Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

Admin behaviour at Talk:Johnny Weir

Split from Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive600#Excessive violations of BLP on Talk:Johnny Weir.

Now that the RfC has been filed, and discussion about tags can take place there: what to do about admins threatening editors with a block for merely discussing tags? --Cyclopia^talk 17:24, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Meh, flowers would be nice.... although, I'm quite partial to American cookies (not bad for a Brit).--Scott Mac (Doc) 18:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Give them a hearty "well done" for doing their jobs? Woogee (talk) 19:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe Scott's actions were clearly inappropriate, and I'd suggest an RfC filed on his behavior in addition to the RfC on the tagging. Karanacs (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• The issue of administrator misconduct is a troubling one, and it would be a serious mistake to dismiss it. Scott MacDonald's conduct in this matter has been inappropriate from start to finish—from citing BLP concerns to justify deletion of a discussion he had already extensively participated in, to making sweeping and inaccurate generalizations about editors who were clearly acting in good faith, to improperly and repeatedly threatening those editors with blocks, and now using humour to ridicule editors who call him on his behaviour. This strikes me as bullying behaviour.

I don't say that lightly. In almost four years as a registered editor, I have shunned drama, avoided using hyperbole, posted to ANI all of about a half-dozen times (and never begun a thread), and my assumptions of good faith frequently have lasted considerably longer than they should. I've never filed an RFC on a user, and I sure as hell have never had anything to do with an ArbCom case. As far as I recall, I've never even made a formal complaint about the conduct of an administrator before. Well, I'm making one now. It would be all too easy to unwatch a few pages, log out, take a deep breath, and stay away for a day or a week or whatever. But when I came back, how would I know I wouldn't unwittingly run afoul of Scott MacDonald on some other article or talk page? And how would I know that precedent hadn't effectively been set that it's okay to issue the kind of threats he did? If I have any future at Wikipedia, it can't involve a climate of fear in which I'm censoring what I say or completely avoiding certain topics based on my very sketchy understanding of a given administrator's personal interpretation of policy.

Scott MacDonald should realize that

1. his understanding of WP:BLP isn't necessarily the same as that of other editors, and his opinion holds no more weight than that of other editors;
2. if he is involved in a discussion which concerns him on BLP grounds, the appropriate response is to ask for input from uninvolved administrators first—not to unilaterally decide to delete the discussion and definitely not to brandish his tools towards the editors he disagrees with.

If Scott MacDonald would kindly show some sign of acknowledging the essence of these points, I think many of us might find that a meaningful first step towards putting this unpleasantness behind us. I know I would. If not, I suppose it should go to the next step, whatever that may be. I sincerely hope not, because that's not why I'm here. Rivertorch (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I've said I all want to about this.--Scott Mac (Doc) 23:04, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Rivertorch, valid concerns about BLP trump hurt feelings. The harm that can be done to real people in the real world by what an article says about them in a very popular and widely-read inline encyclopedia is vastly more important than following wiki-policy to the letter. Honestly, when Johnny Weir refuses to discuss his sexuality, I am quite sure he doesn't give two shits about whether or not an RfC on the matter was wrapped up prematurely.

Personally, I'd disregard your entire quasi-threatening post there if it were directed at me. Tarc (talk) 00:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Tarc, I'm truly sorry if you or anyone else perceived quasi-threats in my post. My post was in response to actual threats that were highly specific in nature and stemmed not from any article content, as you imply, but rather from a talk page discussion. I'm not interested in a pissing contest concerning who cares most about BLP. The suggestion that editors who took one position in the RFC don't respect BLP, while those who took the other position do, flies in the face of WP:AGF and has no apparent basis in reality. As I understand it, the mechanism that drives Wikipedia is supposed to be consensus. Consensus happens when editors who disagree find common ground, but it is impossible to find common ground when an administrator unilaterally decides to muzzle those he disagrees with. Maybe I'm mistaken, but you and several others seem to be saying that BLP isn't open to interpretation, that the way you interpret it is the only valid way, and to hell with anyone who disagrees with you: if they don't follow the party line, block 'em.

I have no idea whether you're right or wrong about what Mr. Weir's feelings would be in the matter, and I don't intend to speculate about Mr. Weir or any BLP subject the way you just did. As I wrote earlier, people keep conjecturing about "harm" to real people, but no one to date has explained how a request for comment could possibly harm Mr. Weir. Paper tiger, perhaps? In any case, my interest in this matter has nothing to do with Mr. Weir and everything to do with the unilateral actions of one Wikipedia administrator who effectively thumbed his nose at the collaborative process which, when allowed to operate, makes this a functional and collegial project instead of a chaotic nightmare wiki where editors simply take the law into their own hands. Maybe I've led a sheltered wiki-existence thus far and just hadn't realized until today that this kind of behaviour is taken for granted. Applauded, actually. Rivertorch (talk) 06:32, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

• He should be given kudos. The POV-pushing at that talkpage was out of control, especially by Cyclopia. Scottaka UnitAnode 00:41, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Thanks Scott MacDonald! Click here for my flower. Johnuniq (talk) 04:18, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
• Deleting the debate may (or may not) have been the right thing to do, depending on your interpretation of BLP. In no reasonable interpretation should Scott have been the one to do it. If somebody is willing to start an RFC/U on it, I would be willing to endorse it. The Wordsmith^Communicate 16:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
• It is always a shame to see an admin throwing his weight around like a bully and threatning blocks all round. I am aware this may not have been the intention but as Scott himself argues, appearances and impressions are important. Using the tools, even if only to intimidate those who would disagree, is something all admins should have to weigh up. Is the good done outweighed by the damage to the community and to the standing/position of admins? Scott hss made his choice on that, clearly and Scott has been given ample chances to go 'You know what, I was right but maybe I went too far or could have worked in a more conciliatory fashion'. I won't make comments on what one does about such things, just that it is a pity when admins give the impression of having so little respect for the community they are meant to serve and adopt an air of infallibility. We don't expect our admins to always get it right, but it would be nice if some had the open mind to realise this and recognise they sometimes get it wrong (and kudos to those admins who do post things like block reviews on here and open themselves up to potential critiicsm.) --Narson ~ Talk • 08:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• The way we apply BLP policy is determined by consensus, and the questions of whether it applies in a given situation is determined by consensus. How else are we to decide otherwise? Any admin can call BLP when they please and there is no way at all to reverse him? DGG ( talk ) 15:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
  • A cabal of interested people throwing their weight around on a talk page is not a consensus.--Scott Mac (Doc) 16:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
    • WP:TINC The Wordsmith^Communicate 20:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• I still think Scott was wrong to do what he did, he could've suggested it somewhere but should not have taken the action himself. That said, what's done is done. Some have endorsed and encouraged him, others have spoken out against the action and admonished him. I'm not sure what more can be done here. If this represents a pattern of behaviour, there is RFCU. Ultimately I think we should let this one rest for now. I'll note for the record I've split this off into its own 2L header so MiszaBot can take away the lengthy thread whose coattails off of which it was hanging. –xeno^talk 16:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

EGMichaels

→ Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/EGMichaels

Signing subpaged thread for the bot. –xeno^talk 15:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Personal attack by User:Nableezy

I would like to report a strong personal attack on me by User:Nableezy here. Apparently this kind of behavior is not unusual, see here. DrorK (talk) 07:44, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Aw, I think it's sweet that nableezy is concerned about your health.

In seriousness, that was an inappropriate comment. Have you considered WP:WQA or other avenues of dispute resolution? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 08:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Malik, you are always protecting Nableezy and Tiamut. This is becoming too odd. I don't find this issue amusing, nor do I find your conduct appropriate, and you are an admin, if I should remind you. DrorK (talk) 10:19, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not protecting anybody, DrorK. I told you I think it was inappropriate. As you know, I also left a message for nableezy saying he should strike it and I warned him not to make similar comments in the future. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 10:50, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

But you did warn Nableezy as recently as Feb 17 about civility: User talk:Nableezy#Civility. You also disregarded Drork's request here by mentioning other routes to take. This is an actionable incident. The only other place you should have considered pointed him to was AE due to the current sanctions. On top of that, your comments at the editwarring board that Tiamut was not editwarring because it was 30 hours and not 24[1] is also questionable. Your words mean more to people here since you are an admin now. Double check to make sure your history with the editors is not causing a conflict.Cptnono (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Do you see the big box at the top of the page, titled "Are you in the right place?" What does it say? To report impolite or uncivil communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts.

If this were, as you say, "an actionable incident", why do you suppose it's been sitting here for nearly 14 hours with no action?

Once again, I recommend that DrorK consider using Wikipedia's dispute resolution procedures. Or he can take follow your advice and take his chances at WP:A/E. Let's just hope he doesn't shoot himself in the foot in the process. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 21:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Nableezy's comment, while admittedly unnecessarily colourful for the drab world of inter-Wiki politics, is not a civil violation. If Drork insists that he has consensus from everyone for his edits while in the same breath saying only three editors disagree with them, asking if he has suffered from some kind of accident that has impaired his ability to think clearly is a valid sarcastic rejoinder. Its arguably unhelpful, but its not a personal attack. The bigger problem here is Drork, whose tendentious editing style and serial filing of reports against people he disagrees with (whose opinions he holds to be so valueless that he does not even bother counting them in his assessments gauging consensus) has gotten totally out of hand. Tiamut^talk 13:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Tiamut is of course in no position to comment here, since my complaint about her edit war practices is still pending. If this is how she choose to reply to my complaint, then her conduct is indeed out of line. DrorK (talk) 14:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Second that! "tendentious editing style?" And Tiamut has filed her share of complaints against those who disagree with her or that take any action against Nableezy. Stellarkid (talk) 00:34, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Commenting on an editor's cognitive abilities is "arguably unhelpful"? No More Mr Nice Guy (talk) 15:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Asking someone if they have suffered any blows to the head is: "commenting on an editor's cognitive abilities"? a personal attack worth bringing to this noticeboard? an invalid question to ask when an editor claims that everyone apart from the other people commenting on the talkpage supports him? -- ZScarpia (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps ZScarpia would like to explain the nature of User talk:ZScarpia#Thanks for the tip#this interesting conversation between Tiamut and him? DrorK (talk) 17:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Sure. What exactly (about its nature) do you want explained? -- ZScarpia (talk) 17:49, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

NOTE: Sandstein, the person who was involved with Nableezy in the past at WP:AE, has been notified of this conversation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 23:23, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

And this is only just over a week since I brought up Nableezy telling me to go somwhere in his edit summary. --Shuki (talk) 00:18, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've received Jaakobou's notification, but do not see how this situation relates to me in any way. Civility issues should be reported to WP:WQA.  Sandstein  07:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Seemed like a misplaced AE type case to be honest but WQA could be a better first attempt.

Warm regards, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 16:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment - Navigating within the administrative pages is not an easy task. While I understand the need to sort the problems as accurately as possible, it is still an uneasy burden to decide which page is the right one to file a complaint. If this discussion was posted on the wrong page, and you are certain where it should be posted, feel free to move it to the appropriate page. DrorK (talk) 08:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm incredulous actually that you thought that was worth reporting to ANI. I see nothing malicious or offensive in what he said. ‡ Himalayan ‡ ^ΨMonastery 19:41, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Drork, if you're going to get upset about being asked if you've suffered any blows to the head, don't you think you should be a bit more sensitive about what you yourself say about other editors? -- ZScarpia (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Comment I think it's very convenient for you to bring this up after the fact. Drork filed this report and nothing was done. In frustration, he later made the edit you linked. Seems like a natural response to me. Breein1007 (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

So if administrators refuse to do anything here it can be taken to WQA. I think that is silly because what noticeboard is used should not prevent an admin from doing what they have requested to do by getting the admin tools. It could also go to AE if going to another noticeboard would be considered forum shopping. Any heads up on what is expected would b e appreciated.Cptnono (talk) 10:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Comment—I have done what two other administrators here recommended and ported the post to WP:WQA. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Call for possible legal action

I just posted something at Ripoff Report about a cyberstalker that has been harassing me at various websites, including this one. If anyone sees it, they will notice that I asked any attorneys or law enforcement that can assist in the removal of a particular blog contact me. Although there's nothing legal going on at this time, I thought it most honest to let the community know as proper procedure, and of course, I'm open to a temporary block if that's needed (although there's nothing legal going on at this time, and I will post here if anything is started in the courts in the future). PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 15:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a self imposed wikibreak might be for the best. You are nonstop drama here. Even though it's trolls that start the drama, you are certainly guilty of escalating it. And, not to defend the trolls, but your abrasive attitude and relentless endeavor to contact authorities and get people 'disconnected' make you a prime target. To be frank, I just don't think Wikipedia needs that, no matter how good your intentions. Your post here at AN/I just proves my point. Drama drama drama. PhoenixPhan (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Above user is indefblocked, after appearing for the first time to post disruptive stuff here --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Why would you report a cyberstalker on a consumer rights website? And why would you expect the cops to be reading it (other that for amusement on their lunchbreak)? --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The site claims that consumer protection agencies, law enforcement, and lawyers often observe that site for patterns. I don't expect any response on that, but it is possible. Think it's ridiculous to report a cyberstalker there? You should see how many people post about deadbeat dads/moms, nosey neighbors, etc.

Really, the trolls don't bother me that much, and all of these comments about contact authorities and getting people disconnected is inaccurate; I've contacted law enforcement less than five times, and it was inspired by WP:TOV/WP:SUICIDE. Contacting ISPs is a bit different, and it's not about revenge, but rather network abuse and an interest of mine in information technology. If you want honesty, I haven't reported people or families for network abuse, I've reported IPs which are for numbers separated by dots. To me, vandals are no different than any other spammer/hacker, except there's at least 10 times more vandals than hackers/spammers. Also, I've really slacked off on reporting to ISPs, mainly because it seems an unappreciated task.

Anyway, in this case, it has less to do with Wikipedia and more to do with the stalking. It might not have even started with Wikipedia; it is difficult to say what one's intentions are on the net. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how goofing off on a website is 'network abuse'. Beach drifter (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Evidently no one here has had any experience working in IT or abuse departments. Anything malicious is basically network abuse, and since Wikipedia vandalism is usually a deliberate attack (or "goofing off" as you call it), it's actually worse than more than half of what people get suspended for, which is failing to fix a virus after receiving warnings. Think of it this way: writing unwelcome nonsense on a wiki is no different than sending obscenity laced emails to random email addresses, which would be considered spam. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 20:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You are flat out wrong. This website is open for anyone to use and edit, and it's up to us to remove unwanted content and to deal with problems, not IT departments, abuse departments, ISP's, or anyone other group you can think of. No one considers vandals here to be 'attacking', it is in fact, almost always kids goofing off. You are a kid, you understand, right? Beach drifter (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I understand in the same way I understand kids sometimes goof off on random people's Formsprings, Myspaces, Facebooks, and email accounts. It really depends on how one looks at it. Some people excuse it because Wikipedia allows people to do it, but in fact, we actually don't. Allowing people to do it would mean we didn't care, and allowed vandalism to stand. If Google had a security loophole allowing a hacker to replace some silly teenager to replace their main site with something like "LULZ," then I suppose that looney child should be excused because Google allowed it, right? Similarily, if some bored child wrote to random email addresses or cell numbers "<name here> IS GAY," that kid should be excused because the people receiving the message allowed it by not having their email account set up to only accept mail from addresses on a white list, correct? I don't expect I'll change your opinion on the matter, but many IT departments and ISPs do care about it; my school cared so much about it that they blocked this site entirely when the caught it themselves. Too bad Wikipedia hadn't complained first because they might have considered an indef softblock on the IP instead. PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:11, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia poses a number of challenges for schools - kids might be reading it when they should be doing their sums, vandalising it, bullying other pupils on it, committing criminal offences while claiming to be editing wikipedia, or just plain 'teh intarweb iz fur porn'. Blocking it is easy - most schools do it at some point. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't forget indecent photos and language; that's another biggie for many places that block WP. Most schools do it at some point. Not really a big deal, but it seems that few public schools in Florida have WP blocked; I've seen IPs from nearly all of the other school districts in the state make more recent edits. Hospital Corporation of America (which has a pretty strict IT&S department) does not block WP either. However, I don't doubt that the blocking of WP is rampant in other areas of the nation/world. (ps, most people actually are surprised to hear that it's blocked in Charlotte County). PCHS-NJROTC ^(Messages) 21:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Mclaudt

Mclaudt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (formerly Gkrellm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); the name was changed due to a breach of Wikipedia's username policy) is a single-purpose account involved in meat puppetry, personal attacks, incivility, and ballot stuffing on articles related to tiling window managers. He has been warned several times but is becoming persistently disruptive to the point where I think a temporary block is in order, at least until the current round of AfDs is over.

Evidence:

Meat puppetry and canvassing

The user orchestrated, and continues to pursue, an off-wiki campaign exhorting people to register Wikipedia accounts, create user pages to give a false impression of being established users, and vote in accordance with his wishes in deletion debates. See http://www.linux.org.ru/forum/talks/4580222 (translation) There has been some limited on-Wiki canvassing as well—e.g., [2], plus numerous cases where has has cut-and-pasted the same argument several times to the same or other pages [3].

Personal attacks and incivility

In deletion debates he has called other editors fat, stupid trolls, incompetent, illiterate, etc. [4] [5] He continues to do this despite warnings in the discussions and on his user talk page. Also, his off-wiki campaign thread referenced above contains numerous more personal attacks directed at specific Wikipedia editors.

Ballot stuffing

He !voted three times in a single deletion debate: [6] [7] [8]

General AfD disruption

The user is willfully ignorant about Wikipedia policies on notability, reliable sources, verifiability, meatpuppetry, the deletion process, etc. Several editors have dozens of times referred him to these policies and patiently tried to explain them to him, but he continues to flood AfD pages with spurious arguments. It is no longer possible to assume good faith about his ignorance of policy. He has declared, implicitly and explicitly, in several places that he believes the purpose of Wikipedia, and/or his purpose on it, is to promote Free Software and campaign against commercial closed-source software. [9] [10] He refuses to accept that Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, and the arguments made in a deletion discussion, are based on objective criteria, and not on one's personal feelings towards the subject.

As a result of the above actions, particularly the meatpuppetry, several AfD discussions have had to be prolonged. [11] [12] It's clear that the user has no interest in building an encyclopedia, but is rather here to aggressively and disruptively defend what he feels are personal attacks against the software he uses. —Psychonaut (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Given the evidence, it sounds like what this guy is doing is so far from what Wikipedia is that indef's the only option. I'm blocking this guy for disruptive editing and high conflict of interest. Feel free to review. Blueboy96 18:03, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just noticed that according to Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks#Sockpuppetry and Checkuser-based blocks, "Meatpuppets will be blocked indefinitely". Should User:Mclaudt's meatpuppets also be blocked then? They're all tagged as SPAs at the now-closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwm. I'm concerned that if they're not blocked at least temporarily, the relisted debate Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwm (2nd nomination) will suffer the same fate as its predecessor. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point, blocking the whole lot. And I see at least one AfD that may have been affected by this guy's votestacking. Something tells me this isn't going to end well. Blueboy96 20:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

New meatpuppet recruitment

Apparently User:Mclaudt is now spamming Wikipedia users by e-mail, exhorting them to act as meat puppets in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/QVWM, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Evilwm, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwm (2nd nomination) [13]. Some extra eyes on these pages would help. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've reblocked him NEM; I declined an unblock for a sock- or meatmuppet of his earlier tonight; could someone block him NEM as well? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 07:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Mclaudt's off-site meatpuppet recruitment campaign continues. (translation via Google). —Psychonaut (talk) 09:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Should I semiprotect? —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 10:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dwm (2nd nomination) is already semi-protected. As for the others, I'll leave that to an admin to decide. —Psychonaut (talk) 12:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

According to this thread (translation) he is spamming members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Software/Free Software. At least three of them (User:Superm401, User:Antonio Lopez, and User:Deblopper) have complained or raised questions about this [14] [15] [16]. The full text of the canvassing e-mail has been posted at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Software/Free Software#Mail from Mclaudt : Wikipedia e-mail Please, save OpenSource! Need help!. Possibly the recent NEM reblock has limited his ability to pursue this particular method of canvassing. —Psychonaut (talk) 13:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

He's obviously abusing the email function. It was my understanding that that could be shut off as part of a block, similar to talk page privileges. --King Öomie 13:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I already did that, but if someone's replied to him then he can email them without needing to go thru WP's email function. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 20:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Community ban proposal

No fewer than 11 meatpuppets, an entire article compromised by meatpuppetry, and the meatmaster still canvassing for votes off-wiki. I don't know about you guys, but my patience is definitely exhausted. I move for a community ban on Mclaudt. Blueboy96 21:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Support but isn't he effectively banned already? No admin in their right mind would unblock at this point. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 23:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support - This seems a formality only, but if a formal ban gets in the way of later Wikilawyering, sure, let's call this a ban. -- Atama頭 23:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support – Although he is already indefinitely blocked, we can enforce it formally with a community ban. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 03:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. I was initially hoping only for a temporary block, but he has since escalated his disruption to the point where a ban is in order. —Psychonaut (talk) 09:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. Might as well dot the i's and cross the t's. Durova⁴¹² 20:04, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Support. The level of disruption caused more than justifies a community ban. Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 20:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Anselmgarbe

Please unblock this guy. He's not a sockpuppet of Mclaudt, and he was the only editor out of the meatpuppet stack that reasonably contributed to the 1st round AfD [17], providing sources instead of blather like the rest. Thanks, Pcap ping 16:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. He's the primary developer of dwm. He was recruited by Mclaudt, but actually provided reasonable commentary and tried to understand and work within Wikipedia policy when contributing to the debate. —Psychonaut (talk) 16:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If he understands the seriousness of what he's done, there's no reason why he can't be unblocked. Blueboy96 20:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Just emailed him offering to unblock if he tells other areas he's interested in editing. Blueboy96 21:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

70.240.203.25

Resolved

 – Blocked for 1 month by EdJohnston. Fences&Windows 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(From WQA) Just came off expired block, please see personal attack [[18]] and edit comment [[19]] Gerardw (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Block review of SkagitRiverQueen

I just blocked SkagitRiverQueen (talk · contribs) for one week for what I saw as her continuing harassment of Crohnie (talk · contribs). However, I'm not sure this is long enough -- it's part of a editing pattern I've been seeing for a while. Can I have some more opinions on whether the block was a) appropriate and b) the correct duration? Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And once again, Sarek blocks me for what he sees as an infraction, but doesn't block the other editor (Crohnie). The inequity is glaring. In fact, I'm starting to see a pattern here - the same thing happened with my last block where even editors who aren't usually "friends" noticed the inequity in my block then. Also again, Sarek seems to be using his administrative powers to punish - which is not only *not* supposed to be the way admins operate, but something only bad admins do (at least that's what a very wise admin I am acquainted with believes). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with the block qua block (it might be shorter for a first offense, since blocks are to be preventative rather than punitive), but I generally think we should do more to enforce WP:CIVIL. I do note that when an established editor did the same thing to me (right down to the insulting language), and I complained about it, I was blocked for complaining about it, so I'm a little frustrated with the double-standard. THF (talk) 03:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I read through that talk page and didn't see anything that bad and certainly nothing worthy of a block. The diff you provided in the block comment may have been a little snarky, but to call it uncivil is a stretch. I don't think the real question is whether the block should be longer but whether the user should have been blocked to begin with. I vote no. PhoenixPhan (talk) 03:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC) This account has been blocked as a probable sockpuppet created specifically for the purpose of commenting on AN/I Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't just read what's on the page, read the history, and see how many other pages she went to complaining -- including a rejected WP:AN3 report. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, please *do* read through the history. Please read through the history of me trying and trying and trying and trying to work with Crohnie and then read through her history of continued incilivity toward me, her personal attacks aimed at me, and he continuous false accusations lodged against me, and her repeated bad faith concerning me. And then, be sure to look at how no one does a thing about it. Oh, wait...yes, something was done. I was blocked for reacting out of frustration due to Crohnie's continued incivility, personal attacks, false accusations, and lack of good faith. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If SkagitRiverQueen is going to have comments move here then I would like to request difs for her accusations of my supposed bad faith towards her. --CrohnieGal^Talk 16:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

In isolation, I wouldn't have blocked the editor for that one edit. However given the history, it seems appropriate. Support block.Toddst1 (talk) 03:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Given the history, you might have a better understanding of why I never should have been blocked - or with my block, the other editor should have also been blocked. --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

LPerhaps we should look into her conflicting claim that she is the one being harassed? If she was being harassed` first then that should be seen as a mitigating circumstance for some "uncivil" words she may have SAID. This is all IF, as I dont know all the details but have seen in the past Skag actually get harassed in the past by other editors and the frustration she went through and not many listened or helped (and some were down right rude and should be ashamed of what they said). If someone is harassing someone through ACTIONS and then someone defends themselves and says some "uncivil" words because of frustration then no a block is not at all right. I also vote no on the block per PhoenixPhan. Having people ignore your complaints isnt a sign of incivility, its a sign that around here people are simply rude to those they dont like. Wikipedia is middle school when it comes to this stuff.Camelbinky (talk) 04:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

A hearty amen, Camelbinky. You and I haven't always agreed on everything, but on this, you hit the nail smack-dab on the head (more than once). --SkagitRiverQueen (talk) 05:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Well all of this went on after I left. The problems for me started with this second posting to me. I deleted the one above it because it was rude and I said so. She insisted on adding that in and to be honest I wouldn't have seen it, at least not immediately because Sarek had removed it. [20] I then got this one followed by [21] which I deleted after the complaint was closed. I went to Sarek to say thank you and ask for help [22]. She followed me there. I went to Lar who is aware of all the problems with SRQ. [23] The problem is SkagitRiverQueen. She has disputes where ever she goes. This can be seen by the history of her talk page. After I removed her comment she should have stopped. On my talk page titled Ted Bundy a new editor came by to talk to me about it. SRQ jumped in which the editor was apparently surprised about. I didn't even have a chance to respond to that editor before SRQ did. That editor is gone now as far as I know. SRQ bit him and I reminded her not to and pointed to the policy WP:Bite. Personally I think a week is too short because she was recently blocked for edit warring and then another day was added for a personal attack. She is not a victim here, I am. The post I made to her talk page she changed the title of to make it an attack on me. This was called 'For the record'. She accused me of following her to this article which is not true and I told her how I got there. You can see her response. That response is what I have to endure everytime we end up at the same article. I have tried to avoid her, ignore her and nothing works. She says she was at the Jeffrey R. MacDonald article first and that I followed her which is not true because I got to that article in Nov. '08 and her June '09. She is now on most of my watchlist so how am I supposed to handle all of this? Everything I do is being watched. So please look at the history of the different talkpages and articles. If you check the different boards like this one, Wikialert, edit warring and so on and put in her name you will see she brings editors to them a lot and most if not all of the time they are dismissed with no action needed. It's time to put a stop to this because I am not the only one having serious problems with this editor. Thanks for reading, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

FYI SRQ's responses are being copied here from her talk page by User:PhoenixPhan, who ought to be indicating as much when they get transferred. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And has now been blocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 12:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add some difs of attacks that I've had to endure prior to all of todays activities. [24], [25], [26] (this one she accuses editors of having an agenda and other things which is why I said above that there is more to this problem), [27], [28] (here she is being rude and arguing with another editor), [29] (here are two editors that are uninvolved who tried to help and got attacked for it.), [30]. If more difs are needed please just ask me. I think these show a pattern. Thank you, --CrohnieGal^Talk 15:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I support the block. I'm not sure about an extension. A week seems like a good escalation from the couple of days of her last block, or at least that would be the case for most users. I can't say I'm optimistic about it helping in SRQ's particular case. Crohnie is correct about SRQ being the problem here. I've watched her jump from epic rivalry to epic rivalry. She's always battling someone, and even if she starts avoiding Crohnie for fear of being blocked, I can't see this not starting up again with a new contender. Watch her closely when this expires, I guess is all I can say. Equazcion ^(talk) 02:20, 2 Mar 2010 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Equazcion. I've responded on her talk page, and I encourage others to look there for her further comments on this board (which she is not allowed to address here). My main concern is SRQ's continuing disparagement of Wildhartlivie when she was instructed not to comment on her, "...I have been a vocal opponent of one of her Wiki-friends' continued bad behavior in WP (including socking and socking during her block due to socking)..." WHL has observed her own admonition not to engage SRQ, and has not commented on any of these recent issues; yet there is obvious persistence here from SRQ against WHL and her "friends" like Crohnie. I unfortunately share Equazcion's pessimism and acknowledgment of the clear evidence of consistent battling. If SRQ could only concentrate on fighting vandals (which she does well) and avoiding endless arguments on (usually) small matters, there should be no need for an extension right now. I do wish she would "own up" to her errors and stop blaming others, but I can't have any effect on that. I would like to see SRQ remain as a positive contributor to WP, but certain glaring behaviors simply must change in order to avoid the seemingly constant conflicts centered around her. There are simply too many blocks and not enough admission of inappropriate behavior for this pattern to continue as it has been recently. I don't really dislike or have anything against this editor, and we have edited several of the same articles for some time. But something has obviously got to change for the future of SRQ's editing habits, because two weeks is next, and so on, and so on... Doc9871 (talk) 03:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, we have lots of editors who are slightly abrasive, and do good work. A lot of them have a lot of friends, and as such, it seems even civility warnings are like water off a duck's back. SRQ is occasionally abrasive, and does good work, but has fewer "friends". Every time she does anything that anyone perceives as even slightly "wrong", the sharks circle until she's pushed into a corner and blows up. Even those who she tries to not interact with will then drop over for a drive-by. All I have to do is read through her talkpage and I become frustrated, so I can only imagine how she feels. This sock accusation has to have just been a peachy end to the day, and the editor who placed it there refuses to explain their actions. Yeah, she's not a perfect interactor, but crikey, if half your day is defending your right to exist... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

All things being equal, an uncollegial editor is bound to have fewer "friends" than a collegial one. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't like it either that crap like this is put up, or that her talk page is constantly assaulted by childish vandals. Having edited with SRQ for many months, I can surely tell you that I don't want her to be further "punished", ostracized or banned. She does good work, and none of us are perfect by any means, but we have to abide by some pretty imperfect rules as well... Doc9871 (talk) 10:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Just as having friends shouldn't excuse incivility, a lack of friends should likewise not make us any more likely to excuse it. SRQ isn't just abrasive, though, and I'm not too crazy about the implication that complaints against her must be due to people not liking her for inconsequential reasons, like some mere lack of diplomacy. I've met users who were far more abrasive in their superficial treatment of others. This is not the problem. It's much more than that. SRQ is non-collaborative, not just in the way she talks to people but in her actions. She doesn't listen to anyone who doesn't side with her, including those who are neutral and seek to mediate one of her many disputes, and she is vindictive. As the offer has been extended to many individuals who were once neutral, uninvolved, fell for SRQ's often-convincing victim act, and doubted her being the cause of these disputes (this included myself up until roughly two months ago), I invite you to pay attention to the pages she edits and try collaborating with her in the future. If this person can be turned into an editor who collaborates well even through disagreements, I will be thankful to whoever facilitates this. Equazcion ^(talk) 11:31, 2 Mar 2010 (UTC)

Since there seems to still be doubt that SRQ has a problem with editors other than me here are some more difs to see. But first I want to bring this threat to everyone's attention that recently showed up "I would like to add in that all you have done is just antagonize another editor, and as such, decide to keep you under close watch. Ryou Hashimoto (talk) 12:36 pm, Today (UTC−5)" I do not know this editor at all and have no reason to understand why he felt the need to threaten me like this. Ok more difs, [31] , [32], [33], [34], [35], [36]. I also think SRQ copying over the conversations here to her talk page and attacking editors is uncalled for. She also made her own titles for them starting here, [37]. From this thread on down her page she has attacks on others with copies of this thread. She doesn't say she did anything, just that everyone else did. I am really tired of this and would appreciate it if someone would remove all of this on her talk page. There are accusations of bad faith but no difs are shown even when asked. Please, I beg you to stop all of this. Also the editor who said he was going to keep me under close watch is totally uncalled for. I am the one who has been antaganized and I show that in some of my difs. I am an editor in good standing who has all of this going on because of the friends I keep. Thank you again, --CrohnieGal^Talk 18:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

豪庸

Resolved

 – Reported account indef blocked by Ricky81682. Discussion with Caknuck over their AIV work can continue on their talk page. Fences&Windows 20:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is apparently beyond AIV's scope, although I thought it was pretty clear-cut. 豪庸 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a vandalism-only account. In the past, he corrupted Mariah Carey articles enough to eventually be taken to ANI. He returned today for his first edit in five months, and that edit was to reinstate the material that he received a final warning for. I'd indef as a vandalism-only account. My report was rejected by Caknuck on the grounds that there wasn't enough recent activity to justify a block. The logic of that truly escapes me: 豪庸 has not made a single edit that didn't involve adding false data to articles. He has never responded to a warning. He has never edited a talk page or a user talk page. He has never so much as used an edit summary. He is a poster child of a vandalism-only account, and nothing about taking a 4 month break only to repeat the exact same form of vandalism to the exact same article should create some form of immunity to blocking.—Kww(talk) 03:59, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

off-topic

:智利住房居住在海嘯 南美洲智利27日發生8.8級強烈地震，已超過300人喪生、災民多達200萬。地震引發海嘯，包括日本、澳洲在內的太平洋周邊地區均受到海嘯威脅 04:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)04:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC) Say what? Could you comment in English? Google gives me something about the Tsunamis in Chile... Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 04:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC) "The Chilean housing lives in Tsunami South America Chile on 27th has 8.8 magnitude of strong earthquakes, has surpassed 300 people to get killed, the disaster victims to reach 2,000,000. The earthquake initiation Tsunami, including Japanese, Australia's Pacific Ocean peripheral locality is threaten Tsunami" via babelfish. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC) For some reason, the above was posted by JB50000 (talk · contribs). Woogee (talk) 05:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC) That reason is because I saw Chinese and tried to respond in Chinese even though I don't know any. Sorry. JB50000 (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Caknuck should recuse himself from AIV. He almost invariably finds ways to bend himself into a knot in order not to block blatant vandals. Woogee (talk) 04:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Caknuck has done more blocking than I have in a while. Now, if you wish to further comment on him, that belongs at a separate ANI section. One edit in six months is not appropriate for AIV. Period. AIV is not vandalism NOW so admins can quickly look at that and move on. As to whether you would indefinitely block, run for RFA and then you can decide. I've indefinitely blocked but I'm not positive that it was necessary. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me understand. A vandal repeatedly vandalizes an article over the span of months, hitting it once or twice every couple of months, and they shouldn't be blocked? Woogee (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

And we get AIV pages like this, where the vandals are the ones getting good treatment from Caknuck and the people who are having to actually, oh, I don't know, deal with the vandals, get the back of his hand. Woogee (talk) 06:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

You never know who's going to turn up monitoring AIV. Sometimes they are overly cautious. Sometimes they take sufficient action not to have to deal with the same vandal the next day. If you post something there and they don't do their job, wait a few hours and try again. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Erm.. No. That's not the correct way to deal with that Baseball Bugs. I don't think it's a good idea to encourage forum shopping. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 07:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Going back to AIV is the same forum. However, one could also go to the admin and explain the situation. Sometimes editors are more knowledgable about a particular vandal and his socks than a random admin might be. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

From experience I can tell you that Bugs is correct. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 07:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bugs on that, especially that it's a better idea to discuss with the declining admin, than to find a new one. I obviously don't agree with reposting correctly denied requests, but I see that's not what Bugs was getting at. One note Bugs, it doesn't have to be at a different page to be forum shopping :). Best, - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 08:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

All Kww had to do was to ask me to reconsider. I'm a pretty reasonable person and I'm more than willing to listen to reasonable arguments. At the time I reviewed his request, an hour had elapsed since 豪庸's edit, so I held off on blocking to see if they would resurface. As far as the declines that Woogee is complaining about, the guidelines at WP:AIV are pretty clear. You shouldn't be posting AIV reports for vandals who haven't been online in over a day. You should report COI issues to WP:COIN and not WP:AIV. Don't get pissy with me when you post out-of-process block requests and they get denied. And if you do get upset with a decline, ask me about it and I'll explain exactly why I didn't block that user. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 09:21, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Outdenting and replying, primarily to Caknuck. I'm not sure if the "out-of-process" comments are aimed at me or another editor, but:

1. My request at AIV was made 12 minutes after the offending edit.
2. I protested your refusal 14 minutes after you did so.
3. I notified you of this discussion immediately.
4. There was no reason to wait for him to "resurface". He met the definition of a vandalism-only account at the time I reported, and the purpose of AIV is to protect the encyclopedia from further vandalism, not to spend time monitoring for future occurences. If it had been a week between my report and your review, an indefinite block of an editor that is repeating the offending edits after two final warnings (one from me, one from Muzemike), with no good edits to any article, would still be appropriate.
5. Repeating vandalism after final warning still seems to me to be well within the scope of WP:AIV.—Kww(talk) 14:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It strikes me that if we were to take Caknuck's position, we would be left with little recourse against such slow-moving vandals.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Caknuck screwed the pooch on this one (to put it colorfully). Rklawton (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Kww, the out-of-process comments were not directed at you at all. I just wish that you had given me more time to respond to you directly before escalating it here. Your response to me at WP:AIV was removed in four minutes by another editor doing clean-up.caknuck _° needs to be running more often 15:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Side-note

Please take note that the aforementioned user "豪庸 (talk · contribs)" is also a problematic editor on Chinese Language Wikipedia with multiple article/image related copyvios. IMO, this is another of those single-purpose account and I sincerely think the prudent thing to do is to revert, block and then ignored. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 15:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Trying to get an explanation

OK, let me try this again. If a person does nothing but vandalize an article, but they only do it every 24 hours or so and it doesn't get caught till they've stopped editing for several hours, is there no recourse? Woogee (talk) 19:14, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

No recourse from WP:AIV, at least not officially, though some admins will examine history and make their own judgment, particularly if the report indicates a vandalism-only account. An account will often be blocked hours after the fact where an IP would not, simply because IPs are assumed to be dynamic and the block might hit the wrong person. Reporting ongoing abuse here is probably your best bet if WP:AIV is inappropriate. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 19:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's a registered account, such behaviour clearly falls under WP:AIV's remit. The problem comes with unregistered editors, where the problem is determining continuity of identity. If the IP is committing pattern vandalism over a long term, the question of "Is it the same editor?" is answered: it's beyond unlikely that unrelated editors would happen to be dynamically assigned the same IP and decide to go vandalize the same article. Such vandalism is well within the scope of WP:AIV. The onus is on the reporter to make the case that it's the same editor, but it isn't reasonable to ignore the request because the vandalism is too slow.—Kww(talk) 19:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Expanding a bit, because the situation isn't always simple. In the page you linked to above, I would side with Caknuck on two out of three cases, and even on the third I can see his point. Shannonheward was a COI case, and had not edited since the warning. Dethklok09 had not edited after his final warning. 75.66.98.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a bit more problematic. His obsession with "Wow! Wow! Wubbzy!" makes it pretty clear that it was the same editor. The pattern vandalism had been ongoing for 7 weeks, so it's clear that the IP is either static or infrequently reassigned. However, the IP had been inactive for over a day, and there was no guarantee that the IP was still assigned to the same editor when the report was made. I would have blocked, but I can't say it was clearly wrong to be hesitant. That's the kind of report where making your case is important: had you pointed out the pattern of "Wow! Wow! Wubbzy!" edits and the 7 week duration, it's likely that the block would have been made.—Kww(talk) 20:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Note that the instructions at WP:AIV say that "Unregistered users must be active now, and the warnings must be recent" (italics mine). It's been SOP on that page for a long time to block vandalism-only accounts as they are discovered, and not wait until they start up again. As Kww says, due to the volume of reports, a block is more likely if the reporter makes a clear case for a block on a not-currently-active editor. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If an account is literally disruption-only, in other words they have absolutely no edits that could be considered improving an article, then I'd indefinitely block that account after a handful of edits. It depends, however, on the nature of the disruption, if it's really mild I might give a warning or a temporary block to get the message across. If the account had at least one productive edit I'd be a bit more lenient. But even a warning is action, of a sort. Continued disruption after warnings, whether they do it every 24 hours or wait days in between, warrants a block if the warnings were appropriate. I can't imagine a situation where any editor keeps vandalizing over and over, keeps getting warnings, and never gets blocked. -- Atama頭 20:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The last vandal I reported, that Caknuck refused to deal with because they were not currently active, was a logged in account that had already had a final warning. Shannonheward was a COI case, and had not edited since the warning. That is not correct. I would not have reported her if she hadn't edited since the final warning. She had, indeed, repeated her edit after the final warning. And now she's logged in as another account, or else has a meatpuppet, who repeated her edit, and I have issued a v4 warning to. Woogee (talk) 22:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Who was the vandal that you reported, that vandalized after a final warning and wasn't blocked? I want to have a look at that editor. If they're really getting away with something, they should be blocked. -- Atama頭 23:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Shannonheward (talk · contribs) Woogee (talk) 00:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The last edit from Shannonheward (talk · contribs) was timestamped 12:53, 26 February 2010. There had been a Lv4 warning placed 23:57, 25 February 2010 by Zhang He, but Woogee didn't report the incident to AIV until 14:56, 27 February 2010, some 27 hours after the user's last edit. Woogee also placed the COI warning on the account after placing the report at AIV. After looking at the edits, it appeared that Shannonheward was sourcing claims in the article, albeit with unreliable sources and a probable COI. But by no means was this vandalism. (Per WP:VAN: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism.) More can be gained from educating editors like this than the template-and-block cycle in which we sometimes allow ourselves to fall. Once I saw Woogee try to engage the editor with the COI warning, I felt that would be a much more constructive way to approach the situation. (It looks like the same editor returned today as the sock Manuginobili20 (talk · contribs), which opens up a new can of worms that will likely lead to the indef'ing of both accounts.) caknuck _° needs to be running more often 00:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I looked at the edits that occurred following the last warning, and they looked like legitimate improvements of the article (fixing the references section, adding an external link to the company he works for). We don't block vandals after they stop the vandalism. Also, Woogee's warning about blogs not being reliable sources is not entirely correct, blogs published by news organizations like the Wall Street Journal are often subject to editorial oversight and can be used as sources, see WP:SPS. The COI warning was certainly appropriate, however, since Shannon Heward is the executive assistant to the article subject. -- Atama頭 01:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

my restrictions

I was told to apply for reinstatement here on March 1st. I am hopeful that enough time has passed and my actions since my probation will allow me to be a fully functioning member of the community again.--Levineps (talk) 04:44, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

What part of these restrictions are you finding to be a major hindrance to working in wikipedia? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I would like to be off "probation" so to speak and be able to edit categories again. I made some mistakes and I am sorry they happenend.--Levineps (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If I recall, your judgment with respect to editing categories was suspect, to say the least. Can you point to something that indicates that your judgement has improved? Certainly the incident a month ago didn't show that. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have abided by my restrictions of not editing categories and using the summaries. Since that incident a month ago, which was a honest mistake, I have been a positive contributing member of the community. I think I have served my time.--Levineps (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The restrictions being -

Levineps (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is indefinitely banned from creating new categories, and re-categorizing either existing categories or articles. Levineps is required to not mark his edits as minor, as he has used this flag disruptively. He is also required to use manually written edit summaries for all of his edits, outside of the talk space. He is not allowed to remove warnings or notices from his talk page, or anywhere else they are posted. A 1RR per day restriction is also imposed, due to his disruptive reverting. If he fails to comply with these requirements, he will be blocked indefinitely and his edits can be reverted without question. Levineps is reminded that he free to propose any category changes on any talk page for others to implement. He is also reminded that he can appeal this sanction only via a formal community proposal, or by emailing ArbCom.

The restriction were imposed via this discussion. Mjroots (talk) 06:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Also pertinent: User:Levineps in violation of his editing restrictions Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes that was a mistake I made over a month ago and I explained it there and I have had no reported incidents since.--Levineps (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Completely unfamiliar with this situation but just took a quick look through the previous discussions and the editor's recent contributions. Levineps: have you made or attempted to make use of the suggestion that you can use talk pages to request category maintenance? I think the thing that would immediately make me convinced of your ability to use that functionality responsibly would be some evidence of your having tried that route. I haven't found any yet but I didn't dig all the way through the past month's worth of your contribs :). ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:34, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have not attempted to do this via talk page as I don't think this is the most effective use of my time when I can directly be helping out.--Levineps (talk) 22:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

As I suggested on your talk page, it would be better for you to avoid editing categories, moving/renaming articles and that sort of thing for a while. There are an infinite number of improvements that can be made to content, and good research and writing is needed everywhere, so there is plenty to do without working on this administrative/organizational stuff. If you disagree with an article's cats or name, you can always say so on the talk page; if there is a consensus to change it, other people can do so. These types of changes should always be made with caution anyhow. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 00:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree there are plenty of ways to help out and I agree I shouldve used more caution. I was told to reapply at the first of March, so I feel that I have already served my time. I am sorry if you disagree.--Levineps (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not seeing where you were told to re-apply on March 1. Can you provide a diff for that, please? Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

[38]- Resolved: User will re-apply in March. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 19:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)--Levineps (talk) 03:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, thank you for that link. In that discussion, User:BrownHairedGirl wrote: I think it would be much better to ask Levineps to reapply in March, with a clear warning that a simple "I want to edit categories again" request will result in the ban remaining in place. But isn't that, essentially, what you've said here? "I've served my time, I don't want to be on probation anymore." Since your restrictions are indefinite, there's no question of whether you've "served your time" or not -- the indefinite part means that the restrictions stay in place until you can show that they're no longer necessary.

Can you make a clear and cogent statement of why you were placed on restrictions, and what has changed since then? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, thats essentially what I am asking to edit categories again. I was placed on restrictions because I was careless and made stupid comments when confronted about this. I learned that this was not the best possible course of action. I believe I have grown as a person from this experience and will not repeat the same mistakes I made.--Levineps (talk) 03:47, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, if I'm reading this correctly, from your talk page, then you seem to have been responsible for this SNAFU, and looking at your log, you seem to have changed your focus from moving categories to moving articles. Since your judgment in renaming categories got you into trouble, why did you think it would be a good idea to start in renaming articles? What was gained, for instance, by renaming "List of Penn State residence halls" to "List of Pennsylvania State University residence halls"?

I think there's a case to be made here not for lifting your restrictions, but for extending them in such a way that you're limited to editing article and not doing any meta-work in regard to rearranging things. I would suggest that an admin take a closer look at your move log, because from the comments on your talk page, it seems to me probable that the majority of your moves were done without discussion or consensus.Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think thats a bit harsh, I feel that I deserve a second chance. I have abided by the terms set by me. Everytime I have gotten feedback on my talk page, I have followed it.--Levineps (talk) 03:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

It's hardly "harsh" to be restricted to editing articles, since that's what the encyclopedia is all about, the content of the articles. The rest of the stuff surrounding it is very necessary, but not central. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Levine, what has changed since the last time you asked besides the calendar? Auntie E. (talk) 04:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thats a good question and I have already answered that question I believe above. May I ask you if not now when should I reapply? I think now is a perfect opportunity to put all this behind us.--Levineps (talk) 04:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The issue is not one of exact timing - it's that your page moves do not show that you really understand the problem that led to the restrictions in the first place. Get to where you understand that, and show that you do, with talk page discussions leading to consensus - then ask for removal of restrictions. LadyofShalott 04:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Looking at this editor's history, I would think it inadvisable to lift any restrictions on him right now. "Parole" is an option on WP, but an editor must prove him/herself worthy of this; it's not automatic because you just became eligible for it. Waiting out the restriction and then reapplying without displaying evidence of true understanding of your restriction seems like "going through the motions" to me... Doc9871 (talk) 04:44, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I do sincerely believe I should be re-instated. I understand the reasons I was banned as I have said here and before. I can't change the past, but believe I can be a more productive member in the future. Again please accept my apologies for my past behavior.--Levineps (talk) 04:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I am certain that you "sincerely believe" you should be "reinstated"; there's no question there. Have you truly demonstrated that you should be, though? It doesn't seem to be going your way right now, I'm afraid... Doc9871 (talk) 04:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes that's true as anyone can tell from reading this, your absolutely right and there's really no need to remind me.--Levineps (talk) 05:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

An editor who says about discussing changes, "I don't think this is the most effective use of my time", has predicted his future approach. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I think you can cherry pick a quote here and there from everyone. What I was trying to get at is I would rather be directly involved the leave suggestions on a talk page.--Levineps (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

And I would rather be a millionaire. I'm not, but I can still edit wikipedia articles, and so can you. That's direct involvement. Why are you so hung up on categories and specific names of articles? Those are of minor importance compared to actual article content. And your unwillingness to discuss with others indicates you intend to return to what got you banned from categories in the first place. If you make some useful suggestions on the talk pages, it would help your case. But I get the vibe that you simply waited out the suggested time and figured you would automatically get to create categories again, the way you want to, rather than discussing with other editors, and then you'll be right back here again. How would that be "an effective use of your time" or anyone else's? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I wish I were a millionaire to, I guess its good we agree on something. How has not making suggestions via talk page "hurt my case." Thats one of the most ridiculous arguments. I have hurt the community by not doing this and I think if you think deep inside about this, you would agree with me. On a separate, if you look at my talk page, you will notice I have respond to comments. I never take anything for granted so I didn't just figure I would be able to again. Please take a look at the whole picture and you will see I interact with others as I have here.--Levineps (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Explain again how you have "hurt the community". I'm not following that. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry I omitted the word NOT(Just like the person below here misspelled believe). It should have went like this, "I have NOT hurt the community..."

OK, so it's, "I have not hurt the community by not doing this." I don't get that either. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I bleieve that the mass of article moves you have made since your restriction, as well as the statements you have made here, show quite clearly that you have absolutely no understanding of why those restrictions were put in place. You seem to believe they were instituted strictly because of your talk page demeanor or general failure to communicate, but that is far from entirely the case. The underlying problem was your lack of judgment concerning re-naming and re-arranging categories, the same lack of judgment you continue to exhibit. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:02, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I might not be articulating it as well as I should but I didn't realize I needed an attorney for this. The reason I was banned was because of my poor judgment with regard to the editing of categories among other thing. I realize this, understand, and wish it hadn't happened. This is not a fun experience at all. I have learned from this by not making the same mistakes, reviewing feedback from other editors, and taking a closer look at my own edits among other things.--Levineps (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I completely agree with Bugs above: you thought you could "serve your time" and then return to what you were doing before. I think you'd be far better off if you forgot totally about category-work -- and article moves, for that matter -- and found some other way of contributing to the project, if you're really interested in doing that. That's something you can do right now, and would demonstrate your value and, I would hope, your good judgment. At the moment, I'm just not seeing either. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you expected me to give up, you definitely picked the wrong person. To quote the Gloria Gaynor, "you think I'd crumble, you think I lay down and die, oh no not I." There is no quit within me. I believe that I should be allowed to contribute fully again. I think saying "sorry" a million different ways hasn't done any thing nor has explaining my actions. However, I am not giving up on this without a fight (a civil one I should add).--Levineps (talk) 06:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you were the culprit who left the talk pages of the snafu named above [39], which it seems you were, I'm for adding page moves to you ban as well. There was no logical reason for doing those moves, and it shows you are not yet ready to be trusted with options than can cause major headaches. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

irrelevant bit

Urgent Comments Requested - The last part of Levineps's edit above is a possible legal threat against WP, and should be dealt with accordingly... Doc9871 (talk) 07:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Wow, didn't mean to set off a firestorm. Is this wikipedia's equivalent of "yelling fire in a crowded theatre." I didn't know my first amendment rights were revoked.--Levineps (talk) 07:11, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Are you daft or joking? He said a civil fight not a legal one. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 07:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Mea culpa... Doc9871 (talk) 07:37, 2 March 2010 (UTC) No worries, we all make mistakes!--Levineps (talk) 07:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC) Thanks for understanding! I misread it that you meant a "civil" action or lawsuit, and I feel pretty damned stupid right about now. Sorry 'bout that again :> Doc9871 (talk) 07:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've no prior involvment in this, so can probably view things objectively. A number of points:

• Levinsep sees nothing to be gained by proposing changes and gaining feedback rather than proceeding on his own.
• When pressed on the question of, "what is different," Levineps cannot quite answer clearly and becomes excited. This suggests to me that there is no real change in behavior.
• From the discussion it seems clear that Levineps' troubling behavior has spread from categories to articles.
• "I am not giving up on this without a fight," makes it sound like Levineps has been wronged or injured somehow.
• Seeks to become "fully functioning" again. Almost as though he were crippled by the restrictions.
• There is such desperation to have the restrictions removed. Sees no value in the many other things he can be doing.

Mix it all together and squeeze it dry, and I think you are left with the realization that Levineps does not have sufficient insight into the undesirable behavior to prevent its reoccurence. I feel that nothing is lost by continuing the restrictions for an indefinite period, and much to be lost if he proves the community mistaken by a lifting of the restrictions. Beyond My Ken puts it quite well, that Levinsep would "be far better off if [he] forgot totally about category-work -- and article moves, for that matter. Dlohcierekim 08:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above summary. I will note that I had a brief look through the user's contribs, and beyond the questionable article moves (although there are some good ones in there), there is quite a bit of good gnomish work going on there. I would suggest that if Levineps is interested in being an asset to the project, he continues on with that sort of work. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC).

• Oppose lifting restrictions per BHG and BeyondMyKen. - Kittybrewster ☎ 14:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• I also oppose and suggest closing. And suggest that Levineps try vandal-fighting or something that doesn't require collaboration. And because he doesn't see the need to respect the opinions of editors on the talk pages of the articles' titles he unilaterally alters, I support extending the ban to article moves without prior consensus exhibited on the relevant talk page. Levine needs to learn to work with his fellow editors. 17:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC) posted by User:Aunt Entropy
• Oppose listing the ban, but support extending the ban to include page moves. It's clear that the problems caused by Levineps' recategorisation have simply been displaced to article-moving. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

  Did you mean to say lifting (Not listing)? –xeno^talk 20:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Based upon the above discussion, I agree with others above in keeping the restrictions in place and adding page moves. --Kbdank71 20:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Ali Muratovic

I will like to report a User:Ali Muratovic for massivly changing the names of people from Bosnia and Herzegovina to an "arabic" version of the name wich is incorrect. Exemple: The famous football coach Abdulah Gegić is called this way by his native Bosnian language, but this user changes it to "Abdullah" just because he likes. This is also very annoying because breaks links. When called his attention for this, he first avoided the subject, but now (second time) after he continued, he was not polite and told me some insults. User talk:Ali Muratovic I see another user also complained about this. Can someone please call his attention, and see what he really wants. Thank you. FkpCascais (talk) 08:03, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have commented on the user's page. LadyofShalott 19:50, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Truthseekers666 (again)

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here, move along. Fences&Windows 20:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Truthseekers666 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has retaliated against his block off wiki on the youtube channel he has with two new videos, here and here, and in at least one case calls out ALR. I thought someone should be made aware of this, just in case no one noticed it yet. TomStar81 (Talk) 18:07, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It is not our job to police the internet or to support the National Health Service. He is indeffed I presume? --Narson ~ Talk • 18:16, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nothing we can do but ignore him and hope he gets bored. deny him recognition. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:22, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The whole 'call to arms' thing is a little worrying. We might want to keep an eye on the articles he is calling on people to go and storm. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Worth keeping an eye on relevant pages however, at 9:25-9:48 on the first video he calls for others to help him out on Wikipedia. Other than that though, best to ignore and move on rather than let a fuss be kicked up. --Taelus (talk) 18:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The pages are indeed being watched (and RAF Rudloe Manor is still protected for now). Any meat-puppetry can be dealt with as and when it surfaces. EyeSerene^talk 18:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Considering the number of views those two videos have, I wouldn't worry. Youtube, allowing the people with important things to say, say them without fear that someone might actually listen--Jac16888^Talk 19:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

It seems like an unfortunate situation, as he truly doesn't understand why he was blocked nor why his edits were reverted. Granted, there are instances where people attempt to whitewash controversial information in articles here, but there's no government conspiracy in this particular case to redact his edits as he believes. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 19:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

From one of the Youtube postings: "Its clear to me Wiki is just a stitch up government job. The two main antaginists against me are military and freemasons." OMG you guys, I had no idea you were all military and freemasons!!! Please don't repress me! ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 19:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I swear, this guy sounds like the Sanders vandal. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 20:24, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah don't screw with us; we'll shoot you and make walls from your corpses. Or something. I dunno. Whatever masons do. HalfShadow

Oh, man, those videos are comedy gold! Though I do feel sorry for the specific users who are the targets of his conspiracy theory–induced harassment. —Psychonaut (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously nobody ever told him that the candy sucking during the video is really annoying. Niteshift36 (talk) 20:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• Or that posting a video on YouTube isn't likely to get you a response more intelligent than 'Ernk ernk, I eat poo'... HalfShadow 20:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

So far, one person has attempted to help him, as professed under the comment section. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

• I'm writing to the bloody government, bastards haven't sent my money yet. Rather the other way round, in fact, since I note from my payslip that they have stolen thousands from me again this month. Guy (Help!) 21:37, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
• Ok, now I'm pissed. Where is my check? Is it only UK editors who get paid by the government? And as an admin I think I should be granted some serious status with the masons. Grand Wizard or Imperial poobah or whatever system it is they use, which I should already have been informed about since I am apparently working for them. And I want my very own tinfoil hat with tassels denoting my rank. Now dammit. Beeblebrox (talk) 05:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Hey, I actually work for the Ministry of Defence and I haven't got my cheque! Is this payment only for MoD employees who are Freemasons as well? If so, how do I sign up? —Psychonaut (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    • The second youtube video was posted on St David's Day and there seemed to be some hint of a Welsh accent. Curiouser and curiouser. Mathsci (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
• Update I've just declined his latest unblock request/rant and revoked talk page and email access. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• Would everyone mind looking at some concerns/links I've posted at Talk:RAF Rudloe Manor#AMSCPC. Ryan4314 (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Oppose block - I favor unblocking Truthseeker. First - Truthseekers666 has a few friends who watch is videos. No big deal. The other hundred viewers are Wikipedia administrators pissed that they haven't been called out yet. Second, his "call to arms" has been described as a DNS - but that's gross hyperbole. He asked his friends to look into the situation possibly edit the article. He doesn't ask his friends to vandalize the article. I've counted two people who may have joined the discussion as a result of his "call to arms". Big whup. Third, he has been willing to engage in dialog - especially with editors who assume good faith. His talk page history clearly shows that he's trying to understand our policies and how he can work within them to get his point across. He makes all the usual WP:BOLD mistakes new editors make, but if we didn't put up with that, then we wouldn't have any old editors, would we? Sure, he's a conspiracy theorist nutter, and I as a Freemason am bound by blood oath to marginalize him, but as far as conspiracy theory nutters go, he's pretty tame, and I think he's willing to work within the rules just as soon as he fully grasps them. And to that end, he needs our help, not more paranoia. Rklawton (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Please block sock

Resolved

 – Redderrosefanclub123 blocked by NW. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Redder rose (talk · contribs) is currently blocked 31 hours for vandalism including to TFA and multiple userpages. After that account was blocked Redderrosefanclub123 (talk · contribs) showed up and continued the same vandalism. The Redder rose userpage was also edited by an IP [40]. The former two should be blocked indef per WP:DUCK. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk) 18:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Redderrosefanclub123 blocked indef by NW. IP not blocked by anyone, and I agree; edits were a month ago and looks like it might be dynamic. Redder rose hasn't been affected; if you believe there's evidence this was socking, rather than a troublemaker, you could file a report at WP:SPI. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

personal attack

Resolved

 – This is not requiring of admin attention. The complainant is probably being over-sensitive, but the correct place for the complaint would be Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts. Fences&Windows 20:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This is a formal written report of a personal attack on myself. Long standing contributor and administrator User:Arthur Rubin is entering into the discussion at Template talk:Logic with a personal attack on myself.

I feel it is my duty to inform the Administrators notice board because this it is part of a larger pattern. I would like the record to show what is happening. It is a pattern with Arthur and a pattern with the WP:MATH group in general. I had not started out on Wikipedia years ago intending to get involved with the politics, the administration, and long formal processes. However, the environment here is, and has been hostile. I have reported these incidents before. However, no action to sanction, indeed no written form of admonishment, positive leadership, or even mere dissuasion has ever come about. Greg Bard 19:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I see no PA in the diff you refer to.--Mbz1 (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming it's in reference to this comment by Arthur: "I don't object as much to the reoganization of the template as that Greg is the one miscategorizing subjects." If that's a PA, it's a pretty mild one. Much ado about very, very little. (Unless there's some history of abuse here that I'm not seeing) ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 20:01, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Greg, I notice that, in violation of WP:SIG, your signature isn't linked. You might want to fix that. —DoRD (?) (talk) 22:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Nor did you notify Arthur on his talk page that you have opened this thread, which is also required. This is also not the first time you've failed to do so. If you're going to be so very quick to run crying to the Admins every time you don't get your way, at least have the maturity and decency to follow procedures. 71.184.60.151 (talk) 23:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I mis-"spoke". My objection is to the categorization of mathematical logic topics under philosophical logic, even with Greg's attempts to redefine the terms into philosophical logic. I would object to that regardless of the editor doing it. The fact that Greg is the only editor ever to do that (among articles I've been monitoring) is not entirely relevant. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 09:14, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom's EEZ

On the Exclusive Economic Zones article, a vandal IP keeps vandalising the UK's EEZ out of line with that of other countries, such as the USA or Australia. The IP has been repeatedly told the UK's EEZs in no way differ from these other countries' EEZs yet the IP keeps vandalising the page. The IP says the UK's overseas territories are not a part of the UK and keeps changing the map, despite the fact the USA's overseas territories or Australia's overseas territories or that of any other country's are in no way different. Can this page otherwise be semi-protected? Bambuway (talk) 20:57, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

This isn't an issue for AN/I. Please take this to WP:AIV. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

The IP in dispute with Bambuway has suggested that they are a sockpuppet of User:Signsolid, who was indef blocked for socking in 2008. The intersection of their edits is certainly striking, the accounts have edited 62 of the same articles (18% of the articles Bambuway has edited, and 36% of those Signsolid has edited). Does anyone remember Signsolid? Fences&Windows 00:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Nope, but I'll open an SP/I based on that. Thanks for giving me something to do Fences. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Artw (again)

Resolved

 – ARTW hasn't actually done anything wrong; ScienceApologist is overreacting. HalfShadow 01:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Artw (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Previous complaint to ANI: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive598#Artw_giving_fair_warning_or_a_personal_attack.3F

Warning (seven days ago) by an admin: [41]

Offending diff: [42]

Classic wikihounding. This guy is just going around being mean to me. Can someone in authority give him some clue?

ScienceApologist (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Since a week ago, he posted once in a AfD you set up. That in no way shape or form falls under the definition of 'hounding'. Please get over yourself, SA. HalfShadow 21:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

"Nuisance nomination"? This guy has a history with me and maintains a level of discourse that can best be described as confrontational. I'm simply documenting this for you all as this escalates. He has refused in the past to respond to my pleas for tolerance, so I'm bringing it up here. If you prefer me to bring it up elsewhere, let me know. ScienceApologist (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Drop the stick. No closing admin with even vestigial traces of Clue is going to give that !vote any weight at all. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sensitive, much? Discourse at AfD is often robust, there's no way any admin tools are needed at the moment. ANI is not for you to "document" issues. Have you thought of talking to the editor before dragging them to ANI? Twice now the only communication by you on their talk page has been an ANI notice. Fences&Windows 23:04, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

If you're interested in seeing my documented history with this user, please contact me privately. There is a long history of very bad blood between us and I prefer to get outside advice. The advice here was fine, though I'll note that I myself have been blocked for much less in the past. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

If you've been blocked for less, then all I can say is that some admins are triggerhappy. If Artw is just being a bit irritating, ignore them. If they start being actively disruptive, then that's the point at which to seek dispute resolution. Fences&Windows 02:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Outside advice Scienceapologist, If you can't get on with Artw, then simply stay away from him. Wikipedia is plenty big enough for the both of you. If you want us to make this a formal restriction simply say so. I'm sure an admin will oblige with a restriction logged at WP:RESTRICT. Mjroots (talk) 06:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Artw comment was clearly uncivil and rude, and would hopefully be discounted by the closing admin. This is a pattern of behaviour by Artw, and following so swiftly from the last ANI report was unwise. However I agree that just ignoring him here is the best action. What I can't condone is attacking SA or saying he should back away, when he did not engage Artw and did nothing wrong, and ignoring the cause which is the continuing poor behaviour of Artw. SA didn't do anything wrong here, Artw did and he should be reminded how to AGF and conduct himself at AfD. Verbal chat 21:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibraltar

Could someone take a look at the gibraltar page. There seems to be a long term attempt to impose a foreign POV on the article by means of long tendentious arguments about small points on the talk page, and to remove content describing significant events in the history of Gibraltar. There is also the potential for edit wars and general nastyness as a result of the above. It might be beneficial to lock the page for a few weeks to let tempers settle. Gibnews (talk) 22:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

We've looked. A lot. Trust me. It's probably better now than it has been for six months. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh! Nice. Guy (Help!) 22:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Just seen this thread, having already locked the article because every time it pops up on my watchlist it's a revert (not to single anyone out because there's fault on both sides, but the cognitive dissonance in this edit summary was the final straw). I think it's reached the stage where any editor who reverts at all can expect a block without further notice. EyeSerene^talk 08:32, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with the page lock on either version, however the 'Ayone reverting in future will be blocked' strikes me as problematic. With the definition of vandalism being so narrow, it means a great deal of changingcould be done before one stepped over that line with little ability to respond. Might I suggest the imposition of a 1RR instead? --Narson ~ Talk • 10:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd disagree that its better now than its been for months, it got quiet because so many decent editors have quit because of the constant villification you get there if you disagree with the most minor of points. The tag team reverting to impose a preferred version by a cabal of editors that occurred a month ago had people tearing their hair out in frustration and should have been dealt with then but wasn't. It has needed a firm admin hand to stop the disruption there and an even handed one at that. The article has suffered at the hands of a civil POV pusher that has tied the talk page up with tendentious argument for too long. Justin talk 10:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• I propose article probation, 1 month of full protection so all changes to be discussed on Talk and managed via {{editprotected}} then once people have got out of the habit of talking past each other go for a period of 0RR and all changes to be discussed first. Guy (Help!) 12:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That would work for me; reading the talk page activity since I locked the article, I believe positions have become so entrenched that something more substantial than a short period of protection is necessary. With mediation apparently having failed, I wouldn't be surprised if this turns out to be the last opportunity for editors to resolve their own differences before things escalate to Arbcom. Feel free to amend my admin action if this proposal gains consensus. EyeSerene^talk 14:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that suggestion, may I also suggest that comments are limited to content not editors. Any misconduct should be raised here. It was only through protection the last time that mediation got anywhere. Justin talk 16:01, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd suggest arbitration, with a mind toward Digwuren-style sanctions. Even on the briefest of acquaintance, WP:PLAGUE seems appropriate commentary on Gibraltar articles currently. I doubt forcing Talk page discussion would be useful, as much of the problem is, as Justin says, civil POV pushing disrupting Talk as well as article edits. What the article needs is freedom for outside editors - ones who aren't hot about whether Gibraltar gets to be Spanish or British - to work without the constant kvetching and disruption from nationalists on either side (though a topic ban on User:Gibnews would be the single most useful move forward). WP:MARTIANS. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't see the need for a topic ban on User:Gibnews, he can be very reasonable if you approach him civilly but more stubborn than the stubbornest mule if you don't. There seems to be a definite lynch mob mentality around him at the moment, I've observed an attempt at outing that I wanted to bring up. I know Gibnews' real identity and it doesn't correspond to what is being claimed. See User talk:Justin A Kuntz#Gibnews and User talk:Atama#Advice, from my knowledge of Gibnews' identity none of that appears to be correct and I've tried to be diplomatic about it. Justin talk 15:25, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That's absolutely not on. I replied to Ecemaml (talk · contribs) on Atama's talk page and removed some speculation, but then I noticed they've been posting elsewhere too after being warned to drop it. Attempted outing is serious; I've blocked Ecemaml for one week. Review welcome. EyeSerene^talk 17:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sure that if you ask Gibnews he'll not agree with that block I'm afraid. A warning not to persist from an independent party would probably be sufficient. May I suggest you ask him, his real life identity is lodged with Wikipedia anyway. He doesn't really make a secret of it, however, there has been a get Gibnews campaign for a while. Justin talk 18:07, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, personally I think any form of harassment should be given very short shrift. An editor shouldn't need multiple warnings before they start taking them seriously. Although it's sometimes possible (and perhaps not even very difficult) to dig around, connect the dots, and deduce an editor's identity - which is what Ecemaml seemed to be trying to do - I believe that's very different to simply repeating something that's open knowledge. If Gibnews has voluntarily revealed their identity on the site I'll unblock Ecemaml and apologise to them, but I saw nothing explicit (for example, a disclosure on their userpage). EyeSerene^talk 18:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yeah well Gibnews has a thick skin and he isn't vindictive, I really do doubt he'd support a lengthy block. In answer to your question, no he hasn't openly declared his identity but a number of people who deal with him regularly know it. It was the "Get Gibnews" campaign I'm more concerned about. Justin talk 19:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I declare my interest as a former regular editor of Gibraltar-related articles. Regardless of whether Ecemaml got the details right or not, attempted outing is harassment and must be taken very seriously. I've never seen Gibnews give his real identity on wiki, and in any case, Ecemaml was (as EyeSerene says) trying to dig around and connect the dots here. Even if Gibnews had declared his identity publicly, I think it's clear that what Ecemaml was doing is different from simply repeating it.

I appreciate what Justin says, but I don't believe we should unblock. I see clear evidence that this Ecemaml was not acting in good faith, and WP:OUTING is very clear. As such I consider this block to be entirely appropriate to prevent this harassment from continuing. Pfainuk talk 20:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Impersonation of an admin

Resolved

 – -- Flyguy649 ^talk 22:40, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

2OverO (talk · contribs) is impersonating 2over0 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

It's not just the name, his/her sig also links back to 2over0. I'd block, but the climate change articles are such a mess, I'd rather leave the call to someone less involved. Guettarda (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Someone already blocked them. Obvious impersonation account. ATren (talk) 22:39, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I've sorted out the mess this person made. The IP traces to a school - possibly an open proxy? - but many of the edits appear to focus on User:William M. Connolley, who is currently the target of a very nasty campaign by far-right bloggers. I'm guessing that this is just more of the same. -- ChrisO (talk) 22:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

POV editing by Jgw71

Resolved

 – blocked by YellowMonkey Dougweller (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Jgw71 (talk · contribs) is going through Ancient Egypt related articles changing any use of BCE to BC on the basis that all AE articles should be consistent. His latest change to Pharaoh for instance says "Related articles overwhelmingly use BC instead of BCE. The inconsistent uses (going back-and-forth) makes no sense. There should be a smooth transition between articles)". His first change just said "(changes made to create consistency within the article" although there had been 2 uses of BCE and only one of BC, and the article had started as BCE. As you can see in this edit [43] he has a clear objection to BCE terminology. I've warned him twice and another editor has also complained about a change at History of India, where his reason was " (reverted unnecessary edits)" - I note that the talk page there has an earlier discussion in which he took part, so he knew his view was not accepted there. Dougweller (talk) 06:33, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Sock question

What can be done about User:Brucejenner and all the sock puppet vandalism? If we know the ridiculous amount of sock puppets the user has and all the abusive vandalism caused, why can't we permanently ban his/her IP address from editing so we don't have to deal with it anymore. What can be done? CTJF83 chat 08:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The Brucejenner account is already indef'd with the account creation blocked and IP autoblock enabled. Best thing to do is ask a checkuser to track the IPs and make a couple of rangeblocks, if possible. Looks like it was already tried only a few days ago, though. JamieS93^❤ 13:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. CTJF83 chat 17:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Natashia 11286

Resolved

WilyD 13:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Natashia 11286 Has created an inappropriate user page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cutno (talk • contribs) 12:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism at Great Zimbabwe National Monument

Nonahxxx (talk · contribs) is on their 7th reversion - I reported this editor to the 3RR board last night but it's backlogged. And SOFTDREAMxxx (talk · contribs) has made exactly 2 edits, both of them identical to Nonahxxx (WP:DUCK} anyone? I've been editing the article or else I'd have dealt with this last night. Could someone please help? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 14:56, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've asked for temp semi of the article itself. Nona is currently on 72-hour block. Dream is currently unblocked.

If I were an admin, I could do this kind of work quickly. But I can't run for admin again until everyone who said "no" a year ago is indef'd. Only a few have been so far. So it could take until 2525. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

• • Nonahxxx (talk · contribs) blocked 72 hours for edit-warring and sock/meatpuppetry.
  • SOFTDREAMxxx (talk · contribs) blocked indefinitely as a sock of Nonahxxx
  • Article semi-protected for 1 month to prevent further disruption by socks. CIreland (talk) 15:08, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
    • Thanks, I've noted it as resolved at 3RR. Obvious actions, but as I've edited the article... Dougweller (talk) 15:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism only account

Resolved

 – Blocked indefinitely. ~ mazca ^talk 15:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Woofer76 is a vandalism only account. It vandalized the article Apollo 11 [44], [45], [46] and the article Country music [47], [48]. Also objectionable attack edits about blacks and hispanics in the sandbox [49], [50], [51], [52]. In short, every edit the account has made has been vandalism.Niteshift36 (talk) 15:35, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it is. Now blocked - thanks ~ mazca ^talk 15:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

How many more warnings

Resolved

204.184.245.245 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) just got its 28th vandalism warning. In all that time, there has only been 1 block. A review of the history shows many more incidents that nobody bothers to warn the IP over. I know it's from a education facility, but the account isn't being used for any legitimate edits. At what point do we say "enough already"? Niteshift36 (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

{{schoolblocked}} for 1 month, and will escalate if it resumes after expiration. Nothing but vandalism from this IP address since 2007 (which is when I stopped looking). --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You know, it might be worth considering publishing the name and location of institutions that get schoolblocked (and maybe sending the institution an email about the matter). Most schools are dreadfully self-conscious about their public image, and singling out their students as persistent vandals will likely lead them to take administrative action on their end to put a stop to it. what do you think? I'll post it over at pump-proposals if you agree it's a useful idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ludwigs2 (talk • contribs) 16:39, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I personally think it is a good idea, but I can't image the community as a whole going for it. SGGH ^ping! 18:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The problem I see is that relatively few educational IPs resolve to individual institutions; mostly, they resolve to networks shared by a number of schools. The subject of this thread, for instance, is an IP of the Missouri Research and Education Network, which probably handles Internet access for schools all over the state. Including that name on a list wouldn't shame any particular school into taking action. Deor (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Naming and shaming? That would just encourage other school kids to try and get their schools onto the "bad school list". WP:DENY. –xeno^talk 18:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've always felt identified school-IPs should be soft-blocked on sight. The only school IPs I've ever come across that weren't walls of warnings and blocks were were working their way up. Why should we deal with the grief? This alone would probably cut vandalism almost in half. HalfShadow 19:26, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Fully agree with that, well maybe not in half, but a significant chunk of the vandal Ips I revert would go bye bye. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 19:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree but it'd never get consensus unfortunately. Personally, I think logging in should be mandatory but, again, not going to happen. However, the idea of contacting schools about vandalism is interesting- even if it comes back to a wide area, an email with the dates and the IP concerned could be enough for IT staff to find the culprit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 19:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Help with Ip user

Could some one stop by and leave a friendly note for 67 235 129 179? An article they were instrumental in creating and writing is up for AFD[53]. They are now starting to remove comments and votes from the AFD, yesterday removing AFD tags from the article [54], removing posts to the article in questions talk page[55]. I've tried reasoning with them for days now, but maybe a note from an admin might help? Or maybe someone can find a better way of wording things to get thru to them than I have? Heironymous Rowe (talk) 17:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

User notified of this post. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 17:17, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I concur with Heironymous Rowe - I disagree with him on the article in question, but removing comments from an AfD discussion is blatant vandalism and cannot be tolerated. (GregJackP (talk) 17:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC))

I've given a stern warning that no matter how much discussion goes on in an AfD it is never okay to remove other peoples comments, and that this is non-negotiable. SGGH ^ping! 18:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, hope it takes. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 18:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Banned sock master suspected sock

I'd like to report that user:Rannpháirtí anaithnid is a suspected sock of banned sock master user:MusicInTheHouse. 88.106.120.26 (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You'll want to go to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations and fill out a report. CTJF83 chat 18:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

You have probably noted that the accusing editor is an IP. This IP has been trolling Ireland today, please take a look. Thank you, Daicaregos (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Does this mean then that his sock puppetry is ok? Old boys club doesn't like others editing their page so they call it trolling. 88.106.120.26 (talk) 18:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The trolling was on the Talk page - things like "None of you can make any fair edits because you're all Britain hating Irish, Welsh and Scots.", "A typical pathetic excuse you make to pass of your anti-British edits is ...", etc, etc I have asked you to WP:AGF and to be WP:CIVIL, but here you are again with the editors there are "members of an old boys club". Please stop. Daicaregos (talk) 18:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I've replied at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MusicInTheHouse. This doesn't require any further intervention at this time. -- RA (talk) 19:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Banned user editing - Urgent action needed

This IP [56] in the 79.106 range, which is none other than the banned User:Guildenrich(see [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] for evidence), has been editing in a highly disruptive manner lately. Help is needed. Athenean (talk) 21:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

They are albtelecom clients in case you didn't geolocate or traceroute them. All albtelecom clients have 79.106.x.x ips and because albtelecom is widely used in Albania they're probably different users.--ObserverFromAbove (talk) 22:06, 2 March 2010 (UTC)