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

Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P., DJ Pusspuss,and an editor who shall remain nameless

Comments removed. Craftyminion blocked for 48 hours for outing and edit warring by Tanthalas39. A stern warning to all those involved to remember to focus on editing the content and not on who some editor may or may not be. NW (Talk) 17:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

While I'm not sure WP:OUTING should be applied in cases that are completely obvious to all involved, perhaps someone would like to step in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. to end the blanking of comments, etc. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Absolutely. Comments have been rendered in good faith. Downright unsporting to have numerous Sysops reverting them. Crafty (talk) 15:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Crafty unreverted the comments again.[1] Ikip (talk) 15:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Nobody's arguing with your good faith, Crafty, but the tone is coming across as quite vindictive and the identity of the editor who created the articles should, in theory, be irrelevant to the debate. The comments add nothing and have been remove by three different editors (myself included) from both sides of the debate. Try to focus on the content, please. -- Vary (Talk) 15:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I don't see any real reason these comments should be removed. Tan | 39 15:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC) There is a discussion about this on Crafty's talk page, in which several editors are warning Crafty, and he is ignoring those warnings. Crafty's absolute statements sound a hell of a lot like User:The Land Surveyor, who was just blocked a couple of days agao because he was a sock of User:Peter Damian I will let a couple of editors who revealed User:The Land Surveyor look at this, if Crafty is in fact not a sock, he has nothing to worry about.Ikip (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Looking through the contribs, the personality and topic area is quite different from Peter Damian. I've never known Peter Damian to be so invested in reverting vandalism, and he is more sarcastic than angry, which the above comments seem to suggest anger at a user potentially violating CoI than biting comments against an encyclopedia that may or may not have failed at appropriately dealing with a user who produced quite a bit of content. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Thank you Otta, I consider that issue closed then. Ikip (talk) 15:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I agree with Vary, such wording as "we shit or get off the pot" only enflames things, let alone the last thing we need is the imagery of people going to bathroom. It is about as bad as the trend I have noticed in films lately that for some off the wall reason has to show people vomiting. Who needs/wants to see that? How does it actually advance the story other than just gross people out? Well, similarly here we do not need to use toilet talk. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:33, 7 September 2009 (UTC) "Shit or get off the pot" is common slang, and Wikipedia is not censored. We don't remove people's comments simply because we don't like the mental imagery they produce. Tan | 39 15:37, 7 September 2009 (UTC) None of this is vindictive. The editor created the articles about himself and he (not to mention his choir of supporters) needs substantiate to the community why they should remain given that sound reasons for their deletion have been offered. The editor surrenders his right to privacy not because he publishes this stuff, rather because he cannot cover his own tracks. For the record I welcome a sockpuppet investigation. Crafty (talk) 15:36, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Not censored seems to apply more to articles than conversation. In civil, academic discourse (and I have attended multiple actual academic conferences), people do not evoke such imagery. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 16:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Strawman argument? This is not an academic conference. This is Wikipedia, and we don't remove people's comments simply because we don't like the imagery. Tan | 39 16:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Shouldn't we aspire to be academic? And what disturbs me most is the taunting "I'll out the bugger once more". Since when is it okay to out other editors? I have editors, whose real names I was able to figure out, swear at me and send me blustering emails and yet I have never saw fit to provide their real names on wiki to anyone else and certainly not in a mocking manner. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 17:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Deindent. Crafty is now in violation of the three revert rule, with five reverts in just under two hours: 1 2 3 4 and 5 He was notified of his near-violation shortly after his third revert and again after his fourth. Since the issue is already here, do I need to bother with the edit warring noticeboard? Crafty, will you self revert? -- Vary (Talk) 15:52, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Reported to 3rr.[2] Wikipedia should have no patience for such editors. It is obvious that he is here on a personal vendetta "These comments will stand".[3] and there is no comprimise in this vendetta. I fear as soon as he gets off block his behavior will continue. Can an admin block him longer than the typical 24hr for edit warring, for his attempted outing too? I need to look into his edit history, maybe a community ban can be considered. Ikip (talk) 15:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Given this is a matter of principle, I regret to say I'd rather chew through my own leg. My edits stand. Crafty (talk) 15:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC) I just protected the page for 1 day. You other editors were basically just baiting Crafty to violate 3RR. If some other admin wants to block Crafty for this, fine - but I won't. Tan | 39 16:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Crafty will take his strapping like a man. Crafty (talk) 16:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC) (refactored out) Ikip (talk) 16:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC) WP:PP applies to all Wikipedia pages, not just articles. It is perfectly acceptable to protect an AfD for a short period in the event of significant edit warring. Your issues here were clearly not so much about the alleged OUTING as a witchhunt to get Crafty blocked - bringing up unsubstantiated sock accusations, baiting for 3RR, etc - even censoring for "tone". Tan | 39 16:11, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Tan, when you have one editor who has reverted five times and four others who have each reverted no more than twice, the least disruptive action is to block the editor who has violated 3RR, not to protect the page with his/her preferred version in place. This is particularly true when the page involved in the dispute is an ongoing AFD which you have now put on hold for 24 hours. I'm also not appreciating what looks like an assumption of bad faith on the parts of the four editors (again, myself included) who've found the comments disruptive and in violation of WP:Outing. Your comment here puzzles me: WP:NOTCENSORED doesn't seem to apply here: while one commenter in this thread did point out that the metaphor was unnecessarily icky, that's not the reason the comments were removed. -- Vary (Talk) 16:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC) (refactored out) Ikip (talk) 16:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Bring it on Ikip. Ban my tuchus. Marshal the numbers right now. All my behaviours are available for the community to see. Crafty (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2009 (UTC) He now posted a message on my talk page, outing the same editor again.[4] Tan, by letting Crafty get away with this, you are only encouraging it. Crafty's edit history shows that like many editors here, he will continue to push the line, and abuse editors as much as he can get away with. By protecting the page Tan, you are not stopping the drama, you are only reinforcing it, and emboldening Crafty. Ikip (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC) AfD unprotected per Risker and discussion on my talk page. This action is not an endorsement of any editor here - I still feel most of you are acting disingenuously here. Tan | 39 16:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Thank you, Tan, that is why you are an admin, and I will never be, you seem to have much better judgment :) Ikip (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Thank you Tan. Just thank you. :D Crafty (talk) 16:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC) Per Tan, I think we can all act better and more sensitively to the issues involved. I've removed my own comment, which I think was unhelpful, and I hope everybody will allow that. Crafty hasn't said anything new, but I do dislike the tone. My apologies if I offended anybody. Smallbones (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I was hoping to prevent anyone from being blocked, not to hasten a blocking and provoke spurious accusations of sockpuppets under every bed, but it's par for the course. NuclearWarfare seems to have removed Craftyminion's comments now, as well as this one, which seems over the top. I would restore it myself, but I don't want to wade into this mess any further. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Bit of an accident there; didn't actually mean to remove that comment, only the three below it. I have restored the comment by Simon Speed; anyone is free to reverse my re-addition of that comment. NW (Talk) 17:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The question has to be asked by someone, so I'll do it - how are we going to be managing the COI going forward? We are going to pretend it does not exist? We are all going to hint to each other and edge around the subject? The use of expressive dance? We are going to have to come up with something or this situation is going to keep rolling. --Cameron Scott (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Note that I have re-blocked Crafty indefinitely. While I stand by many of the points I made here in this thread, I am forced to admit that this editor had an agenda, and was poised to follow it relentlessly. Tan | 39 18:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Need to read up more on the blocking but I'm concerned about the larger picture here, we have a potential CoI and our pseudonymity policy seems to be preventing coming to grips with it. That seems not good. ++Lar: t/c 19:25, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Endorse the blocks, for the record (do not think anyone would question them, actually... user seemed bound and determined to repeat behavior no matter how many times told to stop). ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I would concur with Lar. As it is currently written, the outing policy protects all parties, the guilty and the innocent, the helpful and the not so helpful, equally. In the interest of encouraging contributions, that is probably the best way to leave the policy. However, I think we could beef up our autobiography and conflict of interest guidelines to better protect the community. Possibly something along the lines of "If you wish to defend a subject you have a conflict of interest to in a Wiki-debate, you waive the protection from outing of the nature of the interest (biography subjects, company relationships, etc), as a matter of fairness to the other participants in the debate." MBisanz ^talk 19:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Interesting idea. I think policy SHOULD make some better allowance (than it does now) for the idea that there are things you could do, that if you do them, you waive your anonymity. ++Lar: t/c 19:50, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that this is an interesting proposal, and there are obvious deficiencies with our current norms that have been highlighted in this case. Offering lenience in certain instances of outing could very readily be open to abuse by the ill-intended, but existing norms seem also to offer too much protection to miscreants. I encourage you to further this discussion after putting some more thought towards it, MBisanz.  Skomorokh  23:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The Mantanmoreland flap of a couple of years ago is a case in point of what can happen when COI issues get shoved under the rug out of insistence on maintaining an absolute policy against "outing". *Dan T.* (talk) 19:38, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure if here is the right place to ask, but why is it an issue if someone edits an article on his or herself? Don't the subjects of articles usually know more about themselves and sources about themselves than we do about them? I suppose the subject of an article is less likely to be neutral, but I would find it odd if an article existed on me (I can say with all confidence and honesty that I am not significant enough of a person at this time to have an article on myself, maybe down the road if things go as planned...) and I would not even be allowed to add neutral and objective information or more importantly to challenge potentially libelous information. Anyway, again, if this question should be moved somewhere else, okay, but it was just one thing I am not getting here. Thanks and Happy Labor Day! --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Seeing as how we rely on third party sourcing for reliability, it would seem silly to not rely on third party editors to ensure neutrality and reliability. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:03, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Because people writing about themselves may have a tendency to inflate their own importance or distort aspects of their lives in ways that are not readily apparent to outside eyes. Note, for example, that if Xxx Xxxxxx is allowed to write two autobiographies about different persona, then we can hardly object when Yyy Yyyyyy edits his entry to remove reliably sourced information that he was once convicted of lewd offenses with young boys. It also happens that editors with strong conflicts of interest get into behavioral problems over "their" articles, and there are allegations of that here (improper archiving, misrepresenting discussions, and so on). Best practice is to declare the conflict and rely on the views of outside editors. Thatcher 13:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

A WP:COI violation will also be a violation of some other policy, such as WP:NPOV. I view WP:COI as a guideline that helps conflicted editors stay out of trouble. When they get into trouble, it's a good idea to reference the other policies that they are violating. We can enforce our policies without outing people. Outing is a bad idea because it can be used maliciously or abusively. Jehochman ^Talk 14:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

This is a very interesting conversation but it is still not dealing with the right now, right here issue - how are we managing *this* COI - even a quick look suggests at least one other article that needs care examination for NPOV and COI issues. Are we going to carry on with this completely pointless "this editor" nonsense or are we going to get on with business and deal with the problems? --Cameron Scott (talk) 14:53, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I think we have to go through articles affected by the COI one article at a time. There is no solution that I know of that would remove all of an editor's edits all at once, and I don't think anybody would want such a solution. There is a wish among some editors, it appears to me, to declare some other editors totally beyond the pale, banned, blocked, and blown up, in order to avoid a repeat. I don't think such a declaration will happen here, but I don't think here there's any chance of a repeat, for some editors. BTW, do we have any precedent of what to do if an editor writes three autobiographies? Smallbones (talk) 16:46, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

It is completely pointless at this stage to pretend that we are not discussing Benjiboi and I have started a conflict of interest discussion over at COI to co-ordinate article checking. Their first edits were promotional/COI so there is potention that we have three years worth of edits that have COI/promotional material hidden within and overlooked because they were a respected and trusted member of this community. Pretending this identity is not out there is a complete denial of reality. --Cameron Scott (talk) 16:57, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Since the hysteria seems to have died down a bit, can Craftyminion's indef block might be reduced now, back to the 48 hours it was originally? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 02:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Given that Crafty hasn't requested an unblock, I don't see the need to go down that road. If/when he requests an unblock, then it would be up for discussion. MBisanz ^talk 02:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, given that no has blocked Cameron Scott for saying the same thing -- and I'm not suggesting that they do -- it looks like one editor has been singled out for special treatment. The block for disruption may have been warranted, but the indef block was overly harsh then and even more so now. Why expect an editor to plead for an unblock to correct a mistake may in the heat of the moment, which has now cooled? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 12:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for review of indef block made by AWOL admin

Resolved

 – block endorsed absent a further unblock request from the user. Tim Song (talk) 18:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Craftyminion (talk · contribs) was initially blocked for 48 hours for "persistent violation of WP:OUTING and POINTy editing". Before the initial block has lapsed, the block was extended to indef, presumably based on Craftyminion's lack of contrition since the message posted to their talk page was "Sorry, but if you repeatedly state your intent to continue the disruption, the only solution is an indefinite block". The "outing" relates to an editor whose identity is now being openly discussed both on- and off-wiki, so the blocking rationale seems to no longer apply. The blocking admin, Tantalus39, has declared that they are on a wiki-break until 2010. Can someone please look at reducing this block? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Has the user in question requested an unblock since the extension? Just for the full picture Fritzpoll (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

He hasn't, and indeed this was already asked by DC on ANI, and denied for the same reason. Forumshopping, anyone? → ROUX ₪ 16:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Forum shopping indeed. — neuro^(talk) 16:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, isn't this ANI? I must have taken a wrong turn somewhere... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

#Sister_Kitty_Catalyst_O.C.P..2C_DJ_Pusspuss.2Cand_an_editor_who_shall_remain_nameless. You know what is being talked about. — neuro^(talk) 17:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought it might be helpful to separate this issue from the other one, which appears to be somewhat of a hot potato. I would simply approach the blocking admin but he is on a wiki-break of several months. I believe the indef block to be understandable based on the circumstances at that time, but overly harsh now that the circumstances have changed. Therefore, I'm asking for a block review. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:19, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I still believe that the editor was disruptive, and the block should still stand. Just my two pence. — neuro^(talk) 17:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

So you're not going to unblock them, then? Oh wait, you're not an admin, are you? Perhaps Roux will do it? Oh... Well, I'll take your comments for what they are worth then. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I've reviewed the user's edits and with comments like "You silly boy. They are actually right over at WR, aren't they? You really are just a shaved ape.", I see no reason to reduce the length of the block. If the user would like to post a well-written unblock request, we can go from there, but I see no reason to act before then. TNXMan 17:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec) I am unaware of a rule that requires editors to be admins before posting on ANI. Regarding Craftyminion, I'm not sure how edits such as this would result in anything other than an indefinite block; if an editor is blocked for something, and then pledges to continue that something once unblocked, then the extended block is preventative. As a reviewing editor noted here, an agreement to stop the disruptive editing would probably go a long way to a successful unblock request. We don't have an unblock request at all, at the moment, so any action is premature.(ec) UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes comments by non-admins are helpful, but in cases where an action is requested that can only be carried out by an admin, I find that more often than not they merely add to the noise level. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with you 100% on that. Admins and non-admins have equal weight in these discussions; while any actions carried out require an admin to "flip the switch", admins opinions are NOT more valuable than non-admins here. These discussions are open to anyone who has a constructive comment to make. Admins are not granted special status except in the actual execution of their tools. This is a discussion, and all discussions are open to all users at all times. --Jayron32 18:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree 1000% - non admin input is crucial to determine what the consensus is in a given situation, and admins should act on consensus.·Maunus·ƛ· 18:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Me too. Delicious carbuncle, it's unfortunate that your comments here seem to fuel drama rather than reduce it. I don't think your comments are justified, but rather, are in response to the fact that others don't agree with your views in other more specific matters. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

My comments are based on long time observation of ANI, not on any one specific incident or viewpoint. I fail to see how my opinion that fewer and more well-thought out comments can possibly be considered to be fuelling drama. Petty little squabbles like these seem to be all about winning something or making some kind of brownie points. They aren't necessary. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't think I was alone in my interpretation of your comments. What I am trying to say is this: if you were more tactful in your postings, the issue that arose here (and on your talk page) would not exist. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ncmvocalist, you are right. Perhaps I was annoyed by the ridiculous accusation of "forum-shopping" and my words were poorly chosen. I will offer an apology. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

We don't really disagree. I wasn't suggesting closing the discussion to non-admins. I stand by my observation that the comments made by non-admins in regard to issues which they are necessarily less familiar than admins are often unhelpful. I know that I'm not the only person who would prefer to see requests to admins handled by admins without the obligatory comments and bad jokes by those non-admins who seem to frequent ANI. I believe if certain editors were less quick to weigh in with their opinions, the drama here would be reduced markedly, and I think the occasional reminder of that is helpful. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree entirely with Tnxman307 and Ultraexactzz. A reasonable unblock request by the user would be openly considered; but as his last statements basically commit to continuing his disruption I think that an indefinite block is entirely appropriate at this time, and see no reason to lift it. ~ mazca ^talk 18:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then, consider this resolved. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:13, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Even if the outing concerns have been addressed since the block, the user was behaving poorly at the time of the block; and after their initial 48 hour block, expressed clear intent to continue disrupting. Given that clear intent, and the lack of a clear believable statement from the blocked user that would give admins a reason to believe that his prior committment to be a disruption no longer apply, I don't think unblocking at this time would be wise. --Jayron32 18:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

An apology to the non-admins who frequent ANI

Resolved

Arrrgh! Durova³¹⁴ 01:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• 
  Official flag of the ex-admin corps.
• 
  Official flag of the current-admin corps.
• 
  Official flag of the wannabe-admin corps.

My earlier comments were tactless and perhaps bordered on incivility. I hope no one's feeling were too badly hurt. Although I think that ANI would be much less drama-filled if non-admins thought twice about how helpful their actions might be before deciding to post a bad pun, or prematurely archiving or closing a discussion, or biting a newcomer, I see that you do have an important role here in offering your viewpoint as someone who isn't burdened with the heavy responsibility of admin tools. I offer this sincere apology to all who commented here, but especially to Roux, Neurolysis, and Ncmvocalist. I'd also like to apologise specifically to Baseball Bugs, NeutralHomer, and any other members of the ANI regulars who may have thought my comments were directed at them. I'm sorry. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 19:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall seeing anything directed at me, but I don't always read everything here. You'll need to point it out, so that I can feel properly infuriated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 20:26, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

"I see that you do have an important role here in offering your viewpoint as someone who isn't burdened with the heavy responsibility of admin tools." Jeez, you really need to get out more. --Malleus Fatuorum 20:29, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I find that the less time I spend sober, the less heavy seems the burden. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ahoy. Durova³¹⁴ 20:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Avast! Or something. Protonk (talk) 21:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• avast!? </me grins and leaves> — Ched *  ?  21:21, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Avast. Protonk (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Ummmm...Arg?Abce2|TalkSign 01:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
    • They do say, my hearties, that dead men tell no tales. Uncle G (talk) 01:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Paid, witch-hunts, Wikipedia review and general moral panic

I have been baited and harassed here before so have learned that taking a break was often smarter than other options. Despite assertions that would suggest otherwise people are not supposed to be harassed here. Call it what you will, I feel that is exactly what is going on here. For all who have sent me emails, I very much appreciate the kind words and support.
Starting on the heels of the first ever community-wide RfC on "Paid editing", WP:Paid was started up 20 June 2009 and you'll note from day one stated clearly Note: This page is not normative policy, but is intended to be a summary of existing policy related to paid editing. A small group of editors who felt that some form of policy should be enacted, or had been enacted from the WP:Jimbo statement on the matter, kept working to instill the concept that paid editing in various forms was a blockable offense, forbidden, against policy, guidelines, immoral, etc etc. but were essentially halted n their tracks from enacting these changes because ... there was a lack of policies, guidelines and community consensus to make the changes they sought. Naturally they accused me of being a paid editor and continuously hinted and harassed over the point and like a true thorn I refused to confirm nor deny that I was a paid editor. Well, that just seemed to work the nerves but lost in those very discussions was my point that any proposed anything had to take into account that unless paid editors reveal they are paid editors, we likely wouldn't know ergo our page should reflect the real issues is the content and user conduct. From everything I've read on the matter, we don't block or ban someone for being paid, we do so for other reasons because their cases are brought to attention for violating other policies.

On 14 August 2009 a rather pointy proposal to force disclosure of paid editors was put forward but didn't succeed nor did several veiled threats of dispute resolution which other editors besides myself agreed likely would not resolve any differences of opinion. Offline I was sent am email that hinted how uncomfortable material about me (ostensibly proving I was a paid editor) could appear and cases like mine - assuming I was a paid editor - received the wrath of the community. I responded here; no proof - likely because there is none - was ever presented. A week or so later, a ANI report was filed on 24 August and when that didn't seem to get me stopped, a RfC on me on 26 August. Certainly I may lack objectivity on this but it seems to have been done solely to harass or subdue me (see Point 5). It was pretty clear that given wider community input the response was a generalized focus on the content not the contributor.

About one week later (5 September) a Wikipedia Review posting asserting my identity and COI was posted. No, I haven't read a word of any of it so I'll leave it to those who wish to do so to see what actually is there. Hours later banned user User:Peter Damian, who I've rarely dealt with, nommed one of the two articles DJ Pusspuss for AfD. The next day Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. was also nommed. So first I offer mea culpa - several years ago I wrote two newby malformed articles utilizing a completely promotional tone. As far as I know every statement was factual and I had no reason to believe otherwise, I still don't. The DJ article likely should be removed for now because the independent radio interviews are simply not available. They would just inch it over the notability threshold, frankly there may be enough other sources to do it but I'm not in the mood to try to re-research it and re-write it with all the hostility. The Sister article is another matter, it seems vindictive to me to nom it as there is a multitude of sources. Hopefully the AfD will work out on that one. Injected onto each AfD, and likely parroted from Wikipedia Review, was piles of bad faith and original research. I agree this wasn't helped by my refusal to confirm or deny my identity; sorry but given the adversarial conduct, online and offline harassment I'm at odds to know who exactly I can trust and to what degree. I keep my private information ... private as a general rule and have never gone out of my way to correct people when they assume my name, gender or sexuality - I just don't feel it helps to get into it no matter what someone believes, friend or foe. I've been accused of being quite a few of the subjects or employed by some companies I've written about. Frankly even when it's meant to be quite personal I've tried to not take it as such. Instead I see those charges as a call to improve the articles as they are likely glowing where they should be showing instead.

As for WP:Paid? You'll notice that it's been now switched to their preferred version. A doomed policy proposal unfortunately no matter how well-intended the efforts. I think I can recover the damage there but think that other perspectives on this whole affair is warranted. Be mad at me for poor judgment but please don't compromise consensus building and what was a good guideline page in process by assuming that Wikipedia:The Truth as told to us by Wikipedia Review should enable some very poor behaviours. Do I have proof that these events are more than coincidence? Not as of yet, but I'll let others decide what seems to add up to what; hopefully those eager to extend me bad faith will reconsider. Through this all I've been a bit surprised at some editors and really quite proud of others. Hopefully the project will be a bit better for all of this - I can't say I'm delighted with how things have happened but I do welcome more eyes on the whole situation. I think a good outcome would be that we have a paid proposed guideline and a paid proposed policy, not sure if those whose efforts I've detailed above would be open to that but at least both pages could be in common sense places. Sorry for the long ramble, I hope it makes a bit of sense of things or at least where I'm coming from. -- Banjeboi 11:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ah right, it's everyone else - you didn't create promotional articles about yourself, you didn't vote keep in AFDs about yourself, you didn't add photos of yourself to articles - it wikipedia review, other editors. This is just an attempt to poison the well and make yourself hard done-by, I've looked into the history of those articles and you have systematically tried to shut down debate or any suggestion there is a conflict of interest. You should be ashamed to come here and try and suggest that anyone that has happened is not the direct result of your attempts to promote yourself, warp articles that you are connected to and then being caught out. At best, you are disingenuous, at worst you are a liar - it's a bit early to be saying "trust me".

So if you want truth, let's get some straight answers

1) Are you going to refrain from editing articles where you have a conflict of interest? or at least highlight that conflict of interest to other editors

2) are you working as a paid editor (a question that has been asked by a number of editors and avoided over at WP:PAID - a debate I have had no part in)?

You want some trust, you need to show some reasons why you should be trusted because as far as I can see, in-between a lot of very good contributions (and some very very poor one where you puff out pisspoor articles with terrible sources to keep them on-wiki), you have been working for your own interests for a long time. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ignoring further baiting and character assassinations ... I will point out your "smoking gun" diff there doesn't show I "systematically shut down" anything. I archived a thread that was stale several months. I didn't see it helping anything but if you want to beat a dead horse in several forums I won't stop you. -- Banjeboi 13:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

1) Are you going to refrain from editing articles where you have a conflict of interest? or at least highlight that conflict of interest to other editors --Cameron Scott (talk) 13:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have participated in the drafting of WP:PAID and I don't recall a lot of consensus building by Benjiboi. Rather, I kept seeing him revert edits by other editors and acting as if he owned the policy. He was so adament about not not allowing any limits on paid editing that it led to inevitable questions about his own involvement in it. Rather than deny or explain, he became offended and refused to discuss it. That seems to be the way he's responded to the COI issues as well.   Will Beback  talk  16:35, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

For those missing the reading between the lines, this is one of the three editors who has systematically tried to ban/block me off WP:PAID and the one who sent me the veiled threat to my email. -- Banjeboi 16:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The note I sent to Benjiboi on August 12 was not a threat, veiled or otherwise. I wrote that some things are better handled off-Wiki and asked him if he had in fact engaged in paid editing. I wrote "If you do not wish to disclose [paid editing] then I can't force you. ... When it comes to disclosures, I think we've both been around Wikipedia long enough to know that many undisclosed conflicts have been revealed, and it hasn't gone well for those who've acted deceptively." Benjiboi never responded, even after being prompted on his talk page.[5] Finally, I asked him the same question on his talk page.[6] The complete thread is here: User_talk:Benjiboi/Archive_54#Paid_editing. Before this week I had no knowledge of the allegation of COI biography writing, nor of any other specific problem with Benjiboi's editing other than his ownership of WP:PAID. I've had no involvement in investigating the COI bio issue and haven't communicated with anyone about it, on or off Wiki.   Will Beback  talk  18:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I accept your explanation. I felt is was more than a coincidence and I actually did respond to your question but did not give you the answer you wanted. -- Banjeboi 02:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well then. I didn't really finish reading the diatribe posted above, but I think I got the general point. You're asserting that there's some sort of cabal of people who are deleting (or trying to delete) your contributions because of your opposition to their view of WP:PAID. I don't know jack about what's been going on over there, so I defer judgement to someone who particularly cares. But from my view from the outside, there is no conspiracy. Damian or whoever instigated this business might have beef against you for all I know. But I think perfectly well-intentioned editors have simply followed the trail to see how far down the rabbit hole this goes. The result is that you have evaded WP:COI issues, likely used socks to protect your articles and canvass for support, and followed up with a persecution complex. Complaining of unfounded attacks from Wikipedia Review seems rather suspect considering you allege you haven't actually read what's posted there (how would you know what spurious attacks were funneled from there, then?) I'm not sure how in the wrong other parties are in this, but you, Benji, sure as hell aren't coming out smelling like a rose, and with good reason. So next time just apologize and take steps to rectify the situation, don't try and shift blame. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 18:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I’m very surprised that User:Benjiboi has decided to return to Wikipedia after being warned of the consequences of multiple COI edits. User:Cool Hand Luke quietly suggested that Benjiboi drop the use of his account if he didn’t want to address what appeared to be flagrant conflicts of interest in editing ([7] following CHL’s question on conflicts of interest [8] ).

The flagrant conflicts of interest are writing 2+ apparent autobiographies

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Pusspuss (2nd nomination) (a persona)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sister Kitty Catalyst O.C.P. (a persona) and

Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence (a small group bio)

and other closely related articles ( see, e.g. bottom of page)

It’s of course fairly difficult to discuss an editor who writes 2+ autobiographies without getting close to outing. Benjiboi says that he was outed by Wikireview on Sept. 5. It looks to me that he was apparently outed by his supporters and fellow community members on Sept. 5. [9] (and following at the same AfD)

The same material also appeared much earlier at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DJ Pusspuss

I don’t think that it’s necessary to discuss this as “outing” – it’s clear that the “3 people” involved are quite close, know each other very well, and work together. All we need to talk about is the obvious COI.

It‘s clear that Benjiboi has been engaging in COI edits right from the beginning, when he was essentially an SPA. [10]

Everything he has been doing recently has become controversial and disruptive. For example, see this discussion of his plagiarism [11]

Also see the edit war he was involved in today starting at [12] He spent considerable time above arguing about WP:PAID, where I have edited a bit, and I take his remarks as being aimed at me. Please notice that nobody else has mentioned this topic in this thread until he did. My complaint about Benjiboi has only been that he constantly reverted every edit I made at WP:PAID. It is summarized here Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Benjiboi#Sorry_if_this_wasn.27t_clear

When he put forth the bizarre position that Paid editors did not have a conflict of interest editing a proposed policy on paid editing. User:Will Beback and User:TeaDrinker asked point blank whether he had a COI by being a paid editor. Benjiboi refused to even accept the relevance of the question. Just today, he finally admitted that he is a paid editor. [13]

So what to do about an editor who blatantly disregards WP:COI and other Wikipedia rules like WP:POV and WP:RS and is disruptive with every edit? I think he has offered ANI a choice by returning to edit Wikipedia – either you accept his editing as OK, or you block or ban him.

I don’t think the larger community will accept his editing as being OK. This topic will come up again with every controversial edit that he makes.

Can he be blocked? Well, you folks know the rules better than I do, but certainly other editors must have been blocked for offenses less serious than writing 2+ apparent autobiographies and !voting at the AfDs of those apparent autobiographies. Smallbones (talk) 19:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is an ongoing RFCU. So I would strongly prefer that we take issues of editor conduct there and hash them out rather than blocking/banning/etc. That RfC deserves wider attention from editors who are not on either pole of the issue. Protonk (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Good advice. That said, whether answered here or there, Cameron Scott's questions Are you going to refrain from editing articles where you have a conflict of interest? or at least highlight that conflict of interest to other editors? strike me as astoundingly germane, and I don't think the community should take a brushoff about them, but rather, insist on answers. ++Lar: t/c 20:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Lar - while asking an editor to disclose Conflicts of Interest may at times be a sign of lacking good faith by the inquisitive editor, at other times it is a sensible request in a situation where there is reasonable doubt about an editors possible conflicts of interest. It seems that in this case user:benjiboi/banjeboi themself has contributed to creating reasonable doubt and hence the questions are relevant and require clarification.·Maunus·ƛ· 20:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

What I find most astonishing about this is that while we are unable to get any answers about the COI or indeed if they will agree to refrain from editing articles that they have a possible COI with, that they still editing and edit-warring over an article they may have a COI with. Now people are going to go "oh but it's an IP and it's going to be a troll and..." but that does not matter, the IP is entirely right that those who have a COI should a) declare it and b) present sources on the talk page for neutral editors to examine. there is at least the question of COI, it has been raised by multiple long term editors and deserves an answer. Above there is a mention of a RFCU but that's a slow process - how can we claim to try and enforce our COI policies with IPs and new editors when we are unwilling or able to do it with long-term editors? --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I would support imposing a temporary topic ban of Benjiboi regarding the articles on which they may have a COI untill such a time that they clarify whether and how they will approach any possible COI's.·Maunus·ƛ· 21:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It might be a good idea, yes. I'd support same until the matter was clearly sorted out. I've warned Benjiboi and the IP about the spate of edit warring at Sister_Kitty_Catalyst_O.C.P. and hope that will be sufficient. ++Lar: t/c 21:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That was a anon edit-warring to remove sourcing based solely on me and not the content. David Fuchs, please don't accuse of me of socking, if you have any evidence, which I can guarantee you don't, please present it. Smallbones, you're apparently misreading statements and mischaracterizing me, again. Your hostility and rehashing of previously posted bits to antagonize me is disappointing but demonstrates your continued harassment as the main edit-warrior at WP:Paid. This is also the core issue, do we want to support harassing editors and assuming bad faith or do we push for better content. I admit I wrote some very promotionally-toned content three years ago. The baiting, harassment and personal attacks violate civility policies, it would be nice to actually address these policy violation as seen here rather than give it all a pass because, you know, an editor may be COI and deserves abuse. It's your community, how do you wish to treat each other. I contend that pushing editors underground isn't helping, past discussions going back at least two years on paid editing have also stated this. Piling on to accuse, harass and then kick someone when they're down seems like a really bad civility proposal. -- Banjeboi 02:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you going to refrain from editing articles where you have a conflict of interest? or at least highlight that conflict of interest to other editors? --Cameron Scott (talk) 07:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Pointers to relevant pages

Please note the existence of, and participate in:

• Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Benjiboi — a user conduct RFC
• Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Benjiboi COI - how do we move forward — discussion of any potentional conflict of interest issues

Please also note:

• The "Are you a paid editor, Benjiboi?" question was answered two years ago. People aren't doing their research.
• There are actually productive, content-related, things to do, here.
• Talk:Hot House Entertainment#Sources press release is a content issue that requires attention.

Uncle G (talk) 22:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Perhaps you could help us all by giving a link to the 2 year old answer? Also... Thing is, while the question may have been answered 2 years ago, the answer may have changed since then... ++Lar: t/c 23:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The link is already there in the COI discussion. Once again, please note the existence of, and participate in, that discussion. Uncle G (talk) 02:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Second request for you to post the link here (with a note of thanks for Will Beback's guess at what you meant, it doesn't suffice to back up your assertion unless it's said by you that it's what was meant). And once again please note that things can change in two years. People change employers, enter into new business relationships, terminate old ones, and the like. The question about CoI is relevant to now based on activities now, regardless of whatever answer may have been given two years ago. Please let me know if I need to make that point clearer. ++Lar: t/c 10:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
      • What you needed to do is what you've finally done, after repeated clear requests: go to the COI noticeboard and read and partipate in the discussion there, where the link, and indeed Benjiboi's subsequent comments, already are. There's a COI discussion, on the correct noticeboard for such COI discussions, that's been pointed to and where Benjiboi is actively participating. Uncle G (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
        • I'm not finding your approach very helpful here. Rather than berating people, just provide the link, THEN suggest that discussion be moved. Asking people to trawl a big discussion from 2 years ago to find something that you already know the location of may not be the most effective way to get your point across. AND, sometimes discussion does need to happen in more than one place. It happens. ++Lar: t/c 15:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • I've answered the Hot House press release content at the COI board. In short I didn't add it but did try to fix it. IMHO it may be wisest to simply get a OTRS permission for use of the material. -- Banjeboi 02:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Another approach, in my view far better, since it removes the puffery, is to stub the article back down to a bare mention of the existance of the firm, and let interested parties carefully and thoroughly rebuild it from reliable mainstream sources (rather than the company site and various blogs). That's a content issue though, so I guess I should suggest it at the talk page. ++Lar: t/c 15:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I assume that Uncle G is referring to this thread: Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 20#R Family Vacations. Benjiboi wrote "For the record I have no interest in the financial success of R Family Vacations, Hot House Entertainment or pretty much any of the hundreds of articles I've edited in whole or part." I'm not sure what "pretty much" means in that context, but it otherwise appears to be a general denial.   Will Beback  talk  03:02, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Yea, I had forgotten that but oh well. I'd rather default to that I will neither confirm nor deny as that, IMHO, is the core issue with any policy-building on paid editing issues. Unless someone reveals they are a paid editor we generally can only assume and it's likely better to focus on editing behaviours and content rather than inject assumptions on motivations. -- Banjeboi 03:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • We are looking at behavior.   Will Beback  talk  04:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • • • Actually that's not a denial, is it? It's what they call a non-denial denial. I hope Benjiboi will give a simple direct answer to this question: Have you ever accepted money, or a similar inducement, to write or edit articles on Wikipedia? You might as well specifically address the porno website mentioned above where Sister Roma works. Smallbones (talk) 19:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Cameron Scott, Will Beback, et al. certainly feel they're doing the right thing, but this is becoming hounding of Benjiboi, including by a banned user, Peter Damian, and some suspect IP editors such as 24.22.141.252, who is probably a sockpuppet. Will, if you have evidence that he is a paid editor, kindly put up or shut up. As for the COI issue, under WP:COI it doesn't say "harass the editor until they leave Wikipedia", it actually says this. Benjiboi has acknowledged that creating articles on DJ Pusspuss and Sister Kitty Catalyst was probably a mistake. It was done years ago when he was a n00b, it is being resolved at AfD, and it does not require the levels of drama involved here. Fences&Windows 09:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • But he *still* edits them, that is *not* a matter for AFD, and he and refuses to acknowledge or even discuss a COI, that *is* an AN/I matter. --Cameron Scott (talk) 09:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • And it's a mistake to think this is about three articles - this is completely unsourced and guess who is credited with giving the organisation leadership (unsourced of course). How do we know what else is out there without checking? --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • That's not actually true. He has participated in the COIN discussion and addressed the issue directly. The ball is in your court but you have failed to follow through in the discussion that you yourself began. And as noted by others there, if you want COI issues checked the onus is partly on you to pull your finger out and check for yourself, or at the very least participate in a collaborative checking process. For the latter case, I've even quickly skimmed Benjiboi's contributions and the disputed articles' edit histories and started you off with pointers to two specific things, which can be supplemented by other editors who care to join in, to review for conflict of interest. Why are you back here not doing so? You had the right idea of going to the right noticeboard. Please, continue with it! Continued discussion here is mis-placed and unproductive, especially if that continued discussion is about a false issue of Benjiboi not participating in a COI discussion that xe clearly has participated in — on the correct noticeboard even. Uncle G (talk) 12:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Block evasion by User:DHawker

DHawker (talk · contribs) is a single-purpose agenda account dedicated to promoting colloidal silver. S/he recently racked up a third block for edit-warring on the article. A few days into the block, DHawker is using 219.90.234.177 (talk) to evade the block and continue arguing the same tendentious point that s/he was blocked for ([14]). This is not the first time; see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DHawker, where DHawker was let off with a warning for using IPs to circumvent 3RR. I'd like to request administrative review; I am obviously involved, but I feel action is warranted. MastCell ^Talk 23:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the possibility that someone else could mimic this editor's arguments to get them blocked for a relatively long time, I've just blocked the IP address used for a week. Feel free to drop me a note if anything else develops. If this editor really is having issues abiding by a block, I expect other issues will crop up soon enough. Jclemens (talk) 02:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

MastCell is trying to keep DHawker silenced, and in reality they are both back and forth with their reverting of each other. DHawker is not an aggressive editor and isn't vandalizing anything. He makes a lot of valid arguments and its for that reason he is being silenced. Feels like friggen kindergarten. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 15:54, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, the block evasion was the posting of a single comment that mastcell simply deleted (Which is also against our policies, blocked or not). Please review the discussion for which he has been blocked for and see for yourself how threatening DHawker is. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 16:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd certainly welcome additional input at Talk:Colloidal silver. The above "dialog" is actually par for the course there. I seem to be in the minority with my view that blocks are blocks, and not optional suggestions to be circumvented at will, so more eyes might be useful. MastCell ^Talk 17:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I may be confused about what Floydian is saying, but it was my understanding that the removal of edits made by someone evading a block is generally approved by policy, not against policy. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 18:00, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

That edit is certainly consistent with DHawker's style. The IP GeoLocates to Adelaide, as does this one, where the user acknowleges a (presumably accidentally - I think that was before my tenure at that page) logged out edit. Should I file a SPI? - 2/0 (cont.) 18:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead, and find out that this user is just someone who feels that this article is treated unfairly (As are many of the fringe theory articles, which are often stonewalled by a group of experienced editors that attack anyone with a different point of view, and then ban them as soon as the possibility arises). What a warm welcoming message we send out at wikipedia now. "You don't agree with our view, then shut up or get out!"

Despite the accusations against him of being an account dedicated to edit warring, he has fairly discussed his edits on the talk page of the article. He has provided completely valid research and several references to backup his revisions, and the reverts by other users have all fallen back on a single reference which they use to undo all revisions that shine some light on the reality. The revisions have often ignored the point and picked out an insignificant error in order to justify the revision (For example, see this rediculous revision and the following revision which I made because Aunt Entropy's revision was completely uncalled for). This is not a vandalous user, and should not be treated as such. Period. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

DHawker is a single purpose editor and has a record of editwarring to promote a fringe view. Now he/she appears to be guilty of block evasion. I'd say the user needs either a long term block or preferably a ban from editing alternative medicine topics and should be encouraged to edit/improve other non-fringe articles. Vsmith (talk) 22:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit-warring to try to force the citation of the non-PubMed journal Scientific Research and Essay (journal website) and now block evasion, all in order to push a fringe point of view, are not suggestive of a constructive editor. I'd certainly support a topic ban. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I would agree with the ban also. This sort of editing is not even borderline. DGG ( talk ) 06:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Considering this is not the first time, I'm moving towards an indef block, see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/DHawker - same behavior and the same article. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Pubmed isn't what makes a journal reliable or not, the way the research is conducted determines reliability, so just pushing that on it makes it clear where your bias lay. This is of course, as opposed to the study that bought a product off the internet, tested it, and then concluded that the results from that apply to every instance of colloidal silver (ooooh. Reliable, pubmed says so). I'm sorry, but when it comes to fringe theories, editors are dicks. Especially since, being concluded as a fringe theory, all the admins jump straight to the "if you see it as anything but fringe, you are just promoting it" argument. At best, a ban from the article is warranted. DHawker is not causing issues on the talk page, and his input is valid. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 01:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

@2/0: No need to file an SPI report. Note that DHawker signed the edit. I suppose it is possible that someone went to Adelaide, Australia and posted in exactly DHawker's style, pushing one of DHawker's talking points, solely to get DHawker in trouble on Wikipedia... but William of Ockham would roll over in his grave at that explanation.

@Floydian: This isn't the place to argue sources, but virtually every meaningful and remotely valid medical journal is indexed on MEDLINE. People generally don't want to publish good stuff in non-indexed journals, because other researchers won't find it and won't cite their work or build on it. MEDLINE indexing is not a guarantee of quality - a lot of crappy journals are indexed - but the absence of MEDLINE indexing suggests strongly that we shouldn't assign too much weight to the source.

@Everyone: I would be fine with a ban for DHawker from the article; I can put up with the repetitious agenda-driven talk page abuse as par for the course on these sorts of articles, so if the edit-warring were taken off the table, that would be sufficient from my perspective. MastCell ^Talk 03:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments by block-evading editor removed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Could I ask for some closure on this? MastCell ^Talk 00:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Editing restriction proposal

In light of the fact that he engaged in sockpuppetry post-block, and other disruptive conduct including edit-warring prior to the block, I make the following proposals (please make clear which you support/oppose - note that #1 #2 #3 and #4 are alternatives; should there be equal preference, the more restrictive restriction will be enacted):

1. DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing pages relating to Colloidal silver, broadly construed.
2. DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing Colloidal silver-related articles. This topic ban does not include talk pages and related discussions.
3. DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing Colloidal silver and its talk page.
4. DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing the Colloidal silver article. This page ban does not include the talk page.
5. [This remedy has been enacted] DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s current block is increased to two weeks for attempting to evade his original block.
6. DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is limited to editing with a single account. Should DHawker edit with any other account, he will be considered banned from Wikipedia for 6 months for the first incident, 1 year for the second incident, and indefinitely thereafter.

I hope that covers it. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)changed a bit. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support all. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Another one: DHawker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing Colloidal silver, but not its talk page

In all reality, he has not edited anything but colloidal silver (With one or two edits to Argyria). - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 17:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I've added your proposal above to avoid confusion - please fix your comment accordingly. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Based on the fact that he has been very civil and his reverts are often not the same material being reverted, but different aspects in the article. Yes, occasionally it can escalate into a 3 revert match... Rarely 4... Certainly not 20 like many see before making it here. The point is, these sort of things should be worked out between editors to keep things civil. DHawker has been civil, if not cooperative often with mastcell. I see no reason why any sort of intervention is required, and so I vote the status quo first:

• Support 6, 5 (This he did do). Running down from there it would be 4, 2, 3, 1. I oppose those four choices though. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 18:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree completely with your assertion that DHawker has been "very civil", and with your excuses for his constant edit-warring. I'm also not clear on why I, or anyone, should be expected to go out of our way to work with someone who shows such consistent disregard for this site's most basic behavioral policies. But I will leave this for uninvolved input, since I think both of our positions are fairly clear. MastCell ^Talk 18:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Reading just the current talk page was journey enough for me. Whew! What strikes me most there is that if you took out all of DHawker's comments, the outcome wouldn't be substantially different. They also unnecessarily personalize the discussion (not the only one, I'm looking at you MastCell, just not as hawkishly) and indulge in conspiracy theories. OTOH, they raise legitimate concerns - but these have largely been dealt with by other editors who have more of a spirit of discussion and compromise (MastCell being one of those too). The article edits are more of a concern, especially the recent ones. Edit warring happens long before 3RR gets breached, it starts with a determination that your own personal version must be the one reflected. On balance, I'd say that DHawker's contributions have not been helpful. If they were the only one advocating for "balance", I'd be concerned about shutting them down, but there are other reasonable voices on both "sides". And of course, editing past a block is a no-go zone and indicates an intention to cause further disruption. So:

• Support 3, 5 and 6 right off the bat. 4 as 2nd choice, but this won't end the combat on the talk page. 1 and 2 I would wait to see how they deal with the page ban. I'd also suggest that they be given a timeframe to edit other non-related articles and come back here for a possible appeal if they show that they can be a productive editor. Franamax (talk) 21:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Before the axe finally drops please consider this. Mastcell is continually claiming I'm a 'dedicated promoter'. That assertion is probably coloring the decision making here. I challenge Mastcell to actually provide an example of this so-called promotion in the last 12 months. If he has no evidence his entire submission should be questioned.DHawker (talk) 23:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Your concern over the "dedicated promoter" terminology is warranted. When I reviewed the disussion and edits, I kept in mind that labels don't always describe the contents. What I found though would best be described by the hackneyed phrase "subtle POV-pushing". Possibly not your intent, but you insist on rewording things to be just that tiny bit more favourable to the fringe viewpoint. I was very attentive to checking if alternate views were being adequately discussed and represented in the article. That is already being done by less confrontational editors than yourself. One big error I saw was your conflation of ionic silver with colloidal silver, also the conflation of topical versus internal dosage. It's very important to properly separate topics which can be easily confused by our readership. My impression is that you do seek proper balance in the article, but you aren't aware of what proper balance is, i.e. you want more in the article than is warranted, to "support the case". That might be OK, but your aggressiveness on the talk page and edit-warring on the article tip the balance for me. Other editors than you are getting the job done. Franamax (talk) 13:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment also keep in mind that the reporting user, Mastcell, has himself said he has no problem with the talk page "abuse", so I do not see why being banned from talk pages are even an option to chose from? - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 02:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  I think this question becomes one I need to answer as the proposer. My interpretation of MastCell's comment was quite different - something to the effect of personally being ready to tolerate the "talk page abuse" if at least the main article disruption is dealt with. I do not wish to needlessly dissuade other editors from editing the concerned pages though, given that few other users would be ready to tolerate it in the same way. Ncmvocalist (talk) 03:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

  I'm intentionally staying out of this in order to hear some uninvolved opinion, but I will clarify this. I initially felt that I personally could put up with the talk-page abuse - it's not unusual for these sorts of subjects - but I agree with Ncm that it probably dissuades other editors and creates an environment which is not conducive to compromise or consensus. Furthermore, what I've seen since starting this thread has convinced me that a complete topic ban is warranted.

  Seriously: what characteristic of a disruptive editor is missing here? Single-purpose dedication to pushing an agenda at the expense of content policies? Check. Lack of any demonstrable interest in the encyclopedia beyond promoting that narrow agenda? Check. Abuse of Wikipedia as a soapbox to argue personal opinions while consistently failing to produce any usable sources? Check. Multiple blocks for edit-warring? Check. Multiple blocks for block evasion? Check. This is a hundred times more damaging to the project than simple vandalism, but we're a hundred times less effective in dealing with it. MastCell ^Talk 16:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As a follow up to my previous suggestion perhaps you can also provide an example of this 'talk page abuse' apart from the recent occasion when, out of frustration, I suggested he grow up. I've complained on numerous occasions that he's a biased editor. Is that abuse?DHawker (talk) 04:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Then perhaps you need to deal with your frustration more effectively - telling an editor to grow up is not at all helpful. Where was the need to begin one of your sentences with "what are you raving about MastCell?" Light is what is required - no extra heat please. And certainly, unjustifiably calling an editor biased is another issue in itself. But MastCell specified what was being alluded to in terms of talk page abuse, and examples of it sadly tend to require going through entire discussions - it's not as easy to see as what you consider as one-off comments. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll second this. I did read the entire current talk page, and no DHawker, you're out of line. You question the motives of the editor rather than the substance of the edit. You question the motives of entire institutions rather than find your own reliable sources, That's just not on here, not because we need to hew to the status quo, rather because if we discard our pillars we're left in a swamp. I could likely dig up more examples than what Ncm has shown, maybe I'll try that tomorrow. It's a long slog through that talk page. Just for now, I'd suggest you aim for a compromise here. Franamax (talk) 12:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Per support for remedy 5, blocked for an additional week for block evasion; if he wants to edit and converse, he can go through the channels rather than using IPs. --Golbez (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you. If he makes a reasonable request, and does not evade his block any further, we'll transclude a separate section to/from his talk page. Ncmvocalist (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Canvassing by user Alexikoua

Above mentioned user User:Alexikoua is canvassing regarding the voting on this issue: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_September_6#Template:Northern_Epirus

Here are the examples: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Factuarius&diff=prev&oldid=312330642 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Megistias&diff=prev&oldid=312345802

--I Pakapshem (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hold on, is Alexikoua accusing a long standing Admin of being a sock in the first diff there? Canterbury Tail talk 18:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like it. Notified both J Milburn and Alexikoua. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 18:24, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Alexikoua accuses not only admins of many things, but many other users of wiki of many other things.--I Pakapshem (talk) 19:05, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• This canvassing is also going on off-wiki. See this thread, but be aware that it may be deleted shortly (seems it is the second thread, the first one having been deleted). A checkuser would probably be useful. J Milburn (talk) 20:41, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note the post "Me and I group of friends have tried to secure the article but they we need your contribution", suggesting that there is already an element of meatpuppetry going on... J Milburn (talk) 20:56, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

About this off-wiki [[15]] activity, I am for God's sake NOT involved in this kind of extremist action.

• This 'skolixx' user has joined topixx 5 hours ago [[16]], seems his only intention was to inform in an disturbing way about the template deletion. I wonder who would do that in such an obvious way? Seems like an amateur bait job to me.
• What's really erroneous is that this link has been recently updated, after it was initially -20:41, 8 September 2009 - mentioned in admins noticeboard , with a picture of Nikolaos Michaloliakos, leader of the Greek extremist group Hrysi Avgi, which OFF COURSE I HAVE NOTHING TO DO (reasonably thinking why should I do that? upgrading the link with that picture).
• The level of English is far too poor and my contribution in wikipedia proves exactly the opposite.

As for the canvassing issue I'm accused by i_Pakapshem, ([[17]] I wrote about 'a multiply times blocked user', who -according to his record- is Pakapshem, and off course practically impossible to be a current admin), since I have been informed by User:Alarichus that he -I_Pakapshem- proposed the deletion of the specific template from irc-wikipedia. I really regret, since situation is a bit out of control, but reasonably thinking, why should I add such kind of information off wiki? Sorry for the capitals and really sorry for involving J Milburn (the sentence proves that I'm not refering to him) but I really feel sad when being involved in that kind of activity which does not represent me and what I beliefs.

My contribution history proves that I'm not involved on the kind of activity which makes me sickAlexikoua (talk) 00:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It is, actually, another one bad-faith report by user:I_Pakapshem, ([[18]] he already has a record of fruitless report in past). It sounds erroneous that someone accuses 'canvassing' while the same time launching irc activity in order to pick up supporters. What's really wierd is that the results of his initiative were sometimes controversial for him ([[19]], Someone in 'irc:wikipedia' had a great desire for propaganda today. +an 'Incan name' reference seems to be also a result of these attempts).

His contibution, which is, for the first time he appeared in wiki untill now, limited to specific nationalist topics, just full of reverts and empty argument:

• after breaking a block record: 6 times in 43 days (June 9-July 21), due to endless wp:3rr, wp:npa, wp:civility isues, seems that this was not enough, he continued to show a dangerous pattern of continual battleground behavior [[20]] until he received a 1 revert limit.
• characteristically, when last blocked, and being insistent that the block was totally 'unfair', his talk page was locked too, [[21]].
• Why such a user should be trusted? It's more than obvious that this pattern of activity is still in full motion. I wouldn't be surprused if it was he that made up this childish bait job, according to his knowledge of Greek as well as his endless efforts to promote a nationalistic agenda [[22]] according to his contribution history.Alexikoua (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• We have 3 contributors who said delete and may be possible socks, and 6 contributors who said keep are 90% socks/meats. Let's focus on that. And we have a possible canvassing case.
• There was later found also this [23]. I tried to translate it by using a greeklish to greek converter and then google translate. The main meaning is obvious, but a detailed translation is needed. This seems to be a message previous to this [24]. I personally do not want to blame anyone for anything, but this sudden influx of ip editors at approximately the same time, is suspicious.--Alarichus (talk) 09:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Until now, all 5/6 new or ip contributors who voted "keep", have been to found to be located in the same area except one. All of them are located in Greece. I cannot give any information about the last one(guidelines) but you can guess I believe. Regarding the 3 ip or new users who said "delete", one of them is located in Kosovo and one in Macedonia. --Alarichus (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• Alarichus:This thread says, in an extreme propagandistic style:

'Can I not write the text in Greek letters? Some Albanians in wikipedia want to delete part of Greek Epirus, but we have to keep it. Until now some guys I know helped us. When we manage to gather in great numbers I will tell you what to do. (noone knows who's watching).'

Hope this one will be soon checked. Since the baid style mentality is more than obvious. I_Pakashem's ghost activity seems to be his only solution lately.Alexikoua (talk) 11:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• That probably explains the arrival of 5-6 ip users from Greece with no previous contributions(I'll do some more checks, and hopefully I'll find more). I did some investigation regarding this [25]. It seems that no user mentioned the TfD, in #wikipedia-en and #wikipedia-en-help and no user with the username I Pakapshem joined the channels between -10:00, 00:00, until 19:46 when this message was posted. That enhances the possibilities of finding the one who caused all these issues. However, again let's not blame anyone for anything yet. I'll see if I can find more on this. Unfortunately I cannot check the irc logs to get more detailed info. But what I could find is good enough. --Alarichus (talk) 11:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
• So although Pakapshem did not join irc, in the dates mentioned, someone thought he did and caused this. The question is WHO?.

I prefer writing good articles, than playing hide and seek in ANI, so hopefully we'll get to the end of this soon. There are 4 possibilities. I will elaborate on them later. --Alarichus (talk) 11:32, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Ever tried to check with a similar nick? Since he has a past record I dont believe he is too innocent in that kind of activity. All posibilites may be possible, joined with similar nick or irrelevant nick. Who knows what he discusses in private conversations right? (any i.p. check in irc possible?). Even a diferrent channel in freenode sounds likely since he was of great need for 'delete' votes. His level of activity is obvious in attepting to wp:gaming the system in every opportunity. Did he became suddenly innocent recently? I dont think so.

The off-wiki childish camvassing attempt, which is obviously a rediculous bait style is for sure for lauphing. Hope that irc-topix ghost will be checked and revealed soon.Alexikoua (talk) 11:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

• I am a telecommunications student, and know how to search for such things. I am 100% sure he did not join with any nick, or canvass in irc. Most logs are public so you can check for yourself. Alexikoua, according to the evidence so far you are the only one who may have done it(canvassing, meatpuppeting), maybe with some involvement from Factuarius. Chris G and I, told you yesterday that those 2 messages you sent may be easily regarded as canvassing. And once I told you that I Pakapshem was the one initially concerned about the template, you started thinking that he would be canvassing on irc for votes. Then lots of ips(most with no edits at all) show up, backing you up. All from Greece. And one saying that I Pakapshem was canvassing in irc, but as I told you, he didnt even join the irc. But you thought that he did, and so did the ip. Then we have this skolixx in topix saying that he had been helped by some friends earlier[26](dates match with the 5-6 ips from Greece, and especially Athens), asking for more help. And I don't buy the fact his english was "poor", some of his sentences have been deliberately distorted to seem "poor". Afterwards there was found that he wrote also in greek. To me it would seem normal for someone who was warned about canvassing on-wiki, to stop and continue canvassing off-wiki. All hours match against you. There is definitely no involvement from Cplakidas, Aigest, Athenean, Michael IX the White. There is some involvement (regarding on-wiki canvassing) from Megistias, Factuarius. When your case is over, I will check if those 2 ips from Kosovo and Macedonia are related to I Pakapshem. --Alarichus (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that 2 notices cannot be considered canvassing. Usually (if not always), canvassing exceedes two people and is mass notification. Also, there is 0 proof that that "skolixx" is Alexikoua, and we can't accuse him of being just because there is a suspected "case"! Can you please bring forward as evidence in this the way that you found out that forum? --Michael X the White (talk) 13:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

The definite point(except on-wiki canvassing) is that the ip contributor said that I Pakapshem had been trying to convince him to vote delete yesterday. But I Pakapshem didn't login with this nickname or another, and no one even mentioned such an issue(!!). So the ip contributor was lying. Alexikoua thought from the beginning of this that I Pakapshem was trying to convince us all to back him up by using irc. So we have a new ip contributor trying to back up the belief of Alexikoua by lying. It's clear that they are definitely connected. Combine that with "skolixx", and you get canvassing and meatpuppeting. On the bright side of this issue, most of you weren't involved. --Alarichus (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Suppose he is not such an idiot to join in with his real name. What kind of argument is this Alarichus? You are accusing me as a member of an extremist organization without a single evidence... should I say thank you?Alexikoua (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not accusing you. No one said you are member of any organisation. But I cannot oversee the facts. You canvassed , and then an ip lied to back up your belief. And 5 others came simultaneously to "save" the template, and we have the off-wiki canvassing to gather support for the template. --Alarichus (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

If I understand well what Alarichus and I Pakapshem are thinking, Alexikoua first went to a chat room asking for help in 7/9, then next day 8/9 after J Milburn already had connected Alexikoua with Skolixx, put his photo in the chat room making him the leader of the most (in)famous racist political group in Greece and then posted an IP vote backing “his lies” in the discussion. To me no person could be so idiot to do that. The vote was just another attempt to victimize Alexikoua for canvassing and meatpuppeting and the person or persons who did that must be ashamed. As for for the rest of us before hurrying to extract easy conclusions we must consider the possibility to be the next victim of such a machination. --Factuarius (talk) 14:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Factuarius don't connect me with anyone of you. Seriously. And seriously did you even read what I wrote? You didn't even understand what I said, did you? And what is this political organisation you are referring to all the time? None of the ones involved in this connected you to anything. --Alarichus (talk) 14:54, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

All the time? This was my first post in the discussion. You are not understand anything of what happened. With the start of the voting, someone created a skolixx account in a chat room asking for support. In the very same day someone informed J Milburn for Alexikoua's canvassing giving him the ref about skolixx msg in the chat room. Then, when J Milburn informed the others about Alexikoua's activity as skolixx, they put a foto of the person-signed-skolixx which was the photo of the leader of the most (in)famous racist organization in Greece (see N. Michaloliakos (N. Μιχαλολιάκος) & Chrisi Avgi (Χρυσή Αυγή)). Simple wording: they created a account, they connected it with Alexikoua, then they put the leader's photo "revealing" who "Alexikoua" really is. If Alexikoua didn't -at the last minute- realised it, how he could save himself, if today a message with a link from internet with a Michaloliakos photo and a link to the skolixx messages would posted here? That is what happened, and that is what I mean that what happened now with Alexikoua could happen to ANYONE. Is it now clear? Consider that. --Factuarius (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You have really messed it all up, haven't you? And why are you telling me this? I don't really care who Michaloliakos is or anything else. All I know is that Alexikoua was canvassing, he was warned, and then six ips from Greece with no previous contributions, came and backed him and up, and then this post was found. Even if I erase that, still..., don't you think? --Alarichus (talk) 16:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Of course you are not. You don't even care to -ever- mention the "Albanian" IP votes, don't you? On the contrary after the last Albanian IP vote posted, you rushed to count the votes ("Upadate:10 delete, 7 keep"), after saying "I can prove nothing, and disprove anything". The next time you will mention here or elsewhere my name for canvassing or meatpuppeting I am going to report you. --Factuarius (talk) 17:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have mentioned them. It is not my fault if you cannot see that. And now you are threatening me? This is disappointing... --Alarichus (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

No I cannot, because I never canvassing or meatpuppeting and I am going to report you for accusing me on that. --Factuarius (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Factuarius actually has made some good points. And allow me to expand further. Why would Alexikoua call IPs for backup when we had already started a discussion supporting that IPs and few-edit users would not be counted in in reaching consensus? Why would anyone do that when IPs and few-edit users are (usually) not counted in such procedures? I do not doubt that some of these IPs really were Greeks that came from that forum and I have found the link given to them by skolixx that leads directly to the Template discussion. But still, why call them in when they are not to be counted? Another question I have is why count "votes" when this is about consensus and not a democracy. I'd also like J Milburn to tell us how he found that adress. I am more than interested.--Michael X the White (talk) 18:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC) I have answered below, just read. Actually there were 2 links, one found by J_Milburn, one by me. After talking with a checkuser, there was decided to search for off-wiki patterns which could explain this sudden inlfux of ips. I found 1, and then JMilburn found an earlier post. --Alarichus (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Pakapshem's sick attempt

I'm really pissed off since this continuous reverter made up this sick attempt against me. Actually the topix thread is signed by a user named: worm (in Greek skollix). Who could really sign with such a name? So Pakashem really believes I'm a worm and sings it that way? and I deserve this pic? What else have I to say? His 'zero' encyclopedic contribution in 3 months with continous nationalist advocating and massiv reverting makes me wonder why he is still here, accusing and personal attacking. Suppose his ghost activity in irc is also active in off-wiki too, but not for too longAlexikoua (talk) 13:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That skolixx said: "Some Albanians in wikipedia are trying to delete a piece about greek epirus, but we can reverse this if we gather in great numbers." ( loipon sth wikipedia kati albanoi pane na diagrapsoun ena kommati gia thn ellhnikh hpeiro, alla mporoume na to antistrepsoume an mazeytoume arketoi) Well, if this is not a non-Greek who wrote this, my curiosity is too great to wait to know what kind of a Greek could use the phrase "about Greek Epirus", where Greek is used to make the ditinction, as if the rest of Epirus was not Greek. It is an extremely strange way to describe Northern Epirus and it is the first time I meet it. I really do not think Alexikoua wrote this. I mean, this hardly sounds Greek.--Michael X the White (talk) 13:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You are on the border of incivility. Take it easy. There are even companies which have that name [27] and as I saw even greek nationalists use it for themselves. Seriously, guys I have seen a LOT on non-english wikipedias(de). This kind of behaviour is just worsening the situation. Michael I really cannot understand your argument. If you think a part of another country belongs to you, you do use your own national denonym for it, don't you? --Alarichus (talk) 13:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Just relax. --Alarichus (talk) 13:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

As I have mentioned before, it would be useful to make some web-search about this if you're going to involve yourself in this. But it is my mistake that this was not clear. Epirus ia a region spanning both countries. To differentiate the part that is situated in the Hellenic Republic to the one that is in the Republic of Albania, the political (coming from the Autonomous State) and geographical term Northern Epirus. It would be normal (but extremely unlikely) for the term "Greek Epirus" to be used for the part that is in Greece itself, but the part in Albania alone would surely be never referred to as "Greek Epirus". Even if the term was used to describe all of Epirus, greek would still not be used because it is taken for granted. But here we already know that it is used ofr Northern Epirus only.--Michael X the White (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Final Comment

The accused user(Alexikoua) canvassed on wiki, and may have canvassed off-wiki. Additionally there is battleground mentality, incivility, tag-teaming, meatpuppeting, possible sockpuppeting. Hopefully, there will be an appropriate solution to all this. I will probably avoid any further conversation regarding this issue. End of story.--Alarichus (talk) 21:45, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I have to apologize for my first reaction, but I see nothing more than just cheap, bad faith, unexplained and without evidence accusations, compined with continous exaggerated assumptions and weird support to I_Pakapshem.Alexikoua (talk) 05:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Unrelated with the issue, but I found Alarichus impressively experienced for 2-months user and I believe a research is more than justified about him. --Factuarius (talk) 10:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's absolutely disgusting that people join Wikipedia already knowing a little about the Internet, and already knowing what an encyclopedia article looks like. I propose we ban anyone who doesn't spend at least a year getting their contributions reverted and deleted. J Milburn (talk) 10:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, that's the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a while. Many users have edited as IPs for some time previously, others have edited on other wikis, on noticeboards, have their own livejournal/myspace/facebook/bebo account....etc. We're not talking about somebody who pops up and immediately starts wikilawyering, throwing allegations around at ANI, and showing total familiarity with the internal Wikipedia machinery that probably just indeffed them. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads: I never wikilawyering (this is the first time I ever wrote here being 8 months in WP) and I would had never interfered in the matter if Alarichus didn't "throw allegations around at ANI (against me), showing total familiarity with the internal Wikipedia machinery" although officially a 2-months user. To me it's a logical thought to question his thorough knowledge on the "internal Wikipedia machinery" because of the time being around. So it's not me who wikilawyering here. To me what is mattering is J Milburn's opinion about and thus I am stopping the discussion here. --Factuarius (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Pardon me? I didn't say you were wikilawyering. I think you misread my post. I said the other guy wasn't wikilawyering. What he knows a lot about is tracing people on the internet - given what he says he has a qualification in, this is perhaps not so surprising, and not evidence that he is a sockpuppet, which is what I presume you were implying.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Elen of the Roads: Ι am afraid you have missed some episodes of the story which has a long tail, and I am afraid that I indeed misread your post which in general, as I now understand, was in entirely good faith. Please accept my apologies for the misunderstanding and if you are really a lady please doubled them. --Factuarius (talk) 01:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and thank you for accepting my good faith. I think it would be better if I refrained from further comment - as you say, this does seem to have a lengthy tale to it, with which I have not been involved. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, there is, however, one thing justified by Alarichus' short presence here: he does not know enough about WP consensus or discussion. Myself I see bad faith from Alarichus, and pointless accusations. "Possible sockpuppeting"?? Why should that be Alexikoua and not me or Factuarius or anyone else around? The other part about "battleground mentality, incivility, tag-teaming, meatpuppeting" I think is pointless because it is just how a heated discussion of the Greek-Albanian matters would look like from someone uninvolved and uninformed about it. This case, however, is about canvassing. It is about two friendly notices in none of which is there any "call to arms" of the well-known "come and help quickly"/"come vote!"/"You're needed" kind. These were two notices to people who had been involved with the matter and Northern Epirus-related articles and are currently active on Wikipedia. Alexikoua can be accused of canvassing on and off-wiki as much as any other user of Wikipedia. I mean, can you even check people's phones or e-mails?--Michael X the White (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Michael IX, I'll explain thoroughly why I believe that Factuarius is possibly involved in sockpuppetry. His ip is approximately the same as the ip of one of the ip users who had no further contributions. He also has the same ISP as him. Aprroximately same ip, same isp, involvement in same topics to support same argument. As I found his isp provides a dynamic ip address in a limited range. That would perfectly justify the almost same ip of the ip user with the ip of Factuarius. Michael, were you me wouldn't you also consider possible sockpuppetry? And I did nothing "out of the ordinary" to discover this particular amount of data. Any telecommunations & networks student can do it without breaking any privacy law. This is my last comment, so I would appreciate it if you didn't ask me anything. --Alarichus (talk) 19:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

McJakeqcool - back again

See here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive554#User:Mcjakeqcool for previous report at the end of July. Since then, McJakeqcool has, despite advice from numerous people, continued to make inappropriate edits to list articles [28] [29][30](1 of 2 edits)[31][32](1 of 5 edits)[33](1 of over 30 edits)[34](1 of 12 edits)...and so it goes. Now, having got tired of that, he has gone back to creating stub articles about non notable computer games [35][36], something he has previously been asked many times not to do. It is impossible to find sources for these games, and he has been continuously advised not to create stubs but to gather them up into one article which might have some chance of notability. He has announced on his userpage [37] that this is his new project - could someone stop him before he once again generates 20 or so stub articles. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've made mistakes. So has everyone with an advanced career on Wikipedia. However, making mistakes is one thing. Ignoring first advice and then practically orders to change one's ways is very much another thing entirely. The best word I can use to describe this user, who I tried to help under my previous name of Otumba, is oblivious. I have seen no satisfactory acknowledgement of the community's concerns. I do not believe the editor is engaging in disruptive activities out of negative feelings. I do truly believe his heart is in the right place, and I do believe he thinks what he is doing is for the good of Wikipedia. But, as Elen described, what he is doing is disruptive. A block is probably the best thing. HonouraryMix (talk) 19:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Additional: user was blocked for 31 hours a relatively short while ago for disruption. HonouraryMix (talk) 19:42, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

He was blocked as a result of the previous ANI. Someone has whizzed the two stubs, not sure who. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:38, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The tone of many of his comments give me pause. This user has been here a along time but seems to have a truly poor grasp of editing articles, among other things. I think an admin or two needs to take a serious look at what is going on with this user.--Crossmr (talk) 21:43, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't want to rehash the previous ANI discussion (see Elen of the Road's comments above for the link). To put it shortly, Mcjakeqcool has been given kind advice and suggestions, offers of being adopted, and many warnings on constructive ways to improve Wikipedia. He has ignored all of this and continues to do his own thing. I'm sure it grows tiring for the people who keep an eye on him. Something more permanent needs to be done about this editor. --TreyGeek (talk) 00:16, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I am flabbergasted! The 2 articles from my new project, console launch titles are anything but unnotable, they have vastly more infomation then articles from my previous wikiproject and in my opinion and for the long term wikipedia's opinion my last wikiproject was also a sucsess, however I would have thought that even the people who were against my last project would see a white flag with my new articles, THEY ARE COMPLETELY NOTABLE! I sweare oath that my new articles are notable, and I also sweare oath my new wikiproject is and will be a sucsess. Please explain what is not notable, C'MON, MY ARTICLES ARE 5 LINES LONG FOR PETE'S SAKE! Please see reason, I can think of many worse articles then my 2 most resent articles, Atlantis (Intellivision game) perhaps? WHY OH WHY WOULD YOU HAVE TO SEPRATE ARTICLES FOR THE SAME GAME? C'mon, there's notbality then there's logic. Need I make any more statements? mcjakeqcool 14:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

They have no references. They make no assertion of notability. You still don't know what a {{stub}} template is or does. You still can't format your signature post to meet the guidelines and actually link to your user page. And, in case you haven't noticed, nearly every one of your last 100 or so edits in article space have been reverted Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

mcjakeqcool (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (just in case anyone with the tools wants to look. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

And again [38]. There isn't a speedy category this fits in - shall I PROD it? Lest the user feel unloved, I have posted what I hope and intend to be a helpful entry on Mcjakeqcool's talk page, explaining what the problems with this last article were. Elen of the Roads (talk) 20:57, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I just checked the article and put a {{prod-2}} tag on it. But Elen, your deletion rationale strikes me as quite weak. In PRODding and AfD, we assess the potential of the article, because there is no deadline. We do not delete every unsourced or badly written article; if there is a problem, be bold and fix it. Except in CSD G5 and (arguably) G11 cases, we normally do not consider the author's identity to be a substantial factor in the deletion analysis. I agree that the topic is nonnotable; but it would be more useful, both to PROD patrollers and admins, to explain why exactly the subject is nonnotable when the reason is not blindingly obvious (by which I mean CSD-ably obvious). Just my $0.02. Tim Song (talk) 21:55, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the deletion reason, it doesn't change what is going on here. There is a user who is disruptive in that he is creating more work for others than he himself is doing (last 100 edits virtually all undone) Many attempts have been made to help him, but he has rejected all of it. Even after a short block he's come back to continue the previous problem behaviour.--Crossmr (talk) 02:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Tim Song, I would normally have said more, but the fact that someone (still haven't figured who) simply doused the last two a short time after Ironholds PRODded them (you can see his tag notifications on Mcj's talk page) probably made me sloppy. I didn't fix up his bad markup as - in this one case - I think it would be of value to Mcj to come back and do it himself. If you read thru Mcjakeqcool news on his talkpage, he has a wonderful entry on "how to wikify", which shows that he actually doesn't understand at all, and I'm a firm believer that practice makes perfect. I didn't realise there was an article on the designer, else I probably would have contemplating redirecting to that article. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I see them. And I agree with your assessment of this particular situation. In general, however, a rationale that is keyed to the deletion policy is useful to the PROD patrollers, reviewing admins, as well as other people who are contemplating AfD'ing the article. I apologize if I wasn't clear. Tim Song (talk)06:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I will collaborate with user Elen of the Roads. I am also attempting to collaborate with user Guyinblack25. mcjakeqcool 16:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You could start by explaining this [39] strange comment on my talkpage. What do you mean by the line "I still maintain the aspect that my last wikiproject was a commercial sucsess"? Anyone would think you were being paid to disrupt wikipedia. Oh and please correct your sig so it links to your userpage. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Any sign of Mcjakeqcool offering to work with other editors should be welcomed. Thank you, Mcjakeqcool, for offering. However, the offer should be viewed in context. Mcjakeqcool's previous collaborations were viewed by Mcjakeqcool as a collaboration of equals. I say this having collaborated with him on Assault (1983 video game). Before, during, after my collaboration I saw no indication that he really fully realized he does not know how to operate on Wikipedia, and my collaboration was reduced to me, to put it bluntly, cleaning up the mess. Therefore, the community should not automatically view his offer as an acceptance that he realizes he does not know how to be a proper Wikipedian. As I said, I do not believe he is being deliberately disruptive, so a block in my mind is a last resort. I want Mcjakeqcool to learn how to be a successful Wikipedian. My solution to this problem is this:
(a) He must state that he realizes he does not know how to be operate Wikipedia properly.
(b) He must accept to be under the tutelage of an experienced Wikipedian. Mcjakeqcool must follow all instructions by said Wikipedian, which will include creating proposed articles in sandbox for approval before posting to mainspace, and following lessons by the experienced Wikipedian aimed at teaching him how to operate successfully.
(c) If and when the experienced Wikipedian is satisfied Mcjakeqcool has learnt what to do, said Wikipedian should ask the community in an appropriate venue (here?) to also assess whether Mcjakeqcool has learnt what to do. If consensus agrees Mcjakeqcool has developed successfully, Mcjakeqcool should be released from the stipulations just stated, and be allowed to edit Wikipedia with no stain on his record.

If Mcjakeqcool does not accept these stipulations, and he carries on with the same behaviour he has been reported for, I cannot think what else we can do save for a block. Any thoughts? HonouraryMix (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy to instruct him in how to use markup and sources, and am pleased he has suggested collaboration, but I'd like to know what he means by collaboration. He previously turned down an offer from Guyinblack25 to mentor him, and so far he's resisted all advice. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

while I agree, I think we're going out of our way here to ignore the elephant in the room...--Crossmr (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the proposal. A bit more of WP:AGF would not hurt. I'll also be happy to help out here, as well. Tim Song (talk) 06:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Again, I would be more then happy, no wait overjoyed to collbarate with any wikipedian who is willing to collbarate with myself. And I will more then happly take any advice from fellow wikipeidans. mcjakeqcool 18:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Elen, thank you for offering to help. Crossmr, whilst I agree the problem surrounding Mcjakeqcool is rather large, I still think it can be solved. Tim, thank you also for offering to help. As for "A bit more of WP:AGF would not hurt", I am the first person to argue for WP:AGF, but prior dealings with Mcjakeqcool have lead me not to view any offer by him for collaboration at face value.

Mcjakeqcool, thank you for agreeing to a collaboration. However, I am concerned you do not appreciate what the rest of us here view as an appropriate collaboration. Your record suggests you view collaborations as you carrying on with your projects, and expecting others to clean up the problems. You must view such an collaboration as an experienced Wikipedian tacking you under his or her wing, teaching you, and you must follow what that Wikipedian tells you, including following orders to stop creating articles. Do you accept this? Plus, you must not view what said Wikipedian says as advice. You have been offered lots of advice, and time and time again you fail to follow. You must view what an experienced Wikipedian tells you as gospel. If we here say stop creating the articles people have complained about, you must stop. It is the only way I can see that a block can be prevented from being implemented upon you. HonouraryMix (talk) 19:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wichita Massacre, related articles and socks

Resolved

 – IPs blocked, socks laundered. Tim Song (talk) 19:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

By coincidence I just noticed this request] at the NPOV board for a close look at this particular article. I had just spent the last few minutes looking at related articles where pov editing is taking place. Wichita massacre is being edited by Birdbath 10 (talk · contribs) and Smithicrnm (talk · contribs). Related articles are being edited by Ptho (talk · contribs) and WVBN8 (talk · contribs) -- all four of these accounts are making similar edits to similar articles, none of them have made more than 5 edits -- they look like throwaway sock accounts. Dougweller (talk) 21:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

And I'm off to bed by the way. I know I should notify them, but I've been up since well before the birds and given their edits... Dougweller (talk) 21:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh no, have the birds been editing again? I thought I had closed the window. My bad :-) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 10:59, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I see Birdbath 10 is blocked as a sock of Johnnyturk888 (talk · contribs); these editors all seem to have similar agendas, the edits made by both Birdbath 10 and Smithicrnm to media blackout were pretty much identical; and the two newer editors are reverting to each others' versions. This looks like some sockpuppetry - anyone hear quacking? Tony Fox (arf!) 04:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Seems pretty clear to me, quack quack -- Darth Mike ^(talk) 06:25, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked them all, but as they are clearly throwaway accounts I expect the editor back. Dougweller (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Another quack.--Arxiloxos (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I got that one. Anyone have the time to get a SPI going here? I don't right now. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

And Reedpk (talk · contribs). Is there any point to an SPI? I've protected some of the articles. Why let the vandal have fun? Dougweller (talk) 17:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

A checkuser could deal with the flurry at the source. Tony Fox (arf!) 18:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Socks blocked, IPs blocked. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 17:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's great. Dougweller (talk) 18:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive IP vandal continues after final warning

IP User:72.94.80.43 has repeatedly posted false info on List of DirecTV channels after several warnings to stop. I looked at their history at it also posts often on List of Dish Network channels and List of Verizon FiOS channels as well as some children's channel articles. They always change PBS, Nickelodeon and Disney Channel listings on the lineups so I'm guessing the user is a minor. All of the correct channel lineups can be found at each service's website and they have no source for the lineups changing. Please block them. AIV refused to act thinking they were "good faith edits". Clearly they are NOT, just immature edits by a child. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I've alerted the IP to this discussion. Please remember, as a courtesy, to notify users when you report them here.--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 22:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Oops I forgot to put user so you sent it the wrong person. I'll notify them. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I actually sent it to the talk page for the "article" 72.94.80.43. Haha!--^{The Legendary}_{Sky Attacker} 22:51, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I guess that can be speedy deleted if it hasn't already. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait---there's a known vandal who does this. What was dude's name again??? It's not MascotGuy, is it? or Bambifan? There was one user who used to get reported a lot by a younger user, til somebody told him to stop..Yeah, I know, this is real helpful--but I do recall there being a vandal who was focused largely on TV stations. If anyone remembers, please jump in.... GJC 18:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, MascotGuy likes Disney, I believe. But he edits with registered usernames, not IP adresses.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 21:39, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't someone just block the IP? TomCat4680 (talk) 23:23, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Stalking

Hello I am being stalked by Users IJA and Kedadi both of whom are reverting any changes I made with regards to Kosovo related articles. I'm trying to promote neutrality here but both of these fellows (whom I assume to be Albanian) are trying to undermine that. I would appreciate help from an Admin on how to deal with this matter. If there is a way to hide my contributions page from their view or if there is some other way to deal with stalkers which you know of in the past, please contact me. Thank you! Jenga3 (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• It's more correct to say that you are in a content dispute with those editors, which is the subject of discussion at Talk:International recognition of Kosovo#All Tables Need Numbering. This does not make them stalkers. That is not an appellation that one should throw around lightly. Indeed, you haven't any edits outside of that subject area in the past week to actually be stalked. And at Talk:Kosovo, your edit actually followed that of Kedadi.

  The way to deal with this matter is this: Stop leaping to the conclusion that everyone you deal with who disagrees with you is a stalker, against whom you must use technical measures to get your own way in content disputes, and start regarding your fellow editors as ordinary human beings, that you talk to. They have extended you that courtesy, on your talk page at User talk:Jenga3#numbered table. Uncle G (talk) 04:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not stalking this user. I reverted one of his/her edits and made an explanation on his talk page after he/ she contacted me first. Also Jenga3 is the only user which supports his/her edits, around 8 users including myself disagree with his/ her edits. He/she has failed to make a consensus. I also find it rather weird that I have been accused of stalking. Regards IJA (talk) 19:26, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If these people are not stalking me, then how did IJN just find this post? Again, just tell me how to hide my contributions page so these people can't "follow" me (for lack of a better term), if you can't deal with this matter then give me the tools to do so myself Jenga3 (talk) 20:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Here you've got mine and IJA's kedadial 20:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No thanks, I don't stalk people. Jenga3 (talk) 20:49, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Then, don't know what else to say, welcome to WP and happy editing. kedadial 20:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You could say that you won't stalk me or revert any changes I make simply because you disagree with me.... Jenga3 (talk) 21:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I will never ever revert you (as I have never reverted you in the past) IF you reach a WP:Consensus. kedadial 21:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

But you will still stalk me and revert every change I make without reaching a consensus first, even if I have valid sources and reasoning? Nice Jenga3 (talk) 21:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be the "D" portion of the WP:BRD cycle. You were bold, it was reverted, you're then not allowed to re-add it unless you have discussed it and it has consensus. Simply keeping an eye on someone's contributions, and fixing things that are not done following policy is not "stalking" or even Wikihounding or Wikipoodling, so stop calling it that. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that it is perfectly legal to "follow" these two individuals and revert each of their edits until a thourough consensus was reached in the discussion page? Again, this is not about just one article, IJA has reverted other edits I made for no reason. I can't be expected to discuss every spelling/grammar edit, every edit with a source or every neutrality edit because that would take weeks or months for a single edit. Jenga3 (talk) 21:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Also, I am discussing the article the two of them feel strongly about, I have no problem with that. What I do have a problem with is people following me and reverting decisions I make without contacting me or engaging in any sort of discourse. Jenga3 (talk) 21:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Jenga3, you're actually supposed to have told IJA and Kedadi that you had reported them here. So you shouldn't have been surprised when they turned up. There is no way of keeping your contribution list hidden - this is a public encyclopaedia with an open history trail. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Jenga3...I have reviewed your contributions. Of all of your edits since Aug 2009, only 3 have edit summaries. If you expect your contributions to be readily identifiable (and less likely to be auto-reverted) then please use an edit summary. Simple things like "fix spelling" or "fix grammar" obviously do not need discussion, and will make great edit summaries. Warning: saying "fix spelling" in an edit summary, and actually changing the content instead will raise great ire. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel it is my duty as a wikipedian to view Jengar3's edits encase he/she maskes any more disruptive edits. Besides, if Jengar3 has nothing to hide, Jengar3 should have nothing to fear. There is a reason why everyone can view our contributions... I'll let you figure that out? IJA (talk) 22:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I feel it is my duty as a human being to give people the benefit of the doubt, which is right now the only reason I'm not going through IJA history and reverting all his changes until he has discussed them thoroughly. It should be noted that today my friends, you have lost another neutral person. Sure, it probably does not matter if one guy leaves wikipedia over the unchecked and biased individuals who have been allowed to roam here, but I suspect I am not the first to leave over this, or the last. Jenga3 (talk) 04:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Inurhead continued incivility and edit warring at The Hurt Locker

Inurhead has continued a months long edit warring and incivility at The Hurt Locker, continuously reverting all edits to the article to his preferred version, sometimes bit a time, sometimes wholescale. He has displayed extreme bias regarding the film, attacking anything he perceives as negative about it. Attempts at discussions have filled the talk page and clearly show that consensus is against him, but he ignores it and continues his disruptive edits and accuses anyone who comes to the discussion as being either a meat puppet, a sockpuppet, or a canvassed votes when the harassed editors trying to work on the articles came to the Films project (per dispute resolution) for additional views.

He has already been left numerous warnings, and been reported to 3RR twice and to ANI twice. First ANI, in July, [40] he got a warning. First 3RR happened August 6th and he was again warned.[41] Next 3RR, August 14th, resulted in his being blocked 31 hours.[42] Soon as he was unblocked, he continued. At this point, the situation had escalated from a disagreement between 3 to Inurhead ignoring the comments, suggestions, warnings, and actions of half a dozen editors or more. I myself reported him here August 16th[43] and he was blocked 72 hours. Block expired, he went right back to the same stuff all over again.

Administrative review and help seriously needed. His actions continue to hamper the legitimate improvement work being done by some 5-6 editors. I have left notices at the talk pages of who I believe to be the major editors involved in the conflict informing them of this discussion, in addition to Inurhead. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

To add to the above, the problem edits go back to mid-2008, when Inurhead first began editing articles such as Hurt Locker and related pages such as Jeremy Renner. The edits reflect a pattern of non-encyclopedic rewrites to focus on only positive comments; a lack of willingness to collaborate when consensus turns against his preferred version; and a tendency to use personal attacks against anyone who disagrees with him. I've spent the better part of a year having to watchlist the Hurt Locker article to keep abreast of the frequent changes; now that regulars from Wikiproject Film are involved there, Inurhead has expanding his pattern of attack to include unfounded criticisms of some of the most established contributors from that project. --Ckatz^chat_spy 05:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This is entirely untrue. There is a gang of hostile editors that have recently taken ownership of the page and have tag teamed to revert every one of my contributions and/or changes. I made a suggested change tonight by one of them and yet I'm still being attacked by the above hostile editor. They have tried to lure me into 3RR several times by tag team reverting my contributions. Tonight I did not fall for their trap. Collectonian above, lists several times that I have been "warned". But there were only two times. She or he makes it sound like it was more. Again, this is being warned by contributors who were obviously canvassed to come and edit war and revert things I had contributed. I ask that User:Collectonian and User:Ckatz and User:Erik and SoSaysChappy be blocked for tag teaming and trying to islolate and attack this contributor, in an attempt to try to provoke, harass, hound and irritate me, with the goal of discouraging my contributions and/or trying to block me permanently. This is totally unacceptible, as I am a good contributor to Wikipedia, not a vandal. Strict scrutiny must always be applied when blocking people and it hasn't been, in my case. Again, I am not a vandal and was contributing to this page long before this group of hostile minority-majority editors came and overtook the page. Wikipedia is not an "elitist" club for hostile demi-administrators and bureaucrats. Every person should feel welcome to contribute without being isolated, attacked and having all of their contributions constantly deleted. Inurhead (talk) 05:34, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Every person should feel welcome to contribute, but equally, if they edit articles in the way that you're doing (removing criticism and starting the reception section with "The Hurt Locker has been very universally acclaimed among critics", copying and pasting, moving the plot into the lede section, and using unreliable sources), then they should not be surprised if their edits are reversed. You are not being tag-teamed; your edits are being reverted because they are wrong. If you keep disrupting the article, then it is only going to lead to another block or a topic ban. I'd strongly suggest discussing all your changes on the talkpage before making them. Black Kite 06:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I want to add that it would be fair to block Collectonian for making false reports and for mischaracterizing the situation. I did not commit 3RR tonight and Collectonian is clearly trying to make it look like I did, when I didn't. He or she did not cite any disruptions from the past 24 hours and the ones he or she does cite are weeks old, and were again, when I was tricked into 3RR by their tag teaming. Mischaracterizing an editor as having made "bad faith" edits and making threats and false reports is disruptive to Wikipedia and must be punished. The minority-majority group which have taken ownership of The Hurt Locker page has been attempting to use policy to "muddy" the water and to get their way. Collectonian has used policies and guidelines to build (or push) a patently false case that this editor is editing in bad faith. Again, strict scrutiny must be used when "whipping" editors with warnings and blocking them. This should be reserved to prevent vandalism, not to prevent good contributions! Misrepresenting these events and being hostile to editors to isolate them is harmful to the Wikipedia environment in that it chases good contributors away. If you want to keep chasing people away, then by all means listen to the "Collectonians". Collectonian is the one that is at war. Her comrades, Erik and his cohorts use pettifogging and wikilawyering to try to drive contributors away. Believe me, any contribution I have made to this web site has been discussed, scrutinized, reverted and re-reverted dozens of times. None of my contributions to articles has been vandalism. All of it has been factual and backed up by sources and by what I understood was Wiki policy. They seem to be inventing new policy and policies-within-policies-within-policies to try to thwart new users from contributing and/or so that they can control every film article. It's insanity. Truly. Thanks. - Inurhead (talk) 06:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No-one is getting blocked here. Seriously, think about it - if "any contribution I have made to this web site has been discussed, scrutinized, reverted and re-reverted dozens of times" - and by a number of different editors - could it possibly be that it's your edits that are the problem? Black Kite 06:41, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No. I've reported on here before that I was being hounded and/or wikistalked by one of them who has admitted as much on the talk page of the article. He's the one who solicted them to attack and isolate me. By the way, I didn't "invent" that the film was "universally acclaimed." It is. Check Metacritic. Check Rotten Tomatoes. It is not "wrong" to state a fact. Facts are stubborn things. All laboriously documented. And the moving of a synopsis into the LEAD section was suggested by one of them! I was merely doing what had already been suggested, which several of them agreed about. Yet, that sends Collectonian into a tailspin! Go figure. They were just looking for another excuse to revert everything I did tonight. And you are letting them get away with it. What they are doing is not in the spirit of Wikipedia. They are also doing it to try to distract me away from the article, to waste my time responding to these false attacks. THAT is also against Wiki etiquette. - Inurhead (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a few things to report from my personal experiences with this editor...

• Says that I more or less don't deserve to make contributions to the article because my first edit to the article was only a month ago. Was also referred to as "SoSaysCrabby" (ho ho). [44].
• Borderline personal attack: Accused me of being a member of the film's production crew when there is zero evidence of any such conflict of interest.
• Since incivility seems to be a concern here...Calls my edits "boring" (I'm not trying to write the next great spy novel).
• Individually and collectively accused of being a sock puppet (apparently, my creating this User ID in April of 2008 is somehow strong evidence of this, and from what I can tell this user has a chronic habit of hounding users with puppetry accusations without going through the proper channels at WP:SPI.
• Simple childish engagement of mind games: Here is my my message to him about why I reverted to a 600-word (within guideline word limits) from his edit which expanded it to over 1100 words. He promptly deleted the post. Lo and behold, a few days later, he leaves this post explaining why the 600-word summary should be reverted to on his original one-paragraph pre-release synopsis. - SoSaysChappy (talk) 07:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Inurhead, have you heard of WP:AGF? You seem to be thinking that anyone saying a word against your edits are involved in an evil plot to remove your contributions. From your comments above, I'm afraid you seem to have taken ownership of the article, and your comments at the article's talk page further strengthen that impression:

• you tell several editors not to revert because they are new to the article
• you say you're going to revert because they made a change when you told them not to
• you tell an editor to go work on some other article when he tries to make a change, and restores to your preferred version
• you dismissed an explanation for an edit saying "too much explaining for what is obviously a revert". I don't see how you can say that when you simply revert others' edits without any discussion at all.

The former 3 are somewhat old, and the 4th is very recent. There are plently of similar edits in between in the edit history if anyone is interested. And just today:

• you removed several comments made by other editors. For what reason, I cannot understand.

As Black Kite said, it looks to me that your editing is creating the problem here. Please discuss on the article talk page (and I mean discuss, not fighting to preserve your version) so that a you people can come up with a balanced version that is agreeable to everyone. If you continue like this, you're practically asking to be blocked and this time it's likely to be indef. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth, despite the problems, Inurhead started a couple of reasonable discussions at Talk:The Hurt Locker, to which I've responded. I think that when so much time is particularly devoted to one article, it's hard to move on. I personally diversify my editing so if for some reason I don't agree with consensus somewhere, I can move on. With the editor's contributions mainly on that one article, though, it is somewhat understandable to take offense at the editors that have swooped in. Still does not excuse the false accusations, which does not help for collaboration. Erik (talk | contribs | wt:film) 12:16, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

As a note, Inurhead also has repeated his personal attacks on my talk page, including the stuff noted above about wanting me blocked for bringing the issue up here again.[45] -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 13:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

To echo some of the thoughts expressed above, my opinion of Inurhead is mixed. Like everyone else, we've clashed with Inurhead on The Hurt Locker. When I first got involved, he was very much asserting ownership of the article. ANY changes other than his were reverted without discussion and often disparraging [46] or hostile [47] remarks. Even once you got him on a discussion page, it was less than pleasant to deal with Inurhead. He characterizes those that disagree with him as trolls and/or socks. As he's done with Collectonian, he's left less then pleasant messages on my talk page. Eventually, some others from the Film project (Erik, SoSaysChappy and others) got involved with the article. I do not like dealing with Inurhead and his hostility, so with others involved, I've stopped doing anything on the article. It wasn't worth the aggravation, and seemed that others had it under control.

The Hurt Locker has gone from reading like a Hollywood press-release to a pretty respectable article. Much of the informaation has come from Inurhead (nearly all of his edits are directly related to the film, cast or crew), but have needed significant work to shift from press-release to article. Once you can convince Inurhead to actually talk about things, and discuss them rather than attack, he seems to be tolerable to deal with. Ravensfire (talk) 14:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Can we block User:Rcool35's IP's?

He's mocking us by evading blocks and using dynamic IP's to show that we can't block him because they're too numerous. I know this because I constantly rollback edits by any IP that starts with 76 or 99 on the articles he edits. Roc-A-Fella Records, Roc Nation, Nas, Wisin & Yandel are examples of the articles he always edits. He also bumps the rating by .5 on Street's Deciple and Hip Hop is Dead and Stillmatic, falsifing information and making the album ratings better to his liking. He also has a habbit of changing the founders of vanity labels from their stage name to their real names, GOOD Music being his most recent example, he has also did this in the past to Young Money Entertainment and Desert Storm Records in the past. He is also doing some things that while minor, pisses mostly everybody off. He changes the genre on certain record labels to "Various" even though the record label in question serves only one or three genres, he changes the website name from it's sophisicated form to the same name as the article.

He also changes the years active to when they first released an album rather then when they officialy started their careers. Winsen & Yandel and Jay-Z being examples. He also blanks out the associated acts section and replaces it with an image from a concert that's unusually small and does not capture the subject. On a minor note, he adds a section called History and a subsection called "Beginnings", I know this works for bigger articles but he's placing it on articles where the label is just starting or doesn't have very much history. Now I don't mean to offend or anything but I want to say a few things about the guy, he thinks that MySpace and Wordpress.com are valid sources of notability, even after I explained to him that an album was not released by Roc-A-Fella, he replied in an very arrogent way that suggested that he was right and I was wrong, even though I had common knowledge for the fact. This guy also acts like he own's articles as he edits them to be right for him, not for no one else, what's worse is that he does not communitate with anyone and does not give any reason for doing these edits nor explain why these edits would make an article better. First of all, I've been reverting his edits ever since he edited the Roc-A-Fella article and I have mostly reverted a lot of his "vandalism". I know he's making it look like good faith, but it's vandalism.

I know that I brought the issue up a couple of times before but I have not gotten any response or closure and I am tired of having to revert his edits when all he does is come back over and over again, I am also angry over the fact that we can't block him. I and Explicit know his editing patern right on the back on my hand. Perhaps we can keep an eye out on IP's starting with 76 and 99 and give him a temporary block of 24 hours, this is because the next day, he'll have a new IP address (he has a dynamic IP you know) and for the innocent users who'll use the IP unknowningly that a vandal was using it. Please respond okay, I need help, I don't want this to go unreplied and unresolved. Taylor Karras (talk) 07:01, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Have you considered asking for protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection? IPs cannot edit semiprotected pages, and in this case a semi would be preferable to a rangeblock. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 07:58, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Tried that, he'll either simply wait it out or create an account to bypass the protection. Taylor Karras (talk) 15:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Prolonged disruption guarantees an indefinite protection (so long as the banned editor remains active), and created accounts are way too easy to expose and Checkuser. In any case, as I said protection is better than a rangeblock. However, could you post the IPs he has used so that an admin more versed in rangeblocks can determine if a rangeblock will work? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 18:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Here's a list of the IP's he has used. The reason why I am stating a 24 hour block for an IP he uses is because he is using a dynamic IP where the IP changes after 24 hours or one day, therefore averting a problem about innocent users complaining that they can't create an account. I don't know about the protection thing, it might work if he gets bored or it might not work if he is very persistent. Anyways, hope you do something about this. --Taylor Karras (talk) 23:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

If it's dynamic, blocks on single IP addresses are ineffective; only rangeblocks (which have a high chance of hitting innocent users) or semiprotection (which forces him to register) work. Go to WP:RPP and start requesting protections; I'm asking about ranges as we speak. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 00:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Better start hitting WP:RPP, Taylor. The ranges are, with one exception, too busy to block, and even the one we can block can't be blocked for long. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 01:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I hit em up and they're able to protect some articles but not all of the articles he's been vandalising due to lack of recent disruptive activity. Guess all I can do is keep reverting his edits for the time being. Taylor Karras (talk) 05:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Exciting opportunity for junior admin squad member to use their amazing powers of rollback!

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

---

A user has been adding spurious "references" to articles which appears to be nothing more than typical spamming. Please see Special:Contributions/Traciodea. Thanks, and keep up the great work! Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Junior admin squad...? I take it you didn't actually mean your apology the other day. → ROUX ₪ 14:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Do I have to apologise again? Is there a preferred mode of address? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 14:56, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Given how obviously meaningless the previous apology was, there's little point in wasting everyone's time with another. In the future, refrain from this sort of snide behaviour. Instead just say "Here's a problem, can someone address it?" But of course you knew that, didn't you? Which rather makes one wonder what point you were attempting to make here. → ROUX ₪ 15:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It was certainly a lot less WP:POINTy than this. — Kralizec! (talk) 15:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Roux, I wonder what point you are attempting to make here? I saw a problem and I brought it here for attention. Rather than addressing the problem, you immediately posted a message critical of how I phrased the title. I think "wannabe admins" is insulting and inaccurate since many of those will never be admins. When I asked you to suggest another name, you called into question first my apology of yesterday and now my intentions for posting here. Did you even look at the issue I was trying to get addressed? Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

So you posted this here for the attention of "wannabe admins"? You are actually accepting that accusation with your comment :) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 15:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I thought one of the non-admin ANI regulars would appreciate the chance to flex their rollback muscles. They are usually the first ones to comment on any new postings here, so I know they are watching. It wasn't meant to be insulting (that's why I didn't say "wanna-be admins"). Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:28, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Most of the edits look ok and seem to contain the material cited to. There may be a COI issue but that's it. Can we mark this as resolved? JoshuaZ (talk) 15:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Delicious carbuncle. You need edit diffs delicious and no silly titles. Otherwise no one will take you seriously. Change the title of this section, add edit diffs, before this is closed. Ikip (talk) 15:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

(e/c)Ah. Have I been too hasty? I reverted them all. Those I looked at did have some relevance, but such a huge number of links (well over 30) to his two books, articles about both of which have been speedy-tagged, looked like unacceptable spamming. I also gave him uw-spam3, though he seemed to have stopped before Delicious carbuncle's post here. Would somebody please have a look and see if I have been too quick off the mark? JohnCD (talk) 15:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

well the http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Taco&diff=prev&oldid=312983390 certainly seemed to violate WP:EL at the very least. Syrthiss (talk) 15:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, JohnCD. I spot-checked the links before I brought this here. While they are tangentially relevant, they definitely aren't appropriate as references. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:32, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This one seems a really desperate attempt to get a link plugged in anywhere regardless of relevance. JohnCD (talk) 15:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ok, it looks like they are a mix of relevant and not relevant. For example this one seems reasonable. JoshuaZ (talk) 16:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No one bothered to contact the editor that this conversation is going on, I am doing that now. Ikip (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, please correct me if I am wrong. Being a complete outsider to this argument. This appears to be the background which Delicious carbuncle, didn't do, and refuses to do.[48]

Traciodea begins to add references from a nonnotable website www.bviguides.com on several pages. He also creates Smartish Pace and BVI Yacht Guide. Which User:JohnCD and Delicious_carbuncle put up for deletion, adding deletion templates on Traciodea's talk page.

There is no real discusion beyond the warning templates before it is, in my opinion, inappropriately escalated here. I will attept to talk to the editor, if the editor continues to add these nonnotable sites, he probalby should be blocked. Could this have been handled better? Yes. There is some major WP:BITE in how this was handled. I strongly agree with JoshuaZ, please close this discussion or move to WP:COI. Ikip (talk) 16:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

The editor ignored the level one warning I left for them when I came across their first bit of spam. I looked at their contributions and noticed an article created by them. I tagged it for CSD and left them a templated message. I also took the time to leave them a handwritten message about COI (which was obvious from the content of the deleted article and the username). They ignored these and subsequently created another article, also speedied. I spot-checked the other links they had added as "references", saw that it was simply spam and brought the matter here so that someone with rollback could correct it. I saw no point in telling an overt spammer that they were being discussed here, after they had ignored earlier messages. I do think that Ikip leaving them a message saying "Delicious carbuncle is discussing you..." and giving barnstars to spammers is, at the very least, odd. JohnCD, rather than spending time picking apart words here, took action and fixed the problem. The matter is resolved as far as I am concerned and it would be nice not to have to defend myself against these petty attacks here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 16:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

First, disinegnuousness--your 'explanation' for the ridiculous title--is insulting to our intelligence. Second, advising users you have brought them up on ANI is not optional. See the header of this page. While the initial issue has been dealt with, it seems like an excellent time to discuss your behaviour, which is problematic in the extreme, particularly in light of your attacks yesterday and the subsequent empty apology. → ROUX ₪ 16:51, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong the title. Of course I don't know what happened yesterday but I don't see a problem with calling rollbackers junior admins when so many of them have that ambition. I have rollback rights myself. He's just trying to be funny.--Patton123 (talk) 17:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• For f!c!s sake would you lot give it a rest. Nja²⁴⁷ 17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin powers are truly awesome. They are roughly on the same level of awesomeness as parking in the visitors' spaces. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 17:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's like parking in vistor's spaces...except people run up to you, tell you that you are corrupt and abusing your parking privileges, get mad when you move their bicycle out of the handicapped space, "UR GAY LOLOLOLOLOL", and threaten to write the company you are visiting to remove your visitor privileges because you happened to pick up a dog turd and throw it away. --Smashville^talk 18:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't mean to poke any sleeping dogs -- or flog any dead horses, either -- but I find Roux's comments about my sincerity hurtful and personally insulting. I don't even know the meaning of the word "disinegnuousness" and I reject the idea that my apology of yesterday was "empty", particularly as it included the word "sincere" right in it. I hope we can all just try to get along, since we're all working on the same project here. Thanks, and please let this thread die it's natural death now. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll make it ingenous for you then: stop being disruptive. Your comments make it abundantly clear that that is what you intend. — neuro^(talk) 19:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Folks - archive. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 19:40, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

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

Secret Harbour, Western Australia

A newbie POV pusher (the latest of many) who has arrived on this article and its talk page, removing talk page edits and coming within a whisker of violating 3RR. His general standard of behaviour and communication in his less-than-one-hour-here has been unsatisfactory at best. Can someone please attend to this, as I'm sick (I have gastric flu :() and am going to bed. Orderinchaos 16:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• I thought the editor in question was a medical doctor. Ask him for help, perhaps? Drmies (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the info he is adding is good but he's not very good at writing neutrally.--Patton123 (talk) 17:09, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• I left a final warning of sorts on his talk page regarding his removal (several times now) of talk page comments by Orderinchaos. Completely out of line behavior. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 17:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

• He now has two unblock requests on his talk page. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Essentially what happened (and why I couldn't involve myself in anything beyond simply warning him) was that the page was a gushy POV mess which was no doubt written by an employee of the development company responsible for the suburb. I removed the bulk of the article on 4 September 2009. An IP with substantially similar word use to the current editor reverted me and added in more cruft. I then rewrote the article on the 5th, broadly based on the formatting of other C-class or higher articles about Perth suburbs (some bits were direct pastes from those with the details changed). This is a "bare bones" format with the ability to be expanded by other editors, hence why I settled on it. (Balga, Western Australia is an example of where I settled a POV situation similarly, and where good faith editors have built on my efforts.)

All was fine until this new account was created and started loudly reverting and blasting me on both the talk page and edit summaries on the main page. The funny thing is unless he is using a nom de plume, there is no GP called Moodie in Western Australia, and "Hon.Sc.D" is an honorary doctorate (i.e. not in medicine). My guess is therefore he is the same person as the 203. address and probably, if not works for the development company, has a strong commonality of interest with them. Orderinchaos 02:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leandro da Silva (footballer born 1989)

Resolved

 – GiantSnowman has struck his "delete" !vote and the AFD has been reclosed. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 13:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm incorrect, but I'm pretty sure nominations can't be withdrawn if there are unstruck 'Delete' !votes, right? Because this AfD has had a non-admin closure after the nominator said "I'm withdrawing", even though I had previously !voted Delete...GiantSnowman 17:45, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I have notified both the nominator and the closer of this discussion. GiantSnowman 18:08, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

correct. this question should be moved to WP:AFD Ikip (talk) 18:10, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Where abouts on that page? GiantSnowman 18:23, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

No need to discuss really, just undo the closure and inform the non-admin as to why. I have taken care of both steps now. I am sure it was merely a simple misunderstanding on Joe Chill's part. --ThaddeusB (talk) 18:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks Thaddeus! GiantSnowman 18:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice the delete which is why I closed it as withdrawn. Joe Chill (talk) 20:19, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You didn't notice the only vote in the discussion?!?! GiantSnowman 12:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Noise at Talk:Holocaust denial

Could we get some disinterested assistance? It seems to me that one editor is being rather tendentious at Talk:Holocaust denial; I'm staying out of the fray, but perhaps some new eyes would help. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 18:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty clearly to be a heavily stacked dispute with some participants becoming frustrated. One option would be to hand it off to outsiders at one of the content noticeboards (WP:NPOVN/WP:RSN/WP:CNB), and if there is little value seen in minority position there, that the matter be dropped.  Skomorokh  19:07, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It does seem to look like a debate which would require some patience. I think Skomorokh is moving it in the right direction. Have you informed the editor on the 'other' side of the debate about this thread? Protonk (talk) 20:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Nope. I'm ignoring him completely; seems sanest. That's why I asked for help. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 21:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I left him a note. Protonk (talk) 21:57, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Having engaged with the editor in question and asking them straightforward questions to no avail, I agree with the original assessment that the behaviour is tendentious, and recommend the discussion at Talk:Holocaust denial be archived in place and the editor encouraged to direct their efforts elsewhere.  Skomorokh  21:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Protonk. As far the engagement between Skomorokh and I, I have yet to receive a reply to my straightforward question here. Note also he's trying to make a behavioural assessment, which is always a slippery slope. Note for example that he's mentioned nothing about others' "behavior" - only mine. Jpgordon and Sokomorokh both came into the discussion with little more than a threat and some vague references to RS and NOR, all of which was dealt with. I'm also certain that by the context of soliciting some administrator muscle, Sokomorokh means something less than gentle by his recommendation to "encourage[] ["the editor"] to direct their efforts elsewhere." -Stevertigo 23:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. Its a rare day when I read an argument and find myself agreeing with...Jayjg. Holocaust denial is specific to Jews. You have no wiggle room here Steve, drop the song and dance. Tarc (talk) 23:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Full disclosure. Tarc has been a partisan in a couple other issues where I am also a party (see WP:DRV/SV/ONS), and his comments, *invariably, are both highly critical of me, personally, and likewise highly mistaken in their very premise. In this case he mis-states the material issue as one of 'specificity.' WP:LEDE makes it clear that *context is a requirement in article lead sections, and this is particularly true for articles about concepts that themselves rest on other concepts. In fact, I can't think of one that doesn't: For any article, any other related "concepts" are the "context." Thank you Tarc, once again. -Stevertigo 00:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"Context" here means, the context of a proposition within the source, and contextual information about a source. Once Stevertigo slips in the word "concept" what he accomplishes is to justify using his own thoughts as context as opposed to any research involving verifiable sources. Perhaps we can now expect ten numered points parsing the logic of my sentence ... just another indicator of disruptive editing. Slrubenstein | Talk 00:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Hm. Noting the substantial improvement in your conceptualizations here, let's break your comments down so I can deal with them one-by-one:
2. SLR: "Context" here means, the context of a proposition within the source, and contextual information about a source." - It has nothing to do with "propositions" - only objectively and materially relevant concepts. We can't discuss pottery without discussing clay. (..We can't talk about cigars without mentioning tobacco. We can't talk about space travel without talking about space craft. We can't talk about poetry without talking about writing. We can't talk about laughter without talking about emotion and facial expression...) It's not an issue of relating "pottery" to "pot (slang)," which is how you and others have tried to misrepresent my comments.
3. SLR: "Once Stevertigo slips in the word "concept" what he accomplishes is to justify using his own thoughts as context as opposed to any research involving verifiable sources." - Is this not just a slippery way of saying that I don't ever use the word "concept" in accord with its actual meaning? That I "accomplish[]" something just by using a word? That by "concepts" I mean merely 'my own concepts are the context?' Suspect inferences all - particularly so when I take care to break down each concept and discuss them with you point-by-point. At each point you are free to interject your own concepts.
4. SLR "Perhaps we can now expect ten numered points parsing the logic of my sentence" - Logic is only one of the dimensions in language that I deal with. There is also reason, along with apparent comprehension, and conceptual facility (such that can deal with my concepts as I express them - and not color them in various disruptive ways).
5. SLR: "... just another indicator of disruptive editing." - Discussion is not "editing," and comments are not "edits." "Disruptive" is subjective and I ask you to show where I have been in any objective way "disruptive." If you can't deal with the arguments as they are presented, don't pretend that you have. It's quite unscholarly to kick over the board when your queen is pinned. -Stevertigo 00:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC) PS: Apologies for the chess analogy. It won't happen again (maybe).

Steve, it is not necessary to take every piece of a person's comment and treat it in isolation. In doing so you strip said piece of its context, and without context most become meaningless. It does not help you prove whatever point you have, and it would probably help massively if you stopped it. lifebaka++ 01:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

1. Lifebaka wrote: "Steve" - Yep, that's my given name. I have others though.
2. Lifebaka wrote: "it is not necessary" - What is "not necessary?"
3. Lifebaka wrote: "to take" - Oh I agree. Sometimes its better to give.
4. Lifebaka wrote: "every piece of a person's comment and treat it in isolation." - Wait. Oh. I see: "take every piece... isolation." Got it. I.. uh.. don't do that.
5. Lifebaka wrote: "In doing so you strip said piece of its context - and without context most become meaningless." - This doesn't even make sense. If I don't strip every "said piece of its context," how then do I make the comments "meaningless?" I don't think anyway I'm quite as talented in that department as others I've dealt with are, and in fact my experience is that I succeed quite admirably in proving such thus said meaninglessness-ness was already in the original! "Stripping" only accentuated its attributes.
6. Lifebaka wrote: "It does not help you prove whatever point you have, and it would probably help massively if you stopped it." - I take it you don't like the way I take things apart, study them, and restate them using more accurate terms and in more lucid context, such that it demonstrate, by reflection, abstraction, connection, conviction, constriction, description, prescription, and absuridit..ion.. the validity, or lack thereof of your discrete, tangible arguments? I don't know. Do you have a source for that? -Stevertigo 05:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Now that, by anyone's definition, is a dick reply. Tarc (talk) 12:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User 68.4.46.105

This anonymous user has been active since Oct 2008 and blanks their user talk page countless times shortly after anybody including administrators post comments or warnings on their behavior which has included vandalism on many occasions. They simply do not seem to understand how good faith works works on Wikipedia and I believe they deserve at least a temporary ban. Kiwisoup (talk) 20:13, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with blanking one's own talkpage, see WP:BLANKING. The editor's recent article contributions look to be productive or at least in good-faith.  Skomorokh  20:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Trubarbie

Resolved

 – King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:06, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly introduced unsourced claims into the (BLP) article regarding musician Angelo Moore, in particular identifying/naming his wife/ex-wife, minor child, and supposed current girlfriend. After I removed these claims as unsourced -- as WP:BLP not only allows but pretty much requires, since the individuals named are not public figures, and both the names and claimed relationships are unsourced in the article and unverifiable by Google searching, User:Trubarbie reinserted the text. She then posted to my talk page claiming to be Moore's ex-wife and demanding that her unsourced contributions be left in place. I gave what I hope is an appropriate boilerplate response; she's ignored it, and I've put a warning on her talk page.

Trubarbie has since reinserted the unsourced content twice more, and I've removed it twice more. On balance, I see no particular benefit from including the information about these three private people -- about whom virtually nothing else relevant is online, aside from a minimal imdb reference and the expected mirrorsites. If the claims turn out to be true, the delay in waiting for verification is harmless, If the claims are false, allowing them to stand in Wikipedia for any length of time might mean that the claims will linger on in mirrorsites and such indefinitely, to the potential embarassment/discomfiture of private people, if not worse.

Usually the opposite situation arises: an article subject wants material removed. Here, the article subject/a claimed representative wants unsourced material inserted. I'm more than a little dubious when someone claiming to be an ex-spouse wants her ex's new girlfriend named in the article . . . So have I handled this approprately, and can somebody else with more clout than me keep an eye on this to keep it fro getting out. Trubarbie's ignored my responses so far, and though I've tried to keep my comments low-key, there's no way to give her the carte blanche she seems to want regarding the article. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I handed her a 12-hour block for 3RR, and let her know not to insert that again unless she's got sources for it. Hopefully that'll be the end of it. Blueboy96 20:50, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Copyright concern

Received this comment from an editor requesting {{adminhelp}}, moving it here as I don't edit in the copyright area. Appreciate any input.  Skomorokh  22:42, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the speedy response. I'm concerned about User:Sayedalam76. I think the guy means well, but I don't think he understands the copyright proceedure. I could be wrong, but it seems that he copies much, if not all, of his source info straight from other websites. I suppose he could be author of those pages, but he makes no effort to claim so or cite any of his sources. I can usually find most of the copied text (regarding a freshly created wiki page, one not yet mirrored to a different site) off a quick google search. See page Hazarth Sayed Hashimpeer Dastegir for an example. I'm not trying to do anything punitive against the guy, I think his subjects do have notability, but he needs to actually write the articles. Please tell me if I'm out of line on this. Thanks!Buddy23Lee (talk) 22:25, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not punitive, but he's been indefinitely blocked. Several admins left him notes yesterday. His response was to come in today and do it again, at the now-deleted JAMIA HASHIMPEER ,BIJAPUR. He needs to address this issue if he is to continue, I think. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for looking into it, Moonriddengirl.  Skomorokh  16:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Axmann8 and 75.186.104.169

Axmann8 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
75.186.104.169 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This one slipped under the radar somehow, but there's a good chance that 75.186.104.169 is the indefinitely blocked user Axmann8. The reason I think this is (1) similar interests; (2) similar attitude (removing warnings from talk page, removing others' comments from talk pages, etc.); (3) both are from Indiana; and (4) 75.186.104.169 updating a comment Axmann8 made back in March, which was missed at the time somehow.[49] Kind of an odd thing to do, unless it's the same guy. We known Axmann8 is still lurking, as he tried to file another unblock recently,[50] his first edit under his registered name since he was indef'd in late March. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I should point out that the IP was blocked just an hour ago, but only for 24. Methinks this requires more discussion. Axmann8 is stale, except for the one edit on September 6th (just a few minutes after the IP's edits on that day) which might be usable by a checkuser. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Axmann8 did self-identify as being from Indiana (why someone would admit that is beyond me) so the IP does match to the general area. nableezy - 00:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and the IP geolocates to Indiana. And the IP looks like an Obama-hater. So there ya are. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:11, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Didn't Axmann have a mosquito? -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 00:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What, as a pet or something? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As in an impersonator who tries to get him in hotter water. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 01:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I see what you're saying. Either way, he should be blocked for greater length than 24, but I'm not an admin, just a lowly peon, so all I can do is make recommendations. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

With my usual tactful approach, I've asked the IP on his page if he's Axmann8. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Luisadiel

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

What does this come under and how do we get rid of it? RaseaC (talk) 00:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Technically it hasn't done anything yet, except to create a user page that looks like it was written by someone who just started studying English yesterday. But until it actually edits something, there's no apparent grounds for a block, if that's what you're getting at. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Not necessarily a block but can we remove the content/talk page? It's not really a biggie, he's not hurting anyone, was just curious really. RaseaC (talk) 00:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Does it violate policy in some way, other than being in broken English? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, they've made it clear that they're only here for social networking and have no intention of contributing to the encyclopedia. (There should be a policy for this. And there will be one, buried under thousands of Wikipedia essays, that I never will have noticed. Sad.) A little insignificant (talk) 01:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't seem quite that way to me, but we'll see what the admins have to say, if anything. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would oppose any disciplinary action, we don't bite the newbies. Perhaps someone who speaks Spanish could simply explain the purpose of Wikipedia, and express out hope that he participates, in very nice terms. Also that he may feel more comfortable at the Spanish Wikipedia.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Xandar

Resolved

 – Xandar blocked by User:YellowMonkey for edit-warring. Karanacs (talk) 14:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Xandar's dispute at Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict (previously reported here and now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' _noticeboard/IncidentArchive561#Xandar) has spilled over onto the main naming convention page, where he is repeatedly reverting a consensual change that he feels weakens his position in the other dispute.

Xandar has now performed nine reverts in just over three days. The last four would be an open and shut case of 3RR violation, except that the first of these series, to his credit, was an attempt at a compromise, at my urging. That compromise having been rejected by others, he is back to edit warring again.

23:21, 7 September 2009, (→General principles: Restored important change made to this Policy to wrongly influence another argument elsewhere) [51]

10:29, 7 September 2009, (→General principles: restored important wording on exceptions removed without consensus) [52]

23:08, 7 September 2009, (→Overview: Removed non-consensus sentence that implies a practice rejected by consensus on this page) [53]

11:06, 9 September 2009, (→Use the most easily recognized name: again restored key wording removed by Kotniski without consensus) [54]

20:09, 9 September 2009, (→Use common names: Restored non consensus policy change) [55]

01:16, 10 September 2009, (→Overview: Okay. Let's try it in this context.) [56]

16:27, 10 September 2009, (Restored impotant principle, again removed withoput consensus for change.) [57]

20:34, 10 September 2009, (Restpring important part of the policy again removed without consensus) [58]

00:34, 11 September 2009, (There is no consensus to remove this principle, PMA.) [59]

The editors over at WT:NC have been overhauling the wording in the introduction recently, and have actually managed to make some good progress, and mostly maintain a collegial congenial atmosphere. This is being repeatedly disrupted by Xandar's fly-in fly-out reverts. Can I get some help with this issue please?

Hesperian 01:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, this is edit warring and blockable, whether the number of reverts exceeds three in a 24 hour period or not. However, I've given my opinion in the underlying dispute and thus would not consider myself unbiased enough to offer a warning or other sanction. Karanacs (talk) 01:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There is no consensual change to the longstanding policy concerned, which was re-affirmed only weeks ago in a poll on the Naming Conventions policy talk page. As with the connected edit dispute concerning the Wikipedia:Naming conflict guidance page, a certain clique of editors has decided to unilaterally change the long-standing guidance, against consensus, reversing the convention on self-identifying entities. These editors included PMAnderson, Kotniski, Philip B Shearer and others. Many of them involved in an affected naming dispute. There was substantial opposition to the changes they made at Naming conflict, and those changes were reverted. However the group refused to follow the established process of negotiation and consensus-building, but proceeded to keep on restoring their non-consensus substantive changes to that guidance in an edit-war. They also forum-shopped, held votes without informing all participants, and used incivil and bullying language to those who opposed them. The edit war they began has resulted in that page getting locked twice so far.

Those wanting to change WPNaming conflict, cited alleged contradiction with WP:Naming Conventions as their primary reason for making the substantial changes they wanted. However it was pointed out to them that WP:Naming conventions specifically denies that argument.

Strikingly, it is the very passage in WP:Naming Conventions, which thwarts their argument for changing Naming conflict, that PMAnderson and his allies have now decided they want to remove from the policy page. This they have done by the same methods used on the guideline page, deleting the controversial and important passage "Except where other accepted Wikipedia naming conventions indicate otherwise.." This they have done repeatedly and uneccessarily, even though it has been explained to them that this policy should not be changed without community consensus. Most of the offenders have refused to attempt to find consensus, and have adopted the same hectoring, bullying tone, and policy of intimidatory edit-warring that they seem to think will get their way. This has culminated in this issue again being raised here in another attempt to suppress dissent.

Wikipedia policies and guidelines should have stability, and not be changed according to what certain cliques desire. Changes to these policies need an enhanced level of consensus and community-wide support. The policy WP:GUIDE states clearly, under Content changes:

Talk page discussion typically, but not necessarily, precedes substantive changes to policy. Changes may be made if there are no objections, or if discussion shows that there is consensus for the change. Bold editors of policy and guideline pages are strongly encouraged to follow WP:1RR or WP:0RR standards. Minor edits to improve formatting, grammar, and clarity may be made at any time.

If the result of discussions is unclear, then it should be evaluated by an administrator or other independent editor, as in the proposal process. Major changes should also be publicized to the community in general; announcements similar to the proposal process may be appropriate.

Editing a policy to support your own argument in an active discussion may be seen as gaming the system, especially if you do not disclose your involvement in the argument when making the edits.

I believe PMAnderson, Kotniski and other members of this group have broken the spirit and letter of these standards with respect to changes to policies. They have not used WP:1RR, they have edit-warred and bullied their way forward instead of gaining consensus for change and involving the wider community, and they seem to be gaming the system by changing one policy to effect another, which affects various naming disputes. I think the stable form of the policies concerned needs to be preserved, and a proper mediation of the issues involved with all interested parties should take place before significant policy changes are made. Xandar 02:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The abridged version of the above is "The extensive consensual changes to WP:NC are actually part of a conspiracy to eliminate a crucial sentence so that I lose an unrelated argument that I was already losing anyhow. Therefore it is good that I am repeatedly reverting the conspirators, and I intend to continue doing so." Hesperian 02:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The substantive issue is discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Naming_conventions#Exceptions; comments welcome. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, Xandar's edit warring is okay because he is "merely reverting vandalism to the policy page."[60] I think it is safe to assume that Xandar fully endorses his behaviour and intends to continue it. Hesperian 02:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You are the ones breaking Wikipedia policy by edit-warring substantive non-consensus changes to policy. Xandar 02:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There you have it, folks: the old "I disagree; therefore there is no consensus; therefore it is vandalism; therefore I can revert as much as I want" trick. How many times have you heard that one now?

Is anyone going to do anything about this, or should we just bite the bullet and move Wikipedia:Naming conventions into Xandar's user subspace?

Hesperian

This is typical of the sort of "debate" this group undertakes. Jibes and misrepresentation. Hesperian himself suggested the change I made. Now he is reporting me for making it. What we need is the sudden reason for the urgent removal of this significant policy statement by a small clique. Xandar 02:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I urge people not to get sucked into arguing with the merits of Xandar's position. The issue is one of behaviour: nine reverts in three days, in sole opposition to consensus amongst all other editors currently active on the discussion page. Hesperian 02:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The issue is definitely one of behaviour - it is of a tag-team of editors making substantial changes to policy using a tactic of making-non-consensus changes, and then trying to force them through by continuously reverting to their new policy. This is against clear Wikipedia principles that such changes need broad argument and consensus. they then try to intimidate anyone trying to stop them with abuse and appeals for bannings. The people breaking "revert once and discuss" are the people pushing these changes. Xandar 02:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The sequence goes like this: Discuss; consensus to edit; edit; Xandar reverts, denies consensus exists; more discussion; consensus to edit; edit; Xandar reverts, denies consensus exists; more discussion; consensus to edit; edit; Xandar reverts, denies consensus exists; more discussion; consensus to edit; edit; Xandar reverts, denies consensus exists; more discussion; consensus to edit; edit; Xandar reverts, denies consensus exists; more discussion; consensus to edit; edit; Xandar reverts, denies consensus exists; more discussion; consensus to edit; edit; Xandar reverts, denies consensus exists; more discussion; consensus to edit; edit; Xandar reverts, denies consensus exists; more discussion; consensus to edit; edit; Xandar reverts, denies consensus exists.

The result: Xandar has made nine reverts in three days, in sole opposition to consensus amongst all other editors currently active on the discussion page.

Hesperian 02:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would be on the page helping Xandar in his efforts to protect the naming policy if I had more time to spend on the issue. I think the efforts to change a long standing policy are ill advised. I hope Xandar does not get blocked because he is the only one with a decent logic in the argument. Maybe we should change the 3RR rule to exempt editors with sound logic who are left to fend off the occasional wolf pack with an agenda other than improving Wikipedia. NancyHeise ^talk 03:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There is, in fact, no change to policy; Xandar is attempting to introduce novel language which permits guidelines to defy policy. See the link above.

Hello, Nancy. I see you have received a message from Xandar which reads:

I am again being targetted by the clique for daring to oppose a vital change being made to the Naming Conventions policy to back up their assault on the Naming conflict page.

I have been reported for "edit-warring" (pot and kettle) at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Xandar. This is part of the bullying policy to prevent me stopping thenm changing the policy without consensus. Could use some support again.

Someone should remind of him of our policies against WP:CANVASSing; they have been mentioned to him before; although, this time, he has only contacted two editors in this style - so far. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This is an amusing situation for those of us looking in; at worst it is pot calling kettle black and at best Xandar is supporting the text of a long-standing policy that out of the blue has garnered the attention of a very few editors that are determined to ignore all positions but their own. It should be noted that I have participated in the subject article, but I don't have the time to pay attention to it on a daily basis. Given the number of times and the different manner of highjinks that has been used against Xandar by these editors, I think it is quite feasible to label it harassment by the subset of editors. They ignore all policies that would hinder their actions, but then propose to implement the highest standard for Xander. I view this action as more of the same quality of harassment that has been going on for several weeks now. --^StormRider 03:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Huh? I don't even know what the "subject article" is; presumably I haven't edited it. And as far as I know I also haven't edited Wikipedia:Naming conflict or Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict, from whence this dispute is spilling over. Xandar has 9 reverts in this dispute; I have one. I challenge you to substantiate the above mud. That or withdraw it. Hesperian 03:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Storm Rider is far from a neutral uninvolved party. See the section below for more details. Knepflerle (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Storm Rider is the other recipient of the same message. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Xandar here; it has always been the case that there are exceptions to WP:CN, and with the exception of Born2cycle, there is agreement that there should be. Some wording to that effect seems required. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 06:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That is the whole point of the rewrite: to more accurately reflect the fact that the general conventions are not a set of binding rules that the specific conventions must follow or be damned. See my futile attempt to talk sense into Xandar here. But this is all irrelevant, unless you think Xandar's opinion legitimizes his edit warring. Hesperian 12:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

First, disclosure: I am involved in the discussions at WP:Naming conflict, but I am not involved in the discussions or the edit war at [[WP:Name].

There are two seperate issues here... 1) Is the change at issue good or bad policy. That should be worked out at the Policy talk page, through RFC, through postings at VPP etc.... not here. 2) May one editor repeatedly revert a change to a policy page in the name of "long standing consensus"? If the answer to this is yes, then Xander has done nothing wrong. If the answer to this is no, then he has done something wrong. Blueboar (talk) 14:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Further behavioural issues

Xandar's edit-warring at WP:NC is not the only problem behaviour. So far relating to the discussion WP:NCON we have had:

• canvassing ([61] see 4th August, 16th/17th August, 20th August - the last to encourage meatpuppetry "I have uused my three reverts, so can you, or someone else please revert the page to its last version by me")
• false claims of vandalism ([62] [63])
• repeating outright lies (Xandar:"you yourself were canvassed here by Knepferle, with the express intention of altering the guidance in order to influence the Catholic Church debate". I pointed out the obvious falsehood - I did not mention the Catholic Church article whatsoever, as anybody reading my post can see - but Xandar continues to repeat this falsehood: ""It is undeniable that you drew PMAnderson into this argument, citing the Catholic Church article")
• claims that others have "have refused to attempt to find consensus", whilst calling their position "irresponsible and unworkable nonsense"

Storm Rider casts himself above as one of "those of us looking in": however, he has taken a large part in the debate, having been canvassed by Xandar. So far he has:

• joined in on tag-team reverting (Xandar: "I have uused my three reverts, so can you, or someone else please revert the page to its last version by me" - Storm Rider reverts 12 minutes later)
• repeatedly referred to User:Pmanderson as "Septic" in that debate ([64] [65] [66])
• referred to a contribution of Pmanderson with "Your last statement is just pure gibberish and is representative of the silliness that exists when we allow those without a decent eduction or expertise to enter a conversation that is clearly above their pay grade [67]" and labelled another as "the work of a troll [68]"

The environment on the pages involved is toxic, and needs cleaning up. The constant reference to cliques and allies by Storm Rider and Xandar are unsupportable and disruptive. This so called "clique" now ranges over nearly a dozen editors over two discussion pages, most of whom have never communicated directly with each other. The only thing they have in common is that they have either disagreed with Xandar's position on edits or his behaviour. There is a strong sense that any group of people displaying consensus against his edits will be labelled as "in the clique" - as it now seems to include myself, Pmanderson, GTBacchus, Philip Baird Shearer, Kotniski, M, Blueboar, Ohm's Law...

I have been careful to provide diffs for everything above - one of the recurring themes of the "discussions" a these pages has been the numerous, unsupported (and often insupportable) allegations and ascription of words and beliefs to editors which are incorrect, and I encourage editors to check these allegations for themselves rather than take them at face value.

Overall, this is some of the worst behaviour I have encountered in my time at en.wp. Some administrator help to actively watch over Wikipedia talk:Naming conflict and Wikipedia:Naming conventions is needed urgently. Knepflerle (talk) 15:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Knepferle. you yourself have canvassed people, including PMAnderson to enter the dispute, and have supported them in endless edit-warring against the long-term consensus on that page. I have no doubt that when the block is lifted on the Naming:conflict page tomorrow, the attempts by Knepferle and the rest of his friends will continue - to subvert that and other policy pages in furtherance of their own agenda. The laughable "decison" above by Love Monkey is a clear farrago and disgrace - since there is no clear consensus IN ANY TERMS to radically alter the Naming Conventions page. It seems that only friends of Love Monkey are allowed to TOTALLY ignore WIkipedia policies on Consensus and revert and revert and lie and lie until they get what they want. No they are going on with their campaign, strengthened by the biased action of LoveMonkey.

Concerning Wikipedia Naming conflict. The matter has been raised here before. A small group of closely-connected editors, including Knepferle, have decided to radically chage that naminng convention in defiance of long term consensus and a large number of other concerned editors. The policies they use are

1. Make radical changes to the guidance.

2. If these are reverted, do not discuss sensibly or try to gain consensus - even within the small grou p on the page. Revert back - in clear contradiction of policy on changes tro guidance and abuse and threaten those who disagree.

3 If one person on a barely visited page opposes, they ignore him and call him a minority of 1. if he reverts the page, they then bring him here and hope a naive or friendly admin will ignore what they're doing - and bar their opponent.

4 If their opponent contacts other editors with A VALID INTEREST in the change, they accuse him of "canvassing"!, and continue the edit-warring!

THIS BEHAVIOUR IS SUBVERTING POLICY AND MUST BE STOPPED! 212.140.128.142 (talk) 15:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What is happening here is

Block evasion ain't cool. (Note that Xandar is currently blocked, and that this IP has been previously suspected of being used by him here)

"canvassed people" - people? One neutral notice to one person. Another unsupportable untruth.

"supported them in endless edit-warring" - another complete fabrication, that's been pointed out to you before. I've edited the page twice as anyone can go check ([69] [70]). That is not edit warring. Please, anyone reading this, go check for yourselves.

"small group of closely-connected editors" - closely-connected? You can't prove any of this, can you? It's just not true.

Nothing you're saying stands up to any scrutiny. Don't you realise that the more things you say which are shown to be lies, the more like you are to become the boy who cried "Wolf!" once too often? Knepflerle (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked the IP address and restarted the block on Xandar's account. Now that this issue is resolved, everyone move on; discussion should be centered on the issues and should take place on the appropriate policy talk pages. Karanacs (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What Knepferle actually asked me to do was:

You are aware of the bigger picture of the naming conventions and their development - if you could correct any inaccuracies in the talk-page statements or guideline text it would be appreciated.

This seems to me perfectly in accord with WP:Third opinion; it leaves me free to say, when I looked over the situation, that there were inaccuracies, and that Knepferle had made them - there are occasions when I have done that. The difference between this and Xandar's message, above, is telling. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:UNBANNABLE143125134

Resolved

 – indef DMacks (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

UNBANNABLE143125134 (talk · contribs)'s User name gives me pause to begin with, and their personal attack as their third edit just seals it. Blockable, or do they have to be given more warnings? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And now their fourth edit - [71]. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, they've been blocked. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 01:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wholesale non-consensual and unreferenced changes to musical genre

Resolved

 – blocked 24 hours for disruptive editing. — Kralizec! (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Sublimefan97 is busily changing genres in a lot of articles--more than I can list here, but see his contributions. He has been asked and warned a number of times; a couple of editors, myself included, see these changes as vandalism. Sublimefan does not provide edit summaries, let alone references, for any of these changes, and on occasion makes a mockery out of the idea of referencing: in this edit, he cites a 1991 remark by Les Claypool as justification to change the band's genre to [[Polka|Psychedelic polka]] and remove all the other genres. Claypool might appreciate the joke, but those editors who spent a lot of time reversing all these changes don't think it's so funny. I consider this vandalism, but an IP at AIV disagreed, and suggested I go here--so here I am. Your advice is kindly appreciated. Drmies (talk) 02:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree that such edits are vandalism.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 02:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Utter bollocks. Of course it isn't vandalism. Please read the vandalism policy. Vandalism isn't to be confused with editing against consensus or policy or guidelines (all of which may be disruptive), it's a deliberate attempt to harm Wikipedia. --TS 02:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, call us dumb, but also call these practices "disruptive editing"; ANI is still the right place. Note the warnings on the user's talk page and the complete lack of communication. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 02:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sublimefan97 (talk · contribs) blocked 24 hours for disruptive editing. — Kralizec! (talk) 02:54, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Wikireader41

Wikireader41 (talk · contribs) is engaging in subtle POV pushing and plagiarizing material from news sources like The Vancouver Sun and adding it into Barack Obama speech to joint session of Congress, September 2009. He recently copied this material into the speech section[72]. It virtually duplicates the first paragraph of a news article in the Vancouver Sun, almost verbatim.[73] I used the talk page and explained to him that the material needed to be written in his own words and must adhere to our NPOV policy. I removed the material[74] and explained my reason on the talk page.[75] Wikireader41 then added the same plagiarized material back into the article with a revert.[76] And this continues. The user does not appear to understand NPOV or how to write content for Wikipedia. Could I get some help here? Looking at his edit history and block log, this is not the first time the user has had POV issues raised here. Viriditas (talk) 02:16, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

this editor is falsely accussing me. it is clear we have a content dispute. he is not willing to debate or reason and achieve consensus and some very fascinating original ideas about what WP should or should not be. we need some help with this article I agree. Wikireader41 (talk) 02:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That doesn't look like a false accusation to me; it looks like direct copying. Even if it's only a paragraph, adding such material is not allowed. — Gavia immer (talk) 02:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikireader41 wrote the following sourced to the Vancouver Sun:

Obama accused special interests of using "scare tactics" to block his plans for reform of the American health care system, and warned Congress to prepare for a political fight with the White House if partisan gridlock threatened the legislation

In the Vancouver Sun, Sheldon Alberts wrote:

U.S. President Barack Obama on Wednesday night accused special interests of using "scare tactics" to block his plans for sweeping reform of the U.S. health-care system, and warned Congress to prepare for a political fight with the White House if partisan gridlock threatens legislation to provide near-universal medical coverage to Americans.

The highlighted words are the ones added to the article by Wikireader41, and they belong to Sheldon Alberts of the Vancouver Sun. I've asked the user to write the material in his own words, and not steal the words of other authors. I've also asked the user to take a moment and write the material in concordance with our policies and guidelines. To date, he does not show any understanding of my repeated requests. Viriditas (talk) 02:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that is what was said and the way it is written is substantially different from way it is written in The Sun. no reason to remove it. if somebody disagrees and wants to reword it I don't have a problem. Viriditas is repeatedly removing valid cited info from RS instead of improving it and finding flimsy excuses to do so. lets see what the admins think. Wikireader41 (talk) 02:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Your version isn't "substantially different" at all. Those highlighted words were said by Sheldon Alberts of the Vancouver Sun, not you. We do not steal words from news sources and portray them as fact, which is what you did. Your continued edits to the article are highly problematic and violate our most important policies and guidelines. You do not seem to understand this problem, so I hope someone can explain it to you before I have to remove all of your edits from the article again. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

nothing is portrayed as fact. it is substantially different. if you feel otherwise reword it. no reason to delete it. I hope somebody can explain this to you. do not threaten to remove 'all my edits'. you will not get very far. I suggest we wait for an admins opinion on this and both of us listen to that. have a good day. Wikireader41 (talk) 03:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Here is an admin's opinion: it is wrong to insert material copied verbatim from copyerighted sources. It is wrong to reinsert it repeatedly when an editor removes the plagiarized material - and it is wrong to call copyvio concerns for flimsy reasons. It is wrong to insert material from opinionated sources discussion of the sources possible bias and without consensus. It is also wrong to assume that because something is cited you don't have to discuss whether it should be in the article or not. Wikireader41: you have to realize that you have not been editing in accordance with wp policies. Read up on editing policies - be more responsive to suggestions and criticism. ·Maunus·ƛ· 03:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You plagiarized an opinion from Sheldon Alberts of the Vancouver Sun calling Obama's speech "an attack on special interests", and you stated it as a fact without attributing Alberts, and you said this is a section devoted to discussing the speech, not opinions about the speech. Here's what Obama really said: "I won't stand by while the special interests use the same old tactics to keep things exactly the way they are. If you misrepresent what's in this plan, we will call you out."[77] Then later in the speech, he said, "But what we've also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have towards their own government. Instead of honest debate, we've seen scare tactics."[78] So we see that Alberts took multiple quotes out of context and came to a conclusion that isn't directly supported by the speech. You are free to find sources that describe this in a neutral manner in the context of the speech and write it in your own words, but stealing the words of other authors and stating them as facts is not acceptable. Viriditas (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that looks like a pretty clear-cut case of plagiarism. Either enclose the copied passage in quotation marks and provide a proper citation for the source, or – better – write the article in your own words, from scratch. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Just chiming in -- seems like a straight copyvio to me. Needs a rewording. — neuro^(talk) 03:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

So as it looks like we've agreed it is a straight copyvio, what happens now? Alan16 (talk) 16:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Just out of curiosity, what wouldn't be "a copyvio" in the opinions of those of you asserting that it is? I'm not defending anyone in particular here, but this all seems somewhat peculiar. There's nothing in the statement quoted from the Vancouver Sun that is particularly unique (I don't see any new ideas expressed in the paragraph for example, it's simply reporting on what occurred). Therefore, I'm left wondering what the actual problem is, because by the standard being expressed here it seems that 99+% of Wikipedia would be considered to be a copyright violation in some manner or another.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 16:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Disruption by Badger Drink

Resolved

 – Sent to the bullpen for a suitable interval

Badger Drink (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

The user is making pointy and absurd category additions to existing baseball teams, such as the San Francisco Giants, labeling them "defunct". He's already been warned and won't stop. I'm hopeful that one of the admin umpires here can either issue him a warning he'll pay attention to, or failing that, send him to the showers for awhile. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Meh, it's more fun to scream in their faces, throw tantrums, and kick dirt at them :) MuZemike 03:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

• Blocked for three hours. I'll inform Badger Drink that the disruptive behavior is the only problem, and that ceasing that behavior will open up opportunities for more effective and more collegial discourse. -Pete (talk) 03:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Note that this is the editor's second block. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Closure of requested move

Resolved

 – Withdrawn --Cybercobra (talk) 05:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin rule on the requested move at Talk:Mac_OS_X_Snow_Leopard#Move_Back? The discussion has run for 5 days, and now seems to have descended into snippyness rather than productive debate. --Cybercobra (talk) 03:52, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Requested move discussions usually last seven days. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CyanogenMod

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CyanogenMod is an improperly formatted AFD (started by an IP) which appears to be attracting a lot of newbies and SPA accounts. I would say "sockpuppets" but I don't want to upset anyone. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I've speedily closed the discussion; see my closing rationale for details. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 04:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Someone might want to protect the AfD page... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:09, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I mentioned this on Julian's page - the article should be at AFD - closing after one day because of off-site activity is only a short-term solution. Once I've had a response off Julian I plan to AFD it again. --Cameron Scott (talk) 11:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

All the standard four warnings to a repeat vandal not enough any more?

Resolved

 – New nothing blocked, miffed nerd cautioned. — neuro^(talk) 05:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Discussion posted from AIV

• New Nothing (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - vandalism after final warning, actions evidently indicate a vandalism-only account. Constant disruptive editing, even after final warning. Mostly screwing about with section headers, but it also constantly adding and removing a CSD tag from Paul Haygood.. — neuro^(talk) 04:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Admins, look at edits leading up to this report -- user appears to making some attempt to divert attention from their disruptive editing. — neuro^(talk) 04:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, did you try explaining it to the less that a day old user? Or did you bite?Abce2|TalkSign 04:18, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Do you did not. You did not explain it to the user, insted you placed warnings on his/her talk page. How is that helpful? All I see is a user who is so new that they don't know everything yet.Abce2|TalkSign 04:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
        • (Replying to first message) You've got to be kidding me. I used to be accused of being one of the members of civility clique, now I find myself being in the strange position of having to ask you to stop asking me a silly question. I left standard, community approved messages for the user. The user continued to make disruptive edits. So in response to your obviously rhetorical question, no, I didn't, and your ridiculous implication is nothing short of grossly offensive. This is bloody ridiculous. — neuro^(talk) 04:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
        • WHAT?! They got four warnings, including a final warning, what more do they need? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
          • Quite. If that makes me a biter, you might want to bring it up at WP:UW, because it looks like most of us here are. — neuro^(talk) 04:24, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
          • I'm just saying, the user tried to contact you, but you deleted them. Abce2|TalkSign 04:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
            • They left a message on my talk after performing two disruptive edits. They could have done it before the final warning, or after I gave them the first warning. They continued to make disruptive edits. The edits on my talk are nothing but a distraction, and if you can't see that and suggest that me removing them is biting, of all the bloody things to accuse me of, then that is your problem, not mine. — neuro^(talk) 04:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
              • My judgement is shit, okay? Abce2|TalkSign 04:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
                • Forgive me for being blunt, but if you yourself are aware that "[your] judgement is shit", it would be my suggestion that you don't go around accusing editors of biting the newbies when nothing has occurred to even suggest such an event. — neuro^(talk) 04:47, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Note: Discussion moved from AIV. Cirt (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

---

Please see this discussion. Now even the standard four warnings leading up to a final warning are no longer enough? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say to look at the reason for those warnings. Abce2|TalkSign 04:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I would say you are assuming too much good faith of the one-day-old account you are wanting to coddle, and prefer to bite the editor who has been here a while and has a good track record. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:30, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

And this edit is curious. Just where is this editor attempting to communicate, other than to try to rearrange headers on neuro's Talk page? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I wonder how he knew to come to this page after just a few edits, and mess around with a heading a little bit? Rather unlikely to be a "new" user. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm taking a break, my judgement has become shit. Abce2|TalkSign 04:36, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A good nap should help. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

For someone that has been accused of being in the "civility cabal" a good few times before, I find myself in the strange position of wondering what the bloody hell is going on. Stop handing accusations of biting out when there is absolutely no biting going on. Sheesh. — neuro^(talk) 04:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Two week long nap for my shitty judgement. Abce2|TalkSign 04:42, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a good night's rest. No need to go Rip van Winkle on us. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I know, it's just that I've seen an escalting pattern of this shitty judgement from myself. Abce2|TalkSign 04:46, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Going to try to stay off the whole break. Probaly won't though, (3 days tops :) ) feel free to trout me if I come back early Bugs. Abce2|TalkSign 04:48, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User New Nothing blocked for disruptive editing. Dreadstar ☥ 05:00, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone considered that Paul Haygood might actually be a hoax? Try a Google search on this influential theorist and see what you get. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

If so, we have some recursion. — neuro^(talk) 05:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

That's usually how hoaxes work. See the contribs of the person who added that. Look at the contribs of the article's creator. Look at the Google book serach results more closely. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:20, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for talking down to me. For the record, I am aware of how hoaxes tend to work. — neuro^(talk) 05:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please stop being so thin-skinned and taking everything as some kind of personal insult. It takes up a lot of unnecessary bandwidth. There's nothing to win here. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to be some sort of lesson in getting a 'thick skin', I assure you. — neuro^(talk) 05:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Man, I get called a nerd enough already.Abce2|This isnot a test 05:13, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

[79] = probably not a hoax, but also maybe fails WP:NOTE... Cirt (talk) 05:14, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

@Abce - I was actually talking about me. :) — neuro^(talk) 05:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm just so used to being called that. Abce2|This isnot a test 05:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

They call you a hoax? That would be unnerving. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, all the time. I really don't even exist. :) Oh, wait, aren't I on a Wikibreak? Crud. Abce2|This isnot a test 05:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You're the Urban Spaceman. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Wait, what do Urban Spacemen eat? What do hoaxes eat? Abce2|This isnot a test 05:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

At least for the former, they don't. They already have everything they need. — neuro^(talk) 05:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Haygood. Cirt (talk) 05:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. And for the latter, 'oaxmeal for breakfast. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 12:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

How many newbies use templates within 4 minutes of their first edit? Dougweller (talk) 15:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Ripper404

Resolved

 – indef'd by User:Dreadstar. Tim Song (talk) 07:41, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This editor has repeatedly added WP:BLP violations to Mark Wahlberg and I've reverted them a couple times, taking time to explain in the edit summary why the changes were inappropriate. Besides the BLP issues, the edits leave fragmented sentences and poor grammar. When I looked at his talk page to leave a warning about this, I saw that he had just been blocked in February 2009 and again last month for the same issues on the same page and for gross incivility, so I left a final warning regarding the defamatory edits, here. This was the response. I don't believe this person has any intention of editing cooperatively or productively. This is unacceptable behavior and editing. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Repeat offender. After this edit, I am shocked that he was given another chance. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 04:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

After examining Ripper404's block log and latest edits, I've indef blocked the account. Dreadstar ☥ 04:35, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I issued a snappy comeback to Ripper404's violations of WP:CIVIL. I think his violations are silly anyhow. 192.12.88.7 (talk) 04:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick response. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hernando de Soto

Resolved

 –  Done--Jayron32 06:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Think we could get a semi protect of Hernando de Soto? It's that part of history class at the beginning of the year, and the IP users have a field day vandalizing it, if it could be semi-ed for a week or 2, it would sure cut down on the vandal reverts. I've made 4 in the last 12 hrs or so. Thanks. Heironymous Rowe (talk) 06:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a period of 1 month, after which the page will be automatically unprotected. In the future, the correct place to report this for quick action is WP:RFPP. Happy editing! --Jayron32 06:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. Didn't really need quick action, lol, so this was fine. I just had to revert it so many times over the last week, and remembered how it seemed non stop on this article at this same time last year. This shoul,d slow'em down, and in a month they should be moved on to something else.Heironymous Rowe (talk) 13:59, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Suspicious edit-warring IP

Resolved

 – 1 x blocked proxy -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Could somebody please have a good hard look at 61.175.232.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? It's an IP in China, which was blocked in February for having been abused for sockpuppetry by one user, appeared again in May self-identifying as another, banned user ("General Tojo"), and is now edit-warring on Macedonia, breaking the Arbcom-installed 1RR restriction. Probably some open proxy with again some banned user on it? Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:33, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know who's been using it today, but it's now a blocked proxy. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I like it when blocked proxies post their block notices themselves ;-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:43, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Racepacket at UMiami article

• Previously at archived thread

Racepacket (talk · contribs) continues to edit war over the wording of the lead paragraph of University of Miami. This is either due to the use of the word "commonly", or the use of the alias "The U", which he contested and had removed from the article in one of his earliest edits to the page that sparked this edit war between him, myself, and MiamiDolphins3. I understand that he is trying to improve the article, but he continually changes the lead which is clearly contested on the talk page, WT:UNI, and in the old thread (even though I have been the most vocal member of the discussions).

The last thread devolved into another forum to discuss the dispute. There was some outside input regarding the fact that edit warring happened and is bad. Every day there has been an edit to either completely change the wording or the meaning of the lead paragraph. When I removed what he considered a weasel word, that didn't change anything. All I know is that I am tired of having to go through WP:BRD on a daily basis because he just seems to make another bold change without discussing anything useful. I don't want this thread to become another argument with Racepacket. I just want something useful done about the disruption.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I have protected the article for a week in an attempt to slow the edit warring. At this time, I have no opinion on the dispute/behaviour itself. J Milburn (talk) 11:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

I cannot seem to satisfy Racepacket in a compromise. And now because I have moved the thread on the talk page so it is not in the middle of the article tacked onto a barely related section, he has been edit warring with me over its placement.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:08, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

By way of explanation, User:Ryulong is exceedingly difficult to deal with and has a record for repeatedly running to ANI, and has brought editorial differences here before. I started to revise the University of Miami article on Sept 2. He would revert my changes without comment, and I would then explain the changes on the talk page, with him further reverting the changes. Finally on Sept 5, he responded. We have talked through the issue and I tried to involve other experienced editors from Wikiproject: Universities. I have also provided examples of a number of lead sentences from other university articles. What is evident is emotional ownership of this article and a related article Iron Arrow Honor Society. On the Iron Arrow article, I repeatedly placed a {{notability}} tag because the lack of independent sources, to have them repeatedly removed without adding sources. That article is now in AfD.

On the University of Miami article, I have offered various formulations based on the comments of other editors and the lead paragraphs of the University of Virginia and Universityof Wyoming. He engaged in indiscriminate reverting of my edits and incivility and are pushing Boosterism and emotional ownership of the article beyond what many would consider acceptable. After things settled down, we had made extensive progress, and Ryulong agreed to drop a number of footnotes which really didn't support the article text. He also agreed to drop the word "commonly" which I objected to on the grounds of being a vauge and misleading weasel word. However, after we came very close to closure, an hour later he unilaterally added "commonly" back in without talk page comment. A day later (and after many days of my objecting to "commonly") he writes, "I can tell your problem is not with "commonly" but rather with "The U", which is what you originally had removed from the article. It does not freaking matter that the name is not universally related to this one institution."

He then starts to break up the thread on the talk page and [80] and [81] distorting the context of the discussion and creating update conflicts when I am trying to post a response to his remarks. These actions make working on the article difficult. I had thought we had reached the point of it being a Good Article and had submitted a nomination, but I will put the matter aside until the protection is lifted. Thanks. Racepacket (talk) 13:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:LAKSJD1

LAKSJD1 (talk · contribs) - he is a sock puppet of many different accounts used in the past (too many to mention), and he is now using three different accounts (the other two are Mrpontiac1 (talk · contribs) and Pakkid101 (talk · contribs)) at the same time to vandalise articles by removing all the mentions of Pakistan from food related articles, and edit warring on different articles. His IP as of yesterday (it always changes) is 123.237.179.101 (talk · contribs) through which he does the same edits. He keeps removing warnings from his talk page. Shahid • ^Talk2me 11:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

have you checkusered the account? If not, I'd suggest doing that to get some kind of strong evidence. Ironholds (talk) 12:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

A CU is not needed to get strong evidence. The strong evidence comes from the fact that all the edits are the same. All the accounts were created in the last few days, all of them edit the same pages, do the same edits, revert the same edits. In addition to that his edits are clearly sneaky vandalism. He also violated 3RR etc. (see Indian century. I'm very familiar with this guy. He has had many blocked accounts. Shahid • ^Talk2me 12:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Please file a WP:SSP request; this one might take some deep examination. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 15:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

What about the kind of edits that he does? Is that better ignored??? Shahid • ^Talk2me 15:38, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

You worry about the edits, let the admins worry about the SSP after you file it. You always treat the cause, then the symptoms. You have the same power over edits as everyone else. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:55, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abdul Majeed Khan Marwat (2nd nomination)‎

This AfD was relisted by DRV due to socking concerns. Now we have an huge influx of SPAs and likely socks again making all sorts of personal attacks on the page. Just so the relist does not get derailed again, can someone take a look and semi the page? Also, please check out the latest IP comment. Tim Song (talk) 15:04, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

They're making terrible arguments, so I personally wouldn't worry about it. I've warned the IP who left those comments, but likely the person behind them has moved on by now. Cheers. lifebaka++ 15:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User Loosmark

The editor is engaging in uncivil remarks and an appropriate response from admins per digwuren sanctions would be welcome. Loosmark (talk), started a thread with an abusive claim: [82]. He was warned by another editor here [83] but rather than become civil he continued his personal attacks: [84] "Your constant attempts at trying to find something to blame on the Polish side is as sick and perveted as trying to find sth on the Jewish side for the Nazi horrors." Please note that there is a message on the top of that article's talk page [85] requesting "be polite" and "avoid perosnal attacks." Loosmark has already been given notice here: [86] and continues to engage in such behavior.Faustian (talk) 15:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Generally, reports of violations of Arbitration remedies should be reported at WP:AE; however, there is no problem with admins taking action here if they want to. I decline to get involved at this time as I as too busy for proper follow-through. Thatcher 16:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes. There seems to be a prima facie case for enforcement action in these diffs, but to allow a properly formatted discussion in the right place, I would prefer it if this were submitted as an WP:AE request, using {{Arbitration enforcement request}}.  Sandstein  16:12, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

After some fumbling I've done so! Thanks.Faustian (talk) 18:27, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

My God, this must be one of the most ridiculous reports ever. Ok
1) He's basically reporting me because i said he's POV pushing and then explained why. The edit which i said is POV is this one [87] in which he claims at the same time, other Poles attempted to enter German service and in those roles tried to sew distrust towards Ukrainians by the Germans in order to provoke the German repression of ethnic Ukrainians. If that's not POV i don't know what is. Note that i repeatedly asked him to provide another source for that highly controversial claim but he was unable to. Seem that he's just trying to get rid of me because i oppose his POV.
2) The so called "warning" i got, was of course written by user Bobanni, friend of Faustian, who is one of the users with anti-Polish views. Not to mention he has a history of incivility, for example he replies like this to Polish users [88]. If necessary i can provide other diffs like that. It's comical that a user who writes highly incivil things like "load of crap" is giving me warning about civility. Loosmark (talk) 16:15, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

1. It's a sourced statement by a respected scholar. There was even a link with the page number for verification. There is no wikipedia policy demanding multiple sources if particular editors don't like a fact backed up by a single reliable source. 2. Just because someone warning you about incivility may have been uncivil in the past does not justify the fact that after you wrere warned you wrote about me: [89] "Your constant attempts at trying to find something to blame on the Polish side is as sick and perveted as trying to find sth on the Jewish side for the Nazi horrors." Moreover as shown above you were also warned by an admin to cool it. You obviously had not done so.Faustian (talk) 17:56, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

1) If the claim is so completely extraordinary as that one (Poles first started to join the German police to work against Ukrainians) one needs more than just one source to support it. In probability had that really happened there would have been many sources.
2) I didn't attack you personally i wrote against this logic about reversing the roles, the victims, in this case the Poles, somehow becoming responsible by first joining the German police.
3) About the warning from that user who was uncivil. You didn't make any comment that you perceive my saying that you are POV-pushing as incivility, if you have done so i'd changed the title to something else, the title was not important to me, the only reason i wrote used that title is because i was tired and i didn't have idea how to title the section. But anyway if you were really so disturbed by that, you have my sincere apology.
4) I wasn't warned by any admin to cool down as you claim above, that was a general guideline for all editors editing EE topics. It also applies to you and everybody else. We have a content dispute and that needs to be worked out on the talk pages rather than filling complains here.
5) Finally please consider another thing the article is titled Massacres of Poles in Volhynia for a reason, and that is.. it is about well the massacres of Poles. Loosmark (talk) 18:58, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Editor continuing to add many bad refs to physics articles after repeated warnings and RFCU

On June 28 I filed this ANI report about an editor who was using many socks to add irrelevant (or at least very questionable) refs to physics articles, and not editing in any other way. The editor had already been the subject of this RFCU. The ANI report produced no response whatsoever, and the editing pattern has continued, although not the socking -- as far as I know, all the recent edits have been made as Casimir9999 (talk · contribs). I won't give diffs because a glance at the contribs should be enough to show what is happening. I am not going to give any more warnings because I don't have any confidence that anything would be done, but I will notify Casimir9999 of this section. Looie496 (talk) 16:10, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

There was also a later sterile ANI thread which for some reason I can't find in the archives, but here is a link to it in its final state, I believe. Looie496 (talk) 16:29, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Otterathome, User:80.171.27.157/80.171.27.157, and User:Mathieas

Removed unarchived thread that hadn't been touched in 24 hours--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I have unarchived this thread because it is an ongoing issue that remains unresolved. I would appreciate further comments. Thank you. --Zoeydahling (talk) 16:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Unarchiving was unwise. You're emphasizing a pattern of behaviour: off to WP:RFC/U with you for that. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 16:57, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

As the person who was accused of being a wikistalker (FYI not a real word). I am curious as to why this was archived without a resolution. I looked at the WP:RFC/U that Bwilins linked to and it stated that an incident can be archived for three reasons none of which I believe apply in this case. I don't claim to be an expert in wiki policy, so I would appreciate knowing why an unresolved matter was archived. Thanks. Mathieas (talk) 18:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Drawn Some and his wikistalking to punish me for opposing him in AFD nominations

User:Drawn Some continues to nominate almost every entry I create. I opposed his AFDs in several cases months ago, and he is using the AFD process to attempt to punish me. Almost two dozen articles that I have started have been nominated for deletion, and have been voted to keep, many as speedy keeps. Several editors warned him to desist, but he continues. He had nominated another six articles today. Almost every entry today is against me. Please see here. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Massive problem with admin User:Sandstein

At User_talk:Russavia#Topic_ban User:Sandstein notified me that I was "topic-banned from all edits or pages related to the history of the Soviet Union and its successor states (including Russia and the Baltic states), broadly construed and extending to all pages in all namespaces, for the duration of six months." I took issue with this, due to the editors who reported me to AN/I being as guilty of the same types of Battle over a variety of articles, and gave specific examples of it; inserting and edit-warring at Soviet War Memorial (Treptower Park) over the insertion of accusations that the memorial is known as the Tomb of the Unknown Rapist; which turns out was totally false, and the editors in question had not sighted sources they claimed to have done; the other being Alexander Litvinenko at which an editor professed his belief that Putin is a paedophile on the talk page, and the insertion of poorly sourced BLP violating material on said article on that accusation. The issue I had is partly the fact that it was made out that I am the only one who is guilty of such WP:BATTLE violations, and this is obviously not the case. As I wrote on my talk page "I am not blaming others, but I am saying that there are factors which contribute to such things, and that it is only fair that those factors be investigated also. Sandstein refuses to do this, which can only be seen as implicit approval of the behaviour of others as I have raised here. It's about being equitiable and making all editors responsible for their own edits, instead of using carefully selected diffs in order to get rid of a content opponent." So I am taking responsibility for my own edits, if anyone thinks otherwise, and am willing to cop things on the chin, within reason.

After summing up a question by another editor as to what was going on, Sandstein permabanned me (details at User_talk:Russavia#You_are_indefinitely_blocked_until_you_agree_to_abide_by_your_topic_ban) and one can read the response there, including Sandstein's note that any problems such as those above, would need to be taken to WP:AE by another editor, or by myself in six months once the topic ban is lifted. Note the question that I ask: "You are also telling me that if an editor places on a talk page their belief that Barack Obama is a paedophile, and I alert you to this you would take action, but if an editor places on a talk page their belief that Vladimir Putin is a paedophile, and I alert you to this, I will be seen to be in violation of the topic ban?" Sandstein's response was as follows: "No, such BLP violations with respect to Vladimir Putin have nothing to do with the history of the Soviet Union. Alerting admins to them does not violate the topic ban." A fair person would be lead to assume that Vladimir Putin is not covered by the topic-ban, and hence I would be free to edit it.

I posted at User_talk:Russavia#Example_of_others_WP:BATTLE_-_topic_ban_be_damned an example of where I had been called a Nazi by another editor on another users talk page, and the same editor had called another editor a wanker, both on several occasions. Sandstein responded "Russavia, if somebody else makes a proper WP:AE request about this, I will look at it, as will other admmins, but you are currently topicbanned and not helping yourself." How on earth could such an example of attacks such as those be covered by a topic ban on history of the Soviet Union? I was thinking it, and a normal person would also be thinking it.

At User_talk:Russavia#List_of_articles I have posted a long list of articles I have been responsible for in creating and/or expanding, as a response to a question by another editor just above. Just below the list I wrote the following: "Having said that, I will abide by the topic ban...the history of the Soviet Union isn't really an area that interests me anyway---articles are so biased, that anyone with half a brain who should read them will know that they are biased and will take the article for the joke that they usually are."

Just below this, I queried of Sandstein how the Putin article wouldn't be part of the ban, but comments on a talk page would be. His response astounds me, as all one would have to do is "did you see on *insert name of Soviet history article here* Russavia's edits...what a fuckwit", and I would be in breach of the ban if I were to raise it, according to information I was clearly given This is doing my head in as much as yours, I know.

After the lifting of the permaban on myself, I posted High-Potential Management Personnel Reserve to namespace from my userspace. I tweaked a category on Dmitry Medvedev and reverted on Alexander Litvinenko (link to reasoning coming later). These edits garnered this response from Sandstein at User_talk:Russavia#Warning. Given the amount of conflicting information coming from Sandstein, as to what is or isn't covered by the ban (according to him), the fact that he all but said that Putin wouldn't be covered by this ban, led me to rightly assume that the articles I created would also not be included. The High-Potential Management Personnel Reserve was created 1 year ago, so is hardly history.

An uninvolved admin posted a request at User_talk:Russavia#Requesting_comment seeking clarification as to exactly what articles I can or can't edit, given Sandsteins interpretation of history -- something that I had already sought beforehand, but got no conclusive answers. Sandstein responded to this with User_talk:Russavia#Topic_ban_extended -- he has now banned me from ALL articles relating to Russia or Russians, and has made the laughable claim that I am disruptive in this entire area, which is clearly not the case. Also note Ezhiki's question "Dmitry Medvedev is a current politician as well, yet he was the first to be listed in your warning above. I guess I just don't see the logic (and by the looks of it Russavia doesn't either, and he has to work under this ban somehow). I hope you understand that under such restrictions a clarity of the guidelines is of utmost importance. Further comments, please?" It appears to me that Sandstein has extended the ban because he could not be bothered in providing details of what would and wouldn't be covered. How am I an editor under restrictions supposed to know what articles I can and can't edit when I get conflicting information from the admin handing down the decisions as judge, jury and executioner.

I posted at User_talk:Sandstein#A_solution a possible solution. That being that seeing as Sandstein believes I am a problematic editor in articles relating to the history of the USSR/Russia with the Baltic States, that the 6 month ban be limited to those types of articles. There is no evidence of me being a problem across ALL Russian articles, by any stretch of the imagination, and by limiting the scope to the areas in which I am seen to be a problem, there can be no ambiguity about whether an article I am editing is part of the ban or not. Simply blanket banning an editor from an entire topic in which it can be shown they are productive, because of a problem in a small corner, is not the way that an admin should be operating, particularly moreso when they have not provided sound reasoning for 1) what articles may or may not be edited and 2) extending the ban despite unanswered questions and objections from numerous other admins and editors in good standing.

I take responsibility for my actions, and agree to a topic ban; that being the original topic ban as placed along with sound reasoning as to what articles I may or may not edit (very ambigious although even then), or the topic ban that I suggested on Sandstein's talk page (totally unambiguous as to what I may or may not edit). There seems to a consensus amongst those admins and editors who have already commented that the blanket ban now in force is draconian and is totally unwarranted. Sandstein mentioned it should be taken to WP:AE, but as this is now as much of a problem with Sandstein's conduct as the ban itself, it is probably the best solution that both issues be dealt with in the one place, and that is what I am requesting. --Russavia ^Dialogue 19:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Russavia, huge suprise, you ignored my advice to move on.

So you probably will ignore this advice to: large block of text will probably be skipped over and ignored, this needs to be cut down by 80%. You also have no edit diffs to support your allegations.

It is a real shame you will be indefenetly banned within a few weeks, if not a few days. Ikip (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)