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

Disruptive mass nominations at AfD

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

No admin action required. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:08, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

---

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

The above user has been repeatedly mass nominating bus route articles at AfD, despite calls from various users to take part in a centralised discussion already taking place. Since this user is an admin, she obviously feels she is above logical discussion and prefers to act in a disruptive manner, ignoring everyone else on WP.

There is a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_London_Transport#London_bus_route_articles, and has been for about a week now on how to handle non notable bus route articles, and the general consensus is just to redirect them. Currently there are several users going through each article individually and attempting to source where appropriate, and if the route is just not notable, make the redirect. This user is ignoring what is currently going on and has set upon her on mission to eradicate every bus route article from the face of the earth.

What do I hope to achieve from this thread? An admin with an ounce of common sense should step in and close all these discussions, pointing the user to the ongoing discussion linked above, and telling her to stop being disruptive. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Jeni ^(talk) 00:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Note, the admin in question has now resorted to calling me a troll.[1] Is this really the example admins should be setting? Jeni ^(talk) 00:25, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• No action is warranted here. There is no reason to assume these nominations are not in good faith. It is quite clear from the nomination statements that the nominator has followed WP:BEFORE in a genuine effort to not nominate the routes that are notable. Indeed, when one looks at this raft of unsourced, unverified tracts of original research, it is clear that the nominations are quite proper. The community at large decides on the notability of articles, not individual wikiprojects.--Mkativerata (talk) 00:22, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually I think the best course of action would be for BHG to stop nominating articles for now, but the ones already open should be left as they are, as people have commented on them. Consensus may well be different to that on the bus talk page, and the talk page discussion does not trump the policies of WP:V and WP:NOR which are the main concerns - lack of sources to assert notability, and original research.

I think you should tone down the hyperbole a bit though, Jeni. Saying things like "[This user [...] has set upon her on mission to eradicate every bus route article from the face of the earth" helps nothing. Aiken ♫ 00:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, I wondered how long it would take Jeni to try this.

Firstly, I am not on a mission to "eradicate every bus route article"; I have sought community consensus on deleting some of the most egregiously non-notable ones. Most of the articles I have nominated abysmally fail all wikipedia's notability standards, but rather than comment on content, Jeni has set out to simply derail the consensus-building process at AFD by disruptively posting attacks on me which have nothing to do with the articles under discussion.

I have since found that Jeni and a few other editors interested in buses have been using set of notability criteria (at Wikipedia:UKBRQDRIVE#What_qualifies_as_a_route_notable_for_an_article.3F_ which take no account of established Wikipedia inclusion guidelines such as WP:GNG and WP:INDISCRIMINATE.

It appears that I have inadvertently stepped into a walled garden, which is why evidence of the utter non-notability of most of the articles I have nominated for deletion is being met with diversionary accusations of misconduct.

Please can we just use AFD for its normal purpose of discussing the notability or otherwise of the articles concerned? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

BTW, Jeni says "The above user has been repeatedly mass nominating bus route articles at AfD, despite calls from various users to take part in a centralised discussion already taking place. Since this user is an admin, she obviously feels she is above logical discussion and prefers to act in a disruptive manner, ignoring everyone else on WP"

Actually, I have repeatedly asked Jeni to provide some evidence of the notability of articles whose deletion she opposes, and have consistently been met with abusive refusals to do so. I invite anyone interested to read the AFD discussions and make up their own minds on who is putting themselves above logical discussion.

Oh, and for the record, I finished processing my list of bus route articles to scrutinise. We'll see what the outcome is of open AFD discussions on these articles, and then I will be happy to discuss with the bus projects how to move forward. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I would say that Jeni's !votes and lack of AGF are bordered on disruptive.--Crossmr (talk) 00:48, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I looked into one of these cases in detail and found that the supposed lack of notability was false - a simple book search turned up numerous references, as one would expect for this famous form of transportation. This and other aspects of the matter indicate that the deliberations mandated by our deletion policy are not being followed. As the volume of nominations is already causing editors to give up in disgust, so that proper consideration cannot be given to the topics, these nominations seem quite disruptive. It may also be that nationalism comes into this - I seem to recall BHG and Jeni going at it over the naming of motorway articles and the animus generated by this may be spilling over into other transportation articles. Colonel Warden (talk) 00:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• You have 7 days. to provide those sources. I just read most of them and didn't see you provide any sources or say anything beyond making bad faith assumptions. If you found so many sources on one route, why didn't you add them tot he article? Sorry you want to keep an article and claim sources you need to provide them. I saw a couple AfDs where book sources were discussed but it seems that the book sources were trivial coverage. A sentence or two.--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Here a selection from the many I found. I'd list more but it's late.

1. Engineering Volume 209
2. Process control and automation Volume 8
3. Railway Gazette International Volume 107
4. The Commercial Motor Volume 135‎
5. The London RT bus: the story of London's longest-lasting bus

Colonel Warden (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I am delighted that Colonel Warden found sources I had missed for one of the articles. That's a good outcome at AFD: wider scrutiny resolves a problem someone had missed. But check through the other articles, and you will see several (e,g. 187) where even User:Alzarian16, the editor who has worked a lot on these articles agrees that it's utterly non-notable.

  But as to the rest of CW's comments ... wooooweee, that bad faith on stilts, with the power turned up to number 11.

  How I got into this is simple. Over a week ago I found an uncategorised Category:Bus routes in Cardiff, added parent categs, and took it CFD for upmerger at here. That discussion broght up concerns about the notability of bus routes, so I looked at the articles and AFDed 2 of the 3: Capital City Red and Capital City Green. At the CCR AfD an editor suggested I look, at the London buses, so I did: I took a random sample of 6, and found them so woefully lacking in references, and so devoid of any sign of notabilty when I looked for sources, that I AFDed them.

  I'm saddened to see that Colonel Warden's has leapt so rapidly into making false accusations of nationalism. I have nominated dozens of non-notable Irish articles for deletion, so I am quite happy to stand by my record of neutrality in deletion debates, and I think it's a great pity that there are a very few British people who seem to find it acceptable to launch into allegations of ulterior motives when they disagree with someone Irish. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

  This is par for the course here. It is quite common for something that someone likes which isn't notable to be nominated for deletion. Since there is no way to genuinely defend it it almost always results in a few things including assumptions of bad faith, insults, harassment, etc. As someone who often nominates for lack of notability I've been subject to all kinds of it.--Crossmr (talk) 01:30, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• We're talking about London buses here - one of the most notable transportation systems on the planet, about which numerous books have been written. Sources for such article are quite feasible and the relevant project is engaging in this work already. Nominating a great flurry of articles is quite unhelpful as it generates unproductive discussion of this sort. Colonel Warden (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Quite, which is why we have London buses and Buses in London. Not every route is notable and worthy of an article. Aiken ♫ 01:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• The system might be notable. Doesn't mean every individual route is notable. Perhaps you misunderstood me. If you found sources that were relevant to an article why didn't you provide them? Claiming sources without providing them especially when asked borders on disruptive, especially taking into account your already numerous assumptions of bad faith. No one has demonstrated where anyone was supposed to know there was even a discussion going on in the first place even if it was relevant to whether or not they could nominate something for deletion. There are no notices on the pages themselves that I can find.--Crossmr (talk) 01:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Pointing out that a discussion is already in progress on the topic is now disruptive is it? I've had to put up with BHG's endless requests asking why I think these articles are notable, when I haven't even attempted to comment on the notability, and made it clear that I wasn't about to in that context. Jeni ^(talk) 00:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Since that is irrelevant yes. Projects do not own articles and people are free to edit, change, or nominate them completely independent of what the project is doing.--Crossmr (talk) 01:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Please please do point me to somewhere where its been stated that projects own articles? I certainly can't see anything! I don't think half the people involved in that discussion are even in the LT WikiProject, I'm not! It's just a convenient place to hold a centralised discussion. Please stop making silly assumptions you know are blatantly untrue. Jeni ^(talk) 01:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• You claimed that since the projects were discussing these articles someone couldn't nominate them for deletion. That's ownership. Unless there is already an existing deletion discussion going on, anyone from anywhere is free to start one.--Crossmr (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I claimed that since there was already an on going discussion (please do note the lack of the word project there) it is rather WP:POINTy to completely ignore said discussion, refuse to take part and continue on a mass nomination spree. Please please do read things :) Jeni ^(talk) 01:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You obviously don't understand WP:POINT very well and I suggest you reread it. Jtrainor (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I read it fine. Please refrain from assuming bad faith. That seems to be a big issue for you in this matter. Is the discussion on a project page or not? Just because you didn't say "project" is irrelevant. The discussion is happening in relevant project space. Not at the pump. It isn't pointy at all to nominate something for deletion. It is an assumption of bad faith to assume that though since most of the ones I visited were good nominations there is an utter lack of significant coverage in reliable third party sources.--Crossmr (talk) 01:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Going on your logic, any discussions which take place on a project page are completely worthless and pointless by virtue of their location. Sorry, doesn't work like that.. discussion occurs in the most convenient place where a group of editors get together and find something which needs discussing. Been around Wikipedia long? Jeni ^(talk) 01:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• No, they just don't supersede deletion discussions or the requirements for one. Also can you show me where she was notified of the discussion prior to her nominations? I just checked a couple random route pages and cannot find any notifications on their talk pages that their fate was being discussed. And yes, I've been around wikipedia for years. Have you? It seems you've got a real problem remembering core behavioural policies and guidelines and you're really pushing disruptive now with your continuance. If you can't discuss this in a civil manner without assuming bad faith I might suggest you take a step back.--Crossmr (talk) 01:27, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Blurp, looks like me and Crossmr simulposted. Cross, I was replying to Jeni, not you. Jtrainor (talk) 01:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Repeated accusations of bad faith aren't helping your case at all, Jeni. Frankly, the only thing I could accuse BHG of doing wrong in this instance is not batch nominating the London bus routes, thus forcing me to !vote delete multiple times instead of once. Resolute 01:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but it seems that any way of bring these articles to AFD is going to cause objections. I thought it was easier to consider the routes separately, but after a few suggestions of batching them, I did batch the last group (a nomination for the West Midlands articles). Jeni's response was to accuse me of making a disruptive indiscriminate nomination which included "both notable and non notable routes" (tho she didn't identify which).

I don't know why it makes any difference to her, since she has posted at great length to all the other AFDs about her refusal to even discuss notability. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No need to apologize, I wasn't serious in the criticism but that didn't translate via text.  ;) Resolute 16:54, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Mass Afd is a disfunctional method at the best of times, but when it makes it to ANI, well, assessing the articles and their potential properly and individually in good faith against the GNG, is now a mere pipe dream in the face of multiple cookie cutter JNN votes. MickMacNee (talk) 04:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I can't see this as "disruptive". The AfDs are in proper form. They seem to be getting both "keep" and "delete" votes. They're not frivolous. Usually, we have this argument over spinoff articles from fiction fans who get carried away with enthusiasm. This time, it's bus fans. --John Nagle (talk) 05:47, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like major cruft. I suggested in the 187 afd that the folks working on these articles should compile them all into a wikibook instead of spraying them across N separate encyclopedia articles. A wikibook puts all the info in one place, which is almost certainly preferable for readers and doesn't cruft up the encyclopedia. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 12:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• I really have lost the will to do anything about this, as in my eyes, since I have started, Wikipedia has become a bureaucratic piece of rubbish, and I now edit less and less. However, what I want to say is, as an admin, should BHG have started AfDing articles without even saying one comment at the discussion that was going on at the time? Surely, something should have been said at the discussions, even just one sentence out of politeness, before going on an AfD rampage. Does anyone have any manners any more, or do we all have to start causing chaos and confusion without discussion, to get what we want done? Arriva436^{talk/contribs} 21:23, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
• I'm out too [2], if I was ever really in in the last year. Anybody interested in this topic needs to just hand over their cash to the London Omnibus Traction Society, Wikipedia institutionaly just cannot handle applying their generalised-into-abstraction GNG wording, to dealing with this sort of specialised topic. It's sad to see that people honestly seem to think this is just travel information, or that just because they aren't interested in the subject, that it cannot possibly be the case that this topic is actually written about to death in proper information sources, most if not all you have to pay for unlike this unreliable and frankly unworthy infohost. It's downright insulting to see people getting away with labelling experienced editors having to deal with this mass Afd as ignorant hoarders of junk, who don't have the first clue about N/V/RS. Still, we all know where we are if we just stick to the usual topics at this infotainment hobby site, i.e. pop culture pap, or subjects sourced soley to Google. I can rack off whole articles about that all day everyday, properly sourced and everything! MickMacNee (talk) 23:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)
  • P.S. BHG is now adding a tag stack to each article in turn, in ascending numerical order. I am at a loss to see what that achieves, apart from a lot of work for BHG, given the fact the issues to be addressed are exactly the same for every single article, and every editor that I am aware is interested in the subject, is already fully aware of this discussion. It definitely feels POINTY to me, it's certainly not motivating me to do anything about it. She might as well batch Afd the whole lot and accelerate discussion of the meta-issue, rather than waste her time like this, as in my experience on the topic I would bet £1,000 that 99% of these tags will still be in place in two years otherwise. MickMacNee (talk) 00:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

  I am working through the articles one by one, adding tags as appropriate to that particular article. I have not tagged all the articles in the same fashion, and in most of them I have removed an incorrect "unreferenced" tag, because of the articles were tagged that way despite having some external links to primary sources. The purpose of those tags is, as usual, quite simple: to identify for readers and editors articles in need of attention. So far, I have done #1 to #40, and about one article in ten appears to me to include anything approaching either a remotely plausible assertion of notability or anything which might be taken as evidence of notability.

  In most cases, the overwhelming majority of the articles contains material which is unreferenced and supported by none of the external links. Mick thinks it's near certain that even with the tags in place, these articles will remain in the same sorry state for at least two years. I don't quite share that pessimism — I think nthatr some of them may be improved — but what if Mick is broadly right about the lack of attention the articles will receive?

  He has protested at AFD that he doesn't want the articles to be deleted, and now he doesn't want them tagged as in need of attention. So I can see only only two possibilities. Either a) Mick wants the articles to be left for years as a pile of unreferenced material, contrary to WP:V, in the hope that some time more than two years hence somebody may actually produce something which finally starts to meet verifiability standards; or b) He wants them to be cut back to stubs, eliminating all the unsourced stuff. Which is it? For all the denunciations, all I have seen so far is Mick attacking any solution to current swamp of unreferenced material which neither asserts notability nor offers evidence of notability.

  WP:V is very clear that "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material". In this case, the heat and fury comes from a number of vociferous editors trying to revert that that burden. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• As the main editor working to improve these articles, I might be expected to agreee wtih Jeni, Arriva and Mick's interpretations. But I don't. I can't actually see much wrong with many of the nominations, although I am disappointed that BHG didn't join in the discussion first. Most of the routes didn't show notability when nominated (only a small number such as London Buses route 73 or West Midlands bus route 8 could be said to), and the AfD nominations are forcing us to improve the articles to give them a chance of being retained. My only worry concerns one specific case, London Buses route 66, which BHG and others have praised [3] [4] but still appears likely to be deleted on somewhat dubious grounds. As for the article tags cited by Mick, they may well not achieve much but they aren't against any policy I know of - and as I intend to source most of these articles over the next few months, several will be removed by me when I feel the article concerned shows notability. So although I'm not best pleased at so many articles facing the threat of deletion, I don't feel any major action is required. Alzarian16 (talk) 13:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Alzarian16, I just can't understand the logic of writing so many separate articles about bus routes in one city. My city also has a lot of bus routes, and I could imagine getting interested in them and wanting to read about them, but a separate article about each one just seems pointless. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to raise that point at the relevant AfDs, but I don't see how it's relevant to this thread since we both seem to be in agreement that no action is required. Alzarian16 (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Coming back to the actions of the user, which is the topic of this discussion, I'd like to point out that this same editing pattern has been applied to Capital City Red and Capital City Green. Both have been nominated for deletion by User:BrownHairedGirl, despite the fact that no-one agreed with her and that several other users have confirmed that the articles are well sourced, meet the required guidelines and should not have been nominated in the first place- see here and here. Therefore it seems that BrownHairedGirl is either unfamiliar with the guidelines of deletion nonimation, or is ignoring them. This editing is indeed very disruptive. Welshleprechaun (talk) 20:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

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

Vandalism of ANI page to make it look like another editor engaged in vandalism

I would like to request that someone with technical knowledge look into some vandalism that occurred on this ANI Board. It was in the thread starting with my name "Zlykinskyja's conduct on AFD page." At the end of that long thread (closed today for archiving) there is a discussion about me supposedly engaging in vandalism, but I never made those vandal edits. Whoever tried to frame me engaged in serious dishonesty on the ANI Board. Although the last poster simply tossed it off as a simple error, I find that very hard to believe. There was indeed actual vandalism of the ANI thread, and the diff with the red letters looked like it was mine, but I never engaged in that vandalism. It would be very helpful if some person with good technical skills could look into this so that the person who engaged in such dishonesty could be held accountable. Thank you. Zlykinskyja (talk) 17:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I just reverted a redirect to WP:AN that no longer shows in the history. ???? Dlohcierekim 17:49, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)Xeno is assuming that the problem was caused by an extremely poor connection on your end garbling the line. I'd strongly suggest leaving it at that (and perhaps changing your account's password if it's not particularly strong), as any investigation is likely to end in either a "indeterminate cause" or a "compromised account" finding. The former would be a waste of time, the latter would mean your account is blocked. There is absolutely no upside for you in this; the movies may make it seem like any "hack" can be traced and identified, but the real world isn't nearly that neat and tidy. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 17:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

This [5] is the edit in question. Do you remember writing the added portion of your comment? If so, it's likely you just garbled the text above it by accident. Think about the resources that would be necessary to hack your account - which is unpriveleged. See also Occam's razor. –xeno^talk 17:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I added the regular sounding text at the bottom of the page. But it looks like there was a deliberate, detailed, changing of the text above in a manner that is unquestionably vandalism. Such fine tuned, detailed changes do not look like an accident or a bad connection. Someone intentionally made those changes and then tried to frame me by making it look like I engaged in vandalism. That is indisputably dishonest. (I note that The Magnificent Clean-keeper has engaged in a pattern of harassment against me, and then he was the one to accuse me of vandalism.) Whoever did this, I cannot say for sure but I consider this to be part of the ongoing harassment against me intended to discourage my participation in the editing of the Murder of Meredith Kercher article. I will certainly change my password, but the fact that someone was sick enough to do this and to possibly do so by figuring out my password is quite creepy. Zlykinskyja (talk) 18:21, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Do you realize how ridiculous your accusation sounds? So let's see - someone hacked your account; or performed a man in the middle attack; or perhaps even hacked into Wikipedia's database itself; all so they could falsify a diff -- and all of this just to make it look like you garbled a few letters of someone elses post? Ridiculous nonsense. If you like, I can indefinitely block your account as compromised and you can start a new one. –xeno^talk 18:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• Sure, Xeno closed the thread above and here we go again. Same accusations, same behavior, same editor.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 18:29, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I am absolutely certain that another person made those vandalism edits. I am certain that I did not do that and that it does not look like an accident or bad connection. I would like an administrator to please refer me to whatever security department or person handles hacking or password stealing incidents. I am 100% certain that some misconduct has occurred, and would like to get to the bottom of this. I would also like to note that anonymous harassment on the Internet is illegal under federal law. Something like this should not be happening. Now I have to worry about my password, hacking into my computer, and other security issues. I have read somewhere of hacking incidents on Wikipedia escalating into real world harassment. Given that it is clear some sort of hacking has occurred, I would like to pursue this as fully as possible within Wikipedia to protect my account and myself. Clearly, there is some sort of sicko involved. But I have thought that for a while now, given other incidents. Zlykinskyja (talk) 19:09, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Since you are absolutely certain your account has been compromised, I have blocked it indefinitely per the blocking policy. Please secure your personal workstation (virus, malware, trojan scan, etc.) before creating a new account. –xeno^talk 19:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Xeno--Was that supposed to be funny? I asked for help with this and you just go and permanently block my account? I don't find this funny.

I would like to ask an uninvolved administrator to please answer my question above as to where I can report this hacking incident. There is something wrong with a situation in which some sicko can hack an account, no one wants to help resolve this, and the person hacked gets permanently blocked. TemporaryAccountDueToHackingIncident (talk) 20:08, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Z, this diff looks as though there might have been some kind of browser or operating system incompatibility. I had a similar thing a few years ago, where a browser I was using would from time to time (but oddly, not always) change characters in previous posts. Or there may have been a server glitch. I doubt it was a hacking attempt. If your post about this is the only reason you were blocked, I'd respectfully suggest an unblock. :) SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm an uninvolved administrator, and Xeno's actions seemed inline to me. Generally, if someone believes they have a compromised account, or there is evidence that an account has been compromised, we block it. We do so because using another person's account in order to avoid scrutiny and to deceive the community is disallowed per WP:ILLEGIT. This is standard procedure. Are you now claiming you weren't hacked? -- Atama頭 20:17, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Another uninvolved admin here, and I agree. If you believed you account had been compromised, and you had to “worry about [your] password,” the logical solution was for you to start a new account with a different password. xeno has facilitated that process (although your new account name is a tad cumbersome). So, unless your new account is “hacked” after this point, this issue is resolved. — Satori Son 20:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(yet another ec)To SlimVirgin: Barring invocation of WP:IAR, are we even allowed to unblock in this case? If the account is legitimately suspected to have been compromised (and a user insisting that it is would constitute sufficient evidence), then we don't know who we are unblocking (even if they change their password, that doesn't prove that the compromiser wasn't the one to do so). I recognize this is a especially flimsy case for a compromised account (I feel a little bad for my part in accidentally reinforcing this belief), but I've never heard of an unblock following suspicion of a compromised account. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

In legitimate cases of actually hacked accounts requesting an unblock, we usually request a checkuser before unblocking to see if the original owner is likely back in control of the account. Sarah 02:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The most exceptional part of this 'hack' is that they were able to intercept the edit you admitted you made and then add the garbage above it! This hacker surely should focus on something more fruitful than making it look like you had a bad connection...

Please read what Slim wrote, this is what my initial assumption was - a funky connection. But since you insisted that you were absolutely certain your account had been compromised, I blocked you as required.

If you calm down, and accept the most likely explanation (that you had a connection hiccup), please issue an unblock request stating the same and I, or another admin, will lift the block. –xeno^talk 20:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

(ec)The point I was trying to make is that hacking your diff was effectively impossible (and xeno's additional note that the difficulty of doing so would make it highly improbable even if it is possible). That only leaves two possibilities:

1. Your connection went bad (who knows, maybe a burst of solar activity coincided with you hitting submit)
2. Your machine and/or account was compromised in some way. If the former, it was probably not related to Wikipedia; if someone had actively attacked your machine to make it look like you were a vandal, they would probably go for something even more damning than a gibberish diff (say, using slurs against other editors, which gets you banned incredibly quickly). If it was due to a machine compromise, then the damage was probably incidental; a virus interfered with your connection, but it wasn't related to Wikipedia (so we can't do much to help). If your account was compromised, then that means your password was too easy to guess and/or brute force, and there is little we can do about that; the solution is to use stronger passwords.

Only your insistence that it was a compromised account led to your block. If you sincerely believe this, reformat your machine with a fresh install of your OS, install a virus scanner and all security updates, create a new account with a strong password (at least eight characters, with a mix of upper and lower case letters and a smattering of numbers and punctuation) and move on. I sympathize, but you left xeno no other option by the policies here. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:18, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to point just one thing out and then I'll move on: it is a rather odd thing that someone surreptitiously took over Z.'s account, just to garble some diffs of mine, that showed her behaviour towards other editors, just while she was repeating, undisturbed, her umpteenth accusation — without diffs — against us, basically... Anyway, she admitted to having been hacked or whatever, so I guess this incident too is over. Peace. ^___^ Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 20:19, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

A block seems a little unfair to me. Zlykinskyja engaged in some hyperbole, and as a result has lost his account. It's not a big deal in this case because it's a new account and he doesn't have a lot of edits to it, so there's no real harm in asking him to set up a new one, but he could similarly change the password for his current one. The latter seems fairer to me, unless there are other issues I'm not aware of. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 20:28, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Other than the fact that the user is sure that he has been compromised, I have no objection to this block being lifted. Please do what you feel is best. –xeno^talk 20:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

For Salvio Giuliano to try to put the blame on me is just outrageous. That is all I will say about his continuing nonsense.

My question to the administrators is what is the procedure for looking into hacking incidents? Is there an official section or area where this can be reported or looked into? Will someone please answer this question?

It sure looks like some kind of harassment to me, given the prior pattern of harassment. Also, within seconds after I posted under my temporary name, I received a notice from some brand new account (i.e. fake account)that he was accusing me of being a sockpuppet and that I was being investigated for sock puppetry. So that incident is another indication of harassment being involved. Also, I just went back to the Talk page on my temporary account and saw that the Notice of the sock puppet investigation has been removed. So I do not have confidence that this has all been some kind of accident. TemporaryAccountDueToHackingIncident (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

If Wikimedia did have an information security team that looked into claims such as yours, you would surely get laughed out of their office. The hack you refer to is 1) extremely improbable (approaching impossible) and 2) so difficult to acheive that they surely would have done something other than garble a few letters.

I deleted the sock claims because you're not a sock, you're a legitimate alternate account.

You need to take your fingers out of your ears and listen to what people are telling you: you had a connection hiccup. –xeno^talk 20:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

And in case you are worried, the sockpuppet investigation was immediately closed. The filer wasn't fully aware of the circumstances and opened it out of ignorance, not malice. Constantly claiming harassment in cases where a mistake in good faith is the most likely cause only makes people less inclined to listen. I might suggest (don't take this as a command, it's only a suggestion) that you take a voluntary break for a day or two. When you're getting this worked up, you're only hurting yourself. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:58, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• On the one hand, I don't think a block for a compromised account is correct; in spite of what Z is "certain" about, it seems quite obvious to me that this is either a software malfunction, or at worst incorrectly done oversighting. I was about to unblock (per Xeno's note above), when I looked through Z's entire contribution log, and realized we're dealing with an aggressive single purpose account, whose only desire is to fight and argue over one subject. I can't bring myself to unblock when I know it will just disrupt the encyclopedia more. Yes, I know, autoblock is disabled, and someone whose more a stickler for policy and "doing things according to the rules" might wish to unblock, but I won't do it. If a new account is created, can we consider giving him a much shorter leash next time? --Floquenbeam (talk) 20:59, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see one of her former accounts, user:PilgrimRose. No further comment... The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 21:06, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

• This whole topic is a joke. Can WP:DENY be invoked here and move on? Rehevkor ✉ 21:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Fine, if there was no hacking of my account as some are so certain of, then it was not compromised and there is no need to block my account for being compromised. Recall that this issue started when The Magnificent Clean-keeper falsely accused me of vandalism, which I knew I was not guilty of. It was one of the administrators who said that either' I was guilty of vandalism, or my account was compromised. This is what I was told:

Your account made that edit. You can't fake the diffs (at least, not without direct access to Wikipedia servers that Magnificent Clean-keeper doesn't have). Either you made the edit, and therefore committed at least one verifiable act of vandalism (or more, I haven't looked at the rest of this thread to check the whole history), or your account is compromised, in which case it will be blocked for that reason. If you made that edit, you're better off admitting it, because the alternative is that your account will be blocked and you'll have to create a new one. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 16:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I doubt it is technical knowledge so much as an easily guessed password. Unfortunately, a compromised account needs to be blocked regardless of how unfair it may be, simply because it is impossible to be confident that it is in control of the correct editor. —ShadowRanger (talk|stalk) 17:16, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been open about the fact that I have limited computer knowledge, so had to do the best I could about figuring out why it looked like I had engaged in vandalism. But originally one of the administrators who seems to know a lot about technical issues TOLD ME my account was compromised, if in fact I had not engaged in vandalism. Now I am painted as the wrongdoer for believing that my account was compromised, as I was told, and trying to get to the bottom of it. What a waste of time. So since now so many are certain there was no hacking there is no legitimate need to block my account for being compromised. So please unblock it and I will simply change the password to remove any doubt. TemporaryAccountDueToHackingIncident (talk) 21:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with Floquenbeam. There seems to be one issue after another with your account, including point-making rather than editing in a disinterested way. I can't think what kind of restriction would be appropriate, but simply unblocking feels problematic too. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 22:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I already unblocked before seeing this as my block was strictly for the apparent compromised account.. If there is to be a block for disuptive editing it should stand on it's own. –xeno^talk 23:00, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

First, sorry for ignoring the possibility of a technical glitch that caused that. While improbable, it would still be possible, and I should have allowed for that. Second, I'm not an admin. Third, after that initial omission of a technical glitch as an explanation, both myself and xeno explained to you multiple times that the possibility of a technical glitch existed, and that insisting that your account was compromised would force a block based on Wikipedia policies, you ignored us and continued insisting that your account was compromised. I'm sorry that led to a block, but you were told *exactly* what would happen multiple times and paid no attention. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, there have been issues in a highly contentious article that go both ways. You need to look at the whole picture, including what has occurred by editors on the "other side of the story". This whole huge dispute about the article Murder of Meredith Kercher has just been submitted for mediation a day or two ago. It is a very extensive dispute, and has already been discussed at length for eleven days. Now it will go to mediation. Furthermore, I am not a single purpose account. I tried to branch out to a new article but was WikiHounded by one of the same editors who seemed to be trying to block my participation on the murder article.

The sole issue now is how my account came to be blocked today. First, I was falsely accused of vandalism. Then I was told that either I engaged in vandalism or MY ACCOUNT WAS COMPROMISED. Then the same editor who told me my account was compromised told me that my account was blocked because I CLAIMED that was compromised----but that is what he told me! I don't know anything about computers, but when I was told that my account was compromised I was sure scared. Now it turns out it wasn't even true. The whole thing has been a huge waste of time. I thought it was compromised because that it what I was told. Please just unblock the account and let the very major and complicated dispute proceed to mediation. I also note that there is a policy against blocking accounts trying to resolve the issues through mediation. TemporaryAccountDueToHackingIncident (talk) 23:02, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgetting the Meredith issue, which is your main interest, if you look at this edit, you're saying the most important thing about this woman is that she's a grandmother and former primary school teacher. Not that she's been convicted of murder. And you launch immediately into the injustice of it, before explaining what "it" is. That's not appropriate editing, and combined with all the other issues, and taking things to various noticeboards, it makes an unblock less appealing. If you want to continue editing, something would have to change, I think, or you're going to keep on getting into bother. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:11, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I wouldn't start that article by saying she's a convicted murderer either, by the way, but fixing an article to make it arguably worse isn't the best way to help. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:13, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The problems I have raised for mediation include how to incorporate NPOV and BLP policies into a contentious article. It will be a learning experience for all involved, but once resolved the education can be applied across the board to other articles. Really, for all the complexities and hours and hours of debate concerning the Kercher article (and murder articles like it) something as extensive as this needs to be resolved in mediation. Beyond that, the problems will just continue. As for the NPOV noticeboard, I did not file that. The only thing I have filed is for mediation, plus this item today resulting from confusion after I was TOLD that my account had been compromised. The problems have arisen from the Kercher article and NPOV and BLP issues, which are too complex to dispute here. These issues have been discussed here for eleven days, and I am now way, way too tired to continue here. But I do think mediation will provide a full and complete forum for sorting things out in a formal, organized and thorough way. So, after eleven days here, mediation is my next stop. Thank you to the very nice person who unblocked my account. Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

It was the same very nice person who blocked it in the first place. :) As for the content issues, there are few disputes that can't be resolved through a careful application of the policies, so I'd urge you to read WP:NPOV, WP:NOR, and WP:V. Try to stick closely to them, and write about issues as though you don't care about them, as though you're someone who's just flown in from Mars. That should do the trick. SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 23:36, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The editor apparently had a previous account compromised also (don't know which account). Either he's got gremlins, or he's a shlimozl. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:41, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No, it was not compromised. See my post further up.The Magnificent Clean-keeper (talk) 23:50, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

SlimVirgim, thanks for your advice. I'm hoping to learn more and practice more through mediation. It sounds like it will be a good experience. In the meantime, I will review the materials you have provided. As for this word "shlimozl" I don't know what that is, know very little computer lingo, will no longer be trying to figure out computer "compromising" topics, and am done here. Anyone curious about my name change can read the detailed explanation on my User page. As for the temporary name I used today, I will officially "retire" that now. Thank you to the person who removed the "Compromised" notice from this account. Now I am all set! Since I started this topic, I would like to ask an administrator to kindly close and archive this thread. Good night all! Zlykinskyja (talk) 23:55, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

So, to make a long story short: once again, scot-free. Peace. ^______^ Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 00:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If you're saying the OP "got away with" something, keep in mind that by coming here the user has raised his visibility significantly. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I meant that I entirely agree with Floquenbeam and SlimVirgin; and that I'm sorry that she was not even given a warning, regarding the way she behaves. Nothing to do with the security of her account (I think that the hypothesis that someone hacked into her account just to garble some diffs is ludicrous...). Salvio ( ^{Let's talk 'bout it!}) 11:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A comment on the beginning of this discussion

I'm only seeing this now, because I was preoccupied with another matter. The behavior which was reported above, about an edit to AN/I which had good text added below and corrupted text above, has happened to me several times, twice on AN/I, and each time it happened as the result of an edit conflict. The discussion about it on my talk page can be found here. I have no solution to it, except to check carefully after an edit conflict to make sure that nothing untoward has happened. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:00, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Could be an edge case hit for unusually long pages, though I have no idea if the problem is on server or client side. The noticeboard is usually three times the length of any other page. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 03:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Strange indeed. At least Z can be rest assured s/he isn't being unfairly targeted =) –xeno^talk 12:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It's happened to me once or twice before as well. In one case, editing a long talk page, it reverted almost 3 weeks of history on the relevant talk page, apart from the diff immediately before mine, and a vandalism diff from 2 weeks earlier that had been reverted. I checked by going "back" in my browser and it definitely was set to edit the current page. I was able to fix it myself, coming to the conclusion the software had got way confused. (I've had a look for it - all I remember was it was probably in late 2008 - but can't find it to link here.) Orderinchaos 03:41, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Edwin Black (legal threat?)

Resolved

 – Black Block

After a cadre of sockpuppets were blocked, controversial author Edwin Black has now issued an on-wiki Cease & Desist notice and accusations that he and others have been "censored" and "publicly defamed". Thoughts? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 23:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Block the account for legal threats and direct them to WP:OTRS. Woogee (talk) 23:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Requesting an uninvolved admin to assist. //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:06, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Did he actually make a legal threat? Acting like a pompous idiot isn't the same as making a legal threat, and while he uses legal language, he doesn't seem to be threatening a lawsuit. He requested they cease and desist, but did not provide any consequences for failing to do so, only a contact e-mail for questions. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 00:10, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A Cease and Desist notice is the step right before legal action is taken. I doubt someone would make a cease and desist notice without the concurrent implication that if you don't stop you're going to get sued. It's intended as a chilling effect against Blaxthos. Mr. Black's accounts should be blocked and he should be directed to OTRS. Burpelson AFB (talk) 00:16, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If it's the step right before, and not an actual legal threat, then it gets treated as such, specifically, we warn the user. There's a reason we have the template warning for it. He hasn't issued an actual legal threat yet, so a block is premature. I've warned him on his talk page, so he knows the line, but for now, I don't think any further action is needed. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 00:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

A C&D notice is not the step before the threat, it is the step right before legal action. In most contemporary contexts, a C&D notice is considered a legal threat (as in, a threat of legal action). //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 00:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If it were an actual, formal cease and desist, I'd agree. But just because he chose to use the term "cease and desist" instead of "stop and refrain" doesn't make it a legal threat. If he escalates in spite of the warning, report it, but blocking over word choice without a threat is unreasonable. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 01:56, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone should still point him towards OTRS. If nothing else, it may make him stop socking. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I figured it out and did it myself. Burpelson AFB (talk) 02:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough, I wasn't necessarily advocating any particular path of adjudication.  :) Should the comment in question be struck, removed, or left online? //Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:22, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

He persisted after the warning and got blocked. Marking resolved. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 14:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

For future reference, if a sock or other malcontent tells someone to "cease and desist", one could warn the user to "cease and desist using the term 'cease and desist'." ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:57, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I think people should cease and desist from telling people to cease and desist from using the term 'cease and desist'. (oh dear) this comment should be read as humour Orderinchaos 03:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think people should cease and desist from telling people to cease and desist from telling others to cease and desist from using the term "cease and desist" to request that people cease and desist from using the term "cease and desist" when requesting people cease and desist.:p In conclusion...I don't see a legal threat in the above diff. Using legal terminology does not equal a legal threat. Though the comments regarding Blaxthos in this diff [6] are alarming and IMO reason enough for blocking regardless of the legal threat issue. Sarah 00:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Firmly agreed. Orderinchaos 05:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Which is why I think, to quote Theresa from another thread, STFU is so much more succinct and unequivocal  :) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Black's original language, if you go all the way to the start of the thread, is clearly intended to suggest a legal threat. On the other hand, I believe I once used the C&D phrase in a warning myself without actually intending a legal threat. --Orange Mike | Talk 00:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Admin needed to close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ramakapa and delete associated page

Resolved

Being allowed to run course as AfD - the result is a foregone conclusion anyway at this stage. Orderinchaos 05:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Multiple editors have searched for evidence of this town's existence with no success. According to the checkuser and a followup, the article's creator and the remover of the original speedy-nom appear to be meatpuppets at the least, if not sockpuppets (they are part of a group of accounts, most of which do no more than create one fake page and/or support another fake page in the sockfarm). With zero evidence for its existence beyond the vague endorsements by the socks, it seems like this is an excellent case for early closure. Just need an admin to look at the same facts and agree with me. Any takers? —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 00:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This doesn't come across as a very neutral way of requesting administrative attention. What is the big hurry that needs this to be closed outside of the normal AfD closure process? —David Eppstein (talk) 05:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

This should never have needed an AfD in the first place, as it would have qualified under hoax csd. Except the creator used socks to remove the speedy template, and more recently, to remove the AfD template (an account was created whose only edit was to remove the AfD and NOINDEX templates; I've restored them). When an article qualifies for speedy deletion and is only around because of abuse of the system, I'm not inclined to give it the full seven days. Every vote cast in the AfD as been for delete, and WP:SNOW seems to apply here. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 12:09, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Update: At this point, we've got six unambiguous delete votes (one of whom explicitly endorsed speedy, the rest of whom simply noted the complete failure of WP:V and endorsed deletion with no reservations), and no keeps. The socks aren't even bothering to vote. Can we please close this? WP:SNOW was made for this sort of scenario. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 20:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As I understand it, the rules for speedy deletion apply regardless of the presence of a CSD template or other deletion discussions in progress. So if the article is an obvious hoax, any admin can delete per CSD:G3 at any time (and close the AfD as "speedy delete"). Bobby Tables (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd say this can run as a normal AfD personally - there's nothing exceptional, we delete hoaxes there all the time. That being said, IMO there's nothing against early closure if sufficient evidence has been presented that it unambiguously doesn't belong here. Orderinchaos 17:11, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

The outcome is probably a foregone conclusion, but unless there's an urgent need to delete it (it's used as an attack page, has BLP violations, personal info about someone, etc.) I would suggest letting it run its course procedurally. If nothing else, an AfD closure will allow for G4 speedy deletions in the future if any sockpuppets decide to recreate it as a joke. -- Atama頭 19:03, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Website blacklisted by bot

I'm sorrie if this is the wrong place, please tell me where is because I've tried finding the right place and noone knows.

I've been adding links to wikipedia without having created an account, I didn't know this was nescessary. Now a bot has blacklisted my website adres! Apparently it blacklists websites submitted just by IP adresses when it occurs more then twice.

I don't have the rights to undo this blacklisting, so could someone please do this for me!

ttp://shotgunsolutionpaytodie.blogspot.com with an "h" in the beginning offcourse, is the adres. It's listed here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist

Please someone help me, I've been trying to figure this out for days now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypt666 (talk • contribs) 14:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Generally, blogs are not considered reliable sources for Wikipedia articles. What makes this one special? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

And just adding it as a bare "external link" to many articles is probably a breach of the external link guideliness so it has probably, rightly or wrongly, been viewed as linkspam. – ukexpat (talk) 14:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm obviously not aware of the rules. To how many pages am I allowed to add my blog? It's not just a blog. Just a blog is where collectors put up their vinyl rips, it includes some good ones and many many garbage. This is more of a hardcore history website. It's all the music I have gathered for myself over the past 12 years and it's all stuff I actively listen or have been listening too. Also I have an absolute hearing which means these bands are all unique in sound, there are no copycats here. As you can see all the pages include biographies and pictures, many already have link sections but I still have alot to do. Regular history pages include many very bad commercial acts who made complete garbage but got famous with it nevertheless. This is a very bad thing. Here you can find the history through the eyes of a fan and it includes all the small acts and not just the big names. I've had a really hard time finding the right music myself in this vague scene that's completely ruined nowadays so I think my page is very important for other kids to be found. As you can all see there are no banners or any other way I'm making a profit of this page and there never will be, I do this because I love this stuff and want others to be able to find it. Most of it are bands with old vinyl that isn't for sale anymore. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypt666 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

None, especially since you're posting copyright violations, which we have zero-tolerance for.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Quite plainly, it's advertising and wikipedia is not free advertising space.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Then could I at least place 1 link to my page on the harcore punk article? Because I think the acticle seriously could use the addition of my website. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypt666 (talk • contribs) 06:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

What you mean to say is, your website can seriously use the extra traffic from the free advertising you'd have here. No, you cannot add the link to hardcore punk.--Atlan (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes offcourse I can use the traffic. So can all the other external links and my website is alot more relevant then the links you are allowing at the moment. And I don't think the copyright violation is fair in my case. This is not Brittney Spears here ok?! What use is it for me to mention an 80s DC hardcore punk band noone knows and it's impossible to buy the record if I don't provide a download link? Beside the downloads are not hosted on my domain. And you're allowing all kinds of links to other music directories who have nothing but an identical bio to wiki and nothing more, I have as much right as those. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypt666 (talk • contribs) 07:35, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

So you think Wikipedia does not allow copyright violations only when it involves Britney Spears? I don't care how obscure those punk bands are, a copyright violation is a copyright violation. If there are other equally bad external links out there like you say there are, feel free to remove those too.--Atlan (talk) 07:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Given this person's lack of understanding of Wikipedia's policies, and the rather poor judgment displayed above, I don't think it's such a good idea to suggest that they go on a tear of removing what they perceive as "bad external links". Beyond My Ken (talk) 10:16, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Obviously. I was only making the point that equally bad external links being present don't legitimize their own link. I doubt that this user gives a damn about editing Wikipedia beyond adding their own link anyway.--Atlan (talk) 10:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah Topic closed. I would appreciate if someone could remove my ip adres from the logs since I had no idea this would be logged here and it's private. Nobody has to go on a tear for links, it's just not fair mine is being excluded. And as a matter of fact I was going to add some band pages to wiki but obviously not anymore, I might be a friendly person but not that friendly. I worked on this page and all the info for months full time the get it all together and it's one of the best hardcore webs on the net just as it is right now. The link belongs to those article just like the others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypt666 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Look, I said it was a bad external link, not a bad website. I'm sure punk rock lovers appreciate the work you've put in your website, but that doesn't make it any more suitable for Wikipedia. Like I said, if there are other links on Wikipedia that are equally unsuitable, they should be removed instead of adding more. As for your IP address, no that can't be removed from the logs unless there are pressing privacy concerns. "I didn't know it was logged" isn't one of them.--Atlan (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Allright allright I understand, it's for being a punk isn't it! Blacklisted, banned from society, wiki, what's next?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Crypt666 (talk • contribs) 18:57, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

*facepalm* Rehevkor ✉ 20:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice one there, completely missing the point of what we've been trying to tell you. We here at wikipedia take copyright concerns very seriously. The fact of the matter is is that your site violates copyright, and thus we cannot post a link to it. Further, wikipedia is not free ad space.

This has nothing to do with your lifestyle choice. Stop with the strawman arguments.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Namiba

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

Two things:

1. His edits on Tim Cowlishaw. They started as BLP cleanup; they ended up as Editing warring and disruption. He claims certain information is controversial, when it clearly isn't. At one point, he deleted Cowlishaw's birthday five times in a 24-hour period, even though Cowlishaw blurted it out on cable TV. He also deleted information about Cowlishaw's beat work; information he claims is controversial but really isn't. Even if he's right about BLP policy, he still edit-warred.
2. He POINT prodded an article I created, then nominated it for AFD

For edit warring and disruption, this guy needs a block of several days Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 15:35, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

To quote Wikipedia:Edit warring, "Libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced controversial material which violates the policy on biographies of living persons (BLP)." I never removed sourced material, and in fact was the only person adding sourced material to the article. A ban would be quite out of place. In fact, should anyone be interested, I started a discussion similar to this at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Tim Cowlishaw. However, I have no interest in content warring with anyone. I just want unsourced material removed from prominent BLP's.--TM 15:43, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of whether you want to or not, you still edit warred, and you still removed uncontroversial information Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 15:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exceptions to 3RR is applicable here. If its not sourced, it shouldn't be on a BLP. Jeni ^(talk) 15:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ugh, the version that Purplebackpack89 kept reverting to was god-awful IMO. "Cowlishaw is the third-most lauded Around the Horn panelist..." is gushy meaninglessness. Tarc (talk) 16:04, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me? Basically the same about Cowlishaw being the third panelist to 200 wins appears on the Around the Horn article. It's worth noted that in the show Around the Horn, somebody wins every day. Also, there's nothing wrong at all with the information about his beats Purplebackpack89 ^{(Notes Taken) (Locker)} 16:18, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Then say exactly what it means. And source it. Much preferable to edit-warring over poorly-written prose and unsourced errata. Tarc (talk) 16:51, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's looking like time to knock heads together here. Purplebackpack89 and Namiba need to disengage from each other or they may well have the choice forcibly removed. Guy (Help!) 17:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I already made that suggestion when Purplebackpack brought up the same issue at WP:BLPN. --Jezebel'sPonyo^shhh 18:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Disengage? If removing potentially contentious information (and a birthdate with no source IS potentially controversial) is a reason to threaten a editing ban, I don't know what wikipedia is coming to. As far as I am concerned the issue is resolved and my edits have been upheld. I'll edit the same way (except for perhaps having less toleration and bringing the problem public sooner) every day of the week.--TM 04:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Uncivil comment made by user:Parrot of Doom

Resolved

 – Per Tarc, an hour ago. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:53, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I made a good faith edit earlier to today's featured article claiming that usage of the Long s in a quote was confusing and unnecessary: [7]

user:Parrot of Doom reverted the change and rudely pointed out, "It's only confusing to those without the ability to think.": [8]

I took offense to this and warned him if he didn't apologize I would report his behavior to an administrator: [9]

He then refused to apologize: [10]

This is an obvious case of uncivil behavior. Please block him for at least 24 hours. This user needs to learn some manners. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

User was uncivil. User was warned. User was threatened that he would be blocked if he didn't apologize? That step-3 isn't part of the standard discourse. Do not escalate the situation--can't change the past, all we really care about is if the original claimed problem continues. DMacks (talk) 16:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how anybody but me warned him. It would be far better if an administrator did that. Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 17:01, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me of this page (sarcasm), and thanks for the threats. Where I come from, we would call that a rather pathetic attempt at bullying. But then again, in the world of the civility warrior, the rules only apply in one direction. Enjoy your minute of wikidrama. Parrot of Doom 17:20, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Parrot, perhaps you could have worded your comment in a more pleasant way? I do think, however, that forcing an apology out of someone is always a futile exercise. Aiken ♫ 17:34, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Not really. The only people who find the use of the long 's' confusing are those who cannot be bothered to sit still for a few seconds and read it correctly. I do not replace the long 's' in quotes for the same reasons I do not change the punctuation of those quotes, which in 18th-century England can go on for 50 words or more without a full stop.

Its a cultural thing. Where I'm from, we're not afraid to speak our minds. Where the complainant comes from, I suspect he considers such behaviour to be reprehensible. His argument collapsed like a pack of cards the instant he started making threats. Civility on Wikipedia should have a tagline - "You'll fucking agree with us, or else". Parrot of Doom 17:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Where Wikipedia stands, we comment on the content and the edit, not the editor. Making something clearer, even if it is already clear to many, is a good thing; on its face, there's no advantage to being obtuse, essoteric, or using less-standard/non-common forms. You could have commented on why using this less clear (at least to some, even if they are non-thinking readers) is an advantage. DMacks (talk) 17:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

It isn't making it clearer though, its modifying a historic quote out of sheer laziness. There's nothing "unclear" about the long "s". Its perfectly legible to anyone who has half a brain. I don't write articles for the lowest common denominator. Anyway, this was a rather funny excursion but if you'll excuse me I have more important matters to attend to. Parrot of Doom 18:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

• How about summing this up with a "Parrot, less dickish edit summaries ", followed by a "Moby, man up", and then moving on? Seriously... Tarc (talk) 17:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

As you know then, there are many different cultures here on WP, so some may take offense to you speaking your mind. I think you could have very easily undid the change without the provocative remark. But, of course, it's your choice. If you had done it that way, there would be no issue made out of it. Maybe something to think about when you're disagreeing with people. It is possible to disagree and not be unpleasant about it. Aiken ♫ 17:48, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Your point is taken, but you're writing as though I care about the opinions or emotional frailties of people like Moby-Dick. I don't. I find them to be beneath contempt. Parrot of Doom 18:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

More Insults?

Beneath contempt? That's two insults in one day. Holy Christ! What's it going to take to block this guy? Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Blasphemy? I think you should be blocked for that, or at least given a Stern Warning by an admin. I demand you apologize to the Son of God. Tan | 39 18:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Especially since it's Easter. Guy (Help!) 22:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably ſomeone who haſ a valid point. Parrot of Doom 18:47, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Moby-Dick3000. Just let it go or try and grow a thicker skin. I ante ma 18:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Tan, you really don't some seem to be helping here and you're an admin.Moby-Dick3000 (talk) 18:49, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Ever heard of forum shopping? It's kind of frowned upon. Nev1 (talk) 19:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Any chance of speedy deleting User:Moby-Dick3000/My sandbox before this gets too far out of hand? Compiling a "mean things said to me" list can't really be a productive use of user-space. Tarc (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That hardly seems like an appropriate user page. I think similar pages have gone through AfD and been deleted. Nev1 (talk) 22:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing on Talk:John Pershing

I would like to point out that Baseball Bugs, on the talk page of the John Pershing article, is canvassing for editors to report me if I return the information that was removed from the infobox. The admin who protected the page has stated numerous times that he has no opinion on the article, and that it was protected only to end an edit war. I have stated myriad times that there will be no edit war, and that I will go about this by the book. I have sought the counsel of the admin who protected the page. I have promised to behave in a professional manner. And yet Bugs continues this nonsense about my "edit war". He has said that he will have me "blocked so fast it will make my head swim". He has also stated that the nickname in question is "not negotiable", and that it is "OUT" ( his capitalisation); the same kinds of unilateral statements for which I was warned. Now, on the talk page, he is demanding that other editors report, not revert me if I return the name to the infobox.Mk5384 (talk) 10:59, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Take this to WP:DR first, ANI is the last resort. Take heed or you might find yourself getting the short end of the very short stick. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 11:12, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No one took me to DR before coming here.Mk5384 (talk) 11:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Don't you remember? That was a direct result of your pointy and disruptive behaviour. Please note that by bringing your complaint here, you are now at great risk of getting an indefinite block, and that's hardly something one should look forward to just after coming out from a 48 hours block, only to go back to what got you the block in the very first place. Personally, I find you to be extremely trollish in mentality and comments... which per WP:DFTT and WP:DENY, my only response now is to bid you adieu~! Have a safe trip out, goodbye. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 11:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

That's just silly.Mk5384 (talk) 11:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Like I've said to you before... make or break, the choice is yours to bear. Don't pin the blame on others for your own silliness, thank you. Bye~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 11:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I think what Bugs was trying to say was that anyone with a past argument over this should not revert any change to re-insert or add nicknames because that would be edit warring on all sides. The exact posting is here [11] , [12]. I dont think anything too terrible was meant by that and, since he didn't visit user talk pages and post multiple messages to have you reported, I don't see how this can in any way be considered canvassing. Might not have been the best choice of words (we've all been guilty of that, myself included, at one time or another) but I don't think a malicious intent was there. -OberRanks (talk) 11:53, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

If that's the case, then fine, but I still have my doubts. Bugs posted that after I went out of my way to say that there will be no edit war on my part, and that I will do this by the book. As can be seen by his posts, he dosen't want that name in the infobox, preiod. And he does have the right to hold that opinion. However, threatening to report me for edit warring for making an edit with which he dosen't agree is unacceptable. Asking other editors to do it is doubly so.Mk5384 (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet at the same time you state, and I quote: "The information is backed up with 62 sources, and I will return it." It's very hard not to read that as a declaration to continue inserting the nickname (i.e. edit warring) as soon as the protection is removed.--Atlan (talk) 13:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

He's said he won't. If he does, bring it here if appropriate or to an appropriate page. Nothing to see here, please disperse.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:49, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• WP:LAME covers this. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Also, read point number 46 of WP:OWB. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 17:10, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• Just an observation from an uninvolved editor: having looked at the discussion over the point of contention, I have to wonder, Mk5384, why it is you are so intent on being the lone voice here? Even if you are completely right & everyone else is wrong, the article won't be made completely unreliable by this one omission. And there are over 3.2 million other articles in the English Wikipedia, many of which in need of attention. I strongly suggest that you walk away from this article & work on something completely unrelated. -- llywrch (talk) 06:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Llywrch, it's an SPA issue... please take a look at point number 9 of WP:OWB and you'll understand what I mean. Regards. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 07:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea what would give you the idea that I am the "lone voice", and the SPA charge is even more absurd. Have you even looked at the talk page, or for that matter, the edits I have made prior to this becoming an issue? Mk5384 (talk) 07:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BLP: another data point

[13] - negative unsourced information in the article since creation in 2008. Let's not forget that just having some sources is not a magic talisman that prevents an article from violating WP:BLP. Guy (Help!) 16:40, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of that looks sourceable. See [14]. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:39, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

among the "BLP violation" removed by JzG were the two facts that "Rowe kept his seat in the 1979 provincial election .... Rowe lost his seat in the 1982 provincial election. " Let's not forget that not having sources does not mean we should not look for them. JzG, are you planing to bring every unsourced negative BLP statement here, instead of trying to source the ones that look factual? Perhaps this example is a very good "data point" of the wrong way to approach the problem. DGG ( talk ) 19:46, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed an unsourced paragraph because of an OTRS complaint. I have no opinion on whether material is reinserted with sources or not, and no real interest in that specific article other than resolving a complaint from the subject regarding material which was unsourced and asserted to be incorrect. My point was that we have been saying, for quite some time, that he's a liar, with no cited source. That is, I think, unambiguously wrong. My point was that the article was not unsourced, but it contained controversial and unsourced elements. The job of BLP cleanup, which we all agree is necessary, requires more than simply a checkbox "has it got any sources" approach. That was my message. Incidentally, DGG, are you an OTRS volunteer? If not please consider signing up. Your diligence would be an asset. Guy (Help!) 22:21, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

User:71.77.21.198

Resolved

 – Absolutely nothing for an admin to do here

I came across edits from anon Ip user 71.77.21.198 , from his recent contribution log a lot of the previous edits involved blanking entire sections most of which were sourced, from the Ip user's talk page it seems other editors have complained about similar issues. the article in question is a House episode guide, I know the content might seem trivial but the anon user made a lot of edits to house episodes blanking entire sections, leaving miscellaneous tags, renaming sections etc., some of which have been reverted by other editors and re-reverted by the user again [15] . I left a message for the user and reverted the edit on a page in my watchlist and cited another source just to be sure [16] but now he renamed the section and left a miscellaneous tag on top warning me that it would be removed in a month. I am new to this, can someone more experienced please advise me on how to handle this. Thanks.--Theo10011 (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I removed unsourced trivia. I titled the section appropriately. I placed a {{trivia}} tag on a list of miscellaneous information. I asked, per Wikipedia standards, that someone work on moving trivia out of a trivia section and into the remainder of the article. I fail to see how a policy has been violated. Theo10011's post is misleading. For example, "some of which have been reverted by other editors and re-reverted by the user again". That should be one of which was reverted by another editor, and none of which were re-reverted. Another example: "warning me that it would be removed" (italics added) suggests I gave Theo10011 a personal warning; I simply left an edit summary on my edit to the effect that trivia needs to be moved out of a trivia section. Theo10011 also left me a message that he did not like my "tone". I have never had a "tone" with Theo10011; in fact, I have never given Theo10011 a message. This seems to be Theo10011's personalizing the normal editing process and failing to realize that his edits "can and will be mercilessly edited". I would suggest that he discuss any content disputes on the article's talk page and wait for any consensus that might emerge rather than immediately running to the admin notice board. Thank you. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 20:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. Removing unsourced trivia from articles is never incorrect. If editors want to include such laundry lists of minutiae, they need to (a) source them, and (b) show how they're notable. Black Kite 20:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

As I said I am new to this, thats why I asked, I didn't accuse you of anything or request any action against you and I think I was civil. If I recall correctly I left a message for the user first, he could have left a reply on my page or discussed his edit in the talk pages rather than simply committing a similar edit again. Anon user might be right that I took his edit personally, which might have been an oversight on my part for that I apologize, but just for the record black kite the trivia section had 2 cited sources(now 3) from other websites that deemed it notable, whether they were notable by some other standards should be more of a matter of general consensus by at least a few more people than the user above. Thanks Again.--Theo10011 (talk) 20:43, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

And as I said, you did, in fact, accuse me of having a "belligerent" tone. There's one thing you say with which I wholeheartedly agree: "whether they were notable by some other standards should be more of a matter of general consensus", which is why you should have raised the issue on the article's talk page rather than here as if I violated a policy. And please read WP:BRD regarding the process for challenging a revert; it was not necessary for me to raise the initial removal on the talk page. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 20:48, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Please have a look at my post above and point out where I accused you of having a hostile tone on the admin noticeboard. However What I did say was on your talk page before I left a message here and for the record I called your actions and tone belligerent. There was no accusation here, only a query. None the less, I apologize for personalizing your statement and considering your actions hostile, I am not familiar with Wikipedia policies. --Theo10011 (talk) 20:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where the accusation was made; you made the accusation: "I consider your action and tone as rather belligerent". You may not be familiar with Wikipedia policies, but you seemed to understand enough to stir things up on the admin notice board. Most newbies have never heard of WP:ANI. Apology accepted. Now please move on instead of dragging out this pointless section. Thank you. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen so far, "belligerent" looks like a reasonable characterization. Regarding "newbies", Theo has been editing longer than you have. So how did you find out about ANI? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

From what I've seen so far, "arrogant" would be a reasonable characterization of your question. Have you ever heard of a dynamic IP? I've been around for years. Certainly long enough to know that you like to hang around ANI even though your RFA failed. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I do find your tone, if not belligerent, a bit... brusque... even if you are right. I understand the frustration of trying to remove unsourced trivia from TV episodes put in by the unwashed masses, but you're likely to get better responses if you lighten up a little. Buddy431 (talk) 21:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Brusque or not, this matter never should have been brought here, and I find Theo10011's purported naivete more than a little hard to swallow. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Well swallow it, it wasn't intentional. I would have moved on as you suggested but your reply above to Bugs is just rude, ad hominem attacks are uncalled for. I came upon the incident board originally getting some IP user blocked for vandalism. Also, Bugs argument is legitimate, how am I suppose to know that you are a seasoned editor, you didn't reply to the messages on your page. By the way Buddy, I would like to point out again for the record that the section in question wasnt some unsourced trivia entered randomly by the unwashed masses, it was there uncontested for the past few months with 2 sources and proper explanation. --Theo10011 (talk) 22:09, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Once again, a false accusation. I was letting BBB know that I'm not a newbie by providing info he knows about that a newbie would not know about. And it doesn't matter whether or not I am a "seasoned editor". Your accusations are false (now two of them) and are uncalled for whether you are dealing with someone who has been editing for a week or a decade. And by the way, I could respond in kind to your "swallow it then" comment by referring to a different part of anatomy, but that would be an "ad hominem attack". So now for the second time, please move on so this ridiculous section can be archived. Thank you. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Since you have no identity, I can only go by what your current IP shows. As far as the RfA is concerned, not being an admin is actually an advantage. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:58, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

First of all lets get something straight I "accused" you of being rude above and belligerent on your talk page I stand by both accusations, and from the comments above two user somewhat agree even if you consider them false. As for the swallow analogy, I would like to point out you used it originally questioning my intentions, I didn't. Regardless of what anatomical reference you think you can use as an "ad hominem" attack, I assure you I can be very crass as well, I am still assuming good faith and trying to remain civil. Second you might want to look up what ad hominem means, its characterized by personal attacks instead of answering the argument, calling Bugs arrogant and following it by mentioning his failed RFA constitutes as a personal attack regardless of what you think you were pointing out. Also, Dynamic Ip address usually change over time since they are randomly assigned by DHCP servers, you have been contributing with the same IP address for a while now, I think yours might be considered static, I might be wrong but thought I should point that out.--Theo10011 (talk) 17:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I see. You and Bugs can call me "belligerent", but I'm not allowed to call anyone "arrogant". That fits in perfectly with your approach to Wikipedia that policies apply to everyone except you. And please, share with us your amazing technology to determine how my IP is static, or your insight into the fact that I can't detect whether my own IP has changed. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 19:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I called your action and tone - Belligerent, in fact still do, you called bugs arrogant. As for the amazing technology, its called user logs, if all your previous edits show up under a single IP address than you only have a single IP address and not a dynamic one, which changes every time you log in. --Theo10011 (talk) 19:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, let me rephrase myself: Bugs' "action and tone" were arrogant. Does that splitting a semantic hair satisfy you? So you know for a fact that my IP has never changed by looking at the log of my edits under my current IP? Let me make sure I understand that. So please confirm if that is what you mean, or (for the third time), please move on. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 19:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

User:24.77.207.189

Resolved

 – 24.77.207.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) blocked 3 months. -FASTILY_sock^(TALK) 00:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I notified an administrator in January 2010, regarding 24.77.207.189 (talk · contribs) and his disruptive editing here. The result was a warning among a list of many. I had originally been contacted by a concerned editor here way back at the beginning of January 2010. Since, this anon user has not changed his editing style, and his attacks on other editors has continued to be very aggressive and profane, especially in his edit summaries. A scroll though his contributions looking at edit summaries tells the story; A fair number of good edits (although many seem to attacks, real info can be found it the actual edit) with a sprinkling of blatant vandalism every once in awhile. Given the extensive, specific warnings and subsequent block (amazingly only one so far), I request a long term block of 3-4months for this IP. Outback the Koala (talk) 20:52, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

 Blocked 3 months NW (Talk) 23:13, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Pre-emptive indefinite semi-protection of John Laws

Hello,

I would like to draw your attention to a case of pre-emptive indefinite semi-protection that I find unjustified.

The protecting admin has been asked to reconsider. Only after the issue was reported to WP:RUP did they come up with an explanation, which was accepted by the investigating admin. The justification was in my opinion extremely flimsy, and anyway not supported by our policy: "there has been in the last varying degrees of speculation in tabloid press and elsewhere".

This issue has already been reported at WP:AN, but it's been archived unresolved. In that occasion the protecting admin opened an RFC that would retrospectively justify that protection.

I would appreciate your views on the matter. Thank you. 114.148.210.226 (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

• It's a biographical article on a controversial figure. If you would like to edit it you only need to register an account, that is free and hardly intrusive. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

This IP editor has already indicated that he has an account. Firsfron of Ronchester 22:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I am aware of my options for editing semi-protected articles, but that is not what I am asking. 114.148.210.226 (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Based on what I saw in the diff above, pointing to Casliber's talk page, and other locations linked from that discussion, I have no interest in honoring any unprotection requests. The whole point of these requests is a Wikilawyering game. There's no actual expressed desire to improve or otherwise participate in the article or other articles where semiprotection is questioned, and these requests have been made with multiple IPs and what seems to be at least one registered account. Frankly, I'm not interested in playing games and I don't think any other admin is either, which is why your inquiries have been rebuffed up until now. -- Atama頭 23:37, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

In the meantime, if you're actually looking to add to the article as well as pursuing this "rules" issue, feel free to put your proposed improvements forward at Talk:John Laws. -- Euryalus (talk) 23:45, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think my inquiries have been rebuffed. In fact, more than one admin has already labelled this protection as excessive. Although we all agree that it's about a controversial figure, pre-emptive protection is not justified by our policy, and judging by the current results of the RFC referenced above, they probably won't be for a while.

I really don't understand why my potential contributions are considered relevant by some. They could be if semi-protection prevented only me from editing.

You can label this request as wikilayering if you like, but that still does not justify this protection. 114.148.210.226 (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

People can keep pretending this issue is about this IP's campaigning all they want, and that if he isn't planning any improvements then there is no issue, but its irrelevant. The use of pre-emptive protection just because its a controversial BLP is not supported, as the RFC reinforced yet again. If, as Casliber says, his issue is with there not being enough watchers of that particular article, then the solution is pretty obvious, and it doesn't involve inventing new policies towards IP editing, or continuing the protection just to spite this IP 'campaigner'. MickMacNee (talk) 00:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay - (a) This is one of many BLPs I think are better preemptively semi'ed - I'd rather not go on public record as to why and I can email folks if they wish (b) yes this is not within protection policy as it stands currently, but I do feel this works in lieu of an absent flagged revision. (c) I don't own this article. If another admin wishes to take on the responsibility then I will not stop them, though I don't think it a good idea. I'd be much happier if there was a specific aim in mind rather than just fighting it out over policy. Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The responsibiilty falls on the community as a whole, not just "an admin". The RFC has revealed that there is no consensus support for this maneuvre, and the right thing for you to do would be to lift the protection yourself absent of a reason that is justifiable in current policy. Resolute 05:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

A credible reason exists, the reason will not be discussed openly due to valid concerns (and think WP:BEANS), no evidence is presented that unprotection would benefit the project more then the present semiprotection, the requesting editor can edit the article using his main account, WP:BLP articles on controversial figures are not in pressing need of editors avoiding links to their main account, the request for unprotection has been declined. Any further questions at this stage? Guy (Help!) 11:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just that pesky issue of, what backing in policy have you got for this unjustified pre-emptive protection, apart from a whole bunch of reasons that have been rejected ad-nauseum by the community? This can probably be more loosely translated into, 'since when did administrators change from being basic functionaries who are supposed to follow policy, (meaning all of them, not just the ones they think are more important than the others), to being the makers and breakers of those policies?'. I don't know where this idea of a 'credible reason' has come from, Casliber didn't say anything except he has predicted something might happen based on tabloid speculation. If there is anything more concrete than that, then lets have an OTRS ticket recording the justification in private, and employ full protection for a known and definite time period, because people are kidding themselves if they think BLP subjects cannot be harmed if they are semi-protected. MickMacNee (talk) 13:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection is in place to prevent disruption and abuse, due to concerns held by the protecting admin. Would you prefer the article to be subject to abuse? Guy (Help!) 15:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Irrelevant. The current policy is funnily enough, also written to prevent disruption and abuse, and it does not sanction this kind of protection. But you already know that of course. MickMacNee (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Endorse semi-protection in this case. Casliber has cited BLP concerns, and given he's a trustworthy person, and given there's no argument being made as to how semi-protection of this one article actually harms content, this is a perfectly legitimate use of IAR and admim discretion on BLP issues.--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please show evidence of disruption and abuse on this article. Frankly, the only abuse I am seeing at this point is abuse of admin tools. Resolute 16:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Also fully support the attempt to protect the article. Off2riorob (talk) 14:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Endorse semiprotection as well. Anyone who doesn't get this can spend five minutes (took me thirty seconds) using some sort of internet search engine to find out what's up. — Gavia immer (talk) 14:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

IAR is not for this, not in the slightest. This is basic stuff, which really should not have to be repeated time and again. It is high time NOBIGDEAL was deleted, as being a complete work of fiction. MickMacNee (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There are rules about what IAR is "for"? You can't see the irony of that?--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:PIAR. It's well established throughout the entire community, bar a few maverick admins, precisely what IAR is and isn't for. MickMacNee (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I signed that petition. But this is not IAR abuse - it's a legitimate (and arbcom sanctioned) use.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Protection is reactive, freedom to edit is paramount. The harm to the content is obvious, if you are here to do anything more than just push the BLP envelope. This is a Foundation principle, pure and simple. Don't like it? Then try and change it the proper way, and not by 'endorsing' the bending of administrator roles. MickMacNee (talk) 14:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The harm to content in this instance is not obvious to me. Please explain it?--Scott Mac (Doc) 14:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Pick any of the hundred pages that you already know exist that explain at great lengths what the harm is done to the project of blocking IPs from making constructive edits without having to beg for permission from others, or be pre-emptively labled as libellers. Granted, these are written from a different perspective of the primary purpose of Wikipedia than you hold, but I'm sure you can manage it if you try. MickMacNee (talk) 15:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Good protection. Ignore the people who want policy followed ZOMG AT ALL TIMES. I missed the WikiConstitution that says there is Freedom for Anyone to Edit Any Article At All Times, especially when said person can simply get an account. High time NOBIGDEAL was deleted? I completely agree. Also high time that everyone understands that registering for an account is not a violation of any rights, and the only benefit editors get from it is that other editors can't track an individual's contrib history. If you want to crusade on a forum about that, we should head to another club. Tan | 39 14:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a fair position, held by many. It's not site policy though, not by a long shot, although credit to you for at least being open about your beliefs, and how that affects the legitimacy of your endorsement/rejection of this protection. MickMacNee (talk) 15:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Policy allows for the prevention of disruption and abuse. Good old policy. Guy (Help!) 16:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Read it again, you missed a few crucial details. MickMacNee (talk) 16:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There is resounding support for the protection, so I suggest you drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. –Turian (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The evidence of this resounding support of the abuse of admin tools can be found where, exactly? Resolute 16:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's a great loaded question, isn't it? Bravo. Tan | 39 16:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I assume you can read, so read this section. Simple really. [Also, it's not abuse, especially since it is BLP.] And as Tan has said, nice question... –Turian (talk) 16:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you have the capability to read yourself, you can take a look at the RfC referenced above. A couple of users on this noticeboard don't have the right to overrule a larger consensus (or lack thereof). Especially given that it is well established that arguments from policy trump. "I dont like it" arguments every time. Resolute 17:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yay, comment splicer... I find this an issue of making something out of nothing. He did not protect it to solidify his version of the article. He did it in good faith, which is something you are forgetting rather quickly. –Turian (talk) 17:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I have no doubt the intention was good. It is, however, not supported by policy and has been challenged by several users. At this point, failure to accept that his actions are not supported either by current policy or by the community displays a wilfull disregard of Wikipedia's principles. More over, per Casliber's own suggested re-wording of the protection policy, he should have lifted the protection the moment he was asked to do so. Resolute 17:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just no. There is no overwhelming support for this action whatsoever. A couple of comments here from admins who freely admit they don't agree with whole rafts of policy, cannot and will not change that fact. Ever. Read what Casliber has written, he even knows himself : "If you want to unprotect John Laws then I won't stop you, as you are technically acting more within policy than I am". MickMacNee (talk) 16:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, if you're firmly in the right and we're in the wrong, I'm sure that either a) an ArbCom case will clear things up by identifying the admin abuse, egregious disregard for policy, etc, or b) I'll read bitter complaints about this on WR and/or IRC and that's about how far it will go. If I was a betting man (and I am), I'd go with B for 1000, Alex. Tan | 39 17:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's high time for an arbcom case on this creeping and insidious redefinition of the role of admins, where the same few people turn up to say the same few things, yet policies remain unchanged. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) He has a right to ignore all the rules, especially when he is acting in good faith. Remember? Assuming good faith? So take your little petition, "condemn" him for it, and be on your way. –Turian (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

He has no right to do anything, and if he had the gumption to stand for re-confirmation, he would sharp find that out. Admin rights indeed. MickMacNee (talk) 17:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Probably, as would most current admin RfAs because at some point or another in the course of using the tools, you piss someone off who is part of a major minority. I'd be willing to wager that Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MickMackNee would sharp crash and burn as well, point being that you don't necessarily enjoy higher community confidence. Your little poke with the "gumption" is noted; why don't you change that redlink to blue and see just how much the community agrees with your views. Tan | 39 17:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ironically, the only edits to this article since it was protected were the addition of vandalism and the removal of it. That one instance of vandalism in the five weeks since protection is one more than existed in the five months prior to protection. Resolute 17:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Now that this vast crowd has gathered to discuss the administration of the article on John Laws, how about we all also have a go at expanding the actual content? It's pretty thin for what was probably Australia's highest-rating radio host. Euryalus (talk) 20:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Seeking closure

Resolved

 – MFD closed as a moot point. –xeno^talk 22:22, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Can some admin please close Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#User:Ash/analysis? It is loooooong overdue, but since the page in question has already been deleted at the request of the user, the closure will probably not be seen as taking sides in the underlying conflict. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:19, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Xeno. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Would have been better to make the request without the personal dig. Just sayin'. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:26, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

I hear you, and you are right. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 23:07, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Delete and create protect

Resolved

 – Title salted, accounts blocked Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:27, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Can someone delete islamtube and salt it? It's been speedy deleted several times today with the author simply recreating it and even using socks to remove speedy tags. Burpelson AFB (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Deleted once again - creator is on a final warning: "Create an inappropriate page again and you'll be blocked". Which they will be, if they do. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:54, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

He's now recreating it in his userspace [17]. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:02, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

And one more mainspace speedy. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:04, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Removed the image the user was using on the userpage, as copyrighted images should not be used in userspace. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 01:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Biased, trollish editor

Resolved

 – User:GADFLY46 blocked indefinitely by User:Bigtimepeace for BLP violations and disruptive editing, User:Nwerle blocked indefinitely by User:NuclearWarfare as an alternate account of GADFLY46. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

GADFLY46 (talk · contribs) appears to have enough knowledge to request account rename [18], yet appears (pretends?) to be incompetent enough to create an article that consists of himself asking a question [19]. He also has a history of making biased, unsourced, and BLP violating edits like these [20], [21], [22], as well as making personal attacks [23]. His talk page is a long list of notices and warnings. I can't tell if this is an immature kid, an incompetent, a troll, or a typical soapboxer, but they ought to be blocked in any case. I see very little to indicate they are here to contribute in a constructive manner and even less indication they understand what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The editor continues to both play dumb and behave in an uncivil manner [24]. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have witnessed this user's incivility as well, here as some diffs: [25], [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], and a personal attack against me here. Sorry if some of the diffs overlap Burpelson's diffs. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Here's another lovely example [32]. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That was from two years ago, so it's not really fair. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I dunno... overt racism doesn't really lose it's ability to disgust me. Anyway, he's also recreated his previously renamed account [33]. -- Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(←) That talk page is certainly problematic. I also have difficulty understanding why he resumed editing with the previous account, but it certainly is worrying given the overall (and long term) lack of civility. jæs (talk) 01:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There's recent evidence that editors are aware that they can be abusive and then get a "name change" that just shifts their abusive history aside, followed by reregistering the old name without its early history. I have no hard facts on this, just my perception that there's been an uptick in the use of this tactic. Basically the recreated account needs to be permanently blocked to prevent this tactic from working. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed that too. Burpelson AFB (talk) 01:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess all the admins went to the pub. Burpelson AFB (talk) 03:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Just got back from the pub (actually not really, unfortunately) and am looking at this. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

After reviewing the last 50 contributions dating back a month, I've gone ahead and blocked User:GADFLY46 indefinitely. The main concern here is a pattern of adding defamatory information to BLPs, a problem which seems to date back at least to last summer. Some recent examples include the following. [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] In general the editor seems to be on a mission to insert their POV (and angst over certain issues) into articles, for example [39] [40] [41] [42]. Warnings have been given in the past (and recently) and are generally met with rudeness (this being a recent example). The user also seems to enjoy complaining, pontificating, and deriding others on article talk pages [43] [44] [45] [46] [47]. It's possible that some of the recent edits helped in some fashion, but the vast majority were somewhat or very disruptive, and the BLP violations are a dealbreaker. Other admins can feel free to review this block of course, but I'm not seeing any reason to allow this person to continue to edit. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 08:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Should the User:Nwerle account be blocked, as well, then? As briefly mentioned above, this was his previous username, which he recreated and — for whatever reason — used for editing briefly, again, in February. jæs (talk) 12:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like that account was blocked[48] a couple of hours ago by NW. —DoRD (talk) 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Help forging (forcing?) truce related to sticky prods

A situation has gotten out of hand.

To make a long story short, I'm looking for help from an impartial admin.

Please see Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#Truce proposal and Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#STOP IT and do whatever you think is right.

Thanks. Maurreen (talk) 02:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please avoid over-dramatization and don't open threads on (perceived) user issues in the middle of discussions, as those belong on user talk pages and other relevant places, and they stifle proper discussion, can jeopardize consensus building... You should take this kind of (trivial) things to user talk pages. That's it. Cenarium (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm an impartial admin, and looking at those sections, I believe I can see exactiy where the problems are arising, although I don't think the starter of this thread would like to know that. People need to calm down a bit on this page. Black Kite 11:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Administrator removes access rights from expert user, refuses to reverse

Resolved

 – Confirmed permission regranted. There is no need to remove it from inactive users. On the other hand, there was no need to brew up this storm in a teacup. Perhaps you could just talk it over with a third party next time? NW (Talk) 03:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi everyone, Last July, I noticed that Tbranch (talk · contribs) had made some highly valuable edits to our articles and talk pages about blue whales and minke whales. This user appears to me to be a top expert in these subjects. The blue whale article is indefinitely semi-protected[49], so I asked User:TeaDrinker if he could give Tbranch "confirmed" permissions which would allow Tbranch to edit the article directly.[50] TeaDrinker agreed, and within a day Tbranch made an excellent edit to the semi-protected blue whale article. This user has made a total of four edits, and there is no dispute about their quality. Today, Jac16888 (talk · contribs) changed Tbranch's permissions from "confirmed" to "none," which means that Tbranch will no longer be able to simply log in and edit the blue whale article. I asked Jac16888 why he had done it, he gave me a factually incorrect answer as justification for the change, has given no alternative explanation, and has refused to re-grant "confirmed" permissions to Tbranch.[51] I ask the community to decide that Jac16888's removal of Tbranch's permissions were unjustified and for an administrator to re-grant the permissions. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Well this is a complete waste of time. As I have explained to Clayoquot, I removed the confirmed right from a few users at Wikipedia:Database reports/Inactive users in user groups as they never/barely edited after receiving it. The user whom Clayoquot is demanding be granted confirmed permission made one edit after being made confirmed and has not edited since, this was last july. Besides, were they to come back they would only need to make 6 edits to be autoconfirmed anyway--Jac16888Talk 03:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC) The complete waste of time is requiring an editor to write an explanation to Tbranch that their permissions have been removed and that they need to make six edits before updating blue whale, and then requiring Tbranch to make six edits, just so that an admin doesn't have to click one button. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC) How many times do I have to say this to get it through your thick skull, Tbranch has not edited since July, chances are they're not going to again. This is not an issue, stop causing trouble --Jac16888Talk 03:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Jac, take a corner. Telling someone to "get it through your thick skull" is considered a personal attack and you as an admin should know better. - NeutralHomer • Talk • 03:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC) I personally don't see why we should remove the confirmed right from users who have made constructive contributions, but it is pointless to restore it to an obviously inactive account. He has made just one edit using this right, and that was months ago. If he ever returns, he can easily get autoconfirmed or request the confirmed userright again. There's no storm in this teacup, unless you chose to brew it here on ANI. ≈ Chamal talk ¤ 03:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC) (edit conflict)I'd have to agree with this in principle. I don't see a reason to force an expert user to make edits outside their field of interest/expertise, for the sake of being able to make one edit to a semi-protected article. The sporadic nature of his contributions makes it more likely he will simply choose not to make that improvement, were he to return. decltype (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC) If you all don't mind, I'll going to close this. It's a waste of time and energy on both sides. If he ever comes back, he can ask for the right again. End of story.--White Shadows you're breaking up 03:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

possible sock puppets of Dacodava

Oneinthemillions (talk · contribs) has just arrived and started tagging articles for pov, etc. Another editor has reverted some saying this is a sock puppet of Dacodava (talk · contribs). It seems quite likely this is a sock, but I don't know enough to take it to SPI. Does anyone else? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 06:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

As the editor cited above for identifying the possible link between Dacodava and Oneinthemillions, and as someone who has similar difficulty in filing an SPI (particularly for an established case such as Dacodava's), I fell I should comment a bit more: having first noticed the problem but not knowing the ropes, I made into a post here (the admin is presumably quite familiar with Dacodava's case). As you will perhaps note, the problem is spread over many articles, and Oneinthemillions is, well, just one of several very likely socks of Dacodava - I have the same suspicion regarding User:Brantfordcan‎ and User:Burcze. Dahn (talk) 09:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:SPI isn't too complicated once you get into it. If you use the button for the new case (changing SOCKMASTER to the username) then just fill in the section. List the socks you believe are involved (IPs and accounts) and your evidence, including diffs. Remember the WP:DUCK test - if it looks, sounds, acts, smells like a sock, it's probably a sock. SGGH ^ping! 10:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

User talk:Chenlill123

Resolved

 – All the news that's fit to print has been taken off the presses due to copyvio, user blocked as a Xiamenb2c sock. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 20:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

ANy idea what's going on with this user? He seems to be running his talk page more like it were a newspaper or news site. —Jeremy ^{(v^_^v Dittobori)} 07:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why they are doing it, but I recognize the pattern. Probably the same person behind all of these accounts:

• Xiamenb2c (talk · contribs)
• Xiamenb2c01 (talk · contribs)
• Xiamenb2c02 (talk · contribs)
• Xiamenb2c03 (talk · contribs)
• Xiamenb2c04 (talk · contribs)
• Xiamenb2c06 (talk · contribs)
• Xiamenb2c08 (talk · contribs)
• Xiamenb2c1 (talk · contribs)

Same pattern of dumping large amounts of blogs or news articles into their talk page with no other interaction. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I just figured it out. Chenlill123 is trying to link spam as all of the articles have embedded links about shoes or other items for sale. I just blocked the account for being a spam-only account. The Xiamenb2c (Xiamen B2C?) accounts did not have embedded links. I'm still pretty sure they are related. -- Gogo Dodo (talk)

Mdb10us

<span class="anchor" id="Mdb10us (talk · contribs) and possible paedophilia">

Referred to ArbCom per policy. –xenotalk 16:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I recently asked about the above user and if his photo uploads were acceptable, which they are, broadly - even if I believe he's here simply to use Wikipedia to exhibit himself. He has a tendency to remove decent photographs of exhibitionism and replace them with poorly taken photographs of himself - photos that have double exposures or blurred images. Now, I've been doing a bit of Google searching around his username, and someone sharing his username seems overly interested in photographs of naked and semi-naked Thai, Vietnamese and Laosian children. Now, I'm not saying that they're the same person, but the user Mdb10us on Flickr and other sites displays what I see as paedophilic tendencies. I'm concerned that they're the same person, and I would like a second opinion on whether or not this user is actually here to help Wikipedia, or simply to, ahem, *show off*. NSFW Google images Link to illustrate my point: <link removed, and verified by Rlevse> - contains photos of nude children and flaccid phalli. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 12:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC) <link removed> (link includes picture of young naked child)someone called Mdb10us states in 2007 that he was administrator of two (now closed) flickr groups, childpureway and Children naked beauties. Off2riorob (talk) 14:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Not going to open the links but if they contain children in those situations then this needs top be reported to the appropriate nation's police service as a matter of urgency. Regardless if their nature is benign that needs to be the call of the police not ourselves IMO. SGGH ping! 14:47, 3 April 2010 (UTC) You did well to report this person, Cavalry; those pictures as well as that user are very disturbing. We certainly don't need people like that here.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Blocked and referred to ArbCom. Whether this is excess of zeal combined with cluelessness or paedophilia activism ArbCom is the relevant authority. Guy (Help!) 15:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Like SGGH I wouldn't open that link and the sooner it's erased the better. Jack forbes (talk) 15:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC) I agree.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 15:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC) As most of you know, wiki takes a very strong ANTI pro-pedo stance. On wiki, child porn is governed by the laws where the wiki servers are at, which is in Florida, USA. And in the USA child porn is as illegal as it can be. I'm removing the link. — Rlevse • Talk • 15:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Some may say you were right the first time ;) --Fred the Oyster (talk) 15:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC) legit typo — Rlevse • Talk • 15:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: Could someone extend this block to the commons account if possible? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I requested a global siteban, I don't know if that's being actioned. The images on Commons also need to be nuked. Guy (Help!) 19:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I had requested deletion of the images and blocking on commons a few hours ago and it's been done. Cenarium (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

User:AdyRock88 genre-warring

User:AdyRock88 contribs has been changing genres to music infoboxes with every single edit since he registered, removing them without an edit summary and adding inappropriate genres. He used a reference for some edits which did not sufficiently back up his claim, and when I challenged this editor and reverted him, he simply reverted back to his version. An IP editor, User:109.166.141.153 contribs then appeared (with no edit history) and edited in exactly the same way, and I believe this is the same person logging out to avoid 3RR. I am now close to breaking 3RR myself and I don't know what else to do.

The articles in question are Deep Purple album articles, mainly The Book of Taliesyn [52], [53], [54] and Shades of Deep Purple (basically the same diffs), with another issue of genre removal at Deep Purple [55], [56], [57].

Can someone offer some advice, please? Thanks. Bretonbanquet (talk) 14:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• What, so now the idea that Deep Purple is a heavy metal band is somehow contentious? Guy (Help!) 15:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually yes, they were a heavy metal band at various points in their career, but not in the 1960s, they weren't. These articles concern individual albums, not the band as a whole. The main article does list heavy metal in the genres, but these albums are far from heavy metal. If it's not contentious, then a decent source should be very easy to find. There is a long history of single-issue editors adding "heavy metal" to the genres of hard rock bands, with no consensus or proper sourcing at all, and this is a prime example. Bretonbanquet (talk) 15:16, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Eaboutspots70

Resolved

Sock of SGF. Block E-mail. This is standard procedure.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 15:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

 Done ~ mazca ^talk 16:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Attempted Outing

Resolved

 – User in question indefinitely blocked for harassment/possible outing, TallMagic directed to the oversighters. –MuZemike 19:23, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There is a sockpuppet investigation, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Glasscity09, and one of the users that is part of the investigation, "CRedit 1234" is harrassing and making personal attacks. Part of these attacks involve privacy violation in his attempts to "out me", wp:OUTING. He is continuing even after I asked him twice to please stop. This is taking place primarily on the sockpuppet investigation page linked above. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 16:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Okip canvassing

Okip (talk · contribs) has been engaged in a blatant but creative form of WP:CANVASSing AFDs.

The technique looks like a ruse to evade WP:CANVASS: issue a barnstar to anyone who has voted the way he likes in an AFD, and link to a list of similar AFDs, labelling he link as a "purge".

See e.g. [58], [59], [60], [61], [62]

The last one is particularly revealing, because the editor Dew Kane (talk · contribs) was given a barnstar for "for his iincedible work in the bus route purge." That word "purge" is not neutral, and Dew kane's contributions consist solely of pasting identical text to a range of AFDs, regardless of the state of the articles or any evidence presented in the discussion: see e.g. [63], [64], [65].

So the barnstar was actually awarded for voting, not for article rescue, and was a device to alert that editor (and any others reading that page) to Okip's view on a series of AFDs.

I asked Okip to stop canvassing, and the response was a reply on my talk accusing me of "bullying". I replied at Opik's talk[66], and the message was promptly deleted[67], so it has been read.

Opik has also left a blatantly partisan message at the article rescue talk page [68] (again referring to a "purge") ... and now appears to be writing guidance for others on how to canvass [69]. The article rescue squadron does some great work in improving poor articles and demonstrating the notability of a topic, and it is pity to see it being abused in this way as a vehicle for trying to circumvent the restrictions on votestacking.

Okip also closed a discussion in which zie had just voted, rather than leaving the job for an uninvolved editor. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Is it not about time that this editor was topic-banned from anything to do with deletion-related pages? It appears that far too many people's time is being wasted here. Black Kite 17:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It is about time you stop threatening editors Black Kite, when there is no rule breaking, this is a pretty bad form of bullying, and unfortunately not the first time. You could not possible be more biased in this discussion. Okip 17:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Brown haired girl, you know the rules, yet you continue to bully me. I have started to write this guide, because I continue to see editors such as yourself, bully editors for not breaking any rules at all. If you refuse to follow our rules, and harrass editors who follow our rules, Brown haired girl, you should not be an administrator. Okip 17:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Except that BHG is exactly right. There would not be any requirement for me to post such issues had you not behaved like you did. I would also add User:Dew Kane to this proposed topic-ban, as their recent AfD contributions are nothing but copy-and-pasted versions of "it exists, so it's notable". Black Kite 17:18, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I will ask you the same exact thing Black Kite: Why is there a template to do what I just did Black Kite? Okip 17:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, Okip, you are not a how-to guide for escaping policy. I only had to look at two of the diffs above to see you are canvassing, and to promote yourself as the "resolver of situations" when it comes to others being dealt with for taking part in the canvassing that you promote is not acceptable either. If you want people to be made aware of AfDs so they can make their own judgement then read up on "deletion sorting" to ensure AfDs are being flagged up for the relevant WikiProjects. Going around recruiting like-minded users to create a gang of Okip-followers to head-off AfDs you don't agree with will not be tolerated. SGGH ^ping! 17:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I have listed Okip's draft how-to-votestack guide at Miscellany for deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Brown haired girl, your bad faith and bullying truly knows no bounds. I have no idea how you became and adminstrator. I have followed all of the rules, and yet you continue to harrass me. Okip 17:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether you genuinely believe that blatantly partisan alerts to a selective audience are neutral, or whether you are just rying it on. But either way, don't engage in votestacking, and then you won't feel bullied when you are asked to desist. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

There's a reason we don't have "rules" per say on WP, because it is the concepts and practice that is more important that any "letter of law" that may exist on WP. Even if what the actions are are squeaky-clean of the written text, the intent of the guideline and past behavior are much more valuable to go on. --MASEM (t) 17:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Notifying editors who edited the article which was nominated for deletion
Page	Rule	Template	Important notes
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people	While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and any main contributors of the articles that you are nominating for deletion."	"For an article you did not nominate: {{subst:AFDNote|Article title}} ~~~~"	There is no "all sides" requirement. You can notify anyone who has participated in the discussion that you wish.

What part of this rule don't you editors understand? Again, if you are threatening editors when they are strictly following the rules, this is bullying and harassment.

What would brown haired girls notification here of the MFD be? Okip 17:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Relevant to the topic? Resolute 17:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

So is the notification of contributors to articles, per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people, and the notification of wikiprojects. There is no basis in this complaint. Okip 17:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

For one, your characterization of BHG's nominations as "purges" is deliberately slanted terminology designed to generate sympathy/support for your position. Second, your invitations and barnstars are targeted towards like-minded users only. You are attempting to influence the outcome. I generally sympathize with your aims, but dude, you can only WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT for so long. Resolute 18:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

What you are doing is writing "messages that are written to influence the outcome rather than to improve the quality of a discussion [which] compromise the consensus building process and may be considered disruptive." This is because you appear to be selecting people (and bribing them with barnstars it seems) who concur with your "purge" assessment of the AfDs. Furthermore, stop accusing us of threatening you, we aren't - this is Wikipedia. SGGH ^ping! 17:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is there a template to do what I just did SGGH? Okip 17:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The box posted above by Okip is not from WP:CANVASS, it's from Okip's own how-to-votestack guide at Wikipedia:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/Newsletter/20100201/Feature, and it directly contradicts the long-standing guidance at WP:CANVASS#Votestacking, which says "Votestacking is an attempt to sway consensus by selectively notifying editors who have or are thought to have a predetermined point of view or opinion". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Why is there a template to do what I just BrownHairedGirl? If it is against the rules, why is there a template for this? Why is there a specific rule which states it is okay to do what I just did? Again, if I am following the rules, and you are threatening me, and now what the rules are, (which with over 150,000 edits, you probably d0) this is a form of bullying and harassment. Explaining the rules so that editors such as yourself no longer are able to threaten and bully others is perfectly acceptable.Okip 17:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip, the problem here is not notifying people. It's who you are notifying and how you are doing it. You are absolutely not neutral, and you're posting messages in a completely biased manner. See my message on the talk page of your guide. Aiken ♫ 17:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

You. Are. Not. Following. The. Rules. If you look at WP:CANVASS you will see a chart (it is green and pink) that illustrates why your actions have violated that page's policy (think POV, selective messages, etc.) I suggest that Okip takes a warning about his canvassing, and further canvassing can result in the restrictions that anti-canvassing policy suggests (which is an eventual blocking period to prevent disruption). I can find nothing in Okip's defence that is convincing, and plenty of evidence from the other parties supporting the original ANI report's statement. Another admin can check in to close/finalise as I have now voted along with BHG in the MfD. SGGH ^ping! 17:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) To be fair, its about time BrownHairedGirl was banned fron deletion related pages, just seems to be an editor full of disruptive hot air who will stop at nothing to get her own way. Jeni ^(talk) 17:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC) Note: User:SGGH removed this comment for no reason

Yes, it's called an edit conflict and was not on purpose. Thank you. SGGH ^ping! 17:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Leave Okip/Ikip/Travb alone!!! It's a wikipedia rule that all criticism/disagreement with him is bullying and harrassment!Bali ultimate (talk) 17:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

u forgot user:inclusionist ;) Cheers, Jack Merridew 21:24, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's not helping. However, if we have past examples it would be easy to craft a restriction forbidding future infractions. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes I am following the rules. What part of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people do you not understand? Why do we have these rules, if editors can then disregard these rules at their leisure, threatening editors for following those rules.

As far as "how" I am notifying them, it was with a neutral message. I can notify anyone who has contributed to the article, per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people.

giving barnstars to editors is not against any rules. This is a bogus posting by an administrator who knows better. Okip 17:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip, "this is only one of many of the deletion purges by one editor" "for her noble work in referencing and working on the bus route purge" are completely not neutral. See the talk page of your guide for my suggestion of how you could go about it. The thing is, you've managed to neutrally notify in other places, so it's not like you're incapable of doing so. Aiken ♫ 17:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Please reference, "this is only one of many of the deletion purges by one editor"

"for her noble work in referencing and working on the bus route purge" How is giving a barnstar to someone who ALREADY commented in a AFD canvassing? Please quote SPECIFIC policy, otherwise your complaint has no basis in fact. I quoted Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people, and no one has explained how me following these rules (which even have a template for doing what I did) violates canvassing. Okip 18:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

From the page you keep quoting, it says "Keep in mind that all such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing." Your messages were biased, so you did not follow the rules. Therefore you violated the canvassing guideline. Referring to somebody nominating articles for deletion as "purging" is not neutral. Aiken ♫ 18:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

How is giving a barnstar to someone who ALREADY commented in a AFD canvassing? I don't see that in canvassing policy, anywhere on wikipedia in fact.Okip 18:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I shan't repeat myself too much, but as I said above, the policy clearly states that POV notification in order to get a certain kind of support at an AfD is as BHG said, vote-stacking. It says it clearly on the policy page, and in my opinion your notifications are clearly not neutral. SGGH ^ping! 17:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Again, how did I violate Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Notifying_interested_people, why is there this template to do what I just did? {{AFDNote}}Okip 18:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I can actually explain it any other way. You violated WP:CANVASS. SGGH ^ping! 18:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I do not see how comments thanking people for having !voted a certain way is canvassing for support, because they have already supported. It might conceivably be, if people regarded the barnstar from a particular editor as something so desirable that one would !vote in a certain way in the hope of receiving one. With all due respect to Okip, I do not think that's exactly the case here. DGG ( talk ) 18:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

{{AFDNote}} found on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion

My notification

== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|AfD]] nomination of [[{{{1}}}]] == An editor has nominated [[{{{1}}}]], an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/{{{1}}}]] and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to address the nominator's concerns but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you.

== [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion|Articles for deletion]] nomination of [[:London Buses route 372]] == London Buses route 372, an article you contributed to, is now up for deletion, you are welcome to comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/London Buses route 372. Okip 15:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[70]

Okip 18:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip, I even said you managed to post a neutral comment which you did, which was why I was so surprised at the non-neutral comments left at other people's talk pages, along with barnstars. The above example of yours is exactly how people should be notified. Claims of "purging" are not. Aiken ♫ 18:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, it is permissible to notify people of AfDs, but the POV you are using means it goes from notification to canvassing. Again. SGGH ^ping! 18:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Question: How can you canvass someone with a barnstar who has ALREADY replied in a AFD? Do you know how absurd this all sounds? Okip 18:34, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black states that Ikip " is warned to refrain from making large-scale edits which may be interpreted as canvassing or making rude comments to users he’s in dispute with." He was blocked for 12 hours in January "for repeated canvassing en masse" Dougweller (talk) 18:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Dougweller, another editor who I have had longterm conflicts with. This is like a drawer full of bad pennies.

It is important to point out that A Man In Black lost his adminship over blocking me in that case.

The block on January was bunk, I just decided since it was only for 12 hours, I wouldn't fight it. It was by an admin who one former arbitration member aptly called "non-impartial", his next selective block of me (for doing exactly what an arbitration member did [the arbitration member was not blocked]) was reversed, and several admins and former arbitration members roundly condemned his block. Okip 18:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Precisely. Okip, you can WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT to your heart's content, but frankly if you continue to violate WP:CANVASS so blatantly the outcomes are not going to be to your liking. And if you wish to take that as bullying or harassment, I think you need to look a bit closer to home. Black Kite 18:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Talking about WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT I have asked several editors how I violated policy by giving barnstars to editors who already commented in the AFD...Okip 18:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• It is sensible to link these AFDs together because of their similarity. Much aggravation would have been avoided if BHG had presented her case in the form of group nominations rather than the 20 or so nominations which we seem to have already. There are already lists of these related nominations in other places such as the project pages and it is a good service to inform editors of their existence if they have an interest in this sort of topic. The more participation we get in these discussions which affect hundreds of articles, the better the consensus that we will establish. Okip should be commended for his actions. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • You are correct about the AFD bundling. However, such communications must still comply with WP:CANVASS. Okip's don't. Black Kite 18:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
    • The reason I didn't bundle was that it seemed to me to be better to consider each article on the individual merits of that topic. I took heed of the comments from some editors who advocated bundling, so I bundled the last group of AFDs, but was promptly denounced for that, by the same editor who had most vociferously denounced me for nominating them singly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• For background, there's been a few no resolution/consensus AN/Is in the past, Massive Canvassing of the ARS by User:Ikip, Blocked_Ikip_for_canvassing, and User:Ikip_and_forum_shopping for starters. So this has been a long-running point of contention with this user. Tarc (talk) 18:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wow, more old "friends". Yep, that was the case where A Man In Black lost his adminship. That arbitration came about directly because of him inproperly blocking me for canvassing. Okip 18:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Ikip I say this as a member of the ARS - actions like this only to serve to marginalise the ARS and its objectives. And people wonder why the ARS is called the "Article Canvassing Squadron" and editors summarily remove rescue templates...[71] --Mkativerata (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yet you were still warned. And so far as I remember, our interactions this year included at least one compliment from you which included either the word 'respect' or 'confidence' (this was a comment to someone else I believe), and no complaints from you - so 'longterm conflicts' doesn't seem at all accurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 19:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Looking through one of the complaints about him. He closed this article [72], after looking it over and seeing that every single person out of the many that commented said keep. Nothing wrong with that. If someone had posted delete, that'd be different. This is commonly what is done. As for the rest of this, no rule was violated. If you believe someone was done wrong, then go to the page about canvassing and discuss it there, changing it if you believe there is a consensus to do so. And barnstars are always given out to people by other editors, whenever they feel like it, it always someone who does something they like and approve of, obviously. And the Rescue squadron invite is of course offered to those who took the time to look for references and discuss things, instead of just mindlessly saying delete, as many people unfortunately do. No rule violated, no reason to continue this witchhunt. Dream Focus 18:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Hmmm, I thought I wrote a note stating something to the effect, "if this is incorrectly closed, please open again" I was not sure if I could close the article with 8 keeps and no deletes right after I !voted on it, I just !voted on it, guess I can't. Okip 19:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • "No rule was violated". Well, apart from the one about closing an AfD which you have voted in, of course. No, it doesn't really matter - the AfD was clearly heading for a SNOW keep - but it just illustrates yet again that Okip doesn't really have any regard for how things are done properly around here - i.e. "policy". It needs to stop. And I liked the bit about people midlessly voting delete, coming from a member of the ARS. Almost had to clean coffee off my keyboard there. Thanks.Black Kite 19:10, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Your continued partisan attacks need to stop, editors harrassing editors for following policy need to stop.
      Regarding my closure, I apologize for closing the AFD myself. I dont recall ever dealing with closing snowball keeps before. Okip 19:15, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
      • As soon as you stop behaving against policy, then people will stop "harrassing" you (translation: calling you out on policy violations). It's not rocket science and you're clearly not an unintelligent person, so I don't think it's too difficult for you to comprehend this. Black Kite 19:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• • • Having looked at the AFD again, I agree, he shouldn't have closed it. I didn't notice the nominator was still against it. If even one person doesn't agree with the rest, it should remain open. And things are often closed when everyone is in agreement. Just a simple mistake I believe. As for how things are done, well, yes, you see that is how things are done quite often. What do you mean about how things are done properly? Things are done quite differently in different parts of Wikipedia, depending on the whims of whoever is around at the time. No rule was violated by his alleged canvassing, it clearly not canvassing by the definition of canvassing on the proper Wikipedia page about that, so no reason why he shouldn't be able to do what he wants, if no rule is violated. Dream Focus 19:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
      • Dream Focus seems not to have checked out my initial complaint, at the top of this section. Dew Kane (talk · contribs) was invited to the ARS for mindlessly saying keep. I don't know whether Dew Kane even read any of the articles in whose AFDs he !voted, but none of his long series of comments reveal any knowledge of state of the articles, and AFAICS he had made no edit to any of them. Other editors on both sides had taken time to read the articles and discuss things, but not Dew Kane. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:21, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
        • Once again, no rule exist on who you can and can not invite to join a Wikiproject. And Dew Kane could've read what was said by others, and formed an opinion based on that. I looked through some of those AFD minutes ago, and saw where someone had posted links to reliable sources, and based on that said keep in a couple of them. Dream Focus 19:31, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
          • Dream Focus, do please try to be at least a little consistent. You specifically said above "the Rescue squadron invite is of course offered to those who took the time to look for references and discuss things, instead of just mindlessly saying delete". But here it was offered to an editor who just mindlessly said an identical "keep" on every occasion, even in article where there were sod all references. If you think that's appropriate grounds to invite someone to ARS, then the Article Rescue Squadron will become a votestacking club rather than an article improvement team. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I despair at having to continue to show veteran editors policy and consensus that they should already know.

If this editors extreme copy/pasting is allowed:

Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion/Archive_53#Copy and pasting same_argument_in_over_a_hundred_Articles_for_deletion

Dew Kane's behavior is allowed. Okip 19:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh the irony and complete blatant hypocrisy, right here on this page:

"I have listed Okip's draft how-to-votestack guide at Miscellany for deletion."[73] Is that a neutral notification of the MFD? Will Black Kite and others criticize BrownHairedGirl for this non-neutral notification?

Okip 19:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

This isn't about Dew Kane's dubious editing pattern though, it's about you. I'd strongly suggest you address that rather than trying to wikilawyer your way away from the issue at hand. Black Kite 19:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Well not surprisingly, the answer is "no": "Will Black Kite and others criticize BrownHairedGirl for this non-neutral notification?" I guess it is "okay" to do what you condemn other editors for...Sad. Really sad. Okip 20:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I see the original complaint here as an instance of bullying. BHG proposed a number of articles for deletion, apparently anticipating a clear quick consensus on the result desired--or else as an experienced editor, she would have tested the waters with a few nominations first. (Given that ArbCom has previously ruled that trying to overwhelm a process by multiple nominations is actionable misconduct, such was presumably not the intention). The consensus was however not at all what was expected. This is not the result of canvassing, but the result of a number of editors having --in most cases consistently and for a considerable time--a different opinion. The nominator then comes here complaining about a relatively less experienced editor. Others with previous conflicts against him joined in, complaining about his actions in connection with the same group of AfDs--articles about which the community in considerable part agreed with Okip. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs) 20:19, 3 April 2010

Okip is a "relatively less experienced editor"? He's been here since 2005! That's longer than BHG, Black Kite, and you! AniMate 20:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(Reply to AniMate) BHG has 207K edits. DGG has 75K edits. BK has 30K edits. Okip has 5K edits. Now what was BS? Tan | 39 20:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Okip=Ikip. Ikip had 55,500 edits. Put them together that's 60,000 edits. AniMate 21:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I stand corrected; thanks. Tan | 39 21:08, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I didn't "attack" Okip; I asked him to refrain from systematic votestacking, and brought the issue to ANI only when the complaint was rejected. Nor do I criticise the actions of those editors who have genuinely tried to rescue to rescue articles by seeking evidence of notability; I disagree with many of their conclusions, but that's the purpose of a discussions, to air and hopefully resolve difft views.

I am very disappointed that DGG, who I know as a prolific article rescuer, is failing to distinguish between article rescue and votestacking; that failure causes me a lot of concern about where ARS is headed. But DGG needn't concern himself with any notion that I am somehow afraid to criticise him, and I assure DGG that if he had engaged in a votestacking exercise like this one, I would not have hesitated to bring it to wider attention. Thankfully, so far as I am aware, he didn't do so. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:55, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I said less experienced not to mean less experienced in editing, but less effective in disputes when they get personal. But I also meant it as a sort of euphemism for less powerful, or perhaps even less well-connected. DGG ( talk ) 21:56, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• No violation committed by Okip Canvassing is limited to influencing ongoing discussions; any communication to someone who has already !voted, with no attempt to change their !vote, is not canvassing. Thus, such communications do not need to be neutrally worded. Having said that, it would probably be a good idea if the term "purges" was deprecated, as I can see how that term conjures Stalinesque imagery. Several of the participants above should know better than to use a non-infraction as a rationale (excuse?) to berate Okip. Jclemens (talk) 22:06, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose the remedy that BHG and Okip, and also BK and Okip, refrain from comments on each other. Discussion on the articles belongs elsewhere. DGG ( talk ) 20:19, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• I support the above but would also suggest a restriction on canvassing, since this does appear to be an ongoing problem. Guy (Help!) 20:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • How would that be different from Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black#Ikip warned? That's not a flippant question; I too would like to see things improve with this. NW (Talk) 20:33, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• I oppose this. Scrutiny from both sides here (mass AfD nominations and canvassing allegations) is worthwhile, whatever you think of the merits of either side. I see no evidence that this has degenerated into bullying by either side. We're all grown ups. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Okip's behavior is problematic. BHG and BK are shining a light on it. AniMate 20:45, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose I concur with AniMate's view. MBisanz ^talk 21:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support for I/Okip only. Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black#Enforcement by block is pretty straightforward about the steps that should be taken here. Does this need an official ArbCom enforcement filing, though? Tarc (talk) 21:07, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, and redact your comment about bullying above please DGG. which I've now done myself. I won't allow that to stand. If anyone wants to restore it, please read WP:NPA first. Thanks. Black Kite 21:13, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support this and all propsals by dgg. As he points out, Okip is a poor newbie editor with dew in his eyes whose only hope is to expand a most perfect compendium of all human knowledge. His opponents present themselves as people who simply disagree with him; but as DGG points out, they're all a bunch of meanhearted bullies. The thin red line should be drawn right here.Bali ultimate (talk) 21:17, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Not sure that sarcasm is the best idea here, to be honest Bali. Black Kite 21:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
    • What sarcasm? DGG was a librarian and Ikip/Okip/Travb is apparently a lawyer. Everyone knows that librarians aren't foxes, they're hedghogs. And everyone knows that lawyers are always right! Leave these poor friends of knowledge alone. This place will be tip-top in a jiffy!Bali ultimate (talk) 21:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. BHG and BK are doing the right thing. Inclusionist/O/Ikip et al, however has a very long history of canvassing and a keep-everything-at-all-costs approach, and an AC warning to boot—yet here we are yet again. The proper outcome here, is a broad restriction for Okip re canvasing and deletion related activity. Yet-another of Ikip's old friends, Jack Merridew 21:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The solution to the Ikip/Okip problem is certainly not to make him immune against criticism by punishing people for pointing out the problem. Hans Adler 21:41, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) After Jack's comment, I rest my case. It sufficiently clarifies the situation. DGG ( talk ) 21:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Attention. Jack is an evil sockpuppet whose sorcery runs to coding and an idiosyncratic interest in sourcing (outside his specialty). Mr. Adler is something far, far worse: A professional academic (i think he does something in the evil counting profession, or at least in one of its related mathematickal dark arts) They should have no standing against Okip/Ikip/Inclusionist/Travb. (Kudos to DGG for his devestating use of geometric logic).Bali ultimate (talk) 21:49, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, as an aside to DGG: Why are allowing this horrible biting of a newbie (inexperienced editor, as you described him) is being allowed to go on by an administrator of your caliber?Bali ultimate (talk) 21:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose - This would only make sense if BK and BHG were doing something wrong here. For almost every comment (if not all of them) here criticizing Okip's behavior, he seems to use one of three responses - referring to the person as an old "friend" and therefore ignorable, accusing the person of acting in bad faith, harassment, and bullying so they can be ignored, or just ignoring the comment with no reply at all (such as the comment by Mkativerata). If Okip wants people to stop criticizing him, he needs to address people's concerns, not just silence the critics. Mr.Z-man 21:51, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose- The situation is exactly as Hans Adler describes, and I couldn't have put it any better. Ikip/Okip has a long history of canvassing and is a big reason why the ARS is currently the "Keep vote canvassing WikiProject" in all but name. It is not the behaviour of those who criticize him that is the problem here. Reyk _YO! 21:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. I don't support the deletion of the articles in question (BHG's talkpage is still graced by a long explanation as to why), although I do think most of them would work better as a single list than as multiple stand-alone unexpandable stubs. However, BHG is acting perfectly properly here, and Okip is acting like a petulant child throwing a tantrum. – iridescent 22:00, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support Okip has a reasonable perception that he's being attacked, and there's no cause for unilateral action against him. If there's to be a sending of editors to their respective corners, Okip doesn't need to be singled out. Jclemens (talk) 22:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment. This current discussion does look a lot like cyber-hounding of sorts (no, it is not the same as jumping someone after school, which is why I won't call it "bullying," but it is clearly ganging up on and attacking with hyperbole a perceived opponent as almost all of those lining up against Okip are pretty much the diehard deletionists of the site and ones who mass attack groups of editors off-site, swear at others, call people "idiots," are uninterested when called out for their own incivility, are admittedly just here to "fly the deletionist flag", etc.--things I do not see Okip doing by contrast...). I do NOT include BrownHairedGirl as part of that group as she is not someone I am really all that familiar with. I think any reasonable neutral editor can see the partisanship of the attacks an Okip for what they are: partisan attacks to squash a good faith perceived opponent. Just look at the history of the core of those attacking him and their appalling behavior in this discussion alone. This thread has already devolved into an inclusionist versus deletion fracas that serves no other purpose than to raise tensions while no articles are improved in the meantime. The longer it stays open, the more animosity grows, the less actual work done to any articles. I therefore trust any and all good faith editors will after this post walk away from this thread and work on something constructive. And anyway, why on earth wouldn't we want greater participation in AfDs by editors who might know about the topic under discussion and therefore be able to help in improving the article? Why wouldn't we want someone to be courteous to such editors? And real quick, no, I am not "back." Okip has defended me in the past from similar dishonesty and it is worth making a one off comment only to stick up for a good faith and constructive editor when he is being hypocritically attacked by those with far worse behavior histories, who are tossing about insults and sarcasm even in this very thread, and who merely are of a different viewpoint. All the more reason why, among other off-site matters, I have not been around the past few weeks and don't plan to be in the future. I suspect this kind of name calling and unconstructive discussing rather than actual editing is what discourages many others from sticking around as well. So, back to enjoying my time away from this absurdity and while I am here, Happy Easter to all good editors! For those who have emailed me, yes, my health has improved, but sorry and despite the many requests that I return, I still want to for all intents and purposes stay retired. Too much to work on and enjoy, really, in the non-Wikipedic world. Take care. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:09, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Madokhn

Resolved

 – User:Madokhn blocked indefinitely by User:Tanthalas39, Mulvane, Kansas semi-protected for 2 weeks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:37, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Madokhn (talk · contribs) has continously added back non-notable residents to Mulvane, Kansas and Derby, Kansas, undoubtedly himself and his friends. On March 31, he was blocked for 24 hours for edit warring on Mulvane, Kansas and subsequently added back the non-notables via two IP addresses: 72.205.231.236 (talk · contribs) and 68.103.79.169 (talk · contribs). Both IP's were blocked for 24 hours and Madokhn had his block reset everytime he edited as these IP's. Today, after his block expired, he added back the non-notables to Mulvane, Kansas with the following edit summary: "This revision was confirmed by the Mulvane newspaper." (here) Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:29, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The account has been indef'd. SGGH ^ping! 18:35, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I also semi-protected the Mulvane article for two weeks. Tan | 39 18:40, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Jim Bell

NeilN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) reverted an edit to Jim Bell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) here: [74] with the edit summary "rv whitewash". You will be aware that the subject is blocked under the account James dalton bell (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), also that the subject is a controversial figure. He has complained about the specific revert. Trying to be fair to all sides here, I believe that:

• user:Keystroke was making a good-faith effort to address legitimate concerns over the article.
• user:NeilN identified that some of the removed material was reliably sourced and reverted but chose his summary poorly, failing to assume good faith of Keystroke. I do not think this is characteristic or habitual and acknowledge I have done worse myself.

Bell is clearly incensed over past edits to the article and is making demands in respect of individuals concerned, which are not my place to address, being mainly to do with past conduct. I have passed these to the Arbitration Committee to see if any action is required. The only recent edit which Bell has brought to my attention is NeilN's revert. It's clear to me that Bell's major issue right now is that he is blocked, and he considers this to be an abuse perpetrated by Wikipedia. Everything else is secondary and rubbing salt into the wound. I have two questions:

• Is any action required at this point?
• What can be learned from this complaint, to prevent future issues?

As an aside, Bell states that all edits by Skomorokh are suspect. I cannot pick them apart form other subsequent edits by Keystroke and others which are clearly welcome. I would ask others to join me in reviewing the content of the article and ensuring that everything there is reliable sourced and neutrally stated, since despite several requests Bell has failed to give me specific examples of problematic text. It is understandable that he is not willing to co-operate, especially while blocked, so it's down to us I guess. Guy (Help!) 19:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I definitely could have chosen a more tactful edit summary. I explained my concerns here. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:20, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Bell's unwillingness to cooperate, I believe it has little to do with him being blocked. He was repeatedly asked to point out specific article concerns when he was free to edit. This continued when he started socking. He invariably replied with accustions about other editors' behaviour, as I suspect he's doing now. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:28, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

The main part of Bell's block is his refusal to stop with personal attacks about a good-faith admin trying to point out our policies to him, along with others. We asked him several times to make his posts small and concise, not the tl;dr paragraphs he was posting. He responded with more tl;dr posts insulting others, and his talk page was locked. This block, as said, is not only about unwillingness to cooperate, but unwillingness to stop with personal attacks and treat others civilly.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 20:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd advise a policy of actively not going there. Let's focus on the here and now. Guy (Help!) 20:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

It's difficult to formulate "lessons learnt" from this situation. None of us want inaccurate info in the article or something that has undue weight. At the same time, subjects of articles need to realize they can't control the content (I believe Gogo Dodo initially explained this to Bell) and should be told how to raise their concerns (done, multiple times including the formulation of a new template by you). Keystroke has gone through the article, fixing problematical areas. As someone who helps out on WP:BLPN, I can say all these things happen with any "regular" BLP article. Perhaps we could create a "we know you're upset but your edits do not conform to the guidelines" template based off of Template:Blocked subject --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:52, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking, he has come here and had issues with his article and as a newbie with his own article he has has some issues, he has identified with otrs, I would support another try, remind him to stay civil, give him a list of the policy and guidelines and give him another chance (last chance). It would likely all end in tears though as all he wants to do is change or remove some content he disputes on his BLP.Off2riorob (talk) 21:26, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That's the thing. He hasn't identified article issues with OTRS per Guy: "despite several requests Bell has failed to give me specific examples of problematic text". What makes you think this behaviour is going to change, given the folks at OTRS are probably more patient and sensitive than the average editor? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That is an issue, if he won't tell us exactly what his issues are, how can we investigate? Off2riorob (talk) 21:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's my concern. What I've seen largely duplicates the material already posted here, which focuses on particular editors and edits long in the past (by Wikipedia standards, anyway). I am certain that if any one of the emails he has sent were posted anywhere other than his own talk page, he'd be blocked again. All that's going to do is piss him off even more. Guy (Help!) 21:50, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mat kilau

Resolved

• Deleted article whose discussion page is still open. Erpert (let's talk about it) 19:54, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Closed. Black Kite 20:01, 3 April 2010 (UTC)