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

List of G-20 Pittsburgh arrests

Resolved

 – — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Can somebody please delete this WP:BLP atrocity? Grsz¹¹ 02:17, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

What for? There is nothing wrong with it. 2ndAmendment (talk) 02:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:BLP, our policy on biographies of living persons. All information needs to be referenced. This isn't. Nor, indeed, are any of these people notable for anything other than being arrested--hundreds of thousands of people are arrested every day, many at political protests. → ROUX ₪ 02:37, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't normally do CSD, but since this is a bit necessary I went ahead and deleted it. Sorry if I have messed up anywhere. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:42, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The page was (deleted now) a clear copy of this file from this Pittsburgh Post-Gazette article. Nothing but a recreation. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah but this one is sortable, and includes the additional arrests not in that article. I am not suggesting creating an article about them. In fact I don't even care what their names are other than, if I can, to identify duplicate arrests. There are three of them, which is not obvious unless the list is sorted. I am more interested in the times and locations where they were arrested, which is why I sorted the list. The fact that I am interested in sorting it proves that someone else is going to be interested in the same information. I understand that there are other places this can be posted, but I see no reason for not making it available here. All of the information is referenced, which you would see if you took the time to look at the references. 2ndAmendment (talk) 02:51, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

There were two cites for one person, in an article talking about 192. Besides the fact that the article is inappropriate per WP:BLP1E, this is hardly adequate for an article focusing entirely on a negative aspect of a bunch of living persons. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 02:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The two citations are because not all of the information was available in one place. One reference was for the time of the arrest, the other for the names etc. No where was I able to find the race of the two individuals. 2ndAmendment (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Now the editor has added the list to Talk:2009 G-20 Pittsburgh summit, which is equally inappropriate. I've removed it, but am unsure how to proceed from here. Grsz¹¹ 03:23, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Block the copyright- and BLP-violating editor? → ROUX ₪ 03:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have given 2ndamendment links to the relevant policies and a final warning against reposting the list anywhere on Wikipedia. → ROUX ₪ 03:29, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And I might as well point out that giving someone such a heavy handed "final notice" is stifling to the development of Wikipedia and highly questionable behavior for an admin. Remind me not to vote for you. I see that 67 others agreed with me in your RFA. 2ndAmendment (talk) 03:57, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. The information was already deleted with a very clear explanation why. You then recreated it somewhere else, apparently in the belief that made it okay. It wasn't. Any editor may issue warnings to another who is engaging in disruptive behaviour. That's how it works here. My RFA has nothing whatsoever to do with this, and it was a cheap and nasty little shot. → ROUX ₪ 04:03, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey I didn't link to it, I'm just saying that it is hard enough to find people who have the time to add to the encyclopedia, and why would I help at all with this kind of reception? 2ndAmendment (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The reception was incredibly mild. And since you have been here for over 18 months, you should have some notion of how the place functions. Instead, you reposted information which had been deleted with a clear explanation why it was deleted--that is why you received a final warning, as it seemed likely you would simply repost it elsewhere when it was removed again. Beyond that, your nasty sniping is completely unacceptable. → ROUX ₪ 04:11, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line. I created something for my own use that I thought others would find helpful. I will leave it to others to make that assessment, as it has no affect on me. If anyone thinks the information should be added to the article, any admin can easily undelete the article. 2ndAmendment (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Bottom line, as you have been told twice already: wikipedia is not your webhost for personal projects. → ROUX ₪ 04:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This discussion has clearly bottomed out. 2ndAmendment (talk) 04:28, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

That list has no business being on Wikipedia, but you're free to keep it on your own PC if you want. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:32, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Please! I created it on my own computer, and for my own personal use. I realized, however that many others would be just as interested in the information as I and therefor added it to the article, and my sole reason for adding it was to save them the trouble of duplicating the work that I had done. 2ndAmendment (talk) 04:36, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Unless a celebrity was among those arrested, no arrestees' names belong on wikipedia. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is not People's Magazine online! Being a celebrity has nothing to do with it. 2ndAmendment (talk) 12:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

You're wrong. Being notable has a lot to do with it. Unless an arrestee is notable, e.g. if they're a celebrity showing up at a demonstration, then we don't put their names here. Being arrested there does not confer notability upon them. It is not wikipedia's place to allow users to build "hit lists" of ordinary citizens. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:14, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) You're right - and people are also innocent until proven guilty. However, listing their names is pretty sad because they are otherwise non-interesting - see WP:ONEEVENT. Bugs' comment was related to the fact that you cannot be generally notable for one event - you often end up giving more publicity to their cause. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

The G20 protests are encyclopedic and should be covered in Wikipedia, due to the notability established by significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources. This is not to say that directory-type listings of every arrestee are encyclopedic, because directory listings are contrary to WP:NOT. Innovative "law enforcement" techniques of arresting someone for "tweeting" about the locations and movements of police officers got coverage] in the Post Gazette and on CNN and should be included somewhere. It was also covered by AFP. Communication via cellphone or Twitter now can make one an "enemy of the state." CNN said "They were charged with hindering apprehension, criminal use of a communication facility and possessing criminal instruments." The ACLU protested the arrests. Newspapers reported their reporters and innocent bystanders swept up and arrested. The Philadelphia Inquirer said "For G-20, Pittsburgh became a police state. Massive force routed cherished constitutional values." See also a law school journal which called it "a police state." There should be an encyclopedic summary of the number of arrestees and the way they were arrested, based on the numerous reliable sources. Edison (talk) 05:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And that would be appropriate for the G20 article itself. The overall notability of the arrests is still in question. It's still a bit soon to declare that this has any lasting impact. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The proper venue is 2009 G-20 Pittsburgh summit#Protests. The coverage of the security measures and arrests can be expanded there. It represented the first use against U.S. civilians of a "sound cannon" designed to deafen with 150 db high frequency sound, and previously used to repel pirates, as well as the first prosecution for Twittering. If the protest section becomes too large in proportion to the article, and if it has enduring effects, it could eventually be spun off. Edison (talk) 19:09, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring at Dreams from my Father

Kauffner (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has resumed for at least the fourth time in a year an effort to edit war a claim that Bill Ayers (the so-called "unrepentant terrorist" and "friend" of Obama's, per Obama detractors in association with the Bill Ayers presidential election controversy) secretly ghost-wrote Obama's autobiography Dreams from my Father. Whether true or not, the claim is disputed by other editors as a WP:BLP violation, nonconsensus, and a non-noteworthy WP:FRINGE conspiracy theory that does not meet WP:WEIGHT concerns.

I won't describe the content beyond that because this report concerns edit warring, not content. Please note that this article is under Article probation, which should mean a low tolerance for edit warring and other tendentious behavior.

• Most recent edit warring:[1][2] - only at 2RR, but this comes after a "final warning" a couple weeks ago[3] (where he violated 3RR), and a follow up warning I gave a short while ago that I would report him if he continued.[4][5]

• Edit warring from two weeks ago:[6][7][8]

• Older edit warring on the subject[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]

• Notices of Obama article probation[19][20][21]

• Prior AN/I report I filed here. - Wikidemon (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Could an admin please help enforce the Obama article probation here? Thanks, - Wikidemon (talk) 02:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Kauffner's replies are laced with editor commentary such as saying responses sound like "shilling for the Whitehouse"[22] accomplish nothing but add drama. Reverting[23] the allegation that Obama has basically lied about who wrote his autobiography into the lead paragraph, while claiming consensus that clearly does not exist, is disruptive. Plenty of responses have been provided in discussing the matter, but Kauffner's behavior in the face of the good faith desire of others to discuss the content issues that he is advocating makes the discussion battle-like unnecessarily. --guyzero | talk 03:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This material I added is sourced to recently published book, Barack and Michelle: Portrait of an American Marriage by Christopher Andersen. It's a top-selling, mainstream biography by an editor of Time magazine. Similar claims were previously discussed in the Times of London, among other RS.[24][25][26] It's been "referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication," and thus clearly not WP:FRINGE. NPOV would imply that material should not be removed simply because it is critical of the current U.S. president, although I see no other basis for the edits Wikidemon is making. Because I made some edits on this subject a year ago, I am not entitled to do more edits now? The logic of this complaint escapes me. Kauffner (talk) 05:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

We can deal with content objections on the talk page. I bring this here now as a last resort because talk page discussion and repeated warnings have brought no end to edit warring on an Obama article. That the material is poorly sourced / unourced, fringe, SYNTH, BLP-vio, etc., only frames the issue. Can we please get some help? - Wikidemon (talk) 07:14, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also a brand new WP:SPA, Here4now2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), whose only edits to date are edit warring this content and crying censorship on the article talk page. Pending administrative action (which I hope we can get soon), correct me if I'm wrong but I trust it is okay to revert this as a BLP violation. I've brought it here quickly to avoid a revert war, but we really can't let this kind of content stand in the encyclopedia, it's pretty embarrassing to the project. Wikidemon (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked as a clear throwaway account. I don't know specifically if that text reverted was unique to one editor or if it has just been repeated across a few different guys, so I don't want to air speculation as to the master account. Protonk (talk) 17:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. The sock's odd writing style seems familiar but I can't place it, there have been so many Obama article socks. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The editor is at it yet again.[27] Please, admins, tell me it is okay to edit war on Obama articles and I'll handle this one myself. Or tell me it is not okay, and deal with the disruption. I'll give it an hour or so but if nobody will handle this I'll just start reverting the editor. Either way Wikipedia shouldn't be the mouthpiece for fringe anti-Obama nonsense. - Wikidemon (talk) 17:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Hey, just chillax. It's been reverted. It's obviously not ok to edit war, but we don't live in a world of Manichean distinctions. I'm not about to block someone who seems to otherwise be a productive editor over this nonsense. If they continue to disrupt the page I'll either protect it or block them, but at this point they appear to be moving through the editing process. Protonk (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the addition, and explained my reasons on the article talk page. Wikidemon, thanks for raising the issue, but threats to edit-war are not really productive. Abecedare (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Then what is productive? The editor has spent a year edit warring this issue. It's not a threat as such. Either we have an administrative mechanism to handle long-term edit warring or we don't. If we do, it should be applied. I personally avoid edit warring and try to use the forums and procedures available. But if that's not the right standard I should edit aggressively in turn. I was just giving notice in case nobody did anything and I had to revert. As I said, we should not let fringe nonsense remain in high profile articles. Wikidemon (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you may be learning the wrong lesson from this. Protonk (talk) 18:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm. So admins are willing to help with the Obama articles? Sign me up for those lessons! (incidentally, edit warring still continues - the latest spree now at 4 reverts[28][29][30][31] in 48 hours) Wikidemon (talk) 18:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate behavior by User:Exucmember

Exucmember (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is engaging in a pattern of violations of WP:NPA. His inappropriate behavior was noted at his user talkpage by two users - I pointed out WP:NPA and asked Exucmember to strikeout his false negative comments [32], and DigitalC pointed out WP:BATTLE to Exucmember [33]. Exucmember has not redacted the statements in question.

I am requesting that another administrator take action with regard to this matter.

---

• 08:00, 2 October 2009 - Exucmember removes sourced material from the article Moonie (Unification Church), with edit summary: nothing AT ALL similar discussed in source; rm
• 13:18, 2 October 2009 - I restored the sourced material [34]
• 06:56, 5 October 2009 - Exucmember makes inflammatory comments and strong claims about my use of sourcing, in a post to the article's talk page. He accuses me of adding a "false reference" to the article. Example: It's astounding to me that CIRT would admonish me for removing a false reference when I stated clearly in the edit summary "nothing AT ALL similar discussed in source." He cites the diff, but does not answer the objection I raised! I did a search of that paper, and finding none of the keywords from the quotation, I then read the entire paper (quickly); not only does the quotation not appear in the cited reference, but no discussion about anything related to the topic is present. Perhaps he cited the wrong source, but it makes me wonder how many other sources don't really contain the stated claim.
• 13:08, 5 October 2009 - I added further information to the cite (not needed for verifiability, but extra information) to make it explicitly clear that I had not added a "false reference". [35]
• 13:14, 5 October 2009 - In posts to Exucmember's talk page, I made it clear that he was incorrect, I had not used a "false reference". Here [36] I pointed out that the information is actually in Footnote 16 of the cited source. Here [37] I responded to his strong allegation that I inserted "factually incorrect" information into the article. And here [38] I noted the inappropriateness of his posts to the article's talk page.
• 17:24, 5 October 2009 - A second user posts to the talk page of Exucmember about his inappropriate behavior. DigitalC commented: Exucmember, you may also want to read WP:BATTLE if you have not already done so.
• 03:34, 7 October 2009 - Exucmember has not removed or redacted his inappropriate attacks and claims about my editing, nor the allegations that I used "false references". Instead, he has chosen to continue to make further inflammatory posts about me at the article's talk page: [39], [40], [41], [42].

---

Thank you for your time, Cirt (talk) 04:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The issue that seems to be the primary emphasis by Cirt seems to be not that big a deal since it was a statement that was incorrect about the sources and has since been resolved. An apology would be nice but it isn't required by any policy. I'm more concerned about some of the difs that Cirt gives at the end. Especially troubling are comments like this onewhere after Cirt asks for sources Exu says "'Ive seen this before from Cirt. When he either doesn't have an answer or doesn't understand the issue raised (I have no idea which), he presents this mantra, an obvious and complete non-sequitur in this case. Perhaps his meaningless comment is an example of "wasting" talk page space (which he is so fond of arrogantly pointing out)." That seems to be pushign CIV and NPA issues. JoshuaZ (talk) 04:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what Joshua said above. I'm not sure that Exucmember realizes that his actions are wrong. In any case, if there's any further aggressive comments like what s/he has said, I think a block is in order. Killiondude (talk) 04:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Concur with the above - it took a while to find it, but the cited quote is definitely in the source (Exucmember, footnote on page 21). I left a note on Exucmember's talk page asking him to comment here and pointing out the page number, but if these comments continue a block would be in order for a short period of time. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:17, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Although that was before I noticed he's been here since 2006. An editor with a three year tenure should know better than to make comments like that. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: After being notified of this ANI thread and then indicating he was aware of it with a rather inappropriate response [43], Exucmember received comments at his talk page from admins Killiondude [44], and Hersfold [45]. Exucmember subsequently posted this inflammatory language to the article's talk page [46]. I fear he is choosing not to listen to the messages posted by these admins to his talk page. Cirt (talk) 05:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Update: Exucmember posted another inappropriate comment about me to the talk page of the article, saying: he seems to be adopting as factual the arguments of people who in some cases are bigoted. I have repeatedly asked for Exucmember to back up his claims with independent reliable secondary sources - he has instead chosen to engage in this sort of talkpage diatribe - despite warnings from multiple admins and editors. Cirt (talk) 06:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'm beginning to think this is block worthy, primarily per WP:BATTLE. JoshuaZ (talk) 15:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Reading the above is somewhat bewildering. Cirt picked a fight with me. I feel I have been quite restrained under the circumstances, but he has gone out of his way to provoke me. I do not have unlimited time, so I am not going to spend hours trying to accuse him by selectively placing difs here and characterize them (as he has toward me) selectively, in a biased way, and out of context. I feel I am being bullied by Cirt. Even now, in his latest comment, Cirt is continuing his aggression toward me by exaggeration, claiming that I have received "warnings from multiple admins and editors." Two people responded to this ANI with very reasonable and helpful comments (not warnings). I responded to their comments by saying that I didn't disagree. The only one who has issued a warning was Cirt, who did so while involved in a minor content dispute with me (one might see this as a conflict of interest and judge that it would be more seemly to invite another editor to issue an admonishment, but no one has taken this approach to my knowledge). In my view this warning from Cirt about not removing sourced material (one sentence with one source) was done inappropriately after my good faith edit which stated clearly in the edit summary that I concluded the quotation was not in the source provided. He chose to high-handedly lecture me on my talk page instead of simply informing me on the relevant talk page where the hard-to-find quotation was (it was a passing comment in a footnote in a very long paper which I spent a half hour reading and in which I was not able to find any content anywhere at all related to the topic cited). I thought a mistake had been made.

I would invite anyone who thinks they need to discipline me to read the whole exchange on the article's talk page (and on my talk page), noting the timeline and what edits I made to the article when. I have refrained from making any edits that could be considered by any reasonable person to be controversial since 03:39, 5 October 2009, as soon as it became clear that Cirt was going after me in an aggressive way. There were quite a few edits that I felt would improve the article, but I didn't make any of them because of Cirt's accusations and to protect myself against the charge of edit warring. Better to let others make the edits. I raised the issues very directly and poignantly on the talk page (Cirt has tended to ignore points I raised in the past, or responded with repeating the phrase "please cite sources to back up your claims" even when I was making no claims and citing sources would have been completely inappropriate or even in principle impossible, as though he didn't even read what I wrote).

I believe the article has some major problems at present. Some of these have to do with issues other than sources, but this seems to be Cirt's only concern. A good article needs more than just sources, however. One point of frustration is that Cirt seems to have developed a sense of ownership over the article, something which I mentioned recently and Steve Dufour agreed with. This is in spite of the fact that Steve and I have some expertise in this area, but several of Cirt's statements show he doesn't have much background knowledge of the topic of the article. But Cirt seems to be unwilling to allow any edits he doesn't agree with.

I am an occasional editor (less than 3000 total edits I think - not even sure how to find out), so there are a lot of things I don't know about the system. But I do know that people shouldn't be treated the way I've been treated. Again, I feel I've been targeted, bullied, harassed, and repeatedly falsely accused by Cirt. Frankly, I find it disheartening that on Wikipedia an admin would be allowed to game the system and bully and provoke an editor and not even be asked to back off. -Exucmember (talk) 09:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have tried to focus talkpage discussion to suggestion of independent reliable secondary sources and how to utilize them. Unfortunately instead it seems Exucmember (talk · contribs) chooses to focus many of his comments on the contributor, as opposed to content discussion. I fear this pattern of inappropriate behavior by Exucmember will continue – as he has not gotten the message in comments in the above thread and at his talk page from myself, DigitalC, JoshuaZ, Hersfold and Killiondude. Cirt (talk) 11:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that Cirt's WP:Ownership issues with the article also should be considered. There is no rule that primary sources can not be used in an article, only that notability can not be based on them. (I also have disagreed with Exucmember at times. He is mostly a very sincere and positive contributor to WP, although he does have strong personal feelings on Unification Church issues which sometimes (I think) get him too worked up emotionally. Somewhat ironically his feelings sometimes seem to be stronger than mine, a current UC member. :-) ) Steve Dufour (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I also made what I hope are some constructive comments on Exuc's talk page. Steve Dufour (talk) 16:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just as an aside, I am noticing Exucmember throwing a fair amount of snarky comments at Cirt on Talk:Moonie (Unification Church). The "If you are not familiar with the basic background of this article's topic, perhaps you should not be the one to take on trying to write the article largely by yourself" comment is not particularly beneficial to a collaborative environment. Granted, that might be a bit of bias on my part (given that I talk to Cirt on a fairly regular basis), but I do think that comment sets a bad tone for an editor. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If there has been a conduct problem on Cirt's part, please provide specific diffs in substantiation. What this thread contains so far is an organized presentation of evidence from Cirt and unsubstantiated claims from Exucmember and Steve Dufour. Fair disclosure: I used to mentor Cirt. But the community is pretty good at evaluating diffs when they are forthcoming. Durova³²² 20:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I don't care to make any charges against anyone. That's just not my kind of thing. I was just trying to show Exuc a little sympathy. He is a good and well-meaning WP editor, although we have had our disagrements, including on the article being discussed. Steve Dufour (talk) 01:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

user:Lovablehearts edits on Beanie Baby

The Help Desk indicated that ANI is the board most likely to be able to help me with this, so I'm bringing it here.

I'm not sure what to do with an editor who is adding un-encyclopedic walls o'text to an article and not responding to talk page requests to stop, but does not overtly appear to be operating in bad faith. The article in question is Beanie Baby, and a user who was first an IP and then user:Lovablehearts has been adding first-person, orginal-research-y commentary repeatedly (1, 2, 3, 4, 5), despite my efforts, first in edit summaries (1, 2) and then in a non-template message to the user's talk page, to convince him/her that the content is not appropriate for Wikipedia. I tried cleaning up their contribution and integrating it into the article where possible, but they undid those changes in favor of their full wall of text. A check of the article's history tells me that I've undone their edits longer than than I probably should have (Beanie Baby does not appear to have a whole lot of regular watchers), and I'm not willing to carry on in that manner, so I need some sort of help.

Given the article subject and the editor's additions, I tend to think this is something more along the lines of an overenthusiastic kid than a POV or COI warrior, but given that they are not responding to edit summaries or talk page warnings, I don't know what else to do to convince them to stop. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 14:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Addendum: For my future reference, is there a venue that deals with situations like this? This is not the first time I've run into editors who, while not vandalizing or operating in bad faith exactly, do not respond to requests or explanations. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 14:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems you (and Bencherlite) are handling the situation correctly and admirably with your notes on the user's talk page. If the issue continues, drop a note back here. Tan | 39 15:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

S/he's back at it: [47]. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And again and again. Other editors have made efforts to engage the user on their talk page and in edit summaries, to no avail. keɪɑtɪk flʌfi (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hounding/Gaming by admin SarekOfVulcan

Resolved

 – another Plaxico moment in time

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

I have been in conflict with Admin User:SarekOfVulcan since around mid-September, who has accidentally violated the admin policy on a few occasions with me involved which I called him out on[48]. Because of this, he has continued to follow me around for the sole purpose of annoying me quite clearly violating WP:HOUND+WP:BATTLE. The following is a list of evidence from this month only.

1. Never edited Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) but reverted me twice after me and another user were reverting each other over a disagreement.
2. Never edited Wikipedia:Wikipuffery (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) but reverted me once after me and another user were reverting each other over a disagreement.
3. Never edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BitchX (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and User talk:KoshVorlon (edit | user page | history | links | watch | logs) until I edited them. Downplayed my comment[49].
4. Never edited File:Tubefilter.png but rolled back my first legitimate edit to it.[50]
5. Never edited User_talk:Milowent but got involved when this user attacked me[51][52]
6. Never edited Tubefilter (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) until I did. Monitored my reverts in a 24 hour period, so he could warn me then revert me one extra time for the sole purpose of annoying me then promptly reporting me afterwards, despite never having taken part in the active discussion on the talk page of the article, and still currently hasn't. He even admitted he was only doing it for reasons of user conduct. As he has no interest in the content, making it a clear violation of WP:GAME+WP:HOUND. As there were only two users edit-warring who are both discussing it, full protection would have been far more appropriate. Note this is not a dispute of my block.
7. Full list of the same pages edited here to see the full extent of it.

I honestly couldn't care less if users follow my edits to fix up articles I tag with problems and get involved with discussions I'm in. And can accept that users with similar interest in articles will unavoidably end up editing the same pages and get in to disagreements. But when it becomes this persistent and the editor is clearly only doing it to cause an annoyance and is doing it across articles, deletion discussions, essays and user talk pages, it gets to the point where it clearly violates WP:HOUND.

He even decided to gloat about it when I was blocked because of him ""loldom", "your first revert on the article BZZZZZT! But thank you for playing". The fact this user is an admin means they should have some basic knowledge on how to defuse a conflict, not continously fuel it by harrasing and trolling the user in which they are in a conflict with, which makes this all the more shameful.--Otterathome (talk) 18:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wait, are you saying an admin should not get involved in trying to resolve an edit war unless they've edited the article in question? 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Have you notified SarekOfVulcan of this thread? That is usually the desired courtesy when you post something like this. — Ched :  ?  18:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

He has been following my edits for weeks, I don't see any reason why he would suddenly stop now. So no.--Otterathome (talk) 18:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

That is not an acceptable response. When you list a complain at AN/I you are must notify all relevant parties. This is written in bold letters at the top of this page. Manning (talk) 19:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

"Gloat" is not the word I'd use. The text of the "loldom" diff above is 'I am mightily amused at the concept that you reverted 5 times because I was "monitoring" you', and the "BZZZT" links to a list of my contributions on that page, showing that the revert he claimed was my first was not. Re "downplaying" -- he claimed that the discussion had been "stinted" for 3 days, and the AfD should run an extra 2, even though the AfD had only been improperly closed for less than a day.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 18:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have reviewed about half of the listed items.

(1) You claim Sarek "accidentally violated the admin policy" and you called him out. I see no evidence of that in your diff. You simply made a claim which was refuted by Admin Sandstein.

(2) You placed a CSD tag on File:Tubefilter.png. Sarek removed the CSD tag presumably because he disagreed with the basis (which also seemed fair enough). You then reverted this and wrote "no edit summary with rollback = abuse" in the ES. You seem to not be aware that one of the jobs of admins is to deal with CSD tags, and we are not actually required to have edited an article before making an admin decision. While ES's are always preferred, failing to provide one is not "abuse".

(3) As administrators we are REQUIRED to intervene in edit wars. Also it is preferred that we intervene in edit wars on articles we have not otherwise edited, so that we can remain "uninvolved".

(4) Re this diff and "only here for the conduct issues"... um, with respect - that's our job. Sarek was doing what admins are specifically tasked to do - ensure editors engage in proper conduct.

(5) Your comment of LOLdom has no basis. You were not blocked "beacuase of Sarek", you were blocked for 3RR violation. Unless Sarek held a gun to your head and forced you to press "submit" then that statement has no basis. Sarek was not mocking you, he was merely noting that your claim was unfounded.

In summary, so far I do not see any substance to this claim. Otter - you are for the most part a very good editor, but it is my observation you do not like being corrected and seem to take it very personally. So far a number of independent admins have reviewed a variety of the disputes you have with Sarek and all have sided with Sarek. This is not because we are "an evil band who always support each other" but because Sarek was basically correct in his enforcement of the rules.

Regardless, to keep you happy I will recommend that Sarek refrain from taking administrative action against you in the future. However if you persist in the same style of editing actions, and take the same level of offence when corrected, then I suspect you will be claiming further "admin hounding" in future, except with someone else. Manning (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You are speaking about the edits individually, it doesn't matter who was in the right or wrong in any case, it doesn't explain the hounding. And I don't know what sandstein comment you are talking about.--Otterathome (talk) 19:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that Manning means Zoeydahling, not Sandstein. -- Atama頭 19:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I stand corrected. Thanks, Atama. Manning (talk) 19:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

And to follow up, Manning is pointing out how the entire basis for your claim is unfounded by picking apart each of your claims. I'm sure you're aware that WP:HOUND states, "The important component of wiki-hounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." Manning has shown that each of the diffs you provided that are supposed to prove that Sarek was hounding you weren't done without an "overriding reason". -- Atama頭 19:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, to put it another way, the user is following me around and simply disagreeing with me for the point of annoyance. All above points are debatable. And if you must know Sarek threatened to block me over deletion disputes, in which he was involved, so it was a violation of WP:UNINVOLVED which can be see read in this archive. There was obviously a conflict before, and Sarek wants to continue it.--Otterathome (talk) 19:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

There is no evidence that Sarek is "simply disagreeing with me for the point of annoyance". From where I stand he is simply doing his administrator's job. From a quick scan of his edit log, you are far from his only interest on Wikipedia. Ditto to your baseless claim of Sarek violating WP:UNINVOLVED. I have offered to recommend to Sarek that he refrain from interacting with you. You are unlikely to obtain anything beyond that. It is starting to look like that you are simply badgering us in the hope of getting a result negative to Sarek, and as multiple admins have already pointed out, that is not likely. It is probably time to move along. Manning (talk) 19:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes there is, the evidence above are all debatable cases. And I have shown an obvious motive for it.--Otterathome (talk) 19:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Your "obvious motive" is that you "called him out" on "violating admin policy". I hope you realize what a ridiculous and dangerous precedent you're trying to set. You're saying that because you participated in an administrator review (which Sarek of Vulcan initiated himself) that he can no longer take administrative action against you. It sounds like you're the one gaming the system. -- Atama頭 19:55, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not complaining about administrative abuse, this is hounding/user conduct spurred by a previous disagreements over deletions of pages, see this and this.--Otterathome (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Otter - let me make this very clear. You made a complaint. The complaint has been dismissed as having no basis. An offer was made of a possible compromise, which you have thus far ignored. Now you are badgering us and repeating your accusations against an admin. This is disruption. So let me make this very clear - we have been very patient thus far, but any more disruptive behaviour on ANI is going to earn you a block. It's over - move along. Manning (talk) 20:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to show it has basis, so I don't know what you're talking about.--Otterathome (talk) 20:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you don't get to decide the validity of your complaint. The admins who have reviewed this have decided your complaint has no basis. That's how ANI works. Now, due to your persistent refusal to let this go I am recommending that you be blocked for disruptive behaviour. I will let another admin decide if my recommendation has merit. Manning (talk) 20:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have replied to your comment saying my WP:UNINVOLVED claim was baseless with evidence, why don't you respond to that instead of proclaiming I'm clearly wrong, go away or you'll be blocked for disruption?--Otterathome (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Otterathome. It has been made clear in this thread that there is nothing actionable here. You're refusal to drop the WP:STICK is bordering on Wikipedia:Harassment. I implore you to cease and desist at this time before a passing admin. drops a block on you. This is not a threat - simply a bit of advice. — Ched :  ?  20:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I'm not the the following the other user around.--Otterathome (talk) 20:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If an editor is engaging in conduct which he maybe shouldn't be making, it isn't unreasonble to "follow him around". I've reverted vandalism by IPs and others multiple times by checking their edit histories after having one of their acts of vandalism appear on my watchlist. If anyone does find that there has been such multiple errors, it is reasonable to check to see if they are continued. I don't know how much vandalism I've reverted in such a way. You have given no proof to date of malicious intent, and, frankly, based on the evidence you have presented, there is no good reason to assume any. As such, I urge you in the strongest possible terms to drop this discussion now. John Carter (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You are talking about vandalism, I have shown this user to disagree with me across multiple pages they have never edited before for a variety of debatable reasons and have given a clear motive for it.--Otterathome (talk) 20:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with John Carter; for me, if I see someone is adding advertorial links, it's practically standard procedure for me to check up on their contributions for a while and see if they start doing it again; there have been multiple instances where I was able to find linkspam spreading across over 40 pages by doing this. This isn't limited to vandalism as you might claim; I've also done it for people who repeatedly add advertorial copy to articles, or add bad sources. The next time you persist in this discussion by accusing Sarek of stalking you and trying to start fights, I will block you for 24 hours for harassing him and persisting with this claim. Let it go. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

User is still continuing to hound me; Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#New_template.--Otterathome (talk) 20:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You're actively editing an AN/I thread about me, and you expect me not to see what else you're up to?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So you continue to do the thing that you are accused of doing?--Otterathome (talk) 20:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

points 4 paragraphs up --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As a completely uninvolved administrator, I have to say that I don't see any fault Sarek's part. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 21:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I have blocked Otterathome has been for 31 hours for pursuing his vendetta against Sarek after being told to stop. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:04, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Cheese and Rice ... Otter was all over these pages less than a month ago in one of the largest threads. His activity drew the attention of many an admin then - there should be no surprise that actions were taken, or that his edits were being watched. Bah. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 21:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Horrifically poorly handled matter and bad block

Discussing a problem in good faith on a noticeboard is not harassment. What an atrocious block. And Sarek cannot make statements like this one to an editor calling Otter a turd ":::Milo, please don't give him excuses to ask for blocks -- someone unfamiliar with his history might fall for it. And if you're any more explicit than the above, I'll need to block you. Yes, some of his edits are highly annoying, but that isn't license to attack him." and portray himself as an uninvolved and impartial admin.

The edits from Otter that I looked at were properly reverted, but Sarek actively siding with an editor making a vicious personal attack is inexcusable given the circumstances. He has no business stalking Otter's edits any further, and he isn't uninvolved. Sarek should have asked for other admin to help long ago. He excercised extraordinarily poor judgment, and it's unfortunate so many others in positions of authority are encouraging his behavior with an utter lack of empathy for a good faith editor feeling stalked and harassed. This is deeply troubling. Ched, how could you! :) ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me. "Keep it up and I'll block you" is siding with him???? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You also said: "Milo, please don't give him excuses to ask for blocks -- someone unfamiliar with his history might fall for it." And this is in response to Milo calling Otter a turd. You're taking sides. You're not acting with appropriate restraint or impartiality. Otter may well need assistance and supervision, but if he feels hounded and stlalked you need to listen. You're not the only admin so you should've asked for help in keeping an eye on the situation and tried to defuse it instead of aggravating it to this extent. ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

*looks askance at the edit history* CoM, sorry, didn't mean to stomp on your edits there. Feel free to restore, I was only trying to adjust the heading level.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No worries. I've been known to unintentionally remove comments all together somehow. I think it has to do with having multiple windows open, but I'm not sure... ChildofMidnight (talk) 21:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

CoM Seeing as how you address me specifically - I ask you to refactor your statement. I consider it highly offensive, smiley face or not. I reviewed what was going on here - looked at the users talk page, reviewed the users block log, and offered what I considered to be constructive advice. Disruption comes in many forms, one of which is continuing to engage in Wikipedia:Harassment after several people have reviewed the situation, and offered advice. Let me be perfectly clear here - I am highly offended by your statement! I have always done my utmost to communicate with my fellow editors, I always strive to maintain a high degree of civility, and I certainty don't appreciate being spoken to in that fashion. — Ched :  ?  21:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Refactored. If someone perceives harassment an admin should have the good judgment and common sense and decency to try to resolve the situation in a collegial and collaborative fashion. That's not what happened here. We saw aggressive unilateral policing which has only exacerbated the problem. And that another admin blocked Otter for discussing the matter is disgusting. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just an aside, I'm often on Otter's side on Wikipedia, at least where the AfDs are concerned (and I know that much of the time controversy pops up about Otter it's about AfD). On a few occasions I was the only one siding with Otter to delete articles (where I still believe we were drowned out by a bunch of WP:ILIKEIT votes from fans, but now I'm going off-topic). So please take what I say with that in mind, that if I have a bias at all it's pro-Otter. Having said that, Otter's "discussion" had basically devolved to repeating that he has shown that the hounding is true, without offering any more support than the original claims, repeating himself and not really responding to discussion from other editors. He even complained that someone actually addressed the diffs that he provided. It's pretty obvious that in this case he had no intention in having a real discussion. I see the current block merely as a way to get Otter to drop this issue and get on with his Wikilife. -- Atama頭 23:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Only since my name came up, I will add a note. Yes, I called Otter a turd last week (long story, lets keep my comment to a reasonable length and not rehash it all -- but "turd" really isn't vicious though is it? Puerile? surely.), and I felt that Sarek's response to me was a true warning, done in the darn persuasive but civil tone that good admins do. I took a break, calmed down, apologized to Otter on the ANI he started on it, and life went on. Otter and I have been on the opposite side of a number of AfDs in the past few months, and I'm pretty sure he knew exactly what he was doing today. He did the same type of thing which ended up in his userpage being indefinitely protected and blanked a few months ago. I think the conclusion of Atama that the block is simply a way to get Otter to drop the issue seems about right.--Milowent (talk) 01:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

ChildOfMidnight - as I handled the bulk of the complaint, I appear to be the target of your allegation of "Horrifically poorly handled matter". What precisely do you feel was "horrifically poorly handled"?

To recap: I do not know Sarek apart from seeing him/her on the admin noticeboards and occasionally seeing their name on the admin IRC channel, so I have no particular loyalty to that admin. In an earlier conflict between Otter and Sarek I actually defended Otter's conduct to some extent.

Regardless, no matter the circumstance I am quite capable of impartial review. I reviewed most of the edits and saw no improper admin behaviour. At least one other admin also assessed it as having no basis. Thus far no other admin has disagreed to my knowledge. Hence I advised Otter that no action would ensue and the matter was over. Otter then became persistent and as a result received numerous warnings (from multiple admins) to stop posting his allegations or a block for disruption would occur. These warnings were repeatedly ignored, and hence a block ensued.

As a result, I am interested in finding out what aspect of the above you regard as "horrifically poorly handled". I do not wish to infer that you regard any decision that you disagree with as "horrific", although I confess that it could be interpreted that way based on your comments above. Manning (talk) 02:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You guys told Otter not to comment more and to move on. He did. And Sarek stalked him to a new totally unrelated area of the encyclopedia and commented against Otter's position in a thread Otter started. It's totally inappropriate and totally unacceptable. If Sarek continues to bully and intimidate editors with his tools when he's involved in disputes with them he will find himself the subject of an Arbcom proceeding. Cheers. ChildofMidnight (talk) 03:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Everyone's entitled to their own opinions on wikipedia, I have found, and frequently state their opinions as if they are the view of all Wikipedians, but that doesn't mean anyone will actually agree with them. Otter knew exactly what he was doing; I simply cannot believe he did not because he's quite an intelligent guy. Its like an episode of Law & Order where an attorney purposefully violates a judge's demand and gets thrown in jail for contempt, ostensibly to make some kind of point. Whether any point is made or not is debatable, but there's no question the attorney intentionally brought about the result intended.--Milowent (talk) 04:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

{quote} "You guys told Otter not to comment more and to move on. He did."{/quote}. Sadly this is not the case. I believe there were four or five occasions when Otter was asked to move on and he steadfastly refused to do so. This is what led to his block. I reviewed the edits at Village Pump and I did not regard them as "stalking" either. Regardless I have requested Sarek to not interact with Otter in future and he has agreed, which is probably for the greater good. Manning (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sarek's stalking AFTER the ANI discussion was resolved

Why did he follow Otter to a discussion that Otter initiated AFTER the above discussion was resolved in his favor[53] and Otter was advised to disengage? This seems highly abusive. The matter being discussed on that page had absolutely nothing to do with Sarek, it was about a template. It's a big encyclopedia and I would like to hear an explanation on why Sarek found it necessary to continue to pursue an editor working in good faith AFTER this ANI discussion was already resolved against Otter and he was told not to comment further? This looks like the worst kind of baiting, taunting and admin abuse. I'm shocked that a block followed Otter's pointing out Sarek's wildly inappropriate behavior and unnecessary provocation. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This was a direct followup to his disruptive AfDs on which we had engaged before -- it encapsulates his arguments against Tubefilter and other similar pages. And I utterly reject that expressing an opinion ON THE VILLAGE BLOODY PUMP can constitute "admin abuse" when the poster is actively soliciting opinions. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In other words, it's the same discussion. If every time an admin expresses an opinion on a topic s/he disqualifies hirself from further discussion, we're going to have to add a LOT more admins. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If you had engaged him before in an editing dispute you were not uninvolved and certainly shouldn't have been the one to monitor his editing. That's not how an admin should be handling a dispute. You need to disengage from Otter. If there's an issue, ask someone else to have a look and to keep an eye on the situation. I'm shocked, truly, that you would think your hounding and pursuit appropriate even after an ANI report accusing you of stalking and harassment. LEAVE HIM ALONE. Got it? ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

4 admins said it wasn't WP:HOUNDing, none said it was. Funny how you show up every time someone accuses me of wikistalking -- are you wikistalking me?--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think you're obviously not WP:UNINVOLVED, and should therefore disengage. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm thinking there's a really good chance I'm going to block someone if this discussion continues. There is no just cause for this discussion to continue, and I have to say that it would probably qualify as WP:DE and or WP:HARASS if it does. The matter is resolved, drop it. John Carter (talk) 17:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The matter is resolved if Sarek disengages from Otter as he should have done long ago. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As an outside party, I have to say that you're sounding like a petulant child, CoM, stomping his feet because he's not getting his way. Admins have made their decision here. Let it go. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

← The editing over the last 24 hours of CoM (currently blocked for 12 hours by John Carter) has been extremely problematic and tendentious. He wrecked the namespace article Honey: his rearrangements added hopeless inaccuracies and absurd wikilinks to a shortened lede, which he essentially turned into a D-grade high school essay. I have restored the pre-CoM version (WMC already noticed a howler there). It's very hard to explain the extremely poor quality of his edits (it could be lack of sleep). Equally well he restored this recently deleted political article George W. Bush pretzel choking incident. What was he up to? He has in addition made several outspoken comments on arbitrators'/arbitration talk pages; FayssalF made an explicit comment about the nature of his contributions [54]. Mathsci (talk) 20:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What is he up to? Being disruptive, plainly. --217.44.187.212 (talk) 23:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The above looks to be a harassment-only account, and obviously a sock since his first edit was to Wales' page. I turned him in to AIV, but someone else can do the honors here if they're of a mind to. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Gone. Thank you, User:Cirt. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 03:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Review of block process applied to User:Epycwin

User:Epycwin was indefinitely blocked by User:Georgewilliamherbert on October 2nd after edit-warring with another user at Organ donation in Israel. The reason for block was not edit-warring per se, but rather, being a "a single purpose account whose only purpose is to edit war and reinsert material on jewish conspiracies to steal internal organs, which has no sources which meet our reliable source policy, violates WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE, and is attempting to use Wikipedia as a battlefield to fight external fights." Please read User talk:Georgewilliamherbert#Epycwin to see his rationale as explained to admins asking that the block length be reduced.

Epycwin's account is about three months old. He has never been warned about edit-warring. The only other talk page comment left on his page previous was left by an editor who was edit-warring with him who warned him against inserting WP:OR into articles. I understand the topics Epycwin was editing about are controversial to many. But that doesn't justify jumping to conclusions about his motives. A review of User talk:Epycwin will show this seems to be a reasonable editor who has responded quite graciously to the out of process block placed against him and has been very patient in fielding questions from other admins despite how poorly he has been treated. Yes, he edit-warred, but he admitted it and pledged not to do it again [55]. Please, more eyes and some notes on the process here? Tiamut^talk 20:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

An SPA dedicated to conspiracy theory pushing, especially antisemitic hoaxes about organ stealing, warrants a nice block. Any good reason for your strong interest in an unblock?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 20:33, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Brewcrewer, it would be good if when commenting to uphold a block, you disclose your prior involvement with the editor (eg. having warned Epycwin about OR after reverting his edits to the introduction of Organ donation in Jewish law). Though you didn't bother discussing your edits at the article talk page there, I notice Epycwin tried to. Unfortunately, no one bothered to bring specific citations and sources to the discussion or the article that would have perhaps help quell the blind reverting and disagreements. But why don't we let other uninvolved editors comment? Or instead comment on your experiences with the editor, providing diffs and specific instances or behaviours that you believe justify a block. Tiamut^talk 20:58, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I resent the implications you are trying to make about my motives here. This came to my attention because Epycwin started an article on Yehuda Hiss. (I had started one in my user space and added mine to his after I saw his go up.) When I went to check out his user page, I discovered he was blocked. After looking into it, I was shocked by the lack of prior warnings and the jumping to conclusions made by the blocking admin. I would hope you wouldn't repeat that same mistake. Tiamut^talk 21:01, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Which Yehuda Hiss do you refer to? This Yehuda Hiss, that is being used as a WP:COATRACK to further the antisemitic conspiracy theory that Hiss was involved Operation Big Rig?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 21:11, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm uninvolved, I've never edited the articles being discussed, never had any run-in with Epycwin or Brewcrewer or anyone else in this dispute. I have to say that I concur with the block, reviewing Epycwin's recent contributions all I see is removal or reverting of content that is sourced with false (or at least arguable) edit summaries saying that the information reverted is "original research" or "rumor" (again, the info reverted has a source). A legitimate edit-war warning was removed from their talk page calling it a "threat". I don't see any evidence that this is a "reasonable editor" and I don't see that they "responded quite graciously" to the block (though they didn't exactly rant and curse either). I can understand the anti-semitism claims, since the majority of edits might indicate a bias against the Jewish people, though I myself would be cautious in labeling them that way without seeing anything more overt. -- Atama頭 21:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The warning was not for edit-warring, nor did it link to there so that Epycwin could be made aware of what that is. The warning was about OR. Again, a primary reason I find this block to be extremely harsh is that the editor was never approached about edit-warring before the block was made. Tiamut^talk 22:19, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

My mistake, yes. OR and not edit-warring. But this block isn't about edit-warring. The block is for being disruptive and tendentious. If a person is blocked for an edit war it is to stop the edit war, people generally aren't indefinitely blocked for that. The editor's contributions to the encyclopedia are a net negative by far. I'll give a summary of recent diffs I've glanced through and their glaring problems:

• Organ donation in Jewish law - Removed info talking about rabbis supporting organ donation that was sourced, under the claim of "original research", and replaced it with (ironically) original research.
• Simon Cowell - Removed the "English Jews" category from his article, claiming that it was an "erroneous rumor" despite Cowell's own words (which were earlier referenced in the article).
• Israel–Russia relations - Insertion of a "controversy" regarding an Israeli diplomat being charged with espionage that even the source said wasn't notable.
• 2009 Aftonbladet Israel controversy - Removed sourced opinion of Israelis who were defending themselves against charges of racism, with the spurious claim that "random people's opinions are not notable".
• Naomi Klein - Removed criticism against her published by the Jerusalem Post, claiming that it was "not notable".

That's just a handful of recent contributions showing disruption promoting an anti-Jewish bias. This is repeated time and again. This editor clearly is not here to improve Wikipedia. -- Atama頭 22:54, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

How is removing polemical criticism of alleged statements by Naomi Klein (sourced incidentally to what appears to be an op-ed - no link provided to verify its contents) evidence of "anti-Jewish bias"? This random listing seems like very circumstantial evidence to me. We are not thought police. He received exactly one warning regarding his editing (about WP:OR) before being indefinitely blocked. There needs to be stronger evidence than this of disruption. You have also overlooked the articles he started like Organ donation in Israel and Yehuda Hiss. Yes he was a bit agressive, he admits as much himself. Yes he was edit-warring and admits that too and pledged not to do it in the future. But this block should be reduced to time served, having functioned as a warning. I think he got the message. Are we punishing him for showing an interest in topics that we think he should not be interested in? Tiamut^talk 23:16, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

This isn't really a random sample, I started with his most recent content contributions and worked my way back. We're not "punishing" him at all. We don't punish by blocking, we do so to protect Wikipedia. I don't think the positive contributions he has done outweigh the negative contributions. You don't have to be "thought police" when every edit is done with an anti-semitic slant (I feel confident enough to make this statement now after further review of contributions). Even the articles he started that you use as evidence of good are anti-Jewish. But I've given my opinion, and I think I've explained it well enough, and you're free to disagree with me. -- Atama頭 23:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

If Yehuda Hiss and Organ donation in Israel are "anti-Jewish", please come to those pages and point out what needs to be removed or changed so that they are not racist. I'm deeply concerned, as I've edited them too, and if I missing racist content, I want to be made aware of that. Tiamut^talk 00:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The articles themselves are okay (at least at a cursory glance). What I meant was that creating those articles certainly does nothing to diminish the accusations of anti-semitism, since their presence in Wikipedia, while appropriate, do act to cast Israel (and by extension Jews) in a negative light. Again, I don't have any complaints about the articles themselves or their presence in Wikipedia, but their creation fits into a larger pattern of behavior that led to the indefinite block. I hope that explains it better (I didn't explain it very well before). -- Atama頭 00:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well I must say that I'm relieved to know the content in those articles is not a problem. I think your conclusions that because these articles deal with subject matter that portray Israel in a negative light, that an editor's interest in them is evidence of anti-Semitism is serious assumption of bad faith and a rather large logical leap (given that anti-Zionism does not equal anti-Semitism). I deal with editors all the time who spend an inordinate amount of time editing articles like Pallywood, Jaljalat, Eurabia, etc., which if I failed to abide by WP:AGF might lead me to make similar accusations of anti-Arab bias. But that would lead to chaos I think, which is the reason AGF exists in the first place. Tiamut^talk 13:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Please keep this discussion focused on Epicwyn and civil, please.

I am open to other admins further reviewing, and if they decide to AGF under the circumstances unblock. I believe I have enough evidence to stop assuming that, but that's my personal opinion. Anyone who reviews and believes that the situation is recoverable and that Epicwyn can become a productive user moving forwards is welcome to work on that. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Just a small note: though Epycwin had his/her first edits in July, s/he has only made a grand total of 87 edits so far (according to wikichecker). That is not much to give an impression of the larger pattern of behavior. Regards, Huldra (talk) 08:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I was willing to unblock him--granted, his long-term edit warring and ownership issues on an article he created were certainly blockable--worth a 72-hour block, in my mind. But unless I've missed something, I haven't seen the egregious anti-Semitism that would merit an indefblock. The only reason I didn't unblock was because the issue of anti-Semitism is a thorny issue, and I didn't want to create the appearance of a wheel war. Blueboy96 13:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll Be Glad When You're Dead You Rascal You

I don't think that this issue fits on any of the more specific pages, and I'm not sure what to do:

User:Die4Dixie contains a not-so-veiled statement that the editor is glad that a Cuban politician died a couple of weeks ago, and hopes that more will die.

This seems like it falls under WP:UP#NOT #9 ("Polemical statements unrelated to Wikipedia; in particular, statements attacking or vilifying groups of editors or persons..."), but I haven't seen anything like this before, so I don't really know how the community usually interprets this line, or how (if necessary) these incidents are commonly handled. Any suggestions? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Removed it. Clearly polemical, not to mention gratuitous and unpleasant. Black Kite 21:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Block review

And, after persisting in re-inserting the offensive material, despite being reverted by myself and another editor, and having had both of us explain why on their talk page, I have blocked User:Die4Dixie for 24 hours. Their previous block log gives me no indication that they would be stopping their disruptiveness any time soon. I don't think this counts as "involvement" by the blocking admin, but review welcome. Black Kite 21:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

{edit conflict, may be mitigated by Black Kite comments} More action may be necessary with Die4Dixie (talk · contribs). I was recently involved in a conflict with him which got into WP:CIVIL territory - it ended with him accusing me of racism for mentioning this essay as apparently "calling a spade a spade" is a racist expression where he comes from. Ok, whatever, but the point is that this compliant is not the first regarding this user. I am not fast to file actions against other users and don't know what the appropriate venue to proceed would be should his actions persist in this vein after coming off block. RfC? Simonm223 (talk) 21:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

from the ANI archives This isn't the first time Die4Dixie (talk · contribs) has got in trouble for hinting that he wished another editor person dead. Simonm223 (talk) 21:51, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• Looks reasonable on first blush. Someone uninvolved might have suggested they take a break. But the behaviors do seem to have been problematic of late. It's unfortunate that the blocked editor can't post here in the discussion which is also problematic. Making the accused voiceless is unfortunate. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I went back and forth on this before looking into it more. Bad block. I don't think the comment was collegial or appropriate, but we give latitude to editor's in their userspace. If Black Kite insisted on pushing forward he should have taken it to a neutral forum instead of acting unilaterally. D4D has been a bit too caught up in that are of the encyclopedia and may need a break, but one enforced by block instead of requested by a friend doesn't help anyone. Poor effort of dispute resolution.

And Sarek so rapidly reviewing and dismissing the appeal is also a bad look. Treating D4D with more respect, despite a comment on their userpage that isn't helpful, would have been preferable. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Both myself an Veinor tried "dispute resolution". We were told to "go play somewhere else". But, as I said below, I couldn't really care less if people want to enable that sort of disruptiveness. Black Kite 22:32, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Saying "go play elsewhere" is just as dismissive as saying "I couldn't really care less if people want to enable that sort of disruptiveness." Show some maturity. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

• The content on his page was a bit too gray-area-ish to block without getting a neutral opinion. I'd recommend lifting it pending further discussion here and by other observers on his talk. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 22:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Sigh. He placed an offensive item on his userpage, it was removed with a note to read the relevant guidelines, he replaced it (with a rv vandalism) editsum, had the information regarding soapboxing re-stated to him by another editor, and carried on replacing it. This isn't a content dispute, it doesn't require dispute resolution, it just needed that user to stop doing it, which he couldn't. It wasn't a grey area, if he'd placed "I'd be glad if {insert famous person) was dead" on his page we wouldn't be having this discussion, and it was effectively the same thing. Frankly, if anyone feels an unblock is warranted, I couldn't really care less, I think I was doing the right thing. Black Kite 22:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You were involved in the edit warring on a user's page. You needed to step back, exercise some restraint and good judgment and assist in alleviating the dispute and resolving the issue collegially without disruption. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:30, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, removing offensive material doesn't come under the edit-warring guidelines. And seriously, if you're going to accuse me of double standards on the user's page, you'd better have your diffs ready. Oh, and [56]. Black Kite 22:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a userpage and the material is offensive to you. It's a gray area and once disputed you should have stepped back instead of using your powers unilaterally to enforce your will. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed that comment. Bad blocks often inflame situations. It's unfortunate that it's come to this, but I can attest to the double standards and rogue enforcement. I emphasize again that an admin should excercise restraint and lead by example as far as civility, collegiality, and good judgment go. There was no urgent issue here that a block was desperately needed. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but saying "I'm glad X is dead" (where X is a random famous person) is offensive full stop, not to me. Call me dim, but I'd never heard of the person. Seriously, if it had been "I'm glad Ted Kennedy is dead" soon after his death, would we even be having this conversation? Black Kite 22:40, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You're posing that question to someone who once argued that it was OK to keep Nazi imagery on his user page, in reference to other editors. Tarc (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

BK, you made a bad block in a situation where you were involved and now you're lying about what was said on the userpage. The actual statement was "This users is pleased with the changes in the status of Juan Almeida."

You're involved. You acted rashly and with poor judgment. I suggest unblocking and letting others who are more neutral and reasonable handle it, so we can restore some semblance of collegial cooperation. I think you may be letting pride and arrogance get in the way of clear thinking. (post-ec) And now I see other POV pushers are using the situation to push their own agenda. ChildofMidnight (talk) 22:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please inform yourself of the facts before spouting off. The original version was This users is pleased with the changes in the status of Juan Almeida . One down and several leftists to go!. Dixie reverting the change as "vandalism" didn't help matters any either. Tarc (talk) 23:21, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Making changes to someone's userpage IS considered vandalism, just as removing something inappropriate can be justified by other policies. There was a difference of opinion and rather than resolving it appropriately an admin took unilateral action to win the argument. That's not how we do things. I agree it's inappropriate as I've said repeatedly, but there's a right way and a wrong way to work through a dispute. And per your comment we see that Dix was willing to alter to the comment to make it less problematic, so it seems entirely likely that this could have been worked out through collegial discussion and compromise rather than an aggressive admin forcing their argument by using their tools. That cause ill will and resentment and doesn't help build the encyclopedia. Instead of having it reviewed after the fact, it should have been resolved in an appropriate fashion. Maybe our admins need a refresher course in dispute resolution? ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:31, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Making changes to someone's userpage IS considered vandalism no it isn't. It depends on the changes made.--Crossmr (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

No, CoM, an admin enforcing widely accepted guidelines per WP:USER is not vandalism. Your anti admin/ArbCom/wiki-authority figure crusade is beginning to get a bit tiring, especially when you try to make martyrs out of every blocked user you come across. Just...stop already. Tarc (talk) 00:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is stupid. Look at what wikipedia has become: stupid arguments over stupid comments somebody put on their userpage. Maybe we wouldn't have a problem if there weren't any userpages? Or maybe we wouldn't have a problem if we just edited articles instead of paying excessive attention to what others are doing on their userpages? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:59, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is NOT for advocating or gloating over the deaths of others. It should not have been been necessary for me to articulate this principle. Support block. Cardamon (talk) 23:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Child of Midnight, no editor so far has agreed with you. Rather than continuing to argue it, why don't you take a break from this argument for a couple of hours, and see whether any other editor shares your opinion?

If the only support your view gets is the empty sound of crickets in the night, then you'll know that the consensus is on the other side, and while it may not be pleasant, at least you'll know. On the other hand, if there is support for your view, then people will be unable to dismiss it as merely the view of a single editor with a reputation for endless arguing -- which would be trivial for them to do right now. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

So far I count two other editors who think it's silly to handle a dispute over a userpage this way. Including me, that's three. ChildofMidnight (talk) 23:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any other editors saying that removing offensive material from a userpage is vandalism. Perhaps you'll name the people who supposedly support this view.

I do see an editor bemoaning the time wasted in this discussion, and another editor thinking that the involvement of three admins instead of only two would be preferable, but that's not quite the same as saying that BlackKite vandalized the page. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't call removal of the obnoxious remark vandalism, but I don't consider it a no-brainer either. As a leftist, I may have been intended under Dixie's original polemic; but schadenfreude and general bad taste are not blocking offenses. --Orange Mike | Talk 01:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

To be candid, I don't think that finding the right line is a trivial exercise, either. That's why I asked for information and help. The edit warring was admittedly stupid (can it possibly matter if your offensive comments are off the user page for an hour while you figure out what's going on?), but it's possible that what's "too offensive" to one person might be "just barely not offensive enough" to the next, especially after the editor removed the line about living people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Good block; clearly inappropriate materiel regardless of who may have died, especially given the trailing (... to go) wishes for others deaths; Black Kite not even remotely involved - those who are saying he is do not understand "involved" as it relates to blocks, I am sorry to note - D4D was not acting in good faith to respect anyone's concerns about his offensive comment, which had absolutely nothing to do with building a better encyclopeida. WP is not MySpace. All drama since pointless. One puppy's opinion, your mileage may vary. KillerChihuahua^?!?Advice 19:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

$0.02

If I may offer some advice, if the purpose here is to keep order and edit the encyclopedia rather than punish, I urge administrators' friendly engagement of Die4Dixie rather than Wiki-sanction. He is a good, intelligent editor who listens, and like most of us is a lot more responsive to cordial overtures than being punished. His last two user page reversions[57] merely express satisfaction that a founder and leader of the Cuban dictatorship has died, and in response to the initial removal omit the imprecatory hope for more deaths[58]. Sure, it's still wrong for a user page even if the vast majority of the English-speaking world surely agree with the sentiment. But there's no emergency here. Nobody's going to die, sue Wikipedia, or become personally hurt because D4D expresses this. The rare reader who actually wishes the Cuban leaders to live indefinitely has heard worse. I understand and sympathize with the PC reaction, and the block looks technically correct, within administrator discretion. But drawing a line in the sand then blocking D4D for crossing it escalates a situation that could be handled far more calmly. First we double-check policy to make sure one may not express satisfaction here at the death of anyone, though to be consistent that would have to include terrorists, assassins, financial fraudsters, and child abductors and other unsavory characters. Next we can politely inform D4D that although we too are happy that Cuba may be one step closer to freedom, we can't have this kind of stuff on a user page so will he please humor us. Conversation is the best way I think. Same content result hopefully but far less fuss, and better feelings all around. Hope this helps. Wikidemon (talk) 00:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Here are my observations on the matter:

• I don't think this quite falls within the spirit of the userpage policy in that the statement was not explicitly making any attack on editors. However, that's upon my interpretation that "or persons" pertains to those involved with Wikipedia.
• I do not consider the changes made by others to Die4Dixie's user page vandalism as I see the back and forth warring as good faith interpretations by other editors that the material in question violated the userpage policy.
• I've seen worse placed on userpages that should probably be removed upon my interpretation of the userpage policy.

With all that said, I would support an unblock, provided that either one of the two things occur: that either Die4Dixie agrees to keep the said content off his userpage, or that Die4Dixie and all editors involved in the userpage editing, the block, and this ANI thread agree to disengage from the situation. MuZemike 02:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

My concern is that Die4Dixie (talk · contribs) has a clear history of rather egregious violations of WP:CIVIL, WP:CANVAS and, to a lesser extent WP:NPOV. When warned about these violations his response is invariably hostile in the extreme, saying anything in order to derail the conversation up to and including accusing other editors of racism and telling other editors that he wishes their parents had been disappeared by notorious death squads. Saying he is happy that Bosque died for the crime of being a leftist may seem minor in comparison but, really, how much of these sorts of morbid antics can the wikipedia community be expected to tolerate? Simonm223 (talk) 02:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

reviewed an unblock request

I declined an unblock request. Here is a timeline of events:

• Black Kite and Veinor independently point out that the content appears to violate WP:UP#NOT.
• Black Kite also warns Die4Dixie to stop edit warring.
• Die4Dixie responds to these with this edit and then immediately begins edit warring again [59]
• Black Kite reverts again. When Die4Dixie reverts yet again, Black Kite blocked Die4Dixie

The block log message was "Repeated re-insertion of offensive material on userpage" and, according to the timeline, that is an accurate summary of events. Die4Dixie had ample opportunity to initiate a broader discussion of the content, which at least has the strong appearance of violating WP:UP#NOT point 9. Furthermore, comments such as this this are already in violation of our expectations regarding collegiality. I was not aware, when I reviewed the request, of the issues raised by Simonm223's post dated 02:36, 8 October 2009 (above). — Carl (CBM · talk) 02:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Good work, Carl. I too endorse the block. --John (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Except that CBM left out the fact that numerous editors have suggested that a better approach should have been taken and that this is not a clear cut case. CBM's summary also left out that Die4Dixie modified the comment on their user page after it was objected to. But I'm sure that was just an oversight and that CBM was trying to be fair to all parties. ChildofMidnight (talk) 05:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to be fair to all parties. — Carl (CBM · talk) 11:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've declined the third unblock request for the same reasons as my colleagues before me.  Sandstein  06:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe he should have taken a more light-hearted approach. For example, when Jesse Helms died last year, I considered posting his photo next to, "Ding-Dong, the Witch Is Dead!" But I settled for, "So Long! Farewell! Auf Wiedersehen! Goodbye!" →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

But it's twue! It's twue! It's twue! MuZemike 07:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"¡Señorita, por favor! ¡Yo no vivo en la Habana!" →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The reports of my death are greatly exaggerated. Durova³²² 02:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)The Wiki Witch of the West

• And I would point out that when ChildofMidnight notes "Die4Dixie modified the comment on their user page after it was objected to", what this is referring to is the dropping of "...and several leftists to go!", leaving the rest. I believe the common phrase for that is "distinction without a difference". Tarc (talk) 12:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If you can't recognize a difference between "This users is pleased with the changes in the status of Juan Almeida" and "This users is pleased with the changes in the status of Juan Almeida . One down and several leftists to go!" you are probably unfit to edit on Wikipedia. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well you can come respond to this after your latest, and deserved, 12h time-out. But I must ask, do you really think expressing a sentiment of "I cheer this person's death and can't wait for more like him to die" is substantially different from "I cheer this person's death" ? Do either really jibe with WP:USER? Tarc (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think the edited version is slightly better -- at least it couldn't be (mis)interpreted as a wish for currently living people to be killed -- but "slightly better" is not always "sufficiently better". WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of administrative tools

Black Kite had made three reverts in span of 20 minutes ([60], [61], [62]) on Die4Dixie's user page and then she blocked him. Policy Wikipedia:Administrators states that Administrators should not use their tools to advantage, or in a content dispute (or article) where they are a party. In my opinion Black Kite misused her position as an admin. -- Vision Thing -- 13:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Those kinds of comments on his/her user page were unacceptable. Black Kite was doing his/her job as an admin. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:35, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Racially biased posts

Hello. I'm having problems with IPs in articles White Brazilian and Afro-Brazilian. The IP is posting his personal theories about race and posting false sources that do not support their claims. He is also not following the guides of Wikipedia, and is posting entire texts of other people on the top of the article. Can anybody protect the pages or do something else about it? Opinoso (talk) 01:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It appears that the editor has created a new account Brasileiro1500 (talk · contribs) to continue the edit war. Both blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

How are quotes from Sergio Pena "false sources"?

Rather, the article itself is a concoction of Opinoso's personal theories, complete with quoting Simon Schwartzamann as supporting a position that he is merely explaining to consequently criticise, stating the exactly opposite position! Ninguém (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP Violation, unfounded allegation, presented ref does not support claim

This edit[63] contains an unsupported claim - not found in the ref - which falsely impugns the reputation of the victim.

Further: The editor has plagerized this text[64], word for word, as well as these edits[65][66], from an entry in the comments section at the NYT's[67] website that is an explicit defense of Polanski - in which that author who signed as Eric Bond Hutton, states that he is motivated by personal experience of a false accusation. Full Wiki talk page section is here:[68] Editor has been notified.[69]...-99.142.5.86 (talk) 02:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Aldbourne's pro-statutory rape comments on their Talk page are rather disturbing, too. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 02:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Be good enough to refer to the comment I have just posted on my talk page. It should clarify matters.

alderbourne (talk) 08:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Posted reply to user's Talk page. I suggest against reposting comments from another forum, as there's little chance the user can prove they wrote the text and satisfy copyright claims. Further, the IP is correct in pointing out that Talk pages are not a forum, so personal speculation (especially about a sensitive BLP matter) is off-topic and can be removed. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Your comment above does not address the disgusting comment, by you, that do you all prefer to get on your moral high horses and bay for the man's blood while ignoring the possibility that he may be guilty of nothing more than having consensual sex once with a 13-year-old girl who by her own admission was already sexually experienced but by Californian law was under age?. Sounds like you are in favor of statutory rape. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Scribner

As a followup to the recent concerns on this noticeboard regarding the article at Sarah Palin, it has become clear that Scribner (talk • contribs • logs) is not willing to work with others to resolve content conflicts, and has removed attempts at discussion from his user talk page. I had pressed for his unblock in hopes of resolving the issue with discussion and editing restrictions, but they did not seem to change anything other than to slow the speed of his actions in edit warring. I'm placing a warning on his talk page that any continuation of those editing tactics may result in a block, and I just wanted to post here because the issue had been here already. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 04:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just for clarification, admin NuclearWarfare placed Scribner on a 0RR restriction on Sarah Palin earlier tonight, as a last resort before blocking him. The warning is here [70], although Scribner quickly removed it from his page (as is his right). Dayewalker (talk) 05:11, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If you honestly feel that my attempted contributions to the Palin article were in bad faith then by all means ban me from the article. I find it humorous that the article is being nested and protected from the simple fact that Palin didn't complete a first term as governor. All of this was started over the attempted inclusion of three words that were triple cited: "an incomplete term". Scribner (talk) 05:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It already says she resigned. Maybe it should read, "she resigned, had an incomplete term, left before the four years was up, and decided not to continue as Governor." That would clarify it for those who don't know what "resigned" means. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Resigned" was just added as a haggled, bartered down version of "incomplete term." Last week the article merely gave the years of service. Scribner (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In fact, for weeks, the lede has included: "Palin resigned as Governor on July 26, 2009..." Supported by consensus, no less. user:J aka justen (talk) 07:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The content dispute should be discussed on Talk:Sarah Palin, not here on ANI. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I vote we remove all references to resignation, list the dates in roman numerals and use tiny flags in place of periods. Scribner (talk) 12:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What color would the flags be?--Buster7 (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have notified the user of this thread, on his talk page. Basket of Puppies 05:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Weird nationalistic behavior by User:Guildenrich

Guildenrich appeared in wiki on August 24. On the first weeks of his contribution he made a few good edits in Arvanites and in Arvanite folklore in general. The pattern was quite ok. However, after his contact with a typical spa&sockpuppeter User:Sarandioti ([[71]] [[72]] Sept. 30), his last week contribution has an extreme pov nationalistic taste:

• Creation of pov fork articles: Suliots [[73]], The Albanians in Medieval Epirus [[74]], [[75]]
• Unexplained move: Moscopole to Voskopoja: [[76]]
• Massive deletion of the word 'Turco-albanian' in several articles: [[77]], [[78]], [[79]], [[80]], [[81]]
• The explanation he gives for these initiatives are far from respecting basic rules wp:civility, wp:npa: [[82]], [[83]]
• The most annoying is the fact that he turned his userpage, on Oct. 7, into a nationalistic brochure with clear political, pov meaning [[84]]: giving unreliable (outdated unverified wwi&Interwar period pro-Albanian) bibliography on 'Greek atrocities against Albanians during/after WWi'. He was warned to remove this propaganda material but he insisted to keep it.

Administrators have also raised concerns about that kind of activity [[85]].Alexikoua (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked 72 hours. Moreschi (talk) 10:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

At my wits end

I previously brought this up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive562#Problem edits on three different IP ranges last month.

For the past half year I have been dealing with a user who continually adds WP:OR-driven piped links to various articles about Power Rangers. Every IP used has been in either the 166.217.0.0/16 range, the 166.203.0.0/16 range, or the 32.178.0.0/16 range. All of the edits do one or both of the following: add a piped link to a specific animal species, when no such correlation has been mentioned in the fiction of the show (such edits have included changing [[Eagle]] to [[Harpy Eagle|Eagle]] or [[Shark]] to [[Shortfin mako shark|Shark]]), or adding the name of a color to an animal name while adding a species (such as changing Bat to [[Vampire Bat|Indigo Bat]] or Chameleon to [[Jackson's Chameleon|Emerald Chameleon]]). I even found an edit adding content to Classical elements in popular culture referring to each of the lion robots in Voltron as different cat species, when no such correlation has ever been made before in the fiction of the show (e.g. [[Leopard|Green Lion]] and [[Cougar|Yellow Lion]]). I can't keep reverting this idiot's edits every day and referring the IP to be blocked at WP:AIV.

I'm not going to bother listing all of the IPs. Just go to User:Ryulong/Sandbox#Color/species vandal and take a look. The most recent are on top.

Even after I requested that several of the articles be semi-protected for months on end, this user just finds unprotected articles to add the garbage to. I need a more permanent solution.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What about an edit filter disallowing these three ranges to edit any page which has 'power ranger' (and some other terms) in the title/category/article body? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think something like that was technically possible.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"IP_in_range" is one of the features of the edit filter. Is there a common feature of the titles of the pages, or a common category they all belong to? Someguy1221 (talk) 07:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

About 95% have "Power Rangers" in the title. Outliers are the classical elements page above, probably the Voltron and GoLion pages should he hit those in the future, and Shinkengers which he hit in the past (until an edit notice was implimented).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/252. At the moment, it's only looking for the Power Rangers vandalism, and it's in log only mode to see how well it works. It may be tweaked in the future. It could also be inactivated if it's not catching much. Someguy1221 (talk) 18:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Editor with questionable use of the Twinkle vandlism tool. Possible compromised account.

Recent edits by Rzrscm (talk · contribs) are quite suspicious. Using the Twinkle anti-vandalidm tool the editor has reverted several pages back to versions that are more than a week old or more.[86] In some edits he chose to revert articles back to version that was 6 weeks old.diff And in some cases he has chosen to revert an article back to a version that was several months old.diff A small number of these recent reverts were not damaging as they did only minor changes. But in a many cases these reverts resulted in the removal of more than 2 dozen legitimate contributions including the removal of numerous cited text strings. For this edit to the Bon Jovi article (rolling the page back to a version from July) the result was a wholesale change to the page including the re-addition of vandalism that had been long since removed from the page. This misuse/abuse of the Twinkle anti-vandalism tool for a growing number of pages shows, in most cases, that the tool was not used to revert vandalism but to simply revert article back to an ancient version which contained content that the editor preferred to see. Or, as with some examples, the reverts look like the pages were reverted back to a version chosen at random. Perhaps someone could look into these recent changes. The addition of Twinkle is a recent one. THere is a possibility that maybe this is a compromised account that has been hijacked for disruptive purposes. GripTheHusk (talk) 08:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As Basket of Puppies has presumably gone to bed, I have taken the liberty of notifying the other user. Note, this is required. I observe that you have not made any attempt to discuss this with the user before coming here. Elen of the Roads (talk) 09:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I was about to report abusive edits by this account when I found this existing complaint. I have reverted more recent edits by this editor which have used Twinkle to roll articles back to versions that were more than three months old. I don't see earlier abuse by this account. As suggested, the account looks like it may be compromised and these edits are not being done by the person who created the username. Fozforus (talk) 14:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to revert edits done by a specific IP user who was going through and inappropriately changing band genres...But I guess I took the wrong approach by mistake. I apologize for any confusion this may have caused. rzrscm (talk) 02:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Block + block up review

After some confusion of an outing which apparently was not an outing (in which I deleted and undeleted revisions of Talk:Parapsychology, I noticed that the IP performing the 'outing' seems to be blocked Rodgarton (talk · contribs). After blocking the first IP (120.18.100.48 (talk · contribs)) for two weeks for block evasion, a second IP (120.16.90.253 (talk · contribs)) took over. I have subsequently blocked the second IP for two weeks as well, as well as that I upped Rodgarton's block of 2 weeks to one month. Please review my actions in this. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Plus 120.17.190.35 (talk · contribs). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Good call. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive565#Rodgarton, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive560#User:Nemonoman. He seems to be angling for a ban. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Four: 120.16.44.251 (talk · contribs) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm involved I guess, but the language crosses the line, I feel. (retarded, using intentionally incorrect gender, etc). Verbal chat 11:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

His harassment and seemingly unhinged personal attacks (now with an anti-semitic tint- classy!) are continuing via 120.16.239.63 (talk · contribs). See Talk:Parapsychology and User:Rodgarton. Thanks admins for attending to this. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Dirk Beetstra has now increased Rodgarton's block to indefinite for continued block evasion etc., which looks like a good idea to me in view of that latest IP's edits.  Sandstein  16:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I believe my real name is fairly easy to find. I don't want it being connected with the nick I use here in websearches, though. Wikipedia is a drama magnet.

By the way, let me just mention I'm impressed at how incredibly little he knows about me. In one of his posts he calls me anti-evolution. I'm a biology major. And male. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 21:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

That's alright, he thinks I'm a sock puppet of you. Do we even live in the same country? Simonm223 (talk) 21:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not even the same continent. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 21:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of sock puppets... my work IP is still blocked because of vandalism perpetrated by an employee who has since left the company. I can still edit using my account but it's sometimes inconvenient if I open more than one window and forget to log into the second. How would I request having my work IP unblocked? Simonm223 (talk) 21:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

request BLP related block

I'm requesting a three-month block of Urban XII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). This edit is highly libellous of its subject, French Minister of Culture Frédéric Mitterrand, and goes far beyond what Mitterrand's political opponents are accusing him of (speakers of French can find the accusations here on the website of the Front national). This user has also been causing BLP problems at Roman Polanski (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) recently, and appears to be trying to use Wikipedia as a SOAPBOX for his opposition to these public figures, rather than attempting to describe controversies from a NPOV. Physchim62 (talk) 11:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

From the warnings placed on my talk (some removed), reaction on their talk, and on the article talk page, I feel this issue will continue when page is unlocked, as the editor views the removal of their problematic edits (and even the fixing of their comments) as vandalism. I removed the material as I didn't feel the sources justified the editorial slant of the piece, and deferred then to WP:BLPN. Verbal chat 11:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've informed the editor of this discussion. - Bilby (talk) 11:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Note that I have offered dispute resolution on a related dispute at Roman Polanski: offer wasn't taken up. Physchim62 (talk) 12:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The text added to Frédéric Mitterrand by Urban XII was sourced to today's Times and Daily Telegraph, and the same story is on the BBC News here - confessions in book, defence of Polanski, accusations of paedophilia, quote from Benoit Hamon - it's all in the sources. I am not defending the edit warring, but I don't see what is wrong with adding sourced material from a major news story. Gandalf61 (talk) 12:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The libellous section "In 2005, he wrote a book where he admitted paying for sex with "young boys" in Thailand." is not sourced at all. Whether he decides to sue the Daily Telegraph and/or the The Times is up to him. The Front national, not usually the most discrete of French political parties, only accused him of "promoting sexual tourism". Urban XII has once again jumped on a bandwagon with his desire to see Wikipedia as a modern day witch hunt, but he's jumped far too far this time. Wikipedia needs to be protected from this type of editor while they cure themselves of their obsession concerning sex with minors, either real or imaginary. Physchim62 (talk) 12:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The reference linked in the edit ([87]) appears to source clearly the section to which you refer, so I am not sure what you are getting at. I think it is false to claim that the edit was "highly libelous." Christopher Parham (talk) 12:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The text added and the emphasis added the the article was Urban's position on the story, it is a step too far to accuse the subject of peodofilia. This is seemingly a thread running through all of Urbans edits. Off2riorob (talk) 12:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't see where UrbanXII accuses Frédéric Mitterrand of anything - he simply reports a factual news story. UrbanXII's text said :"In 2005, he wrote a book where he admitted paying for sex with "young boys" in Thailand". The BBC News link that I gave above says: "In his 2005 book The Bad Life, he wrote: "I got into the habit of paying for boys," saying his attraction to young male prostitutes was not dimmed despite knowing "the sordid details of this traffic" ... Mr Mitterrand, 62, has denied being a paedophile, saying the term "boys" was used loosely". Could change UrbanXII's sub-head from "Pedophilia controversy" to "Sex tourism controversy", but the rest seems well sourced to me ... unless maybe we are now saying that BBC News is not a reputable source ?? Gandalf61 (talk) 12:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. The cite given is fairly clear. If you want to quibble over the definition of "young boys" (depending on how old Mitterand was at the time, 20 could be "young"), changing the heading to "sex tourism" seems like a reasonable change. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Pedophilia controversy" referred to the broader controversy involving Polanski who is convicted of sexual intercourse with a child. It was not intended as an accusation against Mitterrand, but as a summary of the main topic of the controversy during the last couple of weeks. I don't have a problem with changing the heading. Every sentence in the section was based upon articles in The Times or The Daily Telegraph. Urban XII (talk) 15:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Urban XII seems to have a problem in general with BLP policy. He was edit warring contentious material into Roman Polanski until that page became protected at my request specifically for edit warring and BLP concerns. When I removed the disputed content, clearly citing the exact section of BLP policy in my edit summary, he reverted claiming a non-existent consensus (as if consensus overrides BLP policy anyway). I further clarified the relevance of BLP policy to his edit, but he chose to ignore it and continue to edit war BLPvio into the article. He then referred to my BLPvio warning as vandalism (didn't I see that he did the same to someone else, maybe two or three editors?). He just doesn't seem to understand that if everyone else holds a different view of policy than his own, his interpretation just might not be the more correct one. He also seems to think it's okay to encourage others to ignore policy. But that's just been my experience with this editor in the past few days. Other than that, he might make tons of fantastic edits. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In that case as well, the source appears to support the edit made by Urban, so I think the problem is the edit warring rather than the content itself. I would characterize your dispute as one in which sensitivity to the interests of a living person is an issue, but I don't believe BLP provides a particular mandate for either side given that the edit was factual and did not overly sensationalize the issue. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As I have indicated in several other places, I agree that the initial edit was arguable, but rather than argue the case, Urban chose to simply edit war the contested material back into the article again and again without supporting it. That is where the clear violation of BLP policy occurred. So, I concur with your assessment, but I still see a clear BLP violation here, in the refusal to support his edits in a BLP light. It does not suffice to claim "consensus" over BLP policy, whether there is any such consensus or not. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

As I said, I agree that reverting rather than taking it to the talk page was a problem, but I think that applies to both parties. I disagree that BLP bears meaningfully on the edits in question, so I do not believe your reversions were privileged in that sense. Christopher Parham (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I'm the one who have used the talk page, where my version is supported by others. My main opponent has not defended his removal of content at the talk page in an adequate way. If anyone needs to be reported over this incident, it's him, not me. Urban XII (talk) 15:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"Tons of fantastic edits"? I doubt it! First edit was 17 July 2009, but let's not let that confuse people, the vast bulk of his edits (all except three) are within the last month. Physchim62 (talk) 14:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

And nearly all have been devoted to shouting down other editors at Roman Polanski and the associated talk page. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 14:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I suggest blocking Physchim62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for three months for disruption. Every sentence i added to Frederic Mitterrand was sourced and from either The Daily Telegraph or The Times, btw – if the Telegraph or Times articles "[go] far beyond what Mitterrand's political opponents are accusing him of", I can't help it (but it seems more likely to be another false claim by {vandal|Physchim62}}). The suggestion that The Times is part of some French right-wing concpiracy is, frankly, ridiculous. Please show us some evidence that the world press is wrong, then. This thread is another example of disruptive behaviour from Physchim62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Notorious edit-warrior Wilhelm meis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who both started the Roman Polanski edit war and has been engaged in numerous other disruptive edit wars against half a a dozen other editors during the last week, should be blocked as well. The abuse of this page to attack an opponent is simply unacceptable. Urban XII (talk) 14:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Note, this discussion appears to be in retaliation for my support of a 24-hour block of Wilhelm meis for 3RR violation after one of his many edit wars recently (i was not involved in that edit war btw)[88]. Urban XII (talk) 15:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Calling me a vandal and a (notorious!) edit warrior doesn't make me one, and leveling false accusations against two established editors does not help your case. Your inability to Assume Good Faith is showing through again. Wilhelm Meis (Quatsch!) 22:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

To an outside observer, you do seem to be here solely to Right Great Wrongs. Syrthiss (talk) 14:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. Urban XII (talk) 15:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) A quite unhelpful suggestion. On the other hand, note how this subject is dealt with in a fairly balanced way in the corresponding french wikipedia article. Mathsci (talk) 14:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

We do not block for posting the "inconvenient". BLP is crystal clear on the subject:

"If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article—even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it."99.142.5.86 (talk) 15:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Note: the same users who attack me here have now spammed at least 2 or 3 other pages with identical false accusations which have already been refuted at this page. Clearly, when they don't have it their way here, they try elsewhere. Such disruption is simply not acceptable at Wikipedia. I'm really not inclined to repeat the same discussion over and over again. Urban XII (talk) 16:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've raised a separate issue asking for this editor to be given advice by a neutral party over at WP:WQA, following WP:DR. This has to do with unfounded accusations of vandalism directed at me, and possibly other editors. Verbal chat 16:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it's the user who started this discussion (User:Physchim62) who has repeatedly engaged in personal attacks against me by using the vandal template on several talk pages when referring to me despite being told not to do so, which may have provoked me when dealing with him and his associates. He also spammed a different page with false accusations (the same as here) as part of his disruptive vendetta. Urban XII (talk) 16:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems obvious when you look at the edits made by Urban XII that the editor is using Wikipedia as a personal soapbox to enforce the WP:POV the editor has. For an editor who just signed up in July of 2009, almost every edit seems to come with mass confrontations. Then when the editor Urban XII is asked to adhere to certain Wikipedia policies, he accuses other editors(even Administrators) of being Vandals and making 'personal attacks'. This editor doesn't need to be banned for 30 days, the editor needs to be banned until he/she agree to follow the rules of Wikipedia. Most especially WP:BLP and WP:POV. DD2K (talk) 01:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Northern Ireland / Northern Irish

The standard denonym of someone from Northern Ireland is 'Northern Irish'; it quite clearly says so on that country's article. However, Vintagekits (talk · contribs) insists on reverting my edits on Shea Campbell to say 'from Northern Ireland' as opposed to the correct 'Northern Irish' - can we have some neutral input please? Regards, GiantSnowman 11:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The ignorance of this is at this stage becoming predictable. 'Northern Irish' is not standard denonym of someone from Northern Ireland - it is a politically loaded POV term that should be avoided - multiple discussion back this up.--Vintagekits (talk) 11:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Further evidence to support 'Northern Irish'. Not POV, fact. GiantSnowman 11:56, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If your arguement is correct Vintagekits, then we wouldn't be able to use English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish, British, Spanish, Turkish... Eddie6705 (talk) 12:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Northern Irish is a subjective identity, and would need to be properly referenced. It's like saying he's British or Irish. Please see the recent discussion at Wikipedia_talk:UK_Wikipedians'_notice_board#British_or_English?. Wikipedia:Dispute resolution is also down the hall, second on the left. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

IMHO, anybody from Northern Ireland is 'British'. Having said that, using 'Northern Irish' is a powdered keg. GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You mean a powder keg? Maybe to some, but there are good ways and bad ways to resolve these matters. I just came by to point out this (recent AN/I thread where we failed to reach consensus for a ban "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?") and this for which he is currently blocked for 1 week. Worth continuing to keep an eye on Vintagekits I think. --John (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

VK has a long record of WP:IDIDN'THEARTHAT type behaviour in regards to any and all opposition to his view of what 'Northern Irish' means. MickMacNee (talk) 15:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This entire discussion is ridiculous. "Northern Irish" is a perfectly acceptable term used by people all over the world. The only people who seem to have a problem with it are the Republicanists in Northern Ireland, and there is no doubt in my mind that User:Vintagekits is one of those people. This petty argument over a single word is utterly pointless and serves only to incite disruptive behaviour amongst a particular group of people. – PeeJay 17:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Are there really so few Wikipedian's aware of the incendiary effect of such loaded terms as calling all the residents Irish in one degree or another and not British? You need look no further than here:[89] "A 1999 survey showed that 51% of Protestants felt "Not at all Irish" and 41% only "weakly Irish" where 77% of Catholics polled said they felt "strongly Irish"." Calling a Campbell that played for Linfield, Armagh and Ballymena an Irishman would have done you no favors when I was in Belfast.

This is a content dispute, one in which a distinct political battle is being played out. And it's ugly, you either support a British peoples right to self-identify with the state - or you choose, as here, to forcibly label a people against their will. - 99.142.5.86 (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Whether the people of Northern Ireland feel particularly Irish or not is pretty irrelevant here. Demonyms refer to a person's nationality, not their ethnicity. In this case, I don't actually see the difference between referring to someone as "Northern Irish" and saying that they are "from Northern Ireland". – PeeJay 09:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Disputed removal of rollback

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

---

Heading changed by Jehochman ^Talk

I have been a longtime Wikipedia editor and a responsible rollback user since shortly after it was made available to non-administrators. [90] Yesterday, administrator Alison revoked rollback on my account. I had used the rollback in reverting ethnic boosterism of two editors on the John Vincent Atanasoff article. [91] [92] I won't lengthily defend these edits here—another place, another time—suffice it to say that when I made the reversions I had no doubt that I was expeditiously reverting edits made to intentionally compromise the encyclopedia in a case that had a long history and a well-established consensus position. Even so, once Alison issued me a warning not to use rollback in the way I had, I disengaged from the article and haven't edited it since then. Some time later, however, I did post a frustrated message of disagreement with Alison on my talk page. [93] It was then that Alison revoked the rollback, [94] after repeated threats on her part [95] [96] [97] but no escalation in edit activity on my part. By all other appearances, Alison is a dedicated and involved administrator, but I think she showed repeated bad judgment in this case, and the timing of the record makes it clear that the credential revoke was motivated by spite rather than by edits on my part. I attempted to resolve this with her privately, [98] but she stopped responding and asked that I take the dispute here. [99] Thanks for listening. Robert K S (talk) 11:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

While I may not have done the same, I can see no glaring error of judgement in Alison's actions. Your use of rollback on that page was edit-warring, and violates WP:ROLLBACK. Rollback should only be used for blatant vandalism and if there was contention, then the use was not appropriate. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 12:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, rollback is to be used for clearly unproductive edits. Vandalism is one type of clearly unproductive edit. This was not a content dispute, but I can appreciate that it might take some examining to understand why, as this is a case with a considerable history. As I noted, I'll defend the edits later, in a different space, arguendo. However, the fact that administrators are not even receptive to understanding why the edits were valid is what is chilling. My point here is that I was not dinged for the edits themselves. If that were the case, Alison would have revoked the rollback when the edits came to light. Alison revoked the rollback because I dared to pose disagreement with her on my talk page. Robert K S (talk) 12:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT after being warned is pretty good reason for removal of rollback. The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away. Moreschi (talk) 12:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • That link deals with tendentious editing after being warned. This was not the case here. I ceased editing the article. (Refer to my remarks above and below.) Robert K S (talk) 12:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I see no problems with Alison's actions. --Cameron Scott (talk) 12:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• • • Yes, I realise that. However, you did manage to prove that you didn't understand that your original actions were inappropriate, hence showing that you could be no longer trust with the tool, as there is/was no guarantee you wouldn't do it again. Pefectly logical. Moreschi (talk) 13:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The page John Vincent Atanasoff‎ has been the focus of an editing dispute for the past few days. IIRC Alison has been trying to resolve the issue there after a protection request at WP:RFPP (I've been watching the page after this request as well). Robert K S has been actively involved in this dispute. Considering that, I too agree this is a misuse of the rollback tool. In fact, Alison has been lenient enough to issue a warning before removing rollback, which I don't think many other admins would have done. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 12:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

At the risk of "pissing off" a long-term editor, I do have to agree that the use of rollback in this specific situation - what became an edit-war - was not appropriate. Absolute kudos to Alison for warning before taking it away: that was a great time to re-think it's use. It was not removed because of the arguement, it was removed because the continued (comment inserted) intent to use it that way(end of insert) (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC). Rather than make big noise about it, let it settle for a couple of months, rebuild the trust, and ask again later - no big deal, as there are many ways of fighting vandalism. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:30, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear, the sequence was not (1) I used rollback, (2) Alison warned, (3) I used rollback again, (4) Alison revoked. The sequence was, (1) I used rollback, (2) Alison warned, (3) I disengaged, (4) Alison revoked. Robert K S (talk) 12:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert's version of events outlined above are correct; those who say the permission was "removed because of continued use [after a warning]" need to reexamine the issue. That said, @Robert: do you understand why our policies prohibit the use of advanced permissions in a content dispute? Do you see that, regardless of the merit of your actual edit, it was advancing a content dispute? HiDrNick! 12:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Dr Nick. Robert did not in fact continue to use Rollback after he was warned and Allison still removed the rollback rights seemingly because he disagreed with her interpretation of what was vandalism. He did not threaten to, nor continued to, use the tools to advance the content dispute beyond that. Here [100] Allison claims there were multiple examples of its misuse, but she fails to provide any diffs to back that up and instead insists that he take it up with other admins. Unless she provide the other instances where he misused the tools, it looks very much like she removed his rights in response to his disagreeing with her interpretation of what is vandalism.--Crossmr (talk) 12:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with previous two editors. If there is no evidence that Robert continued to use the tool in error, then access should be granted, with the agreement that it will be used in accordance with policy. Sephiroth storm (talk) 13:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with Alison here. Rollback is typically easy-come, easy-go and I see no evidence that Robert K S acknowledged Alison's warning or indicated a willingness to proceed with caution. After a couple weeks, barring any further issues, I see nothing wrong with reinstating the rights. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 13:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd say it was a good call on Alison's part, as Robert appears – by his comments above – to still not understand why his edits certainly appeared to be driven by some sort of content dispute. The edit is not, to the casual observer, a 'clearly unproductive edit' deserving of reversion without further comment or edit summary. Looking at the article's talk page, Robert seems to have been in a very long-running dispute (nearly two years!) over the inclusion of this particular content and variations thereon. Further, the dispute was already before WP:RFPP.

Based on Robert's own comments, he wasn't prepared to accept that his misuse of rollback actually was misuse unless and until the bit was actually removed: "Just as a point of procedure, I've already said that I disagree with your assessment that my rollback use constituted abuse, and I'll ask that you refrain from making that judgment unless and until there is an administrative decision to strip me of rollback. If I engaged in abuse, then my rollback should have been removed." Alison didn't pull his bit until after Robert pretty much asked her to — and, more importantly, after he demonstrated that he clearly didn't understand what was wrong with his use of rollback in the first place. Until Robert demonstrates that understanding – something which he has failed to do here, as well, and which he suggests he will continue to fail to do in an extended argument in his userspace – there's absolutely no chance he should be given rollback. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 13:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, TenOfAllTrades' interpretation is based on a cursory review of the talk page record, and it's not an accurate portrayal of the circumstances; I'll address the allegations of rollback abuse in their own space. If Alison's whole action pattern is dependent solely on whether or not the rollbacks were an abuse, then that discussion can support this one. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the place for that discussion – if it absolutely must occur, and if there's anything important that's been left unsaid so far – is here. If you misused rollback, and perhaps significantly more importantly, if you don't understand how your use of rollback in this circumstance was misuse, then Alison was entirely correct to remove your rollback rights until such time as you demonstrate that you understand the correct way to use the tool. Everyone who has commented so far has observed that your use of the tool was inappropriate in this case. That you seem unwilling to take that on board is actually far more concern to us than the bare fact that you misused the tool a couple of times. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a fine line of a point being made here, IMO. No, this user didn't have the rights removed because they rollbacked inappropriately after a warning. The rights seem to have been removed because the user didn't think what he did was wrong, and showed every intention of using them again in the same manner if a similar situation arose. Tarc (talk) 13:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of a disconnect between the "assume good faith" of editing policy afforded the bad-faith actors in this scenario, and the "presume trouble" administrative policy afforded to someone with an overall exemplary editing record. Robert K S (talk) 13:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I just wanted to point out that when Robert made that statement where he seemed to be "asking for it", I don't think he understood that Alison had the ability to remove his rollback privilege. It sounds to me like he expected that some other authority would have removed it if he were truly in the wrong. He was certainly not challenging Alison to do it. At least that's my take. Even if he were making such a challenge, I think Alison acted emotionally in answering it the way she did. After issuing a warning, she should have waited to see if Robert continued to abuse rollback. His answer of not believing he was in the wrong might just have been pride talking, not necessarily a statement of intent. Equazcion (talk) 13:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• My suggestion is wait a month, don't edit war, and then go back to Alison and ask her to restore rollback. If she does not respond within a day or two, come to me with the same request and I will try to help you. I edited here for 2.5 years without rollback and managed to get by. Jehochman ^Talk 13:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

...sounds pretty much like the advice I gave when he challenged my comments on my talkpage. Logically, nobody needs to warn about the removal of rollback. Someone did, and it was argued - that showed that there was no longer an understanding of what the tool was to be used for. Granting rollback is a method of WP:AGF ... a failure to understand a tool's purpose readily leads to an end of the faith - at least temporarily. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 14:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

...inspired me an essay: Wikipedia:Editors have pride. Equazcion (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Much too often this is forgotten. HiDrNick! 14:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with most commentators above. The edits at issue were not the "blatantly unproductive edits", emphasis in original, that rollback is designed for, so removing the tool was correct. Jehochman's advice on how to proceed is also sound.  Sandstein  16:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The edits I reverted using rollback were blatantly unproductive. They were edits that reverted a long-stable consensus position by a editors whose aim is to bias the article toward ethnic propaganda, and who had already been reverted by others (not just me) in a 24-hour period, after a near two-year quiescence. These weren't innocent AGF actions. These guys know what they're doing and they're open about it. Nor was this interaction an edit war. This was one user reverting vandalism. I'll present all the facts off-thread. Thanks, all. Robert K S (talk) 17:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"reverting ethnic boosterism" is a content dispute, not vandalism. You should have used a normal revert process instead of rollback. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not a content dispute. I'm not the only one who thinks so, [101] though I don't think "style dispute" is quite the right term for it either. I agree it's not what is traditionally thought of as vandalism, or what I call "juvenile vandalism", which probably accounts for the disconnect between myself and all the other weighers-in here. It's a more stealth and insidious form of vandalism; it's an intentional corruption of encyclopedic content that is against the guideline which specifically addresses the problem. These guys showed up two years later to install the edits again, despite the consensus against them, and despite the guideline and all of the facts. This isn't a "well, we disagree" issue. Robert K S (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If it's anything other than random blanking, random gibberish, or idiotic "Hi, Mom!" kind of stuff, you should use a normal revert rather than the rollback. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 23:51, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I basically disagree with this assessment, but I'll cover that in depth later. What you just said isn't rooted in policy as it's currently framed. It may be rooted in a community interpretation. Robert K S (talk) 04:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"...blatantly unproductive edits, such as vandalism and nonsense." That's what it says, and squares with what I described above. The stuff you rolled back does not fall under that umbrella. Content you don't happen to agree with does not qualify. You say you don't agree. Well, to be blunt, until you do agree, you won't get your rollback back, because you abused the privilege. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 04:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I do get what you're saying, and I disagree the interpretation you present. It's inconsistent with what is written, and in several ways is logically flawed. Use of rollback, like any edit, ultimately resolves to good judgment—not merely the ability to identify obscenities or all-caps edits, which I think bots have been (or could be) written to handle. Robert K S (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi all. I'm just getting on-line here, sorry about the delay! I revoked Robert K S' rollback rights as a result of his persistent misuse of rollback in areas in which he was already in dispute, and for reverting good-faith edits by other editors. Using rollback on an edit is the ultimate repudiation of another editor's work and should only be used in cases of blatant vandalism. After I repeatedly warned Robert K S about his repeated misuse of it, he let it be known - repeatedly - that not only that he did not see an issue with what he'd done, but that he fully intended to continue this behaviour. It was only then that I revoked his rollback bit. As others have pointed out above, it's just as easy to re-instate as revoke and I have no problem with its granting again once he is aware of its purpose and once he agrees to use it for blatant vandalism only and never in a content dispute. Furthermore, I note that he has repeatedly misused it in the past ^12345678910 and had been warned by User:RJaguar3 (another rollbacker) for doing so. The message is still on his talk page, yet he chose to ignore it and not address the message at all. It's clear that misuse of rollback is not a new phenomenon to him. Furthermore, the ongoing dispute on the John Vincent Atanasoff article is delicate enough without User:Robert K S exacerbating the situation by using rollback inappropriately against an editor he's in clear conflict with - Alison ^❤ 00:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Here's the kind of edit rollback is intended for: [102] →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Now, the next step should be a well-placed "caution" note on the editor's talk page. I know it's a chore to do it, but it's essential in building the case against a persistent vandal. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He's already been "cautioned". My approach depends on the situation. If he does it again, he gets warned. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Robert K S's comments indicate that he still doesn't understand what rollback should be used for. A rollbacker should be able to identify what is blatant vandalism and what is not. Anybody can get a pretty good idea on these things from WP:VAND and WP:ROLL. In a content dispute, one party will consider edits by the other party as unproductive. That's why there is a dispute in the first place. That does not allow them to label those edits as vandalism and use rollback, which will only escalate the situation. I don't think he should be using the rollback tool until these issues are resolved. Bzuk, I don't understand what you're talking about – we are not dealing with a vandal here. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 01:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No, Bzuk is talking about the example I cited, which is real vandalism, since Robert does not seem to grasp the concept. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 01:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Forgive my ignorance, but are all of those uses of rollback? Only the first edit actually has the hotlink on Reverted, which is part of the automatic summary.Is there something else that tags those reversions as rollback? It seems his most recent edit also contains the hotlink. But none of the ones in the middle do. Is there anyway he could have simply entered those edit summaries?--Crossmr (talk) 03:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As I recall, the rollback MediaWiki markup has morphed and changed quite a bit over the last year or so - Alison ^❤ 05:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Alison, remarks like "yet he chose to ignore it and not address the message at all" indicate the kind of assumption of bad faith and negligence of investigation you've put into your work since I first requested protection for the Atanasoff page. Robert K S (talk) 04:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, Robert, what's stopping you from assuming good faith on the part of the editor(s) you reverted? You say they intended to deface the article by deliberately introducing content they knew to be false? What's your evidence of that? Making edits against consensus alone doesn't indicate vandalism, so there must be more. Equazcion (talk) 05:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Finally, somebody's asked the right question. Thanks. The complete reply to this is going to take a while. Stay tuned. Robert K S (talk) 05:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikilawyering to get your rollback back is not likely to work. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Just to be clear (as BB just stated), stating your case won't necessarily clear you, though it might help everyone at least sympathize. I think what everyone's not saying so far is that the vandalism has to be obvious even to onlookers, not just to those privy to the history of the situation. That might not be explained in the policy (or maybe it is, I haven't read it in a while), but that's just what the practice is. Equazcion (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, precisely, it has to be clearly vandalism to anyone looking at it. Hence the term "blatant". The example I cited was blatant vandalism, or what I call "stupid stuff". Looking at what he reverted, it is not at all obvious to me that there's anything wrong with it. In fact, if I saw just his reversion with explanaton, which deleted stuff, I might be inclined to conclude that Robert was the vandal - I might have reverted it the normal way, with an edit summary saying, "No reason given for deletion", or "Take this to the talk page." An edit summary could have cleared that up. But guess what - you can't do an edit summary when you rollback. Hence, rollback was not appropriate. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That's silly in light of the edit history and the talk history. You're suggesting a memoryless system, and Wikipedia is quite the opposite of memoryless. It remembers everything. Robert K S (talk) 05:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not memory-less, and no one suggested otherwise. In a content dispute, article histories play a very important role. But they don't generally in the judgment of vandalism. You may disagree with that, but that's how it works here, and trying to get that to change might be futile -- at least in this venue. Perhaps starting a discussion at the policy talk page might be something to consider. Equazcion (talk) 05:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) So, prior to making that remark, I checked all your edits two weeks either side of your rollback misuse and User:RJaguar3's subsequent warning, and nowhere on-wiki did you either acknowledge their warning on your talk page, nor did you reply to it in any way. That in itself is pretty dismissive, and indicative of the problem here. Later on, it would become evident that the warning had no effect, as you went on to repeat misusing rollback. Anyone can review your edit history and draw their own conclusions - Alison ^❤ 05:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

"nowhere on-wiki did you either acknowledge their warning on your talk page, nor did you reply to it in any way" Want to give it one more whack, Alison? Robert K S (talk) 05:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That's not helpful, Robert. If you have information that refutes something Alison said, then present it, sans sarcasm. Discussions that deteriorate into drama tend to get closed here. Equazcion (talk) 05:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

He needs to provide a diff supporting his snippy-worded claim that she overlooked something. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 05:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No offense Robert, but accusing Alison of "assumption of bad faith and negligence of investigation" is a bit rich considering the way you have acted. What you have to understand is that if you have to go into a lengthy and detailed analysis to prove that the edit was indeed vandalism, then it is not "blatant vandalism" and therefore not suitable for rollback. Plain and simple, it should be considered unproductive by anybody who sees it. The edit in question may not be appropriate, but that is part of the content dispute. Labeling it as vandalism and using rollback to revert it is a misuse of the rollback tool (as you would understand if you go through WP:RBK) and can even be considered disruptive and edit warring. Anyway, I'd like to hear your promised explanation. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 05:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

She overlooked quite a bit, but it gets tiring playing tit for tat with an admin, someone who's supposed to have more patience and understanding than the average user. Please excuse me if I have the feeling that Alison "has it in for me", which is to say, she's happy to impugn me with a careless check of the record. If I keep arguing these little points I'll never get around to the big ones. I'm off to bed and I intend on spending at least through the weekend on RL. Cheers, guys, and thanks for listening. Robert K S (talk) 05:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Robert K S, I don't "have it in for you". Not at all. Seriously. In fact, I just spent hours going back and forth with User:Monshuai regarding his personal attacks on you (see here). If I have overlooked something, and it's certainly possible, then do point it out to me so I can address it and, if necessarily, apologize if I'm wrong in some way - Alison ^❤ 06:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This can be closed then. This discussion will be archived anyway if no one replies during the weekend, and it wasn't exactly getting anywhere anyway. Robert can always request rollback again at a later date. Equazcion (talk) 05:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Close it. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 06:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

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

User:WriteINGWell

Background, in chronological order:

• Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests/Archive_58#User:WriteINGWell
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts/archive70#User:WriteINGWell
• Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive558#Escalation_from_WP:WQA_-_serial_copyright_image_violations

After a hiatus, WriteINGWell is back at it, uploading a very nice but clearly unfree image with no source information, no license, and no fair use tags. His/her edits are not bad, per se, but it seems the wake-up call had no effect. -- Powers ^T 12:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It's a shame, but I feel we've got little choice at this point other than to block indefinitely. I've done so, and would suggest that any unblock request needs to demonstrate that they clearly understand why copyvios are so problematic. EyeSerene^talk 13:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Checkusers keep blocking me

Right, here's my problem; every time I make an account and start to edit, within a few weeks some checkuser comes along and blocks me, usually with the reason "abusing multiple accounts". I've been on IRC and talked to several admins and checkusers, and they've told me that these blocks are intended for a time wasting user, and that they simply do not believe me when I say I am not this person. WHAT THE HELL AM I SUPPOSED TO DO? I can't make an account and edit because they'll just come along and block it AGAIN. Tell me please there must be a system in place for dealing with something like this. I swear I am not whoever the hell these blocks are meant for. I just want an account to edit with. Please, any advice is welcome at this point because I'm pulling my fucking hair out in frustration over this —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.89.154 (talk • contribs)

I note that the IP that posted this complaint was blocked for 24 hours by Jehochman, for abusing multiple accounts. Someone should copy any advice to the IP's talk page, if possible. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

What are some of the account names in question? Thatcher 16:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The user has stated on their talk page that User:Avrillyria is one of theirs. I suggest that User:Light current is probably the "main" account, but I'm not the checkuser who knows. Hipocrite (talk) 16:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Apparently a reference desk troll. Could be Light current or someone else. J.delanoy and Brandon are active on this case. Thatcher 17:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

One has to wonder why the User name "Avrillyria" was chosen. There was a time not too long ago where a Reference Desk troll kept posting silly questions about Avril Lavigne. And now this User comes along with an Avril user name and goes direct to the Reference Desk... 99.166.95.142 (talk) 19:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I was the Avril person. Please talk to admin User:KnightLago who knows the situation. It has been over a year ago since then, and all blocks on my ips are over. I have not done ANY vandalism since last September. Look through User:Avrillyria contributions, every single edit is helpful and constructive. I am NOT User:Light current, but apparently he is on the same ranges as me. Please speak to User:KightLago who can confirm what I am saying is true. I have NOT done any vandalism or trolling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.31 (talk) 20:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've emailed KnightLago and asked him to comment here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.31 (talk) 20:54, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

KnightLago is going to have to interface with Brandon and J.delanoy. It's possible that the checkusers don't know you've been given a new start, or that there is another vandal on the same range, or that you are vandalizing and KL doesn't know about it. Thatcher 22:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This editor never contributes outside the reference desk, many of the edits are unhelpful, and none of them are ever signed. If he didn't cause problems, nobody would ever bother running a CU. Looie496 (talk) 22:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, so unsigned comments are now a reason for blocking are they? Jeni ^(talk) 22:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there has been no agreement. I would support giving her a fresh start with strict conditions. I spoke with J.delanoy earlier today and he is understandably hesitant to do so. I am going to ask him to weigh in here and voice his opinion on the idea. KnightLago (talk) 01:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I have absolutely no question that this user is the refdesk vandal. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is what everyone keeps saying. I've went on IRC after I was blocked because I couldn't edit my own talk page, and I spoke to several checkusers and admins and they've all said the same, but I am telling you, I'm giving you my word I am not. This is why I started this thread in the first place, to ask for help and figure out a solution. All I want is an account without it being blocked for things I have NOT done. I am willing to have a fresh start as KnightLago suggested above and accept conditions —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.31 (talk) 07:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

When what you say is contradictory or doesn't make sense it makes it pretty hard to believe you. On the first IP you used here you said: "every time I make an account..." on the talk page of that IP you say "This is my only account". You say "my ip address just changes on it's own every day" you seem to have gone through at least 3 ip addresses yesterday alone, ISPs don't do that and they certainly don't do it such that it'd frequenly change whilst you are using the net. Looking at the IP addresses indicates you are connected through Blueyonder who are the effectively the same as the ISP I use (Virgin Media) where the IP hasn't changed in 6+ months. Googling and indeed people indicate on blueyonder that their IP simply doesn't change and asking how it's possible to force it to change, which is indeed possible. --82.7.40.7 (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I have had other accounts in the past. Thatcher and KnightLago know about that, I am not trying to hide anything. What I meant by "This is my only account" was that User:Avrillyria was the only account I had at this time. I didn't feel it necessary to bring up account from over a year ago which I don't use and cannot even remember the names to. As for the ips, my ip seems to change whenever I turn the computer off. I don't leave my computer on 24/7, so it usually changes daily or sooner depending on how much I use my computer on a particular day. If you have more questions I am happy to answer them —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.44.55.31 (talk) 12:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Persistent non-minor "minor" edits

A heads up that SF1SHER07 (talk · contribs) is again marking non-minor edits as minor (two of his five today are errantly tagged as such). Seems it's a lot of, "Oh, I can't hear you." I previously brought a heads-up about here, but the matter was archived without any follow-up action. --EEMIV (talk) 15:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I've blocked this editor for 72 hours, with no prejudice towards unblocking if concerns are addressed. We need a response. Tan | 39 15:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll keep an eye on his talk-page to see if he engages. Much obliged. --EEMIV (talk) 15:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits blocked for 1 week

Vintagekits has been unjustly blocked here [103]. The very maximum length should have been 24 hours, and that is debatable considering the circumstance and context. 1 week is unjust and worrying, one wonders why? The reasons given for such a long length are untrue and grossly exagerated, so the block cannot hold. Giano (talk) 15:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

With a minute of me posting sandstein, with whom I am in conflict declines the block - how much longer are we to have to put with this so called Admin? Giano (talk) 15:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, I came across the unblock request while browsing CAT:RFU, and was not aware of this thread prior to declining the unblock request.  Sandstein  15:48, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course you did Sandstein, no doubt you are again completely susprised by the instantaneous support your decision has received as you delve innocently into political minefields. Giano (talk) 15:52, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

One week for Vintagekits sixth block seems lenient. Tan | 39 15:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Tanthalus and with Sandstein. A more appropriate block length would have been indefinite. See also this section above. --John (talk) 15:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sixth block? I think this is more like 30! GiantSnowman 19:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Good block, I took that article off my watchlist this morning, when it was clear he was simply going to try and edit-war his way around the on-going discussions about the possible BLP issues. --Cameron Scott (talk) 15:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I also agree with Tanthalus, this user has had way too many chances. Perhaps next time it should be indef? Jeni ^(talk) 15:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes. That is generally the case with editors whose block log is several screens long.  Sandstein  15:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• How speedily you all arrive. It must be just like old times for Sandstein! Giano (talk) 15:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

How speedily Giano arrives. It must be just like old times... Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:06, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Giano, I hope you don't feel that I am in any way biased against you or VintageKits, but it looks like a perfectly sound block to me. VK's block log is extensive, to put it mildly, and the three-revert rule is a very bright line that he was well aware of. His edit warring is pretty indefensible. I think it may be best to let this one go. HiDrNick! 17:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not a fair block. 24 hours would have been fair, questionable, but fair. A week is suspect - does he have a long long history of 3R? No. One cannot sentance a man to 25 years for speeding because he has previous convictions are for shoplifting, which is what you are all advocating. Sandstein's presence here is very suspect, but then again, I suppose no one is surprised to find that while most editors are busy writing content Administrator Sandstein is monitering a page listing even more people for him to punish. I also find the speed of all the responses interesting - more intersting, in fact, than Administrator Sandstein who sets himself up for such things. Giano (talk) 17:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

"One cannot sentance a man to 25 years for speeding because he has previous convictions are for shoplifting" You can on Wiki. There is little logic or proportionality from these admins. The support the arbitration committee has given to gangs of score settling cabals only encourages this kind of behavior. These admins are totally unwilling to try to alleviate disputes in a collegial and civil fashion. They are Wikicops run amok. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:04, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Seems like a decent block to me. I also don't want to have this thread turn into garden variety shit talking and whinging about admin abuse. We already know the opinions and positions of the usual suspects, it doesn't really help to remind us incessantly. Protonk (talk) 18:08, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  Good block. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 18:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a serious issue with civility on Wikipedia (and I'm not talking about calling someone an idiot). Abuse of tools and lengthy blocks of good faith contributors is very damaging. Did Sandstein engage in discussion with the editor before declining their unblock request? What efforts were made to resolve the issue amicably? Vintagekits thinks the terminology Northern Ireland is problematic and violated 3RR. Asking them to revert themself should have been the first step. There's also page protection and warnings. There are lots of tools that don't involve belligerence and abuse towards colleagues. Try treating your fellow editors with more respect instead of patting each other on the back your take-downs. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just answer me this. Is there a way out of this where I can say "this doesn't look like an abuse of the tools, rather it looks like a decent block" and not be accused of colluding to support some admin? Is that possible? Protonk (talk) 18:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

With CoM? Not a chance, no. This has be come another annoying habit; hopping around AN/I and making martyrs out of blocked users, esp if the block has come from or is supported by Sandstein. I really hope that this behavior is dealt with soon. Tarc (talk) 18:17, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is not about Sandstein's lurking about looking for people to punish (though, I suppose, that cannot be ignored) this is about the old adage: "give a dog a bad name and hang him", it's a simple as that. And Oh my! Don't Wikipedia's Admins love to show their power and do that? If it flatters them, they will ignore even the most obvious. I thank God, I was never tempted to be an Admin. There is something seriously wrong with this project and its justice system. Giano (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I reported Vintagekits and support the Admin action, he was obsessed with his edit and also got a bit uncivil, I was suprised that such an experienced editor was attempting to make the edit, perhaps if he understands why he was blocked a reduction would be possible. Off2riorob (talk) 20:00, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh I can so understand where you are coming from [104]. It's just awful when people become obsessed isn't it? How dare you? Even comment - do you think we are all so stupid? Giano (talk) 20:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

If you want to discuss my edits I suggest you do it on my talkpage Giano. You ask me, how dare I comment..I can comment like anyone else...I have commented in support of the Admin action and that is the issue here, isn't it? Off2riorob (talk) 20:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

No we can do it here because YOU are the ne who reported VK for this "crime". Giano (talk) 20:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The three-revert rule does not apply to reverts of obvious vandalism, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons. That is based on the "Definition of the three revert rule." --Domer48_'fenian' 20:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

(response to Domer) There is no obvious revert of vandalism.

There is no obvious revert of biased unsourced information.

There is no obvious revert of poorly sourced controversial material.

What exception of 3RR do you believe applies here? Valenciano (talk) 20:37, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, and the oppoint I am trying to make (poorly) in the link above [105] is that it seems quite OK for some to do (those who report VK for this "crime"), but not for VK himself. Just the usual rank hypocrisy, as usual endorsed by Administratir Sandstein. Giano (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits was blocked for edit-warring to insert multiple derogatory nicknames into the infobox of Audley Harrison. Per BLP policy, that cannot be considered an exception to 3RR by any means, even if those multiple derogatory nicknames are all sourced. Also, this has nothing whatsoever to do with his "Northern Irish" edits, despite that inference from this section's heading. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 20:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

This is my fault, I combined these threads thinking them related. –xeno^talk 20:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it a big thing to put it vack where it was? It's biasing VK here. Giano (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all (done). Again, my apologies, I misinterpreted John's statement. –xeno^talk 20:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Easily done! Giano (talk) 20:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Is it now suggested that negative information on a BLP is prohibited? That we must only use positive information? That sounds like bias to me, and to remove correctly sourced information, either positive or negative is vandalism. --Domer48_'fenian' 20:35, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, no, Domer. Just because something is sourceable doesn't mean it's encyclopedic. For example, if you dug enough, you could probably find a newspaper clipping about my participation in the state Math Team, but it would hardly be appropriate to stick in here...--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:38, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Here here Domer. I can here everybody reaching for their 'xyz is a terrorist' sources as we speak, given this new epiphany in understanding of policy. MickMacNee (talk) 20:55, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Domer, with respect you are wrong. Removing well sourced information is not vandalism. Simple. End of matter. It happens all the time to make articles clearer. Just because information is reliable and verifiable does not mean it must be included. I have many quality secondary sources that there is a tree in my garden (planning applications, third party images, secondary reports from councils etc.) Should we include this fact on Wikipedia? No. I don't dismiss your arguments but you need to be more dispassionate here about what value is created by adding facts to an article.

As to the block, which I believe is the point of this thread, Vintagekits is a problematic editor with a foul mouth. So am I. As a supporter of Giano, COM and Sandstein (yes - it is possible to be all three) I feel a reduction to this hideous "time served" concept may be viable. I regret that I suspect it is only a matter or time before VK meets the indef. block line, and I for one would prefer we at least get the benefit of his quality article input before that, somewhat inevitably, happens. Or maybe VK can prove me wrong in my gross asumptions of his future on WP? Pedro :  Chat  20:57, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• The simple long and short of this is that VK has been well and truly screwed for screwing up. He should not have 3Rd, but before anything could be done along came "Administrator Sandstein" adjusting his peaky cap, and upholding an overlong silly block to the echoes of delight from the well orchestrated heavenly chorus. In a nut shell that is it. Giano (talk) 21:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get a peaky cap... Tan | 39 21:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Be glad, perhaps they only get made in certain sizes Giano (talk) 21:49, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think Vintagekits is one of the few for whom cooling off seems to work, at least for a while. 24 hours is not long enough for this. Indefinite blocking is not warranted at this time IMO but he is skating on thin ice. Giano is usually a good judge of quality of content writing so perhaps a mentor will come forward to help VK with his recurrent problems. To some above, baiting Giano is a really bad idea so please just don't. We're used to his ways and the best thing is to let the hyperbole wash over you. Guy (Help!) 22:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Yup. I had a look at this earlier this afternoon but decided I didn't really have the heart to enforce BLP on Audley Harrison, quite possibly the worst boxer ever to enter a ring. Objectively, however, a week is probably fair enough. Such things don't really belong in infoboxes. Moreschi (talk) 22:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In my view all info boxes are all horrible, but anyway all sorts of amazing things are allowed in info boxes. Giano (talk) 22:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

A hat-trick of toxic personalities, all pleading for poor behaviour to be ignored. Delicious. NotAnIP83:149:66:11 (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• • A mentor for Vintagekits? A splendid idea! I'm shocked that no-one's tried it ever before.. (for those of you are aware of the history, I apologize for the massive amount of sarcasm that's dripping from this post). From what I understand, another editor let VK know that he was going to help him in getting info to support him, and VK just charged in anyway. Which is, if you're aware of the whole thing, status quo. VK's first reaction to someone opposing him isn't to seek consensus or to get other eyes on it, it's to edit war. Maybe a 1 RR rule, or requiring him to seek 3O before getting in an edit war? SirFozzie (talk) 22:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Vintagekits is good when he isn't heated up. But if you think mentoring would work for this editor, what is there to lose?--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 23:14, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, figured I would have to explain where the dripping sarcasm was from. Vintagekits had a mentor in the distant past (two years ago, now?). That poor soul was me. When I was a wet-behind-the-ears newbie admin. I fugred VK was getting a rough shake, and all he needed was someone to run interference for him, and smack him upside the head when he got out of line. That was 21 blocks ago. SirFozzie (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Something has to be done though. With all due respect for this editor, this is a never ending pattern that is doing more harm than good. Like I said, as long as this editor is out of the heat, there are no problems. But he needs to be pushed back into line far too often for comfort.--Sky Attacker Here comes the bird! 23:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Assuming that we don't have consensus (yet) for an indef block, 1RR followed by 3O might be a valid last chance for this editor who says he has retired from content work and now just does all the stuff he gets blocked for, and is proud of his block log. Just that he has had so many last chances already. But sure, why not? --John (talk) 03:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It was I who blocked Vintagekits for edit-warring. I have read the comments above.

I based the duration on standard practice in responding to reports of edit-warring at WP:AN3 and upon the policies regarding blocking and edit-warring. Some people commenting have suggested that the block was too lenient; I would reply that a corrollary of assuming good faith is to err on the side of lenience. I have no opinion on whether, as some have suggested, Vintagekits ought to be indefinitely blocked and even had I any opinion it would be outside the scope of a run-of-the-mill edit-warring report to make such a block. Other editors have argued that the block was too harsh or was completely unjustified; this opinion I disagree with as not in keeping with either practice or policy. For that reason, I think their arguments would be better made at the relevant policy talk pages since a change in policy appears to be what they seek.

I have been trying to assist at the edit-warring noticeboard recently as it has been frequently backlogged since Dr Connolley ceased to be an administrator. I am not naive regarding the unpleasant consequences of responding to some of the reports that occur there but it would be helpful if more administrators could look in occassionally. CIreland (talk) 04:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

VK is unsurprisingly taking the advice of Giano QC and lawyering it up big style for his third unblock request, attacking Sandstein and claiming he did not edit war and he is not an edit warrior. If you were to suspend belief and pretend he has no other issues but edit warring, and were just concentrating on this 'I am not an edit warrior' claim, I simply scanned his last 500 contributions, which go back to 11 August, and found evidence of edit warring (using the proper definition, not the lawyer's one) on the following articles (reverse chronological order):

• Audley Harrison
• Shea Campbell
• Martin Rogan
• Joseph MacManus
• Matthew Macklin
• Derriaghy Cricket Club F.C. (and 9 other similar articles)

And if you do ingore that edit warring, in the same period alone by my reckoning he could have been blocked about 5 times for various other seriously tendentious behaviours, if admins were actually monitoring him properly. MickMacNee (talk) 10:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not at all MickMacNee, were I a learned QC, I would point out that in cicilised place QCs present evidence to a learned and wise judge. Here on Wikipedia counsell is shouted down and sentance handed out bu the ignorant mob. Giano (talk) 12:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd take mob-rule using the clarity of direct experience over special pleading to an uninformed judge anyday. MickMacNee (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Schoolblock needed

Resolved

 – Renewed the year schoolblock. –xeno^talk 15:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

194.83.16.10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been vandalizing frequently enough that the talk page is a wall of final warnings. No useful contributions that I can find.—Kww(talk) 15:18, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Rodgarton and his IP Socks

Rodgarton (talk · contribs) history with WP:ANI [106] [107] [108]

He is now breaking WP:OUTING with regards to Shoemakers Holliday through sock puppets and is claiming that I am a sockpuppet of Shoemakers Holliday in his edit summaries. Can we do something to block these IP socks?

120.18.100.48 - IP Sock [_{diff removed for privacy; description given is accurate. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)}]

120.16.239.63 - IP Sock [_{diff removed for privacy; description given is accurate. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)}]

10:26 - 8 October - block increased to 1 month [109]

120.16.239.63 - Continued IP Socking after block increase [_{diffs removed for privacy; description given is accurate. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)}] Simonm223 (talk) 15:32, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

The account is now indef blocked, user and usertalkpage protected. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that but need to do something about IP Socks as some edits not confined to userpage:

[_{diff removed for privacy; description given is accurate. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)}] Simonm223 (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I know, but the IPs seem to be in several /16 ranges, and used by a lot of other users. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:47, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I removed the above diffs for privacy. They are currently still in the history for anybody who would like to review the block. I have notified Shoemaker's Holiday of this discussion, and will leave it up to them whether to request oversight. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Other than that, it is probably time for a little WP:RBI and WP:DENY unless they decide to start contributing productively. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Just keep it from the actual visible page, and it's fine. Shoemaker's Holiday ^{Over 210 FCs served} 21:45, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Bannination is correct in this case, at least until he shows he's going to accept consensus. I would be inclined to request oversight for any outing. Most people who go in for this kind of thing tire of the game of whack-a-mole after a while if we oversight the edits. Guy (Help!) 21:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV Backlog

Resolved

AIV has an almost 2 hour backlog. If an admin or three could take a look, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 15:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Range block on image replacing vandal

A vandal keeps replacing pictures of Barack Obama with pictures of monkeys.[110][111][112][113] Because the vandal is constantly changing IPs and because of the number of pages affected, a range block is in order. Can an admin deal w/ this? The range appears to be 166.205.0.0/16. Rami R 16:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm not blocking a /16 for this, especially since it appears that multiple ISPs are involved. I semiprotected two of the target articles. Protonk (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Much smaller range blocked for this. Will probably not stop too many attempts but has a much lower possible collateral damage than a /16 or /18. Protonk (talk) 18:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• Revert, block, ignore. Ask for page protection but otherwise, the less said, the better, in my opinion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:23, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
• This is probably a good case for using the AbuseFilter to prevent the addition or removal of images from this particular page by non-autoconfirmed users. -- The Anome (talk) 19:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Imbris (yes, again)

The large-scale disruption and edit-warring caused by the Croatian nationalist account User:Imbris has been the topic of maybe a dozen AN/I reports alone [114] [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122]. Almost every time the account is reported, intervention is promised but has so far failed to materialize. The user is WP:STALKing me and undoing my edits, this is why I'm so persistent in reporting him. I'm forced to constantly undo the disruption and risk getting blocked myself for repairing the damage.

The most attention this annoying matter has received was when Ricky81682 issued a warning on 2 October 2009. I'd honestly hoped Imbris might curb his malicious behavior because of the stern reprimand - I was wrong. User:Imbris is currently engaged in Croatian (ultra)nationalist POV-pushing and edit-warring on seven (7) articles. If anyone wants to know these are: Hey, Slavs again (five reversions so far [123] [124] [125] [126] [127]), Socialist Republic of Croatia (yes, the same edit you warned him about, [128] [129] [130]), Foreign relations of Serbia (history), Flags of Croatia (history), Coats of arms of the Yugoslav Socialist Republics (history), Coat of arms of Croatia (history), and Maltese (dog), where he's engaged in another talkpage argument (take a gander at this for example, one day after the warning about his talkpage "comments" had been issued).

In addition to WP:STALKing me and damaging articles, he's recently started to WP:HARASS me seriously. He's trying to WP:CANVASS his nationalist buddies from the Croatian Wikipedia to get me blocked. (hr:Wikipedija:Kafić#en:Talk:Maltese_.28dog.29 "If this I.R.Bab [i.e. DIREKTOR] could be shown to have a sockpuppet, that would be a good thing"). That post also reveals he's been disclosing my real-world identity (initials), again probably to his buddies, which was brought to my attention by User:Ivan Štambuk. His inflammatory accusations of sockpuppetry also included User:Crotchety Old Man [131] [132] who he is trying to get blocked. I sincerely hope something gets done about the account this time around... --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 19:44, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• 72 hours + revert parole. If this guy has nothing more productive to do than change "Serbo-Croat" to "Croato-Serbian"...oh please. Moreschi (talk) 21:53, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, imagine how it felt to write entire talkpages on such stupid issues because of this guy's edits and you'll get an idea about why I insist on bringing him to your attention. imho, a person that edit-wars for five months about "Serbo-Croat" and "Croato-Serbian" will not stop because of a 72-hour block. No way. His WP:HARASSment and revealing of personal info on hrWiki are sufficient to give an idea of his level of "commitment". --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 22:16, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeed, but the revert parole will slow him down some, and if he violates that, as I'm sure he will, well, he gets his backside banninated pretty quickly. Believe me, I'd like to boot him out right now, but I'd have people moaning out me that indef was too much for a first block and there'd be the usual "Moreschi is crazy rouge" threads, with calls to desysop, yada yada yada, from people who have no idea what it's like to have been doing ARBMAC and other nationalist-related work for nigh on 2 years now. Best start off with this. Moreschi (talk) 22:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

You know, that's exactly the kind of thing a crazy rogue would say... -- Atama頭 22:31, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Direktor isn't exactly pure here; there's been at least one instance where you've provoked Imbris. Make sure you don't do it again, OK? Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 22:50, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Exasperation with someone who's changing "Serbo-Croat" to "Croato-Serbian" is, I think, forgivable this once. On a different note, see the real meaning of crazy rouge. Moreschi (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Re to MoP: I'm sorry if I provoked him someplace, but I'm not a robot - how's a person supposed to keep his cool when this guy reveals my personal information, harasses me, and follows me around for the past sixty days reverting everything I do because he thinks I'm "anti-Croatian"? All this with little or no admin attention? And anyway, the guy seemed to be doing just fine the last six months or so without my provocation.

Re to Moreschi: Heh those so-called civilized people with their "punctuality" and "personal hygiene", sipping champagne all cozy-like in their "civilized countries", they have no idea how it is down in the trenches. :P He's pretty smart, he'll probably start bothering people on all levels of WP:DR instead of reverting for now... We'll see, thanks for your help. I think there's like twenty people out there that are really happy something is finally being done about this account. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 23:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Imbris is getting really too disruptive lately. His invite on Croatian Wikipedia to recruit helpers that would help him "expose" the alleged sock-puppet of DIREKTOR (and also here, in a completely unrelated discussion) shows that he is much more obsessed of getting rid of certain individuals that he finds himself in dispute with, rather than being focused on the dispute itself. The discussion on Hey Slavs talkpage was more or less waste of time, running in circles all the way, reiterating the same arguments and "arguments" ad nauseam. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by User:Sincereofficial

Resolved. User blocked for 3 months for continually ignoring warnings

For quite some time now, Sincereofficial (talk · contribs) has continually made disruptive edits, specifically to the article Aaliyah. This user's edits have consisted of removing the 'musical style' section for absolutely no reason, despite being explained why it exists ([133], [134], [135]), removing content back up by reliable sources and replacing it with deliberate misinformation, content that is unsourced or poorly sourced ([136], [137]) and seems to be using 157.130.223.166 (talk) for further disruptive edits outside of this article (see the history of superstar). This user has warned several times in the past and Sincereofficial refuses to change his/her behavior or even both discussing matters. I'm honestly tired of dealing with this user and need administrative action to take place. — ξ^xplicit 22:52, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Moved topic down for more eyes to see. — ξ^xplicit 20:02, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm leaving them a final warning, and also a recommendation to stop editing that page. While blocking would probably be easier, I feel that there's no harm in giving the user a last chance. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 20:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I suppose. Will bring back here ASAP if user continues their behavior. — ξ^xplicit 20:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll continue watching for further activity, but that would be appreciated in case I have to leave to tend to real-life matters. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 20:43, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Now, we're on to image problems. Uploading unlicensed images, adding album covers to the article in violation of WP:NFCC and the usual deliberate misinformation, even after a final warning. I think it's time for some action. — ξ^xplicit 03:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Blocked after the user outright ignored my final warning. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Bad Boys Blue

Resolved. Legal-Threat Man, Legal-Threat Man, does whatever...um...a Legal Threat can. Or something. HalfShadow (talk) 20:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

It concerns User talk:Esoteriqa and article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Boys_Blue we are really sorry that you don't believe in facts which we, the official representatives of Mr. John McInerney are delivering. In such case Wikipedia will get aan official document from our lawyers and Mr. John McInerney himself and you will have two options - write the true history and keep true facts or delete article dedicated to Bad Boys Blue at all becaue at the moment when you're keeping it the way it is you're breaking the law and supporting imposters who never been real members of the group. And what's the most funny - you have even rewinded wrong birthdates and places of birth of former members and this also proves that you have no idea about Bad Boys Blue. Who do you think you are? You want Mr. John McInerney to call you himself? Allright, send your phone to bbb@badboysblue.eu and you'll be told the truth by him. It's inadmissible that people like you are allowed to edit articles concerning things you have no idea about. We're reporting it to Wikipedia crew as well as we've said it's the highest time to correct gossip stories and fake facts. Beyond dispute you constantly perver the real history and facts and how can you dare to call our edits a vandalismact? You wanna official documents, you'll get 'em from our lawyers, from Mr. John McInerney himself as well as from our labels - Coconut Music and Modern Romantics Productions. We have the right to deliver the truth, not pure lies like you're constantly doing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BADBOYS BLUE (talk • contribs)

Oh my...The talk about lawyers really striked me as coming dangerously close to WP:NLT. Thoughts? Basket of Puppies 20:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Legal-threat sense...tingling... HalfShadow (talk) 20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I see that the user has just been indef blocked for legal threats. Basket of Puppies 20:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Indeffed for legal threats. I'm leaving for work, so someone else may want to check into this situation. — Huntster (t @ c) 20:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I will place the user's talk page on my watchlist and check for any unblock request or if they retract the legal threat. If I see it then I will try to transclude the message here for admin action (such as unblock, etc). Basket of Puppies 20:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Puppies, that would be much appreciated. I'm watching the page purely for the entertainment value (who'd have known that lawyers are so hip these days). Who wants to bet that we'll see a round of IP vandals on the Bad Boys Blue page next? Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 20:40, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Undoing legal threats now being posted on user's page. It's so cute when they get angry... HalfShadow (talk) 20:59, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  No taunting the newbies, please. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

  Oh darn. If I can't at least poke fun at the lawyers, why did I even get out of bed today? HalfShadow (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I didn't know Wikipedia was in the business of making known The Truth™. I thought this was about verifiability. MuZemike 21:03, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I thought we couldn't handle the truth? HalfShadow (talk) 21:05, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Reblocked with talk disabled, as they failed to take the hint. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

we see you trollin' No way a Lawyer has that bad of spelling and grammar.--SKATER ^Speak. 21:12, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Well if certain examples are anything to go by, a fair number of them appear to be psychotic... HalfShadow (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I find it inadmissable. --Smashville^talk 21:19, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There's no way in hell the paragraph above was written by a lawyer. More likely it is a PR person, someone from a record company or some such person. That said, has anyone given them Mike Godwin's contact info? Seems like that would be the quickest resolution to this. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

• Anyone but me find it hilarious that your law guy is named 'Godwin'? HalfShadow (talk) 22:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Hilarious how? Have you read Mike Godwin? Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 22:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Oh he is that Godwin? HalfShadow (talk) 22:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
      • Yes. Mike, and his infamous sense of humor, get around. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:29, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I dunno, I did find it hilarious that the blocked account claimed Wikipedia is promoting "codswallop". I've never heard that term before but now I will use it at every possible opportunity. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Yeah, I thought we walloped people with trout. HalfShadow (talk) 00:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
      • The most widely propounded (albeit without evidence) etymology for "codswallop" has nothing whatsoever to do either with fish or even with hitting people. Uncle G (talk) 07:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

To whom it may concern: the above mentioned poster who is throwing legal threats to the left and to the right is merely a webmaster from Poland who runs badboysblue.eu website (his name is available upon request). Apparently, the formation that he is paid to represent may have achieved some sort of a legal action which prevented the other contenders to stop their respective activities, presumably, under the laws of Russian Federation (sic) - something I reflected in my newest revision. My edits clearly stated that the article needed further revisions, and all I did was to remove some of the no longer appropriate name referrals/links - that's all, but I do have a problem when some paid characters decide to rewrite the history retroactively as they wish, while throwing vicious insults and threats as if Wikipedia is some kind of an ethnic bazaar. Esoteriqa (talk) 00:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The problem with that is that Wikipedia is not subject to Russian law or jurisprudence, but to the law of the United States (as the Foundation is headquartered in the US). I doubt that ruling will affect us in the least. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 01:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That is exactly my point. The legal actions achieved by the above individuals bears no relevance to the wiki content: when I say it was reflected in my revision - all it means that I deleted the info about concurrent contender's aspirations, for there's no longer a contest for the brand name - that's all. That's why I think that the article should be returned to the form it's been in prior to October 6, after which many NPOV-violating alterations were made, full of vile epithets, provided there will be more appropriate revisions reflecting the current state of the group - without rewriting the history per se. But just to reiterate my point: I absolutely do not support the form of the article it is presently in. Esoteriqa (talk) 02:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In Russia, info always deletes YOU! MuZemike 02:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You know a discussion is over when people start invoking Yakov Smirnoff. <>Multi-Xfer<> (talk) 08:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Very good! It is even possible that there will be an internet meme entitled Multi-Xfer-ism started, just as soon as someone works out how to pronounce it... LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

BLP Policy question at Mark Levin

I've recently taken on the role of "user conduct referee" at Mark Levin. As a result I don't want to get into content discussions (it just muddies the water).

However I got a policy question from an IP user there which deserves an answer, and I'd like another admin to handle it.

"Manning, if you have the time, I have a question regarding policy, and the enforcement thereof. The issue comes up with reference to the Mark Levin page, but would be applicable in a variety of instances. The WP:BLP calls for questionable content to be 'deleted immediately,without discussion'; and that reposting or reverting is allowed only after gaining a consensus. That is how I read it, but the opposite seems to be true on that page: disputed content is reposted immediately, and without regard for consensus. Am I misunderstanding the policy?"

Although there is a LOT of POV gaming going on at that page, the question still had merit and deserves an WP:AGF answer. If one or more other admins would care to provide input, I'd appreciate it. Manning (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

There's a difference between disputed and questionable. The section being most edit warred over - the controversies and criticism section - is well sourced. BLP material to be deleted immediately and talked about afterwards is questionable or negative un or poorly sourced materials. Negative material with good sourcing needs some more depth of discussion - one cannot merely insist on whitewashing negative material that is well supported.

The question of how well supported those references are and whether they in total represent an unbalanced view of Levin is an open one - which needs deep review, and may end up removing them. But the current edit warring over them is not appropriate review or discussion. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Admins take a look at this... (imported from WP:BLP/N)

Resolved

 – If needed, any further issues will be dealt with at the BLP and edit warring noticeboards

I am importing this from WP:BLP/N as I think it should be looked at. An experienced admin might want to give editor User:Needpics contribs a check for some sort of WP:SPA race-based-trollishness.

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 00:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

J. Philippe Rushton

Would somebody, or several somebodies, review the recent blanking by Needpics (talk · contribs)? They've taken out huge portions claiming the Southern Poverty Law Center is not a reliable source. 98.248.33.198 (talk) 23:33, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Um, yeah. I just looked at that, somebody versed in BLP policy really needs to step in there. Editor is one by one removing every source saying the sources "aren't notable" (which I guess he thinks implies they aren't reliable?). He's going a little hog wild....

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 23:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

PS Looking at the user's contribs, an admin might want to look into this; it appears to be a single purpose account for highly trollish-tendentious editing of anything to do with race. User has already blown WP:3RR with respect to one today, and otherwise just looks to be not acting in good faith.

Knowing nothing of the subject, some of those edits look sound to me. What are we doing with this sentence in the thing anyway :

VDARE's Steve Sailer refers to it as "Rushton's Rule of Three" saying that Rushton's comparisons are more informative than many traditional comparisons because they analyze characteristics across three races instead of two. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has described VDARE as a hate group. (cite from Southern Poverty Law Center) --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There certainly appears to be an agenda at work, but that article was a BLP mess before. (More work on the article might be needed though to ensure that it stays neutral and gives proper weight to ideas. --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I can just see it being a BLP nightmare from the stuff this editor has removed. This is one where insisting on ultra high quality sources does not seem unreasonable. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The reason why I moved it here was after I looked at the other edits in combination with the ones on this article. Take a look at them, for example the hierarchical additions of pictures to the race/intelligence page and then prompt edit warring (with clear knowledge of Wikipolicies; threatening WP:3RR on someone, though it's a "new" account). While I have no particular opinion on the BLP "content" issue above, I thought the situation as a whole might be of interest (I thought he might be a returning "pattern-vandal" that the admins had previous experience with).

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 00:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the article quotes the SPLC talking about VDARE. but most of the rest of the material is well sourced. Several of the items removed by Needpics are sourced to books published by university presses. In other words, "ultra high quality sources". As I wrote on the BLPN board, there is a possibility that Needpics is Ruston, so we should avoid making any derisive remarks. However I don't see what this is doing on ANI. It can be handled through BLPN and the edit warring noticeboard.   Will Beback  talk  01:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

My reading of these edits is that this editor supports the controversial minority theories of Rushton and Richard Lynn. He has attempted to remove any reference to the controversial nature of Rushton's theories, well-documented in the academic literature. Rather than blanking sections as he has done, with very tenuous reasoning, he should justify himself on the talk page. I don't think Needpics is Rushton. His edits to the BLP should probably be reverted: the controversial nature of Rushton's theories should appear in the lede. The psychologists Rushton and Lynn have both been criticized for their misuse of statistics to argue their case; again such criticisms can be found in peer-reviewed book reviews. Here's an example Race_Differences_in_Intelligence#Criticism (part of which I added a while back) and - surprise, surprise - Needpics has recently been edting this article. This type of editing pattern has been seen before. User:MoritzB, User:Fourdee and User:Jagzwere all contributors to Race and intelligence and were subsequently banned from wikipedia, either by Jimbo or the community. Mathsci (talk) 08:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The views of Rushton, and to a lesser extent Lynn, are controversial and non-mainstream. For example, the only mentions of Ruston in the regular press in 2009 report protests (by both students and faculty) of an invitation to speak on race and evolution at a WV university' "DarwinFest" conference. That doesn't mean we should censor Rushton, but we should neither give his views excess weight nor hide the considerable criticism that his methods and conclusions have generated. Editors who've promoted those views have tended to be troublesome SPAs.   Will Beback  talk  08:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. Mathsci (talk) 10:29, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Disruptive IP 166.205.130.250

Please, check contribs. Herta Müller is listed under current events (it was announced yesterday, she will receive the 2009 Nobel Prize for literature). Such versions, especially when repeated 4 times (!) and signed "Rush was here" are not helpful at all. How many needed to issue a block? Dc76\^talk 00:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I only now noticed, a 48-hour block was issued after the 4th. I stand behind the admin who issued it. Consider the issue solved, pls. Dc76\^talk 00:17, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

2C-B-FLY - someone please watch

According to a source on a forum [138] the alleged proprietor of a company thought to be involved in the distribution of this drug is supposed to have died from incautiously sampling his own wares from a batch which is postulated to be contaminated. Two IPa and User:Cegli have attempted to add the info to the top of the article, on the possibly good faith grounds that they are issuing a public health warning. They are arguing on my talk page that by reverting them I am somehow responsible for the death of anyone who might die from consuming an overdose of the product from the alleged faulty batch.

I'm going to bed. Could someone keep an eye on the article.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Watchlisted. Crafty (talk) 00:34, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Reports of at least two deaths appear to be genuine despite having not yet been picked up by mainstream media sources (the Danish dead guys family and friends have set up a facebook memorial site for God's sake) so I added a brief note in the "Dangers" section. Agree a "Warning" section right after the lede is hardly appropriate though! Meodipt (talk) 02:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

And not surprisingly I have been reverted already. I would cite cases such as this and this as precedent that WP:IAR can and has been in the past applied in the public interest to try and protect people from death under specific unusual circumstances. Certainly there are differences on which the cases can be distinguished, as in the cases of the kidnapped journalists there was a definite risk to an identified individual, whereas here we have a risk to an undefined class of individuals of unknowable size, but similar principles apply. It appears that a contaminated batch of 2CB-Fly containing an impurity which may be lethal at milligram levels, has already been sold to many people around the world before the "bad batch" was discovered due to the death of the person selling it. Obviously this has not yet been reported by reliable sources but when it does, those reliable sources will be reporting deaths that might have been prevented merely by allowing wikipedia's flexible rules to be bent temporarily. Can we get some consensus on this? Meodipt (talk) 02:58, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Yes, for my money the info should only be added if reliable sources pick it up. How do we know the source in the forum isn't trying to damage the company's reputation? Protonk (talk) 03:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
  • Meodip, you reverted back at a few minutes later, giving the very poor explanation "pending discussion"; pending discussion would be a reason to have the material deleted pending sourcing. My own view is the same as Protonk's. DGG ( talk ) 03:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

By pending discussion I just meant I expected it would be discussed here and consensus reached. The bluelight forum on the deaths is only reporting what is being said at a Danish drug forum psychedelia.dk which is a members-only Danish language forum, as many people are members on both sites. Reading it with google translate is slightly hard going but it appears a lot of people knew the guy personally and he is definitely dead after ingesting what was meant to be 2CB-FLY. There may be reliable sources already linked off there but they would be in Danish I suppose, foreign language newspapers were deemed good enough sources when the first deaths from mephedrone and bromodragonfly cropped up a while back though, as they were also in Scandinavia. It was the boss of the RC company who died so discrediting the company seems unlikely! Meodipt (talk) 04:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed this content for lack of sourcing (saw the note, then came here). Just because something is mentioned on a danish drug users forum doesn't mean it should be here until picked up by sources. (I'd be happy with one in Danish, but google didn't turn up anything that mentioned the drug). And besides Wikipedia is neither a how-to guide, or place for medical advice. --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Google didn't pick up anything? Look at this 2cbfly death search. Out of the top 7 results, 6 mention it, and one doesn't (that'd be Wikipedia, folks).

Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 05:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

PS Wikipedia may indeed be be neither a how-to nor a place for medical advice, but given IAR (and basic human pragmatics), maybe we should try and come up with a way to make it fit, at least for the time being. Maybe something similar to "On October 07, 2009, many internet forums suddenly began discussing reports of the death of a Danish distributor and purchasers of his products which were labeled as 2-cb-fly."^{Reffed with a bunch of message boards.} And yes, policy says "Primary sources may be used to make descriptive claims."

Relax, no one is going to be sitting at home thinking "now just before I pop these pills, I'll drop in to Wikipedia to see if the pills might kill me". If such a person finds the rumor online somewhere, they have been alerted, and the fact that it is not in Wikipedia (nor any reliable source) will not influence them. If in a day or two it turns out that there is some basis for the excitement in an Internet forum, we will again have not been a news outlet; so be it. Johnuniq (talk) 06:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well actually if you look here page views for the 2CB-FLY page have gone up considerably since the guys death on the 7th, so it seems that quite a lot of people may be looking to wikipedia for information about this incident, perhaps precisely because it has not yet been mentioned in the mainstream media. But as I said I came here for consensus and that is clearly that this information should not be added until a suitable source is found, so I guess we will have to wait until some Danish newspaper picks up the story. Meodipt (talk) 06:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The argument that IAR should allow the publication of unsourcable (as far as reliable sources go) rumors is actually self defeating. In the examples given where reports of the kidnapping of journalists was concealed for their own safety, the suggestion of potential harm was based on reliable, if somewhat private, information. And the purpose was the opposite - to remove, not add, mostly unverifiable information. The reason we have rules like verifiability and reliable sources is that, as one of those pages mentions, anyone can go on the internet and make a claim. Wikipedia is not in the business of investigating rumors, and it would tarnish the reputation of the Encyclopedia to place warnings on the page of every chemical ever claimed by anyone to have caused a death. Alarmist email chains have achieved great followings in the past, so the fact that lots of people on the internet are pushing this is irrelevant. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Redirects

Can anyone tell me why Admin Law's talk page is being redirected to another user's talk page? The strange thing is: There is a file for deletion on the page with Law sitting on a couch in the picture. Ponderous? 70.177.189.205 (talk) 00:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Because they're the same guy. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 00:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, see WP:AC/N. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Tear him for his bad verses!)} 01:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

WQA not the right method?

I filed this WQA here: [139], and it was just closed. I asked for outside help on my talk page of admins, and got some responses saying that the matter was being looked into. It looks like despite all of the evidence I gathered, and the many agreements of other users that there was inappropriate behavior going on, nothing will happen. If this was an oversight, and there really are some concerned admins out there, I ask that they do something about this, as I'm going to leave wikipedia due to disillusionment (by lack of concern for the actions here), as well as fears of further attempts at WP:OUTING. If nothing is done, that will stand also as a reflection on wikipedia's irregular enforcement/practice of it's own policies. I have put enough effort into trying to help improve wikipedia, and its perception by newcomers, but after this, it seems like it really may be all in vain. Thanks. Luminifer (talk) 01:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

While I sympathize with you, honestly I do, please remember that we're all volunteers here. With real-life obligations. 99% of the work done here is done by everyday joes taking a few minutes off from their job, or their families, or their free time, to try to make this a better encyclopedia. Not all problems are handled correctly, unfortunately. When you have an encyclopedia that "anyone can edit", mistakes like this happen when your workforce is unpaid volunteers who can come and go as they please, do any job they feel like doing, and don't always necessarily feel like wading through a quagmire of evidence, diffs, and claims. That all said, try to look with a fresh eye. There are a million (plus!) articles you can edit, hundreds of new projects you can join, and countless tasks where you can essentially just leave all that in the past. Tan | 39 02:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Visiting your userpage, it seems you probably won't take the above advice very well - it will either come across as condescending, patronizing or simply bromidic, when it was intended to be good-natured. Tomorrow I will take ten or fifteen minutes to visit your problem and see if a solution can be made, maybe someone else will do it first. Tan | 39 02:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, no, I would disagree there - but your statement _there_ certainly seemed condescending. Regardless, as I've said, I'm leaving wikipedia - I do not want to be stalked by this user any more. I still have hopes for wikipedia, but when I'm trying to educate people on how to use it, I get a lot of reactions about how new users are treated badly - I even cite published articles in my WQA about this very problem. I thought I would try and help stop this from happening - but either way, it's not worth my time nor risking my identity further, so I'm just throwing it out here for whoever cares (if anyone). This did not arise from a single edit conflict - this is a much more pervasive problem. I don't doubt I can contribute to wikipedia if I wanted to - and have the contributions stick. I've been on here for many years. However, when a user tries to determine my personal identity and post it on and AfD, and then, when I report the user, absolutely nothing happens, I can't feel safe on this site. Likewise, when a user is consistently discouraging newcomers and treating them disrespectfully, and I report THAT, and nothing happens, it seems like the project will indeed stagnate. To summarize, it's not a response to the individual actions involved, it's what those actions and reactions say about the project as a whole.Luminifer (talk) 03:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

That's how it usually is with admins. Joe Chill (talk) 02:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I know! We're all self-absorbed assholes who don't spend a minute of our time to help you poor editors out. And the perks for adminship are so awesome, too! Gosh, someone should break up this cabal, it's just bullshit. Tan | 39 03:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This was a joke, btw. Too much Arrested Development episodes tonight ;-) Tan | 39 03:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

AIV Again Backlogged

Resolved

AIV is again backlogged. If an admin or three could take a look, it would be appreciated. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 02:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

No longer backlogged. Until It Sleeps ^{T • C} 03:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

We need some more admins  :) Equazcion (talk) 03:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Not more admins, just admins taking a look in at AIV more often. It seems AIV is getting backed up twice or more daily. I know admins can't be everywhere at once, but I think it would be a good idea for admins to, once in hour as they have time, to look in at AIV and clear off what they can. That would lessen the frequency of these backlogs. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

NeutralHomer; have you looked at the New Pages backlog recently? :P Backlogs really aren't a concern; just like server loads, you don't really have to worry about them. CSD is backed up almost every hour, for example. It's really not a big deal; an admin will get to it when they've got a second (for example, myself right now while I'm waiting for my pizza to cook). Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

A backlog at AIV is a bigger deal than, say, CSD. It means vandals can keep vandalizing, and while they're not being blocked, everyone has to keep on top of reverting them. Equazcion (talk) 05:23, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

As a recent non-admin, let me attest that backlogs at AIV, RFPP and AN3 are particularly frustrating to regular editors, since the reported problem is ongoing and the editors are helpless to do anything about it except follow the vandals around and continually reverting them. After one has given the fourth level warning saying specifically that the vandal will be blocked if they continue, it is disheartening to see them continue with impunity. So it would be really helpful if few more admins could devote some minutes/day on these boards. Abecedare (talk) 05:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

There is not a shortage of admins from counting them, there's only a shortage that actually do admin work. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Massive vandalism by Grey Furb !!

Could some Admin please delete the article about Taijiro Aoki, the commander of the Japanese Aircraft Carrier Akagi? Everything written there is completely completely false, somebody just made up a huge load of total crap. Loosmark (talk) 03:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ok i checked the talk page of the editor who created the article and it seems that he was already blocked for a week in July for "repeatedly creating hoax articles". I guess he's back at it. Loosmark (talk) 03:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Loosmark - you can fix much of this. I did a quick search and found this which does indeed contradict much of what is in the article. Therefore I have added a hoax tag. If you have WP:RS about the subject then you can start to fix the article by updating the info and citing the sources. If not, it should probably get a {{db-hoax}} tag.  7  03:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Another total garbage article he created Jisaku Okada! Loosmark (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

And yet another Takeo Manjome. This guy needs to be immediately banned from wikipedia and somebody needs to check other articles he edited (i'm not familiar with most other topics he created). Loosmark (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Grey_Furb's page indicates a) a return account b) they're aware of their dubious history of editing. Fifelfoo (talk) 03:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggest to refer to CSD(Hoax)/ AFD Grey_Furb created: Charles Preston Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Suggest for another editor to check for existence Rikichi Tsukada which failed external links on a tertiary and no page cites to two out of date reference works difficult to locate (uncertain). Fifelfoo (talk) 03:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'm looking through this editor's edits, and I'm finding that they're a mix of bollocks and actual information, so it's rather challenging. For example, Takeo Manjome was, according to references I've looked at, a general who did serve in some of the areas referred to in the article - but not others. Jisaku Okada is, surprisingly, real. Again, I found a Google Books ref and a number of other references to indicate he was the captain of the ship described; whether the situation was as noted in the article is another matter. Basically, we've got a lot of sorting out to do here. Having said that, I'm going to block the editor until we get an explanation of what the hell they're doing, and keep working on cleanup. Tony Fox (arf!) 03:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh but Okada is well known, he was indeed the commander of the Kaga at Midway. Only that he did not participate in the Battle of the Coral sea, the Battle of Midway was NOT an "oncoming invasion of the Hawaiian Islands", his ship has not shot down many bombers etc etc. Loosmark (talk) 03:59, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the problem. We've got a mix of good edits and make-believe here. I stubbed Takeo Manjome and sourced the stub, and I've confirmed that some of the information in Charles Preston is partially correct - it's a matter of finding the good information amongst the bad here. Other admins would be greatly appreciated on this one... I haven't the slightest idea how best to handle these. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I ran a check on this account and based on the old CU logs, this is a sock of Adelhoch/Washingblack. Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 04:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion the big problem here is that the Wikipedia "safety mechanisms" completely failed. The Taijiro Aoki article for example, which was totally full falsifications and nonsense, was created on 11th September and went undetected for a month. And it was a big luck that today i clicked on it by pure chance and that I have interest in the Japanese Imperial Navy, a casual reader might have missed it. It is quite damaging for the project to have such articles for a lengthy period of time. Given that this editor was caught repeatingly creating hoax articles in July i wonder how it is possible that nobody kept an eye on him? I mean IMO for a certain period of time he should have been prevented to create new articles without Admin approval. Another concern that I have, and I might be very paranoid here, how can we know that he doesn't have some other sock and created more nonsense article? Loosmark (talk) 06:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• You misunderstand Wikipedia. You are that safety mechanism. As such, the mechanism worked. You spotted the hoax, you drew it to other people's attentions, and as a consequence several editors jumped on the articles and a CheckUser checked the account. Uncle G (talk) 07:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well it's a bit debatable how well the mechanism worked, I mean I've discovered it yes, but by pure chance, and the nonsense article did exist for a whole month. What I propose is that in future if sb is caught repeatedly creating hoax article than instead of just a week block as was done in July, he also gets some sort of restriction on creation of new articles at least for 6 months. Loosmark (talk) 13:31, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

POV issue

I am posting here b/c User:TheFix63 is edit warring in order to insert POV statements to NBA articles despite told by various editors on Talk:Los Angeles Lakers#Lakers as a signature franchise that his edits are unacceptable. The incident is described here on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, but has no response.—Chris!_c/t 04:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring is best taken to WP:AN3. However, I'll take a look at it here. Master of Puppets - _{Call me MoP! :D} 04:56, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Regisfugit and harassment on User talk:Kelly A. Siebecke

User:Regisfugit has been continuously undoing edits by the owner of the talk page, despite clear messages to stop doing so. See history. User threatens with bans and adds messages such as Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. Your continued postings on JoyDiamond's talk page are in direct violation of Wikipedia Policy but the user does not seem to have a clear understanding himself. Thanks! Netalarmtalk 06:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I've informed Regisfugit about the discussion. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 06:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Druid.raul IP sock?

This edit by 203.76.181.22 (talk · contribs) to Etihad Airways has reverted the fleet from a September 30 date to an August date. Druid.raul has edited the article in the past. I'm not comfortable with reverting the edit myself (involvement issue) but feel that it should at least be reviewed by others. Mjroots (talk) 07:00, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I would have said that this is a matter of FACT edit - what does the source say? There should be no issue with POV over how many aircraft an airline has. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Racepacket at University of Miami, again

Previous threads can be found at Racepacket at University of Miami and related articles and Racepacket at UMiami article

This is the third time that I've felt the need to bring the actions of Racepacket (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) on University of Miami (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to this board. Now he is constantly reverting changes made to the "History" section of the article because of what I feel are semantic word choices or paragraph structuring based on what he has told me. In the past 48 hours he has done so many reverts to this section that it is now impossible for me to improve upon the wording and structuring that I have tried to change because it is back to his preferred version.

• "Not a valid measure or a relevant basis of comparision. See "19 Momentum: The Campaign for the University of Miami" on talk page"
• "History: going back to prior version that gives national benchmark and does not attribute fundraising strongly to Shalala"
• "see discussion page under "19 Momentum: The Campaign for the University of Miami""
• "hearing no objections, we are returning to the last consensus version except for Ryulong's "During Shalala's leadership""
• "History: moved consensus version back to main article"
• "History: added hospital acquisiton. Please work off the consensus version"
• "fix date of acquisition of UM hospital" (misleading)

In the last diff he is even hiding his change to what he considers the "consensus version" (a revision he put on a subpage at User:Racepacket/UMhistory). In his arguments he seems to be throwing in non sequiturs and it is becoming impossible to work with him or even understand him through his verbosity. He is obfuscating too much at this point, and I want something done because he obviously doesn't blame the edit warring for the failed GA nomination he put through.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I deeply respect Ryulong's devotion to Wikipedia's coverage of the University of Miami, however a sense of ownership, incivilty and even profanity, [140] [141] makes working through editorial disputes very difficult. He dismisses my attempts to be polite to him and to try to discuss our differences as "verbosity." He is in such a hurry to make changes that he misreads his sources and takes logical leaps that cause the assertions he makes in the article to go beyond what his references say. Hence, we have had several differences of opinion that took time to work out.

For a long time, the history section was written in short, easy to read paragraphs covering separate ideas, most of which had 3 or 4 sentences. Ryulong, without first discussing it, decided to reorganize the history into paragraphs organized around each UM President, and I reverted that change. From Sept 2 - 5, there was also a debate over how to report UM's 2003 fundraising campaign in the history section. I thought that consensus was reached on Sept. 5. But since last week, Ryulong has been edit warring over trying to make comparisons between the size of UM's fundraising campaign and those of other schools in the State of Florida. I feel that his comparisons are not objective and have tried to draw in more views from WP:UNI.

In order to avoid confusing the main article while we worked out our differences, yesterday morning, I created a draft of the history section on User:Racepacket/UMhistory and posted a {{caution}} template on the history section of the article inviting editors to work out a consensus there. I also left a message on Ryulong's talk page and that of another user. Instead of contributing to the effort, he deleted the caution template. After incorporating one change from another user, this morning, I reposted the draft as the history section of the main article preserving the long-standing paragraph structure that had existed before Ryulong's reorganization this week. Now that he has made clear that I misinterpreted his removal of the caution template, I have offered to return to working on a new consensus draft with him, but he has posted the above complaint. One problem is that we are both making extensive edits to the history section at the same time, resulting in "edit conflicts" as we both try to save our changes. This results in his (I assume accidental) deletion of various additions that I have tried to make. I have proposed third party mediation before, but Ryulong did not agree.

Ryulong is coming within 20 minutes of violating 3RR:

• Revision as of 04:50, 9 October 2009
• Revision as of 04:38, 9 October 2009
• Revision as of 03:57, 9 October 2009
• Revision as of 04:28, 8 October 2009

I think if we put aside "ownership" and "control" issues, we could make the article at least a Good one. Racepacket (talk) 09:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This extensive text is one of the issues I can't stand. This four paragraph reply is ridiculous. This is why I can't work with you, Racepacket. I cannot sit down and read all of this to understand your issues. I don't know why you oppose the minor changes to paragraph structure or order because I can't tease it out of your essays. And I would like someone else's input before you say anything else.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ryulong, I have to say that what he has said makes perfect sense to me, and characterising it as 'ridiculous' is unhelpful. This should not be at ANI, this is a content dispute, and content disputes often require lengthy discussion to hash out versions of the text that are agreeable to all. The idea of working on a draft may be a good one - I've certainly seen it done before. And you do need to agree whether the history should be done by topic or by President (which is perfectly clearly set out as the basis for the disagreement in Racepacket's statement) - either would work but they can't both be used at the same time. Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:27, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The four paragraphs are ridiculous. Not their content. It is nigh impossible for me to meet every single one of his needs when he keeps undoing the edits I've done in good faith by only referring to the version he is replacing them with as the "consensus version" in his eyes, when he is merely going off of a version that has sat on the article for over a year until he began editing. He's done several reverts to his preferred version since he decided whichever instance of the article was the "consensus version". And this is not a content dispute. This is a behavioral issue on Racepacket's part, coming about as the content issue.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, his characterizations of my behavior (ownership, incivility, source misreading, etc.) are wrong. I have not tried to take ownership of the article. My blunt statements and use of profanity are not incivility. And I certainly have not been misinterpreting the sources. I don't know why the current state of the history section is such a contentious issue that it requires Racepacket to continually replace it with his preferred version, even after myself and other editors have been working on the section live.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

I hope this has not become personal, but I find it very odd that in the diffs you cite above I repeatedly removed your incorrect claim that Coral Gables was a part of the "City of Miami." However only after a third editor, User:Do go be man raises the issue that you start to take the matter seriously. If a version of the history sat for a year with a given organizational structure, then it is "consensus." Ryulong's reorganization of the history section into Presidential paragraphs starting last week has been very unilateral and disregards my stated concerns. Again, what I propose going forward is that 1) we set up a separate draft of the history section. 2) we each take turns revising it. 3) When one person is through with his turn, he lets the other have free reign without overlapping edits. 4) We share thoughts about the other's proposals 5) We work toward a consensus. 6) When we get consensus we move the draft to the main article page. Racepacket (talk) 10:57, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This is no longer part of the content dispute. It is your behavior in regards to the content that I have issues with. You have been obstinate in any change to occur. When I removed a handful of items that I didn't feel fit with the flow of the article, you reverted me because the content was there for a year and was therefore "consensus". When I reorganized the short single sentence paragraphs together into larger paragraphs, you began to revert me and because of this "consensus" that you think existed. Consensus can change and forcing an article to be static is not going to help the project in the long run.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Ryulong, who else agrees with you? Also, WP:BRD applies here. You made some changes to an article that had been static. You were reverted. Now you have to DISCUSS the matter. Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:05, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

ElKevbo and MiamiDolphins3 seem to be in some sort of agreement with my edits and disagree with Racepacket's. BRD is fine, but it doesn't seem to hold when it's Racepacket being reverted for his proposed changes (not my reverts from his "consensus" version) as was the case with the previous "commonly/locally"/"the U" dispute.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:08, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Looks like a content dispute to me, nothing requiring admin action.--Cameron Scott (talk) 11:09, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

How are multiple reverts and misguiding edit summaries not requiring of admin action?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Again he uses misleading edit summaries. Here he claims to change the paragraph structure, while at the same time removing content he disagrees with: the fact that something was the first of a series of things, the name "Momentum", the fact that something was the most within Florida, and the reference that supports the last claim.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Edit summaries must be short, which is why I spell things out on the talk pages. (Hence "verbose.") By the edit summary in the above diff, I meant that I was proposing a change in the context of a paragraph structure I still think is wrong and was trying to be concise with the matters changed. I have also responded to Ryulong's specific concerns on his talk page and on the UM talk page. Since he has been blocked for 24 hours, the conversation really can't continue here, but i regret an inconvenience this has caused. Racepacket (talk) 12:36, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

IP POV and falsification

This thread on a specific issue has been moved from WP:AN by  Skomorokh, barbarian  10:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This looks like the IP of a banned user, most likely NisarKand (talk · contribs) or Khampalak (talk · contribs). I have reverted his POV once (he is removing scholarly sources, for example the Encyclopaedia of Islam, and is replacing them with un-scholastic and unreliable references), but now he has restored his POV. Could you please take a look at it. I have explained my reverts on the respective talkpages. Tajik (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The user is continuing his disruptive behavior. It is also very clear that he has no idea of the subject, but simply removes authoritative scholarly sources and replaces them with unreliable tertiary internet-sources. Tajik (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see here where 2 reliable sources are given (Encyclopedia Britannica and Encarta) clearly saying Ghurids were Turks/Turkish so how is that POV? I'm not disruptive, take a look at Tajiks' blocking history which will amaze you.[142] Tajik claims Ghurids were Tajiks (refers to non-Turks) but NO WHERE is this supported.--119.73.5.39 (talk) 23:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

As far as I know, Tajik is always involved in pushing Tajik/Iranian ethnic POV material in Wikipedia. He has to realize that Encyclopedia of Islam and Encyclopedia Iranica are not the only 2 sources available in this world. (Ketabtoon (talk) 06:28, 8 October 2009 (UTC))

This is classic Perso-Turkic flaming again, see User:Moreschi/The Plague/Nationalist hotspots. Moreschi (talk) 11:41, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Alfred de Grazia merge discussion

This thread on a specific issue has been moved from WP:AN by  Skomorokh, barbarian  10:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Alfred de Grazia. Is this discussion ready to close? If so, would someone care to do so? thanks very much. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet ?

This thread on a specific issue has been moved from WP:AN by  Skomorokh, barbarian  10:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Nurbandma may be a new sockpuppet of User:Hazaraboys and User:Hazaraboyz who is trying to evade his block. Admin help is needed. Tajik (talk) 17:21, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Special:AbuseFilter/213

Resolved

 – My problem has been solved.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This thread on a specific issue has been moved from WP:AN by  Skomorokh, barbarian  10:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

This filter needs to be reactivated as the vandal it is meant to stop (see User:Ryulong/Sandbox#Saban troll) has come back under the last IP he used: 70.48.196.191 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I have also left a message on King of Hearts's talk page to request this same action.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:07, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

filter re-enabled --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:10, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, I want to make sure that it will still work, because the vandal appears to be changing some words he uses. I believe a certain string is blocked, but I am not sure if the string is affected by the following two diffs: [143] [144].—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:13, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The filter wouldn't specifically catch those diffs, but he also wouldn't be making those minor changes to his rant if his initial edit had been blocked. The blocked phrase was in the initial edit. --ThaddeusB (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, Bishonen, and Risker

I invite the community to note that Ottava Rima has opened an RFC on myself and Risker. Here it is. For context, you may wish to compare Ottava Rima's recent Request for arbitration against users Folantin, Dbachmann, Antandrus, Itsmejudith, Akhilleus, Gwen Gale, and Jehochman, and the terms in which that was declined, especially in this comment. Bishonen | talk 10:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC). P.S. Oh, and compare also the both recent and similar (except that Risker doesn't figure in it) RFC: Bishonen 3, brought by another user. Bishonen | talk 11:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC).

I don't see how this can get past first base. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, still to be certified. Didn't Risker announce a break from ArbCom before OR set this in motion? [145] Mathsci (talk) 11:04, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, I see it's gone now. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 12:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yup, this wasn't anything more than just a rerun of Bishonen 3, with a go at Risker bundled in there. Nuked accordingly: the only new stuff there was the Risker material, which hardly belongs in a Bishonen RFC. Unfortunately this is just Ottava Rima waging wikiwars again...Moreschi (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah... sorry to have bothered the noticeboard. Bishonen | talk 13:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC).

• Are RFCs normally deleted prior to the 48 hour window closing? Why was it necessary to delete it immediately? –xeno^talk 13:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It was malformed - it listed two people, gave no evidence of attempt to resolve the dispute, and listed the 'continued behaviour after DR' as Bishonen continuing to be an admin and Risker continuing at Arbcom. Even if it had merit, it would have had to be taken away and redone properly. To my mind (not wishing to speak for Moreschi) it was just clerking. If Ottava wants to come back with an RfC (or two RfC's if he still wants to include Risker) which shows where Bishonen has continued to act against policy or an Arbcom decision, then that avenue is still open. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

The RfC is about -one- individual with evidence that involved Risker with Bishonen and thus Risker was named merely as a secondary. Previous ArbCom attempts and RfC attempts are dispute resolution. Deletion of a page is never appropriate and not "just clerking". Per the recent ArbCom ruling, Bishonen's continued adminship is a constant acting against policy. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't this constitute an ex post facto application of the ruling though? –xeno^talk 13:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

If the RFC is without merit, it will go uncertified and be deleted within process. –xeno^talk 13:33, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Desysop Moreschi, restore the page

Half of the evidence directly involved Moreschi, Moreschi's indef of me, Moreschi defending Geogre's deleting of my page, and other problems. Moreschi's deletion of the page directly violates conflict of interest and knowingly violates conflict of interest. There was no AfD. There was no attempt at any sort of propriety. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support desysop. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:02, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• OK, who thinks I am involved here? Because if concsensus is that I'm not, I'm going to block Ottava Rima for disruption and consistently failing to take on board many, many criticisms of their abrasive style of interaction with others. Guy (Help!) 13:06, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

JzG, seeing as how you figured in with many of the defenses of Geogre sock puppeting, abusively deleting pages, and that there is no possible way to claim Moreschi legitimately deleted the page, I really think your statement here is highly inappropriate. Ottava Rima (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Everyone who disagrees with Ottava is automatically "involved." BTW, he's just recreated the RfC, which is utterly predictable. --Akhilleus (talk) 13:16, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Complete with the problems listed before, except that now he isn't pointing to RfC Bishonen 3 as "evidence of dispute resolution", just the Arbcom report on Geogre. This is nonsense. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:24, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Would support block of OR at this point by any available admin. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Throw in my support for a block! This is just disruptive. Jeni ^(talk) 13:19, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Per what violation, exactly? Ottava Rima (talk) 13:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Support block of Ottava per WP:BATTLEFIELD. His vindictive trolling is a serious waste of good faith users' time.--Folantin (talk) 13:22, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

At the very least, OR needs to take a long, relaxing vacation on the Baltic (if not Boardwalk or Park Place) and possibly get into a regimen of stress pills, or at least cut back on the caffeine. →Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 13:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose desysop of Moreschi—I don't particularly like the chap, but this is not the place to rouse up an angry desysop-mob (the best term I could come up with in alternative to "witch-hunt"). Nor do I think that it is appropriate to forum-shop this at RfC and on ANI, particularly without producing concrete evidence in both locations. ╟─TreasuryTag►prorogation─╢ 13:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

  And support block of 10+ days for Ottava at this point, for using Wikipedia as a battleground and stirring up nastiness (basically, general trolling). ╟─TreasuryTag►stannary parliament─╢ 13:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Absolutely no blocks of anyone required here. If Ottava'a RfC is without merit, as appears to be being claimed, then it will not be certified. What's the problem that needs to be solved with a big stick and a lot of unnecessary bullying? Is everyone just trying to shut Ottava up by whatever means possible because he holds an unpopular opinion? That what it looks like. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Comment by uninvolved Headbomb: I don't know the full story here, but to unilaterally delete an RfC on the same day it's been made (especially if the admin who did it had a conflict of interest), and block the guy who made it seems grossly innapropriate and very abusy. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 13:30, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• It definitely is. And now he cannot add anything to it or respond to comments left. Majorly talk 13:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Ottava Rima blocked

I have blocked Ottava Rima with an expiry time of 1 week. Setting up an RFC on a matter which has already been resolved, restoring it after its deletion, and then coming here calling for desysops is clearly vindictive behavior. Normally, I would not block for an offense like this, and the duration of 1 week is a long one, but concerns regarding Ottava's combative and uncooperative approach have been a concern for a long time, and he has been blocked for this previously. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:37, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support – good move... ╟─TreasuryTag►First Secretary of State─╢ 13:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Though if we know OR he will have talked his way out of the block within a few hours. Jeni ^(talk) 13:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - although I am of the same view as Jeni as to the stickiness of the block --Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose The matter is not resolved. It was deleted in an abusive manner by one of the admins mentioned on it, so the recreation is perfectly OK. Calling for desysops is probably not a good idea, but I can see precisely where he is coming from here. This looks, on the edge, like someone created an RFC, had it deleted by one of the involved admins, then was blocked for a week for creating it. Not good. Block is punitive. Majorly talk 13:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

It wasn't deleted by one of the involved admins. I don't know where you got that idea. Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:43, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

• Support, per recreation of invalid RFC. But since I've disagreed with Ottava a few times, I'm clearly involved, so ignore this. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:46, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support Latest of a long series of WP:BATTLEFIELD violations. --Folantin (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
• Support - Relieved to see some action is finally being taken against persistent and tenacious drama-mongers the last few days around here. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism at userpage

Resolved

 – Protected, Zacbb blocked, stupid edits boldly deleted. Wknight94 ^talk 13:12, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Pathoschild's userpage keeps on getting vandalised by several diffrent IP's all of them are typing the same message.--Coldplay Expert 10:51, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Zacbb just created a page that is the link to the vandalizing message. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 11:44, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

cp you can rfpp this page or if the user is active notify him of the attempts to vandalisd his page NotedGrant Talk 12:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

2009 Nobel Peace Prize

Can a few more editors/admins add this Barack Obama related article to their watchlist ? It is already seeing vandalism a few minutes after being created, and that is likely to increase as the day progresses. Abecedare (talk) 12:32, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, is this even necessary? I do not see other individual articles on the awarding of Nobel Prizes. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there should be. Let's see what happens here besides the right-wing vandalism before deleting it.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 12:42, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Necessary ? No. Inevitable ? Yes. At a minimum, the article will help keep unnecessary details out of Barack Obama. After the dust settles, it may be usefully be merged back (although that's unlikely in practice). Abecedare (talk) 12:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)