Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User: Δ / Betacommand violating community imposed sanctions

Unresolved

Note: if you wish to comment about Δ and other editors removing images from articles on claimed WP:NFCC grounds, please do so via the link below. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Extremely long conversation moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Betacommand 2011. Moonriddengirl ^(talk)

  Nothing against Moonriddengirl, but if history has shown us anything, it's that the best way to make a complaint or proposal as regards Delta remain "unresolved", it's to dump it in his own personal ANI sub page (which for some inexplicable reason, he gets to personally set the archiving parameters of), which has never achieved anything in its long long existence except sweep his ongoing issues under the carpet. If there is any admin out there with the gumption to do so, please go and close those proposals affirmatively, with a proper summary, addressing all concerns & comments. I shouldn't have to say, but on past experience I need to, this shouldn't be an admin who has commented in the discussion either way, or has an identifiable undue interest in NFCC as a topic of debate either way. And while your at it, will one of you please, at the third time of asking, go and close the well overdue Rfc on banknote images at Talk:Non-free content, because Delta is still seeking to claim even in the backdrop of ANI threads about is his behaviour in NFCC enforcement, that the consenus on such things is unsurprisingly, how he wants to assert it is, rather than how it proveably is through actual discussion of the actual issue, by editors other than his select band of self appointed NFCC experts/enforcers. To leave these sorts of things unclosed when Delta's chosen approach continues to be a cause of such division, is frankly inexcusable. And despite what is claimed there, in circumstances like banknotes articles, how much is 'too much' as regards WP:NFCC, is an issue for en:wiki consensus alone, and has absolutely nothing to do with the Foundation or its resolution, unless or until they make a specific comment on specific usage situations, which they never have, and never will, for understandable reasons. MickMacNee (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

  It's not a bad way to organize things when a single issue overwhelms a discussion page. For what it's worth, that discussion can and should stay open until it is resolved. - Wikidemon (talk) 19:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• Doesn't this need a future date to keep it from scrolling off?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikilove

HI folks,

Just an FYI/heads-up so that you're ready. The tech team just informed me that they intend to fully deploy Wikilove (see this blog post for more information) to logged in users of the English Wikipedia on Thursday. You can imagine, we expect there to be some minor abuses of this tool... they're working on using the bad image list to handle some of that but some of our folks are... ahem, "creative"... and I suppose we'll see some unexpected use. You might keep your eyes open, and treat them as you usually would treat inappropriate comments.  :-)

Best,
Philippe Beaudette, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 23:09, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Nifty! Thanks for the heads up, Philippe. :)
— V = IR (Talk • Contribs) 23:22, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Wikilove? How did y'all find out about me and the Lady? Drmies (talk) 23:31, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

For those who aren't aware, it will be implemented starting 29 June. Hopefully, it will rekindle some appreciation toward those editors who normally go unnoticed or underappreciated, and keep them motivated towards making the encyclopedia better (which I think a few of us could do a better job of appreciating others' efforts, myself included). –MuZemike 01:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

@Drmies. It's seems that their are no secrets on wiki anymore. Perhaps it was leaked over at WR in "da emails"? ... :P — Ched :  ?  01:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm flattered--if indeed my indiscretions (I am also still pregnant with Moonriddengirl's child) are discussed at such high levels. Thanks for the thought, Ched! Drmies (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• This touchy-feely stuff cannot possibly be for real. Is this story from The Onion? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)
  • As offensive as templating regulars? Place your esteem tokens in my one armed bandit of random reactions to inappropriate, unwarranted and unesteemed praise. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ewww. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 01:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I think this is a nifty and adorable idea. When do we deploy Wikihate? Or Wikimeh, for those situations when it's difficult to work out whether someone's being a jackass or a saint? ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

There's a time and a place for features that don't really add to the experience. I guess this is the Facebooking of Wikipedia. Having to edit raw text in a window like this instead of a realtime, rich editor? How's that a great experience? Its sad to see when Internet companies get sidetracked trying to compete on style when a lot of times substance is the real desire. Look at all the horrible Myspace pages there were. Not much style there, but it filled a niche that people wanted. Easy editing of a web-based presence. -- Avanu (talk) 03:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikimeh. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 03:31, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

So, this is one of those idiotic nifty new features the developers have come up with, that we have to choose to go opt out of instead of choosing to opt into? And, how much will this slow down and screw up the servers like happened a few months ago when we were all automatically enrolled in the "email me when someone posts on my talk" feature. Makes me contemplate a month long wikibreak just to avoid that hassle again.Heiro 03:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

When will the Wikihate button be rolled out? Malleus Fatuorum 04:06, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

 Hate  Here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Praising other's edits by clicking on a button and dropping a template is indeed about as deep as clicking "like" on Facebook--a hollow act producing a formulaic compliment (even if they can be tweaked whimsically) that requires no investment and is therefore meaningless. Drmies (talk) 04:26, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Personal interaction does a lot to get people into things. The experiences of working with Mila on a waterdrop photo, RexxS on a table, FS on an image mod, or Counting Crows fellow on footnotes were very positive and led to more interaction. Mostly to my benefit, but they've had fun too. I think that bright orange bar does more than anything else to draw people into working together. But you have to have a personalized message with like thoughts and stuff afterwards. I mean, I'm a newbie so I still like barnies and all (don't stop) and I never got a welcome plate of cookies. But, honest, the interaction with shmartiepants people like Wehwalt and Malleus is more exciting than some random love icon.

P.s. Of course this could be a total "doh" moment if the Wikilove thing is not what I think it is, but I'm worried, it will be lame.)

P.s.s. I claim priority on having the first friending system here at Wiki.

TCO (talk) 04:19, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• I've test driven the system; it's fun. It's not a random love icon, but rather a tool to simplify users placing barnstars or friendly graphic-laden notes on the talk pages of other users when they choose to do so. There are preloaded image options or you can substitute your own. People who are not the type to attract cookies to begin with are probably not likely to see much difference with the tool, unless their friends enjoy tweaking their noses. :) Deep interaction? Not inherently, no, but likely to be pleasing to some and harmless if taken in moderation. :D (Just the thing, Drmies, for decorating a nursery.) --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 12:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  We have editors that need a simpler tool to be able to place barnstars on another contributors page...? Perhaps it is best, then, that we distract them from the content pages with these frivolities. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

  I think you forgot to harumph. :D --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Wow. A well intentioned idea that somehow manages to be implemented in a way that is inappropriate, unsettling, unattractive, juvenile, condescending and counterproductive all at the same time. Is this a first for Wikipedia ? And when does the 2011 Fundraising Appeal start ? Gandalf61 (talk) 12:47, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Goodness, why not (speaking to the grumpy ones here)? Our most widely used automated tools are for slapping new users with 6 levels of warnings for about 25 possible violations of Wikipedia policies. A tool that's used for expressing appreciation? Gasp! zOMG! Could this be a threat to the Grumpy Old Boy's Club on Wikipedia? Probably not, but one can hope.... First Light (talk) 14:34, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm more irritated by the fact that every time they roll out one of these myspacey/facebookie things, they default include everyone. I would not have even known about this if not for this thread, as I don't usually follow the developers or village pump. As I mentioned above, the last time they rolled out a new function like this, it caused serious server lag for almost a month, made it difficult to edit, and caused a lot of scratched heads as the vast majority of us did not know what was going on. I suspect the same thing will start happening again in a few days. Ands speaking of the Old Boys club, does anyone know if this is supposed to be one of the new ways of attracting more female editors?Heiro 15:59, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Does this mean Esperanaza is coming back? - Burpelson AFB ✈ 17:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Discussion like this was probably good inspiration for this essay. --causa sui (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I don't think this is intended to have us shove barnstars or other stuff down others throats (especially if they didn't deserve it). I mean, I know I can do a better job myself in showing recognition to those editors who do the right things. Perhaps I'm just saying to give it a chance and see what results from it. I really don't see how this can hurt the editorship of the encyclopedia or likewise move us any closer to re-establishing Esperanza (as one pointed out above, and also where "WikiLove" originally came from). –MuZemike 18:04, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• Quick, better check "exclude me from feature experiments" in your preferences. If it actually does anything. MER-C 02:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The WikiLove deployment will respect that user preference, i.e., if it is checked, you will have to opt-in to use WikiLove.--Eloquence* 18:21, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't Twinkle-style automation of things like barnstars defeat the point a little bit? A barnstar is as close to a pat on the back as one can get on the Internet, and this feels a bit like an automated back-patter. That one has to manually edit the page and paste the code is part of its charm. However, I can see some merit in the other wikilove templates, especially having a consolidated list of WikiBooze templates (which I suppose would be handy if you're WikiDrunk!). HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 23:22, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

• I thought I was the cynical one. Adding some positive stuff to talk pages is something to be worried about? Wow. The foundation realizes that it needs to adapt to stay relevant. I disagree with the foundation on many things but this isn't one of them. If anyone else here actually took the survey (wasn't it only like 5k or did I read it wrong?) you would see that the goal is to make radical changes. They will end up ticking most editors off and a fuzzy kitten or a tasty looking beer are the actual good things. But if you really want to fix the problem: get rid of templates to address the BITE issue. If you think that sounds ridiculous you should hear my idea to get more female editors. Cptnono (talk) 09:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

So what is your idea for attracting female editors? Pure curiosity. Anna^talk 03:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• (Non-administrator comment)Shouldn't this be at the community portal or the administrator noticeboard, this is for incidents. Well, its deployed. I would like to be able to opt-out though. ~~EBE123~~ ^talk_Contribs 23:11, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

  I consider the deployment an incident. You can opt out of "showing WikiLove" (i.e. display of the obnoxious heart symbol) by unchecking the box under My preferences -> Editing -> Labs features. If you want to make it clear that you don't want to become the victim of "WikiLove" you can use my userbox, for example (see below), but there is no way to really prevent it. Hans Adler 23:28, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Great April Fools' Day contribution, only 3 months late

Wow. This is a great April Fools Day joke, but why couldn't you wait another 9 months? Making it easier to leave impersonal, semi-automated messages with intimate/sexual overtones. And there is a setting for not using this option, but no setting for preventing to be WikiRaped that way. And of course the selling point is that supposedly it will make Wikipedia a more welcoming kindergarten brothel collaborative encyclopedia. Hans Adler 21:02, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

By the way, it's a very versatile "tool" that can even be used for autoeroticism.

On a more serious note, I can understand why strategic attempts at improving our communication habits are not discussed widely before experimental implementation, but if you want to prepare such things sneakily you really need to think things through to make up for the lack of community vetting. Hans Adler 21:14, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Some other reactions above look as if there might be more general interest in my new userbox {{User:Hans Adler/No WikiRape}} {{User:Hans Adler/No WikiLove}}. Hans Adler 22:59, 29 June 2011 (UTC) [edited after rename]

While I may be being a humourless curmudgeon here, I'd like to see the word "rape" thrown around a bit less casually, please. - Aaron Brenneman (talk) 00:13, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Good point. In my defence, I couldn't help reading some of the recently leaked Arbcom emails, and as a result wasn't merely pissed that the childish "barnstar" rubbish is getting official status now – but this "WikiLove" stuff also reminded me of the behaviour of the creepy predator/stalker who features in one of those threads. Hans Adler 06:10, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Any chance of moving it to a title less likely to cause offense, then? You know you'll be asked to do it eventually, so better sooner than later for the sake of dramavoidance. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:06, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. Hans Adler 10:34, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I wonder how often we'll see "make WikiLove, not edit war" on WP:AN3. -- Atama頭 16:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, it's nice to check in and see that Wikipedia has decided to answer the question of whether it's an MMPORG or a social networking site in the affirmative... to both. Should do wonders for attracting and retaining teenagers and adolescents, the lifeblood of the enterprise.Bali ultimate (talk) 01:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

RFC?

As there seems to be a little resistance to this tool can we run this thourgh the RFC to gain community consensus on whether to deploy this tool or not? Clearly any fairly major interface changes need to be approved by the editing community at large before deployment - especially if controversial. --Errant ^(chat!) 17:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

WMF is not likely to care about an RFC for a feature which hasn't even been deployed yet. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 17:07, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Uh...go to a user talk page and look up there ↑ by the star for watching a page...it has been deployed. Tex (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

And for that, you get... a barnstar! It is quite a nifty little gadget and very easy to use. Carcharoth (talk) 22:09, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

TBH the only objection I have to it is the name is puke worthy and it is misrepresented as something to increase editor retention (which any seasoned vet knows comes nowhere near the issue). But it seems this is controversial - and I agree the current implementation (the heart and the terminology is "Facebook like"). --Errant ^(chat!) 22:36, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

In case you guys are interested, you may want to know that pretty much everything about the extension is configurable on-wiki (by editing MediaWiki:WikiLove.js). If en.wiki doesn't like Kittens, you can replace them with bags of coal or whatever. You can even change the heart icon to something different if you like. It's totally up to the consensus of the community as to how you actually want to use this tool. (You can also configure it personally in your vector.js or monobook.js.) Wouldn't it be more useful to start an RFC on what changes you want to make to WikiLove? Unlike most interface features, you don't actually have to ask the developers to implement any changes. Any admin can do it locally. The configuration documentation for the extension is somewhat minimal right now, but I will be expanding it significantly over the next few days. Just let me know if you have any questions about it in the meantime. This is supposed to be a tool for the community to own and use however they want. If you want to replace the Food and drinks with WikiProject invitation templates or whatever, that's fine with the Foundation. I think the only thing the Foundation would object to is replacing all the items with warning templates. Kaldari (talk) 22:47, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the entire idea is silly. It's very easy to annoy someone by templating them with a warning message. Making someone feel welcome by templating them is much harder to achieve. I, for example, feel offended when I get such silliness. If it comes from someone I haven't seen before, then I'd wonder if it's a sockpuppet trying to brown nose me or someone who genuinely feels thankful for something or other and seriously thinks it's appropriate to show this by templating rather than writing a personal message. If it comes from someone I know well it would be even worse.

This project is full of people who are semi-literate in the sense that they don't really like reading or writing more than a sentence or two, and prefer templating and reverting. By offering these silly new templates you are pushing things even further in that direction. I cannot believe that the kind of people who think it is socially acceptable to leave automated "kittens" and "barnstars" on other people's talk pages are more likely to contribute well-written text to the encyclopedia than those who don't want to be associated with this infantility. In fact I expect the opposite.

Whenever a bureaucracy makes up a target such as "make the editor community grow again" there is the danger that one then tries to optimise a single parameter without keeping the others in mind. I am not sure why we need growth in the first place as we are moving from construction of the encyclopedia towards maintenance mode. But if we do need growth, then we need growth by encyclopedia writers, not by naive social networkers who can be pleased with the push of a button. It's true that this project has too much negativity, but that cannot be balanced with feel-good superficiality. Hans Adler 23:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Hans Adler is correct in most of his points, this seems geared to the social networking happy-talk crowd, when what we really need to attract are the writers, researchers, copyeditors and photographers of each oncoming generation, and, at the same time, to make things better for those who do those tasks now, so we don't lose them from burn-out and disinclination to participate any longer. Those kind of people aren't going to come here because of WikiLove, they're more likely to be repulsed by it.

Personally, I don't object to people expressing to me their appreciation in whatever form it comes, but a sincere "Thank you" is just as good, and appreciated just as much. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:29, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Precisely. Template the experts with kittens often enough and they will probably leave. —Kusma (t·c) 08:30, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Hans is correct. A couple of years of kittening each other will change the community from here to write the encyclopedia to here to socialize, and discussions about issues will resolved on the basis of I like it. What editors need is a light-weight mechanism that stops unhelpful behavior before the people concerned learn bad habits, not cute decorations. Johnuniq (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I find the assumption that the next generation of "writers, researchers, copyeditors and photographers" will be put off by occasional kitten images amusing, given that the majority of the such people that I've encountered may even devote a whole day of their blogging to kitten pictures. (Of course, none of these people edit Wikipedia and often cite the unfriendly environment of crabby, entrenched editors as the reason.) The next generation—and I'm talking about the recently degreed, not the recently toilet trained—are social networkers. If you find this sort of thing unpleasant, you can put a message at the top of your talk page and tell any violators to get off your lawn. Danger (talk) 10:37, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, there's social networking and then there's social networking. Certainly a generational change has occured which means that almost everyone will use social networking in the future, but there are those who live and die by it, and those who use it simply as a matter of course. There are already some number of people editing Wikipedia who appear to be here not to edit and improve the encyclopedia, but for whatever social interactions they can get out of it (limited though that may be), and we really don't need to encourage more to join, since what they contribute is essentially overhead and not content or logistical support. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:45, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I sincerely doubt that the people you refer to are going to be abandoning Facebook for Wikipedia based on the creation of the WikiLove extension. I mean, Facebook has Farmville, which is far more entertaining than a kitten template or two. :) It is a matter of encouraging established editors to stay. How many prolific editors have we lost in the past 6 months because they've felt that their contributions are not appreciated–or actively denigrated? Danger (talk) 19:06, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you that retention of valuable editors is the more important problem to solve. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:12, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

It might be a smidgen more useful if the "create your own" feature actually worked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 08:57, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

The best reward I get on Wikipedia is when I'm told my work is appreciated. Just about every time that's happened, it's been with plain text and a custom message. When it takes actual thought and effort to thank me, that's when it counts. That's also why I always leave custom messages, even when I deploy barnstars. I've gone as far as to create custom stars and custom templates too (as anyone who voted at the FS main page proposal knows). Making "Thank you" into empty words is going to make Wikipedia worse, not better. Sven Manguard Wha? 19:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a stupid waste of space. Can someone post whatever javascript/css needs to go where to get rid of it at my usertalk? I'm using monobook. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 21:28, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Any chance of someone making an opt out for this ridiculous feature? I always thought Wikipedia was an encyclopedia, but I guess now it's Facebook. --B (talk) 23:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

How to disable WikiLove (it's in the editing prefs). Kaldari (talk) 23:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Ummmm, this may be kinda obvious - but if you don't like it, don't use it! And you could always have a message or something at the top of your user talk page to say "No Automated WikiLove, please!" Personally, I'm open to kind comments and so on, no matter how many keystrokes they require - provided that I've deserved them :o) Pesky (talk …stalk!) 06:22, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

This is a terrible idea, and Hans Adler is absolutely right. We seriously do NOT want to do anything to encourage the idea that being a Wikipedian is about distributing barnstars and cookies and pictures of fluffy kittens so that you can make "friends" who will send them to you and you can add to your trophy page. It's something to be able to turn it off, but I would support an RFC on the idea of opting out of it for the whole site. JohnCD (talk) 11:29, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• I would certainly oppose any attempt to force others to opt out of it. Yes, this is social-networking-website-like. It's pretty far from ideal, but it's also a genuine attempt to make Wikipedia a less hostile, less contentious, and less fractious place to be. The intention is to foster a pleasant and collegial working environment.

  Naturally, there will be problems. One expects the various factions (pro-Israel, pro-Palestine, ARS, etc.) to start awarding each other barnstars in a kind of circle jerk, and to use them as victory celebrations when a counterfactional editor gets sanctioned or topic-banned. One expects that there will be editors who find excuses to be offended when offered a small token of respect. And it is silly and facebook-like. But, we need to increase the number of positive interactions between editors, or at least, find some way to reduce the number of interactions that are negative and hostile. Particularly for newer editors.—S Marshall T/C 22:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• This seems more appropriate as a gadget than a MediaWiki extension. If we convert this to a gadget we can get rid of the stupid name and heart and more importantly, make it opt-in rather than opt-out/forced down our throats. (I'm highly allergic to cats.) MER-C 03:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• I have to agree that it sounds like a pointless feature. I wish the devs would do some more useful stuff, like come up with a better "diff" that has a special color for moved but unaltered text (or at least doesn't misalign so often), or come up with a display for categories that looks as pretty and compact as the custom templates... Wnt (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

  As it is so pointless, I wonder whether any Foundation money was spent on it (if yes, it would indicate they have run out of useful things to do with it). Such a diff feature would be truly useful. —Kusma (t·c) 20:03, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The little pink heart was irritating me — beginning to symbolize all the things I dislike most on Wikipedia! — so I've switched it off. But surely the default for this kind of thing should be 'off' rather than 'on'? --Kleinzach 02:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Well I like it

Bunch of grinches you lot! For those of us not too hot on markup this is a great way of saying thanks, and it doesn't have to be impersonal at all - one can still put a good deal of thought into a message. The convenience is a good thing, really. Egg Centric 09:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

As do I. I appreciate when others compliment my work and contributions. Also, I have been trying to make a tool to create wikilove templates, {{Blank WikiLove}}. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 18:12, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion either way ... my only comment is that I would prefer to have the tab opt-in, rather than adding it by default and making it opt-out. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Non-stop editing by socks of User:Prince-au-Léogâne

• Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Prince-au-Léogâne/Archive
• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Prince-au-Léogâne

This guy doesn't stop. Everytime a sock or IP is blocked, he starts editing from another one. The last IP to be blocked was 76.109.142.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which began editing one of the socks' userpage to indicate it was an administrator. That IP was blocked on June 30th. Within a few hours, the sockmaster began editing from 76.109.149.73 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), and that IP's edits include using the usertalk page of a sock to spam himself. Is it possible to look into a rangeblock on this one? Singularity42 (talk) 03:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Best ask at the SPI, although I am willing to bet that the potential range has too many good editors to allow a block. I would also suggest that any of the self promotion edits can be reverted when found, which I realise is a pain as they make many legit (but often trivial) ones. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I've added a couple more patterns to the title blacklist, which should slow them down a bit, and softblocked 76.109.0.0/16 for 72 hours -- existing registered accounts will still be able to edit from that range, but anons will not be either able to edit or create new accounts. The next logical step in this process is to create a rule in the edit filter. -- The Anome (talk) 12:46, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

The article has been created again with a different title - see HipHop561 (talk · contribs) and 64.134.27.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). Peter E. James (talk) 19:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, so much for the rangeblock idea. Singularity42 (talk) 22:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm working on crafting a filter. Currently, it's in log-only mode -- I'll wait a couple of days, and see what happens. I'm going to lift the rangeblock now, since it's clearly ineffective. -- The Anome (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

A day later, a new set of articles and socks:

• Royal Menace (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• SpeakLoudnFree (talk · contribs)
• And additional edits by 76.109.142.168 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) now that the block has expired.

Sigh... Singularity42 (talk) 19:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

For those with edit filter rights, see this edit filter, which is a tightly focused filter which attempts to catch the essence of their specific editing pattern. See also this edit filter, which is a logging-only catch-all designed to catch the editor's whole range of behaviours for later analysis, albeit at the cost of many false positives. -- The Anome (talk) 20:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Also just  Confirmed and blocked:

• NWAStreetMusic (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

I'm currently looking into a rangeblock, but I don't know what good that will do. –MuZemike 17:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I could only manage a 1 week hardblock on 76.109.128.0/19. He extends all the way out to that /16 range (and the ISP extends all the way out to an /11 range), but there is too much collateral damage, I'm afraid, to even softblock the /16. –MuZemike 17:26, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

There's actually a trick I figured out to determine if a new article has been created by this sockmaster (which leads to both the article and the sock). I would prefer not to advertise this trick publically (why give away the secret to the sockmaster), but feel free to contact me privately if an admin wants to know. Singularity42 (talk) 19:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Case

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

---

Resolved

 – Block evading IP's blocks and editor referred to Arbcom

Two months ago I reported that this administrator had revoked my talk page access on the ground that an innocent failure to log in was "socking". Whatever happened to WP:AGF? I would like to respond to a reader at Talk:Computus#Miscellaneous and should be grateful if my talk page access could be restored to enable me to file an unblock request to enable me to do this. The proposed text of the response is

Something very similar was legislated for Britain in the Easter Act, 1928. One of its provisions was "Before this Act shall come into force regard shall be had to any opinions officially expressed by Christian churches" (don't quote me on the exact wording). Still unimplemented yet still on the Statute Book after 83 years, this must be a record for deferred legislation. The churches cannot agree.

I've been examining Daniel's contributions and some of them are plain weird. Some of them are downright offensive, involving swearing and ridicule of people in authority (congressmen, judges, police officers, Jimmy Wales) and particular groups (Germans, obese people, voters, women). Here is a selection:

Extended content

If your brother got a hold of the account that's it. Over. Fat lady sang. Goodbye. We do not unblock admittedly compromised accounts. Start a new one if you wish to edit productively. DarkfireII2, 9 March. The evidence before the Court is/Incontrovertible; there's no need for the jury to retire... Unitrin, 14 March. And SOYLENT GREEN IS MADE OF PEOPLE! IT'S MADE OF PEOPLE!! Right? That's the truth, too? Seriously, this is trolling. It's only because of AGF that I'm not cutting this talk page off. One more request like this and it will be, however. 208.54.87.73, 19 March. What color is the sky on your planet? 92.7.157.4, 21 March. So how would you explain this edit, then, Mein Herr? Huh? Just why are people like you obsessed with this sort of thing? Huh? 64.136.197.17, 6 April. Account creation is blocked from this IP for the duration of the block since some juvenile person made edits like this and...this, daring to defile the most holy and sacred user page of OUR LEADER. In cases like this we often prevent account creation from IPs we have blocked because otherwise vandals would just go create accounts and continue their dastardly deeds. 124.129.207.254, 9 April. First, this account is blocked directly so this template isn't applicable. But letting that go...you were warned several days ago to stop vandalizing and then...you went back, Jack, and did it again...Wheel turning' round and round you went back, Jack and did it again. 192.148.117.83, 17 April. I don't find anything more convincing in your latest begging; as for what's presented at the SPI, "the evidence before the court is/Incontrovertible; there's no need for the jury to retire. So not only am I denying this, I'm cutting access to your talk page off because you would otherwise be wasting administrators' time looking for one who'd unblock. But, since you did ask, there are other avenues for this (but that should not be taken as a guarantee of ultimate success, and per Fisher Queen above you should really consider other ways of spending your time). So, I will commend you to email.unblock-en-1@lists.wikipedia.org and see what happens. Or doesn't. Ultra X987, 25 April. We are the future. You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile. 138.163.160.41, 4 May. Obviously we can't handle the truth! Boredsohere, 17 May. GOO GOO G'JOOB. Talk page access revoked. Casuallybeingawalrus, 20 May. NO, IT DOESN'T. SO I'LL TELL YOU WHAT TO DO: SIT BACK AND TAKE YOUR MEDICINE (BY SAYING "THANK YOU SIR, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER?" OR SOMETHING SIMILARLY CUTE), OR WE'LL HAVE TO TELL YOUR PARENTS YOU HAVE BEEN A VERY BAD BOY. Flying Fische, 29 May. You have now officially lost your talk page access. How's that for voting for change? (Cute huh?) Vote (X) for Change, 30 May. Hi, Congressman Weiner: Per WP:GOTHACKED, we generally leave admittedly compromised accounts blocked for security reasons. If you'd like to open a new account, just make sure you note the connection on your userpage. Tpunk628, 8 June. So a group of ski-masked ninjas broke into your house, held Glocks to your head with cocked hammers, and told you they'd pull the triggers unless you opened a new account? I didn't think so either, and otherwise you can't claim you were "forced" to open a new account. And, even allowing for your full control over your own actions in doing so, there is a procedure for abandoning old accounts in favor of a new one, which you didn't follow. Talk page access revoked; we've had enough of this and we need to be able to review requests from people who might actually have a valid reason to be unblocked. Toug ma Tojer, 13 June. "It's an orangy sky; always it's some other guy...It's just a broken lullaby" You have done nothing but repeat the same basic request over and over in the hope that some new admins will take pity upon you. Well, with this previously uninvolved admin you have had the opposite effect. We have been far too patient with you, IMO. I am actually doing what BWilkins threatens to...not only declining but revoking your talk page access so we don't have to deal with this anymore. "Closing time...You don't have to go home but you can't stay here". Incogfrig, 13 June. Unfortunately there is no page here entitled Wikipedia:Don't piss on my leg and tell me its raining, because if there were it would be a perfect link in response to your continued (soon to be discontinued) preposterous parade of unblock requests. Whether you remember it or not, it's there...several grafs up on this page. Talk page access revoked for duration of block. "But officer, I didn't notice I was speeding". That and $2.50 will get you a cup of coffee with the judge at traffic court. Talk page access will still be revoked...if you're that reckless in your editing, we're doing you a favor. Dbpjmuf, 29 June.

Can a more experienced editor please notify the parties required to be notified under the rules? 194.66.226.95 (talk) 12:50, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Daniel Case notified. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 13:57, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

• 194.66.226.95, your next step is to request a review by emailing unblock-en-l@lists.wikimedia.org; requesting edits be made on your behalf is not the purpose of this board and could be construed as block evasion. Tiderolls 14:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Those edits are, in general, responses to unblock requests from vandals claiming they didn't really do it. Silly responses to unblock requests are not exactly professional behavior, but they're hardly actionable other than "hey dude tone it down a bit". --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:47, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

As noted. How come no one complains about FisherQueen's unblock denials? She's funnier than I am. Is it because she's a lesbian? Daniel Case (talk) 05:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Flip mode off: Perhaps we should stick with the original issue, rather than the completely irrelevant issue of my occasionally finding it necessary to write unblock denials in something other than boilerplate (And I rarely use profanity ... in fact I think the "don't piss on my leg and tell me it's raining" one is probably the only one I've ever done in any off-color language). OK, it is relevant. What's wrong with quoting from popular songs? They get the point across, and they're more memorable. I would also add that some of those that he seems to think are offensive to particular groups are not ... in the "Mein Herr" one, I was alluding to the fact that the user kept adding "Jewish" to descriptions of people when it was not clearly relevant. (I do admit the Flying Fische one was a little overboard, and I said as much later).

But ... I do not know what talk-page revocation he speaks of because he provides no diff nor a user account to check. Could he please do so? Daniel Case (talk) 05:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Two messages have been posted on my wall. To give the senders the assurance that the replies come from me can somebody re - enable talk page access?86.164.114.65 (talk) 21:37, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Though this editor does not identify himself, he is probably User:Vote (X) for Change, who has edited on the topic of calendars and has one of the longest SPI reports ever filed. Here are his userlinks:

• Vote (X) for Change (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user was indeffed back in March for abusing multiple accounts and had his talk access disabled by Daniel Case on 29 May. Since their unblock options go through unblock-en-l at this point there is not much reason to continue a discussion here. His modus operandi is apparently to come back to ANI about once a month, without identifying himself, to complain about whichever admin has blocked one of his IP socks most recently. I suggest lengthy blocks for two of the IPs that he has used to submit ANI reports, since they have both edited in article space while his main account was blocked, and only been blocked previously for a day or two each:

• 194.66.226.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 156.61.160.1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — EdJohnston (talk) 00:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

As I said at the beginning of this thread, once administrators get the bit they seem to view everyone with suspicion, rather than assume good faith. Of course the cited IPs have "edited in article space while [her] main account was blocked" - I have already pointed out that these are computers in public libraries which are used by the general public every day. On the subject of writing to Arbcom, can someone please explain how an editor can do this?156.61.160.1 (talk) 08:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

And on the subject of calendars, a happy Independence Day to you all. 156.61.160.1 (talk) 09:04, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I've stuck in some month+ blocks to those IP's to discourage the block evasion. To Vote X For Change: you may not edit here even via IP. Please refer your unblock requests to Arbcom via email - the instructions for this can be found here --Errant ^(chat!) 10:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. The procedure you describe relates to banned users. However, the issue was taken to the community last year when it was decided that there was no reason to ban me and I should be allowed to continue editing. 86.164.114.65 (talk) 12:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

No; it relates to indefinitely blocked users who have not been able to successfully attain an unblock via the usual mechanism (talk page) and for whom no admin has agreed to unblock you. You are not allowed to edit. --Errant ^(chat!) 12:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

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

As I understand it, the appeal hierarchy is

Administrators

Arbitration Committee

Community

Once the community gives its decision the case is closed because there is no higher court. So it can't be taken back to the Arbitration Committee. I note that you have been editing under another name, although there is no reference to that in your userspace. Are you aware of the rule that an involved administrator should not block but leave it to someone else to make the call? Please explain the relationship (if any) between the Mediation Cabal (which you are involved with) and the Arbitration Committee. Are you speaking in an official capacity or as a private citizen? 80.229.81.66 (talk) 17:59, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

User:Clubfoot Johnson removing talkpage comments

User believes that this sort of behaviour is acceptable and believes that removing it because editor feels it's defamatory is acceptable. An administrator is required to intervene. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 16:41, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Your comments appear unnecessary and come across as a personal attack; I don't blame Clubfoot Johnson for his reactions (which are in turn not ideal). I would suggest you retract your accusations on your own accord. And please notify Clubfoot Johnson of this discussion, as is required. Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 16:48, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I see that you have suggested to Walter Gorlitz that he retract his accusations of his own accord. To this point he has refused to do so. What are my options in requesting someone else remove these attacked from the Larry Norman talk page? It doesn't seem fair that someone can make an attack on another editor and the only issue be with the offending comment being deleted by the one who was attacked. Thanks for your help.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Agree with Strange Passerby. A couple of you folks need to tone it down before ya'all get sent to the naughty step. I also took the liberty of letting ErrantX know about this as he seems to be up to speed on that thread as well. No comment on article content. — Ched :  ?  17:27, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, and I appreciate the third party review. I agree that my more recent comments may not have been helpful, but this was after many requests on my part for Walter Gorlitz to stop his personal attacks. When he not only continued but started accusing me of engaging in slanderous behaviors, I was not sure what else to do but delete his defamatory comments. He reverted each attempt I made at this, and then accused me of vandalism. I did not want to simply leave such an accusation sitting there without response, so I responded - and may have been a bit more curt in my tone than my previous responses out of frustration. I also attempted to collapse the conversation out of respect for those engaging in the actual topic, but he then pirated the label to say "Clubfoot Johnson is a single purpose account but is the editor showing a conflict of interest?" This is really becoming too much. I would appreciate any intervention you can offer on my behalf as I am not familiar with how to address this kind of harassment (he has done the same thing to me on another article). My preference would be to simply participate in the Wikipedia community without the constant harassment and stalking of this individual. Thanks.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 18:43, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Yeh it quickly became apparent (when I raised the issue) this is a contentious subject :S which is derailing what is IMO an important issue. It's always worrying to see articles about controversial people bring that controversy on-wiki. But I've deliberately not commented on their little "spat" so as not to feed the flames :) thanks for the FYI Ched. more eyes on the content issue would be excellent FWIW, even though that is tangential to this AN/I --Errant ^(chat!) 17:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

NP .. and I notified Clubfoot. — Ched :  ?  17:32, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No personal attacks. No slander on my part either. And no accusations of vandalim, just notifications on editor's talk page not to remove or refactor the comments of others. No pirating of labels, I simply expanded the conversation, but that could easily be edited. And definitely no harassment.

I have noted that Clubfoot Johnson is a WP:SPA and am trying to clear the editor of my concerns regarding WP:COI. The fact that he has removed my comments several times on the article's talk page is more troubling. Sorry that I failed to notify Clubfoot Johnson that this was undergoing. First time I've done this. I now see the notice at the top of the page. There is no question though that the editor is a SPA, so I take it that there is no COI?

Now as for claims of stalking, I have been an active editor on the two only articles Clubfoot Johnson has taken an interest in for several years and simply notice a disturbing tendency to restore any material that is libellous to David Di Sabatino. I am not stalking the individual in any way, nor am I harassing. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

They are absolutely personal attacks, and I would like you to please stop harassing me. Your questions regarding COI have been asked and answered more than once. I suggest you move on and leave me alone. The personal attack comments have been removed from the LN talk page as, in addition to being personal attacks, were inappropriate to the topic.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 00:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

They most certainly are not personal attacks. I'm sorry you feel that your behaviour has opened you up to these charges though. I will not move on as those articles are in my field of interest as well. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

They are personal attacks, and the behavior is also bullying and harassment in that you repeat the same charge and attacks without basis despite the fact that I have responded to your accusations multiple times, and you have refused to supply any details to substantiate your accusations despite many requests. Please move on and find another target. Alternately, if you are unable to do the right thing and stop your harassment, I would suggest engaging in the behavior on your talk page rather than continuing to disrupt the discussions going on at the article talk pages.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 13:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Walter Görlitz and misuse of the term "vandalism" again

Walter Görlitz has now reported Clubfoot Johnson to WP:AIV, inappropriately, for "vandalism". There is most certainly a revert war going on regarding the comments at this talk page and it would be best if an admin stepped in and handed out some blocks. I note that WG was here very recently over his misuse of the term "vandalism" and then-abuse of Twinkle... Strange Passerby (talk • cont) 07:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

My apoogies. I didn't misuse the term. Twinkle's ARV tool reported it as vandalism. The editor, Clubfoot Johnson, has removed my comments on Talk:Larry Norman‎ at least five times today and was warned four times. The last was after the fourth warning. Is there a way to report without labelling it as vandalism? I didn't know that it would be labelled as vandalism when reported. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Removing someone else's comments is inappropriate. The statement in question is, "you are a single purpose editor who shows no other interest than slandering Di Sabitino." The first part of that statement appears to be true. The second part is probably a matter of opinion. The best thing to do, when suffering slings and arrows, is not to edit war over the comments, but to prove them wrong. That's what Clubfoot should do. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 09:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I have at no point engaged in any type of slander, and have asked that Gorlitz point out such instances when he made the accusation. Unsurprisingly, he has failed to do so. Beyond that, what else would I need to do to "prove" anything as you suggest? I have responded to the accusations as best I can, and have never engaged in the slandering activity I have been accused of. This is simply a case of a veteran editor who disagrees with the opinions of a new editor and is attempting to bully that person into submission. It does not seem reasonable that I should be subjected to the same accusations over and over and over. It is fairly obvious from his responses that Walter Gorlitz intends to continue his harassing behavior, and it also appears from his historical behavior that I am not his first target. How does tolerance of this type of harassment and bullying improve the Wikipedia community?--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 12:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Newly-created users, who immediately zero in on some controversial topic, typically look inherently suspicious. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:00, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Surely you are not suggesting that it is accepted Wikipedia policy/practice for veteran editors to respond to new editors who have an initially narrow focus to attack and harass them are you? All of the guidelines I have come across state the opposite. He is welcome to be as suspicious as he likes, but it is inappropriate to cross into bullying and harassment.--Clubfoot Johnson (talk) 16:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Since I have not crossed either line, your question is inconsequential. I asked questions and you responded, but I am still suspicious of you as an editor for the reasons stated above. You then began to remove comments added by me on a talk page and I warned you not to. That is not harassment. Stop stating that I am bullying and harassing you. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 19:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I had issued a warning to Clubfoot Johnson yesterday for removing sections of content without explanation and he specifically asked me for advice as to how to handle this situation. As I see it, this is little more than a case of two people that really need to learn just to shut up and stay away from each other, or at least take on a heightened level of decorum while dealing with one another. Walter Görlitz is apparently fuzzy on the idea of what a personal attack is. If you make derogatory, defamatory or just otherwise condescending comments to someone, then you are starting to get the idea of what a personal attack is. Simultaneously, we have Mr. Johnson who has been removing or refactoring the comments left on talk pages by Mr. Görlitz. This is also what we like to identify with the technical term of a "no-no". I find the behavior of both of you to be a little bit on the childish side, but not to the point where I see any serious need for community intervention. Perhaps both of you need to just take a step back, take a deep breath and go play a few nice flash games elsewhere on the internet until you can return and be rational. In other words: Chill Out. I don't see any part of your dispute that can't be worked out by discussing it without all the nastiness that has brought it here. Trusilver 22:56, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Persistant autobiography creations

Tonight, a friend directed my attention to the existance of the article George Jay Wienbarg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), which has been deleted several times in the past when it was located at George Wienbarg (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), both of which had been created and heavily edited by Georgewienbarg (talk · contribs). I've sent George Jay Wienbarg to its third AFD (second under the current title), and also discovered Davidcapurso (talk · contribs) and David Capurso (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) in the process. This behavior should not be allowed to continue as it has for the past several years. Georgewienbarg should no longer be allowed to edit this project or to have his biography or the biographies of his associates (Davidcapurso started the current page on Wienbarg, and Georgewienbarg created David Capurso) in any form included on this website.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The new article looks substantially similar to the originally deleted one; can any admin confirm this? It may be a candidate for WP:CSD#G4, even though the previous one was deleted in December 2006. (Note: I can only find one previous deletion discussion; the other two prior to that were policy-based.)  Frank  |  talk  02:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Checked, and I find them not 100% identical, but substantially the same in content. These various reincarnations are obviously a tenacious attempt on the part of the author to get himself into Wikipedia. G4 seems appropriate. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

So can G4 be implimented and the earth salted as per his message on my talk page he does not realize that he has done anything wrong?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:07, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Done and done. Salvio ^{Let's talk about it!} 18:26, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Could you delete David Capurso as A7 and salt it while we're at it?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:33, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

The article that you took to AfD seventeen hours before that comment? Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It's in the same boat as Wienbarg's.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I can't locate any previous deletion of David Capurso, and Davidcapurso (talk · contribs) shows no edits to that article. So it doesn't appear to be the same situation. Doesn't mean the article should be kept, but I don't see a speedy deletion justification. --RL0919 (talk) 18:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

A7 is still a valid reason.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:08, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Also something should be done about Wienbarg.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

David Capurso contains credible enough claims of significance to pass the low bar of A7, so an AFD was the right thing to do. Wienbarg's user page has been tagged as such and doesn't look very much like an encyclopedia article, but if he expands it into a WP:FAKEARTICLE, then a nomination at WP:MFD would be appropriate. --RL0919 (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Hottest 100 Australian Albums Of All Time

This article was created by User:Tyler j1992 a few days ago. It was only a half complete list, and so was tagged for an AfD. Tyler j1992 asked me what he could do to stop the article from being deleted. I recommended that he work on it in his own user space. In order for the article not be be deleted by the AfD, and so to avoid WP:CSD#G4 when it was reintrodiced; I suggested that Tyler j1992 tag the article with {{db-author}}. That's exactly what he did. He moved it to User:Tyler_j1992/Sandbox, the AfD was closed, and the article was deleted per {{db-author}}.

Whilst reviewing the New Pages list, to my horror, I noticed that user:Ck786 had created more-or-less the same article (with two columns swapped), some information left out, and with a slightly different title; at Triple J Hottest 100 Australian Albums of All Time, 2011. It was well documented on the original AfD and on the orignal article's talk page that Tyler j1992 had moved it to his user space to work on it.

I was hoping that someone could take a look at this? The article, as it stands is a half empty list that will be completed sometime in the future. As it stands, the article does not deserve to be up there. Like I said, it was several days into an AfD and was looking as though it would be deleted.

I feel terrible. I offered my advice to Tyler j1992, and he followed that advice. It sets a really bad example to him: play by the rules, and someone else will come along and beat you to it. If there's nothing that can be done, then can we at least re-open the AfD? — Fly by Night (talk) 07:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a possible reason to delete. As the original was on Wikipedia, any recreation by another editor would need to be attributed, otherwise we are straying into WP:COPYVIO territory. If the article was not attributed when (re)created, it could possibly be deleted for that reason. Mjroots (talk) 07:50, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

In my defence, I am a casual Wiki user/editor and dont generally go searching around the thousands/millions of wiki users' sandboxs' looking for articles under construction. There was a gap in the information, so I started to fill it. Being an avid Triple J listener, I am aware the article is not complete as the countdown is ongoing through this next week, culminating on Friday IIRC. Furthermore, with the "regular"/annual countdown 'Hottest 100' article's the page is never only created following the completion of the countdown, so I am unsure why this would be different in this instance. Finally, I did check the Talk page of the overall Triple J Hottest 100 article and there was no mention of the existence of a 'Hottest 100 Australian Albums of All Time' discussion. I apologise if another user was hoping to be the one to create the page, "getting in first" was not my intention (I wasn't aware this was a big deal either), I was just aiming to fill a gap. As previously mentioned, I'm not sure why this article would be deleted given that ALL of the previous 'Hottest 100' pages are created prior to and updated during the countdown itself. Again, I apologise if I was out of line :-S - Ck786 (talk) 09:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Update: So between seeing this proposed deletion half an hour ago, and replying above, the article has been removed. Again, I didnt realise that people took great offence to others taking the initiative to create an article where none existed, and I didnt realise it was aa big deal as to who started an article. Personally, I couldnt care less who starts it. I'd still like to know why this countdown is different to at least the last three 'Hottest 100' countdowns which I have participated in updating, whereby there is no page that exists prior to or during the countdown Ck786 (talk) 09:41, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I would just like to point out, in User:Ck786's defence, there wasn't much mention of it outside of the deleted article's talk page. However, on both the Triple J template and the Hottest 100 page, I added a small note, viewable to those who edit it, that a page of this nature has already been created. Also, it wasn't about getting in first or anything. Basically, I had created the article after a user had just implemented the data into a very poorly designed list on the Hottest 100 main page. So, in order to clean up the page, which I do regularly, I moved the information to it's own page, which was going to be created soon enough anyway. The page was then marked for deletion, as most of the Hottest 100 pages are anyway. But the date which the page was to be deleted was 3 days before the completion of the list. So rather than argue, I volunteered to delete the list, which was violating Wikipedia's standards by being incomplete, and move it to my Sandbox to be completed, and then moved to it's own article again once the countdown had finished.

And to hopefully help answering your question regarding why this one is different to previous countdowns, well, this one is ongoing at the current time. Yes, the previous ones were too, but the yearly ones are finished in a matter of hours, and likewise, the previous Hottest 100 of All Time Countdown was finished in under a week. However, this one will remain incomplete for almost 2 weeks (until Sunday July 10th), which realistically, is too long for an article to remain incomplete.

However, once the countdown is completed, I'd hope to resubmit the completed article if allowed. Tyler j1992 (talk) 12:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• These lists are a copyright violation. They are creative in nature, not factual, and we need permission to display them. While we received permission from Triple J for some of their lists, they were very specific in their permission as to which lists they were releasing. Their release (Ticket:2009071010018621) was not general and did not include future lists. I've blanked the list portions of both pages. Please see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for the procedure for verifying a usable license for this list as well. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:35, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Disagree entirely with this, there is nothing creative about counting votes from 100000s of listeners. It is factual compilation of other people's creative efforts, so does that make it a derivative work and should each listener be asked what they want to do with their copyright? But why was my contribution to the original article of adding an independent reference allowed to be deleted by a "sole author requests deletion" CSD clause, when he wasn't the sole author? Why wasn't it moved to his sandbox instead of deletion and recreation? The-Pope (talk) 16:04, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• I'm afraid that our attorney feels differently, as I explained at Tyler's talk page. No answer on the G7 question. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• If there were nothing copyrightable about poll results, polling would be a considerable less lucrative business. To be honest we probably want to make that more explicit, as we've surely got tons of articles with the same problem. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 09:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

• I've sent an email to both the website of Triple J itself, and its parent company, the Australian Broadcasting Company. So we just have to sit tight and wait for any reply regarding copyright before we can continue. Tyler j1992 (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

99.90.197.244

The IP refuses to not refer to others as liars[1][2] use quality RS while trying to make a point.[3][4] The English is also unworkable. A clear history of edit warring and other issues in the block log and talk page.[5] I am requesting a 6 month block on the IP since there is nothing but trouble coming from it since April 2010[6]. Cptnono (talk) 08:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Aha, so that explains Israeli insanity. But what's the explanation for anti-Israeli insanity??? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 11:32, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

My eyebrows were raised until I read the name. :p Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

And now this. I think he is actually saying that kosher salt makes Israelis insane. Cptnono (talk) 08:59, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that the editor, and it does appear to be "linguistically" the same person, uses a machine translator for whatever language they are conversant in. Of itself this would not be an issue, providing they were contributing to a discussion - however, it appears that this is pretty much a SPA regarding the current tensions relating to Middle East political issues (Gaza blockade, US Koran burning, etc.) who is using the project as a soapbox. I am going to enact a 3 month block, with a view to escalating blocks if this behaviour is not modified upon sanction expiry. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Good block, but I have some doubts about your analysis. No machine translator would confuse blockade with brocade. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:09, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Or tourism for truism, but perhaps they were "assisting" in areas where the machine translation failed? LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd just like to say that I am fairly certain that I do not like this evil IP fellow and that it does appear that he was both ignorant of the subject matter (not a crime, but annoying) and a soapboxer most foul (wiki-crime). Good block imho. Btw, just a side note, everyone who is a citizen of Israel is allowed to vote regardless of ethnic background or faith (and that includes many Arabs of different faiths). Just wanting to clarify. :p So all is good. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 14:40, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposed community ban on BelloWello

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

BelloWello/WikiManOne/Salegi is banned by community consensus. Courcelles 19:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• BelloWello (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Salegi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• WikiManOne (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 50.72.159.224 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Letsgocrazytogether (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dumler for Supervisor (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BelloWello's name has appeared several times on this noticeboard. When editing as WikiManOne, he was on the verge of being community banned because of his edits related to abortion. All the accounts above were operated by the same real life person who recently divided his accounts into two: one to edit or create articles connected with Democrat campaigning in Albemarle County, Virginia (last two accounts); the other IPsock to continue tendentious editing of articles relating to Seventh Day Adventism. The new accounts used as a source the real life blog of this editor, which was in blatant contravention of WP:RS. This editor has consistently used wikipedia to push an agenda. In the latest SPI, when the connection between the different accounts was mentioned, his response was defiant and aggressive, when it was evident that he was deliberately operating sockpuppets.[7] This last round of sockpuppetry and activism is the final straw. This editor has shown that, despite being given one last chance after another, his editing goals conflict with those of this encyclopedia. I therefore suggest that he be indefinitely banned by the community (the possibility of an indefinite block was not discounted by Jclemens, one of the checkusers who has been involved in checking several of the accounts above).

• Support as proposer. Mathsci (talk) 08:17, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support WMO was at the core of the Abortion 1RR sanctions. Bello was at the core of 1RR sanctions at Southern Adventist University. IP 50.72 contributed to full protection at Samuel Koranteng-Pipim‎ and semi-prot at Generation of Youth for Christ‎‎. The sum total of this user's disruption is staggering. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:47, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
  Bello was also on the verge of topic-banning here as evidenced by the substantial support. – Lionel ^(talk) 08:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Collapsing disruption by now-blocked Lovetinkle
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Support provided we ban Mathsci as well. Two particularly odious birds with the same righteous stone. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 08:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Lovetinkle warned for inappropriate comments and edit-summaries in relation to past several edits. DMacks (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC) With the greatest of respect, you can insert your warning wherever is most comfortable for you. I repudiate it and stand by all I have said. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC) In addition Lovertinkle has accused Lionelt of being a sockpuppet of my account. [8] It looks as if their account might be compromised. Mathsci (talk) 09:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC) He is a sockpuppet. Your sockpuppet. Miss E. Lovetinkle (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Accusations vs. accusations. BelloWello, despite being labeled a sockmaster on some of the listed accounts, is not even currently blocked. What's up with all this? Where are the SPI's for all these claims? ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:40, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/BelloWello was linked in the start of this thread but obscured as an extlink to a certain revision. It mentions why that account is not blocked at this time (and leaves the door open for doing so), exactly as the original link says. DMacks (talk) 09:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Roger. So why is BelloWello still being allowed to edit? And where is the evidence, if any, in support of Tinkle's claims? I'm also amazed that the user got away with that ID, but that's another story. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 09:55, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Again again, the answer to your first question is in the original post in this thread and also in recent comments in the SPI (maybe it's in the active part not yet archived?). This thread here I assume will establish how to proceed, whether to block and/or ban, or keep open as a last-chance. DMacks (talk) 10:06, 3 July 2011 (UTC) See Lovetinkle's block for harassment and also click on my IP to see where I edit from. Honestly Bugs. [Mathsci editing while logged out] 82.66.163.12 (talk) 10:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Yes, I did see that Bello was given a short block despite two occurrences of sockpuppetry. Not good. I also saw that "Miss Ejaculata Lovetinkle" is appealing the block. Also not good. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 10:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC) Lovetinkle shot its wad and is now indef'd. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

• Support. A bad faith editor who has caused severe disruptions in several topics. He's been given many chances to reform already.   Will Beback  talk  11:42, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. (non-admin) At one point, some months ago when he operated as WikiManOne, I thought that some of what was being contributed was useful, reasonably sourced etc but after some involvement supporting a few of his points, my opinion soon changed. The editor is sly, tendentious and an extreme POV pusher. There have been numerous blocks, numerous incidents of major drama which did not actually escalate to a block, and numerous reincarnations (some sanctioned, some not). Enough is enough. - Sitush (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - as per Will. Off2riorob (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Will and nominator. --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:11, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - indef block all accounts and ban the person behind them -- Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - inappropriate behavior in many ways. JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support ban. This user has clearly disruptive behavior and assumes seriously bad faith. The recent activity by BelloWello is an example of giving too many last chances. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 16:43, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support With that many failed attempted CLEANSTARTs and failing to remedy the underlying problem, it's time to go. Also, wikimanone may have been related to a family of three other sockpuppets. Sailsbystars (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - per Mathsci the nominator, Lionel and Will B. Long overdue.[9] It was only a matter of time. Good riddance. --Kenatipo ^speak! 19:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support -Abusing multiple accounts, edit warring, engaging in "wiki-lawyering", and on the advice of Will B who at one time was an advisor to Bello.--Fountainviewkid (talk) 20:53, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support - persistent and remorseless abuse. Delete, salt, pepper. —chaos5023 (talk) 21:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• I am troubled by BW's behavior as an editor. We worked together on several very successful articles. BW can make a positive contribution to the Wikipedia community. But, the evidence is overwhelming that he has another side to him; an unacceptable one. DonaldRichardSands (talk) 21:25, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support with great sadness. Like DonaldRichardSands, I was able to collaborate with this editor on several occasions and know that he is capable of making useful contributions to this encyclopedia. However, I now see his other side - what seems to me to be his appetite for confrontation, for advancing his personal agenda and now sockpuppetry. It's all too disruptive for me to stand up for him now. Cullen328 (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support per Will. Kcowolf (talk) 00:31, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The editor's battleground behaviour, sockpuppeteering, and other abuses far outweigh any positive contributions he's (or she's) made to the project. He can't let it go, he won't let it go, and the encyclopedia is being actively harmed by his intransigence. --NellieBly (talk) 02:50, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Socking on top of other issues makes this an easy call. I hoped this editor might turn it around, but clearly that's not happening.--Kubigula (talk) 03:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
• Suppport, disruption of this discussion via sock demonstrates that community cannot exhaust anymore patience here. Daniel Case (talk) 04:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
• Support banning as the user causes too much disruption and treats WP as his battleground.
  ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 17:36, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

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

User:E2e3v6

E2e3v6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A general nuisance. Repeatedly asked to stop disruptive behavior.

• Removing talk page comments:
  • 20:27, 24 June 2011
  • warning by Pinkadelica 20:32, 24 June 2011
  • second removal 12:39, 25 June 2011
  • second warning 15:48, 2 July 2011
• Adding original research/uncited material:
  • 13:21, 22 May 2011
  • warning 13:47, 22 May 2011
  • 05:58, 28 May 2011
  • warning 09:57, 28 May 2011
  • 18:11, 29 June 2011
  • final warning to stop 21:52, 29 June 2011

• Previously notified ANI for user's edit warring on Press Your Luck 22 June 2011 [10].

Posting here following a recommendation after opening case at WP:ANI [11]. Sottolacqua (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Being semi-involved (as I have encountered E2e3v6's edits repeatedly and warned them about removing talk page comments), I thought I would comment. I don't believe E2e3v6 means to be disruptive and probably means to improve the articles he edits, but there seems to be a bit of a competence and maybe even a lack of understanding about what Wikipedia actually is on his part. E2e3v6 edits and creates articles on subjects that he obviously has strong feelings about which sometimes leads to some fan-like behavior that obviously doesn't fall in line with policy and leads to warnings. I think E2e3v6 would probably benefit from a very patient mentor who doesn't mind repeatedly explaining policies. Pinkadelica^♣ 03:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Checkuser

Regards, --Base64('RnVjayB5b3U=') (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

What do you need? –MuZemike 20:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

"RnVjayB5b3U=" is "fuck you" encoded in Base64 fwiw. Now call me cynical but I doubt this user is going to be terribly helpful. Egg Centric 20:22, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

And that is why DeltaQuad blocked the account. Mathsci (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Just as FromHex('4675636b20796f7521') (talk · contribs) also means "fuck you", I'm sure (also blocked, BTW). –MuZemike 20:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Apparently punctuation and capitalisation are more important in a 4 bit world... translates to "Fuck you!" Egg Centric 20:29, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Maybe he's a fan of the Cee Lo Green song of the same name :) –MuZemike 21:58, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Is anybody going to do a checkuser on them to see who they are? The Mark of the Beast (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Two checkusers already have done.. --(ʞɿɐʇ) ɐuɐʞsǝp 08:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

copyright infringement

Hello, I have a question about the copyright status of this picture. This picture has been taken from a Danish Newspaper, not from an American Newspaper. So it can't be used fair use under United States copyright law. What is your opinion? Regards --وحید قاسمیان (talk) 21:24, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Since Wikipedia's servers are physically located in the United States, they are controlled by United States law. Therefore, United States copyright law applies, including the doctrine of fair use. Also, it appears that OTRS has already vetted and cleared the image in question for use with that article. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and am not qualified to give legal advice. Consult a licensed and practicing attorney in your area for definitive legal advice regarding your particular situation. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Alan, huh? OTRS has done nothing of the sort.

قاسمیان, both the United States and Hollard are signatories of the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Our article on it explains what that means: "The Berne Convention requires its signatories to recognize the copyright of works of authors from other signatory countries (known as members of the Berne Union) in the same way as it recognises the copyright of its own nationals. For example, French copyright law applies to anything published or performed in France, regardless of where it was originally created." As such, the newspaper in question in copyrighted under United States law, but can be used under fair use criteria in the United States. IANAL. NW (Talk) 22:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I stand corrected...I'll strike that part of my comment. --Alan the Roving Ambassador (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Uh, the picture is from Denmark, not Holland (sic, actually the Netherlands), but that's ok; Denmark's a sigantory, too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 07:07, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It is a creative attempt to get around the Mohammed picture issue, but WP:NFCC allows for fair use of fully copyrighted pictures in the proper context; that is we consider a work either "eligible for free use" under Wikipedia policy (i.e. "commons" worthy pictures in the public domain OR properly liscenced under GFDL or CC-BY-SA), or the pictures aren't eligible for free use, and this picture isn't eligible for free use. As such, it must meet WP:NFCC which it does. The country of origin, and provenence of the picture isn't at issue. Fair use is fair use, and this picture qualifies for fair use, as it is clearly the topic of extensive commentary in the articles it is being used it. As I stated, this is a novel means by the OP to get around WP:NOTCENSORED by reframing the arguement. Points awarded for creativity, but alas, the picture will stay today. --Jayron32 00:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Since it hasn't been mentioned yet, whose sock are they? Their single edit is to make this post. Anyone else hear quacking? Heiro 18:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Nah, وحید قاسمیان is just an account from fa-wiki. They have half a year's worth of contributions over there. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Cool, had noticed this edit a few hours before the post here, thought they might be connected. Didn't even think to check other wikis. Heiro 21:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Éric Gagnier

Hello all. Éric Gagnier has been active for a long time on wp.fr (under a variety of IP ranges, as well as a number of usernames, mainly M-A92 and A-31). 204.237.12.81 has been identified there as a block evasion of this user ; i blocked this IP back in April. It seems it is still active here ; furthermore spamming my talkpage, begging for an unblock on wp.fr --MAURILBERT (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

If an editor is blocked on fr-Wiki, that is a matter for that site. Said block does not mean that the editor is blocked on en-Wiki. As long as there is no problem with their editing here, they are free to edit. Should there be problems on en-Wiki, the situation will be assessed on its merits, and no account need be taken of editing on other language Wikipedias. Mjroots (talk) 05:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

But Éric Gagnier (talk · contribs) is indefinitely blocked on en.wikipedia and so 204.237.12.81 is a block evading IPsock on en.wikipedia. He self-identifies here in a highly disruptive way, harrassing Mauribert by vandalising his talk page. [12] (From that post another IPsock on en.wikipedia is 209.226.116.75 (talk · contribs · WHOIS).) Mathsci (talk) 06:09, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Ah, that's different. Said IP socks should be blocked in that case. Maybe also a temporary semi-protection of Mauribert's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 06:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

The vandalism/harrassment occurred again just recently.[13] Please could administrators on en.wikipedia take the hint and just block the two accounts? Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 21:22, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Before I block this editor, anyone want to comment on the page moves?

I blocked Consorveyapaaj2048394 (talk · contribs) for continual undiscussed page moves and apparent refusal to discuss anything. We now have Deadly Coordinates (talk · contribs), created shortly after I blocked the earlier account, making similar page moves. Both have edited/moved something about the Vulva page, one moved some Twilight articles, while another edited a Twilight character page. And both have moved the FAQ page. Quack quack. I was dithering between SPI and an immediate block but I could also use some eyes on their page moves to see if any are worth keeping. Dougweller (talk) 09:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I have extensively studied the editing history of both accounts, and I have no doubt they are the same person, so I have blocked the new account. I have also reverted a couple of page moves which seemed unhelpful, including the move of FAQ. Unfortunately I don't have more time to spend on this now, but it seems likely that there are more that could do with reverting. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Deadly Coordinates attracted my attention as a problematic editor after some dubious page moves and edits to policy pages, including creating Wikipedia:Angelina Jolie. Since there's a general lack of clue across both accounts, and they're both blocked, it's probably best that all their edits are reverted.They appear to be editing from their own notions, rather than from sources and references. Acroterion (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It's obvious that this editor's first language is not English. From looking at the sul contribs for both accounts I'm guessing that it's Vietnamese. Someone who also speaks that language and is also proficient in English might have better luck communicating with him. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 14:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Death Threat on Talk: Pamela Geller

Being handled accordingly. –MuZemike 16:06, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The diff is here. Is this something that should be taken seriously, and if so, what should be the proper course of action? Difluoroethene (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

Something needs to be done about this user - fast! So far I have caught these IPs, but there are no doubt more. I propose some sort of rangeblock.

• 166.137.136.81
• 166.137.136.103
• 166.137.137.69
• 166.137.137.190
• 166.137.138.15
• 166.137.139.45
• 166.137.139.82

The user is deliberately polluting articles with false information. I just caught edits - still in place - done by this user almost a month ago. Nymf _hideliho! 19:21, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Nobody vandalizes Jim Varney and gets away with it, know what I mean? 166.137.136.0/22 blocked 1 month. –MuZemike 20:44, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Civility: Threatened by Admin mjroots over edit to Wikipedia article which contained false uncited information introduced by admin

Facts:

Yesterday, I noticed an article named "2009 Iranian Air Force mid-air collision" on Wikipedia, created by this same admin User:mjroots. The citations in the article were highly questionable and the link(s) to these citations were broken - looking at the titles, the broken link(s) were taken from a political anti-Iran propaganda site which no longer exists.

I researched the facts behind the article and found that this accident was not a "Collision" at all but rather an apparent crash caused by a malfunction as reported by Huffington Post. I corrected the facts based on actual sources, and added the "Citation required" tag where needed while correcting the name of the article indicating that it was a crash not a collision. I removed a POV political statement which was completely uncited, unrelated, speculative, and original, from the article also presumably written by the same admin Mjroots.

Less than 24 hour later I noticed a bizarre hate message containing slurs from said admin User:mjroots on my talk page [14], claiming ownership of the article. The admin further made an apparent slur accusing me of being "Iranian" and making multiple threats expressing contempt towards me for correcting the article. He threatened to plaster this page with a number of warnings over your editing to the article [sic].

He further claimed that because I am allegedly "Iranian", I am trying to change the article to a "truth as seen by Iran" [sic] article [15]. I categorically DENY THIS BASELESS ACCUSATION. The revisions I made WERE BASED ENTIRELY ON WESTERN MEDIA AS THERE IS NO MENTION OF THIS ALLEGED INCIDENT IN THE IRANIAN PRESS, Is user "Mjroots" accusing the Huffington Post of being Iranian???

User:mjroots changed the name of the article back to the incorrect "collision" title, removing all of my edits and reintroducing uncited information claiming a "collision" with another aircraft along with political propaganda.

I am relatively new to Wikipedia and I must say that I am thoroughly disgusted by what I saw today - especially from someone that holds an Administrative position on Wikipedia. Request this user be barred from making further edits on this topic as obviously Mjroots has personal feelings towards this topic. Xonus (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC).

Since you did not notify the other editor as you are required, I have taken the liberty of doing so. —DoRD (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I think that this is largely going to devolve into a content dispute, where differing sources are casting the incident in different lights. I have to say that I do not think that either editor has acted in the most appropriate manner, and that it is disappointing that a long term editor such as mjroots reverted another editors contributions without explaining why the new cites were improper (my review of them is that they seem to meet WP:RS). However, the proper representation of sources per WP:Due weight is a matter of dispute resolution and I am interested in mjroots comments regarding his actions and less than optimum commentary. As long as there is an acknowledgement that matters could have been and will be handled better I do not believe that there are any grounds to remove any editor from these pages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Xonus is starting to edit-war. Maybe a reminder on WP:BRD is in order. I was just gonna start a section, but... y'know... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 I have already given you a note about Wikipedia:Civility, regarding your message on my page which reads as follows: you won't get very far with obvious lies here. Stop being deliberately foolish - Again I find this extremely rude,offensive and nonconstructive. Sounds like I have set off a hornet's nest of Iran-haters, accusing me of being "Iranian" simply because of one valid editXonus (talk) 22:23, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Further information: user talk:Mjroots § PLEASE REFRAIN FROM PERSONAL ATTACKS

Obviously, I see this somewhat different to Xonus's version of events. The article history shows the story. All five references from four separate sources meet WP:RS. They all state that this was a mid-air collision which destroyed Iran's only operable AWACS aircraft, killing all seven crew. I don't claim to own the article. My actions this morning were aimed at maintaining adherence to WP:NPOV, and WP:V via RS. If Xonus or anyone else wishes to present evidence that there are material errors in the article, then they should do so by introducing referenced material, not be deleting referenced material and adding {{fact}} tags to what is left. The talk page of the article is available for discussion of any evidence presented. That there are no Iranian sources used in the article is not surprising. I would not have expected the accident to have been widely reported in the Iranian media in the first place, and I don't speak/read Arabic, so I am unable to assess the merits on any sources in that language if they should exist. That is not to say that such sources cannot be used, as I can always request assistance from Arabic-reading editors should this be needed.

I apologise to Xonus for any perceived insult in my post to his talk page. It was not my intention to make any personal attack, and I do not believe that my post there was in any way a personal attack. It should be noted that my communication was by means of a personal message, rather than a warning template. Mjroots (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

FWIW, that'd be Persian. Can someone else revert this mess now? The version Xonus left is unacceptable. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 ^{> haneʼ} 21:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Huffington Post reference contained the same video which is available on YouTube and is contained in the second Daily Mail reference ([5] in the article). Thus there was no removal of referenced material in my reversions. Mjroots (talk) 21:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Can the article please be reverted to this version, which is how I left it this morning. My belief is that there are no major inaccuracies in that version, and that referencing is in accordance with WP:V. Note the complete lack of fact tags, as all statements are referenced, and the references given verify the information in the article. The current state of the article is not acceptable. Mjroots (talk) 22:03, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Mjroots, the Huffington Post was a written article with text which supported my entry - the fact that it contained "the same video" as you claim is irrelevant! There is no dispute over the contents of the video here. Also, your knowledge of this topic comes into question since obviously you are looking for "Arabic Speakers" for an Iran-related article - indicating that you are not even sure as to what part of the world this incident occurred as you seem to think this article is about a crash in an "Arab" country . Xonus (talk)

Xonus, I'm happy to discuss the Huffington Post source - it meets WP:RS. Will open a discussion on the article's talk page about this source, where you are welcome to put forward your views. Mjroots (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Accusations of dishonesty by Malleus Fatuorum

Please discuss at the AfD whether the sources support the material they are used to cite. No admin action is needed.

I do not take kindly to being accused of dishonesty. Malleus Fatuorum (talk · contribs) believes strongly that Saddleworth Morris Men is not a notable topic and has said so, often, at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Saddleworth Morris Men. I think, rather less strongly, that it is, and have said so, and added some sources to the article and attempted to add citations. MF thinks that it is appropriate to criticise me personally at the AFD "You have been adding citations that do not support the material preceding them", "You have been either incompetently or dishonestly adding almost random citations", "Perhaps you might more usefully consider searching out these elusive sources, and removing the deceitful ones you added yesterday?" and directly accuse me of dishonesty "You are behaving dishonestly". For the record I reject those accusations. Would a friendly admin please explain to MF what our policy is on personal attacks, and perhaps grant him some time out to reflect on it? Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2011 (UTC) To clarify, you assert that the citations you have been adding do in fact support the material they are used to cite? If that is not the case, his statements are correct. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Certainly not in full -- the article had precisely one citation when I started, and still is not fully supported (like most articles at any given moment). I claim that they are all relevant, all support material in part, some in full, that they are all in good faith and part of the normal editing process. Even if I am mistaken, that is a very long way indeed from being "random", "deceitful" or "dishonest". Sergeant Cribb (talk) 21:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Perhaps not, but did you provide this explanation? I don't see it at the AfD in question. The diffs you provide above show a progression away from WP:AGF consistent with lack of explanation and increasing frustration. Perhaps it would be helpful to de-escalate by clarifying at the article which citations support what material, and adding citations or removing uncited material as necessary? The issue of notability we should leave to the AfD at this point. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:45, 4 July 2011 (UTC) I agree that the focus should be on the sources themselves and not your personal motivations. If the sources are unreliable or irrelevant, then Malleus could say that without remarking on your character. But that said, these are not the sort of attacks that deserve a "time out", by which I assume you mean a block, and as for reminders, I expect Malleus is well aware of what WP:NPA has to say. There is no need for administrator involvement in this sort of minor spat. --RL0919 (talk) 21:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC) I made no comment on the Sergeant's character, only on his behaviour, which is plain to see. The citations he has added do not support the material he is defending. How can that be anything other than incompetence or dishonesty? Malleus Fatuorum 22:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Malleus, that exact comment " How can that be anything other than incompetence or dishonesty?" is an attack upon his character. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:41, 4 July 2011 (UTC) I repeat, it's a comment on his behaviour at the AfD in question, which is incontrovertibly either incompetent or dishonest. He has added many citations with little or nothing to do with the material supposedly being sourced in an effort to make it appear that the topic is notable and well-represented in reliable independent sources. What would you call that? And since when was incompetence a character trait? Malleus Fatuorum 22:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC) I agree with Nikkimaria and RL099, this should not have been brought here. This is about WP:Verifiability. I see no need for Admin involvement. Graham Colm (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC) Agree that no admin action is required here. --John (talk) 22:52, 4 July 2011 (UTC)