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

Ongoing conflict over links and content of the Qumran article

For more than a week I have been involved in a slow edit conflict, not really knowing how otherwise to proceed, over the Qumran article. This is an article about the archaeological site of Qumran. I am attempting to make sure, as I see it, all content is on topic and neutrality is maintained.

1. When the person I am in conflict with wants to post external links that are about other aspects of the Dead Sea Scrolls and material of his own production, I remove them. They are already to be found in the Dead Sea Scrolls article, so he's getting the publicity there. At the moment he is no longer trying to post one of his papers, the published one, though he continues to insert his unpublished paper as an external link and has decided to add a link to a Dead Sea Scrolls organization, an organization I long ago created an article for which has the link, The Orion Center, an article that can be accessed from every Dead Sea Scrolls related article through the navbox I put at the bottom. In an effort to clarify the problem to the editor, I divided the remaining external links into two categories, "Scholarly articles about the site of Qumran" and "Other links about the site of Qumran". The editor now removes these categories in order to insert his links.

2. The editor also inserts a comment, I consider both tangential and argumentative. He considers it background to his interpretation of the site. I work on the notion that if material is about the contents of the scrolls, then it is not directly relevant to the site of Qumran. The particular comment follows information about a scholarly opinion from Karl Heinrich Rengstorf, the person who first suggested that the scrolls came to Qumran from Jerusalem, an opinion which reflects a particular approach to the analysis of the site. The editor wants to insert this afterwards:

Rengstorf (p.15) also asked: "What is the explanation of the fact that the Essenes, who, it is claimed, speak, among other things, precisely about themselves and their views and customs in the Dead Sea texts, but always use other names for themselves?" In fact, many scholars have concluded that the Hebrew origin of the name Essenes indeed appears as a self-designation in some Qumran scrolls.

The "In fact" ushers in unnecessarily argumentative material about the Essenes. This for me is clearly not related to the site of Qumran. The editor believes that the Essenes were responsible for the site of Qumran, which is his prerogative, though here the material is gratuitous.

Here are my last two edits: [1] and [2] They represent the battleground.

To sum up the positions, I'm arguing lack of consensus, relevance and neutrality, a conflict of interest, and original research. He's arguing for relevance and against censorship.

The conflict is probably exacerbated by the fact that the editor and I have had conflicts on internet for well over ten years. It continues in a mild form on the discussion page

My desire here is to find some efficacious resolution to the conflict. I'm not interested in any punitive action or discouragement of editing. I just don't want to have to continue in this tug-of-war which is for me fruitless. I can of course abandon the article, though it is the only one I do much work on (though I have written over a dozen articles for the DSS topic), but that would be to me to say that I have wasted my time. The best solution in my eyes would be if I could find an administrator who would be willing to spend the time needed to adjudicate the problem. Though this is a highly specialized topic, an understanding of the problems shouldn't require more than some patience. I would have tried a third opinion but there was no way I could think of providing a neutral presentation of the "facts".

Thanks for your consideration. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The material that Ihutchesson removes from the article should remain in the article because they are descriptive of current major issues in the discussion of Qumran, as I document with peer-reviewed scholarly publications by numerous scholars. Some of my improvements to the article remain. And the link group headings are inaccurate and misleading; I have suggested that link annotations are more helpful for readers. I have published in multiple peer-reviewed scholarly publications, have archaeological excavation experience in Israel, and have a Duke U. Ph.D.; I have not seen any such scholarly peer-reviewed publications from the one who deletes major scholarly views and who classifies links as "scholarly" or not. The article version without the observations that he deletes is certainly *less* "neutral." I recognize that there are issues on which there are different interpretations, no consensus yet. I seek representation for major issues, giving both sides, and giving the reader options to be aware of and to read a range of the major viewpoints. Let the reader decide. The reader cannot be well informed if major viewpoints are censored out of the article, as one editor (who acts as if he owns the article), unfortunately, does. Let the readers have all relevant major facts. Coralapus (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus

This editor has missed the point about my removal of his unpublished research interpreting some of the contents of the scrolls. The article is not about what may be in the scrolls but the site of Qumran. There are other places where he would better find grounds for posting his material, for example in the Dead Sea Scrolls article, where it seems to be more relevant than an article about the archaeological site, if his original research (WP:OR) is well adapted to be anywhere on Wiki going by the Wiki ethos. And posting one's own materials does seem to be a conflict of interest (WP:COI).

The inclusion of material purely because it can be hitched onto another piece of information by the same person, thus allowing for a gratuitous comment still seems to me to be argumentative, provocative and unhelpful in its context.

He has also upped the frequency of his reversions: in the last 24 hours it was three times. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 17:23, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

In simple terms, the majority view of archaeologists and scholars about Qumran is that Essenes lived there; a minority view is that Essenes did not live there. I hold the majority view; he holds the minority view. He misleads readers by excluding--on quite changing, ad hoc, any means to an end grounds--sufficient material from the majority view to be proportionally represented. The scrolls are archaeological facts relevant to the site, in the majority view. I seek to have both views represented and let the readers decide. He prefers to slant the article to the minority view. Readers would be ill served by his biased editing. I allow both views for readers to consider. I have not erased in the bibliography his non-scholarly article that represents the viewpoint of no one (to my knowledge) besides him. That, in an abundance of allowance of a distinctly minority view. His approach, simply, is to seek to erase that with which he does not agree, while pretending to neutrality. I have written articles for Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, Eerdman's Dictionary of the Bible, Anchor Bible Dictionary, and other peer-reviewed journals and books, and I know that his approach is neither fair nor scholarly. Coralapus (talk) 18:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus

This noticeboard is not a forum to debate your views about the Essenes. It's a place where administrators consider the conflict set before them. I think you misunderstand what Wiki does and are breaking the rules

1) posting your own materials as references,

2) insisting on material that isn't directly relevant to the article, and

3) publicizing yourself rather than working on a good neutral article.

Your publications are very nice, but again tangential here. Besides, you had editors there, while you are the editor here, and you don't seem aware of the necessities of the job of keeping to the topic or evaluating the worth of the materials you present. For some reason you refuse to see that gratuitous mention of Essenes in a place where such mention is not needed doesn't help the article. Consensus for your material has not been established and I stress that it is your material. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 20:16, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually discussion of Essenes is called for. Descriptively, it is one of the main issues. Your exclusions are unbalancedCoralapus (talk) 10:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus

We are dealing with the site of Qumran, not your musing on the Essenes. Obviously your claim that a discussion of them "is one of the main issues" is false regarding the article and shows that you aren't interested in the site of Qumran at all. You have been trumpeting the Essenes from one end of the internet to the other over the last ten or so years, insinuating them everywhere you can. Please try to see that you are not dealing with the site of Qumran, but your pet interest. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 23:12, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually I have peer-reviewed publications on archaeology, Essenes, and scrolls and care about all three. And archaeological experience in Israel. (And "Jannaeus" is linked at Bible and Interpretation, a location you use for links). It is simply a fact of history of scholarship that Essenes are relevant to Qumran. Your personal wish and intention to keep that away from readers, to hide the question, the debate, from them, is a clear-cut case of bias. If your bias is sustained, readers loose.Coralapus (talk) 09:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)CoralapusCoralapus (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus

If I took a poll of the scholarly internet groups you have been ejected from or cautioned on, what percentage of people would claim that you were a good judge of bias? Please, you need to realize that you are too involved with your own views to do balanced editing on the Qumran article. You cite your own material. You link to your own material. You push your own views to extreme lengths. And all that is totally against Wiki policy. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I do wonder whether, given your history of using aliases on sites that explicitly forbid that, and your use of names quite similar to names of real scholars--i.e your use on ane [ancient near east] and orion [Dead Sea Scrolls] list of "John J. Hays," when there is a real Hebrew Bible, John H. Hayes--I wonder whether Raphael Golb (another sockpuppet) was encouraged by your use of false names, indirectly or directly. (?) In either case, a reader of an article on Qumran should be informed of the majority view as well as the minority one. Just because you temporarily managed to exclude majority views elsewhere hardly recommends a repeat obscurantism. I have added links to other scholars.Coralapus (talk) 13:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus

An entertaining kneejerk reaction doesn't change the basic problem that you are not helping the article with your lack of perspective, a lack endemic in your willingness to inject your own materials wherever possible and pervert what the article says to your own tangential ends. (You didn't do the poll.) -- Ihutchesson (talk) 17:26, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps you think it is funny, but did you apologize to Prof. Hayes? And, if you care to reply: was Raphael Golb encouraged by your use of false names?Coralapus (talk) 18:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus

You are making a false accusation in public, Stephen Goranson. There are laws against such abuses. This is endemic of your inability to stick to the subject. You inveterately introduce content inappropriate for the context in which you work: your own original work, your partisan views. Your comment is merely a continuation of the same kneejerk, showing your guileless attempt to think that someone would misspell the name of the person they were supposedly trying to imitate. That's fantasy. We should note that I am here under my name and you are here as a sockpuppet. Now please put aside this misguidedness of yours and try to concentrate on what is beneficial and neutral in the presentation of the Qumran article.

It seems that you have stopped inserting references to yourself in the article for the moment and I thank you for that. However, I don't see why you removed the headings "scholarly articles on the site of Qumran" and "other links to the site of Qumran". They represent the groups of links they described. What is wrong with them exactly? You are still maintaining the tangent about the Essenes added to a sentence about Rengstorf. He is clearly there because he was first to propose the Jerusalem origin of the scrolls, an act of credit where credit is due. Your insertion has nothing directly to do with the context, so why do you keep reinserting it? -- Ihutchesson (talk) 07:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I asked a question; unanswered. Coralapus (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus (Stephen Goranson)

Please explain your question. --Ihutchesson (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Your unnecessary and inaccurate heading of "scholarly" excludes Qumran im Netz, while including another that is less so--hence, inaccurate. Coralapus (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus (Stephen Goranson)

There were two headings. One was about scholarly articles, the other was for other links about the site of Qumran, which includes the possibility of Qumran in Netz. No inaccuracy shown. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I put in a reference to a major question--the name Essene found at Qumran or not--surely relevant--with a VanderKam reference, which you erased. I will replace that major point of view of VanderKam, Isaak Jost, Melanchthon, Wm. Browmlee, C. Murphy and C. Evans and many others. You should not censor that. Not prevent readers from knowing the relevant *fact* that several scholars find the Hebrew of the name Essenes in Qumran scrolls, as a self-designation. Erasing that would be censorship, bias, distortion, obscurantism. Coralapus (talk) 09:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)Coralapus (Stephen Goranson)

Rengstorf's mention is a historical one about the site. Your dragging in of Essenes purely because he was mentioned is an argumentative tangent. You do not have a consensus for this tangent. -- Ihutchesson (talk) 11:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"Rengstorf's mention is a historical one about the site." Yes. And the site is Qumran. Hence relevant. He and numerous other scholars say it is relevant. The question is plain, though perhaps you do not know the answer. The link headings misled, on plain reading. What is different about a mention of an article by me compared to mention of an article by other editors (including you)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coralapus (talk • contribs) 11:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to amend ban on SRQ imposed at ANI: from 1 year to indef

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

Community-banned unanimously for 1 year for "constant issues with collegial editing"[3] (only to have the ban reset after subsequent sockpuppetry[4]) SRQ continues to disrupt article and userspace through her use of different IPs and named accounts that are routinely being discovered. When the initial ban was reset, it was to be followed by an indefinite block after the ban's expiration: I propose implementing a permanent siteban instead so that her edits can continue to be reverted on sight. The socking has become more frequent and harassing in nature towards her usual targets Crohnie (talk · contribs) and especially DocOfSoc (talk · contribs), and there is neither hope nor intention of this former editor returning constuctively here. With a lengthy and growing list of mostly "one-or-two-off" IP sockpuppets, she mocks the CheckUser process by challenging its ability to detect her, and has recently taken to blaming others for her sockpuppetry[5] (while blatantly and disruptively socking). Many diffs can be provided upon request, but I feel there is more than sufficient cause for a permanent community siteban to be implemented, rather than the fixed-duration community ban that is overdue for another "reset". Doc talk 04:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note This is a request to amend the ban from 1 year to indefinite, so I have updated the header. It appears that there are 21 confirmed socks, 68 suspected socks, and possibly more that have not been tagged. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support per Bwilkins, HJ Mitchell, EdJohnston, and others below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:19, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strongly Support Comment to follow. DocOfSoc (talk) 07:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I don't think she's gone completely out of hand. She still made an entirely constructive revert to a living person just recently before she was blocked. Minimac (talk) 07:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Clearly SRQ cannot adhere to Wikipedia's rules. One occasional good revert does not make up for the harassment and socking she's done and continues to do. AniMate 07:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support I originally had hoped that she would see WP:OFFER or return after the block to edit constructively. I also supported the revdel of her very personal request since it showed some humility and seemed the right thing to do. However, the behavior before the block was so disruptive that when coupled with a complete lack of respect for the block and thumbing her nose at the community (especially the admin who showed some heart) means that it seems appropriate. If an extension of indefinite does not have consensus then it at least needs to be reset to the last edit confirmed to be by a sock and maybe even extended for continued disruption.Cptnono (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Beyond My Ken (talk) 07:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support Enough is enough, once you start socking that much there's no hope. --Rschen7754 07:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The disruption was so persistent that the 1-year ban was unanimous, and this degree of socking is simply outrageous. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Strong Support This user will never stop. She has admitted to stalking my edits and that of DocOfSoc over at Wikipedia Review where she immediately set up an account after she was blocked. The latest sock that was blocked put this disgusting message on my talk page on 11/08/10. There are more of her going to editors that don't know her to cause problems like this on 10/26/10. If there is a checkuser about I would also appreciate a checkuser done to get rid of any sleeper accounts she may have too since she said she would set up a bunch of accounts to drive us crazy. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 11:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, with the proviso that "indef" in this case means "at least 1 year" from its imposition. Mjroots (talk) 11:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Unfortunate support I'm one of those who believe that SRQ was pushed into a series of actions that led to the original block. However, their actions since that time have led me to believe that they don't give two craps about policy around here. They had a chance to perhaps come back. They blew it and got a 1 yr ban. They then had a chance to come back after that, and they continue to thumb their nose at policy. Well sorry, as much as I supported them originally, I have to say "feckit, you wasted my faith in you". (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC) No longer 100% convinced. Also, responses to my question below are from those with whom SRQ has significant non-positive interaction which waters down the overall argument. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Reluctant support. It's always a great shame when it comes to this for a once productive editor, but we can't excuse the repeated socking when it's used to harass and attempt to upset other editors. SRQ, on the off chance that you might read this: Please, stop this nonsense, disengage with Wikipedia and serve your time quietly before it's too late for you ever to return. Indefinite does not yet have to mean infinite. Yet. But if you keep this up it will. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 13:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support, having had quite enough after participating in the latest unblock-my-sock discussion. Daniel Case (talk) 14:47, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support -- If this editor ever decides to start behaving well, and wants to return to the encyclopedia, they know what they have to do. No sign of that so far. The IPs would be hard to rangeblock, and there is a large number of them. See the suspected and confirmed socks as well as WP:Sockpuppet investigations/SkagitRiverQueen/Archive. EdJohnston (talk) 15:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose procedurally. Because of the model currently in place on WP, indef bans to stop sockpuppetering simply don't work because making a new account or switching IPs to get around a block is too easy. It's best to give the user the possibility to give up sockpuppeting and a chance to come back. -Atmoz (talk) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Support I doubt it will help keep the socks away. Someone who already does this much socking is probably not going to stop. On the other hand, enough is enough. Inka⁸⁸⁸ 01:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Support It won't stop the socking, but it will make it easier to deal with. RadManCF ☢ open frequency 02:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Serious question

As I would hate to impose a permaban on anyone based on evidence that was not beyond doubt, I have a serious question. First, I believe SRQ was on Verizon - which admittedly has thousands of editors coming from there. As such, SPI's would be quite a challenge. I know I gave a pretty damning !vote above, so I want to ensure that the socking is really coming from them. "Suspected" socks means squat to me. Even supposedly "proven" socks can mean that someone is an excellent impersonator - and we have had damn well enough of those. What really are the odds that someone is not effing us over and pulling some damned fine wool over our eyes? (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:20, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it would have to be the most epic case of sophisticated trolling ever if that were true. Socks like recently revealed Lazuli Bunting (talk · contribs) edit obscure articles that SRQ is the prime editor for[6] in ways identical to her (esp. changing to surnames later throughout the article)[7], and then try to get the same two users (Crohnie and DocOfSoc) "in trouble". That is how they are discovered: the socks keep repeating the same behavior. Some socks like True Crime Reader (talk · contribs) last a bit longer, until they predictably start harassing the same users and frequenting articles that SRQ did. With her avowed devotion to edit here, and admitted off-site socking[8], I can't see anyone wasting their time to so closely imitate her. The massive list of suspected IPs was compiled when the SPI was in progress, and the attempt to confuse by changing IPs so frequently is obvious and still continues. A contribution check for any IP or sock, suspected or confirmed, shows this can be no one else. I received an off-wiki legal threat from SRQ just two months ago in response to referencing her medical condition on someone's talk page (which she revealed on WP); and she recently responded instantly with IP socks (always Cellco Partnership DBA Verizon) after I tagged a sock that I was wrong about being her. She's actively watching, socking, and stalking edits, and there's no reason not to be positive that 99% of these are her. I've repeatedly asked for CU backup to tie named accounts together: to no avail. Doc talk 18:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Comment as promised with "Strongly support, earlier" I made my first edit in Wiki on April 8, 2008. From November 4, 2008 until the present, I have been maligned, excoriated, libeled, vastly insulted and stalked by SRQ, minus the few months I did not edit, totally discouraged and nursing my bites inflicted by SRQ, when I was an admittedly clueless "Newbie". She dragged my name thru ANI, without informing me, which discouraged admins from assisting me, when I begged for help. Too bad she took this road, she is a bright, talented editor, who can not hide her obsessive and unfounded loathing for me and others. (for her personal agenda tool lengthy to list here) Despite her egregious interference, I have survived to edit another day with great support. She must be unequivocally stopped. She has an admitted "medical condition" which affects her judgment, and enhances her ability to inflict pain. After 2 and half years, (it felt much longer,) 17 ANI complaints, 21 confirmed socks and 68 suspected socks, it is time for all of us to admit that her case for being a Wiki editor is hopeless. I do not state this lightly and do so without any retaliatory or vengeful motives whatever. She is sad case.DocOfSoc (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Addendum to Serious question: Bwilkins, you have been an enviable supporter of SRQ. I never report a sock puppet of hers unless I am 100% sure. Having been her target literally hundreds of times, I can assure you. when I know, I know unequivocally. Bless your good heart and honest efforts. DocOfSoc (talk) 01:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Question #2 What happens now? Does the ban reset? What are we supposed to do when she is here again and she will be, the same as always or have the rules changed about how we do the reporting? These too are serious and not sarcastic questions. I just don't understand what the purpose of doing this was for again, so here I am to find out. Oh and is there a chance that a checkuser is about to check for a sleeper accounts so we can at least know she hasn't built up a cache of awaiting accounts like she said? Thanks for your responses, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:01, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Before this discussion, the ban was only for 1 year; each time the user tried to violate it, the ban would be reset each time (making a nightmare trying to figure out when the ban expires after each violation). Presuming that the user was not detected for 1 year (or stopped socking), then the ban would no longer be in force. This would leave the indef block that an admin imposed - in order to have that lifted, the user would then only need to convince 1-2 admins that no more socking would occur and then that would be that; they'd be free to edit.
  • What this discussion does is make the ban indefinite so that there's a more stringent requirement than convincing 1-2 admins - now, the user will need to appeal to the Community before they can be unblocked under any circumstances. There's also no longer a need to go through the complicated process (for each violation) of resetting the ban because now the ban is not for a definite (1 year) duration; it's in place (indefinitely) for as long as the Community deems necessary, so there's nothing to reset (as such). Edits by that user can be reverted as if they are obvious vandalism rather than worrying about whether the ban has been properly reset or not.
  • Hope that helps. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks, it does help, --CrohnieGal^Talk 10:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Move To Close

With this being a few threads away from being archived without decision, having been here twice as long as the "24 hours to allow time for comments from a broad selection of community members"[9], and having a rather decisive 14-3 consensus of support, I feel it's time for an uninvolved administrator to close this thread with the decision to move SRQ down to the appropriate spot on the List of banned users as a result of this discussion. Doc talk 01:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Bzzt. This user is already banned with an expiry of indef. This thread is nothing more than a failure to deny recognition. You want SRQ to stop? Then stop responding to teh soks. Dropping each other notes about the lastest IP from Verizion, posting SPI junk about them, and regularly coming to ANI is exactly what perpetuates this. WP:RBI, littluns. Jack Merridew 01:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ, Jack (good to see ya again, BTW). She's banned for a limited and ambiguously "re-setting" duration, not indef: that's what this thread is about. When socks continue to come at and harass "teh" editors (whether they "respond" or not), it's not about just WP:RBI. This should clarify whether she's banned with an expiry of indef. "It's not going to make her stop socking" is not the best reason to oppose extending the ban, IMHO. A large segment of editors on that list were banned because of socking subsequent to their community bans. Doc talk 01:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

edit warring on WP:Carlingford Lough

Carlingford Lough (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

3 users are involved in tag-teaming edit-warring on this page. All three Users have made contentious revisions without discussion first. These Users have supported each other in countless discussion topics, swaying consensus. This has to stop! Users involved are the usual suspects of Virtual Revolution,O_Fenian and Mo ainm. This is somewhat of a contentious edit as they wish to remove 'Northern Ireland' from the body of the infobox.

Here are the diffs:

• edit dated 2010-11-09T11:36:31 by VirtualRevolution "Undid revision 395720705 by Factocop (talk)".
• edit dated 2010-11-09T11:05:14 by O Fenian "Revert. Please take your concern over the name of that article to Talk:Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border".
• edit dated 2010-11-09T10:19:24 by Mo ainm "remove piping"

Can an admin pick this up and deal with them?Factocop (talk) 12:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• This editor is aware of the editing restrictions on articles which says quite clearly that "All articles related to The Troubles, defined as: any article that could be reasonably construed as being related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism in relation to Ireland falls under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24 hour period). When in doubt, assume it is related."

  With these reverts here and here they clearly went beyond the 1RR for the article. --Domer48_'fenian' 12:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Well, thats only if you deem the article to be related to The Troubles, Irish nationalism, and British nationalism....My reverts were only in response to edits that had not been discussed prior, in the discussion page. Given that there was no discussion, the edits can only be described as disruptive.And it does appear suspicious that all 3 editors appear at the same time on the same page, and only to support each others edits.Factocop (talk) 12:49, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Have you never heard of a watchlist? You are the one who was edit warring I made a legitimite edit removing an incorrect pipe link that was in the article which you reverted twice. Mo ainm~Talk 12:54, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
• Hmmm. This administrator is seeing a rather different view of the situation from the conveniently restricted view through one article that comes from the above. I see the the three edits by Factocop (talk · contribs) that prompted several of the reversions:
  • Changes "United Kingdom" to "Northern Ireland"
  • Changes "United Kingdom" to "Northern Ireland"
  • Changes "United Kingdom" to "Northern Ireland" and "Ireland" to "Republic of Ireland"
• no edits by Factocop to:
  • Talk:Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border#Requested move
• a whole load of edits by Factocop to:
  • Talk:Giant's Causeway#Northern Ireland is a country
• and several people noticing that this is a spillover from the above at:
  • Talk:Carlingford Lough
• We seem to be spoiled for choice as to which sanctions to apply. Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/The Troubles the Wikipedia:General sanctions/British Isles Probation Log sanctions, or even just plain old Wikipedia:Edit war for failure to do the "D" part of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle after the aforelinked people did the "R" part. And I can hear a boomerang gently whirring through the air right now. … Uncle G (talk) 12:58, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • this argument has also lead to a disscussion thread on Sareks talkpage, they still edit warred though on carlingford lough--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

•  
  1. I received a warning for my previous edits and apparent spillover. I opened up a discussion on the topic to discuss further. I have posted a very compelling argument that none of the said users have been able to respond to.
  2. I was unaware of Talk:Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border#Requested move
  3. The 3 users I have mentioned have also commented on the Giant's Causeway page. so what?
• The 3 users troll pages like a pack of wolves making edits and swaying consensus with their greater numbers. It would be a real shame if this is to continue.Factocop (talk) 13:09, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • the page was under 1RR you broke that rule Facto--Lerdthenerd (talk) 13:10, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I also think Factocop that you were warned about commenting on other editors so describing them as packs of wolves and trolls I'm sure is in breach of that. Mo ainm~Talk 13:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Do you mean like you have done here? - User talk:NorthernCounties#Factocop. Factocop (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Indeed, told very bluntly. --Domer48_'fenian' 14:15, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

To assume that editors with the same views are acting in concert, or suggest they have ownership issues or similar, can be a breach of WP:AGF.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:28, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• I am not suggesting anything, it just very suspicious that they should appear on the same page at the same time to make the same edit and without raising the change in the discussion topic. Very suspicious.Factocop (talk) 14:40, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Oh, of course. You're not suggesting anything, it's just "suspicious." If I could roll my eyes any harder, they'd pop out of my head. You're making a very blatant suggestion of WP:MEAT here, without evidence. I'd suggest you retract that statement. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:08, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Currently blocked for 48 hours, unable to retract at this time. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

The article should be reverted to it status before the edit fighting began & then protected. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Well thats what I tried to do, revert back to the original but obviously very difficult to do with a clique of users intent on forcing the issue.Factocop (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thats a mistruth look at the diffs supplied by Uncle G Mo ainm~Talk 15:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • well if I have made 2 reverts and Mo,O Fenian and VR have made 3 revisions collectively then that would mean that the page is not in its original state.Taxi!!!Factocop (talk) 16:11, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
      • It's a clear infraction, with these edits here and then here there is not "IF" in this matter. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• Comment Let me remind my fellow admins of this clear warning to some of the participants - I'm off for lunch. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:24, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Thank you for that. I'm finding it hard to match with reality Factocop's statements that
    • xe assumed that the border between these two places was not Troubles-related;
    • xe didn't know about Talk:Republic of Ireland – United Kingdom border#Requested move, despite the edit summary in the second diff that xe pointed to in bringing this here;
    • this was a reversion to the status quo, when in fact the status quo has stood otherwise since this edit dated 2009-04-06T00:22:28 (citing the house style manual), which seems to be a span of just under one year and seven months.
  • Uncle G (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm too am finding it hard to match with reality Factocop's statements per their admission here, plus this report here and this report here. This is going to be a long term problem. --Domer48_'fenian' 19:51, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Ahem! Uncle G (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

• • • • As I understand it, they are not this editor. Could we not clarify this? --Domer48_'fenian' 20:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Factocop was WP:DUCK blocked as a sock of the Maiden City. Somehow he then persuaded Shell Kinney that although he socked as Pilgrisquest, and apparently edits in the same IP range as the Maiden City, and he edits just like the Maiden City, he isn't the Maiden City. If there is more evidence now that his edits make it probable that he is the Maiden City, then the correct course of action would be to reblock as a sock of Maiden City. I'm not familiar with the Maiden City's edits, so I'll go with the opinions of others here. this is the archive sock investigation, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City awaits your new evidence. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Factocop and Blue is better are  Confirmed with regards to each other according to MuZemike. Pilgrimsquest was  Confirmed that this account is the same as Factocop (talk · contribs) by Tnxman307. So regardless of the The Maiden City they are still a sock and block evading editor. Have I got that right? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:06, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Holy smokers, how'd Factocop manage to get unblocked? GoodDay (talk) 20:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I asked the same question a few days ago, when he was edit warring over the Irish name of a soccer stadium. He had been indef'd at one point,[10] but somehow he convinced an admin that he wasn't a sock. Even disregarding that, he's got a pretty impressive rap sheet for a guy who's only been registered for 2 months. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I wonder, what is the Irish for "He gawn, bye-bye!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:29, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Tá sé imithe buíochas a ghabháil le Dia. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:50, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The Factocop accounts needs to be blocked as a sock-puppet. GoodDay (talk) 23:25, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm surprised he hasn't been already. This needs an immediate indef placed on the main account. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 23:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure the admins will take care of it once they've finished their weekly bowling outing. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:32, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, why wasn't I invited? *sniff* --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 23:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, bowling is dullsville. Sometimes it's so quiet you can hear a pin drop. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Note: it is correct that I blocked Factocop per WP:DUCK as a sock of TMC (TheMaidenCity). Blue_is_better was blocked per the CU evidence of being Factocop. This "spilling over" of one dispute to another page about Northern Irleand being/not being a country is similar to TMC's MO. I've asked Shell Kinney for clarification on the unblock. It was based on private evidence so if she can comment I've asked her to leave a note here--Cailil ^talk 10:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• • In the meantime, could you extend the current temporary block until you get an answer? It's due to expire soon, and it's clear from his talk page (including reference to this discussion as "rubbish") that the block has so far done nothing to change his approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:53, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• • • Factocop's claim that he was cleared of all cases of sockpuppettry is totally misleading. He admitted to being Pilgrimsquest and Dame edna uk, and even admitted to evading the block as an IP mere hours before his indefinite block was removed by Shell Kinney. Quite why this self-confessed abusive sockpuppeteer is allowed to edit is beyond me, that he is apparently not The Maiden City does not change the abusive sockpuppetry he has admitted to. O Fenian (talk) 11:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible socks

Factocop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Blue is better (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Pilgrimsquest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
The_Maiden_City (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
BritishWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Not a sock.

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/The Maiden City/Archive

BritishWatcher was not mentioned in the SPI, and is still active, but here[11] Blue is better indicates he is a sock of BritishWatcher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which he immediately reverted when he realized that he had given the game away.

Here[12] and here[13] Pilgrimsquest claims to be a sock of Factocop while denying being Blue is better (nor Maiden City, in another link).

If you look at their histories, they are all pushing the same anti-Republic of Ireland viewpoint and sharing invective for specific other users, especially O Fenian.

←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The difference is that I've seen BritishWatcher make intelligently-thought out edits. Although, both Factocop and BritishWatcher do suffer from WP:IDONTGETIT, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT, WP:IDECLINETOREADTHATPOLICY, and WP:WHONEEDSCOMMONSENSE at times. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That may well be, but the blocked editor Blue is better appears to be a sock of BritishWatcher. The checkuser is feverishly studying this matter, as we speak. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Has an SPI been filed - where? Has BW been notified? If BW is a sock, he should be treated no differently and suffer the same fate as any other sock. Many socks make intelligent edits, that does not excuse the behaviour. A CU should clear it up fairly quickly. --HighKing (talk) 11:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have notified BritishWatcher. The SPI at the top of this sub-section is the only SPI that I'm aware of. Supposedly, the admin who released Factocop from bondage recently is looking into this situation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 12:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure the edit given above where blueisbetter replaced BW's sig proves anything, it stood for awhile. I actually remember it, considered it a Blueisbetter mistake at the time. Chipmunkdavis (talk) 13:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It actually only stood for a minute or two, as he reverted himself. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There is a lot of similarity of interest in one side of the British Isles topic, and a degree of similarity in style, although BritishWatch, while he can get chippy sometimes, doesn't seem to go ballastic like those other guys do/did. So it could have been a mistake, but it's a weird mistake to make. I'd just like to have a checkuser look into it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am not a sock and i dont mind a checkuser making sure if it is really needed. The second post currently displayed on factocops talk page is by me asking him to read the IMOS and that it needs to say Derry. Ive also undone quite a few edits where people change Derry to Londonderry. I am not a fan of the present agreement on use of Derry / Londonderry but ive not gone around changing it like some socks have. Ive undone such changes and even reported some to AIV. Ive not been active in recent weeks on wikipedia, some of the things that have been taking place over the past month or so on here have been pretty depressing. This sadly reaffirms it even more. BritishWatcher (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

'Tis best for everyone, that the CUs be run, so as to clear up any doubts. GoodDay (talk) 15:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. And I'd feel pretty fooled if BW turns out to be a sock because he certainly doesn't act like one. So I'd still wager he's not one, but a CU will confirm. --HighKing (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to clear things up, Factocop appealed to the Ban-Appeals SubCommittee with the claim that he was not Blue is better. The Arbs reviewed and decided that claim was correct; I carried out the unblocking, but I'm just the paper-pusher there :) I don't believe the bit about Pilgrimsquest was brought up at all during the review. With that in mind I re-checked Factocop and confirmed that he is also Pilgrimsquest (talk · contribs) and Dame edna uk (talk · contribs); I have blocked the Factocop account indefinitely. Blue is better is unrelated (but iirc the last SPI found different socks there) and BritishWatcher is unrelated to all of the above. Shell ^babelfish 17:13, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Would I be right in saying that User:Clonbony is also a sock of Factocop, based on this report? --Domer48_'fenian' 19:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm..based on the data I would have said Clonbony was unlikely (but a single-purpose spam account), probably best to ask MuZemike directly since he may well have information I don't. Shell ^babelfish 20:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I never doubted BW. Somehow, I couldn't ever picture him wanting to hide United Kingdom with a pipe-link. GoodDay (talk) 19:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As I sampled BritishWatch's contributions, I became reasonably convinced that he was not a sock of "Factocopy", but I wanted to be sure, and checkuser has since cleared him. If Clonbony is a sock of both Facto and Maiden, then Facto would indeed be a sock of Maiden after all. I'm not so sure that matters at this point. I think there is enough awareness of these one or two sockfarms out there now, to raise a red flag when or if yet another seemingly new account dives immediately into these orange-and-green controversies from out of the blue. (Did I leave out any color metaphors?) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Not to use purple prose, but I think you meant to say "yellow-bellied sockfarms" if that's not too violet an adjective. THF (talk) 20:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You don't know how close I came to saying that, begorrah. But the purple prose one is good. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks for replying Shell and just as a note to everyone TMC has a history of 'stirring it' so that claim to be BW was probably just a disruptive attempt to cause trouble for BW--Cailil ^talk 20:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • The fact he reverted it almost instantly is what led me to think that it was a Freudian slip (I've seen it happen before). But I couldn't find anything else to concretely tie them together. But it's better to know than to wonder. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I asked for conformation on User:Clonbony being another sock of Factocop. --Domer48_'fenian' 22:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, User:Clonbony is  Confirmed as User:Factocop, along with User:Dame edna uk. I have also double-checked and verified mine and Tnxman307's earlier findings that User:Pilgrimsquest, User:Blue is better, and User:NI4Life are also confirmed as Factocop. –MuZemike 22:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless it's possible for one person to edit in two completely separate locations simultaneously, BritishWatcher and Factocop are  Unrelated. –MuZemike 22:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

So is Factocop also Maiden City? This seems a little confusing.

I see that at least one other major sockfarm, the one connected with Schwyz, was taken down today. It's starting to look like the climactic scene from The Godfather. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

...only everyone has nice warm feet... HalfShadow 23:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Nice work cleaning out the sockfarm MuZemike, it dose seem to point to Maiden City being the sock master though. Confusing, but a result all the same. --Domer48_'fenian' 23:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In the bigger picture, it really doesn't matter whether it's one guy, two guys or a hundred guys. Regardless of how many they be, they be gawn. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am glad i have been cleared, i too found it odd at the time when he changed my signature, remember seeing it at the time. Thanks. BritishWatcher (talk) 10:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Observing who started this thread initially, this is a textbook WP:BOOMERANG. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

"Verbose rap synopsis meme" revisited

Original ANI post here. Though most of the fans of this meme have given up on adding the synopses, now an User:Rooot is trying to circumvent the consensus by adding a news blog post about it as if it is a notable meme (which it is not), a violation of WP:Notability and WP:UNDUE, and perhaps WP:POINT. Root also made a personal attack and removed the subsequent warning from their talk page). Would appreciate back up on this as it's not as much of a slam dunk as removing the silly summaries. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:44, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you are failing to assume good faith here. It clearly has taken on a life of its own and is notable. The edit in question was a single line referencing this fact. Don't try to portray me as having put in even a segment of the "synopsis" in an attempt to circumvent anything. This was the entirety of my addition: "In early 2010, a highly-detailed 'synopsis' of this song was added to its Wikipedia page to much fanfare and media attention." (with citations) Rooot (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

One blog on one fairly minor news source is not sufficient to show it either 'taking on a life of its own' or 'fanfare and media attention'. The fact that it is a 'single line' edit is largely irrelevant and, in any case, when you consider the overall length of the article, creating a whole section about this is most certainly giving it undue weight.--Korruski^Talk 22:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that, as the lone entry in the "legacy" section, it drew significant attention. However, that section was not created just for this piece of news, but could easily be filled in with all kinds of other cultural responses to the song. This is common practice on Wikipedia articles. The reason I made the section was that it just didn't seem to fit into any other existing section. Furthermore, stop pretending it is just one isolated blog. As I mentioned before, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of internet sources on the subject viewable with a simple Google search. Please do not try to diminish my position because of the simple fact that I only linked one of them as the citation. If you would like, I can go back and cite 50 different sources. Either way, the fact remains that the creation of the "synopsis" has become a notable, newsworthy cultural event. Rooot (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait. We're linking to an off-Wiki article which describes an on-Wiki edit which has been removed? Does navel-gazing not apply here? Corvus cornix_talk 02:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

And apparently Rooot is willing to edit war to get their way: [14]. Corvus cornix_talk 02:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, they have not yet, so lets not convict them of such a crime until they do it. --Jayron32 03:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The original assertion is that the edits are a "violation of WP:Notability and WP:UNDUE, and perhaps WP:POINT". Are you able to explain how the edits are a violation of each of those policies? Otherwise, just dropping them in adds no value, please.Cander0000 (talk) 22:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Stalker

Not concerning me, but trouble is brewing between User:Vexorg and User:Arthena. Apparently some incivility is involved, see [15]. But more worrying is that apparently User:Vexorg is stalking User:Arthena. I do not know at what article it started, but looking at the edit history of Subring, Sling (weapon), Deadpool and Pilipinas Win Na Win shows that Vexorg is quite obviously following Arthena and reverting his/her edits (with very superficial reasons given in the edit summary). The article subjects are very disparate, very unlikely that this can be explained by similar interests. Furthermore, as far as I can tell Vexorg never edited these articles before Arthena did. Little doubt that this is plain and simple stalking, and not even well-masked. Stepopen (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• - I had a look at this and it is a mild case of stalking after Arthena gave Vegorg a PA warning note after a mention of OCD in a edit summary and then Vexorg follows Arthena to a couple of articles and reverts him and the Arthena again gives Vexorg a note asking why he is focusing on him and then Vexorg again follows Arthena to two articles and reverts him. Perhaps a Administrative warning will suffice to get him to cease the behavior, he hasn't edited for two days. Off2riorob (talk) 23:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

• - Vexorg is aware of this thread as he logged on and deleted the note about this thread. is there any Administrator interest in this report? Off2riorob (talk) 12:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't look especially friendly or collegial but it does seem to have stopped for the moment. Worth keeping an eye on and worth keeping a permalink to this thread handy in case it comes up again, but I don't see anything actionable. Yet.  Frank  |  talk  13:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Right Frank, thanks for looking and commenting. Off2riorob (talk) 15:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Formidable.heart: attempted consensus manipulation by altering other editors' entries at AfD

In this edit, Formidable.heart, in the course of entering an over-the-top speedy delete !vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Critzos II (2nd nomination), removed the strikeouts placed by other editors who had previously entered speedy deletes but reconsidered. I don't even know if there's a standard Wikipedia behavioral category for this sort of thing, or an established set of expected consequences, so I'm referring it here in hopes somebody will know what's supposed to happen next. —chaos5023 (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Any particular reason you didn't (a) ask him about it first, and (b) consider the possibility that it might have been a mistake, instead of intentional? Way too early for ANI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 01:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thats pretty blantant abuse. Accidently deleting some one's comment is one thing removing striking is too deliberate The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Also smells like a sock, but too little data to suggest who. Rd232 ^talk 02:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Its one hell of a Sleeper, it was created last may. Says its a high school Junior Dojo Student. I think its more likely a student of the BLP subject who saw the tag and dropped by rather than a sock. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

In the afd, [16] he altered an IP edit as well as one by User:Cerebellum, as well as removing the strikeout of a speedy delete by a second editor, then added a delete as an IP editor. Edison (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I missed that ug Some one wanna I file an SPI see if there is any more to this??? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:54, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the changes to my edit were superficial (dashes before signature removed) and the only change to the IP edit appears to be the addition of an asterisk. --Cerebellum (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

r to Floquenbeam: It was so far out there that I didn't find any non-abusive interpretation credible. The assumption of good faith does not survive the positive demonstration of bad faith, and all that. —chaos5023 (talk) 02:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It sounds like the easiest solution is to do a rollback. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I restored the strikethroughs as soon as I noticed what had been done (which took quite a bit longer than you'd think). A rollback didn't seem appropriate because that would have removed simultaneously entered commentary on the AfD. —chaos5023 (talk) 07:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's sometimes just a matter of doing what's easiest. One can do a rollback and then immediately restore the part of the edit that was legitimate. OTOH, sometimes dicks and vandals should just be deleted with an appropriate edit summary instructing them to try a better approach if they wish to get their point across. Whatever the case, it's good you solved it. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Zsfgseg: Narrow range blocks seem to be possible

Unresolved

Still waiting for a response from admin on the possibility of these rangeblocks. Access Denied – talk to me 07:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

User:MuZemike just now lifted the edit filters and rangeblocks designed to stop Zsfgseg because it was starting to seem like he was impossible to deal with and that the huge range blocks were doing more bad than good. (He has access to several /16 ranges spread out throughout a /6 range.) But now I think I've found some narrower ranges after looking at some of his IPs used:

Inside 71.247.0.0/16

71.247.0.0/18

• 71.247.18.231
• 71.247.21.15
• 71.247.31.211
• 71.247.36.167

71.247.240.0/20

• 71.247.247.222
• 71.247.249.238

Inside 71.249.0.0/16

71.249.56.0/21

• 71.249.59.77
• 71.249.61.177

71.249.64.0/21

• 71.249.64.163
• 71.249.66.28
• 71.249.71.183
• 71.249.71.184

71.249.96.0/19 (busiest range by far)

• 71.249.102.13
• 71.249.105.53
• 71.249.105.138
• 71.249.105.178
• 71.249.107.65
• 71.249.107.152
• 71.249.110.200
• 71.249.112.51
• 71.249.114.245

Inside 68.237.0.0/16

68.237.80.0/20

• 68.237.82.181
• 68.237.85.214
• 68.237.93.95

Isolated IP Addresses

• 165.155.192.79

Cheers, Access Denied – talk to me 05:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Possibly stupid, or even inappropriate question, but.... given the efforts being put into dealing with this, are we absolutely certain that Verizon will not help, or even respond, in any way, no matter how much they are asked in different ways? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 05:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Basically, there are two ways this should be approached for vandals like this (note that this is not the only active vandal; this would also pertain to the Scruffy vandal, for instance). If we're blocking and protecting too much, a different and hopefully smarter approaches to dealing with the vandalism need to be taken. The second approach is to simply stop trying; I hate to be defeatist, but if we know we cannot, with our software, stop these vandals, then there is simply nothing we can do. I know it sounds like letting the socks and vandals win, but is it worth the increased effort to go at great lengths to stop unstoppable vandals? –MuZemike 08:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

My 2c is that it is worth the increased effort (until smarter approaches are available). --HighKing (talk) 11:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This sockmaster must be very nasty to justify rangeblocks as large as /18 over an extended period. Nothing presented here in this report shows any serious abuse, and there are no links provided to a fuller discussion anywhere else. If User:Access Denied wants to pursue this further, they should consider opening a new report at WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Zsfgseg. EdJohnston (talk) 17:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

EdJohnston, this has been going on the past 6 months or so, and he is already community banned. See my talk page, User talk:The Thing That Should Not Be, this ANI page, and a couple other admins' pages to see what he does. There is very serious abuse going on here, and some people don't have the patience (unlike other users) to deal with this on a daily basis. However, I suppose that's the cross I bear, and that's my consequence for blocking the user in the first place. –MuZemike 18:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if we rangeblock all those IP addresses, that does not stop him from his disruption. Many times he likes to "play" with his talk page like requesting unblocks to make his block longer or says that he is Zsfgseg and that we should unblock him because he is Zsfgseg. In order to stop him, we would have to disable the range's talk page ability as well and I don't think that's a good idea. Elockid (Alternate) ^(Talk) 18:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Would an abuse report go anywhere, or would we just get the standard "thank-you for your time, have a good day" response? Also, unrelated, did I calculate those ranges properly? my point is, Wikipedia is not a play pen, no matter what he likes to think. Access Denied – talk to me 02:24, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Use a script, block the 1024 /16s. Direct all complaints to the ISP. Maybe then we will get some action from them. T. Canens (talk) 04:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
• Yeah, then we'd be blocking 67,108,864 IPs. That's not worth it because of one editor. And the ISP proably still would not budge. Access Denied – talk to me 04:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's bad. But "when all reasonable attempts to control...disruption...have failed, [we] may be compelled to adopt seemingly draconian measures as a last resort for preventing further damage to the encyclopedia and to the community" (quoting arbcom, with modifications). Same principle here. And a large number of complaints from Verizon customers is probably our best shot at getting the ISP to act. If you want to be conservative, maybe we can block each and every /16 he is on instead, but given the abuse coming from Verizon ranges,including this one, I'm not optimistic. T. Canens (talk) 06:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

    Actually about 8 or so ISPs cone from this /6. Access Denied – talk to me 07:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

How should this be approached?

It seems we have four choices right now. Access Denied – talk to me 08:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Approach 1: Softblock entire /6 range

Softblock the entire /6 range, which contains over 67 million unique IPs. Use a script to block all the /16 ranges, and create a bot to hand out necessary IP Block Exemptions.

Discussion

Approach 2: Softblock all Verizon IPs

Go through the /6 range and softblock all IP ranges which belong to Verizon. An incredible amount of abuse has come from Verizon IPs, including Zsfgseg and Grawp AKA Hagger. 

Discussion

Approach 3: Selectively block /16 ranges

Individually review contributions from each /16 range using X!'s tool. Hardblock the ones in which the vast majority of edits are abusive. Use CheckUser to hand out necessary IP Block Exemptions.

Discussion

Approach 4: Implement narrow rangeblocks as suggested above

Implement the narrow rangeblocks suggested above. Use checkuser to hand out IPBE, and make more narrow rangeblocks if the need arises.

Discussion

To me, this is the best choice. Major collateral damage is a big no no. Access Denied – talk to me 08:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Contacting the ISP should be the first step, preferably coming from someone with the authority to say they're speaking for the Foundation rather than just as a concerned editor or admin. If that fails, we can and should block as necessary. But it seems improper to just assume the ISP won't care and won't do anything without even trying first. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 15:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

being threatened on wikipedia

hi i dont know if this is right place. i receive this vandalism on my page [17]. i think its related to discussion im having here [18]. user there canvas 2 other users to get more keep votes and when i mention this one of them vandalize my page with no explaination here [19] . because latest vandalism and threat is right after i ask person to explain many times why they remove image from my page with no explaination and they are rude to me[20] i think its related. not sure what to do now. thanks. sorry if this wrong place please tell me where. :) SunHwaKwonh (talk) 06:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The IP address that vandalised your page has already been blocked. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

i see thanks. since i start the delete discussion many people have bothered me i have think that one of these users log out to vandalize my page? is this possible? should i stop using wikipedia because im in danger now? SunHwaKwonh (talk) 06:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is possible for people to log out of Wikipedia. But then they give away their IP address, so that makes them look even sillier than they already are. What makes you think you are in danger? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 06:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

you see what comments were left on my page? they dont seem danger? SunHwaKwonh (talk) 20:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's called vandalism. Get over it, move on. LiteralKa (talk) 20:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh, IIRC the edits in question were only racist, not threatening. LiteralKa (talk) 21:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Why was I not notified that I was being discussed? Again, you asked me once, a suitable answer was given by another member of the community. LiteralKa (talk) 06:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I deleted the offensive revisions. Highly, highly unlikely that was User:LiteralKa. In fact no way. (By the way, parallel discussion on my talk page.) Be advised that anyone who comments on GNAA in any forum is subject to trolling. We can protect your user page if it becomes a problem. Antandrus (talk) 06:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

First, SunHwaKnowh accuses me of canvassing; now he's accusing me of vandalism. Neither LiteralKa nor I defaced his userpage. By attacking the GNAA redirect, SunHwaKwonh has painted a large target for trolls and vandals on himself. That vandal could be anyone. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 13:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

it is strange that IP who vandal my page dont even vote in delete discus. literalka removed image from my page with no explaination text. also IP who vandal my page says they arguing with me here so must be someone i already meet and talk with. only 2 of those people. i say maybe you vandalize i not accuse. you say you would not say things like post on my user page? also you did canvas you supposed to notify people in nonpartisan way but you only notify people who will vote keep. then you say it not a vote so doesnt matter. not add up. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 14:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Look, I defended myself so many times on the other discussion. Like RL0919 and I have said, this is becoming repetitive. I did notify those users in a nonpartisan matter, and even RL0919 agrees: The postings he has made so far seem to be limited and neutrally worded. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• im sorry i cant assume good faith these two users are being rude and condesending and i dont want to be vulgar threatened so i have to do this. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I was never rude, and there are sysops here to protect you from threats. Please remember that this is the Internet and that you are anonymous. You are safe, and you don't have any real threat to worry about. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
    • is not true goatse organization of hacker so not safe. you been rude like treating a baby. also why you look at every edit i make? scary. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 14:29, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Please don't be paranoid. Goatse Security has only exploited website and browser vulnerability. They never broke into anyone's computer. They can't figure out who you are, since you are using a fictional character's name as your pseudonym. The only person who should be afraid of privacy issues is me, since I'm extremely transparent. I'm not sure what your baby comment is referring to. I'm not treating you like a child. I'll answer your question with another question: Why were you viewing my contributions and the messages I leave other users? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 14:47, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
        • because you did it to me first thats how i learn you can do it. that dont answer why your still do it and a lot more. i dont think its your real name and you cant prove it so stop saying that its weird like im supposed to believe everything you say since you always use policy for your own goals. but doesnt matter why are you so defensive here. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 14:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
          • I had the pop-ups gadget enabled, so when I hovered over your username, I saw that you had a copyrighted image on your userpage, so I removed it. I then check your contributions in case you had violated the image policy elsewhere. That's my explanation. I'm being defensive because you're accusing of breaking policy and vandalism. And now you're accusing me of manipulating policies. Don't I have the right to defend myself from such claims? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
            • yes but why are you still looking at all my edits. thats how you know to come here even though i didnt know i had to tell you. anyway if my claims are false people can see it themselves by looking at it. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

There isn't anything wrong with viewing other users' contributions. I have the right to know about any discussion concerning me. Right now, it appears as if you prefer closed discussions and leaving individuals such as myself out of the loop. Wikipedia is supposed to be transparent. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• stop putting things in my mouth. i asked a question you dont have to get offended , every time i ask something you and others think im attacking you im just asking . this is what i mean being you being rude. you have right to know about this but im asking how you found out because i forgot to tell you, i dont know procedure. my mistake. but how did you find it. this isnt helping anything why are you arguing here. you just have to say its not you who do vandal to my page. are you saying it wasnt you who put such horrible things. not accusing you of canvas here i only mention it. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 18:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• i probably not reply to what michaeldsuarez say unless it really important because he just try to make me angry. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm not putting things in your mouth. You asked me why I viewed your contributions, and I answered. I already said that I wasn't the vandal, yet you continue to push and push. I'm not trying to make you angry; I'm simply trying to help you understand my position. And you did accuse me of canvassing when you started this threat. You did more than just mention it; you attempted to draw a connection between the alleged canvassing and the vandalism. I'm looking for sympathy from you, not anger. The Internet is just text, so I'm can't convey the tone of comments properly. If you perceive my comments as rude, then that reaction was unintentional and I'm sorry for that. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 18:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
    • after what you put me through with stalk me on here and denial of canvassing which you did clearly according to policy i state on delete discussion , and then after the terrible things put on my page you have no sympathy for me and you dare ask for sympathy FROM me?????? i cant believe it. someone threaten to do X rated things to me and you have no sympathy and demand sympathy. how can you say you not try to anger me after asking sympathy. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 20:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm not sure whether you realize this or not, but I never seen the vandalism done to your userpage, and I can't ever see that vandalism since it was oversighted. I'm not sure how you were threatened, and I can't ever be sure. I never stalked you; I simply didn't want to be left outside the loop. Anyone can view anyone's contributions. Can you please try to understand the situation from my side of the field? --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:09, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
        • you are asking so but you never try to see from my side. to me it look like you canvassing. i still thin you canvass. if you apologize i think you better person but you deny deny deny. and i know it true because you do what policy say you should not. so why should i feel this way for you now after being threat? when you find this long time after you should stop looking at my contribitiions. SunHwaKwonh (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
        • admin here [21] say we cannot convince each other so we both say everything about each other here so we can stop ok? SunHwaKwonh (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
          • Done. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 21:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Just so watchers of this thread are aware: The discussion at User_talk:Antandrus#thanks has expanded significantly. --Michaeldsuarez (talk) 22:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Reading all of SunHwaKwonh (talk · contribs)'s posts, I feel that we are being trolled. Goodvac (talk) 22:39, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Note that after several rounds of trying to get SunHwaKwonh (talk · contribs) to accept that Michaeldsuarez (talk · contribs) and LiteralKa (talk · contribs) had not done anything wrong, and subsequently warning him to stop making baseless allegations, I ended up blocking him for 24h after he tried to start an RfC in the middle of the deletion discussion, and continuing to allege that everyone who had already contributed had been canvassed by Michael. His unblock request alleged that I am also biased (what a surprise), which failed to impress the reviewing admin. I suspect he may return when his unblock expires tonight, in which case, I think more weight may be given to the opinion above. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment

Resolved

 – IP blocked. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:45, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Can somebody check out the history of Wikipedia:Reference desk/Entertainment. Seems to have gone to hell in the past hour or so. Grsz¹¹ 15:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Started with one IP editor that has finally come to understand we're not a general discussion board for stuff only tangentially related to the topic, and another IP editor (who claims to be a regular, despite not having editted before today) has taken over in making WP:POINT-y edits. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

We could always pending change it like we did to the science desk not too long ago. --Ks1stm (talk) ^{[alternate account of Ks0stm]} 15:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Potential Libel issue on Ty Harrell

Would you please see Ty Harrell? The same editor, User talk:Tarheelbabies, has been removing content on the page. After several reverts by the recent changes patrollers, s/he wrote in the summary "I am an associate of Ty Harrell and he has asked me to remove several pieces of false information on his wikipedia page. Harrell is no longer married so his spouse does not need to be listed." (See diff.) I was thus wondering if it might actually contain libel issues, and, from the look of things, Tarheelbabies may soon be blocked for vandalism. Based on the edit summary, I was beginning to get worried that it might start a legal threat/action against Wikipedia or the RC patrollers. Thanks for any information. (RC patrol editors are User:Wayne Olajuwon, User:Wuhwuzdat, and User:Fae) Reaper Eternal (talk) 17:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Talking to the user. /ƒETCHCOMMS/ 17:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus reasserting grossly offensive remarks

Resolved

 – For now, at least, by Elen of the Roads with a one month block. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Justus Maximus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

From here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Communist_terrorism&oldid=396140016

Bishonen, first of all I think you're being disrespectful to women by expecting me to assume that Dianaa doesn't know as much as other admins or by implying she doesn't know what she's talking about. Second, the charges of "disruptive behavior" brought against me have never been substantiated by any evidence. All those alleged "libelous remarks" etc. were established to be a figment of the imagination of Andy and Paul, which is why Andy himself got blocked and forced to retract his statements. Justus Maximus (talk) 10:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)"

For Justus Maximus to suggest that his calling Paul Sibert and myself 'pro-terrorist' was a figment of anyone's imagination, or was not at least grossly offensive and contrary to Wikipedia rules is utterly ludicrous, as reference to the previous AN/I discussions on JM will demonstrate. As for the reason I was blocked, again JM's version is without foundation, as is also demonstrated there. It was made clear to JM at the time of his last blocking that he was expected to comply with Wikipedia standards regarding personal attacks as a condition of unblocking, but instead he seems to prefer to rewrite history to make himself out as some sort of victim in the entire affair. Frankly I'm sick of his endless nit-picking and off-topic rants about everything and everyone that doesn't conform to his viewpoint. It is disruptive to the editing process, and has already driven several established editors to exasperation. Isn't it time to say enough is enough?

(For more of JM's personal attacks, see here - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karl_Marx&oldid=396158328 - and of course on his own talk page).

AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

JM was blocked for personal attacks but was unblocked with the notation "per final chance. please reblock if editor resumes his/her disruptive editing".[22] since then JM has continued to make abusive comments, such as "Besides, your signature does seem to be not only deformed but also positively off color".[23] TFD (talk) 18:04, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am less concerned with this marginal incivility than with JM's propensity for tendentious editing: it seems to be very important to him that communist leaders such as Lenin be labeled as terrorists, and his crusade in that direction is getting to be disruptive. Looie496 (talk) 18:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It would be helpful if both of you could provide examples that can be read on this page, without other editors having to look through JM's edit history. TFD (talk) 18:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Mind you, I have looked through the edit history. This is an area of history/politics/ideaology where people argue toughly. However, JM is somewhat conspicuous for his readiness to assume bad faith and generally insult editors who do not agree with him. The accusation that Bishonen was being "disrespectful to women" because she disagreed with an editor with an apparently female name was pure trolling. Fainites ^barleyscribs 18:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I am also noting this in response to a perfectly civil comment by Paul Seibert. If Looie496 or others have evidence of tendentious editing also, I am minded to reblock. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:58, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

You want more? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Karl_Marx&diff=next&oldid=396157729 AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Because he is now arguing that he did nothing previously to warrant a block, editing tendentiously, bullying behaviour and personal attacks, I have blocked him for a month. He can think about how to better argue his case in that time. In the meantime, I would appreciate it if Andy, Paul, and anyone else he's ever disagreed with could please stay off his talkpage, so as not to precipitate an issue. If he starts making allegations against individuals, I'll deal with it. I have advised him that if he sounds off like last time, I may suspend editing of his talkpage. Thanks. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:32, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

User:MickMacNee

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

---

User:MickMacNee has featured here before, and a couple of weeks ago received an indef block (his nineteenth) for repeated incidents of edit warring, pointy and tendentious arguments and personal attacks on other editors. The recent ANI discussion [24] included the following (prescient) statement from an admin: "In view of his block log I do not believe that any assurances he may give about future good conduct are credible, because his persistently aggressive mode of editing can only be explained as reflecting aspects of his character that are very difficult or impossible for a person to change at will. As such, I ask that any unblock of MickMacNee be considered, if at all, only after thorough discussion in a community forum and accompanied by measures that prevent his returning to the topic areas in which he has been disruptive."

He was subsequently unblocked by an admin who was in personal communication with Mick, an action the blocking admin opposed [25]. Subsequently, Mick filed this AfD in which all the behaviors he's been noted for over the years just keep rolling on. Some sample diffs: [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33]

As Sandstein accurately commented in a discussion of the block removal, "MickMacNee has given no credible assurances for future good conduct or even that he understands why he was blocked." Folks, come on. This is the way Mick argues. This is the way he's always argued on Wikipedia. He is going to keep on with his tendentious, combative, disruptive behavior, and he will continue to provoke other editors into slugfests, as long as he's allowed to do so. May I respectfully ask what you are waiting for?  RGTraynor  18:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to send this to arbitration. The second mover needs to get a wakeup call in these unblock wars, rather than punishing the third mover. Protonk (talk) 18:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Oh, I wasn't thinking of seeking to censure the unblocking admin; regardless of my view on his judgment in this matter, I have no reason not to think he was acting in good faith.  RGTraynor  19:02, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Scott acted in good faith. That's not sufficient. Performing contentious unblocks in the face of disagreement from the blocking admin and some in the community is a serious problem and exacerbates other problems. Were I or any other admin to reeves his decision as he reversed the original decision there is no doubt we would be desysopped quickly. I'm not suggesting that we do that to scott but we have to talk about the problem his action represented and the problems it may have caused. Protonk (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of correcting your AfD link above, as the link was broken. David Biddulph (talk) 18:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Frivolous complaint. Suggest closure and consideration of sanctions against the complainant. You can't get into a pissing contest with someone at AfD then drag them to ANI with a load of diffs, most of which show your opponent correctly drawing the attention of participants to relevant guidelines/policies/essays. I don't believe MMN has been any more uncivil than RGTraynor. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
  • On further examination, it seems RGTraynor has just picked every edit by MMN in that AfD. Only the second-to-last is anything more than fair comment (and not, I might add, because he uses naughty words). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
    • Eh? "My 'behaviour'? You can just stop your sly insinuations and general dickish posts right here thanks." is fair comment? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
      • Fair point, though I've seen worse go unnoticed. This feels a lot like running to teacher after you picked a fight with the school bully because you know he's already in trouble. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:33, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
        • Erm? First off, I'd recheck that "further examination." Not counting opening that AfD nor counting where Mick made responses to several different editors in the same diff, he's made eighteen diffs. I highlighted eight; would you care to retract that "has just picked every edit" remark? Secondly, while "blame the victim" presumes there is a victim in this matter, you seem to be falling into similar behavior. I'd prefer not to believe that you'd be so opposed to WP:AGF as to claim that no one who can be construed to have a grievance files such a complaint other than through malice or with an ulterior motive in mind. Surely, for instance, in the debate about Mick's indef block just two weeks ago, you didn't ask for sanctions on any of the twenty admins and editors who endorsed that block, even though some admitted to having a history with him themselves. That being said, Mick's long and colorful history speaks for itself, and no further debate from me is needful or appropriate. If people feel that ArbCom is a more suitable venue for this matter and an admin wishes to file such a case, fair enough.  RGTraynor  02:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Endorse Close. Consider WP:FOOTBALLPLAYERWHOSHALLNOTBENAMED N419BH 19:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This really needs to go to ArbCom. MickMacNee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been obnoxious across many areas of WP: I can count four separate admins who have applied indefinite blocks, and yet he is still allowed to edit. The fact that he occasionally makes valid contributions should not mask the fact that he has shown himself over a period of more than two years since his first block to be incapable of conforming with the constraints of a collaborative project. Physchim62 (talk) 19:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) user notified. I have been involved with MMN only since his last unblock on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 32‎. Although I'd say his behaviour (discussing with very many opposing votes) seems to become counterproductive (in my eyes), there is not much he has done wrong. In the deletion discussion named above, 2 users discussed his 19 blocks and suggested not to listen to him anymore, which was hardly a comment 'on the subject'. As I said, I have no idea on his full history and how that should be taken into account, but the most recent comments seem to simply take a battle between RGTraynor and MMN here.... L.tak (talk) 19:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This comment to another person participating in the Afd was hostile and the type of comment that the civility guideline was intended to address. Mick's repeated aggressive conduct towards other users is off putting to the point that another user would think twice before approaching him to discuss an issue, or participating in a discussion where he is involved. I agree this needs to go to ArbCom since the Community is not able to sort this out. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 20:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well I am in no way uninvolved here, but I will say this on the complaint. I've seen Mick say much, much worse things than are seen in the diffs here. Mick isn't a nice person, he isn't pleasant to work with, and I don't think he should have been unblocked. That being said, nothing in this complaint, if treated independently of the rest of his long and troubled history, would come close to warranting a block. Even with his history, these incidents don't indicate that another block is needed, at least not yet. Taking this to ArbCom now won't be useful either. Wait for another big incident before going to the Arbs, give them something fresh to work with. Sven Manguard _Talk 20:23, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm confused about this one. Did he refactor someone's comment or am I missing something? Sven Manguard _Talk 20:27, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Close. Neither MickMacNee's nor RG Traynor's behavour in this AfD is exactly exemplary, (and Traynor's bringing this here is questionable). As they have both made their view abundantly clear, I suggest they both unwatch it and let others decide the outcome.  pablo 20:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• To me it is abundantly clear that this belongs at Arbcom. While the behaviour at this AfD would not be anything sanctionable as a one-off event, it's equally an umpteenth example of an AfD being overwrought by MickMacNee's overly aggressive mode of discussion. The unilateral lifting of his last block against community consensus just underlines that this is beyond the ability of community consensus to resolve, and is hence one of those situations best solved by arbitration. ~ mazca ^talk 20:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

It's either that or a personal interaction ban with ... everyone. Rd232 ^talk 21:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

• Mick should be banned from AfD's (atleast for his own good). As to how long? that's up to the community. GoodDay (talk) 21:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• What, again? Obviously the community is not handling this, so dump it on ArbCom; it's their job. Jack Merridew 22:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
• Would a community ban be quicker and easier? Mick could always appeal it to ArbCom in his inimitable manner should he wish to. Physchim62 (talk) 22:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I think I agree that this is a three pipe arbcom problem. The community cannot resolve this. It must go to arbitration. --23:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree. I think ArbCom may be the way to go here. The community has failed to handle this, though the last block really should not have been reversed and that probably needs to be addressed at ArbCom as well. AniMate 01:57, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

OK, so who's going to take it there? Physchim62 (talk) 02:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I cannot say that I am surprised. I will write a request for arbitration.  Sandstein  14:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

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

Disruptive editing by IP user

• 65.209.244.80 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 85.114.137.152 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• 24.118.14.160 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)

On 4 Nov, 65.209.244.80 changed "Byford Dolphin has length of 355 feet (108 m), breadth of 221 feet (67 m) ..." to "Byford Dolphin has width of 355 feet (108 m), breadth of 221 feet (67 m) ...", not understanding that breadth is a synonym for width, and the breadth was already given. He also changed "for long-distance relocation it must be moved by specialist tugboats" to "for far relocation it must be moved by specialist tugboats", without realising that 'long-distance relocation' is idiomatically correct, while 'far relocation' is something no English-speaker would write. He also failed to supply an edit summary for the changes.[34] When Emerson7 (talk · contribs) reverted that, instead of discussion, he re-reverted three more times to insert the same material,[35][36][37] (including an edit summary of the vandalism is yours, arsehole) until he was blocked.

On 10 Nov, editing as 85.114.137.152, he continued the edit war to insert the same changes,[38][39], being reverted first by Emerson7 and then by me (RexxS). My attempts to explain to him on his talk page were met by insistence that he was correct and by insults, then by further abuse at the article talk page, Talk:Byford Dolphin#RexxS, what is wrong with you?. On the same day, he also perpetrated the following abuses of the English language:

• "through exchanges of angular momentum" -> "through trades of angular momentum";
• "at the boundaries of stronger resonances, objects can develop weak orbital instabilities over millions of years. The 4:7 resonance in particular has large instability. KBOs can also be shifted into unstable orbits" -> "at the boundaries of weller resonances, objects can develop weak orbital instabilities over millions of years. The 4:7 resonance in particular has broad instability. KBOs can also be shifted into instabil orbits"[40]
• "Before fast computers were widely available" -> "Until swift computers were widely available"[41]
• "The four large satellites of Jupiter plus the largest inner satellite — Amalthea (moon)|Amalthea — adhere to a regular" -> "The four big satellites of Jupiter and the biggest inner satellite, Amalthea (moon)|Amalthea, cling to a regular"
• "an undiscovered planet" -> "an indiscovered planet"[42]

and more, principally concerned with replacing the word 'large' with 'big' or 'broad'. He was questioned about some of these changes by another editor, Kheider [43]

Today, 11 Nov, he is back as 24.118.14.160, casually tossing more insults at Emerson7 and myself, "ignorantly or deludedly", "emerson7 the illiterate".[44] Although some parts of his edits are indeed useful, he seems to have an idiosyncratic view of what English is, and is attempting to inflict it on Wikipedia. He will not listen to reason, but insists on his own view: "And RexxS, my English is not poor. Yours and the world's is."

In addition, the three IP addresses used geolocate to: Santa Clara, CA; Berlin; Minneapolis, respectively. An SPI request by Emerson7 was declined, because there wasn't anything checkusers could do. I am concerned at the users ability to hop IP addresses and assume that proxies are being used.

It would be nice to think that the IP user could be persuaded to edit constructively and collegiately, but I see no evidence that he is amenable. I therefore propose that he be site-banned as disruptive, so that when he IP-hops again, we can use WP:RBI to avoid further waste of community time and resources. --RexxS (talk) 19:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The marked linguistic idiosyncracies in the above edits strike me as characteristic of the person who posts prolifically to Usenet as "Autymn DC"—often with spelling flames, ironically enough. Her peculiar diction (orthography as well, less evident in the above) seems to be premised on some sort of quirky Saxonism. —Odysseus1479 (talk) 21:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If these edits really are all the same person, they are almost certainly editing through a proxy (one IP is in Minnesota, one in Dusseldorf, the third wasn't saying). RexxS, could you make a report here Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies to get it checked. I can block all of these, but he/she is certain to hop again. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:42, 11 November 2010 (UTC) S'okay, Zzuzz got um Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That's interesting, Odysseus, as I got the same sort of impression about an "old English obsession". It was also not uncommon in the old days for flamers on usenet to find open proxies to use, so the two seem to tie together. Thanks Elen & Zzuzz for solving it, even if temporarily, I'll look to Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies if she shows up again. I don't think there's anything more needed here, so unless anyone objects, could an uninvolved editor check it over and mark this up as "resolved" please? --RexxS (talk) 01:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

User Go porch books disrupting Wikipedia to make a point

Go porch books (talk · contribs) has an unresolved content dispute related to Hyundai and various Hyundai cars with North wiki (talk · contribs). Instead of resolving this on the Hyundai talk pages or following other dispute resolution avenues, Go porch books has instead been adding negative information to articles related to Honda and Toyota, i.e. violating Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. Other users have repeatedly asked them to stop trying to make a point this way, and instead work to resolve the problem related to Hyundai. See User talk:Go porch books, User talk:Dbratland#What can I do?, and User talk:North wiki#POV pushing.

Go porch books (talk · contribs) could very likely win consensus on the real problem (i.e. Hyundai) if they would cease acting as if "two wrongs make right" by damaging unrelated articles. --Dbratland (talk) 20:50, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. If my behavior looks bad. I apology this. But, same thing apply to North wiki (talk · contribs).

1. "various Hyundai cars with North wiki (talk · contribs)."...

Various? No true. I only dispute with 2 articles.

1. My edits are completely normal. It 100% based on sourced materials.[45] [46] [47] Please explain what these edits are problem?
2. I only follow north wiki's style edit. It is obvious North wiki are deliberately adding negative information about Hyundai (and Honda POV pushing) without giving any indication why it is significant. This is Tendentious editing. However, if i did same thing it is completely wrong? Go porch books (talk) 21:06, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I added these. My edits are really problem?

• 3/5 stars by NHTSA under 2010 new test rules. In 2010, The Toyota Camry is one of worst safety vehicles rated three Star under new rules as of November 2010. Source : [48](NHTSA) [49](consumerreports), [50](AOL), [51], [52]
• In October 2010, it is reported that Brake Defect from Honda Honda Legend were delivered to customers before the problem is discovered. Honda says that it doesn’t know how many of its vehicles have suffered a faulty brake system. The U.S. Honda outfit says it will replace the faulty seal and, if leaking has occurred, the brake booster will be replaced as well. At least some owners in the UAE, Saudi Arabia and other GCC countries are likely affected. Honda told that no stop-sale is issued. Source : [53][54][55]

Is it really problem? I exactly borrow from north wiki's edit.

• In October 2010, it is reported that a small number of Sonata turbo model with improper rubber hose feeding oil to the turbo unit were delivered to customers before the problem is discovered. Hyundai told media that no stop-sale is issued.[56] (edit by north wiki)
• In November 2010, it is reported that Honda Accord received the highest possible safety rating among 2011 model year passenger cars tested by NHTSA, edging ahead of Hyundai Sonata.[57] (edit by north wiki)
• Hyundai's ranking fell to twelfth in 2007.[58](edit by north wiki)

Is it similar? OK. If my behavior is bad. I apology this. I can STOP it. But, North wiki (talk · contribs) did it first. (I did same thing as him. If his edit is OK, My edit is also OK) I EXACTLY learned from him.Go porch books (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

If "it is obvious North wiki are deliberately adding negative information," then remove the information or, if your edits have been reverted, discuss the matter at the talk page for the related article. Doing what you admit is tendentious editing to other pages is disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and will get you blocked.

Also, as I already told you on your talk page,[59] you should not use North wiki's conduct as a justification, excuse, template, or anything else for your edits. Your edits are the issue here, not anybody else's. If you choose not to edit within the guidelines, you may be sanctioned. Whether or not other editors are sanctioned or how they conduct themselves is not the issue here. The issue here is your conduct—which to this point, I've assumed good faith that you did not understand the guidelines and, as a result, have not blocked you for it yet. However, it's been explained repeatedly, and saying that another user "did it first" will no longer excuse any misconduct.—C.Fred (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I did EXACTLY same thing as North wiki. He did it first. And he inserted every negative things to Hyundai pages, Is it OK to his behavior? I can also insert Honda's recall information. The recall was FACT. Sourced material. my edits are completely NORMAL with proven relaible sources. I can't find what is the bad point of me. North wiki are deliberately adding negative information about Hyundai (and Honda POV pushing) without giving any indication why it is significant. This is Tendentious editing. You should point out these. If north wiki stop this first, i can stop it. Go porch books (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I can't find what is the PROBLEM of my Toyota Camry and Honda Oddysey edit. (explained at above. all proven sources) Is it really problem? Go porch books (talk) 21:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a very immature outlook. If Wiki north's edits were incorrect, then he may have made a mistake or had a misunderstanding. The difference is that you are purposely adding inappropriate information, and trying to justify it by saying that someone else did the same thing, so it should be ok. Grow up and discuss the issue like an adult. SnottyWong ^verbalize 22:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to point out that if the information is verifiable and notable then it should not be removed from articles. I agree that subsequent edits by Go porch books and North wiki are possibly motivated to prove a point, but at the end of the day, the information is verifiable. Some of the information that has been added, such as the 570,000 Honda vehicle recall and the significant downgrade to the Toyota Camry (XV40)'s safety rating is very notable. Whether or not other users like this "negative" information is irrelevant. In summary, the information added by North wiki and Go porch books should be included. OSX (talk • contributions) 22:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen anything so childish as the way that Go porch books is behaving. Snottywong's excellent advice to "grow up and discuss the issue like an adult" should be heeded. Wikipedia is not the place for petty playground spats. Perhaps he/she (or even the both of them) should be given a short wikiholiday to consider their actions. --Biker Biker (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, Go porch books filed a WP:ANEW report,[60] and now both of them are blocked for 24 hours as a result. —C.Fred (talk) 23:16, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Requesting immediate vandalism only block

Resolved

 – user blocked, edit revdel'd. Thanks for the quick response! --Hammersoft (talk) 21:57, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

See this. Only edit of User:Beenvery. Requesting immediate block as an account used only for vandalism. --Hammersoft (talk) 21:55, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I also revdeled that diff. It was pretty eggregious, to say the least. Keep an eye open to see if he comes back. Given the fact that he found that template and knew roughly what he was doing, he's not new to Wikipedia today. I have no idea, as yet, who he is, but that was not his first edit. --Jayron32 22:00, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

The person was behind a couple of proxies, both of which have been blocked. TNXMan 23:08, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Bad editing

FD45 (talk · contribs) has re-created the hoax article Pokémon X at least twice and got warned for it. He has also created several WP:FAKEARTICLEs in userspace, including User:FD45/International Song Festival Junior / Infant. After that, he created {{Diogo The Mii}} and My Jaime has a Digimon!, further hoaxing material. Not one of his edits has been in good faith, just flat out hoaxing and nonsense. All this even after two "only warning"s for his bad edits. Given that he's clearly not here to make anything useful, can someone please drop the block on him? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 22:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

John has blocked, I'll deal with the fakes. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Clear User Space

Can someone look at this, and let me know if, in a future case like this, it requires admin status to deal with this, and if not, what the correct process would be to do something about it? (I'm a little unclear about user space policies, so I wanted to play it safe in this instance). Thanks! The Eskimo (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Well nevermind, it's been blanked, but still curious: It was a blatantly offensive series of texts and images that would be offensive to Muslims. Do only admins have the tools to delete or blank a user space when it's so obvious? The Eskimo (talk) 22:25, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No, WP:Office members also are able to delete and stuff - Arbs and Crats are nowadays admins as well, so they use those flags. Non flagged editors cannot delete, since there is no way of providing tools for only "serious" abuse as that is often a qualitive judgement, but they can certainly blank before going to find someone with a mop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thanks for the reply! The Eskimo (talk) 04:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Longevity-related articles

A number of editors are concerned that articles related to long-lived people are being treated as a walled garden. Various threads are going at FTN and RSN, plus discussion on a number of talk pages and WikiProject World Oldest People. There is an open medcab mediation on Longevity myths, currently moving very slowly. It would take anyone a while to read up on it all, and I don't expect that. But I would really appreciate effective action on the conflict of interest issue. This thread on COIN has not resulted in any clear-cut yes or no. The diffs are provided there. Could a completely uninvolved admin look into it? Otherwise, I fear that it will drag on into an ArbCom case. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:28, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(Non-administrator comment)J Just a comment by some one who has been observing the COI and WP:MEDCAB case and Related threads, and see mostly conensus against you. Thus I personally view this a Forum shopping. Focus on the WP:MEDCAB case resolve issue there instead of coming here to get something done about Ryoung122 The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As someone who I guess is involved at this point, or at least outspoken, I don't see a consensus against Judith. I see general disinterest in addressing this issue. Yes all the wikiproject members don't agree with Judith, but what neutral voices have really weighed in here? Most of the posts, at various noticeboards, have just fallen on def ears. Personally I think this is a shame, because this case represents a serious trivialization of the project.Griswaldo (talk) 23:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)I came to this set of articles in response to a post on WP:FTN about the still-thorny question of how we handle "myth" in relation to the Bible. Before that I had not come across longevity articles at all. I have been discussing on FTN very patiently but the issues involved go beyond fringiness. So it's not forum shopping, but unpacking separate questions for appropriate dispute resolution. I left the COIN thread running for a long time to see if it would get uninvolved input. And it's far from being mostly consensus against me - see RSN today where User:GRuban has been convinced through argument. The medcab case has for several days now been just issues between me and JJB, which we could have resolved civilly on talk pages anyway. I would really like admin comment on the COI, which has in the past attracted the attention of arbitrators. RA, if you would like to comment on the medcab page then I will be interested to read your perspective. Itsmejudith (talk) 00:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Disinterest in a COI case is usually means lack of a real case. My observation is a our "Experts are scum" mantra in action. Ryoung122 has been an asset to area where there is a lack of expertise in Academia. So far from I what observed his work has not been anywhere near the trouble some experts have caused on Wiki. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Except for when the supposedly reliable source he runs claimed someone had died based on the word of an anonymous government official, prompting protests from a member of her family, see this for details. O Fenian (talk) 00:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

The government (A RS!) reported her death! End of story! Not Ryoung122! I am not seeing what you want me to see in that link.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No, the government did not report her death. Some anonymous government official told Ryoung122 she had died, and Ryoung122 reported it as fact. Since when do the deaths of living people get sourced in that way? You will also note that the editors involved in the walled garden insist that for their claim of death to be contradicted a news report stating she was alive was required.. O Fenian (talk) 01:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I said this over at the WikiProject talkpage; expert input is welcome, but not to the exclusion of policy. To elaborate on the example I used over there, we don't allow Moonies to have the final word on what members of the Unification Church clergy are notable or the information required to insert claims about them; similarly, the experts on centenarians shouldn't have the final word on which ones are notable or what the sourcing requirements are. And no, anonymous tips to a specific editor (like the one in the example) don't pass RS; how can we possibly verify that? There is a bit of a walled garden mentality; it can definitely be fixed, but we can't have people with major COIs stonewalling every attempt to break out of said mentality— which is why I took a look at it, to give it a fresh set of eyes. I'd encourage other uninvolved editors to do the same. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I confirm everything Blade, O Fenian, Itsmejudith, and Griswaldo have said above. I'm disappointed that RA characterizes O's link as saying a RS reported the death, which indicates indifference to standard WP:BLP policy that a recent death be cited to an accessibly linked RS (or perhaps a view that Ryoung122 is a walking RS). I'm disappointed that RA characterizes the COI link, our second strong consensus that Ryoung122 has massive COI, as lack of a real case (rather than a COI finding without an enforcement option). I respectfully request an uninvolved admin make a recommendation on how to prosecute a COI finding not voluntarily admitted by the COI party nor enforced by anyone. Earlier today I listed some options here, ANI being one of them.

Though the issues are widespread, I think these are salient and diffs are available: (1) Ryoung122's return from indef block being accompanied by a promise to avoid COI, which appears totally forgotten shortly after; (2) Ryoung122's failure to comment at mediation cabal for 2 weeks now, while continuing strongly incivil and POV editing; (3) Ryoung122's propagation of POVs into many other editors' minds (some stated to be teens) over a 5-year period such that these concerns, when stated by one or two individuals, often get drowned out by an apparent consensus that is no different from (are we still calling it) meatpuppetry. Specific instances of content issues abound, but a simple one to understand is that we had a bolding war of about 15 cycles of editors restoring bolding to a date, clearly contrary to WP:MOSBOLD, citing such reasons as IAR, we've always done it this way, and all the researchers think it's important to keep the date bolded; such that an admin had to threaten a block for the very next revert. Incredibly entrenched. Looks like I've gone long again, please propose a best option. JJB 02:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

(ec)As anyone can see there is hardly a consensus against IMJ efforts. This area of the Wiki needs lots of cleanup. There is no anti-expert anything going on here and I highly resent the accusation from ResidentAnthropologist. We all recognize the expertise, and we are not arguing against it. We're simply asking for people to abide by Wikipedia policy in relation to things like WP:N, WP:V, WP:BLP etc. Ryan is an expert in an area that covers information that is mostly trivia. Good for him. But that doesn't mean we need to follow his lead an disrespect the afore mentioned policies on his say so. No way. When subjects aren't notable they should get the axe. When reliable sources are needed we need more than the word of his yahoo group and when reporting the death of a BLP we most certainly need more than his say so. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ryoung122 even considers his fellow verifier, Louis Epstein, more a rival than a friend, and considers the GRG founder, Stephen Coles, to be less reliable than himself. If Ryoung122 thinks even the GRG pages are unreliable until he double-checks them, this is a bit more than just COI going on. Anyway, repeat, respectfully request uninvolved admin. JJB 02:36, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

BLP violations

Please watchlist Wexham Park Hospital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and NHS Counter Fraud and Security Management Service Division (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for recurrence of BLP violations by an anonymous editor. I have not semiprotected as the edits were a couple of weeks back, the chance of recurrence is still there. There is no source for the text and zero relevant hits for the name of the individual, so this is probably a personal vendetta rather than a good-faith attempt to document controversy. Thanks. Guy (Help!) 23:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

As stated the content was potentially defamatory, so I suppressed the edits. FloNight♥♥♥♥ 23:49, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Boxer Rebellion

Boxer Rebellion is a controversial topic, because there are two versions of it:

• (1) Version one: The Chinese government official version, in that version, Boxers were patriotic anti-imperialists hero.
• (2) Version two: According to independent historians (Chinese and non-Chinese, including Yuan Weishi, 侯宜傑, (中国社会科学院研究员) Boxers were bandits, killers, rioters and arsonists. I have read a lot of assays, books, including 庚子國變記, 拳變餘聞, 西巡迴鑾始末, and 「神拳」義和團的真面目, books by Jane E Elliott, Peter Harrington, Michael Perry, Albert Feuerwerker, S. Cheng, Larry Clinton Thompson, and Xiaorong Han. After reading so many books, I know that the current version of Boxer Rebellion is a unbalanced and misleading article, which required a complete rewrite.

When I tried to discuss with Дунгане on ways to improve the content of the article, Дунгане began to accuse me of being a racist and a lier:

• User:Arilang1234's position on this article is almost exactly the same as White supremacist Arthur Kemp,
• Arilang1234 has lied about his translations before
• According to Arilang, Leo Tolstoy and Mark Twain are Communist propaganda activists,
• The Kuomintang has also called Western Christian missionaries imperialist,
• User:Arilang1234 pushing blatant POV, violating concensus, and refuses to talk out disputes with me before editing the article,
• Arilang1234 has lied about his translations before,

It is very clear that Дунгане is more interested in conducting in personal attacks against me, than trying to improve the article. I strongly feel that such a conduct should not be tolerated among wikipedia editors. Arilang ^talk 00:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Separating the issues is of paramount importance here. Disputes over content are not the province of admins, and if they can't be sorted out on the relevant Talk pages, should be referred to some form of dispute resolution. Personal attacks, however, should be supported by clear examples. Thus far, your complaints are too vague to be actionable. Sorry but we aren't psychic, so please try to narrow down your complaints. Rodhullandemu 02:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Laundry List of Bad faith edits by User:Arilang1234

Hello, everyone, I'm afraid that User:Arilang1234 has been exhibiting blatant POV and has not shown and interest in constructively contributing to wikipedia. This is not a mere dispute, i actually tried to talk it out with Arilang, but unfortunetly, he revised massive sourced sections of the article without giving an explanation, falsely claiming that the "Lead section changed per talk page discussion", no one except Arilang had agreed to change anything in the lead on tthe talk page.

Also, Arilang displays extremely hateful and uncivil language toward manchus in his sandbox intro

Arilang violates WP:SOAP by suggesting that wikipedia articles are to be edited for political reasons

Also, lets take a look at Arilang1234's earliest edits on wikipedia- quote directly from what Arilang added to the article in 2008- "The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme." he and some hired Mongols fought off a group of barbaric attacking Boxers with wooden sticks - Manchu tribal rulers chose to remain ignorant and barbaric

I hope you will objectively analyze Arilangs "contributions", to the article, and his massive copy and paste from wikiesource into the talk page, claiming these wikisource text should be used as a "reliable source" for the article.

User:Arilang1234 does not understand that wikisource is not a reliable source- [61]. Not only That, even if wikisource is counted as a reliable source, User:Arilang1234 has either not read it, or, I'm afraid to say- has lied about the contents, saying "You need to be able to read Chinese", yet the majority of the wikisource article is about the Communist party against Japan, not just the "Chinese Communist Party only attack KMT", as Arilang claimed here

Arilang is also engaging in Ad hominem Straw man attacks, claiming that the "Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China" was used as a source in the aritcle, yet i only see western sources in the refernces, none of them from the "Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China".

in another edit, User:Arilang1234 either did not read the content, or, again, i'm reluctant to accuse people of this, but this is the only other possibility- lied when he said "Remove unreferenced content", since there was a reference in the information he removed

User:Arilang1234 claims here that "Jane E. Elliott's book is not about Boxer, it is about art.)"

Yet anyone can see the description of Jane E Elliott's book "Some did it for civilisation, some did it for their country: a revised view of the boxer war", on google books is "This book marks a total departure from previous studies of the Boxer War. It evaluates the way the war was perceived and portrayed at the time by the mass media. As such the book offers insights to a wider audience than that of sinologists or Chinese historians. The important distinction made by the author is between image makers and eyewitnesses. Whole categories of powerful image makers, both Chinese and foreign, never saw anything of the Boxer War but were responsible for disseminating images of that war to millions of people in China and throughout the world."

In addition, Arilang1234 has frequently insulted dead people because of their ethnicity, calling Qianlong Emperor a outdated,backward barbaric chieftain, just because he was a Manchu.

Arilang thinks its okay to say barbaric Manchus, which is clear racism against Manchus.

Arilang also thinks wikipedia is a platform to accuse Manchus specifically of perputrating atrocities.

Arilang also does not understand that the article is not "limited" to actions only done by Boxers, just because it has "Boxer" in the title, Boxer Rebellion. According to Arilang's logic, all references to British should be remove from the French and Indian War article, since the title only says French and Indian, yet the British played a major role in the war

arilang seems to think that since the title only contains the words "boxer rebellion", that the article should only be about Boxers, and that massive sections should be deleted because they don't contain the word "boxer".

Quote from Arilang1234- " have make a judgement based on commonsense, is that the Chinese official version cannot stand up to scrutiny, in short, their effort to promote Boxers as national hero is just pathetic."

Since when are wikipedia users allowed to insert their own personal opinions and use wikipedia as a soapbox?

I also do not appreciate the threatening tone Arilang1234 is displaying in this question against me. not only is it threatening, it is completely irrelevant to the article.Дунгане (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• User:Arilang1234 does not understand that original research is not allowed in wikipedia

User:Arilang1234 should take a look at Wikipedia:No original research- "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources."

Arilang1234 said above- "After reading so many books, I know that the current version of Boxer Rebellion is a unbalanced and misleading article, which required a complete rewrite."

Apparently, Arilang1234 does not comprehend that original research is not welcome in Wikipedia.Дунгане (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• User:Arilang1234 also using straw man attacks

NO WHERE in the Boxer Rebellion article, did i edit that the Boxer were "anti imperialist hero", and no chinese source, government or otherwise, was used as a reference by me or anyone else-

• User:Arilang1234 has a history of making hateful, racist comments on Boxer Rebellion talk page, and threatens to attack people

Quoted directly from User:Arilang1234- " when it comes to the subject of history, we need to be more firm towards lies and cheats. Do you follow internet news Benj? There is this guy by the name of 阎#年, he is 72 yrs old yet was slapped in the face in public! Because he shamelessly advocate Manchus rule on CCTV. If I happen to be there, I personally will throw some rotten eggs on his face. "Old Chinese communist education history text books blamed the western power on everything, is just like putting the horse behind the cart. Yes, western powers were evil, we all know that, but what about Manchus, have anyone really really have a closer examination and analysis on Manchus, WHAT THEY HAVE DONE IN THE PAST 300 YEARS? Why didn't they adopt modern western weapons(or at least buy them, if they cannot manufacture them), Why did they stick to bows and arrows when fast loading rifles(Wincester) could be bought in international markets, instead they spend massive amounts of silver bars on garden building. My conclusion is the Manchus deserved every battle field defeats they got in the 2 opium wars"Дунгане (talk) 03:15, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Arilang1234 does not understand that wikipedia is NOT a political platform

In addition, he seems to think that wikipedia is a political platform for him to put issues in the "spotlight. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or means of promotionДунгане (talk) 03:17, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• User:Arilang1234 use wikipedia to advance ethnic hatred against non han chinese races

[62] [63] [64]Дунгане (talk) 03:37, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Again, Arilang1234 is using wikisource as a source,- [65][66] Arilang1234 Himself created the wikisource articleДунгане (talk) 04:26, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Stop creating a new sub-section for every single qualm you have with this editor. Just use a simple, bulleted list, instead of what I term to be spamming ANI by making this bigger than it is.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 03:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hehee - I was gonna say that if this becomes a standard AN/I report procedure, we're in for some serious trouble... Doc talk 03:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Pot, meet kettle. One says "barbarian", other says (in effect) "Nazi". Are we done here? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. Дунгане put a lot of effort into this report (duh ;>): and this random diff stands out to me in particular. "The Boxers were complete salvages and barbarians,were stupid to the extreme."[67] That's a really terrible, unreferenced "addition" to the article. Sure, that's possibly just a content dispute, but "overzealousness" (is that even a word?) in reporting shouldn't necessarily reflect negatively on the issues brought forth. Дунгане: "short and sweet" is often the best way to go about it, but each case is different. Doc talk 04:23, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• Good thing there wasn't a Wrestler Rebellion; those buggers fight dirty... HalfShadow 04:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

What I meant was (and is):

• Arilang, you don't have to change your views, but quit throwing "savages" and "barbarians" around.
• Dungane, you don't have to change your views, but quit letting "white supremacist[s]" out of the box.

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 04:52, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I noted Arthur Kemp, a White supremacist's views on the Boxer rebellion were similar to Arilang here to refute Arilang's ad hominen attack that in which he claimed that since that the view in the article is the same of that as Mao Zedong, that it must be falseДунгане (talk) 04:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• sigh*.... so was that helpful? Or did it pile on? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 05:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

• User:Arilang1234 had added the word "undefined" across the article, breaking numerous links and causing massive mispelling, not only once, but twice here and here

I'm not a tech guy, but i seriously doubt Arilang's explanation, which is that his "PC had been planted with some sort of bugs". If we look at the way Arilang inserted "undefined" into the links, it looks as if he did it in almost the same places, but added one more in the second attempt, almost as if he did it manually.

In addition, Arilang1234 made five consecutive edits to the article and one to the talk page in between the two edits when he inserted undefined all over the article, and nothing happened in those edits. they are listed here-[68][69]http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Boxer_Rebellion&diff=prev&oldid=395301531[70][71][72]

I find it nothing short of amazing that this was the result of a bug in Arilang's PC.

He also thinks its okay to test the article instead of the sandbox, leaving another editor to remove what he added during the "test".

As Arilang1234 stated above, he wants a major rewrite of the article. So hypothetically, if he slipped in the word "undefined", all over the article, instead of blatant vandalism, which would be seen right away, later, he could come back to it, and fix it, by "rewriting" the entire article to his own POV.

And i've been advised not to add more incidents to the list, so after this, i will not report anything unless it is ongoing in the article.Дунгане (talk) 06:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Toa Nidhiki05 disruptive editing

A dispute has been on-going for a number of months as to which candidates should be included in election infoboxes. There is an ongoing RfC on the issue and an another discussion continuing on the topic. However, User:Toa Nidhiki05 has seen it fit to remove the candidates he does not want to see in the election infobox and continutally revert the re-addition pending discussions. It is borderline vandalism. The user is disruptively editing and, despite repeated calls for discussion and consensus before this removals, the editing continues. See [73][74].--TM 02:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This was a misunderstanding and forgetfulness on my part for the Mass. one; the other is not disruptive at all, as I am clearly enforcing WP:NPOV and WP:DUE, both of which are important pillars of this website. Toa Nidhiki05 02:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible case of WP:OWN at G.A. Siwabessy

Editor User:Hahndyto has repeatedly removed things from this article such as:

• Defaultsort and categories
• Persondata
• An interwiki link
• Tags such as multiple issues, orphan, poor English, and rough translation, without the issues being addressed (diffs: [75], [76], [77], [78], [79])
• Syntax fixes (diff: [80])
• Conversion of external links to Wikipedia articles to internal link format

He/she has also re-added some things that were taken out such as:

• Notes about the author of the article (diffs: [81], [82], [83])

Additional diffs showing examples: [84], [85], [86]

There are more diffs, but I think these show what I'm talking about.

I've tried to explain that other editors are allowed to edit this article, and that some of the things being removed are standard to Wikipedia articles and should be left in, but I don't seem to be getting through. Can someone help? Thanks. --Auntof6 (talk) 03:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

tagged under G12, it said at then end The article had been published in magazines Tabaos, Media Information & Communications, for limited community, Maluku Foundation Scholarship Fund (YDBM), Volume 7, No. 3, October 2010, Jakarta The article reads like a bad translation of such an article as would be published Foundation's website or News letterThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 04:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

edit warring at Armenian language

Armenian language is an area I don't want to be using my buttons, so could others take a look pls. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Looks like User:Courcelles already picked it off for you. --Jayron32 04:54, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Fully protected for a few days, and served Aryamahasattva with an WP:ARBAA2 notice over the slow edit war. Courcelles 05:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Was wondering what was going on with the block - since I was about to file a complaint against Aryamahasattva myself, and may still do so. You may notice that said editor has not once engaged on the discussion page. This explains Courcelle's action, which I had questioned - although I must say I protest the block rather than just a warning to Aryamahasattva.μηδείς (talk) 05:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you have Sheldon Lennard in a can? Would you like help putting him in one?

I was watching The Big Bang Theory tonight, when one of the characters mentioned Wikipedia. To be precise, it was Amy who mentioned it, the nerdiest of three women in the scene. These women were having a slumber party, & Amy, who had never been to a slumber party, consulted Wikipedia for ideas of what to do at one. Which led me to look at Slumber party, where I found a rather surprising assertion which I reverted. (This is the reason for my comment to Will Wheaton in the edit summary.)

Silly me. I had no idea this assertion about "harmless experimentation in lesbianism" was an important part of the plot of tonight's episode. (I should mention here that Will Wheaton had nothing to do with that episode, to make it clear that I am not violating any of the rules regarding WP:BLP.)

I'm not sure what more need to be done at this point than perhaps semi-protecting this article. Or maybe we can call up one of the show's creators & ask him if his refrigerator is running. But I thought some folks here might like to read about this as a change from the usual WikiDramaz. -- llywrch (talk) 05:47, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ehh...I would say semi-protection not needed, most likely. It's now several hours after the show aired, and nothing has happened since you're revert, so it's not exactly moving at a fast pace. I think if a few people here who will be on for another couple hours would volunteer to watchlist it, we should be good. This might be worth posting at Wikipedia in culture, though. =) Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 05:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That also looks like a coincidence, but I could be wrong as I don't watch that show. We're officially cool now! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Never having seen the show in question, I'm curious how Sheldon Leonard figures into the old joke about Prince Albert. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:34, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

RevisionDeletion noticeboard (II)

(Moved to WP:AN) FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 06:45, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Attack pages tonight

I have speedily deleted an unusually large number of attack pages tonight, a weird trend. I am gonna knock off for the night so if admins who are night owls or in different time zones could keep an eye out for this kind of activity that would be great. Thanks. --Diannaa ^(Talk) 06:27, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of user talk page

Hi, I'm responding to a user's rquest to have his old talk page deleted, since he's no longer active after a ban. Since the request was made by email to the OTRS team, its contents are confidential, so I need an administrator to contact me through the email link on my user page. (Btw. I'm just relaying the request and have no opinion as to the rules or routine regarding talk page deletion). Cheers! Asav (talk) 07:06, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Sent you an e-mail. Courcelles 10:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible Suicide Threats/Death Threats

Resolved

 – Korruski says WMF is on it move along The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:01, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess... start the routine... sombody... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 10:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

more... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I have contacted the Wikimedia foundation. An admin will need to block the user and someone with checkuser access will need to find their location.--Korruski^Talk 11:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI - I have received confirmation that someone at the WM Foundation is looking into it.--Korruski^Talk 11:08, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

• Mdupont (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - On Gjeravica (diff);. User copy-pasted article over redirect, after being informed multiple times that copy-paste is not valid way for moving articles. diff, diff, diff, and placed a note atop with this:

"NOTICE: This article is a fork of the article Đeravica because they refuse to change the name to albanian. there is an ongoing edit conflict with the serbs over the names in wikipedia."

As there are no ongoing edit conflict, i am asking for a block, as nothing else helped. User is not willing to cooperate, which is clear from his "they refuse" attitude, and other posts on wiki. And also, he is pointing to the national origin of editors, which is unacceptable. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 11:02, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Final warning given for copyright-violation. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 11:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I am an active wikipedia editor. I am willing to cooperate. Lets resolve this. Where is the copyright violation? James Michael DuPont (talk) 11:33, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Cut-and-paste copying within Wikipedia is a copyright violation when it does not maintain the relevant article history. Of much greater importance, though, is that such "forked" articles are not allowed by Wikipedia policy, even if they have correct attribution. — Gavia immer (talk) 11:38, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

A copy-paste move is indeed a copyvio but not a daunting one, since it can easily be fixed afterwards with a move, which also moves the contrib history. Nor was this vandalism. However, it was indeed a PoV fork, which isn't allowed, along with what was more or less a non-consensus beginning of a page move, both of which are not only disruptive, but since it has to do with a topic area under Wikipedia:General_sanctions, any uninvolved admin can either sanction or if need be, block such behaviour rather swiftly. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok. I see the problem. I will not make forks. It was just an expermiment to try and resolve the issue. Obviously this is no place for experiments, because the issue is very serious. Please accept my apology. There are very many places that I have seen where important information is missing like the albanian names from Kosovo articles and where also the point of view seems to be not neutral. I will work on fixing them inside the existing naming scheme and without copying articles. We have been trying to recruit new editors and alot of them dont want to help wikipedia because they feel offended that the place they live has a different name and seems to be biased. That was my motivation to try and resolve that. I see that it was the wrong way. thanks Mike. James Michael DuPont (talk) 11:59, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Generally we go with the most common Anglicised form of a name for the article title and mention any variations prominently in the first sentence or two of the lead (see WP:UE). That, plus redirects from the alternatives, should hopefully handle the mechanics of naming and finding an article. It is difficult where national sensibilities come into the equation, but hopefully sticking strictly to the naming conventions at least produces a consistent result. Sometimes we just have to accept that we can't please everyone. EyeSerene^talk 12:11, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

In Kosovo the articles are using mostly serbian letters that cannot even be typed. This is not very optimal. Also The links between the articles are also all in serbian, so if you dont know the serbian name, but know the albanian or english name it is hard to navigate. My patches to include the albanian names of the links are also being removed. It seems that the only place we can agree to add them are in the lead of the article. this is not really optimal. If we could at least list both names for the links, I would be happy. James Michael DuPont (talk) 12:22, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Current names have been agreed by community consensuses as most common, and most appropriate. Also, some of them are English common names too, so those were not used just as being Serbian, it were used per wikipedia guidelines regarding names. Also, your addition of dual language links in EVERY POSSIBLE PLACE makes articles completely unreadable. And also, this is not wikipedia only for local community, this is at first encyclopedia for English speaking community, and names have been chosen appropriately. Who wants to find article by their other names, can use redirects, but articles should have other languages only in lead, as explained by EyeSerene. --WhiteWriter ^speaks 14:05, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There has never been a consensus that the names of the cities of Kosovo should be in Serbian. --Sulmuesi (talk) 15:46, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

WP:OWN and WP:COI at House rabbit

User:Ed Brey is violating WP:OWN and WP:COI at House rabbit, e.g. [87] and [88]. Does not listen to article talk page consensus re proper pronoun usage and makes the page his personal playground in other ways (e.g., insertion of self-promoting links). Also see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#He/she or it when talking about pets? --Morn (talk) 11:20, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Lady Gaga song articles

Since early April, users Tbhotch and Chasewc91 have breached multiple policies regarding song articles about Lady Gaga, with Tbhotch refusing to accept the general consensus that writing credits should be attributed to the stage name not the real name, whilst Chasewc91 keeps suggesting that Alejandro is a synthpop song, when in reality, it is a song with electropop and disco influences. I would be grateful if these two are banned from the Wikipedia community altogether. 12:30, 12 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.157.208.210 (talk)

I moved this here from WT:AN, where it would have passed unseen. I note that the IP has not notified either editor mentioned above. — Gavia immer (talk) 12:51, 12 November 2010 (UTC) Followup: I've notified all editors of this thread. — Gavia immer (talk) 13:03, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd have to wonder where a consensus to credit stage names arose from. Song credits are a fairly serious and precise matter of legality; when ASCAP cuts a check to her every month, the name on the paper is most certainly not "Lady Gaga". Tarc (talk) 15:25, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Almost always, the name on the logs is the stage name, the contract with the (song/composition) performance rights group such as ASCAP carries both the stage name and the legal name, as do their databases. The stage/marketing name is always the name to credit, that's what it's for. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:39, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

IP hopper Armenophobe

I'm coming here with this as the only response I got down at WP:CCN was this editor trying to censor my post: Someone (from Turkey according to geolocate) has been going between articles relating to the Urartu empire and removing references to Armenia. He's left me a message on my talk page accusing me of being an Armenophile, but beyond that refuses to talk about his edits. I've quit leaving warnings, because he switches to a different IP address every day. Banning probably won't accomplish anything with the IP hopping, I'm thinking page protection is going to be necessary. Special:Contributions/78.182.3.207, Special:Contributions/78.182.11.67, Special:Contributions/78.180.98.119, Special:Contributions/78.184.226.130, Special:Contributions/78.190.176.59, Special:Contributions/78.190.178.106, Special:Contributions/78.180.112.18 (same pattern, also attempted to delete the above list from my post at WP:CCN). Ian.thomson (talk) 12:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, I would notify the editor, but as he keeps hopping IPs there's no guarantee he'd get the message; although considering his attempt to censor me at WP:CCN, I'm guessing he's stalking me and will be aware of the discussion. Ian.thomson (talk) 13:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Tha EnSiGN--regularly adding unsourced info to album articles without discussion

Tha EnSiGN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User: Tha EnSiGN has a history of making changes to album articles, mostly to the producers or extra performers on those albums. The user has a talk page full of templated and untemplated warnings about this behavior. I, unfortunately, have little knowledge of the subject, so I'm not sure if these are legitimate or not. But this seems vaguely similar to other reports I've read on ANI before of long running socks who do the same thing. Looking through the editors history, I see no response to any of the reports, no use of article talk pages, and no edit summaries. Anyone else think this looks suspicious? off to notify now Qwyrxian (talk) 13:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

No Legal Threats and User THF

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

User THF has come quite close to violating the No Legal Threats policy, here [89]. When I warned him about this, he blanked his talk page [90], as "vandalism". I filed a report to WP:COIN about THF, diff link. This user's behavior is erratic and disruptive across multiple pages on Wikipedia, probably due to the offsite conflict of interest that is ongoing. If the user cannot abide by multiple warnings given to him by separate users including Jehochman (talk · contribs) and Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs), and does not abide by No Legal Threats, then an admin should block. Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 15:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There's no Wikipedia-related lawsuit, and there was no legal threat. Cirt is harassing me by making an inappropriate COIN report in retaliation for an editing dispute on a different article: his complaint is that I disclosed a conflict of interest and then discussed the subject on a talk page, which is explicitly permitted by WP:COI and WP:COIN. He's also violating WP:MULTI by harassing me on multiple message boards on the same topic (this is his third one). Can someone end the wikidrama and ask Cirt to stop being disruptive? Thank you. THF (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

THF (talk · contribs) has received COI warnings from multiple users including Jehochman (talk · contribs) and Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs). When a WP:COIN report is filed, he responds by posting to my talk page in close violation of No Legal Threats. That is why the issue was brought here to ANI. -- Cirt (talk) 15:14, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

This situation arises from THF's continued editing at an AfD ([91]) in relation to a BLP subject who has sued him. Continuing to post to that AfD after an administrator has advised you to stop is, well, not advisable. This issue will be handled by other editors and THF's input is neither needed nor helpful. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Agree with this comment, by Nomoskedasticity (talk · contribs). -- Cirt (talk) 16:04, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

You can end the drama yourself, THF. I'm amazed that you do not understand the basics of the no legal threats policy. One of the very foundations of that policy is that it is not in your own interests to come to a wiki and publicly comment in writing on matters that involve lawsuits that you are currently party to. Has the recent Cooks Source infringement controversy débacle taught nothing about the errors of putting admissions in writing? Don't come here. Don't comment. You're on a wiki. Everything that you do here is in public, visible to the entire planet, and in writing. It's not in your interests to be discussing your lawsuits anywhere in Special:Contributions/THF and it is not in our interests, as people who wish no involvement in the matter ourselves and who moreover don't want the opposing parties in the lawsuit coming here and arguing their case, to let you. Take your involvement in this matter entirely outwith this project, please. Uncle G (talk) 16:41, 12 November 2010 (UTC)