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

False accusation of canvassing and reverting during consensus discussion by User:Gavia immer and User:Tbsdy lives

• Moved here from WP:AN#False accusation of canvassing and reverting during consensus discussion by User:Gavia immer and User:Tbsdy lives. —DoRD (?) (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This discussion is an attempt by me to alert others to two distinct behaviors by the above editors:

1. False accusation of Canvassing
On my Talk Page, and on Talk:List of suicides, false accusations were made against me (by Gavia immer and Tbsdy, the second false accusation that Gavia immer has made against me regarding that article in a year.

I have refuted this accusation on Gavia's Talk Page by pointing out what the Canvasing policy really says, and how I have not engaged in any of the four behavior that that policy lists as criteria.

In addition, Gavia posted an extremely defamatory banner repeating this false accusation atop the List of suicides Talk Page discusssion. Rather than remove it outright, I moved it down to a separate section in case anyone else wants to discuss this accusation, separate from the discussion on sourcing for that article.

2. Reverting during a consensus discussion
Reverting disputed material during a consensus discussion is a violation of Wikipedia policy, and a blockable offense. Despite this, Gavia reverted the material in question, without providing an inline citation to it, the very point of dispute being discussed, instructing readers to Read the Talk Page, when that discussion is ongoing, and so far, most people seem to agree that that article needs its own inline citations. In the edit summary of another of his/her reversions, this time for Hatazo Adachi, s/he says "Read Adachi; referenced", when the entire point of the discussion is that references in a BLP article are insufficient, and must be added to any other article in which that material appears.

This behavior is completely unacceptable. The first set of behaviors violates WP:AGF and WP:ATTACK, and serves to potentially defame me in the eyes of many other editors (especially all those who might read that banner), while the second violates policies such as WP:CONSENSUS, and the collaborative spirit in which we are supposed to work together on issues such as this. Nightscream (talk) 16:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of this needs to stay on Talk:List of suicides rather than being shopped around in the hope that I will get in trouble for disagreeing with Nightscream, but as to the assertion that Nightscream has canvassed: look at his actual contributions, e.g., [1] [2] [3] etc. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and just to be clear: This has nothing whatsoever to do with BLP. Every single person under discussion is deceased, that being rather the point. — Gavia immer (talk) 17:21, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Nightscream, may I respectfully suggest that, per WP:NPLT, you find a more appropriate term than "defamation"- using words that could be perceived as legal threats is not helpful, though I'm sure you didn't intend for your comment to sound that way. HJ Mitchell | fancy a chat? 17:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Are the 'accusations' by Tbsdy this and this, or have I missed something? To me those look like friendly warnings that you might get in trouble with other users, and if you disagreed you could have just ignored them. Additionally, it seems pretty clear to me that Tbsdy was assuming good faith ("I suspect that you don't know about [the rule on canvassing], so take this as a friendly caution"). Olaf Davis (talk) 17:38, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Goodness. I was just giving them a friendly caution. I'm not going to dignify this with any other comment. Very silly. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 19:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

• Without delving into the larger issue, I would just say that Gavia, for future reference, probably could have avoided this blowout by using {{notavote}} instead. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite possibly. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not implying, nor do I tend, to make a legal threat, so if you want to disregard or remove that term, go right ahead, with my approval. As for Tbsdy, he didn't say that I "might" be canvassing, he said that I did. In any event, if Gavia had a problem with my activities, he could've made an attempt at reserving judgment, and talking to me, rather than jumping to conclusions simply because they suited him, and flying off the handle with false accusations, and plastering them all over a consensus discussion, where they do not belong. He could've kept that discussion on my Talk Page or here, but instead chose to use it to attack me, the second time he has employed a false accusation when I did something he disagreed with, as there is nothing in those three diffs he provided that shows canvassing. He is again ignoring the criteria that WP:CANVAS gives for canvassing, despite the fact that I showed him on his Talk Page that my messages did not meet them. User:DJ Clayworth posted on Talk:List of suicides to agree that my messages were neutral. Gavia simply ignores this, and repeats the charge, without refuting any of this, or even mentioning it. This, and the fact that he has reverted during a consensus discussion, (which you haven't addressed yet), suggests that he is engaging in WP:OWN-type behavior, and employs such tactics to force his personal style on the article (ironic, given that he is accusing me of favoring a certain "style", when what I favor is based on the policy). This behavior by him is deplorable, and needs to be addressed. Nightscream (talk) 20:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure that admins need to do anything here yet. I don't see where dispute resolution has been tried, as yet, and a board like WP:WQA or WP:3O should be a first stop before coming to ANI and "demanding satisfaction" in the form of sanctions against fellow editors. Why not try to work things out in a civil manner rather than "running to mommy" as soon as things don't go your way. Seriously, the shrill tone of this entire thread does not bode well towards a reasonable resolution, nor does it appear that there is anything remotely blockable here by any party to this dispute, and it would be nice to keep it that way. --Jayron32 21:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't quite see the issue here. Nightscream asked a few people to comment on a sourcing issue. So far as I can tell, he asked people who had commented on these issues in the past because they were familiar with them. That's not what's meant by canvassing. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:27, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Jayron, Gavia has a history of attacking me with false accusations, and refuses to respond when I refute them. You can't "work things out in a civil manner" with someone who has decided that he's simply not going to do so. I pointed out to him what I did to alert people to the discussion, and two others have now stated that what I did was not canvassing. Did he respond, either to rebut, apologize, or explain why he still thinks it's canvassing? No. He simply ignores this, so he can go off and do so again. People like this need to be counseled that this behavior is not acceptable. Serial incivility such as this, and refusing to acknowledge when you've been told you're wrong, is indeed a blockable offense, as is engaging in WP:OWN-type behavior, such as reverting during a consensus discussion, and/or against that consensus, as Gavia has done. If Gavia is willing to talk this out with me, and start fresh, I am more than willing to do so as well, since he obviously has the article is obviously one of his "babies", but so far, he has not indicated this. Nonetheless, perhaps I'm wrong about him, so I'll try to speak with him on his Talk Page about starting anew. Let's hope it goes well.

I have not, however, said anything about "demanding satisfaction", or "sanctions", as those are your words, not mine. I came to WP:AN because I was familiar with it, but in the future I'll keep WP:WQA in mind, so thank you for your suggestion. As for WP:3O, I was under the impression that that was for editorial disputes, and not breaches of policies related to behavior like WP:Civility, WP:Attack, etc. (Correct me if I'm mistaken.). The matter of the editorial dispute is being handled on the article's talk page. Nightscream (talk) 15:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems that you are in a dispute with Gavia... was there any real need to drag me into it? I was not telling you to stop, I was only giving you a warning. Others may not consider it canvassing (see Slim's comment above), but the last time I was blocked it was because I was trying to bring info to the attention of participants in Wikipedia:Facebook. I was giving you a friendly caution, you commented that you didn't agree that this was the case and I had thought that was the end of it. Then I got told by another admin that you'd taken this to AN/I. Firstly, where was your attempt to work things out if you thought I'd attacked you? I would have cleared up matters pretty quickly I think. Secondly, why didn't you notify me of this thread?

I think you might want to consider asking for this thread to be archived now - I think you've caused enough wikidrama already. Up to you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM

Could an uninvolved admin possibly take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM and maybe have a quiet word with Hutch48. He has taken this nomination very personally and is being rather intimidating to other contributors and potential contributors [4] . There is more but AfD is only short - it's probably easier to read it in its entirity than by diff, but he has also made his comments about other contributors on another editors talk pages [5], and he does have a very recent history of being totally offended whenever someone makes any comments to one of his articles [6][7] note edit summary (Magioladitis added an orphan tag to JWASM) [8] (response to Orange Dog querying notability of a different cyberwidget) [9] editor opined that article should not actually be about how to create compiler code.

NB - although I have not ventured to offer an opinion in the AfD, as I don't want any more comments about my technical knowledge, I have notified Hutch48 of this thread. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of your complaint. To save retyping my response to the actions of the compainant, please refer to the discussion page related to the deletion of the JWASM page. I have asked that editors properly comply with the rules of Wikipedia as stated in the direct URL that I have cited.

Hutch48 (talk) 16:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

As you can see. Hutch48 continues to argue that I "broke the rules" by PRODding an article about some compiler code that had no sources verifying notability (indeed, at the time did not even make any claim to notability, just to usefulness) and appeared to me to be completely non notable under Wikipedia definition, Magioladitis "broke the rules" by tagging the article as an orphan, and OrangeDog "broke the rules" by listing the article for deletion. While he is entitled to his opinion, I do not feel he is entitled to continue to intimidate other editors away from AfD. Elen of the Roads (talk) 16:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we have someone with some serious WP:OWN issues. It should be pointed out that a lot of times when an editor can't prove the notability of their subject, they take to attacking other editors. All I see are walls of texts, none of which establish notability. More so, looking at his contributions, I'm more concerned about how Hutch48 (talk · contribs) is continuously harassing OrangeDog (talk · contribs). --Smashville^talk 16:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I think the facts speak for themselves so I'll try not to get into any arguments here. I would however appreciate a retraction and apology from those who have accused me of bad faith editing. As for the MASM article, I left my comments on the talk page and editors may act on them as they wish. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 19:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Hutch48 does have some serious ownership problems, specifically in the belief that people who don't "have sufficient historical or technical knowledge to comment on an article of this type". Similar language along these lines has continued at the AfD. -- Atama頭 23:30, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

It would appear that Hutch48 has taken his bat home. I would guess this incident can be closed and the Afd left to run its course. (And I never signed this post!!! Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC) )

Oh very interesting [10] Hutch48 appears to be the admin of www.masm38.com's forum (no outing, he put the url and his real name on his userpage and he uses a similar username to his Wikipedia one at this forum), and according to him, Wikipedia is now scheduled to go down the tubes because we trashed his article. Unfortunately for him, even the code nerds aren't taking his complaints too seriously. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Although all of the admins are apparently driving around in Lamborghinis with their Wiki-riches. Hmm...apparently my check has been lost in the mail. --Smashville^talk 15:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that always the way :) Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I would like to thank the Wikipedia admins and editors for sticking to the established rules in a fair and unbiased manner. In the last decade, Steve Hutchesson (Hutch48) has rarely shown any "social" or diplomatic skills, in such conflicting situations on the internet, outside of ad hominem and other forms of bullying. As for OrangeDog expecting an apology, just be thankful that an entire USENET slander campaign hasn't been waged against you and Wikipedia as a result. Thanks and please keep sticking to your guns. As for the JWASM page itself, I wish to request a delay in any approval of its deletion. I would like a chance to review and bring it up to Wikipedia standards over the next week. It's a very useful tool, perhaps even the unofficial successor to MASM itself, and I wouldn't like to see the corresponding page lost as a result of the shortsightedness of one Steve Hutchesson. Thanks much. SpooK (talk) 20:50, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The Afd is currently pretty cut and dried, so I'd start by throwing out some good notability refs rather than fiddling with the text. Post 'em in the Afd if you have 'em. Elen of the Roads (talk) 22:03, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This has now progressed to pretty blunt personal attacks. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 02:07, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, come on, it's right there at the top of my user page. I'm more concerned about his characterizing requests for sources as "a pile of FUCKING GRAFFITI". —Korath (Talk) 04:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, he already mentioned as much. But given his tone and other comments, looking at your user page wasn't my first instinct. -- Bfigura ^(talk) 05:39, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It seems probable to me that JWAsm is notable, even if the current people involved are too busy being conflicted to look up sources :-P . Even if the page does get deleted, I'd definitely do it without prejudice, and it would help if we point out to Spook that it's possible to ask for the original text of the article, if he wants to make a new and improved version. (We should also take some time to explain how and where to look for reliable sources :-)).

If you know that I'm an eventualist, I suppose it's redundant to mention that I'm dismayed by all this "the article needs to be perfect RIGHT NOW" attidude I see displayed these days. It leads to lots of preventable conflict, as well as much redundant effort.

--Kim Bruning (talk) 05:33, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, a lot of the problem has been Hutch48's terrible attitude, where all he keeps doing is insisting (often sometimes with swear words) that everyone else is incompetent and breaking the rules. And Doktorspin's continuous wikilawyering that the rules somehow don't apply in this case hasn't improved the atmosphere any. All it needs is one source - say Sourceforge recommending it as the alternative to MASM, or some nerdy but noted in field online journo saying this is going to have an impact. The information is going to be in places like that - but Hutch48 recommending the forum where he spent 48 hours trashing Wikipedia isn't helping his cause at all.Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:01, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

As I indicated, in dealing with Steve Hutchesson, don't expect such situations to do anything but degrade... rapidly. In his mind, if you don't agree with him, you are either wrong or misinformed, but never justified. The exception being if you have something of value for him. You'll notice that on his forum, japheth (the current developer of JWASM) is calling Hutch's general decision to no longer edit Wikipedia articles as a "positive outcome." Historically, such "back talk" would generally result in humiliation/slander/retaliation and/or banning. However, JWASM being the most probable successor to MASM, well, we can see the need for one to bite their tongue if the future of their "legacy" was dependent on that person's efforts. My entire point in mentioning this is that you have recent and direct proof that Steve Hutchesson will not respect you, Wikipedia or its rules, so you have very few choices on how to deal with him... usually dwindling down to writing him off as a troll and banning him, for most people. So far, your (admin's/editor's) choice to be as diplomatic as you are about the situation has been admirable, professional and much appreciated.

Now, to put a more positive spin on this situation, and as a party not invested in the success/development of JWASM, I am willing to write a review of JWASM and post it on something like ASMCommunity or Slashdot. It will be a non-trivial and unbiased, although technically oriented, review of JWASM... what it is for, what it can do, recommendations/advantages/disadvantages vs MASM and other assemblers, etc. Overall, I know this situation must seem somewhat rather silly, especially when certain "others" cannot make the distinction between an encyclopedia which requires significant verifiable resources and a technical manual, but it is rather important to the assembly language community; and potentially important to other software developers that could benefit from the knowledge of this tool's existence.

I have come to the conclusion that whether or not the JWASM page is deleted in its current incarnation is of no consequence, as it is clearly outside of Wikipedia's guidelines. I believe a page similar to NASM or GAS with relevant links to resources, including a link to the review I write, should be sufficient for notability/relevance and other guidelines. That being said, I hope the my explanation/proposal is sufficient enough to keep the revised/new JWASM page safe from deletion. Thanks for your patience, understanding and any further advisement/direction that you may give regarding this situation.

--SpooK (talk) 17:12, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

That would I think be helpful. If the page is not kept, one that covers WASM and JWASM is likely to replace it, as WASM has the necessary notability, and the two make a progression. Whatever happens, a critical technical review posted to an appropriate community would be useful for others to reference - with this kind of subject, the necessary references are going to be tucked away in unusual sites that are viewed by their community as reliable sources.Elen of the Roads (talk) 17:29, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

+1 Informative. ;-)

Thanks for the feedback, Elen. I've submitted a review/story to Slashdot. I'll attempt to get the "others" involved by referencing it in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JWASM, and hopefully they participate positively and get this thing going in the right direction.

(And another +4 Conciliatory : I know that score doesn't exist on Slashdot, but on Wikipedia, people are willing to go a long way for you if you are willing to work towards consensus. --Kim Bruning (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Meanwhile, if anyone wants to wallop Spin with a trout, please feel free. He really isn't helping attempts to resolve this amicably. Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:45, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I pity the admin who's going to read that 128K Afd... Pcap ping 15:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, this is getting ridiculous. Can someone do something about this (RE: Hutch's comments at the AfD today)? OrangeDog (τ • ε) 15:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that you are trying to go head to head with someone that simply will not concede. Give him an inch, and he'll take a mile. Another part of the problem is that the entire situation is not so "cut n' dried" so to speak. If the rules and guidelines were facts and not opinions/suggestions on how to best operate given a multitude of situations, and thus not subject to multiple and varying interpretation, AfD's would not be required. As a prime example, WP:NOTINHERITED makes concessions in certain situations and therefore is not absolute. To perhaps the benefit of your position, I think what Hutch48 doesn't realize is that his latest arguments are further justifying why JWASM should be apart of the Open Watcom Assembler page and not a separate/independent page. In the end, and unless you ban/block him, Hutch48 will have, at least, the "last word" in the discussion... you can be assured of that. In my history in dealing with him, your best bet is to go ahead and let him finish on his rants. If you've made valid points for the AfD to conclude as a deletion, no further amount of indirection is going to nullify them or reinforce his position. Now, to be fair, I do personally find your "Then bother to read a dictionary and find out what inherited means." statement to him rather rude and antagonizing. Never mind that someone of his age and understanding is probably well aware of the dictionary meaning(s) of inherited. However, you are trying to argue the dictionary value of "inherited" (a near absolute) and use it to reinforce the non-absolute terms of WP:NOTINHERITED. In short, it's a non sequitur and your near ad hominem does nothing to reinforce your position or your latest plea about him here. SpooK (talk) 19:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't mind if he spends 160+kb ranting, what I object to is repeated accusations of bad faith or disruption on my part. I concede that my final comment was a little rude, but it directly mirrors the previous response he gave me. It will also probably be the last time I respond to his comments. I though it was a suitable response to highlight his repeated assertion that JWASM is notable because its license is notable or because its owner is notable. I thought I'd better post here again as Hutch said that he would no longer participate[11], but has continued to do so. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 21:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, its best to continue to let him look like the aggressor. I honestly can't say that JWASM is notable enough to warrant its own page based on the premise that the source code base that JWASM has been essentially "forked" from is, in itself, from a notable tool. Again, this favors more a merge than it does a keep or delete scenario. I also agree that this situation has gotten way out of hand. However, and less I am mistaken, the AfD closure and review process are not far off... thankfully there will be an end to it :P SpooK (talk) 22:24, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Uninvolved eyes needed at the Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov article

A few days ago I created the article Nikolay Sergeyevich Borisov, a professor and holder of a chair at Moscow State University. Two days after creation the article was discovered by the admin User:Malik Shabazz who took an interest in the article, added a speedy deletion tag and several other tags. What makes me wonder here is that previously I have interacted with User:Malik Shabazz in a less than enjoyable way during discussion on the Richard Tylman article. There he strongly defended the current state and the existent of the Richard Tylman article, whereas I was on the other side of the conflict, arguing that the Tylman article was dubiously sources and does not satisfy the notability criteria. Malik also strongly defended User:Poeticbent who created the article and is the subject of the article. What made this worse than normal interaction on Wikipedia where several false accussations and borderline attacks on me, including the accusation that I deleted a suggestion for an RF/C (which I did not - I removed personal attacks that explicitly stated that there is no need for an RF/C), and then accussed me of WP:GAME by reading my mind (in response to my suggestion that this article needs to be taken to an AfD after the closure of the EEML arbcom case closed).

It was this interaction that makes me wonder why Malik discovered this article created by me (two days after creation - I could understand if it would show up in the recently created list, but two days later seems rather unlikely), and then went on to decorate it with a plethora of cleanup and speedy delete tags. There is additional evidence available that could sheed lead on this coincidence, but I am unable to post this evidence here due to the confidential nature. I can email it to an interested and uninvolved admin. Pantherskin (talk) 20:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I never knew it was a Wikicrime to nominate a poorly sourced, peacock-laden biography for speedy deletion. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:16, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

May I suggest AFD the article, as that will stop the dispute. Off2riorob (talk) 20:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, but stalking and harassment is. Can you explain how you found this article, despite it being obscure, two days old, in a topic area you normally do not edit? The excessive tagging almost looks like a retaliation for me adding a notability and a secondary sources needed tag to the Richard Tylman article. And as I said there is additional evidence available, that I can send to an uninvolved and interested administrator. Pantherskin (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

(Further comments removed. Ucucha 20:56, 27 January 2010 (UTC))

Your personal squabble aside I did look at the article, run a Search Engine Test and review the meager results and post my thoughts on the talk page of the article. Nefariousski (talk) 20:41, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I came to the same conclusion earlier today. There may be some Russian-language sources that help establish notability under WP:ACADEMIC, but if I doubt it. I would expect Borisov's own CV to include his highest honors. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 20:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd be somewhat surprised if the AfD didn't end in a keep. Certainly speedying an article under A7, no indication of notability, that asserts the subject to be a professor at Moscow State Univ. is so questionable an action as to invite scrutiny about the possible motivation. DGG ( talk ) 22:07, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but professors—even department chairs—are a dime a dozen. They are routinely speedied under A7. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, they are not. Certainly, not full professors from places like Moscow State University or, say, Harvard or Princeton. Nsk92 (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have been doing that, you're speedy-ing articles incorrectly. Nsk92 is correct here. NW (Talk) 23:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll keep that in mind in the future. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 23:54, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You still did not answer how you found this obscure article that you then excessively tagged and nominated for all kinds of deletion. Given our past interaction which showed some extent of hostility towards me I am not convinced that this is a coincidence. Pantherskin (talk) 07:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

And why are you, Malik, threatening me with outing? Do you know who I am, or are you just guessing? It is disgusting that you are willing to go down that road. You should know better, and it does not make it look like you accidentally stumbled upon this article and nominated it for deletion as an uninterested party. Pantherskin (talk) 07:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

He is not threatening to out you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 19:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Right because he did that already. Pantherskin (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I can't see where. You can email me directly if you have evidence of this and you don't want to note it here. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 20:49, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It has thankfully been deleted, see above. And the question is still unanswered by Malik what his motivation for the speedy deletion nomination of this article. An article that is very, very unlikely for him to encounter during his normal editing activities. And why he continues to harass me with template warnings on my talk page. Note to Tbsdy, the evidence was in plain view here, and emailed several uninvolved authorities already. Pantherskin (talk) 07:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Still no answer. Instead more template harassment on my talk page. Pantherskin (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

You got an answer. I can't help it if you deleted it because you didn't like it. If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 00:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That is not the answer. I do not care whether articles I create get deleted or not, but I do care about speedy deletions, tagging and a thinly veiled outing are used as tools of harassment by an admin. So the very simple question again. How did you find out about this article? Pantherskin (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've answered your question. Now go away. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 05:55, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

As usual you have not. You claimed that you do not really know the notability criteria, but you did not explain why you picked this article, and flooded it (and my talk page) with a multitude of tags and templates and attempted a thinly veiled outing. But I am repeating myself as you evidently do not want to explain how you found out about this rather obscure article and why you saw a need to invoke WP:OUTING. Pantherskin (talk) 11:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I've had it with your Chekist nonsense. This is the last response you will get from me. Stop harassing me. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:24, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Quite a chutzpa to accuse me of harassment given what you did. Pantherskin (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• I suppose the most honest question anyone can ask of you Pantherskin, in accordance with our core policy guidelines; is, whether you wrote this article about yourself or not? You don't have to answer, because that is your right. Please acknowledge nevertheless, that such a simple question asked without bad intentions is not against policy, and has nothing to do with WP:OUTING, and everything to do with your own WP:COI mantra, which you yourself not only expect to be followed by others, but demand it in edit wars,[12] and by defacing similar WP:BIOs with warning flags. -- Richard Tylman Poeticbent talk 23:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

IP editor from New York State Unified Court System

207.29.40.2 (talk · contribs), which sources to the New York State Unified Court System, is repeatedly removing sourced material from the Michael Allen (journalist) article. They're currently working on their 3rd vandalism warning. Woogee (talk) 23:40, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Thing is, for all we know, it's the janitor.--Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

He was also removing a slur from the lead sentence which you restored. "A stenographer for the political establishment" implies he writes what they tell him to. Holly25 (talk) 00:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

That's true, and I thank you for correcting that. Woogee (talk) 00:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Woogee, have you actually read the content you're battling to keep in the article? Stuff you claim is sourced like:

• the subject is "a stenographer for the political establishment" (no source, outrageous BLP violation)
• a large blockquote with no source.
• a section that reads "Often the material quoted is unsourced rumors or unsubstantiated claims, and often has a malicious tone." - the "ref" that follows it is just an article that whoever wrote this hatchet job thinks is "unsourced rumors or unsubstantiated claims, and often has a malicious tone", not an actual ref

The whole controversy section is a POV nightmare supported by partisan blog entries, not WP:RS

So the IP is entirely correct in removing this garbage; it's all a flat violation of WP:BLP. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:10, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It looks sourced to me, but ymmv. Woogee (talk) 00:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If you go back to that version and check the sources, it wasn't actually sourced criticism. One source was an article by Allen; the sentence it backed up was a POV criticism of that article. Another source showed that he'd interviewed Cheney; the sentence it was backing up basically said that Cheney agreed to the interview because he knew his spin would be more or less reproduced verbatim. The IP was actually removing contentious BLP material, not vandalizing. Holly25 (talk) 00:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Woogee, are you seriously claiming that when you restored a large section with a "citation needed" tag, and no ref, as you did here, that this "looked sourced"? Blind reverting like this does nothing but harm Wikipedia. -- Finlay McWalter • Talk 00:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

To be fair, it wasn't just the unsourced quote which was removed but the whole section (which appears to be well-sourced). I would probably have reverted as well. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It wasn't well sourced at all, the provided sources didn't back up the claims being made. If a revert is restoring "sourced" material to a BLP, then it's important to take the time to check the sources are what they claim to be. One of the sources even jokes about the "stenographer" vandalism in the first sentence. Holly25 (talk) 16:11, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Per discussion above which seems to have concluded that the editing of this anonymous user was constructive, I have removed the vandalism-related templates from User talk:207.29.40.2 and placed a thank-you note and a welcome template. Cheers, CordeliaNaismith (talk) 01:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Any administrators here that are university faculty members or American Ph.D's?

Resolved

 – Not the right venue (this isn't an incident requiring technical administrative intervention), but Category:Wikipedians by profession and WP:VPP could be useful to pursue this further. ╟─TreasuryTag►sundries─╢ 14:13, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

There is a heated debate in the Talk:Barack Obama article. Some insist on calling him professor. Some don't. My main issue is if the general public understands the difference between Professor and professor. Professor is the very high rank, like general. professor is the generic term. The neutral way, I think, would be to respectfully mention that President Obama was on the faculty at the University of Chicago; he was a Lecturer then later a Senior Lecturer while teaching constitutional law.

Any administrators here that are university faculty members that can help with what they have experienced with the general public? Is a teaching assistant a professor? Isn't that stretching it and resume inflation. On the other hand, simply stating he was a Senior Lecturer is very factual and gives Wikipedia credibility.

I found some Ph.D. but they may not be editing right now. I found them by just typing in some chemical or math theorem and seeing who edited those articles. JB50000 (talk) 08:40, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI is not exactly the right forum for this.. but you should check out Category:Wikipedians by profession if you're looking for specific Wikipedians.. unless there's some reason why you only want to hear from specifically administrators? -- œ^™ 08:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You should probably use the definition provided at Professor, particularly those that apply to the definition in the United States.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Professors in the United States article says Although the term "professor" is often used to refer to any college or university teacher, only a subset of college faculty are technically professors.

If Ryulong's advice is to be followed, the Obama article should be clear and not cause confusion by calling him professor. Just say he taught law. If you want to say he was Senior Lecturer, fine. JB50000 (talk) 07:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• This is an oft-repeated topic on the Obama talk page, stemming from a particularly disingenuous "OMG he's not really a professor!" right-wing talking point in the last general election. There is no universal rule or policy to say who gets to be called "professor" and who does not; it is something that can vary from one university to the next. If the University of Chicago calls him a professor, and reliable sources reflect that, then that is what goes in the article. FWIW, I personally would never address a person as "professor" if they did not have a terminal degree, that's just the way it was at my ol backwoods liberal arts college. But personal opinio doesn't count for much here. Tarc (talk) 14:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
• The question is so open to interpretation. At my school "professors" made it clear whether they wanted to be called professor or something else, and it had a great deal of correspondence with the predilection to wear tweed, so maybe we should be focusing instead on Obama's suit material to answer the question;-)--162.84.166.253 (talk) 14:16, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Notice how this question never even came up during the previous administration. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
    • LOL! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 23:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Bush can't even chew a pretzel, much less give a lecture. That's why it never came up. JB50000 (talk) 07:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Please Note: The University in question considers him a professor: "From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined." From http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media The horse's mouth. ThuranX (talk) 13:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Block

Resolved

Could an admin block this account User talk:J.delanoy is an imbecilic motherfucker, I have reported it to UAA but seems to be heavily backlogged. BigDunc 11:22, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by Willking1979. BigDunc 11:25, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Something that blatant could probably be taken to WP:AIV, where it might get faster results. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

J.delanoy seems to have a fan here, has the IP been traced and blocked yet? raseaC^{talk to me} 13:50, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I was about to ask the same question. J.Delanoy himself is a checkuser, and it would certainly be ethically justified for him to use his skills in isolating that character if he wanted to. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's actually better suited for WP:UAA. Master&Expert (Talk) 11:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Whichever one gets faster results is the one to use. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:24, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive edits, nationalistic POV pushing, removal of references and edit war

Massive POV pushing at protected article Romania. The story:

Background information: Transylvania had/has a mixed Romanian, Hungarian and German population and was part of Hungary before 1918. After World War I the territory became part of Romania after the Treaty of Trianon was signed in 1920.

A Romanian user, Criztu began to remove Hungary related edits -or edits made by Hungarian users- on January 25 2010 when he changed Kingdom of Hungary to Habsburg Empire but that was later corrected. (Transylvania was part of Hungary before it became part of the Habsburg Empire) At 20:40 user Criztu re-added the information in an incorrect way, but another user fixed it (see this link).However user Criztureverted this edit with a comment "much better order", although it was incorrect. Another user fixed it again, but it was reverted again by Criztu ("nopeee, this is chronologically better"). After user Qorilla specified the date (exactly how long was Transylvania, Wallachia and Moldavia ruled by the Romanian Prince Michael the Brave), but was reverted by user Criztu and he added unsourced information about the oppression of the Romanian people by Hungarians. (see link) On 2010 January 27 he made an edit with the following comment:"dear hungarian friends, i know u hate the formulation "Transylvania united with Romania" but the international law (Hungary adheres to it also) recognize Romania as a unitary state. so please" On 2010 January 27 Criztu, with the comment "slavs were nice people, we forgot to put them in the paragraph tho." added the following unencyclopedic text: "The Slavs also settled this beautiful land during this period", but his changes were reverted by another user, but Criztu made a revert too. On 2010 January 28 heremoved the information that Hungarians are a sizeable minority in Transylvania, although 1,434,377 Hungarians live in Transylvania, according to the Romanian census from 2002 (see article:Hungarians in Romania). On 2010 January 28 his edits were reverted by another user with the comment "to eliminate POV and ideological edits", however, Criztu reverted this edit too, but User:Man with one red shoe reverted him again and warned him to do not push his POV. On 2010 January 28 User:Rokarudi expanded the article, with the information that the defeated Hungary was forced to sign the Treaty of Trianon, which outcome was that Transylvania became part of Romania. User:Criztu moved to the talkpage and requested sources to prove that Hungary was forced to sign the Treaty of Trianon "dear hungarian person, who thinks it is a fact that Hungary was forced to sign Trianon Treaty"..."Please provide a reliable source publishing "Hungary was forced to sign Treaty of Trianon" (See: [[Talk:Romania#Hungary forced to sign Trianon Treaty and other stuff]]) When I saw this I added two reliable, English third-party published secondary sources to prove this, (including Encyclopædia Britannica) but he immediately removed the reference and reformulated the article to hide this fact, so I reverted him and I asked him to prove his statements. Meanwhile, Criztu reverted my revert and marked it as "revisionistic POV" (Britannica!). User Criztu thinks, that according to the text of the treaty, which is a primary source "Hungary renounces, so far as she is concerned, in favour of Roumania all rights and title over the territories (including Transylvania) Transylvania)", so Hungary gave Transylvania to Romania, and he doesn't accepts the aspects of moder, neutral sources written by historians that as a defeated country, Hungary had to sign this treaty with this text. He pushes his POV and the "text of the treaty" (Although I told him this "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors"), and he removes everything, what doesnt fit into it (reliable, modern, published english sourcesfrom historians). The discussion is useless. See the "efforts" of the discussion: 0 effect.

Sources which prove that Hungary was forced -but according to Criztu revisionist POV pushers- to sign the Treaty of Trianon:

"Although two million Magyars lived in Transylvania, Hungary was forced to sign the treaty of Trianon on 4 June 1920" From: Spencer Tucker,Laura Matysek Wood,Justin D. Murphy, The European powers in the First World War: an encyclopedia. Taylor & Francis. 1999. p. 691. ISBN 081533351X, 9780815333517.

"[Hungary] was forced to sign the Treaty of Trianon" (June 4Chisholm, Hugh (1922). The Encyclopedia Britannica. The Encyclopedia Britannica Co.. p. 418. ISBN 081533351X, 9780815333517.

I am requesting administrator intervention to resolve this problem.--B@xter⁹ 16:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

First, you are required to notify people if you are reporting them here. Second, walls of text are very likely to be ignored (and personally, I'm not bothering). Third, content dispute stuff isn't appropriate here. Follow dispute resolution, and this isn't the next step. Fourth, I think this is moot as User:Anonimu has at least acknowledged the concern here. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Please inform people corectly: I was making edits to Romania article, and 2 Hungarian editors reverted my edits with following reasons "i don't like your changes" and "you wrote this beautiful land". I told them they have to give me a valid reasons for reverting my edits. Instead of reaching a consensus in [Talk:Romania] page, User:Rokarudi started reformulating the text of the article in what i consider a POV. I have detailed for them in the Discussion page how his forumlations like "Hungary ceded Transylvania to Romania" or "Hungary was forced to sign Trianon Treaty" can be considered POV, and i propsed that we use the formulations that are also used in Trianon Treaty and Hungary articles : "Hungary signed Trianon Treaty" and "Hungary renounced claims over teritories of defunct Austro-Hungarian Empire" which is the formulation of the treaty itself. [[[User:Baxter9]] pops-up out of the blue and adds citations to User:Rokarudi stating "i am not interested in this discussion". I have messaged him in protest, and expressed my doubt about his interest in reaching a consensus, since he didn't bother clearing whether Hungary was forced to sign a treaty or how did Hungary ceded Transylvania, in the Trianon Treaty and Hungary respective articles, while ROmania article does not discuss history of Hungary. And here he is, presenting the situation in what i consider a distorted way. Criztu (talk) 08:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Human Rights Believer

Human Rights Believer was initially blocked by myself for 12 hours, then made a personal attack against my person, so I extended the block to 24 hours. The reason for the block was a topic ban on any Balkans related articles. They then expressed regrets at this, so I unblocked. Soon thereafter they started again. I have now extended the block to an indefinite block.

I am taking this block to review. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:56, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Butcher of the Balkans couldn't have been a more blatant violation, in my mind. Block endorsed. Blueboy96 17:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Concur: This editor has a long history of WP:POINT violations, most recently here. The creation of an article in the face of a specific topic ban was just another example, for which he was blocked for a week. I think overall, he is not a net benefit to this project and should be shown the door. Rodhullandemu 17:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It might be wise however to consider previous ArbCom rulings. Note this case. Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Geogre-William_M._Connolley#Principles Principle #4 reads:

4) In non-emergency situations, administrators should not issue blocks in response to personal attacks or incivility directed at themselves. Passed 7 to 0 (with two abstentions), 03:36, 22 August 2008 (UTC).

:--Cube lurker (talk) 17:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

The standard block length is normally 24 hours, I chose 12 hours in a good faith attempt to allow them back to editing as soon as possible. When I saw the response, I realised that wasn't going to happen so I increased it. I probably should have been more clear in my response. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Endorse - This user has taken up an inordinate amount of time, and is very good at "I can't hear you." This was a very clear, very blatant breach. Canterbury Tail talk 17:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Endorse block Between changes like [13] and [14], edit summaries like [15], and refusing to work out problems, it's evident that this block is not a "retaliation" under any reasonable person's definition and is simply to protect the project. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 17:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

If that was a reference to my comment I just want to clarify, I mean no accusation that this block wasn't earned. Only that at one point there was a deviation from best practices. While in this case it may not be a big deal, it's a good thing to remember for the future. That ruling is a protection for admins. I'm only giving advice to take advantage of it in the future.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear; it wasn't meant to be against you, it was more of an "I agree with Cube lurker in that these situations need to be handled carefully, but this is why I endorse it...". I think it was quite clear you endorsed the block, and my statement was not intended to rebut you in any manner. :) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 18:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It's all good. It's the ever-present dificulty of written text. The tone of comments can be read different ways and sometimes it's a guessing game.--Cube lurker (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Endorse block The editor is either willfully disregarding clearly communicated consensus rulings against him or is extremely incompetent. I highly suspect the former to be the case. A Balkans-related topic ban pretty clearly precludes the editor creating articles with the word "balkans" in the title. ɠǀɳ̩ςεΝɡbomb 17:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Endorse Editor completely reneged on the multiple promises made on their talkpage. —DoRD (?) (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Totally endorse the block, and the comments on the blocked user's talk page. Mjroots (talk) 19:03, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

• Endorse - looks good to me. User appears to be bound and determined to POV-push as hard as possible, despite well-intended warnings to the contrary. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Peter Dorey moving his talk pages around

I just saw that User:Peter Dorey moved his talk page to User talk:Yerodretep, which is an unregistered username. Probably not the best of ideas, so I thought I'd bring it up here rather than taking any action on it myself. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:08, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Moved back and left message (it's his username in reverse...) ninety:one 20:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I also left him a note pointing to WP:CHU, in case that is what he is after. Shereth 20:12, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he's a new editor. Nobody welcomed him :-( I've done this now and pointed him to some useful guidelines and policies. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

POV pushing and vandalism

Dear Administrators,

I would like to report one user, Rochass (talk · contribs), for ongoing POV pushing on several Yugoslav-related articles and removal of referenced chunks of text without any discussion, which are pure acts of vandalism. From Rochass' contributions, it is more than evident what's going on here:

• War crimes in the Kosovo War: His edits entail complete removal of the "Background" section, removal of part of the list containing articles concerning attacks on Serbs, rewriting text that is referenced to his own POV of the events, without providing a single reference,...

• Tuzla Massacre: Complete removal of the "Background" section of the article, which is referenced, and then, after he was reverted, he removed it again, without a word written on the article talk page.

• Role of the media in the Yugoslav wars Complete removal of the "NATO propaganda" section in the article, without explanation. The section was very well referenced.

I can go on, but it's getting really frustrating to deal with this user. I have contacted him about these matters, but he has not replied and, instead, has reverted my edits that re-added the chunks of text he removed without explanation. I would like to kindly ask the Administrators of Wikipedia to look into this matter, as I've tried talking to the user, but he just continued vandalizing articles.

Kind regards,

--Cinéma C 21:36, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Admin,

Cinema is lying. He is a Serbian propagandist who is trying to include false information in some articles related to War Crimes committed by the Serbs. Here is an example: He tried to justify 1995 Tuzla massacre [16] with 1992 Tuzla column case. He wrote that Tuzla massacre was a reaction to Tuzla column case that happened ten days before Tuzla massacre, but that case was 3 years before the massacre, so this is obvious example of his actions. Rochass (talk) 21:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I have taken a look over both editors claims. Rochass has made those edits and removed the material. But, Cinema C also put in the paragraph about the 10 days before and sourced non-english articles. (This was an rv of vandal, comment modified 02:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)) Cinema C tried to talk with Rochass on his talkpage. I suggest waiting for both users to actually talk about it. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 22:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

'Rockass'? HalfShadow 22:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Typo Fixed, my bad. -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 23:20, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You have addressed only one example I have given. What about the rest? --Cinéma C 01:07, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, Rochass has replied to my comments with "I addressed your vandalistic edits in edit summaries", even though I have written to him beforehand that "Edit descriptions is not enough when removing such large chunks of text". I am willing to engage in a discussion about any article, but what Rochass is doing is not at all in good faith or in the spirit of Wikipedia. --Cinéma C 01:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd advise you to stop communicating via user talk pages. This makes it hard for others to know what the issue is. Please confine your discussions to the talk page of the articles in question. You are all under notice about this. If you want us to review the edit wars, then I think that we'll all want to see some discussion on the talk page before we do anything. If I don't see that, I'm going to recommend that you both receive a ban on Kosovo related articles. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Cinema C has acknowledged this on my talk page. That's an extremely good start, I have also asked Rochass to do the same. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 02:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have closed up all talk on my talkpage about it. BTW, I was only trying to help ANI out here, I was not previously involved; i don't know if you meant me with being under notice. I also retracted one of my earlier comments as I investigated more (it is striked). -- /MWOAP|Notify Me\ 02:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry - that wasn't directed at you. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 04:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User:JBsupreme moving an article just before nominating for deletion

Just recently, User:JBsupreme moved Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients to List of Internet Relay Chat clients [17] without an edit summary and I couldn't see a reason for that. Especially because it obviously is a comparison article and he said on the talk page that he'd nominate it for deletion "next week" [18]. Therefore, I requested the move to be reverted [19]. I also notified JBsupreme on the user talk page about that [20]. Now, JBsupreme nominated the moved article for deletion: [21]. This initial version of the AfD lists one previous 2007 AfD about a totally different article located here and not the recent one to the old title of the article here. To illustrate that the old AfD isn't about the same article content, one can take a look at the version the 2007 AfD was about here. I have the strong suspicion that this move right before AfD'ing the article was intended and that JBsupreme intentionally didn't link the most recent AfD about the article which resulted in speedy keep to game the system. I didn't attempt to resolve this dispute with JBsupreme directly, because he didn't reply to my message about the requested move and my involvement in the recent Arbcom case about JBsupreme and others, where he refused to comment. I'm not sure the current state of the AfD is how it should be and would ask an (uninvolved?) administrator to fix the issue. Also, JBsupreme not using edit summaries when making that nomination for deletion wasn't appropriate, he was told to use them just a few hours before making it [22]. --thommey (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The allegation that I didn't respond is false; I posted a response to you on the article talk page nearly 3 hours before you posted here. If you will look right above on the talk page of that article, there has been an ongoing discussion regarding the indiscriminate nature of this list (or "comparison", if you will). I see that the article has been moved back to "Comparison of" rather than "List of", which is fine, but the rationale for deletion still stands. Thank you for the note in any case, I hope this draws more eyes to the problem with these type of indiscriminate lists which are using Wikipedia as a directory service for non-notable software applications. JBsupreme (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I wouldn't even disagree with removing some clients from Comparison of Internet Relay Chat clients - deleting the article is a different thing. And this thread is neither about restricting the list nor about the AfD itself. It's really only about your behaviour. Moving the article to hide the previous AfD on your AfD and not using edit summaries is clearly gaming the system. You've been told to use edit summaries before (your edit summaries have also been a topic of previous AN/I threads), and I'm still waiting for your reason for an obviously pointless and wrong move a few days before nominating the article for deletion. Unless you provide one, I can't see any other reason than the gaming, no matter how hard I try. --thommey (talk) 00:59, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that it was a wrong move, which is why I moved it in the first place. If someone wants to institute mandatory edit summaries into MediaWiki I'm fine with that. JBsupreme (talk) 01:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It is already mandatory to use edit summaries when proposing or nominating for deletion. It is also required to link to prior AfDs. JB, you;'re experienced enough to know about this. DGG ( talk ) 01:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Re [23] which is a veiled personal attack in itself: Please stop making those attacks without evidence. And I wrote "maybe" because I acknowledge there is a chance I'm mistaken and not seeing everything, but actually it's pretty obvious now. --thommey (talk) 22:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your "maybe" is a veiled personal attack. Do not add it back. JBsupreme (talk) 23:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Walls of text

Just a short note (appropriate, no?) that I'm making a suggestion on some changes to the Incidents header and the edit notice. See Wikipedia talk:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentsHeader#Walls of text. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 00:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

tl;dr LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. ts;dr. HalfShadow 00:56, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

dr could mean ANYTHING.  ;) JBsupreme (talk) 00:57, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

dr;dr. Now what're you gonna do? 01:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Too many tildes - FAIL :-) - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

dr/dθ NW (Talk) 01:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

How derivative. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Rodhullandemu and User:raseaC - New user experience

User:Noah Ringer is not the best editor, in fact, he may be a vandal. But I want you all to look how his edits - which could be in good faith, have been handled by these two users. Often we talk about the 'welcoming atmosphere' of Wikipedia being eroded, well take a look at the experience of this editor.

• Noah makes this edit
• He receives this warning from Dorothybrousseau for 'vandalism
• Noah reverts
  • and leaves a rather poorly formatted warning back to Dorothybrousseau
• Noah recieves this message, mentioning that he made previous 'vandalism' edits (not under this account)
  • Presumably with this IP
    • Retaliatory message by Noah
    • and another 'warning' to Dorothybrousseau
• Rodhullandemu leaves a NPA warning
  • Noah removes the PA
• In the mean time, reverts had been going on over the initial edit
  • Noah tells Rodhullandemu he is not vandalising and again - These are his edits to the page: [24] [25] [26]

• This is where things go wrong: Rodhullandemu responds with "Get a clue, please"
  • Noah gives an annoyed, but civil response.
    • Rodhullandemu responds: "Please point out which of my 70,000+ edits do not constitute "a good example". Also, as an Admin, I am duty-bound, and empowered, to enforce editing policies and standards of behaviour. If that means knocking heads together, I'll knock heads together, even if there is only one head to knock."

• Simultaneously raseaC leaves Noah a warning for leaving silly warnings
  • Noah asks 'how is leaving warnings vandalism'
    • raseaC's response: Giving other editors silly 'warnings' is unconstructive and therefore vandalism. Don't do it.

At this point, I get involved. I replaced the warnings on Noah's talk page with a "Hi how can I help you" message. RaseaC adds his back, telling me never to refactor his comments again. I leave both raseaC and Rodhullandemu notes (raseaC a nice one, Rodhullandemu, not so much). A sample of their responses indicated that I would not be able, or willing to try to resolve this issue of how new editors should be treated:

• Rodhullandemu: Editors who don't get it, even when told, are expensive in terms of hand-holding, but I am not a nanny- I am, if you like, an enforcer.
• raseaC: I disagree, anyone with a shred of common sense would know that his interaction with that user was inappropriate.
• raseaC: Problem editors are more likely to remember a message from a WP:DICK than a template warning from another editor. If they were serious about helping chances are they'd consider it a lesson.

I ask you: how should this new user, regardless of their intentions be treated? Clearly some positive edits - removing the PA, asking why something was wrong - some wikilinking. Is this an appropriate way to to treat new editors? I spent a lot of time formatting this in an easy to follow way. For the full conversations both editors had with me Rodhullandemu and RaseaC. I have no objections to Dorothybrousseau's behavior, which I think shows the right attitude to have. Prodego ^talk 01:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• I would suggest you review the very first diff you give, and note the preceding edit - a reversion of vandalism by Rodhullandemu. Then click to see what that vandalism was, and the name that was included in the inappropriate text... "Noah Ringer". I think you will find that the account Noah Ringer is the same individual that was vandalising the articles by inserting the name Noah Ringer as an ip. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC):

• That IP is linked a few lines down from that first diff. :) Its not so much that this editor is perfect - I'm saying that the response was not in line with the vandalism and mistakes he made, particularly given that he did show at least some level of good intentions. Prodego ^talk 01:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

SRSLY? "Noah Ringer is a reincarnation of David Carradine"? WP:REDFLAG! Rodhullandemu 01:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This is the nonsense that started this incident. It didn't fill me with any confidence. The same editor clearly started an account, which by any standard is a single-purpose account. I go further: I pointed out that if this editor is Noah Ringer, the actor, he should say so, otherwise, this is an impersonation account. He hasn't, as far as I'm aware, done so., and is blockable for that alone. However, this is not an "incident" requiring admin intervention, although the usual unnecessary drama may well ensue. If anything, if belongs in a Request for comment, if the editor bringing it here thinks it has the legs to survive there. No admin action is suggested, nor even, in my view, worthy. If we can't just get on with our jobs, which we do conscientiously, and continuously, without interference from those who don't have the full picture, we are doomed tr failure. Rodhullandemu 01:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

For the record, about 90% of all editors, good or bad, start off looking like SPAs. And yes, I do expect there to be an attempt to help new users understand our rules, not kneejerk reactions to ban them for various misdeeds. If this editor is indeed Noah Ringer, we're talking about a very young person who would benefit more from guidance than hostility. Risker (talk) 01:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Any person who is the reincarnation of David Carradine would be considered precocious to be speaking, let alone editing Wikipedia (I am fairly sure that karma does not include time travel, well not the last version I read on WP anyway). More to the point, I would note that RH&E was previously involved with this ip (Special:Contributions/67.64.157.147) and given the preferred subject matter and actions found there I should think that AGF need not have been overly extended to this user. LessHeard vanU (talk) 02:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Let's get this clear: do you seriously think this and this were inadequate to indicate to this new editor that his contributions were problematic? And if so, youth aside, he can clearly string words together. So why did he not ask for guidance, and why, when threatened with blocking as an IP, did he then create an account to avoid blocking as an IP?. Sucks. Anyone who can spell "reincarnation" correctly ain't that naive. Rodhullandemu 02:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Lols. WP rules trumps common sense again. I'd like to point out that despite Prodego removing my contributions to a third party's talk despite not consulting me first I was only to happy to take his concerns into account and adjust the warning so in effect this situation was sorted way before this thread was started. This is the mother of all non-issues. Admins must be bored. raseaC^{talk to me} 10:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Well, let's have it then. Prodego, what admin action, if any, are you requesting be taken here? I don't see it. Beeblebrox (talk) 00:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

4chan username vandalism

Guess the widdle 4chan kiddies couldn't get a date on a Friday night beyond the inflatable type. The new user log's getting hit with the usual BS.--PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh they can only dream to someday own a RealDoll. I think for now it's Rosey Palm and her 5 Sisters, maybe some low-quality internet pr0n on the side. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

PS: How do I get a hold of that rollback tool which deletes the names from the log? Me like... --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

LOL! Well, the little tools are watching the goings-on here. They're so cute when they're little, no?  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Cute? Ehh, not so much. >:) —DoRD (?) (talk) 05:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's nothing more to done, let's WP:DENY and move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I just label this 'ANI Thread of the Week' :) - i'll go through the userlogs later today and scrub the worst of them per WP:RD2 - Alison ^❤ 05:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The participation in this thread seems to suggest either that several Wikipedians are likewise dateless on a Friday night, or that their idea of a date is editing Wikipedia together. I'm not sure which to go with, here. Badger Drink (talk) 23:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Andrewrp

This user reverted me at WLOT-LP. I tried to ask them why they reverted my edit ([27]), as I see nothing wrong with it, but they reverted my leaving a message ([28]) and reverted WLOT-LP again. Since they won't answer me, can someone help? 69.221.165.95 (talk) 01:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are obviously advertising that the t.v. station is for sale, and have a link to the site where you can but it. That is Spam and advertising, which is prohibited. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 01:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Andrew seems to have responded to you on your talk page. Wikipedia is not for advertising, please. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I answered at Andrewrp's talk, since they messaged me. Read the article- it's talking about an ownership battle. That isn't my site. That's also violating WP:AGF to say I'm "obviously" doing something. 69.221.165.95 (talk) 01:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It is spam, as the pdf offers contact info to sell the station. Please see THIS

User did not respond to my messages, says he quits wikipedia. I believe this incident is resolved. And to any admin that may be reading this, let me point out that this was never or was never intended to be an edit war. I would not have broken 3RR if he continued. Andrewrp^Tally-ho! 02:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

From what I've read so far I think your actions were blatantly wrong. I think you attacked this IP too quickly. The IP then contacted you on the talk page to find out why you reverted it and instead of calmly explaining your reasoning and cordially suggesting the conversation be continued on the talk page so that the discussion is in the open you reverted that. I think a new user who didn't know much about wikipedia would view that as actively adversarial. I don't blame the IP's frustration with you. As for the merits of the IP's edit; the argument for removal due to Wikipedia:Spam#Citation_spam seems questionable. If a radio station is trying to sell itself then this information is important for the article to include. The reference the IP used seems fine to me. Its a primary source, but just because it includes some contact information doesn't invalidate it. If you could have found a secondary source to replace it and tried to include it instead then I would have seen your point. But if there is only a primary source to provide this info, I think its inclusion is more important than the more secondary concerns that the reference has contact information of the station. I guess what I'm mainly saying is that this wasn't a clear cut advertising issue and that you should have conducted the conversation on the articles talk page so that all could see. I think the desire to talk about it on the IP's talk page can seem like a strange type of control issue.Chhe (talk) 09:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

"If a radio station is trying to sell itself then this information is important for the article to include." Absolutely not per WP:SOAP and WP:NPOV. Without independent sources, this is highly promotional and inappropriate. --Ronz (talk) 16:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Malke 2010

There has been a discussion going on for some time on the Sarah Palin page under several different sections concerning whether sections should be "scaled back". We've been having a discussion on many similar matters for a long time and I thought the matter could use the input of some uninvolved users with regards to one specific section that we had been discussing on and off.

So I started an RFC --->[29].

Then the user Malke 2010 undid my edit saying that I need consensus before I start an RFC---->[30]

I then undid his edit --->[31]

Malke 2010 then undid my edit again --->[32]

I then undid the edit again --->[33]

Then Malke 2010 undid my edit again ---> [34]

Why can't I start an RFC? I didn't even get a chance to explain why I think we need one. But even if all the users on the page disagree with my reasoning why should any of them be able to block me from doing so. PS. I should also add that this same user was last blocked for making legal threats against me and making disruptive edits on the Karl Rove talk page reported by Jusdafax. I suspect this might have something to do with this behavior above. Malke 2010 has also previously started an unsuccessful ANI on me and then an unsuccessful wikiquette. It strikes me as inappropriate behavior. What should I do?Chhe (talk) 02:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you read WP:RFC, the first step is to discuss things with other users. I haven't looked at the article but it does not sound from your own statement like you've been doing that. And I also gather from your statement that all other editors disagree with you. I'm not thinking RFC is "calling in reinforcements". I suggest you go back to the talk page and talk about it. Also, you should have notified the other user of this thread.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I tried to notify the other users but I kept getting errors from wikipedia. It was locking up. I finally managed to notify Malke 2010. As far as having discussed the matter, we have at length. This has been discussed in two different sections of the talk page. Also, completely analogous topics have been discussed at length too relating to condensing sections. I wanted to start an RFC to get some uninvolved users inputs. Whats wrong with that? PS. Just for the record there are three sections all about in general scaling back sections.Chhe (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello, we've been having a discussion on the Sarah Palin talk page about various issues that editors have regarding sources, the scale of the size of sections that have sister article links, etc. Chhe has not really joined in that discussion. I believe he is here right now because he wants to get me blocked from editing. You should also know that Chhe has been following me around to other articles. He's come over to Scott Brown too. He doesn't edit or make contributions. He only disagrees with anything I say. In addition, on the Sarah Palin article, he did not ask any of us currently discussing things if we felt we needed an RFC. The other editors there right now who have been using the talk page, including myself, have all been discussing things and going back and forth in a cooperative manner.

When Chhe followed me earlier, I went to Moonriddengirl for advice and he followed me there and went on and on with things that made no sense. I will provide the diffs so that you can see that, but I wanted to put this comment here first. The Sarah Palin article is on article probation and with editors talking and cooperating, it seems more that Chhe is looking to find editors to agree with him and stop the process. I think Chhe's motivations are not the article or any article, they are to get me blocked. I've been working hard to add to the project and I would welcome suggestions for solving this. Thank you.Malke2010 03:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Also I wanted to add, I've never been blocked for making any kind of legal threats. As a new user, Chhe baited me into violating the 3RR and he went to an admin, not a noticeboard and I got blocked.Malke2010 03:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

also, chhe never attempted to notify any of the editors before he called for the RFC. He just announced it.Malke2010 03:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Here are the diffs from Scott Brown and Moonriddengirl's page. You can see where he even gets into an argument with Moonriddengirl. Diffs:

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38] Malke2010 03:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not following Malke 2010 around and I'm not acting vindictively. I suspect Malke is accusing me of that to try to threaten me whenever I disagree with him/her. I'm not the only one Malke 2010 has done this too:

The Magnificent Clean-keeper

[39]

[40]

Scjessey

[41]Chhe (talk) 03:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's my input. Both of you need to back away from that page before we get another lame edit war. Seriously guys? You can't even agree on if you should have an RFC? How about you both take the rest of the weekend off from the subject and then come back and talk to each other with a third pary overseeing the whole discussion so that way things do not get out of hand--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to both mutually stop editing at Sarah Palin article. But I think you should know that I honestly started the RFC to try to prevent an edit war. Maybe that was a stupid thing for me to expect. But at the time it seemed to me that others were going to keep repeating the same talking points that would lead to edit warring and it required some neutral outside opinions. I thought an RFC would provide that.Chhe (talk)

Your reasoning for starting the RFC however has no basis. It falls under WP:OTHERSTUFF. Perhaps you should have been more clear in stateing as to why you started it in the first place.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 03:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Agree with Coldplay Expert. Right now, there is no need for admins to get involved. Please get a good night's sleep and make sure it stays that way. If you want an RFC, Chhe, it might be a good idea to read up on them. It does look like you both are teetering on the edge of 3RR. Both cool it down. I don't see anything more to do here, let's mark this resolved. Next?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely, agree. Another editor on Sarah Palin expressed the desire to discuss it again on Monday. Sounds good to me.Malke2010 04:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Wehwalt. And now, @ Chhe, If you remember correctly? way to cover your bases dude. We alrady have enough of this stuff going on that will not stop. I suggest that both of you take my advice and cool down. Get a good night's sleep and calmly talk about the issue tomorrow.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Wehwalt, its not appropriate that you are contributing to this ANI in an official manner. You have been extensively involved in edit discussions on other pages with Malke 2010 recently involving disputes. I'd like a second opinion from another admin. Also, am I ever allowed to start an RFC at the Sarah Palin page? If not how am I supposed to resolve disputes?Chhe (talk) 04:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

AN/I is an open forum. I've taken no administrative action, but given advice to both parties I believe to be sound, and that no one seems to be disagreeing with. That's what happens here, a lot of the time. Please do not assume that Wikipedia runs by cabals and conspiracies, that way lies ruin.--Wehwalt (talk) 04:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, you gave me the impression by your last post that you were acting in an official manner. My bad. I was only saying that because this edit seemed fishy [42] and for the stuff on the Scott Brown talk page that we were involved with.Chhe (talk) 04:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to know how to deal with images for an article? You can email me if you want to know that one. I had not heard your name until tonight and have never (I think) edited the Palin article. I noticed this section because, like most admins, I have AN/I watchlisted and the name of an editor who sought my advice last night popped up. Any other questions?--Wehwalt (talk) 04:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Like I said I'll take your word for it. But why are you asking about images (I do know how to handle images)?Chhe (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You just will not let things go will you? Just drop the stick and move on with your life. Malke has disengaged, as should you.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I just want an opinion from an uninvolved admin thats all; with an explanation for what I should do with regards to placing an RFC on the talk page. I'll shutup after that. I promise.Chhe (talk) 04:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not asking for you to shut up. After all, Wikipedia is not censored. I'm just asking for you to go and edit an article or two. Not waste time here and getting into endless disputes over an RFC! Go and read the page WP:RFC and then come back. In the mean time, go off and build an encyclopedia.--Coldplay Expért ^{Let's talk} 04:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You should read up on how RFCs work before taking an article to RFC. You should try for discussion before an RFC - they are really for intractible disputes, though can be used in other cases if expert attention is being sought (which is not the case here). You should also disengage from that article for 24 hours, and I suggest that you also understand that as this is a content dispute there is very little that administrators can or will do in regards to your concerns. The following is advise from a totally uninvolved administrator. I do hope this is helpful. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 05:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A series of range blocks requested

I have been dealing with an unregistered vandal for the past two months and due to his increased activity over the past week, I have been able to narrow down the ranges IP addresses he uses amongst those available to users of SBC Global. A full description of the vandal (and the dozen or so IPs used so far) can be seen here. I am requesting that the following ranges of IP addresses to be blocked until SBC Global/AT&T responds to the abuse request:

• 76.200.100.0/22 (76.200.100.0 - 76.200.103.255)
• 76.202.56.0/22 (76.202.56.0 - 76.202.59.255)
• 76.204.76.0/22 (76.204.76.0 - 76.204.79.255)
• 76.205.24.0/22 (76.205.24.0 - 76.205.27.255)
• 75.36.128.0/20 (75.36.128.0 - 75.36.143.255)

This is much more effective than protecting the pages that are most often hit, because there have always been beneficial edits to these pages by unregistered users in the past. This one individual for some reason has been repeatedly removing references from these pages and does so even after he has been reverted on the same IP a few moments beforehand. These are as narrow I can make the ranges.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This was originally posted over at WP:AN but I got no response.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:46, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's a pattern to the edits, it may be more appropriate to use an edit filter, depending on what that pattern is. Do you have some diffs so I might be able to take a look? (You didn't mention any particular IPs so I don't exactly know what to look for.) --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The only common pattern are the articles hit and the references removed from them constantly. All of the IPs used can be seen here.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I remember working on this filter now that I look at the description... It was being handled by filter 286 but it was causing performance problems and there were no hits, so I deactivated it. I will re-enable it and see if I can't resolve the performance problems. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 03:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) After working with it for a bit I got it to a reasonable point for now. It's currently running log only while I verify it, so a few things might still get through. The best course of action for now is, if you see another thing that should have been hit by the filter, leave me a message on my talk page so I can investigate it. Administrators: I leave it up to you if you want to mark this resolved or if you want to go through with the range block. I am sufficiently satisfied that this will keep this particular pattern of abuse at bay for now, but... well... WP:BEANS. --Shirik (Questions or Comments?) 05:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just semi protect the articles concerned? Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd rather not have all these pages semiprotected. There are a bunch of useful contributions from IPs that I don't want to lose.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just implement flagged revisions already? JBsupreme (talk) 05:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please institute these five range blocks? The vandal had come back again today and if these ranges were blocked, then he would not have been able to remove the references again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Image BLP?

Resolved

 – Image in question deleted, user account that uploaded it has been indefinitely blocked and may appeal on their talk page if they so choose, no need for further admin action.

--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Dougweller asked me to take a look at File:Sex Tourists Thailand.jpg to see if I believed it constituted a WP:BLP concern. I do, both in title and in its usage. While the individuals are not named, they are clearly visible and recognizable by anyone who knows them. The uploader claims to have permission from the two gentlemen (Talk:Sex tourism#BLP concerns), but this is not verified, and there's no mention of permission from the lady. (He says the same here, also indicating the picture was taken specifically for this article...three and a half years before it was uploaded, according to metadata.) Moving this image to a neutral title will not resolve the matter, given the purpose for use. Since images are not my major area I bring it here for additional review. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Deleted: G10. The uploader's other contributions hardly add to their credibility. CIreland (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

There is

1. No need for an image of what someone who is a sex tourist looks like in this article.
2. No evidence that the people in the image are indeed sex tourists
3. No evidence that they are in Thailand. The proliferation of Heinz tomato ketchup bottles and common North American sugar and salt sachets seems to suggest they are not.

So this image shouldn't be here. And that's even before the potential personal attack/BLP indicators. Canterbury Tail talk 13:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• (EC) I would be listing it for Deletion, Not only is there a BLP issue (which doesn't even demonstrate the subject title it is trying to cover as it's just looks like tourists drinking at a bar) but also seems not to be the uploaders own work according to the information they have given in the summary. Bidgee (talk) 13:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(ec) Endorse the deletion, and was just about to advocate for it here. There's absolutely no way for us to know that we have the permission of everyone in the article to use that photo, that they were in fact engaging in "sex tourism," or indeed that they were even in Thailand. Inherent BLP problems make deleting an easy call I think. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 13:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I support/endorse the deletion of that image as well. Pcap ping 13:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I endorse this deletion also. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 13:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Add to this, the same uploader previously did this and several other rather dubious edits. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:26, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, that kind of seals it, doesn't it? :/ Thanks for the swift feedback (and handling, CIreland :)). I almost speedied (and probably would have if I had noticed that he claimed it was taken especially for the article, when it was taken in 2006, before posting it here), but I've not handled much by way of BLP images. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the user in question, I recently left them a message on their talk page after reviewing (and reverting) their edits. They were given feedback last year in regards to their behaviour, and it has recently continued (with no intervening edits). They appear to be a low-grade vandalism-only account, except that they have the appearance of acting in good faith. I say appearance because they made this edit, which does not look like the typing of someone alive during World War II, in addition to the use of the "imho" edit summary here. The rest of their edits vary between unhelpful and vandalism. Could an admin please take a look? Thanks. Throwaway85 (talk) 13:45, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Rabbi Orr Cohen (talk · contribs) Having reviewed all the contibutions of this user, I have indefinately blocked the account as vandalism only. WP:AGF only goes so far. This is simply a troll. Please review his contributions yourself if you have concerns about my action, I'm sure you'll agree with it when you do.--Scott Mac (Doc) 13:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I endorse this block. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:53, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks everyone. I was late leaving the house for worldwide cinema broadcast of a Terry Pratchett play (Nation) from the National Theatre, London, & really shouldn't have been looking at my computer at all!. Dougweller (talk) 18:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Possible link spamming

Since the word "wiki" is often mistakenly equated to Wikipedia, I suspect this job ad might lead to a spam attack that would earn someone money if it's not detected in time. Please be on the look out for anyone with a name that resembles one of the bidders or try to pry more details from the project creator by making a bid to get more information. See http://www.getafreelancer.com/projects/601428.html for more information. - 87.211.75.45 (talk) 16:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've reported the ad for abuse. I'm not willing to add my personal details to the website, so I'm unable to post on the project board. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Rama

I'm slightly gobsmacked... but Rama has been adding {{di-replaceable fair use}} to a whole raft of Holocaust and POW images. These include File:Holocaust123.JPG, File:Soviet Prisoners of War.jpg, File:WieselAuschwitzpits.jpg and File:Mass Grave Bergen Belsen May 1945.jpg. When I asked him about File:Holocaust123.JPG, he wrote "Obviously not. I would not have made the edit then".[43]

I've asked him for more info, so I'm hoping that he'll respond soon, but something doesn't seem quite right to me. Any admins have an opinion on this? I only take it here because I don't feel that this is a content dispute, this looks suspiciously like POINTy behaviour. I could be wrong here though, but does not seem likely.

I'll let Rama know about this thread so he can respond. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Of potential relevance here is Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rama. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 16:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rama. I think a topic ban may be in order to curb the disruption resulting from their actions taken in light of their extreme views on fair use and replaceability. –xeno^talk 16:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Wow. He doesn't seem to have much discernment in this matter. I take a dim view to most fair use images, but in his case it's ridiculous! - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 16:52, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, please check this slightly inappropriate edit summary. Should someone block him for a day or so to get him to engage with this discussion, since he doesn't seem to be stopping? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone take action to make sure none of the images he's tagged are deleted until this is resolved? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia_talk:Non-free_content#Deletion_process_is_dysfunctional --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, just for a summary:

• one can't summarily delete frivolously uploaded non-Free material
• one can't tag it for review, it is "only slightly less disruptive than" [deleting images] [44] (!). Tags get mass-reverted, even when the image is so very much irreplaceable that it is actually available on Commons (File:Israel'sDepartmentStoreboycott.jpg and File:Bundesarchiv Bild 102-14469, Berlin, Boykott-Posten vor jüdischem Warenhaus.jpg)
• one cannot explicitly replace images in the articles because it is "No consensus. Combative. Pointy". [45]

Assuming that everybody is aware of the policy Wikipedia:Non-free content, I would like to ask the assembly how exactly one is supposed to remove superfluous non-Free material. If, as I assume, there is no possibility to do that, I suggest the participants above devote their energies to abolishing the policy rather than to lynching the people trying in good faith to implement it. Rama (talk) 18:58, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

So, what, images from the Holocaust are being marked as "replaceable" ? What should we do, Rama, hold another one and invite wiki-photographers to it so they can then properly license them? Tarc (talk) 19:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. Rama might have invented a time machine. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:50, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that User:Rama does not always work within process, and I don't think it's a good idea to start tagging these articles for speedy deletion without discussion, I think it's important to recognize that there are valid concerns here. There is more than one image which might represent the horrors of the Holocaust; some of them are free. Can a free image like File:German atrocities. Germany, Poland & Czechoslovakia, 1945.jpg adequately convey what is conveyed by File:Holocaust123.JPG? That one may be a matter for consensus, but it's not an unreasonable stance if Rama believes that it can. Rama, you ask where to go to remove superfluous non-free material; are you familiar with the largely forgotten process board at Wikipedia:Non-free content review? It seems to be engineered for precisely such situations as this. Granted, it's not quick, and getting somebody to actually close discussions there is a feat in itself. But it provides a forum to explain why you think the image is replaceable and by what and for others to agree or disagree. And I have optimistic hopes that if more people know about it and use it, it might actually function better. Alternatively, you can also discuss that at the talk pages of the articles where such images are used. If you replace a non-free image with an appropriate free image, explain why at the talk page, and the replacement proves uncontroversial, the unused non-free image can be tagged for {{Di-orphaned fair use}}. Given the circumstances, I would give it a day or two before tagging it, myself. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

That relies on assuming good faith in Rama's actions. Through several AN/I discussions and the RfC, I believe I have enough "clear evidence to the contrary" to kick AGF to the curb. Tarc (talk) 00:25, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Outside of this situation (that is, two ani threads & the RfC), I don't know Rama. I think there has been a tendentious tendency to delete material against process, which I gather has resolved, and a worrying tendency to persist in the face of community input, but I'm inclined to suspect that he means well. (If it had all been Holocaust-related content, then I'd begin to worry there was a political axe being ground here. It's not, though.) Even if Rama has gone about it the wrong way, I just think he has an, um, unusual interpretation of "replaceable" and probably feels he is doing a service to Wikipedia and our reusers by trying to keep images to guideline. I don't think Rama should continue as he has, but I think in all fairness we do need to acknowledge that he may have what he feels are good reasons. Suggesting alternatives that aren't disruptive seems to me like a good idea. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 00:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I know Rama well enough to know that while he is being disruptive, there is no ill-intent to his actions. Certainly you could in no way call him a holocaust denier - his actions have nothing to do with the topic itself, but are merely his stance against fair use images. Normally I would find this admirable, but in this case it's really pushing things. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:54, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't consider File:Dachau cold water immersion.jpg replacable. Nor do I think that File:Exocet imapct.jpg would be possible to replace. So why did these get {{Di-orphaned fair use}} added to them? - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 22:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Rama, it is clear from discussion here and on your RFC that your view of what constitutes "free use" and "replaceable" differs significantly from the Wikipedia consensus. What will it take to get you to stop trying to impose your view on everyone else? Jayjg ^(talk) 00:35, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Many of these images are quite unique. This one, for example, is one of a series of famous photographs taken by prisoners in Auschwitz and smuggled out by the Polish underground. They are in the public domain in Poland, but because Wikipedia's servers are in the United States, all we can do is claim fair use—though this one may be PD in the United States too under the Uruguay Round Agreements Act, because it entered the public domain before January 1, 1996. We claim fair use for it on WP only because the PD situation isn't entirely clear. We obviously can't find out who took this image and track that person's family down, and it's clearly not replaceable. We have to claim fair use for most Holocaust images for similar reasons.

Given that the prisoners took and smuggled out these images—at great personal risk to everyone involved—precisely to make sure people believed what was going on, it seems bizarre to delete them from the encyclopedia that's meant to contain the sum of human knowledge. This is one of the more tragic aspects of that knowledge. If ever a fair-use claim were justified, surely it's here. SlimVirgin ^{TALK contribs} 00:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Slim, I have to say that is the best summation of this whole issue I've read on this thread. - Tbsdy (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 01:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

User:StuckWithMeFan113

Resolved

 – indef'ed Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

StuckWithMeFan113 (talk · contribs) has received over 3 dozen warnings over the last couple of months related to non-free image uploads (lack of licensing info, lack of fair use rationales, etc). He has not responded to any of these and merely continued the behavior, receiving a final warning from User:TreasuryTag on January 1. The behavior has still not stopped; he continues even today to upload non-free images without any license info or rationales, and has even taken to falsely uploading them as {{PD-self}} in order to avoid WP:NFCC (see [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], and [54] for examples). Since TreasuryTag's final warning was not followed up on, I believe a block is in order. --IllaZilla (talk) 18:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I wonder, he may be a sockpuppet of User:Stuckwithmefan112. That user account also had similar warnings and was blocked twice by User:feyday then indefinite for ignoring image upload warnings. I agree with your block decision. The block should be indefinite in my opinion. Minimac94 (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Obvious sock, endorse indefinite block. I will do it myself unless anyone has any objections (or it hasn't been done already). SGGH ^ping! 19:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have blocked for one week. Do we stretch to an indef block as per the previous account? SGGH ^ping! 19:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep. Upgraded to indef. He'll be back. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This is NOT a legal threat

Resolved

Please note that I am going to vandalise your website, and you may not legally block me for doing so. Ha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.177.217.155 (talk) 19:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I blocked the user without warning. he came straight here, stated his intention to vandalise and knowledge of policy, then proceded to threaten to rape an established contributor. However, given that I gave no warning I would appreciate a review of this block. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:25, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Support People with those attitudes don't deserve warning, and I was thinking of filing an abuse report with his ISP. Rodhullandemu 19:27, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Definitely a good block. I was in the process of doing the same. you beat me to it. Resolute 19:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

31 hours seems light, considering the threat of personal violence made at User talk:Moonriddengirl. Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:29, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I see ZScout ramped it up to 72 hours. Blueboy96 19:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

He made an abusive unblock request, which I rolled back. I also shut off his talk page. Any available checkusers may want to have a look--something tells me this isn't a new user. Blueboy96 19:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. However, I also suspect it may be a proxy. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Endorse - They seem to know what they're doing I concur most likely not new. No warning was needed IMHO. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This is a seasoned troll who will be on a new IP in five minutes. Please RBI. I got fined £1,000,000,000,000 earlier[55]. See my talk page for more history. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't stop us checking out the IPs for proxies and shutting them down as appropriate. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:38, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

They are not proxies, but he uses both BT and Tiscali - two of the largest dynamic ranges in the UK. If you want more of his IPs there's a link on my talk page (as well as my block log) to some more. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 19:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Nonsensical idiocy. Perfect block. Agree with Blood Red Sandman. SGGH ^ping! 19:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If you send me $100, I will be more than happy to assume all risk and consequence should that fine not be paid.  ;) Resolute 19:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Threats of violence

Resolved

 – Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 19:42, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Should pages such as this be deleted as threats of violence? Or should the account be blocked because of that plus the dumb edit to Beeblerox's userpage? ╟─TreasuryTag►duumvirate─╢ 19:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Pretty obvious troll, I think. Blocked indef, userpage speedied. Blueboy96 19:37, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

• Word of advice, don't bother talking to the "Colonel Sanders vandal," it's a complete waste of time. I'm going to re-block with talk page and email revoked. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like Peter Symonds already got it. He'll be back in a week or so, make the same idiotic edits, and get blocked again in about five minutes... Beeblebrox (talk) 20:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Indiana Department of Homeland Security copyright infringement of wikipedia material

In the pdf produced by the Indiana Department of Homeland Security for racial profiling, the vocabulary section on page 3/4 is copied from wikipedia, yet there is no attribution to Wikipedia or even a mention of it(wikipedia)...

The purpose of the pdf is "To research positions related to the topic of racial profiling post September 11, 2001 with a primary focus on citizens of Middle Eastern descent, and to give an informative speech."

It uses 7 terms from Wikipedia: Racial Profiling, USA PATRIOT Act, Bigotry, Internment, Terrorism, Counter-terrorism, The War on Terrorism.

The original discussion is at Wikipedia:Village_pump (miscellaneous)#Indiana Department of Homeland Security Racial Profiling pdf.Smallman12q (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

User:Simonpettersen

I've just indeffed Simonpettersen (talk · contribs) for uploading this file after a final warning not to upload copyright images to Wikipedia. This editor has a long history of uploading copyrighted images without an appropriate licence or fair use rationale. Suggest that any unblock is conditional upon a ban from uploading images to Wikipedia. Mjroots (talk) 19:54, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Good call. Suspect that any other images he's uploaded should be deleted as well, given his disregard for copyright. Blueboy96 20:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedist / Ulises Heureaux

Encyclopedist was unbanned by an admin, Alison, under his account Ulises. Said account was blocked again in January 2010 because of abusive alternate accounts, even though he didn't do anything in a while. So what do you do now, start a wheel war? Loopknow (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but could you please clarify your question? Both Encyclopedist (talk · contribs) and Ulises Heureaux (talk · contribs) are currently blocked indefinitely. -FASTILY ^(TALK) 20:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, it's our old friend Grawp. Blocked indef. Blueboy96 20:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Bad Block

Could someone have a look at this bad block on Domer, he has asked Elonka to provide diffs to show the reason for his probation, I too have asked and also One Night in Hackney has asked. Now he has been blocked for alleged harassment when all he was doing was to ask a reasonable request for clarification per WP:ADMIN. I am unable to follow this thread this evening as I must go to work but some eyes would be appreciated. BigDunc 20:04, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

It appears the block came after Domer said he would start an RfC on Elonka, which Domer said he was seeking answers before he took this step as is required. BigDunc 20:12, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

This seems like another issue that could've been avoided with WP:JDI. People tend to continue answering a stubborn user and then call them disruptive when they continue to respond. This doesn't jive with harassment in my mind. Harassment is when you do your part and stop responding, and the user continues posting to try to get a reaction. That's not what happened here, as far as I can see. Letting Domer have the last word would've quelled this, I think. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:28, 30 Jan 2010 (UTC)

Actually, if you look at his talkpage, you'll see that didn't work -- I stopped responding, but then even after his block was up, he made a beeline to my talkpage to continue the demands, with the support of his ally BigDunc. Anyway, if any other admins care to review the situation though, here are related threads:

• User talk:Domer48#January 2010
• User talk:Domer48#History
• User talk:Domer48#Remove this unsupportable block
• User talk:Elonka#FYI

In a nutshell: Domer48 was placed on ArbCom Enforcement probation in November 2009, requiring him to adhere to 1RR on all articles in the Troubles topic area. He violated this once in December, and again about a week ago, both of which incidents resulted in a 1-week block. During the most recent one, Domer started wikilawyering up a storm, insisting that the original probation was invalid, and demanding diffs to prove that he was edit-warring. Dozens of diffs have been provided, by multiple admins (see above threads), but no matter what's provided, he keeps saying it's not enough. He has been strongly encouraged to pursue this through a more proper venue, such as filing a thread at WP:AE and requesting that the probation be reviewed, but instead, he's just been camping on my talkpage and repeating over and over that he wants diffs. Considering his long block log already, the latest block seems appropriate to me. I invite other uninvolved admins to review the situation and offer their own opinions. --Elonka 20:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Most of the posts on your talk page appear to be from BigDunc, not Domer. Regardless, that thread grew largely due to your willingness to participate in it. The user was then blocked for "harassing" you. Once you give an answer you feel is satisfactory and you don't want to be bothered anymore, I think you should stop responding. Users shouldn't be blocked because they were continuing an exchange with a willing participant, IMO. I've seen this kind of situation before and I find it illogical how much it's an accepted consequence of stubborn behavior around here. Equazcion ^(talk) 20:49, 30 Jan 2010 (UTC)

One runs out of options quickly when a user will not get the point. A good idea in such a situation can be to draw outside scrutiny to the situation. Chillum ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 22:14, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

IMHO, Domer48 should be unblocked, as he wasn't vandalizing Elonka's userpage. Having said that, he should discontinue contacting Elonka at her talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you think I did the right thing with this SPI case?

I filed an SPI case both concerning Nintendofan5000 and Bambifan101 who are both blocked for sock puppetry in terms of similarities with edits and both usernames containing the word "fan" and a number at the end.

Look at the SPI case for more information. Thanks. Micro-Cruzer (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You are also a sockpuppet and I claim my five pounds. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I think this user might be worth a look as a sock of Pickbothmanlol as requested in the SPI case that he just submitted. Renny The Bat (talk) 20:44, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like the joke is on you. Micro-Cruzer (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Both blocked as sockpuppets. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

So wait, a sockpuppet reported another sockpuppet? Thanks guys! JBsupreme (talk) 21:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

PIPony22

PIPony22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would some administrator take a look at User:PIPony22's contribution history? They seem to have mostly spent their time marking various userpages with sockpuppet templates referring to themselves, but they also just created the inappropriate page Wikipedia:Don't edit with a iPad, which seems to indicate that they aren't here to be constructive. Thanks in advance. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

None of the edits by this user make any sense to me, and some are outright disruptive. I am indefinitely blocking the user as a disruption-only account until a good explanation for any of this is forthcoming.  Sandstein  22:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I've deleted the three userpages he made (two as U2 and a third as G3; the latter is the userpage of a fallow account from late '06). I'm also nuking the category he made; I think this is XXV or PBML. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 23:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Patel

Would anyone mind giving this page a look-over? I think I've reverted it to the cleanest version, but the page was a mess when I came across it, so I'm unsure. HalfShadow 21:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

BlackJack evading block

Resolved

 – He's out for a week. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 23:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

BlackJack (talk · contribs), who was recently blocked for abusing sockpuppets, is evading his block by editing as an IP (86.148.207.61 (talk · contribs)). He has also made what may be considered a legal threat.[56] Could an admin please block this IP. Thanks in advance. --88.110.56.81 (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Blocked 1w. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Boribori!)} 23:15, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Joe Chill needs to chill

It all ends in good company.

He keeps calling another user a dick, a troll or a combination thereof. See [57]. Pcap ping 23:20, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, Lulu always assumes bad faith to me in software AfD and I'm sick of it. Being civil to him got me nowhere. If someone can get Lulu to stop, I'll stop. Joe Chill (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

You know what, Joe Chill and I have had our differences in the past. In fact, we still do. But it is pretty obvious that the person he is interacting with is indeed trolling. Sad. JBsupreme (talk) 23:23, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

The subject line of this ANI is probably a true enough statement. WP:CIVIL is a good idea, definitely. But I don't see anything actionable or that needs wider involvement, just from a few snippy comments on my user talk page. I appreciate the concern shown by Pcap, but I have thick skin, and no harm was done. LotLE×talk 23:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop skipping over your uncivil comments. Joe Chill (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If someone wants to stick some template urging civility onto my talk page, I acknowledge that some of my comments were also on the snippy side. So please, some uninvolved party, slap a template on my user talk, and on Joe Chill's, then we'll hold hands and sing songs together. Ever mellow, LotLE×talk 23:35, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Like "I assume Joe Chill's boilerplate failure to find (by not looking for) sources is some sort of automated response, since it never varies based on AfD topic.", "Sorry, Joe Chill, I simply do not believe you have looked for sources prior to most of those rapid and boilerplate !votes.", "Always voting delete to every topic, with no discussion of the nature of the software, nor any indication whatsoever that you have looked for sources, and always using exactly the same boilerplate phrase, looks a lot more like WP:POINT or WP:SOAPBOX than it does like good faith.", "Have you considered looking in Google searches, or in a library, rather than only under rocks in your backyard?!", "If you would state relevant evidence on AfD discussions, rather than snotty pokes at editors who find notability of topics you nominate, it would be a lot easier to imagine good faith on your part." (I didn't say anything bad in AfD except my opinions which are different than his), "Your behavior is unseemly and unhelpful. Just saying "ignore notability" is not a useful AfD approach.", and "It's just so cute, Joe Chill, how you follow me around on AfD, claiming that every indication of notability of a topic magically doesn't count, no matter how prominent... and that the only criteria should be WP:IDONTLIKEIT, which prompts deletion of all software articles." (on an article that I nominated). Pcap, remember when he called you one of the rabid software deletionists? Joe Chill (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm not a fan of templates either. Here's an idea. Reduce the drama, drop the name calling, drop the unnecessary personal attacks, and let everyone go about their business. Joe Chill has his own interpretation of notability (as we all do) and I have no doubt whatsoever in my mind that he performs due diligence before nominating something for deletion or commenting in a deletion debate. Fair ??? JBsupreme (talk) 23:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

If Lulu assumes bad faith at me again in software AfDs, I'm bringing it to ANI including the uncivil comments that I quoted above. Joe Chill (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Btw. According to WP:CIVIL, ANI is the appropriate place for:

• Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents page. For death threats, racist attacks, threats of violence, legal threats, and other cases where immediate action is required, use the Administrator's Noticeboard Incidents page to contact the site's admins.

Somehow I think that Joe Chill calling me a "dick" or me accusing him of WP:POINT are... well, not exactly death threats. Even sarcasm--of which I am guilty--is, well, not exactly violence, y'know. Happy joy joy. LotLE×talk 00:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, it also says: "When incivility rises to the level of disruption, personal attacks, harassment or outing, blocks may be employed, as explained in those policies." YMMV. Pcap ping 00:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you honestly see no problem with his comments? Joe Chill (talk) 00:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah... I guess it's true that Joe revealed my birth name, "Dr. Richard (Dick) Troll". :-). LotLE×talk 00:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I guess you know now that Joe is sensitive to accusations of bad faith and lack of due diligence, even if you have no problems with name calling. Now that you've both let all the poisons hatch out [58], perhaps we can lower the DEFCON level and resume a more civil dialogue at (software) AfDs... Pcap ping 01:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I have had interactions with Mr Chill on several occasions, mostly unpleasant. For instance when I have complained on his talk page about particularly bad "cant find sources" deletion nominations. The entries are routinely dismissed as "stupid question" etc, and I'm a dick. He is also doing some fine work, but some sort of cool down would be appreciated - Power.corrupts (talk) 00:58, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I never called you a dick. I called them stupid questions because the answers to all of them were that we have different opinions on notability, but you never accepted that answer so you kept on posting on my talk page. Joe Chill (talk) 01:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I would be in full support of any block of Joe Chill at this current time. Despite the work he has done on Wikipedia, he has also shown evidence of losing his cool time after time (this is not the first time this user has fired WP:NPA-violating comments at other users. Take the "mostly unpleasant" interactions that Power.corrupts claims to have had with this user as a further example of this sort of thing happening in the past). Joe Chill has, at times, been a great contributor, but when one repeatedly calls another editor along the lines of "Dickish bad-faith asumming troll," that user has taken things way too far.--^Trust_Me^THROW! 01:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The only other user that I said personal attacks to was Michig after he called me a troll, reverted my edits, and told me to leave Wikipedia. All of the admins in ANI sided with Michig despite all of my diffs. Any other times, they weren't personal attacks but people for some reason thought that they were. I never said anything bad to Power Corrupts. All that I said to Power as that his questions were stupid. The reason for that was that all of the questions where variations of the first one which I already answered. Why is that people always get mad at me and never users like Michig and Lulu who start it by being uncivil? The first thing that starts disputes between me and other others is that they can't accept the fact that I have different opinions on notability. Joe Chill (talk) 01:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm about to pour a nice glass of scotch, I invite you all to join me. JBsupreme (talk) 01:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Best to end it this way. Pcap ping 02:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Resolved

 – He'd better stop shooting himself in the leg, or he'll have no leg left. –MuZemike 02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Leg...meet bullet.

After User:Silverlife was blocked indefinitely, he used his account before that one (per his user page) which is User:RegularBreaker. Joe Chill (talk) 00:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Mike he is on to us. Five Ton Sockpuppet (talk) 01:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Im not an admin, but a better place for this thread would be at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations. Although taking a quick look at the edits of both usernames, I don't see any evidence that the accounts were used wrongly. I didn't see any over lapping edits on any articles. Other than what Silverlife had typed on his page, which isn't evidence enough for my taste, I don't see how they are linked at all.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

From an earlier edit on his user page: "Silverlife is RegularBreaker: Reloaded." He even admitted that RegularBreaker was his previous account in an ANI topic. He attacked me on my talk page, two zodiac groups on his user page, a bunch of editors on the ANI thread, he attacked Hell in a Bucket, and he used an IP to re-add the personal attacks about zodiac groups. It doesn't matter if he's going by the rules now because he is going against his indefinite block which is against the rules. Joe Chill (talk) 01:12, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Just like you did with Lulu when you called him a dick? Five Ton Sockpuppet (talk) 01:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, sockpuppet. There is actually WP:DICK and Lulu did keep on attacking me in AfD when all that I did was have different opinions than him. Joe Chill (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, Joe Chill. Anyways I filed an SPI case like Jojhutton suggested for you. Five Ton Sockpuppet (talk) 01:17, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Thats the best way to deal with it. Most likely it is the same account, but I urge you all to remember, that its real easy for someone to say that they are someone else. All they have to do is type it and click save. Its real easy. I saw a thread here a few weeks ago, where that happened. the two accounts were completly unrelated, but a long time and respected user was accused of sockpuppetry, simply becausethe new account claimed to be the other. It was a real mess for that user, but it was all worked out in the end. All I am saying is that we must not assume that two accounts are related, until it is proven.--Jojhutton (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Surprise, surprise!! –MuZemike 02:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

MarshalN20

I'm here again with this hounding case which doesn't seem to stop. Toddst1 was in charge I believe but he's on a wikibreak.

On the past September I noticed MarshalN20 and Unknown Lupus were making offensive comments on the Diablada talk page such as this: [59], [60], [61].

I asked them to stop but MarshalN20 reacted against me in a disproportionate aggressive manner. That led to a Mediation Cabal which now is on formal mediation and also to a RfC on MarshalN20's conduct, nothing helped to solve the situation.

On the formal mediation the mediator is supposed to be Ryan Postlethwaite but I think he perhaps forgot to watchlist the page or he was too busy so he didn't mention anything else after our opening statements. So I wrote him to check where he was [62] and yes I was offended by the attitude MarshalN20 had in his opening statement so I pointed that out. I dedicated to edit other articles meanwhile and having a workshop prepared for the mediation, which I consider is a legitimate civil way to deal with the situation. MarshalN20, was spying on me and got upset about that (regardless he also had not only one but 1, 2 , 3 sandboxes for purposes like this) and went to complain on Ryan's talk page [63] which I consider was disrespectful so I asked him to stop [64], then I tried to reason with this person on his talk page where I repeatedly asked him to avoid conflict till Ryan gets some time, but he then started gaming to collect material against me, so even though the only comment I ever made after months of dealing with this user was saying that he was acting like a dog marking his territory on articles and biting others, for which I said twice [65] [66] that if that offended him I apologize, now he's inflating all this and using diffs that doesn't show or prove anything at all with this RfC against me, RfCs are not meant to be used as personal attacks or harassment besides the case against him is already on formal mediation. I had to stand this person humiliating me, insulting me for my nationality for months and he threatened me to continue doing such things [67]:

I can and will keep using whatever wording pleases me whenever I do my writing.

I really consider this is a very serious case of harassment which needs to be solved immediately, for MarshalN20 and Unknown Lupus, and of course I'd be willing to be subject of evaluation if I ever acted wrong, but I consider that in Marshaln20's case it has been a long path of misconduct, observe his attitude from 2008 [68], he also he threatened to physically hurt other users [69], he recurred to outing, he canvassed to fight against me and I seriously think this needs to be addressed by the administrators soon. Erebedhel - Talk 01:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Off2riorob (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I have previously expressed concerns about the behaviour of Off2riorob at the Wikiquette alert board and feel that attention from administrators may be warranted as the user continues to respond with hostility to honest criticism, for example by accusing me without evidence of sockpuppetry and stalking. (I am not "Nikolay S. Boriso", nor am I User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris, as Off2riorob implies; neither have I sought out confrontation with this user.)

In my Wikiquette alert (linked above), I noted that the user seemed to be continuing a disturbing history of edit warring and confrontational behaviour that had resulted in eight blocks in the span of several months. My concerns were seconded by Jusdafax, who had recently been on the receiving end of similarly confrontational behaviour. Looie496 closed the alert as resolved after "Off2riorob has acknowledged overreacting, and apologized for any offense."

In response to a question from User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris at BLP/N, regarding an ongoing incident in which a user characterised prominent climatologists as criminals, Off2riorob responded:

"That comment is a million miles away from Libel, you should respect other users comments even if you disagree with them, useing weakly claimed libel to remove another users comment is disruptive to the editing environment, if you really think that something libelous has been posted, take it to ANI and see if you get any support to remove it, you should only touch another editors comments in very serious situation, otherwise, leave them alone"

WP:BLP makes quite clear that potential violations should be removed immediately, so I made the following comment:

"I agree completely with Short Brigade Harvester Boris: there's no question as to the target of this attack, and as such it clearly violates WP:BLP. I will remove the comment myself if necessary. I also share Boris's concerns that this board has become somewhat of a low-traffic corner of Wikipedia where at least one editor with a disturbing block history and ongoing behaviour issues regularly imposes (or attempts to impose) decisions."

I did not name the editor specifically, and I feel in any case that my concerns about the current state of BLP/N are sincere and well-founded, as evidenced by the behaviour I've observed and by what I view as a strange interpretation of WP:BLP (that potential violations must be reported to and discussed on ANI before removal), but Off2riorob immediately responded, accusing me of attacking him or her out of desire for retribution. Off2riorob placed a civility warning on my talk page. After I responded on the user's talk page, the apparent sockpuppetry and stalking accusations were made. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 02:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)