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

User:Avinesh (Gentleman Account) and User:Googlean (Enforcer account)

For some background on this case, see here. Essentially, Avinesh has been confirmed as a sockpuppet twice (first case, second case). In both cases, Avinesh claimed that he was editing from his office and because numerous computers shared the same IP, it appeared that he had socks. Except for the fact that they all wrote the same way, used the same terms, edited the same articles, and the newer accounts had a rather uncharacteristic knowledge of Wikipedia terms and policies. It appears now that Avinesh has another account (Googlean) that he uses as an 'enforcer' account to edit battleground articles and push POV, while he uses his 'gentleman' account (Avinesh) to write about personalities, TV shows, radio stations, and the like.

Googlean has already been blocked once for using multiple accounts (and even admits so on his userpage). It has now been established that Googlean is a sock of Harjk. Since Harjk is also a sock of Avinesh, it therefore follows that Googlean is a sock of Avinesh. Also, with respect to the pattern of similar behavior, an interesting thing is the use of similar override templates on sock pages (this template was present on Harjk's page, and is currently present on both Googlean and Avinesh's page). Avinesh has consistently claimed that the reason he keeps getting accused of having sockpuppets is because of the fact that people in his office also edit from Wikipedia. But, as I mentioned before, it seems very odd that they would all write the same way, use the same template, be interested in the same articles, and have a very good knowledge of Wikipedia terms and policies. In previously denying any knowledge of these socks, Avinesh has contradicted himself. He claimed he didn't know them and then later he claimed he did and that they were people from his office. He even tried to remove sockpuppet tags from User:Harjk claiming that they looked 'odd', and then claiming that the user retired at his request, and then claiming that since the sockpuppet case established him to be the puppetmaster, he had the right to remove the tags.

Aside from the question of sockpuppetry, I don't believe it's right to have two accounts where one account stays 'clean' with non-controversial articles and the other 'bad' hand works with controversial articles (I believe it's similar to this sockpuppetry policy). Therefore, I ask the admins to consider whether this is appropriate behavior, especially taking into account past transgressions by this user. --vi5in^[talk] 05:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There are some bogus points in Vivin’s comment. First of all, Googlean’s blocking was not for abusing multiple accounts. There are already two CU’s done against googlean. 1 & 2 and reached unrelated to anyone, that means as per our policy WP:SOCK#LEGIT, a user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area. If googlean had co-edited with others and violated our policies, he would have indef blocked for that reason as other CU'd admins and a few other admins already knew about this issue. --Avinesh  T  06:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I also wish to comment that I am not pretending to be gentle man with avinesh id & enforcing googlean id. Those who are looking at my contribs can also see that I too edited in controversial areas and involved in cleaned-up, rm nonsense and Afd’s many other nn articles. This is all my comment in this issue & admins may do whatever they want. Before concluding a decision, please look at my contribs & as well as googlean’s contrib. Also reporting about the poster of this complaint, User:Vivin has a history of harassing me & my contributions. I feel this is kind of thread doesn’t serve anything good to wikipedia, rather, spoils editors spirit and forced them to retire from wikipedia. Thanks. --Avinesh  T  06:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You must think us to be extremely naïve. You just confirmed that you are Googlean. There's really no point denying it. --vi5in^[talk] 15:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Good hand/bad hand accounts are a violation of WP:SOCK — Rlevse • Talk • 17:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Completely wrong. Violation only if the good hand is an admin/admin candidate or the bad hand is specifically demonstrated as disruptive or editing for the purpose of stirring up controversy or participating in internal policy-political discussions. Merely having two accounts for more and less controversial areas, as this appears to be according to User:Vivin, isn't a violation. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:51, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? I never knew Wiki rules permitted accounts used solely for edit-warring. Please do point me to any existing policy that allows this. Btw, theblock log of Googlean indicates the account is stirring up controversy and his edit log indicates he is fighting political battles.Pectore^talk 02:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

SSP case filed. --vi5in^[talk] 20:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Apart from whatever issues may arise from this specific case, are there objections to renaming "good hand/bad hand" sockpuppetry to "gentleman/enforcer"? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 22:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes there are, "good hand/bad hand" is more accurate and better known. Gentleman would also not apply to female users. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a good chance that I was being facetious. I just quite like the characterization. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Googlean has been blocked before for edit warring. It is interesting to see that the bad account hasn't been indef blocked yet. Vivin is correct here.Pectore^talk 02:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

So one account is used to edit war, while the other isn't? Yes, this is a violation of WP:SOCK. Khoikhoi 02:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Both accounts blocked, googlean indefinitely and Avinesh for one week based on linked confirmation above, and disruptive edit warring, attempting to deceive and obfuscate disruptive editing, and generally trying to be too cute by half about explaining it away. Additional confirmation would be nice.--Tznkai (talk) 02:44, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Section break 2

User:Vivin had earlier issues with User:Avinesh , bcoz of the latter's objection of POV pushing for the former's caste. This was indeed objected by many users like this , this and many other examples. Vivin himself was alledgely using socks ( See User_talk:Vivin#Your_sockpuppet and User_talk:Vivin#Your_sock_puppet_case Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive175#User:Avinesh ) . With Avinesh leading "his accusers" , it was important for Vivin to get the 'head of Avinesh' to roll down. Avinesh was earlier involved with taking many caste based articles to AFDs. Even I have crossed horns with Avinesh very long back ( Both of us have 'complained' each other at the ANI). User:Avinesh is a good contributor , his contribs can be viewed from the user page.

In his new form as User:Googlean , he was 'fighting ' aganist the Pro-Hindutva and Anti-Christian cabal lead by ,
Bharatveer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ,
Pectore (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ,
Tripping_Nambiar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ,
Bakasuprman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ,
Jobxavier (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) etc .,
While I dont really agree to the justification of Avinesh's use of mutiple ids to work on controversal subjects, I guess his explaination was the policy WP:SOCK#LEGIT, a user making substantial contributions to an area of interest in Wikipedia might register another account to be used solely in connection with developing that area . I interacted with User:Googlean on wiki noticing his NPOV fighting . I didnt know Googlean was actually Avinesh , whom I earlier had issues with , until when Vivin tagged him as a sock of Avinesh and Harjk.It may be interesting to know how Vivian identified Avinesh as Googlean without even a check user!

Googlean was associated with the following articles which was subjected to heavy POV vandalism by an anti-Christian cabal .

• Anti-Christian violence in India
• Anti-Christian violence in Karnataka
• Religious violence in Orissa
• September 2008 attacks on Christians in Mangalore

See also Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jobxavier,
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jobxavier ,
Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pectore
and Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Bharatveer. These pages is still trolled daily by scores of IP socks of Jobxavier. User:Bharatveer seems to take over the POV Pushing where a permanently banned editor User:Jobxavier left. Googlean was intially blocked by User:YellowMonkey , who unblocked Jobxavier , when Jobxavier was blocked by another admin. YellowMonkey is a trusted admin , whom I have a gr8 respect and on wiki friendship , but this action didnt seemed acceptable from him and I have already conveyed this to him. Googlean and many other users wanted to add Bajrang Dal, Shiv Sena and Vishva Hindu Parishad are declared militant parties. See Wikipedia_talk:Noticeboard_for_India-related_topics/Archive_39#Bajrang_Dal.2C_Shiv_Sena.2C_VHP_-_militant_parties.3F . While Googlean strongly decided to keep adding the parties as militant / extremist , YM blocked him on a apparently pseudo consensus. Googlean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked by YM for "persistent reverting on a variety of pages despite consensus at WT:INB." I guess here he was reverting a reliable source (?) part which was removed by a possibly a SPA editor named Blondlottswires ( contribs ) See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive482#Overturning_admin.E2.80.99s_action_by_another_admin .

The next time Googlean was blocked when an admin User:Wknight94 misinterpreted the CU results by User:Nishkid64. Nishkid unblocked Googlean and Both Nish and Wknight apologised to Googlean ( see User_talk:Googlean#re:.

Bharatveer has a very long disruptive and POV pushing history on Hindutava and Anti-Christian articles. He just came out of an year long editing restriction after this Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Bharatveer. He was blocked several times during this period and ALSO last week. He is currently under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Motion_to_amend_Bharatveer_case and is close to another editing restriction or a permanent ban. With Pectore the only person defending Bharatveer, it was important for him to get Googlean 'chained' and his accusitions here was in a very bad distaste and bad faith.

Now this being the behind the curtains story , tell me who is disruptive and socker. Avinesh may have used another legitimate account to keep off from the controversal subjects to protect his privacy and defend his personal and family security. You may not never know, he may be even otherwise be attacked in real world if his real identity was to be revealed as Avinesh . The question is whether he wanted to risk that in India , where there are lots of religious attacks recently ? The last time I warned an IP sock of Jobxavier, this was what I was threatened " The home ministry has your details ( and they will get you  ? ) ". What is next ? " Tinucherian, you are threatened to be burned or murdered? " The question is whether I should risk my personal and family security or should I also use a pseudo username to keep WP as NPOV as possible and also protect my life and security ? This being the case , I request the admins to reconsider the indefinite block of Avinesh and Googlean ! -- Tinu Cherian - 22:24, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I am completely and totally uninterested in accusations about evil cabals and the related defense that poor behavior is justified by fighting a cabal. No excuses. Try again.--Tznkai (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

See facts and evidences before taking a prejudiced view . Also it is important to identify and to Call a spade a spade ! Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 23:25, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me put it a different way, I am under no circumstances going to unblock someone based on the rational "they were fighting a cabal." This is non negotiable, so if you want my help, you're going to have to do better, or you can find another admin.--Tznkai (talk) 00:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Boy, does that sound charming. Try again. Would you care to lay out any evidence as to whether the "bad hand" account was chosen to be disruptive? Bear in mind segregating editing is still considered acceptable. The burden lies on you, making the claim, to demonstrate that the second account was being used in a manner worse than was generally considered blockworthy in that area. (I assume that just getting up to 3RR on an alternate account isn't yet blockworthy.) --Relata refero (disp.) 17:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What is the real issue here? Think of the bigger picture ! See the contribs of others and Googlean/Avinesh , Was he disruptive or edit warring ? Was he keeping WP reliable and NPOV from huge number of disruptive socks and meat puppets? Was he potentially protecting his privacy and personal/ family security to uphold the best interests of Wikipedia by using a pseudo/ legitimate sock ? Did Avinesh and Googlean kept editing the same page as two different users ? With vivian's confession , Avinesh had declared he was indeed Googlean when needed. Did he kept denying his identity as Googlean ? . Concuring -Relata refero's statement above, kindly read WP:GHBH , was he operating a "bad hand" account for the purpose of disruption or artificially stirring up controversy ? Was he operating a "bad hand" account for the admin / admin candidate for the purpose of engaging in editing disputes while at the same time appearing to be a neutral admin dealing with page protection or "three-revert rule" issues on the same articles ? Look at the other side of the table ? Lots of disruptive sock on rampage ! Admins and lots of other users keep reverting the sock POVs daily ( check the page histories of the articles above) and had to protect the pages. In the light of the above evidences and facts, I request to unblock User:Avinesh in Good faith. Due to pressure of lots of traumatizing POV pushers like these, many good users ( like User:P.K.Niyogi User:Ragib ( see reasons ) etc) have left / is leaving WP, which is not good for Wikipedia ! -- Tinu Cherian - 05:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad I just finished my cup of hot chocolate (mmm hot chocolate) or my keyboard and screen would be quite chocolaty now (mmm chocolaty...). Tinucherian, thank you for confirming what Avinesh has consistently denied: Harjk and Crazyguy2050 being his sockpuppets. If you'll look at Harjk's contributions and Crazyguy2050's contributions, you'll see that he consistently reverted the article without discussion claiming that he was reverting "POV fork terrorism"/"monkeysm" (I still have no idea what that means). What's interesting is that Avinesh never really edited the article in question. So I guess Tinucherian, you're confirming something that Avinesh has denied - that Harjk and Crazyguy2050 are his socks. So there's the first point. Avinesh has lied through and through - hardly the mark of a "good editor".

Now Tinu also brought up Relata reverting the changes. Relata did revert the changes, but he and I reached a very amicable consensus on the article. So Tinu's second point is completely moot as well.

The third point is me having sockpuppets. Avinesh (and his socks) seem to accuse people that they do no agree with, of being sockpuppets. In fact, I believe he launched (as Googlean) a frivolous case against Pectore. The SSP was completely inconclusive, which means that I don't have any sockpuppets. I never have. Contrast this with three confirmed sockpuppet cases against Avinesh. I'm not sure what you mean about Avinesh "leading his accusers". I've only had one accuser and that's Avinesh (in addition to one Khalistan-nut-troll). And really, I have no interest in seeing "the head of Avinesh roll". I've stated many times that I value his contributions. However, he's always had WP:OWN and WP:COI issues with people correcting or cleaning up his articles. I mean, take a look at this revert war that he got into regarding his incorrect English grammar, which I was trying to correct, or these other articles, where I was trying to do the same. In fact, he launched that SSP case against me without following proper procedure (didn't bother to inform me), and simply because I tagged his article saying that it needed cleanup (which I later did).

Regarding my tagging Avinesh as a sock, it was based on Avinesh emailing an admin as "Googlean", but signing off as "Avinesh". I've pointed this out many times in the WP:AN, WP:ANI, and WP:SSP cases against him. Perhaps Tinucherian should have been as diligent in reasearching that as he has been in his defence of Avinesh. About all of this drama about ZOMG I R GOING TO BE KILLED!!! Really, now. Avinesh's intent is very clear - to engage in disruptive editing and POV pushing (and this has been confirmed by his previous blocks) in a set of battleground articles. So please don't try to bring up stuff about people being afraid for their lives.

Anyways, that's all I have to say. --vi5in^[talk] 07:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Both you and Avinesh were kind of edit warring on some articles which I had brought it myself to the notice of ANI long back ( Need to really dig the archives to find it ). Seeing these initial edits of Googlean, he declares himself as a legitimate sock user , which clearly shows his intentions of having other accounts and only using pseudo names while working on controversial subjects , due to privacy and security reasons. Regarding it was based on Avinesh emailing an admin as "Googlean", but signing off as "Avinesh" , shows that he had no wrong intentions. He must have intented to keep his privacy only with the general public but bold enough to disclose it to admins . Hence I dont believe it is a good hand / bad hand case. I didnt know Avinesh and Googlean are related until User:YellowMonkey added this. When did I confirm Harjk and crazyguy are socks of Avinesh? Regarding User:Harjk , I lean to give the benefit of doubt because of shared network issues. It does scares me to think how many vandals probably writes from the my same company corporate network and my home broadband ISP network. This could happen to you also. The fact being you saying " he launched that SSP case against me for asking for cleanup of your article " is a hilarious attempt of blinding us of the real facts. Avinesh SSP by you ( dated 7 May 2008 ) is much earlier than Vivin SSP by Avinesh ( dated 14 August 2008 ) . During the time earlier when both of you were having issues each other, With your suspected sock Uzhuthiran (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) , ONLY concentrating and attacking on Avinesh created articles is a clear case of sock or meat puppet , with or without proven evidence ! Also to be noted that Harjk (talk · contribs) wasnot attacking your articles . Vivin Avinesh links show how better Wikipedian is avinesh , Mr Wikiwarrior! -- Tinu Cherian - 09:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Er, all your other rather unsubstantiated points aside (which I've refuted above), you do realize that the livemint article is a compliment, right? Thanks for the plug, once again. \o/ --vi5in^[talk] 16:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, timeline clarification. There is no "hilarious blinding of facts". The first SSP case against Avinesh was because of a confirmed RFCU against him. I had no idea that Avinesh was Harjk/Crazyguy. I initiated an RFCU against Crazyguy being a sock of Harjk. The RFCU then established that Avinesh was the puppetmaster, which is obvious grounds for an SSP case. Avinesh's frivolous SSP case against me was launched as soon as I started tagging his articles AND cleaning them up. It wasn't just a 'drive-by-tagging'. Avinesh created some pretty good articles; they just needed to be cleaned up. Finally, creating a large number of articles doesn't mean you're better than everyone else. It's quality vs. quantity. So yeah, your argument fails again. Anyways, I'm not going to be taking part in this discussion any more. --vi5in^[talk] 16:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

can you provide us the links of the RFCU which you say 'caught' Avinesh  ? -- Tinu Cherian - 04:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Finding this RFCU , I assume that the orginal disruptive editor was Harjk and Avinesh was only just found using the same network. So now your redirected your anger to Avinesh , thinking that he is the master , right? With Avinesh , as coincidence , also taking several caste based article to AFD and YOU with strong Nair POV , you saw Avinesh as your primary enemy. As with Harjk, I am still willing to give the benefit of doubt here due to shared IPs in office and home networks . Harjk case is old issue in which the case was closed & harjk indefintely blocked. Please do not bring any closed issue into this discussion and we are primarly discussing here about Googlean / Avinesh. As with Googlean / Avinesh, they were not disruptive and I strongly appeal to the neutral admins to comment on the block and intentions of those who want to see Googlean / Avinesh away from Wikipedia, based on the evidences above -- Tinu Cherian - 05:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

USS Liberty Incident

USS Liberty Incident has been a long term problem article as it tends to attack Single Purpose Accounts with a POV agenda or anti-semitic motives. Lately there has been a campaign by a number of editors to insert fringe theories using the Moorer report as the sole source. Edits rely on synthesising an edit from the original source, online copy of the Moorer report, thus failing WP:OR and WP:SYN. Despite explaining to those editors the need for secondary sources as per WP:RS none have been provided, instead those editors have resorted to overly emotional diatribes about Israel murdering American sailors and accusing other editors alternately of suppressing the truth and censorship. In addition, the editors have attempted to use RFC in an intimidatory manner and discussion on the talk page is now getting decidedly fractious. I'm thinking the time has come for admin intervention to cool things off. Justin talk 21:19, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The very last entry I made which you deleted concerning the Moorer Report was this one:

===Independent American Investigations===

Findings of the Moorer Commission of 2003

The Moorer Commission was a group of retired senior-level military and government officials who conducted an investigation of the USS Liberty attack. The Commission was composed of Admiral Thomas H. Moorer (former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff), Marine General Raymond G. Davis (former Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps), Rear Admiral Merlin Staring (former U.S. Navy JAG), and Ambassador James Akins (former ambassador to Saudi Arabia). Among the findings of the commission was that " there is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew; evidence of such intent is supported by statements from Secretary of State Dean Rusk, Undersecretary of State George Ball, former CIA director Richard Helms, former NSA directors Lieutenant General William Odom, USA (Ret.) and Admiral Bobby Ray Inman, USN (Ret.)...". The Moorer Report continues: "in attacking USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against American servicemen and an act of war against the United States".

1. There are descriptions and titles supplied of the primary authors. It is difficult to imagine how any real American Citizen loyal to the Unites States could consider an Ambassador, a Former Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, a Marine General, and a Rear Admiral are behind a Fringe Theory.
2. The Entry contains the quote "there is compelling evidence that Israel's attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew; evidence of such intent is supported by statements from...". This quote is lifted directly from the report. What follows, are the names of presumably reputable persons who are in agreement with that statement.
3. Each of these persons are identified, and each of thier statements have the stated third party reference as part of the entry. The assertion that "Despite explaining to those editors the need for secondary sources as per WP:RS none have been provided" is 100% incorrect. Each of the 5 persons listed has a secondary source identifying that each of these five have said what is implied in the quoted Sentence.
4. Since statements by each of the 5 above are reproduced in the articles listed, there is no violation of WP:OR. There is no original research involved. The articles are published, and readily available, via link, directly from the entry.
5. WP:SYN is also not violated here. Each of the sources speaks of ONLY that person speaking - effectively making the point that is stated in the Moorer Report quote which I reproduced.

It is interesting that you played the 'anti-semitic' card. I suppose I am supposed to cringe at this thought and somehow defend my actions. I think not. I am merely trying to get portions of an Independent Report from the 4 reputable persons listed on the USS Liberty incident Page. There is nothing anti-semitic about the truth.

The comment you made when you last removed the entry above is: 20:50, 14 November 2008 Justin A Kuntz (Talk | contribs) (76,838 bytes) (rv no talk page consensus for this edit. Relevant policies WP:RS, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE, WP:UNDUE editors can't be bothered to provide secondary sources to support edit) (undo)

I would now like to address each of these objections, and others which have been voiced, individually:

"Editors can't be bothered to provide secondary sources to support edit". As I have already explained, I provided 5 secondary sources. You merely chose to ignore all of them and write your comment. In fact, not only did you ignore the sources, you incorrectly applied WP:SYN to the sources. They are confirming that the sources actually have said what the Moorer Reports describes them as saying. I 'synthesized' nothing. They spoke - on record - and I reproduced sources confirming that they did indeed say what the Moorer Report claims they said. I can not imagine how this can violate any Wikipedia policy whatsoever.

An attempt at WP:CONSENSUS is impossible with your methods, primarily since you violate the tenets of WP:CONSENSUS yourself. Specifically, the policy calls for changes to entries if one feels that entries are incorrect. You have chosen to delete the entry every single time you see it. There is simply no way to reach consensus if you delete the entry, and every other variation of the entry you see. WP:CONSENSUS is impossible to reach if the only act you perform is to delete the entry. You have never even attempted to edit the entry to rid it of your objections. That is both a violation of WP:CONSENSUS and the first reason for why I make the charge that you are trying to censor any mention of the report on the USS Liberty incident page.

WP:UNDUE claims: WP:UNDUE says, in part: "NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.". There is little mention of the Moorer Report on the USS Liberty incident page. Without it, WP:UNDUE is valid for the list of reports, since it gives undue weight to those reports mentioned, and none to the Moorer Report, entries to which you invariably delete. Amazingly enough, the only report which is not quoted explicitly in the USS Liberty incident page is the Moorer Report. Since it is niether an American nor Israeli government report, it was explicitly listed as an Independent American Investigation. It is you who are in violation of WP:UNDUE, buy allowing mention and quotes of the other reports, but consistently deleting any contents mentioned from the Moorer Report.

WP:NPOV claims: Another interesting one. The Moorer report makes several numbered statements, the collection of which is it's conclusion available here. That is it's purpose. To have investigated the USS Liberty incident and come to a conclusion. That you do not like the conclusion of the report is not my problem. One of the numbered conclusions of the report is that "there is compelling evidence that Israel’s attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew". This point is not made anywhere on the USS Liberty incident but is available in the Moorer Report. Inclusion of the Moorer Report actually completes the NPOV of the USS Liberty Page. After all, there can be no way that the USS Liberty incident can be considered Neutral if it explicitly does NOT provide at least some conclusion of the Moorer Report. So we have again you making an accusation, when it is in fact you who are guilty of the accusation.

There is a link to the Findings of the Moorer Report at the bottom of the USS Liberty incident page. Your charges of WP:FRINGE on the entry I made has never actually caused you to remove the link at the bottom of the page to the Moorer report. Are we to understand that the Moorer Report is an acceptable link when a link to it in "Sources claiming attack was deliberate -> Other Sources" is available, but is a Fringe Theory if any mention is made on the USS Liberty incident of the contents of the report? Your inconsistent treatment of this entry speaks volumes about your intentions. You only delete any quotes or entries made on the Moorer Report, but you do not appear to object to a link to the report. Is my belief that you are trying to censor the report really that far fetched, in this respect?

You have argued that there is no secondary sources for the Moorer Report Findings for some time. I am astounded that the following reports, also listed on the "USS Liberty incident" page do not have a single secondary reference listed. The reports listed which do not have a secondary source are:

1. U.S. Naval Court of Inquiry
2. Joint Chief of Staff's Report
3. CIA Intelligence Memorandums
4. Senate Foreign Intelligence Committee Investigation
5. House Armed Services Committee Investigation
6. The NSA History Report

Why does the Moorer Report require a secondary source, when not a single one of the other reports listed have a reference?

Lastly, a checkuser (whatever that is) is welcome, as would be any other WP investigation you choose. I do not worry about my actions.WorldFacts (talk) 18:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Semetic? Showing Israel deliberately attacked the USS Liberty and lied about it is Anti-semetic ? I don't like Gefilte fish - does that make me an anti-semite? Give me a break. --Henrywinklestein (talk) 02:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

He was speaking of people the article has attracted in the long term. Stop with the persecution complex already. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh Gee Narson if I somehow took his comments out of context then I do sincerely apologize however it is far from obvious who he was referring to. Loosely, freely and carelessly throwing the words "anti-semetic" around any conversation, especially into a serious conversation that undeniably shows the actions of the Israeli military and government, and the actions of the American government, in a less than reputable and upright station, is a far too common and ordinary tactic. Just say it or someone's "anti-Semetic" and hope they'll run away. --Henrywinklestein (talk) 23:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would dispute how 'serious' a conversation is when one side screams 'CENSORSHIP' and 'Look at our dead Americans!' followed by more 'CENSORSHIP!' and then legal threats. --Narson ~ Talk • 10:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh gee Narson maybe you should *Stop with the persecution complex already*, The truth hurts doesn't it ?--Henrywinklestein (talk) 09:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, nice come back. Really. Tell you what, go away, think real hard, then try and come up with a comment about the content. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

@Henrywinklestein - if you place a dot in your "UserPage", then your name will no longer show up in red on pages such as this one. Thankyou for the Barnstar, I deeply regret that it was considered a good excuse to jeer at both of us. The idea of WP is to be collegiate - it's disturbing there are still admins around who feel no need to uphold some of the most fundamental principles (not to say policy) of the project. It damages the workings of the whole project, and may explain why I was shortly snippy with another un-named admin as you can see below. PR^talk 18:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Really? You don't find it dilutes the already watered down notion of 'barnstars' when SPA are awarded barnstars for their work in 'various topics' by other SPA? --Narson ~ Talk • 14:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

It's called cruft, and it's harmless. PR^talk 08:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not an admin, and I would not touch this one if I were <g>. In my experience, dealing with people who have the time to make hundred line posts is an exercise in futility. I'd cut the whole article down to bare bones at this point. Collect (talk) 21:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The article is in an utterly crap state but what do you expect with SPA shoe horning in pet theories at every opportunity. It desperately needs some quality editing but they're put off by the nonsense it attracts. Justin talk 21:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I should point out, they did offer a 'secondary source'...which was an editorial by the reports author. I don't necessarily agree with Justin on some issues(specifically I remain unconvinced that this is, necessarily, a fringe theory or report), but certainly it is a conspiracy theory and must be treated with care, to the point where we must be using third party commentary. The article is in need of serious pruning and restructuring at this point, regardless, and there is a seperate move by PalestineRemembered to get citations in I believe. The latest attempt at the edit that has been warred over does encourage synthesis (It uses a primary source of poor visual quality and certainly a lack of clarity in its content and draws definitive conclusions from that) and also uses sources for the report predating the report by 13 years (It lists the view points of the creators of the report, sources them, then passes this off as the conclusion of the report. Synthesis again). Finding information on the report has not proved easy and even those wanting the edit in disagree over what it says. I do think there is a place for the report, I do not think the tactics being used to get it in are in anyway compliant with policy or conducive to the good of wikipedia. I also take particular umbridge at the accusations of 'censorship' and the accusation that I have ome 'Personal stake in this'. As far as I am aware, I wasn't even born at the time, so was certainly not piloting an Israeli Mirage jet. --Narson ~ Talk • 21:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the WP:Edit war rules should be enforced against editors who keep re-inserting mention of the Moorer report without being willing to join in a Talk page discussion of that report, or supply appropriate references when requested. Repeated re-insertion of the same thing, each time it is reverted, can't be viewed as a good-faith effort to reach consensus. If multiple editors re-insert the same thing, sanctions for all should be considered. Yellabina and WorldFacts are two editors who've been re-inserting almost identical material. Neither has made any contributions outside this article or its Talk page. EdJohnston (talk) 22:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Something doesn't look right about some of these SPAs: [[::User:Henrywinklestein|Henrywinklestein]] ([[::User talk:Henrywinklestein|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Henrywinklestein|contribs]]), [[::User:15thSt|15thSt]] ([[::User talk:15thSt|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/15thSt|contribs]]) and [[::User:Yellabina|Yellabina]] ([[::User talk:Yellabina|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Yellabina|contribs]]) have all been registered in the past few days, and have all made edits exclusively about the USS Liberty. wp:Checkuser time perhaps? Rami R 22:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I've had my suspicions but not sure there is enough evidence to support a Check User. I've done sock puppet reports before but only where it was very obvious as the sock puppet master was none too subtle. If there enough evidence there? Justin talk 22:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Yellabina. I believe this is enough evidence of abuse to justify a checkuser. I've notified all four editors that they are being discussed at ANI. Their sudden appearance, the narrowness of their interests, and their sophistication in Wikipedia policy matters cry out for any explanation other than socking. EdJohnston (talk) 22:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Rlevse has confirmed they are unrelated (Though with a comment that Meatpuppetting and SPA violations should be looked at). --Narson ~ Talk • 16:04, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please look at this the talk page is littered with yet another extensive diatribe, that editors are suppressing the truth. I'm just about done with reasonably explaining that synthesising an argument from original material and promoting pet fringe theories just isn't on. My patience and WP:AGF is just about exhausted. Justin talk 19:44, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I know some of the history of the USS Liberty. I have not seen the article. I am a reasonable person. I am willing to review it and improve it if an administrator asks me to. Otherwise, I will mind my own business. I am an editor with over a year's experience. Chergles (talk) 00:41, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Narson --- having you even remotely involved in this editors discussion is like having the fox to watch the henhouse. Will you simply delete this as "mindless chatter" - disagreement with you or a show of support for another editor is "mindless"? --Henrywinklestein (talk) 16:46, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you refer to my removal of your comments on my talk page? If you want to show support for an editor, do it at their page. I don't desire the spam. The first part of your comment is strange, as far as I am aware, I've merely commented on an ANI thread in which I am involved. Just as you have. I don't propose, not would I want, to watch you, as you put it. I wasn't aware you were such a threat to wikipedia that you needed watching. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:17, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

As an aside, both Narson and I have made extensive searches to find secondary sources that deal with this material. We can find absolutely none. Justin talk 20:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, though I've remained uninvolved, I did find a few: here and here. Obviously, some of those sources are more reliable than others and in the google news search, some are false positives. I do not know the degree to which they may or may not address weight concerns. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:25, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you MRG. Not sure about the sources, but I'm going through, I think we should be able to source there was a report, but it never seems to explicitly state the conclusion. Though I'll keep looking through. My search through academic sites has netted me bupkiss. Edited to add: The book hit is certainly the most likely source. Though it does admit to taking a selective quote of the report. Certainly from that I think an edit could start to be constructed that said Moorer held an independent investigation, which he reported as having found Israel culpable for the attack. --Narson ~ Talk • 20:57, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I have semi protected the page for two weeks due to problems with the meatpuppets and SPAs. Request other uninvolved admins handle what to do with the accounts in the RFCU case. — Rlevse • Talk • 20:29, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

They're now awarding each other barnstars. Jayjg ^(talk) 03:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry Jayjg, the award is fairly comical. 'Various topic areas' being just one and of course I think more people should be honoured for 'boundrylessness'. It is practically Colbert-like. Not sure anyone is going to take it seriously. --Narson ~ Talk • 09:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

May I remind people there's nothing wrong with being an SPA? An attempt to force me to change my name was defeated 12-1. Policy specifically defends what I'm doing.

What causes problems is other editors who are doing it but don't advise others of what they're up to - the I-P conflict topic would be hugely improved if all of them were blocked.

There is a much smaller problem if newly arrived editors appear initially to act as SPAs - but we have the example of Muhammed al-Durrah where two such SPAs arrived and were given near carte-blanche. My only regret in this case is that one of the new editors at USS Liberty was apparently given the brush-off by an admin when enquiring about policy. PR apologises - although he felt this way on seeing it, there was no indication or real reason to believe it was intentional PR^talk 15:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I suspect the "brush off" reference is in respect to this, a follow-up to my personal note to the user here. (My pointing him to WP:DR, WP:Consensus and Wikipedia:Edit war and noting by reference Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and Wikipedia:No original research/noticeboard was evidently insufficient in PR's eyes.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

PR, if you are talking about that, I see MRG's response as perfectly justified. All of us should know that there is no way we can "assure" that a particular set of facts is in an article, no matter how obviously relevant they may seem to us. Telling a new editor that seems really, really helpful. MRG: the g-news links are mostly to sources that would be considered biased -- Electronic intifada, for example -- except for the couple of obits from wire services. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and this, which seems to suggest that the commission existed but the report wasn't publicised. Whatever's in the Fox article seems mainstream enough for a few lines in the article. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Exactly the source I was planning on using :) I have proposed a short edit on the talk page concerning the report, along the lines of the suggested edit above. --Narson ~ Talk • 16:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Shall we avoid legalistic terms like libelous, hrm? I am all infavour of avoiding personal attacks, though I note that WorldFacts has yet to remove his and even seems to view personal attacks as a valid fall back to be resorted to. As for nothing necessarily wrong in being a SPA, no, but there is plenty wrong in being a meatpuppet, and it was uninvolved admin who have raised those concerns, as it was an uninvolved admin who initiated the Check User. There was no 'brush off'. Policies were clearly mentioned to them, over and over again, with the main problem being that the SPAs appear to have made the common mistake of Truth' over Verifiability'. (edit conflict....damn you MRG! ^.^ ) --Narson ~ Talk • 15:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anyone having been found to meat-puppet. PR^talk 17:57, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Justin was referring to the past editors of the page not necessarily current editors of the page. There have been problems in the past with people with extreme views either way. The second half of that seems like a pretty poorly veiled legal threat, PR, though I will assume you genuinely thought we would be amused by it. --Narson ~ Talk • 18:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to past editors of the page, its quite plain I was not excusing anyone of antisemitism. I'm deeply unimpressed with the threat of a libel case. Justin talk 20:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah, as I expected. I do hope someone talks to PR and explains how inappropiate such silliness is. --Narson ~ Talk • 14:32, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not threatening anybody with anything. PR^talk 18:33, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The age old 'I'm not going to beat you up but you might have an accident' routine, PR? Please, pull the other, it has bells on. Can an admin deal with this as they deem appropiate? --Narson ~ Talk • 19:06, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"I'm not threatening...But" Please pull the other one, legal threats are out of order. Justin talk 21:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

UNINDENT

As someone has pointed out on my Talk Page, there is an implicit legal threat above against me. I would be grateful for an admin to comment please. Justin talk 17:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked that account, as it's a NLT violation. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A good block OrangeMike, but just BTW, you wrote "infinite" on the block log. I wouldn't disagree with that, given how very long that log is, but did you mean do that? IronDuke 16:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it's the software for the blocking mechanism which says "infinite" instead of "indefinite"! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Request for formal community ban of 75.57.X.X user who harasses Arcayne

Unresolved

 – IP handed an interaction ban and is to refrain from editing any articles that arcayne edits, he is also to refrain from discussing arcayne on wiki, violation of that will be a full ban. Arcayne seems satisfied by the outcome--Crossmr (talk)

OK, lets make this official. It is clear that this unnamed person, who has no specific account to apply a ban to (nice application of WP:GAME if you ask me!), has clearly worn out the community patience. The most recent dicussions of his behavior are here on ANI and here at RFCU. While we have no single identifier for this person, it is clearly one person with a single-minded goal of harassing Arcayne. He always tries to turn it around by claiming that Arcayne harasses HIM by calling him on it. After spending the better part of the past hour reviewing the case, I am proposing two bans on this user:

• Proposal 1: A total site ban on this user, all IPs which pass the WP:DUCK test as clearly coming from this user are blocked on sight.
• Proposal 2: A ban on contacting or discussing Arcayne in any way, broadly construed. The user is allowed to edit wikipedia content and constructively contribute to the encyclopedia, but if any IP address he/she uses comments on, asks a question about, makes contact with, or in any way references Arcayne or his credentials is blocked on sight.

What do you all think? I am personally supporting Proposal 2, and we could consider all supports of proposal 1 as implicitly also supporting proposal 2.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:31, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Some background for anyone unfamiliar with this case: It goes back many months. Apparently, a long time ago, Arcayne made a note of some credentials he may or may not have had. The issue over whether or not Arcayne has these credentials is not what this discussion is really about. This person has spent months hounding Arcayne by continuosly bringing up this minor fact over and over and over again.

• See these contribs lists: [1] and [2] and [3] and
• See these diffs: [4] and this edit summary and [5]

This lists above are BY NO MEANS COMPREHENSIVE, but a sampling to give both the nature of this harassment, and to the long-period of it. This RFCU: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/75.49.223.52 shows a list of IPs, some of which can be shown to doing this behavior back as early as April, 2008. This has to stop. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking this initiative of making it official. This was more or less what I had in mind. I'd go for Proposal 1, being aware of course that in practice there won't be much of a difference, because the duck test is going to be just that hounding of Arcayne anyway. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:52, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

  You didn't feel the need to disclose that you blocked the anon for 48 hours at the beginning of this discussion?[6] I finally got curious as to why the anon wasn't defending himself and went and checked the talk page to find out what was going on.--Crossmr (talk) 04:42, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'd go for P1, as per FPaS. If this individual has anything useful to contribute, then they will be able to do so easily by getting an account; if they insist on continuing harassment as 75.X they should be blocked. Note/disclaimer: I blocked 75.X for I think 12h a little while back William M. Connolley (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• • The user in question has posted some questions on an IP talk page. See: User talk:75.49.223.52. I am not going to answer these questions directly myself, but anyone is free to answer them as they see fit, either here or on that talk page. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Proposal 2. If harassing Arcayne is their only purpose then it becomes P1 by default, but it gives WP the AGF defence that good edits from that range are encouraged. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
• Proposal 1. If this user had any intention of actually working on the encyclopedia, s/he'd have gotten an account. I'd have supported Proposal 2, but this has been going on since January. This needs to end, and end now. Blueboy96 22:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC) Per technical concerns expressed by Black Kite, I endorse Proposal 2. Granted, this user would have gotten an account if s/he'd ever intended to edit constructively after this long--but given the circumstances, Proposal 2 will likely have the effect of a siteban. Blueboy96 05:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
• Concur with LessHeard vanU. But I am assuming this is a dynamic IP? Is the range too broad for a range block? JodyB _talk 22:16, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I imagine that a range block (yes, it would appear to be a dynamic range) would keep out those users who haven't done anything wrong, and that's the reason why it was avoided previously. The tech is a little beyond me, frankly. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

• Also, it's too wide a range - being effectively AT&T dynamic access for the whole of the East Coast of the USA. Black Kite 00:35, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Proposal 1 - As the target of this user (and I admit that pride of my educational background kinda caused a bit of the initial issue), this has gone on too long. There are users with whom I have disagreed with, but they are all active in actually expanding the project. This user isn't, and most of the IP accounts (s)he's created were single-purpose, attack accounts. This is beyond basic pest-control; we need to tent the 75. house and gas the thing. But then, I am biased on this issue. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I know probably absolutely nothing or range blocks, but as far as I'v seen, whenever one puts and X or a * in place of a number, it is used to denote that that range should be blocked.

To the point, I'm afraid I would be blocked by what I assume is a range block that you are talking about, as my IP is in the range of 75. So um... there's my concern.— Dædαlus ^Contribs /_Improve 03:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nobody is talking about blocking all of 75.X.X.X. That would be 1/256 of all IP space. looie496 (talk) 06:00, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm just going through the provided diffs again, and some of these don't look like a problem at all. For example [7] What exactly is the problem with the edit summary here? What he stated was factually correct, and Arcayne's previous edit summary of "sp error" was in fact a misleading edit summary. This [8] is a table header in which many users are listed (and frankly given the contents of that column a little disclaimer isn't out of place). This particular edit could be seen as bad, but then I'd like the anon to provide diffs to support his assertions there [9] if the diffs can't or won't be provided then it is an attack. So 2 out of the 3 linked diffs don't really seem like a problem at all. However I do take issue with Arcayne's behaviour on the talk around this diff, [10]. He claims that this person is a proven IP troll, yet I'm still having a difficult time seeing it. Not only that he's purposely poking the IP by calling him a troll and fighting over where to place his comment when the IP had placed it first. We still seem to be missing the beginning of this dispute, and frankly I'm not comfortable with recommending anyone be banned from anything until we get some full disclosure here. Which for the umpteenth time its been asked, people seem to be going out of their way not to give. This dispute needs to be laid out from the beginning and I'd honestly like to see diffs from both sides, because there has been questionable behaviour on the part of arcayne, and while it doesn't excuse anything being particular uncivil, this might be far more complicated then simply laying the heavy hand on one side of the fence.--Crossmr (talk) 14:40, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Crossmr. I also believe that there is not precident to ban a user from entering into discussion. Arcayne has a history of accussing other users. He seems to always be in some sort of dispute that ends up on this message board. Also, Arcayne's weakness is that he always has to have the last word. He responds to every little comment and attacks anyone who disagres with him. If he just ignored the anon, then the problem might have gone away by now. Recently, both Arcayne and William M. Connolley attempted to have this user blocked. WMC blocked the anon, but was told by the community, that the block was wrong, so this must be the next attempt for a block.--Jojhutton (talk) 15:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggest Arcayne prove his entitlement to claim multiple Oxon degrees to the Arbcom. Once verifed, the unregistered user can take it or leave it. Left unverified, there will always be the doubt that Arcayne really has these qualifications which he has used to support his arguments in the past. Let's remove all doubt, and have him prove it.Poltair (talk) 15:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense. Arcayne's real-world qualifications are not at issue here, nor is his overall behaviour (which, I agree, can sometimes be annoying). What is at issue here is the fact of wikistalking. The anon had a clear habit of following Arcayne around, unprovoked, reverting him on a multitude of unrelated pages with no other purpose than to annoy him, jumping into disputes that didn't concern him except for his urge to hit out at Arcayne, bringing up the degrees issue again and again without any factual need, again with no other purpose than to taunt Arcayne, and incidentally also distorting every word of what Arcayne was actually saying about the issue. In fact, Arcayne has very clearly stated what degree he has, it is absolutely plausible and matches everything he said earlier, and there is not the slightest reason to doubt his veracity. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

How civil of you to dismiss my suggestion as nonsense. I think Arcayne's qualifications are an issue here. If he is going to play the I've got degrees in this subject so I know better than you card to brow beat his opponents in argument he should provide reliable sources to show that he is so qualified. I am certainly not convinced, and I think there is plenty of scope to doubt his veracity. Poltair (talk) 19:48, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you misread, and in fact are both arguing the same point. Degrees don't matter on WP. Asserting special knowledge/prowess because of degrees is bogus. What matters are properly cited edits. Users therefore cannot browbeat, and they're morons if they try to. -t BMW c- 20:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that degrees are not relevant here at WP, and that reliable sources are. My point is that attempting to block the unregistered user is not dealing with the issue, and is somewhat futile as discussed above. The unregistered user has an issue with Arcayne who, somewhat foolishly, has in argument claimed degrees that he has not substantiated. I still suggest that Arcayne prove it to the Arbcom, for privacy, (or withdraw the claims) so that the issue might be resolved, and there be no need to chase around blocking anonymous IP addresses. Poltair (talk) 20:22, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne has nothing to prove, nothing to explain and nothing to account for here. He did nothing wrong. There's no problem he'd have to justifiy himself over. He mentioned his academic qualifications once, in passing (and then, later, explained them again a couple of times when pressed by the anon). He did nothing wrong in doing so. I'm sure I've mentioned my own qualifications too at some point or other. Anybody is free to draw whatever conclusions they wish from such a statement, or not to draw any. The anon never had any legitimate cause in making this an issue in the first place. Warning: by continuing to talk about this non-topic, you are actually continuing the harassment and could be treated accordingly if you overdo it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to threaten me. I am a reasonable person who responds well to well-reasoned argument. I don't agree with you, you have not convinced me that I am wrong. You clearly feel the same. We will have to live with that. I will not press the matter any further as I have clearly made my point. I will ask however, that you take the time to deal with me in a more civil tone in future; I do not expect to be threatened. Poltair (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree. What he claims has no relevence. Only how users act in wikipedia matters. Although Arcayne can be a pill at times, I know, through interactions with him, that he is passionate about what he believes. There is no reason to believe that Arcayne is not telling the truth about what degrees he holds. Asking him to prove it is irrelevent. Arcayne, I just wanted you to know that I don't always disagree with you. I have seem many of your edits and you seem to to be smack on most of the time. I just think you need to relax, and don't sweat the small stuff--Jojhutton (talk) 15:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC).

Sorry, as much as I can sympathize with this case of wikistalking, that still does not justify blocking 65,000 IP addresses in my mind. --Kralizec! (talk) 15:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. Nobody has suggested a range block. It's a ban on the person in question we are talking about, to be enforced by short term blocks of any new reincarnations. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:44, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea where all this starts. But [11], [12], [13] seem clear enough. For whatever reason, this anon has some bizarre hang-up about arcayne's degrees, which (properly enough) no-one else cares about William M. Connolley (talk) 16:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• every time people provide diffs to try and paint how bad the IP is, I just see more evidence that makes me question arcayne. Your last diff wasn't reported by the IP (he contributed, but someone else started the discussion complaining about Arcayne.--Crossmr (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• Indeed, to refocus the discussion, the fact that Arcayne once, a year ago, claimed some Oxon degree is not in dispute by anyone. The problem is that in the intervening year, this user has done nothing EXCEPT browbeat Arcayne over that fact. Almost on a continuous basis, there is some edit summary, some comment in a talk page discussion, something where this guy gets his digs in. Its rude, its insulting, and its way overboard. At this point, we appear to have 7 in favor of some form of injunction, and 3 opposed to one. I personally feel that Proposal 2, which still allows the user to edit, but prevents him from continuing his harassment of Arcayne a good idea. No one has presented any counterevidence to indicate that Arcayne has done anything in the past year to provoke this guy, so I don't see where he has any culpability in this problem Any further ideas or comments as to how to handle this?--Jayron32.talk.contribs 20:46, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

  I just pointed out above, where he insulted him and then edit warred over the placement of the IPs comment on a talk page when the IP placed his first. That seems plenty provocative to me. This is why I'm insisting on full disclosure on all the events leading up to here, not just a few cherry picked diffs which half the time make arcayne look bad.--Crossmr (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

• As far as I'm concerned, #2 is already in place [14] William M. Connolley (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

  The thing for me is that everyone knows a range block is out of the question because it will effect innocent editors. Obviously this guy admits hes been here 7 years, he's well aware of this fact and is in a way using it to his advantage. Again, any kind of block, whether it be contacting Arcayne or a range block, will effect innocent editors from posting their opinions to the guy. Right now Arcayne is not the one in question, his qualifications certainly are not. I could call myself someone famous, I don't have to prove it, just like people don't have to register. However there is a bit of pathetic EW-ing, both disagreeing with each others edits. I don't know what the solution is unless we start a discussion about Arcayne's edits too. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 13:55, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I am the first one to admit - freely - that I am sometimes less tactful than I could be. I also agree that I should never have noted my educational background in a discussion (the only real instance of that ended several months ago, without recurrence), and I was properly chastised for doing so by others.

However, I have not created accounts for the sole purpose of attacking another person. I have not stalked that person's edits, nor have I done so for eight months. The anon has.

The anon claims that some of the IPs are not his/hers; that might possibly be true. Using fairly ham-fisted IP-matching techniques, it would appear that about 3/4's of the IPs are centered around the Chicago metropolitan area (which includes part of Indiana, for purposes of this discussion); the rest are uniformly from New York. There might be a pattern there to be found - the user might take monthly trips to NY for work or whatever - but I think that it serves everyone's interest to not tar an innocent user editing from 75. with the same brush. Avi mentioned in the related RfCU that 75. counts for about 1% of the internet (about 67.1 million IPs), and the wiki benefits from the input of them. We cannot block them out because one particular user is being a jerk. And don't think I am not creeped out (and a little frightened) by the fact that the anon would appear to be in my own backyard.

Proposal One doesn't block the IP range; it just bans the user from editing here from whatever account or IP they choose to edit from. While this means that anyone being crafty with the same IP domain is going to get probed for duckhood, I think we already tend to do this passively and unofficially with most folk who act similar to banned or blocked users.

By banning the user, we remove ourselves from Proposal Two's added duty (and me the additional nuisance) of reporting behavior which would likely reoccur (case in point: the anon has been blocked three different times for this behavior, and each of nine different AN/I's have all commented about how the user had acted inappropriately - to date, that behavior has only abated by blocking the anon)

It has also been argued by the anon that they have edited anonymously for seven years. While that is a statement we cannot really prove - again, no single IP means edit histories are difficult to track, what is more telling is the stated reason the anon prefers to edit via dynamic IP and the actual effects. The anon has stated in April that they prefer to edit as a "public user", and more recently that they wish to avoid the "social networking aspects" of Wiki, and simply concentrate on articles. Quite lofty; if only it were true. Out of all the IPs connected to the account (and again the RfCU only addresses those IPs that intersected with my edits), less that a tenth actually add content to an article (and uncited content, in point of fact). The remainder of all of these contributions consist of reverting me, attacking me in article discussion or filing various administrative actions, all against me. All of that seems to pointedly fly in the face of someone trying to avoid the non-encyclopedia-building aspects of Wikipedia.

Indeed, if the anon has been editing here anonymously for seven years, I cannot be the only person with whom the (s)he has taken exception to in the past. However, because the anon has chosen to twist one of our most cherished Foundational ideals - that anyone, anonymous or otherwise, can edit here - and used it to avoid repercussions for their behavior, they should not be afforded the same protection that we afford to any other anon who comes here to actually add to the Project. The assumption of Good Faith is not a set of blinders by which we overlook extensive, recurring and nasty behavior. This user has abrogated their right to edit in our community; using Wikipedia instead to wage a protracted guerilla action against one or more users is not part of our core policies.

Since they have shown they cannot follow our rules, and instead use them to continue action against their fellow users, I think that Proposal One removes the problem user without really interrupting the contributions of similar IP accounts. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:58, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The thing with blocking the IPs he's caused trouble on is that he's clearly on a dynamic IP, which means someone else is also and theres a chance they could end up on a blocked IP (I know its a super-slim chance but still) Its a very extreme idea to ban IPs permanently. Heres an idea, I don't know if its possible, but is there a way you can block the IPs but still allow registration from them? That way if he does register whilst banned and then abuse Arcayne from an account, then we can sort it from there? chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 16:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you can make IP ranges so that they may only edit from accounts and not anon. -t BMW c- 16:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

what about registering though? thats what im worried about. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 17:30, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As I keep saying, it's highly unlikely this will have to be enforced with long-term blocks at all, be it of ranges or individual IPs. Short blocks whenever he turns up again, depending of course on the intensity of his activities. In the unlikely event that more wide-reaching blocks should be necessary, ability for logged-in editors to edit through the block and ability to create new accounts through them are parameters that can be individually fine-tuned, just like we do with vandal blocks all the time. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

If we are still counting votes on this, I'd add my support to option 1. In practice, the two options are similar, since if a new IP shows up from this range who doesn't attack Arcayne it's unlikely that anyone will react to him in any way or connect him to this issue. The value of making this a ban is that any admin who notices the usual pattern will be able to block the IP without further ado. Most likely these blocks will be short, a month or less, and they will be anon-only. EdJohnston (talk) 17:45, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

However, I have not created accounts for the sole purpose of attacking another person. You do realize that if the ISP releases his dhcp release and gives him a new IP it isn't "creating a new account" and your usage of that indicates either a complete lack of understanding or an attempt to make something sound worse than it is. Your last CU failed I believe on an account you tried to tie to him. So do you have any evidence that he's actually created an account to harass you?--Crossmr (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let's assume that for a moment: in every account listed in the RfCU, the anon had the IP for a day (two at the most) before the ISP would reassign a new IP address. However, the anon has had this particular IP (the one most recently blocked) since November 7th - over ten days. Now, for you or I, that's nothing, but those who've interacted with the anon know this is extraordinary in the extreme. I am reckoning that, knowing it would only hurt him/her if a new IP were to pop up amidst an AN/I specifically addressing all these multiple IP identities, the anon has chosen (as opposed to it being an ISP choice - and the ISP apparently hasn't changed since March) to either not reboot the modem (which is what I have assumed the user has done to also reboot their anonymity). In prior instance when the anon was saddled with a template on their talk page that connected them to their prior ids by admin reinforcement, that IP would go silent, and a new one would pop up a week or so later.

The last RfCU did not connect the anon to a known user. Perhaps it is my own bad faith assumption that the user is previously blocked or banned user, and my apologies to Jojhutton for disturbing him while trying to connect some dots about the anon. The current RfCU makes no such mistake, simply addressing the various 75.etc. IPs that keep popping up to attack my edits, and the prior checkusers have been useful in that the anon had previously admitted to editing under the anons denoted in bold there.

As for attack accounts, is it your contention that the anon never created an SPA/rebooted his/her modem simply to have it appear that more than one IP were complaining about my edits? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The current RFCU is pointless as all a RFCU is is to look at the underlying IPs to see if they're the same or similar. Since all you have are IPs, you're not checking anything. I'm not contending anything other than to tell you to stop claiming that this individual has made accounts to attack you unless you have a check user which says accounts are tied to him which you don't. You just have a mess of IPs from the same address. Which are not accounts. Personally I've had occasion where my IP has remained the same for months, and other times where it changed 2 or 3 times in a week. Such is the nature of a dynamically assigned IP address. Sometimes you can force a new IP address by rebooting/leaving your modem off for the lease period (typically a day) and sometimes your ISP just decides to randomly reshuffle all the leases, or there is some other problem going on which causes everyone to grab a new ip address. Generally rebooting your modem doesn't grant a new ip address as the DHCP process will typically give you the same address you had if the lease is still valid, or if no one else has taken that address after the lease is up your modem will ask for the last address it had. So it actually can be a little difficult to get a new IP address that way. If you're not familiar with DHCP and how it works I suggest reading up on, its not always possible on a system you don't control to go and get yourself a new IP address on demand.--Crossmr (talk) 03:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Respectfully, I would submit that the RfCU is only pointless in that it points out the obvious - that the same user is responsible for most if not all of the IPs. Maybe take a closer look at the most current RfCU; I've listed the prior RfCU's regarding the user, and the anon him/herself acknowledged that the IP addresses were theirs. All I did was point out the string of IPs editing in the same RfCU, and the anon derailed the process by admitting that they were his/hers. Not failed mind you, derailed.

And while my IT-skills aren't anywhere near your apparent level, I am not sure they are really required when the same user keeps popping up in articles you are working to attack your edits. In the same ways. Using the same arguments. And the same unpleasant behavior. I mean, I didn't pull the IP addresses out of the air, Crossmr; they came up because the same person kept attacking me in places where they never had before. It started out in Fitna, but then spread to almost everywhere I edited. The result was antagonizing, creepy and annoying as all get out. I am sorry, but I am not getting where you are coming from here. I mean, if you are asking to be spoon-fed diffs of what everyone else can feast upon themselves, maybe I am not the guy to do it. I realize that the list of IPs in the RfCU is daunting, but I am not the one who chose to edit from that many places, now am I? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 03:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking you to prove your case which this is about since you've chosen to make so many complaints about this IP. However many of the diffs I've been provided in the various attempts to show how bad this IP is, don't really show anything bad about this IP which is what makes me question the veracity of the claim here. A previous diff was provided to show how bad the IP was with the note of "see this edit summary" upon viewing the edit summary I found nothing wrong with it. It was a factual and accurate description of an edit made that appeared to be a legitimate edit. That's just an example. So far about 2 out of 3 edits being show as indications of problem don't indicate any problem. I've seen a few questionable diffs, but I've seen them from both sides. My point with the accounts comment is that claiming this IP has made accounts to harass you is wrong and can cause a bias. Someone might read that without actually checking think "wow this guy is bad". If you want to cause someone to be banned, do it on facts and not hyperbole. He's had a lot of IPs, but I don't see anything actually tying him to an account, and if the worst thing he has done is get hung up on a claim you made (which honestly for all your explanation, can still be interpreted as claiming multiple degrees, no where did you ever state when making those claims that those were just classes that were part of a single degree) then a site ban really isn't in order. A mutual restraining order is more in order as I've seen you get just as worked up about him as he gets worked up about you.--Crossmr (talk) 08:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Finally some diffs

I recommend everyone who is interested in resolving this and genuinely getting to the bottom of it go and read the diffs provided at: [15]. Per my request the IP stepped back and provided some genuine diffs from the beginning of this dispute. As expected they are a little one sided, however it does let you view pages at the proper time context so you can also read what was said by both parties. There is a lot to read, I'm not going to kid you. However, the more I read the more questionable behaviour I see on the part of arcayne. Frankly its going to take a day or two to digest it, but so far I've seen more than one sock puppet claim being leveled by him but checking the various user pages, I don't see that anyone has been ever tagged a sock puppet. I'm still not taking any particular side at this point, but after seeing some of the diffs here, I think a more thorough investigation is required both to resolve this situation and to make sure its resolved properly. I said it earlier and I will say it again, I believe this is far more complicated than being heavy handed against an IP and calling it a day.--Crossmr (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The troll's diffs, unsurprisingly, omit all the relevant stuff, namely how he kept following Arcayne around all these months. The original dispute in early April is hardly of interest at this point, except as an explanation of where the various harassment memes (such as the "Oxford" issue) originated. I'm trying to condense a few diffs myself, seeing as some people still fail to see the obvious, but as it's across so many pages and IPs it takes a bit of time. – As far as I'm concerned, Arcayne himself is still not the issue here. He was involved in what was originally a legitimate though heated content dispute back at the time; since then, he's simply been the stalking victim. (And I'm not saying this as somebody who particularly likes Arcayne; I know it can be exasperating to deal with him at times.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not entirely convinced that there isn't an issue with arcayne here. Which is why I've asked for more detail so we can try and read this dispute from the beginning without bias. I'd like to see diffs of every time they've interacted since April as well as each time one of them started a topic about it on AN/I. We have admittance that you think he can be exasperating and down below Jayron admits that Arcayne could be just as much to blame for the original dispute as the IP. I don't think its a stretch to imagine he might have helped this along (as evidenced by the poking of the IP in august by edit warring over his comment placement)--Crossmr (talk) 22:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I looked at the IPs' talk page and still see a pile of difs from April 2008. That dipute seems long over at this point. The IP-user in question has STILL not answered for his behavior in every month since then; one could claim that Arcayne was as to blame for the April 2008 dispute as anyone, HOWEVER, that does not justify the incessant harrassment of him SINCE then. That was 6 months ago, and there has been no defense for the rude edit summaries and the frivolous ANIs and the talk page rudeness that has been cited above, and which dates for every month SINCE then. Seriously, if there is no more recent evidence of provocation by Arcayne, then I fail to see how some diffs from April can be used to justify this behavior... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I actually addressed them in a subpage, asCrossmr had asked me in the anon's usertalk page to stay away from the anon's edits. I've posted the link, rather than take up any more space here (yes, I am a bit long-winded). I guess its a moot point now, but I thought maybe folk might want something with a bit less varnish on it. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 20:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but nothing has been finalised yet. FuturePerfect, you should not therefore refer to him as "the troll" its wrong. you can say he has trolling behaviour but thats a bit too far. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 21:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Solution

With a consensus leaning towards an interaction ban and not an all out ban, guidelines for the IPs behaviour have been outlined at User_talk:75.49.223.52#Response and the IP has agreed to them, key points:

• The IP has to avoid, with all reason, editing any article that Arcayne edits. He's self-imposed on himself all types of articles Arcayne usually edits.
• He is to refrain from talking about arcayne on wiki except in the case where Arcayne edits an article the IP has edited or revets an edit the IP has done. At that point he's not to engage Arcayne and instead leave me a diff and I'll have a look at it.

This solution should allow us to move forward past this particular situation and avoid anymore drama.--Crossmr (talk) 05:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As recently as four days ago, at the top of his current talk page, the anon was repeating his bogus accusation against Arcayne of "false credentials". Mind you, he was not just criticising Arcayne for using his credentials without giving proof of them, he was presenting it as an outright fact that they were in fact false and that Arcayne was lying. I'm uncomfortable about the message we are sending out by allowing someone back that easily with this serious libellous allegation still hanging around. At the very least, I would expect (as a last word before shutting up forever about the topic) that the anon should fully and unconditionally apologise and retract. The whole topic of casting doubts on Arcayne's credentials was an arbitrary fabrication on the anon's part, thought up for no other reason than to harass him and based on no factual evidence or likelihood whatsoever, and I would want to see the anon acknowledge this.

The second thing is, some of the things that have been said on the anon's talk page still sound as if there should be a reciprocal expectation on Arcayne to avoid the anon. I want to see it made clear that there is none. I'd sure wish he would see no further need of talking about the case much, but it should be made quite clear that Arcayne is under no obligation to restrict his choices of article editing in any way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We can't tell one person to avoid someone and then not ask the other person to reciprocate. Otherwise we're creating a situation where one person can poke the other with impunity and the moment the person being poked says anything they can run to AN/I and demand they be blocked. I never told Arcayne he had to leave the IP alone but asked and recommended to him politely that he do so. Unless arcayne is out to start trouble he should have no problem agreeing to that. The IP has pointed out that they generally edit different areas and it was just a coincidence they ended up together on this article. As to an apology and retraction regarding the comments made about arcayne, I'm afraid I don't really see it the way you do. As far as I'm concerned Arcayne still used the language "degrees"[16],[17] when in fact he has only a single degree from oxford and instead the degree is comprised of the various classes he took and he has even stretched it so far to defend his comment of various degrees by claiming larger sections had smaller sections in it. If I take a class of german as an elective I don't think anyone is going to sit here and let me claim I have a degree in german.[18] Its a bit of a hop skip and jump to go from "degrees in X" to "I had some classes that had some of that in it". Those are all his words, his usage of degrees more than once and then his admittance to having a mixed degree. I'm willing to extend him good faith that he didn't try to misrepresent himself, but was he being truthful? The anon provided evidence. Oxford doesn't have those degrees and Arcayne later confirmed that indeed it is a single degree, not multiple degrees. I think they can both learn a lesson here. I've also pointed out that as far as I'm concerned Arcayne is guilty of edit warring in August (that he instigated not the IP) over the moving of his comment on a talk page.[19], [20], [21], [22] It does take two to edit war, but the IP certianly didn't make the first move there, and I have no idea why it was so important to arcayne that he insert his comment on top. With that in mind I don't think its untoward to ask him to avoid the person he seems to loathe so much.--Crossmr (talk) 07:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If we "can't tell one person to avoid someone and then not ask the other person to reciprocate", then I insist on the outright ban, full stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The majority is clearly in favour of an interaction ban not a site ban. Last I checked I wasn't under some kind of restriction from making a request of another user. Its up to arcayne whether or not he wants to fulfill that request. I didn't outline any penalty if he chose not to act on the request and instead chooses to edit articles the IP edits. I made the request in the interest of keeping peace, but it is in no part a requirement of the IPs interaction ban. If arcayne follows the ip around and calls his mother dirty names I'd still consider it a violation of the interaction ban if the IP said anything to him or about him (other than to link me the diffs on my talk page). You do understand the difference between asking another user something and telling them they either do it or there are repercussions right? I did actually mean ask in the traditional sense of the word and not like when the police show up at a club and "ask" someone to leave.--Crossmr (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that Crossmr's solution to the problem is quite reasonable, and I endorse it as within the spirit of why I started this thread, which was to find a solution to the problem at hand. If 75.X.X.X stops his harassment of Arcayne through the mediation of Crossmr, then the problem has been solved, to my satisfaction. It would be nice also if Arcayne agreed to reciprocal self-restriction of his editing, but not required. I would, however, take it as a complete dick-move should Arcayne take the opportunity to "poke" or "prod" 75.X.X.X given his inability to respond; however I have faith that Arcayne has no desire to do that. I pray he does not make a fool of me for thinking that, because it could turn badly for either party in this dispute should hostilities resume. I think we have reached a good solution, and I thank Crossmr for taking the lead in mediating this. Once again, I endorse this solution, and consider for myself the matter closed, so long as neither party starts it up again. If either side in this dispute DOES start up again, they can expect blocks coming their way... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have been trying to stay out of this process as much as possible, aware that it wasn't really about me (or even the anon), but rather about enforcing those policies which make Wikipedia a fun place to work. As such, while I am not sure how Jayron orCrossmr is arriving at the idea that there is not a consensus for a site ban, though he may be counting folk who were unsure of the limits of the ban, but it seemed to me that banning the anon was the right way to go, as the anon seems either unrepentant or unwilling to see their culpability. Their very last comments (dated only a few hours ago) on their talk page support this lack of agreement. As FuturePerfect pointed out, the anon still has his prefacing remarks calling me a liar in his user talk space. As far as I know, we don't allow attack pages here, and yet, there it is.

I am not realy convinced that an interaction ban is going to be effective. While I am certainly not going to run out and edit where the anon does, or slam him any time he makes a comment, it's clear that the anon does not have the same self-restraint. It is unfair of us to expect him to suddenly alter their personality after eight months of doing things in a particular way.

I know we all want to give folk the benefit of the doubt, but I think it is a wasted effort here.

A few clarifying points, mostly in response to Crossmr's comments:

• I do have multiple degrees. One from the Ox and one from an university here in the States. That the second one is only an A.S. in History doesn't mitigate its value as a degree, Additionally, the two links that Crossmr posted in supposed support of his statement are in fact to the same DIFF.
• What Crossmr apparently missed in the "edit-warring" in the Ibiza article was that the anon showed up there out of the blue and started attacking me. So yeah, the anon did in fact make the first move there. I tried to ignore the fellow by not replying to him/her. The anon kept moving my comments around, and I undid the moves before getting tired of the nonsense and moved on.
• I don't loathe the anon. I don't know (and don't much care) about their edits. I certainly haven't been following their edits around for eight months. The anon has, and has followed my edits to articles they had never made a single edit in before.

- Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What you apparently missed is that you previously claimed both degrees from oxford [23]. both History and Political Science from Oxford because if you actually meant those from different places you shouldn't have gone out of your way to name drop one place without name dropping the other place and tying them together with "and". The double paste of the diffs was just a copying problem on my part, I've updated it to reflect the other instance where you stated "degrees" and in fact claimed political science and international degrees, which as you admitted is just one degree, So even if you want to argue that you somehow meant that the history degree was from another university(which is a stretch to read in that context), when did you pick up the separate political and international relations degrees? The consensus for an interaction ban is 6 users vs only 3 who want a site ban. There isn't any kind of majority in favour of a site ban. If he doens't respect the interaction ban then his next stop is a full ban. If he ever talks to you again touches one of your edits etc, you don't have to do anything, calmly post it on ANI, and CC me and you're done and so is he.--Crossmr (talk) 21:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I cant believe you are defending the anon's attack on his qualifications. no-one except the anon and you really give a crap. we have the right to claim whatever we want whether its true or B-S. Arcayne knows he was wrong to have a superior-than-thou attitude over his quals, and has openly admitted that. move on chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 21:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I was pointing it out because FP was insisting on a full retraction/apology on the part of the anon calling it libelous. I felt that was 1) counter productive and 2) in fact false since there are reasonable discrepancies in what Arcayne has said. I certainly don't condone the IPs actions which is why I support an interaction ban and a 1 screw up and you're gone rule. If I actually thought arcayne was intentionally trying to mislead us, I would have already opened a new section about just that. No one needs to bring up anything about the april incident again. With the interaction ban in place it should be completely irrelevant at this point.--Crossmr (talk) 02:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Look, this has gone on long enough. FuturePerfect, Jayron and Crossmr (and many others who emailed me), I appreciate the concern, support and interest. It's time to let this go and move on. I am confident that Crossmr and FutPerf are not going to forget about the anon, and I am fairly certain that Jayron wants nothing more than to do precisely that (good guy that he is).

The anon knows where (s)he stands at this time. Interaction ban it is. I won't poke the user, or seek them out. I don't need an apology, and while it would be spiffy if the usertalk page comments by the anon calling me a liar were removed, it isn't required. It isn't our job to fix users - we just need them to color within the lines whilst here.

As mentioned before, if a problem arises with the anon again, I will post it here and cc Crossmr and FutPerf and that - as the man said - will be that.

Let's move on, and get back to editing an encyclopedia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 04:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've changed the marking to "not resolved". The anon violated the no-comments parole right the moment he said he accepted it, with a big new thread on his talk page [24]. I've re-blocked for a month, for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:36, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately I came in after all was said in done and didn't notice the timestamps when I first went through and commented. I'm not sure if arcayne has seen it or not but his call to move on was about 90 minutes after that thread. Unless arcayne wants to show leniency then I'd agree with leaving him blocked. First time through I didn't notice the date stamp and just saw the time and thought the thread was started before his acceptance but I went back and noticed it was about +22 hours.--Crossmr (talk) 08:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Think its pretty much "Game Over" for him now. I can't see him getting any support this time. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 09:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the block, Crossmr and FuturePerfect. He's gone for a month; let's avoid giving him any more of our time; could someone blank the anon's attack page, please? Or is that tantamount to asking for an apology (which I reiterate I do not need). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 15:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

98.18.130.129 et al

{{Resolved}}

98.18.130.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) posted abuse to the subject of Talk:Michael Rosenblum after replacing a warning on that IP's talk page, for earlier abuse, with "Fuck off"; and doing the same to the talk page of another IP (75.91.74.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) which has also abused Rosenblum; as have other IPs from the same ISP (Windstream Communications Inc): 98.17.164.47 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log); 75.91.74.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (also one from the US military: 150.226.95.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), using identical terms. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:43, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Barneca has sprotected the article, and I blocked the most recent ip for 31 hours. Hopefully this is an end to it (for a while, at least).LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:25, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Now 150.226.95.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is at it again. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:34, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing: [25], [26]. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:37, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

It is not a high traffic talkpage, so if there is a spate of ip vandalism then a request for a short semi protection could be made. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll suggest that. Meanwhile 98.18.130.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 174.131.13.112 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) are both involved in the same abusive behaviour. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:37, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

And now 162.39.211.92 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (same ISP). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

162.39.211.92 now posting abusive comments on my blog. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 01:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And now 174.131.99.180 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (same ISP). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 23:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Internet Defense Force -- more drama

A new single-purpose account, DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk · contribs) is making many somewhat controversial edits (such as deleting the "Criticism" section) to Jewish Internet Defense Force. Things had been very quiet there since Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) was indef blocked on October 4, 2008. Please watch. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 04:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

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

This account appears indistinguishable from Einsteindonut in terms of interests and behaviors. Whether it is them, or a sympathizer following the same agenda does not matter, per WP:SOCK and WP:MEAT. What shall we do? I think we should consider whether to block them as a sock. Perhaps a checkuser could take a quick look. I've invited the user to comment here. Jehochman ^Talk 04:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Does this need a checkuser? The name alone is probably blockable, but combined with single-purpose account behaviour and obvious previous editing experience, this is a clearly disruptive second account. An experienced editor can make controversial edits under his own account or not at all. (Blanking sections of a controversial article takes us clearly into 'bad-hand' sock territory.) The only useful purpose that a checkuser might serve here is to clear the drawer of sleeper socks. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is "drama?" My apologies. I don't know what you are talking about. I just learned about the JIDF from the Ha'aretz piece and didn't feel the WP article was very fair to the organization, so I created an account to help make it better. I accidentally took out the "Criticism" section upon making edits, and re-added it. However, I'm not sure what WP's policy is of using articles which are originally in German. I feel if criticism is to be made about an organization, that we should only rely upon an accurate, FAZ approved, translation. I'm not sure one is available? --DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk) 06:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

By the same token, I added other cited material from the new Ha'aretz article, which was quickly reverted by Nagle. It was new background information which I thought was important. --DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk) 06:04, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have indefed the account for a username vio. It also looks like a sock to me but as this is clearly a disruptive name we can do without it. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser is a good idea for thoroughly investigating sock puppetry that may involved use of multiple accounts or block or ban evasion. It would be best to connect the account to a master account and empty any sock drawer. Is there a CU hanging around or do we need to bring this case over to WP:RFCU? Jehochman ^Talk 06:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I guess we list it as there is no rush now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:17, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm am shutting down for the night. Please do list it, because there seems to be a reasonable basis. Jehochman ^Talk 06:18, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

This is a disruptive username? Huh? It only is one because of who it might be, and/or the edits they have made. I hate to say so, but NPOV is a key policy, and how many times a day does wikidrama occur in this forum because people are POV-pushing. I hate to use the example, but "Master of Puppets", based on meaning alone would be considered more disruptive (no offence intended). If someone created the usernames "AlwaysAGF" and "DontBeAnEditWarrer", are we going to delete them too? -t BMW c- 10:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

BMW, I partially agree with you but I also think that such a name is somewhat indicative of puppetry. Think about it, POV Pusher is uniquely Wikipedian lingo, it's unlikely that a new user would use it right off the bat... L'Aquatique[talk] 11:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I completely agree that it's not a new user - but we're talking right now about a block due to the username alone. Prove it's a sock (or have a little more duck-like properties than an obvious knock-off of policy) and I'm good with it. Maybe someone wants to properly move to a new name (highly unlikely, but it can happen). -t BMW c- 12:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As the person reverted by POVPusher, I did consider coming here or going to a senior admin but decided not to. I also considered the POVPusher = ED equation, but POVPusher didn't react to my reference to JIDF as "your lot" whilst ED always vigorously denied any such connection. It's unfortunate that the JIDF are so wedded to the glamour of clandestine action that they can't create an account with their name that contributes to the talk page alone. Then they could draw our attention to new articles about them and complain about and explain anything they considered misrepresentation. Instead they have this series of edit warrior accounts that are transparently connected to them.--Peter cohen (talk) 14:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Note: within a few hours after the block of DontbeaPOVPUSHER (talk · contribs), a new user account, Howdypardner (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) was created and began editing only the JIDF article. Something to watch; no action requested at this time. --John Nagle (talk) 16:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Howdy's "Glad I could help" on the talk page acknowledges that this is the same person as POVPUSHER. Obviously not sockpuppetry, as it's overt, and not block evasion as they were given explicit permission to come back in a new guise. (The above is in relation to POVPUSHER, obviously the prior CU suggestion is different.) There are potential 3RR issues but it depends how new we regard this user as.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:54, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Howdy has no user page or talk page, and I hadn't noticed that note on the article's talk page. --John Nagle (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, DontbeaPOVPUSHER was blocked indef for username, but this doesn't rule out his return as Howdypardner. The latter has been cautioned against edit-warring on his Talk, and has not reverted since 18:18 UTC on 17 November. Between the two of them they are over 3RR but is unlikely that action will be taken if the reverting has actually stopped. EdJohnston (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The user has now made several more reverts. since Ed's post above. Also the "resolved" tag strikes me as no longer appropriate.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The edits of DontbeaPOVPUSHER, when combined with those of Howdypardner, may have gone over 3RR on Jewish Internet Defense Force. I've left a note for Spartaz to consider undoing his 'Resolved' banner. EdJohnston (talk) 22:01, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Cohen that this can no longer be considered "resolved". But it's not a big deal. I look at this as a WP:TROLL situation. It's not a content problem. The problem isn't what Wikipedia has to say about the JIDF; it's that there are people who want the JIDF to get more attention. Usual troll management applies; revert slowly, ignore minor annoyances, and block if overly disruptive. --John Nagle (talk) 03:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have removed the resolved tag. Does this need further discussion? Does anyone else have views on the need for a CU? Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser should be run, to determine if Howdypardner is evading the block on Einsteindonut. Since Einsteindonut (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked for a year, and he seemed to have the same interests as this editor, I believe it would be justified. Jehochman issued the block on October 10 based on a previous ANI discussion. Organized campaigns to edit WP articles toward a particular POV have been commented on in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying. According to our own article on JIDF, one of their interests is influencing the content of Wikipedia articles. EdJohnston (talk) 15:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

New JIDF-related editor(s)

We have a new editor today: DontFwithTheJIDF (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki). They seem very familiar with the issues, experienced in editing, and interested only in the JIDF article. --John Nagle (talk) 22:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Already blocked by Spartaz (talk · contribs). Incidentally, I just received a Wikipedia e-mail from Einsteindonut (talk · contribs) expressing somewhat similar sentiments to those expressed by the above user. --John Nagle (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Suggest with the next incarnation the page be protected; semi would serve no purpose as they are named accounts and he doesn't seem intelligent enough to stop on his own. HalfShadow 23:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Should we just make Einstiendonut block be indef? JoshuaZ (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd say we should since checkuser has proven that he has been evading. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Update

Now it's getting really silly. Sounds like the JIDF is declaring war on Wikipedia because of a minor content question. [27] --Hans Adler (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser results: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Howdypardner, it seems that Einsteindonut (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki) is back and blatantly evading. -MBK₀₀₄ 00:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Attack Page

This attack page [28] on the JIDF site has previously been discussed on one of the boards. The page has just been updated with the two principal complainants here (John Nagle and myself) added to the list. If anyone has saved a previous version, could they check whether anyone else has been added and needs informing about it. Thanks.--Peter cohen (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. The JIDF, according to their web site, is currently annoyed with about twenty Wikipedia editors, Haaretz, the ADL, Obama and the 78% of American Jews who voted for him[29], Germany, Egypt, Harvard, and socialism. WP:TROLL, indeed. I suggest about 48 hours of semi-protection to stop editing by new socks. --John Nagle (talk) 05:31, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and long term policy violation by User:Florentino floro

User:Florentino floro has recently been the subject of an RFC [30] and has a long history of adding trivia with no regard for relevance to the articles he is editing. Yesterday he began what appears to be a concerted campaign of reverting edits to his edits all across the namespace.
See:
[31] vs [32]
[33] vs [34]
[35] vs [36]
[37] vs [38]
[39] vs [40]
[41] vs [42]
[43] vs [44]

Floro should understand wikipedia policies on trivia by now. He has over 6000 edits and has been talked to repeatedly on the subject. With the sheer number of his edits, the fact that such a significant proportion of them are trivial clutter is a real problem for wikipedia. xschm (talk) 22:29, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Having encountered this editor before and examined the diffs, I agree. It is likely that this editor will not respect anything short of a block. looie496 (talk) 02:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As editors, most (if not all) of us know very well that we should write information based on our observation and not paste it from another source. With regards to why he is doing these, Floro seems to have such explicit reasons why. Some of them can be found in the talk page of the Ten-ball article.FoxLad (talk) 06:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And often, these reasons are not very good at all. He started explaining himself like this after we took notice of his pattern, but his explanations are often just "Expand, do not delete. This is encyclopedic because it was in [news source]. Also let me tell you how much I love [subject] and how unfair the world is to a jobless judge in a pretend world and also here's some PHILIPPINE POLITICS to make my explanation longer." In fact, the Ten-ball talk page you mention illustrates this perfectly. --Migs (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I have been far less polite and diplomatic about this than the others, but I hope Floro's nonsensical rant below (among his many others) demonstrates the urgency here. He's been reacting this way to anything resembling criticism since 2006 despite several attempts by others to teach him better, and I think a block is definitely warranted. Do look at the RFC and the edits linked from there; his crazymeter goes off the scales every time he makes a rant and I am surprised at how several people can't see it. He's also recently taken on the habit of asking for help from anyone who's ever spoken to him on his talk page. He drops them a note and offers them a "Wikicookie" or a smile--I have to wonder if he somehow thinks this will appease enough people to get Wikipedia on his side. --Migs (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the pointer. I quote from his comments on the talk page of Ten-ball: "I decided to let you do your editing, as I respect foreign editors, and for sure, I will have time, later, to en masse review, revise, reverse, modify, amend and/or revert in full, all of your edits-reverts of my contributions, with reasons." This is simply priceless. It simply reinvents the concept of edit-warring. Makes any edit warrior I've ever met look like a rookie by comparison. Dr.K. (talk) 06:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Amid the fact that my passion is only horse racing, I contributed greatly to Philippines and other sports articles, updating them, especially in boxing and pool. I do have the edge from editors in boxing and pool, since, in the Philippines, it would be day while Wiki editors would sleep, when boxing and billiards encyclopedic events would be released. But it is not with ease, but I take hours and hours to edit sports, due to copy vio rules, I have to use thesaurus to reword the articles. User:Cma (the alter of Max, I say alter, based on their twin accusations against me) and I are both Filipinos and I am an alumni of Ateneo de Manila University and Ateneo Law School. Our personal quarrels ended in this: Cma does not contribute regularly to Wikipedia, but stalks my edits. That is the best evidence. Wikipedia rules can be used, tons of them to block a co-Filipino and co-Ateneo user, but I believe Wikipedia editors are built by a community who believe in truth and would share their wisdom for Wikipedia. Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 06:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have never denied that I keep close tabs on your edits. It's pretty clear from your replies and edits that my concerns are entirely legitimate. Now please reconcile your accusations of stalking with the fact that you are once again trying to disseminate personal information about Max and me that is entirely irrelevant to this discussion. --Migs (talk) 07:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Your rejoinder is what we call in law and jurisprudence a negative pregnant - meaning, you deny a) that your concerns are not illegitimate and b) you say that I disseminate personal information about Max and you, but at the same time, you admitted that you stalked my edits by keeping close tab on these. Put differently, you and Max admitted legally that both of you are very insecure editors, who daily feel the trauma of suffering and pain, if you would not revert my hard-worked edits. I spent daily about 10 hours to research and edit. Now, Max has no agenda like you, but what we call in American and Philippine jurisprudence, "fishing expedition" which is abhorred by criminal procedure: daily looking for my edit alleged violations, using tons of wikipedia rules to REVERT my edits, then, to block me, if I would revert your edits of my edits. But I have to submit evidence against you, lest administrators be not advised of your stalking. Here again[here[45]

A final point of suggestion. Why should I, you and Max do have the trouble in discussing here? I and you, as both Filipinos can amicably settle our hatred and enmity via the Ateneo de Davao Dean's table (who knows me, since I had been 4 years classmate of the Philippine Jesuit's Provincial Fr. Archie Intengan, S.J. (1971-74). If you have me blocked, then, you will be very happy, but it will not end at that. I can ask for unblock, and/or I can contribute as I had discreetly, before, by IP address. I am 56 years old, jobless, . I suggest that we instead discuss this with the Ateneo Dean, it is as simple as that. Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 07:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you even understand what I said? There's nothing "negative pregnant" about my reply. There isn't even anything "negative sexed up." I completely admit that I'm keeping tabs on you. I always have admitted this, and have made no secret of it. And for good reason. On the other hand, you have yet to explain why you accuse me of stalking (a crime, you say), yet you yourself post names, occupations, and personal history that I have never disclosed on Wikipedia. Do you not realize that this qualifies as "stalking" far more than anything I've edited? --Migs (talk) 07:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I vigorously disagree with your stance, for reasons. Amid repetitions, I got you clear. You wanted me blocked, and how? By keeping tabs on my edits, with Max, then, you would revert my edits, to tempt me to re-add, then, you and Max would complain that I was edit-warring. Please review my edits. I allowed months from April 2008, to pass, to review my edits, that Max reverted, and after my re-adds these days, after careful reviews, you could not even submit one evidence that one of those edits are not good edits. Dominique, Wikipedia articles, even my own User Page, are not owned by us, but could be edited by anybody subject to the rules. Articles 19, 20, 21, inter alia of our New Civil Code was borrowed from Spanish Codes while our Criminal Procedure was taken from California Rules. These twin statutes prohibit stalking, do I need to cite here, jurisprudence, to explain and discuss to you that if an editor in Wikipedia daily and continuously stalks or using your words keep close tabs on my edits, that is violative of Wikipedia rules which are just borrowed from scattered laws and rules of the civilized world, like copyright violations? It is your choice. Submit hard evidence that you had not violated stalking, please rebut my hard evidence, not by argument but by links or diffs, please.--Florentino floro (talk) 08:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It's your burden to prove that I'm "stalking" you, or did you forget what the burden of proof is? I've been closely watching your edits and reverting those that I think are unnotable. That's well within the bounds of Wikipedia rules. All the things I've brought up about your own history are things you yourself have mentioned to us several times before. On the other hand, you posted personal information below and above that is not on Wikipedia at all. I don't even need diffs because the evidence is on this very page. I would say that it is you who is doing all the stalking here. --Migs (talk) 09:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I have just removed some personal information that Florentino floro added about another editor and warned him that he will be immediately blocked if he continues to add such information. I presume it should be deleted permanently but that is something I've not done before (is there a guide?). dougweller (talk) 08:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Formal complaint, with all due respect; and petition to block User:Maxschmelling

I respectfully accuse User:Maxschmelling of bad faith - irrelevant, continuous, unabated stalking-vendetta against me, by daily, since the RFC ended, on September 25, 2008, stalking my edits, by unabated reverting my daily edits, without any good Wikipedia reasons.[46] I stated, that even if Max violated the RFC conclusion against stalking, I did not, since then, revert his daily edits of my edits, but, left, in the meantime, to other editors the discretion to undo, revert or delete Max's edits. I, therefore, made the reservation, that, IN TIME, if I have time, I would examine closely Max's edits-reverts of my daily hard-worked edits, since April, 2008, more or less. Reason: to give ample time for new reliable sources to appear and for other editors to revert Max's vendetta edits, plus, to review Max's reverts based on Wikipedia rules.

Stalking is prime evidence to block User:Maxschmelling

• Now, it is my humble submission, the we editors, of 2 million editors are co-equal and are under supervision of more than 1,500 admins. I and Max cannot say that I and Max cannot revert or modify and delete our, or each others' edits. That is how Wikipedia works. Even my User Page had been continuously edited and one time vandalized. But I never reverted, since those who did edit my User Page did the adding creatively, and I am honored. Max is a very insecure editor - definately, full of anger, hatred and daily annoyed by my edits, amid reliable and noted sources; Max experiences [trauma]], if Max will not be able to stalk-revert my daily edits. Evidence is overwhelming that Max has had no agenda in Wikipedia but to stalk and patrol my edits, when other editors in totality do respect my daily hard researched edits. Max is now, verily, a liability, as disruptive editor and is no longer an asset to Wikipedia. I leave the discretion to the proper Wikipedia authorities to consider blocking Max.

Wikipedia is an evolving encyclopedia created not by a stalker and one editor

... but by more than 2 million editors, and 1,600 administrators. With all due respect, I respectfully quote your judgment: "xxx I have come to the following conclusion. User:Florentino floro is noted to make sure the additions he adds to articles satisfy the guidelines of WP:N. If they don't satisfy WP:N and are trivial additions, do not get annoyed if they are removed, remember that we are building an encyclopedia. xxx The dispute between User:Maxschmelling and Florentino is very evident, and I strongly urge the two to avoid direct confrontation if they can. xxx."[47]

• IN FINE, I welcome Max's threat to ask for my blocking, if ever, he has any single evidence, that I add and edit without any BBC, etc. reliable source. I am sure Max knows that all my edits-contributions are supported by AFP, Reuters, CNN, BBC and top reliable Wikipedia approved sources, for notability. Max wanted me to be blocked ever since. Allegation-charge is not evidence. Today, I worked hard with more than 6,668 edits, and for sure, I spent about 5 hours for just 10 edits. A cursory perusal of my past 500 contributions reveal, that my 500 edits were seldom reverted, by editors, and for sure, Max daily reverted very many of them, to the damage and irreparable injury to Wikipedia. I submit this hard evidence[48]

Regards and Thanks.--Florentino floro (talk) 05:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Floro. You claim that Max and I have no agenda but to stalk you and revert your edits out of spite. All our reverts of your edits are reasoned out--either you had a conflict of interest, or the text you added was completely irrelevant. You are the one who has taken it upon himself to browse through each of our edits and revert them for no reason other than believing yourself to be in the right. You also claim that we are stalking you. All I have done is point out things you can find on Wikipedia, whereas you have taken the liberty of actually taking things outside of Wikipedia, searching our blogs and user accounts on other websites for personal information that you think you can use to discredit us. I can't speak for Max, but I'm sure you've also pestered him with YM, Facebook, and Friendster requests as well. Can you see the cognitive dissonance here? Every time you accuse us of something, it is you who are guilty of those very things. --Migs (talk) 06:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be bias or anything but I guess the reason sometimes on why a user's edits are repeatedly being reverted by others might be because his/her edits somehow don't satisfy the rules. Although they involve little creativity, text is just as copyrighted as images. FoxLad (talk) 07:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

My accusation is based on hard evidence. Please examine the totality of my edits and contributions:

only you and Max had stalked my edits, amid verifiable resources. I and you do have personal enmities and anger against each other. It is sad that you, as student of Ateneo de Davao and I, as alumni of Ateneo de Manila University would discuss stalking here. Stalking is abhorred by most laws of countries. Wikipedia does not tolerate stalking. I respectfully submit these twin hard evidence and proofs that my contributions are fully in accord with Wikipedia rules:[49]; and I do present hard evidence of the highest character, that instead of being an asset to Wikipedia, your very own contributions are bare, and these proved that since Max stalked me, and you did contribute nothing but to edit my edits and/or to personally attack me and my edits, here[50] Due to my religious beliefs, unrelated to Wikipedia, Cma, based on his Wikipedia contributions, had no agenda, but to block me. I and Cma do have and did have the same Ateneo de Manila handbook and rules or ethics amid Philippine laws on this matter. It is the same here in Wikipedia. Can an editor conspire with another editor to daily stalk his very own Ateneo and co-Filipino editor? Oh, I respectfully submit to the community of administrators that this is the saddest day for Wikipedia. It is censorship by means of hidden personal vendetta. With all due respecte. Thanks.--Florentino floro (talk) 07:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Floro clearly did not read anything I said. Can somebody, ANYBODY, explain to him the double standard here? Preferably not maxsch, as I get the impression that Floro has somehow just tuned us out. --Migs (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Floro clearly did not read anything Cma said. TheCoffee (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, with all due respect: since September 25, 2008, end of our RFC, Max had continuously reverted daily many of my hard worked edits. I allowed time to pass with reservations, since, I do keep track or have a watch list of my edits amid vandalism, etc. But Max had stalked my edits until I began, since I had time last Sunday, to re-examine my April 2008 edits, with Wikipedia Rules in mind. Even my Uruguay edit was deleted but it was reverted, deleted, and then I posted on the talk page. May I ask you this query: I had inspected your edits, and I am awed by your contributions to Philippine articles, like Duck, his sports articles are too good unlike my legal ones. I am more on foreign articles, but, I also contribute to your own, created articles. My question is: if any or many of your own edits would be daily edited or stalked by a co-Filipino editor, a co-Atenean, is is right, is it just? Say, that you had not been an administrator, what will you do, while fighting alone, like me? I have had many choices: a) blocked, then appeal, b) I had previously and many times edited Wikipedia using an IP address not my username and my anonymous edits were very seldom edited or reverted, etc. But There is no way that I, Max and Cma can settle all this. But I stress, that since I joined Wikipedia, on July 2007, I had never edited or reverted a single original edit my Max or Cma, while Max reverted more than 1,000 of my edits. Just and Fair? It is your choice, sir.--Florentino floro (talk) 08:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Maxsch obviously has been reverting and deleting Floro's edits for no reason, have you looked at teir contribs? They where not reverted or deleted by Maxsch because they did not meet wikipedian expectations but because, as Florentino explained, Maxsch beleives he has no reliable source, BBC, etc., which he does. It is stalking. With all due respect and request from Floro, RoyalMate1 19:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you didn't read it well enough, but I don't really blame you. Floro has a habit of making so much noise and using so much legal jargon that casual readers and the people he canvasses will think he looks more correct. The problem is not that he has no sources, but that the things he adds aren't relevant at all to the subject matter. Exacerbating the problem is the fact that Floro responds to any criticism with... well, see for yourself. -Migs (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Query: can we wait for the comment of my adopter (busy) User:Diligent Terrier?

I was and still under adoption, but due to the busy schedule of my adopter, she/he was off since September 30, 2008; I sent him/her, a notice, TO COMMENT on this. Basically, my query is:

• since I joined Wikipedia on July, 2007, with now over 6,712 edits, I had never encountered any Wikipedian editor who, daily, continuously and without any stop, stalks - now, almost all my daily edits since - before, during and even after the RFC,[51]until last week, my stalker User:Maxschmelling daily, and without stop, reverted almost all my edits, via disruptive editing, even if any and all of my edits, are supported by verifiable sources, not by one but even 3-5 links - and amid the archived RFC conclusion warning User:Maxschmelling to cease and desist from confrontational edits. --Florentino floro (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Query II, hard evidence

It is a very sad day for Wikipedia if a stalker asks an established editor to be blocked. I respectfully SUBMIT hard evidence that I am an asset to Wikipedia due to my very very well researched contributions[[52]. I certify and state with certainty, under your very own cursory perusal of my past edits, that all my daily edits are fully supported by not only just one but 2-5 verifiable and notable links.[53] I am a lawyer and Filipino judge, but I am not so familiar with all the laws and tons of Wikipedia rules. But in the civil laws-jurisprudence of all democratic countries, stalking is horrible, evil and punished by most laws.

• My point, is: since September 25 RFC, all my edits-contributions, were rarely reverted in full or deleted by editors except by this Max. So, my query, is: if I edit and Max reverts, is it Max that will fully determine that my edits were wrong? Put differently, should Max stop stalking my edits, by being blocked, and/or should Max stop from reverting my edits, and should let the Wikipedia community of editors, especially the creators of the articles and/or the articles' country editors, edit or revert my edits. Hoping for your kind REPLY to my query. Sorry, if this is too long. Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Those 6712 edits are precisely the problem. Far too many of them are topical or trivial. It seems that Florentino's basic approach is to go through the daily news and put as much of it as possible into Wikipedia articles. To keep things in focus, let's just look at the first item listed in the complaint, this edit to Uruguay. Who will say that that material actually belongs in the article? Far too many of Florentino's edits are like this. looie496 (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Let me add that someone else reverted this edit, contrary to Floro's assertions that only we do it. I'm sure that other people would definitely revert more of his edits if they only noticed them, but he mostly flies under the radar. Max and I are naturally the first ones to get to them since we know him to be a problem editor and check out the things he edits. --Migs (talk) 08:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Refuting evidence, on my Uruguay edit, notable

Hi, I want to submit hard evidence that my Uruguay edit on barbecue is notable: a) here it still stays this hour,[54]Culture of Uruguay; the Uruguay edit of mine was deleted by IP address, but was reverted by: 03:32, 17 November 2008 User:Commdor Commdor (Talk | contribs) m (49,824 bytes) (Reverted edits by 203.26.38.39 (talk) to last version by Florentino floro)[55] (undo) [56]

Verily, my point is, each of us, 2 million editors and 1,600 administrators do have 2 million brains and should respect each others' edits. My edit was deleted on Uruguay, then reverted, then deleted, then I posted the message. I did not revert.

Put differently, maybe one of my 20 edits would be edited but not by just one stalker but by many editors. Who will be the judge, if this edit is good or should be reversed, Max, Cma, Floro, are there only 3 editors, one to blocked due to 2 stalkers? This is my refutation of the evidence against me on Uruguay. Cheers.--Florentino floro (talk) 08:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That's just one example, you don't have to defend every edit individually here, or this page would have nothing but you on it. For the record, it is not hard evidence of notability at all. As we've said, just because nobody has reverted something doesn't mean it's not notable. Explain how holding the world record for barbecue is beneficial to understanding what Uruguay is. If I asked a geography or history teacher "what is Uruguay", do you really think they would ever say "a country known for its world record barbecue?" --Migs (talk) 08:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

By way of rejoinder, I submitted a counter or contradiction-refutation of the submission by User:Looie496 to traverse the evidence and at the same time, to state that my edits were very seldom reverted by other editors.--Florentino floro (talk) 09:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Relevant references

• For reference, see these diffs (out of Maxschmelling's (hereafter known as "Max") past 100 contributions - see his contributions for further review): [57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81]
• Talk page edits (relevant and general): Past 50 article talk page edits for Max, past 50 article talk page edits for Floro, past 50 user talk edits for Max, past 50 user talk edits for Floro, relevant section of Floro's user talk page, [Request made by Max on Floro's talk to stop edit-warring, [[relevant ANI report (located above), relevant ANI report (located above), relevant post to Wizardman's talk page.
• Relevant request for comment: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Florentino floro.

Master&Expert (Talk) 08:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Relevant conclusion

May I cite the ruling or conclusion in our RFC to prove that - since the RFC ended on September 25, 2008, Max still persisted in stalking, or put differently, Max continued to revert my daily edits as showed by the above posted relevant references: "The dispute between User:Maxschmelling and Florentino is very evident, and I strongly urge the two to avoid direct confrontation if they can. While there is no consensus on how problematic the behavior of Florentino floro is, I urge him to take the constructive aspects of his dissenters to heart and try to make himself a better Wikipedian. Lastly, I urge User:Diligent Terrier and Florentino to work together more as adoptee and adopter. I would not like to see this go to the Arbitration Committee, so hopefully we can all become better users from this. Wizardman 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[82] --Florentino floro (talk) 09:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Query III - Can our block petitions be better submitted to the Arbitration Committee?

May I inquire, here, if, as noted in our RFC, this problem of our twin requests for blocking be referred to the Arbitration Committee? I respectfully quote the very pertinent parts of the RFC Conclusion: After reading through the evidence, opinions, and diffs of the RfC, I have come to the following conclusion. User:Florentino floro is noted to make sure the additions he adds to articles satisfy the guidelines of WP:N. If they don't satisfy WP:N and are trivial additions, do not get annoyed if they are removed, remember that we are building an encyclopedia. I ask that when Florentino makes explanations on talk pages of his opinions or editing patterns, to keep them pithy, and not not write statements that take 10-15 minutes to read (we are volunteers after all). The dispute between User:Maxschmelling and Florentino is very evident, and I strongly urge the two to avoid direct confrontation if they can. While there is no consensus on how problematic the behavior of Florentino floro is, I urge him to take the constructive aspects of his dissenters to heart and try to make himself a better Wikipedian. Lastly, I urge User:Diligent Terrier and Florentino to work together more as adoptee and adopter. I would not like to see this go to the Arbitration Committee, so hopefully we can all become better users from this. Wizardman 23:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[83]Thanks.--Florentino floro (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC) --Florentino floro (talk) 09:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would not "like" to see it go, but I'm becoming increasingly convinced that this issue is going to have to go to arbcom. Wizardman 14:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? What happens at arbcom that can't happen here? (subtext: I'm tired of the buck-passing. Why can't the wikipedia community do anything about a problematic editor? These aren't "twin requests for blocking" this is one serious complaint and one incoherent rant. Can someone with sense please look at what is actually happening! This is Floro's 4th trip to ANI. Incidents were posted by different editors each time. Come on people!) xschm (talk) 19:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be new information in this ANI thread that was not included in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Florentino floro. (For example, it seems that Florentino floro did not write his own response to the charges in the RFC/U). It would be reasonable for the RFC/U to be reopened and this new information added to it. Even if people are right in thinking that no admin will tackle this, and it will have to go to Arbcom, it will be convenient if the on-wiki information is gathered in one place so Arbcom can judge whether to take the case. Perhaps Wizardman would be willing to unclose the RFC/U to facilitate this. I also note that Florentino floro's adopter, User:Diligent Terrier, has not edited Wikipedia since September 30. Maybe someone is willing to volunteer themselves as a new adopter. EdJohnston (talk) 19:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, you see, this is the way it always goes. I don't want to deal with it (him), so send it to another forum. (See also User:Diligent Terrier/Florentino floro and Maxschmelling). And in the meantime, floro continues to add non-notable (and occasionally POV and COI violating) clutter to as many pages as he can. I continue to watch his edits and revert a large number of them (because someone has to!!!) and tempers rise. Did I mention he has over 6000 edits? There is no way to gather everything pertinent into one place, and I am tired of trying to do so when the solutions seem so obvious. Florentino floro is a net-detriment to wikipedia. Perhaps under close supervision he could be helped, but two adopters have been chased away already. (Are you volunteering, Ed?) It was, by the way, Diligent Terrier who told floro not to comment on the RFC/U. And I, for one, think that was a good idea, because as soon as he starts to comment it becomes very hard to hear anything else. Maybe you've noticed that. xschm (talk) 20:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

All that admins can do is some version of blocking, protecting or imposing restrictions. The conclusion that Wizardman wrote for the RFC/U (punch line is included above under 'Query II') may be the best he could do, but it's hardly actionable by admins. What do you propose? EdJohnston (talk) 21:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I sort of hoped that a reprimand would be sufficient--not necessarily a block, and if a block, only a short block--but at least an admin telling floro in relatively strong and direct language that he is not doing the right thing. That he should not add non-notable and non-relevant content and that he has been doing so. That I have acted in good faith and generally only reverted edits of his that are actually inappropriate. You may have noticed that in his canvassing [84] he referred to "the long RFC, where Max lost". He felt vindicated by the RFC/U even though a number of editors there expressed reservations about his edits. It will be a bad thing if he feels vindicated again by this process. Whatever the conclusion, I hope it will be as unequivocal as possible so that he will not misinterpret it. xschm (talk) 21:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I was going to bring this up, and it seems max is saying the same thing. Every time Floro is being problematic, the following things happen, in this order. We leave a message to Floro telling him what he's doing wrong. If he's never met you before, he'll say thank you and possibly send you a cookie, but will keep doing whatever he's doing. If he has, he'll complain about you stalking him and reverting his edits. The confrontation is eventually escalated to an RFA, RFC, or whatever. We'll post about Floro, then Floro will post about... something incoherent and irrelevant while bringing up unimportant facts about our personal lives and Philippine law. The admin or adopter will tell Floro something along the lines of "they have a point but we won't block you. Just don't be so crazy." Floro will respond with a thank you, followed by another rant that clearly shows he is not going to be less crazy at all. After a short period of time, he will resume being crazy, point out that he "won" the previous RFA/RFC, and the process starts all over again. --Migs (talk) 02:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Arbcom? Really? FF just outed two editors above (with the information still visible as of this post). Then he insinuated the editors were violating Phillipine law and requested a face to face meeting with one. That is blatant intimidation. Is that not blockworthy behavior? Do you need Arbcom to do what admins should? Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Aunt Entropy, but think that constant bickering between involved parties could make this hard to settle. IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 00:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I've given him an indefinite block and noted that it is until he agrees to stop outing other editors. I did warn him yesterday. He has evidently done this before, see my talk page and the RfC. dougweller (talk) 06:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, perhaps this will at the very least stop him from trying to use personal information to discredit people he disagrees with. I hope though that this doesn't diminish the urgency of the other issues we have with him. --Migs (talk) 06:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I would really appreciate it if someone thinks I acted inappropriately, that they would say so outright. If anyone thinks that I am not acting in good faith, I would like to hear it in plain English. What is "constant bickering" supposed to mean? I have pointed out a lot of examples of edits by floro that I think are inappropriate. Is that bickering? Or is that an honest attempt to make wikipedia a better encyclopedia? I admit that this dispute has a long history. That is why it is here now. That is why there was a mediation page and an RFC/U before the dispute was brought here. That is precisely why an admin should comment on the merits of the dispute. While I think Dougweller's actions are a step in the right direction, I really think that the outing issue is a side one. The real issue is that floro doesn't add good content. Wikipedia is fundamentally about content, so that is absolutely the most important issue an editor can raise. If there are any admins out there watching this dispute will they please either agree with me or tell me I am wrong. There can be no consensus if no one states an opinion. xschm (talk) 07:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdenting) From what I am seeing here, one of the large issues is: Floro uses a whole lot of words to say very, very little. I'm all for an ornate sentence or some nice baroque construction here and there for emphasis, but even trying to figure out what the issue is here is beyond my ken. (Or even my Barbie. Growing-Up Skipper might have tackled it, but...nah.) Seriously: Could SOMEONE just state the problem here, in straightforward, non-flowery terms? Thanks... GJC 19:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Constant bickering? Well, mainly on this thread. There's been a lot of heated, useless arguing (mostly on FF's part), which I thought was making it hard for people to actually get an honest, non-elaborating (see GJC's comment) point across. Anyways, Dougweller's blocked him, with Sephiroth refusing an unblock request, so I think that party is out. And Gladys - I'm just as confused as you, yeah. Floro's constant running around the problem with pretty words and no point makes it hard for me to understand what the problem is, too. ♫ IceUnshattered ^{[ t ]} 23:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That is the problem. Part of it, anyway. It's one thing to add unnotable entries to Wikipedia, it's another to constantly respond to our comments about those edits with all that stuff while revealing personal information about us, accusing us of crimes, and stating flat out that he isn't going to change because we're wrong. Over the course of two years, we've repeatedly told him to be brief and to be more judicious about adding news, but he's not learned either at all. Sorry, I know I'm one of the biggest contributors to all the arguing on this page, but it's been two years and Floro hasn't changed at all. I didn't want Floro to have the last word again, somehow coercing people to let him off with a warning because he seemed/claimed to have learned his lesson (he didn't). --Migs (talk) 02:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Florentino floro (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is currently blocked just for personal attacks and harassment. He may yet achieve a well-formed unblock request and persuade an admin to consider it. If this happens, I suggest that anyone who is tempted to grant it return to ANI to get comments. The multi-year problems with the quality of his editing should be allowed to influence the unblock decision. EdJohnston (talk) 03:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Werdnawerdna

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

---

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

Indef'ed seicer | talk | contribs 19:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I see potentially serious problems with this account. A. It was covered by a rangeblock. I've asked Avraham to explain why he gave it an exemption. This circumstance suggests the account might possibly be a banned user returning or one engaging in sock puppetry. B. The account has a username confusingly similar to administrator User:Werdna. C. The account is being used for homophobic soapboxing and at least one egregious personal attack on another editor: "The above paragraph reads like the propagandistic fantasy of a promiscuous ephebophilic homosexual supremacist." (referring to another editor) "The fact that the vast majority of pedophiles are male and that over a third of known victims of pedophilia are male, proves that, among homosexual men, there is a higher incidence of pedophilia, as the large majority of people are straight." (synthesis) Not responding to my comment 'line by line' is due to the fact that it is not possible to reasonably refute it all, due to the fact I wrote the truth. (Oh, The Truth®, well that makes it all right.) D. The account has received a long list of warnings for vandalism or adding unverified information, including to biographies. [85][86][87][88][89] What are thoughts on this matter, and does anyone see any other evidence that might help clarify matters? I am inclined to ask for a an indefinite block at this point. Jehochman Talk 12:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC) His logic is rather skewed. "Witches float in water. So do ducks. Therefore, if she weighs the same as a duck, she's a witch". Very soapbox, and becoming disruptive. ►BMW◄ 12:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC) "A. Socrates is a man. B. All men are mortal. C. Therefore, all men are Socrates." -- Woody Allen in Love and Death. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Normally we might try the warn-block cycle, but the behavior pattern observed here (in my experience) does not resolve with that treatment. A good number of warnings have been issued already, and the problematic approach only seems to have become more entrenched. Comment C-1 by itself is enough to justify an indefinite block. Jehochman Talk 12:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Well, his mimickry of an admin's username is certainly unique, in that he calls attention to it by denying the connection. However, there's always the educational value, as I learned a new word today: Ephebophilia, which is Greek for "love of Ephebo". Whoever Ephebo was, he must have been the Clay Aiken of his day. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I feel so old -- "WERDNA" was a name in a very old computer game. And I saw a bunch of variants on it in CompuServe aeons ago. Collect (talk) 12:53, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I'll race you with my walker -- I wasted many an hour on Wizardry in college. (Werdna was the villain, and didn't get his name into the title until about the 4th game.) I kinda miss those old text based dungeon crawls. *grin* But as to the username, I don't really have a problem with it. I encountered this user just a couple of days ago and felt they made it plenty clear that they were not THE Werdna. I'd judge them solely on their actions.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Richard Bartle tried barring "Conan" as a username on MUD -- until he learned a little kid really named "Conan" was crying. I have seen several variants on "andrew (backward)" over the years, and really see no legitimate concern for sure. Aren;t there more important issues to raise? Collect (talk) 16:11, 18 November 2008 (UTC) In response to point B, being a similar username to Werdna, the names are quite clearly different. One is Werdna and the other is Werdnawerdna. If someone was to impersonate me, I'd expect a username like "How do you turn this off". However, if someone registered HDYTTO, I wouldn't consider that necessarily impersonation of me, because there's lots of things it could mean. Maybe this user's name is in fact Andrew, and his username is Andrew backwards twice? The username point really is a very weak one here, and I think Jehochman should strike that point. – How do you turn this on (talk) 17:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Reading all the comments cited supra, and noting that the "egregious" comments were made to a person who made what could also have been considered comments to decry as well, I would err on not censoring user talk pages by elimination of the user. No sign of the person making homophobic remarks willy-nilly, and apparently some very reasonable discussions on article talk pages. Collect (talk) 13:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Hmm, provocation does not excuse an inappropriate remark, but the resolution may be different. I'd like to hear what Werdnawerdna thinks about this. Jehochman Talk 13:22, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I believe that the lengthy list of warnings and notices, and the poor and inexcusable comments (along with the obvious username issue), warrant this user an indef. But I'd like to hear what this user has to say about it first... seicer | talk | contribs 13:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC) The rangeblock was implemented for a specific sockpuppeteer. Currently available technical evidence indicates that Werdnawerdna is not that sockpuppeteer, so the IP exemption was granted. That is independent from any other issues which would affect werdnawerdna's continued edit privileges. Should the user be blocked for other reasons, the IPexemption should be removed. -- Avi (talk) 13:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Would you be able to email me the name of the specific sockpuppeteer? I'd like to see if there is a behavioral match. It is possible to foil checkuser. As Obi-Wan said, Your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them. Jehochman Talk 14:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC) It's Bruce99999/GaryGazza. They're both on a massively shared range used by many contributors. Thatcher 16:04, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Those accounts seem to make a lot of anti-semitic and homophobic remarks. User:Werdnawerdna has made homophobic remarks. To me it looks like these could be one in the same. Jehochman Talk 17:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I have a very long reply to the above issues. I typed it all out, but was unsuccessful in submitting it fisrt time due to 'loss of session data' (I don't know what that means) and the second time due to an 'edit conflict'. Subsequently, I am subitting it in sections. Please allow me to finish sending it all before taking any action which may affect me adversely. I have a very good case that needs to be put across. Werdnawerdna (talk) 15:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I do not understand why there is even a section on here about me, and why the some of the above unfair criticisms are being put against me. I have never been banned, nor have I ever engaged in sock puppetry. My editing is on the account Werdnawerdna only; I have never edited from an anonymous IP. I am the only person who ever edits Wikipedia from this computer. I guess someone with a similar IP is causing a problem; obviously I cannot do anything about said person(s), as I do not know who they are. I have been editing since January, and have had the same username ever since then. I did not know, until someone pointed it out to me in September, that there is an administrator called Werdna. That same month, I received, and followed, advice given to me, to clearly state on my user page that I am not Werdna. It is only on here, now, that someone has brought up the 'similarity' of the two usernames. It is inevitable that many usernames are similar, due to the limited number of letters in the alphabet, and the fact that well over six million usernames have been created. Werdnawerdna (talk) 15:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC) As I stated elsewhere, it is not homophobic to state the fact that Jeffrey Dahmer was homosexual; it could be argued that it is heterophobic to deny it. The only changes to that article I seek are the justified and necessary aditions of "he was homosexual" (for which I added two independent, reliable sources), and the application of the category LGBT people from the United States. Said category definitely applies, due to the fact that he was, without doubt, a) LGBT; b) a person (be it an inhumanly evil one); c) American. I have not 'soapboxed' on any article. The comment, above, is being misinterpreted as me having made a personal atttack in it. I have never made any personal attacks, anywhere on Wikipedia, against anyone. I stated "the paragraph" (not the person) "reads like" (not is). In addition, I stated that I hoped the said comment was just trolling (bear in mind the content of the paragraph I was replying to). My statement regarding the proportions of pedophilic crimes by gender and orientation of perpetrator is proven by statistics of known offenders and known victims (note the proporotion of LGBT men who are in jail/prison for committing sexual offences, in comparison to the equivalent proportion of heterosexual men incarcerated for sexual offences. The authorities (in my country at least) use the fact that pedophiles who target males are more prolific offenders than those who only target females as a major part of how much of a risk the pedophile presents, and how much he thus should be monitored. The only reason I first stated that fact is because I received comments to my talk page that falsely claimed it to be straight men (rather than homosexual and bisexual men) who are sexually assaulting boys. In any case, accusing me of breaking a Wikipedia rule regarding editing articles because of a claim that I synthesised (even though I did not, I actually stated the truth), is irrelevant. Said comment was on my talk page, not on any article. In any case, no-one is accusing me of androphobia or misandry for stating that the large majority of pedophiles are male nor is anyone claiming that I must not state that fact, nor that such a statement is offensive to men in general. I have been insulted many times on Wikipedia; yet, until now, I have not mentioned it. How can it be considered acceptable for other editors to insult me, yet I am not allowed to defend myself with facts? As I stated, I did not make any personal attacks. Swear words have been directed towards me in insults, yet I have never sworn at all. I responded to comments by analyzing and replying to the coments themselves, not by criticizing any editors personally. Werdnawerdna (talk) 16:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC) The instances which are being claimed as evidence of me being a vandal were actually nothing of the sort. One refers to me pointing out, in a neutral way, that Jesus was definitely not born of a virgin. There were no virgin births then. It is not POV to state the truth. The article was, at the time, delusional Christian fundamentalist propaganda that stated that he was definitely born of a virgin. An encylopedia should not state what is a proven lie, then prevent me from adding the truth. It is true that some people believe the lie that Jesus was virgin born; it is a lie nevertheless. Another instance refers to me correcting a spelling error: sqeeze to squeeze. Another instance refers to me clarifying that the subject of the said article was, though definitely born in Sutton Borough, not necessarily born within the town itself. That alteration of mine was correct, and referenced on the index of births registered in England and Wales, which was the reference present. Regarding NNDB, I did not know, until it was pointed out to me, that it is not considered reliable source by Wikipedia. I had already seen NNDB on the external links section of many Wikipedia biographies, as well as cited against many details within biographies, before I ever cited NNDB on any Wikipedia article myself. As with all my other edits, I added a small amount of information from Wikipedia with the good intention of improving biographies. Werdnawerdna (talk) 17:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC) The implication that I am a 'sole purpose editor/account' who only edits about LGBT issues is proven false that I have edited a wide range of subjects. The majority of my edits do not involve LGBT. Although it is true that a significant minority of my edits are LGBT-connected, that is not justification for any negative action to be taken against me or negative attention to be paid to me. In any case, there are editors who have made far more LGBT-related edits than me, yet are not on the receiving end of the severity and amount of verbal attacks and threats that I have suffered. That I am alleged by a very small number of Wikipedians to have an anti-LGBT bias is only because that is the only topic, out of dozens I have edited, for which I have faced fierce opposition to my edits regarding. In any case, even if were Fred Phelps (I'm not), I would still be entitled to edit, providing I adhered to Wikipedia guidelines, which I do. The torrent of opposition is the only reason for the lengthy comments on my talk page, the Jeffrey Dahmer talk page etc. Had no-one opposed stating the proven fact regarding the dead serial killer, for which I reliably, clearly verified, twice, none of the section 'article fails to mention he was homosexual' would even exist. I cannot understand the presence of such opposition - Dahmer's orientation is solidly proven, and has been since way before Wikipedia first came into existence. If anyone is trying to make an issue out of me adding LGBT categories to articles, I need to point out a couple of things: a) I have never added an LGBT category to a heterosexual's biography; I do not spread lies or gossip. b) The articles which I have added LGBT categories to, did, in the vast majority of cases, already state the subject's homosexuality/bisexualty and/or already had LGBT categories present. What I did was to add relevant categories and/or to improve the categories from non-applicable or less relevant ones to (more) applicable ones, such as to a more specific subcategory. Werdnawerdna (talk) 17:51, 18 November 2008 (UTC) (interpolated) Readers who don't have the courage to take on this lengthy screed might benefit from reading the first few sentences of the second paragraph above this one. looie496 (talk) 18:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC) *blinks eyes at sheer absurdity of some of the logic shown above* ►BMW◄ 17:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I have kept within Wikipedia rules; I make frequent improvements, to many articles, over a wide range of topics. I am not preoccupied by any one subject. Inevitably, most editors read and edit what interests them; the specifics of that vary from person to person. There is no requirement that Wikipedia editors spend equal amount of time on each topic, nor should there be, as that would be ridiculous. The entire body of my work on Wikipedia, around 3,500 edits, on various subjects, all of them this year, show that I am a positive contributor, and should consider to be. Werdnawerdna (talk) 18:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC) The suggestion that I should be indefinitely blocked, when I have made over 3,000 constructive edits, and have never had my account blocked or banned at all, even for a short period, is completely unjustified. The range block was not imposed because of me, or anything I had done. It was, by the blocker's own admission, to deal with a specific sockpuppeteer. I was unfortunate to be within the range blocked to stop him/her - I guess I have an IP which is similar to the sockpuppeteer. To use someone else's wrongdoing to try to justify punishing me is wrong. Werdnawerdna (talk) 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I never said anything in the style of the 'witches and ducks' or 'Socrates and mortality'. Of course, many different things float on water. The truth, of course, regarding the second statement, is that Socrates was mortal. We know that for certain because: a) Socrates was a man and all men are mortal and b) Socrates is dead. Werdnawerdna (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC) As I stated, I never mimicked a sysop's name. I only pointed out that I am not said admin, by putting a simple message on my user page, very soon after I was asked to just that, in order to prevent anyone mistaking me for him, or vice versa. I never want to be mistaken for anyone else, and have never tried to encourage that. I have no connection to Werdna; I have never had any contact of any sort with him. Werdnawerdna (talk) 18:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC) All of my edits and comments, on various articles, show me to be the honest, direct, forthright, straightforward, fact-stating person that I am. What could make anyone wrongly believe me to be a sockpuppeteer or someone who pretends to be someone I'm not? Werdnawerdna (talk) 18:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC) "The fact that, in prison, homosexual acts are common, and that a significant proprotion of such acts are rape, proves that there are a disproportionately high number of LGBT people in prison, which in turn proves that LGBT people are considerably more likely to commit criminal offences" ([90]). I'd like to see the explanation for that one. Black Kite 19:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Eh, if the editor stops soapboxing and such we should let them stay unblocked for now. Please don't rant and please contribute productively. If not, you will be blocked. Now are we done here? JoshuaZ (talk) 19:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC) (outdent) I really had no intention of coming to AN/I about this person or issues, but since it is here, and some of the discussion I’ve had with him has been raised here, I do have comments. It’s interesting that the predominant topic Werndawerdna has chosen to expound upon is the Dahmer article. Initially, my challenge for his category additions was based on the article not discussing Dahmer’s sexuality. The two sources which he supplied that are “reliably, clearly verified” include adherents.com, which does not detail their sourcing, and a one word mention on a biography page that does not further address sexuality in any way. My concern initially was with assumptions being made, but then continued mostly based on the rationales being given. Werdnawerdna maintains above that since his comments are on a “talk page, not on any article” it isn't relevant, and apparently, he's not accountable for such. He’s said that more than once, including the Dahmer talk page with “The statements of mine that Wildhartlivie claims to be POV were never on the article, only on the talk page.” Statements on talk pages reveal attitudes and attitudes govern what is being edited and what is being added. Regarding Dahmer, I have continued to state that his actions were not caused by his sexual orientation, that the pathology involved in someone like Dahmer defies discernable categorization. I’ve replied several times that to assert that the sexuality is the overriding reason for making the categorization doesn’t demonstrate a good understanding of criminal deviance and psychopathology or the psychological pathology of persons who commit sex crimes. What is alarming to me is the myriad of comments, both on that talk page, in edit summaries, and in rationales given in discussions. Werdnawerdna has said on Talk:Jeffrey Dahmer: “Dahmer is notable for being a homosexual who murdered many men and boys because he was a homosexual” ”The only more relevant point about him than the fact he murdered many people is that he was homosexual.” ” His homosexuality... were why he committed his crimes.” ”More people know that Dahmer was homosexual than know that he was a necrophile and cannibal.” ”However, he could not, and would not, have committed his crimes had he been heterosexual.” "man who was definitely homosexual, and for whom orientation is central to why he is notable" "had he not been homosexual, most, if not all, of the people he murdered would still be alive.” "Contrary to the claims of some Wikipedians, said categories are not only for those who are 'out and proud', they are correctly applied to people whose sexuality is/was definitely homosexual or bisexual, even if they have never admitted they were, including people who were secretive about their non-heterosexual orientation and activities Elsewhere, he has used edit summary rationales like "all pedophilia is homosexual; all pedophile characters are homosexual" and His identity is homosexual cannibal necrophile serial killer and has routinely used the term “homo” in edits summaries: [91], [92], [93], [94], [95], [96], [97], [98]. Then there is the rape analysis and feminist indictment on Talk:Jeffrey Dahmer: “That many serial killers ejaculate in or on their victims proves that, in those cases, their crimes are sexually motivated. Rape is always sexual. Rape is a type of sex, it is, by definition, false that rape has little or nothing to do with sex - it has a lot to do with sex. It is about abuse of power and control, and often sadism as well, but always in combination with sexual motivation. Some people, especially feminists, claim that rapists' motivation is only to hurt and subjugate their victims, and has nothing to do with sex. Such feminists often use that false notion to attempt to lend weight to false claims by many sharing their politics that 'all men are evil', 'all men are capable of rape' etc. However, whilst subjugation and causing suffering are a major part of rapists' motivation, rape is always sexual.” In response, he suggested that my concerns reflected “homosexual supremacism and/or heterophobia”. He finally asked, in response to my comment about “truth” - What does "truth is something that is not verifiable" supposed to mean? I referred to the basic tenet of verifiability on Wikipedia: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. Truth is a nebulous concept, quite frequently based on one's personal perspective and much harder to prove than verifiability. What troubles me even more was when he decided a profile of me personally on Talk:Jeffrey Dahmer was relevant. He discusses that “he possesses a degree in psychology, and is obviously intelligent. He is an experienced Wikipedia editor, who is a member of the WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography and the Serial Killer Task Force. It seems he is not young, and that he has a considerable amount of life experience. For someone privileged, dedicated...” That I’m not a he is the least of what offends me about this profiling. That he brings it up at all is yet another issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 19:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Let's not get too far into content and logic. After all, the "fact" that men in prison resort to homosexual behavior is likely more of a proof that man by nature is primarily bisexual in nature, rather than proof that homosexual men perpetrate more crimes. There is a sad twist of logic, and either we Topic Ban for massive non-NPOV and soapboxing, or we have him mentored until he realizes that NPOV is a key tenet around here. ►BMW◄ 21:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC) What sort of thing do you think a mentor would do? Is it that you think Werdnawerdna has never been introduced to logical thinking, verifiability, and common sense? Do you think you could instill this in him? --Moni3 (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I have the inherent (and likely naïve) belief that everyone somehow has something beneficial to add to Wikipedia, rather than simply being tied to a target at the end of the firing range at Fort Hood. ►BMW◄ 22:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Quite stunning. Why is this person still active here? --Moni3 (talk) 20:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Agree with Moni3 (talk · contribs). Also agree with this comment for indef, made earlier by Seicer (talk · contribs). Cirt (talk) 20:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Black Kite asked for an explanation of certain facts I stated so that is what I will do here. There is definitely a high frequency of homosexual acts in prison, that has been shown to be true through studies and surveys. It also also true that a substantial proportion of it is rape. Even the relevant articles on Wikipedia clearly state that most sexual acts in prison are coercive/abusive/forced/violent. The true figures are probably much higher than any study shows, due to the massive under-reporting of sexual offences against prisoners, as few people care about them, and many victims feel 'unmasculine' for having been overpowered by a homosexual, and would be ridiculed for having been victimised in such a way. If the orientation distribution of the prison population was the same as it is in the general population, there would not be anywhere near as many homosexual acts taking place there. That is because the large majority of people are heterosexual. A straight man does not become aroused by the hairy, sweaty rear end of another man, so how could he bugger him? If LGBT people were not significantly more likely to commit crime, then how can it be possible that LGBT people are massively over-represented in the prison population. People do not get sent to prison for being good. LGBT people are not given massively longer sentences by the courts compared to heterosexuals who are convicted of the same offences. There is not a massive conspiracy to imprison thousands of LGBT people who haven't broken the law. Women's prisons are dominated by butch lesbians. Homosexual acts are not currently illegal anywhere in the Western World; LGBT people are not sent to prison for being homosexual/bisexual. Much of it is genetic, you see. Werdnawerdna (talk) 22:54, 18 November 2008 (UTC) That's wrong on so many levels that I'm in awe. Still, it confirms the above; that you really shouldn't be editing anywhere near LGBT articles with that level of "knowledge". Black Kite 23:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Why, this is awesome on the scale of Radio City Las Vegas Olympic Opening Ceremonies. --Moni3 (talk) 23:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC) As a criminologist by qualification and research (it was my Master's and my Fellowship) I find almost all of this ridiculous and unsupported by evidence; certainly to the extent you claim. However, it isn't just the LGBT issue is it? I'm wondering what sort of person refers, in 2008, to people of mixed-race as "mulatto" and "quadroon"? Now, you've either stepped straight out of the 1950s and have missed some recent changes in acceptable terminology, or you have an agenda. Please clarify. --Rodhullandemu 23:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Some of these remarks are extremely offensive in nature, words like "homo", "mulatto", "quadroon" and "negro" are completely unacceptable. There is also clear soap boxing here, it's not even rational in nature. Net negative anyone? — Realist2 23:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC) Reply to Wildhartlivie's comments to this section; please note that by her own admission, she did not intend to bring the any matters concerning me to this board, and she frequently showers me with heavy criticism. I did not claim not to be accountable for my additions to talk pages, nor that they are completely irrelevant. I merely stated the fact that the it is not the same as if I had added the same text to the articles themselves. I was accused of breaking rules regarding articles that do not apply to talk pages. My point there is that I have been falsely accused, multiple times, of breaking Wikipedia rules and having bad intent, when neither were true. Why has the rule of assuming good faith not been applied to me, and my edits? Like I said, Dahmer's crimes were caused by his homosexuality and multiple other factors, not his homosexuality on its own. That is proven by the fact that that most homosexuals do not commit the kind of crimes that he did. That the subject is LGBT is exactly the correct reason to add an LGBT category to an article. Dahmer was, without doubt homosexual, therefore the category applies to him. No-one has given a reasonable expalanation for it not being present, because such an explanation is not possible. The statement repeated about pedophila and homosexuality was an edit summary, which, obviously, had to be brief, and related to a film, Sleepers, which includes young boys being homosexually raped by adult men. Said film does not include any same-gender pedophila, only male-on-male pedophila, which is, by very definition, homosexual. It has been displayed in this section in a way that makes it appear I stated that all pedophila in the world is homosexual, which no-one is claiming. We all know that opposite-gender pedophilia also exists. Dahmer's homosexuality is a central part of Dahmer's (actual and publicised identity - it is strange in the extreme for anyone, let alone people who are intelligent and educated, to dispute the the fact that Dahmer was homosexual. Try telling someone, in person, that you spent a considerable amount of time arguing that Dahmer was straight! I already explained that shortening homosexual to homo in edit summaries is due to lack of space there. Werdnawerdna (talk) 23:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC) By extension, then, BTK's crimes were caused by his heterosexuality. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:52, 18 November 2008 (UTC) I believed that Wildhartlivie was a man, and am surprised to find out that said editor is a woman. For my mistake there, I apologize. However, the rest of my description of her is accurate, much of it gathered from the huge amount of tags she freely chose to put on her own page, despite claiming multiple times to be 'anti-categorization'! Werdnawerdna (talk) 00:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Interesting. Why should it make any difference whether Wildhartlivie is male or female? Nobody else has made an issue of it. And nor should they. --Rodhullandemu 00:47, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Men in general are not bisexual by nature, most men are entirely heterosexual, despite what many bisexuals, liberals and anarchists claim. Werdnawerdna (talk) 00:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC) The venue to argue content is on the talk pages of articles, not here; the sooner you realise that, the less likely it is that you are going to be blocked for disruptive and tendentious editing. --Rodhullandemu 01:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I was actually a lot bothered by the assumption that I am not young and come from privilege than my gender. However, the viewpoint on rape and feminism is just a wee bit... over the top. That I didn't plan on bringing the points I've made here to AN/I doesn't mean it isn't relevant to the ongoing discussion. I have never argued that Dahmer is heterosexual. I argued that his psychopathology is well beyond classification, as is most any classification of a serial killer based on supposed or possible sexual orientation. I'm not against categorization when it is useful, and I'm fairly certain userboxes are quite often tongue-in-cheek. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Black Kite, exactly which parts of my recent explanation to you do you claim are wrong? Please explain what 'levels' you are referring to. Werdnawerdna (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Replies to Rodhullandemu: The terms mulatto and quadroon are anthropological classifications that do not have any 21st century/'politically correct'/appeasing replacement terms. Mixed race covers all types of racial mixtures. The article in question that I edited required specifics to be stated. Hence I used said terms regarding her; her extraction is known - she is indeed a quadroon. I have no agenda, other than to improve Wikipedia with relevant facts. Werdnawerdna (talk) 01:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I have argued content on talk pages, but I have been brought here. I have had numerous questions and accusations put to me on this page, which I need to defend myself against. Werdnawerdna (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC) The last 3 warnings to Werdnawerdna's talk page seem to be: 20:41, 16 November 2008 about a "minor edit" but didn't provide enough information to explain what the problem was; 14:34, 22 October 2008 a complaint about adding an LGBT category to a film; in the ensuing discussion Werdnawerdna shows, in my opinion, a lack of understanding of NPOV and NOR. 06:40, 5 October 2008 Notification that NNDB is not a reliable source. My opinion: comment C1 mentioned by Jehochman at the beginning of this thread is completely unacceptable and a violation of NPA. Werdnawerdna, you can't get away with making personal attacks by making them indirect or hypothetical. If you want to talk about what someone has written, you can call a piece of text "long", "short", "unclear", etc., but when you apply descriptions to it that are normally descriptions of human beings, such as "epobophilic", it's clear that you're saying or implying something about the person who wrote it, not the piece of text itself. That's not acceptable, and adding hedges like "seems to be" or whatever really doesn't help much at all. For something like making a promise there's a big difference between asserting something and merely mentioning it hypothetically; but for something like accidentally giving away a password, or insulting someone, there is little or no difference. The username doesn't seem to be a problem, and if the username is given as one of the reasons for an indef block then it must be made clear that the user is free to edit under a different username. The rangeblock doesn't seem to be a problem. C2 and C3 don't seem to me to be problems: C2 would be a problem in an article, but not in a signed comment on a talk page. I don't see severe warnings and there are no previous blocks. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Rodhullandemu asked why I am making an issue of Wildhartlivie's gender. I am not, it is her who brought it up here, I merely replied. I wouldn't have known had she not stated it here. Werdnawerdna (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Wildhartlivie, you claim on here that you never argued that Dahmer was heterosexual. That is not the case: when I first added the LGBT category to Dahmer's article, you very quickly removed it, asking in your edit summary how can I possibly know he was LGBT. I correctly described you as privileged: you are lucky to have inherited intelligence and to have had enough money to have afforded a university education. Werdnawerdna (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I said "and you know this because?? pathology does not always confirm sexuality", which is qualitatively different than saying he was heterosexual. But that isn't the overwhelming issue here, which is an overall pattern of commentary and attitude, not one article issue. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC) In regard to what is being claimed to be me making an 'egregious personal attack': it was on my talk page! It was only after, and, in direct response to, a horrible unsolicited post to my talk page by AvatarMN, who never needed to be involved in the first place. He brought up ephebophilia, stating that it is 'universal and normal', along with claiming that many straight men enjoy homosexual acts and sexually assault young boys. That is why I replied the way I did. Any punishment/restriction I would receive should be given to him many times over. Why am I being persecuted for defending myself on my own talk page against unnecessary attacks from him, yet he gets away with repeatedly targetting me with abuse? Why the double standard? Please explain. Werdnawerdna (talk) 04:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC) The message of 16 November is wrongly stated above as a warning to me, but it was nothing of the sort! It was a friendly request to participate in a discussion which was triggered by my correct removal of an inapplicable category. It claimed that Maharishi Mahesh Yogi was Dutch! Obviously, he wasn't Dutch in any sense - he merely lived in the Netherlands for his last years, and died there. Last time I looked at that discussion, the large majority of people on there agreed with my removal of the category, and accepted and seconded the fact that Maharishi was not Dutch. For anything to do with that to be taken as me doing wrong, and/or being given a warning, is totally unjust. I should not be punished for doing something good. Werdnawerdna (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Possible resolutions The above sections are long, but are worth reading in order to get a feel for the breadth of the problem here. A number of editors/admins have suggested that User:Werdnawerdna be blocked for disruptive and tendentious editing, and there is logic in this suggestion. However, I suggest the following; Topic ban on LGBT articles Agreeing not to use racially sensitive epithets Staying rigidly within the boundaries of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Any further violations of the above (or other disruptive editing) may be met with increasing and/or indefinite blocks. Thoughts? Black Kite 01:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I'll agree to a topic ban on any LGBT-articles, and any additions or modifications to pages that relate to any LGBT-topic (e.g. adding a user was homosexual), and agree to the remainder of the discussions. Any violation of this should result in one warning, followed by increasing and/or indefinite blocks. seicer | talk | contribs 02:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I think a topic ban would be premature. I suggest a strong warning about NPOV including the concept of respecting others' opinions, and about CIVIL and NPA; however, a topic ban for a period of time may be appropriate if such warnings don't result in the necessary changes in behaviour. ☺Coppertwig(talk) 02:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I would endorse a topic ban here. This person has shown a shocking lack of ability to work within the confines of acceptable social behavior, and the source of the problem is their editing of the LGBT related articles. I would also endorse an insta-block (no warning) on the use of any racial or orientation epithets, starting at 24 hours and doubling for every instance thereafter, and same for violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I also endorse a topic ban, inclusive of sex crimes. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I would endorse at least a topic ban. A ban on "edits/consecutive edits longer than 50 words" sure looks like it wouldn't hurt, either--and I'm saying that as the queen of TLDR.GJC 04:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Actually, after reading that list of diffs, etc, below, I would endorse a)getting this individual as far away from WP as possible; b)the Wikimedia Foundation sending me $2 for the gallon of bleach I've been obliged to use on my brain in the aftermath of reading that list. Ye gods and little fishes. Did I just teleport back into the Dark Ages??? GJC 14:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC) A tiny proportion of my edits have been selectively cut up, taken out of context, and blown out of proportion. Many false allegations and misinterpretations of my edits, yet no praise or thanks for my continued good work. How can you be considering punishing me and restricting me? Werdnawerdna (talk) 05:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I endorse the proposal of Black Kite. Werdnawerdna is intelligent, erudite and articulate without question. Stop stomping on the bunions of Wikipedia with archaic terms such as "quadroon." Wikipedia is not New Orleans in the 1700's, for pity's sake. Stop the gay-bashing. Edit articles about war, polar bears, flowers, airplanes, stars, and baseball (or cricket, depending on your nationality). Do not edit article wherein you might be tempted to make unwarranted and unsourced biggoted generalizations like those in evidence. Become the great Wikipedian you have the potential to be! Edison (talk) 06:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Okay, to counter 'tiny proportion', 'out of context' and 'blown out of proportion', here are some gems from problematic topic areas: Sexuality: [99] "This character is very different to that of a real British nationalist. Nationalists strongly oppose homosexuality. In comparison, 'Pub Landlord's' favourite band was led by a homosexual immigrant who died of AIDS. He also interviews homosexual guests without condemning their destructive, harmful, and counter-productive lifestyle." [100] "...The fact that Hickok was so close to E. Roosevelt, with such high risks to their reputations, should the lesbianism have been discovered, proves that there was a reciprocal lesbian relationship that was very important to both women..." [101] "...Would a heterosexual man chose to have spent so much of his life in the company of a homosexual man whom he knew to be an extremely violent sadist?..." [102] "...It would be very unlikely that Burton's quote about actors being homosexuals who cover it up with drink would be first said by a heterosexual...." Pedophilia and sex crimes: [103] "External links: Added American rapists category: bisexual Manson raped and otherwise sexually assaulted males and females." See Talk:Charles_Manson#Bisexual.3F for more. [104] "External links: Added LGBT-related films category: already in pedophile theme films category; all pedophilia is homosexual; all pedophile characters are homosexual." [105] "References: Added LGBT-related films category: the pedophile is homosexual." [106] "Added LGBT from England category; he sexually assaulted victims of both genders, therefore he is bisexual." Race: [107] "There are other legitimate concerns which motivate the desire to reduce miscegenation, such as the high rates of criminality and mental illness among mixed race people, particulary mulattoes" [108] "...She's a quadroon..." [109] "Improved racism to race, to make it widely inclusive. Most common example of en 'elephant in the room' is the fact that a massively disproportionate number of serious crimes are committed by negroes." Disability: [110] "The photo of a DS child using a power tool to assemble a bookcase should be replaced with a more appropriate picture of a sufferer of this horrific, incurable, lifelong condition....It gives the misleading impression that DS sufferers are productive and capable of carrying out tasks which many normal adults are unable to do, in comparison to the reality of them being uncontrolled wrecks...The article is already biased against the necessary implementation of eugenics..." Religion: [111] "Personal life: Added about how his claim to be secular is completely contradicted by his turban-wearing." [112] "...He rightly blamed Muslim immigrants and their offspring, especially Pakistanis, because they are disproportionately involved in hard drugs dealing and trafficking in the UK...." [113] "External links: Added American Buddhists category: his homo wedding was a Buddhist ceremony." These edits—and there are many more—evidence severe problems with WP:BLP, verifiability, and POV pushing. He seems to at least basically understand WP:V/RS: "...There are many online sources which claim he was homosexual, but most, if not all, of them would not qualify as reliable sources as far as Wikipedia is concerned. He was certainly camp; that, combined with the facts he had AIDS and that there is no real evidence of him being straight, make it almost certain he was homosexual. However, that does not prove his orientation, and it is not sufficient for it to be stated on his article that he was not heterosexual." However, as recently as three days ago he posted to a BLP talkpage asking "if anyone can reasonably refute that he's bi." As noted by others above, he has been warned many times about BLP, verifiability, reliable sources, and POV pushing, yet his disruptive edits appear to continue unaltered. Short of an extremely involved mentor, I do not see this ending well. Maralia (talk) 06:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I am quite happy to act as, if not a mentor, a check and balance (i.e. "if you think you're about to do something wrong, run it past me first"). A consensus appears to be forming above. I will let this run until the US is all awake, though. Black Kite 12:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I would also agree to a topic ban and think that Black Kite's offer is good. But I also think the long postings and the Soapboxing needs to stop. Careful attentions to editing WP:BLP article needs to be done so that inappropriate materials are not entered. If any further behavior as shown by the difs above is continued then an indefinite should be applied. To me this is how someone thinks about how things are the "truth" which is mentioned by the editor many times. I personally find some of the difs very upsetting but if they are stopped and the editor can restrain himself/herself from further behavior that is shown here, then happy editing. But as it stands now, I was concerned about the edits to Jeffery Dahmer enough to bring it to the attentions of the administrator who brought it here to have him check out whether there was a bigger problem then what I was seeing, and there was. Thanks, --CrohnieGalTalk 12:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC) The editors here seem to think this is behavior that is borne of immediate ignorance of Wikipedia policy and its community sensitivities. I tend to think that editors bring to the community the good sense God gave them and expound on that with some knowledge of wiki formatting and bureaucracy. Werdnewerdna appears to lack any knowledge that the world has moved past 1936. It's quite astounding and impressive, actually, because I imagine it takes an extraordinary amount of mental power to filter out the ideas the rest of the world has embraced in the past 72 years. He's putting forth ideas that have been debased by social science and psychology, let alone good taste among unknown company. So mentor or topic ban. I'll eat my hat if he doesn't end up getting blocked for doing the exact same thing in due time. I hope the ANI page doesn't become so familiar with Werdnawerdna because he's back time and again and the community just feels so darn bad about chucking him out. Wikipedia is not for everyone. --Moni3 (talk) 13:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I do not understand, given some of the edit summaries by Werdnawerdna, why he has not been at least indefinitely blocked (I would prefer a ban). DuncanHill (talk) 13:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC) In fact, on closer reading of the multitude of diffs throughout this thread, nothing less than a ban is acceptable. DuncanHill (talk) 15:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC) At the very least a topic ban, further use of bigoted terminology should be punished. — Realist2 13:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC) It seems that there is consensus to move forward with a topic ban; shall I give notice on this? seicer | talk | contribs 14:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I object: this deserves a month long block at least, most likley longer. This creates a hostile environment, and will not be tolerated.--Tznkai (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Let me rethink this for a moment If there is no sign of contrition or understanding from Werdnawerdna on what the problem is, long block If there is is no sign of contrition or understanding, but instead repeated or promised repeated behavior, indefinite ban If there is some sign of contrition, or at least acceptance that the community at large finds the offensive terminology unacceptable, topic ban as described above. No matter what, name change. W^2 perhaps. This kind of behavior is incredibly destructive, and we need to focus on that. Wikipedia does not function without a "safe" editing environment, and this invective creates a hostile one.--Tznkai (talk) 15:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC) The reason I didn't suggest a block is because this user doesn't seem to understand what he's doing wrong, and thus a month's block would just be pushing the problem a month further away. Hence the conditions I proposed above; though I certainly wouldn't oppose a block if there was consensus for one. Black Kite 15:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC) So as long as someone seems to be oblivious to the harm they cause they can get away with it? DuncanHill (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC) There is not really consensus yet, there is considerable disagreement between various people. If any action needs to be taken against me (and I don't see that to be the case), someone checking/monitoring my edits should be sufficient. Prior to this debate, I have never, as far as I am aware, been considered for any restriction/ban/block. I made well over 3,000 edits since I opened my account in January. If I were I real problem, I would have been in trouble months ago. Werdnawerdna (talk) 15:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Why are people here advocating punishing me for abbrieviating? The only reason I shortened homosexual to homo in the edit summaries is due to lack of space there. I also shortened heterosexual to hetero, yet no-one objects to that - why the double standard? I was merely abbreviating! Werdnawerdna (talk) 15:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I may be making a cognitive leap here that Werdnawerdna does not, in fact, realize that his edit and summaries are astonishingly outdated and offensive to a great many of his fellow editors. Moreover, where he has shown he understands the reasoning behind providing reliable sources, he instead inserts conjecture and outdated POV information into articles based on his agenda to connect all homosexuals to pedophiles and rapists (the women's prisons are run by butch lesbians line up there is a keeper), eugenics is an area of study that has been abandoned much too early, and those who are Muslim are unable to separate church from state. Not only is he clearly not contrite or remorseful for any edits or statements he has made, he is participating in this thread by defending his views and accusing editors of taking his comments out of context. What the intended context is, for our edification (and my sublime entertainment), he has included in this thread. Shame on us for not bringing it to ANI before. However, our lack of vigilance should not justify his continued spread of ridiculousness, making this site and the purpose of using admins a farce. --Moni3 (talk) 15:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC) (ec) I don't give a damn about your use of abbreviations. What makes your editing unacceptable is the racism, homophobia and prejudice against people with disabilities that you repeatedly express. I find it very hard to believe that you are not aware of this, just as I find it hard to accept that no admin has had the ordinary decency and respect for his fellow editors to block you already. DuncanHill (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC) It is ridulous for action to be considered against me for using the anthropologically correct term mulatto. It is not an insult or a swear word - it is a classification. This here is the first opposition I have ever had to the use of the word. I have used it many times, and know other people who use it. No-one outside of Wikipedia have I ever known to have had a problem with the said word, which does not have any similies. Mixed race is far too vague for some contexts. Different people have different preferences regarding various words. Werdnawerdna (talk) 15:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Exactly what are you talking about, Duncan Hill, when you accuse me of repeatedly showing prejudice against disabled people? No-one has cited a single case. If you are making such an accusation, please back it with examples that you claim I have used. Werdnawerdna (talk) 15:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I note that you do not deny your racist and homophobic edits, and also that you are lying when you say "No-one has cited a single case" of you shewing prejudice against disabled people - see the collapsed list of diffs above. DuncanHill (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Okay, we're done here. The continued banter from Werdnawwerdna is growing tiresome, and any discussions henceforth is producing an endless circular loop. There is consensus above for a topic ban, but not for an extended block, and I am inclined to enforce that, per recommendations. The topic ban also includes any personal attacks or slurs against any demographic, which extends to both discussions and edit summaries. Any violation of such shall result in a block of no less than 24 hours for the first offense, escalating to an indefinite block for repeated violations. seicer | talk | contribs 16:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC) WW seems to have a sort of blind spot where sexuality is concerned, with the result that Wikipedia policies such as WP:NOR and WP:NPOV do not inform their edits. This behaviour, while apparently offensive to many and undoubtedly disruptive to Wikipedia, is yet within the realm of plausible good faith, particularly taking into account WW's comments in this thread, which make it clear that WW does not see any problem with their own conduct. However, I believe that whether an editor is acting in good faith should not confuse the issue of how best to prevent disruptive editing. In this case, a specific ban might be more effective than a block in reducing disruption, so I'd support that if it were worded in such a way as to target the problematic behaviour. As a suggestion, would it be appropriate to open a user conduct RfC in order to discuss and refine that issue? ETA Having read User:Maralia's list of problematic diffs above, it seems that the problem extends at least to race, religion, pedophilia and disability. To be effective, a topic ban would have to cite appropriate discrimination legislation or guidelines (e.g.[114])and forbid WW from commenting on any of the issues named therein. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Well, I disagree, obviously. I don't think these "blind spots", as you call them, can be rectified by a gentle and firm hand or community input in the form of an RfC. Is this ANI thread not enough to prove that quite a few editors have issues with Werdnawerdna's edits? Seriously, if I discovered the community pointing out my edits and taking issue with them on this level, I would not be trying to blame them for it. I would examine why I thought participating in a venue that considered my contributions so disruptive was worth my time. I imagine 90% of editors would behave the same way. I'm going to give Werdnawerdna credit and think he actually believes what he's talking about, has thought it through, and needs no other gentle guidance from us to attempt to dissuade him from his purpose. Good for him. But this is not the place for him if that is the case. Andrew Schafly may have a place for him, perhaps. The possibilities on the web are endless for his free speech expression. --Moni3 (talk) 16:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Indefinite block I am indefinitely blocking Werdnawerdna. There is no sign that Werdnawerdna will ever stop making this place a hostile environment, and is therefor not welcome in the community. I am seeking a standard community ban through either of the two tranches: no administrator overturning, or community consensus on the board. I will not wheel war over this, but I will ask that no one unblock Werdna based on the "lack of consensus" but rather on their judgment as an administrator that the indefinite block is not needed.--Tznkai (talk) 16:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Thank you Tznkai, support community ban. DuncanHill (talk) 16:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC) There was no consensus for an outright indefinite block, although I had only minutes ago given a topic ban. Mixed messages? Did you bother to read what others wrote just above? seicer | talk | contribs 16:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I did, and did not see the consensus you cite, and also those who I suspect will support my action.--Tznkai (talk) 16:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I too support this indefinite block. I was going to say so but got into an edit conflict with Tznkai notification. --CrohnieGalTalk 16:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I'm not complaining. --Moni3 (talk) 16:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Good call. User seems unlikely to reform. If he's made it to 2008 without realizing that his comments are bigoted in the extreme, it strikes me as very unlikely that Wikipedia editors will be able to educate him. Ban now, save drama later. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I'm not going to oppose a block, and I certainly won't be unblocking. It seems unlikely that a consensus will emerge that another course of action would be more effective. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 16:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Werdnawerdna has posted an unblock request. I am going to deny it. They were caught in a rangeblock for banned editors and sockmasters User:Bruce99999 /User:GaryGazza. Checking the contributions of those accounts and their multitude of socks, I do not see how Werdnawerdna is different. I think there is a substantial chance that Werdnawerdna is just another sock or meatpuppet of those accounts. Whether or not there is an actual violation of WP:SOCK, I think Werdnawerdna is creating a hostile editing environment, editing tendentiously and disruptively, and they show no sign whatsoever of reforming. Their participation in this thread is purely combative. Therefore, I'd also support a community ban. Leniency is for those who wish to improve. Jehochman Talk 17:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC) We are not here to drag people kicking and screaming into the 21st century. You can't change people like that. I'm sure he will find somewhere else to play. Good block. — Realist2 17:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Totally support block. This entire convo is pretty wasteful .... user is a mediocre tendentious soapboxer who is about as useful to this encyclopedia as a passing vandal, and a thousand times more bothersome. Totally perfect candidate to indef block. If anyone wants to be more lenient they could perhaps explain what productive things this user will do to compensate for all the negativity and for the wasted time of all the nannies that will probably have to constantly manage him. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 17:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC) Good block. This has gone on longer than it should have already. IronDuke 18:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC) I thought it might be worth a try to focus this editor on the actual positive edits that he makes by keeping him away from the articles that he has problems with facts and civility on, but having said that, the further back I look at his contribs, the more I find myself performing some sort of /facepalm exercise, and looking at what Jehochman said above ... well, my AGF is exhausted. So, yeah, support block. Black Kite 18:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Tony1 blocked for edit warring after one edit

Resolved

 – Tony1 unblocked, dispute resolution recommended instead of edit warring. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Tony1 (talk · contribs) is a very hardworking and valuable FAC specialist who has been here a long time and never been blocked before . He was warned by MBisanz on November 10 about edit warring on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Since the warning, he has edited the page in question once. Yes: one time. Here it is: [115]. Is that a nasty edit? Does it rise to a one-edit war? Have we totally re-defined the concept of "edit warring"? Anyway: 8 minutes after he'd made it, Tony was blocked for 12 hours by Rjd0060 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA).

What the..? 12 hours is a short block. In fact, being an aussie, Tony may sleep through it. But that's not the point. A block is a humiliation. especially if done to a long-time highly active and trusted user who has never been blocked before. I will unblock unless somebody posts an objection pretty soon. I would particularly like to hear from Rjd0060 how one edit was a war. Bishonen | talk 18:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC).

Unless you understand the background here, I advise not unblocking without discussion. The background is a lengthy war concerning MOSNUM that has led to admins being given block warnings, etc. looie496 (talk) 18:25, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Discussion is what I'm after. That's why I posted it on ANI. Bishonen | talk 18:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC).

• Support unblock While I see some editwarring in the history, that was over a week ago. I don't get how one edit deserves a block, especially of one of the more variable editors in the project. I also agree that this should be discussed further. Secret ^account 18:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I encourage you (and everybody else reading this) to take a close look at the history of edit warring on that article. Tony1 was one of the primary "warrers". There were two others, who were also blocked. Please review my comment to Tony, here which contains the entire timeline. The page was protected at one point, and immediately after unprotection Tony, and others continued to edit war. I felt that since protection was attempted, and failed, blocking was the best alternative. I've blocked all three users who continued to edit war despite the protection and despite being warned. All users responded to the warning last week and Tony1's response is noteworthy. Please review this section. Should help clarify things. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I have reviewed it, thanks. "Tony...continued to edit war" Really? He made one (notably harmless) edit, and that was the entirety of his "continuation". Theoretically, you blocked him for it. But what I take from your post is that you either blocked him for edit warring a week ago, or else because he spoke to those who warned him in an uppity way. Those are not blocking matters. Bishonen | talk 18:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC).

No, I blocked for continuing to revert edits without pursuing dispute resolution. Long-time editors should know better. Why did he continue to revert? Why did he not pursue DR? Why, just because he is a long time editor, does he get off the hook for reverting edits without following basic policies that even the new users are expected to follow, especially after being warned. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Your logic seems to be as poor as your judgement. Edits, in the plural; what edits? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 18:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, it seems a little heavy-handed for one edit, made more than a week after the last one. Blocks are a black mark on an editor, especially wrongful blocks, even if they do get overturned. Tony's been here what, 3 years, and has never been blocked before, so it is a little dismaying to see this. I would encourage Tony to stop edit warring though, whether the block was right or wrong. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock, This diff is the edit in question, it was not even removing a tag, but instead changing which tag is used. I'm astounded that somebody could consider blocking somebody for that edit. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• (ec)Unless they were officially told not to revert at all on this page, I don't see how one revert could count as edit warring. I also note that the person who reverted Tony's changes was not blocked or warned. I'm glad Bishonen brought this here because I was just about to. Tony should be unblocked. Karanacs (talk) 18:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• I believe this sequence of edit warring from Aug 1 to Nov 18 establishes the ground for such a block: [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137], [138], [139] as well as indicating a serious ownership issue for Tony1 w.r.t WP:MOSNUM. MBisanz ^talk 18:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

However, instead of continuing to edit war against there being a tag Tony1 was trying to reach a compromise seven days after he had stopped the edit-warring by proposing a different tag in a single edit. He was then blocked. That's just not a sensible response. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He did revert to a version that was part of the edit war post-protection. Having one's opponent blocked for edit warring is not authorization to revert his edit. MBisanz ^talk 18:37, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't appear to be true. The edit war was over adding and removing part of the text, or a "disputed" tag. That happened on the 10th. On the 18th, Tony did not remove the "Disputed" tag when it was replaced, but proposed replacing it with an "under discussion" tag. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and the disputed tag had been placed by Locke Cole in objection to the under discussion tag placed by Kotinski. Since there was disagreement over the tag type, Tony1 should have known better than to revert. MBisanz ^talk 18:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I certainly agree that edit warring like that is very bad, but the block was over the one latest diff. Blocks are supposed to be preventative, not punitive. What is the use of blocking a productive editor like this, for 12 hours (which he may not even notice)? It's not supposed to be a punishment, or timeout. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

If I'm reading the timestamps correctly, Rjd blocked Tony three minutes after his last edit, I don't think the "he knew he was asleep and still blocked" argument applies to that timeline. MBisanz ^talk 18:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, when I said notice I meant it wouldn't affect him because he'd be able to go and do something else (be that sleep, eat, work whatever). I'm sure he's noticed he's been blocked. – How do you turn this on (talk) 18:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

A page protection should have worked better, again what's the point of blocking productive editors over one edit. If the edit waring was a day ago instead of a week, a block could have been in order, but it's not. Blocks aren't punitive. Secret ^account 18:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The page was protected for a week, none of the involved parties attempted to discuss their differences during the protection and resumed the edit war when the protection expired. Locking down an entire guidelines page for 3-4 edit warriors is not beneficial to the 10,000 other users who are editing pages constructively. MBisanz ^talk 18:49, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Support unblock. Blocking established editors like this is not the way to go. I suggest instead using page protection. Also note that User:Locke Cole was blocked by Rjd0060 for a week, which seems quite excessive. He should be unblocked as well. User:Kotniski was also blocked for 12 hours. --Aude (talk) 18:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• Isn't Locke Cole still in Arbcom Enforsement, also most of the edits I saw from him is edit warning of many articles. I'll support the block of him unless there is something I'm missing? Secret ^account 18:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like his 1RR parole expired last year, see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Locke_Cole/Proposed_decision#Locke_Cole_placed_on_revert_parole. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:50, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not familiar with Locke Cole, but now see that he has a lengthy block log. Still, a week seems a bit long when page protection could work instead. And, I don't know anything about User:Kotniski, except see that the user has never been blocked before. --Aude (talk) 19:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Damn, what a blow to my ego. I'll try to get blocked a bit more often then in order to increase my profile. (That was a joke, just in case anyone...) But seriously, this whole issue is ample evidence that WP's dispute-resolution and rule-establishing mechanisms, though doubtless philosophically pleasing to many, are seriously broken in practice.--Kotniski (talk) 19:26, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've unblocked Tony1 and Locke Cole per the growing consensus here. I'd still encourage both users to pursue dispute resolution and to stop reverting each other. Long time users or not, they shouldn't be exempt from these basic guidelines; guidelines that even the newest contributors are expected to follow. - Rjd0060 (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I support an unblock of Tony1. He's put a tremendous amount of work into the MoS trying to make it consistent and correct, and a block isn't a good way to repay him. SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 19:07, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He's already been unblocked. –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 19:08, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And who exactly is User:Rjd0060 to have the power to block one of Wikipedia's most valuable edotors? How dare he? Who on earth votes these peole t be Admins? No wonder this site is going to the dogs. Make sure he never crosses my path. Giano (talk) 20:59, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The answer is surely obvious. Those who vote people like Rjd0060 to be admins are generally those who want to be admins themselves. Who else in their right mind would choose to hang around the corrupted slough of despond that is Rfa? --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely not those are aren't cut out to be one. ^_^ Synergy 21:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

All just reinforces Douglas Adams' sentiments: "the only people who should have power are those who don't want it".  HWV 258  23:13, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I think it is clear that Rjd0060 should probably be immediate desysoped. This is ridiculous, and no admin should have ever have blocked Tony1 in this situation. Thus, he is either not fit to use the powers, or his account is compromised. Either way, that means that he should be stripped of any access to tools. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I find your comment to be lacking in (a) use of exclamation marks; and (b) use of the words "abuse" and/or "harassment." A more appropriate comment would be in the form, "How dare he block an editor! Abuse!11! Desysop at once!"

To Giano: Is an edotor like a special type of editor or something? --MZMcBride (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Abuse is what people have done in threatening those who challenged this action. This actual action is something that cannot be said because of the civility policy. But I wonder if that is true, especially with yourself declared "snark" acknowledging that no one really cares about civil anymore. Ottava Rima (talk) 22:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I just discovered that Rjd0060 was perfectly capable of warning people before blocking (as seen here). Thus, blocking in this instance such a highly respected editor is extremely inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:42, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Erm, I warned everyone Rjd0060 blocked today that I would block for further disruption and edit warring earlier this week. MBisanz ^talk 22:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

And honestly, how many warnings does a established editor need to be given? Tiptoety ^talk 22:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as how this was one revert, and this is a well established user, a week old "warning" by a different administrator is not even close to being acceptable. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Locke Cole

In response to this thread, User:Crotalus horridus created an MFD for WP:MOSNUM that is here. Given that this is pretty much trying to change policy by deleting a page, User:Kotniski (who I should point out is not an uninvolved editor) speedily closed the MFD (here) pointing out MFD is not the place to established policy, and removed the MFD template off WP:MOSNUM - a move I think is appropriate. Locke Cole has since gone and reverted those changes (here on the MFD page and here on the MOSNUM page). (As I wrote this, Kotniski has again tried to speedily close this). There is a lot of disruption going on here, which I feel needs some action at least on Locke Cole's side. As I'm involved on that page, I won't do it, but seek opinions if there is problems going on here. --MASEM 20:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

...and Locke Cole's gone and reverted the close, invoking IAR. --MASEM 20:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I'm done reverting this. But it's getting REALLY frustrating seeing these kinds of actions from editors who are clearly involved... —Locke Cole • t • c 20:32, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not involved and what I am seeing is some very disruptive behavior from you. If you revert again, in any shape or form you will be blocked. Enough is enough. Tiptoety ^talk 20:34, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

As I indicated I won't revert again. But it'd be nice if we could get more than fifteen minutes of discussion before someone closely involved tries to shut it down. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:38, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I've removed Locke Cole's rollback access; see also #Edit_warring_at_MFD.--Maxim_(talk) 20:35, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Is it clear yet what Tony1 has been dealing with as he tries to keep the MoS pages usable and coherent? All this while Tony sleeps down under, and will awake to find his work was rewarded with a block log. Gee, I want one, too; seems all good editors have one these days. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Your sarcasm isn't the slightest bit helpful. – How do you turn this on (talk) 22:06, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Me too! Let's dilute the hell out of the system. This whole debacle has done nothing for the dignity of the admin process.  HWV 258  22:03, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, I too have been sleeping down under; and I am appalled to wake up and find that Tony has been treated like this, simply for adjusting a tag. I think there should be a formal apology, and everything should be done to ensure that this mistake by an admin will never count against Tony in any future deliberations on Wikipedia. Tony is a fiercely hard-working and remarkably competent editor, passionately concerned to bring order to WP:MOS and its associated pages – where I for my part simply left, finding certain editors' lack of good will and good sense too much to endure. I am sure others have done the same.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 23:58, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Noetica, if you harbor delusions that this won't be held against Tony, you missed the Ceoil case. He was blocked because an admin misunderstood jokes between him and another friend on their own talk pages. Then yet another admin later misunderstood another set of jokes between Ceoil and another editor, and baited Ceoil on his talk page, specifically mentioning his block log, and then threatened to block him because of how Ceoil responded to being blatantly baited. Then that admin tossed a truckful of F-bombs all over the place, was desysopped by Jimbo, but had the bit back within hours. Such is Wiki; that all of this happened in about a month gives us an idea of the circus we've got going. The Tony1's and Ceoil's, who work to turn out what we put on our main page every day but aren't admins, are judged and hung on one word or edit, while admins are protected even if they toss out a truckload of F-bombs. And then some admins don't understand why hard working volunteers are insulted about having their block log smeared. There needs to be some dialogue somewhere on Wiki to get better understanding about those who are toiling away at the different tasks in different areas of Wiki. Admin tools and tasks are needed and welcomed, but all too often, the vandal fighting mentality is turned on our most productive writers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well said Sandy. — Realist² 00:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sadly true. Admins takes a quick look at a block log and then double the last block. What that has to do with building an encyclopedia will forever remain a mystery to me. Administrators get away with murder, but regular editors have every one of their alleged misdemeanours recorded in their block logs. It's about time that administrators were held equally to account. Number of blocks reversed, for instance. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 00:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Outrageous. WTF? True that Tony's been very vocal on the talk pages, which everybody bar none agrees is the correct action. He discusses, makes one teeny edit and he's blocked - This is kangaroo adminship in action! The real danger is that it can be totally arbitrary and retrospective, as it appears this incident to have been. I'm totally quaking in my boots now to learn that any old admin can come along, see me doing something xhe disagrees with, and blocks me without warning. How can this be considered resolved? Tony's block will forever be an ugly wart on his nose, unless it is rolled back or expunged forthwith. Ohconfucius (talk) 07:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Tony is a persistently uncivil editor with a bad case of ownership over all of MOS. Those of us who know him have learned to deal with this; but the assertion that this block is outrageous is nonsense. He (and his supporters here) are one side of the current date-linking rumpus; Locke Cole is a champion on the other side. We should seriously consider demoting MOSNUM either from being a guideline, or from controlling FA; it is no service to the project. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 18:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Some context for those unfamiliar with life at WT:MOS and WT:MOSNUM: PMAnderson is the foremost opponent of Tony's selfless campaign of improving and maintaining WP:MOS and its associated pages. Anderson is notorious at those pages for his weakening of established and new guidelines, in accord with his obscurely motivated wish that there be no clear standards for high-quality editing. Tony himself is a highly skilled professional editor in his life beyond Wikipedia, sought out by academic writers in many disciplines, and we are privileged that he donates so much time and energy to Wikipedia. If he is sometimes uncivil, it is in the face of unrelenting provocation from the likes of Anderson, who should consider (once more) backing off and examining what he might do that is constructive, himself. Let him first look to Tony's additional work in coaching editors striving to improve their work (see this page of Tony's, one of several such initiatives he has undertaken).

I am happy to count myself also as one who believes in our Manual of Style, and who has also worked hard to maintain excellence – though nowhere near as hard as Tony. Surely now Anderson will have some gall to spread against me, too. But let anyone interested enough consult the history of WP:MOS; taking a long view, it is clear who has been constructive and consensual, and who has been negative and a deleterious maverick.

–_⊥^{¡ɐɔıʇǝo}Noetica!^T– 00:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:UP#NOT

Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has a link to an off-wiki website entitled "Jennifer J Dickinson and Mark Bellinghaus cyberstalking on Wikipedia" on their user page. I am pretty sure this contravenes our user page policy; Bellinghaus is a real person with an article here, and Dickinson is his colleague. I removed it once after discussion with the user, and the user has now restored it. Rather than block I thought I would bring it here for others to review, as I have been involved in editing the Bellinghaus article and am therefore not disinterested. What do others think? --John (talk) 19:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Block? For what? I restored the userbox after reviewing WP:UP#NOT and finding nothing that seemed relevant. I asked you in the edit summary to bring it here or MFD if you continued to have concerns. Your comments on my talk page were added after I had restored it, fully 20 minutes after you had removed the material from my userpage. I would appreciate it if you could withdraw your comment about blocking me. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:24, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Rather than repeat the discussion here, please see the discussion on my talk page here. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would say that a block is premature until DC refuses to take down the link. This link is definately bad; one should not game the system by linking to pages that merely exist to contain information that would not normally be allowed at Wikipedia. We do not allow this sort of information on a userpage, so we also should not allow links to this sort of information. A userpage is not about discussing the behaviors of other people in this way; we don't maintain lists of "perceived wrongs" at Wikipedia, and therefore we should not also link to such pages from our userpage. The link should be removed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:33, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The very short version of this is that I am falsely identified in several places on the internet, including Bellinghaus' own blog as Pauline Berry. I am not Pauline Berry. I have linked to the page on Berry's site where she addressed this misidentification. I do not control the content of the site. Most of the page is actually just cut and paste of WP discussions. I am not refusing to take down the link, but I don't have time for this discussion at the moment. If a consensus is reached that the link must go, please leave the userbox intact and just remove the link. Thanks. 19:43, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Since DC is being falsely linked to Pauline Berry on other sites, it is not unreasonable for him/her to want a denial on the userpage. However, DC, I wonder if you might be willing to remove the link. Perhaps people can e-mail you if they want more than just your denial. Let's leave aside hitting DC with policy, and just ask nicely. Would you please, in the interests of reducing drama, be willing to remove this link?--Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

(Hey, if I say my name is Xing, will you do as I ask? ;) --Scott MacDonald (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC))

Having read all the proof (following the links on DC's talk page)((PS: I read it a long time ago)), I was astounded at the attempts to identify DC, and the lengths someone went to in order to trash them. I have NO issue with DC defending themselves. You insist they remove the link, then DC can just copy and paste a whole whack of it ... and place <ref> </ref> with it, so that it's properly cited. ►BMW◄ 19:57, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

C'est folie ! L'escarboucle doit utiliser tous les outils il ou elle a à leur disposition pour se défendre du "bellinghaus" d'équipe et n'importe quelle suggestion autrement serait comme mettre un tas des briques sur un hamster et l'instruire au " équilibre, " de monsieur. Les tendrils de la marque Bellinghaus vont loin et profondément. Cahiers du jason (talk) 20:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Parlez en anglais, s'il vous plait. C'est la "English" Wikipedia. (Putting bricks on a hamster and telling it to "balance" - have to remember that one.) Avruch ^T 20:09, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Bloqué pendant une semaine pour perturbation, je suppose avec Google translator. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sacré phoque!!! ►BMW◄ 22:05, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest resolving any off-wiki problems off-wiki and just doing stuff on here that is designed to improve our encyclopedia. I don't think this falls into that area which is why I raised it here, after my attempts to persuade Delicious carbuncle to remove the material were unsuccessful. And, although naturally we are all highly able linguists here, this is best resolved in English. --John (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Off-wiki things are often brought here, such as threats, etc. We have a policy against WP:OUTING. Editors may also defend themselves. They're not spamming/advertising. Case closed. I see very little support for your attempts to remove their defense. On top of that, I know that I am a cunning linguist, and the block of a user noted above is partly because of comments made in this thread, so relax a little. ►BMW◄ 22:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a place for this sort of "defense". "He did it first" is not a defense against WP:BLP. I am relaxed about most things but this is a flagrant breach of a policy which exists to keep our organization safe from being sued. I am not relaxed about this. I do not want to see anyone blocked over this, I just want the offending and unencyclopedic content removed in accordance with our policy on user pages. --John (talk) 00:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not attempting to settle any dispute through having this link on my userpage, either on- or off-wiki. I'm simply trying to correct the misidentification by pointing to the web site of the other person being falsely identified. Let me point out again that what you refer to as "the offending and unencyclopedic content" isn't on my userpage. People coming to my userpage will not see it unless they choose to click on the external link. I don't think there's anything even remotely actionable on the external web page, but I'm not a lawyer so I'm not really qualified to offer an opinion. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 03:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

BUt the whole point is, if its information that would not normally be allowed on your userpage, then its not information you should be able to link to from your userpage. The distinction between "actually printed on my userpage" vs. "printed in a link from my userpage" is moot, and attempting to claim that the former should be allowed where the latter is not is simply gaming the system. The link should come down! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:35, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOT#MYSPACE, either, but there are tons of editors linking to their personal blogs on their userpage. Instead of racing to claim the lofty moral righteousness of Policy, why can't people start off with the basics - that the page linked in DC's userpage makes them feel uneasy; nothing more, nothing less - and then have a level, paced, reasoned discussion from there? Part of what's dragging the project down (as well as many other Web 2.0-style projects, I should add) is this notion of discussion as a "race" of some sort. If people could feel comfortable asking for clarification and/or elaboration ("What do you mean? ~~~~") without being looked down on as trolls or threadshitters, not only would we all collectively end up with a lot more clarity and elaboratification, but long-winded folk (*cough*) wouldn't feel as pressured to address every single conceivable point in one long mass of tl;dr, perhaps skipping over important nuances in our drive to explain all. Focused conversations are good, but there's such a thing as too focused. Badger Drink (talk) 03:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

At the risk of being accused of wikilawyering, I think there's a difference between the content actually being on WP and being on an external site. If the guidelines are to protect WP from being sued, as John suggests, there is good reason to disallow certain content on user pages, but that no longer applies if the content only linked. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Why do you think it makes any difference? More importantly, what is this contributing to our mission to build an encyclopedia? If you cannot answer convincingly, you should take the link down. --John (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:BADSITES was rejected. --NE2 04:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That's a non sequitur though. I am not objecting to this because of BADSITES but because it contravenes WP:USER and WP:BLP, neither of which has been rejected. --John (talk) 05:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If, as you suggest above, WP:BLP exists to protect WP from potential legal issues, then there is no issue here since the content is not on WP. I still don't see any part of WP:USER that applies here - can you be more specific? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wrong, I'm afraid. WP:BLP exists to ensure that this project does no unnecessary harm to living individuals. It way beyond what might be legally actionable. It certainly does apply to userspace, and can at times apply to links that contain libels, or other grossly unhelpful material. We don't link bios to attack blogs for instance, and we don't link the names of private individuals to unauthoritive attack pages. BLP is pertinent here. Please do remove the link.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 09:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a quote from WP:USER that may address the charge from Jayron32 that I am attempting to "game the system": "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community. Alternatively, you could move the content to another site, and link to it." The clear implication is that content which is not allowed on user pages may be freely linked to. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well and good; but BLP trumps USER I'm afraid. Please remove the link. --John (talk) 02:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

John, I know you've corresponded with Bellinghaus and you may feel that you need to protect him. If he were simply posting nasty remarks about "Delicious carbuncle", I really wouldn't care. Sadly, he is targeting an entirely innocent party and claiming that we are one and the same. Bellinghaus' account Mmmovie (talk · contribs) was recently indef blocked here for similar comments. I am simply linking to the page on her site where Pauline Berry defends herself against Bellinghaus' accusations. I don't feel that the content of that page is offensive, but it's a moot point since it is a private website and WP rules don't apply. She has, as a result of the discussion on my talk page and unbidden by me, changed the title of the page to "Mark Bellinghaus Accusations Addressed". I don't feel that I am violating any policy or guideline by linking to the page, but does the title change alleviate your concerns? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No. If somebody accuses you of something on-wiki, we can deal with it, as you have seen. Off-wiki stuff doesn't need to be dealt with on your Wikipedia user page. I find it astonishing the amount of time and energy you have spent defending this link. It contributes nothing at all to the reason we are here; why is it so important to you to keep it? --John (talk) 14:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The time I've spent defending it is only as the direct result of your attempts to have me remove it. I've explained several times now why the link is on my userpage. As I said at the beginning of this thread, I will remove the link if that is the consensus that is reached. I honestly don't see that consensus here, nor do I feel that I am in violation of any WP rules, but I'm sure there's an admin or two who will weigh in shortly. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm growing rather tired of John's continual one-sided arguments about this. It starting to look like a jihad. We got your point from the start. Further repetition of the same point, although with different wording, is not swaying anyone. I see no real consensus to take punitive action, and I really still don't get why there was any feeling that immediate intervention was required. ►BMW◄ 15:21, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Persistent incivility in edit summaries and elsewhere

• Previous thread: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive489#User:_Reqluce
• Reqluce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I recently blocked Reqluce for a day, and then for a week, for repeated incivility, mainly in edit summaries. Now back from that second block, incivility continues (e.g. this IP BITE-ing) and my efforts to steer this editor back onto the rails don't seem to be working (see my Talk for more on that). Possibly someone uninvolved would be more successful. Any help would be appreciated. Regards, SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

You left a reasonably nice warning message. A possible improvement in handling it may have been to leave that kind of message first, rather than the two short messages that you wrote before you blocked him twice.

I work in customer service. From my experience, a message like the one currently on his user page might have been helpful before but now that it's rather late, it's much less effective.

These comments are not meant to say that Sheffield Steel is wrong or bad or that Reqluce has an excuse to be bad. Rather, good customer service is an art that can be learned over time. Good customer service can sometimes calm an angry customer and prevent them from vandalizing the store or shoplifting in retaliation for bad customer service.

How do we fix the situation? Maybe an administrator can write a kindly worded message encouraging good behavior but noting that persistent bad behavior has to be minimized and the few ways to do it is by blocking (spanking is not possible, otherwise there would be a WP:RFS board - request for spanking) Chergles (talk) 23:44, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Long block needed. I reported Reqluce to User:Useight who then gave Reqluce two warnings for incivility. Reqluce blanked his talk page with the edit summary "removing shit". He has managed to escape blocks by blanking his talk page warnings. I reported him to Useight after he got rather personal in an AfD, accused me of all sorts of bad faith actions. It got rather intense and I withdrew the AfD just to get away from the aggressive attitude. I then looked at his edits and noticed his edit summaries were largely made up of vulgarity, baiting and personal attacks. Also, he would sometimes revert an edit calling it "fecal", which redirects to poo. Nasty individual and way too aggressive. — Realist² 00:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

What makes you think I am male? "Baiting"? You need to prove it. And for the record with regards to your claim that you 'withdrew the AfD just to get away from the aggressive attitude', you had no choice but to withdraw it because of the quality updates from other editors such as User:MacGyverMagic, User:Mikkalai as well as several non-identifiable IP address editors who contributed either to the sourcing of the page or expressed an opinion on the talk page. These editors including myself took the time and effort to painstakingly research 3rd party reliable sources for a release which happened before the boom of the internet, justifying the article's need to be kept, which could have been deleted just because another editor who could not be bothered to do the research and slapped a AfD on it.Reqluce (talk) 20:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I'd definitely support a block just based on this exceptionally rude comment alone. This is your defense against accusations of uncivil behavior? Really? --GoodDamon 20:40, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

How rude indeed. Disappointing that you cannot even control your temper on ANI in front of hundreds of admins. See you in a month Reqluce, hopefully you can reflect on your behavior. — Realist² 01:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked for 1 month by User:VirtualSteve, for continuing to bite the newbies. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Gives him more than enough time to reflect on his attitude. — Realist² 01:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

HD86 legal threats

HD86 has been making frivolous legal threats [140]:

Not when you make them look like transliterations ... you just keep on making these false transliterations and eventually you'll see me suing you for systemic deception ... HD86 (talk) 21:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha.

By the way: "If you make legal threats or take legal action over a Wikipedia dispute, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." Wikipedia:No legal threats --macrakis (talk) 04:16, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be suing Wikipedia, I would be suing you, Macrakis (Arabic: al-muqarqisu المقرقس). HD86 (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Threatening to sue me constitutes a legal threat under Wikipedia's Wikipedia:No legal threats policy, even if it is (as in this case) an absurd threat. If you want to change WP's policy on this, you can pursue it at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Arabic). --macrakis (talk) 13:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I see you have become an expert in the Wiki law. You are certainly going to need that. HD86 (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

He hasn't got a legal leg to stand on, but could someone please remind him that this is not acceptable? Thanks, --macrakis (talk) 02:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Warning in progress... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

...warned. Please try to keep it civil with him and not provoke him into escalating further, but hopefully he'll abide by the policy and this won't escalate. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow, legal threats over what culture falafel comes from? Seriously lame people. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:49, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

... and I just noticed that WP:LAME already lists an isomorphic dispute about Hummus. I should just keep my mouth shut. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:NLT is quite clear on this: "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." This user should be given a reasonable amount of time to strike these threats and if the user refuses, they should be blocked until they agree to strike. It sounds harsh for something seemingly silly but the policy exists for a reason. Oren0 (talk) 04:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the account pending a retraction. I have also left a note that any admin may unblock the account if he provides that retraction. If he does retract his legal threat, then please unblock him and direct him to also strike through his comments and put a public retraction on the talk page in question. As always, I open myself to review for this block, but given the clear and repeated nature of the legal threat, I felt it within the letter and spirit of NLT to block pending his retraction. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I like falafel almost as much as baklava or barbecue, as great, even world-class, ethnic foods. Edison (talk) 06:17, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Based on the user's unblock request I have unblocked and asked the user to strike the previous comments. I'll keep an eye on this account. Oren0 (talk) 06:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Dragonfiend Attacks and Harassment

User:Dragonfiend has recently begun posting comments that are rather inflammatory and, I believe, cross the line into personal attacks and harassment. The two main posts in question are: [141] (scroll to the very bottom to see her addition) and [142].

In the first post, Dragonfiend's statement, "Lots of new users here displaying unfamiliarity with wikipedia's content standards as well as users with long history of using multiple accounts for conflict of interest edits and to manipulate AfD results," is clearly a case of WP:BITE. Instead of trying to explain those content standards (despite having been asked what she meant [143] and being asked to provide more info to support her claims [144]), she tries to discredit their input by associating them with sock puppetry (which is a bad breach of WP:AGF).

The second post is worse. She blatantly ignores the concerns raised by the other users over her first post, "In case it wasn't clear from my bolded statement Comment to closing admin, my Comment was to the closing admin," another incidence of WP:BITE and incivility. She crosses the line into personal attacks when she says, "My hope is that they can take into account things like the amazing coincidences that seem to surround User:Buspar and his many multiple accounts which have a habit of showing up and voting together on the same AfDs and making the same conflict of interest edits." Less than 2 months ago she was told by an administrator [145] "Let me add that the SSP case against Buspar was reviewed and there was no sock puppetry. Please don't venue shop that claim any more." (Emphasis mine.) Her post is therefore in direct violation of the instructions of an admin. Furthermore, because there was no sock puppetry and she knows of that finding, the only reason she would repeat such an inflammatory claim is to try and discredit my contributions to the AfD discussion. It was a disruptive statement as it contributed nothing to the discussion and served only to provoke other discussants.

The post also constitutes harassment when you consider her past behavior: a violation of WP:OUTING [146] and repeatedly restoring false accusations made by another user to an article talk page [147] [148] [149] [150] despite being told it was inappropriate to do so by other editors and an admin [151] [152] [153]. This past behavior combined with her recent post is evidence that her behavior is not a one-time problem, but a pattern that continues to persist.

Putting this together, Dragonfiend is exhibiting a tendency to assume bad faith about those who disagree with her in discussions and to repeatedly make the same attacks on people even when warned not to do so by administrators. Buspar (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest a request for comment for user conduct on the user, especially when more then one user has tried and failed to resolve this disruptive manner. MuZemike (talk) 07:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A check of her old talk page shows she's been subject to an arbcomm a couple years ago (which is even more serious than an RfC, I think), in which she was advised to be civil [154]. Looks like she's chosen disregarded that, as well. Buspar (talk) 08:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Revert move from userspace into mainspace

Would an admin move Patrick Slider back to User:Autodesigner, including talk? The editor moved his or her user page into mainspace (actually moved it twice, since originally the move was to Autodesigner with a subsequent move+redirect), and now it can't be moved back to that user without admin rights. Incidentally, if there is a specific report page or tag for this type of situation besides AN/I, I would be interested in learning of it, since I encounter this situation every so often. Wikipedia:Requested moves doesn't really fit. -- Michael Devore (talk) 08:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Done, but I'm more concerned about what he's planning on doing with his user page. Language like "you can browse through photos, view my discussions, and more" plus email him if someone edits it tells me he probably doesn't understand what Wikipedia is about. PicJungle ("to be completed in January 2009") also looks to be a WP:COI problem. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

PicJungle PRODded, I will AfD if necessary. — neuro^(talk) 11:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Clear CSD#A7 (web). Gone. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 15:29, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Multiple moves can be undone without administrator intervention by rolling back each of the moves in reverse order. Uncle G (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The way he is using his user page seems unacceptable - he's using it like a Myspace page or a blog. His only edits are to his userpage or PicJungle. dougweller (talk) 15:26, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Clearly belongs at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, you can't undo moves if there's been intervening changes, as was the case here. I tried moving back in order and it failed, as I had expected. -- Michael Devore (talk) 20:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Single purpose account socking to add AIDS denialism copyright violations

User:Whereistheproof registered on 01:34, 19 November 2008. The user immediately began spamming slander directed at the man who proved the link between HIV and AIDS into a number of articles, along with mass links to AIDS denialist site 'virusmyth.com', and copying rubbish into Wikipedia while violating copyright. The user is now socking on the unnecessary AfD. Nevard (talk) 10:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've performed an WP:IAR deletion of the article, as it's clearly not only a copyvio but utterly unsuitable for Wikipedia - of particular concern, the article contained various personal attacks on a number of named individuals in clear violation of WP:BIO. That should also hopefully put an end to the disruption at the AfD. Review welcome, as always. EyeSerene^talk 10:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit) I've also closed the AfD, though someone might want to check to ensure I've got the procedure right, as it's my first :P EyeSerene^talk 10:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

It's back, though to be fair it is very different - shorter and about the report, rather than the report itself. I !voted delete, no notability established in the AfD and I can't say I've changed my mind but User:Whereistheproof does seem to be addressing some of the concerns raised in the AfD.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed it had been recreated while I was composing an explanation for his talk page. I agree that it's improved though, compared to the previous version; perhaps we can leave that version up and see how things develop (though I think AfD may still be its eventual destination). EyeSerene^talk 11:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

RFCU filed at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Whereistheproof. — neuro^(talk) 11:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. He now appears to be editing as an IP too, though given the user's obvious unfamiliarity with Wikipedia that may be accidental (he's currently objecting to a speedy deletion tag that doesn't exist). EyeSerene^talk 12:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Nominated it for CSD per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gallo's Egg. I see little improvement, and more garbage on the article page. I chose not to wipe it to gather more discussions if need be. seicer | talk | contribs 12:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No objection here; I can't see it surviving another AfD even in its 'improved' form. Might be worth salting too? EyeSerene^talk 12:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

A little investigation suggests that this report is a big deal to some people and that one of the subjects of the report is quite prominent - In the 90's, Science magazine did a 3 month study into his refusal to accept the link between HIV and AIDS and he's mentioned on the AIDS denialism article. I'm not in any way supporting the article or the message it spreads, but wonder if a redirect to the denialism article would be more productive than deletion? GDallimore (Talk) 13:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That seems very sensible - done. EyeSerene^talk 13:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

And now he's back, cross posting a rant about how its not a copyvio--Jac16888 (talk) 16:46, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Deleted and salted. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, hopefully that will put an end to this. Doubt it though--Jac16888 (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppets blocked also. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Death of Baby P

Concerning the death of Baby P, there is a British ruling protecting the names of the baby and two of the adults convicted of his murder. On the talk page, it has been pointed out that this is primarily to protect Baby P's siblings. Nevertheless, the names of those involved are available on the Internet if you search hard enough. Various editors have put the names in, but have been reverted and there is some discussion on the talk page indicating that this is the preferred state for the article.

It has been suggested on the talk page that the edits naming the people involved be deleted entirely - otherwise it's pointless reverting since the information is still easily visible.

I don't know what the right thing to do here is. Legally, Wikipedia is probably safe. Out of respect for the decision of the British courts and in the interests of protecting these individuals, I wanted to raise the issue here to see if administrators believe deleting parts of the history is the right thing to do. GDallimore (Talk) 10:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Legally wikipedia doesn't have to do anything. (Although British editors should take care!) However, our "do no harm" rule comes in here. The law is passed to prevent harm to minors, by reducing the prominence of their names in print. (A prominence that will endure into adulthood!). Given the intent of the law, the possibility of harm to minors, and the fact that the names add little to the reader's appreciation of the case and its significance, then all such names should be expunged from wikipedia pages.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 10:13, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Interesting that you comment about British editors - it was something that also occured to me. I could say that I have an onus and duty to uphold the court's decision and should remove the material on that basis irregardless of consensus or 3RR! But I can't delete it entirely, which is why I've come here. The "do no harm" is a policy I can agree with without any hint of sarcasm and wonder if that's enough to scrub the edit history. I can do the work in finding the diffs if required of me. GDallimore (Talk) 10:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

They have all been oversighted, and I am leaving the user a note now. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

That's very kind. There are other examples in the edit history. Would you like me to go back over it and provide you with the diffs? Thanks. GDallimore (Talk) 10:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have got one more oversighted, and added a commented warning. — neuro^(talk) 11:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) Yes, if one person could please email the list of diffs (any/all that contain the names) to the list mentioned at Wikipedia:Requests for oversight, that would be great.

Also, we have the ability to add notice when a specific page is edited - could someone create one of those for this article, informing the would-be editor that these names are being systematically reverted by editors, and oversighters are removing the edits. Note that semi-protection isnt likely to be effective - it is also regular contributors who are adding the names. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:50, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that semi-protection still could be more effective than nothing at all. I will add the edit notice if necessary, but for now I would think that the standard comment warning will suffice. Naturally, if someone feels different, the page is at the /Editnotice subpage. — neuro^(talk) 12:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I realise that the decision of the British courts was made to "protect the children" however I am not quite agreeing with this decision, especially as the talk page seems barren of any real discussions of concensus apart from some randomly placed yells of wikipedia is not cneosred. It brings to mind Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Deletion of Walter Sedlmayr edit history required where the opposite decision to this one was reached on a similar case. –– Lid^(Talk) 13:03, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

This case is a unique situation, and requires a sui generis solution. It is certainly within the spirit of the relevent policies, such as WP:BLP, to do no harm. While this situation may not be covered within the text of any policy, this is an WP:IAR case in the sense that what is best for the encyclopedia is to avoid propagating harm against individuals who themselves did nothing to deserve it. I endorse the removal and oversight of their names; and feel that there is no value to the information being added to the article. I am not bothered by the lack of policy guidance in how to proceed here; common sense says that removal is the right move... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

More diffs should they wish to be oversighted. I think you got the rest. Thanks:

• information added [155], some info removed [156], rest of info removed [157]
• on talk page [158], removed here [159]
• another one [160], removed here [161]
• new one [162], removed here [163]

As for the comment about lack of discussion on the talk page, yes, there wasn't much, but it seemed pretty clear to me that the prospective harm outweighed the insignificant benefits. I also wanted to take discussion away from the talk page to an arena that was more likely to be neutral - ie here. Also, the names will doubtless be released in time and they can be added then. GDallimore (Talk) 13:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

PS, there is a guideline that is relevant to the mother and her partner: Wikipedia:Blp#Privacy_of_names

How widely disseminated are the names? Appearances in news sources or on blogs/forums? –– Lid^(Talk) 13:42, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it matters much, but it's apparently on some blogs and also on Myspace (I'm told). The BBC did publish the names, but then took the report down although it can still be found through google if you're really desperate. A paper referred to as "gutter press" published the names. Can't recall the details. That's about all I know based on the article history. GDallimore (Talk) 13:52, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

break

Interestingly, 3 days (or so) ago I admin deleted a few revisions mentioning the names and emailed oversight. Theresa mailed back saying oversight had been refused on the basis that the Daily Express had published the name and she supplied this link to an online copy of the story. I figured I had just overreacted. However, I notice that the edits I deleted have now been oversighted, some time in the last 24 hours. CIreland (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Call me a moralistic ass, but I'd like us to aim at higher ethics than the Express.--Scott MacDonald (talk) 15:39, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur, and I'm in agreement that the names should be left out, at least for the present. I only brought it up to illustrate two points: that oversight can be fickle and that the legal position in the UK (relevant for British editors) may not be clear cut. CIreland (talk) 15:45, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I am a cretin; the edits weren't oversighted, the page got moved. CIreland (talk) 16:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The Express article was from the first day the "trio" appeared in court and is therefore likely to be before the court secrecy order. If the fact that this article is still on their website were brough to their attention, the Express might actually remove it, as the BBC did with their similar article. GDallimore (Talk) 17:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, the Daily Telegraph (which is a considerably more reliable source) also published the names at the time of the trial. – iridescent 18:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have actioned all the outstanding oversight requests for this article. I believe it is within policy due to the court order that Baby P should remain pseudonymous. However, I havent oversighted when there are too many diffs between the introduction and removal of the information (i.e. there is an editorial reason to keep the diffs). Editors have been firm in reverting this information being added to the article, and one other more experienced oversighter acted on a request for oversight on this issue.

I think the court order came into effect after those news sources went to print. Are overseas sources covering this? Are they disregarding the British court order? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Just for curiosities sake, what does the government hope retracting their names will protect them from? The accused are the parents and a guy living in the house.. I'm pretty sure they all know the names of the other siblings...--Crossmr (talk) 02:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The court would be seeking to protect the siblings from ridicule and harassment. They'll be in care or fostered and may be subject to undue interest (eg bullying) from other children in the children's home, at school or in the street, or from adults or the press. The protection order should cut down on this. Wikipedia isn't obliged to obey the order, but I don't think there's any harm in voluntarily following it and practicing some self-censorship when we're dealing with the ruined lives of minors. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 08:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Persistent copyright vio. uploads

Amigo29 90 (talk · contribs) continues to upload copyright vio. images. It comes and goes in waves. I suspect there's a language barrier re. getting him to understand the copyright policy. Anyway, dropping a line here. --EEMIV (talk) 15:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Cough, cough. Cu likely to be required. Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing abuse and attacks by Libro0 keeps getting ignored: I demand action!

I demand an investigation of Libro0's actions, pattern of uncivil behavior, and frankly and apology from him. If he was polite and civil to begin with we would not have this sort of mess. He needs to be penalized for his actions and not defended. He intimidates those who disagree with him. He attacks in a textbook passive aggressive way, which those who aren't familiar with how passive aggressive people act would dismiss as normal. I have tried to bring his behavior to light, especially his attacks, often done in a passive aggressive manner to light several times, but it has fallen on deaf ears [164], [165], [166], [167], [168]. Here are some examples of his false allegations including the first and the second in a series of false sockpuppet alegations. Then there is this exchange where he eventually issues me an ultimatium -[169] [170]. There is more. Can't something finally be done or will this rouge be allowed to continue his bad behavior and waste the community's time dealing with the mess he creates? My guess is no. How about you step up to the plate and take some action? Your Radio Enemy (talk) 15:48, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Nice to see you are polite, civil, and non-aggressive. On your user page you've told us all to 'go to hell'. I won't be going there, but I'm certainly not going to spend time looking into your 'demand'. I'm not your servant. dougweller (talk) 17:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course, "demanding action" will get you nowhere. I will draw admins attention to User_talk:Libro0, User_talk:Your_Radio_Enemy and User_talk:Baseball_Card_Guy to see the oh-so-fun background. ►BMW◄ 17:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
    • If you can't resolve it by consensus on the talkpages, then I recommend mediation (see WP:DR) between the 3 of you. There's nothing that requires immediate administrator action that I can see. ►BMW◄ 22:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
      • I demand that everyone who edits this page gives me $1,000,000. I suspect we're going to get the same response...except my demand might not be received with an understandable eye-roll.

        Seriously. "I demand" is like the Godwin's Law of AN/I--the minute you invoke it, you've totally outweighed any perfectly-reasonable point you were making by the sheer tantrum-esque-ness of the WAY you chose to make it. If you raised the point before and didn't get the answer you were looking for--hey, it happens to all of us. Try again, CIVILLY, and maybe you'll get a better outcome. But I can well-nigh guarantee that "I demand" won't get you there.GJC 23:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

        • Plus, if it was "ignored" the first time(s) it was brought up, then nobody here must have agreed with this being a situation that required immediate intervention ►BMW◄ 00:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
        • It's the Majikthise–Vroomfondel Law. I demand that I am Uncle G (talk) 14:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Nazi slogans and swastika posted on Bhutan page

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&action=edit&section=new

Someone has posted "Heil Hitler" slogans and the swastika on the Bhutan wikipedia page. I don't have the technical expertise to clean it up myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelAwad (talk • contribs) 16:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

it was this template edit, [171]. which is since fixed. Thanks for reporting it--Jac16888 (talk) 16:08, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Bosnian mujahideen

See Revision history of Bosnian mujahideen Talk:Bosnian_mujahideen#ch-ch-changes

From Talk:Bosnian_mujahideen#ch-ch-changes

To the one or more editors who are editing using IP addresses all based in Sweden. Please create accounts if you are going to repeatedly engage in revert warring or I will semi protect the page against IP editing.

To the editor who made the last revert using 85.224.135.2 (Sweden Stockholm B2-bisp) with the comment in the history of the article "Krusko, pls see the Talk page discussion - there was no consensus to make the massive changes you are insisting on". It is up to you to engage in showing that there is not a consensus for the changes that Kruško Mortale on this talk page. As you have been absent from the discussion on the talk page since the 19:49, 25 September despite Kruško Mortale making several comments since it is reasonable to assume that silence equals consent. Kruško Mortale changes remained on the page from 27 September until you reverted them on the 12 November, so can you show that there is a consensus for your reverts? --PBS (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that the two of you attempt to come to a compromise on this page and do not engage in a revert war. If there are any simple full page reverts by either party (Kruško Mortale or an IP address or what I judge to be a meat puppet) after this posting I will revert the revert and protect the page. --PBS (talk) 13:41, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Kruško Mortale did you read the above before reverting? The revert that you made was not to the last version before the recent revert by 85.224.135.2 (which was an edit by user:Journalist 007) instead you reverted to your last version of 12:00, 14 November 2008. Kruško Mortale if someone else (unsolicited by you) had made the reversion to your favoured version after my statement above, then I would have considered that acceptable, because I put he above restriction in place in the hope that this edit war would stop and still allow development of the article to continue. The idea was that you Kruško Mortale and IP 85.224.135.2 could make incremental changes and come to a compromise over the text. Something that is not happening with a simple revert war.

So I am now going to revert the revert and protect the page. I will expect good faith discussions to take place on this page to resolve the issues. Hopefully more editors will join in. Sweedish IP if you do not take part in the discussion I will take your silence as agreement with Kruško Mortale and revert the page to his/her last revert and then you will have to make incremental changes to that version of the article. --PBS (talk) 14:59, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

First I didn't read this, but anyway this is sad and ridiculous. It's obvious now that you're on anon's side, and two of you cooperate. You protected the page twice, reverting on his version before that. This is clear example of demagogy and misuse of admin privilages. But this isn't over, I am going to ask mediation or some other way to point out your behaviour. Kruško Mortale (talk) 16:11, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Kruško Mortale's revisions to the above last paragraph paragraph:

First I didn't read this, but anyway this is sad and ridiculous, because I gave a great contribution to that article providing relaible sources not just mailing list comments. It's obvious now that you're on anon's side, and two of you cooperate. You protected the page twice, reverting to his version before that. This is clear example of demagogy and misuse of admin privilages. But this isn't over, I am going to ask mediation or some other way to point out your behaviour. Just to add, that PBS's statement in edit summary as justification for revert and protection is false: "Two editors reverting to two different copies of the article with no imtermediate edits to reach a compromise version." I included anon's sources and adjusted introduction as well as other parts (he did nothing), so my version isn't with no imtermediate edits. Kruško Mortale (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The edit history shows that since Anon IP came back on the scene and reverted to an old version on the 12th of November you have only reverted to the same version that existed immediately before Anon IP's reversal (with one ery small change) between 12th and 19th.[172] --PBS (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is one more addition:

There is one more important thing to say. First time when PBS protected the page, he protected it with the last version (anon's version), he didn't revert it to previous version [173]. Second time, he prepared well structured justification and then protected the page, but not with my version which was the last one, but first he reverted it to anon's version [174] and then protected the page [175]. Unbelievable. Can anyone give me explanation for these double standards. Kruško Mortale (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The time stamps on the talk indicate I placed a warning at 13:41, 18 November 2008 (see above). You made a revert at 13:42, 19 November --24 hours later-- and you admit that you did not even bother to read the talk page before reverting the article. Personally I think that the responsible thing to do is to check the talk page for new comments before reverting. --PBS (talk) 17:37, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I admit?! I just said I didn't read the talk page, I checked anon's contribution and found he has just one edit -> [176], he didn't leave any comment, and you reverted it to his first edit with new IP. I didn't know you represent him on the talk page. Kruško Mortale (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't have your cake and eat it. All the IP addresses used to revert your version are based in Sweden. Whoever Anon is he or she is using a non-static IP address, so yes it does vary and yes there may be only one edit from a specific IP address. But in the past you have had no problem accepting that the edits to this page from Swedish IP addresses are from the same person ("sockpuppet/proxy edit history comment"). --PBS (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

If it is the opinion of other administrators, that despite my warning that I would revert the page if either of the two protagonists reverted again, that the version preferred by User:Kruško Mortale should remain in place while editors try to reach a compromise. What do other administrators think? -- PBS (talk) 16:43, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

No matter what happens, you will protect the wrong version. --GraemeL ^(talk) 17:06, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

CSDWarnBot

Resolved

 – Thanks, Coren. Deli nk (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Could someone please temporarily stop CSDWarnBot (talk · contribs) from leaving warning messages on talk pages. It is currently adding an enormous image. This comes across as quite BITEy. Probably this is due to changes to Image:Information icon.svg, rather than due to the bot itself. (The bot owner doesn't seem to be too active, and his talk page says "Visit /dev/null" and "Don't come back", which perhaps says something meaningful, but to me it means "go away".) Deli nk (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the image page, I think Coren has changed it back to normal size so the problem shouldn't still be occurring. CIreland (talk) 18:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

(ec) MPUploadBot seems to have been out of its gourd and brought that embiggened version from the commons. I have no idea why that would have been on the main page for that matter. I've reverted to the image that's 100 times smaller. — Coren ^(talk) 18:58, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat from Wmroradio

Resolved

 – User blocked by Jayron32. Carry on. TN‑X-Man 19:15, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

[[::User:Wmroradio|Wmroradio]] ([[::User talk:Wmroradio|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Wmroradio|contribs]]) posted a legal threat on the talk page of [[::User:Thingg|Thingg]] ([[::User talk:Thingg|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Thingg|contribs]]) here.

I've warned the user about the policy on posting legal threats. --GraemeL ^(talk) 18:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked that user. There is nothing even remotely covered by WP:DOLT in that article, there is no BLP violations that he is removing, for example, so this seemed a clear-cut legal threat. If he wants to sue Wikimedia Foundation over this, he can contact them directly. I have left him instructions on using the unblock template to retract his legal threat; any admin may unblock should he do so. As always, I am open to review of this block, if I have acted inappropriately. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

For the record, it's apparent from the edit history that this editor also edited anonymously from a Tennessee-based IP address before editing under this user name. What I can't be sure of is whether this user is the same as the one who created the article, the similarly named User:Wmroam. The article in question (which, for the record, is one which I have personally made substantial contributions) is for radio station WMRO (AM). - Dravecky (talk) 22:07, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Review of user's actions

Resolved

 – hersfold confirmed my suspicions, and blocked'em

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

The above user has been going around posting anti-USA screed at several locations, including This user's page, Talk:United States, and Wikipedia:Reference desk/Miscellaneous. Since I have personally been engaged with the user at RDM, I am not comfortable issuing a stricter warning than they have already received. However, there are two issues I think need review. First, could another admin or two review this users additions, and leave a more strident warning if they feel that is appropriate. Secondly, the question was raised at RDM if this was a returning user, perhaps using sockpuppets abusively, see [177]. Could some more admins please review and give your opinions? Thanks. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:38, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just blocked them. They don't seem to be here to build an encyclopedia, only to troll different forums about how the USA is failing. Also, the sockpuppetry suspicions seem right on to me - we've got the same issue of asking a leading question, and then refusing to accept an answer until one they like comes by. The poor spelling and grammar are also duplicated between both accounts, so all in all it seems a fair cop to me. Open to review if anyone thinks I'm trigger happy, likewise open to unblocking. Thanks for not going further into this yourself, though, Jayron. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 21:57, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd just left a warning at the same time. But, given the situation, I don't disagree with the block at all. I guess I'm going soft. Friday (talk) 22:00, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

On further investigation, I'm now quite certain Rossi Elisabetta is the same person as Vindobona (talk · contribs) - note the extreme similarities in topics, editing styles, and targeted pages. I've blocked Vindobona as well, and will be requesting checkuser on both for any other accounts. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 22:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

User:ForesticPig

I've been looking at this user for a couple of days now, and I can't for the life of me figure out what to do, so I'm bringing it here for some opinions. The userpage of ForesticPig (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) suggests this is an alternate account of an administrator. CU is showing that the account is using anonymising proxies to edit so the data is useless in figuring out if this is actually an administrator. My concern with the account is that it's editing in a highly contentious area (pedophilia/child abuse) and getting involved in big debates on the article talk pages. Whilst I wouldn't go as far as saying that ForesticPig is a pro-pedophilia editor, I do get the impression that his POV swings towards that direction. My personal opinion is that this would go against WP:SOCK because the user is using an alternate account to evade scrutiny on his main account. The Privatemusings RfArb had this principle which would also seem to suggest that what ForesticPig is doing is against policy. I'm inclined to block the account, but I'd appreciate some more opinions. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:05, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

People are allowed to use another account for contentious articles, for instance there have been problems with aggro writings on other sites over these articles. There are separate sanctions on the paedo articles though which he could fall under if he becomes/is too pro-paedo though, aren't there? Sticky Parkin 23:10, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that using these other accounts that mean scrutiny is evaded was a big no no. The thing is, I'm not sure his edits completely cross the line to sanction him for pro-pedopdilia editing - I think there is a minor POV problem, but it's small fish compared to some of the other editors. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 23:14, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Obviously my concern is that he is not an admin and faking it on his userpage to avoid being blocked. I have been in email communication with him and would urge that we hold off blocking for another day or so until he can verify to a third party the identity of his primary account. Obviously if this sock is being disruptive, knowing both accounts would help in that both should be blocked. MBisanz ^talk 23:22, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

As a further comment on policy, if their other account is linked or traceable to their RL identity, then using an alternate account to edit particularly contentious articles would be OK. The best course of action I can see is for ForesticPig to register their main and alternate accounts with ArbCom through the mailing list. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

ForesticPig

I comment here, having been contacted by Ryan himself - and having already been in discussion with Matthew concerning the secure, private verification of my account via another administrator (who appears to be on leave, but may still comment). I would like to stress that disclosing my ownership of another account - specifically a sysop account, is intended to be an assurance of good faith. If, however - it is working in the opposite direction, I will be happy to remove said disclosure until someone can securely verify it (I would rather remove the disclosure than expose myself to arbcom or any other authority). If the arbcom itself concludes that my disclosure is inappropriate, then fine - I'll do away with it. I can see how it could lead to certain suspicions concerning my use of an anonymous (SOCK:LEGIT) account.

I would just like to specify that the IP I am using is not what would traditionally be called an "anonymising proxy". It can be verified as a normal ISP-linked account IP. I would also like clarification from Ryan, concerning what he sees as a "POV problem". Whilst my editing often focuses on Sexology, and fringe sexology at that, it has always attempted to correct biases and flaws that are present. This is the nature, it would seem - of an anonymous account for editing such articles. It would be useful if Ryan could provide a few diffs to support his contention.

Attention should also be paid to the possibility that this kind of discussion/block could damage the reputation of Wikipedia. Without a balanced approach to editing fringe topics, we are likely to attract extremists - fair gain for the vigilance groups and journalists who are already tracking this issue as it develops. In light of this, it would be useful if I were just allowed to go on demonstrating without undue alarm, that not every article involving one or more of Children, Sex and Trauma need be reduced to a talk-show rant (the likely perception engendered by censoring the kind of work I do with ForesticPig). forestPIG^(grunt) 23:56, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

help

I beg a SYSOPS please delete my account to stop me logging on. Failure to do so may result in my suicide. please just do it so that I can never log in again. Ponty Pirate (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, it is technically impossible to delete an account. I can rename you if you like though to a random name. Please post here to confirm. Also, please contact your local health professionals. A CU (not me though) is trying to help you too. — Rlevse • Talk • 23:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

• Ahhhhh.... no. WP:BP. Sorry. Try the wikibreak template linked from the duplicate thread on WP:AN. Guy (Help!) 23:32, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
• He's gone, set the enforcer to 5 years. Damn, really tried to help the guy too--Jac16888 (talk) 23:41, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Poor guy must read ANI a little too much. ►BMW◄ 00:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I would like to assure everyone that I Ponty Pirate am fine and regret joking about suicide. But that's all it was. A bad joke. I would appreciate it if a SYSOPS could allow this conversation to be deleted to try and stop other do-gooder editors from trying to contact my local Police force as it is highly embarrassing for my family. Thanks. I am on a WIKIBREAK. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.139.39 (talk) 08:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Chicago metropolitan area move vandalism

Resolved

 – Blocked, reverted etc.

Move vandalism in progress at Chicago metropolitan area by User:Eborsisk. The residual redirects should probably also be deleted. --Polaron | Talk 00:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Restore article request

Resolved

 – No special notice needed. lifebaka++ 02:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of bow tie wearers (4th nomination)

Per criteria 4 of deletion review: In the most exceptional cases, posting a message to WP:AN/I may be more appropriate instead. Rapid correctional action can then be taken if the ensuing discussion makes clear it should be.

Believe article should be restored now per criteria 4 of Wikipedia:Deletion review. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Should have been deleted ages ago. Glad it's gone. ►BMW◄ 00:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Good one. --Firefly322 (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

*cough* Not at all one of "the most exceptional cases". This is just a run of the mill DRV. There's no need for a special ANI notice. lifebaka++ 02:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

translation unwanted email (spam)

Someone sent me an email asking to translate some random text that looks like an essay, probably a homework, but almost certainly has nothing to do with a wikipedia work. I think it would be a good thing to track the sender email address (I think I shouldn't post it in public for privacy reason but please contact me) and have the appropriate measure for such a behavior.

I've been sent a translation request like that a few months back, is there any filtering for the translation group or do I have to remove myself from it ?!

--DynV (talk) 00:50, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply saying you're not interested, then block them in your email client. Easy. --Rodhullandemu 00:53, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Latin profanity

I wish to start a discussion about TenPoundHammer. He has a habit of performing non-admin closures on AfD discussions. When closing this discussion, he described the (kept) article, or perhaps its discussion, as merda, which is Latin for shit. Given that closing AfD discussions is a function normally performed by admins, I feel that a non-admin who closes an AfD should act with the integrity required of an admin. The closure is not able to be supervised in the manner in which an admin would normally be able to supervise a user. I believe that it's inappropriate to close an AfD in this manner. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, it's obvious that people aren't concerned about it. I withdraw my complaint. - Richard Cavell (talk) 01:30, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

(non-admin comment) Wikipedia has a rich history--a tradition--of such comments, especially when they are context appropriate. This one seems context appropriate. Also the french chef in the disney cartoon the little's mermaid says either Merd or Sacre Blu. If it's okay for disney movies, it should be fine and dandy for wikipedia. ...just hangin out waiting for commentary on my request regarding the list of bow tie wearers) --Firefly322 (talk) 01:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

My impression is that TPH was just trying to funny but his Latin wasn't up to job. A little bit naughty perhaps but not worth getting our collective knickers in a twist about. CIreland (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You might get a better response from him if you had first left a polite, friendly message at his talk page saying you had a concern. Looking at your contributions, it seems the first you mentioned it to him was to let him know you had posted here.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This is appalling! An article on Latin profanity that fails to include "glubo, glubere"! - Nunh-huh 02:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

(Non-admin disclaimer) I thought it was funny, but I guess I would as a one-time Latin nerd.... – ukexpat (talk) 01:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

(Admin disclosure) Quite funny, nothing to see here. And nothing actionable. seicer | talk | contribs 01:23, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I was just trying to have a little bit of fun on the subject at hand. I have seen many comments of this nature made in the past, and didn't mean offense to anyone. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I found it hilarious and I was the one who started the AfD. The article has promise to improve and seriously, thats the best outcome possible. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:58, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I see a problem. 10lb is still non-adminned? Well, color me with cliche #1, then. How did this happen? KillerChihuahua^?!? 01:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

So go and nominate him. I'm going to be busy reading the article on Latin profanity which I was previously unaware of. JoshuaZ (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Where was Wikipedia when I was in high school Latin class? LOL --B (talk) 14:11, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Praetorian Worldwide and The Lupercal Institute

Yesterday, I inadvertently violated WP:HOAX policy in immediately deleting the articles above which I found while reviewing newly created pages. The articles were written by the same user. A google search of the author's name Travis Oberlander (talk · contribs) indicates he is an aspiring screenwriter who has a project in the works about "cubicle dwelling employees who let their imaginations run wild as they engage in combat in the office." [178] Lupercal was described as a think tank with offices worldwide that was purportedly "instrumental in the creation of the United Nations, NATO and the Marshall Plan," as well as developing the policy of Mutual Assured Destruction and the downfall of the Soviet Union -- it was also reported to have been commissioned by Richard Nixon to study the feasibility of canceling the 1972 presidential election. Praetorian was reported to be a Blackwateresque private military organization contracted to provide security service for the U.S. government in Iraq, and was complete with bogus Spartan helmet logo and names and photos of fictional founders -- triggering WP:BLP concerns. I reviewed the authorities and content carefully, sought verification that these entities existed (including searching newspaper databases, directories, google, and other sources) but determined that no such entities existed. The Lupercal article also cited a non-existent book by author Darcy Sabine -- possibly the living person referenced at this link and thus raising further WP:BLP concerns. There is no question that these are hoaxes and I believed they should be removed immediately to avoid reputational harm to Wikipedia from allowing these articles to remain in place. Today, in reviewing WP:HOAX, I realize I did not comply with policy by allowing the article to go through the full deletion process. In the future, I'll make sure I comply with WP:HOAX and invite any other admins to double-check my decision on the above articles. Cbl62 (talk) 01:44, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

how awful that you did not allow us to have a drawn out process to delete those obvious hoaxes. As punishment I think em.. you should have a box of chocolates. _{more seriously, I guess process should be followed but I doubt anyone's going to kick about your clearly good faith efforts.} --Cameron Scott (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether to congratulate you for skipping the useless process, or to admonish you for thinking it could possibly be a bad idea. — Werdna • talk 02:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I dunno. Could have kept people busy for several seconds... HalfShadow 02:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Tra-laa. See, regrets need not be permanent. I'm shocked, though, that nowhere is the name Lupercal linked in the article. I'm sure other deficiencies might be found by the discerning reader. Shenme (talk) 04:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Major Policy Changes Behind Our Backs....

and with no discussion or consensus to back them up. Although there is a disclaimer at the top of the policy page that ends with..Before editing this page, please make sure that your revision reflects consensus. This disclaimer seems to have been ignored. I tried to start a discussion on the talk page, but only one editor left one comment. These are the edits that were made to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (infoboxes). [First] [Second] [Third] [Fourth]. These edits are a change in policy, without consensus or a discussion. What has happend is that the policy was changed to reflect the [template]. Is there a precident for that? Further more, the template was changed [here] over a year ago, by a user who had no consensus, no discussion, and no authority to to so. Should we change policy based on a unauthorized template? I may just be pulling at the bit here, but it all seems a bit strange how this has all happened.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:28, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I understand. I would say you should just accept that he is being WP:BOLD and begin the cycle of bold, revert, discuss. If he insists or edit wars over the reversion, then there is some "incident". However, absent behavior like that, it is ok for most policies to be changes slightly without discussion beforehand. Let's say (for an example) that the changes made were uncontroversial--simply making the changes and waiting for reversion would be MUCH easier than proposing them, ensuring that no one had objections, then making the changes. If I am missing something about this, please let me know. Protonk (talk) 05:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
  • Those are not changes in policy, they're changes in wording. I made the initial change because someone was pointing to that page as a guideline on person infoboxes, and it occurred to me that a person is not an "item". Then someone pointed out (and added to the writeup) that there is a separate infobox for persons. And so on. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

In all fairness Baseball bugs, your edit was what I would consider the least controversial and in good faith. They were made in good faith. I only added it here to show the progression of the policy change. That being said, the second edit is what I would consider the most controversial, based on the fact that the user decided that the template for persons must somehow trump the actual policy. That user may not like it, but I may have to remove that part, and then fix the template to fall in line with the policy. I was hoping to get more guidance before I did so, but WP:BRD, here I come.--Jojhutton (talk) 12:47, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User:131.247.244.234

The above IP continually removes sourced information from the Taurus article because it is "sexist". Numerous editors have reverted him, including myself. I have given him a final warning several times and encouraged him to take the issue to the talk page, but he simply won't. Please assist by either blocking the IP or protecting the page. Cheers. — Realist² 02:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've given them a 3RR warning, if they revert one more time contact me and I'll block them for long-term edit warring. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tim. — Realist² 03:19, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The address is the University of South Florida, I've added the appropriate template, so they can get a schoolblock. dougweller (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

NewUrbanMale.com

I've tagged the article for COI, Spam and copyright infringment (one section) - there had only been one contributor (who's not shy to redirect his/her userpage back to the article) and the tone is very advertisement-like. I wasn't sure if it needs to be listed somewhere so I decide to put up a post here.--Cahk (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I've left the editor a message about the userspace redirect after getting rid of it. -MBK₀₀₄ 03:18, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm not entirely certain why this hasn't been G11'ed away already. — Coren ^(talk) 04:04, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User:75.49.223.52

How long do User:75.49.223.52's attacks on another editor get to remain here? This user is not here to be productive. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 03:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks from here like he's blocked now, on the way to being banned, and the stuff on his talkpage (Am I right that that's what you're referring to??) remains only as part of an ongoing discussion. It ain't pretty, I'm with you there, but it may fall under the category of "giving him enough rope with which to hang himself". GJC 09:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

See thread above, #Request for formal community ban of 75.57.X.X user who harasses Arcayne. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Potential problem user: 65.254.165.214

I know that Negima!? is no longer protected. So I'm worried that vandal user 65.254.165.214 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) will strike again as this one has repeatedly blanked the article several times. He also seemed to vandalize/put unsourced rants on King Alfred Plan. Any contigency plans? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 03:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Block him if he does it again? He screwed with Negima on the 5th, was blocked, came back for one edit on the 11th and came once against on the 19th. We can handle that. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The Lupercal Institute

Jeez -- Travis Oberlander (talk · contribs) has now put his hoax article about Lupercal back on wikipedia. I assume per the discussion above confirming this as hoax, someone can back me up in deleting this again and giving an appropriate warning to the aspiring screenwriter? Cbl62 (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Did you trying salting the article or request it to be salted on WP:RFPP so this won't happen again? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 06:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Help with user: 203.87.194.142

I don't know about user 203.87.194.142 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I've reverted his seemingly uninformed edits, but when I decided to revert his edits on Sasami: Magical Girls Club and gave him a 3RR warning, he suddenly reported me to WP:AIV in ill-advised fashion. Can anyone help me on this guy? - 上村七美 (Nanami-chan) | talkback | contribs 08:55, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be a minor edit dispute; nobody hasn't even reverted that much, yet. I'll just advise the IP on the invalid AIV report. Meanwhile, please try to discuss changes also on the article's talk page and check back if anything else happens that would require attention.--Tikiwont (talk) 09:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Question about indef blocked user, and editing anonymously

Resolved

 – IP blocked 1 month

I was under the impression that when a user was blocked indef, that the block would even apply to them if they began editing anonymously? Well, not that the block applies, I realize that the block doesn't follow the named account to an IP, but the concept applies: an indef blocked user is effectively banned, and editing as an IP is attempting to evade blocks.

Moleman 9000 (talk · contribs · page moves · current autoblocks · block log) was indef blocked, created several socks, which were blocked. He recently came back as Special:Contributions/76.167.244.204, which was blocked several times in increasing duration.

Now that the block expired, he is back, doing the same basic thing. Moleman was very militant about adding YouTube poop to articles, and the now-unblocked IP of Moleman continues [179]. The contribs of the IP give me no reason to beleive that this IP is no longer assigned to Moleman, and that the IP editing is Moleman. Yngvarr (t) (c) 10:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

See WP:SSP and WP:SOCK — Rlevse • Talk • 11:02, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

So even tho this is a known IP of the blocked user, I should still go thru the sock reporting procedure? Yngvarr (t) (c) 11:07, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I took care of it. In the future, should this re-arise, SSP is an appropriate venue to take this; however there is no need to jump through the hoops for such obvious socks. The "investgation" took me all of 2 minutes to verify via the WP:DUCK test that this was Moleman 9000. If he wants to edit, he can request an unblock on his main account or contact arbcom. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:10, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I did file an SSP, so if anyone wants to archive it, feel free. I have no doubt that once the current block wears off, he'll be back. If you look at the IP, and the blocked socks, he's pretty persistent, and there's no apparent reason to think otherwise in this case. He's had the same IP for over a month, which has never been used by anyone other than him. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Starczamora

He keeps on vandalizing my userpage almost 7 times. he suspect me as a sock which is not true. I'm complaining on this user. Wynchard Bloom ^{contact me}_{My work} 10:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

There is Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Gerald Gonzalez. I'll also notify Starczamora.--Tikiwont (talk) 10:39, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying him so that he'll stop doing these disruptive things to me which i dont really know. Wynchard Bloom ^{contact me}_{My work} 10:45, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Angel Locsin currently has four images that you present as your own work, Wynchard Bloom. At least one is an obvious copyvio up for deletion, and the other three, frankly, don't give me a ton of confidence that you actually took the pictures with your own camera, as you assert. I'm not surprised other users, like Starczamora, feel the same way. Darkspots (talk) 12:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You may wish to revisit your personal definition of "vandalism". There is, as noted above, a Sockpuppet case that involves your userid. Placing a "suspected sock" tag on your userpage is therefore a valid action. If proven that it's NOT true, it can be removed. Could you please provide diffs of actual vandalism to your userpage? Thanks. ►BMW◄ 12:06, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

As you may have noticed, I actually reported about sockpuppets of Gerald Gonzalez, who has a history of beautifying articles related to ABS-CBN, especially about Angel Locsin whom Gerald claimed as his cousin. User:Wynchard Bloom also claims to be a cousin of Locsin, and also exhibited patterns that are similar to the puppet master such as:

• Uploading copyvio images taken from Flickr into Commons, and claim it as his/ her own.
• Harassing Wikipedians who do not agree with his "style" of editing, calling them "insane" (as seen in here, told by a previously banned sockpuppet; and here, as said by Wynchard himself/ herself). Not to mention when he/ she added a sockpuppet tag on my own userpage (saying in the edit summary "if you are not a sock then prove it" to that effect), suspecting me as a puppet of Gerald whom I have reported.

I find his actions immature, narrow-minded, and definitely UNFIT to be a Wikipedian. Starczamora (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Serious copyright concerns, input requested

• User:Chrisieboy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Following up a note at WT:CP, I've developed serious concerns about the contributions of this user, some of which have made the front page. He several times restored material to Anglia Regional Co-operative Society after it was removed, with explanation, by another user. The article does duplicate text from the identified and several other sources. I then found he had received and removed a CorenBot notice about London Pensions Fund Authority (also removing it from the listing at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations). (It still contains duplicative text and has been blanked.) Now I find that his DYK article Tournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England is at least in good part a direct paste from a "for purchase" student essay, here. (Internet archives confirm that they published well before we did, here.) I think his other contributions need investigation. I bring the matter here both because of its severity and because the contributor seems to think my investigation is a personal vendetta. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You can add UIA (Insurance) as another cut-and-paste job by him. You're in the right here - these are obvious copyvios and I simply don't believe his wikilawyering over the precise definition of plagiarism and copyright. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ a sweet and tender hooligan 13:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've warned the user, and will block without further warning should they persist in either restoring removed copyvios or introducing more copyvio material. Ignorance of our copyright restrictions is excusable, but quibbling over the details once they've been pointed out and removing a notice from WP:SCV is not. Thank you for catching this. EyeSerene^talk 15:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

request for comment

Could someone please comment on whether these edits are appropriate:

• revert of recent additions to RfC page
• addition of "archive" tag to same page.

Thank you. Thunderbird2 (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Possible threat regarding images of Muhammad

There has been a signficant uptick lately in cases of people removing images from the Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Depictions of Muhammad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) articles as well as those posting on the article talk pages requesting or demanding removal of the images. For the most part the activity is so minor and duplicative that it doesn't warrant much attention. Unfortunately, this morning somee made a posting which comes dangerously close to a threat. In particular, the comment "...we muslims don't give a rats ass whether your laws permit you to put up these pictures. Eventually we will get them reserved through peaceful or forceful means" grabs attention. Being that the only posting this user, CapTa1n Half (talk · contribs), has made I'm torn between sanctioning and ignoring. It is likely just typical blather, but it does still represent a stated threat against Wikipedia. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Ignore, and return images; this is on the level of "I'm going to hold my breath until you say you are sorry..!" I am also suspicious of the use of language by these "muslims" (they would, I should have thought, have capitalised the word) in that "rats ass" is no real insult or invective in such culture. I think this is trolling. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the notion that a sincere follower of Islam posting in good faith would let slip an uncapitalized muslims in the same sentence as rats ass, much less in a posting having to do with Muhammad, is highly unlikely. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)