reinstating them without any explanation. ROG5728 (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Judy Wood Wikipedia Page Unfairly Deleted Without Valid Reason

No adminstrator intervention is needed. Article is at deletion review, the proper forum. Please stop posting this everywhere...
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
APPEAL OF DELETION 04/09/2010 Page: 'Judy Wood' - Notable Person, No Copyright Violations Dear Wikipedia, I am a member, and I have donoted $20 to your organization. I would like to donate more in the future, but I am just a broke college student, so I cannot afford more at the moment. My name is Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez, and my username is Pookzta. Recently, I have created a page titled Judy Wood, after the very notable 9/11 researcher known as Dr. Judy Wood (www.drjudywood.com). I am in close contact with Dr. Wood, and have gotten permission from her to create the article. I have also used many references in the article, to prove that the claims in the wikipedia page are true. However, some people do not like the research of Dr. Judy Wood being discussed on the internet, even though she has her own website and the information is wide-spread. These people are people we refer to as "trolls", because they purposely try to suppress the research that Dr. Wood has done, by slandering her, criticizing her, and trying to delete or add false information to any Wikipedia pages or Forum posts created about her. The page I recently created can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judy_Wood Someone is trying to delete the page by complaining that it does not contain credible sources / references, and that I do not have permission to user her pictures. I can assure you I do have permission to use her pictures, because she has given that permission to me, and she should be sending you all an email soon to let you know that I do in fact have permission to post this information and these pictures about her. Also, the persons trying to get the page about her taken down, are also claiming that the sources are not credible. The sources are credible, and I encourage you to verify them yourself if you are concerned about this. I will add more references as I find them, but there are at least 4 or 5 so far. Please be aware that Dr. Judy Wood's research is extremely important, and that is why there are many paid people all over the internet that are threatening her and trying to discredit her work. She has received many threats due to the importance of her research, and one of her students was murdered in 2006 (Michael Zebuhr), which was followed by a threat directed towards her stating that she "could be next". Please do not allow people to soil the spirit of Wikipedia, because the article I have created about her is not only important, but it meets all of the guidelines that I read before I created the page. Is there anyway I can report users that make false claims about the page? For example, if someone claims the references are not legitimate even though they are, can I report them for lying? Thanks for your time and help. Also... Considering Dr. Wood is the ONLY 9/11 Researcher ever to file her evidence in a court of law, and considering that one of her court cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court in October 2009, she is MORE notable than many 9/11 researchers that have their own pages, yet only hers seems to be deleted. When I try to input her name into the 9/11 Truth Movement wikipedia page, someone keeps deleting her name and any links to her research or court cases! This is UNFAIR, and this is not what Wikipedia is all about. Censorship and Unfairness and NOT what Wikipedia is about. I am also NOT in Copyright violation, because her information and phtos are FAIR USE and are posted Publicly, but in addition to that, she has also given me permission personally, and will be emailing the Wikipedia Permission email to alert them to this within 48 hours. I also have donated to Wikipedia and plan on donating a lot more. Sorry for forgetting my signature, I am new here. In addition, 3 of the 5 references used are from EXTERNAL SOURCES. 1 is from a government website, and 2 are from Academic Universities. The only 2 sources used from her website are links to the legal documents she has scanned in. Please help Wikipedia, people are trying to censor Dr. Wood, and administrators have deleted the Wikipedia page that I created! This is unfair! Thanks for your time and help, Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez M1 Medical Student B.S. Biology / Neurobiology Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez 08:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Looks like the topic needs salted. Niteshift36 (talk) 08:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Donations can't buy you articles, sorry. It's nice to see that the renowned 9/11 researcher Dr. Judy Wood works so closely with a broke college student though.--Atlan (talk) 09:01, 9 April 2010 (UTC) This user has been told in a number of places, to take this matter to deletion review. This incident should be closed here as forum shopping and he should take this matter to deletion review. --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Gods preserve us from indignant truthers. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Abraham, nobody is "trying to censor" her. She just isn't notable. (It's ok, lots of people aren't notable.) If you think that is "censorship", then I'd suggest that you need to look the word up. She is free to publish her rantings jokes "theories" all over the place, but until she is notable, she doesn't get a wikipedia article. Niteshift36 (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC) If she's not notable she's not notable, and won't have her own entry. You could try using dispute resolution at the 9/11 truth page about whatever additions you were trying to make there. Rd232 talk 09:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Someone who spells it "scortched" needs to get a better proofreader. Not to judge Judy, but... I think she should refocus on something more viable, such as perpetual motion. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 12:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC) Response: someone is indeed trying to censor her, because they won't even allow her information to appear on the 9/11 Truth Movement page '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk) 9/11 Truth Movement & Dr. Judy Wood Seeing as Dr. Judy Wood is the only person to have filed her evidence with the courts in pursuit of truth and justice, and also considering that one of her court cases made it all the way to the Supreme Court, I think it is fairly obvious that the following information needs to be included in the 9/11 Truth Movement Wikipedia Page: 1. I think that Dr. Judy Wood's Journal of 9/11 Research & 9/11 Issues needs to be included in the external links section alongside the other Journals of 9/11 Research. 2. I also think that her name needs to be included in the Adherents of the 9/11 Truth Movement, especially considering she is the only person to actually take legal action, in addition to scientific research, in pursuit of 9/11 truth. 3. I also think that her legal efforts, especially the Supreme Court case, needs to be included in the History of the 9/11 Truth Movement, as it was the only court-case ever filed in pursuit of 9/11 Truth, and it made it all the way to the Supreme Court. In 2007, Dr. Judy Wood filed several legal cases against the National Institute of Standards & Technology's (NIST) contractors for science fraud, and legal requests that NIST’s fraudulent data gets reexamined. [[55]] The filings in these legal cases included Requests For Corrections (RFC) based on the Data Quality Act [[56]], and Qui Tam whistle-blower cases. [[57]] Dr. Wood is the only 9/11 researcher who has submitted evidence to the courts in pursuit of the truth. These are obviously supposed to be on this Wikipedia page, so I truly question the motives of those who are deleting this information. Her effort speaks for itself, and this information needs to be included in the 9/11 Truth Movement Wikipedia page for the sake of honesty and accuracy. Please help. Thank you, -Abe '''Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez''' (talk)

You need really to stop spamming here, there and everywhere with this - let the Deletion review run it's course. Your actions are being disruptive. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Articulationagency

Articulationagency (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - should I block this as a role account or as a spammer? Guy (Help!) 08:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not both? --Cameron Scott (talk) 08:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

User:82.109.59.130

This user has been editing Peter Kenyon quite regularly in recent weeks, adding claims that the transfer deals that Chelsea and Kenyon have been involved in are "dodgy" or "contentious". Obviously, without a source, this is a violation of WP:BLP, and I informed the user of this on their talk page three days ago. However, the user returned today with a slightly differently worded version of their libel. I think they need to be blocked for a short time, but since they edit so sporadically anyway, anything less than a week would be pointless. Ideas? – PeeJay 10:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• The thing is, that it isn't actually difficult to source the statement that Kenyon has been involved in some controversial transfer dealing; after all he was central to both the Ashley Cole and Kakuta deals [58] [59] both of which led to Chelsea being fined or sanctioned by the footballing authorities; indeed the Cole incident is already sourced in the article. The only question is really whether it is WP:UNDUE to have such a sentence in the lead paragraph. Black Kite 10:31, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

legal threat from Raymond Francis

Resolved

From Raymond Francis (talk · contribs) a direct legal threat [60]. Please attend to it. --Triwbe (talk) 12:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Attended to. Blocked and article in question deleted. ⇦REDVERS⇨ Say NO to Commons bullying 13:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

And I made a major cockup and managed to block the complainant. Maybe 3 hours of sleep last night is affecting me, many apologies. I undid it within 2 minutes with an edit summary explaining it was the wrong editor, but I feel really bad about this. Dougweller (talk) 13:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

And the Autoblock on my IP address also please !!!! --Triwbe (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Think I got it just now. Syrthiss (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, thanks and no big deal Dougweller |-) --Triwbe (talk) 13:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Bogonvermillion - indef block review

I have indef blocked User:Bogonvermillion after first handing out a 3-hour block for their OR edits to Lysergic acid diethylamide ('LSD'; example of edits). The editor inserted parts of original research, and User:Viriditas beat me a couple of time to reverting this editor. Viriditas warned the editor a couple of times, in the last warning mentioning a block. The editor did no attempt to discuss until then.

After the block, the editor left this sum of diffs on their talkpage, directly addressed at Viriditas, which prompted me to make the block an indef block.

The editor mentions in the mentioned sum of diffs "I am not new to wikipedia, I have edited wiki for years. I am more than familiar with the process of editing wiki, ...". Anyone recognise this editor? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

After continued trolling, I now also revoked the right to edit their own talkpage. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, yes your block was sound. Doesn't change the fact that you are totally up yourself. Crafty (talk) 14:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Hence me bringing it here. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Touche, Crafty (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Bogonvermillion also refers to themselves as "we", so there may be more than a single editor behind it.--Atlan (talk) 14:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

ChrisP2K5

This user has been engaging in long-term trolling and edit warring on the Kasumi Ninja page.

On December 5, 2009 I opened a topic on Talk: Kasumi Ninja suggesting that comments from a certain source should be removed since they were obviously not made in earnest(said source is an online comedy show) and requesting opinions. There were no responses, so on December 7 I went ahead and deleted the comments: [61]

ChrisP2K5 promptly reverted my edit, with no justification: [62] I restored the edit and directed him to the discussion page: [63] He again reverted my edit without justification, claiming that he didn't need rationale for the revert since my reasoning was "flawed": [64]

At the same time, he began at last responding to my post on Talk: Kasumi Ninja, but I use "responding" in the loosest sense of the word, since he never addressed or even alluded to the reason for my edit. Instead, he claimed I was using rationale that doesn't even remotely resemble any of my actual statements, accused me of being in violation of Wikipedia rules that he made up(some of which are directly contrary to actual Wikipedia rules), launched personal attacks, and responded to attempts to discuss the matter rationally by calling me "a sore loser". His trolling posts continued even after I had explicitly stated that I had no intention of wasting my time with the matter any further.

On March 18, another editor, 24.60.220.148 voiced his agreement with the edit on the discussion page and restored the edit: [65]

On March 29, ChrisP2K5 not only defied the majority consensus by reverting the edit again([66]), he dropped another trolling post on the discussion page and upped the ante by threatening 24.60.220.148 on his talk page, claiming to have the authority to ban WP editors at his sole discretion. 24.60.220.148 has since restored the edit and informed ChrisP2K5 that he is violating WP rules, but I don't expect that to stop him.

What really bothers me is that a quick look at ChrisP2K5's talk page and contribution lists reveals that this is almost routine behavior for him: make an edit that falls just short of vandalism, wait for someone to oppose it, and then try to engage whoever does in a flame war. If I understand what's written on his talk page, he's actually been warned by administrators in the past, yet no action has been taken to prevent his harassing other editors.

I will notify ChrisP2K5 and 24.60.220.148 immediately after posting this. However, I ask to be excused from monitoring this page, as I can't guarantee that I will remain civil if I am forced to interact further with ChrisP2K5. Lies and personal attacks immediately make my blood boil, and since that is invariably all that ChrisP2K5's posts consist of... you can guess where that would lead. If it is necessary for me to comment further on this matter, please notify me via my talk page. It might be a good idea to monitor my talk page, too, as I would hardly be surprised if ChrisP2K5 were to send threatening notes to me there.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

--I refuse to partake in this. The user in question is misconstruing my words, as he has done before. Please do not waste the Wiki's time in dealing with this and remove it from the page. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

More disruption from User:Icelandic Viking POWER

Yet again, Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is disrupting discussion of a requested move at Talk:Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010: this time s/he is pretending to vote for other editors on the basis of their previous comments on that page [67][68][69]. A proposal for a one month topic ban was made just three days ago by JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (Guy), but unfortunately has not been acted on. This is a clear single-purpose account, and should be both banned and blocked for its continued disruptive activity, IMHO. Physchim62 (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been notified of this thread. Physchim62 (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Only disruption I see is from Phsychim62 who reverted my edits without any good reason. He claims that I am trying to "Vote for others" while I am only citing facts from the talkpage history clearly viewable by anyone that wants to see them.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• I am blocking Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours for disruption and incivility (e.g. [70], which is not vandalism). This is a single-purpose or agenda account and I'm getting tired of it. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban

I propose that Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be topic banned from articles pertaining to Icelandic debt repayment referendum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Icesave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) generally, for six months. It's that or an indefinite block as a pointlessly disruptive agenda account, I reckon. Hopefully if we can persuade him to do something where he does not spend his entire time in a state of righteous apoplexy he might come to realise what he's doing wrong, but I am really on the verge of not caring. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:Articles for deletion/Adam Kontras (2nd nomination)

On WP:Articles for deletion/Adam Kontras (2nd nomination), I see possible violations of WP:SPA, WP:SOCK, WP:MEAT, WP:NPA, and WP:THREAT^[71]. I'm not sure if this is the place to post this, but could someone please take a closer look at that discussion? — Rankiri (talk) 15:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the AFD for its duration due to excessive off-wiki canvassing on both sides. –MuZemike 18:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Eudemis, personal attacks, improper canvassing and edit warring

I have been dealing with this editor for the past few days and his behavior has continually been an issue. It has now crossed into being disruptive. He was warned twice about violating 3RR [72] [73] and finally was reported for potentially violating it in spirit by waiting just outside the 24 hour mark to make the 4th revert here although nothing has come of the report at WP:AN3. Russell Crowe is article that is a frequent target of vandalism and this editor repeatedly accused me of ownership here based on the number of edits (mostly vandalism and other inappropriate edits) I have made to the page and repeated it again here and went to the trouble of posting how many edits I have made to the page here, repeatedly trying to run me off the page while responding to talk discussion. At one point he accused me of "tenacious" editing here. He continued to post the name of a non-notable individual to the article and tried to argue that I didn't know policy regarding this when I cited WP:BLPNAME. I filed a request at WP:BLP/N following that and notified him that if he did not desist from personally attacking me, I would file a report here. A request for comments was started on Talk:Russell Crowe to garner opinions on the issue. This editor began attacking responders to that RfC, including this one where he attacked Dayewalker because I thanked her on her talk page for commenting and continued to disparage her for having edited in common with me on articles in the past and indicated familiarity with me and came back to the topic again here, calling out about a supposed "hypocrisy of that statement from someone here because she knows you and fails disclose the connection", although I was unaware that that the fact that I am familiar with an editor because we edit in common was an issue or that it necessitated disclosure. In the same post he attacks Victor9876 because he responded and he knows me, once more announcing how many times in the past almost 4 years he has posted to my talk page, and goes on to disparage Xleterate for having created an article on Eve van Grafhorst and casts disparging remarks about that editor because he created that article which "is about a child banned from school for being hiv positive and you (meaning me) are a principal editor for Ryan White, a child banned from school for being hiv positive", as if that has anything at all to do with the subject at hand. In fact, I did not know Xleterate prior to this and you will not find cross posting of talk page comments or even much of any cross-editing. This entire post by Xleterate is an ad hominem attack on any editors he can manage to weave into his bad faith attacks on the Crowe talk page. This last post is absolutely the last straw of tolerance for a bad faith editor and attacks on multiple editors and it must stop. In fact, nearly every statement the editor has posted to Talk:Russell Crowe has launched an attack against one editor or another. Well, the chance of XLeterate showing up at the Crowe article is highly likely, considering he regularly edits on the article and has no other connection to me than that. These ad hominem attacks must stop.

In addition, the editor has engaged in inappropriate canvassing regarding this issue: see here, where while he was canvassing for support, he characterized (incorrectly regarding my location) me as "a New Zealander who owns an article (WP:Russell Crowe[74]) and cited material gets reverted if it does suit the New Zealander. A Warning - his understanding of wikipedia concepts is shaky at best. If you could cruise over and take a look as you find the time I'd be most grateful." and repeated the same here and here. Here he with his attempt to canvass editors by rather bizarrely posting "Your Grace, the minions are squabbling again. Sadly, a small group of what appears to be New Zealand based article owners have planted their national flag here: Russell Crowe [75]. Well meaning, foreign crusaders for truth are quickly identified and their edits reverted into oblivion. I pray that you will, as time allows, visit said article and liberate her from the death grip of the Kiwis." and the ad hominem attacks he makes on me in those posts. He was then warned about civility and canvassing here. His conduct has continued to deteriorate to the point of making completely inappropriate ad hominem attacks on editors who have responded to the RfC, behavior he has indulged in from the get go and he has been repeatedly warned about that as well. This tenditious editing to the talk page must be stopped. This is entirely outside what sort of behaviors are appropriate here, there is no civility in the posts this editor is making and he is basically launching full scale and widespread person attacks on the editors who are interested in responding to his own WP:RfC. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I note that Eudemis continued his ad hominem attacks on yet other editors after I posted here and to him. He posted "You don't find that an odd coincidence? There are 300,000 editors on wikipedia but the ones here have very narrow shared interests that are not Russell Crowe. Nil Einne above who just stopped by after seeing the BLP/N, was in a science discussion involving XLerate and contributes to a Judy Garland talk page as does Wildhartlivie. If comments were coming from contributors to Vermeer and whales and I claimed there was no connection, I would expect you to be incredulous." He has failed to respond here, but he continues to seek and attack yet more editors who responded because two of us posted at the reference desk in January 2009 and two of us post to the Judy Garland article. To clarify this great and astounding editing coincidence, I edited Talk:Judy Garland the last time on February 29, 2008 and Nil Einne made one post on May 19, 2009. There is well over a year between my last post to Talk:Judy Garland and the only post I can find by Nil Einne. The first edit was over 2 years ago. This conspiracy theory hunt of his has crossed all bounds of civility and he is actively seeking ridiculous examples of how two editors on that page have posted to the same boards or articles. This has become ridiculous and this bad faith attacking of all the other editors who post in response to the thread on Talk:Russell Crowe needs to stop yesterday. This is quickly escalating out of all rhyme or reason and is so contentious in nature that it is literally painful. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

MisterWiki unblock discussion

MisterWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) has requested a username change here (original request posted by Rdsmith), apparently to match the username changes he's making across other wikis. We do not normally entertain rename requests from blocked editors, and based on the discussion there, we think it would be best to address the block first to see if there is a consensus to unblock the account. Here's a little history:

• In January 2008, MisterWiki was suspected of being a sock puppet of Diegogrez (talk · contribs) (see archived discussion), but there was insufficient evidence at the time.
• In February 2008, concerns were raised on ANI about MisterWiki being the same editor as Diegogrez (see archived discussion)
• Also in February 2008, he was granted Rollbacker rights
• In March 2008, MisterWiki reported Diegogrez (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppeteer (see here)
• He has requested adminship twice: March 2008 (WP:SNOW close at 0/9/0) and December 2009 (WP:NOTNOW close at 0/6/0)
• He requested and received Autoreviewer rights in December 2009 (see archived request)
• Also in December 2009, he was found to be operating a non-approved bot (see archived discussion). He has requested approval to run bots three times, and been declined each time: February 2008, December 2009, and (also) December 2009
• Also in December 2009, he was reported for edit warring (see archived discussion)
• In the beginning of January 2010, MisterWiki was found to be abusing rollback rights and had them revoked (see archived discussion). He then requested them again the following day, and his request was declined due to unsatisfactory answers to the ANI thread where they were removed.
• A long discussion regarding his block was held here, where he was eventually unblocked
• In the middle of January 2010, he was discussed for a long time again and eventually blocked (see archived discussion)
• A block review was made in February 2010, and the block was upheld (see archived discussion)

So, I'm bringing this here for review again. Is the community willing to unblock MisterWiki? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The first item, should be "but there was insufficient evidence at the time" rather than "but there was sufficient evidence at the time" right?  f o x  19:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My first question, and I think the most important one, is what does MisterWiki have to say that would lead us to believe that, if unblocked, his behavior would be different? He was blocked for reasons, and what statements has he made recently that will convince the rest of us that those reasons no longer exist? Time served isn't really a valid reason for unblocking, and neither is making SUL convenient for him. If he wants to be let back into the fold, lets hear from him explain why it would be better for Wikipedia if he were... --Jayron32 19:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a note on his talk page and requested that he post any comments there. I will then copy them over here for convenience. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I should note that his new account (Diego Grez) is currently blocked on Commons. His old account (MisterWiki) is blocked on eswiki in addition to here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

He was renamed on Commons about an hour ago while still being blocked. [76] I don't post here too much and never really encountered MW until he was approved at WP:ACC and some people started screaming their opposition in the IRC channel but the more i look into this the less convinced i am that his recent activity on Simple is signs of improvement. Nihonjoe's list of community grievances against MW et al. is longer than i thought it to be, and he didn't even list everything. I don't object to the rename if Dan still wants to do it but having read the links Joe posted and what links are contained in those links i do not agree with unblocking at this time. He has been relatively good on Simple; let's see how that goes over a longer term. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 20:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose of Unblock He's done nothing to prove that he can come back here and be trusted, he's already blocked on commons and eswiki as well why would we let him back?--SKATER ^Speak. 19:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Do not unblock for a significant length of time. MisterWiki is a giant time sink. If a 'crat wants to spend time doing an indefblocked editor a favor, I don't care, but don't unblock, and let's not have another unblock discussion for at least, say, 1 year. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per this edit, calling the ani thread "a joke". I don't see any point why this comment should be removed, it's not a personal attack or anything like that. Minimac (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Is this thread anything other than more of his usual time-wasting nonsense? Fair play to Nihonjoe for AGF but I think our chain is being yanked. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support of unblock. I was a participant in many of the threads over the last few months that lead to his latest block and I started the most recent review of his block where the re was some, albeit limited, support for lifting it. I have been in email contact with MisterWiki and I've been following what he does on Wikinews, where he's genuinely trying to be useful. I think he needs a mentor- someone to say "no! that's not a good idea!" and just to help him out and for him to bounce ideas off. I think that with such a mentor, he could become a very useful contributor because, unlike the many, many trolls we have wandering around WP making a nuisance of themselves, he genuinely wants to help. As evidence of this- I cite the article rewrite that he is drafting on his user page. If the community were to allow him back on a trial basis, I would be more than happy to fill that role. Why not let him back for a week, then review that and if it's not working, we can reblock him. Essentially, my question to the community is if you don't trust MisterWiki, trust me. If you want to look upon it as a waste of time, nobody's time will be wasted but my own and I genuinely believe some good can come from this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm the one who gave him the idea to improve the article. After trying to sort out coördinates i told him i thought it should be merged or else i might make my first PROD tagging. He pleaded with me and I showed him the article for my neighbourhood in Calgary and told him that if he wanted it kept it should be at least as useful and referenced. I do agree that his contributions of late on SimpleWP and ENWN do show a noticeable improvement however there is a long series of issues here on ENWP (and Commons). He has had trial unblocks before but i don't know if he has had a mentor to guide him, though he has had other users monitoring him. If you really think you can be a successful mentor on a cross-project level and he is agreeable to it then a trial run of it might be ok. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 20:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you. From what I see, he's making himself useful on WN and has actually built up good relations with Blood Red Sandman, who blocked him here. I've spoken to him by email and he seems agreeable to mentorship. Like I say, someone to both help him out and keep an eye on him could be a real benefit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Wait a few months, and then unblock It appears the user in question is trying to be apologetic and is assuming good faith now, as it appears he wants to revamp some articles. Maybe later he could be unblocked. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 20:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Much, much too soon, considering that his current indef block was originally intended to be a ten-year block, on the assumption that the passage of time might see some increase in maturity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Personally I think it's premature to be unblocking at this time, and I am not convinced that he will not continue the kind of behavior that got him blocked in the first place. I'd say give it a bit longer, until December 2010 at the very least, before we start considering unblocking. On a vaguely related note, why isn't MisterWiki's sockpuppet (talk · contribs) blocked yet? Or MisterBot (talk · contribs), Mister Wiki (talk · contribs), SignoreWiki (talk · contribs), MistressWiki (talk · contribs), MisterioWiki (talk · contribs), Bodoque57 (talk · contribs) and MisteryWiki (talk · contribs)? All legitimate alternative accounts for sure, but still alternative accounts of a blocked user. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Spitfire, with the greatest respect, that edit summary was 3 months ago. Though I won't claim that excuses it in the slightest, I think MisterWiki has seen the error of his ways and I think we should allow him back on a provisional basis. After all, he's not a troll, he just wants to be useful. I understand why you don;t want to give him a chance, but give me a chance. I will take personal responsibility for both the rewards and the piss-offs of any unblock. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My mistake: I had already removed the comment regarding the edit summary, mainly due to the timestamp, which of course, I should have checked before bringing it up. I wouldn't be entirely against an unblock in about a month or two, so long as a suitable mentor could be found, and so long as it was with the understanding that even the smallest infringement of policy would result in an immediate block (and of course, so long as suitable support for such an unblock was gathered). Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support of Unblock I'm really going against my gut feeling on this one, but I trust HJ Mitchell and believe that he could make him into a god editor. However, I only agree if it's mentorship for Much more than a week, it should be on the span of months or days.--SKATER ^Speak. 21:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Statements from MisterWiki's talk page

Nihonjoe said he would move over any statements that MisterWiki has. As there are 4 of them so far i thought i would expedite it and move them over. [77] [78] [79] [80] delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians, my block was my very own fault. I'll tell you my history from my point of view. I started editing here, I don't remember why, adding false information about me on Diego Grez. I admit I liked Hannah Montana at the time, but I don't know why that spamming thing. I was 11 and after some time, I decided to back for good, doing good things and trying to fulfill my past. I left the wiki for a year and some, until I've got my own Internet connection on my home. I thought that my case was forgotten and even I tried to appeal my unblock on es.wiki. (Regarding the comment of someone at ANI, I was blocked previously on these wikis and I wanted to request here and so on). I've emailed an steward that gave me an opportunity (an unblock request at the village pump over there). It lasted in the third week of December because no admin unblocked me. The things went fine until my rollback was removed because of misuse, something I admit. I tried to expand the most I would Pichilemu, because I wanted it to get (at least to) GA, as it is one of my most-known topics before the History of Chile and Modern Talking. Piss-on-elmo and calling the admins nazis was the thing that caused this block, and I thought it was going to be shorter, and it was my fault. Since that, I tried to do the things better, on Wikinews (where I am accredited reporter) and on Simple Wiki, in addition to the Spanish Wikinews, the Latin Wikipedia, English Wiktionary and the Chamoru Wikipedia, a wiki that is almost forgotten. Additionally, I saw that my other account, Bodoque57, was not blocked on Commons, and I requested block on IRC. On Wikinews, my contributions about the recent Chile earthquake have been very appreciated and the community has been very, hmm, good. As it is not Wikinews, Wikinoticias, Wiktionary or Vicipaedia, I come here to ask you, Wikipedians, to unblock me, I want to show you that I have matured through all this time and I don't want to get in troubles anymore. The earthquake thing has helped me to mature more than I thought and you'll forget this very, very soon. I won't let you down, I promise as a good boy. --MW talk contribs 20:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

PD. I don't have bad feelings against those people that blocked me or helped to do this, I know it was for good for Wikipedia and for myself too. --MW talk contribs 21:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Forgot that on IRC, I've got a bot running as Pitsilemu, for Wikinews, if that can be considered of help. --MW talk contribs 21:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If you let me come back, I will be editing Pichilemu and related articles to make 'em (at least Pichilemu) good articles. You won't see me trolling again. ;-) --MW talk contribs 21:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

End of copy of first four messages from MW's talk page. ☯ I fixed links to other projects as the way MW originally wrote them did not work on preview here but were displayed and functional on his talk page. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Something's Wrong

Some guy started War of the Castes in Haiti and didn't even expand on it. I suspect it's vandalism. B-Machine (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I dont think it's vandalism, it sounds right according to what I know of Haitian history, and it looks like our article on the Haitian Revolution and of Haitain history in general could use some help. I wouldnt have mainspaced an article as small as that myself, but this looks like a new user who probably is just doing his best to contribute. I dont have a firm opinion on whether it should be left alone, merged, or even deleted but I really dont think it's vandalism. —Soap— 21:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Ah, it looks like we actually do have an article about this already: War of Knives. I will encourage the user to edit that article instead and work his content into it wherever possible. —Soap— 21:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)