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

Crazy block by Connolley

Why was Peter Damian blocked for reverting the insane edits of an anon IP on the Objectivism (Ayn Rand) article? Why has the article been locked down ostensibly to protect against the IP edits, but the IP not been blocked? Why was Damain (myself) blocked? Madness. See my remarks on Jimbo's page (he is protecting these lunatics, it seems). 86.132.248.254 (talk) 00:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Since you pre-announced your intention to get yourself blocked, it isn't all that surprising. I think you're one of those people for whom drama is like cocaine, and you started feeling withdrawal symptoms. Looie496 (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, protection and blocking is overkill. Only one of them, please, when dealing with edit warring. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:51, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't it normal for a blocked editor's block to get extended for blatant block evasion? In addition to posting here, this IP posted twice to the article talk page and then to a user page within the space of less than ten minutes.[1] Even if the block is wrong, there's no excuse for complicating matters by evading it. Surely this experienced user knows how to use the unblock template. Durova^Charge! 01:03, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This is true. Although I believe Peter has done this before... I think. Sceptre ^(talk) 01:05, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• I blocked the IP for block evasion, and anybody is free to extend Peter Damian's original block. --auburnpilot talk 01:06, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

The article Objectivism (Ayn Rand) is only semiprotected, for the benefit of the highly-persistent IP who will not discuss. This action was unrelated to Peter Damian's editing, and his recent use of a sock to evade his block. Damian went to great lengths to violate 3RR, apparently trying to prove a point, and was blocked by WMC. EdJohnston (talk) 01:35, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

"…and his recent use of a sock to evade his block."

What sockpuppet?

More generally, is it our job to run Wikipedia without reference to, interest in, or opinions about content?24.18.142.245 (talk) 09:13, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I am concerned that only one party to an edit war is blocked, especially as the unblocked party has previously been blocked for their editing of the same article and is apparently a pov warrior, and specifically it is WMC who actioned the sanction. WMC is now responsible for 3 of the 5 blocks on the Peter Damian account. I note that WMC took no other action, leaving it for another to sprotect the article nor - as noted - sanctioning the other edit warrior. I feel that this gives the impression that WMC acted disproportionately in sanctioning an editor with whom they have a history regarding blocking. I shall ask WMC if they wish to comment here. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, I do. Your impressions are incorrect. PD broke 3RR, so I blocked him. As far as I'm aware, no-one else did. I'm fairly sure that PD intended to merely tweak our noses by using his "quota" of 3R/24h (in which case I would probably have blocked him for edit warring), but mistakenly went over the line. As you'll have seen from PD's subsequent contributions, he did all this to make a point and appears to have succeeded, so is presumably happy with the outcome William M. Connolley (talk) 18:24, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You noted edit warring in the block log, but took no action other than to block PD - subsequently the ip with whom PD was warring has been blocked for a week for their general pov warring behaviour and the article the two were involved was sprotected; if you are going to refer to edit warring (rather than disruption, also available from the same menu) it behoves an administrator to review the culpability of all involved, or to address the edit war otherwise. If you are going to be inattentive as regards the block reason placed in the log, then you will have to accept that people are going to get the wrong impression. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:16, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm pleased to note that you've realised you got the wrong impression; sadly you are still making mistakes; there was no inattention on my part. PD, as far as I know (and no-one has challenged this) was the only one to break 3RR (and did so in a deliberately provocative manner - a point that I don't think you have acknowledged). Your apparent belief that if one person needs to be blocked for edit warring, then so should someone else, is completely wrong. I suggest you review the history of WP:AN3 if you're unclear about that William M. Connolley (talk) 21:26, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Really? The other party to the edit war (not disruption or another reason, but edit war) was subsequently blocked for a week for their practice of reverting other peoples contributions without seeking consensus or even discussing the matter back to their previous edited versions after a discussion between me and another sysop. You have been around longer than I have, but it seemed like an edit war - over several Ayn Rand articles - to us. We didn't need to look very hard, either, since the ip already had a 24 hour block a few days previously for that same behaviour. I cannot believe you could have missed it had you looked, so I therefore conclude that you didn't. Also, the page being warred over was sprotected a couple of hours after the PD block to stop the continuing edit war. As I said, possible inattention to matters outside of blocking PD (which I have noted was appropriate on this page) gives rise to these unfortunate impressions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter Damian edit warred with summaries like "about the 6th revert" and then flaunted this on an administrator's talk page, twice. Further he turned the question of whether the administrator would block him or not into a way to make a WP:Point confirming that "I don't have to 'discuss' with lunatics." which constitutes both a personal attack and a stated intention to edit war more in the future, with the assertion that not-blocking would be taken to be implicit permission to do so. How is anyone surprised that this resulted in a block? He begged for it. The semi-protect was done by a different admin for a different reason. Mishlai (talk) 20:27, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

As I have commented in an ongoing discussion on my talkpage, there are no problems with the block of Peter Damian for the policy violations but I have a concern that there was no other action taken in regard to an edit war (plus the fact is was GMC again who blocked PD). If the block was for disruption, one from the drop down menu I use where other policy violations do not suffice, then there would be less concern; edit warring does require other parties, and resolving edit wars usually entails either sanctioning more than one party or protecting the article involved. GMC's action has, as I said, the appearance of being disproportionate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

WMC, you seriously don't see the other edit warrior at Objectivism (Ayn Rand)? I just popped in, and noted it off the bat. If you need your hand held to see that, and you refute comments by others in that regard, then why perform the block? You should be asking for review and for assistance. seicer | talk | contribs 21:44, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion

Peter Damian has continued to evade his block using 81.151.180.208 (talk · contribs) and Peter Damian (temporary) (talk · contribs). Both are blocked, but if this continues, the original block will have to be reset. --auburnpilot talk 16:47, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I think perhaps resetting it now would be appropriate. PD is well aware that block evasion is not permitted. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I just added 72 hours. This kind of stuff is tiresome. Protonk (talk) 20:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

This guy is just yanking our chain. He went to Wikipedia Review admitting to being a previously blocked user (by Jimbo, no less) and claiming that he would sockpuppet but adding good content (which he did, up to a point), and use that to attempt to persuade financial contributors to desist from doing so. However, no admin, including myself, was prepared to give him that satisfaction; we do not dance to the tune of blocked users. However, knowing something of this guy IRL (a minor academic, but no more than that), I suggest it's about time to bring this to an end as far as we can, and I propose a formal ban of User:Peter Damian and all his sockpuppets. A plague on all their houses. Rodhullandemu 23:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• When his siteban was lifted it was against my better judgment: per Wikipedia:Standard offer I prefer to see banned editors demonstrate a fundamental respect for our standards by refraining from evasions of their ban; after several months of that most of them can earn another chance. This one tried to earn his way back through persistent ban evasion, and the block history since his return is not encouraging. Nonetheless, let's give him a fair shake if he's willing to give us one. If he posts a statement acknowledging that site policies apply to everyone (including himself) and pledging to abide by this and any future blocks (or appeal them by normal means)--then I would support a good faith reduction of 24 hours from his current block. Durova^Charge! 00:34, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if linking off-wiki discussions is appropriate, but since you seem to be trying to evaluate intention/attitude [2] Mishlai (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

A post at his user talk would be adequate. We've all had days when we saw red for a while and then thought better of it. A clear demonstration of that is all that's needed here. Durova^Charge! 00:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't simply a user who is having a bad day and seeing red, but a user who has been blocked repeatedly under numerous different accounts (Peter Damian (talk · contribs), Peter Damian II (talk · contribs), Peter Damian (old) (talk · contribs), Peter Damian (temporary) (talk · contribs), Renamed user 4 (talk · contribs), and several IPs). This is a user who seems to believe he is entitled to act a certain way and do certain things without accountability, simply because he's been here longer than others. This is a user who just today refered to me as an entirely useless person and a prick; he also referred to William M. Connolley as an arsehole. Frankly, he has earned his current block and should be happy it isn't longer. --auburnpilot talk 01:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

And he referred to me as a member of The Cabal. Nonetheless I am willing to let bygones be bygones if he is. What could be fairer? After all the dry cleaners returned my black velvet cabal robes three days late. I was forced to attend last week's Cabal Cocktail Party in a black silken dress--so 2006--so I'm not in a mood to toe the party line today. Durova^Charge! 01:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

⬅I'd suggest a slightly less holier than thou attitude than evidenced above. Peter does hard graft on articles, and is prepared to take on many articles that attract high levels of POV editing. he also does rigourous research and references his material. The complete absence of admin intervention on the IP editor involved in this and the failure to deal with editors who play to the limit of WIki rules while refusing to deal with questions was a contributory factor here. Peter has a short fuse but that tends to go with the territory. If you check the edits he made :evading" they were to talk pages only not the articles. We need to spend a bit more time understanding the context in which these actions take place. Peter is easy to provoke, and doing it is a "game" for some. Verdana comes closest to a mature attitude above, what would be nice would someone with admin powers spending some time looking at the content debates and then checking the behaviour of editors who keep to the letter of the law while driving others to frustrated excess. --Snowded (talk) 06:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Snowded. Peter needs to learn to keep his temper under control, but he makes tremendous contributions to the project. The talk of banning is absurd. Seriously, if we perma-banned every snarky user the place would be a ghost-town. Those of you who think Peter should be banned need to ask yourself if it's worth losing his contributions. TallNapoleon (talk) 12:05, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

You know, we have plenty of great article contributors who don't feel the need to either get in trouble or wear the fact that they are article contributors on their sleeve when they get in trouble. I don't understand the mentality that if you rack up enough article edits, block evasion isn't block evasion anymore. Protonk (talk) 17:11, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Then point a few of them at highly troublesome articles like the Ayn Rand ones, NLP and others which have fan clubs of editors, it takes a stubborn personality to stand up to that and a bit more attention to the context should (in my opinion) have resulted in at best a token block, but with a linked block/admonishment to the other two editors. extending the ban when no edits were made to any articles, just a few talk pages was petty. --Snowded (talk) 21:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Hold the phone. I can't for the life of me understand how extending a block for block evasion is petty. Maybe I'm still nursing this grudge that Peter has imagined, but I am having some trouble. PD gets blocked for edit warring. As is his MO, he makes obvious attempts to evade the block and either post on talk pages or make article edits presumably so that this exact conversation can be repeated each time. People can come here and complain that "ignorant admins have blocked a hardworking content contributor, see look at how ludicrous blocking someone for good content edits is!" and ignore (pretty blithely if you ask me) the basis for the original block or the block extension. Blocks, as a technical measure, only block the account, but we are interested in preventing the human behind the account from editing during the block duration. So we do two things to prevent technical blocks from being gamed, one which is unambigously preventative and one which might be seen as punitive. The first is that we block the accounts used to evade a block. I don't see that being called petty here, though I don't imagine it is too far fetched for an accusation like that to be thrown about. The second is that we occasionally, but not always, extend the block for the main account. I'm fully prepared to discuss the validity of the block extension but I refuse to do so if we are just going to toss off words like "petty" and pretend that a discourse is in progress. Do you want to tell me under what conditions block evasion is ok? Maybe that can start us off. Protonk (talk) 21:52, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I can only answer for my own comments not those of others. The only edits Peter made were to talk pages (some of which namely his own he could have made any way), no edits were made to articles. The issue I am raising is that the block was on Peter in isolation and no action was taken against the other two editors (not even a mild warning) (now corrected in the case of the IP). Peter was not the only one frustrated by that. Extending the block TWICE was I think petty, its a legitimate point and you are of course free to disagree with it. It is related to the block extension (your second point). I'll happily change "petty" to "an over reaction" if you want. --Snowded (talk) 04:27, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't feel compelled to change the wording to assuage my concerns. It appears we aren't going to come to agreement. I didn't block PD for edit warring and I don't much care whether or not the IP should be blocked (the article is semi'd so I don't know what a block would do). All I did was see if PD had evaded the block, noted that he did rather obviously, and extend the block. You remark above that the only edits he made were to talk pages, but that is the point. PD doesn't have a history of evading blocks to do nefarious things. He has a history of evading legitimate blocks (no comment on the legitimacy of this precise one) to perform innocuous edits in order to somehow show that the block itself is ludicrous. That's fine if you like civil disobedience and all but civil disobedience still lands you in jail. Letter from Birmingham Jail was not written at the Hilton. Protonk (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

It was an offer as you didn't like the "petty" word. As you say we are not going to agree on this and (if its any comfort or if you are concerned) I think its no an issue with you per se. I think its a significant issue with the tendency in WIkipedia to ignore context on contentious pages. Its too easy just to play to the letter of the law, and that is exploited by editors more experienced in playing the game to the letter of law. Editors who really care (and Peter for all his faults is one of those and i have been on the receiving end an attack or two from him in my time) are punished. The net effect is that it all gets too hard and we end up with corralled articles where attempting to deal with cultists and POV pushers just gets too hard and good editors go elsewhere. --Snowded (talk) 06:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Snowded, dealing with POV pushers is a goal we all share. The distinction you're trying to draw about block evasion is not the way it's usually defined. If Peter was blocked wrongly in the first place then the unblock template usually straightens out the error, or if someone else should've been blocked too then a separate thread on the other individual's behavior would be more likely to resolve that. A good way to get attention for priorities is to minimize side issues. Durova^Charge! 14:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree per se Durova, however I think we have a wider problem here on articles which attract cultists etc. Its too easy for either numbers, or intelligent gaming of the rules, or simple noise creation to try and get a plague on both your houses response (a good example below of re-spinning, to use a british political phrase can be found below). Its not just Rand pages, we have seen similar things on a range such as NLP (to take another where Peter did good work). Where you get a lot of admins involved (Intelligent design for example) the system just about works, but on the edges its more difficult. We won't get anywhere with it here today, but I'm working off line on some ideas and will post when I have worked something out. Wikipedia is a great example of a complex adaptive system, but the constraints used may in some cases have reached their limits. --Snowded (talk) 06:57, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter has posted in reply to the offer above.[3] Apologies aren't needed, btw--just a commitment to avoid the same problems in future. Also agreeing in principle with Protonk: good content work doesn't generate an exemption from policy (think how many policies I'd be breaking if each featured credit earned a get-out-of block free card). So in good faith let's take a day off the block; Peter's met us halfway. Durova^Charge! 18:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Peter's conduct on the discussion page is evidence of being disruptive, not being productive. If this process is sensitive to character assesment, lets toss out character witnesses in favor of the facts. Recent "discussion" activity follows for Objectivism (Ayn Rand) --Karbinski (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Another user asks PD to support his edit [4]

Despite his edit persisting in the article:[5][6], he campaigns against WP:SYN

He then abandons the existing thread [7],[8] without any answer to the request to support his edit.

He carries on ignoring the request to support his edit [9].

I try, for the second time to point him back to the open discussion [10] but he continues to evade the call to support his edit [11].

I call for a resumption of peaceful discussion [12] and complain about the branching into multiple threads [13]

He creates another thread [14]. I therefore bring a summary of the original thread down to the new one [15].

He puts it to me to treat the paragraph piece-meal instead of as a whole [16] and I respond that its the paragraph being contested [17]

Now he gives his support [18] broken down sentence by sentence. But this doesn't follow the structure of the actual paragraph [19]. Further, it does nothing to answer my often repeated original complaint [20].

And now he flaunts the need for discussion and civil discourse [21]

Another user summarizes all this quite clearly here.

Now I'm further denegrated by user Peter Damian [22]. It seems that accroding to user Peter Damian only he has standing for what passes or fails as good content [23].

I essentially repeat myself [24] about how the paragraph in question is OR, and express some frustration over user Peter Damians behavior so far [25].

PD now thanks me for being specific about objecting to 'it follows' (recall this oft repeated comment [26]), and tells me how I failed to identify even more OR in his paragraph! [27] - did you catch the small personal attack?

Now user PD invites an analysis of Rand in favor of discussing the article [28] followed by more campaigning against WP:SYN and admonishing me for not doing likewise [29]

I attempt once again to bring the discussion back on track, and try to ensure my objection is clear [30]

The IP 160 user then steps into the fray [31]

An outside perspective is given on the issue here --Karbinski (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

As for being nothing more than a POV pusher of an editor we have this as an opening section for the article --Karbinski (talk) 01:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Other blocks by Connolley

If we're allowed to even question this admin's actions without risking further blocks, I'd appreciate comment as to whether this or this is considered appropriate admin behaviour, (background is here). Andy Dingley (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Imho it is not because WP:BLOCK says that blocks can only be issued "to protect Wikipedia and its editors from harm" and I see nothing of that in this block. While the section about self-requested blocks was removed, I think any admin should be very careful not to take remarks on any other talk page as a request for a block. Especially not when the user they are blocking just criticized their admin actions, because then it's unlikely they are impartial enough to judge this situation correctly and should not perform further admin actions on users involved. Regards SoWhy 22:54, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

That block strikes me as a bad decision. Protonk (talk) 23:01, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I would say that blocking someone because they asked you to is about as bad as a decision as asking to be blocked. Chillum 01:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it's far worse, because the blocking admin ought to have known better. --Malleus Fatuorum 01:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I didn't ask to be blocked, I certainly didn't intend for this to be read as a request to be blocked - Why?! and had I (maybe I could use an enforced wikibreak), I would have written "Could some admin please block me, thankyou". However the whole PD saga seems to have too many admins over-reacting because they can, not because they should. Making any sort of comment on this is the behaviour that attracts blocks for the wikicrime of lese majeste to admins, I posted a tongue-in-cheek recognition that I knew this was likely to happen (and felt the point about PD was worth making anyway) and then this admin was foolish enough to think that such a mis-use of a block, even when the target had already raised its likelihood, was still a valid action.

I'm required to WP:AGF, so my bock must have been for one of four reasons.

1. Preventing imminent or continuing damage and disruption to Wikipedia.

2 Deterring the continuation of disruptive behavior by making it more difficult to edit.

4 Encouraging a more productive, congenial editing style within community norms

Now please, if I have damaged WP, please point out my error. If I was critical of an admin's actions over PD or their right to act in that way, beyond reasonable and fairly tactful discussion of whether we couldn't find a more productive way to act in the future, then please point it out.

Now I can't see any such thing in my recent actions, which leaves only:

3 Encouraging a rapid understanding that the present behavior cannot continue and will not be tolerated.

So admin Connelly's block is only explicable by either assuming his bad faith (which is impermissible), or a new interpretation of blocking policy such that any discussion of admin's actions, no matter how measured, is reason for an immediate block.

That is not, I believe, how an open system of governance is meant to work. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think we credit Andy by assuming he is somehow less capable of knowing better than an admin. Admins are just people not infallible gods, they don't always get things right. While the block was not the brightest move, requesting it to make a point was about on the same level. Chillum 01:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

So your defence of a bad block is that the blocking administrator is more or less dim than the editor who (s)he blocks? --Malleus Fatuorum 01:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Honestly, I don't see a defense for this one. Permit me to be crude. Andy was either fucking around or spoiling for a fight. In either case, WMC shouldn't have taken the bait. It's his responsibility to refrain from doing so. Period. I don't like "requested blocks" one bit, but this plainly wasn't one. However, on the grand scale of things we ought to be caring about, this ranks relatively low. Protonk (talk) 03:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to echo but state more strongly what a couple of other editors have already mentioned—this was just a horrendous block, and while it's over and done with now I'm astounded that William M. Connolley seriously thought it was a good idea (but then again maybe he wasn't taking it that seriously). It's pretty difficult if not impossible to read Andy Dingley's comment as a serious request for a block, and even if Connolley thought that's what was going on he should have at least clarified it first. I have no idea what the backstory to this is and don't particularly care, but whatever it is it does not excuse or justify a block of this nature. I don't think there's anything further to do with this right now, but unfortunately William M. Connolley has made some poor decisions about his use of the bit in the past and now we have another example. At a minimum I would ask William to please stop and think for about 30 seconds before doing something like this again. There is no universe in which that block would have ended up as a good thing for the project. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:41, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

See: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley, for many more "horrendous blocks" (section written by me, my old user name)Ikip (talk) 08:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

It has long been my opinion that William M. Connolley is quite unsuited to be an administrator. I recomend that the Arbcom releive him of his responsibilities before further disruption is caused by his attention seeking blocks. Of course, they won't and his bigoted and narrow minded interpretation of his duties will continue. This is to be regretted. Giano (talk) 17:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

It's clear that WMC has acted inappopriately during this episode (if for the simple fact he removed someone's comments in this thread a few revisions back). I think that we need some DR step to ascertain what should be done, but an RfC would probably not be certified and I'd not want to go to RfAr if we had other options. Thoughts? Sceptre ^(talk) 19:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I thought it was more odd that the anon made the original comment [32], and then made these posts at Giano's talk page [33] [34] before Giano signed the above comment [35]. Can this be clarified so we can be sure - was the comment made by Giano when he didn't sign in, or was this Giano endorsing the comment of someone else? Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Giano added it first. The anon was simply putting it back after it had been removed earlier. --Onorem♠Dil 19:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok; thank you for clarifying. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

For an admin to remove critical comments because he doesn't like them is way out of line. I've never had any interactions with WMC before, but I must say that this episode has not favorably impressed me at all. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Boring William M. Connolley (talk) 22:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Obvious sock is obvious

Resolved

 – Registered and anon editors all blocked (again!), many thanks! One outstanding, but DHCP (and socky bedtime) renders it redundant. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

My quacking chum, User:Nimbley6 has a new sock: Noyougirls55 (talk · contribs). Could a considerate admin aim their WP:DUCK-shooting shotgun and dispatch Noyougirls55 to the great duck pond in the sky?

Background material for the novice hunter may be found here.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:19, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I took a punt.LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:37, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

(Groan!) Well, thanks for sending the sock down the river. Hopefully the sock master will go south for the winter. Thanks again! Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:41, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Nimbley6 is now socking as 78.144.121.179 (talk · contribs) - could someone zap? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• If anyone is interested, if it edits Leon Jackson it usually is. Anyhoo, I've blocked this one too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

• Many thanks! Though I am extremely disappointed at the lack of puns... ;-) This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 09:36, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oh how I hate weekends and school holidays. It's back, editing as 78.144.83.232 (talk · contribs). Could a WP:DUCK-hunting, WP:BLOCK-wielding, WP:SOCK-cleaning admin stomp please? Nimbley6 appears to be unsure what "indefinitely blocked" means. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. Now if I could only find where I put my light gun . . . TNXMan 12:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! Alas, no light-gun puns from me, I'm all out of photonic puns. Thanks again, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, at least tomorrow is Monday, right?! The little troll will be back at school (and, apparently, the school are wise enough to forbid access to computers. Anyhoo... a fresh IP has popped up: 78.144.95.111 (talk · contribs). Could some kindly school-master or school-marm educate my school-chum? 1000 lines - "I must not sock when indefintely blocked..." Thank you! This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:23, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• I keep on having to do this - to whom do I send my bill? LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Your bill? Are you a duck too?  ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:12, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• You mean you've not got the cheque from Student Awards Agency for Scotland? It should be in the post, I'll chase them in the morning. Meantime, many thanks. Unfortunately a rangeblock is probably out of the question, because the ISP uses several ranges. My hope is that with enough blocks, and enough reverts, the silly little troll will get bored and go off and find a more suitable activity for a Scottish youth. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:46, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Betcha all thought I'd forgotten about you, eh?! It's Friday Monday, it's five to five, it's time for socking! Yes, sock fans, Nimbley6 is back - and today's contestant IP is 78.150.231.233 (talk · contribs). Could someone dole out the cabbages? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Quiet for hours, I suspect the sock's run away for the night. Marking as resolved (again). This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• IWannaHaveFergie'sBabies:) (talk · contribs) registered in order to create an article - admirable, no?! Except the article is a list of tour dates that a Nimbley6 IP sock was desperate to link to here. Username registered a minute or two after the IP's last edit. I hear quacking, and bring it here so that a prophylactic can be applied to save poor Fergie from unwanted babies socks. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
  • (NB. Listed at SPI, but purely so there's a record of registered socks. Cheers This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC))
  • Any takers? C'mon, there's some obvious pun-potential here! ;-) This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• I have taken a punt at this one, too. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, that works for me! Many thanks, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

72.199.110.160: topic specific ban request

Resolved

 – A six-month topic ban of this IP from Ayn Rand related articles has been enacted. The editor may still contribute on the Talk pages of these articles. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

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

The Ayn Rand article has been viewed over 136,000 times in the last 30 days alone [36]. It is viewed more than articles of far greater importance to the Western canon of philosophy such as Rene Descartes [37], Immanuel Kant [38], or Jean-Paul Sartre [39] and is curiously viewed almost as much as the articles on Plato [40] and Aristotle [41].

To be sure, the article attracts its fair share of partisan traffic, tendentious editors and single-purpose accounts. (NB: almost 30% of the article’s edits come from anon IPs.)

The original intention of the ArbCom ruling for the curious case of Ayn Rand and related articles was to stop all of the bickering and disruption. ArbCom issued the following relevant enforcement points:

1. “Editors not specifically named or sanctioned in this case are not excused or exonerated for any inappropriate conduct. Administrators and the community may choose to enact additional topic bans, blocks, site bans, or other sanctions, as necessary to prevent disruption and ensure a productive editing environment.”
2. “Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to respond to further disruption with escalating (in scope and duration) topic bans.”
3. “Uninvolved administrators are encouraged to use escalating blocks, as necessary, to enforce topic bans and prevent disruption.”

Now consider the case of 72.199.110.160 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The anon IP has been editing Wikipedia since 7 October 2008. The user has roughly 1,300 edits under its belt, dispelling any notion of being ignorant of Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines.

An analysis of the user’s edits reveals that it is largely a single-purpose account used for the editing of Ayn Rand-related articles [42]. Indeed, 160 has edited the Ayn Rand article more than any other editor [43]. By themselves these facts would not be problematic were it not for the following:

1. The “abuse filter log” indicates the new user has removed verifiable content over 30 times in the past few months alone.
2. The user has been blocked for edit warring and disruption. The first time on 26 April 2009 by MBisanz for a period of 31 hours. The measure was ineffective.
3. The user does *not* discuss its edits on Talk pages. Rather, it chooses to edit unilaterally forgoing discussions leading up to WP:CONSENSUS.
4. The user persistently and aggressively reverts edits it dislikes. example, example, another example . (Note: there are many more examples).
5. The user has been asked multiple times by multiple editors to take its contentious edits to the talk page for the purpose of discussion and consultation. [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49]
6. The editor is known to be uncivil, rude, and disruptive.[50][51] [52][53]
7. If it disagrees (which is often), the anon IP loves to shout at other editors in BOLD CAPS. One of too many examples to cite here: [54]
8. The user assumes bad-faith of others who edit collegially. [55]
9. Now there is talk on the Wikipedia Review that anon IP 160 is none other than James S. Valliant himself, the author of a minor partisan work, The Passion of Ayn Rand’s Critics, which received absolutely no attention in either the media or academe according to JSTOR, LexisNexis, Google News and Google Scholar. Should this IP verification prove correct, anon IP 160 might be in breach of a conflict of interest.
10. Indeed, should this IP trace prove correct, anon IP 160’s repeated re-insertion of Valliant’s work throughout the Ayn Rand-related articles makes a great deal of sense. The conflict of interest alone should garner serious consideration as the user is unable to edit neutrally.

Overall, my recommendation is to enact ArbCom’s ruling and ban anon IP 160 from Ayn Rand-related articles. Currently, the user is blocked for a period of 1 week [56]. The block is insufficient. The history of this user suggests that further disruption to Ayn Rand-related articles is inevitable. Thank you for your time. J Readings (talk) 23:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Note that a ban is a social mechanism. If he breaks it, it needs to be immediately and strongly enforced. TallNapoleon (talk) 03:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

• Comment This ip is currently blocked for a week, following a discussion on my talkpage. It should be noted that the article is already semi-protected, so the block on the account is in respect of the civility, WP:OWN, and other issues. The tariff of one week was agreed since the previous block was for one day and the suggested 1 month block was felt to be too large an escalation. The ip has been notified by the blocking admin EdJohnston (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) that the block may be lifted if they agree to use the talkpages and obtain consensus for their preferred changes. Any discussion here that may vary these actions should be promptly notified to the ip. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:58, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

The IP won't engage with anyone. That's the problem. Maybe the threat of dropping the block-hammer on him every time he tries to edit a Rand-related page will fix that. I don't know... but I doubt it. TallNapoleon (talk) 12:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

But that's the way things work. First, talk to the editor, then second, enforce our editing norms with escalating blocks. An eventual topic ban would be difficult to enforce (since it would largely rely on the WP:DUCK test and similarity of IPs) but not impossible. Thatcher 13:39, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

In this case, though, we do already have the ArbCom ruling which prescribes topic bans, enforced by blocks, for the conduct of the IP editor.KD Tries Again (talk) 16:56, 10 May 2009 (UTC)KD Tries Again

Other editors have expressed some opinions on this issue at User talk:EdJohnston#Lock down of Objectivism article. It's worthwhile to keep enforcing the rules against disruption, since this is something that admins can correctly do, and it is likely to be beneficial in this case. Since this editor is a fixed IP with 1,300 edits, a topic ban could have some effect. The ban could be lifted if he will agree to change his behavior. The 'talk to the editor' option doesn't work for this guy, since he never responds. EdJohnston (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

How about a six-month topic ban on all Ayn Rand and Objectivist-related articles? The anon IP cannot edit the mainspace articles, but would be free to participate in talk page discussions to express concerns and suggestions about content improvement. This way, the restrictions can lead to an evaluation of whether the desired behavioral changes take place. Of course, should it be proven that anon IP 160 is in fact James Valliant, I would seriously recommend that he be banned outright from Ayn Rand-related articles. The conflict of interest would pretty much guarantee the user cannot edit neutrally. Thoughts? J Readings (talk) 00:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. I would also, as I have asked before, greatly appreciate it if an admin or two would take it upon themselves to watch Rand-related articles. TallNapoleon (talk) 21:34, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I suggest that consensus has been reached for a six-month topic ban of 72.199.110.160 from Ayn Rand related articles. EdJohnston (talk) 13:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I would propose he is explicitly allowed to edit on the discussion pages. --Karbinski (talk) 14:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this action at User talk:72.199.110.160#Topic ban. I've entered this action in the log of blocks and bans under the Arbcom case. EdJohnston (talk) 22:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone for their time and consideration of this matter. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 23:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

request for a correction

I would like to request a correction on the Boron page. In section "Characteristics" there is a phase diagram reproduced from our paper (Oganov et al., Nature 2009), but this is not reflected in the caption. qUnfortunately, the editor NIMSOffice has personal interests not to give us credit. I am investigating possibilities to block NIMSOffice from editing Boron page due to conflict of interest (any suggestions welcome). In any case, if a figure is reproduced from our paper, we hope that proper credit can be given.

Furthermore, NIMSOffice made another sentence (also against us): "It is not clear yet whether the atomic bonding in this phase is partially ionic[11] or covalent[12]. " In fact, it has been shown by us [11] that while bonding is predominantly covalent, the partial ionic character is surprisingly important. I suggest a sentence like this: "Chemical bonding in this phase, while predominantly covalent, has a surprisingly important partial ionic component [11]. "

Thanks a lot!

Artem R. Oganov Aoganov (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

• From what I can tell, the phase diagram that appears in that section does cite your 2009 Nature paper as one of the sources (#11 in the references section) (at least from the current revision of the page, I haven't checked further back). It is also not an exact copy of the one in your paper, which is a subset in a larger diagram and in color.

  In general, the second part of your complaint appears to be a content dispute. Syrthiss (talk) 13:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

  • On the phase diagram - our paper is the ONLY place where this diagram was published. NIMSOffice gives lots of references, none of which contain this diagram. Yes, he also cut our diagram, presenting only the lower-pressure part of it. Even that part appeared only in our Nature paper.Aoganov (talk) 14:49, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
    • Sorry, thats what I get for quick checks... I've removed the other sources. I was able to view all of the other papers save one, and none had even anything close to your diagram. Syrthiss (talk) 15:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
      • Thanks a lot! I find it quite hard on Wikipedia, being a new user. NIMSOffice consistently edits the page on Boron in a way unfavorable to us. The example with the phase diagram illustrates it very clearly.

        Being a new user I cannot edit the semi-protected Boron page and NIMSOffice just ignores my corrections. Is there a way also to correct the wrong statement "It is not clear yet whether the chemical bonding in this phase is partially ionic[11] or covalent[12]"? The controversy alleged by NIMSOffice is non-existent: it has been shown by us [11] that while bonding is predominantly covalent, the partial ionic character is surprisingly important. I would suggest a sentence like this: "Chemical bonding in this phase, while predominantly covalent, has a surprisingly important partial ionic component [11], which explains rather strong infrared absorption and splitting of the longitudinal and transverse optical modes." Artem R. OganovAoganov (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

        • (Tangentially related) You'll be able to edit the article soon, once you're autoconfirmed - this happens when your account is 4 days old, and you've made at least 10 edits (including edits to this page!) Hope that helps, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
          • It might very well not. The situation is not quite as it would seem from the above.

            It's a fair bet, for example, that Aoganov and the several IP addresses (24.186.165.248, 129.49.95.70, 129.132.208.225, and 194.254.166.46) and single-purpose accounts (ESRFBeam, GFZLab, and Dian john1) that have been edit warring on the article are one and the same. The edits and talk page accusations are the same. Two of those IP addresses have outright self-identified as M. Oganov on the article's talk page (here and here).

            Similarly, whilst M. Oganov asserts above that "The controversy alleged […] is non-existent", xe is at the same time busily editing away at Gamma boron discovery controversy (example, example, example).

            And finally, whilst M. Oganov states that xe is a "new guy here" since "8 May 2009" who writes "under my real name", 129.132.208.225 made this edit and this edit back in March, and on Talk:Boron the self-identified IP address talks of editing on the 6th of May. (The … confusion as to when xe actually started editing may be caused by the typing difficulties that are frequently incurred when one is wearing socks on one's hands.)

            It's probable that all that auto-confirmation will do is allow the edit war to resume. This edit and this edit don't bode well for the future, moreover.

            I sense another Bogdanov affair brewing if we let it. I recommend that we take the same line here as was taken then, and ban people involved in this external dispute from carrying it into Wikipedia. Uncle G (talk) 20:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

            • Uncle G, what I wrote is true. I edit always under my own, real name. I believe that editing under fake names is not only cowardly, but ineffective as well. Indeed, I am a new guy. I don't really know how to properly edit pages. You can see how many formatting mistakes I make... and more experienced users give me useful tips, so that I get better with each day. I also learn, little by little, about WP-policies.

              In any case, I can guarantee to you that if I edit Wiki-pages, there will be no puppet accounts, no incorrect information etc. If one edits under real name, there is a great sense of responsibility. On the other hand, I suggest we look closer into the identity of NIMSOffice. This anonymous user clearly has interest in the boron story and misuses his anonymity and editorial privileges. In one recent case it was all too obvious - he reproduced a graph from our paper without giving the source. I contacted NIMSOffice, requesting a change - but to no avail. Another editor made the correction, after a careful investigation concluding that I was right. Aoganov (talk) 00:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC) Artem R. Oganov

            • Uncle G, the Gamma boron discovery controversy only discusses a controversy in who discovered what. It doesn't establish that there's a controversy about whether "the chemical bonding in this phase is partially ionic[11] or covalent[12]". I'm not saying one doesn't exist. I have no idea but the Gamma boron discovery controversy doesn't discuss or establish any. Also I'm not sure whether linking to the Bogdanov affair is a good idea. That was about something that is widely believe to be a hoax or otherwise other nonsense with a lot of potential fraud in perpetuating that hoax. This as I've said appears to be solely a dispute about who discovered what and when Nil Einne (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
      • I completely agree with Nil Einne. I've read on the Bogdanoff affair, and it's a totally different case. We talk about the priority in a discovery, and the correctness of the discovery itself is not disputed. Aoganov (talk) 13:39, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Artem R. Oganov
        • • • • You clearly haven't read the talk page discussion and edit histories. I don't blame you. I have, however. This isn't a controversy about chemical bonding. It's an external dispute, between two (possibly more) academics, each side accusing the other of being unethical, that has spilled over into Wikipedia in the quite silly form of long user space and talk page harangues accusing named living people of academic fraud and edit wars over whether a source from academic group A can be cited next to a source from academic group B or even anywhere in the article at all (example of an Oganov edit removing such a source, example of another source removal made in April example of another source removal made in March), edits (example) disparaging the work of one of the parties involved in their biographies, and now an entire article in the article namespace itself sourced to non-independent sources. It has been compounded by gross assumptions of bad faith, explanations of the history of the dispute that are clearly not in accord with the actual article and talk page edit histories, attempted outing of other editors, and sockpuppetry.

                This is very much a Bogdanov affair in the budding, if we don't nip it now. It aligns almost completely with the Bogdanov findings of fact. Participants in an external controversy (at least from one side) are editing Wikipedia to further their claims in that controversy, and there has already been sockpuppetry. The remedy here is the same as there: External academic conflicts may not be brought into Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not to be a middle-man in such conflicts. Uncle G (talk) 12:44, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) Well, I took a look at the discussion pages at Boron & Gamma boron discovery controversy, & there obviously is some kind of dispute there which makes no sense. (No, don't explain it to me -- it makes no sense because the reason for the dispute makes no sense to me. I'm willing to agree with Uncle G that it's an external dispute between two academics & leave it at that.) Carl/CBM is keeping an eye on things, & I'm willing to back any decision he makes on the matter. It's the least I can do for someone trying to keep a weird situation under control. -- llywrch (talk) 17:13, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thinking about this more, and reading the above, I believe my position is this (regarding the diagram only, not the greater conflict): being that the diagram that exists on the article is a synthesis of information from published works (no slight to NIMSoffice, it was a good faith attempt to add information to the article), and that the article doesn't totally hinge on that diagram (the article is on Boron, not on the phase complexity of Boron), and in my opinion having a stable well sourced article is better than a hugely reverted article with a nuclear sock cloud around it (not saying this is the case currently, but that could be an outcome)... I believe the diagram should be removed from the article. We most definitely do not want an external academic dispute to spill over into the encyclopedia, and if that means curtailing the article to a less controversial state then I am all for it. This is my opinion only, so if consensus leans to another solution I will support whatever other resolution we find. (slightly refactored from my talk page to fit in here) -Syrthiss (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Uncle G that the whole dispute clearly damages wikipedia, flooding its pages with offensive and unsourced information. This can only undermine the trust in the wikipedia as a whole. In this sense, Syrthiss is probably right that deleting information, even if it is correct, but causes bitter dispute and can't be stopped, might be wise after all. Moreover, regular wikipedia editors are getting dragged too. There is no secret that I and Aoganov are in personal conflict over the ways to behave on wikipedia and I won't comment on that here. I just wanted to tell the community that there is no "scientific war" here, simply because only one party is being represented on wikipedia. As far as I can tell, the other party was asked to join, but is silent. I myself got dragged into this too and by all means will leave the dispute for the sake of wikipedia. The whole story does look real nasty, and thus natural suspicions may fall on me too, as I am being put forward as its cause. Thus please look at the facts, not the words; scrutinize me to the bones if necessary. Aoganov did already list my email ladarabara(atatat)yahoo.com and I am happy to reply here or there.NIMSoffice (talk) 01:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

NIMSOffice, I just wanted to tell you what I told you before (in response to your anonymous emails to me): I have no conflict with you, but I do oppose your actions and consider them as biased. I have no hard feelings against you and I hope that with time you will understand the situation of a scientist whose friend attempted first to steal, and then to discredit his work. This is unacceptable, and I did not enjoy the fact that you tried to help them in both of their directions (first stating their priority, and then copying their statements damaging our work). I would be happy if an investigation is launched into your identity and relations with Dubrovinskaia's group. I know that some people who are currently at NIMS even collaborated with Dubrovinskaia (I emailed one such person recently, and got no reply... I think it was you!). Such behaviour of editors as what you displayed damages Wikipedia for sure. The only way to make Wikipedia viable is to stay objective and within one's expertise. By now I've edited a lot of pages, but as you can see I only edit those pages, where I am 100% competent. I suggest you do the same.

P.S. I gave your email address, from which you wrote me - but it's a fake one, so there should be no problem making it available. My real (i.e. not fake) email address is easily retrievable from Google. We obviously play different games, mine being way more open (and, by implication, more vulnerable). I accept this game only because what I do is correct, and each statement I make has waterproof documentary support.

P.P.S. Another thing - it is not my intention to damage anybody's reputation. I was dragged into this dispute only by (1)Dubrovinskaia's attacks on us, and (2)your bias. From what I read on talk pages, Dubrovinskaia, Dubrovinsky and Filinchuk were indeed contacted and told their story that was different from what I wrote. I am not sure what it is, because it is certainly some untrue story (there is only one truth and a million possible lies - which one they chose, I don't know). However, I am confident that they are unable to produce any documentary support whatsoever. To me at least, this explains why they did not get back to Wikipedia on this issue. But let's see - maybe they can fabricate something.

Aoganov (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2009 (UTC)Artem R. Oganov

Possible COI, incivility, &c.

Post was recently archived, but it appears THD3 posted on it today, and the subject of the complaint hasn't had a chance to respond. Moved it to the following subpage.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents/Fanoftheworld

Alexrexpvt (talk)

Swimmerfreak94

This is not a policy issue as far as I can tell, but I'm bringing it here just because...well, it's a bloody mess. Swimmerfreak94 (talk · contribs) is an admitted thirteen-year-old editor, but is rather outspoken about his religious beliefs. From some of his comments on someone else's talk page, he's now attracted a string of IPs attacking him on his user page, and a whole lot of religious arguments filling up his talk page. None of this seems like it'll be constructive to the encyclopedia, especially if the editor is actually thirteen. It might be time for an admin to step in with a word or a semi-protection before things get too ugly. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

While we don't have a rule about contributions to articles vs talk pages etc this editor has only contributed 3 minor article edits out of 41 edits - all the others are to talk pages etc. I'm not convinced this user is here to help build an encyclopedia. Exxolon (talk) 22:59, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

A quick glance at the user's contributions shows that they are not here to contribute constructively. I'll issue a final warning. Nakon 23:10, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I think that some of these arguments against me are not factually based...well...most but not all. this encyclopedia is for all ages. I do try to make good additions and/or contributions without inserting POV or bias. I don't mind any attacks on my page, and I never ever call anyone any bad names, cuss words etc. on theirs. I merely argue against them. I even get my totally UNBIASED contributions deleted...I think that I should be a little upset too, but am I? no. I'll tryy to stop...I've also been told that rules on talk pages are more lax and I have more freedom. MY BAD. Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 00:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

See WP:NOT. Among the many things Wikipedia is not, it is not a web forum. If you're here to primarily argue religion on talk pages then you've come to the wrong place. TallNapoleon (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Seconded - specifically Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Exxolon (talk) 00:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I've been WP:BOLD and removed the bait from the user page, and the soapbox discussion on the user talk page. I've left the most helpful note I know how to as well. Continued soapboxing should yield a block or topic ban. Toddst1 (talk) 01:04, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose I disagree with the way that this young man is being treated it isn't his fault that other users are harassing him on his talkpage and he is free to feel however he wants about religion.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 01:49, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

TO: (User talk:194x144x90x118) actually, 194x144x90x118, I'm a girl...haha. but no biggie. Thanks alot for your kindness. Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 02:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

He's free to argue about religion, sure. Just not on Wikipedia. Thats not what we're for. Matty (talk) 04:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• As far as I can tell the only thing approaching a mainspace contribution is this little doozy and this pov-pushing. That doesn't read as neutral editing to me. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but his talkpage shows this user may hold a different view. If he does, Wikipedia is not for him. Ironholds (talk) 05:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Logged out edits of the same behavior

See this, reference more here. The last IP edit was just a couple days ago. This is not appropriate and the young lady needs to shape up, and fast. Keegan^talk 21:16, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

• ugh* I TOLD you guys that I would try to stop. :Please just wait and see and DEFINITELY don't jump on a very old post-especially my first. And Ironholds, the "This" that you referred to was NOT pov-pushing. It's what Mother Teresa referred to herself as. Therefore it is factual and not pov. the same could be said about "anti-abortion stance", couldn't it? Mother Teresa referred to herself as "pro-life" and not "anti-abortion".

Swimmerfreak94 (talk) 15:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

If she also opposes war and capital punishment, then it could be fair to label her as "pro-life". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Not if American Dad is a reliable source. Durova^Charge! 00:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Steve: What am I gonna do?!

Hayley: Whatever you want. You know, a pregnant boy still has the right to choose.

Stan: Not in this house he doesn't. We're Conservatives and the one way we don't like to kill things is that way.[57]

You lost me at the bakery. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Will to Power (band)

On the page for the musical group Will to Power and its talk page, a few editors who may be one and the same have been vigorously trying to discredit a former member of the group, Suzi Carr. I've been watching the page for a while and keep seeing this editor and this one removing or rewording edits, some of which I've made. The talk page is a bit creepy with the level of anger directed towards her, and one of them uploaded an image a while back (since gone, license request ignored) that attempted to show what she looks like without being airbrushed. My hunch is that these editors are affiliated with the group, which I'm not, and it's a COI, but I have no way of knowing. I posted about an edit reversal on the Editor Assistance board, and it was suggested I post it here. My most recent edit to the article was undone earlier tonight by Global and un-undone by another user. Some of the edits are [58], [59], [60], [61] for the first editor and [62] and [63] for the second. Thanks for looking into this, and I hope I posted this in the right place. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 04:59, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Isn't she alive? BLP applies to talk pages too. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Ok, BLP does apply. I've archive the nonsense, warned both users and will see if they calm down in the morning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your intervention in this, Ricky. I've been getting myself agitated about this whole situation, and I think it needed some objectivity. I'm pretty sure BLP applies to her, and to Bob Rosenberg and most of the rest of the musicians. Thanks again. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

The editor in question has made a reply, which... is frankly suggestive of several misconceptions, that I've attempted to rectify with some good faith advice. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

May want to inform him that "per Bob Rosenberg" is not a reliable source. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

And well, this comment is definitely concerning. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Will to Power (band) again

User:Zephyrnthesky has been trying to improve the article on Will to Power (band) by adding pertinent well sourced information about one of the singers, Suzi Carr. User:GLOBALCREATOR has been mercilessly reverting these edits, porbably to the point of an edit war. User:Zephyrnthesky revised the addition, and added more sources everytime this was done. Recently, I reverted the edits of User:GLOBALCREATOR (I came into this on a call for help on Editors Assistance requests). The next day my edit had been reverted, and User:GLOBALCREATOR's edit summaries were almost personal attacks. He has never once tried to explain his actions on the talk page, and when confronted ignores the confronter. This seems to be a single purpose account as his only edits are to the will to power article.Drew Smith What I've done 01:24, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally agree with you, but his/her edit summaries don't really seem like personal attacks. He/she, however, could be mistaken; "Add important info taken out by unauthorized person who is vidictivly making changes to this page daily". -download ׀ sign! 01:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Warned and watchlisted. I agree that it doesn't quite cross the the NPA line, but it is certainly an uncivil display of ownership. —Travis^talk 02:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

As noted above, this comment is concerning and it's clear this editor takes a WP:OWN attitude to the article. See his further edits removing content yet again. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

User has again removed perinent information, including, oddly enough, a birthdate for a singer, even though the date is in the URL of the reference given!Drew Smith What I've done 03:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, I guess I'm the one who "turned up the heat" on this, but I'd like to explain my intentions. I've been watching these two editors, GLOBALCREATOR and AKATheBeast (plus the occasional anonymous IP) trying to turn the article on this group into promotional material for about a year. Originally I just focused on re-adding one sentence regarding Suzi Carr, only to keep watching it taken out repeatedly. I'm going to phrase this delicately: it's clear to me that the information presented in the article should be written by a) someone who is not and never has been in the group, b) someone who has never met (or has any desire to meet) anyone ever in the group, and c) someone who is or was not in any way affiliated with the group. I fit the bill on all of these, and I give a damn enough about this group to try to improve the article. Although my original intention was to credit Carr since I thought she deserves it, beginning yesterday I really made a good-faith effort to improve the whole thing. Apparently at least some of my edits met with the approval of those who feel they own this information, because it's still there, but the slant (pro-this member, anti-that member) is obvious to me after the amount of time I've spent on this. I went to EAR a week ago, took the advice and posted civilly on the article talk page what my intentions were, and now I'm pretty fed up with this. This is going to be a challenge for me, though, because now I've gotten others mixed up in this as well. Have I been too assertive in my overhaul of the article? Should I ask for other opinions on another forum? Thanks for any advice, no matter what. End rant. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 03:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

No need to explain. It's clear what's going on. Frankly, no band page should have this much inane details about the background of individual members. If the members are notable enough, they deserve their own page. Perhaps it's time to lock those characters out and start rewriting to something sensible. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, rewriting it and making it sensible was my intention beginning last week, although I'm now so involved in this (as are you and others) that I'm starting to doubt myself. I replied on Global's talk page to a comment addressed to me, but I'll take the advice of the experts and elders on here or elsewhere. Thanks. Zephyrnthesky (talk) 04:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

He's gone and taken everything out yet again. I'm just gonna leave it alone until and admin does something about, I don't want to be part of an edit war.Drew Smith What I've done 05:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I moved this section into the above one so we don't have parallel discussions on what is basically the same subject. Protonk (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• I think we've reached the limits of AGF here. I've blocked GLOBALCREATOR for one week; hopefully this will allow those interested editors above to knock the article into some sort of shape without having their every edit reverted or contested. EyeSerene^talk 10:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Roaring Siren - copyvio issues

User:Roaring Siren was warned earlier today about copyright violation after I discovered that the plot summary of Terror Inside was cut-and-pasted verbatim from IMDB. Since then, they have added more copyvio to Al Farooj Fresh (copied from here and here). The original version of the article appears to be copyvio from those same sources. They have also just created Mimi Lesseos, which contains copyvio from here and likely other places. Can someone deal with this in whatever manner is appropriate? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

What's that you say? Simple copyright violation doesn't have enough drama enough for admin attention? No problem! I'm sure the editor has seen the error of their wys now. ;) Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:45, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

It seems that there is a case to answer, although I'm not sure of the extent. The plot summary from Pushed to the Limit (now removed, but old diff seems to have originated with Sandra Brennan according to the NY Times); while with In My Sleep there are lines that are very close (and in at one case identical) to MovieWeb's synopsis (MovieWeb is listed as a ref, but the wording is insufficiently altered). It may be worth digging further. - Bilby (talk) 02:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

soapboxing and personal attacks

an editor has brought the i/p conflict to the jerry seinfeld page of all places! going off on soapbox rants and calling editors antisemites. fun diffs: [64][65] [66] [67] [68] [69] [70] untwirl(talk) 19:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Hm. Drone2Gather (talk · contribs) first appeared on Wikipedia on May 6, 2009. By May 7, they were making edit comments like "Moving unsourced statement to talk page until can be sourced, as per WP:BLP". By May 9, they were editing on AIV. By May 10, they were involved in an edit war. Somehow, I don't think this is a new editor. --John Nagle (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't miss the references to WP:BITE. KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Exclaiming BITE and using it for leverage is not going to work. Especially when the user already finds WQA in that short of time. MuZemike 02:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

really, is this user doing anything but being disruptive and creating animosity? here are some more of his comments:[71] [72] [73]

a new user handing out barnstars, opening a wqa, linking to policy, etc? i smell poultry. untwirl(talk) 23:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Brooklyn Law School

I'd like some input or help, not wanting to get deep into 3rr territory. Please see recent edits, typified by these diffs: [74], [75]. I am trying to remove promotional and peacock text, as well as consolidate news articles into one section. In the past few days it appears that some contributors are editing so as to publicize dissatisfaction with the school, of which these are a few examples: [76], [77]. Any help appreciated. JNW (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

NFCC issue on Spain article

There was recently a discussion at Wikipedia:Non-free_content_review#Image:PicassoGuernica.jpg about the image of the Guernica painting, which is overused. Several accounts, including User:Provocateur, have been re-inserting the image. I could use some help in explaining that this isn't appropriate. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring and Disruptive editing by user Luis Napoles

Resolved

 – editor blocked 72 hours for WP:TE Toddst1 (talk) 15:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This user has been edit warring on Chile for quite sometime, and has previously been blocked for it. I have added some information on the history section of Chile and he keeps deleting it.[78] I used the talk page to discuss the relevance of this information and how the neutrality of previously added sources was compromised but instead of discussing, he just reverts. He also reverts my edits because according to him I should do edits one by one, like everyone else. I don't want fall in his game of edit warring but someone needs to do something about it. He's reverting and deleting sourced information.

Likeminas (talk) 20:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This is a content dispute, and this is not a place for dispute resolution. I would comment that Likeminas has also been blocked for edit warring (upon review) removing sourced information, and it was against the same editor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:57, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Not it's not. And it's very interesting that you happen to answer this. It's also very interesting that now you're using different standards to measure content dispute and disruptive editing, because when user Luis Napoles reported me for deleting his Youtube source (which you wrongly called Vandalism) you said it was not content dispute but instead disruptive editing and proceed to block me right away. It's also interesting that despite that user being reported before me, by another administrator, followed by complaints by another two users[79] you decided to ignore it and quickly answer his petition.

I wonder why.

Likeminas (talk) 21:18, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

The diff you gave is not removal of sourced content, if is difference in emphasis (pov) of the sources given = content dispute. You have failed to show your allegation. You, in the instance where I blocked you, simply removed sourced content without discussion or comment. (I recall another admin reviewed Luis Napoles at that time and decided it was edit warring and blocked them, too.) It is now apparent that the two of you are minded to have admins resolve your content dispute by attempting to have the other blocked.

Ummmm, cos I am brilliant? LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:38, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Well when you blocked me you did a very poor job at investigating, that's why another administrator had to step in apply the rule.

In fact, you even refused to block him saying it was only content dispute despite clear evidence to the contrary.

What's funny is that you didn't even look at what my removal of "sources" (aka Youtube) were.

You have also failed to even look at the link I posted showing how Luis Napoles deletes sourced material.

Having said that, and experienced on my own your lack judgment, I would like to request for a neutral administrator to look into this.

In any case, I don't think you're brilliant at all. Somewhat biased maybe...But, thinking it over, You did fooled the people that named you an administrator, so I'll give you that much.

Likeminas (talk) 23:26, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Even people who might be sympathetic to your arguments won't feel much urge to help you if you write in that tone. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 03:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, you're right. I shouldn't but that administrator's previous actions were rather questionable and perhaps one-sided. What's worst is that he's even being sarcastic about it, as it if it was a joke. That's not the right approach to take.

I just wished a netraul administrator would look into that user's contributions. His talk page (which he has blanked) speaks for itself.

Likeminas (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

This thread caught my eye since Luis Napoles' edits have also raised concerns at the Fidel Castro article. This editor may be bringing a little too much one-sidedness into the fray. That said, looking at the Chile article history, I'd pretty much just call edit-war on the whole thing. Neither of the protagonists here, Luis and Likeminas, are showing a whole lot of inclination to actually discuss things on the article talk page. Nor do they show much inclination to ask others for opinions.

I'd say maybe some warnings are warranted, a few more eyeballs, and some prompting to start talking rather than reverting. Franamax (talk) 04:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I hope you looked into the talk pages of the articles I've edited.

Likeminas (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Another compaint regarding Luis Napoles' edit warring

User:Luis Napoles edits are continually disruptive and have not changed since he was last blocked on 4 May for edit warring[80] I would cite:

1. Luis was officially warned by an admin on 9 May about his engagement in an edit war[81]
2. Removal of sourced content from History of Chile page on 8 May [82]
3. Removal of sourced content (an article from Counterpunch) from the Censorship in Cuba page on 11 May on the basis that is "Conspiracy theorist Barahona's theories belong to the main article"[83] . Luis is aware of the veracity of the source since he referred it to the Reliable Sources Noticeboard.[84] himself on and added WP:SPS tags to the Reporters without borders page regarding the source. After a response from other uses rejecting Luis's complaint he then withdrew the WP:SPS tags from the RWB page [85]. Therefore, he understands that the source meets wikipedia's standards but has knowingly removed it anyway from the Censorship in Cuba page. The content removed by Luis is highly relevant to the page and plaining doesn't belong in an unspecified 'main article'.
4. On the Reporters without borders page he has constantly tried to remove content and apply tags in a long running edit war. I have responded to every one of his points, and when I respond to one of his reasons to delete content, he merely comes up with another reason to do the same edit. I then have to address this reason and then there's another reason...and so on. For instance going back to the Counterpunch source mentioned above he's removed the WP:SPS tag but then replaced it with new tags demanding that the source be verified[86].

I've been very patient with this editor and sought to respond to each of his claims however spurious or unwarranted I (and others) consider them to be, but I would urge action to curtail this pattern of behaviour, especially since he has been blocked before, warned again and failed to change. Every editor who has dealt with him has a similar story to tell.

I originally posted a version of this on the complaint above about Luis Napoles raised by User:Likeminas but I received no response. If I was a carpenter (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be a long-term multi-party, multi-article edit war where there have been numerous blocks. It appears at least:

• Likeminas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• If I was a carpenter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Luis Napoles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

are involved. I've reblocked Likeminas for continuing an edit war which s/he was previously blocked on (Chile), warned Carprenter, and issued a broad warning on edit warring against Luis Napoles. Toddst1 (talk) 13:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The editor "If I was a carpenter" has repeatedly deleted citations and has not participated in the talk page. Earlier, he inserted torture and similar allegations about Otto Reich. Their sources did not mention Reporters Without Borders, or anything related, at all.

In the controversy section, citations about Cuba-RWB conflict are reliable and should be in the article.

However, an undue weight on claims by Barahona, who writes (rather partisan) stories to a political online newsletter. Per WP:FRINGE, coverage on Wikipedia should not make a fringe theory appear more notable than it actually is. A fringe theory can be considered notable if it has been referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication, or by a notable group or individual that is independent of the theory.

The account "If I was a carpenter" has been used since 2007 solely to associate Robert Menard (a living person) with torture and Reporters Without Borders with CIA. Unlike he claims, I have not removed any citation from Reporters Without Borders (same cannot be said about him), only added NPOV templates hoping that "If I was a carpenter" would participate in the talk page.Luis Napoles (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

(e/c with below) I also observe that Luis Napoles' edits seem to be almost uniformly strong-POV pushing and even WP:POINTy. This is indeed a problem. Toddst1 (talk) 13:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed issues in articles when the statements 1.Are completely unverifiable 2.do not resemble what is said in major sources or Encyclopedia Britannica.

There is nothing with it, indeed, I believe it is encouraged. I have always adhered to core policies.Luis Napoles (talk) 14:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Luis' POV edits speak for themselves - complaint #3

His Edits = Within the past month or so Luis Napoles, has edit-warred or come in conflict with not only myself, but with User:Likeminas, User:If I was a carpenter, User:Grsz11, User:Rsheptak, User:Andy Dingley, and User:MarshalN20. In my view, he readily violates Wp:Undue and WP:NPOV while trying to disruptively edit to make a Wp:Point. He is also the embodiment of the advocate in violation of Wiki's Wp:NOTADVOCATE policy. His modus operandi appears to be the following. -(1)- Create anti-Castro articles on barely notable individuals imprisoned in Cuba (usually based off of a single report) - this also includes alleged crimes by Fidel Castro or movements against his rule. -(2)- Furiously rewrite those articles on Cuba with an extreme partisan slant. Thus far he has already violated Talk Page Wp:Consensus at Fidel Castro by basically making that article into an attack piece. This is usually followed by inserting anti-Cuban govt views into fairly innocuous articles like Civil disobedience, nonviolent resistance, Demonstration (people) etc - he even tried ---> inserting anti-Cuban pov into a basic article on librarians -(3)- The only areas he seems interested in editing are those against Cuba, or against Communism. He will also occasionally edit in support of anti-Communism. The result is massive revisions on Augusto Pinochet, Chile, Fulgencio Batista etc where he makes 20 edits at once, and then when someone reverts him, he requests that they revert his edits one at a time (this is where users like Likeminas have gotten caught violating 3RR, as Luis is very savvy with templating, Wp:Wikilawyering, and staying perpetually at 2RR). I have NEVER seen him collaborate or work with another editor (ask him to show one person he has collaborated with). -(4)- Moreover, his plan is usually to selectively delete material based off of his own pov, and then insert bias material in favor of his point of view - which leaves articles he touches resembling very little of the majority of sources. They will be ref'd when he is finished, but completely in violation of Wp:Undue and written in his Wp:Pov with overt bias. I used to doubt how much damage one person could do to the overall wikipedia project, but I now worry that someone with the drive and obvious "mission" to pov push as Luis, can dramatically affect the overall quality of this endeavor. I am sure that in response to this that he will file a report on me, or throw out his usual accusations that I or everyone else doesn't follow Wp:V, which is his usual fall back plan when he enters an article and begins selectively chopping it based off his political view - but please admins review his posting history - it will be clear that what I say here is true.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 13:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Take his words with a grain salt. Redthoreau has been consistently assuming bad faith when someone has asked references. Too often, the response has been attacks on editors rather than addressing the encyclopedia. Recently, he has used edit summaries such as "hopefully your reading comprehension will improve with time" and has modified - and even removed ([87]) - other users' messages on talk pages which are not his own. He uses worrying amount of his energy on attacking editors with messages like one above, instead of improving Wikipedia.Luis Napoles (talk) 14:16, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Admins, notice how there is no refutation of the above accusations? That is because Luis knows that the reality is right there in his edit history. Any Admin who spends 30 min looking over his edit history would instantly see that he deserves at the least a 7-30 day ban, if not indefinite. The diff he refers to was when I removed his usual practice of templating those he is edit warring with 5 warnings at a time, so that when an admin looks on the others page he can say "look at how many warnings he has." The tactic has been effective as it has gotten Likeminas banned every time he has tried it - meanwhile Luis deletes his warnings from his TP.   Redthoreau (talk)RT 14:27, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

After looking further, I see a sustained problem here and have blocked Luis Napoles (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) 72 hours for sustained tendentious editing. If this continues after release of block, I recommend a topic ban on Central/South American/Caribbean politics for this editor. Toddst1 (talk) 14:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I know little of Luis Napoles, our editing areas don't overlap beyond a couple of articles. However even this little exposure has shown me some of the most blatant POV-pushing I've ever seen on WP. What surprises me though is how his tactic of rapidly removing any criticism from his talk page has been so effective at rendering him immune from any block, despite one of the worst edit histories around in terms of POV and refusal to act in a consensus-based manner. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:42, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate the more thorough investigation done by Toddst1. And as it can be seen from the talk page of user Luis Napoles (which he has now blanked) and this discussion, I’m not the only one having serious difficulties with him. Luis, unfortunaly has a very strong POV and that shows significantly on his edits. I should say, though, that after getting blocked last time, he has used the talk pages more than prior to that. I hope that with this second block he will reconsider his behavior and compromises to cooperate and discuss certain issues rather than engage in edit-warring and POV pushing. Likeminas (talk) 14:52, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind, however, that he has done some contributions to the project. Luis obviously holds plenty of knowledge on the topics he wishes to edit, but the obvious problem (obvious since everyone has already mentioned it) is that he also includes information that is more like propaganda than actual encyclopedic material. Moreover, the non-propaganda contributions he makes then happen to be overshadowed by an obvious PoV against anything related to Socialism (mainly communism) and Fidel Castro. As of now, Luis is the clear example of a person who has clouded the knowledge in his mind to the point where he might even think that his contributions to Wikipedia are actually benefiting the project. I doubt blocking him will open that "cloud," just as I doubt he will stop including information that he thinks is correct.--[|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] (talk) 22:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Port Eliot Lit Fest

Multiple problems, starting with the title which should probably be expanded^{Done by Toddst1 (talk · contribs) with thanks -- 91.85.160.75 (talk)} if the subject is notable enough. Then, Timbuktu09 (talk · contribs) (formerly Bamboocracker (talk · contribs)) is continually adding the contents of this page (or other places they are promoting the site on the internet [88][89]) to the article even after being warned by bot and by human. The information is also being shoved into [90] Port Eliot itself. Can you do anything to stop this? 91.85.160.75 (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Roberto212

Resolved

A report at WP:AN3 would be most appropriate here. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Roberto212 is continuing to make distruptive edits (adding unsourced speculation to articles)[91][92] despite previous warnings on his talk page. Once more and he'll breach WP:3RR. Dalejenkins | 17:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

How to figure out status of IP used for block evasion?

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 1 year by Georgewilliamherbert. MuZemike 20:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This is really more a desire for education than a call for action. Dawholetruth (talk · contribs), indef'ed for legal threats, is block-evading to continue the legal threats. The new posts come from 206.223.206.112 (talk · contribs), which localizes to an ISP called KPU Telecommunications in Ketchikan, Alaska. I think it's unlikely that the poster actually lives in Alaska, and what I'm wondering is how to check whether the IP is some sort of proxy. An RBLs search shows it as blacklisted in several ways, but I'm not sure whether that means anything. The legal threats are too silly to really worry about, I'm more interested in educating myself on ways to detect proxies. Looie496 (talk) 18:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing you'd need checkuser access but otherwise Wikipedia:WikiProject_on_open_proxies#Suspected_open_proxies_to_be_checked seems like a good place to start. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

User:145childrenondeathrowIran

Resolved

Blocked. WP:UAA would have likely sufficed for reporting. Nja²⁴⁷ 20:11, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

145childrenondeathrowIran (talk · contribs)

Editor is adding POV to Delara Darabi and using edit summarys to attack editors. Now, I have no interest in the subject at all; I'm simply reverting the page back to NPOV, I'm just bringing this up here and backing away. This guy's clearly got an axe to grind. Perhaps an admin could have a word? HalfShadow 20:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Repeated copy and paste moves by User:PK2

This user has just done a copy and paste move of FOX FM (Melbourne) to Fox FM (Melbourne) and I have now tagged the appropiate page. The reason I bring this here is that when I went to their talk page to advice them against this style of moving pages I notice they've already got two notices about it on their talk page and so I feel that it needs something a bit stronger but don't know how best to proceed as none of the warning tags really apply. Dpmuk (talk) 20:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

BANana_BARset

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/BANana_BARset

Anyone know anything about this? David D. (Talk) 20:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Blocked and left a note on the talk page. Nakon 21:09, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Wow... Wikiwikikid (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like he's just doing cleanup... -download ׀ sign! 21:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Who for? I reverted the edits and noted few pages were inactive since 2007; I just get a sense of someone wanting to hide something, and losing it in a bunch of similar edits. I have left a note with a unblock template in it on the talkpage, and I suspect they may be as familiar in using it as they were in locating indef blocked/banned user talkpages and editing out certain messages. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:40, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

He's been indef blocked twice before, as User:CBMIBM and User:Wikinger. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

User: S-MorrisVP

User: S-MorrisVP and duck-like IP alternates User: 69.172.84.98 and 69.172.85.86, 67.204.1.129 (all from the Toronto area) have returned after a long gap to edit war on Parental alienation syndrome today [93].

The combination of them are at 4 5 reverts [94][95][96][97], [98] in which sourced (negative) material is deleted and inappropriately sourced (positive) material from the website of an activist organization of which S-Morris is the vice president.[99] is inserted instead. The reverts charge vandalism in the edit summaries. 3RR warnings were given to the apparent main account and one of the IPs [100][101].

S-MorrisVP has been blocked (briefly) for edit warring, been the subject of a posting on the conflict of interest noticeboard,[102] and has a listing of suspected sockpuppets.[103] These discussions (a year ago) on the Children's rights talkpage are also informative,[104][105][106] as is this one on the Paternity fraud talkpage [107].

There was also s discussion and explanation of the objection to today's edits on the talkpage by other editors, but to no avail.[108]. At the very least this is edit-warring, but I think the conflict of interest, POV editing, as assessed by multiple editors, warrants a close look by others. --Slp1 (talk) 21:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I see that in the interim another editor has listed this at WP:3RR [109]. Perhaps that's the way to go, but with so many complicated aspects, I decided to post here.--Slp1 (talk) 21:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Done under 3RR. Anyone want to re-do it, feel free William M. Connolley (talk) 22:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

• Just on a point of WP:COI isn't there a more significant issue here: User:S-MorrisVP is editting in violation of WP:COI and using sock IPs to push a pov (ie remove sourced material and published material that doesn't conform to WP:RS). If this behaviour continues we'll may need to take more drastic measures--Cailil ^talk 00:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Validity of Youtube References

Resolved

 – Directed to appropriate page. -download ׀ sign! 01:35, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Need verification of something. Assume a wiki uses a nightclub's Myspace page as a particular reference. On that Myspace page, there is an embedded video hosted on Youtube. The Youtube video was not filmed, uploaded nor owned by the nightclub. There's no way of confirming how the video has been edited, or where it was shot. Is the video thus a reliable reference for a Wikipedia article? 74.248.89.150 (talk) 23:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Please visit Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. This page is for incidents requiring administrative intervention.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Vanadalism on the DOG (Half-Life) article of Wikipedia.

Resolved

 – warned IP editor Toddst1 (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, could someone please warn the vandal on the wikipedia "DOG" article. His edit is marked as "characteristics" which is pointless and trivial and uncited info on DOG "being a horny medle ... almost always humping objects near him, including himself and DK".

I have already removed the vandalism but using he history section, administrators should be able to warn him. Note that I am not sure myself who is the vandal. Bahahs 23:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bahahs (talk • contribs)

Do realize that you could have left the editor a note, just like I did? Toddst1 (talk) 23:51, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Hello Bahahs. I have warned the ip. This is something you can do as well. There is no need to be an administrator to warn users and if only administrators could warn, and we wanted to do a halfway decent job of it, we would all have to quit the rest of our lives and lay in ample supplies of bandaids for our bleeding typing fingers. Various warning templates can be found at Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace. Note that these templates should be substituted. By the way, please sign posts to internal boards such as this and to talk pages (but never in articles) by typing four tildes (~~~~) after your post, which automatically formats to your signature when you save.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 23:57, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Duck hunt

Resolved

 – Bang. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 01:11, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Quack? (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive537#Likely image copyvios—hundreds of files) —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 00:16, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Marymccully and Hakan Yalincak

This new user has continued concerns that this article has been unfairly treated. She claims expert knowledge on the subject and is dissatisfied with the removal of WP:BLP content. See permanent link to my talk. She commented at BLPN here. I got dragged into this as I was concerned with the BLP aspects of the thing, reduced it to a stub after declining to speedy delete the thing, and placed a note on Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Hakan_Yalincak_article_issues. It has been redirected to Yalincak hedge fund scam. About two days after proposal it was them merged and redirected to List of Ponzi schemes. She does not seem to understand concerns related to WP:BLP, particularly 1E, and sees the removal of content and stubbing as part of a conspiracy of Wikipedia editors or on the part of Wikipedia as an organization to suppress the truth of this subject. Please see User_talk:Marymccully and the above link to my talk. She has presented her case at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests, but was not satisfied. She is now attempting to file a Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. There does appear to have been an edit war with Mary as a new player? late arrival? Perhaps an outside look from someone unconnected with the article can help sort things out for her. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

One place to discuss it is enough, and the BLP noticeboard would seem the place. I've given my opinion there. DGG (talk) 02:00, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring and Disruptive editing by user Suicidal Lemming

This user has long been vandalizing the page of List of best-selling music artists. He/she keeps changing the country of artists as he/she believes we are to state the nationality rather than the origin of the acts. On the recent occasion, he claimed that Bee Gees should be listed as UK act rather than Australian regardless of the fact that they have formed in Australia. I have on several occasions tried to explain to him that there is a difference between origin and nationality [110]. Unfortunately, my efforts have gone in vain as he won't even try to have a decent discussion with others, instead he/she prefers reverting and edit-warring and leaving messages of this kind. I would appreciate if someone could talk some sense into this person, or perhaps, if he/she needs to be blocked to get a message through. Thanks.--Harout72 (talk) 00:39, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Please note this editor also uses IPs for disruptive edit warring from a British nationalist perspective. He has been edit warring at C.S. Lewis for a long time, and was using 87.115.41.79 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for edit warring and blatant trolling on my talk page. When my talk page was semi-protected he then logged into his account to carry on posting on my talk page. Other IPs include 87.115.92.38 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 87.114.5.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). O Fenian (talk) 02:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

You both act as if I've done something wrong.

1. I have not been vandalising that page and have never done so, please don't lie. You are the one who continues to vandalise.

2. The article states country rather than origin. Where on wikipedia does it say that the bands in the article are to be listed under origin instead of nationality? It states COUNTRY, and considering that none of the Bee Gees are from the country of Australia, it would be incorrect to state that they are Australian. Have I made a mistake, have I vandalised? Obviously not.

3. I won't enter a decent discussion? What the hell are you on about? You and two other users have changed the article without consulting the talk page, as per the guidelines of wikipedia. I suggested to take it to the talk page, and I have offered to Marcus2 that we enter discussion as you can see on his talk page. He has yet to reply. So then, why should I create a section for YOUR edits? I am still waiting for you to open up a section so we can talk, and I shall continue to revert the article to its correct state until you at least decide to talk about your edits first.

4. You act as if I've broken the rules with that message. I have not. Instead I pointed out the fact that you are the vandal here, not me, and that all my edits thus far have been constructive.

5. Talk some sense into ME? That's rich. You're the one who's not seeing sense here my friend; a wise user would see things my way, and talk some sense into you instead.

6. O Fenian, it is rather hypocritical to suggest that someone else has nationalist bias when you yourself are an Irish nationalist. I know you won't deny it. You just have to look at your own edits to see just how biased you are.

7. The edit war was RESOLVED. Dear God, I hope you realise how ridiculous you sound. We came to a conclusion 10 days ago and I agreed to leave things until they have been resolved on the talk page, how can you have forgotten? Your criticisms can thus be disregarded; this is a non-issue. 8. In the edit war, were my edits disruptive? No. Did I break any rules? No. Was I wrong? No, in fact I had multiple reliable sources backing me up. Did I persist with it? No, but I shall if you do. Did we come to a compromise and a sound conclusion? Yes. So how dare you try and suggest that this is some kind of evidence against me. It all seems rather conceited.

8. Am I breaking any rules by trying to persist with logical, reasoned debate with you? Of course not. Is it so wrong to try and talk to you directly about the issue? If it is, this site needs a huge rethink of its rules.

Do not hope that any bans will resolve the issue; they shall not. This is not something that can ever be smoothed over and brushed under the carpet. If the administrators can't even discuss this in a civil matter, then I shall not either. If the results of this bogus posting are the same as the last time then I shall persist with this by any menas necessary. I mean, I even tried to discuss this by contacting the administrators who banned me and they outright ignored me. That is a green light for pursuing the issue; if you can't even be civil about it then don't think for even a second that I should be. Suicidal Lemming (talk) 02:33, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I'd also like to point out that I have compromised on the edit war rather than continue as before, as you can see. I even have a reliable source backing up my point of view.

So I have compromised in BOTH examples put forth to ANI. Hardly a vandal now am I? Suicidal Lemming (talk) 02:41, 14 May 2009 (UTC)