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

Disruptive editor Wikifan12345 possible sockpuppet for banned accounts

Wikifan12345 is a disruptive and tendentious editor who exclusively edits Israel/Palestine articles from a pro-Israel perspective. Full disclosure: I've had problems with him/her in Israeli Settlement but I've also noticed him causing problems in 1948 Palestinian exodus and Mohamed ElBaradei, the latter in which he has continually refused to accept a consensus against including a section about Israel. He pushed the issue to mediation and then refused to accept the outcome after the mediator told him to accept the consensus.

I noticed on his userpage ([1]) that he has listed 3 accounts under the heading R.I.P. (meaning rest in peace, one would assume). The 3 accounts are pro-Israel accounts (Malcolm Schosha, Tundrabuggy, Jayjg) that have been admonished for violating Wikipedia rules.

Tundrabuggy was blocked indefinitely for sockpuppeting after they evaded detection for 10 months during a 1 year ban on their original account (Dajudem) that resulted from CAMERA fiasco.

Malcolm Schosha was blocked indefinitely after a number of virulent personal attacks against pro-Palestinian editors.

The fact that this user has created a memorial for a number of blocked users shows that he is not going to accept community standards, and that he regards Wikipedia purely as a battlefield rather than an encyclopedia.

This also raises the question of whether Wikifan12345 is a sockpuppet of one of these banned accounts or is a CAMERA meatpuppet. Halfacanyon (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This looks suspiciously like a tit-for-tat of WP:Wikiquette_alerts#Halfacanyon_accusing_me_of_POV-pushing.2C_lying.2C_etc... (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Halfacanyon, where has Jayjg been admonished for violating Wikipedia rules as stated above? --Tom (talk) 15:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Here and here. There are also earlier arbitration cases, but those are the most recent. Halfacanyon (talk) 15:40, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if that is the same as violating rules, but got your drift, thanks, --Tom (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikifan12345 is evidently not in the same time zone as any of the other three editors. It's usually a good idea to check such things before making public accusations. Hans Adler 15:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also believe Wikifan12345 is in some way connected to CAMERA and User:Tundrabuggy/User:Dajudem. The CAMERA accounts were uncovered in April 2008 in part thanks to work by ChrisO. On May 28, the person behind Dajudem, one of the CAMERA accounts, started editing as Tundrabuggy. She made a beeline for an article ChrisO was working on, Muhammad al-Durrah, and proceeded to cause trouble for him there. Ten days later, on June 7, Wikifan12345 was created, and similarly headed for articles ChrisO was active on, Muhammad al-Durrah and Pallywood.

Both accounts are extremely pro-Israel; both use poor sources, including blogs and partisan websites; and both make a habit of reverting anything they don't like. I've not looked carefully through the accounts yet, and wouldn't have posted this unless it was being mentioned already, but given that it is, the suspicion is worth adding here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Slim, that's very a inflammatory accusation and as an admin I expect you to back up your claims. If you think I'm some propaganda appendage of CAMERA, prove it. I've been involved in many subjects on wikipedia and a majority of my edits have been restricted to talk and collaboration discussions. Slim has been following me around to various articles, almost to the point of stalking. I suggest you file an ANI because I am truly tired of you inserting defaming language into discussions unabated. Thanks. Wikifan12345 (talk) 05:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been following you around, though if I had, it'd be perfectly justified, given your tendency to use random websites as sources in contentious history articles, where only academic historians can be used safely. In fact, I rather think it's you who may have been following me; your throwing yourself into the Nicholas Beale debate to oppose me (see the deleted talk page) was somewhat surprising. Regardless, I'm not going to argue with you. I've said what I think. I could be wrong, of course. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 06:35, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Random websites? Hardly. If you are referring to the Palestinian exodus, I provided 3 certified-academics. I do not have a history of relying on blogs or bogus sites to support information. I had a genuine interest in Nicholas Beale and has absolutely nothing to do with you. If you are going to dig through my edits 1 year ago, misconstrue conflicts with User:ChrisO (who is no longer an admin), imply I am a sock of Tundra/Dajudem and was party to the Wikipedia/CAMERA conspiracy, and then say you are "not going to argue" is nothing short of bizarre. Wikifan12345 (talk) 06:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Here is an example of you using an essay by a lecturer in social work posted on an Australian-Jewish website for some highly contentious material about the Palestinian exodus; and you edit warred to keep it in. When I asked you who the source was, you didn't at first know. There are plenty more examples like that. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 07:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

As I explained in the talk, Mendes is a published author having written several books on Israel, is a lecture at a major University in Australia, and is a member of notable Jewish magazines. You claimed he was neither of those things, and repeatedly asked "Who is he?" in talk. And no, I did not edit war to keep it in. You however were very adamant in ensuring the only sources in the lead were by Palestinian "historians", Nur-eldeen Masalha and Constantine Zureiq. Whatever, this still has nothing to do with me belonging to a CAMERA conspiracy. Care to elaborate? Wikifan12345 (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• Halfacanyon appears to be  Unrelated to Tundrbuffy/Dajudem on a purely technical level. Thatcher 10:56, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It was Wikifan12345 who was accused of possibly being Tundrabuggy/Dajudem. Wikifan said he had previous similar problems with Jersay and Pattywack, so Halfacanyon was possibly a sock of one of those. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

• To go back to Mangojuice's comment, I think that warning and restricting such accounts under the discretionary sanctions is a reasonable alternative approach. On the other hand, I haven't seen this solution scale very well; given the extremely limited number of admins active in these areas, and the din of the constant partisan chorus who attend any such discussion, agenda-driven SPA's and alternate accounts proliferate faster than they can be handled. My reading of recent ArbCom decisions was that these areas are afflicted with widespread problematic editing behavior, and that people who come here to improve the encyclopedia as a general reference work shouldn't have to deal with dozens of agenda-driven socks and SPA's, nor should it take a year-long process to deal with an editor who is clearly agenda-driven and abusive from the start (c.f. User:Tundrabuggy). I wouldn't stand in the way of an unblock if another admin feels strongly, though I think that setting some ground rules would be useful at a minimum.

  Regarding Thatcher's note: as BWilkins points out, the link in question was between Wikifan12345 and Dajudem. I don't have sufficient information to assess the circumstantial strength of such a link, and I'm going to pass the baton to some other admin to look into it. I will say that the balance between encyclopedic content and agenda-driven advocacy in Special:Contributions/Wikifan12345 is hardly encouraging, but that alone doesn't inspire me to do anything at this juncture. MastCell ^Talk 20:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Israel/Palestinian articles are a breeding ground for activists. Virtually everyone belongs to one agenda or another, but that in itself is not against the rules. I personally find User:SlimVirgin's Palestinian advocacy at the expense of other voices to be extremely disturbing, and to accuse me of being part of the CAMERA wikipedia/propaganda fiasco is beyond uncivil, it's simply wrong. My contributions are varied and no I am not agenda driven - I keep in mind all wikipedia policy and yes disputes revolving content and biased language have occurred but my "agenda" is certainly no less threatening then say....User:Nableezy who is practically the polar-opposite of myself. : ) Anyways, this isn't my ANI, I'm not on trial. If you think I'm part of some conspiracy feel free to investigate. I would prefer people stop insuating I'm a propaganda machine and not follow through on their accusations. I was blocked twice just for calling a fellow editor antisemitic several months ago. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You can't play that game with me, Wikifan. No one familiar with my overall edits since 2004 could accuse me of Palestinian advocacy. What I see in your editing is a complete disregard of NPOV, V, and NOR—in fact, I doubt you've even glanced at them—and an attempt to make the Palestinian narrative disappear, rather than balancing it. I oppose that kind of editing wherever I see it, no matter which "side" it's coming from. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 02:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Play what game? My experience in editing with you has been rocky, you continually put roadblocks ahead of discussion and demand unnecessary rationales for suggestions beyond your agenda (typically pro-Palestinian). I'm totally okay with that because half of wikipedia operates on some similar level but it unacceptable and quite hypocritically for you to accuse me of being a SPA or propaganda machine when you don't even know me. From what I understand I'm not the only one who feels this way. If you actually knew my history you'd understand an overwhelming majority of my edits have been in talk and a fraction of article contributions are major expansions that would resemble an attempt to "make the Palestinian narrative disappear" as you so righteously put it. But thanks for the assessment, at least I know where you are coming from. :DWikifan12345 (talk) 02:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

One of the "roadblocks" I'm currently throwing up is requesting a source from you for a paragraph you wrote about Palestinians being offered compensation by the Israeli government in 1949. You have named two sources, one of them a polemicist and not someone who can be used for anything contentious, and one of them an Israeli academic, Avraham Sela, a good source. I've asked you two or three times what Sela says exactly and for a page number, but you don't seem to know, even though you cited him. See here. This is very typical of my experience with you. You haven't read anything, you have no access to sources and don't care to try to gain any, and you surf the Web randomly snatching from here and there anything you think favors Israel, without having read or understood it. It's pure advocacy. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 05:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Pure advocacy? You've been roadblocking from the very beginning. I was VERY explicit and cordial with my sources. You denied outright the notability and reliability of Mitchell G. Bard and Avraham Sela. You claimed they weren't "historians" or "specialists." Then you posted some rule about academics. I demonstrated very simply that both people are published authors, lecturers, specialists, and Avraham is a professor. Then you started scrutinizing the sources, saying they are unreliable. I called you on that, you dropped it and started hassling me about the page numbers. I directed you to the original source at History of the Arab-Israeli conflict which you also ignored. You asked for the page numbers, I gave them to you. Finally GHCool unnecessarily listed the exact page numbers. You continually made up new reasons to battle every time I proved you wrong. Then you imply I'm part of a CAMERA conspiracy, might be socks of tundra, and now engage in advocacy. You are the problem, not me. You zealously own the exodus article and make every effort to ensure Palestinian sources while stonewalling anything that you disagree with. Dragging out disputes over easily-verifiable sources for pages and pages with impunity. Just because I have an Israel flag on my userpage does not mean I'm some Zionist zealot. You, on the other hand, seem incapable of dealing with references beyond activists/blog-like memorial sites. Wikifan12345 (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Before anybody accuses me of anything, I am not a sockpuppet of Wikifan12345. I own the book Sela edited and saw that there was a dispute between Wikifan12345 and SlimVirgin and decided to add the quote and page number. --GHcool (talk) 05:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• I would just like to say that one of the troubling aspects of this debate is the accusations being flung by User:SlimVirgin, who I find to be an angry, agenda-driven, unconstructive and uncooperative editor. I do assume, however, that, like many of us, she is merely a person who has strong feelings about the Middle East. I do not accuse her of being a PLO operative, although there is as much evidence for it as there is that Wikifan works for CAMERA.Historicist (talk) 21:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

re Historicist: please be more specific. Everyone "would just like to say" something. Being general/personal/unclear this way is not helping any. -DePiep (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Halfacanyon

For someone whose account has been active for one month, this looks like another tit-for-tat... seicer | talk | contribs 15:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone reaaaaaalllly learned Wikipedia quickly! ;-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

If Halfacanyon walks like a duck, then quacks like a duck... duck-billed platypus? IronDuke 16:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

But unlike Wikifan I'm not maintaining a memorial of sockpuppet accounts that have been banned on my user page. Now _that_ is quacking like a duck Halfacanyon (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Wrong, of course. IronDuke 18:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

His addition of this smartarsed edit and immediate removal is ... well ... interesting (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

What's "smartarsed" about saying I have nothing to hide? I removed it because I thought he may have been asking Wikifan due to the indenting. If he isn't then I stand by my comments. Halfacanyon (talk) 17:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I will respond to this in a couple of hours. I am busy at the moment. this is too funny. : ) cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 16:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Remarks by Seicer, BWilkins and IronDuke above are unclear, unhelpful and distracting. Please find a useful WP:-policy yourself. A user promoting CAMERA-banned user on the user-page cannot claim a pro-wikipedia-attitude. -DePiep (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I could give less than a flying fuck about "CAMERA", Israel, or the original topic at hand. I'm curious as to why, an account that is only one month of age, is so well versed in our policies and prior incidents that his editing scope has been very narrowly defined to include only a handful of articles and an obsession over one particular editor. So, please take your POV ranting elsewhere because I have no claim, nor have I edited, in the realms that you noted above. seicer | talk | contribs 17:53, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

DePiep, if you have nothing to add, you needn't feel you need to comment here. Seicer, a CU check might be useful to see which other account(s) Halfacanyon has, but the account itself is a disruptive, "bad hand" account, and should probably be blocked in any case. Your thoughts? IronDuke 18:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(editconflict see Wf12345 after this:)

re seicer: CAMERA was the topic. You changed the topic/sectiontitle (disruption). Then, writing "less than a flying fuck" is not civil. IronDuke: "nothing to add"?: if I cannot follow the talk here through deviation etc., I am perfectly entitled to ask for clearness etc. I was not commenting, I was asking for clarity. Please do your private fightings elsewhere. -DePiep (talk) 20:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

CAMERA was mentioned briefly (and quite unconvincingly) by the probable sock Halfacanyon; that you continue to raise that issue could be construed as you meatpuppeting for an abusive sock -- possibly himself a banned editor. I'm sure you don't want to be seen as doing that. And your request for clarity was, ironically, not particularly clear. If there's something about you didn't understand about what I wrote, I am happy to clarify. IronDuke 20:13, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

re IronDuke(out-of-chron!): briefly or whatever quality: it was in the original report, then seicer changes the topic/sectiontitle, and then he/she writes "I'm not interested" (in other words). I don't raise it, I return to it from seicers deviation. And I wrote yours remarks 'are unclear, unhelpful and distracting'. If not clear, you could have asked for an explanation. I assume you were well aware that the topic was moving. Finally, could you clarify your remark "I'm sure you don't want to be seen as doing that", because unspecified it could be read as threatening. Now we can go back to the subject: Wikifan12345 -DePiep (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Seicer is an editor in good standing, Halfacanyon is an obvious disruptive sockpuppet. Whatever Seicer wants to do is, I'm sure, far closer to the interests of the project than Halfacanyon. Some of your remarks seem garbled, so I'm not quite sure how to respond to them. I think my remarks about the dangers of your being seen to meatpuppet for a disruptive editors are quite clear (and not at all threatening); indeed, an increasing number of (uninvolved) users seem to be of the opinion that you have things very, very wrong here. There's no shame in being wrong, only in continuing to be wrong when the truth becomes clear. I would back away from this, if I were you (NB: Not a threat, just good advice). IronDuke 21:26, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(non-sync) Why do you pick up his phone? -DePiep (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Try again. I've been around here for over three years, as an administrator and as an editor, and anyone with a bit of experience can easily detect a meatpuppet and/or a disruptive sockpuppet. Since you apparently have issues comprehending what I am writing, let me make it clear: I have no issue with any of the articles mentioned, and have never edited any of the articles mentioned nor have any inclination to do so because it's something I could care less about. Therefore, my "flying fuck" comment is directed towards that, not any one individual, therefore it is not an uncivil remark. Unless you are truly offended by the word fuck. seicer | talk | contribs 20:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

re again seicer (a-chron). Three years or zero: I react to what I read, whatever your resume. - On first exchanges. If you can recognise or detect a puppet that well, you could have written that more clearly and less fuming. It really was getting into a tit-for-tat-for-tit, unreadable for a fresh reader like me. I need to point out that you first inserted a new sectiontitle, and then went off-original-topic. - Then reacting to me. Next, if you are not into a detail of the topic, you could have skipped that in your reaction (you could have left out your whole first sentence, at no cost and all gain). Finally, since you mention adminship, I find your line of talk and the change of topic, eh, disturbing in Wikipedia-sense. (You're the first admin I meet that writes "I'm not interested in your topic"). And after writing to me "your POV ranting" leaves for you the sweet invitation assuming my good faith. -DePiep (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(outdent): Ok, I'm back. Are we going to close this? User:Halfacanyon has been very hostile from the moment I started editing Israeli settlements. He reverted every single one of my edits claiming I deleted sourced material and removed references. I tried to explain to him I simply removed duplicate references and told him to re-direct identical references in the future. He is also following me around in other articles I'm editing, such as 1948 Palestinian exodus . As far as sock-puppetry is concerned, I don't know what to say. I consider it a compliment for someone to accuse me of being an alias of User:Jayjg. I posted a brief wikietiquette alert following Half's mean accusations that I am a POV-pusher. I suggested Half and I go through dispute resolution to avoid edit warring but he has yet to respond. I posted a lengthy explanation for my edits at the settlement talk but that has gone no where. I would greatly an uninvolved and experienced admin/user weigh in on the discussion. Cheers. Wikifan12345 (talk) 19:50, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(This understandably to be read as a re to the previous section #Disruptive editor Wikifan12345 possible sockpuppet for banned accounts. Due to the disruptive edit by seicer, inserting a new sectiontitle out-of-chron, out-of-place, it might read illogic). -DePiep (talk) 20:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It's all the same section. DePiep, I see you are concerned about my "memorial" of editors Malcolm, Tundra, and Jayjg. I thoroughly enjoyed collaborating with those users and whatever flaws they might have does not change my opinion of them. Plenty of pro-Israel/pro-Palestinian editors share respect for retired users, I am certainly not the first to do this. Everyone who edits the Israel/Palestinian articles harbor some kind of bias, but that is irrelevant. I provided a comparison of my edits and Half edits in the talk, I suggest you look at it. If you believe my rewrite screams Zionist propaganda let me know. : ) Wikifan12345 (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect to W12345, he's definitely not Jayjg. There is nothing wrong with worshipping banned editors, and since WP promotes AGF, then an accusation of guilt by association is certainly 'bad faith on Halfacanyon's part. This whole disruption/sockpuppet double accusation is quite absurd when the real basis for this useless discussion is that Halfacanyon does not like a w12345s pro-Israel editing. --Shuki (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

DiPiep, please stop trying to obfuscate things here. "I don't give a flying fuck about CAMERA" is actually quite important here - the articles or topics themselves are not the issue, so your posts seem to be the ones becoming disruptive. A "new" editor, who was the subject of a Wikiquette filing later filed a tit-for-tat ANI filing, accusing someone of being a sockpuppet, and it appears to be solely for the intent to discredit them. Anyone can easily tell that Wikifan is not any of his "heroes" as listed on his page. I fully expect that Halfacanyon is some with whom Wikifan has had past incidents, and this is their way of getting back. If anyone is a sock (or even meat), it's Halfacanyon. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

re (a-chron) thank you for clarifying. Please accept my initial question: the posts by you three editors (now top of this subsection) were unclear for a fresh reader like me, indirectly and insider-only-like. Read like there is something invisible. I want to be able to understand Wikipedia, so I ask. (Question left: why not created a fully new section?). -DePiep (talk) 21:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

DePiep, not to be insulting, but WP:ANI may not be a good place for you to understand Wikipedia - it's a location where problems are brought in front of admins, so it's very full of insider-related discussion. It's not typically meant for "normal" editors. Indeed, by watching, you can learn a lot, but make sure not to comment unless you understand the process when complaints are lodged. However, let me answer the question: a complaint was lodged by User:Halfacanyon about User:Wikifan12345...turns out that Halfacanyon was apparently the real problem, so you make a subsection and continue the discussion. We often call this situation the "Plaxico effect", as Halfacanyon effectively shot himself in the foot here. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I think this is a great place to (learn to) understand Wikipedia. It's not about the place (ANI). Remember I only named three editors here that were unclear etc to me (Seicer, BWilkins and IronDuke). Others, even in this section, were not adressed by me. This re "don't interfere, go away" I got is definitely not Wikipedia-like, whatever policy or guideline you may know. Don't ask me to backoff for not understanding. -DePiep (talk) 22:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps this might be out of line but I have a turbulent history with User:Jersay who was banned for sock-puppetry at List of terrorist incidents, 2009. As far as I know, his most recent sock is User:Pattywack. However, Half's posting style appears to be a lot more intelligent than Jersay's but I figured this was worth a mention anyways. Wikifan12345 (talk) 21:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it's an old tit for tat thing (I love WP for actually relating to this behaviour). I'm now leaning towards Halfa being related to Special:Contributions/Ewawer. If so, very good separation of personalities, but some crossovers. Ewawer is a sex-lover, from Australia, Jewish and/or has an affinity for Christian issues with some pro-Arab edits. The Ewawer personality also has inconsistent edit interests. Halfa has also edited Christian pages, yet not entirely anti-Israel, maybe somewhat leftist anti-Zionist. --Shuki (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

← OK, this has probably degenerated far enough. Halfacanyon (talk · contribs) is obviously not a new user, and I think that the general trend and consensus has been to tighten up a bit on the flood of agenda-driven socks on Israel/Palestine articles. Accordingly, I've blocked Halfacanyon indefinitely. I can't say with certainty which account is behind Halfacanyon, but whomever it is, they need to go back to using their main account to edit this controversial and sock-ridden area (assuming their main account has not already been sanctioned). I think a checkuser would be worthwhile to look for sleeper accounts, though probably of limited utility without a clear idea who the main account belongs to. Insofar as Wikifan12345 (talk · contribs) is concerned, nothing presented here as evidence here indicates any issue requiring urgent administrative action against him. MastCell ^Talk 21:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In reviewing Halfacanyon's unblock request, I feel that this sort of vague wave accusation of sockpuppetry is a poor way to go, but there is enough cause for suspicion that I think we need more disclosure from the user. That said, I've issued a strong warning about the general sanctions on Arab-Israel conflict articles. I would prefer to handle the situation that way. Mangojuice^talk 04:40, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Should someone be blocked for socking if there's been no sockpuppet investigation? Going on this "if it walks like a duck..." rationale, we should have blocked Wikifan12345 sometime last summer, when he popped straight into the I-P tangle about a week after the CAMERA case closed. Account created on 15:54 7 June, first I-P edit is to Muhammad al-Durrah, 16:07 7 June? And the next day he's already into DRVs and Allegations of Israeli apartheid ? Tarc (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It happens daily, for instance, with persistent sock abusers. There is no need to go to SPI, which is cumbersome, bureaucratic and slow if one can easily entertain the fact that if it smells like a sock, looks like a sock, and walks like a sock, then it most likely is a sock. seicer | talk | contribs 13:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Tarc, you were one of the main editors I was disputing with at Allegations last year. Very hostile from what I recall. If you guys think I'm sock, do a checkuser or whatever. Next time an editor accuses me of belonging to a CAMERA conspiracy I will seriously considering filing a harassment report. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It isn't harassment to note a new user who is "instantly" aware of and involved in the behind-the-scenes. DRVs, AfDs, classifications of articles. No one can make you disclose who you were before "Wikifan12345", I suppose, unless the prior incarnation is banned. Tarc (talk) 23:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying I was someone before Wikifan? If so, I encourage you to file a sock puppet report and follow through with your accusations. Wikifan12345 (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Vegavairbob - ownership, consensus-stacking, disruption, etc.

Vegavairbob (talk · contribs) is quite passionate about the Chevrolet Vega automobile, and has contributed a great deal of high-quality material. However, he appears unwilling to participate according to community expectations:

• Persistent ownership of Chevrolet Vega — he simply shoves aside most every attempt by any other editor to contribute to the article, often without so much as an edit summary, as evident in these sequential diffs [2][3] and in the article's history, he boasts that he wrote Chevrolet Vega, he complained to an admin that another editor touched his work, and he has tried to dictate what other editors may and may not contribute to "his" article and "his" work. Attempts (viz here, here, here, here, and here) to engage Vegavairbob in constructive, courteous discussion about editing coöperatively rather than combatively have all failed; he disregards them, dismisses them summarily, spits, or says OK and then continues with the ownership behaviour.
• Vote-stacking in a proposed article move that isn't going the way he would like: Vegavairbob has evidently gone shopping for votes to swing the proposal his way- request, request, request and reply with nudge and wink, request, request, request, blatant request, blatant request, blatant request, request, response. This, accompanied by a fair amount of belligerence in the discussion itself ([4], [5], [6]), distorts and damages the consensus-building process.
• Persistently tendentious and disruptive pattern of making long series of many small edits. This effectively hampers (by dint of endless edit conflicts) other editors' ability to participate in discussion or contribute to articles. Examples are too numerous to provide diffs; pattern is clearly visible in his contrib history and in the history of Chevrolet Vega and other articles and discussions in which he participates. He has been asked politely to change this behaviour multiple times over a period of months by multiple editors — viz here, here, here, here, here, amongst others. These requests have gone wholly unheeded; once in awhile he says OK—and he thanked me with apparent sincerity for pointing him towards my quick guide to coöperating on Wikipedia— but he has shown no sign of changing this behaviour.

He seems to have the ear of one particular admin (search vegavairbob on Daniel J. Leivick's talk page) who appears to be trying to guide and mentor, though the difference between Vegavairbob's tone and approach when interacting with Leivick vs. interacting with others is troubling. I'm sort of at a loss here; we appear to have a willfully, doggedly disruptive, unduly belligerent article-owner here. I can certainly unwatch Chevrolet Vega if it will give some breathing space to help get this situation addressed, but I would not view that as a solution to the problem of an editor who exhibits no apparent interest or intent to coöperate in accord with Wikipedia community standards. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

When I had all of my good faith edits reverted in one fell swoop -- correcting numerous mis-spellings, grammatical errors, manual-of-style errors, a lack of referencing or verifiability, and so forth, I decline to let it evolve into a larger issue because Vegavairbob had taken the time to rant against my edits without actually constructively engaging others on the article. A classic case of ownership and persistent disruption. The article had issues of organization, plagiarism or excessive quote farming, MOS and so on that I tagged and then explained myself on the corresponding talk page. That did work, but it took a very long time to have anything resolved and I haven't touched it since because it seems as if the issues that I brought forth before have only continued to fester. seicer | talk | contribs 02:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Seicer - can you provide a diff for this event? Thanks - Manning (talk) 02:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• My original edits consisted of what I stated above: copyediting, removing excessive quoting, reformatted headers per MOS, but this was wholesale reverted with no explanation. I deferred to tagging the article for issues --
• Article tagging after I was wholesale reverted. I explained the rationale behind each of the taggings on the talk page. This was promptly reverted with the edit summary, "this article is a candidate for feature status."
• He went complaining away at an administrator's talk page: User talk:Daniel J. Leivick#Vega article 2, stating that I should do "something useful." I did apologize that I was being bold and did a sweeping change of a damaged article that would have never passed Feature Article, let along "B" status, to at least bring it up to some coherent standard.
• My notes can be found at Talk:Chevrolet Vega#Article issues. seicer | talk | contribs 03:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC) Comment - as of now, he has 9,671 edits. Of those, 5,200 are to the Chevrolet Vega article. Wow. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 02:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Good gravy. Out of morbid curiosity, how many of those are reverts of other editors? → ROUX ₪ 02:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

That I don't know, but I do know that there's a total of 6,059 total edits to the article from 196 different editors. As mentioned above, 5,200 of those are his. That's roughly 86%. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 03:03, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

More stats.

• Join date - 15 Feb 2009
• Avg edits/day - 71.2
• Edits to Chevrolet Vega - 5200
• Edits to Talk:Chevrolet Vega - 97

Here is a revert that seems intriguing - seems to be introducing a distinct POV tone. Notice how at line 24 "Chevrolet cancelled the Vega after the 1977 model run." becomes "Without emotion, Chevrolet trimmed the car from its lineup after the 1977 model run". There are numerous other curious additions such as the death report of an engineer being changed from "killed in a plane crash" to "tragically killed in a plane crash". Manning (talk) 03:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Scheinwerfermann...again

Hello- First of all none of his edits that will help the article obtain FL status were reverted. Second, I have contributed all the text and images. He has contributed some conversions, and minor grammer. The article was reviewed by Typ932 who I've been working with and have done everything he suggested. I DONT REVERT EDITS. I might tweak some, Why not. Nobody has contributed one referenced fact to the article. All that's ever done is as far as content goes is word substitution. I've got a 100 referenced facts in it. It's just that Scheinwerfermann is not easy to deal with and I have to spend a lot of time away from contributing when he gets involved on any level. I'm tired of the lecturing. I opened a title change for an article and he didn't like my comment so he wrote a whole page lecture on the article talk page. This guy is out of control. He is like an old watchdog waiting to lecture and police everyone. I can't stand it anymore. I have no problem working with others. check out my talk pages for the vega article and my talk page. As far as the the article title change for inline four i wasn't aware you couldn't contact others. I enjoy contributing content and images. my user page shows my contributions. quite a few since feb. This guy will scare away new contributors. Gentalman, Its been fun but maybe this is not for me. I've worked hard here as others would attest but this is not fun.Vegavairbob (talk) 02:58, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Vegavairbob - We are trying to assess this issue fairly and evenly. If you could provide WP:DIFFs to support the above statements so we can review, it would make this case easier. Your extensive quality work on Chevrolet Vega is noted. Manning (talk) 03:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I've notified user:Daniel J. Leivick (mentioned above) of this discussion. I think he could be quite a help. My own dealings with Vegavairbob are limited to another automotive article where he inappropriately (IMHO) inserted a mention of the Chevrolet Vega into the text, added a pic of his own car, and slightly messed up the spacing between sections. He queried my fixes in a civil manner and accepted the explanations without argument. It may be that he gets somewhat carried away by his intense enthusiasm for, and focus on, all things Vega, to the detriment of his regard for things WP? Needs more time to get the hang of things? Writegeist (talk) 03:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Writegeist - Agreed. From what I have read thus far, it appears that Vegavairbob is simply extremely passionate about this subject, which is not itself objectionable. I have seen some actions by this editor which perhaps were "less courteous than the ideal" (chiefly in regard to revisions without appropriate edit summaries), but nothing I have seen (as yet) truly breaches WP:CIVIL.

The core of this AN/I (or at least the AN/I above this one) is the WP:OWN issue, of which there is some evidence to support, though I see no suggestion of malice. I do not feel that a heavy-handed response is warranted however. Maybe just some counselling and mentoring? Manning (talk) 03:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I have been working with Leivick and Typ932 for weeks to get this article ready for FL status and I have not reverted any edits from them. We are working together. Check the chevy vega talk page and my talk page and you will see that although I contributed all the text and images they have advised me how to get it ready for FL status and I was given the choice from Leivick to revert any of his edits I didn't like but I didn't. I always took his advice and Typ932's as well I didn't revert any of Scheinwerfermann edits that helped the article. Some of his edits didn't help article like trimming the captions (eliminating Chevrolet from the captions) stuff like that. But all his conversions, adding "the" before Vega. He advised me just saying Vega is a marketing ploy. I had a feeling as my vintage films prove this. I thought it just sounded better without the before. Leivick said he thought it wasn't proper but we were going to cover that further. He was going to nominate the article for FL any day. Anyway Scheinwerfermann explained and all the edits remain, all mentions of Vega are now ""the Vega"" or in some cases I left it Vega's...So he is wrong when he says I revert edits. Some of his word changes I didn't like and were changed back, but we're talking about a word not a paragraph or even a sentence.Vegavairbob (talk) 04:09, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Left a note at User talk:Daniel J. Leivick#Scheinwerfermann regarding potential forum shopping. Let's keep the discussion here. seicer | talk | contribs 12:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• And at User talk:Typ932#Scheinwerfermann. Starting off with "...This guy Scheinwerfermann is a nut..." probably doesn't help your case. seicer | talk | contribs 12:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposed solution

• All editors are encouraged to Assume good faith with each other.
• All editors are encouraged to be civil with each other and to refrain from accusations of bad faith activity.
• Vegavairbob is encouraged to use edit summaries more consistently, and to participate more actively in consensual discussions in line with Wikipedia's policy on article ownership.

Comments or additions sought. Manning (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

This proposal would do nothing to address Vegavairbob's ownership behaviour on Chevrolet Vega. All three points of your proposal have already been tried—especially the last one, quite extensively, and by multiple editors over a period of months. I'm not seeking a block, a ban, or anything of the like, but it seems to me something considerably more effective than "encouragement" is called for; the problematic behaviour has got to stop. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C15:50, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Having only done some reading of the back and forth going on this, it's clear to me that the main issue lies with Vegavairbob. He obviously has a ownership problem where he thinks any edit that he doesn't deem to be "corrective" gets reverted. If he doesn't like the wording, he changes it. No discussion other than to chastise the other editor for interfering with "his work". He often tells them to go and find some other article to edit as he has spent too much time writing and adding images to this one. This behavior has to stop. If he doesn't agree with a new editor's contributions, he needs to discuss it on the article's talk page, not immediately change it. If a consensus develops for one way or the other, then changes can be made. Also, on a less important note, Vegavairbob really needs to start using edit summaries and to make use of the preview button. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Update:

• Zero effort at AGF and additional remarks about what he "lets" other editors do to "his" article
• dismissal of valid suggestion for improvement of Chevrolet Vega; accompanying claim of having implemented it does not square with his actually having reverted exactly this improvement twice in the last few days [7] [8]
• Asking the other parent to end-run this AN/I with individual-talkpage messages verging on PA: [9] [10] [11]
• Continuation of bulldozer-style editing on Chevrolet Vega despite this AN/I; no apparent realisation that it might be a good idea to stop or pause while this issue is resolved.

—Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C18:25, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry I haven't been around to address these issues in the past couple of days. The way I see it, there are two issues that need to be discussed. Ownership and string editing/not using preview. Frankly I don't think the attempts at canvassing or "asking the other parent" are anything close to bad faith. Vegavairbob was unaware of these rules was not attempting to unfairly manipulate the system, now that he is aware, I don't believe these will be issues. I also don't think that he has breached civility in any major way. I do however realize that the continued ownership issues are a problem, on the otherhand I think it would be beneficial to look at the situation from Vegavairbob's point of view. He has spent a tremendous amount of time expanding the content at Chevy Vega and turning it from a mess into what it is today, including uploading a multitude of images (and dealing with their copyright status). I don't find it that surprising that someone who more or less completely wrote an article might be possessive about it. I think what Vegavairbob needs to understand is the value of the collaborative editing process, while he might not agree with everyone of Scheinwerfermann's edits, he needs to understand that they where all made with good faith in an effort to make the article that Vegavairbob worked so hard on better, not worse. I think the issue is one of experience, I don't think Vegavairbob has much experience editing collaboratively on Wikipedia. For a long time he worked away more or less in seclusion, so I don't find his reaction to the shock of sudden collaborative editing that surprising. I think as he gains more experience in the particulars of editing here the issue will improve. As for the preview bottom issue, I can understand why this would annoy people, but in my opinion Vegavairbob's contributions far out weigh what is, from my perspective just a quirky editing style. Seriously, are we going to block a valued contributor for not making his edits in the manner we are accustomed to. We can ask him to change his style, but I don't see it as enough of an issue to warrant anything further action especially in light of his contributions. In conclusion, I am confident that the ownership issues can be resolved by all parties assuming good faith and trying to work together. I will happily discuss further suggestions with any of the involved parties. (sorry for the long message, but I wanted to put all my thoughts on the table at once) --Leivick (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I donno, DJL. Nobody's requesting a block, but Bob already has been asked, politely and repeatedly and by different editors, to read, understand, and heed WP:OWN. He has persistently and very overtly refused to do so. What makes you think asking again will bring a different result? Asking and encouraging (and begging, and pleading, and telling) haven't worked at all; there's been zero improvement. It's good that you've been encouraging him regarding the quality of the content he's providing, that's important and he really has put in a huge lot of good work on Chevrolet Vega, but I think it's clear that some close guidance and coaching is now called for, specific to behaving coöperatively and editing collaboratively. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C22:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Nobody's suggested a block, which would be unproductive and do little to actually solve anything. Bob does seem to be acting in good faith, whether he's assuming such on the part of certain others, I'm not sure. However, the collaborative process here seems to catch some people off-guard as I've seen more and more.

One thing that does need to come out of this is an understanding of the "preview" button. I just checked Bob's contributions, it shows two hours of near-constant editing on Talk:Straight-four engine, most recently being a half hour of small edits to complete a paragraph. I saw this a long time ago and never said anything, although it is extremely difficult to go through the page history when there are a hundred edits made in one time span, which no doubt makes for unnecessary edit conflicts. --Sable232 (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I should clarify that I don't condone the alleged article ownership or the other issues raised, I'm just not prepared to say that it's intentionally disruptive. --Sable232 (talk) 23:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I really hate having to repeat myself and it really takes away from something productive. I have been working with three editors the last three weeks getting the Chevrolet Vega article ready for an FL nomination. As stated, my talk page and Vega talk page show I have been working with these three editors. And a lot of discussion is in the other editors talk pages as well. Does that sound like I am not working with others on a common goal...to improve the article? There is no ownership behavior going on. I have made all the changes I have been asked to make including revising headings, quote farms, organization issues, neutral issues. Everything has been addressed, the article is now ready for a nomination and one editor wants to create someyhing that just doesn't exisit. The truth is the article is an effort of the three editors I mentioned and myself. I was just allowed to use my text because I basically wrote the whole thing, but the organization of the article I was instructed very carefully and did everthing I was told. I will practice better editing practices preparing the small edits and posting as one, and I have been labeling all edits. Also there has never been a complete revert of anyone's contribution. Sorry but here it comes. The reason for complaint is because the editor who submitted the complaint didn't hear want he wanted to hear in my article title change and he didn't like that a few of his "one word" edits to the Vega article were not kept in. All of his conversions and all of his corrections, of course were not changed. So who is showing ownership? I told him if he has a (text) contribution that actually adds to the article, bring it on. In four months not a bit of text came from anyone except some word substitution. But please understand, the article was a joint effort. I was instructed how it should be and how it should look. Quadell provided the copyright knowledge and thanks to him the article has many public domain images that even one I couldn't get in as a non-free image. He knew these pre 1978 images were PD, and he did a lot of hard work fending off editors who did not know of these copyrights and restored images for me that were deleted. Typ932 does edits and conversion additions in an on-going basis none ever changed or deleted, Seicer made a list a page long of needed work posted on the Vega talk page and I did all of it..in one day, including re-writing two sections within a week.. Daniel J Levick is a great adminastator who has helped me through the tweaks and changes needed for an FL rating and has worked with me for weeks getting the article ready, but the difference is he does things in a nice way, not like a boss or like he owns the site and that's why the article has benefited, because the work was not an edit war or any of this complaint stuff which was really not necessaryVegavairbob (talk) 23:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't get defensive. Obviously someone thinks there is (or was), otherwise this wouldn't be here. However, I have edited my prior post, hopefully that meets your satisfaction. --Sable232 (talk) 00:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Vega, you're not getting it at all. You're holding the article hostage and get upset when someone else edits your article that's not to your liking and label it as being not being "corrective". This isn't how things work. You need to discuss other people's edits on the talk page FIRST before you revert them OR even change them to the way you like. That's how cooperative editing works. You don't drive people off and tell them to stop editing the article, because it's going to FA status (it's not even GA, yet, is it?). And, sorry, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of discussion on the talk page. Yes, there's some, but not to the extent that that you're claiming. As of yesterday, you have 90 edits to the talk page and 5,200 to the article. That's a bad ratio. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 00:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There haven't been any edits to revert, sorry, you have no case. I said it three times. The only text edits that have been added were one word substitutions and most if any of these did not help article and most were left in anyway. Read the rest of my comment above.Vegavairbob (talk) 00:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Vegavairbob, it looks to me as if you are missing the point. This AN/I was not placed to hassle or harrass you. It was placed because you are not behaving in a coöperative manner, despite numerous attempts by numerous editors to guide you politely towards a better understanding of the standards and expectations of this community. All editors have the right to edit all articles, including Vega, as long as their edits meet community standards. Placing yourself in a role as arbiter of who can and can't make particular kinds of contributions to "your" article, or of what edits are and aren't improvements, is just not okeh; we don't do that here. "Working with three admins" is not good enough, either. All articles are open to all editors, and routinely undoing most or all of others' edits — which is what you are doing, as has been amply demonstrated with diffs — is ownership. Yours is not the only valid perspective on what constitutes improvement of an article, nor does your obviously deep knowledge of the Chevrolet Vega give you carte blanche to control the Vega article here. That is what people are trying to get you to understand through talk page dialogue and pointers to WP:OWN. Can you please try to understand rather than continuing to deny and defend?

I am glad to see you say you will move away from making miniature edit after miniature edit after miniature edit in rapid succession, but you have said this several times before. What makes this time different, please? —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I got the point. How could I not get it. It's going on all day. I explained everything in my comment above and I'm tired of explaining it over and over. If your not convinced I've been working with others trying to get it a decent rating, I can't help that. There have been hardly any (text) additions added other than mine so the ownership or hostage accusations are really overkill, don't you think. What the problem really is here I think is my percieved attitude, right? Well, after four months of work (I won't get into the details) I would like it to be and remain a quality article that gets the GA or FL rating and wouldn't it be nice to see a few more auto articles with those ratings, but I don't feel I own it or have exclusive rights to what its contents should be. It's just I'm basically the only editor on the site that has had any interest in it since I began working on it in February, and to make it good enough for a possible FL rating (with the help of the mentioned editors). I am working on and have contributed to many auto articles as well. I'm working on several (my user page) that I would also like to see recieve a GA rating. I understand the way things work here as far as the editing goes. I see a lot of complaining going on other talk pages about bits of text or contributions that get deleted from (other) articles. I wouldn't want my work deleted either. I had two sections deleted in their entirety from the Vega article without any notice or instruction beforehand. Afterwards I was told they had to be re-written. So I know what its like to have a large pieces of work suddenly vanish too. Again I did what I was told and re-wrote them to Seicer's approval without complaining (too much). His comments in the discussion here were a bit severe under the circumstances of the two deleted sections and the fact I did everyhing on his article issue list in a day but I did get an apology for the deletions without warning. Thank you Secier. Did I give you a star yet? Try to be nice and I'll pick one out. That'll be fun. I respect the knowledgeable people here. I've had to bite the bullet on images and text I wanted in and as was told were not proper or not neutral etc, etc. I haven't and wont change anything that helps the article. If it disrupts or hurts the article it shouldn't be left in or tweaked just like my words get tweaked. As long as you said please..lol, I'll say I promise not to do separate strings of edits. this was not done intentionally I just keep reading it over and find things to change or improve. Not more than one or two edits (per article) per day. How is that? Buy the way I thought Bold editing was the term..Bulldozing? Regards, Vegavairbob (talk) 01:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Vegavairbob (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think one or two edits is probably overkill especially when you are making major article expansions, more edits are probably needed. What editors are really concerned about is actually what you are doing right now (on this page), continually making minor changes to talk page posts. Once you write something like this, it gets read by someone almost immediately so changing it doesn't do much good. You should probably make an effort to cut back on the number of individual article edits especially in quick succession, but editing talk page posts over and over is (at least in my mind) more disruptive and less helpful. --Leivick (talk) 02:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes I know. I was only planning on a few comments but it got expanded. I thought I might cover it all.Vegavairbob (talk) 03:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Vegavairbob, please stop continually editing your comments. It makes it very difficult to reply, as well as making replies made before your edits seem nonsensical or strange or whatnot. As for the issues above... see the new section below. → ROUX ₪ 07:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Semi-topicban suggestion for Vegavairbob

I'm not an admin, but I've looked through everything above (and boy howdy would I like those hours back) and the net result is this: your apparent attempts to own the article and be the sole gatekeeper of what is included and how is antithetical to how consensus works on Wikipedia, and how collaborative projects work in general. In addition, your laserbeam focus on a single article is, while commendable for its dedication, contributing to the apparent feelings of ownership you have over it. As pointed out above, this article represents over 50% of your total edits to Wikipedia, and you are responsible for approximately 86% of all edits to it. Given the sheer number of these edits, this is concerning when there are nearly two hundred other editors who have contributed. So I propose the following, in order to a) wean you off your apparent feelings of ownership, and b) start drawing you into contributing more significantly to other articles (which really is the same goal).

• User:Vegavairbob is topicbanned from editing the article Chevrolet Vega for 60 days starting from whenever (if, obviously) this is approved by consensus;
• During that time period, he may propose edits on the talkpage of the article, to be implemented by an uninvolved admin (volunteer needed) if the edits achieve consensus;
• For 60 days after the end of this period, Vegavairbob is held to a strict 0RR (excepting obvious and blatant pure vandalism) on the article, and must discuss changes at the talkpage and achieve consensus before implementing them;
• During this 120 days, Vegavairbob is required to find an uninvolved mentor (perhaps from here? If not, someone with the track record of a Durova or a Shell Kinney would be good, and preferably an admin) to assist him in taking an article completely unrelated to automobiles in general to GA status. In an ideal world, this would involve a wikiproject-based collaboration (pretty much all content-based wikiprojects have periodic "Hey everyone let's improve XYZ" drives, is what I mean).

Thoughts? → ROUX ₪ 07:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Since I have been working on other articles for several months (user page)your determination and ban is unfair. I am closing out my user page in 24 hours and will no longer contribute to this site, If you change the "verdict" you can e-mail me at Vegavairbob@gmail.com. I will no longer contribute (or view) the site. This is quite childish and I'm not going to tolerate it. I'm done here. Good luck trying to get the auto articles some decent ratings because they need a lot of work and now since you want to play dirty you wont have my help or any more of my time. Regards Vegavairbob (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoa. Please pay attention to what was actually written; I am proposing the solution above for the community to approve/amend/reject as they see fit. There is no 'verdict'. → ROUX ₪ 08:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes this is just a proposal and one that shouldn't get any traction either. Vegavairbob has done nothing to deserve a topic ban of any length. Asking to contribute to another topic is not needed, why shouldn't he contribute to automotive articles? --Leivick (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The opinion of others above would seem to disagree that he has done nothing to deserve a topicban. Asking him to contribute significantly to another article is in the interests of attempting to draw what for all intents and purposes is an SPA (with severe ownership issues) into productive contributions that won't lead into the inevitable block that I for one see coming if he does not reorient his behaviour. → ROUX ₪ 17:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Given his behavior in this thread, I would support a user-conduct RFC in which Vegavairbob is enjoined from editing any of his already-added comments. Which is to say: Vegavairbob, please stop it, it's annoying. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Leivick, this AN/I is obviously still quite open, and I'm not sure I see how your telling Vegavairbobto consider it closed really helps get the issues addressed so we can all move on. It looks more as if you're telling him to just ignore it until it goes away. Your position seems to be that his misbehaviour is okeh because he's added a great deal of good material to Chevrolet Vega. How do you figure that squares with community expectations of coöperative behaviour from all editors, and what is your intent, please? I respectfully remind you that the goal of admin mentoring is to help new editors learn to interact smoothly and coöperatively with the greater Wikipedia community, not to shield defiant editors from the consequences of persistent, willful misbehaviour. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C19:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I considered the matter closed last night, but apparently there is more to say. Vegavairbob is a new editor (when I say new I am referring to his experience editing collaboratively, as he worked without much input or help for a long time) and he is learning how to interact with the community. In the month that I have been working with him has actually improved dramatically. What I am seriously concerned about is chasing away a valuable and knowledgeable contributor simply because he did not immediately fall into line. I have high hopes that his behavior will change, the adjustment may not be instant, but I am confident that we will see improvement. Frankly I am working as hard as I can to help him integrate with the community and if you read the advice I have given him I think you will agree that if it were followed, the problems would evaporate. I think any sort of block or editing restrictions at this point would be punitive and guaranteed to cause him to quit. --Leivick (talk) 21:56, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I take a generally positive view of [[[User:Roux|ROUX]]]'s discussion points. All constructive input here is helpful, particularly from uninvolved editors. While not in favour of any bans for Vegavairbob (yet), I think mentorship is an excellent first remedial step. It seems entirely appropriate in the case of an editor who, although comparatively new to WP and understandably ignorant of many of the protocols, sometimes still disdains to follow them when he receives reasonable requests and helpful guidance - the way Vegavairbob has continued to cause problems by editing this talk page when asked not to is just one example - and whose amour propre apparently overrides any will to collaborate more properly with his fellow-editors.

It seems that after numerous patient attempts to help Vegavairbob become a considerate and collaborative editor, he still just doesn't get it. So it would be helpful to have him mentored by an uninvolved admin - one who will give firm guidance and not feed this user's apparent misconception that he is the injured, rather than injuring, party.

David Eppstein makes a good point but I think an RfC would be best reserved for implementation down the line if necessary.

I agree with Scheinwerfermann that the cited post to Vegavairbob's Talk appears unhelpful, illogical and somewhat counterproductive. Writegeist (talk) 22:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello Scheinwerfermann Dan was concerned about me quitting as he stated here and only told me to take a two day break and relax. And frankly at this point I would only continue contributing with his continued help and guidance. I will tell you the main thing I'm guilty of is the multiple edits instead of one or two on an article per day (as I said here I would start doing) and Dan has suggested that, before and here too, and yes I was told buy several others, on talk pages mostly. Dan is the main one I have been working with lately, save the past week. I always ask his opinion if I'm not sure of something. He is a pleasure to work with . He deserves credit for having the patience to help me through some adjustments, and he is hopeful things will be OK provided I follow the rules more carefully. and I've made mistakes as we all know, but after some thought I have a new obligation if I continue.. to show my appreciation for Dan's help and the help of others I have mentioned. Scheinwerfermann has explained several times the correct way to edit and I was warned the last time. I can understand his frustration with me as he really tried to explain it carefully and offering detailed suggestions. I guess there is no excuse, I need to do more reading of the complete section or article before hitting that save button. I have been using preview but not checking enough before hitting save. After a major edit I have made several after that to correct or change something like a reference of spelling or re-wording....It needs to be done all together as one edit before hitting save. Now some things have been overlooked here. The other work I have done somehow got left out of the discussion here. I have been working on other articles.. The Vega article has only been tweaked the last few weeks for a nomination. Actually if you look at my user page there are six articles listed under working projects I've been working on for two months. Headings (learned fro Seicer last month), infoboxes, plenty of images, and more. I've spent hours per night, sometimes until 3AM contributing.(I live alone)so I have of plenty of available time at night, And I've enjoyed it. Downloading photos from my camara, scanning old photos, cleaning up and organizing poorly organized (wrong headings, incomplete infoboxes, etc.) articles, adding text and editing poorly written text. I only edit poorly written text. I don't mess with something that's well written because I'm sure it would upset the writer. I do contribute however and most of the time I find my addition or image has not been deleted. Point is I pretty much know what I'm doing and don't really want to upset anybody. I'm just a bit thick-headed sometimes, but I can be sharp and useful when I catch on to things. Thanks to all and I'm sorry it came to this. Happy 4thVegavairbob (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think banning Vegavairbob from editing Chevrolet Vega would be an unnecessarily punitive step to take at this time. Leivick is probably correct that doing so would chase off an editor who obviously has a great deal to contribute to the project. But positive measures obviously need to be taken to make the misbehaviour stop, and there appears no evidence at all of the dramatic improvement Leivick claims Vegavairbob has shown. He's still doing everything objected to in this AN/I, as of today, so where's the improvement?

The high hopes Leivick says he has for Vegavairbob's behaviour to improve going forward seem unlikely to come to fruition; I have equally-high hopes that someone will shove a great deal of cash into my mailbox sometime in the next half hour. I am perplexed and concerned by Leivick's singular defence of Vegavairbob; it does not seem appropriate for an admin to facilitate obvious, persistent, willful disdain for community standards and expectations. I am fairly confident in my understanding that the rules and customs here apply to everyone. What Wikipedia policy, please, exempts those editors who happen to have been befriended by an admin?

Vegavairbob still seems not to get it. The incessant long series of miniature edits are a problem, but they are not the primary problem. The primary problem is his ownership behaviour on and around Chevrolet Vega. This has been explained to him numerous times, and his persistent response has been flat denial, or an assertion that he's not owning the article, he's just reverting edits that don't help the article — poTAYto, poTAHto. This present comment from him stating intent to do better is nice, but he's stated this intent before without any discernible follow-through. It's easy to see why he speaks highly of Leivick, who has evidently done nothing significant toward improving Vegavairbob's skill at interacting within this community, beyond just asking him to please read WP:OWN.

I think what's called for is active, close mentorship and coaching from an uninvolved party, preferably an admin, starting as soon as practicable.—Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C00:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Please note I did not say VVB should be banned from the article. I have proposed restrictions on his editing to force him to cease the apparent ownership of the article yet still contribute to it. I have the strong feeling, based on the history here (I for one have seen no difference in his behaviour over time), that the next discussion about him will be a community ban discussion, and it's probably wisest to avoid that. → ROUX ₪ 01:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that clarification. That makes sense to me; some reasonable, thoughtful restrictions on Vegavairbob's editing—without preventing him working on the article—would probably put a rapid, educational, and non-punitive stop to his ownership behaviour. I fear you are probably correct that if we end this with nothing more than "all parties are encouraged to assume good faith" or "all parties are encouraged to read WP:OWN", we'll be back here before long, talking about more serious sanctions on Vegavairbob and a much greater likelihood of our losing him as a contributor. That would not be a happy or productive outcome for anyone, so let's act thoughtfully and deliberately now to prevent it. —Scheinwerfermann ^T·_C02:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I suggested to Vegavairbob that he not make any sort of revert on the Chevy Vega article and instead use the talk page to discuss the changes he disagrees with. I think that if he stuck to this, the problem would be solved. If we need to implement a zero revert restriction for something like a month I don't think that would be too big a deal. I'm sure that after using the talk page to discuss disputes he would gain the needed experience to edit in a positive collaborative manner. --Leivick (talk) 03:01, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

IMO, I don't think there's a whole lot more to be said. I was impressed by Vega's comments above (assuming he hasn't changed them since I last read them). He definitely does a lot of great work and it would be a shame to lose him as an editor. His approach and style isn't always the best, but he seems to have realized that and it looks like he's going to work on improving it. If that doesn't happen, then we can take another look. However, for now, I think we're kinda done here. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 04:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, we are not "kinda done here." See [12]. Unfortunately that attitude is proof positive that Vegavairbob persists in his obstinate and self-justifying refusal to accept what's at issue; indeed continues with the attitude that even the action taken to resolve it should be of his choosing -- i.e. that WP should bend its knee to his royal decree. The longer this goes on without a firm response, the clearer the evidence that nothing will change without one. The cosy, softly-softly approach adopted by Leivick thus far has very obviously failed to penetrate. Your man simply shrugs it off. Innocence abroad? Maybe. But it's beginning to look awfully like artful dodging. Writegeist (talk) 07:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a novel approach might work in this case: let's invite VVB to comment on how he would deal with the situation if he ran across an editor who was displaying ownership of an article to the degree that he seems to. Maybe something between that and what I suggested could give us a workable solution to the problem. → ROUX ₪ 08:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Why was my comment deleted? This is nothing but an abuse of "power" on this site. I would like my comment returned to this discussion. I am being accused of ownership of an article for tweaking minor one word edits and you have the nerve to delete a paragraph statement of my feelings towards the progress of these discussions which are not positive and biased. This situation whatever the outcome will be addressed for the site's benefit. As stated, no restrictions, no chosen mentor and stop questioning my motives. I am being advised and coached by a capable and very helpful administator who wants a positive outcome here and for the site. Myself, after that attitudes and bias displayed here, I'm not even sure if I to want continue. I'll make my decision at the close of this discussion. I have done nothing to hurt the site, its contents, or this discussion. I have addressed my editing style and it has been suggested that I comment on talk page of the Vega article before making any edits. Fine, as long at other editors have to do the same. What's fair is fair gentalmen. You will not restrict me in any way in editing or contributing. I will be treated as any other editor. I will review and follow all rules as you have outlined me to review. And there is no ownership issue for the last time, but there seems to be an "ownership" issue for the contents of this discussion. I would like my deleted comment returned to the discussion.Vegavairbob (talk) 12:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I have no idea what comment you are referring to; by all means reinsert it--and please show us the diff of where it was removed, so that whoever removed it can be properly chastised. And sorry, but you don't get to decide that nothing is done when everybody sees a problem with your editing--that is for the community to decide. Far less do you get to make a unilateral decision at the end of the discussion. Please re-read how consensus works on Wikipedia, because I think at the root of the problem is a lack of understanding. Other editors have not made 86% of the total edits to the article, nor have they indicated through their actions that they think they own the article, and so it would be silly to treat them the same as you. 'You will not restrict me in any way' completely misses the point about how Wikipedia works; you are in fact being treated the same as every editor: you are required to do what the community says. You may say there is no ownership issue, but do us all a favour and try looking at the situation from our perspective. How would you handle a situation where an editor will only allow through changes if he approves them? (And, interestingly, does not allow changes one day, then makes the exact same ones the next?) I fear that with your response above you have made it crystal clear that you have no interest in bowing to the will of the community and working in a collaborative manner. I hope that you will re-read what you have written, re-examine your behaviour, and change your attitude accordingly. → ROUX ₪ 14:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And for the last time, would you please STOP editing your comments multiple times after posting them. I know for a fact you have been asked this and you have claimed you will stop doing it. It makes it VERY difficult to respond. → ROUX ₪ 14:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I would also add that you have not in fact addressed the ownership issue other than to say there isn't one. Can you please explain why? And refute the multiple points made by multiple people showing that there very clearly is? Indeed, your mentor has stated there are ownership issues. → ROUX ₪ 14:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I hate to be blunt , but you guys are driving me nuts. A suggestion. Show and tell. Here how we play. Step 1- Go to Feb, 15, 2009 on Chevrolet Vega. Step 2 Go to July 1, 2009. Step 3. check progress or size or content of article from start of Wiki to Feb, 15, 2009. Step 4 Check progess and content change from Feb, 15, 2009 to July 1, 2009. I have added all of the content and images and infoboxes and all refereces, etc, etc. When is this going to stop. There have been no additions to this article in four month from anyone but me except conversions (Type932, and a major two section delete from Secier(which I re-wrote) and returned to article. I'm getting worn out from explaining this. There was no interest in the subject to have to try to claim ownership. I had no problem doing it myself because NOBODY CARED or had a contribution to make to it other than what I stated. Don't you get it? I keep reading Bob doesn't get it, Bob doesn't get it. No the panel in this discussion doesn't get it. Step 1 gentalmen if you don't mind. There will be a quiz.Vegavairbob (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC) I will make this crystal clear. Quadell was instrumental in the copright knowledge for so that half of the 42 images are mow legally allowed. He provided the knowledge and I provided the images and the work. Seicer provided the knowledge of the article organization and content. His list on the talk page with all issues was addressed by me in one day. Headings, quote farms, etc. The deleted sections were re-written in a week and re-inserted. The knowledge of his instruction I now use to edit other articles every day. See my user page. Dan has instructed me how to edit with others, and I think I'm a fair editor and I don't want to eliminate anyone's contribution or what they have written. I already said I do not edit well written referenced text. I would assume that should go for my well written text to. Just changing something to change it is not constructive. I hope you're getting the message that I can work with others and I do have a high standard as the article shows. I'm a perfectionist but I'm not selfish to others contributions to anything I have worked on or will work on.Vegavairbob (talk) 15:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC) I've learned much about formal words and tense and references and article organization from other editors some of which are in this dissussion. I hope everyone here understands that I want to work with others because I've learned from others. It's been a great learning experience I enjoy it more now than at first.Vegavairbob (talk) 15:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The deletion of my comment was made after your comment Roux 1:24 3, July.Vegavairbob (talk) 16:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I might be mistaken as I was up in the middle of the night reading this thing, very tired and I might not have hit save. I read it over several times. But might not have saved it. Sorry for the confusion and the misunderstanding on my part.Vegavairbob (talk)

To further clarify, the only change in someone's major edit was when Seiser completly changed the locations of the sections putting the section with the images of the cars at the end of the article and misplacing another. At that time there were no sub-headings used however. I took the info on his very complete issue list and on the vega talk page and did all new sub-sectiom headings, then put put the sections with the car models at the beginnin where they were and belong. Now that's showing ownership I guess. Doing everthing on the issue list but I should have kept the images at the end like a large gallery. Oh well. You guys are gonna think what what want regardless, I don't even know why I'm spending the time on this. The bias here has got to stop. But thanks for at least asking. Any other changes i made were word changes. If a word of mine can be changed there is no reason I can't do the same. It's not anything important to even be discussing. No additions were deleted by anyone here, adjusted, maybe, tweaked, maybe. Why not? My work gets tweaked, but I can't do any tweaking. It has to be one way or another? No, I don't think so. Compromise does not mean ownership, it means compromise. And that's what some editors have to learn maybe. I have no problem with compromise. Everybody is half happy instead of one party unhappy. This is on edits that can go either way. If one is corrected it should remain, not adjusted. Still think I have an ownership issue?

Maybe not now.Vegavairbob (talk) 16:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Just let it drop?

I had not realized the full extent of the mutual-admiration society formed by VVB and Leivick (e.g. the latter's Barnstar to VVB here [[13]] and VVB's reciprocation here [[14]].

Leivick's good-natured and well-meaning encouragement does not help curtail VVB's problematic behaviour, which is ongoing. E.g. his postings here yesterday and today:

"I only edit poorly written text. I don't mess with something that's well written because I'm sure it would upset the writer." (Does he seriously think nobody will review his edit history?)

". . . you have the nerve to delete a paragraph statement of my feelings towards the progress of these discussions which are not positive and biased. This situation whatever the outcome will be addressed for the site's benefit. As stated, no restrictions, no chosen mentor and stop questioning my motives. . . "

". . . You will not restrict me in any way in editing or contributing. . ."

". . . there seems to be an "ownership" issue for the contents of this discussion. . ."

". . . It was probably bait to get to this discussion. . ."

Absent any change in attitude or intervention by an uninvolved sysop, I don't see any point in continuing with this. VVB might as well be left to his fate, which I imagine will manifest itself fairly swiftly. I had hoped it might be otherwise. Writegeist (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with my attitude. What I have done wrong I apologised for including the rapid edits. I will not apologise for any ownership issue. I have worked alone for four months on the article. When other parties got involved I did everthing i was instructed to do. On any edits that were done by these parties which were few, I did not revert anything, as stated some of it might have been adjusted (one word adjectives, etc,etc. or putting back a quote that was reworded. Most of other editors contributions were instructional to me on how to inprove the article and I did all of it. Gladley, and learned how to edit nand organize an article at the same time. What nobody here seems to understand is that it worked out perfectly. Yes that's right. I gained experience added image and text, learned how to edit, learned how to take instruction, learned how take a compromise approuch (got that one from Dan..he's the one here we can all learn from, because his intentions are best for the site and its editors not scare them away, because without them you have no articles. And finally, learned and am still learning how things work, like this discussion, which I have found biased, one way, and not open minded to my side of the story. But at least I was able to give my side... finally.Vegavairbob (talk) 20:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

"There is nothing wrong with my attitude."

For all that Leivick may support your curious (to me, at least) assertion, I suspect there will be less than white-hot enthusiasm among the nonpartisan members of the community, including those present, for the attitude of a user who persistently commands the community to bow to his imperious will, makes promises to reform but does not keep them, studiously ignores the issues here, and also very obviously intends to continue in blithe disregard to WP:OWN, etc., etc. As I have now totally lost interest in your cause I'm stepping away from any further participation here. Good luck. Writegeist (talk) 21:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• /me sighs... Well, okay. I give up. Multiple people have tried to explain to you, VVB, what exactly is the problem with your editing, and you refuse to listen. I urge you as strongly as possible to read what article ownership is and dispassionately evaluate your behaviour in light of that. Beyond that, though, I must agree with what Writegeist said: you have no interest in listening to what you are being told or modifying your behaviour accordingly. I strongly suspect that the next time you are discussed on AN/I it will be in the context of a full topic- or community ban, and the only person who can prevent that is you. I do hope I'm wrong, but history would indicate otherwise. → ROUX ₪ 21:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Gentalmen, I have taken all instruction on how to improve articles and use what have learned daily. Regrettably, I did not follow instruction on the rapid edits, which I will not do and I again apologise for that. Thanks for listening.Vegavairbob (talk) 21:49, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

User:69.226.103.13 has a legitimate, and tricky, problem

Resolved

 – User has indicated they will no longer be editing, this is all now moot. Discussions about renaming the abuse filter belong at the Village Pump or WP:AF

→ ROUX ₪ 18:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've been conversing on my talk page with this user, and am gaining a richer understanding of his problem, which isn't really about filters at all, so much as a number of programs that have made life rather difficult for him. May I direct your attention to the discussion on my talk page labelled 'Tagging?' To sum up: Back in February, User:Anybot created an enormous number of factually inaccurate articles about algae, based on an inaccurate source. By 'an enormous number,' I mean over 6000. Yikes. This is the discussion that WikiProject Plants had about it.] Many of the incorrect articles were simply deleted en masse in a single AfD discussion, but about 900 of them still exist, and are still inaccurate. User:69.226.103.13 has been trying to work his way through that list manually, cutting the inaccurate articles down to one-sentence stubs, but User:ClueBot has been reverting the corrections and warning User:69.226.103.13 to stop blanking articles, since doing so is an act of vandalism. Those edits which have gone through have been tagged by the abuse filter as possibly problematic. From the IP's point of view, he was trying to fix one bot's mistakes, and two more bots are preventing him from doing so, as a result of which (though I wouldn't like to put words in his mouth), he currently has a very negative attitude toward Wikipedia's bots. Does anyone have some suggestions as to how this problem can be solved? -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:53, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Note about FisherQueen's summary. These 900 are not all wrong, they were not deleted for various reasons. Most of the various reasons were legitimate. Unfortunately a few of the first ones in the list are really bad articles. I was just trying to go through the list quickly from the top down, when my edits started being rejected, being tagged, making it hard to do quick work on a large number of articles. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Why weren't the 900 remaining articles deleted? (I'm assuming there's a reason, I'm just curious).

Could a bot (no, not a joke!) be coded to fix/stubbify the remaining 900?

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Question # 1: I do not know the answer to this question. Question #2: that was my first thought as well, but since my complete knowledge of algae is "green, slimy," and my complete knowledge of bots is, "they work on magic," I don't think I'm qualified to have an opinion. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 19:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The problem would largely be solved if they would create an account. AFAIK, ClueBot has a threshold beyond which it doesn't revert/warn users. No such threshold for IPs. → ROUX ₪ 20:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

FisherQueen, would the IP be prepared to create an account to work on these 900? They could perhaps reference this thread from the userpage, to inform the less benign members of the community that they are a long-term editor on a serious mission.

Alternatively, I have no experience with bots but in real-life I'm a magician, so I could ingratiate myself with the bot-developer community and see if they/me/us could come up with some magic solution.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

They don't need bot edited, most are redirects, most of the remainder are okay, a few are nightmares. They require human checking, one by one. Some need deleted. Kurt Shaped Box has politely agreed to delete articles I request be deleted, so deletion is not an issue.

I'm making a political statement by editing only with IPs. I've been doing it for years. The two times I've registered an account I also tried to edit the most egregious errors, of the type one wishes is never found on wikipedia. It did not go well.

--69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone with administrative privileges who is reading this could delete Heteronema and Arthrospira to put them out of their misery. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Got 'em. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 21:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, most of the articles on my latest list are redirects. Some may be going to the right place, some may not - and either need retargetting or deleting outright. Unfortunately, the only way I can think of to do this is for an expert (which I am not!) to go through them manually and either fix the problems or indicate what needs to go... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

They don't require full scale expert. Before I started editing and decided I would clear the list, I checked a large number of articles. Any of these editors: User:WillowW, User:EncycloPetey, User:Hesperian, User:Eugene van der Pijll, User:Lavateraguy, User:Rkitko, User:Josh Grosse (inactive)]], User:Werothegreat (inactive), User:TheAlphaWolf, User:KP Botany, User:Onco p53, User:Osborne, User:Esculapio, User:Arcadian, User:Daniel Vaulot, would be able to clear this list, probably faster than I could. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The important point to remember is that we still have articles that list bacteria as eukaryotes. This spells: no science here. The list needs checked immediately, imo, that's why I was willing to do it, but, since I am being impeded, someone else will need to do it. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(after edit conflict)I have nothing to do with the abuse filters or the anti-vandal bots - but (and this is aimed at anyone reading) would it be possible to make 69.226.'s edits exempt from scrutiny in future? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't own this IP. See the first edit from it before you consider this.

But, no, thanks. I want to edit as an IP. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:44, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

So, I take it that you don't believe that Elmo is evil? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Scary, yes, evil, no. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• Have you tried to contact the operator of ClueBot? It should be possible to write an exception to whatever rules it uses. Thatcher 23:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Kinda had my fill of the bots' folks and their private club. Cluebot's not really a problem bot, as far as I can tell. The block messages appear to be generated by my getting the tags, also, as I deleted more text before (see my abuse filter log to see my prior incidents of abuse all properly logged).

But thanks for offering a positive suggestion in a thoughtful manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, here's my suggestion of a heuristic: If an editor, IP or registered, edits text from an article created by a bot that has recently had 4077 of its articles deleted for being worse than garbage, don't tag the editor who is helping to correct the remaining garbage. This is codable.

Here's another suggestion: don't make things permanent if they're in the testing stage as the tags are. Editors are offended by having their edits tagged as vandalism-unlike the code, editors are human beings. From an outsider's point of view, software development on wikipedia is amateur hour. Software in the development stage should not create permanent and inaccurate logs associated with user accounts. With your tagging me an abusive vandal it'd be crazy to register and have a vandalism filter associated with my name.

Here's another one: when an editor doesn't blank the page, don't tag it as blanking.

Here's another one: don't whine about another editor's whining. This changes the focus and length (to longer) of all conversations on wikipedia to drain time from writing an encyclopedia. I wonder this has never been noticed before.

Here's another one: find someone to check the remaining 889 articles. My abuse log is so long after trying to edit 3 articles you may wind up blocking all of NoCal from my editing attempts alone. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 23:42, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

• The abuse log is not actionable by itself, and many "abuse filters" detect things other than abuse. No admin should ever act on the abuse log without checking the edits themselves. Thatcher 00:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not an abuse log, because the edits are not abusive. It should not be called an abusive log. The title should reflect what it is. Why would someone bother to name something so inaccurately in the first place? It's either an abuse log or it's not. If it's not, don't call it one, don't attach it to editors names, and don't be surprised when it interferes with creating an accurate and reliable encyclopedia because writers don't like being told they're being abusive vandals when they're not.

The obvious solution is just that: call things what they are. It's not obvious that every time someone doesn't like the inaccurate and inappropriate name of something, pause from editing and correcting bad articles, and find a way to correct it.

If it's not an abuse filter, and it's not a log of tripping the abuse filter, stop calling it that. If it's not a log of an editor tripping the abuse filter, don't attach it to the editor's logs.

Anyone at all concerned about the bad articles that rewrite 2 billion years of evolution and how many more still sit on wikipedia? --69.226.103.13 (talk) 05:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

These behind-the-scenes, "passive" reversions are called abuse filters because that's their intention. When written correctly, they work very well. When written incorrectly or too broadly, obviously they can cause problems. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that's the intention, no matter how much obfuscation is attempted by those denying the intent here and at the "report a false positive" board. Thank you.

Professional and experts care that their hard work is labeled vandalism. Vandals may not care, some other wikipedia editors mayn't care. But I'm not a full-time wikipedia editor. I just correct the science in articles when I have the chance, and I'm not an abusive vandal and should not be labeled one.

It spoils the ability to find a solution that shows the community wants a good, reliable, well-written, and accurate encyclopedia when you tell researchers that wikipedia labeling them as vandals means nothing. If it means nothing: don't do it.

Thanks for being honest, Baseball Bugs. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Another factor is that vandalism frequently comes from IP addresses (I would say more IP address entries are vandalism than are not), so if the bot is reacting to IP address removal of text, it's understandable. Also, if you're remaining as an IP to stay anonymous, you're actually more vulnerable to exposure than if you had a user ID. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 08:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not staking claim to anonymity. IPs removing text that doesn't belong is appropriate. Calling it vandalism isn't. The script is labeling edits abuse and vandalism when they're not and created a log called an abuse filter log that's a lie. If I were editing under a registered name this would be a permanent log attached to my account calling me an abusive vandal-a great reason not to register!

I shouldn't have to explain why a researcher would not want to be tagged an abusive vandal when they're not one. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 15:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC) this edit has been labeled and logged as possible vandalism

I'd very much like we don't link the abuse filter log in the contributions. If you register, you'll be exempted from most abuse filters after four days and 10 edits. The abuse filter is still new, we're working on improvements. Sorry for the inconvenience.. Cenarium (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's insulting. It's bad for wikipedia. Registration would make it a permanent part of my account. It's preventing the correction of potentially 889 bad articles that continue, as we talk, to spread the word: "wikipedia doesn't do science." The abuse filter will continue through 500 edits, not 10 edits, if I try to remove lists of species that don't belong, and remove links that aren't sources.

You've made it impossible to correct some of the worst articles on wikipedia. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This last edit of mine has been labeled vandalism by the abuse filter log. The abuse filter is written by wikipedians who don't know that IPs can't do page moves. It's in low level testing stages and written by wikipedians who don't know wikipedia policy and it's creating inaccurate permanent logs. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 15:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The edit matched because of the #ED section and the abuse filter sweeping too large. That shouldn't happen again. It's not used only for page moves though. Cenarium (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't edit that section. It tagged my edit (16:17) as abusive vandalism.

The page moves comment is that the abuse page filter contains information about preventing IPs from moving pages to title "somethingpoops". I was pointing out the abuse filter writers don't seem to know much about wikipedia, and should not be creating permanent abuse accusation logs, given they don't know much about wikipedia. Their making abuse filters to tag IPs doing things not allowed to IPs indicates they don't. I'm sorry I wasn't clearer, I keep reading something, then posting a comment about it elsewhere forgetting to link.

I don't know why it's so hard to make wikipedia understand that articles listing bacteria as eukaryotes are bad and removing the text from them to clean up 2 billion years of evolution isn't bad, unless you're a vandal and enjoy seeing wikipedia in such ill repute. I think cleaning up bad science spreading through cyberspace the longer it's left on wikipedia is more important than most conversations on this page; but I'm not allowed to do that because a filter in its testing stages has throttled my ability to correct something worse than pseudoscience: non existent science. Even if I registered it would just create a junk account that would also be throttled as a user with less than 500 edits. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There are still 889 articles, some number of which are bad, many created by a bot that should never have run. I'm labeled an abusive vandal and throttled from editing them, but they still must be checked and edited for major errors like calling bacteria eukaryotes and made-up algae names that have been copied by wiki mirrors. They're still bad articles being returned at the top of search engines results and making wikipedia look scientifically incompetent. Throttling proper edits and calling researchers abusive vandals shouldn't be part of writing an encyclopedia. Accuracy and reliability and correcting mistakes ASAP should be. Maybe the next person who wants to tell me to register could edit 10 of them to clear the list instead. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Remember, no one actually called you an abusive vandal? Wikipedia is a community of people who care about things; articles only get fixed when someone cares enough to do it. You know I like you, but you've been offered two solutions- create an account to do this work, or ask the manager of User:ClueBot to temporarily exempt either your ip or these articles from being affected by that bot. You've refused to do either of those things, because you want to make a point. That's fine- but you can make your point, or you can do the work that you think needs to be done. I'd be glad to clear 10 of them myself, but I don't know how because I lack the knowledge in this area. You keep saying that "Wikipedia" is doing things, or should do things, but "Wikipedia" isn't anything but us- a bunch of people. You are Wikipedia. So am I. That's all there is to Wikipedia. I feel badly for it, but I don't think I'll intercede for you any longer if you're going to continue insulting the people who are trying to help. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not cluebot, it's the throttle in the tagging script that is preventing the editing of the articles. An account won't work because the same filter will block me until I'm registered and have 500 edits. There are 889 articles. Everyone has made it clear the filter is about catching vandal, particularly vandal IPs. Why is it stopping me then? It's treating me as a vandal. That's calling me a vandal. The tag, also, are associated with vandalism edits. You say I'm insulting people but you haven't pointed out the insult. The real insult is a list that may contain articles anybot never should have made that have spent 4 months being copied by wiki mirrors into cyberspace and show up in search engines. --

I think you're misreading the filter. You will be ignored by it very swiftly if you create an account. Or maybe someone could exempt your IP address in the interim. –xeno^talk 18:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Rename Abuse Log

I think the IP raises valid issues about the name and functioning of the abuse filter. A couple of suggestions to consider:

• Should we rename Abuse log to Bot tag log or Filter bot log (or whatever) ? The current name (without any qualifier like possible, probable) is both inappropriate and factually incorrect
• Should the log entries be set to expire after some time (say two weeks) ? After all, they are just meant to highlight possibly problematic edits for review and if an edit hasn't we reviewed in a couple of weeks it's unlikely to get/need attention later. We always have a permanent record of the edit diffs themselves, in case we need to review a user's edits later.

Comments ? Abecedare (talk) 17:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

This discussion belongs at WT:AF. Perhaps "Edit filter". –xeno^talk 17:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"Wikispace Filter" ... "Wikitime Filter" ... "WikiSpaceTime Filter" (and we can use the old sayings about "...eddies in the WikiSpaceTime continuum" :) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

He is, is he? → ROUX ₪ 17:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

That would be polite and accurate, if the abuse filter tag was working correctly:[15] from my log.

The reason a writer above posted this comment, "The edit matched because of the #ED section and the abuse filter sweeping too large. That shouldn't happen again. It's not used only for page moves though. Cenarium (talk) 16:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)" is that the abuse filter log is wrong. It associated the wrong edit with my edit of this board. It says I removed this line, "::: ED is Encyclopedia Dramatica 72.89.192.102 (talk) 14:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)" when I didn't edit that section at all. It's inaccurate, it's insulting, and it has programming errors, in addition to being in testing phases, and it's a permanent record. What's wrong with that picture? Everything. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

"It's a permanent record." Is it one that anyone cares about? Will it truly cause you to be seen as less by anyone? Is there an actual disadvantage to having this "permanent record"? Don't we all realize we're still working out the bugs? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It's besmirching his good name. Oh wait... that's an IP address. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not besmirching my good name, this is just a floating DSL account IP. But I wouldn't have a registered account and attach this to my name. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If you refuse to ignore the entries (as I ignore mine) in your filter log as many people have advised you to do time, and time again, perhaps you could register the username User:69x226x103x13 while completing this (very commendable) task. –xeno^talk 17:57, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Good idea. I did, but it turns out the abuse filter will block the same edits because I don't have over 500 edits. I read the tag hueristics. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)To put it more bluntly, nobody gives a tinker's damn what is in the log, unless you're actually doing something wrong. Programming being what it is, it's impossible to account for every possible eventuality. So the filter picks up on lots of stuff that may not need any action. If no action is needed, none is taken.. which I note is in fact the case here. ClueBot does make mistakes, and there is no prejudice to reverting the mistakes it makes. As FisherQueen said above, you can choose to make your point or you can find a solution. The two choices are mutually incompatible, and havnig been given these choices it would behoove you to pick one and stop complaining about two massively useful tools that will not be changed to suit one editor who feels like standing on a soapbox with his/her actions. → ROUX ₪ 18:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC) After ec: 500 edits takes a trivial amount of time to amass, given how many articles you're working on. → ROUX ₪ 18:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So I should not worry about wikipedia missing evolution by 2 billion years while I amass 500 edits? I don't think an article calling a bacterium a eukaryote should remain on wikipedia for 1 hour much less the time it takes me to gain 500 edits. It's frustrating spending a month trying to tell people how bad these articles are. They are worse than articles that say "Zena is poop" because everyone knows it's a sixth grader doing it. What if you know nothing about bacteria and you innocently come to wikipedia for information? Not for a research paper, you've sunk yourself there, but just because you saw something in the news? How long will 500 article edits take me, most take me a couple of hours. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Again, 500 edits has nothing to do with anything. At the moment, you are wasting valuable time that could be spend accumulating the several days required to become autoconfirmed. Also, I don't see that the edit filter has disallowed any of your edits, it simply warned you. Hit save again, and be on your way. –xeno^talk 18:27, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

xeno, this IP clearly realizes by now how the Abuse Filter is generated and can/should not take it as an insult. However, I still think that we may be driving away good editors who see their good (not only good faith) edits logged as Abuse. And what's the upside (besides inertia) of calling it the Abuse Filter log and keeping a permanent log ? Vandals surely don't care what we call their edits, only good faith editors are likely to sensitive about their reputation. Abecedare (talk) 18:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point, the vandals don't care. Researchers do care about being called abusive vandals. It's their reputation that gets them jobs and keeps their reputation. It's a mistake to be cavalier about how others handle this, when there's no gain for wikipedia in calling it an abuse log if it's not one. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The thing is, nobody is calling you an abusive vandal, and you seem to be the one (1) person on Earth who's taking it that way. Why not look around here in Rome, note that the Romans are ignoring the heck out of these logs, and... do what the aphorism says. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how calling yourself User:abcedfg1234567 could have any bearing whatsoever on your professional reputation. Again: you have repeatedly been given multiple solutions to the concern you are experiencing. I suggest you take them on board and either do something or stop complaining. There's that old saying: if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. At this time, you are not part of the former. → ROUX ₪ 18:17, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

@69.x.x.x, The 500 is a byte size, if I am reading it correctly. It's just autoconfirmed that it looks for. @Abecedare, I agree, but make the thread at WT:AF. –xeno^talk 18:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I was intending to raise this too. I only noticed for the first time a few days ago that I have an "abuse" log for linking to

YouTube, and for creating articles related to Michael Jackson, which triggered a suspicion of vandalism. It would be good if the name of the log could be changed. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I've posted a request for a change in the log's name here. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 18:14, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

By all means, call it something else. Call it something that people will find easy to ignore. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

69.x.x.x's concerns arb break

No, it says I have to have over 500 edits to do some of the edits eneeded to correct the log. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Can you show me where you see that? Both filters 132 and 3 simply look for autoconfirmed to exempt the user. The only reference to 500 is part of a size range (seen below). –xeno^talk 18:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

!("autoconfirmed" in user_groups) & article_namespace == 0 & 
new_size < 50 & old_size > 500 & !(user_name in article_recent_contributors) 
& !("#redirect" in lcase(added_lines))

Maybe it is cluebot, then. I'm looking for it. I copied and pasted it from the warning note blocking me from removing the algae category, the bad taxobox information, and the list of unverified species, and the reference from which information was not pulled. It's a big banner that appears when I try to delete these bits of garbage. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:25, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Most of these filters are "warn only". Just hit save again and you should be good to go. –xeno^talk 18:30, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

They say that, but they don't work like that, if you hit save again they won't post. --69.226.103.13 (talk)

Really? Because there's nothing in your log that says you've been disallowed from any edits. Can you try and do one right now (see the warning, hit save again) and I can take a look? –xeno^talk 18:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What is abusive vandalism

Writers are ignoring what wikipedia says that abuse is, "Wikipedia:Abuse reports is a centralized forum for the reporting and investigation of abuse complaints, related to IP Address-specific vandalism, to be reported to service providers. Please be aware that this is not an official contact system put in place by the Wikimedia Foundation, but a volunteer-run process to counter vandalism that has the community's blessings."

Please, stop saying I'm the only one calling it abusive vandalism. Other writers are calling it vandalism, saying it's about stopping IP vandalism, and the definition of abuse on wikipedia is IP vandalism. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No.. that page is for reporting systematic abuse by IPs in order to deal with it as the ISP level. Dealing with named-account vandalism is somewhat easier. Again: you have been provided with solutions for your problem. To be perfectly blunt: take one or stop complaining. Reading this would also be a good idea. → ROUX ₪ 18:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec - reply to 69.226.103.13) I see what you're saying, but is there an actual editor anywhere who has actually judged you or taken some kind of action based on this supposed reputation? Is there any actual harm, or only a potential based on someone's possible future reading of your log? I mean, all kinds of things may be written down, but the ones that people tend to ignore... you may ignore. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The actual harm, the only reason I even saw it, is because it stopped me from editing the articles. I could have done the entire list by now, removed every bad article, edited every saved article, confirmed 100% of the redirects! All 889 articles! Every one of them would now be a certified usable article of some sort on wikipedia, no garbage, no wrong taxonomies, no bad references. The entire list. That's harm. And, now I am not calm. So I'm done. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm wondering, if our kind algae-expert IP isn't going to fix these because of the AF slowing him down, and us not finding an acceptable solutions, then maybe we should just give the new Special:Nuke button a proper test run? –xeno^talk 18:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:Abuse reports is not related to WP:Abuse filter. Please, take the advice you've been given, or stop wasting administrative time on this. –xeno^talk 18:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

In other words, shut up and get to work? I'm going to pass. What's really tendentious is caring about 4077 pieces of garbage on wikipedia in the first place. I'll stop editing them, so I won't complain about them anymore. Suddenly I don't care if wikipedia looks scientifically incompetent when I see how hard it works to stay looking like that. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just not sure what more you want from us. There's not presently a way to strike false positives. Perhaps file a bugzilla: or make a thread at WT:ABFIL. if you'd like to see that functionality added. We've initiated a thread to rename the filter, per your concerns. We've given you advice on how to 1) avoid or 2) bypass the filter. Is there anything else? –xeno^talk 18:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Once you tell someone to shut up and stop complaining about 900 scientific articles that are potentially worse than pseudoscience, there's not much else to say is there? --69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:45, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't tell you to "shut up" but I'm not sure what more we can do here. (Other than checking out that issue you mentioned above, that the filter wasn't letting the edit go through even after pressing save a second time - I'd like to look into that) –xeno^talk 18:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It was User:Roux who injected a shut up, a way to continue things in a useless direction. Yesterday I tried various things with the assumption the problem may be my system, not code. It continued to block me. However, I had a problem with my e-mail today, so, with more time, I uninstalled both browsers and reloaded new versions, and I'm not having the problem again. The e-mail problem was not related to the browsers, turns out, but maybe the glitch blocking me was.

Still, there are 1000s of anybot redirects to work on, and, no, I don't want to register and edit for 4 days to get autoconfirmed, and I've done all I'm willing to edit with having to make 2 edits every time to get past the filter. Thanks for trying to help. I think wikipedia could be a lot more careful with bots and programs in their testing stages. In the flesh world, tested apps are not made part of the permanent record for good reason. I've found more articles created by anybot that were corrected by IPs, by the way. IPs contribute a lot of hard work to wikipedia.

I think this bot created a serious problem for wikipedia and administrators and other writers should be concerned this might happen again and be more wary of allowing untested and unproven apps to make permanent changes on wikipedia. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 20:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, we definitely appreciate you pointing it out. As for the edit filter... well, yes I guess it needs some work. I've asked someone to help me write an exemption into the filters that are giving you trouble, and also a way to somehow "autoconfirm" IPs who wish to remain IPs. –xeno^talk 02:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleaning up after Anybot

Editing the articles

today, not in 4 days

I've posted instructions on the list that can help people here clean up most of the list by removing non-problem article, identifying articles that need deleted, and marking articles that need checked by a phycologist or botanist. User:Kurt Shaped Box/Anybot edits This should clean up most of the list leaving little that requires specialist knowledge. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts on this. –xeno^talk 19:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Can administrators delete the 1449 algae articles created by anybot in its user space without an afd? So much time has been spent cleaning this mess up. Some created when it was supposedly run by a hacker rather than the bot owner? Some were early tests, not just rogue bot. [16] Some articles have been edited by users (me, another IP, and registered user(s)),[17] without realizing they were in user space in my case. There's no compelling reason to keep in light of the many problems created by anybot in its thousands of deleted articles. None that I see. Maybe other writers disagree, but it seems if the bots article space articles had to be deleted, the user space articles should be, too. It might make it easier to search the bot's contributions for other editors who find anybot articles that still exist and want to correct mistakes. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think a mass MFD would be helpful (to make sure none of the wikiprojects are interested in harvesting the data - or is it all useless?) unless the user's operator says we can nuke these pages. –xeno^talk 21:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The data from anybot should not be harvested. That's why its 4077 article creations had to be deleted totally. The bot did not zero variables and strings, so there are pages where a genus of one division is listed in a family of another division in an order of a third division. This is like saying a human is a diatom is a slug, worse in some cases. It created articles about flowering plants, fungi, and people and labeled them diatoms. Really, its contributions have been discussed and the conclusion was: delete 4077 articles.

(after edit conflict)I don't really see an issue with deleting them (the bot has been deflagged and AFAIK, most of them are duplicates of the stuff already deleted at AfD) - but it's not as high a priority as fixing/checking all the stuff still present in article space. I don't think that Anybot's userspace is currently being indexed by Google, so it's not as if this stuff is particularly visible... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's true the stuff is not in user space, but it makes it easier to see what's left of the mess anybot created because the deleted articles are removed from its contributions list. My thinking is that if a phycology editor or better-will IP than I comes along and sees anybot stuff it may access the contributions list and be willing to fix it, if it's not filled with all of this useless stuff.

The bot owner's input is not necessary as the bot's authorization was revoked for creating this mess. See this. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 Doing... –xeno^talk 01:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I know no one is interested, but... I just found anybot claims to have writ/ten some of wikipedia's really good algae pages, written and maintained by good editors. Probably most of its article talk page edits should be deleted if possible. An encyclopedia has good reason to question the quality of an article written by anybot, but also a bot written article is generally less useful than a human written article. Its talk page tags should be removed. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hence the term "botany". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Mass rollback could accomplish this, most haven't been edited after Anybot. –xeno^talk 21:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Can someone do this? [18] Some of the pages are talk pages to redirects, would rollback simply delete the page then? That would be useful. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 21:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

How does I mass rollback? I don't think that I've done one of those before... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 21:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll start hacking away at it manually. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 21:54, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'd just stepped away to watch some TV or I'd have done some myself. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. Some of those were major algae articles, well-written and created by phycology and botany editors. Marking them as written by a bad bot was not good for article readers, and not nice for the human researchers. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

See User:Voice of All/Useful#Admin rollback/deletion tools and backlog bar (Requires Addtab) for the mass rollback script. –xeno^talk 01:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Now, what to do with the Talk pages created by Anybot and the ones tagged by Anybot and since edited by humans... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's a list of the talk pages *created* by the bot. Most of these probably need to be deleted (unless there's been significant discussion on any of them since). Does anyone know a method of exporting and rendering all those as wikilinks in the form of Talk:Blah for easier processing? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Someone should run a db report to determine which are still have just the single Anybot edit to give a proper list for deletion... but if you want to manually run through it, see User:Xeno/sandbox3. –xeno^talk 01:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

 Done - semi-manually. Many thanks for the list, many thanks to Popups and Twinkle... ;) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybot-created articles missed by the AfD

• Schulziella
• Archaeofavosina
• Diaphanoeca
• Chauvinia

Just found these when I was trying to figure out if Special:Nuke did talk pages too. Any objections to me deleting them now? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead; these are safely within the scope of the AfD. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 22:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Already  Done by MBisanz. Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, Ardissonea, Pithiscus, Sphaerodictyon. Deleted by myself. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I see a reason these weren't caught, or some of them on the list. I think these were some of the articles created by Martin using the bot before he got permission to run the bot. I don't know. I've run out of patience with Martin's programming. --69.226.103.13 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC).

There are also, articles not in any of the lists where Martin (User:Smith609) copied bad or unverified data the bot somehow came up with. I think Lobata (alga) is a specific epithet, but it should be deleted, unless it can be checked, the source it is tied to isn't.

Even if I did clean up the almost 900 articles on the one list, and after the deletion of 4077 articles, this still leaves thousands of redirects and pieces of garbage thrown all over wikipedia by various means of interaction with the bot. I think at this point there needs to be a well-advertised central location to deal with all of anybot's remaining contributions. Also, Martin, the bot operator, should look at his own contributions for algae articles he created using the bot before it was authorized and from the bot's contributions after authorization. --69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, please tell me that he wasn't previously using the same messed-up script to generate algae articles using his own account... *bangs head on desk* --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course he was. The program he ran unapproved is the one that was eventually approved. On the positive side both were a little better than the new one he created and ran unapproved while the bot was supposedly blocked so the community could solve the mess it had created. (That unapproved one I had volunteered to debug the algorithm for but instead he ran it without debugging and while another user, maybe you, was waiting for him to do a test run it could be vetted.) --69.226.103.13 (talk) 03:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Matt Sanchez

Resolved

 – Page semi-protected by Tanthalas39. Horologium (talk) 02:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

An article under Arbcom probation. Lots of IP activity stating about a week or so ago.

I didn't bring this to Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations because I'm just not quite sure who the "master" would be but it's obvious there's a someone here using multiple IPs. To be honest, much of the content being left is similar to what User:Bluemarine (Matt Sanchez himself) has said himself in the past on that very talk page. This article is under Arbcom probation. I've removed attacks (calling other editors "homosexual militants", something Sanchez has said in the past) and personal "morals" commentary ([19] [20]) by the IPs, only to have them reverted by another IP who then trolled my talk page. I again removed the content in question, only to be reverted again. If these IPs are Matt himself, he's violating his still-in-effect community ban. Would an admin step in here and head off this before it degrades into the mess we had a year ago? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 19:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I have listed the talk page at WP:RFPP. I am too involved to do it myself. Horologium (talk) 19:22, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think a talk page will be protected. I would be surprised.. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 19:26, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

There are too many unrelated IP addresses for WP:RBI to work, and the signal-to-noise ratio from IP contributions is almost nil. Horologium (talk) 19:34, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

User:209.22.220.148 seems to be discussing the article, while User:70.49.4.47 isn't being so constructive. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

What on earth is this? I know that's your talkpage Allstarecho, but that is really not acceptable. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

A humorous way for dealing with trolls and a tribute to Billy Mays all in one edit? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 19:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Revert and ignore, fine, but removing a post with an edit summary like that is never a good idea. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) 75.74.75.30 (talk · contribs) and 70.49.4.47 (talk · contribs) are the same person, I have no doubt. 75.74.75.30 is in Florida as is 76.108.231.71 (talk · contribs) and 70.49.4.47 is in Canada. So much for that.. unless they are using proxies. 82.206.141.42 (talk · contribs) is in Pennsylvania may be as well. 62.68.66.157 (talk · contribs) is in Greece. *blinks* - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 19:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The whole slew of unrelated IP addresses is why I suggested semi-protection. Only one of the IPs is actually discussing the article, and it's not particularly constructive. 209.22 is pushing to remove most of the information about Sanchez's past, with the implication that it's not really relevant to Sanchez's current life. That may be true, but it's intrinsic to his notability; without that, he would not meet the bar of WP:N. Horologium (talk) 20:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection seems like a fine idea. This is going nowhere useful. Durova²⁷³ 21:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

2 and a half hours later at WP:RFPP, it still hasnt' been addressed. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

...and it's the only open request, other than the vandalism-only IP editor who wants Pokemon unprotected. Horologium (talk) 21:48, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

And 6 hours later, it's still open at WP:RFPP. No admins here willing to do anything? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 01:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• I will wait another hour, and then I'll semi-protect the damn page myself, process be damned. The request has been sitting there for six hours now, and the same IP address has edit-warred with three different editors now. Horologium (talk) 01:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was busy cashing my Wikimedia paycheck. Protected one month. Tan | 39 01:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

To summarize, if you are an anonymous IP you are treated like sh** by registered eidtor her. If IP post strongly worded and opinionated comments or personal attacks on talk pages their edits are edited and changed, if a registered user attacks an ip than that is perfectly acceptable behaviour. Even my attempt to remove a personal attack by allstarecho was reverted, leaving the impression that only attacks by registered users are allowed here. 70.49.4.47 (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I also strongly object to the tactic employed here to just accuse me and obviously unrelated ip addresses as being one and the same person. Before making these accussation allstarecho should have at least checked where they come from. But I guess then, allstarecho is a registered user and I am only an ip, so there is no need to be careful with accussations and warnings on my talk page. 70.49.4.47 (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Not commenting on your situation as I'm just passing through and really have little idea what this is all about, but as a general comment, and having edited as an IP myself earlier in the year while I was on a wikibreak and just wanting to quietly work on articles, I do agree wholeheartedly with your assessment. Unfortunately I don't think that's going to change and the best way to address it, IMHO, is to create an account so that other editors get to know you and you can build up a reputation and some credibility. Editing as an IP on this project really sucks and i don't really know why anyone would want to put up with being treated like that for any sustained period of time. Sarah 12:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a biography of a living person that has been the subject of an arbitration case and multiple bans, blocks, etc. The article itself remains under arbitration-imposed sanction. If the IP editor is having a rough time it probably has less to do with not having an account, and more to do with having stumbled into one of the site's hotspots. Am not saying it's right that things are this way, but after a couple of years people's nerves do get frayed. That's human nature and it's much less bad now than it used to be. Durova²⁷³ 15:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The Matt Sanchez article has been fret with drama. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.59.82.18 (talk) 18:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll just note that this IP geolocates to Kabul, Afghanistan.. which happens to be the last known location of Matt Sanchez, aka User:Bluemarine. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 05:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Threats and lack of civility by User:Tcaudilllg in AfD discussion

I think this situation goes beyond what can be handled at WP:Wikiquette alerts. The editor has very strong opinions in the WP:Articles for deletion/Socionics discussion, which is fine (I support strong opinions), but he is pushing the limits of being civil. Most troubling to me are his threats to go "rogue" if the AfD doesn't go his way and his overly hostile responses. Some of the more interesting diffs: [21] [22] [23] [24] [25]

He has also made some questionable posts elsewhere:

The Fringe Theories noticeboard regarding the topic: [26]

His user talk page about the topic: [27] [28]

Niteshift36 (talk) 19:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The issue hardly seems worth pursuing to me, seeing as how the retention of the article in question is likely and would make the matter moot. Mangoe (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

So because the article isn't getting deleted, we should allow him to rant and threaten without so much as a warning? Interesting view. Niteshift36 (talk) 23:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The user is engaging in blatant incivility, harassment, making threats, and clear personal attacks, regardless of the user "getting his way". I think a block is justified here if he flat-out refuses to communicate civilly and collegially with others. MuZemike 02:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I tried to reason with Tcaudillg on his talkpage as well as on the deletion discussion page, but he didn't seem to get the idea of civility for civility's sake. I don't know if a block would improve things much. He seems to have abandoned the discussion. Teh Crafty One (talk) 03:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Yes Crafty, you exhibited a lot of patience. Niteshift36 (talk) 05:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers, but I think my good will may have been misplaced. He's decided that it's time to "analyse" Mangoe. I cannot see this ending well for him. Teh Crafty One (talk) 06:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

My analysis, by the technique explained in the socionics article ("semantic analysis"), was meant to persuade Mangoe of the truth of socionics by first-hand example. The western socionics community, which was alert to the AfD, has generally perceived of him negatively (see his talk page), and I must agree. His statement that no sources were provided to him before is a deception: several links replete with scholarly information and secondary sources were provided to him at his request. That his initiative to begin the debate in spite of these sources was not administratively criticized shook my faith in Wikipedia as a fair judge of notability. I was concerned for the social implications of the article's successful deletion; I doubted whether or not Wikipedia remained "a force for good". I intended to pursue a campaign of criticism against it if the AfD was affirmative; those were my "threats". The remarks I made, although negative, were fair and honest assessments of character, and were meant not as criticism, but as legitimate advice. Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Your threat is to restore thew articles if a "false consensus" is reached. You are under the mistaken impression that consensus means that everyone agrees. Also, your mass postings to people you feel are sympathetic is WP:CANVASSing. And I don't know how threating to put other people "on your ass" is assessing the character of someone else. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:CANVAS says canvassing is discouraged, but it is not overtly forbidden. Unlike you, I have other responsibilities than to sit and argue at Wikipedia all day. Goodbye.

Well I can't actually put anyone "on your ass" unless they agree to it. And if they do, then that's their choice. Obviously if enough people feel threatened enough to attack you, then they may have a legitimate grievance. Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the finer details of my philosophy, then there are forums for that. Else, goodbye. Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• I've exhibited no desire to discuss your philosophy. I am here discussing your conduct as it relates to WP policies. WP:CANVASS reflects community consensus, in other words, what the community finds acceptable. You did something the community does not find acceptable. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

personally, i would point out the fact that tcaud has done a great deal of work patrolling the socionics page and has worked in good faith to help provide sources for the page. however, i feel that his personal attacks have been rather over the top and that he is also taking on a degree of control over the page so that if it is merged (which seems presently to be the most likely was the outcome of the current debate) it will be difficult to actually make necessary changes to the page. also worth noting is that tcaudilllg has been banned from the wikisocion, a wiki on socionics, for similar behavior (see [29]). Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 03:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• I'd like to second the fact that Tcaud isn't acting in bad faith, but also point out that he exhibits a general lack of cooperation. I think he believes that socionics is indeed a notable thing which deserves to be on Wikipedia, at all costs, even if it means bringing in WP:IAR (see [30]). As is often true with editors (myself included, on occasion), the only thing he's doing wrong is a degree of stubbornness. When confronted with Wiki policy or logical arguments by several users, he'll cite a policy overriding the policy threatening to go against him (see previous example), make unverified, opinionated assertions (see [31]), or just change the subject (see [32] for a particularly pseudoscientific example). I think this is a consequence of his expressing a very strong point of view. Even though WP:NPOV applies specifically to content, I think it can be extended to mean that one should remain neutral in discussions as well, which Tcaud might not have been doing completely. So it's really not bad faith; he believes he's doing a good thing, ignoring all rules. The problem starts when people take that guideline to the extreme, which is what's happening here; anything argumenting against his goals is, in fact, ignored by him. This is further supported by his threats to 'go rogue' if the AfD doesn't go his way, as shown in [33]. So, in conclusion, he's not acting in bad faith, but his stubbornness and refusal to pay attention to others contributes to an overall lack of cooperation. That apart from the incivility, which has already been mentioned. --Slartibartfast1992 04:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Rmcnew might also be implicated in incivility and canvassing on the same topic; in a recent edit war kept on posting a section claiming that socionics is derived from and linked to alchemy, astrology, sutras, chakras, and other forms of mysticism, while producing very tenuous evidence to this end, and attacking other editors questioning his evidence on the associated talk page and accusing them of bad faith (see here and here for a small sample. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

• I am not really able to account for why Mangoe thought socionics isn't notable, nor for why Rmcnew would rather see no articles on the subject than an article with which he disagrees- -- but I consider a good deal of Tcaudilllg's responses as an overly frantic and unnecessary attempt to defend and expound something to which he is clearly very committed. If in fact socionics had been only borderline notable, such excess might even have harmed the chances of keeping the article. (I think Black kite's no-consensus closure was misread the discussion--there very much was consensus of all neutral parties to keep the article--but in this case it was a harmless error. If there should be a 2nd AfD in a while--a course i would not advise--I urge him to just make one calm argument and rely on the rest of us. I am not sure he will convince anyone about the actual value of the theory, and in any case Wikipedia is not the place to try. It is only partially correct that "Wikipedia is the ideal means of introducing people to socionics" - Wikipedia is a suitable means of informing people about it, not convincing them of it., much less of convincing them about the merits of any one of the different schools. DGG (talk) 16:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Your advise is duly considered. Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

2009 Honduran constitutional crisis

Currently, the page is 2009 Honduran constitutional crisis. Please see the talk page. I need to get back to my article work, so it would be impossible to try and deal with any of it further. It needs more eyes on it for the following - page move warring, edit warring, possible POV problems, possible BLP problems (these are living individuals involved and it deals with a potentially criminal act that people have been tried at the World Court for), and other problems. Some admin were previously involved in page moves. Since this is a major event and is ongoing, this wont be solved soon. I hope this can be handled in a way that doesn't lead up to some of the problems on other political pages (I need not remind everyone of what happened at the Sarah Palin page). Ottava Rima (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow! A military coup overthrowing a democratically elected Government is a "constitutional crisis" per the Wiki WP:NPOV! Need I say any more? Sarah777 (talk) 23:18, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If you read the sources and the page, it makes it clear that their Supreme Court ordered the military to remove him so their Legislature could appoint a new President. That is not a "military coup", especially when such would be against various international laws and a crime only a judicial body can determine. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:20, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

If it walks, waddles and quacks like a duck, chances are it is a duck. This is a military coup. End of debate. Sarah777 (talk) 23:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP has higher standards than that. It would be unacceptable to label people as violating a law without a judiciary body determining such. Now please take your off topic comments elsewhere. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:35, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

It would be unacceptable to label people as violating a law without a judiciary body determining such. Would it? Do you have a verifiable source for that assertion? What is a judiciary body? A dead judge? The North Korean Information Ministry? I can hardly be more "on topic" than pointing out the massive breach of WP:NPOV that is involved in Wiki calling a duck a goose. Sarah777 (talk) 23:46, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I guess the entire membership of the Organization of American States and the UN general assembly (not a single dissenting voice) are wrong too? Sarah777 (talk) 23:47, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

None of those are judiciary bodies and have no ability to determine criminality or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Whoa people! It is NOT up to us to establish whether this is a coup or a crisis or whatever. We report, not interpret. Here is a summary of what WP:RS's are saying:

• BBC - coup
• London Times - coup
• AFP - coup
• AP - coup
• Reuters quoting SofS Clinton - coup

I may have missed a wealth of sources describing this as a "constitutional crisis" - please correct me if that is the case. Manning (talk) 01:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah. You missed an important one. Wikipedia calls it a "Constitutional crisis". Sarah777 (talk) 01:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT a secondary source. Anyway the name has been fixed. Manning (talk) 01:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

BLP makes it clear that those sources are not reliable because they do not have a judiciary backing. They are reporting rumor and innuendo. Until there is a court case, no one can be said to be participating in a coup, which is a crime. Furthermore, this entry at ANI is about edit warring, move warring, and other problems. Sarah has already proven on the September 11th page that she does not understand NPOV or abide by our policies. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The judiciary can be involved in a coup just like any other organization. There is no reason why Wikipedia should swallow every judicial decision as gospel, especially not in this case. In Turkey you also have a tension between the judiciary and the government. Count Iblis (talk) 01:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Count Iblis, please reread - The World Court or some body like the ICTY would be a judiciary body that would investigate and try anyone involved if there was indeed a problem. Those are the international judiciary bodies. Due process is important to BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 01:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Nothing has been "fixed". This is WP:OR, nothing less. Since when did Wiki take it's naming policies from a concept called "judicial bodies"?!! (And I'd suggest that the 9/11 article (1) has nothing to do with this one and (2) proves that I understand NPOV perfectly. (our policies are an altogether different thing). Sarah777 (talk) 02:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

So, to sum up: the entire world, all available reliable sources and the MSM call this a coup (aided and abetted by the Honduran judiciary) but Wiki now has a policy based on the WP:OR notion that if some "judicial body" (undefined) doesn't call it a coup then Wiki must ignore what everyone else is calling it? Sarah777 (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Simple common sense dictates that when an elected leader is removed by the military, it is called a coup. Common sense is anathema to the Wikipedia Mind(tm) usually, but in this case we are blessed by the common sense of reliable sources as well, who describe it as a coup. So please, let's ignore the whitewashing and wiki-lawyering, and title the page 2009 Honduras coup or some such. Tarc (talk) 02:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed! Otherwise I can hardly wait to apply this reasoning to a host of other political and military conflicts all across Wiki! Vast tomes are written in total ignorance of this "judicial" principle; wait till we start applying the ruling of Iran's judicial body (the Ayatollahs) to various conflicts. Must get to work on this straight away - major re-writes of the Israel/Palestine conflict called for. Sarah777 (talk) 02:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sarah, consensus is against you on the 9/11 page for a reason - your understanding of POV and the rest is highly questionable. Your inability to understand the idea of due process and "proof" of a criminal act before declaring one is disturbing. These are WMF standards. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources are not reliable when they publish rumors or innuendos. Since only courts can declare a criminal act, any statement not by an official judiciary body counts as the above when it comes to BLP in determining if we can declare if said criminal act happened. Thus, this is not a "coup". It doesn't matter if "the entire world" says something, as the entire world could claim OJ Simpson was a murderer but his page will not reflect that. Furthermore, Tarc's comment is factually incorrect, as their Supreme Court ordered the removal and the Legislature appointed a new person. Having a strong POV is not a pass in violating the very basics of BLP. Ottava Rima (talk) 03:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If the articles involved here are factually correct (and knowing wikipedia, I wouldn't take that as gospel), then OR has a point. A Coup d'état is stated to be the unconstitutional removal of the executive. If the nation's Supreme Court ruled that the President must go, and if they had jurisdiction to do so, then presumably it's not unconstitutional and hence not a coup. Note the many "if's" though. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This is way off the topic (which was move warring and edit warring :) ). By the way, I am fine about calling it a coup if an international court rules one, I just don't like declaring criminality before an official declaration by one with jurisdiction in the matter. Anyway, what about the word "alleged" which is normally used? That would be perfectly fine. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The OAS is apparently going to decide what to call it, sometime soon. What the "topic" here is, is not yours to control, even though you brought it. And since you questioned the sources' use of the term "coup", you opened that door yourself. It's clear to me that the sources are using the term "coup" a little more broadly than it's currently defined in the wikipedia article on Coup d'état. That doesn't necessarily make the sources wrong, as wikipedia editors have been known to try to make articles support a particular point of view. The legality of the President's removal appears to be in question, at the very least. Hopefully the OAS will provide some guidance. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind to talk about it, and I admit that I am off topic too. I just don't want people to forget that there is admin attention needed to deal with edit warring and move warring so it doesn't get out of hand. The philosophical debate isn't that big of a necessity in comparison. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 20:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

OR (is that a reference to the WP:OR you are promoting here?); in the case of 9/11 the majority proposition was that because the vast bulk of "reliable sources" called it a terrorist attack, that is what Wiki should call it. You supported that. Now you are saying that though the vast bulk of "reliable sources" call it a coup, some other principle applies because you have access to a higher governing body for Wiki called a "Judiciary Body". I rest my case M'Lord. Sarah777 (talk) 10:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Sarah on this one, if not necessarily with all her arguments. Reliable sources call it a coup. No reliable source I'm aware of calls this designation into question. Ottava, just because something is unconstitutional does not automatically make it "criminal". And no, we do not have to wait for a court decision to accurately report what reliable sources report. Your demand to wait for some international court decision is unreasonable - the international legal system does not work like this, and most likely no international court even has jurisdiction about matters that are internal to Honduras. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User created new article containing substantial portions of protected article

Several days ago I was asked to intervene in a dispute at the article Glass transition (see the Wikiquette alert here and also a report I left on the Admin Noticeboard here.) The gist of it is that editors, including Logger9, were revert warring over 2 versions of the article, which I blocked for 7 days, along with one of the more egregious reverters.

It has just come to my attention that an article started by User:Logger9 after the protection of the Glass transition article, Plastic deformation in solids, which has been nominated for deletion, seems to be a substantial copy of his preferred version of the Glass transition article (see here for comparison) as reported here.

There appear to be several issues with Logger9's editing style, including an apparent feeling of ownership over articles. What's the appropriate action in this case? Exploding Boy (talk) 23:42, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I realize no one wants to get involved in this because it's a big old mess, but... little help? Exploding Boy (talk) 04:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The AfD makes it a bit tricky, but I would be in favour of a block for disruption and a speedy deletion although the rub there is I am not sure under what category, but there should be grounds for deleting an article in these circumstances, where an editor unhappy that it wasn't their version that was protected creates a new article with their preferred version. Dougweller (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that there is at least some support for keeping that new article. On the other hand, creating a new article that comprises large portions of one's own preferred version of an article protected due to an edit war one was involved in does seem fairly POINTy, despite arguments that other users encouraged expanding the topic. Logger9 does have some supporters, however, so some more input would really be helpful here... Exploding Boy (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see here for the decisions I've made regarding this situation. Thanks. Exploding Boy (talk) 18:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

All of which means this was a content dispute -- and the AfD was ill-suited as a cure. Collect (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There was a content dispute, but it was at a different article. The Plastic deformation in solids was a POV fork, and thus it was ill-suited as a cure. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Merger dispute re:3RR

After this discussion, Tiptoety (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) found there to be consensus for a merge of WP:3RR and WP:EW. Today, Deacon of Pndapetzim (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) undid the change, citing no consensus [34]. Based on his decision to revert my revert of his revert, and the comment he left on my talk page [35], it's clear that he doesn't consider the initial close legitimate. So I'm coming here to get some more outside opinions about what we should do about this so we don't get a large-scale edit war. We need some clear thoughts primarily about whether the close is legit. I also seriously question the unilateral action being taken here, but that is probably a less important issue than solving the dispute. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm concerned this drastic change to the formatting of these well-established policies, organised at a low traffic talk page and implemented with no consensus. If the change gathers a more legitimate basis of support I'll have no problems with the alteration. The group of editors who expressed support for this change on the talk page are very powerful, and I don't envisage it being resisted if they insist on the change by edit-warring and political games ... I'm certainly not going to put my neck on the line for it if this does happen. I in any case have better things to do just now than go rounds [like this thread] with the number of people I'd probably have to in order to successfully resist this on my own. If they do insist on it, I urge others who oppose this to participate actively in the process.

PS, Heimstern, comments like this this seem to be seeking confrontation rather than resolution. All will be well if participation is broadly-based, and if participants judge the topical issues honestly and participate honestly. Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 02:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right, that remark was overly annoyed. Refactored. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, Deacon strongly opposes this merge, and saying he "can't see consensus" is a bit disingenuous. If the Merge were an RfA candidate, they might be given the bit, as by my rough count, that discussion has a support rate of 74% (20 supports, 7 opposes, and a few random comments that I didn't put in either column). If Tiptoety is counted, that makes 21-7, or 78% - I'd say that's a consensus. Tan | 39 03:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is not something you can check from a score-card. It's when reasonable parties agree that something should happen ... an occurrence absent from the discussion. It's a mood, not a number . Now I respect that consensus in the normal English language sense is an unreasonable ask in certain cases, and head counting is unavoidable when faced with a decision that has to be made. But there was no urgency, unlike that in a RfA, to make a decision one way or the other. When there is no such consensus in these cases, you leave it. Don't see any wriggle room on this point. :) Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Deacon of Pndapetzim, I would have been happy to talk to you about this had you come to my talk page first. My actions are always open to review, and I am always willing to discuss my contributions. That said, I am a bit baffled by the fact that you do not see consensus here. While I did not play the numbers game, I did read over every comment made and found that there were only a few strong opposes I also noted that most were open to the change but, not sure they liked the idea. On the other hand, I saw little doubt in the eyes of the supporters who as a group were strongly in support of such a change. Also, I am not sure what is wrong with the discussion taking place on the talk page. Is that not how it should work? Opening a RFC seems a bit bureaucratic for something I see as not very controversial. Anyways, I will not be reinstating my edit but do hope that a common ground can be found. Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 03:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

1. Editors who have participated in a debate don't get then get to determine the consensus (or lack) of the debate.
2. If you disagree with the closure of a discussion, your first port-of-call is the closing editor's user talk page.
3. Believing you are right is not a justification for edit-warring. CIreland (talk) 03:15, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec x4) I have nothing but respect for you, Deacon, so take my comments as conversational. I'm not about to jump into this. However, I did roll my eyes a bit, as I predicted the age-old "consensus isn't a score" reply... yes, it'd be nice if we had unanimous or near-unanimous conviction for every action we took here on Wikipedia. However, if this truly is how we define consensus, nothing would get done. But you said all that yourself! Ah, the trickeries of process. You're right; it wasn't urgent - but it probably wasn't that horrible either way. Discussion can move on no matter what state its in; the only thing is the onus moves to the opposition to motivate and try to get it changed back - which seems appropriate, given the 78% support rate the merge was enjoying. I'll be interested to follow this. Tan | 39 03:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Tip, I'm afraid that, despite being here nearly 5 years, I've not found it to be our custom that we authorise or deauthorise the content of policy pages by close templates. No-one has the power to do such, so there's no scope for such "decision"-making. Regarding edit-warring Cireland, we follow WP:BRD. That means that when a bold edit is made, it can be reverted; when a bold edit is reverted, it is discussed, not re-reverted. It is the latter that breaks the system down. I didn't do the latter. So I'm firmly on BRD grounds here I think. Conveniently selecting who will be labelled edit-warring on another basis is opening the term up to the kind of flexible ambiguity that rhetorical gaming and power-politics flourish upon, which in point of fact was one of the main reasons I objected to the proposal. ;) @Tan, I went to some effort to ensure my consensus definition point was more substantial than the cliched version. :) Cheers, Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The "D" in BRD comes at the end of the chain. When an edit is preceded by discussion it is no longer "Bold" and simple reversion is not acceptable, especially when the discussion was fairly well attended by experienced editors. What you ought to do is revert yourself and start again where you should started in the first place: Tiptoety's user talk page. CIreland (talk) 03:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Come on CIreland, gimme a bit of respect please and stop with the politics. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what you mean by that. If you mean to imply that I'm criticising you in order to get the dispute resolved according to my own preference, I would point out that I actually dislike the idea of merging of the two pages. However, I also dislike the methods you have been willing to use to contest the merger. CIreland (talk) 04:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If that were true it would put you in a stronger position to criticize. However, your explanation for indignation is incoherent, and your contributions of the talk page for the renaming the noticeboard indicate the contrary to what you've just asserted. So I dunno what else I'm supposed to think. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't contribute to the original discussion simply because I didn't know it was taking place. I can see further discussion will be fruitless since I am now the third editor in this debate whose good faith you have questioned when they have criticized your approach. If you choose to pursue dispute resolution instead and open an RFC (or other further discussion) on the merger, drop a note on my talk page. CIreland (talk) 05:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this is generally a fairly unresolved problem at Wikipedia. How do we close controversial discussions? Part of why I get stuck in that nightmare called ARBMAC2 is that there was no way to end the long discussions about FYROM, Macedonia, Republic of and the like: if it was called one way, the other side said no and kept reverting anyway. No major edit wars of that sort have happened here, thankfully, but the problem still exists. How can we decide if there's consensus or not? Wikipedia has never had a way to solve this question. Part of the reason the current discussions about Macedonia are going better than any previous ones is that these are refereed discussions in which there are those who can police them and ultimately make calls on consensus. That's the kind of mechanism that works. Here, we have nothing of the sort. What do we do? This comment goes far beyond this dispute, incidentally, and is something I've been mulling for many a week concerning other things. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

In this case, the "discussion" proceeded too much like a straw-poll and the principal proponents made little attempt to interact with the principal objections. Any "discussion" that justified this name would have done this. This isn't a sensitive political issue, there's no reason to expect insurmountable partisanship. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 03:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Heimstern Läufer hit it on the nose here. With that in mind (purely for my own curiosity), Deacon of Pndapetzim, how would you have liked the discussion to have been "closed" resolved? And how should we/I have determined consensus the outcome? Cheers, Tiptoety ^talk 05:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

By the by, from memory and from a quick skim of the discussion at WT:3RR (including the RFC discussion, which AFAIR was widely advertised), the arguments of opposers, beyond a slippery-slope "3RR might disappear more easily if it doesn't have it's own page" (debatable, and I responded to that), seemed pretty vague WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Probably opposers will disagree, but without re-opening the entire discussion here, a mention of the major points of contention might help decide whether another RFC is justified. Disembrangler (talk) 06:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's completely unacceptable to make major changes in policy documents based on unannounced discussions on their talk pages, which very few people follow. The number of opinions at the RFC was less than any RFA I've seen, only 19 by my count. The system for managing policy documents is woefully understructured. Looie496 (talk) 19:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's how it works. In my innocent days as just an article editor the only encounter I had with policy was when someone quoted it at me, and when I discovered most of it is written and changed by a small group of people mostly all friends with each other on IRC I was rather shocked and slightly outraged. Now I'm cynical and weary of it. From soon after that discussion happened there was only going to be one outcome. No-one even bothered to argue the proposal's merit; most of it was just discussing how such an obviously great suggestion should come about. Then one of the proponents "closed" the "discussion", and when it was reversed they cried indignation at how some partisan opponent of the proposal reversed the decision against the conventiently styled "consensus". No-one now will reverse it because the only people who care are those fully tuned to the process, and most of those are experienced enough to recognise that a high number of the proponents are "big players" in the game and oughtn't be annoyed in any effort bound to fail. Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 05:05, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

My attitude currently is that Wikipedia's policy articles are like any other articles: descriptive rather than prescriptive. They are attempts at describing the state of consensus, and sometimes they get it wrong. Editors who think that you can change policy merely be editing a policy article are simply wrong: without real community consensus, the only thing that does is create confusion. I would favor a system where the policy articles are managed by a committee elected for the purpose, and charged with maintaining stable policies that accurately reflect the opinion of the whole community. Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User edit warring to maintain a falsified record of a discussion

Can an uninvolved admin please rule on this situation. From my point of view, Bosonic Dressing is edit warring to maintain a falsified record of a discussion, in violation of WP:TALK#Own comments.

[36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44]

I am getting very frustrated with it. Hesperian 03:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps you should let it die: because you obviously missed my edit summary, where I clearly 'requalified' my prior assertion of support for the move.[45] Is this prohibited? The train of communication is insubstantially changed as a result, and the commentator is definitely not cast in any different light. The inserted comment (IMO) is arguably a personal attack, since it calls into question the contributor and said argument, implies an absence of good faith, and paints the editor as someone who is falsely 'falsifying' the discussion thread. I have made no such accusation of the commentator, and I'm surprised an administrator is acting as such. Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I saw the edit summary. Falsification of the record of a discussion is falsification of the record of a discussion, irrespective of edit summary. Hesperian 03:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hard to "violate" a behavioral guideline. While what Bosonic dressing is doing is annoying and a bit misrepresentative, I'd let it go. If you have a big problem with it, make your own statement after his explaining how you think the changed wording affects the conversation. Tan | 39 03:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what I did. Bosonic Dressing keeps removing it.

It's all in the diffs above, but for those who can't be bothered, it goes like this:

• Bosonic Dressing comments.
• I reply.
• Discussion continues
• 12 hours later, Bosonic Dress goes back and alters the original comment, without changing the timestamp or providing any other indication that the comment has been revised

False. What about 'requalify support and comment', per edit summary, do you not understand? This is the point. Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

The page contains text that is timestamped 02:58, 2 July 2009, but which was actually revised and appended to 12 hours later, well after the original comment was replied to in good faith. Therefore the page is a falsified record of the discussion. Bosonic Dressing is edit warring to preserve that falsified record. The edit summary is irrelevant. Hesperian 03:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And your implication of lack of good faith with the amendment is bollocks. I simply downgraded my support for the move (with additional commentary), and you then completely removed that for whatever reasons, and then fail to 'let it go' as pointed out above? I am withdrawing from this 'discussion'. Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• I undo, with edit summary "Sorry, but its grossly improper to alter comments after they has been replied to, esp. under the original timestamp. It falsifies the record of the discussion and alters the context of repliies."
• Bosonic Dressing restores with edit summary "I alone will exert control over my commentary; capiche"
• Since my undo was reverted, I instead add a small-font annotation that says "The above comment has been modified well after discussion had moved on, without any explicit acknowledgement of modification, without even a fresh timestamp. This thread is therefore now a falsified record of the discussion."
• Bosonic Dressing deletes it, calling it "novel bluster";
• I restore it with edit summary quoting Bosonic Dressing's "I alone will exert control over my commentary; capiche"
• Bosonic Dressing deletes it again, calling it a "blusterous personal attack";
• I restore it again with edit summary "it is not a personal attack, and you have no right to remove my posts whilst insisting that I have no right to remove yours"
• Bosonic Dressing deletes it for a third time, calling it a "blusterous accusation/personal attack", and asserting "this will continue to be deleted."

The end result is a falsification of the discussion thread, with Bosonic Dressing edit warring to prevent the falsification from being removed or annotated in any way.

Hesperian

• My apologies for not looking close enough. Re-add any comment you see fit - don't "attach" it to his, make it separate. If Bosonic removes it again, I will block him for disruption. Tan | 39 03:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Uh-huh. I have no comment regarding this. Bosonic dressing (talk) 03:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As a totally uninvolved party who is not delving very deep into this, I think that using words like "capiche" implies some sort of threat and that's a bit much. Your comments strike me as unnecessarily hostile - "The above comment has been modified well after discussion had moved on, without any explicit acknowledgement of modification, without even a fresh timestamp. This thread is therefore now a falsified record of the discussion" could be much more easily and less abrasively worded as "This comment has been modified after subsequent discussion". Phrases such as "without even" and "falsified record" are somewhat heavy handed; all I'm saying is this could have been approached more levelheadedly. That's it, that's all I have to say about the matter. Some guy (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

One reaps what one sows. How do you think someone should react after an administrator nullifies a change to your opinion, accuses you of falsifying this or that, and then persists in repeating those assertions? Edit warring involves more than one party. My changes were insubstantial, and this administrator arguably approached this from an adversarial perspective to begin with; in the very least, the administrator lacks diplomatic balm. I have dropped the matter and I apologise to you if things appear to have escalated unnecessarily, but I have no regrets about challenging editors (including administrators) for lacking behaviour. This has sucked up far too much of my time. Bosonic dressing (talk) 06:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Readers should draw their own conclusions about what reveals an adversarial perspective, this or this. Hesperian 07:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hesperian, what would be inadequate about prefixing your own reply to Bosonic dressing with a diff or link to a permanent version, to show what you were responding to? I know it's frustrating to deal with what may seem like stubborn opposition, but there is often a way to finesse it. Don't bite! Don't accuse, just place your own comment in context. If that is removed, then we'd have a more serious situation. But I doubt that it will happen. --Abd (talk) 19:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Hair raising exploits

Resolved

 – It's on ice.

Seems like one of the most prolific editors to this page, has made it into the news again here. Sooner or later the real life antics of this contributor are going to end up embarrassing the encyclopedia. I believe administrator intervention is imperative AppreticeOfBarneyFife (talk) 14:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• None of them are mine, I swear on a stack of Britannicas! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Eh, I just went ahead and blocked the user. I assume someone with a grudge against you. This can be archived now, if you like. Cheers. lifebaka++ 14:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Ironically, in light of the Pioneercourthouse sockmaster, many of those Portland rabbits are going to end up homeless. Except for the ones in that lady's freezer, who are standing firm. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 14:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
      • See here for the follow-up article. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 15:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
        • YIPE! Definitely too much information. :( Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 15:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
          • If you don't like that, you'll definitely not like a long-ago Article Rescue of mine: Jugged Hare. Uncle G (talk) 20:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Eek. Reading that could turn me into a vegetarian. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
              • Ummm…shouldn't this thread be called "hare raising exploits"? DKqwerty (talk) 02:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
                • Maybe, but keep in mind the original poster couldn't spell "apprentice", either. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Persistent copyright infringements

I have not blocked TouLouse (talk · contribs · count · api · block log), but wanted to bring up the matter of copyright concerns here. This contributor has received many notifications of our copyright policies for text and images and was previously blocked on 19 March 2008 for persistent image infringement after warning. Today I found article Mihăileşti explosion listed at WP:CP. This user created this article on May 9 2009 with several paragraphs copied from a previously source (see [46]). After the 2008 block, this contributor responded by saying "I'm so sorry, I promise, I will not encrouch the Wikipedia Law. Please unblock me!" Warnings on the page suggest that there have been a number of other images and text problems with copyright since. I'd like thoughts on how best to handle this to protect the project from further infringement. I'm not sure that continued editing unsupervised is a safe option without some good reason to believe that infringement will not continue. I think it would also probably be beneficial to evaluate other contributions here. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't make vandalism on Wikipedia. My copy-write problems on Mihăileşti explosion it's old...since May 2009, i haven't that mater of problems. Please verify much better my edits. Thanks! TouLouse (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It may date to May of 2009, but that is less than two months ago and you have been aware of our copyright policies since more than a year before that, as it was over a year before that when you were blocked. I think this merits some concern. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:58, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Distracting interlude, sectioned out

Resolved

 – Thread hijacking sectioned out; sock blocked; above remains open. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 17:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like our friend has decided to put on another sock. BarneyFifeApprentice (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you happen to have any evidence of that by any chance?Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 17:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

He's an obvious sock of the previously-indef'd User:AppreticeOfBarneyFife, and I've turned him in. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And just like that - Poof! - He's gone. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I see now that I've got to dig into Wikihistory and learn about some still persistant sockpuppeters.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 17:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

This one was fairly easy, since he's in the section just above. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:38, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Coming back with pretty much exactly the same username is a courtesy many sockmasters deny us; but this was a helpful exception! ~ mazca ^talk 17:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, this is starting to happen to me alot.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And then blaming me as the sockpuppet?? (I know this is marked resolved but I just got on). - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 19:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Somebody's obviously goading you. Unless you have some means to identify who the sockmaster is, I'd ignore it. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Three users editing and creating innapropiate pages exactly alike

User talk:Gossip--girls-xoxo, User talk:Mnbvcxz9000 and User talk:89.100.109.174 have been placing fake movies from Disney, (i.e. Chelsey Dainels of the Diamond) on alot of articles. Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 17:16, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I can't put my finger on it, but these edits look very familiar...I think there is a long time vandal with a similar MO. Rgoodermote  17:41, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but they have stopped for a while, probaly due to one of them being blocked for 72 hours. History implies that they will probaly be back.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 17:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's MascotGuy or something like that. –xeno^talk 17:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That guy's getting on my nerves. I seem to run into him every two to three months or so. And I know that he's gotten on PMDrives's nerves.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 17:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/MascotGuy especially if it's editing something called Atomic Betty. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not MascotGuy. MascotGuy doesn't edit sections, he edits the entire article. However, there is always a chance of him changing his MO. Rgoodermote  18:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's sounding more like a user who tricked me. All the edits are related too if not about Disney Channel shows.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Which one of us wants to file a checkuser request? Not it. Rgoodermote  18:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Two of them have been blocked indef.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

So they have, however I do think this does require a follow up checkuser to make sure that no other socks are lurking. I'd file a report, but I gotta go and don't have the time. Rgoodermote  18:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, User:Mnbvcxz9000 has not, I've gone ahead and placed the Suspected sock template on all of those, now some one just needs to report them, I can't I have to go now. Rgoodermote  18:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

'Tis. –xeno^talk 18:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the master sock here is User:Bambifan101. AniMate^draw 19:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's the one. I always get the Disney fans mixed up. The LTA reports could use some re-writes for clarity. –xeno^talk 19:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Continued & persistent vandalism by IP User 90.219.189.50

Resolved

 – Blocked for 31 hours by Jarry1250 --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Despite 2 "final" warnings this afternoon this user has continued to make low level, repeated vandalistic changes to a number of pages. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:90.219.189.50. Can the promised block be implemented speedily please? leaky_caldron (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have reported him to AIV.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

semi-threat made on my talk page

Resolved

 – user blocked for a week. --Xavexgoem (talk) 18:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Ryoung122 has just posted a harassment/threat on my talk page. It's the first thing I saw this morning and I have no idea why. Please have him stop as it's kinda scary right out of the blue. I responded in no way to this guy. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It's kind of weird.Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 18:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for a week; I encourage him to use a request for unblock to get this matter sorted. Xavexgoem (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for checking this out in record time! In looking back through my history, in fairness, I do see that we had an argument a year ago on a tennis article. After I read his note on my talk page and posted here I then went through my usual updates on pages and noticed this same guy had made lots of reverts to ongoing pages many of us have worked on for months. So to be fair while his post to my talk page was scary to me right out of the blue, to him it was probably not right out of the blue (however the wording was still a bit unsettling). Thank you. Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Those pages appears to be List of Grand Slam Men's Singles champions and List of Grand Slam Women's Singles champions for people wanting to check out the issue. --aktsu ^(t / c) 18:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said this is the first time I've seen this name in quite awhile. I got to the tennis pages after his bad post on my page. While I have now reverted his changes I did not respond to his post on my talk page (and I won't). Fyunck(click) (talk) 18:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I think this block was jumping the gun. Fyunck(click) has in the past played the "this is unbelievable to me. I'm minding my own business when XXX writes an extremely inflammatory statement on my talk page right out of the blue" game, and may be telling the truth now but isn't entitled to an assumption of good faith. Looie496 (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Point taken, but the comment made was unacceptable. This has less to do with the requester as the commenter. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually please don't take it on faith, look around my contributions and see if I was interacting with this guy. I certainly don't recall anything recent. All I really wanted was for someone to check this guy out to make sure of his intentions and to stop any more of these posts to my page. If it's a gentle nudge, fine. I wasn't angry and I wouldn't want him blocked if his intentions were good but misguided. It was a bit scary though upon seeing that message first and foremost this morning and I thought it better for administrators to deal with it fairly then for me to do anything at all that would come back to bite me. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Good block. Things like this damage neutral point of view by driving off other editors leaving only the abusive and thick skinned. If this user acts in this manner again the block should be longer or of undetermined length. Chillum 14:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

All kinds of attacks

Someone should protect User talk:CENSEI so he can stop with the homophobic and personal attacks in his unblock requests. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 19:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Done ... and G3'd for good measure. Blueboy96 19:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

He had recent unblock requests? I thought he had last edited on April 7th. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:24, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

He had some up earlier today, but his talk-page has now been deleted. ~ mazca ^talk 21:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

He came out of dormancy after 3 months when his sockfarm was uncovered? I guess I missed it. Well, at least he's gone. But I still wonder if there's any connection between him and the Axmann8 impostors. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Odd timing for him to show up at the same time as User:BarneyFifeApprentice who accused me of being a sock a couple of threads up, no? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 21:48, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Verrry interesting. I think the SPI case Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/TDC is still open. Maybe today's two Barney Fife's, along with the one just below, could be added to the list? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 21:56, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I just added the names to it. Thanks. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 22:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

G3'd!, That is just terrific! How are all the coconspiritors supposed to leave each other hidden messages on User talk:CENSEI now? There was no backup plan. Now we will have all sorts of socks wandering around aimlessly with no way to organize. Blueboy, you need to think things through before you make rash decisions. This is unbelievable. KcoSweNdnarB (talk) 21:45, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybody want to do the honors of blocking this ... t-word? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 21:47, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to start calling black people "n-words" and see how cool that is. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Richard Prior to Chevy Chase: "Dead honky!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Why? As far as I know even black folks can be twats. This world is a melting pot of twattery. --WebHamster 23:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. But did WTWAG mean twat or troll? - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:34, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Given all the math discussion lately, when he said "t-word", I just assumed he meant this. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

According to a discussion on the Village Pump, we're not supposed to use the word "troll" any more. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe don't call them anything - just block them. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:46, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Who then was a gentleman?, which Village Pump is that? If you mean the discussion on AN, then your description here shows that you misunderstand it. Furthermore, acting as if saying "t-word" is somehow different from saying "troll" insults all of our intelligence, including your own. If you think you can de-escalate and resolve disputes more effectively and quickly by saying "troll" a lot, then you are duty-bound to say it, and to show us all how it works. This is gonna be evidence-based, though, not theoretical. Show us how to use labels to effect good dispute resolution. Then we will all follow you. Until then, I'm going to do what I've seen work. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You know what? I don't know where it is, and I don't really care. My purpose was to make fun of the ridiculous idea that somehow we should coddle vandals. Just as ridiculous as this discussion. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You're right. Coddling vandals is ridiculous. Good thing nobody is suggesting that. You're making fun of a straw man. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Or a straw troll. I've pretty well come around to your philosophy. Don't call them anything up front. Just turn them in to WP:AIV. Then when they get indef'd for their unconstructive and/or disruptive behavior, is when I call them something: GONE. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference? --WebHamster 23:51, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Still not blocked despite their name and their harrassment of other users? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

No, not even 30 minutes after I asked it to be done on IRC. And now the user is hitting user talk pages with null edits. He's been blocked now. FWIW, say his name backwards. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 22:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Once he hit mine, I turned him in at AIV, and either because of that or coincidentally, he's blocked. I see you added the 3 new ones to the SPI page along with Axmann8. I also added the Axmann8 impostors, as it's possible (though not necessarily probable) that CENSEI was the source of that stuff. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I wonder if Sarah Palin's resignation as Governor in order to run for President is what got the CENSEI sockfarm charged up today? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:11, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If so, that's a sad commentary on where one's priorities lie. - ALLST✰R▼^echo _{wuz here} 23:19, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but it would be par for the course. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

They closed the SPI without bothering to look into the other user ID's that we raised. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

They've re-opened the case, isolating the more recent ones. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 22:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Mbialastoki

Editor suggested legal action. Quote with name removed "Rxxx Fxxx, a 15 year old in Topeka, KS, continues to maliciously post deletion tags. Legal action against parents may be necessary." [[47]] Editor has been repeatedly removing afd notice from article Elctrikchair and has made the preceding comment when making one such removal. Duffbeerforme (talk) 20:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

That is definitley a legal threat. Admins, please do something about this.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Blocked indef ... and I'm asking for oversight on the offending edit. Granted, it was only an edit summary, but since this is a minor we can't be too careful. Blueboy96 20:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Is oversight the place to go for removing the minor's alledged name from the edit history? Duffbeerforme (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

From WP:OVER#Policy: "Removal of non-public personal information, such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public." Blueboy96 20:44, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Short answer is "yes" - identities of minors may in some cases be removed from history even if it's the minors themselves who posted it. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

There is a conspiracy against me

Someone is registering new accounts, posting messages at talk pages I am involved in and editing articles I have edited, These accounts are using some of the same language as me, they are trying to make it look like I have created several account. Someone is trying to get me banned from wikipedia.

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Tastytreasures <<<====== Notice this name compared to mine.

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Dalwadi6

3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Masasuijen

4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Hamas4life

5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wolof359 <<<=====This guy showed up when I was blocked for 24 hours, doing the exact same edits as I have just been involved in and using the exact same language.

--User:Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 4:03 pm, Today (UTC−5)

I have posted as this user has asked too. Anyone?Abce2|Free LemonadeOnly 25 cents! 22:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Reminds me of PCH. By the way, did you post this here, or did Supreme? If Supreme did so, you may wish to move your post so it doesn't come right after his, and to a place one line below it.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 23:06, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Supreme is blocked, so I believe Abce posted it here on his behalf. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 23:18, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Any idea why someone would want to do this to you? -- œ^™ 03:35, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Yesterday I was blocked for 24 hours, a user named "Wolof359" showed up and starting editing the exact same articles I have been involved in using the exact same language. I think it was Arab Cowboy trying to fool people that I had created a second account to get me banned from Wikipedia.

This is his edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Wolof359

At the Sea of Galilee article, I had written "Golan is not Israel." he wrote "also Syrian too because Golan Heights is not Israel."

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sea_of_Galilee&action=history

At the druze article he did the same revert as me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Druze&diff=300029523&oldid=299739268

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Druze&diff=300097056&oldid=300032507

At the Mount Hermon Ski Resrt article I had written "not in Israel.", he wrote "not in Israel." :http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mount_Hermon_ski_resort&action=history

At the Golan Heights article he did the exact same revert as I had done:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&diff=299954291&oldid=299950868

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Golan_Heights&diff=300116308&oldid=300032437

I am involved in these four articles right now, but there was one article that he did not touch, and that was the Asmahan article, the same one that me and Arab Cowboy are arguing over. He let it be like Arab Cowboys edit. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 17:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said earlier, it smells like PCH to me, or one of the Axeman framers.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User:MgCupcake inserted disguised link to page hosting malware

Resolved

 – Mgcupcake was actually told of the problem before HW posted here. By HW. Enough of the argy-bargy, back to your corners, have a cup of tea or something.

→ ROUX ₪ 03:47, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Predatory behavior

Please see recent openly predatory actions taken here and here and advise. Thank you for your time and consideration. -- logger9 (talk) 23:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: users will need to begin their reading with this entry, above, to gain a more complete understanding. Exploding Boy (talk) 23:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

You should describe the problem in more detail with a general summary and who is involved, and with links to edit diffs showing specific edits - it makes understanding the situation easier. My two cents. Some guy (talk) 23:35, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Logger9, I'm not sure what "predatory actions" you're referring to, and without more direction we won't be able to assist you. However, if you're referring to the actions taken by Exploding Boy referenced in the discussion linked to above, it would not appear that anything Exploding Boy did anything inappropriate. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I am referring more specifically to the actions of Wiki User:Paula Pilcher, who is relentlessly bad-mouthing all of my previous work, deleting images and entire sections at random, (referring to them as "dumped" "pets"), continuously harassing me, openly refusing to accept any of my editing suggestions, and attempting to tear all of my previous work to shreds -- bit by bit. -- logger9 (talk) 00:34, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, that user claims to have just retired. What do you want to do?--The Legendary Sky Attacker 01:02, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Throw a party ? -- logger9 (talk) 01:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And she's not the only one who has a problem with some of your edits, just the most vocal. Exploding Boy (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said yesterday, Logger9, the user you are talking about has claimed retirement on their userpage and hasn't edited since. It may be safe to assume that they are gone. There is nothing more to do here.--The Legendary Sky Attacker 20:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Page ownership issue at socionics

Already under discussion above: see #Threats and lack of civility by User:Tcaudilllg in AfD discussion.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The article on socionics (typology) and a glut of related pages currently are nominated for deletion; based on current consensus, it looks like all of the existing socionics pages will be merged into one. User:Rmcnew and User:Tcaudilllg have both been imposing their own views on the page. User:Rmcnew in a recent edit war kept on posting a section claiming that socionics is derived from and linked to alchemy, astrology, sutras, chakras, and other forms of mysticism, while producing very tenuous evidence to this end, and attacking other editors questioning his evidence on the associated talk page and accusing them of bad faith (see here and here for a small sample. User:Tcaudilllg has been very active in the recent deletion discussionand in patrolling the page recently, yet seems as well to think that wikipedia is his personal soapbox, is constantly accusing other editors of bad faith and what he feels is a conservative ideology [50] [51] [52]. Also of note is that Tcaudilllg has been banned from wikisocion, a wiki devoted to socionics, due to his constant harassment of the admin there [53]. I'm not sure what the most appropriate action would be this situation, but I doubt that the page can actually be improved with their constant presence. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC) Tcaudillg's issues and that AfD are already being discussed above. Teh Crafty One (talk) 03:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC) i did not see that. thank you. perhaps this notice should still stay here to discuss rmcnew's involvement with the page. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 03:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC) It would be better to keep this saga in one place, methinks. Teh Crafty One (talk) 03:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC) all right; i'll repost the above information pertaining to rmcnew on the other discussion. can an admin please close this discussion, thanks. Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

repeated addition of merge tag without explanation

User:Badagnani keeps adding a merge tag to Celebrity death hoax suggesting it be merged with the neologism Pseudocide. I do not see the connection and have asked the user on three separate occasions to explain the reasoning. Each time the user has reinstated the merge tag but provided no explanation (see here for an example). I have communicated with the user repeatedly but gotten no response - see Talk:Pseudocide#Merge_tag_from_Celebrity_Death_Hoax. I have also recently left a message on the user's talk page as well.

User:Badagnani is an experienced Wikipedian so I am quite confused by the behaviour. We have now BOTH breached the WP:3RR rule so I am self-barring myself from further action. (Feel free to admonish me with a 3RR warning if you want, as I am clearly guilty). Anyone got any ideas as to what to do next? Manning (talk) 03:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand 3RR (re: Celebrity death hoax) ¦ Reisio (talk) 14:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggest: start an RfC on the merge or other dispute resolution. DGG (talk) 03:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There is already an RFC in progress and I invited User:Badagnani to participate a few days ago - see Talk:Pseudocide#Merge_tag_from_Celebrity_Death_Hoax. I got no response, s/he simply reinstated the merge tag. As far as I can see no reason has ever been given for applying the merge tag, and there is no apparent content relationship between the topics as far as I can see. Manning (talk) 03:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That user did the opposite thing in Steven Dale Green. He removed a merge tag placed there after the AfD on the topic. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani and his block log may shed some light on Badagnani (talk · contribs · logs · block log)'s behavior. --Ronz (talk) 04:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah - thank you Ronz. So this is nothing new then... Manning (talk) 04:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What's the procedure in situations like this? Can a closed RFC be reopened? I was in on the RFC, and it does seem the problematic editing has restarted. It ain't on to unilaterally decide not to accept an AFD result, and I warned Badagnani way back about the hysterical edit summaries. I think most of us would take "highly threatening message" to be at the level of, say, "I'm coming to your house to shoot your dog and then you". It's overblown and inflammatory to use it to describe a standard (and justified) 3RR warning. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 11:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Article ownership and personal attacks by User Koalorka

Resolved

 – Koalorka blocked 1 week for WP:NPA Toddst1 (talk) 14:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a revised repost of a previous discussion due to various problems which kept any uninvolved administrators from commenting or approaching the issue (see [54] )

I have had some serious difficulty with Koalorka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) who has been exhibiting textbook article ownership on several firearms articles including MP5 and SG 550. In his attempts to own the article and discourage me from editing he has exhibited extremely hostile behavior and unacceptable personal attacks in an attempt to prevent me from editing the articles (including suggesting I leave Wikipedia). I am in discussion with some other users about amending the firearms article structure guidelines to satisfy his demands for consensus, so the main issue at this point is his personal attacks.

Personal attack diffs:

• [55]
• [56]
• [57]
• [58]
• [59] (edit summary)

Warnings (and his denials that personal attacks occured):

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koalorka&diff=299787685&oldid=299317824
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Koalorka&diff=prev&oldid=299815646

Some guy (talk) 03:37, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Those most certainly are personal attacks, and display a very unwelcome attitude and an obvious attempt to drive another editor away from editing the articles in question with repeated insults. This editor has been blocked twice before for harrassment and/or personal attacks and should be well aware by now of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Since the last 44 hr block was evidently not long enough for the editor to digest the relevant policy I propose a longer block to cool down and read up again, with a strong warning to not return to this behavior yet again. Mfield (Oi!) 05:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have notified User:Koalorka of this report. Mfield (Oi!) 05:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

All right, thanks. And thanks for notifying him, I did before but I forgot to do it again >_< . Some guy (talk) 07:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Mfield and would suggest a block of about a week.  Sandstein  06:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Toddst1 has done and I support this. Gwen Gale (talk) 14:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Could someone please leave a more specifically tailored message at his talk page clearly explaining to him the concepts of personal attack and ownership? I don't think providing links to those policies is effective and he does not listen to me at all. If an administrator or uninvolved party clearly explained those policies maybe he would listen. EDIT: Additionally, Koalorka was working hand-in hand with Nukes4Tots (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) to own certain articles. Nukes continues to revert my edits as well, but due to our current discussion on firearms structure I didn't file anything regarding his previous edit warring and ownership-related reversion of my edits, but from just looking his recent contribs they are all reverts with textbook ownership edit summaries. Could someone please either advise whether another ANI is appropriate or speak to him directly regarding this issue? He does not listen to me much. Some guy (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Monica Crowley

There is a bit of a tussle going on at Talk:Monica Crowley involving User:Jacobite30, User:Liberal00Q1 and User:CanuckMike. It would be nice to have some eyes on this dispute, which is beginning to get a bit personal. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 06:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing?

I recently opened an arbitration request on the DreamHost article. One of the named parties seems to look at this as an opportunity to take me down, and is going to unrelated editors looking for help making his case. Is this canvassing, or just a normal part of an Arbitration case?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That is definitely inappropriate, as is his gloating over how he is going to take you down. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

User:Domer48 Has a legitimate complaint against you and your actions and I think that it is well appropriate that he and ANYONE ELSE that has a complaint regarding you take their case to the Arbitration.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 14:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would be appropriate for Sarekofvulcan to block me before I have the chance to give a full account to the arbitration regarding his actions?--194x144x90x118 (talk) 14:25, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

That sure looks like canvasing to me. If you want to notify people of an event do it in a neutral fashion please 194. Chillum 14:26, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Please read WP:CANVASS. Specifically this section. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 14:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Oh, so tempting, but I haven't gone completely WP:ROUGE yet. In any case, my apologies for not notifying you of this thread: I'm more used to responding here than starting threads.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I have anyone else to notify regarding this so for the time being consider this cut.--194x144x90x118 (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the section on 194x's talk page that Sarek linked above, as well as a portion of his statement at RFAR (acting as clerk). I've left a very heavy warning on his talk page; 194x, remain civil or you will be blocked. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Outing?

Could admins please look at the following thread to see whether it is in line with WP:OUTING, WP:COI and WP:NPA:

• [60], in particular this part of the thread.

In the thread, mention is made of a conference centre that the editor is supposed to have managed. The name of the conference centre is given. Will Beback (talk · contribs) has claimed that the name of the conference centre is apparent from two sites which the other editor "linked to" themselves.

• I can't immediately see where user:Terrymacro linked to the second one of these sites, "feld.re-url.com", on Wikipedia: [61]. It's not linked to on his present user page, nor on any past versions of it, as far as I can see.
• The name of the conference centre is not present on either of the sites, as far as I can see, nor mentioned on any other Wikipedia page in relation to that editor, as far as I can see: [62].
• The information presented here by Nik Wright2 (talk · contribs) goes way beyond what the editor divulged on the one site they did link to on their user page.

Please examine to what extent WP:OUTING, WP:COI and WP:NPA apply, in particular the following sections:

• WP:COI#Close_relationships: "Friedrich Engels would have had difficulty editing the Karl Marx article, because he was a close friend, follower and collaborator of Marx.[2] Any situation where strong relationships can develop may trigger a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest can be personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal. It is not determined by area, but is created by relationships that involve a high level of personal commitment to, involvement with, or dependence upon, a person, subject, idea, tradition, or organization."

• WP:NPA#What_is_considered_to_be_a_personal_attack.3F: "Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. Note that although pointing out an editor's relevant conflict of interest and its relevance to the discussion at hand is not considered a personal attack, speculating on the real life identity of another editor may constitute outing, which is a serious offense. — Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor."

• WP:Harassment#Posting_of_personal_information: "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, identification numbers, home or workplace address, job title and work organisation, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily posts this information, or links to this information, on Wikipedia themselves. Posting such information about another editor is an unjustifiable and uninvited invasion of privacy and may place that editor at risk of harm in "the real world". This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old identifying marks can still be found. Edits attempting to out someone should be promptly reverted, and a request for oversight made to permanently delete the edits from Wikipedia."

Is the linked discussion thread fine, or is it a cause for concern? Thanks. JN466 16:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

In a brief review, I see no posting of personal identifying or contact information. The fact that another editor was able to use an editor's self-chosen WP:REALNAME isn't outing. I do see an asserted and insufficiently denied COI, and calling a COI a COI is not a personal attack. Jclemens (talk) 16:52, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no outing because the subject has used his real name and linked to his biographies. The editor signed his real name on talk pages, etc, for over a year.[63][64]. He linked to his own websites, which included a description of his work history.[65][66] Those sites both included detailed biographies, one of which includes this sentence: "In the 1990's I was the finance manager for a 2,000 acre outdoor conference facility outside of Brisbane, Queensland, Australia."[67] Another one said, "For the rest of the 90’s I was the finance manager for an outdoor conference centre about an hours drive from the city of Brisbane."[68] The movement in question owns a conference facility which exactly matches that description. The person's earlier role as an officer of a new religious group is reported in movement publications.[69] The user has rebuffed the assertion that he has a conflict of interest regarding the organization in which he has held senior positions, or incidentally, that he did anything wrong by inserting links and material on his non-standard astrological views. However the COI issue is probably better addressed on WP:COIN.   Will Beback  talk  19:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd add that the Prem Rawat topic has an unfortunate history of editors with disclosed and undisclosed conflicts of interest, and has had two RfARs. Advocacy on behalf or (or against) the movement has been a real problem on Wikipedia going back to at least 2004.[70] Considering that experience, and the recent case concerning Scientology, I think that COI is a legitimate concern.   Will Beback  talk  19:28, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I've started a (rudimentary) section at WP:COIN. [71] Perhaps you might like to add to it. JN466 20:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I acknowledge the concern raised here, and that further discussion is appropriate at WP:COIN, however it I would point out that the information I posted about which Jayen466 expresses concern was in direct response to this:

• My involvement with DLM ceased over 25 years ago. I have never been employed by EV, and I am not a member of TPRF. Any common sense applied to the situation would clearly indicate that 25 years gives the necessary detachment to provide NPOV edits for articles related to DLM. There is no COI. Terry Macro (talk) 04:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I considered a detailed response necessary to counter what I saw was either a major misconception by TerryMacro or a deliberate attempt at concealment. Admins should be aware that these issues bear directly on article content. --Nik Wright2 (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

@Jclemens: If you take a closer look, you will find that at least one of the links in the section leads to a document purporting to give the editor's birth date and private address. JN466 21:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:OUTING doesn't specifically prohibit linking to sites that give further information. To take a hypothetical example, many links to references include an author's biography that will include information like birthdate and job title. Linking to such a webpage does not violate the policy. Remember that the user added himself as a source to articles.   Will Beback  talk  22:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

It should be noted that the URL of the site in question begins http://www.geocities.com/rawatsucks/ ... JN466 22:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Minor brushfire at WT:RFA

I'm sure it will come as a shock to many to learn that there's yet another argument flaring up at WT:RFA. Can someone uninvolved calm things down before it gets out of hand? – iridescent 17:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine then block me, I said my piece, and I want to tell Ottava the truth.Mitch/HC32 17:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, if you keep saying things like that, someone might just do so... comments like that can be seen as trolling, and aren't helping your case. You might want to just step back from things. If you feel you've made your point, there's no need to keep trying to pound it in. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 17:30, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Anybody object to marking this as resolved? Ottava's struck his comment at WT:RFA. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 18:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:04, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone object to me setting virtual fire to the parts of the server that are responsible for WT:RFA? Other than the developers.--Tznkai (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No, as long as you grill something over it, in commemoration of any holidays that might be ongoing. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, thats a good point. I'm in the United States. Its time to spend money on things from China and set them on fire while having food marinaded in beer. (Read: I'm heading off line, and if you have an excuse to light fireworks and grill, so should you) --Tznkai (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Now that's my kind of 4th of July party! I'm going to start a fire right now. Where's my whiskey at...? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

And what celebration would this be?(</sarcasm> although it took me till 2PM to realise) I think there are about 3 parties in the whole of the UK, somehow I don't think I'm invited to any of them.... - Jarry1250 ^{[ humourous – discuss ]} 21:21, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Complaint about an administrator's actions

For having had the temerity to report a 3RR violation ([72]), I was issued (in effect if not form) a topic block on Clarence Thomas ([73]). And, for having dared question the propriety and dimensions of that punishment, and not accepting the question being brushed under the carpet, was told to "go fuck [my]self" ([74]). Whether I am the WP:DICK or he is, I think intervention by uninvolved admin(s) is urgently needed. - Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 22:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)