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 Editing by User:Vexorg

This user is engaging in the kind of disruption is virtually impossible to deal with. Reverting without consensus or references, disruption on the talk pages, and even canvassing to get his WP:POINT into the article. For the record, this is not the first time I have brought this editor to this board, but report is in reference to this article only. The defense will be a loud accusatory finger (sorry about the mixed metaphor) pointed at me and any of his other accusers. Please strip off the histrionics and look directly at the diffs. I hope I have not got any of the diffs wrong. I have tried to be careful but mistakes happen and I will correct any asap. Thanks

Disruptive editing at Rothschild family

The following are recent reversions (the last three days)

• [1] 5 March
• [2] 5 March
• [3] 5 March
• [4] 3 April
• [5] 4 April
• [6] 4 April
• [7] 5 April
• [8] 5 April

Disruption on the Talk page

Verorg started a section about another editor he titled 'Complaint about User:Mbz1 and his POV edits

• [9]

Examples of Vexorg's dialogue on the talk page:

• [10] "this isn't the place to discuss your lack of knowledge..."
• [11] acknowledging that he is restoring material on the basis of his own argument without consensus or references
• [12] continues to restore debated material based on his own arguments rather than consensus or references
• [13] asking another editor if he is editing as an IP and threatening to do a checkuser
• [14] again threatening this user with checkuser
• [15] accusing another editor of "untruths" and "smelling a Pov here"
• [16] more personal attacks, expresses his desire to reinsert the same material "after a reasonable time has elapsed"
• [17] Accusing other editors of having a "problem" - again expressing his intention to reinsert his material despite the lack of consensus for such a change
• [18] demanding of another editor once again if he is a particular IP
• [19] "It's not surprising that Stellarkid wants to remove the section, given his/her political stance as shown in several disruptive Arbitration reports over the last few weeks. "

Canvassing

• [20]
• [21]

User:NickCT's comment after being canvassed by Vexorg here [22]

Thanks for your consideration. Stellarkid (talk) 03:54, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Comment by Stellarkid

I have fixed the edits above to reflect the correct date. I misread 3-4, or 3-5 got it backwards or something like that. My intention was not to indicate 3RR violations since if that were the intention I would have gone to the appropriate board. My intention here is to show that there is disruption and that Vexrog is not using the talk page constructively to make his case. He is not getting RS or listening to the concerns of others and trying to address them. He seems to believe that he has the truth and so the right to put his edit in despite lack of consensus and challenges by others. Stellarkid (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Where's the beef? What are you trying to do here? Surely you don't think that's enough to get Vexorg banned. In fact if this is all you could dig up on him it's a credit to Vexorg. Factomancer (talk) 04:51, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

It would be great if someone could straighten out what's going on with these two groups of editors, but if that's not possible to do, then I suggest it might be necessary to block Vexorg, Stellarkid, Factsontheground, Mbz1, Breein1007 and whatever other members I missed of these contentious and disruptive groups. They've all been warned that blocks were going to start coming, I assume other people are as tired of seeing these same names here over and over again, so admins should start wheeling and dealing, I think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:53, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

This ANI has nothing to do with me. I will strongly request that you refrain from mentioning my name again unless you intend on filing a report against me. Otherwise, keep me the hell out of this because I am not involved. Thank you. Breein1007 (talk) 05:48, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The people who keep bringing unnecessary drama to the noticeboards should be banned. Those of us merely trying to write articles and improve the encyclopedia should be left alone and not punished for other people's misbehaviour. There's no Wikipedia policy that says that you can be banned just because people mention your name a lot. And who are you to suggest that I am banned? How many articles have you written lately? Factomancer (talk) 05:05, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment And in fact the accusatory voices are raised against the messenger as expected, with calls to block me for bringing it forward. This venue is where we are supposed to bring such things. You may call it drama, but not one of you have addressed any of the diffs brought forward. If you don't see anything problematic here, fine, say so; but please do not start calling up other names for blocks. Deal with this one, then if you are unhappy with me or others, bring the report and the appropriate diffs. Some people are beginning to make editing Wiki an unpleasant experience, and that goes against the purpose of WP. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I never mentioned your name in the above comment, I merely said "The people who keep bringing unnecessary drama to the noticeboards should be banned". It's interesting that you immediately interpreted that as meaning yourself. Freudian slip? Factomancer (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Those first diffs on the Rothschild article are from early March, not early April. However, I completely agree that Vexorg's discussion on Talk:Rothschild is uncivil. There's a ginormous debate on that page over what looks to me like a relatively minor section heading issue, complete with canvassing and tons of personal attacks about the "political agendas" of other editors involved. I tried earlier today leaving the editor a note about civility 1 because I thought all of the conspiracy accusations against other editors were pretty irritating, unfortunately s/he found it "patronizing" and told me so on my talk page. The editor is certainly willing to engage in discussion, but their incessant conspiracy theorizing about editors who disagree with them on issues related to Israel/Zionism being part of a "Lobby" just seems to me to be really unhelpful in terms of keeping editing in this area calm and civil. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 05:23, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

First and Final Comment by Vexorg - This clearly obsessive and bad faith attempt to get me blocked/banned by Stellarkid doesn't even warrant a millisecond's response. It really speaks for itself as a continuation of the disruptive derailment that has no doubt annoyed all the admin who have had to wade through this nonsense over the last few weeks. This latest piece of partisan melodrama is not something I wish to be associated with and I sympathize with any administrators who have to deal with this incessant and childish guff. And for the record the 'rant' left at my talk page by CordeliaNaismith was extremely patronising and that is why I swiftly removed it. I won't be spoken to like that in real life or on Wikipedia. This whole debacle is getting beyond ridiculous. I'll leave you all to it. Vexorg (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by Vrubel's Demons - having been at the receiving end of Vexorgs incivility, I was thinking of reporting him myself, but apparently someone else did that. I do not know and do not care about any prior quarrels this editor had with other editors, but I do care that he derailed a discussion about content by attacking other editors and by canvassing what he perceived as like-minded editors (though let me emphasize that one of those canvassed did not respond, and the editor responded added to the discussion about the content). He also filed a bad faith sockpuppet report about an editor who disagreed with him, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Off2riorob/Archive. When warned at his talk page about his incivility and edit warring, he accused me of hounding him [23]. It this behavior which makes any discussions about content impossible, and drives away those editors who actually want to improve the content of the article. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 07:01, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment by NickCT This is another example or "drop-of-the-hat" arbitration. If you read the Rothchild talk page, you'll see that this issue is being taken care of, and the tone of the debate is simmering down. @Stellar - By filing these ANI you only serve to inflame. Verxog may be loud, but he hasn't done anything egregious. When he does, I'll report him myself. NickCT (talk) 13:10, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposal

I don't really care who it starts with, but something's got to give or this will go on forever -- so why not start right here and now, since general warnings have been given already. My suggestion is that both of these editors should be blocked for a reasonable short period of time, say a week, and when they return it should be under a topic ban which requires them to deal with their disputes with each other only on the relevant article talk pages or in legitimate dispute resolution. Any posts to AN, AN/I, RSN, COIN, SPI regarding each other would be grounds for another block. The third time, block indef. Then, when some other member of either of the two battling groups cames here with another dispute, start the process over with them.

Until they are forced to deal with each other, there's no real reason for them to come to any accomodation or compromise as long as they think they can come running here (and elsewhere) to continue the fight and run the string out even further. Channel them into dispute resolution, and if they don't want to go there, indef them.

Anyway, I'm feeling bloodthirsty tonight and that's my suggestion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 06:31, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose If Vexorg did something to earn admonishment or a block then Stellarkid was justified in bringing this report. I don't want to get too involved in this since I know the admins are losing their patience but this proposal seems a little far reaching and based on frustration instead of a decent review of the complaint. If it is found that both CordeliaNaismith and Stellar are wrong in their perceptions then there might be reasoning.Cptnono (talk) 06:44, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that this is basically a problem between Stellarkid and Vexorg, Vexorg directed personal attacks at other editors on Talk:Rothschild family also. It also looks like 2 other editors have discussed campaigning or personal attacks with Vexorg on his talk page: 1, 2. Given that, within the last day, Vexorg has started a Wikiquette thread regarding a comment on another editor's talk page and opened a sockpuppet investigation which was rejected as fishing, it looks to me that this editor is making significant contributions to the drama. CordeliaNaismith (talk) 07:17, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I have nothing in principle against your affection for radical solutions. However, we have enough action already and I have good reasons to believe that you solution will only increase the stream in this bloodbath (so blood-thirsty or not-you may not like the outcome). I see it as a complex problem that need the intervention of expert surgeon-maybe involvment of other admins, new in this I-P but experineced with solving complex long lasting conflicts, and with the close supoervison of bureaucrats-could lead to cease fire. Nothing would be less benificial for WP than mass "executions" of user accounts. It will only result with less articles on this topic, with articles that are biased and so forth. This conflict involved, generally, with more than 30 editors-it seem just to suggest special policy in regard to editing in I-P related articles.P.s. I agree with Breein 1007, this random name dropping you did is improper and destructive.--Gilisa (talk) 10:25, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Further discussion

Comment: Any reviewing administrator should be advised that User:Vexorg was recently given a strong warning (final warning?) about such behavior. Vexorg has also been previously blocked for a type of behavior that somewhat resembles what's shown in this report. FYI. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 15:18, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment #2 – The edits that Vexorg made to Stellarkid's comments are also concerning, and, I believe, actionable in of themselves. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Reply by Vexorg - I am discussing this at my talk page. So before you jump in and start shouting for action, I did in fact revert myself previously. And after it was pointed out that it was against policy I just came here to revert myself a 2nd time but I see you have done it for me. So thank you for that Ynhockey :) - I think, and in regard to policy, I think it's better to let Stellarkid's misrepresentations of my diffs be exposed for all to see. Vexorg (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment - I apparently made an error in my dates. Will try to fix that later in the day. The point was not to show that Vexrog had violated 3RR. I don't know if he did or not, probably he didn't as he was conscious of violating it and made a note of giving it a proper amount of time before reinserting the material. My point was just that he was edit -warring and disruptively inserting information against consensus and without references to back up his assertions. Stellarkid (talk) 18:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Reply by Vexorg - "Will try to fix that later in the day." - if there is good faith why not fix it now? It would take 5 seconds? Vexorg (talk) 18:49, 7 April 2010 (UTC)
• Comment to Stellarkid It is very difficult to believe that you accidentally dated edits made on the 5th of March as being from 3rd of April.

I will note that you have made use of misrepresentation when it suits you:

• here where you selectively quote for effect.
• here where you misrepresent the provenance and quality of a source: Based on the link Big Campaign which is a propaganda anti-Israel site, NOT an RS at all. Using this bogus site and its information,.
• Which I asked you to correct here
• Yet you continued on with the misrepresentation here - The root source was of course http://www.soas.ac.uk/lawpeacemideast/, this is apparent when one visits the link that I gave when adding the cats in question, which is why it is troubling that you chose not to reproduce it in full.

I think it is understandable that one wants to offer a strong case but it is troubling when an editor does so by proffering half-truths and fabrications, as I believe to have demonstrated that you have. Unomi (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Reply to Unomi-- The difference was I think between the dates 4-3 and 3-4 -- March 4th or April 3rd. Stellarkid (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Further reply to Unomi.this is not a misrepresentation nor a selective quote. It is what the words say. It was not quoted "for effect" but to clarify why people might find it offensive. The tacked-on disclaimer is a bit meaningless if you know Carlos Latuff's work and the fact that he came in 2nd at the Iran Holocaust Cartoon Contest

• The second link which you call a misrepresentation is based on this link [24] which your edit summary says {"add cat per http://www.bigcampaign.org/index.php?page=report-uk-economic-links-with-israeli-settlements"} and a handful of other edits using the same edit summary, all of which are found on the page you linked to. Will deal with the other accusations of misrepresentation later today. Busy now. Thanks Stellarkid (talk) 21:19, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

• Your third and forth diffs are directly related to the second which I answered above, and are not in the slightest misrepresentations of your source which you yourself listed--please see the second point above. Stellarkid (talk) 00:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• If you can't distinguish between: http://www.bigcampaign.org/index.php?page=report-uk-economic-links-with-israeli-settlements" and Based on the link Big Campaign then I would say that your value proposition to wikipedia is questionable.
• You cut off the quote in mid sentence in order to support your preconceived notion of what he really thinks. You cut off the part of his quote where he defines the subset he considers to be racist along with the part where he explicitly rejects anti-semitism.

This is intellectual honesty 101 stuff, please stop trying to defend the indefensible. I am withdrawing from this thread, please do hit me up on my talkpage if you have further concerns. Unomi (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well I support some kind of restriction on User Vexorg, recently it is almost impossible to find an edit of his that has not been reverted, all of his edits are to a single issue and on some articles he is repeatedly labeling organisations as Zioninst when his additions are reverted by multiple editors he repeaterdly inserts them, causing disruption at multiple locations. He reported me as a sockpuppet, there was no evidence at all apart from he thought it was me and the report was closed with a looks like bad faith comment, I would have more expected an apology under such circumstances but after the SPI was closed User Vexorg continued to question if I was the IP. He also posted messages in a canvassing manner at two editors talkpages, Umoni, who is here commenting and another editor. I don't see any sign that there will be any change at all in his editing pattern, without restriction the disruptive pattern will simply continue. Off2riorob (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

I concur. In fact this recent comment by Vexorg [25] suggests that the Vexorg shows little insight into the inappropriateness of his behavior. A preventive block or ban might be in order, in particular given the extensive block log of this account. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 22:03, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Correction of misrepresentation by Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons above by Vexorg - because I don't want to clutter up this ANI with a battlefield, I made a comment about a misrepresentation of me by user:Off2riorob on my talk page. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons has now misrepresented me by claiming this is 'showing little insight into the inappropriateness of [my]behavior.' There is nothing inappropriate about commenting on misrepresentations made about myself on my talk page however many times you say it is. It is my right of reply to comment on such and as long as people continue to misrepresent me I shall continue to comment on that. And the repetition of your arguments at this ANI are starting to make it seem untenable that you are acting on good faith. 'extensive block log of this account' - hyperbole. Vexorg (talk) 22:21, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Comments by George

Going through the presented case:

• I don't see a case of disruptive editing, and I view Stellarkid's list of Vexorg's edits as misleading. You've listed eight edits over two months. Of those, three were made in a row, and only two were reverts. If the implication is that Vexorg was edit warring by reverting twice, I would note that Vexorg wasn't the only one who reverted to his version, and it would appear that Off2riorob reverted two editors three times in total (assuming that they are IP address 173.120.203.243, something that might warrant a CheckUser), making them more guilty of edit warring than Vexorg.
• Regarding Vexorg's commentary on Mbz1 on the talk page, I find it odd that you would be reporting this a month after he wrote the comments. Vexorg is clearly commenting on the contributor in addition to the content, which should be avoided, but at the same time I don't view anything particularly outlandish in their statement. Mbz1 has since been topic banned, which adds some weight in Vexorg's defense of his comments.
• Vexorg's comments on the talk page constitute minor incivility, when he says things like "lack of knowledge" and "untruths". Stellarkid's synopsis of those edits, and extensive list, is, however, somewhat exaggerated. Most of those diffs don't show anything other than a content dispute.
• Vexorg's comments to Unomi and NickCT were pretty clearly canvassing.

All-in-all, Vexorg's minor incivility and canvassing should be punished. Maybe a short term (1-3 month?) topic ban would be in order. However, I would also address Stellarkid's own actions:

• Stellarkid's list of infractions is exaggerated and misleading. Many of the diffs listed are not a violation of anything, and strike me as someone throwing a bunch of crap against a wall to see what sticks.
• Stellarkid reported Vexorg and three other editors on these very boards not even a week ago. In that discussion, several administrators slammed both sides for using Wikipedia (and these boards in particular) as a battleground. I view this report, rife with exaggeration, and coming less than a week after Stellarkid's previous on the same user, as little more than a continued attempt to exploit these boards as a weapon. Editors need to stop using these boards as a tool to get editors they're in a content dispute with banned.
• If Vexorg is guilty of canvassing, which I believe he is, then Stellarkid is likely guilty as well: [26][27] Notifying users you discuss on ANI doesn't mean you cram a report full of meaningless diffs so you can then notify those editors who were in disagreement with Vexorg on the article in question. Surgically notifying editors who are diametrically opposed to the editor being reported, while at the same time not notifying other editors who agreed with Vexorg's viewpoint in those same talk page discussions with Vexorg is clearly canvassing.

I would suggest a similar, short (1-3 month?) topic ban a warning for Stellarkid, for canvassing and attempting to use these boards as a battleground tool (in contrast to building consensus via dispute resolution), and per the warnings of Georgewilliamherbert, Sandstein, and Malik Shabazz in Stellarkid's previous AN/I report. ← George ^talk 22:24, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Reply to George -- Just to reply to your last paragraph. The two notifications apart from Vexorg were entirely appropriate since I used their diffs in my presentation. That was a courtesy to let them know that I had used them and if they thought I had used them in error or against their wishes they could respond. While other people were involved on the talk page, I did not use diffs related to them (I think) and thus did not "notify" anyone else. I probably should have notified NickCT since I did use a diff of his and apologize for that as it was late and I simply forgot about it until you characterized my notification as "canvassing." As for the battleground accusation, that was what my earlier characterization of Vexrog in the previous ANI with respect to his accusations of a local Zionist lobby--[28][29] and now you are trying to turn it on its head and accuse the accuser. I don't think you will find a similar diff from me, accusing people of an anti-Zionist cabal or some such. I understand this as it has worked in the past, where administrators throw up their arms and ban people indiscriminately. I realize that these accusations are tiresome for administrators, but I still hope that they will find the time to separate the wheat from the chaff here (meaning the issues, not the people), because this is the place where they need to be brought up, and if I am banned as well for bringing what I believe to be disruption forward for examination at the appropriate venue, then so be it. I will at least have been true to my principles. Thank you. Stellarkid (talk) 01:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the whole think stinks to me. When filing AN/I, editors are supposed to notify editors they're discussing - you never discussed either Off2riorob or No More Mr Nice Guy, the two editors you notified. You only linked to diffs in which Vexorg was in a content dispute with them (among others), and the fact that you only notified editors supporting one side of the dispute is highly suspicious.

The issue isn't that you reported Vexorg, the issue is the context of that report. You listed eight diffs as "disruptive editing". The first three occurred over a month ago, and you claimed that the misdating was accidental. Looking at the article's edit history, it seems unlikely to me that one would confuse March (at the very bottom of the page) with April (at the top). Of the remaining five edits, three were made one after another - effectively counting as one edit - and two were reverts. So your disruptive editing accusation leveled at Vexorg equates to one edit, and two reverts - I don't see the disruption. You listed Vexorg's comments on Mbz1, a user since topic banned, as talk page "disruption". I see minor incivility, but nothing that I would consider disruptive editing in that diff. You then list ten diffs of Vexorg's commentary on the talk page (the second and third of which are duplicates, by the way). Of those, I see a couple instances of minor incivility (e.g., "your lack of knowledge", "untruths", commenting on contributors instead of content; attributing motives), but most of the diffs are just filler. In a couple diffs, Vexorg is asking if an editor is the same person as an IP editor (I consider it a valid question, if that editor may have been edit warring or violating 3RR using their IP address), and in another, Vexorg sounds frustrated at being the only one discussing the issue, and says he'll take a break from reverting. Any real problems (the minor incivility, and canvassing) are buried in diffs that are relatively meaningless. What makes you think that this requires administrative intervention? Essentially this looks like two problems you've compounded - incivility, which probably belongs at WP:WQA, and a content dispute involving you, Vexorg, and a few others editors, which should be resolved via WP:DR, not AN/I. ← George ^talk 01:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry George, but you are maximizing my perceived sins and minimizing the extent of the problematic behavior of this editor. I believe that letting the editors know that I am pointing to them in a ANI is appropriate for the reasons I gave above. I did not ask anyone to comment, unlike Vexorg, whom you defend: [30]- [31] Stellarkid (talk) 04:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I think I've made it clear that I think Vexorg's actions warrant a topic ban as well (and probably a stiffer one that yourself). My concerns with how and where you chose to bring the issue up, however, are irrespective of how noble your cause might be. ← George ^talk 04:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Further Comment on Vexorg. In the articles Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel - Labour Friends of Israel and Northern Ireland Friends of Israel Vexorg has been adding the categories [Category:Zionism in the United Kingdom] and [Category:Zionist organization]. There is already a [Category:Israel friendship associations]. These new additions are not sitting well with other editors who do not agree that these are Zionist organizations but "friendship" organizations.[32][33][34] His rationale on one or two of the edit summaries was that he was reverting a known sockpuppet. Another is that "Israel is the Zionist State." I don't feel it is right to push your POV across articles like this and against consensus. Not sure what the relevant Wikipedia policy on that might be, but it surely seems disruptive on the face of it. Stellarkid (talk) 05:24, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Vexorg wants to help Stellarkid - Carry on Stellarkid. Any unbiased and uninvolved admin ( and unbiased editors like George) can see your seeming obsession with searching for just anything to denigrate me with. Let's see, I've made 3.944 edits to date. I'm sure there's plenty of non-crimes in there for you to bring up in your personal campaign. Would you like me to help you? There's also real crimes that could help your campaign. How far do you want to go back in time? See, I've got a block history, because in the distant past I stupidly got embroiled in edit wars and didn't stop to think about the consequences of such at the time. Never mind that these events have already been dealt with and I've served my time already for the punishments given out for the crimes, I'm sure they could add weight to your current obsessive and seemingly relentless campaign against me. Anyway, get in touch with me at my talk page and let's see if we can collaborate in developing a real solid case against this demon who goes by the name of Vexorg. I really want to help as you are clearly really struggling in this AN/I and I guess if you are going to be successful in your agenda to get me banned, instead of self-destructively getting yourself banned for wasting admin time, I figured you could use all the help you can get. I've got some real incriminating stuff on myself which I would be happy to divulge if you care to get in touch. This is a genuine offer. Look forward to hearing from you Stellarkid. Vexorg (talk) 06:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I would submit that the above is an egregious violation of WP:BAIT and should, even not taking anything else in this discussion into account, be actionable. Seth Kellerman (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I would submit that the above is failing to see a little bit of WP:HUMOR in what is becoming an increasingly unenjoyable pastime in editing wikipedia. I would WP:RESPECTfully suggest that some editors WP:SMILE and have a nice WP:DAY. :) :) Vexorg (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Stellarkid, regarding "These new additions are not sitting well with other editors who do not agree that these are Zionist organizations but "friendship" organizations", I think it's more accurate to say that the categorization was reverted because WP:V compliance requirements were not met in their view rather than editors having an opinion about the categorization itself. Sean.hoyland - talk 05:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps that would have been more a better wording. I would just note however that on March 25 with the first diff [35] the category was reverted with the following edit summary: ("Reverted 1 edit by Vexorg; Uncited and unsupported in the text".) Apparently that lesson was not learned by April 5th when he put up this edit or a minute later when he put up this one. All three have been reverted with the note that it is not sourced. For an editor who has made almost 4000 edits to the project as he notes above, he should know by now that you do not push arguably controversial material into an article(s) without providing a reference. Stellarkid (talk) 15:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Vexorg

Leaving the issue of Stellarkid aside or to the section above (with George reasoning convincing imho), the other issue is Vexorg. There seems to be a rough consensus that Vexorg was incivil, filed a bad faith sockpuppet report, edit warred and inappropriately canvassed other editors. There is also a history of edit warring as the block log shows, was given a strong or final warning just a few days ago. The user shows no insight into the inappropriateness of his behavior as is evidenced his replies here at ANI and on his talk page. Given the past history some admin action is needed in order to protect those who actually want to discuss and improve content in collaboration, and not in confrontion. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 22:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Just another note: Apparently, in addition to the above, Vexorg has agreed to stop edit-warring. It was several months ago, but might be relevant to this case, because there's no reason for anyone to edit-war, especially someone who has been warned about it. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Dragging up old issues that were done and dusted in the distant past in an ANI that has already run it's course??? Firstly it's worth noting that I am not actually edit warring. I am actually engaged in a civilised discussion at Rothschild family. Secondly that ancient report was made without even bothering to notify me. Fourthly this report wasn't actually filed about edit warring, but disruptive editing. It might be worth reading the comments by George above who instead of just dragging up old issues to pile on me has actually taken the time to analyse this report in a reasonable and unbiased manner and has shown that I have not been disruptively editing. George is someone who would make a good Wikipedia Administrator IMO Vexorg (talk) 17:35, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are missing the point. Either you agreed to stop edit-warring to get out of the previous case without a sanction, or you agreed to stop edit-warring in good faith, in which case you shouldn't be edit-warring again now or ever. —Ynhockey ^(Talk) 23:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Vrubel's Demons

If I can give you some well meant advice, many of us have moved on from this now, I suggest you do too. There has been a lot of civil and good discussion over at the Rothschild family article recently and we are getting somewhere ow we've left the bickering behind. You however, for some reason, insist in keeping this going, and it's worth noting that you are not doing your credibility of commenting in good faith by repeating your comments arguments FOUR TIMES now.

• Vrubel's Demons makes his/her feelings known
• Vrubel's Demons makes his/her feelings known again
• Vrubel's Demons makes his/her feelings known yet again
• Vrubel's Demons makes his/her feelings known yet again and for the 4th time now

From what I've seen over the last few weeks and not just on ANI Disruptive reports against myself, but also against others is that some editors go beyond any reasonable comment on the situation but insist of going on and on and on and on and on to the point of ad nausuem. In your third commentary you've said almost word for word exactly the same thing in your 2nd commentary. [eta] and now for the 4th time. We all heard you the first time.

Look, things got a bit heated at Rothschild family a few days ago, yes I made some comments questioning the motivations of some other editors ( not unfounded IMO, but that's by the by ), my sockpuppet request against Off2riorob was a fair question, as George above has agreed ( note Off2riorob still refuses to answer this reasonable question ), but we're all discussing the article now in a civilised manner. I would also say it's worth noting the civility isn't just restricted to the choice of words one uses. Anyway, I'm off to do something more positive. :) Vexorg (talk) 01:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

"got a bit heated at Rothschild family a few days ago", "sockpuppet request against Off2riorob was a fair question" - thanks for proving my point about you showing little insight into the inappropriateness of your behavior. And your recent comments on the talk page such as "Unomi it feels like we are coming against WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT Vexorg (talk) 23:26, 8 April 2010" are not showing that you are discussing the content in a civilised manner. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 07:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I guess one needs a thicker skin than I have to survive on Wikipedia. So much for Wikipedia being about collaboration, and one of the pillars being "Wikipedians should interact in a respectful and civil manner". Great job Vexorg, the last reply with the section header Vrubels demon was truly your masterpiece. I will leave the field to tendentious editors such as Vexorg (and Stellarkid and others). Eventually, very eventually they might be topic banned or blocked, but in the meantime they have free reign to drive away productive editors. Демоны Врубеля/Vrubel's Demons (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My understanding is that Vrubel's Demons, who as far as I know does not edit I/P dispute articles, had no way of knowing the implications when the Rothschild article (where this argument started) became a focus of interest for some opposing I/P editors. As is well known on AN/I, the editing between partisans in the I/P articles is so polarized, and so mean spirited, that few editors can take the stress of editing those articles - and such non I/P editors become like dear in the headlights and tend to wind up as wiki road kill. It would be nice if a solution the larger problem could be found. 173.52.124.223 (talk) 21:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Reiteration

I dunno, I think my proposal's looking better and better all the time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 17:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree. I once again encourage uninvolved administrators to take stronger action in enforcing the ARBPIA discretionary sanctions. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 19:15, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The ARBPIA sanctions are being used to encourage some very poor editors (of which Stellarkid is just one) to drive away good editors with accusations of antisemitism. It's no wonder so many of the articles are a laughing stock while this is allowed to continue. 81.111.91.170 (talk) 13:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

81.111.91.170 (talk) has posted all of 2 comments on WP. One on my talk page and now this one. However, it appears that this is the same person as User:Urbane23(Special:Contributions/Urbane23) who has made all of 6 edits on the 10th of April, and I think I can safety say, appears to be "stalking" me, as his edits are all at places that I have recently edited. I haven't looked, but I will bet 10 bucks that those edits are all directed at me as well. Stellarkid (talk) 16:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This user is continuing to harassing me at user talk page. [36] Stellarkid (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Urbane23's edit summary for his post here claims that "Picture of monument for terrorists in userpage" which is absolutely false. I have never had a picture on my userpage. His accusations that I am accusing other editors of antisemitism is unaccompanied also unaccompanied by any diffs because he cannot point to this. Although he is apparently a very new user, he certainly knows how to harrass other users, reverting and using ANI templates that I have no idea of how to use! Perhaps it is just a coincidence that he is here at this time and bringing in Protocols of the Elders of Zion in such at other article pages.[37] Stellarkid (talk) 18:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Beyond My Ken, I will continue to oppose any unconstructive suggestion. I can't see how you suggestion, which you push eagerly, would make the articles on the I-P more balanced and more neutral. And oh, there is severe problem of neutrality on so many of the I-P articles (even on articles that are not namely related to the I-P subject) largely because there is not systematic treatment and because many times admin don't have the time and/or the will to dig it to the roots. I can't see how what you wrote, to block automatically and base on nothing, will make it any better. It's just an order to shoot anything that moves, great idea, indeed it will solve all problems when one side will lose all of its "soldiers" first. There will remain no one to complain (or that the on who will remain could speak only in the fashion your suggestion allow).--Gilisa (talk) 22:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear

Well, I've just been a total tool and installed twinkle for the first time. Basically, I've messed up big time with it. I firstly started deleting everything in Category:Proposed deletion as of 30 March 2010 with it - that might not be the end of the world, but it's worth a review. The major problem is that I attempted to delete the category here, but Instead I deleted the three articles in the category and unlinked anything that was linking to the category. I'm going to bed shortly, so I won't have time to fix my mistakes now - I'll do it in the morning, but if anyone has time it would be much appreciated. Apologies for causing such a mess. Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 02:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

well the Circular bidirectional bus routes thing has been fixed but the prods are still an outstanding issue.©Geni 02:19, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I understand why. There were more than 400 pages in that category thanks to the new Wikipedia:Proposed deletion (books). I myself deleted a couple hundred of them, but doing those deletions one at a time was taking hours. -- Atama頭 18:53, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully you've now learned that drinking and twinkling don't mix. TheGoodLocust (talk) 02:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe jor you, & for Rqan, but I find phat I eventuallu need to twinkle after drinking" No matter what the fluid is. (Oops, you weren't talking about that kind of twinkle, were you?) -- llywrch (talk) 05:10, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Coftinued attempts(at wp:OUTING

Cla68 haw been warned multiple times to stop [[wp:OUTINGU] attempts. Warned by me multiple times and at least four warnings by admins. See the four admin warnings here [38][39][40][41] Yet this person is still continuing. Here are three more attempts that all occurred after the four warnings from admins previously linked [42][43][44]. This person has asked that I inform them before I post here because I warned them I would come here if they didn't stop. However, I have not informed Cla68 of this compaint because my fear is that they know that they will be blocked and they will just use the opportunity to make more edits attempting the wp:OUTING. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 05:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Informing another editor of an ANI case isn't optional. I've let Cla68 know here [45]. Dayewalker (talk) 06:31, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Dayewalker, Here's some more background information. I believe that Cla68's campaign to harass and badger me began with this edit that was really nothing more than a wp:OUTING attempt.[46] Consensus quickly formed that the COI accusation was unwarranted yet Cla68 continued. Cla68 was warned about wp:OUTING but countered that he is allowed to out editors on the COI board. [47] Since that COI didn't work Cla68 files a frivilous SPI investigation.[48] From that point on, 01:28, 7 April 2010, for about the next 24 hours, Cla68 seems to have become consumed with trying to find ways to continue his/her harassment, meaning that almost all of Cla68's edits from that point on seem to have that goal.[49] I would appreciate it if Cla68 could be stopped. Thank you for your consideration. TallMagic (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• TallMagic is operating two accounts concurrently. Atama has asked TallMagic in this thread to give up one of his two accounts. Unfortunately, TallMagic has not responded to that request, instead initiating this ANI complaint. I'll notify Atama and Amorymeltzer, who closed the SPI request, about this thread. I support Atama's request that TallMagic's first account be blocked and/or deleted or otherwise abandoned and that he edit with only the TallMagic account. Cla68 (talk) 12:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Not quite so cut and dry, it looks like TallMagic started a new userID so they could defend their privacy from, ironically enough, you. Besides, SOCKing isn't grounds for OUTing, they are seperate matters. I'm no admin but I'd suggest you stop trying to OUT this person and let them pass/fail SOCKing on their own. Padillah (talk) 13:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully Atama will be along shortly, but in the meantime, what he actually wrote is " I would be a lot more comfortable if you retired the old account. It's skirting along the edges of WP:SOCK as it is, and if you continue to use it, it becomes more difficult to justify it." I'm not sure why both accounts are being used, but the alternative one has only been used this year on one article's talk page and TallMagic has not been posting to the article or the talk page, so I'm not particularly bothered right now although of course I would be if they started posting to the same articles/talk pages etc. I suggest that Cla68 simply leave the issue and the editor alone, others I am sure will take care of any problems if they occur. I'm an Admin, I watch several of these articles, and rest assured I won't overlook any misuse of multiple accounts. I don't see any benefit to continuing this discussion. Dougweller (talk) 13:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Padillah, Cla68 did file a wp:SPI. It was closed yet, Cla68 can't accept that fact and still keeps bringing it up and has even been lobbying for getting it reopened.[50]TallMagic (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Dougweller, Cla68 has been told the same thing on multiple occasions yet he/she continues along the same lines. Sincerely, TallMagic (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I would like to also point out that Cla68 is still defiant and unremorseful. Cla68 is still arguing above that I'm the one that must change my behavior not him/her. I consider wp:OUTING one of the worst infractions possible here on Wikipedia. I'm very disappointed that Cla68 is allowed to continue. Please make Cla68 stop. TallMagic (talk) 15:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)TallMagic (talk) 15:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(←) I'll try to provide some background, if it helps. Cla68 brought a concern to the conflict of interest noticeboard about TallMagic and others in regards to what seemed like a crusade against diploma mills. It was a reasonable concern, but in the process of making the request, Cla68 violated WP:OUTING (intentionally or not). TallMagic used to operate under another account that had personal information attached to it. TallMagic has abandoned that account for the most part, but at one point had accidentally made a comment using his old account, unsigned, which Signbot attached an automatic signature to. TallMagic went back in with his new account and signed it. That accidental slip showed that he was the owner of both accounts.

The problem is that Cla68 used the name of the old account to find TallMagic's off-wiki activities and was using them to attempt to prove a conflict of interest. Since TallMagic's disclosure of his identity was an accident, and he had been trying to distance himself from the old account (no longer editing articles with it and for the most part only using it to respond to messages sent to it), I warned Cla68 about outing. I also looked over the info myself and determined that there wasn't a conflict of interest anyway. Cla68 persisted somewhat, stating that outing was allowed in order to prove a COI (which is untrue), and finally brought up a sockpuppet investigation into TallMagic's two accounts. The investigation concluded that while the two were acknowledged as being the same person, they weren't abused and therefore no action was taken, and the case was closed. Since then Cla86 hasn't advertised the information about TallMagic, but has instead confined discussion to user talk pages (especially mine).

While I do feel TallMagic has been a victim in this to an extent, his responses haven't been helpful. He insists that Cla86 is "still outing him", presenting the same old diffs each time. He has been aggressive in his responses, to the extent that he has been been warned about shouting. I've also told him that if he truly wants to distance himself from his old account, for privacy reasons, he needs to abandon it completely. He has used it as recently as a few weeks ago, and operating two accounts without disclosing the connection is at the very least frowned upon.

I apologize for not using diffs, and being a bit vague in my explanation, but I do want to avoid making connections between TallMagic's two accounts, though at this point it only takes a bit of digging for anyone to make that connection. (We may need assistance from an Oversighter for that.) -- Atama頭 17:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I generally agree with what Atama says and I appreciate Atama's sensitivity and insight on describing the situation background. I would just like to add that I feel I've had to rachet up my reaction only because Cla68's jihad against me was allowed to continue. I tried to almost ignore it in the beginning hoping that the admins would take care of the wp:OUTING attempt because admins had mentioned it first. I feel that I've been forced to this point, i.e., an ANI, simply because Cla68 has not stopped and every step of the way has given every indication that he/she intends to continue even in Cla68's response to this ANI, I believe. TallMagic (talk) 18:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

you have a choice it seems. 1) agree to ditch the old account, then cla68 will clearly be in the wrong. or 2) keep the old account and put up with people bugging you about it. You seem to have cut back on the problematic edits that brought you to others attention. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 20:13, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

What are the problematic edits that you refer to? Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 20:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have been dealing with some owners of questionable institutions for a long time, they are extremely determined and will never give up. It is of paramount importance to them to chip away, bit by bit, at any evidence on the Internet that their businesses are fraudulent. In some cases - Gastroturfing of colleges offering ministry degrees to fundamental baptists for example - the world at large does not care; in others, often handing out worthless medical and other professional degrees, it definitely does, but the assiduous use of misdirection, threats, outright falsification and so on will often lead sources to simply remove all references. When that fails, they just rebrand and start all over again. In my view the foundational principle of WP:NPOV is well served by the involvement of people who spend significant time and resource outside of Wikipedia investigating the credentials and claimed credentials of marginal institutions. For every editor who is doing this there are likely to be several with buckets of whitewash. So, TallMagic, keep up the good work but make sure you stick with reliable independent sources and if in doubt post to the talk page first. Any whitewashing of degree mills should lead to a speedy ban, it is almost invariably WP:COI and functionally equivalent to using Wikipedia for fraud. Guy (Help!) 21:10, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
  • It is very true. They are very determined and don't give up to the point that I've gotten threats to me and my family in my home email account. It is because of problems like this that I consider Cla68's wp:OUTING actions to border on evil. It is problems like this that the Wikipedia policy includes wp:OUTING and WP:SOCK#LEGIT. Which people seem to be ignoring. TallMagic (talk) 23:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

His point was a fair one, but I believe he has pushed it to (perhaps past) the point at which it becomes probelmatic. I think any further discussion of real-world identities should be conducted by email with the arbitration committee, and at the same time you should ensure that you are open about any conflicts you may have in this area. For example, is this a spare-time interest of yours, or are you professionally engaged in the business of investigating diploma mills? I suspect the former. As to Derek Smart, there are too many trolls there, leave it alone. Guy (Help!) 08:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

JzG, you're a very wise man. Obviously wiser than me. I really appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. I don't know if I've told you that before or not but if I haven't then I'm sorry. I've made the transition in my mind and no longer consider myself a Wikipedian. So covering it in email, while an excellent suggestion, really doesn't matter at this point. Cla68 conducted a most brilliant campaign, Outing, COI, SPI, notice boards and even a request to arbCom. Nothing of substance, everything closed in what could reasonably be considered in my favor and against Cla68's request, yet brilliantly successful. (I don't really know about the arbCom thing. I suspect that will just be dropped since I'm no longer around.) Anyway, congrats Cla68, you win I lose. My only consulation is that I can be glad that I'm me and not you. My view is that Cla68 is no longer my problem because I feel that I'm no longer a member of Wikipedia community. He is a good editor but his campaign waged against me has left me scratching my head why? And with the firm conviction that there is something wrong with Cla68. Cheers, TallMagic (talk) 10:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• OK, back to the subject of this thread. TallMagic's primary account has been the subject of an ArbCom finding, apparently because the person behind the account has a personal feud with and is running an attack site on Derek Smart and wants Smart to know that he is messing with his WP bio. I suspect that this is the reason that TallMagic doesn't want to give up that account. So, if TallMagic is really worried about being "outed", why has he made it clear that he is unwilling to have that account deleted? Although the Committee made a finding on TallMagic's other account, it did not suggest a remedy. I'm assuming that TallMagic did not notify ArbCom that he was operating a second account, even though the first one had been the subject of a case finding. So, since TallMagic appears to be unwilling to follow the advice of the admins here and shed the account that supposedly carries his "real" name, perhaps we need to take this to the ArbCom enforcement board? Or, since the Committee apparently neglected to make a recommendation about what to do about this person's on and off wiki campaign against Smart, perhaps a clarification or motion is needed? Cla68 (talk) 22:45, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

TallMagic just needs to tag the second account as his legit sock and follow the guidelines and he is not editing the COI article and that is correct as I am understanding the issue, sock puppet investigation was rejected as no overlap or subterfuge ans presently he is only editing the talkpage of the article so there is no issue, is there? As he is not editing under his real name then excessive discussion about his identity is not really correct, imo. Off2riorob (talk) 22:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict):And the connection of that to the price of fish is.....? Is Tall Magic (or REAL NAME) editing Derek Smart. I thought we were talking about degree mills, not game designers. At the end of that 2007 arbitration, the Arbs issued no sanctions against REAL NAME, and confined themselves to a six month ban for all SPAs editing Derek Smart. That ban expired three years ago, and does not seem to have any link to today that you have so far elucidated. So educate me. Elen of the Roads (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the "real name" account edited as recently as 26 March 2010 and if you check the talk page history I linked to, that account is active in trying to influence the content that others add or delete from Smart's bio. For that reason, I don't personally feel that TallMagic's other account should be editing the Smart article's talk page, because he is obviously using an indirect way of carrying his off-wiki crusade against Smart onto the Wiki, using WP as a battleground. Now, if TallMagic would follow the advice given here and abandon his "real name" account and let it be deleted, there will be no problem, as least as far as issue of two accounts is concerned. Cla68 (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Cla68, you already filed a wp:SPI. That investigation is complete. Please try harder to accept that this ANI is not about a wp:SPI. This ANI is instead about your continued harassment and wp:OUTING attempts. Thank you, TallMagic (talk) 23:56, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Keep in mind WP:OUCH. You have no immunity when you bring an issue to ANI or any other board. After all, Cla86 brought a complaint to the COI board and the discussion was more about his outing than the COI complaint. The fact that you brought the complaint to this board about Cla86 doesn't mean that nobody is allowed to discuss any problems with you (or me, or anyone else peripherally involved).

Having said that, I'm not comfortable with anyone having two accounts that are active and not disclosing a connection between the two. I suppose the question is, why do you need both of them? And if this REAL NAME (I might as well say it since it's out in the open now) isn't your real identity, why the privacy concerns? After all this discussion over the past couple of days, I'm just confused. -- Atama頭 00:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't really have anything to add (Atama, once again, said everything more beautifully than I could have) but I too remain at a loss to comprehend either of your motives here. Socking and Outing are both serious concerns, and neither need have anything to do with a discussion on a conflict of interest. Your use seems to be within the legitimate uses of WP:SOCK, but if your goal is to not be (further) outed, TallMagic, I don't understand why you would start a thread saying "Here's proof I'm being outed." If we assume that to be true, this can only hurt that goal. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Reviewing the diffs that TallMagic posted, I don't see any attempts at outing. In those diffs, Cla68 is not making any connection between the "real name" account and TallMagic's account. I don't think it is reasonable to claim you are being outted if you are using your real name as an account name. I would highly recommend that if TallMagic is using more than one account, that they stop doing so. DigitalC (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Atama, As I mentioned above, in response to JzG, my family and I have been threatened by apparent owners of diploma mills. Trying to edit Wikipedia articles on unaccredited institutions can make some people very mad when an editor tries to ensure that the article follows Wikipedia policies. Some people only care about their own wallet not about Wikipedia policies. I already responded to you in email about your other question or at least I thought I did. Here's my question to the admins. Is wp:OUTING by Cla68 going to be tolerated and even enabled by allowing him/her to keep leading back to a wp:SPI discussion which was done and is already closed? Why is Cla68 allowed to violate wp:OUTING while showing no remorse and only being defiant that he is allowed to behave in such a way? TallMagic (talk) 00:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

DigitalC thank you for making what I consider to be an on topic comment, in the editing diffs, Cla68 attempts to link me to a real name and to an external website. That is the definition of wp:OUTING, at least as I understand it. My further understanding is that such behavior is against Wikipedia policies and when people do it they are subject to an immediate block. TallMagic (talk) 01:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. I didn't see any evidence in those diffs trying to link the account TallMagic to the "real name" account. Furthermore, I believe that if the "real name" user was truly concerned about their privacy, they wouldn't use their real name in the first place, they wouldn't continue to use a real name account, and they wouldn't have their real name attached to a website. DigitalC (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My patience with TallMagic is exhausted. While the SPI concluded that there wasn't enough disruption to warrant action at the time, TallMagic is violating Wikipedia policy by using two unacknowledged accounts. He has refused to either abandon the original account, or to openly link the two. He has no legitimate reason to maintain both accounts, and I believe at this point he insists on doing so to avoid scrutiny on his recent account while his undisclosed old account continues to communicate with other editors and participate on article talk pages, and has used both accounts on the same article (see the history of this article. I have lost faith that he has legitimate privacy concerns at this point, because he insists on drawing attention to the outing concerns in multiple places. Frankly, I can't see why he should be allowed to continue to deceive other editors and defy WP:SOCK policy. -- Atama頭 01:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Atama, please point at one edit where you believe I was trying to deceive other editors. How does your assertion mean that I'm avoiding scrutiny? Why does wp:SOCK#LEGITprivacy not apply? Why is not wanting to be threatened (or worse) by owners of diploma mills not a good reason to try to keep my account from being outed? TallMagic (talk) 02:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

For one thing, you cannot edit the same page with two accounts. Period. Secondly, you have yet to answer why the REAL NAME account is being used, such evasiveness is very troubling. Frankly, I don't believe you anymore. I think that your claims of privacy concerns themselves are a deception. If you really didn't want people to connect that account's name with a real life identity, you'd have retired it and essentially brushed it under the carpet. Using that account to participate in discussion on an article as recently as 3 weeks ago isn't keeping a low profile at all. The only explanation I can think of as to why you want to maintain two completely different, undisclosed, and active accounts is to avoid scrutiny per WP:ILLEGIT. Forgive me for having to speculate about your motives, but you force us to, because you won't explain them yourself. -- Atama頭 02:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

After the events of the last couple of days, I agree with Atama here. This seems quite easy to fix, TallMagic, pick an account and retire the other one. Scramble the password or whatever, but just get rid of it and don't edit with it again. Stick with one account, and that should solve this sock problem. As for the outing, if anything further occurs after you're back down to one account, contact an admin. Until then, let's just fix the big problem of two accounts. Dayewalker (talk) 03:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I rarely used the other account. I was interesting in trying to make the Derek Smart article a better article is the simple reason that I continued editing the talk page for that article. I did not edit it with my new account because there are people associated with the Derek Smart flame war that scrutinize editors of the Derek Smart article and I didn't want to bring attention to my TallMagic account from that bunch. I will retire my TallMagic account after this ANI. It is no longer usable thanks to Cla68 anyway. I will no longer edit Wikipedia except perhaps the rare addition to one talk page. Trying to get back to wp:OUTING. I found this interesting information on Cla68. It would appear that Cla68 failed an RfA because of some past history on wp:OUTING, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Cla68. It appears to me that Cla68 has not learned the lesson that wp:OUTING Wikipedia editors is against policy and he/she is likely to do the same thing to others in the future that he's done to me. Please don't allow this kind of behavior to be condoned on Wikipedia. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 03:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I think this is a very unfortunate outcome and hope you reconsider as we need your expertise. Dougweller (talk) 03:40, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I do feel some sympathy for the additional load that will be placed on some Wikipedians because of my departure. Most I've probably never communicated with except perhaps through an edit comment or two. But for those that might be reading this please understand that I did appreciate each and every one of your edits. However, I think the overload will be short term. One of the wonderful things about Wikipedia is that there's many great editors that seem to fill a needed void when there is a need. Regards, TallMagic (talk) 04:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Atama's assertion that I'm an evil liar by saying it is important to try to avoid the real life wrath of people associated with diploma mills, I think the following forum should demonstrate that the danger is real. [51] TallMagic (talk) 04:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks to Cla68 for driving a knowledgeable and productive contributor away from Wikipedia by outing him. Folks who would follow in the footsteps of James Kirk and Ronald Pellar, and the perpetrators of the University Degree Program fraud will surely be gratified to know that Cla68 is working hard to make Wikipedia into a safe platform for them to promote their fraudulent operations. TallMagic's privacy was pretty thoroughly erased by this posting on the COI noticeboard, and the rest of the campaign against him was merely frosting on the outing cake that was already well baked. --Orlady (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with the spirit of your portions of your post, I don't see how debasing even more individuals can be helpful. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

When I posted that, I thought that the people I named were all convicted felons, but I have redacted the names (which may in any event be aliases) of the people who may not have actually been convicted of felonies. --Orlady (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have redacted every incident of the real name from this thread. I suggest that long-term contributors know better. While I am dissapointed that TM will not just retire the REAL NAME account, as that would solve all problems, I note that his accounts are in good standing and that he should not be outed just because someone dosen't like something he did. Hipocrite (talk) 15:23, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

TallMagic, we respect your right to privacy but don't take advantage of that by attempting to use accounts duplicitously. Cla68, your anti-COI efforts are noted but don't violate policy by harassing users. If we agree that nobody is perfect, is there any reason why we can't just hang this up with an agreement that the two of you won't keep badgering each other like this? It's getting old real fast. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 15:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Aye, it's stick-dropping time all round I think. Guy (Help!) 13:25, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit filter needed

An individual in Indonesia has been a problematic user who has been constantly vandalizing articles (primarily ones relating to the Digimon anime 2 3 4) since before July 2009. He has also recently begun vandalizing other television series' articles with similar content. The full list (as given to me by User:Nanami Kamimura in February with the new IPs added; in order of use) is as follows:

The following is his MO:

• The individual has access to multiple ISPs based in Jakarta
• The individual seems to believe that the Digimon anime are connected to the Resident Evil video game series (characters from RE are often put into the Digimon articles)
• The individual believes that various famous American actors were involved in the production of these series (claiming Mary Tyler Moore is the voice of Rita Repulsa or Carol Burnett is the voice of the Digimon Terriermon)
• The individual believes that Paramount, MGM, and CBS own the rights/produced these TV series
• Other companies are involved that have had nothing to do with production are inserted

Due to the insane amount of IP addresses that have been used by this individual and his more or less predictable nature, it would be beneficial to the project to create an edit filter to prevent this individual from putting his false information into these articles, as semiprotecting all of these pages is more harmful (as after a period of time he branched out from the four Digimon pages into other anime pages and into the Power Rangers pages). What myself and other editors in these topic areas need is someone with edit filter coding experience to pick out the patterns of edits and make a filter to prevent them entirely, because a year of this nonsense (and it appears that he was active for longer) is ridiculous.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree, that's an insane amount of IP's and semi-protection would be more detrimental to the articles then helpful.--SKATER ^Speak. 20:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Edit filter/Requested--Jac16888^Talk 20:49, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

That doesn't really help because I do not know what to ask. That is why I am asking here in a wider audience to get assistance in picking a string or other things.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:30, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

If you go there and ask the will probably be able to sort it out, the regulars theres have plenty of experience with this kind of thing--Jac16888^Talk 01:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

And he's shown up today as 114.58.33.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If you can't identify the characteristics of his editing, I'm not sure how anyone else is supposed to be able to do it. If he's making a lot of different changes, it might be too big a job for a filter. Can you list what he actually does? Is it always the same? eg adding "Mary Tyler Moore" to articles in the category "Digimon" , or replacing "Digitv Corp" with "Paramount" would be detectable, and could be flagged, or blocked, but you need to pull the criteria out of the guy/gal/goon's edits.Elen of the Roads (talk) 13:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The characteristics are identifiable. But I'm not sure of the patterns. I can tell you that "Mary Tyler Moore", "Paramount", and "CBS" never need to be added to articles with "Digimon" or "Power Rangers" in the title, so that should probably cover it. There's also the content spamming he does on articles like List of Disney television series (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), CBS Television Distribution (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), List of MGM Television shows (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and other articles like 114.59.198.247 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) did.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Accusations of racism and general problematic editing

User:Irvine22 has a long record as a provocative editor and a block log to go with it. His habit is to make small but deliberatively provocative edits and then claim innocence. After a more or less inevitable block he then goes silent for a period and starts all over again. User:Elonka recently placed him under probation with a warning of a permanent block. This silenced him for a period but he has now returned.

His previous record was in Troubles related articles, generally taking a strong Unionist stand and making provocative changes such as listing Bobby Sands as a suicide. He latest fad is to find any Irish or Welsh person with an English birthplace and label them as “English” or equivalent. At one point this included a commander of the Provisional IRA! The shift from Irish to Welsh matters seems to have happened after the final warning from Elonka; moving to pastures new with new admins. A quick check of his edit history will show that hardly any of his edits survive scrutiny, but his enjoyment seems to come from provocative remarks and exchanges on the talk page.

He is fairly skilled at stopping just short of a level of provocation that would result in a report here or elsewhere. I have been on the verge of reporting him for deliberate attempts to provoke me by edits on the article about me (I make no secret of my identity) and by matched remarks on my talk page for which he was warned. Its part of his general habit of hitting BLP pages. While that can be lived with, he has now made direct accusations of racism against editors in good standing and to my mind this needs to be addressed.

The article in question Welsh People

The lede states “The Welsh people (Welsh: Cymry) are an ethnic group and nation associated with Wales and the Welsh language” Irvine22 has made the following attempts to change this

• Unnecessary and irrelevant addition of “There is no separate Welsh Citizenship”, although the article is not about any subject that relates to citizenship. As is normal with Irvine he reverted once but then backed off.
• Insertion in the lede of a statement that there are Welsh People of Pakistani origin. While this is true, there are also Welsh people of Polish, Irish, Argentinian, Chinese and many other origins none of which are listed so he was again reverted twice
• Unnecessary insertion that people who identify as welsh may draw on other cultural heritages, again reverted (this was my first involvement on this thread), on this occasion he gave up after one revert
• Removal of reference to nation and also citation from John Davis dismissed as “just one among many historians”). FYI Davis published probably the most respected academic histories of Wales and is a principle source on nearly all Welsh related articles. Again the normal pattern of a single revert then he backed off and moved on again
• In response to his questions on the talk page a range of editors tried to explain to him why his changes were unnecessary, he then proceeded to insert their explanations into the article here and here in the later case with a misleading edit summary.

The accusation of racism

In the discussion on the talk page a range of editors sought to explain the issue to Irvine22 who gathered no support for his changes. The other editors involved are all established editors with clean block histories and good content track records on welsh related articles. They include User:Ghmyrtle, User:Daicaregos, User:LindsayH and User:Pondle. The discussion was going the normal way it does with Irvine22, a series of arguments with an isolated individual going no where, until yesterday. The whole thread is here but we then get the statement out of the blue from Irvine22 that “the article at present is deeply racist”. An inspection of the thread will show that I made a sermes of attempts to get him to stete that he was not making any accusation against any of the editors involved as that could be implied from the phrase. I also gave him a cooling off period in the hope that he would retract. Instead we got:

• He took a coement from another article talk page from User:Daicaregos out of all context (a rather dubious article on anglophobia), falsely claimed it had been made on the talk page of Welsh People and then made a direct comparison with the leader of the whites only party in the UK, the BNP along with the snide comment”Nick Griffin(a good Welsh name there, no?). This is a direct and unprincipled attack.
• I asked again if he was saying that editors were racist, in response he stated that three editors, myself, Lindsay and Daicaregos were removing his edits the effect of which was to make the article racist. We also had another false claim, with his suggest that the welshness of Shirley Bassy had been questioned; the only reference on this page was my statement that she was Welsh. He later dragged up a six month old exchange on a completely different page in which none of the editors of this page was involved.
• His final statement was to say that he did not judge the intent of the editors but the result which he viewed as “exclusionary and racist”

Given the history of this editor, especially his provocative and disruptive edits I think it is time for the community to do something. When I told him that I would make an ANI report if he did not withdraw the innuendo/insinuation against three named editors he started to make the separation of intent and result. This is a pretty typical bit of Irvine22 wikilawyering, trying to pretend he has not really said something.

I never like permanent bans (which he was warned would be the next step) and he is an editor who could make a valuable contribution. However despite many opportunities he has never done anything other than use the Wikipedia as a play area for the provocations that obviously give him satisfaction but consume huge amounts of time. If the decision were mine then at the minimum I would expect Irvine22 to make an unequivocal statement that he does not consider the editors racist (he declined over three invitations to do so). I do think its time either for an extended ban, or possible a topic ban from all articles to do with the constituent countries of the United Kingdom and BLPs associated with those areas? --Snowded ^TALK 08:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Support community ban I don't know the ins and outs of this but since Snowded's talk page is on my watchlist I've seen User:Irvine22's hounding of Snowded over the past couple of months. He seems like a nasty piece of work. --RA (talk) 09:09, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• I have blocked Irvine22 indefinitely based on this and the long history of past behavioural issues. He clearly has no intention of ever reforming. Guy (Help!) 09:18, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• support block. User seems to have been given sufficient opportunities to reform and hasn't.--Crossmr (talk) 11:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

• Support ban. I think we have put up with Irvine's disruptive editing for far too long. He never had any intention of reforming. He has had plenty of opportunities to make constructive edits to the encyclopedia; instead he just wastes everybody's time and patience with his tedious, contentious editing coupled with snide, nasty little comments. Enough is enough!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban, I think Snowded's summary is very accurate. It's very rare that he steps over the line with one particularly obvious blockable edit, but the overall pattern of his behaviour over a really extended period is highly unhelpful and provocative. ~ mazca ^talk 13:15, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban, the editor-in-question has become a liability to the project. He/she refuses to reform. PS- Irvine's reaction to his block, confirms my observations. GoodDay (talk) 14:44, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban, this editor was given several chances on the basis that they are 'articulate', 'intelligent', 'misguided' and 'capable of reform' (don't think it ever quite got to 'misunderstood'). Multiple commitments to contribute constructively have evidently been a long term deception. RashersTierney (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban the diffs say it all. The rest per the above users. Outback the koala (talk) 02:44, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support ban, as per above. I have been, rather anonymously following Irvine’s disruptive and frankly provocative/racist edits. Games over boyo.--Frank Fontaine (talk) 16:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparently he's just been trolling. Woogee (talk) 00:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Indeed, a tacit admission of a subpontine agenda if ever there were one. Guy (Help!) 13:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Renejs and disruptive editting

An editor using the handle Renejs has been aggressively trying to force fringe material into the Nazareth article for literally years. I strongly suspect that Renejs is actually René Salm, a crank author who has been advocating this thesis off-Wiki for a long time. He's recently reverted material on the Nazareth page twice in 24 hours. While not technically a 3RR violation, given Renejs' history of disruptive editting, the fact that his is a WP:SPA, his clear status as a POV warrior, and the fringiness of his edits, could someone please do something about this? Eugene (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

(Informed editor) Dlohcierekim 21

25, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear, Flavius Julius. I would help here, but it's a bit too religious of a subject and I'm not very good at picking out good sources on that topic. That said, Renej does look like he needs a talking to or the like. Has someone mentioned consensus to him? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 21:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Really, that's it? No one else is going to say anything? Eugene (talk) 16:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Bringing content disputes onto ANI isn't going to get you much of anywhere, you might as well go fishing in the Bonneville Salt Flats. Your best bet is dispute resolution. He's not spamming, vandalizing, or harassing anyone is he? -- Atama頭 20:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

No, he's not doing any of those things; he's a single purpose account engaging in a slow-motion edit war who violates WP:WEASEL and WP:CLAIM in an obviously POV way. Eugene (talk) 21:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

There is definitely an edit war brewing on the Nazareth article. So far, there have been several of us that have reverted his edits for POV reasons. So, it seems to me that he is not abiding by a clear consensus. Bill the Cat 7 (talk) 21:12, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

May I say a word here in my defense? If anything, I am ALWAYS conscious of the underlying facts, namely, that all of my edits regarding this contentious issue of Nazareth are rigorously referenced. And I hope everyone will hold me to that requirement. I don't understand how Ari89 and now others can remove well-referenced and significant material wholesale with apparent impunity, claiming simply that it is "fringe." At this point, I don't think it's a question of "fringe" or anyone's agenda. Whatever side we're on here, we have to make sure that the facts are correct and properly supportable. I start to wonder when statements by Bultmann, Cullmann and such top scholars of the past are discarded as "fringe." The whole Nazareth issue is now in a state of flux- - there are new digs and new publications. IMO, the first requirement is to get the facts right, and not to edit out statements that we may not agree with or which do not suit our "agenda." Several editors of late have taken to deleting whole sections ("The skeptical position"), abridging paragraphs and moving material about, all in a very imprecise, agressive, and even 'rude' way- - please look at the edit history, with comments such as "Zindler's goof-ball book" (he didn't even write the book), "fringe material," "mainstream response". . . Somehow, *I* get into trouble for reverting, whereas everyone else seems to be able to revert my material with impunity.Renejs (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the recent edit history of this article, I find myself to be too dense to see what the material is which violates WP:FRINGE here. Obviously there is an edit war over some secondary points, but why the information Renejs wants to add -- & why it is important enough to justify this edit war -- is a mystery to me. Can one or both sides in this dispute provide some diffs? This new material would encourage more input on this dispute. (This dispute doesn't even touch any of the many contentious points involving the origins of Christianity & the archeology of the region. Yet.) -- llywrch (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Since Renejs' slow-motion edit warring recently sped up a bit, I've registered the issue on the 3RR board. There's no further need to discuss it here. Eugene (talk) 23:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Langbar International

Langbar International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a highly negative article on a company that is, by all appearances, fraudulent. There is a complaint from one Mariusz Rybak about this article and the edits of Nigelpwsmith (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who is Nigel Smith of the Langbar Action Group, http://www.langbaractiongroup.com - many of the links in the article are to material on this website, I have not reviewed it for copyright. This needs urgent and careful review, please. Guy (Help!) 22:38, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

I spent about 10 minutes on this, spot checking a few of the references and looking at other press coverage from a news database. This obviously falls short of being a careful review, but it's a start. Langbar Action Group claims to be an investor group trying to recover assets scammed by Langbar International, so Nigel Smith has an obvious COI. The links to his website appear to be Regulatory News Service releases, in many cases from Langmar International itself. The article is negative but press coverage of the company is also negative. There is a series of articles in April 2008 by James Bagnall in the Ottawa Citizen about Langmar's collapse. The parts I read are partly sympathetic to Mariusz Rybak, but paint him as a con artist (my interpretation). There is a ton of press coverage about this company and its general slant is consistent with the article, though I haven't checked every detail. The only thing I can think of to suggest is have a discussion about COI with Nigel Smith. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I see you have blanked most of the article as a copyvio, but it's possible Smith is the original author (obviously it would be up to him to verify that). 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I notice also, there is a banner on the talk page saying OTRS received copyright clearance, ticket number 2007xxxxx. A lot of the article was written in 2007. I don't know if later material needed clearance, was cleared on the same ticket, or what. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

It's more that the material was sourced to copies of documents on the action group website with no evidence that the action group was rights owner - so even if it were a reliable source (which it isn't) we could not cite that content from that source anyway. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, a lot of the docs were press Langbar press releases (implying permission to republish) and some were browser snapshots of RNS news stories, containing the url of where the stories came from (the ones I checked were still there, so the links could be updated). I see nothing new on Nigelpwsmith's talkpage since 2008, but he seemed responsive to earlier communication, so contacting him (including notifying him of this ANI) seems appropriate. The "action group" obviously has a stake in the matter, suggesting that Nigelpwsmith is possibly best off contributing to the talkpage rather than writing the article, but on first glance it looks like a reasonably sane investor consortium, not some crazy conspiracy theory group. I haven't looked that carefully but I don't see much distance between the mainstream/neutral POV (as observed by skimming press coverage that I located with an independent search) and the action group POV (as observed by looking at their web site). So quite a bit of the old content is probably recoverable, though it should be carefully checked before restoring. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Implying is not the same as being, and we don't know that the hosted material was still as it originated. It's problematic to link to copies of material on polemical websites especially when some of it is copyright with no evidence of release. There's also the issue of Nigel Smith's obvious COI. Guy (Help!) 13:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

IP: 71.111.129.147

Resolved

 – IP account blocked for 31 hours Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

IP user 71.111.129.147 has made persistent unconstructive edits to AK-74, Makarov PM, and other articles. Specifically, the users lists in those articles. He is adding text along with a citation that does NOT support his text, and removing information that IS supported by the same text. I added the information to the article to begin with, using the same book he is trying to pass as a citation, and the book does not agree with any of his edits. He has been warned by myself in [edit summarys] and on [his talk page]. He has not made any attempt to explain his behavior either in edit summarys or at his talk page. ROG5728 (talk) 07:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

He has now moved on to Type 56 assault rifle, where he is attaching another citation (another book that I own and cited when I first added the section) to his entries. As before, the text quality in his edits is extremely poor, and the additions are not supported by the citation. ROG5728 (talk) 08:05, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Apparent non-native English speaker (maybe Russian). He does seem to at least be making an effort to contribute worthwhile stuff. Could he have a different edition of the book? Any Russian speakers around who can try talking to him? 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

That is unlikely, and even if he did somehow have different editions of the books (two different gun books were used so far, and both of them contradict him completely in my copies) that would not adequately explain his behavior. Most likely he is editing based on original research and mixing the citations in with his edits (either by mistake, or intentionally to try to give his edits authenticity), and then removing the text that is actually supported by the citations because it does not match his personal beliefs on the subject. Regardless of his intention, his edits on all of the articles are extremely poor quality and he is persistently reinstating them without any explanation. ROG5728 (talk) 09:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked them for 31 hours per the issues ROG5728 raises. This seems to be yet another IP editor who enjoys adding fictional lists of users of firearms. Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

ChrisP2K5

This user has been engaging in long-term trolling and edit warring on the Kasumi Ninja page.

On December 5, 2009 I opened a topic on Talk: Kasumi Ninja suggesting that comments from a certain source should be removed since they were obviously not made in earnest(said source is an online comedy show) and requesting opinions. There were no responses, so on December 7 I went ahead and deleted the comments: [52]

ChrisP2K5 promptly reverted my edit, with no justification: [53] I restored the edit and directed him to the discussion page: [54] He again reverted my edit without justification, claiming that he didn't need rationale for the revert since my reasoning was "flawed": [55]

At the same time, he began at last responding to my post on Talk: Kasumi Ninja, but I use "responding" in the loosest sense of the word, since he never addressed or even alluded to the reason for my edit. Instead, he claimed I was using rationale that doesn't even remotely resemble any of my actual statements, accused me of being in violation of Wikipedia rules that he made up(some of which are directly contrary to actual Wikipedia rules), launched personal attacks, and responded to attempts to discuss the matter rationally by calling me "a sore loser". His trolling posts continued even after I had explicitly stated that I had no intention of wasting my time with the matter any further.

On March 18, another editor, 24.60.220.148 voiced his agreement with the edit on the discussion page and restored the edit: [56]

On March 29, ChrisP2K5 not only defied the majority consensus by reverting the edit again([57]), he dropped another trolling post on the discussion page and upped the ante by threatening 24.60.220.148 on his talk page, claiming to have the authority to ban WP editors at his sole discretion. 24.60.220.148 has since restored the edit and informed ChrisP2K5 that he is violating WP rules, but I don't expect that to stop him.

What really bothers me is that a quick look at ChrisP2K5's talk page and contribution lists reveals that this is almost routine behavior for him: make an edit that falls just short of vandalism, wait for someone to oppose it, and then try to engage whoever does in a flame war. If I understand what's written on his talk page, he's actually been warned by administrators in the past, yet no action has been taken to prevent his harassing other editors.

I will notify ChrisP2K5 and 24.60.220.148 immediately after posting this. However, I ask to be excused from monitoring this page, as I can't guarantee that I will remain civil if I am forced to interact further with ChrisP2K5. Lies and personal attacks immediately make my blood boil, and since that is invariably all that ChrisP2K5's posts consist of... you can guess where that would lead. If it is necessary for me to comment further on this matter, please notify me via my talk page. It might be a good idea to monitor my talk page, too, as I would hardly be surprised if ChrisP2K5 were to send threatening notes to me there.--Martin IIIa (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

--I refuse to partake in this. The user in question is misconstruing my words, as he has done before. Please do not waste the Wiki's time in dealing with this and remove it from the page. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

ChrisP2K5 is blocked indefinitely - a review of the talkpage archives indicate that this is a long standing attitude problem; criticism is not tolerated and the editor becomes confrontational very readily. If they indicate that they will attempt to moderate their demeanour then unblock might be considered. LessHeard vanU (talk) 01:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• I agree with LHvU's assessment and conditions for unblock. Guy (Help!) 21:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

More disruption from User:Icelandic Viking POWER

Yet again, Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is disrupting discussion of a requested move at Talk:Icelandic debt repayment referendum, 2010: this time s/he is pretending to vote for other editors on the basis of their previous comments on that page [58][59][60]. A proposal for a one month topic ban was made just three days ago by JzG (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) (Guy), but unfortunately has not been acted on. This is a clear single-purpose account, and should be both banned and blocked for its continued disruptive activity, IMHO. Physchim62 (talk) 15:25, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been notified of this thread. Physchim62 (talk) 15:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Only disruption I see is from Phsychim62 who reverted my edits without any good reason. He claims that I am trying to "Vote for others" while I am only citing facts from the talkpage history clearly viewable by anyone that wants to see them.--Icelandic Viking POWER (talk) 15:36, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• I am blocking Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for 48 hours for disruption and incivility (e.g. [61], which is not vandalism). This is a single-purpose or agenda account and I'm getting tired of it. Guy (Help!) 15:54, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Topic ban

I propose that Icelandic Viking POWER (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be topic banned from articles pertaining to Icelandic debt repayment referendum (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Icesave (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) generally, for six months. It's that or an indefinite block as a pointlessly disruptive agenda account, I reckon. Hopefully if we can persuade him to do something where he does not spend his entire time in a state of righteous apoplexy he might come to realise what he's doing wrong, but I am really on the verge of not caring. Guy (Help!) 20:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Might as well ban him totally, as he's a single-purpose account. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 00:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Eudemis, personal attacks, improper canvassing and edit warring

I have been dealing with this editor for the past few days and his behavior has continually been an issue. It has now crossed into being disruptive. He was warned twice about violating 3RR [62] [63] and finally was reported for potentially violating it in spirit by waiting just outside the 24 hour mark to make the 4th revert here although nothing has come of the report at WP:AN3. Russell Crowe is article that is a frequent target of vandalism and this editor repeatedly accused me of ownership here based on the number of edits (mostly vandalism and other inappropriate edits) I have made to the page and repeated it again here and went to the trouble of posting how many edits I have made to the page here, repeatedly trying to run me off the page while responding to talk discussion. At one point he accused me of "tenacious" editing here. He continued to post the name of a non-notable individual to the article and tried to argue that I didn't know policy regarding this when I cited WP:BLPNAME. I filed a request at WP:BLP/N following that and notified him that if he did not desist from personally attacking me, I would file a report here. A request for comments was started on Talk:Russell Crowe to garner opinions on the issue. This editor began attacking responders to that RfC, including this one where he attacked Dayewalker because I thanked her on her talk page for commenting and continued to disparage her for having edited in common with me on articles in the past and indicated familiarity with me and came back to the topic again here, calling out about a supposed "hypocrisy of that statement from someone here because she knows you and fails disclose the connection", although I was unaware that that the fact that I am familiar with an editor because we edit in common was an issue or that it necessitated disclosure. In the same post he attacks Victor9876 because he responded and he knows me, once more announcing how many times in the past almost 4 years he has posted to my talk page, and goes on to disparage Xleterate for having created an article on Eve van Grafhorst and casts disparging remarks about that editor because he created that article which "is about a child banned from school for being hiv positive and you (meaning me) are a principal editor for Ryan White, a child banned from school for being hiv positive", as if that has anything at all to do with the subject at hand. In fact, I did not know Xleterate prior to this and you will not find cross posting of talk page comments or even much of any cross-editing. This entire post by Eudemis is an ad hominem attack on any editors he can manage to weave into his bad faith attacks on the Crowe talk page. This last post is absolutely the last straw of tolerance for a bad faith editor and attacks on multiple editors and it must stop. In fact, nearly every statement the editor has posted to Talk:Russell Crowe has launched an attack against one editor or another. Well, the chance of XLeterate showing up at the Crowe article is highly likely, considering he regularly edits on the article and has no other connection to me than that. These ad hominem attacks must stop.

In addition, the editor has engaged in inappropriate canvassing regarding this issue: see here, where while he was canvassing for support, he characterized (incorrectly regarding my location) me as "a New Zealander who owns an article (WP:Russell Crowe[64]) and cited material gets reverted if it does suit the New Zealander. A Warning - his understanding of wikipedia concepts is shaky at best. If you could cruise over and take a look as you find the time I'd be most grateful." and repeated the same here and here. Here he with his attempt to canvass editors by rather bizarrely posting "Your Grace, the minions are squabbling again. Sadly, a small group of what appears to be New Zealand based article owners have planted their national flag here: Russell Crowe [65]. Well meaning, foreign crusaders for truth are quickly identified and their edits reverted into oblivion. I pray that you will, as time allows, visit said article and liberate her from the death grip of the Kiwis." and the ad hominem attacks he makes on me in those posts. He was then warned about civility and canvassing here. His conduct has continued to deteriorate to the point of making completely inappropriate ad hominem attacks on editors who have responded to the RfC, behavior he has indulged in from the get go and he has been repeatedly warned about that as well. This tenditious editing to the talk page must be stopped. This is entirely outside what sort of behaviors are appropriate here, there is no civility in the posts this editor is making and he is basically launching full scale and widespread person attacks on the editors who are interested in responding to his own WP:RfC. Wildhartlivie (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I note that Eudemis continued his ad hominem attacks on yet other editors after I posted here and to him. He posted "You don't find that an odd coincidence? There are 300,000 editors on wikipedia but the ones here have very narrow shared interests that are not Russell Crowe. Nil Einne above who just stopped by after seeing the BLP/N, was in a science discussion involving XLerate and contributes to a Judy Garland talk page as does Wildhartlivie. If comments were coming from contributors to Vermeer and whales and I claimed there was no connection, I would expect you to be incredulous." He has failed to respond here, but he continues to seek and attack yet more editors who responded because two of us posted at the reference desk in January 2009 and two of us post to the Judy Garland article. To clarify this great and astounding editing coincidence, I edited Talk:Judy Garland the last time on February 29, 2008 and Nil Einne made one post on May 19, 2009. There is well over a year between my last post to Talk:Judy Garland and the only post I can find by Nil Einne. The first edit was over 2 years ago. This conspiracy theory hunt of his has crossed all bounds of civility and he is actively seeking ridiculous examples of how two editors on that page have posted to the same boards or articles. This has become ridiculous and this bad faith attacking of all the other editors who post in response to the thread on Talk:Russell Crowe needs to stop yesterday. This is quickly escalating out of all rhyme or reason and is so contentious in nature that it is literally painful. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Eudemis attempted to add some speculative and BLP issue information to the Russell Crowe article five days ago[66]. When it was knocked back they started to edit war, serial undo with addressing the concerns. The page was protected yesterday to prevent the disruption, and several editors came along to comment. In response Eudemis started campaigning[67], and berating other editors with false accusations of ownership, conspiracy etc in all directions. I think they have no interest in improving the article, just creating disruption. I don't know if trolling was the intention all along, but they've had plenty of warnings about incivility and to stop attacking other editors[68]. I think the project needs to be protected from this kind of distruption. XLerate (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Eudemis's behavior has continued on Talk:Russell Crowe. He seems to have a bizarre idea of consensus and continues to attack editors who responded to the threads, here where he accuses other editors for responding by stating "The suggestion that they had just wandered in after seeing 3RR report isn't the case. If editors know each other and have edited together, an editor should probably disclose that before weighing in especially when his claim is that another editor is seeking non neutral opinions." Yet he has nothing to show that suggests that anything improper was done regarding responding to the thread and continues to attack the editors who have responded because any given two editors responding may have actually edited the same article at some given point (please see the point above where he claims that two editors who replied to Talk:Judy Garland over a year apart should disclose that they both edited the same talk page, one in 1998 and the other in 1999, and did not respond to the same topic or thread. There is no indication whatsoever that there was anything improper done regarding responding to this thread and they are essentially being attacked for bothering to respond to the RfC started by the editor, claiming that any responder should check back to ensure that they have not edited the same articles as other editors and claiming that should be disclosed although evidence was given above that Eudemis has willingly approached editors he does not know to canvass their participation in the discussion and here where he accuses the other editors of votestacking because they happen to either know one another or have EVER edited an article in common. Please note here where he attacks an IP editor for being an IP editor and and states "There is nothing random about this group." His remark about the lack of randomness is baseless and unsupported and is a continuation of his pattern of widespread attacks against the other editors on the page. Here he states "While I have enjoyed meeting all of Wildhartlivie's friends, I would like an experienced independent editor to review the history here. I think that was the original purpose." Yet, he has continued to attack the responders and his specious statement that all of the responders there are questionable is baseless and he gives no grounds for such a specious statement and here where he makes baseless and unfounded accusations of votestacking. He has been notified of this discussion. He has flatly refused to respond here, he continues to attack other editors and so far, no administrator on this board has responded to his baseless accusations and attacks. Will someone PLEASE respond here? Wildhartlivie (talk) 02:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:BITE n00bz, much? Eudemis has 180 edits over more than a year. He's right about one thing; you've serious WP:OWNership issues, as I and others have said on WT:ACTOR. I think you're bullying this fellow, as is your norm. Jack Merridew 03:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Eudemis is not a new editor, and he seems knowledgable enough on Wikipedia policy to invoke it on other editors. I have tried on several occasions to get Eudemis to discuss the matter, or to clarify his position. He seems determined that the consensus exists against him only because of some relationship between WildHartLivie and every other single editor who disagrees.

That said, the edit war report and this one have both sat long enough to be stale, so I would suggest just letting this one go. I've asked the protecting admin to unprotect the page, as consensus on the talk page is unanimously against Eudemis. Hopefully that's enough, and everyone can go on about their own way. Dayewalker (talk) 03:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Jack, please stop trying to bring your issues against me into other incidents. This goes way beyond one person. We have an editor who has been active here steadily, if not prolifically, for well over a year and has to last count, attacked every single editor who has responded to his own RfC, trying to cast specious aspersions on each, even to trying to wrangle in "coercion" attacks for editors who have never edited before, attacking IPs for being IPs, and searching diligently for anything where two names are mentioned together. He doesn't seem to understand that his personal attacks are inappropriate and tenditious, and making false accusations of collusion when someone else mentions names together on a STAR TREK bulletin board. This editor's conduct exceeds anything reasonable and jumping here by you to try to skew the issue to your own agenda is both inappropriate and tenditious. And you want to be an administrator making such personal attacks as the one you just did against me? The conduct of this editor is so noxious that it is imperative that SOME administrator take some sort of action on this. This editor has attacked everyone who responded to the thread on Talk:Russell Crowe, right down to accusations of collusion because I last posted to a talk page in February 2008 and another editor posted to the same talk page one time in May 2009. This is patent bullshit and an adminstrator truly needs to respond here. Just because Eudemis refuses to respond here and continues making personal attacks as he has does not mean this does not deserve adminstrative attention and not specious attacks by Jack Merridew. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

My issues? They're your issues. *You're* the one so regularly involved in mobbing behaviour, who's so regularly trying to spin criticism of your inappropriate behaviour into personal attacks. And, of course, there is your WP:OWNing approach towards actor bios. nb: it's tendentious, not tenditious [sic]. Sincerely, Jack Merridew 05:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit war, much? This edit might seem innocuous per the edit summary, but it is actually a revert of the prior editor's last 5 edits. Your article, your way. Cheers, Jack Merridew 05:56, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Jack, I see your comments here as baiting. Please stop, --CrohnieGal^Talk 14:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Attacking me here does not take away from the horrific behavior of Eudemis regarding this article. Mobbing behavior? Get real. That an editor arbitrarily sets out to open a RfC and then attacks each and every single editor who responds is not mobbing behavior, it's lack of etiquette and restraint and completely obscene conduct on the part of that editor. Trying to discredit me here does not take away from the horrific behavior of that editor, and for the record, it garners you no shiny star for good conduct yourself, Jack. Being a regular editor of actor bios is as far away from ownership as your own specious characterizations of valid intent. That you try to run over legitimate complaints about the inappropriate conduct of another editor to spin it to being about me is less than administrative conduct, Jack. Noted for the nomination. And thanks for correcting my spelling, it's truly an auspicious thing to be in the presence of perfection and good conduct. There's something totally hostile about someone interrupting a good tirade to parade around his spelling abilities. It inspires the masses. Please stop trying to hijack this discussion to spin it into something else, Jack, it isn't about you. You're the biggest source of criticism about me and it's specious and assaultive and you long ago killed any good faith for when I see your name pop up. Please stop popping in to attack me wherever you see me. It's gotten old and tiresome. If you've nothing relevant to contribute to this legitimate complaint about an editor's conduct, then don't respond to the thread. It's just that simple. And for your stalking my edits and criticizing, the edits that editor made were not helpful, they were inappropriate disambiguations, arbitrary breaks in the line parameter and added nothing to the article. Your wikistalking and harassment of me has become quite tiresome. Give it up. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Jack, if you have a problem with WildHartLivie, please bring it up in your own thread somewhere. She's not the only editor who has a problem with Eudemis, and you bringing up unrelated edits in a different topic isn't going to help this one get resolved. Dayewalker (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

My concern is that this is not so clear-cut. I don't support whomever's name being mentioned in that article and I see that Eudemis is lightly tarring everyone and I don't support that. He is, however, half-right in that there are some friends lining up against him in there to defend their articles. Anyway, I do have another thread to attend to with WHL, &co. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

And that is so much supposition and bullcrap. Because editors respond to something and view it the same way means nothing except your bad-faith accusations and suppositions. I think your judgment is lacking in regard to anything about me and you spread your bad faith attacks to anyone who gets in your way. Bad faith attacks from you aren't helpful Jack, or reflect good judgment. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:54, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether this is really the right place to deal with this since I'm not convinced admin action is needed but it would be helpful if someone who has never, ever, edited a page that anyone of the like the 8 editors who've been accused of collusion have also edited would tell Eudemis to stop with the allegations of collusion, since frankly it's getting silly. He/she's bringing up basically random connections, most of which the people involved probably don't even recognise/remember (in my case, ironically the only people I definitely recognise not counting those on BLP/N who haven't bothered to post in the article talk page and so haven't yet been accused of collusion are Jack Merridew and CambridgeBayWeather and perhaps DayeWalker). Some have suggested to let it go, and personally I don't really give a damn (the accusations against me are silly enough that they're almost funny) but it doesn't appear Eudemis has learnt anything which isn't good moving forward. Nil Einne (talk) 06:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've not commented in there because I think it's small beer and care little for Russell Crowe. Cheers, Jack Merridew 06:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC) tall beer

Jack Merridew wouldn't be accused since he's just floating around outside of the talk page and trying to hijack this complaint to make it about me, instead of realizing that editor has conducted a full on war against each and every editor who responded. CambridgeBayWeather hasn't weighed in on the discussion either. He did attack Dayewalker, however. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

MisterWiki unblock discussion

MisterWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) has requested a username change here (original request posted by Rdsmith), apparently to match the username changes he's making across other wikis. We do not normally entertain rename requests from blocked editors, and based on the discussion there, we think it would be best to address the block first to see if there is a consensus to unblock the account. Here's a little history:

• In January 2008, MisterWiki was suspected of being a sock puppet of Diegogrez (talk · contribs) (see archived discussion), but there was insufficient evidence at the time.
• In February 2008, concerns were raised on ANI about MisterWiki being the same editor as Diegogrez (see archived discussion)
• Also in February 2008, he was granted Rollbacker rights
• In March 2008, MisterWiki reported Diegogrez (talk · contribs) as a sockpuppeteer (see here)
• He has requested adminship twice: March 2008 (WP:SNOW close at 0/9/0) and December 2009 (WP:NOTNOW close at 0/6/0)
• He requested and received Autoreviewer rights in December 2009 (see archived request)
• Also in December 2009, he was found to be operating a non-approved bot (see archived discussion). He has requested approval to run bots three times, and been declined each time: February 2008, December 2009, and (also) December 2009
• Also in December 2009, he was reported for edit warring (see archived discussion)
• In the beginning of January 2010, MisterWiki was found to be abusing rollback rights and had them revoked (see archived discussion). He then requested them again the following day, and his request was declined due to unsatisfactory answers to the ANI thread where they were removed.
• A long discussion regarding his block was held here, where he was eventually unblocked
• In the middle of January 2010, he was discussed for a long time again and eventually blocked (see archived discussion)
• A block review was made in February 2010, and the block was upheld (see archived discussion)

So, I'm bringing this here for review again. Is the community willing to unblock MisterWiki? ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

The first item, should be "but there was insufficient evidence at the time" rather than "but there was sufficient evidence at the time" right?  f o x  19:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My first question, and I think the most important one, is what does MisterWiki have to say that would lead us to believe that, if unblocked, his behavior would be different? He was blocked for reasons, and what statements has he made recently that will convince the rest of us that those reasons no longer exist? Time served isn't really a valid reason for unblocking, and neither is making SUL convenient for him. If he wants to be let back into the fold, lets hear from him explain why it would be better for Wikipedia if he were... --Jayron32 19:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've posted a note on his talk page and requested that he post any comments there. I will then copy them over here for convenience. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I should note that his new account (Diego Grez) is currently blocked on Commons. His old account (MisterWiki) is blocked on eswiki in addition to here. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:49, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

He was renamed on Commons about an hour ago while still being blocked. [69] I don't post here too much and never really encountered MW until he was approved at WP:ACC and some people started screaming their opposition in the IRC channel but the more i look into this the less convinced i am that his recent activity on Simple is signs of improvement. Nihonjoe's list of community grievances against MW et al. is longer than i thought it to be, and he didn't even list everything. I don't object to the rename if Dan still wants to do it but having read the links Joe posted and what links are contained in those links i do not agree with unblocking at this time. He has been relatively good on Simple; let's see how that goes over a longer term. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 20:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose of Unblock He's done nothing to prove that he can come back here and be trusted, he's already blocked on commons and eswiki as well why would we let him back?--SKATER ^Speak. 19:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Do not unblock for a significant length of time. MisterWiki is a giant time sink. If a 'crat wants to spend time doing an indefblocked editor a favor, I don't care, but don't unblock, and let's not have another unblock discussion for at least, say, 1 year. --Floquenbeam (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Oppose per this edit, calling the ani thread "a joke". I don't see any point why this comment should be removed, it's not a personal attack or anything like that. Minimac (talk) 19:58, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Is this thread anything other than more of his usual time-wasting nonsense? Fair play to Nihonjoe for AGF but I think our chain is being yanked. Guy (Help!) 20:04, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Strong support of unblock. I was a participant in many of the threads over the last few months that lead to his latest block and I started the most recent review of his block where the re was some, albeit limited, support for lifting it. I have been in email contact with MisterWiki and I've been following what he does on Wikinews, where he's genuinely trying to be useful. I think he needs a mentor- someone to say "no! that's not a good idea!" and just to help him out and for him to bounce ideas off. I think that with such a mentor, he could become a very useful contributor because, unlike the many, many trolls we have wandering around WP making a nuisance of themselves, he genuinely wants to help. As evidence of this- I cite the article rewrite that he is drafting on his user page. If the community were to allow him back on a trial basis, I would be more than happy to fill that role. Why not let him back for a week, then review that and if it's not working, we can reblock him. Essentially, my question to the community is if you don't trust MisterWiki, trust me. If you want to look upon it as a waste of time, nobody's time will be wasted but my own and I genuinely believe some good can come from this. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I'm the one who gave him the idea to improve the article. After trying to sort out coördinates i told him i thought it should be merged or else i might make my first PROD tagging. He pleaded with me and I showed him the article for my neighbourhood in Calgary and told him that if he wanted it kept it should be at least as useful and referenced. I do agree that his contributions of late on SimpleWP and ENWN do show a noticeable improvement however there is a long series of issues here on ENWP (and Commons). He has had trial unblocks before but i don't know if he has had a mentor to guide him, though he has had other users monitoring him. If you really think you can be a successful mentor on a cross-project level and he is agreeable to it then a trial run of it might be ok. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 20:39, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
    • Thank you. From what I see, he's making himself useful on WN and has actually built up good relations with Blood Red Sandman, who blocked him here. I've spoken to him by email and he seems agreeable to mentorship. Like I say, someone to both help him out and keep an eye on him could be a real benefit. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Wait a few months, and then unblock It appears the user in question is trying to be apologetic and is assuming good faith now, as it appears he wants to revamp some articles. Maybe later he could be unblocked. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 20:14, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose - Much, much too soon, considering that his current indef block was originally intended to be a ten-year block, on the assumption that the passage of time might see some increase in maturity. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose Personally I think it's premature to be unblocking at this time, and I am not convinced that he will not continue the kind of behavior that got him blocked in the first place. I'd say give it a bit longer, until December 2010 at the very least, before we start considering unblocking. On a vaguely related note, why isn't MisterWiki's sockpuppet (talk · contribs) blocked yet? Or MisterBot (talk · contribs), Mister Wiki (talk · contribs), SignoreWiki (talk · contribs), MistressWiki (talk · contribs), MisterioWiki (talk · contribs), Bodoque57 (talk · contribs) and MisteryWiki (talk · contribs)? All legitimate alternative accounts for sure, but still alternative accounts of a blocked user. Regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 20:29, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Spitfire, with the greatest respect, that edit summary was 3 months ago. Though I won't claim that excuses it in the slightest, I think MisterWiki has seen the error of his ways and I think we should allow him back on a provisional basis. After all, he's not a troll, he just wants to be useful. I understand why you don;t want to give him a chance, but give me a chance. I will take personal responsibility for both the rewards and the piss-offs of any unblock. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 20:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My mistake: I had already removed the comment regarding the edit summary, mainly due to the timestamp, which of course, I should have checked before bringing it up. I wouldn't be entirely against an unblock in about a month or two, so long as a suitable mentor could be found, and so long as it was with the understanding that even the smallest infringement of policy would result in an immediate block (and of course, so long as suitable support for such an unblock was gathered). Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 21:18, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• I also have to ask why those alternative accounts were never blocked.--Crossmr (talk) 01:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support of Unblock I'm really going against my gut feeling on this one, but I trust HJ Mitchell and believe that he could make him into a god editor. However, I only agree if it's mentorship for Much more than a week, it should be on the span of months or days.--SKATER ^Speak. 21:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• No way. MW played us all for fools, or at least attempted to do so, in previous bouts of drama-infused discussion. I am a fan of AGF, but I am not willing to extend it beyond its own bounds - I am simply unwilling to be played for a fool again so soon. His work on other wikis to date is not exactly a confidence builder. Please, let's not let this get dragged out into another MW fueled timesink and stuff this back under the rug until some date much more comfortably separated from his last shenanigans. Shereth 22:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Looks like we're falling for it again. Maybe I was just born AGF-impaired or something. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:52, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

You're both claiming this is a waste of time, but, if you read my proposal below, it actually wastes less of everyone else's time. If he isn't unblocked, this won't be the last thread on the issue. Whereas, if we unblock him on the terms I list below, the only person whose time is taken up is my own and, if he acts up, he can just be reblocked without discussion, making this the last thread on him for quite some time. You don't have to trust him, but I'm asking you to trust me. Thanks, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I think it's admirable of you to be willing to mentor him, but your analysis of the probable course of this seems out of whack with what's happened in the past. From that record, I would say it's more likely that he'll go off again, he'll be blocked, and then X months down the line we'll be right back here, having the same discussion we're having right now. If he's unblocked, I hope that I'm wrong and that your mentorship is successful, but I do not in any way buy the idea that doing that now changes anything about what may happen in the future. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

So you're threatening to waste everyone's time more if we don't unblock him? No. I don't think so. It is easy to make this the last thread on him ever as well. For the next 10 years any threads on him will be auto-closed.--Crossmr (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• oppose sufficient time has not passed for him to mature. His block was for 10 years, see him in 10 years.--Crossmr (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose No way is he ready for editing. –Turian (talk) 01:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose — This is at least a year too soon. Statements, compromises, and restrictions, below, are not compelling. <lulz>Rename to User:MisterTimesink</lulz> Cheers, Jack Merridew 18:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Statements from MisterWiki's talk page

Nihonjoe said he would move over any statements that MisterWiki has. As there are 4 of them so far i thought i would expedite it and move them over. [70] [71] [72] [73] delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• • Dear Wikipedians, my block was my very own fault. I'll tell you my history from my point of view. I started editing here, I don't remember why, adding false information about me on Diego Grez. I admit I liked Hannah Montana at the time, but I don't know why that spamming thing. I was 11 and after some time, I decided to back for good, doing good things and trying to fulfill my past. I left the wiki for a year and some, until I've got my own Internet connection on my home. I thought that my case was forgotten and even I tried to appeal my unblock on es.wiki. (Regarding the comment of someone at ANI, I was blocked previously on these wikis and I wanted to request here and so on). I've emailed an steward that gave me an opportunity (an unblock request at the village pump over there). It lasted in the third week of December because no admin unblocked me. The things went fine until my rollback was removed because of misuse, something I admit. I tried to expand the most I would Pichilemu, because I wanted it to get (at least to) GA, as it is one of my most-known topics before the History of Chile and Modern Talking. Piss-on-elmo and calling the admins nazis was the thing that caused this block, and I thought it was going to be shorter, and it was my fault. Since that, I tried to do the things better, on Wikinews (where I am accredited reporter) and on Simple Wiki, in addition to the Spanish Wikinews, the Latin Wikipedia, English Wiktionary and the Chamoru Wikipedia, a wiki that is almost forgotten. Additionally, I saw that my other account, Bodoque57, was not blocked on Commons, and I requested block on IRC. On Wikinews, my contributions about the recent Chile earthquake have been very appreciated and the community has been very, hmm, good. As it is not Wikinews, Wikinoticias, Wiktionary or Vicipaedia, I come here to ask you, Wikipedians, to unblock me, I want to show you that I have matured through all this time and I don't want to get in troubles anymore. The earthquake thing has helped me to mature more than I thought and you'll forget this very, very soon. I won't let you down, I promise as a good boy. --MW talk contribs 20:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • PD. I don't have bad feelings against those people that blocked me or helped to do this, I know it was for good for Wikipedia and for myself too. --MW talk contribs 21:00, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • Forgot that on IRC, I've got a bot running as Pitsilemu, for Wikinews, if that can be considered of help. --MW talk contribs 21:03, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
  • If you let me come back, I will be editing Pichilemu and related articles to make 'em (at least Pichilemu) good articles. You won't see me trolling again. ;-) --MW talk contribs 21:09, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

End of copy of first four messages from MW's talk page. ☯ I fixed links to other projects as the way MW originally wrote them did not work on preview here but were displayed and functional on his talk page. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 21:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Reblocks are easy. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for moving those over, Deliriousandlost. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 00:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

A compromise

As I've said above, I'm more than happy to mentor MisterWiki for as long as is deemed necessary and MW has previously assured me by email that he will abide by any restrictions the community decides are required. I'm suggesting that he be unblocked and given "probation". He would have to agree that the slightest infringement of the conditions of his probation would result in an immediate, indefinite block and such a block may be made by any admin and discussion would not be required. As I said above, I will take personal responsibility for his actions. If he were unblocked on those conditions, the only time wasted, should it not work out, is my own.
Would anybody support that or possibly suggest appropriate restrictions? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't have any huge concerns with this. MisterWiki has obviously agreed to behave and assume good faith. Hopefully there won't be any more Piss-on-elmos. Afterall, we also have to assume good faith. If after this unblock MisterWiki acts up again, I'm fine with him receiving an instant indef-block. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 22:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to vouch for the fact that MW does seem to be genuinely trying to improve, based on his contributions to enwikinews and simplewiki. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 00:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to leave a message here. I regularly interact with MisterWiki (he's Diego Grez there) on en.wikinews, where I'm a sysop. I think MisterWiki is mature enough now and on en.wikinews he is always trying to improve at editing and article writing. I vouch for MisterWiki and support a probationary unblock. --Mikemoral♪♫ 02:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No. I don't have great faith in the mentoring ability of someone whose argument revolves around "unblock him now or we'll just have to spend more time on this later".--Crossmr (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm an arbcom member and bureaucrat at en.wikinews, a wiki where MisterWiki [contribs is active]. I'm not going to vote in this, as I don't feel I'm an established user here, but would just like to say I'm willing to vouch that he's been doing a really great job at Wikinews, and has been very helpful to the project. Certainly not in any way disruptive. I'm of the opinion that he's genuinely trying to redeem himself, and wants to do only good for Wikimedia. He's definitely matured, I don't see any problem with unblocking him and giving him a mentor to provide pointers. Tempodivalse [talk] 02:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite willing to believe your evaluation of his behavior on Wikinews, but find it difficult to accept that "he has matured." I think that particular judgment still remains to be made, and cannot yet be determined on the basis of such a short period of time. After all, he had his periods of relative usefulness here as well.

One of the reasons that he has been such a time sink in the past, is that there's always been someone going to bat for him, for one more chance, or whatever. Given his history, I find these efforts to be mistaken, and because they have been, I personally, would need considerably more evidence of MW's chnage of heart before I felt comfortable about his being unblocked. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

-shrugs- Well, it's certainly up to you to decide whether or not MW should be unbanned, just thought I'd chime in as this is somewhat-relevant to me. I'm not aware of how many "second chances" he has received in the past, but I still believe he has quite genuinely reformed, although I understand you'd want some more time to make sure. If it makes any difference, he has been recently made an an accredited reporter at en.wn, a position that requires a fair amount of trust and experience. Cheers, Tempodivalse [talk] 03:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Tempodivalse, your insights are most certainly welcome. Indeed, it may be a situation where Wikinews is simply his niche, and that should be encouraged. There seems to be no real ability to do self-promotion there, since the site structure is so very different, which may prevent the behaviour that was witnessed here. I have no opinion one way or another regarding his ban being lifted, but just because he does well at Wikinews should not necessarily point to him doing well here, especially given that so little time has passed. — Huntster (t @ c) 03:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm Still looking closely at this edit. if he does get unblocked, then I wouldn't allow him to remove notices and warnings from is talk page. Does anyone agree? Minimac (talk) 10:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm a firm believer that no one should really be removing anything from their talk page that isn't vandalism and that it should be archived in a way that is actually conducive to an operating community. I don't see overwhelming support for his unblock at this point so unless that changes I don't think it is a concern. If he is unblocked it would need to be with a series of restrictions that should probably include that.--Crossmr (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Opinions seem somewhat divided; what about a provisional unblock where the first month would be strictly working with HJMitchell; MisterWiki would not be permitted to edit outside his or HJ's user and subspace unless the edit was reviewed and approved by his mentor? –xeno^talk 15:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This from MW's talk page([74]):

Please think well, I'm really trying to change. I just want to comeback, to go by the right way here. Please give me the last chance, I'll accept any condition. --MW talk contribs 14:46, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I take from that that MW would be willing to abide by any restriction. I definitely believe that some restrictions would be required- to keep him on a "tight leash" so to speak, and forbidding removal of content from his talk page seems reasonable to me. If my suggestion above is implemented, then one breach of the restrictions and he goes back to being indef'd. I also think a 1RR and a commitment to edit from one account (with regular checkusers if the CUs will oblige) would be reasonable restrictions. I also think Xeno's above suggestion is sensible and workable. Any thoughts from anyone? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 15:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Given I once blocked MW for vandalism and as I tried to hint above, taking this thread altogether, I see no harm in trying an unblock within some tight bounds that might last a month or two. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• IF HJ really, really wants to give MisterWiki a third (possibly fourth, I've lost track) "last chance", I guess you can ignore my comment above when determining consensus. But I don't ever want to see his name on an admin board. He's used up eight lives, and if it ever looks like he's testing the limits to see what he can get away with, I'll block him myself, mentor or no mentor, whether or not a I would block another editor for the same thing. Frankly, I still think this is a hopeless gamble; people don't "mature" in two months. If HJ wants to spend his time on it, more power to him, but MW needs to make sure he doesn't waste anyone else's time. At least put as many restrictions on him as necessary to ensure that. --Floquenbeam (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Proposed restrictions

I'd like to request that MisterWiki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) be unblocked provisionally based on the following restrictions, any breach of which would result in an immediate reblock:

• MisterWiki is to agree to mentoring from HJ Mitchell for as long as is necessary
• MisterWiki is to commit to editing from one account only and (assuming the CUs agree) to regular checkusers
• MisterWiki is expressly forbidden from removing any comments from other editors from his talk page except for routine archiving
• MisterWiki is to only to edit in his own or in my userspace where you can draft things and where I and others can keep an eye on you
• MisterWiki is to seek approval for any edit outside of his own or HJ Mitchell's userspace
• MisterWiki is to be subject to a One Revert Rule (1 revert per article per day- not including blatant vandalism)
• MisterWiki is to abide by all other policies and guidelines
• MisterWiki is to agree that any violation of the above will result in an immediate, indefinite block without discussion and that such a block will almost certainly be permanent.
• These restrictions will be available for view on MisterWiki's user page and at Wikipedia:Editing restrictions

MisterWiki may request review of these restrictions after no less than 45 days from the unblock and only with the approval of his mentor. Such a request should be made at the Administrators' Noticeboard.

Do those restrictions seem reasonable? It allows him to start regaining trust little by little while keeping him on a short enough leash that he can't do anything disruptive. Any further suggestions are welcome. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Confirmation MistwerWiki has read and agreed to the above. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 18:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Good luck! Beyond My Ken (talk) 19:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• I support the proposal by HJ. Perhaps this will end this once and for all.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 19:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose, as above. There's little consensus to lift the current block. Jack Merridew 19:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support though quite weakly. MisterWiki has the potential to be a black hole of editor time. He also has the potential to be a decent contributor here. He needs to know he has one chance here- he either contributes productively or is blocked and it will be years before an unblock is seriously considered. At his age, maturity can come rapidly, though, so I can at least support HJ Mitchell's efforts. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 20:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Weak Support There really is little consensus above to lift the block, but if anyone can make a potentially good editor out of him, it's HJ.--SKATER ^Speak. 20:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support One thing- If MW finds blatant vandalism in the article-space, he should be able to remove himself. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 20:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• With all due respect toward those who have put forth this proposal, it is simply too soon to be discussing lifting the block. I must oppose. Shereth 20:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
  • I understand where you're coming from, an d thank you for your consideration in your comment. I will say, though, that, although I'm asking for the technical restriction to be lifted, most of the de facto ban that went with it will remain, since he'll be almost entirely limited to his own or my userspace, per Xeno's suggestion above. Thank you, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
    • If you would like for me to elaborate on specifically why I feel this is a bad idea, I can do so, but I'll try to summarize. MisterWiki has disrupted the project in the past due to either a willful intent to misbehave or an inability to understand why what he was doing was wrong. I am happy to believe that someone can reform/grow up and become a productive contributor but I do not believe this is something that can happen over a period as short as a few months. I don't think it's sending the right message to MisterWiki to truncate the terms of his block simply because he asks nice and makes promises; I fear it will only encourage either the willful malice or the immaturity that drove him to do what he did previously. Shereth 22:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Support To be honest, if this was me, I'd rather stay blocked than agree to such a frustratingly binding series of restrictions, particularly not being able to make even one edit in mainspace without prior approval from his mentor(s). But if he's up for it, I don't see any problems. I don't think there should be any gray areas though; if we're saying he can't edit mainspace, he shouldn't be editing mainspace, even to make clearly productive edits, because there is no defining line between what is productive and what isn't, and the lack of clarity could be used by anyone opposing the unblock to show that he's violating the terms of his unban; in other words, it could potentially hurt him more than it would help. —Soap— 21:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• modest support and in agreement with Soap. These are restrictive conditions but they are to allow him to prove himself. Let's not give him the rope right now so that he can hang himself. There is generally enough vandal patrolling that MW doesn't need this loophole in his restrictions. If there is recurring vandalism on something he is involved with then his mentor can deal with it, if someone else doesn't get it first. delirious & lost ☯ ^~hugs~ 22:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. You cannot claim "vandalism" as a reason to bypass the restrictions. In order to appease the opposers, how about MR cannot request a review of these restrictions after no less than 2-3 months from the unblock and only with the approval of his mentor. Such a request should be made at the Administrators' Noticeboard instead of 45 days? That sould be long enough IMHO.--White Shadows ^{you're breaking up} 22:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Recent deletions by User:DragonflySixtyseven

DragonflySixtyseven has apparently gone on a unilateral deletion spree, deleting many article talk pages and other pages. No CSD reasons are being given, and requests for restoration are being refused on his talk page. (Log: [75]) Some of these are heading for overturn in DRV. I question the value of deleting an article talk page because it has "homework questions" or "forum-like" contents. Such content can simply be removed without using deletion. Gigs (talk) 22:41, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Amanda Freitag I didn't understand so I recreated it. In the future the user can just remove/flag the forum content, but leave the talk. A number of the userpage deletions seem valid regarding spam and promotion. Have you attempted to make contact with the user other than notifying of the ANI? SGGH ^ping! 22:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

A couple of the blocks seem to make liberal use of the "talk page editing block", hopefully the user can explain their justification further here. SGGH ^ping! 22:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I remove talkpage access for spammers, and for people who've created content that defames others. And what would be the point in removing inappropriate content from a page and then leaving it blank? Process is important, but it's not all-important. Go write an article, go review an article, go fix an article, go help a newbie. Don't waste your time with this crap. DS (talk) 22:50, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Because if you delete it, non-administrators can't see the removed content to decide whether your action was reasonable or not, leading to stuff like this thread and the DRVs, which are indeed a waste of time. Gigs (talk) 22:53, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

What boggles my mind is that the removal of irrelevant/inappropriate discussion is not only being contested but is generating new DRV entries because it did not technically follow process. Some would argue that process is important and stepping around it too often weakens the project; I would argue that a slavish obedience to process when it is creating roadblocks to sensible solutions is equally deleterious to the project. Shereth 22:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My only concern was the restriction of talk page access so I wished to hear the reasoning. So long as DS follows policy that is fine. It is there for a reason, all the blustering about "crap" put to one side. SGGH ^ping! 23:26, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Earwig has pointed out to me that 'homework' is not a particularly helpful rationale when I could instead be pointing to WP:HOMEWORK. I shall use that one instead. Similarly, Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#FORUM is more informative than "not a forum". DS (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:HOMEWORK and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#FORUM are not speedy deletion rationales either. And considering the developing consensus at this DRV and this one it doesn't look as though your judgment on what constitutes a homework question is particularly sound; consensus seems to be that the questions you deleted were relevant to the articles and useful towards the improvement of them. And your response when challenged on your mass deletions is "Stop wasting time. Run along. Nothing to see here." I find that deeply worrying. Reyk _YO! 00:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

They're rational. And what do you expect me to say when you're wasting your time and mine? Why don't you go patrol the backlogged newpages in the lesser namespaces, so as to remove inappropriate material? I seem to be the only one who does that; if you have a problem with how I do it, you're welcome to help out. DS (talk) 01:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Protesting an administrator's abuse of tools is never a waste of time. Reyk _YO! 01:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Please don't be an imbecile. These are uniformly garbage pages. If you want to hoard them, I will copy the content of each and every one onto your userpage. (NOTE: That's an offer, not a threat. You can have them if you want them.) DS (talk) 01:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No thanks, if you haven't noticed by now that I think the articles' talk pages is the proper place for them you haven't been paying a lot of attention. Perhaps many of them are garbage pages, but the DRVs make it pretty clear you've made a few mistakes as well. And please don't call me names- I am not being stupid. My opinion is backed by policy and consensus. Reyk _YO! 01:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

In all these instances, why would Dragonfly67 or any other editor not prefer to post a short note ON THE PAGE explaining why (in that editor's view) the comment was inappropriate. That would have meant that the original poster would be far more likely to see the comment (as opposed to the deletion log, which a newcomer will probably not know to look for nor how to find) and perhaps be educated in how to used wikipedia. And other editors could also see the response and perhaps be educated. And if other experienced editors saw the response and disagreed, a short and simple discussion on the talk page or on someone's user talk page could occur, and who knows, someone might learn something from that, one way or the other. Placing such a response would probably be easier and quicker -- surely note significantly harder or lonnger, than deleting the page. DES ^(talk) 01:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, WP:CSD says plainly that "There is strong consensus that the creators and major contributors of pages and media files should be warned of a speedy deletion nomination." True, this is not mandatory (although i once supported a proposal to make in mandatory) but it is now the almost invariable practice, and failing to follow it is in such cases a violation of WP:BITE, IMO. DES ^(talk) 01:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Moreover WP:CSD#Non-criteria says "The following are not by themselves sufficient to justify speedy deletion....Questionable material that is not vandalism. Earnest efforts are never vandalism, so to assume good faith, do not delete as vandalism unless reasonably certain....Reasons based on essays. Wikipedia:Listcruft, Wikipedia:Obscure topics, Wikipedia:Deny recognition etc. are not valid reasons for speedy deletion....An article written in a foreign language or script. An article should not be speedily deleted just because it is not written in English. Instead it should be tagged with {{notenglish}} and listed at Wikipedia:Pages needing translation into English." Note that DF67 suggest above deleting based on the Essay WP:HOMEWORK. Several deletions of talk pages with non-English comments have had the logged reason "wrong language". It seems to me the DF67 is acting as if WP:CSD#Non-criteria does not exist, and as if admins have carte blanche to delete any page they may deem "not helpful to the project" Not so, deletion is to be by consensus, either discussed or pre-formed in the narrow cases of the CSDs. DES ^(talk) 01:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

DESiegel, you are an articulate man who clearly cares about what is best for the project. I envy you both your copious free time to spend arguing about this, and your bureaucratic dedication to procedure that prevents you from restoring pages that you feel should exist. If you genuinely feel that any one of those pages should exist, then by all means restore it. I won't wheel-war with you over it if you genuinely feel it is an asset to the project. And you are correct -- deletion rationales are a crucial part of the project; that's why they exist. Mine will be better now. DS (talk) 01:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I am glad that your rationales will be better in future. What I would really like -- what would be far more important to me than the fate of these specific pages -- would be if when you (and i hope other admins also) see such a page in future, you would do something other than simply delete it, under any rationale. I really think the best thing in cases such as the ones now open at DRV would be to add a simple response to the talk page, rather than pushing the delete button. If you really feel that such pages must be deleted, then please open an MFD page. If you use one of the various scripts available it wouldn't take that much longer, and would make things ever so much more transparent. If you are correct that such pages are widely felt to be of no value, they will be fairly quickly deleted at an MfD -- 2 or 3 once sentence comments, and a one-word close. If you are incorrect, that will soon be obvious also. If i had thought this was a one-time event i would have simply restored -- I believe that any admin is by policy allowed to restore an improper speedy. My concern is for all the other pages where I don't check your deletion log, and neither does anyone else. My dedication to procedure here is not, in intent, "bureaucratic" -- my concern is that in not following procedure you wind up ignoring consensus, and hurting the project, mostly by driving off potentially good contributors. my use of procedure here is intended as much to bring the issue to more general attention as it is to restore the specific pages in question. If you indicate that your approach to deletion -- that is, your choice of whether to delete and not just of what reason to cite (although clear log reasons are important too) -- will change in future, I'll be happy to stop arguing. DES ^(talk) 02:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with DES that the rationales are not the issue, it's the deletions. Perfectly harmless content, and, as argued at the DRVs, not irrelevant to the article--the two there seem to represent complaints that the articles did not give enough information, and both complaints seem correct. DF has never explained why he thinks them homework, but if they are, for someone to come here to seek information for homework is a proper use of the encyclopedia, and for them to say that they came here for that purpose and did not find what they were reasonably looking for is a criticism we should remedy,not remove. The situation is not solved by DF giving admins permission to revert his deletions if they object. The deletions by themselves serve to discourage prospective newcomers. The need to attract, not repel potential newcomers, is essential to the survival of WP , for there is no other way to replace those who inevitably leave. Of all the issue facing us, the need for more contributors is the most important, because without them, we cannot solve the other problems. These edits did not really need to be removed. The attitude that one should look for any faults one can find in newcomers is inappropriate and remove their edits if they look doubtful is wrong --one should not be too hasty to conclude their edits are errors, and if they are, one should correct their errors, but along with encouraging them. Almost equally wrong is an approach that if an edit needs to be removed, the entire page should be deleted. Deletion is the last resort--a frequently needed last resort, and not to be used unnecessarily when there is so much that really does need it. DF above blames DES of bothering with unimportant matters, such as complaining about his deletions--but the unimportant and unnecessary work was his own, deleting these pages in the first place. And that admins follow the rules is not unimportant. There are many unjustified complaints here about arbitrary admin action -- we have enough to deal without without admins overusing the buttons and giving rise to actually justified complaints. DGG ( talk ) 03:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Note that in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/MZMcBride the following were among the ArbCom's expressed "Principles":

• "...Additionally, when an administrator takes an action that is likely to be controversial or to raise questions, he or she should explain the action in advance or at the time, in a location that the affected editors are likely to see, so that they will understand what has been done and why."
• "The policy pages for Deletion policy, Undeletion policy, and Criteria for speedy deletion together provide policy and procedure for deletion and undeletion of pages, including pages in userspace. Administrators are expected to use their deletion and undeletion abilities consistent with these policies. Administrators who wish to delete pages that lie outside the criteria for speedy deletion should usually list those pages at the appropriate deletion discussion forum, such as Articles for deletion or Miscellany for deletion, or apply a Proposed deletion tag. This does not negate administrators' ability to delete blatantly inappropriate content even if it falls outside the formal CSD criteria, nor constrain application of our policy on biographies of living persons."
• "Whenever an administrator deletes a page, he or she must specify the reason for doing so. Deletion can easily discourage editors, especially new editors, so they should be able to understand from the deletion summary why their page was considered inappropriate for Wikipedia. When the deletion is of a page in userspace, the affected editor may be particularly dismayed. Even though users do not "own" such pages, reasonable leeway is accorded to userspace content. Therefore, a clear and civil explanation of why a userspace page has been deleted should always be provided."

These seem to me relevant here. DES ^(talk) 05:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This does sound like the drama surrounding MZMcbride's bot rampage of a year or so ago, deleting IP address user and talk pages without prior consensus, one of the issues leading to the first of his two desysoppings if I remember properly. Our usual approach to removing talkpage clutter has generally been to archive it or (in some situations) blank it, not delete the page and make it inaccessible to users through the page history. The exceptions are issues like libel that must be deleted to protect the project, and pages that meet narrow conditions described at WP:CSD. "Homework" and "Forum" aren't sufficient conditions for deletion, and anyway such a categorization isn't up to any one person's whims. And as for "unhelpful to the project", we have a longstanding view that making user contribs (including unhelpful ones) accessible to everyone is desirable for accountabilty purposes; deleting those pages out-of-process removes accountability from the people who created them. Take the pages to MfD if you must, but it's easier and more traditional to just archive them. Or, open an appropriate policy discussion if you think the existing procedure should change. Simply going on a unilateral deletion spree is not the way to do it.

Stepping back a level, if an ongoing sequence of actions is getting resistance from other users (as this is), those actions should stop until a discussion has taken place. So I hope the deletions have stopped. They don't sound urgent, so pre-empting discussion by continuing them in the face of so much opposition is very bad admin conduct, deserving of an RFCU and desysopping if necessary. See the "fait accompli" principles in several arb cases, e.g. from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Fait_accompli, "Editors who collectively or individually make large numbers of similar edits, and who are apprised that those edits are controversial or disputed, are expected to attempt to resolve the dispute through discussion. It is inappropriate to use repetition or volume to present opponents with a fait accompli or to exhaust their ability to contest the change." 66.127.52.47 (talk) 08:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, the above was from the response to the drama around MZMcbride's bot-assisted deletion of large numbers of "secret" pages, which i think led to his resigning as an admin about a year ago -- technically he was not desysoped as i understand it. But the principles are IMO relevant here. DES ^(talk) 14:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

What's the problem?

He's been doing deletions like these for a few years. Is there an actual objection to the specific deletions? If so, can someone clearly lay out what those objections are?

Looking at DS' deletion log, is anyone disputing that spam, copyright violations, and test pages fall outside speedy deletion criteria?

Seriously, what's the point of this thread. Someone's volunteering to clean the place up and you're upset because.... --MZMcBride (talk) 15:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

first, cleaning up in such a way as to discourage potential new contributors is a threat to the project-- a serious long term documented threat. second, admins acting outside their mandate is a serious short-term threat, because once they think it proper to act in a way not accepted by the community, there is no telling how much harm they might do. DGG ( talk ) 17:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If anyone can show me that one of my deletions has been in error, I will restore it. This is not braggadocio; I acknowledge that I make mistakes, and I correct them. I also apologize to individuals whose pages I have deleted by mistake. How often do you apologize to people? DS (talk) 19:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I have, i think, shown that at least four of your deletions were in error. One related set has already been reversed at DRV, as has one single earlier deletion. Two more look to be on the road to being overturned at DRV. That, IMO pretty clearly establishes that the community did not agree with them, which makes them "wrong" in this context, without anything more. I have also elaborated on the specific reasons why i think the specific deletions were wrong. Moreover the entire concept of "I'll delete what i please, limited only by my own judgment, but will restore if someone can convince me I'm wrong." is IMO wrongheaded. Note that I asked DF67 to restore in each of the cases now pending at DRV, and DF67 decliend. But even if DF67 would automatically restore on any good-faith request, it would still be wrong headed. No one but an admin can check to see if a logged reason matches the actuality of the deleted page. In one pending case the logged reason was "test page" but DF67 admitted on his own talk page that that was not a correct description of the page in question. A number of pages were deleted with the logged reasons "wrong language", "Forum" and "Silliness": is anyone claiming those are, in general, valid reasons to delete pages? Many are deleted with the logged reason "Inappropriate use of user page" and many of those turn out to be spam, but others do not, and there is no way for a non-admin to tell, and no quick and easy way for even an admin to tell. Deletion should not be, except in very unusual cases, conducted except by consensus, either found via a discussion or pre-agreed via the speedy deletion criteria. Anything else is IMO abusing the trust of the community that comes with the admin bit. Admins are empowered to carry out the will of the community, not to impose their own wills. DES ^(talk) 22:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

MZMcBride, it is somewhat ironic that you make the statements you do, as roughly a year ago you "cleaned up" by mass-deleting many user pages, resulting in an ArbCom case (which is quoted and linked to above) in which, as i understand it, the ArbCom disapproved of such deletions. And in thes cases in point, there is not general agreement that the deletions complained of constitut4ed "cleaning up". I for one don't think they did, and I gather that several others at DRV don't think so either. "Cleaning up" by deleting pages without or against consensus is not, IMO, helpful to the project. DES ^(talk) 22:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

MZMcBride, are you claiming that the pages described more fully on DRV are "spam, copyright violations, and test pages"? If so, i disagree strongly. If all the pages involved were that this thread would not have happened. DES ^(talk) 22:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sometimes users tend to be too bureaucratic and end up spending time on useless debates. Does an admin have to go through the whole process of deletion, when cases are obvious? If he spotted pages that are unconstructive/disruptive and according to the policy they should be deleted then why shouldn't he make use of the admin tools? Of course we can't check them, but admins can check them and none of them have restored any of those pages and as he said he wouldn't oppose any page restoration.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 23:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Sock or joe job

Resolved

 – Three socks blocked per WP:DUCK. —DoRD (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

2Mistresses (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) looks to be either a new sock of puppetmaster User:Sorrywrongnumber (background info) – User:2Misters was one of his socks – or a joe job. Either way, they should probably be blocked, since they've already edited disruptively on 2 of SWN's favorite articles. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:51, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I notified the user, who deleted the notification. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course I deleted it, noob. Stop editing my user page - that's not allowed. You can't sock tag on other user's userpages without checkuser evidence, newbie. You're free to checkuser me; I'm not a sock and I don't even know what a "joe job" is on Wikipedia - that's a professional spamming term and I can't imagine how you'd apply it here. You're talking out yer butt. 2Mistresses (talk) 22:59, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• New sock: 2LiveCrew (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:02, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Both now blocked by User:Department of Redundancy Department. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:06, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I have to say, this rocks! All I need to do is say that I suspect someone is a sock, because they edit an article, and BINGO! They're blocked as a sock! Thanks admins! You've effectively deputized me! I RULE WIKIPEDIA! Beyond My Ken(sock of Sorrywrongnumber) 23:17, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

• Not quite resolved: Well, here's a new twist, SWN's new sock, which posted the comment just above, is "<redacted>", which just happens to be my real name!! What a coincidence!! Hardblock, please. Beyond My Ken (talk) 23:20, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Failed mediation on Race and intelligence

On the talk page of the mediation page for this article, a version of the lede was decided by a consensus of multiple editors. Ludwigs2 had also put in place a faulty procedure for redrafting the article in mainspace. This permitted David.Kane (talk · contribs), an inexperienced wikipedia editor, to push his extreme personal point of view in the lede, giving WP:UNDUE support for a minoritarian point of view. The editor used almost no secondary sources. What he put into the lede was a combination of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH which contradicts almost all secondary sources. Ludwigs2 was well aware that David.Kane had a WP:POV and that he had very little editing experience in mainspace articles. I have reverted the lede to the previous lede decided by consensus. Allowing a single inepxerienced editor to reek havoc with a notoriously controversial article of this kind was extremely ill-advised and has wrecked the article.

It is not advisable to discuss 3RR when David.Kane was given carte blanche to make whatever edits pleased him. Mathsci (talk) 23:10, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

David.Kane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to restore his POV-pushing edits to the article. The article is disgraceful. it does not in any way whatsover reflect any secondary sources. It reveals David.Kane's personal point of view and possibly that of the other WP:SPA's active in mediation. Ludwigs2 has condoned David.Kane's foolhardy edits. Mathsci (talk) 23:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

If editors other than MathSci would like me to give my side of the story, I would be happy to do so. Short version: 1) Throughout this mediation, I have abided by all the decisions/suggestions made by the various mediators. (We have had three so far.) 2) I think that the mediation has been very successful. Compare the version of the article we have now [76] with the version that we started with [77]. 3) I like to think/hope that I have contributed to the success of the effort but, not being an experienced editor, I would leave that judgment to my fellow mediation participants, at least half a dozen of whom have explicitly thanked me. David.Kane (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I think it needs to be pointed out that this is the third time Mathsci has brought up this same issue here in the past three weeks. The previous two times were here and here. Both of these threads were started by other users, but Mathsci redirected them into complaints about Ludwigs2’s handling of the mediation case for this article, and the admins eventually declined to take action against Ludwig. Doesn’t Wikipedia have a rule against this sort of forum shopping? --Captain Occam (talk) 01:21, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If a party to the mediation is dissatisfied, that shouldn't be swept under the carpet. I think it would be best to close the mediation. PhilKnight (talk) 02:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If the current lede (and article), [78] are the result of the mediation, then I would say that the mediation is in practice a success. I'd support protecting it for a while DGG ( talk ) 03:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes DGG, Ludwigs2 stepped in and restored the lede decided by consensus, removing David.Kane's radical rewrite. We now have to look at David.Kane's rewriting of the rest of the article, which seems to have the same problems, perhaps worse. Captain Occam is wrong about my posts to ANI. This is the first time I've initiated a post for a while. Mathsci (talk) 07:03, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

“Captain Occam is wrong about my posts to ANI. This is the first time I've initiated a post for a while.”

Everyone: just look at the two threads that I linked to, and read at least half of them. Everything I’ve described is there if you do. Mathsci hasn’t actually initiated a post here about this topic recently, but he’s turned two posts about other topics into discussions about this one, so much so that the original discussions were completely abandoned and his own complaints ended up being the only thing that the admins responded to. Now is the first time he’s initiated a post about this recently, but it is not the first time he’s brought it up here, and had the admins look at his complaint and decline to take action about it. --Captain Occam (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Captain Occam, it's not a great idea for a WP:SPA to challenge an experienced mainstream editor like me. Edit some ordinary articles and perhaps then you might be taken seriously. Mathsci (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

2 more days. Xavexgoem (talk) 04:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly. Incidentally, [79] shows the rewrite. Guy (Help!) 09:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ladue Yacht Club‎ being edited, again

70.43.101.226 (talk · contribs) is still trying to somehow get Ladue Yacht Club (a hoax) into Wikipedia. The article went to AfD, and was deleted, but this anon keeps editing the closed AfD, now that their last block expired. (There is a Lake Ladue. It's a pond in a subdivision, and is about 500' across.) Minor nuisance, but I think we have a wannabe long term vandal. --John Nagle (talk) 23:13, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I reverted the edit to the closed AfD and left a warniong about creating hoaxes on the IPs talk page. Burpelson AFB (talk) 23:24, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I also semi-protected the AfD--and I'm thisclose to blocking that IP again. I noticed he came right back after a block to start this up again. Methinks he needs another timeout. Blueboy96 00:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I left a note on their talk asking them to please stop. Dlohcierekim 20:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Picture of monument for terrorists in userpage

Nothing can be done here, Wikipedia:Miscellany for Deletion, please. – Toon 15:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Amoruso (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Nableezy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User Amoruso has a picture of a monument for Irgun terrorists in his userpage [80][81], is this appropriate? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC) It's been on his page for 3 1/2 years. If Nableezy can do his thing, I don't see why Amoruso can't. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Its not the same thing, that image is specifically for Irgun terrorists that have killed many civilians, but Nableezys userbox is a completely different issue, it only supports resisting military aggression and occupation, he does not support any terrorists. --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 00:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC) One could argue that the Irguns were also "resisting military aggression and occupation", by the British. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC) In fact, Nableezy's stuff is far worse. It's a nakedly anti-Israel essay, whereas the thing on Amoruso's page is a relatively small photo, with no caption at all. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC) No it is not. It is not "anti-Israel" nor is it an "essay". nableezy - 02:07, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Yes it is. I can read plain English. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Apparently not. Though you are free to think what you like, no matter how silly it is. nableezy - 03:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC) You've got a series of quotes talking about how terrible Israel is, along with a photo of some Palestinian kids. Now, if you just had the photo with no caption, and no accompanying essay, that would put you almost at the same level as Amoruso, except that it's still clear that it's about a particular group, whereas the picture of the monument is just a picture of a sculpture that you have to read something about in order to know what it is. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I have two quotes discussing Israeli actions. If you think that is talking about "how terrible Israel is" I am afraid I cant help you. And there is one picture of a Palestinian child waving a Palestinian flag. I guess I can see how that picture is "anti-Israel". Palestinian children with flags, and I put them on my page? How dare I support such terrorizers. And the picture in the center is a picture of graffiti on the West Bank wall. I am sorry you think that collection is "anti-Israel", but it isnt. Bye. nableezy - 04:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Maybe you need some quotes discussing anti-Israeli actions, and some Israeli children waving the Israeli flag, so that you could demonstrate your ability to be neutral. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I didnt realize that I had to be "neutral" on my user page. But in the mainspace I have, more than most other editors that others identify with one "side", inserted text that made the "other side" look "good" and made "my side" look "bad". nableezy - 04:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Looking at the context, I see absolutely nothing wrong with the use of the image. This is a non-issue. --Carnildo (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC) A perfect example of the old saw that one person's freedom-fighter is another one's terrorist, and vice versa. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Yes. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC) If you'll pardon me, a reflection in the real world: Official Israel is shocked and outraged by naming a street in Ramallah after a Palestinian terrorist Ayyash (assassinated by Israel in 1996); At the same time, the Israeli far-right leader Ze’evi (assassinated by Palestinians in 2001), whose main political platform was ethnic cleansing ("transfer") of all Palestinians, has several streets, three promenades, two settlements, a highway, a bridge, and an army base named after him, and a law to commemorate him and even educate future generations with his "legacy."     ←   ZScarpia   12:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Who is a terrorist depends on who you are talking to. Some people would consider Stanley McChrystal to be a "terrorist that has killed many civilians", but I doubt we'd have any zealots coming to complain about that here if someone had a picture of him on their user page. I don't see anything wrong with Amoruso having the image on his/her page. -- Jrtayloriv (talk) 01:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC) It seems fitting that Amoruso and Nableezy are in the midst of a food-fight at present. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 01:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I'm no fan of any terrorism, whether that's Zionist Terrorism, Islamic terrorism, American/British terrorism, etc, etc. I'm a supporter of free speech and as Jrtayloriv rightly says who is a terrorist depends on who you are talking to. However if we go on the Wikipedia definition of Terrorism then the Zionists, the Islamists, the British and the Americans ( and others of course ) have all been guilty of terrorism over the last few decades. On that basis I support fairness. Amoruso should have a right to put a monument to Zionist terrorists on his user page as long as others can put monuments to American, Islamic and British terrorists on their user page. Wikpedia must not be seen to be biased If my memory serves correctly, Nableezy and others were stopped from displaying userboxes saying that they supported the political wing of Hezbollah. What is everybody's thinking on that in the light of the current case?     ←   ZScarpia   02:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC) If people are allowed to support Israel/Zionism then people should be allowed to support Hezbollah, and the same for other political ideologies in the world. Wikipedia either has a policy of NO POLITICS, or it allows people to display their political allegiances. There should be an official consensus on this and whatever the outcome it should be applied fairly. it's bias when people are allowed to support the Zionist state but not allowed to support Hezbollah, etc. Keep it unbiased or don't allow anything. Vexorg (talk) 02:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Israel is a nation, whether you like it or not. Hezbollah is not a nation, it's an organization with destruction of Israel as one of its goals. Hatemongering has nothing to do with what wikipedia is about, and doesn't belong on a user page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 03:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Being a 'nation' does not excuse anyone from certain behaviors. Your argument is void. Vexorg (talk) 04:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Although its presence on someone's user page can be useful, as it invites scrutiny of whether they are editing political articles neutrally or not. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:17, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Well exactly. But all I want is fairness. Like I say if someone can support Israel then others can support hezbollah. Fairness. Eitehr that or all political support is banned. take your choice. Everyone has a right to display their beliefs whether you like them or not. If you find it so offensive, then don't look at the freaking page. It is a rather miraculous conclusion. Also, whether something is a nation is irrelevant. From Hezbollah's point of view, Israel is a terrorist nation, and then vice-versa. Just because the majority finds something appalling or they happen to disagree with it does not make it right to single out the minority. If people can't control themselves from someone mentioning their support, then perhaps editing a wiki is not for them. Gay, straight, theistic, atheistic, agnostic, Jewish, Muslim, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu: none of that really matters. If you happen to disagree with it, then grow up, ignore it, and realize that not everyone is a supporter of "the state". –Turian (talk) 04:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Well said Turian!! Vexorg (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Not that I'm an admin or anything, but if people would bother to read what all of Hezbollah's goals are, you wouldn't be so worried about this. Do you think most people in Hezbollah seriously want to destroy Israel? Of course not, just like most Israelis don't want to keep fighting Palestinians. Many people in Hezbollah are in it because they have no other way to get food or shelter (same with the PLO, by the way). But before anyone wants to accuse me of a red herring, back to the original issue. We're all allowed to have our idols, and it won't hurt to express it here. Many places (i.e. The Democratic Republic of the Congo) consider American involvement in their affairs to have been terrorism, rightly or not (see the history of Zaire, it'd be there). Not allowing people to declare pride in the United States military would seem absurd to most; therefore, it'd be difficult to justify. We have to hold the same standard to everything. It's not that big a deal. The Blade of the Northern Lights (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Baseball Bugs, Hezbollah is more of a state organisation than the Irgun was. And apparently, just after its creation in 1948, the new State of Israel introduced a law which defined the Irgun as terrorist organisation.     ←   ZScarpia   11:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC) This isn't resolved yet, is he gonna let have a picture of Irgun terrorists in his userpage? Am I allowed to display a Hezbollah flag on my userpage? --Supreme Deliciousness (talk) 09:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC) In my opinion, yes on both counts. The games that could be played with this are endless, and admins should refuse to get involved. There's nothing to be done here, suggest we mark it closed--Wehwalt (talk) 11:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC) What's this, Kindergarten? One is about people that have been dead for two generations. It's an aesthetically attractive image that you need to go to some lengths of investigation to find out any real or perceived support for "terrorism". It needs some work to feel offended by it. The other is a symbol in an ongoing bloody and divisive conflict, and uses imagery directly supporting violence. But yes, as far as I'm concerned, you can display this flag, unless you go out of your way to be offensive about it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC) It's not kindergarden. But we have people here who are strong partisans about the I/P and who don't mind ribbing the other side, and are smart enough to be subtle about it. Admins should not be drawn into it, otherwise we will endlessly be called upon for judgments about what is, and is not, offensive. And what about, say, a Confederate memorial (disclosure: I live in the former confederacy, though was not raised here and have little sympathy for its views). Look where that's gotten the Governor of Virginia this week. Anyhow. Both images are easily within the limits allowed for one's own userspace. End of story. Can we please mark this resolved?--Wehwalt (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I concur. If there is no attempt to force these views on others (and I can't find any, a userpage is not be definition an exporter of ideas) then it is fine. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter, I do wonder if such a fuss would be made about an anti Al Qaeda slogan on a talk page. In my opinion this can be closed. SGGH ping! 11:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC) The content in question seems to be pretty mild, and even if it wasn't as long as this stays in user space, it is a total non-issue. This should be closed. Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:01, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Interesting. Now there a "as long as it stays in userspace, it's ok" attitude in regards partisan displays on user pages? I feel bad for Embargo, who saw some pretty severe harassment in these parts over this user box. Tarc (talk) 13:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Damn, if I wrote “this user has zero tolerance for intolerance” I might be banned for life. ―AoV² 13:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I'm not really a fan of allowing people to turn user pages into glorified myspace pages but there is some value to the community in allowing people to customize user pages and people seem to like it. If we are going to allow any political speech on user pages it seems like we need to allow all political speech on user pages. I think this is in keeping with the open nature of Wikipedia and the ideals of free speech that it is founded on. Where would you draw the line? Voiceofreason01 (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2010 (UTC) It shouldn't need saying that individuals who are (or are suspected of being) gun-carrying members of Hezbollah should not be editting in the Israel/Palestine topic in Wikipedia. Anyone in this position should be reported to the authorities and dealt with as guilty unless proved innocent. Every edit they've made needs scrutinising and over-written if its dubious. In the meantime, its better if people are encouraged to fly their flags. Urbane23 (talk) 13:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Speaking of flying their flags, have you edited using other accounts? Unomi (talk) 13:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Comment - Seriously, if you don't go looking for issues here, none exist. Amoruso's userpage contains many images, including five which aren't annotated; one of which is the "problematic" image. If he were using this image to aid soapboxing then yes, it would be a problem. As-is, it's just one in a series of images of the area. Leave it be. As for Nableezy, his user page is not even linked from his signature, so even if you do find the excerpts from published texts offensive (although frankly, this is a pretty sedate way to show your POV), you don't have to pass through his user page at all. – Toon 14:10, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Nableezy, who is obviously pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel, skirts the issue by claiming that he's merely speaking out against aggression and occupation "in general". Amoruso could have similarly skirted the issue by not specifically identifying the photo, but instead by labeling the photo "nifty-looking sculpture I saw someplace". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 14:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Quite honestly I think it is missing the mark to label Nableezy as obviously pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel - from what I have seen at my short time involved in the I/P area I find that Nableezy is more moderate in his outlook and his approach to content and discussions than I am. I don't want to soapbox but it seems clear from RS that what is going on in the Israeli-occupied territories is deeply problematic; from a legal and human rights perspective, it lends itself well to as an emblematic cause for those against aggression and occupation. I am against userpages which lend themselves to being interpreted as divisive but I can't help but think that ANI is the entirely wrong place to have this discussion and that any kind of in-depth discussion will be mired in questions of moral equivalence and moral relativism. Unomi (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I would be more impressed with his concern for poor, innocent children being blown to bits if he also showed some Israeli children wrapped in an Israeli flag. Keeping his in-your-face partisanship on his user page is not appropriate - but it is useful, as it can be used for evidence in an RfC/U, if the user displays too much POV-pushing in articles. (Likewise with Nazi symbols, Commie symbols, etc., on user pages.) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 15:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Just a word or three on appearances and options. Back when the articles about Sarah Palin's daughter were being discussed, and the articles were clearly anti-Palin, I was accused of being some sort of ultra-conservative stooge for trying get rid of them. If I have a COI, it is in the opposite direction. About the only hints of my political bent are my userboxes supporting Dr. King and a reference to a Rammstein song. One needs a knowledge of Rammstein or German to understand the latter. The point is, if one values the appearance of impartiality they should not appear partial. There's a line between validly using the user page to show the community things about yourself and using it to put a chip on your shoulder. The bottom line is, if someone feels the later is in play, they have the option of ignoring that person's userpage. And if the user looks within his heart and finds the latter really is in play, he should stop. We're here to build an encyclopedia. We should avoid distractions and diversions that don't do that. Dlohcierekim 15:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Why do people keep bringing WP:MFD issues to ANI? This venue is not well-suited for these types of discussions. They're disorganized and they have no particular end-point for an administrator to step in and divine consensus. Please take this to MFD. –xenotalk 15:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC) Hear, hear. We just beat this horse a couple of days ago. Move to close this discussion and ask that if need be it be opened at WP:MFD Dlohcierekim 15:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC) I concur. Unomi (talk) 15:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

99.88.78.94

99.88.78.94 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has repeatedly added content into film plot summaries and several editors have attempted to acquaint the user with the pertinent guidelines. User: Deftonesderrick has pointed the IP directly to the appropriate guidelines here and here. The IP’s responses of “I don’t understand, “why?”, “how am I supposed to know?” and “Do you know what’s the limit..? are wearing thin and have begun to appear disingenuous. I honestly don’t know what admin action I’m in search of, but this user is not hearing what is being said to them. If this post would be better addressed at another venue, feel free to copy wherever or let me know and I’ll do it. Thanks Tiderolls 02:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hear, hear. See also my talk page, where the same question is asked, and then repeated twice. Or see the history of the user's talk page (they blank it constantly). Drmies (talk) 03:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Maybe I'm just guilty of not assuming good faith, but my sense with this guy is a troll. There's something about the syntax of the posts and pattern of behavior that seems to be attempting to mimic someone who either has english problems or is very young. But it just just quite ring true when looked at as a whole picture; the combination of asking, not reading, and page blanking... I don't know. Maybe I've just been doing to much vandal patrol and the editor is just really, really misguided. Just reverted another edit on disturbia; same ones as usual. Millahnna (mouse)talk 03:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
• Blocked for three months. They have been blocked thrice for exactly the same behavior, so I figured that a longer block can't hurt. Tim Song (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Hogwash eliminator

Resolved

 – User is now discussing things on the talk page, no obvious action necessary at this time

Hogwash eliminator (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user started out by posting their opinion in the article text, of the article text. They were reverted by an admin and told to take it to the talk page. They reverted, saying 'no one reads the talk page'. I reverted them here, and gave them a second warning concerning such.

They have since taken it to the talk page, only instead of discussing improvements to the article in a civil manner, they have decided to instead speak in an insulting manner about those who made the article, essentially calling them idiots(acting like they thought 2 + 2 = 5).

This is of course, after I tried to politely tell them what they needed to do to fix the article, mainly telling them of WP:RS, WP:V, and WP:OR.

I have tried to tell them to cool it with the incivility and apparent(at least to me) personal attacks, saying it was a quick way to get blocked, but all they do is continue.

I would like more eyes on the matter, and perhaps some help dealing with them. They have been notified of this discussion, as seen here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:47, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

This is a new and apparently knowledgeable editor with a bit of an abrasive style, who took issue with some errors in the article, and ended up having some unpleasant exchanges with Sandstein and Daedalus. I left messages at talk:nutrition and user talk:Hogwash eliminator to try to calm things down a little. This is another incident where talkpage warning templates and the like just get the person madder, so it's better to avoid using templates and just write in English. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 09:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice username :-) Guy (Help!) 13:05, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hey GUY thanks for noticing. I am new here. Do you know how to stick your tongue out at someone with the appropriate abbreviation, template or what ever?? There is an entity within these ones and zeros that needs it.

Hogwash eliminator (talk) 18:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I suppose there's always :-P Dlohcierekim 20:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC) There is also " ( [[Image:Misc-tpvgames.gif|20px]] ) ", though I suppose neither improves the quality of the discussion at hand :{ Dlohcierekim 20:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked IP 88.111.62.210

On 31 March, 88.111.62.210 was blocked for disruptive editing. This was a culmination in a campaign that had been going on for some time by a user taking advantage of dynamic IP addresses. The same person has been active in the same sort of disruption (i.e, edit warring and removing sources) since 31 March using:

• 3 April – 88.111.51.88
• 5 April – 88.111.61.215
• 7 April – 88.111.38.144
• 8 April – 88.111.63.54

Is there any possibility of blocking the 88.111 range for a reasonable period?

Failing that, could you please place protection on his latest target articles which are Lamb's Conduit Field and Bromley Common? Thanks. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 05:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Range is 88.111.32.0/19. Only ~8000 IPs, but I'm not sure the level of disruption warrants a block yet. I've protected the first page you brought up; I'll watch the second and protect if necessary. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much. It is actually several days since he attacked the Bromley page. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 08:38, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Death threat (hoping just a troll)

Resolved

 – Blocked by Someguy1221--SKATER ^Speak. 17:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

So User:99.227.133.212 has a history of incivility on talk pages. Calling people assholes, Nazis, idiots, and so on can be seen in his edit history. I gave him a warning based on this edit. He reponded with: "That IS APPROPRIATE TALK you fucking dipshit. I will come to your house and stab you repeatedly while you sleep and watch you bleed to death and cry and I will laugh."[82] Cptnono (talk) 06:06, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

As Hersfold once told me: "Someone giving you a death threat on Wiki is somewhat akin to poking an elephant with a toothpick." I really don't think you're in any danger...still he should be blocked immediately.--SKATER ^Speak. 06:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not to worried about it but assume the user should be banned for gross incivility.Cptnono (talk) 06:16, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The IP appears fairly stable, so six month block. If he acts up on his talk page, I'll block that too. In any event, the IP is in Brampton, Ontario, Canada. You're of course free to file a complaint to the local police or his ISP, if you wish. Or if you'd like, I could file a complaint with the ISP, but I'm guessing you don't mind enough for that. Someguy1221 (talk) 06:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I already checked it out just for fun. Sounds like a little to much effort for what is more than likely some simple screwing around. Thanks for the block.Cptnono (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh I don't know, you get to imagine the reaction of what is probably some 14 year old when two policeman show up on his doorstep to talk to him about his "death threat"--Jac16888^Talk 13:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The Party Van's suddenly not so funny when it's outside you're house.--SKATER ^Speak. 16:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

That scenario would be a good basis for one of those Southwest Airlines TV ads where something goes terribly wrong and the voice-over says, "Want to get away?" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 17:15, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Prenigmamann

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

I don't know what this user's game is. They were reverted once, it seems, by Parrot of Doom (talk · contribs), and has since been following them around reverting them in what appears to be spite. In my mind, this appears to be a violation of WP:BATTLEGROUND.

More eyes would be appreciated. The user has been notified of this discussion, as seen here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:08, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Judging from his last revert it looks like you might have become a target too?--SKATER ^Speak. 06:32, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Possibly. They appear to be doing this to multiple users as well. That is how I found out about them, I thought they were a sock of a past editor who made the same edit, but now I don't think so.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:51, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Not sure what much I can do...I'll keep an eye on him though.--SKATER ^Speak. 17:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Raymond in der englischen Ausgabe

Raymond in der englischen Ausgabe (talk · contribs) appears to be a troll who is trying to get a good-standing German user in trouble. He needs blocking, badly. I have not notified him of this notice because all attempts at warnings are greeted with "fuck off". Woogee (talk) 07:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

He's been blocked. Woogee (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

HELP!

I've just made a collosal balls-up! :( 2010 Polish Air Force Tu-154 crash (correct title) is now a redirect to itself! Can't seem to undo the error. Mjroots (talk) 08:40, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

• Seems to be fine now. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Lech Kaczynski

President of Poland apparently in a plane crash with no survivors, needs more eyes and possibly pre-emptive semi-protection. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

No evidence of unmanageable vandalism so far. Suggest leaving unprotected for the moment but keep weather eye on it. The article on the accident is being heavily edited, but again, no real problems. Mjroots2 (talk) 11:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Requested block

Resolved

Can someone indef block AvicennasisTest568596? Reason is on userpage. Thanks! ^Avicenna_sis @ 08:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Block review

Yesterday I warned Pookzta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (who signs as Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez) to cease his disruptive campaigning over the deletion of Judy Wood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He has instead chosen to carry on the campaign on multiple pages. This is a disruptive single-purpose account pressing a Truther agenda, and his discussions take the form of endless repetition of the same assertions without modification or concession to the points made. The obsessive use of doctoral titles is usually indicative of an agenda being pressed, and that does seem to be the case here. I don't think he's here to pursue the goals of Wikipedia, I think he's here to pursue an agenda. Guy (Help!) 09:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Support block. He is here with an agenda, his case has been rejected all the way to DRV, but he is unable to drop the stick. JohnCD (talk) 09:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I support the block...Pookzta repeatedly spammed a number of pages with the cut & paste notability claims and undeletion arguments, broadly accused editors here of working for some nefarious purposes, and ignored repeated attempts to offer advice that would have helped. Pookzta's aggressive, agenda-driven editing was tendentious and not appropriate. — Scientizzle 13:14, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Support block. If they could at some point offer assurances of dropping that stick and moving on, then an unblock might be considered at that time, with them being banned from picking it up again or further tendentiousness. Dlohcierekim 14:02, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Support - Apparently even the conspiracy theorists rejected his arguments. What does that tell you about its notability? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Neutral - I lean toward giving him another chance, provided he restricts his rants to the appropriate page, probably Talk:9/11 Truth Movement. His arguments are faulty, but only the spamming makes it disruptive. (I am not willing to act as a mentor, if such is required.) However, his claim that it's the only Truther argument that the Supreme Court has ruled on might be evidence of notability of the argument, if it were, pardon the expression, true. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe you could take him up on his offer to add you to his e-mail list. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Never mind, he's posted his thesis on his talk page. This reminds me of some of the other conspiracy theories (I won't say which ones, since I don't want him to branch out) in which the conspiracy theorist decides what the evidence should look like, observes that the actual evidence doesn't square with his expectations, and therefore concludes that something's fishy. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I hear you. Kudos to Arthur for some patient work there. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Note: unblock request declined. Tan | 39 16:37, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

After three unblock requests and a bit of edit warring, I removed Pookzta's access to his talk page. Any admin can feel free to reverse this at any point. Tan | 39 17:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I have removed some soapboxing from his talk page. Feel free to revert my edits if I was out of line. --bonadea contributions talk 18:35, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Good block. Dougweller (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

User:D2earth

D2earth has been adding links to fatburn-secrets.com in the external links section of various food articles like Apple, Banana and nutrition. I reverted the last one assuming good faith but suspecting it was a poor choice in external link. I've now noticed that all the user's contributions appear to be in external link sections. Thoughts? SGGH ^ping! 10:55, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Looking at the user's edit summaries, it appears the user is assuming good faith and not spamming. NERDYSCIENCEDUDE (✉ message • changes) 13:24, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll link them to the external link policy pages. SGGH ^ping! 13:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I've reverted all of the recently added links and left a message on D2earth's talk page. This seems like a standard case of someone adding many links to a single website, and should be handled using the normal procedures for such things. I stumbled across this user when they added a link to fast food restaurant. Graham87 14:59, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

IP User:70.246.227.39‎

70.246.227.39‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Quite a bit of vandalism going on from this IP today. The full extent of warning templates have been used. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Blocked by PhilKnight. For future reference, these reports can go to WP:AIV. TNXMan 16:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Personal attacks by User:Dekkappai

• Dekkappai (talk · contribs)
  

On the page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shukan Jitsuwa Dekkappai has made several personal attacks. He claimed that I was on a "crusade", he then expanded his comments to accuse me of "bigotry". I then suggested that he remove his offensive comments, but he proceeded with a rant about a bias towards not deleting Anglosphere articles. He then appeared to make it explictly clear that his aim was to offend by saying "And if there's anyone here I haven't properly offended, I apologise." EuroPride (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

User has been warned at the AfD and on the talk page. I note that you did notify the user but the user then removed the notification with a "helpful" edit summary. Are you aware of the warning against personal attacks of the AfD? Dekkappai seems to be a vocal, if somewhat rude, defender of his views. Perhaps he will ratchet back his antagonism somewhat now that the warning has been given. If not, a personal attack is a personal attack and he can always be ranked up several warning levels. SGGH ^ping! 17:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Hopefully he'll chill and not have his account dekkappai-tated. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw the warning on the AFD page. Thank you for your quick and helpful intervention! EuroPride (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Improper deletion of talk

User:Automaton deleted a portion of a comment I wrote on a talk page. What i wrote was a civil response to a question, asking for clarification. Another editor (to my knowledge, not an admin.) informed me of this, and provided a link to the edit dif:

[83]

I don't want to get into an argument with this editor. I also do not want a big RfC, this is one single incident. But I have always considered it taboo to change someon'e talk, unless the talk violated WP policy; I think this principle is essential to the functioning of the community.

I just would like an independent theird-party to communicate with Automaton - I trust any admin. is familiar enough with WP policy that s/he can explain to this editor why this is serious and should not be done again. If just one person would be willing to address this I would appreciate it and consider the matter resolved. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 19:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Did you bring this up to the other user or try to discuss it with him? Have you let him know of your concern, and btw notified him of this thread here? All are considered Good Things.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Automaton may have encountered an edit conflict and accidentally removed your comment...I've done it on accident before. Stuff happens...just restore the comment, and if they remove it again, THEN you have problems worth discussing with the other editor as suggested above. Ks0stm ^(T•C•G) 19:29, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. I will follow your suggestions, Slrubenstein | Talk 20:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern.--Wehwalt (talk) 20:57, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Disruptive editing of Channel 3 (Thailand) and Myanmar Radio and Television by IP range

There is an ongoing pattern of disruptive editing on Channel 3 (Thailand) (history), Myanmar Radio and Television (history) and MRTV-4 (history) (and minor changes to other related pages as well) by a range of IP editors and one registered editor. The user and said IPs are, but perhaps not limited to:

• Tw3435 (talk · contribs)
• 118.172.189.233 (talk)
• 118.174.84.134 (talk)
• 125.25.208.219 (talk)
• 125.25.235.62 (talk)
• 125.25.34.117 (talk)
• 125.25.41.162 (talk)
• 125.25.76.202 (talk)
• 125.25.81.129 (talk)
• 125.25.81.96 (talk)
• 125.25.82.102 (talk)
• 125.25.213.35 (talk)

Although claiming to be at least three different people, said IPs share a common pattern of disruptive editing, which is radically changing said articles to that discussing an almost entirely different entity, and page moves performed by the registered user. Reversions by other editors are constantly reverted back, at least twice in violation of 3RR, and which have resulted in the temporary protection of Channel 3 (Thailand) and Myanmar Radio and Television.

The IPs claim that Channel 3 is actually something known as "National Broadcasting Network" and Myanmar Radio and Television "Midnight Radio and Television", claims of which no where in the Internet (as far as Google's reach is, at least) could any evidence be found to support. When pressed for sources, both in edit summaries and on talk pages, the IPs simply "promise" to provide those sources "later", while continuing to restore their (unsourced and almost blatantly hoax) edits.

The IPs have also accused another editor (me) of vandalism, which I consider to be a personal attack. Although the IPs' manner of editing don't appear to constitute classical vandalism, and they do appear to have some constructive contributions, it is my belief that it would be futile to any further assume good faith, as it is clear that the intention of this editor/these editors is/are to insert falsified information into Wikipedia. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:48, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

PS Midnight Radio and Television was copied-and-pasted in order to split the IPs' edits to Myanmar Radio and Television into a new article, and is currently at AfD. (Note though that the IPs continue to insist that it is the original article which should be renamed. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:09, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I will check if any is me.

My IPs in this example are:

• 118.174.84.134 (talk)
• 125.25.208.219 (talk)
• 125.25.34.117 (talk)
• 125.25.81.129 (talk)
• 125.25.81.96 (talk)
• 125.25.82.102 (talk)
• 125.25.213.35 (talk)

• Can you show any points of all being the same?
• There is only two, i think, only me and him/her. The points are:

1. Both edited Myanmar articles
2. Both said that they're from Thailand
3. Same IP range (I am also same, but I am different people)
4. I have checked MRTV's talkpage, and he/she said that he/she never edited Channel 3 (Thailand) article, and NBN4 isn't called Earth.

For registered (Tw3435), isn't me, wait until someone confirm.

How can I leap the problem of others using same IP range and confuse with me?

--118.174.84.134 (talk) 20:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Well a rangeblock would knock out over 50,000 IPs, so WP:AIV would be your best bet as long as you have warned them properly first. Then again, I could be wrong so you might want to seek a second opinion. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as the involved parties appear to be willing to discuss the issue, and that there is still the possibility that I am actually mistaken, I didn't think that AIV was the proper venue. --Paul_012 (talk) 20:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

But can you please show me a points of being the same person?--118.174.84.134 (talk) 21:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Need a couple of deletions restored

Could another admin restore my last two deletions (the OlYeller21 stuff)? The editor tagged it with a csd-u1, but it looks like they just wanted most of the history deleted, not the actual page itself. I could probably try to stumble my way through restoring it, but would rather not muck up the situation more than I already have. Thanks. AlexiusHoratius 20:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. SGGH ^ping! 20:39, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Cool, thanks again. AlexiusHoratius 20:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

I commented out the first speedy tag but couldn't find where the second one was coming from! SGGH ^ping! 20:42, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Darius Dhlomo

I'll be honest, User:Darius Dhlomo has been bugging me a lot lately. I used to give him barnstars and praise his work, but it has gone out of hand now. He edits at an extreme speed, and hence it's hopeless to track his changes to articles. But through article history I've come across a number of problematic changes to articles. The most grave is deleting prose text and replacing it with tables. I've tried to explain before that an encyclopedia should be about text, but to no avail. Lately he has begun inserting ugly and pointless tables with one entry. Often these are wrong contradictory to the existing article text, see for instance this: the text says correctly that the athlete did not reach the final, but the table claims that he finished tenth in the final. He certainly uses references very seldomly as far as I have seen (as I said this person has over 100,000 edits, so it's hopeless to check). The last thing to happen is that he deleted medal boxes, which are perfectly fine and contested by no-one — and replaced them with the table. I'll admit that my talk page messages to the user have been not-so-patient and cool-headed lately, but it's because he ignores every piece of advice and comes up with new, annoying ideas (such as removing medal boxes). This user does more harm than good to the encyclopedia. Geschichte (talk) 21:41, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

For what it's worth, his last talk page edit was years ago (excluding the page moves). User talk pages are similar, and I don't know if there's a wikiproject discussing article formatting but I don't like the wholesale changes to articles without edit summaries like this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Need a Range Block

There is a persistent vandal changing dates in India related articles. (see discussion here). This has been going on since February. He is using a Dynamic IP connection from the Indian ISP BSNL. The IP range he uses is between 117.204.112.0 and 117.204.127.255. An abuse report was filed sometime back but nothing has come out of it. A 48 Hour rangeblock stopped him for sometime but he is back to doing what he does. I request a range block for IPs 117.204.112.0 - 117.204.127.255 for a period of two or three weeks. Only 4096 possible IPs will be affected and the contributions from that range indicate apart from the vandal, very few users fall in that range. I feel a range block's advantages far outweigh the disadvantages, as the damage he does is subtle and takes time to revert. Right now a few Indian editors are keeping watch for him, but we cannot go on forever. Please help up blocking the range for longer periods.--Sodabottle (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2010 (UTC)