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

Maintenance template removal by User:InkHeart (formerly User:Colleen16)

User:Colleen16 has repeatedly removed maintenance tags from the article Lee Jun Ki, despite revisions by me and another editor. We both also explained the need for sources in the page's discussion page and her own page, and pointed her to the policy page on the subject. After she was explained to several times and continued to remove them, I gave her warnings, and she responded by removing them and pasting them onto my page. I continued to try to talk to her about it, and she feigned understanding, later removing the tags again. I just realized that maintenance templates are not protected by 3RR as I had thought, so I have stopped my revisions. I'm not suggesting that she be blocked, but maybe an admin can talk to her about it. Ωphois 15:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

NOTE: User:Colleen16 User:InkHeart has been notified of this discussion here. Singularity42 (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm a little confused by the redirection of Colleen16's talk page to Inkheart's talk page here. Are they the same user?— Preceding unsigned comment added by SarekOfVulcan (talk • contribs) Sorry about that...

Yes. A rename was approved. See this edit summary. Singularity42 (talk) 16:02, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I have updated the section heading to reflect the change. Singularity42 (talk) 16:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, unrelated to the original complaint, but it looks like the user is now editing under both usernames. I can address it on their talk page, but perhaps it might better coming from an admin? Singularity42 (talk) 16:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd kind of like to know how a renamed user is editing under two names at once before I try giving advice.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if they're using both accounts, and it's clearly the same person, that's a sock. They'd better have a good reason for using both accounts...--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 16:17, 16 November 2009 (UTC) Oh, they renamed and they're using both accounts?? How is that technically possible?--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 16:20, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Just figured it out -- Colleen16 was recreated after the rename. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 16:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) I think they recreated the old account on the 14th, based on the history of the account. --Bfigura ^(talk) 16:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The user seems to have some serious WP:OWN issues over the above article and others, and has a habit of labeling any edit that tries to fix non-free content or sourcing issues as "vandalism". The user was blocked twice over the weekend for 3RR violations, abuses Twinkle, and could use a refresher on WP:AGF, among other Wikipedia policies. Mosmof (talk) 17:04, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I was involved with both editors last week, having blocked Colleen16 (pre-Inkheart) and Ophois for edit-warring. First, kudos to Ophois for opening this discussion and realising you were in danger of getting into a revert battle again - your mature, thoughtful response to the situation does you credit. Second, I'm confused too as to how Colleen16/Inkheart can be editing from two accounts simultaneously; if she recreated the Colleen16 account after the rename, why would it still show her earlier contribs and block? Surely these wouldn't show up for a brand new account under the same name?[Never mind, confused myself!] However, I agree with Mosmof's and others' assessments of her editing. Maybe mentoring might be worth suggesting before she ends up with increasingly long/indef blocks? Although she's been here a while, she really doesn't seem to have much of a handle on WP editing or conduct policies. EyeSerene^talk 14:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

EyeSerene is right. I don't fully understand the Wikipedia ruling if anyone is will to explain to me the mistakes I've made (in simpler terms, I am slow) I would be greatly appreciated. Colleen16 (talk) 17:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like she now uses discussion, so that is good. However, she is still using both accounts simultaneously. Ωphois 10:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not right now. InkHeart♥ 11:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Both accounts have been used during the last 24 hours:

1. InkHeart: 11:03, 18 November 2009
2. InkHeart: 10:57, 18 November 2009
3. InkHeart: 10:56, 18 November 2009
4. InkHeart: 10:55, 18 November 2009
5. InkHeart: 21:12, 17 November 2009
6. InkHeart: 21:10, 17 November 2009
7. Colleen16: 21:07, 17 November 2009
8. Colleen16: 21:04, 17 November 2009
9. Colleen16: 20:50, 17 November 2009
10. Colleen16: 20:46, 17 November 2009
11. Colleen16: 20:45, 17 November 2009
12. Colleen16: 20:27, 17 November 2009
13. Colleen16: 20:24, 17 November 2009
14. Colleen16: 20:05, 17 November 2009
15. Colleen16: 19:33, 17 November 2009
16. Colleen16: 19:25, 17 November 2009
17. InkHeart: 18:03, 17 November 2009
18. InkHeart: 17:58, 17 November 2009
19. InkHeart: 17:58, 17 November 2009
20. InkHeart: 17:56, 17 November 2009
21. Colleen16: 17:54, 17 November 2009
22. Colleen16: 17:33, 17 November 2009

I would suggest that the account User:Colleen16 be indefintely blocked (as per User:EyeSerene's suggestion at 18:42, 17 November 2009 (UTC) on InkHeart's page), as the user obviously is not prepared to stop using both accounts. -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 11:14, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Concur with the indef of User:Colleen16. The editor has already created the redirects to the new account, I will WP:AGF that the recreation of the account after the name change was to prevent someone from mimicking them. However, the doppleganger label should/could have been attached, and the account never ever used - and if we are AGFing, then whoever blocks is quite okay to put that tag on the Colleen16 account. I was going to AGF and suggest that we did not need to actually put an indef tage on the user/usertalk pages, but seeing as they had the nerve to state above that they were "not using them both now" when they obviously were, go ahead. (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 11:56, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I take that back. She is still removing some templates. I tried to explain to her that she can't just give a link to a foreign website's homepage as a source, without giving instructions on how to find info (like in My Girl (2005 TV series), giving the excuse that it's too hard to look for. And when I removed an uncited trivia section with info already in the article, she just reverted and told me to find sources for it. Ωphois 12:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I see Ophois mentioned my part but didn't mention her part, about deleting information because it doesn't have a reference/uncited tag. I see no need to remove info due no uncited tags. All you need to do is go out and research uncited tags. Deleting important info seems like disruptive edit to me. giving the excuse that it's too hard to look for. It is difficult to find but it still came from TNS Media Ratings. there used to be a direct link but those links a temporary meaning they are deleted after a while. so the homepage link is the closest. While I was talking to Ophois I was even searching for a direct link and couldn't find anything. So it isn't an excuse it is a fact. InkHeart♥ 13:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the above; I think the Colleen16 account was being used in a way that comes outside WP:SOCK#LEGIT. I suspect this was down to inexperience rather than anything else, but to help InkHeart stay on the right side of our WP:SOCKing policies I've indeffed the Colleen16 account, left the talk-page redirect in place, and posted a {{doppleganger}} on the user page. If she wishes, InkHeart can of course request an unblock review at any time. EyeSerene^talk 13:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Good. However, that was really a side issue, the main point being her editing practices, including removal of maintenance tags, and this still remains to be dealt with. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Like your doctor always suggests: one symptom at a time. The socking (whether intentional or not) has been dealt with, now let's focus on other issues ... although hopefully it's education needed, and not administrative action.(talk→ BWilkins ←track) 13:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That's my hope too. I've pointed her towards WP:ADOPT, which she seemed to be receptive to. InkHeart's clearly very keen contribute, so it'd be great if with the help (and patience!) of other editors we can reinforce her good editing and steer her away from getting into difficulties, in the same way that we all had to learn when we were new. EyeSerene^talk 15:42, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Incidently, there is an RfC about the article causing the contention on its talk page: "RfC: Current version or former version". -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 21:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I would like to add with the RfC, it seems to be an issue of ownership... oncamera^(t) 02:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

She continues to do it here. There need to be inline citations (as has been explained to her multiple times by multiple editors), and she continues to remove refsection improve tags. Ωphois 19:52, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Did you also mention you are stalking my edits i had asked you stop. You are no authority to be watching edits and I have been in trouble because of you, so stop harassing me Ophois. As for the that there is already an a reference I have explained this to you on the talk page. InkHeart♥ 19:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Changing edits on two pages that violate policy is not stalking. You have shown to continuously disregard policy, and claimed it was because you didn't know any better. However, after all of this, you continue to do so, showing that is not the case. Similar edits by other users have prompted me to include the page on my watchlist, and I will fix any policy violations that I see by any user. Ωphois 20:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I am going through your history right now. And every single thing I edit you have undone. I edited something else of the My girl article and you went back in and added the tag when I explained it to you already. You keep editing same articles I am editing and according to your history you don't edit Korean articles. you are obviously stalking my edits. And I've asked you stop but you aren't listening to me. You have gotten me into trouble, you aren't helping me to improve on Wiki in any way by undoing everything I have submitted. Look at what you are doing right now submitting me to incidents board you are making things worse for me. So just stop and move onto something or someone else. InkHeart♥ 20:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

By "everything I have submitted", you mean the removal of maintenance tags. Ωphois

I mean everything good or bad. Why is it that you re always showing up. You are stalking me Ophois don't you see that? Even if you are doing it for good. So you've corrected a mistake on an article fine. But you continue to watch my edits. In your history whatever article I edit you edit as well. That is strange, especially considering you don't edit Korean articles. The article you edit are Supernatural and Smallville - American articles. I don't want your influence around, because every time you edit after me i get into trouble. I used to have a clean record. Now it's tarnished because of you. InkHeart♥ 20:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And can you provide examples of me removing good edits? Ωphois 20:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not the point you aren't perfect yourself look at your block history. I am going to get a mentor o help me, so why do you keep stalking my edits Ophois? You still haven't answered my question. Who are you to do such a job? If you weren't the cause of my bad record it would be fine but I don't want you specifically watching me. So stop. I won't repeat myself. InkHeart♥ 20:25, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My recent block is hardly related to you. I have looked through my edits to check, and found nothing. So I request that you give proof to back up your claims. Ωphois 20:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyways, unless you can back up your claims, I am not continuing this discussion, and will leave it to the admins. Ωphois 20:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Go through both of our history the articles I have edited you happen to pop up and add tags. U and I. I edited the Lee Da Hae article you edit it, I edited the Hero series article you edit, I edited My Girl article you edit it, I edited the Lee Jun Ki article you edited it as well. And these are all my recent article edits. And your past history show's that you don't edit K-articles so why are you suddenly and continuously editing in the exact articles I am editing. You've posted your tags fine, but now you should move on to other things. You are also apparently doing the same thing to another editor 1.InkHeart♥ 20:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at your edit history, you edit many other Korean articles. Looking at my history, it will show that I add ref tags to any article I come across that needs them. I came across Hero due to JKsarang's image-changing spree (who continued to blatantly violate policy despite many editors' attempts to stop him until he was blocked). After the edit war on that page, I checked your recent edits to make sure you weren't violating policy like that elsewhere. When I saw that those pages needed improving, I added maintenance tags, which I do for any page I see like that. You have yet to give any proof to your claims of me undoing good edits by you, so I will let admins do what they feel is best. And by the way, you can't tell someone that they've posted their tags and should leave, when you then remove the tags after they do. Ωphois 20:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You both need to stop arguing :) InkHeart, it's often the case that when an editor notices some edits that might not comply with Wikipedia policy, they'll check other edits from the same editor to see if the pattern repeats. This isn't stalking, even though I sympathise with you that it might feel like it. Ophois was perfectly right to tag those articles (especially where there were copyright concerns, which we take very seriously), and as you know the correct way to go about removing the tags is to address the issues that they raise. Where both of you tripped up before was in edit-warring over them, but that's behind us now. Having a block in your log isn't the end of the world, especially when you're a new editor (I've got one too, thanks to another admin who clicked the wrong button!) Learning from them is all we ask.

Ophois, even though I agree you aren't stalking, it might be helpful if you could deliberately step away from InkHeart's edits to give her some space while she learns more about our editing policies. Your concerns have been brought to the attention of a number of editors and admins, and of course the RfC seems to be generating some useful discussion.

I don't think we're going to achieve much more here, so unless anyone has anything more to add it might be worthwhile closing this thread now? EyeSerene^talk 21:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

That's fine. Although, can you please explain to her how citations work? I have tried multiple times to explain that she needs citations for episode ratings (such as for My Girl (2005 TV series)) rather than a general site homepage ref. Maybe it coming from an admin will help. Thanks. Ωphois 21:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Suicide threat or vandalism?

I reverted what I thought was vandalism but then thought, maybe it is not vandalism and person is serious? See this diff. What are admins thoughts? Should a check user be made?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Considering the fact that it was at Talk:Suicide, I think vandalism is a safe assumption.--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 16:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

(e/c) Very borderline WP:SUICIDE. However, I generally advocate "better safe than sorry" in these situations. Singularity42 (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

They never actually said that they were going to commit suicide, but, if this is real, then they're definitely depressed and/or suicidal. However, it's certainly possible that this is just a troll. (On a different note, I was not aware of Wikipedia's policy about suicide threats. I was wondering about it just a few minutes ago. I've threatened to kill myself on other websites before, but never on Wikipedia.)--66.177.73.86 (talk) 00:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, technically, it's an essay (and, from what I've heard, a rejected proposal)--Unionhawk ^{Talk E-mail Review} 00:36, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

It's an essay that is generally followed, but was decided shouldn't specifically be made policy. Singularity42 (talk) 02:57, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

CU doesn't accomplish anything for IP editors. This IP address geolocates to Thailand, and I for one would not be eager to try to contact Thai cops and explain the situation to them. Looie496 (talk) 01:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I really don't see there is anything we can do. It is the only edit by an anon IP address, and we have no way of contacting them. It would be possible, I suppose, to post a user-page message, but I'm not sure it would do any good. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Everything that can reasonably be done has been. -- llywrch (talk) 19:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

"I've threatened to kill myself on other websites before, but never on Wikipedia." I haven;t stopped laughing yet. Great bunch of people you got here, reliable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.81.177.148 (talk) 10:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've reported the above IP to AIV, as its only purpose here seems to be to denigrate wikipedia's editors, in the manner demonstrated above. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Fieldday-sunday - removal of rollback rights needed

Fieldday-sunday seems to have a persistent problem with reverting good faith edits and warning users of vandalism. The user's (talk page) has many complaints about this. I'm not sure if its malicious, but I suspect it's careless use of Wikipedia:Huggle. Thanks, Pdcook (talk) 18:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's a case of, when you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail. If Huggle makes it easy to undo an edit and warn for vandalism in one click, the tool might get overused. However, I haven't seen anything that says Fieldday-sunday is reverting in bad faith, so if anything, a little counseling on the appropriate use of the tool, and a reminder to use edit summaries where it's not a clear-cut vandalism situation, would be appropriate. —C.Fred (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I also don't think the edits are in bad faith and I think a friendly counseling note would be helpful. However, as I am not personally familiar with the tool, I should not be the one to deliver such advice. Anyone? Pdcook (talk) 20:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking at the user's talk page, it looks like many have offered advice in the past. Is there a more effective route here? Pdcook (talk) 14:23, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Woah! I haven't seen that many complaints on a user's talk page since OrphanBot!--66.177.73.86 (talk) 23:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't you need rollback to use Huggle? If he's generating that many complaints, he should have rollback rights removed. Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

If that's the case, then I think that's a good course of action. This user has had another complaint appear on his talk page since this thread was started. Will someone do something? Thanks, Pdcook (talk) 13:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've amended the title. Hopefully it will spark a response as it's now clearer what the issue is. Admin should look at talk page - it's full of complaints that appear valid about improper removal of edits using rollback and Huggle. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Pdcook (talk) 01:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have removed Fieldday's rollback rights, due to repeated complaints at his talk page of hasty usage. He was likely acting in good faith, and this does not bar his potential to regain rollback - however, I note that he appears to rarely reply to these (legitimate) complaints, and needs to be sure to truly acknowledge these issues before regaining access to rollback. His reply here is welcome. Regards, JamieS93 01:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

IP edits by LotLE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Sockmaster account: Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

See here. User is a long-term problem editor. He admits using an IP address as a sockpuppet. Checkuser has been declined because the user admits it. User was edit warring, and used the IP address to avoid a 3RR warning [1][2][3][4] and to convey the false impression that he had more editors supporting his position. To quote the editor who originally reported him at WP:SPI,

In particular, LotLE has been a highly disruptive and combative SPA for years, with multiple reports at 3RR and ANI. His modus operandi is to immediately revert any new edit that contains negative information about a left-of-center political figure or organization, with an inflammatory edit summary that falsely accuses the editor of soapboxing, ranting and/or sockpuppetry. .... WP:SOCK specifically prohibits the use of multiple accounts to "mislead or deceive other editors." The first example of abuse of an alternate account is "Creating an illusion of support: Alternate accounts must not be used to give the impression of more support for a position than actually exists." The fourth example is "Contributing to the same page with multiple accounts: Editors may not use more than one account to contribute to the same page or discussion." At no time, either on the ACORN Talk page or in one of his many edit summaries, did LotLE identify the IP account 149.77.79.116 as his own alternate account. He says, "I do not recall why I was not logged in when those edits were made... probably because of some weirdness with Wikipedia not keeping the login cookie when I use the SSL version (I've found this annoyance lately)." If he had inadvertently edited without being logged in, a quick follow-up edit while logged in (to claim the edit as his own) would have satisfied WP:SOCK. Unfortunately, LotLE's failure to acknowledge that the edit was his until now, under CU scrutiny, indicates deliberate deception.

This is a strongly-supported finding of sockpuppetry for the purpose of edit warring. I'd like to compare this to the recent case of Noroton. He made a good faith effort to WP:CLEANSTART and ran afoul of a WP:SOCK technicality. No harm had been done to either the Wikipedia project or any other editor and he was still blocked for an extended period. In this case, LotLE was edit warring. His use of an IP puppet at ACORN deceived other editors into believing that his position in the edit war had greater support. He made no effort to correct this false impression until now, and I agree that his actions were therefore deliberately deceptive. His actions are more offensive than Noroton's technical violation, so his block should be at least as long as Noroton's. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:19, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Obviously, this report by Phoenix and Winslow is just as silly as his recently failed SSP fishing trip. I have never used any sockpuppet account, and never will (a bit more than P&W could write, FWIW). P&W's original silly SSP adventure pointed out that, for example, I made:

• This edit under an IP address: [5], in which I attempted to sign my comment (containing, "I would note..."), but was inadvertently still logged out.
• Followed a few minutes later by this: [6] (with the edit comment: "(what the heck?! Every time I try to sign WP logs me off signon)".

So my insidious "sockpuppetry" amounts to experiencing occasional problems with my browser losing cookies when I use the SSL login... including one example where I did not go back to sign a completely innocuous edit under an IP address.

I wonder what new WP admin pages P&W (or his IP addresses) will find to WP:FORUM shop next?! LotLE×talk 21:47, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

You were in fact edit warring, isn't that correct? And in light of the persistent problems you've had with WP policy over the years -- especially WP:3RR -- while your technical explanation for the IP puppet edit here at WP:ANI holds water, your technical explanation at ACORN is just a little bit ... hard to believe. Particularly since you were in fact edit warring at the time. Sounds like "the dog ate my homework." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

P&W -- it's beyond blindingly obvious that you're a returned banned user. Most people at this point would just let it slide if you would drop the drama mongering, deceptive practices (cutting a pasting a beyond frivolous SPI report by a POV-pushing IP editor? Please.) and overall unpleasantness. Really, just push your POV with less of this nonsense and you'll get a lot of rope. Keep this up and you will get the boot again.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

In response to the forum shopping charge, my understanding is that WP:SPI is strictly for the purpose of finding out about sockpuppetry, while the remedy for sockpuppetry once it's found out must be obtained here. If that understanding is mistaken, I apologize. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 22:10, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

The SPI report was dismissed as frivolous and unworthy of investigation. Which you well know. You just don't make any sense -- whatever else you are, you know no one here is dumb enough to block someone you view as an opponent because you cut and paste walls of text. Funnily enough, this is precisely the method of the Kossack4Truth sock/meat-puppet farm.Bali ultimate (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• Bad news is, I have no particular authority to "resolve" this, but good news is, I'm completely uninvolved. I have absolutely no idea if P&W is a returning banned user or not; for those saying he is, SSI is that way. But from a review of the IP edits which LOTLE takes credit for, I'd say there was only one edit that is at all worrying, where a third revert was made. Occam's razor says that this is, indeed, a simple login/logout problem, rather than a devious trick. The hyperbole above seems pretty excessive for what amounts to one logged out edit. No harm, no foul, I would say. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

That is correct, Floquenbeam. The edit under my IP address you point out was indeed on the same article I had recently (and subsequently) edited while logged in. It was the first per se revert I made during that day, but it was definitely addressing the same stylistic cleanup that P&W was resisting, and it's conceivable you could cast the series of edits under warring (implausible, but not outrageously so). So I guess if P&W wants to file a week old 1RR report on me, he should definitely include that edit under my IP address in that report. LotLE×talk 22:53, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't tell if you're being wry or not; is there a 1RR sanction on ACORN, or on you? I looked thru WP:SANCTION and WP:RESTRICT and could only find restrictions on other individuals (not you), and the general "behave yourselves" restrictions at WP:SANCTION. If there was a 1RR limit, then... you shouldn't have done that. But that's beyond my ken, the only task I chose to bite off was looking at is the claimed "sock" behavior, which I think is serious overkill. It now occurs to me, as I'm about to hit save, that I wasted my time, and it's more likely you're being wry, and saying that was your first true revert, and so not a big deal anyway. I'd, disagree, I'd call it your third that day, and if I thought you'd logged out on purpose because it was your third one, I'd be concerned. I don't, so I'm not. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC) Also looked here: Wikipedia:General sanctions/Obama article probation/Log of sanctions. Still no 1RR restriction on you I can find.

Wry is a nice way to put it :-). In fairness, I think it can be said that I was being snarky (not about you, Floquenbeam, about P&W). There is indeed no special edit restriction placed on ACORN, although another editor who frequently socks has received clarification that his Obama topic ban includes adding material to ACORN to try to negatively tie the two together. I have a strong hunch that these newest complaints against me have a strong relation to some prior bans or blocks of those other editors who go very far out of their way to acclaim the virtues of accounts like User:Noroton and User:ChildOfMidnight. LotLE×talk 23:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

• It should be noted that Phoenix and Winslow, while he may or may not be banned under another account, clearly has another account, and appears to be using this new account to avoid scrutiny, as she/he has not ever linked the two accounts together publicly. Such behavior should not go unaddressed. --Jayron32 23:11, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

This matter appears to be concluded, with the exception of the usual drive-by pile-on "me too!" from the unregistered IP user who has been joined to Phoenix at the hip lately (perhaps he got held up in traffic). We've cleared up Phoenix's gross misrepresentation of facts:

→ "Admits sockpuppetry" has proven to really mean "confirmed inadvertantly making a couple edits while unlogged"

→ "User is a long term problem editor" has proven to really mean "User is going on 6 years of Wikipedia editing, and getting Phoenix's or 71.54.8.103's problematic or unconstructive edits past him is difficult"

→ "He used the IP address to avoid 3RR warning" has proven to really mean Phoenix has no clue. Five+ year veteran editors that have previously been warned and blocked don't get warnings - they are assumed to know the rules, and he didn't violate 3RR anyway.

→ "and I agree that [fill in whatever accusations 71.54.8.103 made]" has proven to really mean these two editors are still in lock-step with their persistent attacks against LotLE, like this waste of time or this waste here.

Before this incident scrolls its way up the page and into the archives, I'd like to know if Wikipedia has any rules or sanctions against the misuse of various noticeboards to harass and intimidate editors. Xenophrenic (talk) 03:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, talk about being in lockstep. LotLE, Bali ultimate and Xenophrenic look like the textbook definition of that word. 71.57.8.103 (talk) 12:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Its only a WP:CABAL if you want it to be. Let's move on and chill with the IP-initiated fishing expeditions, shall we? Tarc (talk) 14:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

All of the defenses being offered by LotLE and his friends were previously offered in defense of Noroton. "It didn't hurt anything." "There weren't a lot of edits made." Motives for turning him in were questioned. And he was still blocked for weeks. LotLE used his IP puppet account to perform his third revert in a 24-hour period, producing a prima facie case of abusive sockpuppetry, and he has an extensive history of blocks and warnings for edit warring. While he did not technically violate WP:3RR, he violates WP:WAR, WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF on a universal basis.

Much has been said about his six-year history, as if that's supposed to excuse his misconduct. It is a combative history, loaded with edit warring and mean-spirited little jabs in his edit summaries. It seems as though every time there's an ArbCom or an ANI thread about US political articles, LotLE has been involved, stirring up shit and deliberately provoking people, and barely escaping restrictions on his editing. He's been playing all of you like a violin. As I see it, the only way to stop this misconduct is to block him. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Guy, you took your shot and no-one's buying what you're selling: moving the words around and being more emphatic hasn't disguised the recycling. Move on or you're going to attract a lot of unwanted attention. --Calton | Talk 16:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This will keep coming back to haunt you, until you do something about it. He'll never stop. There is the consistent repetition of a pattern of low-level edit-warring, provocation and baiting, and now he's discovered he can use sockpuppet accounts for his edit warring and explain it away with an "oopsie." Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

P&W -- Your above comment is constructed entirely of lies. I suppose you think that you'll successfully poison the well this way. But lies like these are easy to uncover. You should really stop the game playing designed to get a user you don't like blocked. At some point an admin will get tired of this.Bali ultimate (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

All anyone has to do is review LotLE's edit history, and he will realize that you're the one who's lying. It's long, it's detailed, and it shows all of his edit warring, his snide remarks on Talk pages and his disgraceful edit summaries. He now has a new weapon in his edit warring arsenal: the "oopsie" IP sockpuppet. I will survive all the attention anyone cares to give me, and I'll keep making quality edits and improving the encyclopedia. Threaten me all you like, thug. I will not be intimidated. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Go buzz, Peeanddoubleyoo, we aren't buying this drek. -Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Stop... at a WHAMMY!!)} 21:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Two points -

1. I blocked Phoenix and Winslow for 24 hrs shortly after the "Thug comment" for personal attacks and incivility. I may reduce that time, but he's been blocked for a while.

2. Several people above engaged in back and forth rude behavior with Phoenix and Winslow, which while not rising to the level of blockable was far from our finest moment. We need to respond to abrasive and upset users in a calm, civil, and adult manner, especially here on ANI. I don't think PandW was taunted into his comment per se, but the combined effects here certainly escalated rather than calming the situation down. Anytime that happens, that the ANI regulars let ANI become a drama-inducing rather than reducing location, we all lose.

Please reconsider your own actions going forwards. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of good that will do, George. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

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

User Gilbrand renaming article without consensus.

There was a request for it to be moved, the admin said there was no consensus: [7] There was also a request for the article to be deleted: the majority of votes voted to keep the article without it to be renamed: [8] User:Gilabrand has went against these things, moved the article himself while claiming "its not a list" and adding irrelevant text to the article topic: [9] [10] he has added the nuclear reactor thing before [11] and it was removed by another editor: [12]. He has also re added the hama massacre link [13] which was also removed by another editor: [14] claiming that the List is an article about Syria is destroying its own villages [15] notice here that another pro Israeli editor has removed three sources saying that Israel destroyed the villages. [16] --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 15:11, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I have notified Gilbrand about this discussion. GiantSnowman 15:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that there's some POV-pushing by Gilabrand and others going on. While the move from "List of Pre-1967 ..." to "Pre-1967..." probably was in good faith (since the article did become much less of a list), the effort to remove any indication of destruction of villages by Israel (including the removal of a scholarly source as "unreliable" by User:Jalapenos do exist, here) while at the same time adding anything and everything "bad" the Syrians did, whether related to pre-1967 villages or not, makes assuming good faith rather difficult. Huon (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The Arab Center for Human Rights in the Golan has no reputation and it is self-evidently radical and partisan. As such it is not an RS by a long shot. For the record, I did not add anything that anybody did to the article. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The reactor was sited 300 km east/northeast of the Golan Heights and 40 years later... Gilabrand seems to be throwing stuff on the wall trying to make it stick here.

I am somewhat concerned about the POVness of the article without Israeli influence, but Gilabrand is certainly not adding reasonable additional content at this point. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- Regardless of the article's name, after the discussion on the AfD and the RfC, I'm concerned that the article, as its written, is not being used for encyclopedic purposes but as an intentional WP:POVFORK and to make a WP:POINT. What could have been a neutral encyclopedic article discussing and/or listing cities or villages depopulated prior to Israel gaining control of the Golan Heights, has become an article full of weasle words and is being used to vilify and trash both Israelis and Syrians. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 18:06, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

While I do not agree with everything User:Gilabrand is doing, the overall consensus at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel debate was to either rename or delete entirely. User:Supreme Deliciousness, is your purpose in creating this article to make note of villages that once existed, or the fact that Israel destroyed them (notwithstanding the fact that they were abandoned)? I see a very pointy pattern here. Shlomke (talk) 18:38, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That was not the finding of the closing administrator, who closed as "Keep". There was a significant "Keep but rename" contingent. Shlomke - attempting to misrepresent either consensus or the closing admin's determination is not acceptable behavior here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Georgewilliamherbert - where do you see me referring to the closing admin?? Attempting to tell a user what they are attempting to do is not at all acceptable either, thanks Shlomke (talk) 19:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, Gilabrand's page move isn't much of a problem. Whether the move done by The Anome a little earlier really had consensus may be an interesting question, but that's not what this is about, is it?

And while Supreme Deliciousness may have a personal bias (who hasn't?), most of his edits to this article are backed up by sources, with the exception of his stripping the article back down to the list it originally was here and here. And I'd consider at least the first of those edits more of a disagreement about whether we want more than just a list or not than pushing any particular pov or making a point. The second does seem a little dubious. Huon (talk) 18:55, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the move without consensus, there is this amazing bit of coatracking by user Gilabrand. It doesn't look to me like the behaviour of someone who is here to build an encyclopedia.--Peter cohen (talk) 19:08, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, but the fault in the problems with this article lies not solely on Gilabrand, but also with the creator of this article, who has a history of making controversial edits and creating POV-articles; The subject at hand is how to turn it into a neutrally worded encylopedic article, instead of the POVFORK and POINT article is currently is. --nsaum75 ^¡שיחת! 19:20, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

The article was created to stir up controversy. It started out as a long list of red links to dozens of "villages" with made-up sounding names, many of them simply the same name spelled differently. This person names an article 101 Cities and villages destroyed by Israel (after leaving anti-Israel and anti-Semitic comments on a variety of pages) and then goes sniveling to administrators when his unsourced POV article gets "tampered with." Yes, I am guilty of WP:POINT. But now that I have made that point, I tip my hat and say goodbye. The article is already vastly improved compared to what it was before. At least it has a few sources and a little more substance.--Gilabrand (talk) 19:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Someone may query why I put in a move-for-discussion Pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights → List of Syrian towns and villages destroyed by Israel. That is because someone put that move in Wikipedia:Requested moves#Uncontroversial requests, but a look in Talk:Pre-1967 Syrian towns on the Golan Heights showed me that that move was acrimoniously lengthily controversial, so I transferred the move to the moves for discussion. This dispute looks like getting to be one of those cases where the discussion about moving or deleting the article quickly becomes longer than the article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 20:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Admin help needed:

After the afd and rfm there was no consensus for it to be moved, can some admin please move the article back to its real name from the one that Gilbrand forced upon the article? If people want to change its name we should begin at the articles real name, not something no one has agreed to:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3APre-1967_Syrian_towns_on_the_Golan_Heights&action=historysubmit&diff=326483118&oldid=326466563 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_Syrian_towns_and_villages_destroyed_by_Israel --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 20:50, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment -- Seems like a sensible move to me (and not that I wouldnt say that about most of this editors edits on this article). It seems to be the article name that is both the most neutral and the article name that corresponds to what the sources say (i.e. most, but not all villages were abandoned and then demolished or destroyed, making it unclear whether we should call the article List of abandoned... or List of destroyed...). In any case this is a content dispute and should be discussed on the article talk page. But all the drama sourrounding this article makes it doubtful whether it is really a net gain for Wikipedia, or rather an additional drama magnet with each side trying to push its own POV into the article, thereby disgracing Wikipedia. Pantherskin (talk) 21:19, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment The proper way to move an article is through discussion on the talk page and RfM. There was such a discussion and consensus did not support such a move. There was then an AfD which also did not result in a consensus for rename (although I argued for a rename myself). We simply should not allow such actions against consensus to be left unreverted. I hope that an admin will move it back so that further discussion can take place according to our policies. Unomi (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I hope so too. I find it disappointing that the rules can be broken repeatedly by some users without anything being done about it, essentially creating facts on the ground according to their preferences. User:Gilabrand has moved pages to where she thinks they should be located before too without initiating move discussions. When asked politely to undo her moves, she has declined (See her talk page for an example). It would be nice if instead of flouting procedure time and again, someone would do something to make sure she understands this kind of behaviour is not conducive to collaboration and should be avoided in the future. Tiamut^talk 15:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

As long as admins are looking at this article

The most serious problem with the article is that, since its inception, it has been sourced almost entirely to the Arab Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Golan. This is an organization with no reputation and which is self-evidently radical and partisan. Retaining the article in this form without objection could set a precedent under which everybody will rush to create articles serving their own POV lifted straight out of - say - Richard Landes' blog (he is an academic after all), or - to take a more extreme hypothetical - articles like List of reasons the world is flat sourced to the Flat Earth Society. Bearing all this in mind, I think an admin statement reminding of Wikipedia's core principles could be helpful. Jalapenos do exist (talk) 23:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

This is not true, there are many sources other then the Arab Center golan-marsad link in the article, including Israeli sources saying the same thing. The fact is that the list of villages in the golan-marsad link [[17]]is also confirmed in a separate source which lists almost all the same villages [18] and a third site finds the villages in the golan-marsad document [19] which gives us no reason to doubt the truthiness of the golan-marsad document.--Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 16:47, 19 November 2009 (UTC)--

This should be discussed either on the article's talk page or on the Reliable sources noticeboard. I'll answer on the talk page; involving the noticeboard seems overkill. Huon (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• as a commentator on the recent AFD, i was surprised to see this name change. i agree that it should have been discussed, but i really really like this new name. content is another issue entirely. this name allows for plenty of room to discuss why the villages no longer exist, and can include the most POV sources without difficulty. i support extremely NPOV names for controversial subjects. let the body of the article hash it out. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User:SarekOfVulcan removes questions on ArbCom election

I asked a candidate some questions of his past behaviour and performance[20], User:SarekOfVulcan removed them[21]. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:25, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• Let's all give Sarek of Vulcan a round of applause. Your "question" should be in the "discuss this candidate" section, where you can write whatever you want about the candidate. Hipocrite (talk) 15:27, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I will look for the "discuss this candidate section", but these were legitimate questions. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have notified SarekOfVulcan about this discussion. --Mentifisto (talk) 15:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
• (ec) HarryAlffa, you really shouldn't have opened this without first discussing it with SarekOfVulcan. And even if you did file it, you should notify the subject as the instructions at the top indicate. Why didn't you fulfil at least one of these steps? Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:32, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Yes, I should have done that, but I was waiting to see if he was stalking me. What do you think? HarryAlffa (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've tried talking to Sarek before eg[22], but with no response. It seemed an unproductive effort to try yet again. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You should assume good faith. At least, you should've disclosed the fact you didn't notify Sarek and request someone else to do so if it was getting that tense or something - but I don't think this was one of those situations. Do you really think one prior discussion is sufficient to justify not trying to have another (and it's a separate matter)? Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:52, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I've had admin ignore polite comments before. I think it's downright rude. Isn't that what Harry is being accused of being with his questions? Even impolite questions and comments can be acknowledged, especially by admins. And I see on Harry's talk page that while several editors made polite suggestions and have opened discussion, there isn't anything there from Sarek. Not a good showing for an admin. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Looks like a good call on Sarek's part. Per Hipocrite, saying "[Do you] not think that you simply lack the intellectual ability to handle any case that would come to ArbCom" is not actually a question for the candidate. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:34, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
  • TenOfAllTrades also summarises my view on the merits of this. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:45, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Please try talking to someone before reporting them. ^Chillum 15:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Chillum, edit conflict - answered above. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:51, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

That was in September. ^Chillum 22:04, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

TenOfAllTrades, you've quoted out of context, and presented my question as a statement.

Given that you were confused by the use of transitive property in this talk page[23], you do not think that you simply lack the intellectual ability to handle any case that would come to ArbCom, as it is certain that they will be more complex than that simple question?

— HarryAlffa

. HarryAlffa (talk) 15:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You may as well have been asking him if he has stopped beating his wife. These kinds of questions are wholly inappropriate and SoV was right to remove it. Shereth 16:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

On top of that, based on the "innocent until proven guilty" concept, saying "considering I'm taking you to ArbCom over something" ... that's a major poisoning of the well, and unless you have a !conviction, it's 100% irrelevant and unethical (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 17:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Shereth, and I believe that all of your so-called questions are rhetorically-phrased, thinly-veiled attacks. I don't think that my quote was misleading. As well, your (HarryAlffa's) comments in the discussion to which you linked seem to indicate a pattern of persistently incivil and tendentious conduct on your own part in an article dispute, rather than reflecting badly on the candidate (as you might have wished). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 17:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that the question was a disruptive personal attack and its removal was correct. Election question pages are not venues for pursuing personal disputes with a candidate, which is what this "question" was clearly about.  Sandstein  17:43, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I concur and have left Harry a final warning for personal attacks and incivility. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 18:28, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Shereth, stopped beating his wife, applies as much as if I had said, "Here is some video of you beating your wife, have you stopped?" HarryAlffa (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm very troubled by this thread. Why not let voters weigh the pertinence of the question(s) for themselves and let Rusilik speak for himself? What's the big deal? I don't know why we would need Sarek or anyone else to be the arbiter of which questions can be asked. It seems obvious that the questions are leading. And so what? This seems to me to be much ado about nothing. If Sarek didn't like the questions or thought they were poorly phrased, I'm sure he consulted with HarryAlffa and suggested how they could be modified or why they were inappropriate before just unilaterally removing them right? ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There really isn't any way to modify questions down the line of "Wouldn't you agree that you're too stupid to be on Arbcom?" that isn't as insulting as the original.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with: Do you have the intellectual competence and rigor to be an admin? It's not a question I find particularly useful or interesting, but I don't think you should take it upon yourself to unilaterally decide which questions are okay to ask. At the very least it would have been courteous to remove the questions in good faith and explain why to the editor who posted them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If you follow the link[24], you will see Ruslik was confused by the use of transitive property in the question. If he was confused by that, what chance has he got of handling stuff at ArbCom? It is a naturally flowing question from his bemusement to that question. Do you really want someone who failed to understand such a simple thing in such an important role? HarryAlffa (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI is not an appropriate location for a fork of the arbcom discussion itself. DMacks (talk) 17:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It was not what I suggested. "It is a naturally flowing question from his bemusement to that question." This was in direct support of my view that it is reasonable to question his intellectual capability. HarryAlffa (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Tell me why this offends your sensibilities:

I have seen examples of poor usage of English from you frequently on Wikipedia, as can be seen from some of your answers on this page. You do not think that this lack of skill greatly hampers all communication by you?

— HarryAlffa

If there are no reasoned objections (it pertains to one of the general questions) I will ask this question again with some appropriate diffs. HarryAlffa (talk) 16:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It's not a good question because it's leading. You work a statement of your own view into what you're asking, instead of inquiring on the candidates views and opinion. At the very least, try rewording/ rephrasing it so it's straightforward. "Are there limitations to your English language skills that would hamper your ability to be an arbcom?" Or, "how do you view your handling of our dispute over the pavlovian theorem as it relates to interstellar commerce?" But moreover, it looks like you have a disagreement with that editor and are carrying out some vendetta. I suspect the vast majority of editors reading the discussion will discount your views/ questions because of that. If you have legitimate concerns try to communicate them fairly and reasonably. What exactly is your concern about that candidate? (This is a rhetorical question intended to spur you to reflection and the rendering of more appropriate questions or refraining from them all together as you see fit). ChildofMidnight (talk) 16:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As written, it's a pretty straightforward Mu (negative). You're asking him to answer a question by accepting and taking for granted that a complaint/opinion you have of him is valid. DMacks (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"Has a dog Buddha-nature or not?" Zhaozhou answered: "Mu." ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. HarryAlffa (talk) 17:14, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Several cordial and collegial editors have made suggestions on your talk page (and of course there's the usual bullying from ), so I think discussion can continue there as this thread seems to be resolved with no need for administrative action. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"One of Wikipedia's abusive, antagonistic and disruptive wikicops"? Care to put a name to faceless attack? Auntie E. 05:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Harry, regardless of your reasoning, do you acknowledge that several people have found the question to be inappropriate? If so, what do you take from that? ^Chillum 21:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Fred1296 and Chris Rush

Just trying to head a conflict off at the pass, so to speak. Fred1296 (talk · contribs) seems to be an SPA for promoting comedian Chris Rush. Fred1296 is also probably indef blocked user Tony159 (talk · contribs), who made the same edits to the same articles.

Fred1296 has also added small articles for Rush's book and three albums, the book has already been merged back into the article. Delicious carbuncle has merged/redirected the albums back to the main page for Rush [25] [26] [27]. DC has made comments on Fred1296's page (as have I) to discuss the matter, but Fred1296 has reverted the redirects repeatedly without adding any content, stating in his edit summaries "Good enough for a page" and "As good as anyother page in same category".

I'd hate to see a full-scale edit war break out over something like this, so more opinions on the matter would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 01:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

First of all I am a fan of Chris Rush, and since there wasn't any pages for him I decided to create them. I am however NOT trying to promote him. I am just working with the available information on the web. I do understand why the book was merged into Chris Rush sice it didn't have much for its own page, but to delete the three album pages are ridiculous. There are hundreds of other comedy album pages with the same or even less on it, yet nobody deletes those or merges them into the artist's pages. First Rush, Beaming In and There's No Bones In Ice Cream have plenty of info needed for an encyclopedia stand point. There is obviously some problem these editors have with Chris Rush or even myself considering it seems to be the same ones always trying to delete the pages. When I start to see other pages in the same category being deleted or merged like FM & AM for instance (which is identical to what I created) maybe then I'll be more understandable. Untill then I'm going to fight to keep these pages up and updated too, but when I'm costantly having to undo edits that are made from users who don't believe Chris Rush or any of his works are notable or famous enough it makes it a bit difficult. Thank You Fred1296 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fred1296 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The behavioral evidence seems to indicate that these two accounts are likely the same person, but I would feel more comfortable seeing a checkuser on this one, as the idea that two different fans had created these pages is a slight possibility. --Jayron32 03:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tony159, which I just started. Lets do this formally to put a nail in this one for good. --Jayron32 03:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to note that while FM & AM may be a bit sparse in the references department, it clearly meets the general notability guideline by virtue of having won the 1972 Grammy Award for Best Comedy Album. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

And Mussolini made the trains run on time. That fact does not address the (possible) block dodging issue... --Jayron32 04:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll defer to you in Mussolini-related matters. My point was that none of Chris Rush's albums appear to be notable unlike the example offered by Fred1296 of the George Carlin album FM & AM. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 05:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

As you were... Nevermind. --Jayron32 05:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The SPI case has been rejected. Meanwhile, the album articles remain and Fred1296 has recreated a twice speedied article about a comedy club... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 04:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Sko1221 again

See also: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive516 § Foie_gras

User:Sko1221 has been trying to stay logged out and participate in Talk:Medical cannabis and Medical cannabis, but the problems haven't stopped. What we see is the same old disruption: New SPA's keep showing up on a daily basis, and today, as 72.213.22.76 (talk · contribs) she restored the harassment and attempted outing of Alfie66 (talk · contribs)[28], our resident expert and good editor all around. The original off-topic comment was made by User:Ohiostandard,[29]. I previously explained that if he had concerns about Alfie66 or his editing, those concerns should be brought to Alfie's attention on his talk page and/or he should submit a COI incident report on the noticeboard. In my opinion, there are no concerns about Alfie66, as this user has made a concerted effort to discuss his edits before making them, and uses the talk page in a diligent manner. Sko1221/72.213.22.76 is up to the same old tricks, arguing that we should restore off-topic, archived discussions about how cannabis "cures" PMS and cancer and other nonsense that doesn't belong on an article talk page. Thankfully, Mjpresson (talk · contribs) showed up to inject some reason, but I'm afraid it's just a matter of time before the next round of new accounts start up again. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

It looks like the IP has stopped editing after your warning, and Sko1221 hasn't contributed to those pages for a while. From the contribs and page histories you may be right that there's some inappropriate multiple-account activity going on, but I think filing an WP:SPI might be the easiest way of unpicking it. I don't really see what admin action can be taken at this time; page protection would seem to be premature, and there's not really enough evidence to start dishing out blocks. Speculating about another editor's possible COI is not WP:AGF and certainly doesn't belong on that talk-page, but neither in my view has their post gone so far as to be an attempt at WP:OUTING. I think continuing to remove off-topic conversation, plus an SPI, is probably your best bet at the moment. EyeSerene^talk 20:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

For the record, I highly prefer this as a forum for your complaints about my editing to harrassment on my talk page, Viriditas. We're all adults here, let's act it! 72.213.22.76 (talk) 00:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You are currently using multiple IP's on the talk page, giving editors like User:Ohiostandard the false impression that there are multiple editors involved, some of whom don't have registered accounts.[30] This is the kind of confusion you've been contributing to for months now, and I haven't even brought up the SPA accounts that show up whenever you need support. The talk page simply isn't used as a forum to debate the merits of using cannabis to cure PMS or cancer, and yet you are still arguing about it. You know the rules but you don't follow them, and you contribute to a troll-like atmosphere on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 11:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That diff isn't harassment, .76; it's pretty obvious that you're editing both logged in and logged out, and almost certainly using multiple accounts. You need to be very careful about that, as you've already stepped over the line per WP:ILLEGIT. Given your history of disruptive advocacy on the talkpage, I'm tempted to just go ahead and block all but the oldest of those accounts I believe you are using (or orchestrating) per WP:DUCK. Although I'd prefer to see some checkuser evidence first, posts like the above are not doing you any favours. The accounts I'm finding suspicious from a quick look through the page are:

• 68.13.178.225 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Tpipos (talk · contribs)
• Iowawindow (talk · contribs)
• 72.213.22.76 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• Sko1221 (talk · contribs)

EyeSerene^talk 11:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Article on Republic of Macedonia: entire text erased

I am not Greek or Macedonian ("Fyromian"?), I live on the other side of the world (Brazil) and have no ancestry or connections with either country, but I visited the article on the Republic of Macedonia just out of curiosity to learn what the current situation of their notorious naming dispute is. I found the page blank, with only the title. Consulting the article's history, I found that user Door34 had deleted the entire page, and even marked the edition summary with a candid "Blanked the page." I reverted the edit, of course, restoring the previous version, but s/he or another Greek (which s/he appears to be - his/her only other listed contributions are edits on the page List of Greek composers) may vandalize the page again.

I am not sure if this is the appropriate page for this, but the specific page for vandalism notifications says it is specifically for ongoing, repeated vandalism, and this appears to be this user's first incident - that is, in that article, because on his/her talk page there are warnings that two pages s/he created were nominated for speedy deletion for blatant advertising; in one of them, s/he removed the speedy deletion tag and got another warning.

Like I said, I am an outsider to the Greek/Macedonian/"Fyromian" dispute, find it hard to understand and just hope that the two nations solve this dispute that to me sounds Shakespearean (a mixture of "what's in a name" with "much ado about nothing") in a civilized way, which certainly does not include turning Wikipedia into a battleground. So, I thought I should bring this to your attention. --UrsoBR (talk) 08:55, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the vandalism. This was just a "normal" vandal edit by someone, of a type that's unfortunately rather common and happens on many articles. Might or might not have been politically motivated. Best response is just what you did: revert it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, thanks for reverting the blanking of the page, be aware that the edit summary "Blanked page" is an automatic one that is used to help users identify vandalism. In this case, as the user Door34 has vandalised previously, reporting them to WP:AIV would probably have been the best course of action, I have now done this and the user will likely be blocked in some time. Again, thanks for alerting us to this.

On another note, edit summaries such as this: [31] are not entirely appropriate, try to keep the edit summaries of such edits toned down and civil, again, thanks. Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 09:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't see where anybody has warned Door34 for their vandalism, nor notified them of this discussion. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 16:29, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The block was a little harsh. No warning, one blanking edit, no previous history of vandalism. Am I missing something? Fribbler (talk) 16:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with Fribbler. The editor made one vandal edit, recieved no warning, and was blocked. His only other significant edit has been constructive. This is percisely what {{uw-vandal1}} or {{vandal2}} is for. Singularity42 (talk) 16:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've notifed Toddst1 that his block of Door34 has been raised here. Singularity42 (talk) 16:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You know we probably needed a few more uw-3 and uw-4 warnings to make this disruptive editor feel more welcome before blocking. Toddst1 (talk) 17:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Those were over 2 months ago, and were for removing speedy templates; the knee-jerk reaction of many a newbie. I'm not saying Door34 is in danger of winning "Editor of the year" any time soon, but one more wee (lvl-4) warning might have been useful. Still, 55 hours is hardly hard labour. Fribbler (talk) 17:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry. I was looking at the contribution list, not the deleted contribution list. My bad. Singularity42 (talk) 17:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Fribbler and 99.166.95.142, Door34 has what appears to be a long history of vandalism, their warnings include a uw-level 1, 3 and 4 as well as three warnings about creating inappropriate pages. One of the inappropriate pages was created after a uw-create4, and then followed up by this page blank. The block was completely justified, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

"another Greek (which s/he appears to be - his/her only other listed contributions are edits on the page List of Greek composers) may vandalize the page again".

I believe this thread was started with the best intentions but this kind of comment/guess is uncalled for. Please simply revert or report vandalism acts.

Also, over-zealousness and cold blocks are not always efficient, and as I understand frowned upon. As a side note, people (even most editors) from the two countries get along much better than many think. Antipastor (talk) 01:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User: Updatehelper

User: Updatehelper is currently replacing mass links from geocities (defunct) to oocities.com, which appears to have archived many geocities sites. i'm not sure if this is a good or bad thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Updatehelper Theserialcomma (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Linking to geocities was allowed? :blink: (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 12:27, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, at least this will let us see what the content was long enough to find real replacements for the refs.... --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly; when I granted Updatehelper AWB, I considered the alternatives, one of which was that these links could be tagged as {{deadlink}}s, and I didn't think that helpful; another would be to tag as {{cn}}, which would risk us losing perfectly valid, if poorly-sourced, information . Obviously it would have been more appropriate for better sources to have been provided from the beginning, but as SarekOfVulcan points out, it gives editors a opportunity to seek more reliable sources. I note that Updatehelper hasn't hadn't actually been notified of this thread, just that there is some concern. Rodhullandemu 17:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've been unable to link to the 'archived' sources. RashersTierney (talk) 17:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

All of them? I know not all Geocities pages have been archived at Oocities, but I would have expected them to be checked. The alternative is to use the Wayback Machine, but for the effort involved, one might as well try to find a more robust and reliable source. However, I've notified Updatehelper and would be interested to hear his modus operandi before condemning him. Rodhullandemu 18:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

The first page I checked resulted in a failed link. The page was however archived at Wayback. If the links are changed with AWB, it will make links to this archive less likely. I just have reservations about the overall effectiveness of this approach. RashersTierney (talk) 18:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

hi! please excuse my english as iam from europe. yet im only doing a first run on geocities links. but the final result will be better. However most links i updated work again now and i check most ones. Second Step will be archive.org etc. that way i can easily make 90%+ of all geocities links work again without any disadvantage , but it will take some more weeks. (is there a disadvantage thats worse than deadlinks ?) For now there are only a few percent updated and a lot more are not updated now. i updated about 1000 links. for example webcitation.org-BOT updated about 1500 links also. i also use a "bad-words-filter" as i dont want to feel responsable for some really worse content links working again. please come back to the discussion for any other issues.

please do not write to my personal discussion-page cause that always makes AWB fail

...until then...  --Updatehelper (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess. Good luck. RashersTierney (talk) 18:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm from Europe too - that's where English originated. Please note, Updatehelper, that personal pages on geocities.co.jp/ appear to be alive and well, so no need to go playing with refs pointing to them. --Yumegusa (talk) 23:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

yet i did not change any geocities.yahoo.co.jp... --Updatehelper (talk) 10:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Geocities.co.jp will be going down shortly as well. (Sometime next month.) While it might be a good idea to look at all of the geocities links (to verify their appropriateness), changing links to a live source is better than having to go through the wayback machine, which often has accessibility issues due to bandwidth limitations. Horologium (talk) 23:33, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

are you sure it will also go offline? (yet the main page dont say its going offline) http://geocities.yahoo.co.jp http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=de&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fgeocities.yahoo.co.jp%2F --Updatehelper (talk) 09:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)- thanks.

I don't know what Updatehelper has in mind ultimately, but I take his edits to be well-intentioned in preserving what sources we have until better ones can be found. Rather than have a multi-pass algorithm, some bot that categorised these, and pending, pages, would at least centralise efforts to replace these sources. I was intending to move on to articles tagged with {{deadlink}} once I've finished dealing with Category:United Kingdom articles missing geocoordinate data (currently scheduled for February 2010), but I see no reason why the demise of Geocities should not be merged into the latter. Rodhullandemu 00:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Can anyone cast light on the copyright issues here? On the face of it, it appears OOcities.com is in gross violation. WP:COPYLINK is fairly explicit, and it appears we should not be linking to OOcities.com from WP.--Yumegusa (talk) 00:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That would depend on the original terms & conditions of Geocities; if content there was copyright-free under GFDL or even CC-BY, there would be no problem with even an ex-post facto mirror. If you want to make this point, please cite reasons. Rodhullandemu 00:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Unless someone can show that Geocities content was copyright-free, it must be assumed that it wasn't. Therefore copying it is prima facie a breach of copyright. WP:COPYLINK states: "Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States". It doesn't look like there's a lot of wriggle-room available. --Yumegusa (talk) 16:42, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Removal

Sourced information is removed from Blue water Navy page by newbies. So kindly take note and protect the page.Bcs09 (talk) 13:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Users Mr George R. Allison and By78 are removing content from Guided missile destroyer page under Active and Planned Guided Missile Destroyers as well.Bcs09 (talk) 13:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing to link to re the first complaint. As for the Guided missile destroyer article, the edits on the face of it seem reasonable. Have you attempted to discuss these edits with the contributors? Have you notified them of this discussion? LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Why should one remove information on Indian navy's power projection capability in the Indian ocean region from the article? What is the need for it and why is it done? I don't get it.Bcs09 (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The existance of sources is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to include some bit of information in any article. There can be good reasons to not include some bit of information despite the fact that it is written in a reliable source. Source are not a club you wield to force other editors to accept your preferred version of an article; work it out on the article talk page, explain your position as to why the information is relevent and important to the article beyond "someone else wrote it down somewhere", ask them to explain why they think it needs to be removed, invite other editors to comment and achieve consensus as to how to proceed. I have no idea who is in the right in this one particular debate; perhaps the sourced information does belong in the article, perhaps it does not, but sources are not a magic bullet that allows one enforce their preferred version over another's --Jayron32 19:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Again i did not understand why should it be removed? What's the need to remove it? Is that I can remove anything from anywhere and others have to come and explain me why should it be kept? I don't see any reason for the removal and no reason is provided for the removal. And what's the magic bullet that allows one to remove things at their will?Bcs09 (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Request for assistance regarding harassment

In essence, this is a continuation of a prior debate that occurred on this noticeboard. Please see the prior thread.

I have been repeatedly hounded and harassed by User:BQZip01. He has in the past accused me of slander, made a posting on this board demanding I be blocked (see the prior thread), has stalked my edits (case example: restores a fair use image to an article from which I had removed it less than an hour before, an article he had never edited before), has harassed me on my talk page and has now placed a userpage of mine for MfD (see MfD) when his own essay on his MfD standards would allow such a page. I am sick to death of his haranguing of me, and it must stop.

I've been trying to stay out of BQZip01's way. But, I can't. Why? Because he won't let me stay out of his way.

I am here to ask that an administrator please step in to the middle of this (what a thing to volunteer for! :)) and ask that BQZip01 stop stalking my edits, ignore my userspace, and stay off of my talk page unless there is a pressing matter. I, in turn, will do the same with him (though I've not been stalking his edits). If this equitable compromise can not be achieved, this will spin out of control.

Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 14:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've left BQZip01 a note, but could you please provide some more recent diffs? The ones you've posted are from October, and I'd just like to see if the problematic behavior you mentioned is ongoing. Thanks, –Juliancolton | ^Talk 15:08, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• It's not everyday that this sort of behavior is happening. It has been happening over a broad span of time, approximately the last year. Whether it happens a hundred times in three days or a hundred times over a year, it's still a problem. I've tried to be patient, but my patience in regards to this user is gone. That's why I'm here. I'm not asking for him to be blocked, censured, or otherwise found to be at fault. All I'm asking for is for him to leave me alone (and me likewise). An outside administrator has considerably more authority in requesting that than I would. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

So there's nothing really new since the last blowout thread you posted from October, and you just want that rehashed again? Tan | 39 15:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• I didn't post that thread Tan, BQZip01 did, asking for me to be blocked. --Hammersoft (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Comment struck. Tan | 39 16:00, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not commenting on the merits of the case, but the MfD linked above appears to be current (posted less than a day ago). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment/Response Given HS's propinsity to delete images from articles where they are useful and apropos, but lacking in FURs, I have watched his edits. There is nothing wrong with watching his edits IAW Wikipedia policy: "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles." HS apparently feels compelled to remove inappropriately used images (usually copyrighted images without Fair Use Rationales). In these removals, he notes (as in the above diff) "This image use does not comply with WP:NFCC #10c and MUST be removed until it does." Most of the time, I see absolutely nothing wrong with such removals as they are appropriate and would not be appropriate even with a FUR. However, as with too many of his comments about my actions, in this instance HS leaves out details: As requested by HS I provided a FUR and re-added the image explaining that merely removing an image from a page runs contrary to our policies/guidelines. We shouldn't just delete something from an article if a simple correction will fix the problem, in this case adding a Fair Use Rationale.

I have placed a user page of his up for deletion as I believe it to be counter to the goals of Wikipedia with regards to Civility (for the reasons discussed on his talk page. I have attempted to discuss issues with him but in accordance with WP:HAMMERSOFTSLAW (part of the page up for deletion), HS has decided that I am not worthy of talking with. Given that he has decided not to discuss matters with me, I am forced to go elsewhere (in this case WP:MfD) to address such problems.

Again, contrary to what HS states, my expressed thoughts on user pages (see link above) do not contradict the nomination. While I agree that pages recording user actions are sometimes neccessary, I believe that such pages need to meet other criteria as well: it must not exclusively an attack page, it must have a limited timeframe, the page must explicitly state the WP:DR process in which it is intended to be used, and it must not be linked elsewhere by its creator. Hammersoft's page fails all of the last three criteria. — BQZip01 — ^talk 22:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• What I am doing in removing images lacking fair use rationales is something completely in line with policy. It is so much in line with policy in fact that it used to be done by a bot. I am sick to death of you stalking my edits. What is it you want me to do? Request your permission every time that I make an edit? That is what you have reduced me to. The very policy you quote states in the paragraph before, "Wiki-hounding is the singling out of one or more editors, and joining discussions on pages or topics they may edit or debates where they contribute, in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit their work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." You sir, are irritating the living hell out of me with your actions. Why can you simply not walk away? Why can you not leave what work you perceive needs to be done in regards to my edits with other editors? Why do you see fit to declare yourself the arbiter of my edits, and my edits must run through your filter before being accepted? I am at the point now where I feel compelled to stop editing. --Hammersoft (talk) 13:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

And BQZip01 continues to stalk my edits. See history of User talk:Wikiperuvian, where I was counseling a user on not using fair use images on templates. This is an editor BQZip01 had never interacted with before. Also see history of File:Coat_of_arms_of_Saint_Vincent_and_the_Grenadines, a file BQZip01 had never touched before I edited it. This needs to end. Now. Would an administrator please step in and issue a sterner warning to BQZip01 please? --Hammersoft (talk) 13:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've left another message, hopefully he takes it to heart. Syrthiss (talk) 14:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you Syrthiss. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Which is the problem in the first place. In this case, most (if not all) of these aren't fair use images; they were improperly labeled in the first place. You keep requesting compliance with fair use policy and I have provided rationales and/or compliance (i.e. fixing problem image labels). It is inappropriate to request compliance with a valid policy and then complain when a particular user you don't personally like provides the requested compliance. Wikihounding is done "...in order to repeatedly confront or inhibit...work, with an apparent aim of creating irritation, annoyance or distress to the other editor." I am not confronting you, I am providing the information you are requesting or fixing problem images. Accordingly, I am not inhibiting your work, but fixing what you have requested be fixed. If you are annoyed, irritated, or distressed with your requests being fulfilled, please stop making the requests. — BQZip01 — ^talk 16:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• At 15:02, 19 November 2009 (UTC), User:Juliancolton, after reading this thread, posted a request at your talk page [32] recommending you avoid me for the time being, and leaving it to other editors to fix my errors should I make a mistake. As Syrthiss noted, you did not respond to or acknowledge this request. On your very next login, the only thing you apparently did was check my contributions, which at the time you checked had as my last action leaving a message on User:Wikiperuvian's talk page. On seeing that, you checked my contributions in regards to his editing and after researching the history of the coat of arms of Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, you made a correction to the file [33]. Your subsequent edits during that login period dealt solely with edits that I had made, comprising edits to templates, files, and talk pages you had never before touched. If you want to work on making fair use images compliant with our policies, fine. You can start with places like Category:All Wikipedia files with no non-free use rationale, or this list of NFC violations, or this list of NFC files likely to be overused or Category:Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status or any other of a dizzying array of places where fair use compliance work can be done. There is no necessity for you to follow me around, if your motivation is altruistic. But instead, despite a request by Juliancolton to stop doing what you're doing, you proceed ahead and focus solely on edits I made to fair use content related work subsequent to that request. It's obvious what is occurring here. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(ec, this was to BQzip01...not Hammersoft) I believe at this point he's trying to minimize his contact with you, so I wouldn't expect him to make fair use policy compliance requests in relation to you. If that is the case, then there should be a good chance you can avoid each other. Does that sound reasonable to both of you? I'm not saying that he can't bring fair use issues up, but perhaps if he finds fairuse issues in areas that happen to involve you he should bring it to someone else (hopefully not me, I have a hard time totally grokking the fair use policy, haha). Syrthiss (talk) 16:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• I have been attempting to avoid and ignore BQZip01 for some time now, so this is fine with me. All I'm asking is for BQZip01 to do the same; stop watching my edits, stay out of my userspace, and not post to my talk page unless there is a pressing matter. I have been doing the same with regards to him. We are occasionally going to bump into one another by happenstance. For instance, we're going to (and have) bump into each other quite a lot on sports team logos, especially college sports. That's fine; it's going to happen. It's the intentional aspect that is a problem. --Hammersoft (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal threat? I'm not sure if this qualifies

Please take a look at the most recent post to my talk page. I'm not sure if this attorney is trying to make a legal threat, or just awe me with her awesomeness. It's certainly borderline enough that I'm not going to put a WP:NLT block on her myself. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:05, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

He's trying to intimidate you here [34], so that does indeed constitute a legal threat, though a minor one. I'm guessing you don't actually feel all that intimidated by his personal puffery. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That's neither a legal threat, nor is it very awesome. It's just a stupid rant about how Wikipedia is a lawless place and administrators can just do whatever they want. --Atlan (talk) 18:10, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I think I'm with Atlan. Now I need to go find some articles to delete. *swirls mustache menacingly* Syrthiss (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a lawless place where administrators pretty much do what they want. I don't see a legal threat. Perhaps an attempt at courteous communication would be helpful. People are human and do get frustrated by the rather impenetrable and often times arbitrary processes we have set up here. If the subject of their article isn't notable, I'm sure the reasoning can be provided, or it can be taken to AfD for wider input, or what have you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

She's trying to create an article about a realtor who's a candidate for local city council, and argues that squibs stating that he has filed for the race make him notable. She also claims to believe that language like, "In his spare time, Hale is an avid family man ... Since making Tampa his permanent home, Hale has become very involved with his community and charitable organizations. ..." is not promotional. There's also a side serving of WP:UPANDCOMING. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment and attempted to explain the situation. If he's a family man, involved in his community, and devoted to charity, I wonder what the heck he's doing getting involved in politics? I thought a squib was the tip of a pen. I'll have to go look what we have on the subject... ChildofMidnight (talk) 18:51, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Special:NewPages again...

I've nearly given up. It looks like almost nobody is working on these articles anymore. Can we get a collaboration going or something? And somebody please deal with the recent wave. A little insignificant ^{Giving thanks to all that is me} 18:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I suggested a long while back that people sign up to take specific shifts. If 336 people would take 1/2 hour each week, we'd be assured of covering them all. DGG ( talk ) 19:15, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've wondered a couple of times why there isn't a new page patrol project, DGG's idea would be easier to implement through that. Although nobody would have an duty to turn up for their shift. But if NPPers put down the times when they are active, it would at least help those with too much time on their hands (i.e. me ) to see when more patrollers are needed - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Newpage patrollers are needed pretty much around the clock. However, you could check WP:HAU for a list of highly active users, and see when the least amount of those are on. (For the record, I believe that most people are on during American East Coast "operating hours", so any hours that might be considered "off-peak" would be optimal.) GlassCobra 20:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

A lot of us who regularly patrolled NP quit outright due to recent events and others are just waiting until the issues at WP:NEWT are resolved before they resume patrolling. Setting up some kind of wikiproject of NPPers and actively recruiting them would probably be a good idea. In my experience, the worst time for NPP is during the times when the Western Hemisphere is asleep. Hoax articles, attack pages and other garbage can roll in at frightening speeds during this time. If you can find folks, especially admins, in other countries who will agree to patrol newpages during these periods, the weekly backlog will shorten considerably. <>Multi‑Xfer<> (talk)

User:Necrowanderer

Necrowanderer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Could someone please take a look at their userpage, which states that their purpose here is "to provide comic relief.". Their contributions would tend to back up this claim. WuhWuzDat 19:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I encountered this user just before Wuhwuzdat did. My impression is that the user is sincerely interested in reducing drama, but, paradoxically, is doing so in a semi-trollish way. As the person is a new user, some constructive advice may be more useful than anything heavy-handed. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, my job is to provide comic relief. I'm gonna go kick this guys ass. *rolls up shirt sleeves* HalfShadow 19:38, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Just you try it *also rolls up sleeves and looks for a tuna*. Although if anyone has any experience making page sized tables I would like help with that. One reason for being here is more people post on stuff so I can get faster feed back. I like to experiment with the wiki code but I get frustrated after trying and repeatedly fail to get the proper outcome I want. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necrowanderer (talk • contribs) 19:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I just suggested to the user that s/he go improve an article. However, I think I smell a dirty sock. Whose it might be, I have no idea. LadyofShalott 19:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious. Support block. GlassCobra 20:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

71.239.23.70 at Piccolo (Dragon Ball)

71.239.23.70 (talk) came in demanding that Piccolo (Dragon Ball) be renamed to Piccolo Jr.. Despite the fact that several editors informed the IP that "Piccolo" is the name used by the work in which the character is from, the IP continues to insist that it is wrong and that even the original creator is wrong in no using "Piccolo Jr." It's pretty clear by his/her comments, such as this one, as well as several attempts to edit talk page archives that the IP is only here to harass other editors and is not interested in contributing to the improvement of Wikipedia, much less this particular article. —Farix (t | c) 21:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't look like he's made any edits since this report. Does anything need to be done here? GlassCobra 14:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you please block the IP or something? --Ryu (Talk | Contributions) 16:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

IT'S not fair. I've had enough of him being called that fucking fake name. --71.239.23.70 (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Eubulides

I am an admin here at enwp, but I am just a template programmer so I need help with this:

We have problems with Eubulides (talk · contribs). He is trying to do copyright infringement on a massive scale. He wants to unlink all icons here on enwp, for instance in different kinds of message boxes. His reason is to make the boxes more accessible to blind users, so that their image links aren't read out in screen readers. But as you guys probably know we are only allowed to unlink public domain images, since pretty much all other licenses require attribution and require that one can find out what license the image has.

He has single-handedly done massive changes and extensions to the guideline Wikipedia:Alternative text for images, and since then used it as a reference for his demands.

When we refuse him to unlink an image in a protected template, he does this:

1. He makes a new very complex version of the template and puts it in the /sandbox sub-page of the template. His code makes the image unlinked, and makes any other images fed to the template also unlinked by default.
2. He changes the documentation of the template to fit with his new code, even though his code has not been deployed. And his documentation tells people to not link images, and usually fails to mention that we are only allowed to unlink public domain images.
3. He repeatedly puts {{editprotected}} on the talk page of the template, no matter how many times different admins have denied the request.
4. He draws a copy of the old image. That is, he paints a new very similar version. And he uploads it to Commons.
5. He sets the license to "public domain", thus not respecting the license of the image he has copied.
6. He adds a description that he made the image entirely by himself. He does not attribute the author(s) of the image he copied.
7. He then comes back to enwp and tries to make people use his new "PD" image as icon, so it can be used without a link.

No matter how much we try to explain to him he shows a total disregard for copyright, attribution and procedures here at enwp and at Commons.

For instance, one case involves the {{portal}} box here at enwp. It is used on over 2.4 million pages. For the discussions, see Template talk:Portal#Remove link from image, for accessibility.

(I have reported his image uploads at commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard/User problems#User:Eubulides.)

I would appreciate if you guys investigated his edits and do what ever the procedures say you should do with them and with him. I'm sorry that I'm not read up on the procedures regarding this, I was just made an admin here at enwp since I handle high-risk templates. (The templates I code tend to become very popular, so they get protected.)

--David Göthberg (talk) 21:18, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Has he uploaded any derivative images besides File:Portal-puzzle.svg? That's the only one I can find, apart from possibly File:Compass_rose_pale.svg, though that doesn't seem to be being questioned. Note: I'm not an admin, here or on Commons, just trying to help out. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Continual re-creation of deleted article about 'Team Touchdown'

I'm not sure if this is the correct place to put this - if it's not, I apologise.

A group of editors have been trying to re-create the same article, all about a non-notable group/club in NSW, Wales.

The deletion log entries are as follows:

• 13:18, 16 November 2009 Redvers (talk | contribs) deleted "Team touchdown" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
• 10:24, 17 November 2009 JohnCD (talk | contribs) deleted "Team touchdown" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
• 10:40, 18 November 2009 User:Peripitus (talk | contribs) deleted "Team touchdown" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team touchdown)
• 05:17, 19 November 2009 User:Acroterion (talk | contribs) deleted "Team-touchdown" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
• 05:44, 19 November 2009 User:Amorymeltzer (talk | contribs) deleted "Team touchdown FC" ‎ (A3: Article that has no meaningful, substantive content)
• 07:27, 19 November 2009 User:Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs) deleted "Team touchdown FC" ‎ (A7: Article about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)
• 07:28, 19 November 2009 User:Gogo Dodo (talk | contribs) deleted "Team-touchdown" ‎ (A7: No indication that the article may meet guidelines for inclusion)
• 19:36, 19 November 2009 User:Kinu (talk | contribs) deleted "Team / Touchdown" ‎ (A7: Article about a group or club, which does not indicate the importance or significance of the subject)

The editors involved include:

• Deanops (talk, contribs)

• Blocked: 09:26, 19 November 2009 DMacks (talk | contribs) blocked Deanops (talk, contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours ‎ (Disruptive editing)

• Special Operations (talk, contribs)
• Horse M (talk, contribs)

One of the variations is already protected from creation:

• (Protection log); 10:41 Peripitus (talk | contribs) protected Team touchdown [create=sysop] (expires 10:41, 18 November 2010 (UTC)) (repeated recreation)

Is it possible to SALT using a regexp?
Something like T[e|E][a|A][m|M][*][T|t][O|o][U|u][C|c][H|h][D|d][O|o][W|w][N|n]*

I doubt that they are going to stop trying to recreate the article, as they have been so persistent so far!

Regards, -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• This [[35]] too for a little background. Users were editing a disambiguation page and adding their soccer club info repeatedly.. - 4twenty42o (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Note All three of the above editors have been notified of this thread, included the one who is currently blocked -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:22, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I had nuked another variant (same regex):

• 09:25, 19 November 2009 DMacks (talk | contribs) deleted "Team Touchdown FC" ‎ (recreation of unreferenced article about non-notable subject that has previously been deleted after AfD)
• 09:06, 19 November 2009 DMacks (talk | contribs) deleted "Team Touchdown FC" ‎ (G4: Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team touchdown)

Their repeated recreation after salting of previous spelling (after *its* AfD and then recreation) and associated cloning at Touchdown Jesus is what led me to block Deanops. DMacks (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• • Further to 4twenty42o's link, 2 more editors need to be added to the list:

• Feelin' Fine (talk, contribs)
• 144.131.87.72 (talk, contribs)

• I have left ANI notices on both of these editor's talk pages -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 22:42, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• (E/C) PimpdaddyMcPhee (talk · contribs) (blocked), Insertnamehere10 (talk · contribs), 124.149.98.97 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 121.218.220.162 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) are also involved in this fiasco. Horologium (talk) 22:43, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have left messages on the talk pages of all except the first, which was indeffed. Horologium (talk) 22:49, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• There is also Team Touchdown, which I have deleted and salted, from user Team Touchdown (talk · contribs), for whom I planned a username block if he tried it again; he has had the article on his userpage. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Team touchdown. I think we just continue to delete, salt, and block: they are under-14s, they'll get bored in a day or two. JohnCD (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I have filed a SPI case on the involved parties included from this thread. MajorMinorMark (talk) 23:06, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Not sure how much good that will do; I suspect these are meatpuppets, not socks. IIRC, Team Touchdown is a made-up football group; this is probably a bunch of guys trying to get their little club on WP. GlassCobra 23:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• Another oddity: Insertnamehere10 (talk · contribs) was created by Horse96 (talk · contribs), an account with no edits. Horse96's only activity was creating Insertnamehere10, four minutes after creating the original account. The similarity of the name to Horse M (talk · contribs) caught my eye, as did the similarity of Special Operations (talk · contribs) and Deanops (talk · contribs). Horologium (talk) 23:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Millsy360 (talk · contribs) vandalised my talk page 3 times in quick succession: 01:46, 01:49 and 01:54. In between the last two, another editor came out of nowhere (only made one edit since creatign account): Bam.bam0406 (talk · contribs) 01:52. Bam.bam0406 has made no other edits, but I'm guessing it's another sock - the co-incidence is too high! MajorMinorMark, do you want to add those two to the SPI? -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 02:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• One more sock User talk:Millsy360 just found that one on the touchdown jesus article posting the same club crap on a disambig page [[36]] and vandalizing a user page [[37]]. - 4twenty42o (talk) 02:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Semi-protected Touchdown Jesus for a day, to prevent the socks from continuing there. JamieS93 02:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Another sock User:BananaMcFats. On a vandalism spree. Crafty (talk) 04:10, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• And another User:Jumpinpimp. Crafty (talk) 04:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Beat me to it but now the user is adding creating Teem Touchdown and adding the club stats to the Pumpkin pie article. - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• User:Angrytown, has jumped out of the sock drawer.--SKATER ^Speak. 05:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • BananaMcFats, Jumpinpimp, Angrytown all indef'ed, and added to SPI page. DMacks (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

•  Confirmed - a whole bunch of accounts at the SPI case here - Allie ^❤ 06:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Texasguard

I came across this user page as the author was testing several edits on the Texas National Guard article. From the account's user talk page I got the impression that this account is intended to be used by several people (web staff) of an organization, so I think this is a violation of rules like "no password sharing" and WP:username. Also, conflicts of interest are bound to occur here. De728631 (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You're right, appears to be a violation of WP:ORGNAME. ♠The Ace of Spades^♣♥_♦ 22:44, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Warned for COI. ♠The Ace of Spades^♣♥_♦ 22:46, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

What the hell is a "Disclaimer" section of the article they are obviously copying from somewhere? DMacks (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

No idea, but I reverted the article to a former, neutral version. De728631 (talk) 22:54, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have pointed out the relevant parts of WP:USERNAME, along with a link to WP:CHU -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 23:13, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a name change would just make them harder to pinpoint. The account should have been blocked right away as a violation of the two policies pointed out already. This account is obviously intended to be used by multiple people, to only edit articles that they have a vested interest in, to give the appearance that they are somehow "sanctioned" or approved by the organization, and is thus totally inappropriate. GlassCobra 00:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 9

Firefly322 (talk · contribs) and William S. Saturn (talk · contribs) have been edit warring at User_talk:Firefly322 and Wikipedia:Redirects_for_discussion/Log/2009_November_9 over BLP-violating comments, specifically [38] and [39]. Firefly322 has been blocked for 55 hours by PeterSymonds, but continues to restore the comments to his talkpage. William S. Saturn has passed 3RR on the RfD page, as well. Some more attention here would be appreciated. Nathan ^T 23:50, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I have asked specifically what the BLP issue is, on the RFD talk page. This should not have reached this level. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:53, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

You should almost never restore comments deleted for BLP reasons without first discussing the issue. The fact that these comments violate BLP should be easy for anyone familiar with the policy to discern, and edit-warring over them past 3RR is unreasonable by any measure. Nathan ^T 23:56, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize. If I passed 3RR it was unintentional and will accept the consequences. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive - so if your comment means that you will not revert any more, then we're done and no block is warranted. MastCell ^Talk 00:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If you're incapable of understanding what the problem is with edits such as [40] then Wikipedia might possibly be the wrong place for you. Firefly322 was lucky to escape with 55 hours IMO - I would have blocked indefinitely until he could state that he understood the problem and would not repeat it. Black Kite 23:59, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Will, I have to agree with Black Kite on this one. How is it appropriate to discuss living people in that manner on Wikipedia? Certainly Orangemike and others get away with doing it about conservatives like Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh who they don't like, and I know we're talking about a mass murderer and not a political commentator in this instance, but it still isn't proper. Once it was objected to I think you should have let it be. ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't really see anything in WP:BLP that specifically covers edits like the above "71" diff. There's a difference between making concrete claims such as "John Doe killed his children" with no links to prove it and saying "John Doe is a very evil person" or "John Doe is a very evil person because he did X" where X is something very clearly true. I think we have become too strict if it is no longer acceptable to make moral judgments about a living person on one's own talk page that are based on verifiable truths about that person. I also don't see where such a thing is covered in the current BLP policy. It doesn't seem to meet the legal definition of defamation, for example, which is given in the first paragraph of the article. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 00:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't imagine the circumstances under which comparing someone to Hitler and NAMBLA, and calling them an Islamic extremist, is acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia. That it comes on a user talk page (and, in this case, an RfD) makes no difference - the BLP policy applies there as anywhere. Nathan ^T 00:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Not the point, really. "John Doe is a very evil person" regardless of context is clearly an opinion and thus original research. We're not here to make moral judgements about people, we're here to write an encyclopedia. The fact it's on a non-articlespace page is irrelevant here. Black Kite 00:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The post did far more than assert that someone was "evil". Wikipedia's site mission does not include testing the limits on the legal definition of defamation. We're a nonprofit encyclopedia, and it would really be better if individuals who wished to test the acceptability of this statement did so at their own personal website. Durova³⁶⁶ 00:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have no comment on the comment made about Hitler on the user's talk page. However, I feel the edit on the RFD was not a BLP violation. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• First, it strikes me that blocking was no necessary -- this IMHO could have been handled with discussion or other less punitive measures, which should have been pursued first. Second, it does appear to me that there is not a consensus at the RfD, nor should an involved party close a contested RfD IMHO. Third, as to Nathan's suggestion that he "can't imagine the circumstances under which comparing someone to Hitler and NAMBLA, and calling them an Islamic extremist, is acceptable anywhere on Wikipedia," I think that may perhaps be just a bit of an overstatement. I certainly can. Himmler, Goering, Idi Amin, Bin Laden, Attila the Hun, Ayatollah Khomeini, Leopold II of Belgium, Pol Pot, and Vlad Ţepeş might all vie for that honor for starters. And certainly there is something different in one making edits expressing their view (as here) than stating a fact as true, as in an article edit, though I would agree that BLP violations (which come in different flavors) should be looked at carefully.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Which of those is a pedophile, a brutal tyrant and an Islamic extremist? Nathan ^T 00:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Now you're stretching what the original statements in dispute actually said. I think the bottom line is that we should try to conduct ourselves in a professional and dispassionate manner. Since we are writing the articles on living people, it's important that we refrain, generally speaking, from disparaging them. I acknowledge the points made though that discussion shouldn't be stifled by tossing around BLP accusations too freely, but when NAMBLA and Hitler are getting worked in I think the envelope is being pushed too far. We should strive to focus on article content work and collegial discussion rather than engaging in discussion regarding our personal opinions of whether article subjects are evil, or just very very confused. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think those are very wise words, extremely well put. At the same time, I think the block was innappropriate. There were other wasy, short of a block, to be explored for this borderline (at worst) characterization elsewhere than in the person's article.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Can we avoid having editors complain generally about how liberals get away with murder vis a vis enforcement and conservatives get hammered? General complaints degrade the signal to noise ratio. In case it isn't abundantly clear, I'm speaking directly to CoM, who has a habit of inserting him/herself in AN/I threads to complain about admin abuse in general and american politics specifically (a topic where they are topic banned from discussing broad subtopics). Protonk (talk) 03:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Black Kite's deletion

I feel it was highly inappropriate for Black Kite, as an involved party, to close the RFD. I hope someone will revert this action and let the RFD run its course since discussion is ongoing. At the moment it appears to be No Consensus. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hardly. It was the ANI thread which actually led me to the RfD, which had been open for ten days - and an ANI comment about general conduct which was mostly unrelated to the RfD doesn't mean I am "involved" in it. Very few of the "Keep" rationales were convincing, IMO. Black Kite 00:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've read through most of the discussion, and in the end I agree with Black Kite's closure. There was an opinion split among established editors, but the consensus to delete is fairly apparent based on the arguments presented. To be frank, Saturn, how is an outsider going to trust your word that there "appears to be no consensus" when you were so heavily involved in the discussion, replying to nearly everyone who supported deletion? JamieS93 00:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It's a poor close based on an opinion rather than a proper reading of the discussion by an admin who is involved in related discussions. But I think it would have to go to DRV now? Hopefully Black Kite will exercise better judgment in future. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What Child said. Perhaps BK can revise it?--Epeefleche (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't hold your breath. I think it's time to move on. I don't think a bad close requires admin intervention, so that probably needs to be pursued elsewhere. ChildofMidnight (talk) 01:22, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please explain how commenting on an ANI discussion makes you involved in something. By your logic, if someone asks for a checkuser to be run on some accounts, and I run the check and post the results, it would be inappropriate for me to block the accounts myself, since I'm "involved".

Ludicrous. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 01:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted the close. Black Kite articulated a reason not advanced by any other participant, but that's a DRV reason. What makes him an involved admin is his intense dislike of me. For examples, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive203#Proposal:_.22Cry_BLP.22_blocks or peruse the archives of Talk:Rachel Corrie. If some other administrator would like to re-close the RfD, feel free. Black Kite is ineligible to do so, and should have known better. Jclemens (talk) 02:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• I closed the RfD in a manner opposite BK's but I want to note here that I vociferously object to the classification of BK as an involved admin in this case. Even a cursory reading of WP:INVOLVED will reveal that commenting in an AN/I does not make an admin involved in a content dispute. Nor does some allegation of personal distaste (Especially given that the RfD only tangentially relates to Jclemens). Protonk (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised you treated it as a valid reopening, when even you seem to realize it was a valid close. You reversed Black Kite's decision, effectively, but on what rationale? Jclemens should simply have been reverted. Nathan ^T 03:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I strongly agree. Jclemens is is no position to dictate who is or is not involved, and is certainly not entitled to unilaterally revert another admin's close. He should have been reverted. For the record, it is my opinion that Black Kite's close was correct. GlassCobra 03:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Ditto. Jclemens should never have undone BK's close, and Protonk should have respected BK's decision. AniMate 03:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Un-flippin-believable. Jclemens has been EXTREMELY involved in both this and a related RfD (as have I, for the record). I cannot fathom how an admin can think it would be proper to undo another admin's XfD closure based on a perception of being "involved"...a tenuous perceptino that that...when Jclemen's own involvement is beyond dispute. I really, really wish Protonk had honored Black Kite's closure and not treated it as a legitimate reopening, but that may be a matter for DRV. The primary issue here is jclemens, and a desysop should absolutely be on the table here. Tarc (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Well I wouldn't have closed it if I had thought it would be such a shitstorm. Honestly I didn't know about the extent of the drama-rama when I made the close. I just tried to justify "delete" multiple times and I couldn't. Protonk (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Since you found it so close a call (and I'm not criticizing that finding), it might have been better to just leave it be and wait for the next admin to come along. PhGustaf (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think "delete" or "no consensus" were both valid closes, however BK's close should never have been reverted. Closing differently than they did gives the appearance of legitimacy in regards to Jclemens actions. AniMate 04:03, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if that's a reasonable interpretation of "when in doubt don't delete" Protonk (talk) 04:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• I've undone my close. I never intended the original close to be a repudiation of BK (anyone who actually read the rationale couldn't have come to that conclusion). I'm not comfortable reinserting BK's close and I caution other admins interested in closing it to be mindful of the nuances at work. Protonk (talk) 04:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Protonk made the right decision, what was wrong was Black Kite's ignoring of the views of the editors at the RFD. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There has been no official determination that this was a terrorist act, and it is not wikipedia's place to claim otherwise. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this at the RFD page, it has been reopened. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally recapitulating arguments from RfD will not be productive here. Protonk (talk) 04:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Saturn is singularly obsessed with labeling that guy a terrorist when he hasn't been convicted of anything yet. That's been the issue for the last week or two. There is no end to it. Except someone making a decision, which someone tried to do today, to no avail. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Regarding unblock request

I believe this removed comment is relevant to the unblock request, but the user does not want me commenting on that page. That is understandable, so I am noting it here instead: The incident that led to Firefly322's block began with a personal attack against other editors, not just an insult against Awlaki. ~YellowFives 02:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yellow, might it not go back even further? For example, might it perhaps relate at all to, after your having had a dispute with Fire, your appearing at the page he created the following day to hit it with an AfD, and even now you are not withdrawing despite repeated requests and the clear consensus in favor of keeping it?--Epeefleche (talk) 03:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Firefly mentioned the new article on a talk page I was watching, and I thought it was non-notable. That might well be the reason why Firefly does not want me commenting. That is understandable, as I said. I'm not complaining about the removal of my comment. I just said I the personal attack is relevant to this block, so I'm noting it here instead. ~YellowFives 03:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

My involvement here is through commenting at the RFD. Firefly posted a comment [41] which appeared to equate "BLP-screaming" editors, presumably including myself, since my delete rationale was BLP, with supporters of Islamic extremism. I would have responded there, except it was easier to just walk away chuckling. But there's no doubt that was a personal attack on anyone who cited BLP concerns at the RFD discussion. Perhaps made by an editor who stumbled onto the wrong website, I dunno. BLP is a policy here, and the editors who try to uphold it don't support any particular view, they just care anout the policy. Equating concern for BLP with support for Islamic jihad or terrorism or whatever - that's unacceptable. Franamax (talk) 03:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

and, in general, it is not appropriate for us to denounce even the worst evil-doers. Their deeds accurately reported speak for themselves. DGG ( talk ) 04:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Crum's deletion

Highly inappropriate again. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Take it to WP:DRV. AniMate 05:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Useless. Undo the close and let the discussion continue. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No, and if someone else does that I will block them for disruption. FFS thecorrect venue for this in the first place was DRV. Viridae^Talk 05:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please stop confusing "decision I disagree with" with "inappropriate" Protonk (talk) 05:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Protonk took the words right out of my mouth. If the close was "inappropriate" DRV is the correct forum to make your case. AniMate 05:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The first close came about from discussion on this page the administrator Black Kite was involved in while discussion was ongoing. It should have never been closed in the first place. This is a complete disregard of WP:Redirect and the true meaning of BLP. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Good close. Saturn is obsessed with labeling this guy a terrorist, and he wants the debate to go on forever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

What guy? The redirect redirects to an event, not a person. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Why are you obsessed with the terrorism label? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:16, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Stop it. This line of inquiry isn't going to produce anything useful. The correct course is to go to WP:DRV if there are objections to the close. Discussion about the terrorism label is not something that requires admin action. AniMate 05:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not obsessed. I'm irritated by this Wheel War brought about by Black Kite's terrible decision. DRV has been opened. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Here it is. I probably malformed it. I think it's best if I step away for a while. I need to cool down. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens wheel-warring

Jclemens wheel-warred in un-closing the discussion and un-deleting the redirect. While he cited "involvement" by the original closing admin, he too himself was involved, and proceeding in that manner was highly inappropriate. He only needed to approach BlackKite and comment on it, or go directly to DRV. Grsz¹¹ 05:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

False, he made the right decision. Black Kite disregarded the Keep votes and no consensus was appropriate. Jclemens did not close inappropriately while involved, Black Kite did. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There wasn't a wheel war. The third administrative act is where WP:WHEEL comes into play. That being said, Jclemens act was amazingly inappropriate. If he disagreed with BK's close he definitely knew better than to use his tools in the conflict. He was 100% involved and familiar enough with our policies to know there were other routes he should have taken. AniMate 05:46, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Was Black Kite (who made the initial close) not involved? --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Did he comment in the original discussion? No. Grsz¹¹ 05:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Did he comment here (thus involving himself) before closing? Yes. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe in the "Everybody who ever disagrees with me is therefore unable to fairly judge any argument I've been involved in" way of looking at it. If that's the case, then I'd say he's involved. Grsz¹¹ 05:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think BK was involved, but that really doesn't matter. When you see someone break the rules, you don't then break them yourself. AniMate 05:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Am I to understand that the "involvement" that Jclemens believes invalidated Black Kite's closure is BK's 2 posts in Redirects for discussion/Log/2009 November 9? I'm about to do some serious facepalming if so. Tarc (talk) 05:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, according to Jclemens' statement above, he believes that Black Kite is involved because Black Kite dislikes him. However, Black Kite is actually only involved on a minuscule level; as he noted, "an ANI comment about general conduct which was mostly unrelated to the RfD doesn't mean [he was] 'involved' in it." GlassCobra 06:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Blackkite's closing statement demonstrates a strong personal opinion on the subject matter consistent with his involvement and discussion here, but isn't a proper weighting and evaluation of the arguments. He should have offered up his opinion in the discussion rather than impose his opinion and personal preference as overriding those offered in good faith by participants in the discussion. This is not the first time Blackkite has done this sort of thing. It would be great if he would exercise greater restraint. The integrity of the process and showing respect for fellow editors is important. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it's time to nip this drama in the bud. What administrative actions are currently being requested? AniMate 06:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• User:Jclemens has disliked me ever since the Saint Pancake debacle and I doubt very much if he would've reverted the close if anyone else had made it. At that time he made great play of the fact that I supposedly wheel-warred to delete a G10 redirect (later supported by the community at DRV). Well, if that's the case, he has just done exactly the same thing - except it was a wheel-war to re-instate. Not only that, but he made this comment in the AfD ("Keep and strike all !votes which reference NPOV, which is not a policy-supported reason for deletion of redirects. Sorry, but the level of knee-jerk silliness in this thread demands that editors with an actual policy clue speak up") and so was not only heavily involved, but made a comment which made a bad faith assumption on behalf of many editors. I think it's about time that someone asked this admin to keep away from anything that involves WP:BLP, and about his use of admin tools in this matter. Also, his claim that I can't close any XfD in which he's commented because I don't like him is frankly laughable. Imagine if we extended that to any admin who has had a dispute with another user. Black Kite 11:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Proposal: "Cry BLP" blocks is a bit of a red flag as well, as it appears this admin was looking to sanction users who made arguments he disagreed with. Tarc (talk) 13:57, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to discuss

• People at this discussion who are interested in the broader topic, as opposed to the individual behaviors, are invited to comment at Wikipedia_talk:Redirect#Section_regarding_neutrality_of_redirects. As you are likely aware, current guidelines are that NPOV (and, by extension, BLP issues) are not reasons to delete redirects, a fact about which editors (including myself) have strong opinions. If you have an opinion, I invite you to bring it to that page. I think it's past time people put up or shut up on the matter: are we interested in making our encyclopedia accessible, or more interested in making sure that redirects don't point in ways that convey objectionable opinions? Ray^Talk 17:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Can't say I really put much faith in a discussion premised on a logical fallacy and biased against one particular point of view. One can support the use of non-neutral redirects while at the same time drawing a line at BLP transgressions. Tarc (talk) 18:31, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I can only present the world as I see it. If you take issue with my characterization, feel free to do so at the discussion. If you choose not to participate, that is of course your prerogative, but failure to participate doesn't free us from an obligation to follow consensus. Ray^Talk 19:00, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Consensus does not override BLP policy, especially in a discussion that starts off on such a wrong foot. Tarc (talk) 19:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens's POINTY behavior

Resolved

 – Redirect at RFD --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Jclemens (talk · contribs) has now created Hiroshima terrorist attack, which was brought up in the above RfD discussion, in order to prove a point. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a known issue; jclemens created this during the Ft. Hood redirect discussion, not just today or anything like that. That one at least seems headed towards an unquestionable delete, thankfully. Tarc (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Strange edits at Shaquille O'Neal and "Shaw"-related pages

There has been some very bizarre vandalism occurring at Shaquille O'Neal and its talk page, in which a group of users is insisting that O'Neal's nickname is "Shaw", and not "Shaq". [42], [43]. This has spilled over into numerous articles with "Shaw" in their titles, such as Shaw [44], Shaw (name), [45], Shaw, Mississippi, [46], Archbishop Shaw High School, [47], and Shaw's Crab House [48]. There are too many accounts involved to list at WP:AIV, and semi-protection won't solve everything, as some of these accounts have been here a while. If someone wants to back me up in my vandal-fighting, or offer some tips for how to deal with it, I'd be very appreciative. Zagalejo^^^ 01:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That's really strange. I protected Talk:Shaquille O'Neal for a few hours, and blocked the users I could see doing this. If you want to send me a list of accounts/IPs on my user talk page, I'll be happy to block them for you. NW (Talk) 01:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. The vandalism seems to have died down since I posted my message here. The only activity I've noticed since has been this user changing my talk page comment. But I'll let you know if things flare up again. Zagalejo^^^ 08:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Is it time to indefinitely block User:Ott jeff yet?

Resolved

 – Indefblocked, endorsed, moving along Tan | 39 02:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

His account exists only to promote MonaVie, which I'm 100% sure he's an employee of. He's been warned, he's gotten one short-term block for edit-warring, and he's recently created MonaVie Active as a content fork since he's realized that he isn't going to be able to turn MonaVie into an advertisement. I'm so tired of him, and so annoyed with him, that I'd prefer not to block him myself. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 01:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

• Endorse block as outlined by FisherQueen. Crafty (talk) 01:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
• Endorse Neutrality is one of our core goals, if someone is only here to push a specific point of view then that is not acceptable. ^Chillum 01:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

After reviewing his edits and block log, I've enacted the indefinite block. PeterSymonds (talk) 01:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Wow, he doesn't get to defend himself and you don't even have to post warnings and diffs? Oh, well, new user, that's how it goes here at AN/I. One complaint and BAM! IndefBlock. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

He is not a newbie; he has been here for a month. He has been warned, although he has removed those warnings from his talk page. In fact, he's been blocked twice for shorter periods of time for the same things. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You admit the block is retaliatory: you're tired of him. I think one month is not long enough to be considered an established user on wikipedia! I don't see any diffs that you've posted about his prior blockings. Just how tired you are of him. And quickly, 10 minutes later, he's blocked. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This is the administrators' noticeboards; I know that my fellow admins know how to look at his edit history for the diffs of his edits, and to his block history for his prior blocks. We've allowed him to advertise his company for a month, which I think is very generous of us. Tell you what- I'll be glad to support an unblock if he agrees not to edit on the subject of MonaVie or Acai in the future. I doubt he'll be interested in the offer, but I could be wrong. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I suspect you're right that he will not take you up on the offer, but there's no loss for trying. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) to IP: A little AGF on your part would be nice too. I have noticed this user before, and he has ignored every warning offered to him. I reviewed his contributions in full before I enacted the block, and I did so because it looked quite clear he had no intention of changing his behaviour. PeterSymonds (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Notice also the context of your quote. I didn't say, "I'm tired of him, so someone block him." I can block him myself. I said, "I'm tired of him, so I don't want to be unfair. Someone else who is less annoyed look and see if you agree he should be blocked." -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:18, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You blocked him with one request and the input of two other admins after 10 minutes. That's fast! Give other users some time to post input, give the user time to respond, anything that shows I should AGF, and I'll be glad to. Wikipedia administrators don't look too closely when it comes to supporting a fellow administrator. I would have liked to be able to assume good faith by a balanced and fair discussion of the problems, rather than a rush to block. However, I accept your proposal above. Let's try it. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

IP, can you find any GF edits? Pop the diffs here -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 02:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

(side comment) Since when do admins leap to support each other? This page is basically a long catalog of admins bitching at each other. And the archive goes on and on and on... -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 02:26, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

When it comes to blocking or attacking a relatively new editor (case in point). Other than that, yes, it's pretty much a cesspool of absurdity intermingled with long blocks about the drama-magnets. Back on topic, let's just try once more reasoning and call it a done deal whichever way the editor chooses to respond to the offer.--IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Why feed IP? He comes in here screaming about how the block is bad without having done any research at all into the problem. He has a right do do that, I suppose; we all have a right to ignore him. Endorse indefblock, closing thread. Tan | 39 02:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I also endorse this block as entirely appropriate. Spamming is not acceptable. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

FisherQueen

• Endorse block – unconstructive users waste time and reduce the quality of articles. No good-faith edits that I can see. Ignoring warnings is discourteous and disruptive: RBI it is. ╟─TreasuryTag►Captain-Regent─╢ 17:41, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Or at least RB Ott and I Tan. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If the editor agrees to not edit MonaVie, Acai, other problem articles

The editor might agree to not edit the MonaVie and Acai articles as suggested above by User:FisherQueen.[49]

If the user agrees to this in a request to be unblocked, I would like the wikipedia community to assume good faith and support this.

I will teach the user how to edit wikipedia articles in a more neutral fashion. He can be watched and blocked again if necessary.

In addition, I would like a neutral, by which I mean no one who has posted in this thus far, editor (administrator or not) to agree to check the final version of the article when its rewriting and editing to clean up problems is finished. If you are neutral and write well, please volunteer your services for a final read-through with an eye to neutrality and facts, at the Talk:MonaVie. Thanks. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 04:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I satisfy IP69.226.103.13's definition of "neutral": in fact until I stumbled on this discussion I had never heard of User:Ott jeff, of MonaVie, or of Acai. I read the above discussion, and decided to offer my services for the checking that IP69.226.103.13 suggests: in fact I wrote an offer to do so here. However, before clicking on "Save page" I decided to have a look at Ott jeff's editing history to see what the controversy was about. Frankly I do not see an editor who, being inexperienced in Wikipedia editing, did not fully understand how things work, made a few mistakes, and may well learn with a bit of support; rather I see an editor with a determination to plug a point of view, willing to ruthlessly suppress information not supporting that point of view, willing to twist facts to support that point of view, contemptuous of other editors who oppose him, and unwilling to adjust to fit in with Wikipedia's policies. I wonder why anyone would wish to take steps to keep such an editor on board. Needless to say I have dropped my intention of offering to help bring him back. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you're not neutral if you come to AN/I to stir up a personal attack against the editor ("ruthlessly," "twist facts," "contemptuous") when that aspect of the conversation has been dropped. Your post is pointless. You can think about something and change your mind without calling it to anyone's attention. The request for someone neutral is for an article editor, not someone to monitor Ott. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 17:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Uninvolved admin on User talk:Georgewilliamherbert#Your inappropriate warnings

Could I get an uninvolved admin or two to take a look at some activity on my talk page? User talk:Georgewilliamherbert#Your inappropriate warnings

We had a previous ANI thread about ChildofMidnight's "warnings" to admins ( [50] ) two weeks ago. He has been pushing but not quite breaking the envelope again today.

Malleus Fatuorum showed up and chimed in, going further if less verbosely. I asked him to stop posting on my talk page other than for ANI notifications, and he's continued sniping. I believe that violates WP:HARRASS but obviously as he's bothering me I'm involved.

A small general multiparty brawl broke out with other editors in the middle of this, and someone who hasn't touched any of the parties involved might want to review all that as well.

I was hoping it would all die down without needing any further review, but it seems to be escalating and more people are showing up, so a little help would be appreciated. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 02:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've asked Malleus to desist. Hope that will help. There must be a better way to resolve this. --John (talk) 03:01, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Love to help, but I'm obviously involved. :-( --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 03:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've noted ChildofMidnight's poisonous "contributions" to policy matters such as these in the past, as have others. Perhaps now some traction can be gained? Tarc (talk) 03:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I got a canvassing message on my talk page asking me to change my input on the ArbCom election. ChildofMidnight seems more interested in creating drama than editing.   Will Beback  talk  04:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have archived the discussions with the statement that if this is to be pursued, it should be at a venue other than the user talk page. I don't mind if GWH unarchives (obviously), but I'd rather nobody else did. I don't see a productive discussion ensuing. --John (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I can't think of a better solution at this point. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User:74.182.225.248 Vandalism and Harassment

Resolved

 – IP blocked, user directed to make future vandalism reports at WP:AIV. Katerenka (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User:74.182.225.248 was already banned under the user account User:Glaxovont. The IP has continued to engage in harassment on my user page [51] [52] and to vandalize an article [53]. Requesting the IP be blocked from editing for a while. Dragoneer (talk) 03:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for 4 days. For future problems, please file a report at AIV. TNXMan 03:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Really suddenly bizarre behavior from User:DePiep

I'm suspecting a compromised account - a cursory glance says this is an editor with a decent history here at Wikipedia, but tonight the account has suddenly engaged in some really bizarre edits, mainly disruptive comments at Talk:Catherine Ashton, insertion of a bizarre comment at Catherine Ashton, and disruptively nominating the page for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Catherine Ashton. Ray^Talk 04:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry. "Really suddenly bizarre behavior" is exactly in line with Brussels/Europe. -DePiep (talk) 04:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Appears to be a compromised account. Recommend indef block. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by teh booze. Crafty (talk) 04:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. Warned user. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 04:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Um. Right. I should've done that too. Guess I don't get drunk nearly often enough, if the possibility didn't cross my mind. Ray^Talk 04:43, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Looking for help in sorting out what to do to stop edit war at Ronald Ryan

Ronald Ryan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Check the article history. Two editors: Escapeeyes (talk · contribs) and Purrum (talk · contribs) have been at an edit war at this article, with little to no discussion at all, just back and forth, back and forth, for months now. I am about this close to indefinate full protection or some such, but then I thought its rather unfair to everyone who actually wants to obey the rules that these two should get away with this for so long. I don't want to act unilaterally, but I think that some sort of editing restriction/article ban needs to be discussed at the community level to shut down this rediculousness. Any suggestions on how to proceed? I am open to anything. --Jayron32 05:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Evidence that purrum has been notified: [54] --Jayron32 05:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

evidence that escapeeyes has been informed: [55] --Jayron32 05:49, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That article appears to be a POV mine field. Your idea for a topic ban on the both of them seems reasonable, and then maybe a disinterested party could attempt to clean up the article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:54, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User:07bargem

07bargem (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a new editor. On 18 November he created The Dad's Army Appreciation Society as a first article. It was promptly tagged for speedy deletion, which I declined as I considered that the subject of the article would be notable enough to sustain an article. After mulling over the options, I moved to article to the Article Incubator. 07bargem later recreated the article at the original title. I copied the text over to the incubator, and salted the original title, explaining why I had done so on his talk page. Yesterday evening 07bargem created Dad's Army Appreciation Society as a new article, having previously worked on the article in the incubator.

How best to approach this one? It seems to me that 07bargem is a little too keen to get the article up and running in mainspace rather than having any malicious intent. The creation of the article yesterday evening means in effect we have two articles on the same subject at two different places, which is not ideal. Please note that in raising this here, I am not looking to get 07bargem blocked. As I said, he is a new user, and cannot be expected to know all the ins and outs of Wikipedia from the outset. It can be quite a steep learning curve at times. Mjroots (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The best course of action seems to be to just take this article to Afd.--Atlan (talk) 10:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. However, there's no way it'll survive an AfD. Personally, I think I'd probably have accepted the speedy and temporarily salted the article, then asked the editor to ping me when they'd finished getting something together in the incubator that uses reliable third-party sources, is neutrally written, and establishes notability. At that point the article page could be unprotected and the article moved back into mainspace. I think it would still probably end up at AfD (if it ever got back into mainspace at all), as not many fanclubs are notable, but what the hell, we all have a touch of Sisyphus in us :) EyeSerene^talk 11:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Taking the article to AfD doesn't solve the problem of having two articles in two different places. I firmy believe that the article should be given a chance in the article incubator. I did inform WP:DAD of the article being in the incubator. A possible course of action would be to redirect the new article to the incubator, and then full protect it until such time that the incubated article is ready to be returned to mainspace. If it proves impossible to establish notablility then I won't stand in the way of deletion, but at least the article will have been given a fair chance. Mjroots (talk) 11:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

You want to redirect out of mainspace to what is basically a sandbox article? Doesn't sound like a good idea to me. Just delete the incubator version and take the article to Afd. Afd gives 07bargem seven days to improve the article and address any concerns raised in the Afd discussion. That seems like a fair enough deal. --Atlan (talk) 11:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The article incubator is fairly new, and not everyone is aware of if. Giving that venue a bit of publicity cannot be a bad thing. In this case, the end result was that notablilty was established, and the article has a good chance to develop, which proves that my instinct in refusing the original speedy deletion was correct, and a newbie has not been bitten. Mjroots (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I think it may be ok now - it seemed the easiest fix was to check for sources and see if notability can be quickly established. To my surprise, events from the society hit the news a few times, including in The Times and, most surprisingly, a New Zealand newspaper, giving the society the necessary non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Why is a bit of a mystery to me - I remember the show, but not that fondly. Must be a UK thing. :) - Bilby (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Nice work (and "UK institution" is a better description) EyeSerene^talk 12:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Per suggestion above, I've deleted the incubator article. The original title has been converted to a redirect. Mjroots (talk) 13:25, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Selenamiler

Selenamiler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) already has a few warnings on their talk page about not linking to spammy domains and not cutting and pasting information (about drugs) into Wikipedia pages. There are no reactions to any of the warnings, and since the last notice on copyright violation Selenamiler has again filled a page with copied text. Please advise. MichaK (talk) 11:07, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If he does it again, whack him with an only warning (4im). Should he offend thereafter rat him out to the hard-asses at AIV. Crafty (talk) 11:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Already indefblocked. Because copyvios can have legal consequences, if they carry on after a warning we hard-asses don't pussyfoot around :) If an unblock request goes up, I'd suggest we first get some strong assurances that they understand the issues involved before considering an unblock. EyeSerene^talk 11:23, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Or you could just shit-can him straight away. :) Crafty (talk) 11:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I added the remaining domain to XLinkBot, the blogspots should already be reverted. Typical spam, block strongly endorsed (by the way, there was already a spam4im, this could have gone straight to WP:AIV). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User:76.202.223.133

Is making legal threats at Long Term Abuse regarding that whole Joe Hazelton thing. I reverted his stuff at LTA, and issued a WP:NLT warning with Twinkle. He then renewed the same on my talkpage thus [56]. Can we get a block on this little charmer? Crafty (talk) 12:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked but I have questions about that email see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:76.202.223.133 and legal threats. Enter CambridgeBayWeather, waits for audience applause, not a sausage 12:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that and you have a point. I think that has been removed from the LTA report in the past. Crafty (talk) 13:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

That e-mail, while amusing, probably should not have been posted. His threat to go to the police expresses legitimate anger over that, although I have heard of very few cases of the police arresting wikipedia editors for anything to do with wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"Very few"? Does that mean you've heard of any? :P GlassCobra 14:40, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"Legitimate anger"? Seriously? He's a long-term stalker who doesn't want to be exposed, that's all. Gamaliel (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

The truly legitimate part of his anger is the part about posting his e-mail here. The rest of it is of questionable legitimacy. It was nice of him to include his name, though. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?}carrots→ 15:20, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Joe Hazelton is not his real name. We know his name and address, but of course we will not reveal this on wiki. Gamaliel (talk) 15:28, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps we should consolidate this discussion there? Gamaliel (talk) 15:17, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, and then put him on ice for awhile if he doesn't chill on his own. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

There's always entertaining people, out there. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Wowsers, that anon is more entertaining them my own anon stalker. GoodDay (talk) 15:32, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Need some help at Nephilim

I'd do something but I'm involved. We have an IP editor here 81.183.245.214 (talk · contribs) continually adding fringe stuff - it is definitely rubbish that doesn't belong, but this has turned into an edit war with the IP and another editor over 3RR right now. I think the sensible course is probably protection for the page, maybe block the IP, but I'd better recuse myself. I would have reverted if I'd seen at the right time, and I have reverted the same rubbish at another page that the IP has been editing, which would have helped. I't's also being discussed on the talk page but the IP isn't taking part in that discussion. Counting me there are 3 editors objecting to the addition. Thanks. I'll notify the IP. Dougweller (talk) 15:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the article for 3 days. Will expect IP to discuss any proposed changes on the talk page first, which is why I've not blocked the IP. I will leave a note on the article and IPs talk page. Mjroots (talk) 15:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that's reasonable. Dougweller (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've left a message on the IPs talk page, requesting that they discuss the issue, and backed it up with a uw-van4im. I've also left a message on the talk page of Ian.thomson (talk · contribs) re 3RR. I feel that a block is not warranted this time, subject to no further offences of 3RR. Mjroots (talk) 15:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Best Selling albums Worldwide

Resolved

hi, I left a request a few days ago about a semi-protected page "Best Selling Albums Worldwide" does not link to (michael jackson cd) History: past, present, future could someone with access please fix this, thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.19.114 (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

It should be fixed now. Regards, GiantSnowman 15:58, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

William Villiers, 10th Earl of Jersey

IP 87.244.124.68, claiming to be the subject of the article, has been making edits of various kinds, some to update the article, others to make it fit what he claims to be the importance of various aspects of his career. At no time has the IP provided any sources for these edits, merely stating that he know what he is doing, where he lives, etc. In the past, the subject has requested that we suppress various portions of the article (sourced to The Times, Debretts, and other such obscure scandalsheets) for privacy reasons. Any suggestions? --Orange Mike | Talk 16:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I've notified the editor. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 17:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Certainly, say thank you My Lord, Wikipedia is most honoured by your noble presence. Now, I must rush over there and introduce myself. Lady Catherine de Burgh (the Late) (talk) 17:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey, it's possible this is the real Billy Villiers, and he's entitled to the same consideration under WP:BLP as anybody else. One of my concerns is imposture; the other is reliable sources and verifiability of the edits. (As a Quaker, I avoid all honorifics; no Milording for me.) --Orange Mike | Talk 17:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Autobiography you shouldn't really write about yourself on Wikipedia, so if it is him, he should stop. GiantSnowman 17:09, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If you read all of WP:AUTO, it's a little more complicated than that. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"This page in a nutshell: Avoid writing or editing an article about yourself, other than to correct unambiguous errors of fact" - sounds pretty simple to me. GiantSnowman 17:15, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

This sounds like a control issue - the subject wants to control what goes into the article. There have been many similar cases in the past, such as Jim Hawkins and Sally Boazman. As long as WP:BLP is strictly adhered to, the subject doesn't get to dictate what is and what is not in the article. Mjroots (talk) 17:13, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User:William S. Saturn's behavior on this page

I added a section to this page which William S. Saturn (talk · contribs) has seen fit to remove twice. I don't want to get involved in an edit war, nor in a 3RR situation, so I will not re-add my comments, but it is not appropriate for any user to remove other people's good faith comments on this page. As I told him, if an admin felt my comments were inappropriate, they could have closed the section that I edited, but instead, he just deleted my comments again. Please deal with this. 99.166.95.142 (talk) 18:24, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't know whether what you're trying to add is valid or not, but it is not Saturn's place to delete it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Your comments were not in good faith, you were bringing up a week's old issue and labeling it as "now," in order to inflame the situation. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:34, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Will, please just leave the comments of others alone. If they are inappropriate you can ask an admin to have a look at them. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If an IP or anyone is being disruptive and attempting to inflame a situation, I will most definitely remove it. I thought that was the case this time.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Will, you don't seem to understand that there are packs of POV pushing editors with admin friends on Wikipedia. If you allow youself to be baited into reacting to their taunts and trolling their allies will be more than happy to block you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 19:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I am aware. I try not to fall into their traps, but sometimes I forget.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

User:William S. Saturn's userpage

Last night I approached this editor at his talk page regarding a photograph of a seminude porn star on his user page, to ask him to supply an encyclopedic context for the image. Other editors joined the discussion including Bigtimepeace, who provided articulate input. William S. Saturn refuses to discuss the matter on its merits. I'm no prude; in past discussions have defended this for at least having a context about the editor's political views. But per this discussion Mr. Saturn appears more interested in insinuating untoward motives of anyone who approaches him on the matter, than in (for example) justifying the use of the seminude porn star in encyclopedic terms. He has never edited the performer's biography.[57] Fewer than twenty percent of Wikipedia's editors are women. We wouldn't tolerate gratuitous racial objectification in userspace; gender objectification is equally problematic. Requesting review from the community regarding this matter. Durova³⁶⁶ 19:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with being a porn star? --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

IP:75.150.239.81 - School, or in need of a block?

Can anybody check whether 75.150.239.81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a school? They have a long list of warnings and have vandalized a lot of pages. If its not a school, something should be done. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ ^τ _¢ 19:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)