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

Is User:Stevertigo a disruptive editor??

This section has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Stevertigo to free up space on this page. MuZemike

request for a deleted page

Resolved

 – restored to user sub page Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:57, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits and User:Mooretwin

Mooretwin on User:Vintagekits

I have now become sufficiently irritated by User:Vintagekits' attacks on me and harassment of my editing to post a notice here. Here are a list of personal attacks: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

It now appears that the sole purpose of his presence on Wikipedia is to follow my edits and revert them. It seems clear to me that he uses my "user contributions" page for this purpose. On 10th August, for example, he turned up on obscure Northern Ireland football club pages in which he had never previously shown interest - purely to revert, e.g. Tandragee Rovers.

On 23rd September, he logged into Wikipedia and all he did was revert edits that I had made: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

He then left a message on my talk page, which I removed, only for him to revert. Mooretwin (talk) 09:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

With no knowledge of the rights and wrongs of this particular dispute, I can certainly confirm from experience that Vintagekits does have a regular and longstanding interest in the history of Irish football. – iridescent 09:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me as though Mooretwin refused to answer a perfectly reasonable question over why he is using a blogspot blog as a source in multiple articles, in the case of Eric Treverrow it is the only source in the article. The edit to Tandragee Rovers is perfectly correct too, as when Mick Hoy was playing that flag was not used. Mooretwin is more than aware that "Northern Irish" can be a contentious term when applied to people and is best avoided, yet for some reason he keeps using it even applying it to living people. O Fenian (talk) 09:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Neither of those opinions addresses the complaint. Mooretwin (talk) 10:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Claims of stalking have not substance at all, in addition to Vin having a longstanding interest in the history of Irish football they have also had a longstanding interest in the history. Posting on a editors user page as opposed to their talk page is wrong. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Asking you a legitimate question about your policy violations, or fixing your use of contentious terms or flags in inappropriate contexts is not harassment. Adding his question back may not have been unacceptable, but that was only brought about by your refusal to answer the question it seems. O Fenian (talk) 10:18, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Vintagekits has long been considered one of "those" users - he does some excellent content work, but somehow can't quite grasp the idea that one should comment on the content, not the editor. His block log says it all; he makes personal attacks and comments, refuses to discuss them and then comes back for more. The version of WP:WQA found here is another example of his behaviour, and he's had multiple ANI threads before. Short of a block I really don't know what we're meant to do with him; he does excellent sports-related work, but does so with a potty mouth. Topic bans only work if the problem is with the editors attitude towards a certain area, and this is just a problem with his attitude. This is a prime example - while his actions were correct, his personal comments while making them (and elsewhere) were not. Ironholds (talk) 10:19, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

His actions weren't correct, unless one thinks that edit-warring is correct. His reverts on various club pages (Tandragee Rovers being only one example) were on the basis of an erroneous claim of precedent, subsequently debunked here. In any case, the complaint is less about the correctness of any individual reverts, but the fact that the user is clearly using WP merely to pursue me and to make personal attacks. Mooretwin (talk) 10:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin often tendentiously edits, and often goes against consensus, as he does on the GAA article. Tfz 11:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That block list is as long as my arm. And his editing is a violation of the spirit of User:Vintagekits/terms, if not the terms. I highly suggest opening arbitration on this user, and the blocks never seem to stick, or be effective. Magog the Ogre (talk) 12:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

No, there's no "spirit" of the block; it was designed to keep him away from baronetcy/history articles after a series of disputes on the subjects, because he's a productive editor in other areas. His actions here do not at all violate the topic ban.

The notion of Mooretwin reporting another editor for "harassment of my editing" is, frankly, difficult to take seriously. This is not the forum for POINTY irony. A goodly proportion of the blocks were by warring Admins so should play no part in assessing the merits (none) of the current complaint. Sarah777 (talk) 12:14, 26 September 2009 (UTC)Sarah777 (talk) 12:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Quite frankly a long block is all I can see happening at the moment. He's been gradually excluded from topics where he works because of his attitude and incivility at those topics, and this has done nothing to stop him - he's just been rude elsewhere. Ironholds (talk) 14:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• From a review of the diff's supplied by Mooretwin I can see two instances of violation of WP:CIVIL - well, 3 actually but 1 & 2 are the same! - which I will speak to VK about. However, I see much amiss regarding the body of Mooretwin's complaint. VK is active in both Ireland related editing and sport subjects - there is no reason why he wouldn't edit Irish Football Team articles. I also find Mooretwin is being something more than tendatious when altering a BLP to denote the subject is Northern Irish rather than "from Northern Ireland". If VK is perhaps teetering on the limits of his conditions, it is because he is being poked with sharpened sticks. I seriously suggest that Mooretwin look at his own approach to matters before re-engaging with editors in this very sensitive area. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, thats not entirely accurate. Vk is no longer "active" in either Ireland related editing or sport subjects. He has expressed his intention to no longer edit articles, but to continue to contribute to discussions. This he has more or less adhered to this with the exception of reverting the edits of Mooretwin and one or two other editors, mainly on the issues of Irish/British nationality, every couple of days. There does come a point when this type of single purpose editing - essentially low-grade revert warring targeted on a few individuals - becomes an issue.

The only reason Vk was allowed back from his numerous indefinite blocks was because of his reputation as an excellent content contributer, which was seen by some as sufficiently valuable to counter the persistent incivility, abuse, personal attacks, threats, sockpuppeteering, and edit warring. If that content contribution is no longer occurring, and all we are left with is the personal attacks, confrontational attitude and edit warring, how exactly is this helping the project? Now I'm not advocating action in this instance and I don't condone the actions of Mooretwin on the Northern Irish issue either, but I also think its time we stopped using Vk's supposed excellent content contributions as continued justification for his poor behavior. Vk needs to be made aware that if all he intends to do is pop up once to twice a week to revert a few of his enemies contributions and then make a few personal attacks, then we have no need for him. Rockpocket 00:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It's not good to revert an editor's deletion of your post on their userpage. Having one's postings deleted in that fashion is 'regrettably' common (trust me, I know). GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I guess it comes down to how thick skinned we expect people to be around here. Unfortunately that totally depends on which editor is slinging the insults. I agree with Rockpocket, but VK will come back to full-time editing eventually. Some of us just can't keep away, despite our best intentions. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 00:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support long or indefinite block. The incidents submitted are not very problematic individually, but as part of a pattern of conduct, they are. We are much too tolerant, in general, of editors who are (as the block log shows) incapable of observing basic rules of civil interaction. The disruption they cause generally outweighs the contributions they make.  Sandstein  05:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Mooretwin is causing disruption over many articles, and must be tackled. This[1] is the genre of tendentious editing he is involved in. He must be called to order. Tfz 16:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

LessHeard vanU says there is much amiss regarding the body of my complaint, because "VK is active in both Ireland related editing and sport subjects - there is no reason why he wouldn't edit Irish Football Team articles". He misses the point. VK has not shown any interest ever during my time on WIkipedia in editing articles relating to Irish League (i.e. Northern Ireland) or amateur/intermediate-level football in Northern Ireland. He had never posted on those sites and the only way he turned up on those sites was through following my edits. Also, it is a misrepresentation to say that I have been "altering a BLP to denote the subject is Northern Irish rather than "from Northern Ireland"". It is the other way round - VK has been altering these to change them from "Northern Irish" to "from Northern Ireland", presumably for some kind of political reason, based on the odd claim - supported by a small number of like-minded political editors - that "Northern Irish" is somehow "POV". The essence of this complaint is that the apparently sole purpose of VK's editing now is to pursue me and revert my edits. Mooretwin (talk) 09:18, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Stu, it all totally depends on who is slinging the insults. Rock has a high tolerance when it come to certain editors, but since he has stalked and hassled Vin enough to be told to leave him alone, pushing GD's comment out of the way to address LessHeard’s points an example of their want to counter a constructive comment. Sandstein, you ability to act as an impartial Admin is already being questioned, and your contribution hear is possibly one of the reasons why. While admitting that the incidents hear and not very problematic, they try to suggest that as a patter of conduct they are a problem. That again depends like Stu has said on who the editor is? For example, here is a pattern and compared to Vin’s not very problematic posts a very clear pattern, but its ignored. Or the whole heap of accusations being made in the course of this discussion with multiple abuses of incivility, personal attacks and assumptions of bad faith, and being spread across a number of pages [2] [3] [4]. Now neither Sandstein or Rock have mentioned Mooretwins pattern of behaviour at all, which again bears out Stu’s comments, and until such time as they do, ANI is simply a tool to further personal axes or as a form of harassment. --Domer48_'fenian' 10:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understood what I meant Domer, and I'm certain that I have no idea what you are talking about. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 11:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Until the close of the Eastern European Mailing List Arbcom case, any comment supporting Sandstein's views must be viewed with suspicion and discounted. Sandstein has been asked (and seems to be refusing) to lay down his tools pending the outcome of that case. I think this especially necessary when Sandstein takes it upon himself to comment on editors who have been involved in controversial political matters, as has Vintagekits. Sandstein's presence is at present guaranteed to exacerbate and confuse issues. Giano (talk) 11:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Vintagekits has no relation to Eastern Europe. His initial political interests (now protected by a topic ban) were on Ireland. Unless you're suggesting Sandstein is involved in a Secret British Mailing List as well this is completely irrelevant. Regardless, Sandstein is expressing his opinion as an editor, not as an admin. He'd be out of place to institute the block now he's "voted" anyway. Ironholds (talk) 11:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There are certain similarities between the Rusavia's persecution by a politicaly operated mailing list and Vintagekit's persecution by a similar group of now banned users and socks, in both cases Admins have been fooled and tricked and Arbcom cases abused. My point is that it is concerning that Sandstein, with his history, is dropping by and advocating long blocks on subjects and editors of whom he presumably knows nothing. One wonders why? Giano (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen any evidence, here or elsewhere, of a "similiar group of now banned users" persecuting Vintagekits. If you have evidence of this, feel free to drop it in at any time. Sandstein may well be familiar with vintagekits - he's at ANI so often that one doesn't need to work in the same content area to see his "work". Ironholds (talk) 16:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you so ignorant of VK's history - or are you trying (badly) to be amusing? You "have seen no evidence" - are you newly arrived of just trolling for trouble? Giano (talk) 18:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've seen Vintagekits around here before in relation to the baronetcy thing, but I'm not aware of any cabal-esque action taken by other users to smear him. It's neither total ignorance, humour or trolling, simply a lack of (oh the irony) encyclopaedic knowledge. Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Will VK still be aloud to work on the Boxing articles? I hope he'll be. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment, this discussion pretty much sums up why I dont really edit here anymore. Mooretwin is possibly the most disruptive editor on wikipedia at the moment and consistantly ignores concensus and refuses to answer simply question with regards his interpretation to policy. Yet he comes he to bitch and provide a completely one side view of whats going on - totally slanted and without any balance at all but he still gets unquestioned support from the individuals that have pretty much driven me off here. Sandstein calls for an indefinate block - God you are laughable - please explain to me why I deserve an indefinate block (this should be good!) have you even looked at the links that Mooretwin has provided which he says breach NPA? Here are a few examples 1. correctly challenging calling someone "Northern Irish" to "from Northern Ireland" - is that a personal attack on Mooretwin? No! It's removing a POV and potentially BLP comment and replacing it with something that is neutral and factually accurate. 2. [5] telling him he was canvassing - which he does often and gets away with it despite multiple warnings - thats a personal attack? Saying he is editing in a POV and disruptive manner which was confirmed by admins - thats a personal attack? Asking him why he is using a blog as the only source for multiple articles! is that a personal attack?--Vintagekits (talk) 17:23, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ironholds what do you mean by Sandstein has "voted" anyway? With baseless accusations like this tread, no wonder some editors are here so often. --Domer48_'fenian' 17:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Domer: His "support long/indefinite block" comment is similar to the sort of thing used in block/ban discussions here. Giano was implying that he shouldn't be taken into account because of his actions with the tools elsewhere, I was pointing out that he wasn't offering to use the tools here, he was simply "voting" (which would prevent him from "tooling up" altogether. Ironholds (talk) 20:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Though it goes against the spirit of Collaboration, perhaps an agreement between VK & MT can be reached. Howabout each editor not showing up at an article where the other is at? Also neither editor post at the other's talkpage? GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Eh - no! I was forced away from the Baronet articles to appease Kittybrewster and the issue I was there for still hasnt been sorted. Mooretwin is busy pushing his POV on wikipedia there doesnt seem to be anyone keeping an eye on him. I've done nothing wrong - just because the usual suspects - Rockpocket, Sandstein and Ironholds turn up to back up Mooretwins moronic rantings here doesnt mean that what he says are correct - because it isnt - thankfully others here have been quick to point that out. Mooretwin's objective is to try and some sort of topic ban or such other tools put in place so that he can carry on pushing his POV.--Vintagekits (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I figured it would serve both of you best, if you both avoided each other. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: Vintagekits' topic ban as listed at /terms has been superseded by another topic ban, and the Arbitration Committee confirmed that ban by motion /terms is historical and should probably be deleted. It is in any case, not topical.--Tznkai (talk) 19:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• This is a user who is on the cusp between problem and "vested". Laughably, here Vintagekits asks how it is possible to sort out an issue if an editor deletes a comment, when inded s/he reverted my attempt to sort out an issue. Not an impressive stance. This resulted in a block (one that was supported by many other I might add). My patience has already been exhausted but I feel the community may wish to give this editor "another chance". Regretably, I think that this is consensus and that this thread probably is not going to go any furher. Arbitration is, I feel, likely to be unproductive. Bluntly - give Vintagekits enought rope. We don't do vested conributors around here. Pedro :  Chat  20:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Coming at this with no previous interest in football or Vintagekits (but of both British and Irish background, so familiar with the issue), can I just point out that Mooretwin is either POV pushing or (unlikely, but en-Wikipedia is occasionally edited by folks from such as the Far East who occasionally make such faux pas) ignorant of the issue. "Northern Irish" is not a nationality - one group of occupants of the six counties views themselves as Irish, the other group as British. Neither would use the term to describe themselves, and reversion by somebody is inevitable. Mooretwins protestations that the reversion is by Vintagekits is therefore without merit, and should be at the minimum (if Mooretwin xyrself is not to warrant examination) be disregarded. Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Excuse my frankness, but that is complete nonsense based on entirely fallacious and simplistic reasoning. It does not follow that because someone views him or herself as British or Irish that he or she therefore does not view him or herself as Northern Irish. There is no evidence to support such a fallacy. It is, ironically, a POV.
• Vintagekits succeeded in getting a category (or categories) changed from "Northern Irish" to "from Northern Ireland", but with the express outcome that no precedent had been set. I created some stubs and wrote them in the "house style" which refers to "Northern Irish" (or "English" or "Scottish", etc.) footballers.
• In any case, this all misses the point. It doesn't matter what particular edits Vintagekits is reverting: the complaint is that, in addition to the personal attacks and incivility, his sole purpose on WP now appears to be to follow me around in order to revert me. He has turned up out of the blue at various articles on which he has never edited, solely to revert me. He has logged on to Wikipedia, checked out my contributions, reverted my edits, and then logged off.
• Ironically, in attempting to defend himself, Vintagekits has continued to attack me on this page, calling me a "POV pusher", (ironically) saying I am "possibly the most disruptive editor on Wikipedia" and referring to "moronic rantings". I am not pushing any POV: on the contrary, I wish to remove POV from Wikipedia. Mooretwin (talk) 22:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support long or indefinite block per Sandstein. --John (talk) 13:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Here[6] is Mooretwin using the system for more of his disruption. He's perfectly entitled to do that, I know, but it's edit after edit after edit. Someone has to watch his tendentious editing. Tfz 14:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The above comment appears to have no relevance to this section, which is about Vintagekits. This is the third intervention that TfZ has made here, each time to attack me, with odd examples of edits that he doesn't like, and at no time to comment on the subject of the incident. Mooretwin (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, because it reflects on your motive to rid opposition from other editors. I attacked your continuous disruptive editing, and not you. You claim that you are removing pov, but in my experience that is the worst form of editing that can happen here at Wikipedia. You basically remove edits you wp:idontlikeit, and there is much that can come under that heading for almost all editors, but they don't do that. You are already making tendentious edits[7] to Ireland related articles when the linking is still being discussed at IRCOLL. Tfz 15:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits on User:Mooretwin

• Mooretwin (talk · contribs)

Recently this user has been creating a number of articles with the sole source being a blog which does not satisfy WP:RS. For example see, Clancy McDermott, Eric Treverrow, George Dunlop (footballer) and Sammy Hughes (footballer).

I attempted to raise the issue on his talk page but my comment was deleted without reply. When I restored the comment it was then removed by another editor who outlined that I should not restore comments on another editors talkpage if they have deleted them. So I have come here to get an admin to step in and sort it out.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you take it to Articles for Deletion? Don't see what this has got to do with ANI. Mooretwin (talk) 13:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Is that your response to why you are using a blog as the only source to create an article? It is precisely that kind of answer what I am here and why you cause so much trouble.--Vintagekits (talk) 13:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus September 2009

See User talk:Ludvikus#Unblock request and User talk:Ludvikus#Restriction and User talk:Ludvikus/Archive 7#Disruption and block

Also User talk:PhilKnight#User Ludvikus

Ludvikus has recently pleaded successfully to have his two year block reduced, but instead of making a wise decision and editing in a different area, he has gone back to his old haunts and is already showing traits of the behaviour he was blocked for last time. I have placed a restriction on him from editing in one of these areas where he caused so much disruption before his last block, which will last until his block would have ended after two years (13 May 2010).

I have also suggested that he find a different area of Wikipedia to engage in constructive editing, so that when the two years are up he will be familiar with consensus editing and be less disruptive in those area where he evidently holds strong opinions.

I promised Ludvikus that I would start a thread here, so that others could review what I have done and promised him that if there is a strong consensus among other administrators that I am being too harsh, I will consider striking out the restriction. -- PBS (talk) 17:28, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

The restriction is a temporary ban from a handful of articles, so I consider this to be entirely reasonable. PhilKnight (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it's reasonable, but it's inappropriate and inconsistent with WP policy. If I had done anything wrong, with my previous record, I would have been Banned - at least for the duration of the two years which have not expired from my previous Ban, and which Ban has been graciously terminated by Admin. User:PhilKnight. I'm in this situation - I believe - because of mere content-disputes with one user, namely User:North Shoreman. The set of articles relate and pertain to one highly controversial expression, historical revisionism. And to the best of my recollection, User:Philip Baird Shearer, who is a WP Administrator, has also contributed substantially to the articles from which he is now Restricting me. Therefore, (1) I should not be restricted just because of a content dispute with one editor, User:North Shoreman; and (2) because WP Administrator, User:Philip Baird Shearer, has contributed substantially to said highly controversial family of articles, I believe he has a conflict of interest in his determination that I be Restricted from the articles he had written, dealing with historical revisionism. Furthermore, I aks that my conduct be judged only as to the issue herein. I have been Banned before. And I believe I've learned my lessons - I think that's why I'm not being banned now, only Restricted. Nevertheless, I believe the restrictions are simply due to a Content dispute with the herein Restricting administrator. Thank you for your considerations on this matter. --Ludvikus (talk) 19:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Ludvikus. Given his history of disruptive editing, a temporary restriction is inappropriate. Within a week or two he will muck up some other area of Wikipedia, and soon thereafter he will be accusing every administrator in sight of having a personal conflict with him. Save us all some time and restore his block. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] (talk · contribs) 19:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

You know that it's partly because of my Confrontation with you, User:Malik Shabazz, and User:Bootlesthecat that I was Banned for two (2) years. Now Bootlesthecat is Banned from WP. And now you think I should be Banned again. But why? What have I done wrong? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:23, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Personally, the unblock and restriction are both appropriate, and well-founded in Wikipedia policy. Blocks are to prevent disruption. A generally good editor who has "issues" in a certain field can hopefully edit successfully in another field - there are over a million articles that need work. Work within the restrictions, show your "quality", and perhaps the restrictions will be lifted. Wikilawyering won't help. Further edits inside the restricted areas should lead to a reinstatement of the block with a reset timer. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:26, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

An editor with such a chequered history needs to tread carefully on their return, and Ludvikus acknowledged in his unblock request was that the way to stay out of trouble was to "simply drop ANY confrontation with any other editor." If a topic ban from a few articles helps him to do that, then it's a help to everyone. If Ludvikus continues to oppose the topic ban, I suggest he be offered the alternative of having the block restored.

Having looked at PBS's edits to the articles in question, I don't see any conflict of interest. PBS's edits in this area appear to be minor housekeeping issues. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:31, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully submit that you're mistaken. Perhaps your error is due to a failure to recognize for whom the initials PBS stand. If you search under the full name of this Administrator who is now restricting me, you'll find that he in fact participated - years ago, and engaged me in discourse on that said subject - on the historical revisionism. Also, the fact that you had participated in Banning me before has nothing to do with this Content dispute over historical revisionism. I hope you do not construe this as a Confrontation. I merely ask you to go back in years and confirm that what I say here is true. Whatever you say thereafter, I'll drop the point - unless you totally misunderstand what I'm say regarding the Conflict of Interests of the Restricting Administrator (since I've been Banned years back, you should look at the content dispute I've had with PBS when he used his full name. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:55, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Ludvikus, I did look under his full name. I just typed PBS 'cos his full name is rather long.

And no, I don't see evidence of a content dispute.

And even I did, I'd still support banning you from returning to the area where you had your previous conflicts, when you have just returned from a long-term block. Try some other topic as a palce to demonstrate that you really can work collaboratively and without drama. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• If you really look very carefully at my conduct upon my return, you'll find that in fact I have "tread[ed] carefully on [my] return. So I ask you - please - tell me exactly where I have deliberately violated any rule - or Not "tread[ed] carefully." If you point out exactly what I've done wrong, I can avoid it in the future. But my understanding now is that there's a mere Content dispute regarding my editing of historical revisionism articles. I really do not understand why I'm being restricted now from editing the articles in question. What WP rules have I violated? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• I would draw your attention to your unblock request, and specifically

  (4) I have absolutely no interests in any confrontations at Wikipedia which would lead to a "block" - so there's really no need to block me any longer.

  and would gently point out that you have posted in disagreement with every contributor in this section. I would remind you that you are the account that was blocked, and have undertaken not to engage in disputes as previously, and that it is your actions that need explaining under policy and your unblock and not that of various parties that disagree with you. Your attitude on this page indicates that your good intentions are not being carried through. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Thank you for you gentle admonition. I had no idea that a discussion of whether I should be Restricted from revisionist history enumerated articles (4?) would be a Confrontation, as you now suggest. As I now understand, I'm not supposed even to discuss whether I should be restricted. Since that's what you're now telling me, I will not write here anymore. Thanks for telling me that. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Hmmmm... I was not implying that editing or commenting upon those areas in which you have been previously been found to be disruptive is in itself in violation of the self imposed imposed limitations under which you were unblocked (although it may be considered that avoiding those subjects might be a better option) but rather your tone and actions in this section rather belies your claim to avoid confrontation. Is it not possible that the better response to PBS's initial post was, "Whoops! I had not intended to transgress my undertakings..." and then attempted to negotiate a basis under which you might continue to contribute to those areas rather than bring up old conflicts with the reporting editor? Rather than a few people decrying your recent editing history you may have had them helping you through the topic ban. I cannot say I am overly impressed with your attitude toward my comments, and I do not think that there is now much more to do than endorse PBS's actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you are talking to me, and conversing with me now. There was no "initial post" by PBS. He simply Restricted me without any warning. And he placed me on this Noticeboard. So I simply have had absolutely no opportunity to say "oops." He gave me no chance. I had no opportunity to make any corrections based on objections by PBS. And I was not Blocked because of any disagreement I had with him. I had no idea PBS was displeased with my editing - until after the fact. He simply admonished me for my editing - and than decided to post an incident here. So I'm completely surprised by this situation I'm in. I have no idea how this Confrontation came about. I really think its just a content dispute. So I would appreciate it if you showed me (1) What exactly I did wrong, (2) How can I avoid getting into trouble like this in the future. I certainly understand that I should not violate the specific Restriction that are now posted on my Talk paqge. But I need to understand exactly why I got into trouble with PBS in the first place, and how I can avoid that predicament in the future. Thank you. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope you understand that my editing at Wikipedia now feels like walking in a mind-field. It's seems that Anything can turn into an explosive Confrontation. I think precisely because I've been so cautious PBS has not simply Banned me for the duration of my two-years. But I need to understand how I got into this mess in the first place. And so far, no one has explained to me exactly what I did wrong which has resulted in this Restriction. And I hope my desire to learn this situation I'm in is not misconstrued as a Confrontation. I simply do not know why the Restrictions were imposed on me by PBS without any warning by him whatsoever. Thanks. --Ludvikus (talk) 00:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

"When you're in a hole, stop digging." -- Denis Healey.

I'll put some suggestions onto your talk page. --PBS (talk) 00:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

PBS's initial post here - you could have taken the opportunity to acknowledge that they had concerns and request guidance to enable you to return to editing the article(s). You did not, and instead queried whether the ban was within policy - and you have argued every view that it was subsequently. As an editor returning from a ban/block it is incumbent upon you to ensure you are acting within policy - and unless you can give good reasons why you consider your disputed edits are consistent with policy it is understood that consensus exists to your being blocked for disrupting these articles per the previous blocks; your warnings already exist per the blocks and prior warnings. It is a regrettable truth that previously banned editors do not have the luxury of having sanctions explained to them - they are expected to recognise that they are allowed the privilege of editing Wikipedia only if they do not repeat the behaviour that has previously resulted in sanctions. I see that PBS has opened a dialogue; this is the opportunity to learn where your editing has been deemed inappropriate. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by: "I see that PBS has opened a dialogue; this is the opportunity to learn where your editing has been deemed inappropriate." --Ludvikus (talk) 04:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I refer to the posts by PBS to your talkpage - to which you have replied. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's extremely informative & helpful. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry concerns with User:Bluedogtn et al.

• moved from Wikipedia talk:Sock puppetry#Limit on legitimate alternative accounts → ROUX ₪ 20:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

“ I've been querying a user recently and following the most recent admission they they seem to have 24 "legitimate" socks, which seems ridiculous. Additionally they quite often sign from one account with the signature of another account. I'm quite uncomfortable by all of this but I don't really know where to take it, so thought I'd ask here. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 10:01, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• This has a little crossover with WP:SIGNATURE. I believe it is disruptive to not link to a userpage (my strong preference for usertalk) when editing a page that is supposed to be signed. The disruption is not immediate, but manifests later when trying to review, as we do a lot around here. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 11:50, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

That particular cluster of accounts is, IMHO, a serious problem. I'm on record stating that alternate accounts shouldn't be permitted, period (apart from one account for public/insecure terminals), so I may be biased. But that enormous number guarantees an ability to edit disruptively without scrutiny. Yes yes, AGF, but the parent account has edited disruptively, due to losing an argument about some navboxes. He then went on to announce his intent to deliberately disrupt other navboxes because he couldn't get his way. I certainly don't have the time or interest to look through contribs from what, 24 accounts? And I doubt anyone else does either. Which is basically the problem here. I would support a motion to restrict this user to one account. → ROUX ₪ 15:33, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

This does seem problematic. I looked into some of the accounts and found considerable overlap in editing between them: [8]. That shows 181 articles edited by two or more accounts, including 21 edited by three accounts. I concur with Roux that the editor should be asked to use just one account.   Will Beback  talk  19:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

”

Having looked at all 24 accounts via the Wikistalk tool, the concerns raised are more grave. (Report here). 343 pages (mainspace and template, mostly) have been edited by at least two of the accounts listed, many by three, and a couple by four or more.

Now, disclosures:

• Bluedogtn has indeed disclosed on all relevant user talk pages that each account is an alternate
• Poking through ten at random, there are no entries in block logs, though on some of the talkpages there seems to have been some strange editwarring and multiple edits by multiple accounts
• I was involved in a minor dispute with Bluedogtn some months ago. It spilled over from his being upset about not being allowed to include an image in a navbox to going on a deliberately disruptive/pointy spree of removing them from other navboxes against consensus. He was a minority of one in the dispute; User:Thumperward was party to the initial cause.

However, there are several concerns here:

• Overlap of edits. Given that I don't receive paycheques with the WMF logo on them, I haven't gone through each diff (which is really one of the problems here; it's nigh-on impossible to go through that many edits on that many accounts to find evidence of problematic behaviour that constitutes a pattern. Given the problems with the parent account's edits, I would be flabbergasted if there are none with the alternates). However, the multiple edits by multiple accounts is prima facie bad form if not outright forbidden;
• This many accounts can be used as an avenue for evading scrutiny
• The usernames themselves are problematic; Bluedogtn referring to himself as an authority seems to go against the spirit if not the black letter of the username policy
• Two accounts commenting in a Featured List discussion here, with no disclosure that they are the same person--indeed, the wording seems to indicate they are supposed to be viewed as two separate entities. And again here, with the IP posting as a separate user.
• Three accounts added as members of a Wikiproject, corrected three weeks later.

Per my initial suggestion at the Sockpuppetry page and Will Beback's agreement, I propose that Bluedogtn be restricted to use of one account and one only. → ROUX ₪ 20:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• User:Bluedogtn has been notified. Should I notify the other 23 accounts?

I've notified him at User talk:98.240.44.215, which seems to be his most active identity at the moment.   Will Beback  talk  20:40, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• Support a limitation. Thanks to the reporting party for the excellent research. Ironholds (talk) 22:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'd echo this suggestion and have been tracking this since I made the connection between the accounts this week. This user has disagreed and then requested help from a user using different accounts which is concerning. Some recent admissions were made after I had informed them I was aware of accounts operating in a manner against policy. Additionally I am very uneasy of a user registering an opinion on an AfD as one account and then later deciding to attribute it to another account. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 22:21, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
• Limit to one account as a preventative measure to avoid the certainty of confusion and possibility of disruption. Do it by block if necessary, but I hope the user will cooperate without our needing to do this. DGG ( talk ) 22:42, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I think I saw the same thing a while ago. Didn't this person have a breakdown and tried to leave the encyclopedia? Or has this person come back? MuZemike 22:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes here, here and here. Which led to semi-retirements for Bluedogtn, TennisAuthority, GolfAuthority. However the IP never stopped editing. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Right. That's why I have requested Checkuser as below. MuZemike 23:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Bluedogtn

I have been a bad bad wikipedian, shame on me! I just see hypocracy on here with stuff diverting from the rules and it makes me sad! How do the Canadian and Israeli Navboxes get special treatment, and a non-American says I can't do the same with the American one! I recognize, I have created some sports navboxes that are colorful, but that goes in line with the ones created before! I just wanted one set standard to have on wikipedia for all navboxes to allow for all customization or none at all! Some think they get consesus for a navbox in one project and think they can subvert the navbox rules as a whole I have the TennisAuthority account because I was trying to show that Authority and Expert like Tennisexpert, who I despised accounts need to be forbidden on wikipedia. I have created much more good content on here on Tennis, Golf, and Basketball articles than I have been well you fill in the word. I just created the TW-RF account three months ago because of a dispute we had about rivalry pages, and I wanted to just do that so, I could get some work done on here on thinks disconsidered go look at those sandboxes 3-9 for that! I found [www.answers.com Answers] was using our content to make money, which made me mad, but I got over it, and came back to help on here too! I created the TN-IS account about two weeks ago because I had 1717 edits on TW-RF and I am a superstitious guy, but I accidently had the account logged in and edited the Medinah article! Go look at my edits to see all that I have contributed and the long hours I have put into this wiki to create good consistent consise content! I am sad to have to leave wikipedia, but I tried to get on here with the ultimate goal of becoming an Admin one day, and that will no longer happen! I have obsessioncumplusive disorder that is the reason for the many accounts! I am so sorry goodbye and close out or block my accounts I don't care, I have been driven from wikipedia for the last begotten time! I just wanted to see the content Don Lope created get to FL status because look at how long he has been gone, and I was trying to do it for him and his hard work, but I guess I will not get to see that happen because I will be no longer apart of it! GOD BLESS!_BLuE^DOgTn 23:07, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Can a Checkuser look at these accounts, please? MuZemike 23:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead and delete all my account, please and it is over and done! No one has ever appreciate me on here at all, and I cant take this crap for nothing anymore!_BLuE^DOgTn 23:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes well you've said that before, and continued editing. Will you voluntarily restrict yourself to a single account? That means one, whether you choose a named account or your IP is largely immaterial at this point. → ROUX ₪ 01:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

No one is asking Bluedogtn to stop editing. It's only a request for him edit while using just one account.   Will Beback  talk  02:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've never been a sockpuppet because in any forum on here I always contribute as one user such as TennisAuthority in tennis until the spat of the rivalry pages. I then went and created TW-RF and that was to do some matenience on Tennis Articles, but that was it until Don Lope quit editing, and I took up the mantle of FL drive. I guess I could never become an Admin with any of these accounts, so why keep on going, when my ultimate goal has been derailed. I will edit using this account from here on out if I even do anymore...I used to love this place now I am beginning to regret all that I have done on this project. I now see you all points, which I will acquiese to them! But, I am still vehementally unhappy with the navbox issues on wikipedia! How can I become an Admin from here, who knows? I will add that I might get logged out on my families computer, so I still might have some edits from the IP address._BLuE^DOgTn 04:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

So, go ahead and block the other accounts, which will prevent me from editing from them!_BLuE^DOgTn 04:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Check these

I am giving you the accounts that I have over 100 edits on and the other, I seldomly used if ever used those others go look! I am being honest here because I want to be an Admin one day in the future if someone would like to help me in that endeavor. I will welcome it! These numbers are as of a week ago, I think? Good Day...Today of course_BLuE^DOgTn 03:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• 1,854 TennisAuthority
• 966 GolfAuthority
• 2,030 Bluedogtn
• 122 BasketballAuthority
• 1,717 TW-RF
• 116 TN-IS
• IP98 500+500+500+500+100aprox
• IP69 400aprox
  • Are these all the accounts, or just the ones you have 100+ edits on. We need all of the accounts, and a promise to limit yourself to a single account. Ironholds (talk) 09:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    • There is a big list of them down the right-hand side of User talk:Bluedogtn, which was started six months ago and which — as noted right at the start of this discussion — xe has been maintaining in accordance with a suggestion to do so. Uncle G (talk) 12:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thekohser, Shoemaker's Holiday, and Wikivoices—incivility and edit warring

Further information: [[:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#Asking for audio is harassment campaign?|Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566 § Asking for audio is harassment campaign?]]

Involved users

• Thekohser (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)
• Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)

Involved pages

• Wikipedia:Wikivoices (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Diffs

• Edits by User:Thekohser on Wikipedia:Wikivoices: Numerous edits, many with sarcastic or offensive edit summaries, including altering the time of a Skype chat; more edits, including removal of header
• Revert by User:Shoemaker's Holiday: Revert of previous 4 edits by Thekohser
• Revert of revert by Thekohser: Revert of Shoemaker's Holiday's revert of his edits

Policies/guidelines

• WP:CIVIL
• WP:HARASS
• WP:EW (getting close, but not quite at that point yet)

(Feel free to add to, edit, and amend the above—it is for reference, and should not be considered part of my post)

For the sake of disclosure, I am involved with Wikivoices, and have had prior interactions with User:Shoemaker's Holiday, but have had no involvement with this issue or with User:Thekohser.

From what I understand of this issue, Thekohser was refused access to the Wikivoices Skypechat (I have been told this has something to do with harassment of Shoemakers Holiday—the extent of this issue, I do not know). He is not the first, and a number of users have been deied access previously. He then began to edit the Wikivoices project page, including removing the page header and editing the scheduled time of the next recording, often with sarcastic and offensive edit summaries. Seeing this as vandalism, Shoemaker's Holiday reverted these edits. Thekohser reverted again.

There has been some discussion of this on the talk page, but this seems to be more complex than a simple edit war, so I am bringing it here with the hope of resolving the issue through community consensus. I am not here lobbying for sanctions on either user, unless the community deems that necessary. Dendodge _T\^C 22:51, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Thekohser has been engaging in other strange behavior including copying a page here from his website and proxying for a banned user to post the page diff. Triplestop x3 23:08, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Triplestop, that really isn't part of this incident, and will really only serve to distract from the main issue at hand. The issue you brought up has been dealt with already on this very noticeboard. NW (Talk) 23:11, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

It is on the edge of an edit war, but I see no evidence that The Kohser will continue the fight. Viridae^Talk 23:13, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Nor do I, but there appears to be something deeper and more complex going on here. Dendodge _T\^C 23:15, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this behavior appears to be part of a general pattern of problematic behavior by this user. He was unbanned by ArbCom under condition that he would toe a very narrow line. After he crossed that line he was blocked again and given a final chance (I'm not sure how many final chances he has had at this point). Would it maybe make sense to bring this back to the ArbCom? (Disclaimer: I've recently been paid a small sum of money by TheKohser for winning a contest). JoshuaZ (talk) 00:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This appears to be an element of a feud with Shoemaker's Holiday over the disposition of a sound file. If so, then it may conflict with an editing restriction:

• "Civility restriction: You may not engage – in either an initiatory or retaliatory capacity – in any form of feuding, quarreling or personal attack." User talk:Thekohser#ArbCom: Suspension of your community ban

If Thekohser keeps pursuing this then WP:AE would be an appropriate venue.   Will Beback  talk  00:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This matter arose on ANI a few days ago. Both parties were told - in no uncertain terms - to DROP IT. This is not a Wikipedia related dispute and has no place on Wiki. Manning (talk) 00:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I have nothing against Shoemaker's Holiday at this time, other than his refusal to cooperate with Sage Ross or with Samuel Klein to take 2 minutes to e-mail either or both of them an audio file (which I haven't bugged him about at all since the AN/I decision), and other than his indicating the wrong time-zone-adjusted times for today's Skype meeting, and other than his changing the subject of the Skype meeting with only 4 hours to go, and other than his not indicating all week that I would be denied entry into the Skype meeting even if I could have found it despite asking days ago how to find it, and other than him restoring incorrect information and dead links to the Wikivoices page after I asked that they be updated and corrected before being restored. If that sounds like *I* am causing a feud, then maybe I should be blocked. Otherwise, I could always get back to writing new articles for Wikipedia. -- Thekohser 01:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The sound file in question apparently concerns the Wikimedia Foundation, with whom Thekohser has a known conflict. If so, then this entire Wikivoice dispute may be an outgrowth of the Wikimedia dispute.   Will Beback  talk  02:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe that the sound file in question was a Board of Trustees candidates - Round table interview.[9] So, more than 10 people gave time to this roundtable - I could ask the other participants their opinion on this matter if it would help. 99.150.255.75 (talk) 04:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi 99.150.255.75, please don't bother the dozen or so people related to that interview. As blurpeace notes, they and the interview have nothing to do with today's edit war. +sj+ 07:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Will Beback has stated an opinion/theory that this is a personal matter and that "this entire Wikivoice dispute may be an outgrowth of the Wikimedia dispute." I am attempting to depersonalize the matter by getting the opinions of those who were present at the original WikiVoices round table, as the Editors mentioned in this dispute appear to be at an impasse - Can you please forward this to a better locale if this is not the place where this problem (if it is a problem) can be worked out? 99.150.255.75 (talk) 05:27, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

This comment is not helpful here. +sj+

This thread was started over an edit war that occured today. None of the people listed here participated in it. –blurpeace ^(talk) 05:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There are a number of factors that are not present in this representation, particularly the nature of the dispute around the sound file. Accessibility is a foundation stone of Wikimedia Projects. Even if a member of our Community is challenging and problematic, exclusionism is unsound. Wikivoices should seek to be inclusive otherwise they are not a voice of our Community. If Shoemaker's Holiday is perpetuating misinformation to exclude Thekohser from taking part that is reprehensible.

B9 hummingbird hovering ^{(talk • contribs)} 05:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Allow me to summarize both of the disputes. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk · contribs) has stated that some candidates had expressed concern over release of the file, and they (i.e. Shoemaker) now feel that it's unnecessary to publish the recording as the elections have already passed. Thekohser (talk · contribs) then went on to harass Shoemaker about the file's release here. It was concluded by administrator Manning Bartlett (talk · contribs) et al. that the dispute was not concerned with Wikipedia or the Wikimedia Foundation, and that it should be resolved off wiki.

Now, this thread has absolutely nothing to do with the previous one. This is over an edit war that had occured yesterday. The IP above is acting as a meatpuppet of Thekohsers, and they're attempting to extend a dispute that has already been resolved on wiki. Please, remain on topic. –blurpeace ^(talk) 06:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping the peace. +sj+ 07:49, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

When I read the text right, Mr Kohs is to behave in a prescribed way. This means that he is to behave when it comes to the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikipedia. I have read that some people want to narrow this down to "just on en.wp". When you look at his behaviour, he has been recently trolling on Meta by removing Jimmy Wales and Angela from the list of people who can present about Wikipedia. He has been trying to get Shoemaker's Holiday to present him with a sound file, a sound file that needs a lot of work before it is presentable, a job Shoemaker never volunteered for. The trolling around Shoemakeer has been ongoing in many places and Mr Kohs' vandalism of the Wikivoices page is not acceptable by itself and it is not acceptable in order to get his way in order to get this sound file.

As much as Mr Kohs, I have been interviewed at the time and I feel utterly uncomfortable when this sound file is going to be given to him and not to be made public. There is nothing really in the sound file but I do not want to see a troll fed. Given that nobody is volunteering for the work and given that the elections are months in the past, it would be a waste of time to pressure someone in cleaning up the file. From my perspective, it is best deleted if only to end this.

All in all, I am of the opinion that Mr Kohs has violated the terms under which he is allowed to work on Wikipedia and should now be permanently banned. AGF is not applicable in regard to this gentleman. Thanks, GerardM (talk)

I'm with Gerard. We attempted an unban. That hasn't really worked out. I think that we need to reban him and ensure that any return follows something like the 'standard offer'. Along those lines, the BASC should take note that unbanning folks who aren't likely to do anything but agitate is unwise. Protonk (talk) 08:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I disagree; Kohs does seem to have violated his terms of returning to wikipedia, which appear to have been quite strict. A ban would appear to be the next step. Skinny87 (talk) 08:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I have reviewed this and other similar behaviours. It's very late here (or perhaps more accurately, terribly early) and I will look at this again after a bit of shut-eye; however, if one of my colleagues has not taken steps when I awake, I will be proceeding to address this in the manner prescribed by Thekohser's unblock conditions. I should note, as an aside, that though I understand the frustration felt by Shoemaker's Holiday, he needs to remember that edit-warring isn't something he should be doing either; I would like to think that, had he asked at this board or otherwise contacted an available administrator, the goings on at that page could have been addressed without having to increase his own frustration level. Risker (talk) 08:55, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The direction this discussion would otherwise go in is quite clear, so I too hope that this is resolved soon. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Kohs is somebody I've generally been on a more-or-less friendly basis with, and I think some of the past treatment of him was unfair and he often has a valid point, but he's rather hard to defend this time; even with a few valid points in there, he has a strong tendency to press them in ways that push people's buttons the wrong way, and he's supposed to be on special warning not to do that sort of thing upon his unban. I can understand the frustration about podcast episodes going into limbo and not being released (I feel it too; I maintain the RSS feed for that podcast, and would like to have a complete archive, but there are now several "lost episodes" missing from the sequence, making me feel like Frasier did in the episode of his sitcom where one of the tapes in his complete collection of his own radio show got lost), but throwing around words like "treachery" and "morally bankrupt" is way over the top (and certainly not Assuming Good Faith). His changing the times of yesterday's recording was done allegedly to correct errors in the time zone conversions as originally posted, but I see no evidence of there being any error until he "fixed" it by effectively delaying the show two hours (which actually worked out OK for me; I was out for a walk at the time the show was originally scheduled, but ended up participating in it when it actually started and I was at home). The fact is, though, that this podcast is an unofficial project, and it's highly unfortunate that it is now stirring up drama among WP admins when it is in fact completely independent of anything official in Wikipedia/Wikimedia. *Dan T.* (talk) 13:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Risker above says that I edit warred, but I believe this is false: I attempted to correct Kohs' changing of the times to an inaccurate time (once), and reverted his vandalising of the page once, but I stopped completely when Kohs reverted back, giving up on it, which is probably less than I should've done, given this information was vital to keeping the episode and participants organised. Does this amount to edit-warring? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 14:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Timeline

There's a bit of confusion here, so let me give a quick timeline:

11:47, 24 September 2009 (UTC): Kohs opens a thread here on ANI attacking me for failing to release episode 45.[10] (see this link for the next couple bits)

14:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC) Kohs, in response to Manning, suggests ways I could be punished:

“ [...]Here are some ways to compel cooperation:

• Deny Shoemaker participation in the Wikivoices program until he transfers the file to any other willing volunteer.
• Publicly rebuke Shoemaker for hoarding free content, against the wishes of at least several of the participants whose voices were captured.

[...]

”

14:49, 24 September 2009 (UTC): Is warned (still in the ANI thread) by Manning to drop the harassment. Thread is closed.

15:15, 24 September 2009: Kohs signs himself up as participant in an episode of Wikivoices which I am hosting.

16:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC): Kohs reposts a gross personal attack from one of his emails on the Wikivoices talk page:

“

several people involved have made it clear that it should only be released by official means, not privately. I'm afraid that's the end of this discussion, as I cannot go against the wishes of the other people involved in it to please you.

To which, I did respond that Shoemaker's Holiday was a morally bankrupt cog in the big Wiki machine of unaccountable treachery. That was as "harassing" as my tone ever got with Shoemaker's Holiday. If an apology is needed to release the audio file from Episode 45, I will be happy to provide a public or private apology to him, whichever he prefers. But, at this point, I suspect no amount of apologizing, groveling, or kissing the ring of Shoemaker's Holiday will bring him down off the very pointy ledge he's decided to park himself upon. -- Thekohser 16:25, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

”

13:53, 26 September 2009: Kohs reconfirms I am "morally bankrupt"

20:09, 26 September 2009 Kohs changes the session's time. (I subsequently try and fix this, but a minor bug in Wikipedia causes me to accidentally revert myself.

It was somewhere around this point that Kohs is told he is not welcome in the chat, as he must have fully known.

21:09-21:31, 26 September 2009: Kohs vandalises Wikivoices

22:03, 26 September 2009: I revert

22:11, 26 Septeber 2009: Kohs reverts

By this time, I gave up, and have not edited on this matter again until this morning. I trust this puts the situation in a new light? Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 10:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Thekohser will be taking a one-month Wikibreak, to allow time for uninvolved parties (folks other than GerardM who deliberately stirs the pot, and other than Shoemaker's Holiday who continually re-frames evidence to portray himself as some sort of helpless victim) to examine my article contributions to the encyclopedia project, and to investigate how taunting and agitation tactics have been deliberately deployed by others to irritate me. -- Thekohser 13:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The wikibreak is a good idea, but sniping at people in the course of announcing it is not so great an idea. Some self-awareness on your part of your own role in the dramas you've been involved in, where your own actions contributed to the problems independently of anything anybody else may have done, would also be a good idea if you could manage it. (And I'm saying this as a friend, somebody who often sympathizes with you and doesn't want to see you banned again, but who is having great difficulty defending you in the current fight.) *Dan T.* (talk) 13:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If deliberately stirring the pot means that I am looking for a specific outcome, then indeed. Mr Kohs has proven himself sufficiently. He has been agitating in his way on Meta, now on en.wp where he only may operate for as long as his behaviour is clean. His actions prove that he cannot abide by the restrictions put on him and consequently he should be banned. Thanks, GerardM (talk) 17:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Status of audio file

The answer to my question is probably buried in this discussion somewhere, but I must have glossed over it - has the file at the heart if this dispute been released to someone willing to complete the editing? I admit that I don't understand the importance of these interviews, especially after the election, or why the file needs to be edited prior to release, but it seems that simply making this file available will go a long way to diffusing one part of this dispute. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 15:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Long story short, the first time anyone but Kohs contacted me about wanting to edit it was an hour ago. Kohs' emails to me are auto-junked, I don't know if there were other people he mentioned. In addition, with one exception just after the election (when I still had the headache that made it impossible to try and figure out which file it was), the first request outside of Kohs was yesterday.

Thanks to the headaches, I've never actually listened to the file. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 16:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Shoe-I'd suggest that the sound file be turned over to someone you trust, to complete tasks. If not, it will only harm WikiVoices. The person should not be Kohs, who has a known conflict here and with the Foundation, and just got rebanned by Risker. — Rlevse • Talk • 18:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It will be as soon as I can dig it out - Call Graph saves recordings by a date and time, so some digging around will be required. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 208 FCs served} 19:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thekohser blocked

After reviewing again the issues raised in this and other recent noticeboard reports, I have revoked Thekohser's provisional unblocking, effective immediately.[11] Risker (talk) 17:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thekohser has done some strange things however that might be a bit harsh, but this block is needed to deter this pattern he is on right now. Thekohser needs to focus more on making useful contribs rather than messing around and going off on a Wikibreak whenever the heat is on. Triplestop x3 17:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

He can make very useful contributions when he puts his mind to it; the problem is that he then wants to use those contributions as bargaining chips in the games he spends a good chunk of his activity playing instead of doing the useful contributions. *Dan T.* (talk) 18:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

So essentially, he is gaming the system. Triplestop x3 19:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Basically. And while it behooves us to sometimes turn the other cheek, we really only ought to do so once. Protonk (talk) 21:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

<outdent: Can't argue with that. It seems to me that attempting to use perceived weaknesses in our processes and turn them against us seems unduly disruptive. His recent support of User:PeterDamian's recent further futile attempt to upset the apple-cart is yet another example. I am reminded of Paul Dirac's opinion that "When it's you against the world, bet on the world". Enough is enough. Rodhullandemu 00:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

For what it's worth: I endorse this block. I lost patience with Kohs after he called me a "witless boob", and other users in unflattering terms for opposing the WP:OPTOUT proposal. That trouble has periodically persisted after the unblock simply does not surprise me. Sjakkalle (Check!) 12:16, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Evosoho

DGG suggested bringing this issue to ANI and I agree with it.

Here are the problems put together by Ikip about Evosoho:

Camponotus saundersi

nominated Camponotus saundersi for deletion. 13:51, 26 September 2009.[12]

Deleted: Workers are 4 to 6 mm long.<ref name=emery1889>Emery 1889: 516</ref> 14:59, 26 September 2009[13]

Deleted: ==Footnotes== {{reflist}} 14:59, 26 September 2009.[14]

Deleted almost all of the text of the article, no reason given, tagged as "minor": "Its defensive behaviours include self-destruction by autothysis. Two oversized, poison-filled mandibular glands run the entire length of the ant's body. When combat takes a turn for the worse, the ant violently contracts its abdominal muscles to rupture its body and spray poison in all directions." 19:51, 26 September 2009.[15]

Deleted reference section, reason given "correcting": "* {{aut|Emery, Carlo}} (1889): Viaggio di Leonardo Fea in Birmania e regioni vicine. XX. Formiche di Birmania e del Tenasserim raccolte da Leonardo Fea (1885-87). ''Annali del Museo Civico di Storia Naturale Giacomo Doria (Genova)'' 2 '''7'''(27): 485-520. [ PDF]" 19:55, 26 September 2009 [16]

Dream Focus reverts Evosoho's deletions. 20:10, 26 September 2009.[17]

Evosoho removes rescue template, reason given "canvassing" 20:12, 26 September 2009 [18]

Evosoho reverts Dream Focus restoration of material, reason given: "no vandilizm dream focus was vandalizng" 20:13, 26 September 2009.[19]

Template:Exploding_animals

Evosoho deletes nine of the eleven entries from the template. 20:38, 26 September 2009 [20]

Irbisgreif puts the article up for WP:TFD, Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Exploding animals 20:52, 26 September 2009.[21]

Evosoho deletes the last two entries from the template. 21:00, 26 September 2009[22]

Exploding animals

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding donkey result: merge. 9:44, 24 September 2009

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding sheep result: keep, Nomination withdrawn with intent to merge, 19:44, 24 September 2009

Evasoho merges Exploding donkey into Exploding animals. 20:08, 24 September 2009 [23]

Evasoho merges Exploding rat into Exploding animals. 21:15, 24 September 2009.[24]

Evasoho merges Exploding toads into Exploding animals. 14:39, 26 September 2009[25]

Evasoho puts the article Exploding animals up for deletion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding animal (3rd nomination) [26]

Problems with him tagging articles for deletion goes back futher. Joe Chill (talk) 23:37, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments

1. Calling them vandalism and the removing rescue tags is disruptive to efforts of Wikipedians trying to improve the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
2. Deconstructing an article without discussion, in order to make the article weaker when when being discussed at AfD might also be itself seen as disruptive vandalism of other's efforts to improve the project. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
3. And a question: This diff shows that Evosoho takes credit for nominating an article for deletion, while the deletion page diff it lists the nominator as "3^0$0%0". Is this an eror, or is it an attempt to make it appear someone else did the nominating? If the former, it should be corrected. If the latter, it is a bad precedent, as it makes it appear as if someone else did the nomming. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
4. Further, the deconstruction of multiple articles without discussion, then merging the results into a seperate article without discussion, and then nominating that article for deletion seems to be an attempt to thwart the processes set in place in the project, and again seems disruptive of other's efforts to improve the encyclopedia. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

With respect to point 3, this revision shows that the bizarre signature was there at creation, but that the user / talk / contributions links do indeed go to Evosoho. The text appears to be leet. ^Bongo_matic 00:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Struck the question, and thank you for the answer. Still though, and accepting that both sigs belong to the same person, the use of differing sigs within seconds of each other at different places might still be seen as confusing if one does not decide to follow the trail... as if I were to sign this User:XYZ123321ZYX (talk), rather than as MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Unstruck after further research. This instance of using multiple sigs with one account within seconds of each edit is not consistent with policy at WP:Username. While technically not a seperate account and so not a sock, and not a single purpose only account so not a SPA, the use of this technique could be seen as improper in that it is misleading and could easily lead to an inference of false consensus for an action, and THAT violates WP:Username. MichaelQSchmidt (talk) 01:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

These actions were clearly inappropriate. Editing an article in order to weaken it & then sending it to deletion is very underhanded. I suggest a strongly worded warning not to do this again. --ThaddeusB (talk) 01:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It appears that most of the "editing an article in order to weaken it" occurred after, not before, the article was sent to AfD, but I concur that the article is an obvious keeper, Since the AfD has been (non-admin) closed as a speedy keep, perhaps this thread could be marked as resolved. Deor (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You are correct about the timing, although it doesn't really change anything. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

After further examination, there seems to be a deeper problem here. Evosoho appears to have a history of excessively bold, unilateral moves. In the last couple days he has moved GNOME to Gnome (desktop environment), moved Wubi to Wubi (disambiguation), userified several A7 article attempts without notifying the editor who made them, requested a major AfD template unprotect so he could unilaterally rename it, and more. He also put an article up for AfD with no edit summary and marked the edit as minor and made numerous clearly wrong RfD nominations.

Someone needs to have a serious talk with him as he seems to think his opinion on any given matter is all that counts. If he refuses to stop, he'll have to be blocked as the majority of his edits are (unintentionally) disruptive. --ThaddeusB (talk) 02:00, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• This War on Explosions isn't as unilateral as it is being painted here. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exploding tree for several other editors who think that some of our "exploding X" articles are highly contrived just for the sake of having such an article. Evosoho's edits to the navigation template and mergers of articles are not as idiosyncratic as they are being painted here.

  Of course, that also leads to problematic edits such as Evosoho tagging an article as a hoax simply because it discussess a hoax. ☺ (I've held back my discovery that the NPR hoax isn't actually wholly a hoax, which will probably be to NPR's surprise, in the hope that someone else looking for sources would have found the sources that I did. It seems that no-one has, yet.)

  And then there are things such as moving user boxes out of user space, as as Evosoho did with Template:User OS:Windows — which used to be at User:Google box (MfD discussion) (current RFD discussion) … Uncle G (talk) 03:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

  • I agree that there's good reason to give all of the exploding animals a hard look—many of them are loaded with WP:SYN and thinly justified. That said, I also agree with the close of that AFD; namely, that merge results imply that the new amalgam should be kept. I assume the user simply doesn't understand the constraints of consensus. Cool Hand Luke 15:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I would really like to think this as a somewhat confused editor trying to consolidate and improve articles, without realising the consensus is needed for major changes, and that it helps to be direct in what you are doing and make things clear when there are problems. The sig also, which I find as annoying as all symbolic sigs, may not be a desire to be troublesome, just a failure to realise that when several people tell you something you are doing is wrong, you should consider the possibility that it might be., I don't really think of this editor as malign, just as reckless and determined not to pay attention to communication. I agree with Thaddeus in this--he is not intentionally trying to disrupt--but we nonetheless do have to deal with the disruption. Perhaps a short block will make it clear that we are taking this seriously. Many initially troublesome editors have understood after that and done much better--and as for the ones who still don't, we then know that we must follow through on the necessary steps. DGG ( talk ) 05:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• • Uncle G, DGG, MQS and Thaddeus B all make good points; I'm not surprised to see this brought to AN/I. The general pattern of editing here is disruptive. The signature is confusing and misleading. The pattern of moves, redirects and redirects for deletion is far too bold, especially asking for a major template to be renamed without any discussion beforehand. Whatever the faults of the Exploding organism series of articles, which I agree are many, agreeing to merge content and then proposing the merge target for deletion is underhand. Evosoho also seems unwilling to discuss editors' concerns with them. If they continue editing in this fashion, a block would seem to be wise. Fences&Windows 12:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I attempted to open an RFC/Username for Evosoho's signature. It was rejected on the grounds that it's not a username issue (which I think is an overly strict interpretation of the scope of the venue, but anyway). Evosoho has been asked by many editors now to change his signature, and he refuses to address the issue. I agree that there is a somewhat disruptive feel to his edits as well. Gigs (talk) 17:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• I have taken a critical look at what at my edits have been. There is merit to what has been written as to the need for consensus for major changes, and I agree and will adhere to this approach. It does, however, become a question of what constitutes a “major change.” My being too bold was a result of me being shy of talk pages.

It is important to note that there may be discourtesy in other remarks (Wikipedia:No personal attacks - Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks do not help make a point; they only hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping to create a good encyclopedia.) My intentions are to improve Wikipedia – I am not “underhanded” in any way. My signature was not offensive, it was simply my own, and should not have been a concern for serious editors. It was my own dialect of leetspeak. Notwithstanding, to please its/my detractor's I have changed it to “evo.” I had considered changing my signature. I just had not told you that.

As to the reasons for some of the changes that I have made that have been discussed above.

Gnome move: Why I moved GNOME to Gnome (desktop environment). In the event that you were looking for the mythical creature “Gnome” but typed all caps, you would get “GNOME (pronounced /ɡəˈnoʊm/)[1] is a desktop environment—a graphical user interface which runs on top of a computer operating system —composed entirely of free and open source software. It is an international project that includes creating software development frameworks, selecting application software for the desktop, and working on the programs which manage application launching, file handling, and window and task management.”. In this case, the mythical creature “Gnome” is (I believe) more notable, and the technical result might turn you away from Wikipedia.

Wubi move: Why I did the move to Wubi (disambiguation) was for the reason that “Wubi the Ubuntu installer” is by far the primary as compared to the “Wubi method” topic as illustrated by Google results -- 25 million to 3 million.

The Exploding animal AfD was my thinking that the merges have brought irrevocable Original Research.

--evo talk contribs 01:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Block needed: compromised/shared account

• Red Thunder (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Guitarherochristopher (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to have control of this account. Based on userpages, there's no way they were originally the same person. In addition, he claims to be using the Red Thunder account as a bot. I have had no headway trying to explain to him how Wikipedia works and what it's for. Perhaps someone with greater patience can try. → ROUX ₪ 23:47, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

I hope you did better research than you did with this one. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 01:22, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Red Thunder has no edits since March. You would need a steward to run a checkuser on other projects where he may be active. Thatcher 02:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but User:Guitarherochristopher claims he has access to the account and is (will be?) using it as a bot. This is a problem on two fronts. → ROUX ₪ 04:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Until Red Thunder has current edits, there are no local checkuser findings. Since Red Thunder is a unified global account, a steward can get his IPs from another project and either look to see if there is evidence of compromise, or save them for when Red Thunder starts editing again. It may in fact just be trolling by GHC. Thatcher 07:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• I suspect it is just trolling. In other news, if you attempt to roll back edits which leave no net change on the page content, a message pops up as if the rollback was successful, but nothing actually happens. huh. I would leave a note on GHC's talk page asking about this but it would appear that such a measure would be an exercise in futility. Protonk (talk) 08:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • The user has confirmed here that he has access to the account; I am waiting for proof. → ROUX ₪ 18:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• It occurs to me that GHC may also be User:Coldplay Expert. Crafty (talk) 20:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I'll bite. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Guitarherochristopher filed. Protonk (talk) 21:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am not guitarherochristopher, I can assure you of that fact. (Or vice versa)--Coldplay Expert 23:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Separate problem

Guitarherochristopher keeps putting nonfree images on his userpage and elsewhere in his userspace. He's been warned about this at least twice--once by me, once on Sept 12. The cluelessness is becoming aggressive at this point. I don't have the patience to keep trying to educate here. Can someone else please jump in? → ROUX ₪ 03:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Over-zealous NPPer

It seems we may have an over-zealous NPPer. Fngosa (talk · contribs) is tagging a lot of articles with prod and speedy notices, a fair proportion of which either don't qualify as speedies or were tagged within seconds of the creation of articles which had {{under construction}} notices or added comments to the same effect from the article creators. When questioned about some of these taggings, (s)he has not exactly become uncivil, but has certainly used a tone which seems less than friendly - though this may be because of the vagaries of written English (I suspect that Fngosa may not use standard UK or US English. This doesn't really fit as a civility issue or as a deletion review issue, but I think some attention needs to be drawn to it since this is causing some issues with people who are writing genuine stubs. Any suggestions? Grutness...wha? 00:07, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• PS - the following diffs may prove informative: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. Grutness...wha? 00:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I reviewed his work, and he has an alarmingly high false-tagging rate. The two biggest problems are 1) He seems to have invented his own speedy deletion criteria, and is not following accepted practices in tagging articles, and most importantly b) his refusal to discuss his tagging in a civil manner. He seems to have invented some convoluted "if you have a problem, you must respond in this manner" system, and refuses to acknowledge people who wish to discuss his taggings, unless the "file an official complaint" using his weird format. This certainly has got to stop. I would counsel him to stop tagging any speedy deletions unless he can improve his understanding of the speedy deletion criteria AND unless he is willing to make a clear account of his actions for anyone that raises reasonable questions, neither of which he seems to be doing right now. --Jayron32 00:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    • P.S. Since the OP did not notify him of this thread, I did so. In the future, please notify people when they are being discussed at ANI. --Jayron32 00:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Oops -apologies. I thought I'd done so. Grutness...wha? 01:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I concur with Jayron32's conclusions, the question I have is what we do about it? Is a short tap with the cluestick to "abusive"? Perhaps if the block notice also contained a link to WP:Consensus? Unless the editor decides to conform to WP practice and policy it might be argued that they are disruptive, regardless of the good faith intentions.

        I am shortly to bed, otherwise I would perform a block - but I think the sanctioning admin needs to be avialable to unblock as soon as meaningful communications are established. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

        • I think that "overzealous" may be too kind. The editor, when cautioned about erring says "Hi mate, some articles are given wrong speed deletion tags for convenient. It is not a big deal, at the end of the day, what ever tag i give it, it will still be deleted." added emphasis mine- Sinneed 01:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC) - emphasis - Sinneed 01:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Wield thy trusty admin swords, O wiki-knights of the round-and-round-we-go table. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:08, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Blocking may be premature at this minute. He's been notified of this thread, and several editors commenting here have recommended that he stop speedy tagging. Until he starts up again, we should not block him. If he DOES start up again, with the same problems, then a block may be forthcoming. Lets give him a chance to read and respond to this thread. --Jayron32 01:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• I think that "This article is too abstract to be an encyclopedic article" at Talk:Plumber's Mait is particularly bizarre. I've left some Clue of the subtle variety. But this might prove to be too subtle. Uncle G (talk) 01:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• (edit conflict)Just chiming in to say that I find communicating with him very frustrating. His misuse of {{db-g6}} is particularly problematic. And of course, when I pointed this out to him, all he does is pointing me to his weird convoluted process. He seems to think that he's got some sort of authority as a NPPer, which certainly isn't true. I'll also add in this diff. What kind of competent NPPer would tag that as a G11? And when I pointed it out to him, his response: [32]. I was thinking about filing an AN/I report myself. Tim Song (talk) 01:45, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • User:Uncle G/Wikipedia triage#Checking for the possibility of speedy deletion exists to be pointed to. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• A fair percentage of Fngosa's edits and vandal warnings are also problematic. He's acting as a self-proclaimed caped crusader, but is far too zealous and doesn't take constructive criticism well. A lot of the speedies are added less than 60 seconds after page creation or recent change. This will give WP a bad name.

  An IP editor added "in a time loop" after the word "stuck" in an article about a film. This was reverted by Fngosa as vandalism. A quick and simple google on the film title + "time loop" showed that the IP editor was right and this was done in good faith. See diff.

  And this which I think was done in good faith was reverted as vandalism and the editor received an immediate blatant vandalism warning. Many of his warning templates have unprofessional and idiosyncratic comments added to them. He needs to play by WP policy and guidelines, not by his own strange system which seems designed to provide a rationale for his own strange way of working.

  In addition, see Talk archive where Fngosa quickly manually shifts problematic comments and warnings.

  Fngosa also needs to check the effect of his edits after he's made them, for example adding a category without noticing that the number of brackets or braces are mismatched, or that the thing is redlinked, or an inappropriate category, or that a note on the category page says don't add directly to this category. On the Plumber's Mait talk page, he says that the title is also wrong and that the article needs moving, but a quick click on the external link shows that the spelling is actually right. In other words, he needs to do some research when making edits, tagging and reverting.

  Lastly, Fngosa says on his pages and in a userbox that he's been editing on WP since 2006. The edit counter here says 30 Aug 2008 as 'Fngosa'. He has sometimes edited as Freshymail, though not since a botched name change.

  Esowteric+Talk 08:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

  • End of Esowteric's comment, to avoid further confusion over who said what.
• I do (well, did) a lot of Special:Newpages work. Would it be useful if I "mentored" Fngosa, assuming he agrees to it? Ironholds (talk) 10:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • If you are willing to do that, great, another problem is that the instructions on his userpage for anyone who wants to talk to him about his adding CSD tags are incoherent and will actively confuse any new editors who want to talk to him. --Cameron Scott (talk) 10:15, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Righto, I'll head off and give him an offer. Ironholds (talk) 11:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Over-zealous NPPer - response

response This is too much to defend myself. only negative points have been raised except one or two. It will be unwise to defend myself against these negative views, that will be a book. at the same time, i do not want to fight any of you guys, i love you all. we have a common goal, to defend and protect knowledge. You have all done very good work, even highlighting some weakness in my contribution to wiki is a good job. You all deserve to be congratulated. here is a solution, i am deciding, let me know if you agree.

• I will cease to list any page for speed deletion for a period of 14 days
• I will not spend so much time on Wikipedia for some time (will be doing some research work some where)
• I will edit my user page to remove any offending material or you do it for me.
• I will continue to defend and protect knowledge at a lesser level
• I will not answer to any criticism, but will appreciate any good advise in good faith.

Thank you guys' 13:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Ironholds has made you a generous offer that will allow you to gain experience under expert tutelage. What will you learn from 14 days' abstinence? Just a thought. Good luck! Esowteric+Talk 13:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I decline his offer. that's kind of him. any other alternative solution. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 14:21, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• Ironholds Esowteric's comment left me concerned, so I digged a bit deeper - here he readded a prod after an IP removed it; this is a ridiculous prod reason; this revert of "vandalism" that (!) added a reference. I'm not sure we can trust him with rollback, at the very least. Tim Song (talk) 15:05, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Please, review the reason which was given. there was room for an admin to remove the AFD or another editor, apart from IPs deemed to be used for vandalism. remember, Wikipedia is not a marketing website. Wikipedia articles normally come up first on google search. It will be wrong to direct a knowledge searcher to the website offering the software for sale. I am yet to believe that the article in question was self published. I shall not make this a big deal, I am not here to discuss an individual article. feel free to discuss it on my talk page. thank you for your comments though. they are helpful. Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 15:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
• (outside editor) If Ironholds is happy to, he should follow all of his contributions and help him out and revert him whether he likes it or not. The alternative outcome is fngosa will continue bad and questionable edits without learning much and end up being blocked, which nobody wants.--Otterathome (talk) 15:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • This sounds ok, but it should be some one else, not Ironholds. 15:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am offline now, till 11pm. please put down solution/advice below ONLY. Thank you Freshymail (Talk page ) the knowledge-defender 15:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• How will 14 days not adding tags help? You'll be back in 14 days with exactly the same problems. It's a perfectly acceptable response if coupled with a) reading the WP:PROD and WP:CSD pages, so as to know what is appropriate and what is not and b) trying not to make the same mistakes in future. Otherwise it's pointless. Ironholds (talk) 16:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Agreed. And given his apparent inability to distinguish between what is vandalism and what is not, I find his access to Huggle unsettling. Tim Song (talk) 17:28, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me from Fngosa's comments that he doesn't understand or doesn't want to accept that what he's doing is wrong. Fngosa, you should follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and not just what you think is right, and especially not when several others have warned you that what you're doing is wrong. Anyway, let me make the situation clear for you. Your best option is to get the assistance of an experienced editor to help you along like Ironholds suggested. When that "mentor" is satisfied with your experience and knowledge, you can continue on your own. Just staying away from CSD tagging for 14 days and returning with the same kind of editing is not an option. Otherwise you can learn the guidelines yourself and follow them. However, your edits will have to be monitored for some time (it'll be pretty much the same as the first method I mentioned, except without a formal mentor assisting you) and if you are still doing it wrong they will have to be reverted whether you like it or not, as Otterathome said. If you make the same errors then, or you simply continue to edit this way, you're likely to have some sort of editing restriction imposed on you. You can follow either method, or if you have an alternative we'd be glad to hear it. May I also ask why you are refusing Ironhold's offer? ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 18:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't ve to answer each and every question. 22:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't, no, but if you couple a failure to edit appropriately with a refusal to properly discuss your work or change your behaviour, then some form of topic ban or a full block is likely to follow. Editors are accountable to the community for their actions, and while one does not have to answer unreasonable questions, being asked to explain why you've inappropriately tagged dozens of pages, refused all requests to cease and desist and refised all offers of assistance is anything but an unreasonable question. Ironholds (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

So, Ironholds, stop bullying others. Freshymail (talk- The knowledge defender 23:40, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Ironholds is doing the opposite of bullying.- Sinneed 00:51, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Possibly of interest as part of the discussion. 2nd account.

• freshymail (talk · contribs · logs)
• fngosa (talk · contribs · logs)- Sinneed 01:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • A small issue, since he has not attempted to conceal these two accounts as being different. Running multiple accounts with full disclosure is usually kosher. --Jayron32 01:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Fngosa/Freshymail, now you're being deliberately unhelpful. Learning the policies and guidelines and following them is not optional, it's a must. As I said before, "going your way" will not be accepted. If you are unwilling to learn and keep continuing like this, you will get some sort of editing restriction imposed on you, possibly even a block. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Advocacy: Fngosa, I can see that you are feeling daunted by this process and I can understand that. Do you feel upto representing and defending yourself here, or are you in need of an advocate, counsellor or other representative to share your thoughts with and to assist you in avoiding sanctions and obtaining a happy outcome? Is there such a thing in Wikipedia? If not, please disregard this comment. With good wishes to you, Esowteric+Talk 08:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies for using two accounts to comment on this thread. I intend to make Fresmail my main account. On the issue of receiving help from another editor, I will choose some one to show me bits at a time of my choice. I am still learning. As such, I am prone to error. some idiot pointed out that my use of huggle is unsettling! That is rubbish. It is pure attack on an individual which should not be happening on wikipedia. I don't use huggle for vandalism. show me one please! This is a community for every one to use in harmony. I just happen to have different charges to user:Grutness who started this silly thing. He pointed out some wrongs in my edits at my talk page, i responded positively. I can't understand why he brought up this issue here! This issue can well be resolved by Grutness fully participation. May i ask him to leave a message on my talk page and take it from there. If any one is unhappy with any of my edits, i challenge you to challenge me on my talk page. I am sorry, this seem to be becoming a general discussion with poor little solution or advise put down. I can not continue answering each and every question here. please, challenge me on my talk page. Thank you. User_talk:fngosa, 09:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Fngosa, with respect this sort of response is what they term in England "a bit of an own goal": it will hinder rather than help your prospects. It is not up to you to set the agenda or dictate terms here. With regard to challenging you on your talk page, see Talk archive which contains several examples of that process and goes some way to explaining why the serious (not silly) issue has been raised here. Esowteric+Talk 09:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a court of law: no lawyers allowed. Fgnosa simply seems to think that they get to set the rules, and only abide by them in certain cases. He was offered a high-quality mentor to help him through Wikipedia's policies. He (unbelievably) declined, saying he's follow his rules and all would be ok. If he's unwilling to accept a mentor, and is going to continue to push his own rule set and fails to recognize the disruption they cause, then there is only going to be one possible outcome ... 08:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am no longer following my own rules on CSD. I am simply helping out with few articles i feel need a bit of editing. You should also recognize that i am contributing a lot on wikipedia, It is completely voluntary, and i am happy to do so. Should i completely stop patrolling new pages? let me know? I will still list attack pages for speed deletion. 09:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Last time I checked we were all volunteers. I think that you should a) learn Wikipedia's policies correctly b) proper;y edit a few thousand more articles, and then return to any form of NPP'ing - you will have a better idea of what is or what is not appropriate. Oh, and a mentor will go a long way right now. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 09:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you my friend. 09:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Note that BWilkins is suggesting exactly the sort of thing I proposed in terms of having a mentor. I'm still willing to mentor you, and have experience in (not to toot my own horn) most areas of WP in some shape or form. Ironholds (talk) 10:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

oh goosh! this is getting to my nerve now!. so, you Ironholds mentor me. promise that you wont be a bully, you know, I protect and defend women and children, so, any bullying of whatsoever wont be in my interest. thank you. 10:18, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

...okay. I wasn't intending to bully users. That's considered a "blockable offence", not a "mentorship" :P. Ironholds (talk) 10:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you know that forcing some one to accept something they ve refused is wrong? 10:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This need reining-in asap, imo. Esowteric+Talk 10:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

No one is forcing you to do anything, and Ironholds or anyone else has not bullied you. Since you have agreed to familiarize yourself with the policies and guidelines, I think we can end this here. You can always ask an experienced editor when in doubt (and I strongly recommend you do this) or ask at the help desk. Once again, keep in mind that you cannot continue in the manner you have been doing so far. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 10:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

There's no "forcing" here. There is a hobson's choice, but one of your own making. You have a choice between following our rules and leaving. If you honestly don't want any kind of mentorship and think you can go this alone, fine, tell me, but if you end up at AN/I again because of errors similar to those you've promised not to repeat then people are unlikely to be sympathetic now you've refused assistance. Ironholds (talk) 10:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Said idiot believes that people who cannot tell what is vandalism and what is not should not have access to tools that allows them to revert edits at a high speed, for reverting a good edit as vandalism is one of the easiest ways to drive away a potential editor. Tim Song (talk) 14:19, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Whilst noting and respecting admin's proposition to close this issue, if you feel strongly about rollback and the setting up of Huggle yesterday, then here is the link to the granting.Esowteric+Talk 14:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I only responded because of his comment; we shall see if he can tell what is vandalism properly. Tim Song (talk) 14:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

new user trying to get some help

Resolved

 – Unblocked, username change processed. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello - first of all I hope I am not breaching etiquette by writing something here - I am just trying to get a little help / attention. I am a new user and I got blocked on my first day - not a good start. I tried doing the request an unblock for User:Canadian Imperial but it has already been two days and it doesn't seem to get noticed. the person who blocked my old account doesn't seem to be around today (or yesterday) to lift the block on my account (if he would even do it). as I said on my talk page i guess i was not thinking how my edits to the CIBC World Markets article would be viewed - but i really have not behaved badly at all let alone to deserve a block. i probably could have chosen a better user name than canadian imperial to make those edits but it seems like i was blocked for the wrong reasons. i probably have a conflict since i did work there a dozen years ago but i also have insight and thought the article was not very good. i was accused of including promotional material but actually if you read what i wrote it was all historical and really balanced – half of it was about the decline of cibc. i have tried editing wikipedia before without logging in and have never really had a problem but this time i wanted to create an account. it has not worked out as well as i had hoped. take a look at what i wrote and see if it is really that bad. i would like to try to give it another shot. i am still learning but i think i get the basic idea of what you are trying to do. i would like to get the block lifeted to change to another username and not have my normal computer blocked. Hope someone can help me. Thanks a lot.Retired Canadian (talk) 15:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Block evasion is not looked upon kindly here. For anyone interested, the diff of his edits is here. Tim Song (talk) 15:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A little AGF ... he filed his unblock request so that he could change his username. Nobody has looked at it so that he could change it. Perhaps not wise to register yet another name, but hardly block evasion because he was blocked for username violations. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:06, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

AGF doesn't apply to username "violations". We block editors (this one is lucky he didn't get an accidental hard block), then we ignore their unblock requests, then when they try another avenue we accuse them of block evasion. Except, obviously, most editors leave at the first block. UAA (etc) are lousy ways to keep editors. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 20:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'd say as long as he puts a clear notice on his talk page that he formerly edited under the other name (and discloses on the talk page of the articles he edits that he formerly worked for a branch of CIB), nobody should come after him. I'm certainly willing to AGF. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The original block was autoblock enabled, account creation blocked - see his block log. For the record, I personally think it was excessive; but since the block has ACB on, it follows that creating another account is technically block evasion. Tim Song (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I am astonished at the line taken by a couple of the commentators above. Whatever may be the technicalities, we have an inexperienced editor who was editing in good faith and fell foul of the rules by accident. He has made sincere attempts to get his case reconsidered. He has been completely open, explaining the situation here, and made no attempt to hide the fact that he has made a second account. Whether or not his creating a new account was technically against any rules, he has not abused the account in any way, and there is no evidence that he has anything but good intentions. Under these circumstances I think some of the comments above are unduly harsh, to say the least. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Second this. I'm also yet to hear that WP:AGF somehow doesn't apply to an area of the wiki. If it was User:Earn$$$inursparetime then I can understand a block, since that username is enough that AGF, while still applying, gets rather overwritten. I hardly see how is previous username is one worthy of a username block, or the suspension of AGF. Can we not start from scratch? He didn't know the specifics and (very technically) violated some rules, presumably unintentionally. Getting rid of a well intentioned contributor because he wasn't able to grasp the ins and outs of our policies on the first day does not one iota of good for the project - arguably it's one of the reasons some mainstream commentators argue we're burning out. Ironholds (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

AGF should apply to all areas of the project. It should especially apply to areas dealing with usernames, because many of those users will be new. Now go look at how many people are blocked for usernames. Then look at how many of those get hard, not soft, blocks. UAA etc are harmful to the project. Many editors are chased away by over-enthusiastic templating, blocking, etc. As this report shows, even good faith contributors have to jump through multiple (obscure) hoops to get heard, all the while they've got people (who should know better) calling them spammers. See the report above where you offer mentorship to an editor who declines it? That editor would have been *gone*, hardblocked no account creation allowed, if they'd chosen a different username. People can argue about the benefits or otherwise of doing so, but there is a big inconsistancy there. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 12:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ugh. My grasp of the English language is apparently slipping. I commented that way because I did not have time to read his contribs; having read that a while ago, I don't think it's spamming; no, I don't think we should do anything about this technical violation; and I think the hard block was excessive. In other words - I fully concur in the sentiments expressed above. Tim Song (talk) 14:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

After reading the contribs in question, I unblocked so he could change his account name, as requested.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

"Minor" edits by SF1SHER07 (talk · contribs)

This editor makes many minor edits . . . but also many non-minor edits that he marks with the m (most recently [33], [34], [35]). I've posted three requests to his talk page (most recently here) asking him to be careful with the minor checkbox (even with directions on how to change it if it's a default setting), but he's offered no response and continues to mark things as minor. He's marked a few edits as non-minor, so obviously he knows how to do that. Anyway, the persistent behavior and failure to talk-page engage are getting old and annoying; would another voice mind chiming in on his talk page or otherwise intervening? --EEMIV (talk) 16:14, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

• Note - Looks as if this has been going on for a while now. ceranthor 16:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Rvcx and Carly Fiorina

Resolved

 – A request for comment has been requested at Talk:Carly Fiorina#RfC: Consensus on resignation context?. All editors are encouraged to look at the situation there and discuss what should be done. No admin action needed here at this time. MuZemike 21:44, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Polanski article - extra eyes?

Roman Polanski - My apologies if this note is a Bad Thing^TM: Article probably would profit from extra watchers today because of his arrest in Switzerland. This very low-edit-volume wp:BLP has had over 100 edits this morning since his arrest. Some have been problematic and I think they are gone. There has been some good work, and I hope a lot of it stayed. Who knows, someone might actually add a source to the mash of OR in the movies section.- Sinneed 17:17, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi-protected Roman Polanski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for two weeks due to a flood of IP BLP violations. (I'm not sure whether I should have done this, since I've also made content edits now, so feel free to undo or alter.)  Sandstein  20:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

problems

User avala and me have a big dispute. This was deleted from here and I am very troubled by the fact that it was deleted. He titled the thing "user causing problems" referring to me. We asked for a third opinion, and nothing has happened. Should us two return to edit warring, or what should happen? If not, the 2-1 consensus should be followed. (LAz17 (talk) 18:32, 27 September 2009 (UTC)).

Well, in no case should you return to edit warring. Have you tried all the options in WP:DR?  Sandstein  18:54, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

...and in all cases, remember that WP:CONSENSUS is not a tally of votes (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 19:04, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

We can not reach one. Avala is too stuborn to compromise or do anything other than what he wants. We got a third opinion, he still is firm in his POV beliefs. Yet the discussion here was deleted... and so you guys let it go away, when there is still a problem. (LAz17 (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2009 (UTC)).

I courtesy listed the matter at the content noticeboard a few days ago. It seems that so far nobody has added additional comments to the dispute. Perhaps somebody will respond to that request. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 19:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Opinons?

Resolved

Can I get someone's input on this? Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 19:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a discussion here. I'd suggest an RfC for greater discussion on which languages to include, generally, based on whatever criteria seems to be the consensus. In my view, I'd say get rid of them all. At least then everyone will be unhappy. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

3RR warning issued to both parties. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

3RR-warning well-taken. That's why I came here. Now, what's the solution? RfC? Seriously? Hmmmm.... I'll consider it. Thanks. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 19:35, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If you don't know to start an RFC, let me know, and I can help you out on that. MuZemike 19:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thx, I know. Done. Would appreciate opinions and input there. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 19:46, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, I have full-protected the page for 6 hours. Both parties are now required to discuss this on Wikipedia talk:Local Embassy. Regards, MuZemike 19:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Problematic user

Resolved

Einstein0202 (talk · contribs) - This editor's first two edits are vandalism, their User page indicates that the account is shared by two people, and it also proclaims that they're here to "screw up Wikipedia". I've asked them if the account is really shared by two people. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as a vandalism-only account.  Sandstein  20:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Banned user Zingostar

A lifetime ago I dealt with Zingostar (block log) (formerly Matrix17 (block log)) and earlier today it was brought to my attention that this user has returned as User:Judo112. S/he appears to be engaging in similar activities that lead to the original ban (albeit less severely and less frequently), which includes creating biographies of people who are non-notable, or minors, or involved in ongoing criminal proceedings (or all three), sourced to tabloids or nowhere at all; sockpuppetry; recreating deleted content; and a handful of miscellaneous things like giving vandalism warnings to admins, AfD arguments that suggest unfamiliarity with WP:ATA, and so on.

I'm mostly retired from admin duties and can't approach this impartially enough anyway, so I leave it up to someone else to decide what, if anything, to do. – Steel 21:36, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Interestingly Judo112 has previously admitted to sockpuppetry after a report was filed in July. TheRetroGuy (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes I have admitted to that and would admit to any more so called sockpuppet cases. That doesnt at all follow the characteristics of that sockpuppet im now accused of being. Second of all, all my edits has been made in good faith and has been contributing to Wikipedia in a good way. This is the third time im being accused. Please let it be the last. I was acquitted of the second one since i wasnt at all related and this one is the same. Thanks all Wikipedians.--Judo112 (talk) 16:09, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Second of all Afd discussions are individual and that vandalism warning to an admin was a mistake which i corrected. This is my last word in this witch hunt discussion. cheers.--Judo112 (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible Sock- puppetry, 3RR and a lot more

Problem is mainly between two users. Me (User:Tadija) and User:Kreshnik25. Main problems are on the Prizren and Đakovica pages, and also, on many more places. Kreshnik created accout on 25 September 2009, and almost in moment he understands all of main wiki rules. I suppose that User:Kreshnik25 may be some kind of sock-puppet of User:AnnaFabiano or User:Kedadi, because of the absolutely identical interest articles, and more important, they are log in on the same time, with the same point of view. Also, that Kosovo naming problem is here for years, and we would reeaaaly love to have same good manual about that, that we can use. WP:MOSKOS is out of order, who knows why? At the end, who ever is completely right, i am tired of reverts and explanations, and it will be nice to put some kind of protection on those articles, or just to send more eyes there.

Problem is in the origin of the Prizren and Đakovica names, and we just need someone to tell us which sources are reliable, and which is not. I hope that i was ok, sometimes i did overreach, but, it was to much for me.

Whoever, i am eagerly waiting for your answers.

For more information see our talk pages, and see:

• Talk:Prizren#References_for_the_name
• Talk:Đakovica#Requested_move_2

Tadija (talk) 21:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Without commenting on the main issue (sorry), you can ask for opinions on sourcing at the Reliable sources noticeboard, and if you are confident in your analysis ask for a sock puppet investigation. - 2/0 (cont.) 05:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Possible observation of a user?

From his recent activity User:Mactruth's seems like a POV-pusher. Maybe I'm wrong but please have a look at his today's contribution in some articles like Macedonians (Greeks), Macedonians (Bulgarians), Macedonians (ethnic group) and Macedonian language. He has a long history of POV editing on Macedonia-related articles and seems ready to start edit wars, for example in the first article where I'm also involved in. Thank you! Sthenel (talk) 22:25, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've done the courtesy of informing User:Mactruth as should have been done when this was posted. Toddst1 (talk) 23:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I've moved the notification to the talkpage. You must've accidently posted it on his User page.--Laveol ^T 00:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, its up to the Administrator for its decision. In Macedonians (Greeks I have asked for documentation during the Ottoman times in which Greeks in Macedonia call themselves Macedonians, and until then put up citation notices on the page (and have also started a discussion about it, which Sthenel has not contributed too)

Macedonians (Bulgarians) I have not done anything, I simply tried to make the header the same format across all Macedonian pages.

Macedonians (ethnic group) same thing, the header. I have also added to the symbols section, is that POV pushing?

Macedonian language, I have removed the section talking about Bulgarian and Greek objection to the Macedonian language being in the summary section of the article. Those should be in the article "Political viewpoints of the Macedonian language". And I don't have a long history of POV editing, I have not been banned during the Macedonia case, have I? Mactruth (talk) 00:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I beg to differ - [36]--Laveol ^T 00:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I said during the Macedonia case Mactruth (talk) 03:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

By the way, please not Sthenels subtle personal attacks. Mactruth (talk) 00:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Global Consciousness Project: unsubstantiated claims, edit warring, POV pushing, OR and synthesis

There is severe POV pushing, edit warring, OR and synthesis from user:Simonm223 and User:Jan Arkesteijn by recursively adding irrelevant/unsourced/OR/synthesis statements into the article. user:Simonm223 was so emotional and in win-lose behaviour while editing that he needed to go out, to have some bike and steam off, as he mentioned here and here while searching for recruits on fringe theories noticeboard, which of course is a violation of WP:Noticeboards.

Timeline:

1- I challenged pseudoscience categorization several times, by first engaging in discussion and then by asking a reliable source from the editors claiming that the project is certainly pseudoscience: [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43],

2- While the "debate" continues, user:Simonm223 decides he became too much emotional and takes a break here, but in fact, as I mentioned above, he asks "help" from "like-minded" users by posting that emotional message to fringe theories noticeboard.

3- While the "debate" on pseudoscience issue continues, user:Simonm223 thinks that he/she presented sufficient valid arguments and before publishing his/her arguments/findings/conclusions through a reliable publisher (and referring to afterwards in wikipedia), he adds "pseudoscientific experiment" phrase to the article and justifies his edit by stating in edit summary that "as per discussion on talk page" here. I am sure, we can't find any other superior example over such disruptive contribution. I undo the damage done. user:Simonm223 insists on that his damage should stay. I undo the damage once again.

4- user:Simonm223 adds a material based on an article by physicist Stanley Jeffreys, which is in fact about the first group of experiments carried out by PEAR in 1982 here and here. There is no connection between PEAR and GCP, even if there were a connection, Jeffers' article can not still qualify to exist in GCP article because it is not about GCP. I object the addition of the material and present my argument here. Then I undo here and here

5- Without bothering to present any source, user:Simonm223 distorts the industrial "identification/naming" of the type of random number generators used in the project here. If any reliable source questions such thing, it should be mentioned either in hardware random number generator article or as a separate statement in GCP article. Removing "truly" is disruptive. I undo here.

6- User:Jan Arkesteijn removes "truly" and adds the material about Jeffreys' article once again here. Adds a bit more POV pushing here. I undo here and here.

7- user:Shoemaker's Holiday comes into the scene and removes "truly" and adds the material about Jeffreys' article one more time here. I revert here. user:Simonm223 intervenes once again here. I undo once again. user:Simonm223 reverts once again here and claims that the irrelevant material provide neutrality to the article. How can an irrelevant, clearly POV push be presented as warranting the neutrality? Removes "truly" one more time here.

8- I remove irrelevant material once again and bring "truly" back here and here.

9- User:Jan Arkesteijn removes "truly", adds the material about Jeffreys' article and adds "pseudoscience categorization" one more time here. I undo by presenting "evidence" on talk page here.

10- user:Simonm223 gives me 3RR warning here and warns some other collaborators here about edit warring as if he was not one of the edit warriors. He/she also "restores page to consensus version" here; what consensus he/she's talking about is another mystery.

11- I give "original research, including unpublished syntheses of sourced material" warning to user:Simonm223 here.

12- Some other strange ideas from other users arrive with some accompanying accusations and wikilawyering here, here and here.

I believe above collection of misconducts, edit warring, inappropriate behaviours such as adding OR and synthesis by especially user:Simonm223 and User:Jan Arkesteijn should properly be balanced with correct measures like topic ban, block or any other sanction that I'm not aware of right now. Logos5557 (talk) 00:23, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Logos5557 believes that aliens created the Egyptian pyramids, along with the "face" and a pyramid on Mars. He also believes NASA is covering up evidence of UFOs. Clearly, that is the kind of editor we need to carefully retain in order to make a quality reference work. Hipocrite (talk) 02:12, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Editors' beliefs aren't particularly relevant -- what they can show through citations to reliable third-party sources is. More problematic could be if an editor, regardless of belief, doesn't abide by WP:3RR, WP:BRD, etc. Rational skeptics who work in research can be just as "wrong" as believers in the paranormal when it comes to editing practices. Rather than whacking at Logos5557's beliefs, time'd be better spent ensuring the disputed article's content stands up to WP:V. --EEMIV (talk) 02:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

And I concur with that point. However the only user who has violated WP:3RR is Logos5557 (talk · contribs) he launched this ANI when he was warned about edit warring against consensus. Simonm223 (talk) 12:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Actual Timeline of Events

Full page history here

25 September, final edit prior to edit war. [44]

27 September: Logos5557 (talk · contribs) breaks WP: 3RR: [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50]

27 September, 1912: I warn Logos5557 about edit warring [51]

27 September, 1914: I make my most recent edit to page [52]

27 September, 20:03: Logos5557 warns me about WP:OR and WP:SYNTH (disregarding the fact that what I inserted (and left in after first reversion) was all derived from cited WP:RS. [53]

28 September, 00:29 (I have made no intervening edits to Global Consciousness Project) Logos 5557 notifies me that he has opened the WP:ANI here. [54] Simonm223 (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Let me concur with EEMIV's points, too, if that will get some sort of support. I do not agree, unsurprisingly, with your assertion about edit warring. Is there anything wrong with launching an ANI after some sort of magical warning? I take Hipocrite's comment as a "declaration of concurrence", as an "endorsement of the case" since he/she concentrates on my "beliefs" instead of addressing the facts of the case. Logos5557 (talk) 13:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I guess being the second (and third ... which is a minor edit to my previous comment) link in point 12 makes me involved despite not being notified. On to the OP's points:

1. Please read WP:Edit warring. There is no WP:TRUTH exception.
2. A neutral notice to the Fringe theories/Noticeboard is perfectly acceptable as a means of attracting outside eyes to an article.
3. One editor alone cannot edit war, but please see WP:Vandalism and avoid describing other editors' good faith contributions as "damage".

4-11.  Stop edit warring and call a request for comment. Notifying another user of the three-revert rule (and that it is sufficient but not necessary evidence of edit warring) is considered evidence that that user is aware of the issue. Please avoid templating the regulars, as it is more likely to escalate the dispute and rigidify positions than just talking it out on the page dedicated to that purpose. A friendly (or at least neutral) request to usertalk that points at an issue on articletalk you wish to be addressed is fine.

12.  Logos5557, please consider that if a significant number of other editors think that you are wrong, then you should at least evaluate your points. Edit warring will not achieve consensus. Incivility will not achieve consensus. Throwing around wiki-acronyms will not achieve consensus. Talking it out should lead to consensus, though it may not match your opinion. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about not notifying you and other editor (voiceofreason) personally, about this ANI. I thought it would be sufficient to place a notification on article talk page for those who would like to get involved, here.

1- I guess you should read WP:Edit warring, too. It states here that "If you are claiming an exemption it is a good idea to make sure that there is a clearly visible edit summary or separate section of the talk page that explains and justifies the exemption."

2- I don't think that Simonm223's notice to fringe noticeboard was neutral at all. Fringe noticeboard is not a "military trench" for "recruits" to get some rest and to look for some relief.

3- "Damage" happens when a user base his/her edits on discussions (actually Simonm223 based on his personal opinions) on article's talk page, without presenting the sources verifying the information added, because that contradicts with very fundamental principles of wikipedia. I'm just calling a spade a spade here.

4-11- I believe my "trials" in article talk page are sufficient evidences of "trying to resolve the issues by communication".

12- "A significant number of other editors"; can you define "significant number" and guidelines on which numbers should be accepted as significant in which cases? Is 3 enough? 4? Or is this some sort of confirmation of your non-neutrality in this case. Logos5557 (talk) 15:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Wolfkeeper

Please see these two diffs: [55], and [56] I'm all for talking this out, but it seems obvious where this is headed. If someone could talk Wolfkeeper (talk · contribs) down from the top of the Reichstag, I would appreciate it. I'd really rather simply avoid the fight in the first place then have someone come here later on with bad blood. Thanks.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• The above user has made two very contentious edits to core policies without any prior discussion.[57] [58]. I can only speculate as to his motives, but if he was trying to do things in the way we would expect around here he would have discussed them first.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
• If you don't want to be reverted like this, then don't muck around trying to unilaterally declare non-policy the oldest policy that we have. Uncle G (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

  I'm not upset in the least, especially since I half expected this to happen (which is why I posted a lengthy explaination on the talk page before editing). What bothers me is Wolfkeepers obviously script driven ability to impose his views on anyone who touches the document in question, and the behavior issues underlying the reason I brought this here. A cursory examination of the two diffs, and Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary should make it obvious what the issue is, and rather attempting to directly address the issue with an obviously emotional editor I was hoping to receive some outside assistance. Should I wait until we're actually at each others throats and have both broken 3RR before coming here?
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 22:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

  So, apart from deciding you get to unilaterally change the core policies, you also think you get to justify it with bad faith character assassination of people that disagree with you? And you also seem to be claiming that whatever the result from a discussion would be you're planning to edit war to change it anyway. You may want to stop digging this hole for yourself.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 01:02, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  I didn't unilaterally decide anything, you did that yourself though by relying on the undo tool. Anyway, I'm not going to allow you to bait me into stooping to your level. Who did what and who said what is easily accessible to those who are willing to look, and I provided diffs above.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 01:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  Removing a core policy be a guideline requires something of the order of an RFC and a consultation period. You... didn't... do... anything.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 02:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  I haven't done anything except pick up where the previous conversation left off (and I would personally welcome an RFC, if you're up to beginning one). Aside from that, the fact is that despite your continuing accusations I haven't removed anything, and I'm not attempting to remove anything.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:34, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

  You've changed it three times so far. This is known as edit warring. You've done it without consensus- there was no prior consensus, and there certainly is not now. Perhaps there's a problem with the word 'consensus'. It means 'everyone agrees', not just you on your own.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• It is not unilateral as there has been longstanding disquiet about this page which is reflected in the many discussions upon its talk page - discussions which User:Ohms law has read and acted upon. Unfortunately it seems to be something of a policy backwater and so it is routinely misunderstood by editors who regularly nominate articles for deletion on the grounds that they are short and so, supposedly, are dictionary entries. Age means little because of the Eternal September effect, as you so well describe it. Colonel Warden (talk) 22:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
  • There was no recent discussion nor any form of consensus.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 22:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Now it's not just Wolfkeeper, User:Roux has started making threats. (No idea what he's carrying on about re: warnings, but that's not really important).
• Maybe I'm off base here, but I know that I'm perfectly calm, and willing to discuss this small change in categorization (there's not content in dispute here). My perception is that the "opposition" jummped to a "sotto voice" defense, utilizing (off point) hyperbole, and displaying a significant ownership issue. I'm honestly not sure what the core issue is, since all of the bad faith accusations that are being thrown around are completely missing what the actual edit that their undoing is accomplishing.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 02:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  You have now attempted to demote that policy to guideline three times. In each instance, you have been reverted. There is no consensus for the change whatsoever, thus the warning: continue to make the change against consensus, and you will be blocked by some admin for disruption, to prevent further editing against consensus. It's not that hard to understand. → ROUX ₪ 02:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  Sorry about bouncing this around like this, I didn't realize that I went all the way up to AN (rather then here to ANI) from the archives.

  Anyway, you're the one (along with Wolfkeeper) using the undo tool Roux, so if anyone here is being disruptive then it would be you. I'm not sure why you're so obviously upset about. Normally I would recommend stepping away, but based on past conflicts that I've seen you involved in I know that this appears to be your normal state of mind, so stepping away wouldn't solve anything.

  Regardless, There's nothing being changed other then categorization, so the accusations of disruption and appeals to "lack of consensus" are completely off base (I could actually dispute the lack of consensus charge, but I don't see what the point is since there's nothing here that requires consensus). You're reverting over a categorization change here.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:04, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  Wow, where do I begin... how about you can the personal fucking attacks, to begin with? That would be a good start. Second, this isn't about 'categorization', this is about a core policy that has been a Wikipedia policy for years, with the attendant need to adhere to it. You want to downgrade it from required to suggested. There is a difference between the two. Consensus is required, as it is required for everything on Wikipedia. That is, in fact, how the entire project runs. Consensus comes in two varieties: implicit and explicit. Implicit consensus means that nobody objects when you make a change. However, since there have been objections, you must seek explicit consensus. That does not exist at this time. You know that doesn't exist, because you have already been told it doesn't. You also know that your change the first time was unacceptable, because both Wolfkeeper and Uncle G told you so. Using the undo button to revert bad-faith edits against consensus is not, actually, disruptive--no matter how much you might wish to paint everyone else as being disruptive, you are the one that must achieve consensus for the change you wish to implement. → ROUX ₪ 03:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  You're making the personal attacks, not I. I've remained calm and on point for several days now, I'm not the one flying off the handle and lashing out at others here.

  I'm not changing the document itself at all, which is why I've been saying that the criticism from yourself and others has been missing the mark. This is a good example of how WP:OWN and wikilawyering actually cause harm, because if you would relax and read what I'm actually trying to tell you instead of lashing out then we could talk about this (which is why this is an "incident", not coincidentally). Anyway, I addressed the actual change further on the relevant talk page.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 03:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  Actually, you're the one who did start off making personal attacks. But hey, reality, who needs it. How is editing the document somehow not changing the document? Right now, it is a policy. That means it is mandatory subject to the exigencies of WP:IAR. You wish to downgrade it to a guideline, making it optional. How is that not a change? → ROUX ₪ 03:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  I'm of the opinion that User:Ohms law is trolling; it certainly seems to walk like a WP:DUCK. He turns up, reads the talk page, notices there is no consensus, (he already admitted he read the talk page before hand, and would certainly have noticed this), and then starts editing anyway. That's being a troll, there's no other reasonable explanation. He then sticks a merge notice, which would basically have the effect of completely deleting the policy page if actioned.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  He is disrupting the wikipedia; WP:POINT.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  Once is a mistake, editing it 3 times and putting up the merge notice is disruption.- (User) Wolfkeeper (Talk) 03:50, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• And we've come full circle. Again, if someone could talk these gentlemen down from the top of the Reichstag, perhaps we could have a real conversation. A block of anyone here is a loss for Wikipedia as a whole. Some sort of intervention would be very appreciated, so that we could debate the substance of the issue (including quite possibly an RFC) rather then... this. Thanks.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  Then leave it in the original state, before it was ever changed, and begin a discussion on the talk page abotu changing it. In the spirit of pages like WP:BURDEN and WP:BRD, it is the responsibility of the person wishing to change the status quo to convince others of the necessity of the change. You cannot repeatedly claim that because you made the first edit, that it is others, and somehow not you, who are responsible for the edit war. It's your proposed change, and it is being contested in good faith by others. So, leave the change out until you can establish consensus. --Jayron32 05:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  It's "original state" predates any categorization, so leaving it in it's "original state" simply isn't possible. Regardless, accepting a fait acompli is their means of "winning", which is why this conflict actually goes back several months (predating my involvement). If someone would step in and deflate the situation and/or stop the attempts at browbeating those who dispute them into submission, then we could have an actual discussion about it. From what has been said on the page in question, we agree more then we disagree. The conflict arises primarily from an aparent dissagrement of the interpretation of WP:POLICY (based on incorrect assumptions that guidelines are "optional", and\or a change in categorization is somehow "demoting" the document), but there is also a heavy component of "stay away from my work!" to this (at least in my perception, which is really what this thread is about. Be sure to read edit summaries as well). I would love to discuss the first part, but the screaming and carrying on connected with the second part makes that nearly impossible.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  Stop screwing around. You know exactly what I meant by "original state". The "policy" categorization has been on that page for years. Leave it the way you found it, and make your arguements on the talk page. You may very well be right here, but by trying to force others to accept your change, rather than discussing the matter civily, you are doing yourself no favors. Being right wins you no points when you behave poorly. --Jayron32 05:46, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  I'd echo that there is some very poor conduct; I hope protection and sanctions will not become necessary. Ncmvocalist (talk) 06:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  Agree with Jayron32. No opinion about the substantive question, but we do expect contested changes to policy pages to obtain clear consensus before they happen; edit-warring to make a policy change is blockable conduct. Please stop.  Sandstein  06:07, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  These opinions would be more appropriate at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia is not a dictionary#Change to guideline (where there is information showing that Jayron's suggestion is misinformed, which shouldn't be surprising considering the lack of any attention that this document has ever received). Regardless, I started this discussion in order to address tendentious, outright hostile editing that displays a sense of ownership one one user's part, and incivility on the part of another. Can we discuss that here, and leave the substantive discussion on the talk page linked to above?
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 06:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  It seems you are missing the point; the opinions stated here are well suited for this thread. Sandstein was pretty explicit in his view: "no opinion about the substantive question". In fact, the other opinions stated here since your comment at 04:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC) seem to focus on conduct, particularly yours. I really cannot understand why you'd want these opinions to go to the talk page when they are not, as you've referred to it as, "substantive". Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  Jayron's "solution" is to give up, and accept that Wolfkeeper and Roux can browbeat and complain loud enough to make a prevent defense workable here. They may be successful, but I would hope that those of you seeing this from the outside would be interested enough to actually look at what's occurring rather then just trying to make it go away. I know that you're busy, which is fine... if you're not interested, just leave it alone. There is a serious problem here though, and becoming involved in the other side of the underlying dispute isn't addressing the problem. ANI is not a component of dispute resolution after all, so how about we not allow the edit warriors to use it as such?
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  I don't believe that was Jayron32's solution at all. You made a bold edit to revise the page as a guideline, but you were reverted. What that means is that you need to stop forcing the change by repeatedly making that bold edit (which will result in an edit war) - instead, you should work on discussing the issue on the talk page, and gaining a consensus to make that change. Once there is a consensus to make that change, then there would be no issue with you making that edit again to change the page to guideline status. You may wish to re-read his comments in light of my own interpretation. To respond to your other comments, people don't want to get involved in disputes or certain discussions for a variety of reasons - time or being busy is only one such reason, and is not applicable to every individual who commented here. I also don't see how edit warriots are using ANI (or this thread) as a formal step in dispute resolution, when it is not. Could you clarify what you meant? Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

  The thing is, my change wasn't bold at all. The first discussion (this year) was archived when I started a new thread is all. This is the continuation of an issue which has been ongoing since 2005, so characterizing this as a "change" or as a "bold edit" is simply incorrect. The only reason that there has been any stability to this at all is that nobody has been willing to stand up and try to solve the dispute (see the usage and watchlist stats given in the discussion on the talk page). If that takes discussing things here, then so be it, but it would be helpful if all interested parties would read the discussion archives and the edit histories.
  — V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Here, in the interest of attempting to settle this, this is my original reasoning:

I've changed the tag on (Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a dictionary) to label it as a guideline. I have at least skimmed through the conversations above [and in the archives], and I'm not unsympathetic to the issues that are raised in favor of keeping it labeled as a policy, yet I'm unconvinced. From WP:POL: "Policies ... are standards that all users should follow. They are often closely related to the five pillars of Wikipedia." and "Guidelines are primarily advisory. They advise on ... how to apply and execute policy under specific circumstances." Since this document is intended to support a specific case given in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not, it is clearly advisory in applying that policy, and should therefore be a guideline. I also see some arguments above, given in support of keeping this a policy document, which seem to reply on a value judgment where there is an assumption that policies are somehow greater then guidelines. Where that could be true in cases of conflict between two documents, it's not a general axiom by any means.

One huge point to keep in mind there is that none of the content is disputed. The follow on discussion offered by Wolfkeeper actually supports changing it to a guideline, as Dank points out later in the discussion. The issue is that Wolfkeeper seems to think that guidelines are optional and that policy is The Law. More of a problem though is his obvious view that it's "his policy" to protect, which is what brought me here (see his immediate reply in the discussion thread, along with several angry edit summaries.

Regardless, addressing the "leave it in it's original state" criticism directly, as I mentioned above it's not possible to do that. This isn't a "game" at all, as the history of this document goes back to 2001. {{Policy}} and {{Guideline}} date to 2005, which is when the underlying issue here first cropped up. I should mention that I'm simply the latest in a long series of people to bring this issue up. I see no reason we should slavishly be beholden to a decision make in 2005. That and I'm definitely not edit warring (as much as Wolfkeeper obviously wishes that I would).
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 07:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Ohms law, it looks to me like you're the one on top of the Reichstag right now. You say yourself that you "half expected this to happen" but went ahead with the edit anyway without a suitable discussion? To say that was asking for trouble would be an understatement. When making a change that's likely to be controversial, the procedure is to discuss first and then edit, not edit first and then discuss. I suggest you follow Jayron32's advice, which seems quite appropriate to me. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 07:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why Wolfkeeper should be able to claim the high-ground after having simply browbeaten his previous "opposition" in this. And again, this isn't actually a change, it's the continuation of a long running dispute due to the fact that the document itself predates policy\guideline classifications. The reason that I half expected this to happen, and the reason that I started this thread, was due to the bad faith and tendentious behavior displayed in this matter previously, as well as the incivil remarks and immediate battle mentality displayed. Should I instead fight back, using the same mannerisms?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 08:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

We're not saying that at all. Look, if you want the change to occur, and you feel that the problem is that your version would be upheld if only more editors could read and understand your rationale, then there are ways to get more eyes on the page in question. If you make an anouncement at WP:VPP, there are thousands of editors that regularly read that page, and many would likely have an opinion on the matter. You could start a WP:RFC to bring in more eyes. You could request that the talk page be added to WP:CD which would put an anouncement for more discussion all over Wikipedia. You have not tried ANY of these Ohm's Law. All you have done is a) edit warred b) run into opposition (and I am willing to posit that your opposition may be wrong here, but that is NOT at issue at this point) and c) come here to complain. If you are tired of 1-2 editors monopolizing the conversation, bring more editors into the conversation. There are lots of ways to do so, so long as you do not WP:CANVASS or WP:FORUMSHOP then asking at the appropriate noticeboards is a fine way to get more comment. ANI is not an appropriate noticeboard for this however. --Jayron32 12:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

As an aside, I have no personal opinion on the matter. I find that having two different levels of "stuff you should do at Wikipedia" pages is confusing, and thus I generally hold that policies and guidelines hold the same general function, and holding that there is a distinction in how we treat them is a bad idea. SO my opinion is this is a silly debate. However, if you feel that this is important, and you are very reasonable for believing differently than I do, then there ARE proper ways to get this done. What you have tried to do so far isn't it. --Jayron32 12:35, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:Notpietru

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

Could some independent admin please look at the recent trolling behavior of User:Notpietru? He's been making not unreasonable edits to Maltese (dog) but his commentary is obviously designed to provoke others. See [59] (Mljet / Malta theory of origin is the center of the dispute), [60], [61], [62], [63]. Much of this is directed at Imbris, who has barely even edited the article recently, though he has been provoked into complaining. I tried to warn him about this confrontational approach; see also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive563#User:Pietru / User:Notpietru and Maltese (dog), in which I requested independent input before but received none. Mangojuice^talk 05:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Is this still going on? This is hardly new behavior. He started a new account, but he has a block history under his old account, pretty much for this exact sort of behavior. He has serious WP:OWN issues it seems, which have led to edit warring over numerous Malta-related articles for some time... --Jayron32 05:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

His old account was blocked for one month on August 8th, his new account(the one above) was registered on August 15th, meaning it was used for block evasion, and therefore abusive sockpuppetry. It should therefore be blocked indef.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Read april as august. Ya.. oops. Either way, he should still be blocked for disruption.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Kalto / Nahali and Nihali / Nahali

We have a page history mess at Nihali language/archive that's beyond my ability.

There are two languages that have been confused in the lit., Kalto (Indic) and Nihali (an isolate). Both have been called Nahali by outsiders, though the Indics call themselves Kalto. But Ethnologue, apparently erroneously, reported Kalto as the ethnonym of the isolate Nihali rather than the Indic Nahali (this has been fixed in the 16th edition), and as a result, there were several cut & paste reversals of the Wikipedia articles. That's not so bad, and I've merged the page histories so that each contains the history of only one language article. But from 2004 to Feb 2008, there were two parallel articles on the language isolate, one under the name Nihali, and one under Kalto, while the Indic language (now Kalto) was listed under Nahali. I can't merge those without turning the history to gibberish, so I've moved the more recent of the two to the archive name above, as a place to keep the article history.

Should the 'archive' just be deleted? Maybe s.o. here can decide what should be done with it. kwami (talk) 06:30, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Continued wikistalking/wikihounding and harassment from User:Miami33139

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive566 § Help with editor assuming bad faith

• Miami33139 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I've made two previous AN/I reports and this is still unresolved. Since the first two reports, User:Miami33139 has continued to wikistalk/wikihound and has even attempted to bring others into their own efforts. I seem to have come to the attention of Miami33139 due to tagging articles for the WP:COMP workflow.

The first AN/I report that I made on September 15th can be found here. The second AN/I report that I made on September 17th can be found here. Miami33139 refused to participate in the second AN/I discussion.

Since the second AN/I report, Miami33139 has also continued their bulk removal of edits made to articles by User:Ed Fitzgerald. This month alone Miami33139 has removed 100s, possibly as many as 500 or more of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits. [64] This seems to have originally started around January 2009 [65] and since then Miami33139 took this on as a personal crusade to remove his edits, up to the point where User:Ed Fitzgerald left Wikipedia. There was also a WQA regarding Ed's edits here and an AN/I report made by Miami33139 here. They have been using "T - I have tidied." in many of their edit summaries when removing Ed's edits but have also used other text in the past.

Furthermore, Miami33139 seems to consider the lack of action over the last two AN/I reports indication that their actions are acceptable. See [66]

Timeline of interaction

• Prior to the What wp is not revert below, It appears Miami33139 began digging into my contributions due to my work on the WP:COMP deletion tagging workflow.
• Reverted my removal of an invalid CSD R2 for What wp is not [67]
• Got involved in the Davfs2 AfD [68]
• Modified User:ParkerJones2007/Comparison of Prolog standards compliance which was userfied during the Comparison of Prolog standards compliance AfD that I had recently participated in. [69]
• After !voting in the Davfs2 AfD, they began mass prodding a number of articles relating to Linux file systems [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] and subsequently nominated one for deletion when it was de-prodded. [76] (kept)
• Nominated NexIRC for deletion at AfD after seeing my edits to the article. [77] (merge/redirect)
• Nominated What wp is not for deletion at TfD. [78] (kept)
  • It was at this point I made the first AN/I report. Two days later after realizing they were mass-reverting User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits I made the second AN/I report. It was at this point that Miami33139 stepped up their wikistalking efforts to a whole new level.
• Got involved in the Parchive AfD [79] (kept)
• Got involved in the ProSystem (Emulator) AfD [80] (merge/redirect)
• Got involved in the Parchive DRV [81]
  • I decided at this point to try an experiment and tag (see articles' talk pages) and !vote in a number of WP:COMP articles that were at AfD as a test to see if Miami33139 really was without a doubt monitoring my contribs. They were.
• Celemony AfD [82]
• Elecard MPEG Player AfD [83]
• OneFinger AfD [84]
• Fortitude HTTP AfD [85]
  • Miami33139 then decided to nominate more articles I've worked on for deletion and attempted to CSD G8 a template I had created for Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients.
• Nominated Psotnic for deletion at AfD after seeing my edits to the article. [86]
• Attempted to CSD G8 Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC [87]
• Nominated ZNC (IRC bouncer) for deletion at AfD. [88]
• Nominated Bip IRC Proxy for deletion at AfD. [89]
• Nominated PsyBNC for deletion at AfD. [90]
• Nominated Psyced for deletion at AfD. [91]
• Prodded KoolChat. [92]
• Filed a WQA against me here. [93] [94] (Note this diff, which also shows that they have been monitoring my contributions. [95])
• Got involved in the QuickPar AfD [96]
• Made a borderline personal attack on my talk page after having been told in the WQA to disengage. [97] (removed by another editor)
• Canvassed and attempted to bring User:JBsupreme and User:Joe Chill into their own efforts. [98] [99]
• Got involved in the SmartPAR AfD [100]
• Prodded Quiet Internet Pager. [101]
• Nominated Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC for deletion at TfD [102]
  • Note Miami33139 appears to be attempting in the TfD [103] to get all the subtemplates removed in an attempt to damage Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients, which they know I've spent months so far restructuring and expanding.
• Nominated Quiet Internet Pager for deletion at AfD. [104]
• Prodded rcirc. [105]
• Got involved in the Leafpad AfD [106]
• Prodded Bottler (IRC client). [107]
• Prodded Pork client. [108]

I do not believe Miami33139 has any intentions of disengaging as they were asked/told repeatedly in the WQA [109] [110] [111] and the above diffs and Miami33139's contribution history should speak for itself.

In addition, after these edits by User:JBsupreme and User:Joe Chill on 5 of the AfDs and the TfD Miami33139 initiated, it appears as though there may be some off-wiki communication and meatpuppetry occurring. I do not believe there to be sockpuppetry involved but given Miami33139's attempts to bring these two editors into their own efforts against me, [112] [113] I do not believe these !votes cannot be considered coincidental.

• Psotnic AfD [114] [115]
• ZNC (IRC bouncer) AfD [116] [117]
• Bip IRC Proxy AfD [118] [119]
• Psyced AfD [120] [121]
• PsyBNC (2nd nomination) AfD [122] [123]
• Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC TfD [124]

--Tothwolf (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• This timeline of edits does appear to be worrying, and I think Miami needs to explain the apparent correlation between the two edit histories quickly. If none is forthcoming, some remedies spring to mind, such as interaction bans. Comment from Miami is, however, what is needed at this point. For transparency, Tothwolf notified me of this thread as well as at least one other administrator - the notification was neutral in tone, and I am unaware of any significant involvement with either editor. Fritzpoll (talk) 12:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I was almost certainly notified because of my article rescue of UMSDOS (AfD discussion), which tacitly demonstrated as false claims that independent sources do not exist. I found it quite easy to find sources in that particular case. Possibly my question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ZNC (IRC bouncer) — a little bit of AFD patrol to try to eke out a good rationale that a closing administrator can hang xyr hat from — is relevant, too. Uncle G (talk) 13:22, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Uncle G, you rescued the UMSDOS article by changing the topic to FAT Filesystems and Linux. I was perfectly happy to remove my nomination with the expansion from a single topic to an umbrella topic. This does not "tacitly demonstrated as false claims that independent sources do not exist" because you changed the subject matter to find sources about. You changed the subject, managing to include the previous info, and I withdrew the nomination. That is good faith from both of us and fairly normal process. This has nothing to do with Tothwolf either, yet you seem to be using it here to hammer me about bad faith in a discussion about Tothwolf. Miami33139 (talk) 16:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • I would be happy to go back to my regular editing pattern of working on technology, Linux, and IRC-related articles, and doing occasional deletion tagging for WP:COMP when other editors get bogged down but I'm currently unable to do so as something as simple as a vandalism revert or a minor template change will cause User:Miami33139 to AfD said article. [125] [126]
    Miami33139 has historically not worked on articles in these areas but while having to sift through contribs to create the above list, I found a troubling pattern of what appears to be bad {{prod}} and CSD tagging. Miami33139 claims a deletion percentage of 80% [127] and while I would think this is probably not something to brag about, I can't help but wonder just how many of these are badly placed prod and CSD tags, especially with this comment that they made at TfD regarding their own CSD tagging efforts of subtemplates. [128]
    I found additional evidence of bad CSD tagging while looking at Comparison of media players as Miami33139 had most recently largely been targeting media player type software for deletion. Possible examples may include [129] [130] [131] [132] [133] [134] [135] [136] [137] [138] [139] [140] [141] all of which are/were still in use at the time that they were CSD tagged and deleted. See Comparison of media players#Video players and Comparison of media players#Audio players.
    Given Miami33139's attempt to CSD G8 and now TFD Template:Latest stable software release/rxIRC, [142] [143] which they saw me create while expanding Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients, I think it is quite obvious this was meant as harassment and they are abusing both CSD and TFD.
    Their removals of User:Ed Fitzgerald's edits are as equally worrying and it seems as though my raising concerns over those removals may have been what led Miami33139 to step up the level of their actions against me.
    Given the history I see in Miami33139's contributions, I personally would support a restriction for Miami33139 barring them from using any sort of JavaScript (monobook.js, Greasemonkey, etc) or other forms of automated editing tools as it would appear that they have a long history of misusing them.
    --Tothwolf (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• I originally discussed some of these issues with User:Miami33139 following his report to wp:wqa. I was disappointed in that, even as I was advising him his best bet was to disengage, he was taking concrete steps that appeared likely to unnecessarily escalate tensions with User:Tothwolf. Like Fritzpol, I was troubled by the number of instances in which User:Miami33139 tagged articles for deletion only hours after User:Tothwolf had last edited said articles. At some point, the sheer frequency of those occurrences being happenstance begins to stretch the assumption of good faith to its limits. user:J aka justen (talk) 13:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Just a note, as I haven't been able to go through all of the evidence, but User:Miami33139 edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Celemony ([144]) before Tothwolf made any edit ([145]) on the talkpage. This by no means makes all of the evidence wrong, but it shouldn't be taken at face value. Quantpole (talk) 14:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Struck from list above, good catch, thanks. --Tothwolf (talk) 14:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

What's up with you and assuming bad faith? I didn't talk to them off-wiki. Joe Chill (talk) 15:00, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• You were supposed to notify everyone involved in the report. Your issue is with Miami so leave me the hell out of it. Joe Chill (talk) 15:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • You were involved in this within the past 24 hours at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Tothwolf. You were involving yourself in it, by creating reports on this very noticeboard within the past 48 hours, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#Help with editor assuming bad faith and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive566#CSD-G4. You are currently involved in this within the past 48 hours with a lengthy discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Leafpad (2nd nomination), where you seem to be suffering from a severe case of "I'm not listening!". Crying that you aren't involved (since you clearly are) and that you didn't know this was happening at WP:AN/I (when you started two of these discussions) isn't really going to wash. Uncle G (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

response

Tothwolf is crying wolf. Note [146], [147], [148], are not about me. Tothwolf has been accusing JBsupreme, Joe Chill, and probably others of bad faith, retaliation, and targeting him in the last several days in deletion discussions. These accusations from him are getting stale.

It may be tl;dr, but I have thoroughly answered this here: User_talk:Miami33139#Wikistalking. I also requested intervention here, Wikipedia:WQA#User:Tothwolf, over the weekend, because Tothwolf is accusing multiple people of harassing him. Most of this "evidence" is nothing more than saying I have been involved in PROD or AfD discussions for software that is not apparently notable. It has nothing to do with him and I have been doing this for a year! except for the fact that he works or is somehow involved with a company that makes products that have to to with IRC so he feels invested in this area. Any examination of my deletion discussions over the last year, will show you that this last week has been absolutely routine.

To the extent it is about him, I looked at his contribution history when I first encountered him, in a public deletion discussion opened by someone else. I opened the category of Linux file systems, opened all the articles, and if they didn't have any usable references, I tagged them in various ways. I didn't look at Tothwolf to find them. I can look back to June to find my first interest in deletion/notability of the IRC category. I didn't find this via Tothwolf. Note that the suggestion to look at more IRC articles [149] here, did not come from Tothwolf. When he accused me of stalking him, I did not open his contribution history afterwards, but found the same articles and discussions via JBsupreme, Joe Chill and just opening the AfD page.

The most interesting things I have looked at have been things in AfD nominated by other people, not Tothwolf, then opening up the category of the article, or the contribution history of the nominator. This is an example, not involving Tothwolf, that AfD discussions happen totally rationally, in good faith, with my ability to recognize a fixed article Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/UMSDOS in his absence.

Since Tothwolf has a COI in this issue, and his "keep everything philosophy" about software is diametric to mine, it is just plain destiny that we will butt heads in this arena. Since he puts the Computing project wiki-banner on articles en-mass, there is no doubt he will have edited articles I start looking at. This is an open and transparent project without article or area ownership. Contributing to Wikipedia is under the assumption that contributions will be edited mercilessly, and that includes deletion. It's part of the Wikipedia charter. There is no personal crusade against him.

This is too long already. Miami33139 (talk) 15:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Added point by point discussion of each bullet in Tothwolf's list, about half of which do not actually involve him: User:Miami33139/nothing. Miami33139 (talk) 16:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

AIV backlogged

Resolved

AIV is backlogged with some reports hours old. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Admin User:NawlinWiki using abuse filter to block unregistered users from his talk page

See also: Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives § 98.248.33.198

Edit filter 233, called "User talk:NawlinWiki vandalism", seems to be set to block all unregistered users from posting to his talk page. The filter's logic is hidden from public view, but it is obvious from the filter log for the page that all unregistered users are being disallowed. The log shows that several good-faith communications by users such as User:81.130.92.204 and User:98.248.33.198, in addition to two test edits by me, were blocked. Worse, the filter labels these edits as "vandalism", and the users attempting to communicate with NawlinWiki get the message "your edit has been identified as potentially unconstructive, and has been disallowed".

Are admins allowed to shut off communication by unregistered users in this way? It is an important principle of Wikipedia that all users, and especially admins, must be open for, and respond to, discussion about their actions. The log shows that many of the edits that were blocked by this filter were legitimate attempts at communication. Also, the filter assumes bad faith by accusing the users of being vandals.

I think this blocking of unregistered users should be shut off. The filter seems also to have some logic checking the content of edits, and this could be tweaked instead so that vandalistic edits will be disallowed, but still allowing legitimate messages from unregistered users. At the very least, the filter should stop calling all edits by unregistered users vandalism, and the message displayed when it triggers should contain an explanation such as "This administrator has opted out of messages from unregistered users", making it clear why edits are being disallowed.

Note that I have not notified NawlinWiki of this thread, since the filter blocks me from doing so. I would appreciate if someone with an account could do so for me. 129.240.250.124 (talk) 08:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• From looking at the history of NawlinWiki's talkpage, I think it might have to do with abusive edits made against him from multiple IPs around September 2, edits which content I won't repeat here. The abuse filter was probably a last ditch effort to end that. I will contact NawlinWiki to let him know about this thread. Sjakkalle (Check!) 08:47, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • In fairness, the logs show that the IP tried but was blocked by the filter from doing it. I appreciate the reasons, but the log is showing a lot of good-faith editors are getting blocked from his page. Perhaps NW could semi-protect and direct new editors to a different subpage so that the main talkpage is not affected? Fritzpoll (talk) 08:52, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    • All that will happen is the semi-prot overflow page will be overwritten by a certain chucklehead and his minions instead of the main talk page, and any real conversation will be lost in the garbage anyway. It sucks, but leaving it semi'd is really the lesser of two evils. SirFozzie (talk) 08:55, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• I think you're right that the message given could be changed to treat false positives better; something like "I'm sorry, but due to heavy vandalism this page is closed to brand-new users." It's an alternative to semi-protection, with which more users would be prevented from commenting. Perhaps it could be enabled only as needed, though that can be hard to predict. The type of vandalism we're talking about is, someone will get 50 IPs to make the same edit at once. It varies too much to be filtered based on content. Evil saltine (talk) 08:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • something like "I'm sorry, but due to heavy vandalism this page is closed to brand-new users." - many IP editors have been here for years, for thousands of edits. It would be nice if the message could be changed. I'm sure the editor has good reason for using the filter. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 13:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Edit: And it seems rather.. shall we say... interesting that the IP's only two edits are here, and attempting to post on NawlinWiki's page. Sounds a wee bit fishy, without any further explanation of why the IP wants to contact NawlinWiki..... SirFozzie (talk) 08:58, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Assume good faith; I do see your point, but its possible that the anon is using a dynamic address and has actually made hundreds of contributions, and even if that's not the case, they have brought up a good point, and one that should be examined regardless of their motives for bring it up. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Considering the vast amount of history here (the sheer amount of disruption on that talk page, AN/ANI etcetera), sorry, the well of good faith done run dry. SirFozzie (talk) 10:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
        • "129.240.250.124" sorts out to an IP at the University of Oslo, where I believe each computer has a separate IP, hence a non-logged in user who goes to another terminal in the computer lab will wind up with a different IP being shown here. There is a reasonably large chance that the situation is as Spitfire suggests. Sjakkalle (Check!) 11:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
        • Then you are wrong. See Wikipedia:Edit filter/False positives#98.248.33.198. There is not just one person trying to use NawlinWiki's talk page and being prevented from doing so. The edit filter is actually making it impossible for good faith editors without accounts to discuss NawlinWiki's administrative actions with xem. (98.248.33.198, if you are reading, I suggest that you simply take that request straight to Deletion Review.) Uncle G (talk) 11:57, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not sure if this is an appropriate use of the edit filter. Semiprotection is the usual practice in these sorts of cases, and in practice doesn't have a much broader effect than the block-all-IPs filter in place now. Semiprotection has the added benefits of being a bit more transparent and 'open' — everyone can see the protection log, and all other administrators can (if necessary) modify protection settings. Settings for the edit filter can only be modified by a small pool of individuals, and I would suspect that but a small minority of admins have a good grasp of how it works (I doubt I would be considered one of them). As noted, the messages users receive when their edits hit the filter are confusing and rather bitey, whereas with page protection the message is more neutral and the protection log explanation is visible. Finally, aren't these sorts of single-page filters discouraged for server-load reasons? My understanding was that every single edit to Wikipedia is checked against the entire list of filters and that adding items to the list of filters was 'costly'; has that changed? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Without saying what the filter actually does, it doesn't actually disallow all IP users from NW's talkpage, and is thus potentially better than semi-ing the article. The fact that no IP has actually edited the page since it was used probably tells you more about the IPs editing his talk page than anything else; though yes, it will produce false positives, and has. On the other hand, semi-ing the page would mean no IP editors could edit it. Black Kite 14:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Whatever extra conditions the filter has, they must be pretty broad since it disallows legitimate edits like this: [150] [151] [152] I don't really see how this "tells you more about the IPs editing his talk page than anything else". I'd say it tells you more about the brokenness of the filter than anything else. 129.240.72.102 (talk) 14:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Actually is does prevent all IP editing, but it's less restrictive than semi-protection for registered accounts. I agree with TenOfAllTrades though. At a minimum there should be a useful message, but the whole filter should probably be deprecated. Most of the bad edits should be caught by other filters, and the usual semi-protection arrangements can deal with the rest. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
      • Meh, I read it as ... well, I'm sure you can guess. Yeah, given what it actually does do, there needs to be a useful message, both for IPs and the registered accounts that it does catch. Black Kite 14:49, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • If the edit filter is based, as I suspect it to be, upon Roux's ill-founded assumption of bad faith above, at #request for a deleted page, then it is not a well-constructed filter. Special:Contributions/98.248.33.198, which includes edits like this one, is more than enough to disabuse anyone of that silly notion. Uncle G (talk) 14:32, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • As a couple of people have correctly noted above, the filter is an attempt to stop talk-page attacks by User:JarlaxleArtemis, who recruits them on 4chan /b/. It is less restrictive than semiprotection (before the advent of the edit filter, my talk page was semiprotected for months because of this same kind of vandalism). I agree that the filter message can and should be changed, and I will do that. I will also be more diligent about reviewing the filter log and responding to legitimate messages from IPs. NawlinWiki (talk) 14:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• • • • That doesn't really address my question about server load. I'm also still not persuaded that the edit filter should be used for long-term non-transparent semi-protection of single user talk pages. Is there a body of policy developing anywhere about what constitutes acceptable use of the edit filter tools? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Minor's Personal Information

(Is 13 a minor? I think so.) Could someone take a look at Selina Yeung right quick? It contains a 13-year-old's email address, town of residence, the school they're attending, and a picture of them, among other things. Stuff like this is something that's supposed to be brought to admin attention, right? Audiosmurf ^♪/♫ 10:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Indeed. Admin attention quickly needed for this - would oversight be useful? I would think the standard tools might do well enough. Probably a good idea to contact the user on her talkpage and explain why this sort of thing is a problem. From the page, WP:NOTMYSPACE might be helpful as well. Ironholds (talk) 10:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Deleted, and yes, I believe oversight is required in situations where personal information about minors is revealed in articles.  Skomorokh  10:56, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
    • Thanks Skomorokh. My point was really that the deletion prevents "average joe" seeing it anyway. If you feel this child also needs to be protected from the admin corps (which is a perfectly reasonable response, given that you can't vouch for 1.5k people and everyone with access to their PC) ping an OS. Ironholds (talk) 11:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
      • I can't say I'm too up to speed on the thresholds for oversighting, but Keegan has mentioned cases like these in the past. I was going to make a joke about admins being the least trustworthy and having already put in a MySpace friend request, but it seemed a little gauche.  Skomorokh  11:24, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• Tell the Oversighter that you contact that there are other edits in Special:Contributions/Tonia94 that require the same treatment for the same reasons. Uncle G (talk) 12:01, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Emailed Oversight with both requests, cheers.  Skomorokh  14:14, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I've wiped them. Email the list again if more appears. - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 14:40, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Removing inappropriate non-public personal information is one of the main uses of oversight tools. Minors giving personal information about themselves comes under that heading. The revisions with the problematic text have been suppressed by an oversighter. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 14:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Help needed to clean up hoax entries

Some help please to clean up hoax entries in Wikipedia.

I refer interested people to Hungry Beast (née Urban myth study (media hoax September 2009)).

Some editors have already cleaned up a few of the noted Wikipedia entries, but there are more to be done.

Can someone check to see if there are more entries from other IPs or named editors ?

I would start to do the cleanups, but I have run out of "Wikitime" for the time being (and can only dial in at less than 30kbs so it takes me forever to do anything).

I think this needs to be cleaned up before it gets a life of its own ?

Ronnam (talk) 15:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Another legal threat.

Look at this diff. This pretty much falls under WP:LEGAL. ConCompS (talk) 15:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• Is that the diff you meant? It just looks like random vandalizing to me. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• No, it doesn't. There's not a scintilla of a mention of litigation there. It's just a vandal frustrated that xyr vandalism keeps being reverted. The next step after revert is ignore. And ponder the evident irony. Uncle G (talk) 15:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
• But in the notice, he changed it up to say:

  "Whoever keeps fixing this article needs to kill themselves. No one cares about your Wiki-life."

• This is serious stuff. Any long-term block from an admin anytime soon? ConCompS (talk) 15:43, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It's not serious, it's standard vandalism, and I've blocked for 31 hours. Tony Fox (arf!) 16:06, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • It's only serious if you take it seriously, and don't ponder the evident irony, as I suggested above. There's no need to long-term block some random dynamically assigned IP address belonging to ThePlanet when there's no evidence that there's a future long term pattern of events that can be prevented, no evidence that this even will be the vandal's IP address for long, and there is on the contrary evidence from the changes in the edits that the vandal has already given up, and will only return if xe sees you making a mountain out of this molehill. What part of "ignore" is hard, here? Ignore it! Uncle G (talk) 16:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks anyway. ConCompS (talk) 16:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

User:WillOakland

Resolved

 – Indef-blocked as sock of banned Gazpacho (talk · contribs).  Sandstein  16:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I have been watching an edit war over the article Ian Halperin, a man who in December 2008 predicted that Michael Jackson had only 6 months to live, over the past few days, though the edit war goes back about a month. From what I can tell, it seems that WillOakland (talk · contribs) refuses to believe that we should source certain pieces of information, and is edit warring with Cirt (talk · contribs) to keep them out.[153][154][155] Oakland, who was blocked for two weeks as part of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WillOakland/Archive, admits to being a banned sockpuppeteer[156], and seems to have not reformed on that matter. After his block, he used a sockpuppet[157] to evade the block; that sockpuppet had previously been used to vandalize.[158][159] I warned Oakland to discuss the proposed changes on the talk page, seeing how he had just been blocked over disruptive editing on that article[160], but he simply removed my comment[161], started an incivil discussion with Cirt that was doomed to go nowhere[162] and ignored several other warnings that asked him to follow WP:V.[163] I am bringing this to the community for further discussion; as a new administrator, I feel the community should review the disruptive behavior of WillOakland (talk · contribs). NW (Talk) 15:37, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I am unaware of any Wikipedia policy that allows new blocks to be applied for the same past offenses (real or, as in this case, imagined). I am not currently "banned", as a review of my block log will show. NW needs to focus his request on recent behavior. I have changes that I want to make to the Ian Halperin article. I'm trying to find, emperically, the ones that will be accepted. Cirt's behavior is incomprehensible to me, leaving no basis for discussion. WillOakland (talk) 15:41, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

According to this diff you admit to being Gazpacho, whose block log looks like this. Unless there are unexplained extenuating circumstances, your current account is a sockpuppet in violation of ban and all of your edits may be reverted by any editor. The recent diffs NuclearWarfare points to are clear instances of blanking vandalism. It mystifies me that you have not been reblocked on this account. Would you please explain the discrepancy? Durova³²⁰ 16:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Given the very recent socking evidenced at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/WillOakland/Archive, and the continued ongoing disruption noted by User:NuclearWarfare, it seems like this user account should be blocked indefinitely. A fresh start might be possible later if the user refrains from further sock puppetry and disruption. Jehochman ^Talk 16:13, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

If there were some unusual discussion where he was given permission to restart under a new account I'd be willing to discuss the matter with whoever struck a deal. But it appears to be defiant sockpuppetry in violation of ban, coupled with a return to disruptive behavior. WillOakland claims that one of the site's most productive featured content contributors behaves incomprehensibly, and invites editors to review his current account's block log without comment on his own earlier admission of being a banned user (a post which ended in obscene vulgarity). This looks as open and shut as it gets. Will, if you'd like another chance as an editor please review Wikipedia:Standard offer and get in touch a few months down the road. If you meet its terms I'll initiate your unban discussion myself. But for now, endorsing a reinstatement of the indef. Durova³²⁰ 16:20, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, since [164] conveniently admits that "I am banned user Gazpacho", I have blocked WillOakland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) indefinitely for block evasion. Any unblock/unban requests should be made with the Gazpacho account, taking into account any disruption caused with this account.  Sandstein  16:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Aidan Pringle recreated

Aidan Pringle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was speedily deleted as a hoax. It's now been recreated - although the material originally added has now been blanked. I'm not sure how speedy deletion works, so I've raised the issue here.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 15:42, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Edits of User:Fifelfoo

I would like to request some assistance at article Hungarian Revolution of 1956. The problem is with User:Fifelfoo. Please check older edits and reverts with other editors at this article.

Today he removed referenced content from the article per "it is a primary source" (The 1956 Revolution: a history in documents" written by Csaba Békés, Malcolm Byrne, János Rainer published in 2002 page ref.: 198). After this I added another reference (the official webpage of "THE INSTITUTE FOR THE HISTORY OF THE 1956 HUNGARIAN REVOLUTION" which is sponsored by the Hungarian government and written by scholars. However User:Fifelfoo removed it as non-RS, although that article has 203 references. After this, I reverted it and I added another reference written by Ferenc Glatz, historian, member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, but User:Fifelfoo removed the references with the comment: "If the Institute was so proud of the content, they would have published it on paper. Cite the paper". With his last edit he taged the references... After I warned him for vandalism, reference removal he called me a vandal...

I checked his userpage ("He researches labour history and socialist history"), talkpage (articles you might like to edit "Structural Marxism") and his contributions (like "Mass killings under Communist regimes") so I think we have a WP:COI, POV and WP:OR here.--B@xter⁹ 16:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)